# A History of the Australian Ballot System in the United States/Chapter IV

CHAPTER IV
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AUSTRALIAN BALLOT IN THE UNITED STATES–THE FORM OF THE BALLOT
I. THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF BALLOTS IN THE UNITED STATES
The use of the term “Australian ballot” in the United States is very misleading, because we have not only departed from the South Australian statute, but have enacted ununiform ballot laws in the respective states. Eliminating minor differences, three types of the ballot have developed in the United States: the office-group, the party-column, and the separate-party ballots.
The pattern statute for those states which have adopted the office-group form of the ballots was the Massachusetts act of 1888. This law provided for the blanket form of the ballot, the names of the candidates for each office being
arranged under the designation of the office in alphabetical order, according to surnames, except that the names of candidates for the offices of electors of president and vice-president shall be arranged in groups, as presented in the several certificates of nomination or nomination papers. There shall be left at the end of the list of candidates for each different office as many blank spaces as there are persons to be elected to such office, in which the voter may insert the name of any person, not printed on the ballot, for whom he desires to vote as candidate for such office.
The model of the party-column type was the Indiana statute of 1889. This also adopted the blanket form of the ballot, but provided that all nominations of any party or group of petitioners should be
placed under the title and device of such party or petitioners as designated by them in their certificate or petition; or if none be designated, under some suitable title and device…. The arrangement of the ballot shall, in general, conform as nearly as possible to the plan hereinafter given, and the device named and list of candidates of the Democratic party shall be placed in the first column on the left-hand side of said ballot; of the Republican party in the second column; of the Prohibition party in the third column, and of any other party in such order as the Board of Election Commissioners shall decide.
2. THE OFFICE-GROUP VERSUS THE PARTY-COLUMN BALLOT
At first the office-group arrangement was the most popular, and by 1891 it had been adopted in nineteen states against thirteen for the party-column type. In that year Washington and Wisconsin abandoned the office-group form in favor of the party-column type, and for the next ten years the trend was very marked in favor of the party-column arrangement. Since 1900 there have been signs of a swinging back to the Massachusetts model. Five states, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, California, and Kansas, changed from the party-column to the office-group type, and one state, New Jersey, adopted this in place of separate-party ballots. Two states, Rhode Island and Alabama, abandoned the office-group form in favor of the party-column type, and three new states, Texas, Connecticut, and North Carolina (New Hanover County), also provided for the party-column ballot.
The relative merits of the Massachusetts and Indiana forms of the ballot have been debated many times. The chief criticisms of the Massachusetts act are: First, it takes too long to mark the ballot, and this causes delay in large precincts. Secondly, this system causes the less educated to become discouraged and stay away from the polls, or if ​ Separate-Party Ballot Used in New Mexico they come, they make mistakes. Thirdly, the Massachusetts form encourages independent voting and will lead to the breaking up of parties. Fourthly, the candidates whose names stand first in the groups have an advantage over those lower down. Fifthly, the fatigue of marking every name causes a falling off from the head of the ticket.
In defense of the Massachusetts plan it is argued that: First, it requires a very short time to mark the tickets, and if sufficient booths are provided, the electors deposit their marked ballots as fast as they can pass the check officials, and there is very little delay, even in large precincts. Secondly, the less educated do not stay away from the polls; the percentage of registered electors voting in the less educated wards is higher than in the more educated wards. Thirdly, the office-group plan is more favorable to independent voting, because it is as easy to vote independently as to vote straight. The Massachusetts form compels some consideration of each candidate, and in those states where the office-group type prevails, independent voting is high. Fourthly, there is a falling off from the head of the ticket through fatigue, but this is not universally true. This falling off in the vote for minor offices is more of an argument against the length of the ballot than against its form. Fifthly, the slight advantage to the candidate whose name appears first practically makes no difference when the public has an opinion to express. Sixthly, the office-group form does away with the difficulty of ascertaining the voter’s intention. Since the ballot has no party circle, and as only the names marked can be credited with votes, the election officers can make no mistakes. Seventhly, it places all voters on an equality in the preparation of the ballots. ​The objections to the Indiana form are: First, the party-column type tends to promote straight party voting and places a penalty on independent action. Secondly, being provided with more than one method of voting, the voter runs the risk, in marking elsewhere than in the party circle, of having his vote misinterpreted. Thirdly, it is possible to tell whether or not a voter is voting straight by the relative amount of time he takes to mark his ballot. Fourthly, the use of the party column, circle, and emblem is a concession and appeal to the illiterate and ignorant voter. Fifthly, the multiplication of columns, titles, and blank spaces increases the size of the ballot and makes it an “unwieldy monstrosity.”
