Bizarre Electoral Roll entry

[Davedrave]

The 1891-92 Electoral Roll of Belgrave (Leicester) lists Mary Hunt at 7, The Green. Next door at no. 9 was her granddaughter Mary Light. This was the home of Mary Hunt’s daughter and son-in-law, Sarah and Thomas Light, and their children, of whom Mary was the youngest, born in April 1891….
She is the only Mary Light that could have been at that address and presumably the only person in the household with a vote
I wonder how this came about? I suppose it was probably a simple error by the compilers of the roll, but comical nevertheless, and would the fact that Thomas was not listed have meant he would have been unable to vote had he attended a polling station?

[JohninSussex]

"Women did not have the vote " we are often told, in the 1890s.
That is true of elections to Parliament.

But certain women of substance could vote for county councillors and similar.

What you may have found is a supplementary Electoral roll listing those women who had a vote for local elections.  So your Thomas is perhaps listed in a different section of the register as he could vote for Parliament too.

Just a guess,  so (if you have images not just text) try scrolling the pages backwards until you find an introductory page or table of contents.

None of which explains the apparent inclusion of a baby.