Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

96 Cal. 371

Eaton v. Brown

California Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1892

California Supreme Court · decided 1892-10-15

<p>Constitutional Law — Australian Ballot Law—Party Designation at Head of Ticket. — Uniform Operation. —Sections 1197 and 1205 of the Political Code, being a portion of the amendments of 1891, ingrafting upon the election law the system of voting by means of the reformed or Australian ballot, in so far as they provide for the voting of straight tickets by stamping the ticket opposite the name of certain parties to be printed at the head of the ticket, are unconstitutional in not providing for a uniform operation of the law.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 1948

12 state decisions

40189219001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Garoutte, J., concurring.

¶1—It is very apparent from the reading of section 1197 of the act under consideration, in connection with the sections to which it refers, that in both spirit and letter it was intended that only parties polling three per cent of the entire vote cast at the last general election should have a heading upon the ticket. Such being the fact, to my mind the law is clearly unconstitutional in this, that it discriminates in favor of certain parties, and is therefore lacking in that uniformity of operation demanded by the constitution of this state.

¶2I concur in the judgment.

¶3£>e Haven, J. — I concur in the foregoing opinion of Mr. Justice Garoutte. •

/96/cal/371 · .json · Public domain