The defense of the Indiana form is based on the assumption that most electors desire to vote a straight ticket and that this system is a convenience to facilitate voting. The fact that most American voters were accustomed to seeing all of a party’s nominees in a single column, and to voting a whole party ballot at a single operation, explains the success of this form. Because of its appeal to party loyalty the party column is favored by the professional politicians because they are sure of a larger party vote.
A different form of the ballot has been used in two counties of Wisconsin. This is the coupon ballot which was invented by Mr. Moncena Dimn. This coupon ballot consists of a number of differently colored sheets of cardboard stapled together. The Republican ticket is printed on green paper; the Democratic, on red, etc. Although the colors must not be the same, the law authorizes the chairmen of the state central committees of the several parties to select the colors. Individual nominations are printed on white paper. Each ticket is divided by perforated lines into as many coupons as there are offices to be filled, all the candidates for presidential electors being placed on one coupon. Each coupon bears the name of an office, a number, the candidate’s name, and his party designation. All coupons for any office, as, for example, that of sheriff, which is No. 12, have the same number regardless of the party ticket.
To illustrate the manner of voting under this scheme, let us suppose that John Doe wishes to vote for all the Republican nominees. He detaches the entire Republican sheet, and places it inside the official ballot folder. Richard Roe wants to vote a Democratic ticket for all the offices except that of sheriff. He detaches the entire Democratic sheet ​and places it inside the official envelope, and then tears out the coupon for sheriff from the ——— ticket and puts it in with the Democratic sheet. The basic idea of this plan is the segregation of the names of the men voted for from those which are rejected. All coupons selected to be voted are placed inside of an official envelope, which is divided into pockets to receive the detached coupons. The rejected coupons are placed inside of another envelope called the “remainder envelop.” If the elector wishes to vote for names not on the ballot, he is given a sheet of white paper properly indorsed by the ballot clerks. This must be returned folded so that the indorsement can be seen. The official folder is placed in a pocket of the larger envelope and sealed by the inspectors. The “remainder envelope” is also sealed by the inspector with official seals furnished by the secretary of state. In counting the votes, detached coupons prevail over those of the same number attached to the party sheet.
3. PRESENT STATUS OF THE FORM OF THE BALLOT
The party-column type of the ballot is used in twenty-seven states; of these seven are eastern, five are north central, four are southern, and eleven are western states. Except in the South, the party-column form outnumbers the office-group type in every section of the United States, but its greatest relative strength is in the north central and eastern states.
In determining the order in which the party tickets shall appear on the ballot, the usual rule is to place the decision with the officer preparing the ballots, giving precedence to the parties polling the highest number of votes. Some states fix in the law the position of the largest two or three parties, but leave the minor parties to be placed according to the foregoing rule. Wisconsin requires the party columns to be placed ​alphabetically according to the first letter of the party name. Independent columns are always placed at the right of the party columns. After the order has become established and a party’s adherents instructed where to find the ticket, the party is very loath to change, even for a position on the ballot deemed originally more advantageous.
