Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 118.300 (2026)

Repealed, 1972

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Catchline at repeal: Voting by illiterate, blind or disabled voter. History: Repealed 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 188, sec. 69, effective December 1, 1972. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 1475.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1943–1962 · leading case: Stabile v. Osborne, 217 S.W.2d 980 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949).
Stabile v. Osborne, 217 S.W.2d 980 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949). “972, 974 , we construed the statute, now KRS 118.300(5), declaring that where a ballot was exposed by a voter to any person it should not be deposited in the box as contemplating a willful exposure and held that it did not refer to the exposure by one of the officers of the…”
Sizemore v. Henson, 264 S.W.2d 865 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). “It cannot be said to be marked for an illiterate voter as provided in KRS 118.300(1). Exhibit No. 1, Manchester Precinct No.”
Mills v. Broughton, 365 S.W.2d 315 (Ky. Ct. App. 1962). · cites it 2× “The question arises: Is the making and signing of an oath mandatory before a voter may obtain the help described in KRS 125.”
Grauman, Co. Atty. v. Jefferson Co. Fiscal Court, 171 S.W.2d 36 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943). “140 make such a person’s vote practically secret and about as much so as does KRS 118.300 when the machine is not used by one so handicapped.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 118.300(1) — 2 cases
Sizemore v. Henson, 264 S.W.2d 865 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). “It cannot be said to be marked for an illiterate voter as provided in KRS 118.300(1). Exhibit No. 1, Manchester Precinct No.”
Mills v. Broughton, 365 S.W.2d 315 (Ky. Ct. App. 1962). “The question arises: Is the making and signing of an oath mandatory before a voter may obtain the help described in KRS 125.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 118.300(5) — 1 case
Stabile v. Osborne, 217 S.W.2d 980 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949). “972, 974 , we construed the statute, now KRS 118.300(5), declaring that where a ballot was exposed by a voter to any person it should not be deposited in the box as contemplating a willful exposure and held that it did not refer to the exposure by one of the officers of the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.