888 ELECTIONS. [ART. 33

mark their ballot. Upon making and filing with the judges such, affidavit
the voter shall retire to one of said booths with the two clerks, and then
and there one of said clerks, in the presence of the other, shall mark
the ballot as such voter shall direct, the voter himself naming one by
one the candidates for whom he desires his ballot to be marked and not
indicating the candidates by a general designation as the candidates of
any one political party. The ballots shall not be read to such voter, nor
shall any suggestion of any kind be made by either of said two clerks
to show him as to how his ballot is to be marked, but the only assistance
which it shall be lawful for the clerks to give him is to mark the ballot
as he, without prompting or suggestion from them, or either of them
shall direct, but no ballot shall be marked under this section until a
majority of the judges of election shall be satisfied of the truth of the
fact stated in such affidavit. Voters who are not disabled by blindness
or physical injury from marking their ballots shall not be entitled to
receive assistance in marking them. And with the exception in favor
of persons blind or incapable from physical injury of marking their
ballots without assistance, no distinction or discrimination in the matter
of assistance in marking ballots shall be made for or against any duly
registered voter for any other cause whatever.

The court declines to pass on the constitutionality of the act of 1901, ch. 2,
(denying aid to Illiterates), but even If that act had not been passed so as to
leave the act of 1896, ch. 202, as to Illiterates being entitled to assistance, in
force, a mandamus could not issue directing the Judges of election to give
such assistance, since the act provided that it was to be given by the clerks.
A mandamus directing such assistance will not be issued after the election
is over, nor will mandamus be issued where the defendants are only author-
ized to act under conditions which do not exist In the case. Summerson v.
Schilling, 94 Md. 605. And see Summerson v. Schilling 94 Md. 589.

1904, art. 33, sec. 68. 1896, ch. 202, sec. 63.

70. Any voter who shall, by accident or mistake, spoil his ballot so
that he cannot conveniently vote the same may, on returning said
spoiled ballot to the judge holding the ballots, receive another in place
of it, with his name and the same number written on the coupon thereof,
as on the ballot so returned, but no voter shall receive more than three
ballots from said judge for the reason aforesaid. The ballots thus
returned shall be immediately cancelled by endorsing thereon the word
"spoiled," and, together with those not distributed to the voters, shall
be preserved and returned to the supervisors of elections, as hereinaftei
provided. Every voter who does not vote any ballot delivered to him
shall, before leaving the polling place, return such ballot to the judge
from whom he received it, and said returned ballot shall be retained as
if said ballot had been spoiled. When anyone claiming to be a person
whose name appears upon the registers shall make application for a
ballot, his right to vote at that election may be challenged, but shall not
be determined until after he has marked his ballot and delivered it to
the judge at the ballot box. The person challenging shall assign his
reason therefor, and one of the judges shall thereupon administer to
the person offering to vote an oath to make true answers to questions,