choose representatives in Congress, and presidential electors, as well as most other officers in the same manner, and do not differ very widely in methods of voting. The qualifications of electors are somewhat diverse, tho probably less so than at the beginning, and everywhere the right of suffrage has been widely extended. The period of active assimilation to common standards lasted to the time of the civil war. Then the universal, extended and heated discussion of human rights, the fury of partisanship, the passions engendered in the great internecine conflict, the adoption of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, and following all this, the expansion of the nation in wealth and power, together with the accumulation of colossal fortunes and the growth of corporate importance and influence-all led to the trial and testing of the most fundamental and long-established rights of man, while every new measure in law, has had to run the gauntlet from the preliminary proposal in caucus, convention, primary, or elsewhere to the final decision thereon in the highest judicial tribunal. There was no final judicial inquiry into the right of suffrage until in 1857 in New York, and in 1859 in North Carolina; but such became numerous in the reconstruction period. From questioning new rights of black men, it was a short step to attacking old rights of white men.

How the matter of popular elections has grown in importance may in a degree be illustrated by the court decisions. The syllabi up to September 1, 1896, in all state and Federal cases affecting elections, occupy 553 columns of a digest; and for the eight and a half years immediately following, up to April 1, 1905, 396 columns are so filled. Seemingly nearly four-fifths as many points relative to the elective franchise have been passed on in less than a decade, as in the earlier 120 years of free government. Except in one instance1,

(3) American Digest.

(4) Kentucky, 1889, on the Australian ballot for city of Louisville.

no question reached a court of last resort prior to 1890 on such matters, as the Australian ballot, factional nominations, and nomination papers, while in that year four such cases were decided in the New York court of appeals alone, and others in Montana and Missouri.

In the earlier, simpler, primitive days, an important aim was the securing to each state its rights, real or fancied; latterly more attention has been given to the rights of the individual to an effective share in government from its beginning in primary election, caucus, convention, or otherwise, within a party or without it, and continuing until his wishes are at last crystallized in the form of laws, and to protection against fraud, violence and intimidation while exercising the prerogatives of an enfranchised citizen. Not unknown are instances of denying rights already possessed, and restricting privileges long exercised. There has been tyrannical suppression of individuals and classes. But the sweep of the years, tho slow-moving has been in consonance with the Declaration of Independence"to secure these rights, (to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

5

Yet I doubt not, thro' the ages, one increasing purpose runs,

And the thoughts of men are widen'd with the process of the suns.

In the recent movement for election reforms, four lines of advance are marked: 1st. To secure the voter, by protecting him from evil influences as is the object of the various "corrupt practices acts," and kindred laws, or by guarding him against fraud, intimidation and overawing, by means of an absolutely secret ballot, as under the Australian system; and by preventing as with voting-machines, any manipulation

(5) In 1835 North Carolina adopted a new constitution which took from free negroes the right to vote, which they had enjoyed from 1776.

6

of ballots or count. 2nd. To extend the franchise by reducing the qualifications of electors, and so making suffrage more nearly universal, as in the 15th amendment, and the laws enabling women to vote. 3rd. To increase popular control over officials and their acts, and over law making, and over the initial steps in making nominations, as in making offices elective instead of appointive, in adopting the initiative and the referendum, and the recall, and in prescribing legal forms for primary elections and making nominations. 4th. To secure more equitable representation of every individual, class, party or interest; to avoid the despotism of a majority, or worse yet, a plurality; and to prevent the practical effacement of minorities.

1. To preserve the purity of elections, many states have "Corrupt Practices acts" forbidding the purchase of votes, directly or indirectly, by candidates, committees or others, with money, intoxicating liquors, cigars, promise of office, or otherwise. Some limit the amount of expenditures of candidates; others require detailed sworn statements of campaign outlays to be publicly filed. President Roosevelt in at least his last two messages urged Congress to enact stringent laws to prevent bribery and corruption in federal elections, and to secure publicity of the expenses of candidates, parties and committees, and of the sources of contributions."

Voting was doubtless at first viva voce. In some states, particularly in the South, elections were so conducted for many years, and in Kentucky this was in

(6) Incidentally venality is much discouraged by the uncertainty whether the vote-seller carries out his promise to "deliver the goods." (7) Kansas Laws 1903, ch. 230 emasculated its corrupt practices law of the power to require sworn statements of expenses.

(8) Campaign expenses before the primaries is limited in Ohio and California.

(9) In England and Canada similar laws have been enforced with great strictness, but in the United States, they are in no inconsiderable degree, dead letters. A prosecution in North Carolina under Code, sec. 2715, which makes it a misdemeanor to injure, threaten, oppress

accordance with a constitutional provision. For a number of reasons, however, voting by ballot was adopted in all the states, either originally, or superseding the viva voce method."

