Obrázky stránek

York City practically impossible. This object was sought to be achieved in the so-called Levy election law 13 by a provision that the name of any candidate nominated by two or more parties or independent bodies might appear in but one column on the ballot. Such a provision, as has often been pointed out, while entirely fair in conjunction with an "office-group" form of ballot, is grossly unfair and discriminatory when combined with the “party column" form of ballot. This has not always been realized in other states, where "fusion" campaigns for judges or city officers have played a less prominent part than in New York, and where joint nominations have more often been the result of selfish deals than of any genuine sinking of national party differences for the sake of the common good. As a consequence, the courts of three states, looking more to the letter of the law than to its real effect, have upheld such provisions, and in only one state, California, has such a rule heretofore been held unconstitutional. The framers of the Levy law attempted to avoid one of the chief objections of the California court, by providing that, in any column in which the name of a candidate was prevented by the new rule from appearing, there should be printed, instead of the words “No Nomination," which the California court had held to be misleading, the words "see Republican column" or "see Democratic column," as the case might be. This subterfuge, however, did not prevent the New York Court of Appeals from penetrating to the real purpose and effect of the measure, which was to render it more difficult for many voters to vote for a fusion candidate, and thus to render fusion campaigns less feasible. The decision, by preventing in future any such unnecessary and unfair discrimination, establishes a valuable precedent,14 not only for New York, but for all other states as well.

Other provisions of the Levy election law, unfortunately not affected by the decisiðn above referred to, make it far more difficult than heretofore to place on the official ballot the name of any independent candidate. The act also contains numerous objectionable provisions in regard to the appointment of election officers, including the Board of Elections in New York City and similar boards established in all the upstate counties, and in regard to the conduct of elections; but these

1: Ch. 649; July 13.

1. For a fuller discussion of this very interesting case, and of the various problems of ballot legislation involved in it, see two articles by Albert S. Bard of the New York bar, in the January number of the National Municipal Review and in the March number of the POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, respectively.

provisions can hardly be discussed under the head of ballot legislation. It is sufficient to say that seldom has a more vicious or reactionary piece of electoral legislation been foisted on a protesting community. Among the few desirable or unobjectionable changes made by the bill, the only one which affects the form of ballot is the provision for a separate ballot for presidential electors. Heretofore these officers have been voted for in presidential years on the general ballot.

Another act 15 passed in New York provides that "no ballot shall be declared void because a cross-mark thereon is irregular in character." The wisdom of such legislation is open to serious question. The courts have always been lenient toward minor irregularities in marking, where such irregularities have not appeared to be intentional; and their decisions in cases of this sort, while by no means free from conflict and ambiguity, have gradually tended to build up a system of rules for the counting of ballots under which an unintentional irregularity may be differentiated from a wilful attempt to identify a particular ballot. To adopt a new and sweeping legislative provision such as that contained in the new law is likely only to destroy such rules as the courts have been able to establish, and to open the door wide for the easy identification of ballots by purchased voters. A somewhat similar act 16 was passed in Maine, but with the proviso in this case that any irregularity in marking should be disregarded only if deemed unintentional. This act applied only to cross-marks made in the party circle-a distinction somewhat difficult to defend.

In California 17 and New Jersey 18 provision was made for the mailing of a sample ballot-and, in California, of a card containing instructions to voters as well—to each voter. In each of these cases one purpose of the provision was undoubtedly to familiarize the voters with a new form of ballot in use for the first time.

In New Jersey 19 the governor was authorized to appoint a commissioner to revise, simplify, arrange and consolidate the primary and election laws of the state, and to submit to the next legislature a draft of a new election law together with recommendations for legislative action. In Pennsylvania 20 the commission appointed in 1909 to revise and codify the election laws of the state was continued and given additional time in which to complete its work. In New Hampshire the rules under which assistance may be given 15 Ch. 269; June 9.

18 Ch. 183; April 19; 659. 16 Ch. 70; March 22.

19 Ch. 364; May 2. 17 Ch. 442; April 12.

30 House concurrent resolution No. 28.

to voters in marking their ballots were rendered more strict. Heretofore a voter, on merely stating that he was blind or disabled, or that he could not read, could procure the assistance of either one of the election officers designated by the moderator for assisting voters. In actual practice a mere request for assistance was all that was usually demanded. The new law compels any voter desiring assistance to declare under oath his inability to write, blindness or other physical disability, provides that he may receive the assistance of both election officers (of different parties) designated by the moderator (though it is not clear that he must be assisted by more than one), and requires the officer or officers assisting him to certify the fact that they have done so in a blank space prepared for this purpose on the back of the ballot. New Jersey 21 and Wisconsin 22 also passed laws regulating more strictly the method by which voters may be given assistance in marking their ballots.