In the states possessing the party-column type of the ballot, the law usually provides for placing a circle or square at the head of each party ticket close to the party title, and the elector can vote for all the party nominees by making a cross (X) in such circle. Four party-column states have abolished the party circle. The Iowa form eliminates most of the objectionable features of the party-column type and makes its operation somewhat akin to the office group. Rather curiously, two of the office-group types have added party circles. In Pennsylvania the titles of the parties or groups are printed in the first column at the left of the ballot, and a party square is placed to the right of each name. In Nebraska, the party titles and circles are placed at the top of the ballot just under the initiative and referendum measures. In Colorado in place of the party circle there formerly was printed across the head of the ballot above the list of nominees the words: “I hereby vote a straight ——— ticket, except where I have marked opposite the name of some other candidate.” An elector who wished to vote a straight party ticket had only to write in the name of the party desired, but this provision was abolished in 1913. It would seem that the straight-voting provisions would make the ballot in these states very similar in operation to the Indiana form.
Twelve other states follow the example of Indiana and place party emblems or devices on the ballot. The list includes New Hampshire, New York, Delaware, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Utah. In this group of thirteen states all but New York are of the party-column type. The portion of the Alabama statute of 1903 relating to party emblems is typical. It provides that each political party shall by its state convention or state executive committee adopt and file with the secretary of state an emblem to be printed at the top of the party column on the ballot. The party cannot select a design similar to one already ​adopted by any party in the state, nor can it choose the coat-of-arms or seal of any state or the United States, or the national flag, or the likeness of any person, or any religious emblem or symbol of any fraternal organization, or a representation of the coin or currency of the United States. West Virginia represents another type of laws in which the only restriction is that a party cannot adopt a design already used by any other party.
There is a veritable picture gallery of designs in the different states. The eagle is the common emblem of the Republican party, and is used in nine states; but the party is represented in Kentucky by a log cabin, in Alabama by a picture of Vulcan, and in Michigan by a picture of Lincoln on the United States flag. The Democratic vignette in eight states is a game cock or rooster in the act of crowing; but it is represented in New York, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire by a star, in Delaware by a plow, and in Michigan by an arm holding the national flag. The picture of a bull moose is the Progressive emblem in Indiana, Delaware, Rhode Island, Alabama, Louisiana, and Oklahoma; a bull-moose head in New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Utah; but it is represented by a picture of Roosevelt in West Virginia, Michigan, and Kentucky. The Prohibitionists have a great variety of devices. In Indiana they have a representation of a sun rising over a body of water; in Delaware and West Virginia, a picture of a house and yard; in Rhode Island and New York, a fountain; in Oklahoma, a flying dove; and in Kentucky, a phoenix. The common Socialist vignette is a picture of two clasped hands in front of a globe. This is their vignette in Indiana, Delaware, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Utah, Alabama, Louisiana, and Kentucky; but in Rhode Island they have a pair of scales; in New York, Ohio, and Michigan, an arm holding a torch; and in Oklahoma, an extended hand. The Social Labor party is the only political party which has a single emblem. It is an arm and hammer in the position of striking. Alabama is the only state to permit political parties to print on the ballot a motto or party shibboleth. The Democratic party has selected “White Supremacy” and “For the Right”; the Progressives, “Pass Prosperity Around”; and the Republicans, “Progress and Prosperity.”
There is really little excuse for the party emblem. It is a concession to the illiterate and ignorant, an appeal to the party passions, ​attachments, and sentiments of the voter, and a device that tends to divert the attention of the elector from present issues to past traditions. Could there be a more open appeal to party and sectional passion and hatred than the Democratic emblem and motto in Alabama?
The office-group type of the ballot has been adopted in seventeen commonwealths. There are four eastern states, one north central, six southern, and six western. In eight states, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Tennessee, Colorado, Kansas, Nevada, and Oregon, the names of the candidates are arranged under the titles of the offices alphabetically according to surnames. In Minnesota, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and New York the candidates of each party occupy the same relative position for each office; that is, if the Republicans are given first place, depending on the size of the vote, all the Republican candidates occupy first place under the title of the various offices regardless of whether the particular candidate’s name begins with A or Z. Mississippi and Florida give full discretion to the officer printing the ballots as to the order in which the names shall appear. Virginia makes no provision as to the order of names. Arkansas and California are the only states which attempt to overcome the advantage of position by a scheme of rotation. Nebraska in 1915 provided for rotation of names in counties of 50,000 or more inhabitants.
