Home/Court of Appeals of Kentucky/Sizemore v. Henson

Sizemore v. Henson

264 S.W.2d 865, 1954 Ky. LEXIS 699
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedFebruary 12, 1954
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 264 S.W.2d 865 (Sizemore v. Henson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sizemore v. Henson, 264 S.W.2d 865, 1954 Ky. LEXIS 699 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954).

Opinion

CLAY, Commissioner.

This is an election recount proceeding involving the office of jailer in Clay County, voted on at the last November 3rd general election. The race was very close and after a recount of the ballots by the circuit court, it was adjudged that Tom J. Henson was elected by a majority of three votes over his opponent J. M. Sizemore. The latter appeals.

Something over 100 ballots are in controversy. In order that the questions concerning these ballots may be more fully understood, we are printing a copy of one of them (omitting the constitutional amendments printed thereon). This particular [867]*867ballot is discussed under subdivision 1 of this opinion. There are five groups o.f ballots involving 70 votes which were either counted for Henson or counted for no one, and all of which Sizemore .claims were erroneously counted.

1. ín the first group are 16 ballots not voted for anyone in the Republican column (where Henson’s name appeared) by either a mark in the circle under the party emblem or a mark opposite the printed name of any, candidate in that column. Most of these ballots have a stenciled cross-mark in the first box of the column under Size-more’s picture, which is immediately under the office heading “For Representative”. The others have such a mark in a different block in Sizemore’s column, other than the one opposite his name. These votes were counted for no, one.

KRS 118.280(2) provides in part as follows :

“No ballot shall be rejected for any technical error that does not make [868]*868it impossible to determine the voter’s choice.”
[867]*867

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Devine v. Wonderlich
268 N.W.2d 620 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1978)
Wade v. Durrett
354 S.W.2d 758 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1962)
Kalar v. Epperson
343 S.W.2d 126 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
264 S.W.2d 865, 1954 Ky. LEXIS 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sizemore-v-henson-kyctapp-1954.