State ex rel. Automatic Registering Machine Co. v. Green

7 Ohio Law. Abs. 381

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State ex rel. Automatic Registering Machine Co. v. Green. Read the opinion of the Court — 121 Ohio St. 301 →

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 19, 1929·No. No 21676·Published

Opinion

Syllabus by

ALLEN, J.

ELECTIONS

(240 V2) A constitutional requirement that all elections be by ballot does not invalidate an otherwise legal enactment providing for the use of voting machines in elections. The term “ballot” designates a method of conducting elections which will insure secrecy, as distinguished., from open or viva-voce voting. (State, ex rel. Karlinger, v. Board of Deputy State Supervisors of Elections, 80 Ohio St., 471, overruled).

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS

(360 C2) A charter city is not authorized, under Section 3 of Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution to prescribe a method of conducting state and county elections.

Marshall, CJ, Kinkade, Matthias and Day, JJ, concur. Robinson and Jones, JJ, concur in proposition 2 of the syllabus and in .the judgment.

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

Syllabus by

ALLEN, J.

ELECTIONS

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS

(360 C2) A charter city is not authorized, under Section 3 of Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution to prescribe a method of conducting state and county elections.

Marshall, CJ, Kinkade, Matthias and Day, JJ, concur. Robinson and Jones, JJ, concur in proposition 2 of the syllabus and in .the judgment.

State ex rel. Automatic Registering Machine Co. v. Green, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 381 (Ohio 1929).

Pincite

7 Ohio Law. Abs. 381 (State ex rel. Automatic Registering Machine Co. v. Green) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.