tending to disfranchise voters, and as not being just, equal, and uniform in their operation. The same view was taken by the Court of Appeals of New York in the case of Hopper v. Britt.[1] On the other hand, the provisions for straight party voting have been upheld in Pennsylvania in the case of Oughton v. Black,[2] and in Utah in the case of Ritchie v. Richards.[3]
The question has also been raised whether the legislature can limit the choice of the elector to the names that are printed upon the ballot, and deny to him the right to write in the name of any other persons for whom he wishes to vote. The courts are almost unanimous in declaring that the elector cannot be so restricted. In State v. Dillon[4] the court said: “But the legislature cannot, in our judgment, restrict an elector to voting for some one of the candidates whose names have been printed upon the official ballot.” The Supreme Court of Missouri, in Bowers v. Smith[5] refused to construe the Australian act as prohibiting the writing in of the names of candidates, and expressed the opinion that such a construction would render the law unconstitutional. The Illinois Supreme Court, in Sanner v. Patton[6] and Schuler v. Hogan,[7] adopted a similar view. There is one decision in which the court asserted that the elector could be restricted in voting to the names printed on the official ballot.[8] The court reasoned that if the elector could write in the names of candidates, bribers could agree with the bribed to write in a certain name, as “John Jones,” and thus defeat the secrecy of the act. It was also claimed that to permit the writing in of the names of candidates would defeat the purpose of the law in allowing an opportunity to investigate the character and worth of candidates. The consensus of opinion is decidedly against the South Dakota case.
Three states require all ballots to be numbered before they are deposited in the ballot box and the same number recorded on the poll-book opposite the elector’s name. In Missouri and in Colorado this procedure is required by the state constitution, but in Texas, where there is no such constitutional requirement, this provision has been
- ↑ 96 N. E. Rep. 371.
- ↑ 61 Atl. Rep. 346.
- ↑ 14 Utah 345.
- ↑ State v. Dillon, 32 Fla. 545.
- ↑ 111 Mo. 45.
- ↑ Sanner v. Patton, 155 Ill. 553.
- ↑ 168 Ill. 369; see also Bradley v. Shaw, 133 N. Y. 493; Taylor v. Bleakley, 55 Kan. 1; De Walt v. Bartley, 146 Pa. St. 529; Cook v. State, 90 Tenn. 407; State v. Anderson, 100 Wis. 573; Cole v. Tucker, 164 Mass. 486. In most of these cases the court’s opinion is obiter dictum.
- ↑ Chamberlin v. Wood, 56 L. R. A. 187 (South Dakota, 1901).
