voting, but was, on the contrary, a reasonable regulation of the method of voting designed to protect the voter. The secret ballot has been sustained in the following states: Massachusetts,[1] New Jersey,[2] New York,[3] Pennsylvania,[4] Illinois,[5] Michigan,[6] Missouri,[7] Florida,[8] Tennessee,[9] Virginia,[10] California,[11] Kansas,[12] Iowa,[13] Montana,[14] and Wyoming.[15]
Objections to the provisions for nominations.–The Australian ballot was objected to on the ground that by limiting the right to have their names printed on the ballot to the nominees of parties of a certain size, or to candidates petitioned for by a certain number of electors, it destroyed equality and freedom in voting and discriminated against voters who were not members of such political parties. This objection was overruled by the courts. In the pioneer case on the subject, De Walt v. Bartley,[16] the court dismissed this point with the observation: “It follows, if an official ballot is to be used, nominations must be regulated in some way; otherwise the scheme would be impracticable and the official ballot become the size of a blanket. While so regulating it, the act carefully preserves the right of every citizen to vote for any candidate whose name is not on the official ballot, and this is done in a manner which does not impose any unnecessary inconvenience upon the voter.” In Miner v. Olin[17] Chief Justice Field said: “It is plainly impractical to permit on an official ballot the names of every candidate for office which caucuses composed of two or more voters may nominate, and the limitation upon the right of nomination by caucus, contained in the statute, cannot be considered unreasonable, if the provisions of the statute generally are such as the Legislature can constitutionally enact.” The same view has been followed in New York, New Jersey, Illinois,
- ↑ Miner v. Olin, 159 Mass. (1893).
- ↑ Ranson v. Black, 54 N. J. L. 446 (1893).
- ↑ People v. Shaw, 133 N. Y. 493; People v. Wappinger Falls, 144 N. Y. 616.
- ↑ De Walt v. Bartley, 146 Pa. St. 529 (1892).
- ↑ Sanner v. Patton, 155 Ill. 553 (1895).
- ↑ Attorney-General v. May, 99 Mich. 568; Detroit v. Rush, 82 Mich. 532.
- ↑ State v. McMillan, 108 Mo. 153; Bowers v. Smith, 111 Mo. 45.
- ↑ State v. Dillon, 32 Fla. 545.
- ↑ Cook v. State, 90 Tenn. 407.
- ↑ Pearson v. Brunswick County, 91 Va. 322.
- ↑ Eaton v. Brown, 96 Cal. 371.
- ↑ Taylor v. Bleaklet, 55 Kan. 1.
- ↑ Whittam v. Zahorik, 91 Iowa 23.
- ↑ Price v. Lusk, 10 Mont. 61.
- ↑ Slaymaker v. Phillips, 5. Wyo. 453. In many jurisdictions the law has been declared to be constitutional in an obiter dictum of the highest court.
- ↑ De Walt v. Bartley, 146 Pa. St. 529.
- ↑ Miner v. Olin, 159 Mass. 487.
