Where under the Ohio Constitution, which gave the right of suffrage to "white male citizens," it was settled by a judicial interpretation that persons having a preponderance of white blood were "white" within the meaning of the Constitution; an act was held unconstitutional, which,. while prescribing penalties against judges of election who rejected the ballot of any person, with knowledge that he had the qualifications of a voter, contained a proviso that the act and its penalties "shall not apply to clerks or judges of election for refusing to receive the votes of persons having a distinct and visible admixture of African blood, nor shall they be liable to damages by reason of such rejection." 11 It was held that a statute was void which authorized the governor to set aside the registration in a county upon proof satisfactory to him of fraud or irregularity in its conduct.12 $ 57. Minority Representation. A favorite remedy for misgovernment proposed by theoretical reformers consists of provisions for the representation of minorities, although in practice the result has usually been to give the control to the managers of the political machines in the two leading parties by means of a mutual arrangement. Under the Ohio Constitution, which provided that each elector should be entitled to vote at all elections, it was held that a statute, denying an elector the right to vote for more than two out of four members of the police board at the same election, was unconstitutional.1 It was the opinion of Judge McCrary, that an act, permitting but not requiring a voter to concentrate more than one vote upon a less number of candidates than the whole number, would be similarly unconstitutional, unless expressly authorized. It is safer, conse ing different prerequisites, and denying equal opportunities to perform them, are contrary to the federal statute, and nugatory." (In re appointment of Supervisors, 52 Fed. Rep., 254, 261, 262.) See Butler v. Ellerbe (S. C.), 22 S. E. Rep., 425. 11 Monroe v. Collins, 17 Ohio St., 665. 12 State v. Staten, 6 Cold. (Tenn.), 233; Sheafe v. Tillman, 2 Bart., 907; McCrary on Elections, 3d ed., § 22. § 57. 1 State v. Constantine, 42 Ohio St., 437; s. c. 9 American and English Corporation Cases, 39-42. Intimations to a similar effect are contained in the opinions in People v. Kenney, 96 N. Y., 294; People v. Crissey, 91 N. Y., 616, 624. 2 McCrary on Elections, 3d ed., quently, for the advocates of such a reform, to procure a constitutional amendment authorizing its trial. The Constitution of Illinois provides that in all elections of representatives aforesaid, each qualified voter may cast as many votes for one candidate as there are representatives to be elected, or may distribute the same, or equal numbers thereof, among the candidates as he shall see fit; and the candidates highest in votes shall be declared elected.” 3 1 § 58. The Ballot. The usual mode of voting at popular elections in the United States is by ballot; and this is expressly required by most State constitutions. "A ballot may be defined to be a piece of paper or other suitable material, with the name written or printed upon it of the person to be voted for; and where the suffrages are given in this form each of the electors in person deposits such a vote in the box, or other receptacle provided for the purpose, and kept by the proper officers."2 The object of the requirement of a vote by § 177, citing the note to the case of State v. Constantine, 9 American and English Corporation Cases, 39-42; People v. Perley, 80 N. Y., 624. 3 Illinois Constitution, Art. IV, Secs. 7, 8. § 58. 1 Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 6th ed., p. 760. 2 Cushing's Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, § 103, quoted with approval by Judge Cooley in his Constitutional Limitations, 6th ed., p. 760: "In this country, and indeed in every country where officers are elective, different modes have been adopted for the electors to signify their choice. The most common modes have been either by voting viva voce, that is, by the elector openly naming the person he designates for the office, or by ballot, which is depositing in a box provided for the purpose a paper on which is the name of the person he intends for the office. The principal object of this last mode is to enable the elector to express his opinion secretly, without being subject to be overawed, or to any ill-will or persecution on account of his vote for either of the candidates who may be before the public. The method of voting by tablets in Rome was an example of this manner of voting. There certain officers appointed for that purpose, called Diribitores, delivered to each voter as many tablets as there were candidates, one of whose names was written upon every tablet. The voter put into a chest prepared for that purpose which of these tablets he pleased, and they were afterwards taken out and counted. Cicero defines tablets to be little billets in which the people brought their suffrages. The clause in the constitution directing the election of the several State officers was undoubtedly intended to provide that the election should be made by this mode of voting to the exclusion of any other. In this mode the freemen can individually express their choice ballot is concealment of the choice of each particular elector.3 "The ballot is dear to the people, for it uncovers men's faces, and conceals their thoughts. It gives them the opportunity of doing what they like, and of promising all that they are asked."4 Any statutes which tend to impair the secrecy of the ballot are consequently unconstitutional and void.5 Thus, an act was held void as preventing secrecy, which provided that each inspector on receiving the ballot should endorse the same with a number corresponding to the number of the name of the voter on the poll list. Where the constitution declared that all ballots should be " fairly written," it was held that a printed ballot was sufficient." In late years a system of voting, originally adopted in Australia, has been introduced into several States as well as other countries. Its general features are that all votes must be cast by the use of an official ballot printed and furnished by the government. In some States, a separate ballot is printed for each party, or group of voters of the number fixed by the act, that has nominated. candidates. In others, a blanket ballot must be used, upon which the names of all such candidates are printed in parallel columns, and the voter indicates by a mark his preference. The constitutionality of these laws has been frequently attacked. It has been held that the requirement that all votes be made by the use of an official ballot selected and prepared in secret is not an infringement without being under the necessity of publicly declaring the object of their choice; their collective voice can be easily ascertained and the evidence of it transmitted to the place where their votes are to be counted, and the result declared with as little inconvenience as possible." Temple v. Mead, 4 Vt., 535, 541-542. 