any person he pleases, makes these rights more secure. The first is secured by officially publishing the names of all candidates in advance of the election, and the second by allowing the voter to reject all the names on the ballot and to insert the names of any candidates he pleases. As to the alleged discrimination against unnominated candidates, it was argued that it was not constitutionally necessary to preserve the individual liberty of nomination; and "when official nominations may be made by so small a number of voters as this bill requires, discriminations like these against a candidate who has not been nominated cannot be seriously regarded as unjust or impolitic, even if it were constitutionally necessary to preserve individual liberty of nomination."[1]
Thirdly, the Australian ballot is too complex, cumbersome, and impractical, and surrounds the voter with restrictions which practical experiment has shown to be unnecessary. The New York Sun declared that the law was not electoral reform but electoral repression:
The great pledge for the security of popular institutions in this country is universal manhood suffrage. Whatever tends to increase the number of legal voters and to make citizens more active participants in the affairs of government is wise and salutary. Whatever tends to impair or restrict the right of franchise, to limit the number of voters, or to vex or harass them in the exercise of this most important duty is pernicious and dangerous.
The Saxton bill would make it harder for the citizen to vote. That is its aim. Its tendency is to gradual disfranchisement.[2]
Fourthly, it would take too long to mark the ballots, particularly in crowded precincts, if the electors could mark their ballots only within the voting-place. To overcome the strength of this argument booths were placed on the streets of Boston and records were kept of the time required for voting.[3]
Fifthly, the opponents of the Australian ballot raised the ever-popular cry of public economy by arguing that the printing and the distribution of all ballots by the state would be an enormous expense to the state.[4]
Sixthly, it was argued that the provision that only official ballots could be used, and that these must be obtained only from the ballot
- ↑ Post, Election Reform, p. 6.
- ↑ New York Sun, editorial, May 12, 1889; see also editorials of May 23, 1888; Nation, XLIV, 490; New York Times, editorial, May 15, 1888; Kentucky Constitutional Convention, 1890, II, 2005.
- ↑ Statement of Mr. John Wigmore.
- ↑ Veto message of Governor Hill, New York Herald, May 14, 1889; see also Atlanta (Ga.) Chronicle, November 9, 1889.