The written or printed ballot was gradually perverted to such degree that in 1857 the legislature of South Australia adopted an official secret ballot, printed and paid for by the public, and wholly controlled and handled by public officers. The idea was speedily carried to England, spread over continental Europe, and at a somewhat later date reached the United States, where in some form, almost everywhere modified, it has become part of the electoral machinery in every state, under the name of Australian ballot."

On first

or attempt to intimidate a voter at any election, was held properly quashed, where it appeared that the defendants expelled a voter from the church of which they were members, because he voted the Democratic ticket at a certain election. The court said that the voter had suffered no pecuniary loss, personal injury, or physical restraint by his expulsion. (1901) State v. Rogers, 128 N. C. 576; 38 S. E. 34. It can scarcely be doubted that in some denominations where membership is very highly regarded, excommunication for political reasons might become a potent engine of oppression and intimidation.

(10) Const. Ky. art. 8, sec. 15: "viva voce vote in all elections." Viva voce vote is common in legislative assemblies. In Michigan and elsewhere, recent laws governing political conventions, require viva voce vote by delegates to make sure that they vote as instructed. Kentucky Stat. 1899, sec. 4467 provides for a vote on graded common school tax, which has been construed (1903) to require a viva voce vote. Sisk v. Gardiner, 74 SW. 686. Voting in town meetings is often by the voice, and also in school district meetings of the western states.

(11) In 1871 Congress made it obligatory to use written or printed ballots in electing representatives to Congress. Election by ballot implies the right to secrecy. (1871) William v. Stein, 38 Ind. 89, followed by the courts of Minnesota and New Jersey.

(12) Except in Massachusetts, St. Paul, Minn., and perhaps a few other places, "the trail of the serpent is over them all," in that the original form of the law has been modified to promote the interests of party, and the selfish schemes of politicians, and to hamper rather than aid, the expression of the popular wish. The original Australian ballott was a narrow slip on which the names of all candidates were printed, alphabetically or in other proper sequence, under the heads of the several offices to which they aspired. There was no "blanket sheet," nor corrals for parties, nor kindergarten pictures. An Ohio court well said: "The purposes of the Australian ballot law is to secure to the elector, the exercise of that invaluable right, the elective franchise and to protect him from fraud, mistake, or the misapprehension of the judges of election." State v. Conser, 24 Ohio C. C. R. 270.

test in American courts, the system was held to be unconstitutional, but it has later been sustained almost everywhere as being merely regulative." The tendency of these laws has been to make elections more formal, and less flexible. Changes on the ballot and "scratching" are no longer possible with the ease of the old private ballot system. But in general the voter's choice is not restricted to the names printed on the ballot.1 Constitutional guaranties of secrecy are

(13) The Kentucky act of 1888 for Louisville was held void because illiterates were left unaided, when the Constitution says "all elections shall be free and equal." (1889) Rogers v. Jacobs, 88 Ky. 502. "The legislature within the terms of the constitution may adopt such reasonable regulations and restrictions as may be deemed necessary to prevent intimidation, fraud, bribery, etc., provided that the voting be by ballot and that the person casting his vote may do so in absolute secrecy." Taylor v. Bleakley, 55 Ks. 1. See also Morris v. Bd. Com. City of Charleston, (W. Va. 1901) 38 SE. 500; holding valid Code 1899, ch. 3, sec. 34, tho it requires the voter to scratch out the name of candidate not wanted and to write in another if desired.

(14) The contrary is the rule in England and some at least of her colonies where only regular nominees are eligible to the office, and a person whose name is not on the official ballot would not be declared elected, tho receiving a majority of votes. 10 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law, 633. Some American states incline to the English rule, among them South Dakota, which passed a law permitting only printed names of candidates to be placed on the official ballot. The Constitution of South Dakota, art. 6, sec 19, provides that elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage. Art. 7, sec. 1 states the qualifications of an elector and declares that one possessing these qualifications shall be deemed a qualified elector at any election. The constitution makes no further provision as to the exercise of the right of suffrage. It was held that the legislature was not inhibited by the constitution from passing an election law requiring the names of all candidates to be certified according to law and to be printed on an official ballot, thus in effect, denying the right of writing on an official ballot, the name of a candidate which has not been properly certified. Chamberlin v. Wood, 15 S. D. 216; 88 NW 109, Fuller, P. J., dissenting strongly. (1901). The decisions growing out of the several statutes on the Australian ballot would make volumes. But they have largely to do with minor details, and with parasitic engraftments for partizan purposes. Hundreds of pages, for example, are occupied with discussions of the angle at which lines should meet or cross, to constitute an X, and the nature of marks to make them invalid as distinguishing marks. In all this lawmakers have shown a strong disposition to establish the reverse of Sir Philip Sidney's observation that "Laws are not made, like nets, to catch, but like sea-marks, to guide." Two or more states have squarely decided that it is unconstitutional to restrict the voter to the printed names on the ballot. State v. Dillon, 14 Southern 383, (Fla.); Sauner v. Patton, 155 Ill., 553.