ELEOTION

2 definitions found across Law Mind sources

← Dictionary
ELEOTIONAuthored
The Law Mind • 1010 words
Definition
Eleotion is an archaic or variant spelling of ELECTION as it appears in older legal texts and typeset sources. In its substantive legal sense, an election is the formal process by which qualified voters select candidates for public office or decide a public question by majority or plurality vote. The term also carries a distinct legal meaning in private law: the doctrine of election, by which a party is required to choose between two inconsistent rights or remedies and is bound by that choice. 1. Public law sense: The organized exercise of the franchise by an eligible electorate, conducted at a designated time and place, according to prescribed legal procedures, to fill public offices or resolve ballot questions. 2. Private law / equitable doctrine sense: The principle that a person who has received a benefit under an instrument (such as a will or deed) and who also holds a right inconsistent with that instrument must choose one or the other. Having accepted the benefit, the party is estopped from asserting the inconsistent right. ---
Common Confusion
ELEOTION vs. ELECTION: The form "eleotion" is a typographical or orthographic artifact common in older printed legal materials, particularly those set in type during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, where the ligature or spacing of the letters "ec" could produce a visually distinct character sequence. Researchers encountering "eleotion" in scanned or transcribed historical sources should treat it as identical in meaning to "election." The confusion is purely a product of source reproduction, not a distinct legal concept. ELECTION (doctrine) vs. ELECTION (franchise): These two legal meanings share a word but operate in entirely different domains. The equitable doctrine of election governs private rights under instruments; the law of elections governs public participation in government. Conflating them in research can send a researcher down entirely the wrong doctrinal path. ---
Core Elements
For the public law sense, courts and legislatures have distinguished between two categories of electoral regulation, a distinction directly reflected in the Bouvier's fragment: Substantive regulations: Those affecting the time and place of the election and the legal qualifications of voters. Failures to comply with substantive requirements have historically been treated as potentially fatal to the validity of an election or a voter's participation in it. Directory regulations: Those relating to the recording and return of votes and the mode and manner of conducting the mechanical details of an election. Non-compliance with directory regulations does not automatically void an election; courts look to whether the irregularity affected the outcome or the integrity of the process. This substantive/directory distinction is a recurring analytical framework in election law and is essential to understanding how courts evaluate challenges to election results. ---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working in the Law Mind corpus should be alert to the following: Spelling variation as a search trap: Full-text searches for "election" will not reliably surface documents where the word was typeset or transcribed as "eleotion." When working with OCR-processed historical materials, Bouvier's entries, or nineteenth-century case reporters, consider wildcard searches or manual review of surrounding text when results seem incomplete. The Bouvier's fragment is substantively rich: The surviving text from Bouvier's Law Dictionary on this entry, though partial, encodes the substantive/directory distinction and cites Kansas authority from the post-Civil War period (1 Kan. 273 and 9 Kan. 569). These citations place the entry in the context of Reconstruction-era electoral regulation, when the purity of elections was a matter of acute legal and political concern. Researchers studying that period should treat the Bouvier's language — "regulations intended to secure the purity of elections are of vital importance and must be enforced to the letter" — as a signal of the formalist, strict-compliance attitude that characterized much nineteenth-century election law before courts softened toward a more functional substantial-compliance standard. Jurisdictional layering: Election law in the United States operates across federal constitutional requirements, state constitutional provisions, and statutory frameworks. Historical sources like Bouvier's reflect state common law and statute as much as any unified doctrine. The Kansas citations in the Bouvier's fragment are a reminder that much nineteenth-century election law was developed at the state level. The equitable doctrine of election appears in different corners of the corpus: wills and estates materials, contract law, and equity treatises. Researchers should not expect a single unified treatment; the doctrine surfaces under "election," "approbate and reprobate," and related headings depending on the source. ---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary is the primary historical source available for this entry. The surviving fragment addresses the public law dimension of election — specifically the enforceability of electoral regulations — and articulates the substantive/directory distinction that became a foundational analytical tool in American election law. Bouvier's emphasis on strict enforcement ("to the letter") reflects the dominant judicial posture of the mid-to-late nineteenth century. What the Bouvier's fragment does not address, due to its partial state, is the equitable doctrine of election, which was well developed by the time of Bouvier's editions and appears in full in contemporaneous equity treatises such as those of Story and Pomeroy. Researchers needing historical treatment of the equitable doctrine should consult those sources directly rather than relying on the election law entry in Bouvier's. ---