As a general rule, the “office-group” states permit the party or other political appellation to be printed after the name of each candidate, but there are certain exceptions. In five southern states, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, and Maryland (eleven counties), all party designations have been abolished. The object is to get rid of the negro vote. In these five states the Democratic nominees are printed first, and it is easy to instruct even an ignorant white to mark the first name or the first five, as the case may be, but an ignorant voter might and does make many mistakes if he has to count down a certain number before starting to mark. Minnesota has abolished all party nominations ​for members of the legislature. A number of states have abolished party designations for the candidates for certain offices. About one-fourth of the states require candidates for judicial offices to be elected on a non-partisan ballot. The non-partisan movement has taken a firm hold on cities with a commission form of government where the tendency is to prohibit party nominations. The non-partisan movement is also making headway in other local offices, as school officers.
All but six states permit an elector to write in the name of any candidate not appearing on the ballot as a candidate. Thirteen states permit such name to be written in a blank column placed at the right of the ballot in which only the titles of the offices are printed. The larger number of states, twenty-six in number, provide blank spaces under the name of each candidate or group of candidates.
Constitutional amendments, which are submitted to the electorate at the same election at which officers are chosen, are either printed on the same ballot with the list of candidates or on a separate ballot. The first method is used in twenty-seven states, and the latter in fifteen. Where the amendments are printed on the same ballot with the list of candidates, the common rule is to print them at the foot of the ballot after the list of candidates. Words to aid the voter in expressing his choice, as “for the amendment,” “against the amendment,” “yes,” ​“no,” are added. In Washington and Nebraska the amendments are printed above the list of candidates, while in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and California they are printed in one or more columns at the right of the ballot. In printing constitutional amendments or other questions on the ballot only a brief descriptive title or the substance of the amendments is used. But in Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Missouri, Mississippi, and Tennessee the amendment is printed in full.
The common rule is to require an elector voting for or against these amendments to indicate his answer to each proposition separately. Connecticut tries to secure a larger vote on the amendments by introducing the equivalent of the party circle. In this state constitutional amendments are printed in two extra columns; the first of the columns is designated “Yes,” and the second “No.” At the head of each column is printed a circle, and an elector can vote for or against all such propositions by placing a cross in the proper circle. Nebraska and Indiana have introduced the expedient of allowing political parties to take action for or against an amendment and such action is indicated on the ballot. Under the party-circle arrangement, by making a cross in the party circle the elector has his vote counted for or against every indorsed amendment unless he marks the amendments to the contrary.
The stub.–In order to do away with the objection to numbering the ballot and yet make sure that the elector returns the identical ballot given to him, nineteen states provide for a detachable stub. This stub remains on the ballot until presented by the elector for voting; then, after being identified, it is removed without exposing the ballot. This is a very effective way of guaranteeing that the elector votes the same ballot given to him by the ballot clerks, and will detect at once any attempt to remove the ballot from the polling-place.
Another way of enabling the election judges to see that none but official ballots are deposited is the provision for placing an official indorsement on the back of the ballot in such a position that it can be seen when the ballot is folded. This indorsement consists of the words “official
* ↑ Massachusetts Acts and Res., 1888, ch. 436
* ↑ Indiana, 1889, ch. 87.
* ↑ New York, 1890, ch. 262; 1895, ch. 810.
* ↑ Texas, 1903, p. 133; 1905 (special session), ch. 11.
* ↑ Connecticut, 1889, ch. 247; 1909, ch. 250.
* ↑ New Jersey, 1911, ch. 183.
* ↑ Missouri, 1897, p. 107.
* ↑ New Mexico, 1905, ch. 127.
* ↑ Pennsylvania, 1903, p. 340.