3 People v. Pease, 27 N. Y., 45, 81; Commonwealth v. Woeper, 3 S. & R. (Pa.), 90; Williams v. Stein, 38 Ind., 90; Brisbin v. Cleary, 26 Minn., 107; Temple v. Mead, 4 Vt., 535; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 6th ed., pp. 760-763. + Cicero in Defense of Plancius, Forsyth's Cicero, vol. i, p. 339; quot 6 Williams v. Stein, 38 Ind., 90; Brisbin v. Cleary, 26 Minn., 107: approved in McCrary on Elections, 3d ed., § 513. See, however, Hodge v. Lyman, 100 III., 397. 7 Temple v. Mead, 4 Vt., 535, 541; Henshaw v. Foster, 9 Pick. (Mass.), 312. 8 For a detailed account, see Wigmore's Australian Ballot System. 9 For a collection of cases affecting the constitutionality of such laws, see Ballot Reform: its Constitutionality, by Wigmore, 23 Am. Law Review, 719. 11 of a constitutional provision that all elections shall be "free and open"; 10 that the limitation of a voter to two and one-half minutes for the preparation of his ballot is not unreasonable nor invalid; 1 that a provision permitting the attendance of a sworn special constable to assist blind voters or those who were otherwise "physically or educationally" unable to mark their ballots does not deprive such voters of the equal protection of the laws, nor establish inequality of civil or political rights, nor establish new educational and physical qualifications for voters; 12 that the requirement that no names be printed on the ballot, except those of the candidates of political parties, is not an unreasonable restriction of the rights of an independent voter, provided he be allowed to write on the ballot the name of any other candidate; 13 that a prohibition against electioneering within a reasonable distance of the polls is not an infringement of any rights protected by either a State or the Federal Constitution; 14 that a statute may forbid the printing of a candidate's name in the column of more than one party, although he has been nominated by two or more; 15 but that one is void which forbids an elector to vote for a person whose name is not printed in the official ballot, unless expressly authorized by the constitution.16 Every ballot law, however, must contain due protection for the rights of all voters qualified by the State constitution. Consequently, in the absence of express authority, a law would be unconstitutional, which prevented from the expression of his choice a voter who, through a physical defect or lack of education, was unable intelligently to select or mark a ballot.17 A recent case holds 10 State v. McMillan, Missouri Supreme Court, 18 S. W. Rep., 784. 11 Pearson v. Board of Supervisors of Brunswick County (Va.) Court of Appeals, 21 S. E. Rep., 483. 12 Ibid. 13 State v. Black, 54 N. J. Law, 446; s. c. 24 Atl. Rep., 489; De Walt v. Bartley (Pa. s. c.), 24 Atl. Rep., 185. See also Miner v. Olin, 159 Mass., 487; s. c. 34 N. E. Rep., 721. 14 State v. Black, 54 N. J. Law, 446; s. c. 24 Atl. Rep., 489. 15 Todd v. Board of Election Commissioners of Kalamazoo (Michigan Supreme Court), 62 N. W. Rep., 564 : a case of doubtful authority. 16 State v. Dillon, 32 Florida, 545; s. c. 14 Southern Rep., 383. 17 This point has been the subject of much discussion in recent political contests in New York over the proposed change in the system of election by ballot. The following opinion, signed by some of the most eminent members at the New York that a law which allowed a vote for all the nominations of a political party by stamping a cross opposite the name of such party at the head of the ballot was unconstitutional, as a discrimination against classes of voters who did not adhere to any party and had made nominations for only a part of the offices to be filled at the election.18 The soundness of this decision may well be doubted. § 59. General Observations upon the Right of Suffrage. A survey of the laws and constitutions established in the United States during the nineteenth century, shows a steady extension of the right of suffrage, with no reaction except recently in the South to reduce the negro vote by inconvenient regulations for registration as to previous residence, educational and tax-paying qualifications.1 Universal manhood suffrage is now the rule in nearly all the States of the Union, and there is at least a temporary tendency toward the further extension of the right to women. Prophecies of resultant evil have been frequent, and opposition to Bar, was furnished to Governor Flower and transmitted by him to the legislature in April, 1894 : “First — Any duly qualified elector has a right to vote for any competent person to fill an office for which a person is to be elected at the election at which he desires to vote, whether or not such person for whom he desires to vote has been so nominated that his name is printed upon the official ballot. Any ballot act which does not afford all voters, whether illiterate or not, an opportunity and reasonable facilities for voting for such a person is unconstitutional. "Second - If a secret ballot act prescribing an official ballot does not permit the voter to write upon the ballot the name of the person for whom he desires to vote, whose name is not borne upon the official ballot, or to vote for such person by a paster placed upon such ballot, or by some other method, the act is unconstitutional. "Third-Such a ballot act must enable voters who, by reason of ignorance or physical disability, cannot write, to have the assistance of a competent person to JOHN E. PARSONS, write upon, or to affix to the official ballot 18 Easton v. Brown, 96 Cal., 371, 373. § 59. 1 See the Constitution of Mississippi. |