Jurisdictional Note
Election law is highly jurisdiction-specific. Federal constitutional requirements (equal protection, due process, the various Amendments affecting the franchise) set a floor, but the structure of elections, voter qualifications beyond the constitutional minimum, and the remedies for election irregularities are primarily creatures of state law. Historical sources will almost always reflect the law of a particular state or a general common law synthesis that may not map cleanly onto any single modern jurisdiction. ---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Elections and Electoral Regulation; Equitable Doctrine of Election; Franchise and Voting Rights. ---
Related Terms
Election (franchise) — Election (equitable doctrine) — Approbate and Reprobate — Franchise — Suffrage — Ballot — Electoral Regulation — Substantial Compliance — Directory vs. Mandatory Requirements — Estoppel — Will (instrument)
ELEOTIONmain
Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928
lations intended to secure the purity of eleo- tions are of vital importance and must be enforced to the letter; 1 Kan. 273, 279; 9 Kan. 569. Regulations which affect the time and place of the election and the legal qualifications of the voters are usually mat- ters of substance, while those relating to the recording and return of the votes received and the mode and manner of conducting the details of the election are directory. A statute requiring an official act, for public purposes, to be done by a given day, is directory only; 6 Wend. 486. A repre- sentative in the legislature cannot be de- prived of his seat by the failure of mere election officers to make the return required by law to the secretary of state; see opinion of the judges in Maine; Me. Laws, 1880, p. 225, where many election questions are considered fully. Mere irregularity on the part of election officers, or their omission to observe some merely directory provision of the law, will not vitiate the poll; 85 Ky. 597; nor is an election invalid because the election officers de facto were disqualified; 87 Minn. 489; 60 Tex. 55; so also irregu- larities which do not tend to affect results are not allowed to defeat the will of the majority, which must be respected, even when irregularly expressed; 19 Barb. 540; 90 Pa. 493; 11 Kan. 269; 29 Ill. 454; 20 Mo. 107; 11 Mich. 362; 26 Tex. 5; 81 Cal. 178; 34 Cal. 635; Bright. Elect. Cas. 448, 449, 450. By the laws of some states separate boxes are kept at the voting polls for the recep- tion of ballots for different officers, and the question has arisen whether a ballot dropped into the wrong box can be counted. There is some conflict of authority on this point, but it has been held by the supreme court of Michigan that a voter cannot be deprived of his vote by the mistake or fraud of an officer in depositing it in the wrong box, if the intention of a voter can be ascertained with reasonable certainty; and for the same reason a ballot should not be rejected be- cause put in the wrong box by the honest mistake of the voter himself: 11 Mich. 362; Cl. & H. Elect. Cas. 679; 1 Bart. 5; McCrary on Elections, sec. 195. An election officer who wilfully and cor- ruptly refuses to any qualified citizen the right to vote or to register is liable in dam- ages to the person injured; Ashby v. White, Sm. L. Cas.; 2 Ld. Raym. 958; 98 Ill. 60. In England and in most of the American states proof of a malicious or a corrupt pur- pose on the part of the officer is necessary; 11 S. & R. 35; 44 Ν. Η. 383; 5 Blackf. 138; 1 Bush 135; but in Massachusetts it is not necessary to show malice, and this rule has been followed in Ohio and Wisconsin. But even in Massachusetts the officer is not liable if he acted under a mistake into which he was led by the conduct of the plaintiff ; 5 Metc. 162; 2 Mass. 236; 11 Mass. 350; 11 Ohio 372; 20 Wis. 544. See 11 Johns. 114; 18 Ν. Η. 91; 17 Ind. 536 Exemplary damages may be recovered if the refusal was wilful, corrupt, and fraud- ulent; 33 Md. 135. The jurisdiction to hear and determine election cases, though by common law in courts having ordinary common-law juris- diction, is generally regulated by special statutes in most of the states. Where a court can reach a conclusion as to the actual legal vote cast at a precinct, on a contest of an election, it can give effect to it notwithstanding the election officers may have been guilty of misconduct; 15 So. Rep. (La.) 89. Ballots. Voting by ballots is by a ticket or ball and secrecy is an essential part of this manner of voting; 9S. C. 94; 27 N. Y. 45; 4 Vt. 535; 26 Minn. 107; L. R. 10 C. P. 753; therefore a statute which provides for num- bering ballots is repugnant to a constitu- tional provision that elections shall be by ballot; 38 Ind. 89; contra, 86 Tex. 183; 69 Hun 596. Ballots are frequently deposited which do not clearly indicate the voter's in- tention; for instance, by misspelling the name of a candidate, etc. The rule in such cases is thus stated in Cooley, Const. Lim. 611:"We think evidence of such facts as may be called the circumstances surround- ing the election, such as, who were the

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

SubscribeEncyclopediaSign In
The Law Mind Legal Dictionary. This is a legal research library, not a lawyer.
Dictionary • Encyclopedia • Sign In