In Massachusetts the legislature submitted to the vote of the people,23 at the November election, the constitutional amendment, passed in 1909 and 1910, permitting the use of voting machines. This amendment was adopted by popular vote and is now a part of the constitution. In New Jersey, on the other hand, the use of voting machines—which, under the act of 1908, allowing the question of their continuance to be submitted in each election district, had been generally abandoned-was finally abolished altogether.24

Among the other measures relating to the ballot which were adopted in the several states the following may be mentioned: Tennessee extended its Australian ballot law to apply to counties of from 19,399 to 19,425, 25 and from 29,250 to 29,600 26 inhabitantsi.e., to Coffee County and Tipton County, respectively. Wisconsin provided 27 for separate ballots for presidential electors, to be printed on light blue paper, and for still other ballots, to be printed on pink paper, for all questions referred to popular vote. The city ballot and the general state and county ballot are still to be printed on white paper, and sample ballots are to be printed on paper of a different color from any of the official ballots. In Illinois it was provided 28 that, where two or more persons are to be elected to a given office, the names of all party candidates therefor are to be arranged according to the size of the vote

a Ch. 183; April 19; $63.
a Ch. 373; June 14.
» Resolves, Ch. 75; May 15.
u Ch. 205; April 24.

25 Ch. 124; February 17.
36 Ch. 398; June 24.
37 Ch. 633; July 11.

P. 310; June 5.

cast for each of them at the primaries, and the names of all candidates nominated by petition according to the order in which their names appear on the petition itself. Another Illinois act 29 allowed any city, by popular vote, to discontinue minority representation in its municipal legislative body. In South Dakota 30 and Wyoming 31 the form of ballot for constitutional amendments and other questions submitted to popular vote was prescribed in more detail than heretoforein the latter state by the provisions of the initiative and referendum amendment which is to be submitted to the voters in November, 1912. In Kansas the form of ballot for the election of commissioners in commission-governed cities of the second class 32 was altered by the provision that any candidate may designate on the ballot the city department of which, if elected, he desires to be the head. In Connecticut the Australian ballot law of 1909 was amended 33 and its provisions in regard to the form of the ballot and the rules for marking-especially the rules as to split-ticket voting for selectmen-were made more specific

A number of other acts and minor amendments were enacted in the several states, but no one of them is of sufficient general interest or importance to deserve separate mention.


Primary Elections—Legislation of 1909-1910. The rapid onward march of the movement for direct primary nominations, with its overthrow of the caucus and convention system and subjection of the organization and operations of political parties to legal control, continued unhalted during the years 1909 and 1910. In over half of the score of states having merely rudimentary or narrowly restricted primary election laws, the messages of the governors urged comprehensive direct primary legislation upon the lawmakers. The question of direct nominations became a dominant political issue in New York, and provoked a prolonged legislative contest that attracted national attention, and served to develop public opinion, but did not result in any legislation. Governor Hughes, advancing from his earlier recommendation of a "permissive” system, strongly pressed upon three successive sessions of the legislature, two regular and one special, the enactment of a mandatory system of direct nominations for prac

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

tically all elective offices, and of direct choice of members of party committees. In April, 1909, the opponents of direct nominations created a joint legislative committee to investigate the operation of direct primary laws in other states and report its recommendations to the legislature at the ensuing session. This committee held public hearings in ten states and gathered from both advocates and opponents, a vast mass of testimony as to the actual workings of direct primary nominations, that should be of great value to students of this subject. Only a summary, or digest, of the testimony (some 200 pages) was printed in the report of the committee, which favored more legal regulation of party organization and action, but opposed disturbing the convention system by introducing the principle of direct choice by party voters except for members of local committees and delegates to conventions.

The Connecticut commission on direct primary laws, authorized by the General Assembly but not composed of members thereof, made a second and supplementary report to that body in 1909, in which it renewed its recommendation of 1907 in favor of a mandatory, statewide direct primary law covering practically all elective officers, including United States senators, except the minor state officers.

As the net result of these two years of public discussion and legislation, nine recruits, one territory' and eight states-Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Tennessee-joined the ranks of the more advanced direct primary states by enacting new and comprehensive laws for direct nominations. Missouri passed a law, entirely new in form, but nearly the same in substance, as that of 1907. Illinois reënacted the law of 1908, slightly modified to meet the constitutional objections sustained by the state supreme court. In Montana the two houses of the legislature each passed a separate direct primary bill, but failed to reconcile their disagreement.

In nine of the states having thoroughgoing direct primary laws, amendments were recommended by the governors, and generally enacted by the legislature. They had to do mainly with the scope of direct nominations, the method of proposing candidates, the position of names on the ballot, the test of party affiliation, the system of party

· Hereafter in this summary the term state will be applied to all nine without distinction.

: See "Notes" in this Review, II, 271-72, 417–21; III, 561–62; IV, 569–71. • Ia., Kans., Mo., Nebr., No. Dak., Okla., So. Dak., Wash., Wis.

« PředchozíPokračovat »