* ↑ New York, 1913, ch. 821.
* ↑ Maryland, 1901 (extra session), ch. 2.
* ↑ California, 1911, ch. 46.
* ↑ Kansas, 1913, ch. 189.
* ↑ New Jersey, 1911, ch. 183.
* ↑ Rhode Island, 1905, ch. 1229.
* ↑ Alabama, P. C., 1907, p. 335.
* ↑ Texas, 1905, ch. 11.
* ↑ Connecticut, 1909, ch. 250.
* ↑ North Carolina, 1909, ch. 867 (New Hanover County).
* ↑ Dana, Australian Ballot System of Massachusetts, p. 4.
* ↑ Message of Governor Utter of Rhode Island, 1905.
* ↑ Shaw, “Good Ballot Laws and Bad,” Outlook, LXXXI, 863; Nation, LXXXI, 415.
* ↑ North American Review, CLXVIII, 108; Nation, LXXII, 170.
* ↑ Nation, LXXII, 170.
* ↑ Clinton Rogers Woodruff, “Objections to the Pennsylvania Law, 1893,” Annals of the American Academy of Social and Political Science, XVII, 202–3.
* ↑ Cleveland, Organized Democracy, p. 264.
* ↑ Connecticut Laws, 1909, ch. 250; Delaware, 1891, ch. 37; Maine, 1891, ch. 102; Rhode Island, 1905, ch. 1229; Vermont, P. S., 1906, sec. 136; West Virginia, 1907, ch. 71.
* ↑ Illinois, 1891, p. 107; Indiana, 1897, ch. 47; Michigan, 1891, No. 190; Ohio, 1891, p. 458; Wisconsin, 1911, ch. 5.
* ↑ Alabama P. C., 1907, p. 335; Kentucky, 1892, ch. 65; Louisiana, 1898, p. 283; North Carolina, 1909, ch. 867.
* ↑ Arizona R. S., 1895, sec. 2330; Iowa, 1892, ch. 33; Idaho P. C., 1908–9, sec. 405; Oklahoma, 1910, ch. 111; Texas, 1905 (special session), ch. 11; Washington, 1901, ch. 89; Utah, 1897, p. 186; Montana P. C., 1895, sec. 1354; Wyoming, 1911, ch. 51; North Dakota, 1893, ch. 60; South Dakota, 1893, ch. 80.
* ↑ See Kentucky, 1892, ch. 65; Ohio, 1913, p. 111.
* ↑ See Oklahoma, 1910, ch. 111; Delaware, 1891, ch. 37.
* ↑ Wisconsin, 1911, ch. 5.
* ↑ Iowa, Texas, Wyoming, and South Dakota. The first act of this type was the Missouri law of 1889, Missouri R. S., 1889, ch. 60.
* ↑ Pennsylvania, 1903, p. 338; Nebraska C. S., 1909, sec. 3375.
* ↑ Colorado, 1899, ch. 94.
* ↑ Alabama P. C., 1907, p. 334.
* ↑ Indiana Laws, Ohio, Delaware, West Virginia, New York, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Oklahoma, and Utah.
* ↑ Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Utah.
* ↑ Massachusetts, 1888, ch. 436; New Jersey, 1911, ch. 183; New York, 1913, ch. 821; Pennsylvania, 1903, p. 340.
* ↑ Minnesota, 1893, ch. 4.
* ↑ Arkansas, 1891, Act 30; Florida, 1895, ch. 4328; Maryland, 1901, ch. 2; Mississippi Election Ordinance, 1890; Tennessee, 1889, ch. 188; Virginia, 1896, ch. 700.
* ↑ California, 1911, ch. 46; Colorado, 1894, ch. 7; Kansas, 1913, ch. 189; Nebraska, 1899, ch. 26; Nevada, 1891, ch. 40; Oregon, 1891, p. 23.
* ↑ Political Science Quarterly, XXI, 56.
* ↑ Minnesota Laws, 1913, ch. 389. California will soon vote on a legislative proposal to abolish all party designations for state and local offices.
* ↑ Iowa, 1913, ch. 104; Washington (for Superior Court), 1907, ch. 209; Kansas, 1913, ch. 193; Arizona, Nebraska, South Dakota, Illinois for cities of 200,000 or more, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wyoming.
* ↑ See Kentucky, 1910, ch. 50; Illinois, 1911–12, p. 22; Nebraska, 1911, ch. 24; Kansas, 1907, ch. 114.
* ↑ South Dakota, 1907, ch. 86; North Dakota, 1913, ch. 152; Wisconsin, 1913, ch. 492.
* ↑ See chapter v.
* ↑ New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Illinois, Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina (New Hanover County), Texas, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Washington, Wyoming.
* ↑ No provision for either blank spaces or blank column in Indiana, Delaware, Oklahoma, Virginia, South Dakota, and New Mexico. Nevada provides blank spaces after each office group for substituting names to fill vacancies. In West Virginia it was not possible to tell whether blank spaces or a blank column is provided, either from the statute or sample ballots.
* ↑ In Delaware constitutional amendments are not submitted to popular vote; and in North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia there are no provisions in the election laws for their submission.
* ↑ From an examination of the ballots.
* ↑ Connecticut, 1909, ch. 250.
* ↑ Nebraska, 1901, ch. 29.
* ↑ Indiana R. S., 1914, secs. 6944a and 6944b.
* ↑ The states which use the stub are Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina (New Hanover County), Maryland, Tennessee, Florida, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Utah, California, Colorado, Montana, and Nevada.
TABLE I Showing the Blanket Form of the Australian Ballot
| Office Group | Office Group | Office Group | Party Column | Party Column | Party Column |
| Without Party Circle or Emblem | With Party Emblem | With Party Circle | Without Party Circle or Emblem | With Party Circle | With Party Emblem and Circle |
| Massachusetts | New York | Nebraska | Iowa | Connecticut | New Hampshire |
| New Jersey | | Pennsylvania | South Dakota | Vermont | Rhode Island |
| Minnesota | | | Texas | Maine | West Virginia |
| Arkansas | | | Wyoming | Illinois | Indiana |
| Florida | | | | Wisconsin | Michigan |
| Mississippi | | | | North Carolina | Ohio |
| Maryland | | | | Arizona | Alabama |
| Tennessee | | | | Idaho | Kentucky |
| Virginia | | | | North Dakota | Louisiana |
| California | | | | Washington | Oklahoma |
| Colorado | | | | | Montana |
| Kansas | | | | | Utah |
| Nevada |
| Oregon |
| Total, 14 | Total, 1 | Total, 2 | Total, 4 | Total, 10 | Total, 12 |
​ballot for," followed by a designation of the polling-place for which the ballot is prepared, the date of the election, and a facsimile signature of the election officer preparing the ballots. The official indorsement upon the back of the ballot is used in thirty-two states. This indorsement is printed on the ballot in twenty-seven states, and in five states the election officers stamp the indorsement on the back of the ballot before it is delivered to the voter. California and Nevada provide that the paper used for the ballots shall be watermarked with a design selected by the secretary of state, and this watermark is discernible when the ballot is folded. The design selected is kept secret from every person, except those engaged in preparing the ballots, until the day of election. The design is changed before each general election, and is not used again for a specified number of years.
* ↑ See Maine, 1891, ch. 102; Massachusetts, Acts and Resolves, 1888, ch. 436.
* ↑ The states making no provision for a printed or stamped indorsement on the back and outside of the ballot are Delaware, Michigan, Indiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, Virginia, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Oregon, and Washington.
* ↑ Idaho, 1899, p. 33; South Dakota, 1897, ch. 60; North Dakota R.C., 1899, sec. 515; Montana, 1889, p. 135; Wyoming R.S., 1899, sec. 290.
* ↑ California, 1891, ch. 130.
* ↑ Nevada, 1891, ch. 40.