Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-03-01
NUMBERING BALLOTS.

The Decision of the Courts Declaring the
Law UncOnstit utional-The Courts De-
fed at Minneapolis and Bill Washburn
Secured Votes Thereby.
As there has been so much said of late
relative to throwing out the numbered bal
lots cast at Minneapolis in 1878 the GLOBE
gives a brief recapitulation with the deci-
sions rendered. The legislature of 1878
passed law requiring ballots cast at cleo
tions in cities of over IL, 900 inhabitants to be
numbered. The voter had corresponding
number placed opposite his name on the
poll book which, of course, enabled any
mans ticket to be identified. st. Paul and
Minneapolis being the only cities IN the
State having $4,000 inhabitants the law ap-
piled to them alone. At the spring election
in st. Paul in 1878 the ballots were num-
bered. Mr.. J. B. Brisbin rendered his ballot
to the judges Of election in his precinct and
demanded that they deposit without number
ing it. This they refused to do. He declined
to vote and brought suit against the election
Judges. The case was heard by
the full bench of the Ram
sey county district court, Judges Wlkin,
Simons and Brill, and on October %, 1878,
Judge Brill, for the full bench, rendered a
decision declaring the law unconstitutional.
This was about ten days before the fall cleo
ton, and in this city the decision was OBJ
served and the ballots were not numbered at
the election in this city. In Minneapolis
the judges of election in seven precincts in
sisted on numbering the ballots and did num-
Der 1,76O votes. These 1,76O votes are the
ones which it is proposed to throw out be-
cause they were cast in defiance of the de-
cision which Judge Brill "a Republican, had
rendered, the decision being as follows:
The point raised upon the complaint and de-
murrer in this cause is the constitutionality of
the act of March 18th, 1878, relating to cleo
tions SO far as it provides for the Identification
of the ticket of the elector.
The constitution provides, section q, article
6, "all elections shall be by ballot, except for
such town officers as may be directed by law to
be otherwise chosen"
The provision of the act of 1878 complained
of is as follows:
THE Judges of election shall endorse on the
back of the ticket offered the number CORE
spending with the number of the voter on the
poll book" -Section 8, chapter 81, general
laws 1878.
The plaintiff claims that the constitution
provides for a secret vote, and that act de-
stroys the effect of that provision, and hence
cannot be upheld.
l. What is the Specification of the word bal
lot?
The origin of the vote by ballot as distin-
guished from other methods of voting is we'll
understood, and furnishes an answer to the
question. The humble and dependent are in a
greater or less degree subject to the CO.
ercion of the rich and powerful. Where
any matter is to be determined
by the will of the people it is of the highest
importance that there be full expression of
that will and in the desire to secure this end
the ballot originated. 1t has been adopted
wherever used for the purpose of securing the
independence of the Individual voter. 1t Sc
cures his independence because no man other
than himself may know how he voted. 1t
throws him in IAN impenetrable shield, under
which he may keep the secret of his vote until
he shall see fit to disclose it." 1t is secret
vote and in no other way but the ballot accom-
plishes it's conceded purpose.
The courts, wherever the question has been
raised, have universally held that secrecy was
an essential characteristic of the ballot. In
the case of People Vs. icot., 16 Michigan 1885, I'M
der constitutional provision similar to our
own, Judge Christiancy uses the above Ian
quage quoted, and the court holds that
the secret ia SO we'll guarded
by the constitutional provision that the cleo
tor will not be compelled, nor will any other
person, without the electors consent, be per-
mitted to disclose for whom the vote was cast.
See Republica vs.. Ray, 8 Yeates (Pa.), &c;
Reed VS.. Kneass, 2 Parsons (Pa), 584; Temple
VS.. Mead, 4 Vermont, 538; State VS.. Helmantle,
% Wisconsin. 422; People VS.. Pease, ~ New
York, 81; NJ. Williams VS.. Stein, 50 Indiana, SO.
Under the same constitutional provisions
which we have the court says: "The ballot,
as used in our constitution, implies absolute
and inalienable secrecy.
Judge Cooley, in his Constitutional Limita-
lions, o. 6O4, says: ''The distinguishing fea-
ture eff this mode of voting is that every voter
is thus enabled to secure and preserve the most
invoilable secrecy In regard to the person
for whom he votes. The statute of the
Territory on the subject of elections in force
at the time of the adoption of the constitution
clearly recognizes the fact that the ballot
is a secret vote. Section 13, chapter 5, statutes
1851 provides that f'every elector shall vote by
ballot" Section Is following permits electors
to vote for certain officers at any place within
the district, where such officers are to be
chosen, provided that IAN elector qualified to
vote 1Or part ana not all OF the Off1cerS TO be
chosen at any election shall vote an open
ticket" If the vote provided for in the 18th
section was not to be secret, no provision for
an open ticket in the contingency mentioned
in the 18th section would have been necessary.
Without entering into an extended discus
sion of the question We are of the opinion
that the constitution secrreslto the citizen the
right of inviolable secrecy in the expression
of his preference at the polls.
2. What is the effect of the act of 1878 upon
this constitutional right?
In Williams vs.. Stein, supra, provision of
this Indiana statute similar to that above
quoted from the act of 1878, was under consid-
GRAFTON. The court says: 1.-The act intended
to and does clearly identify every mans ticket
and renders it easy to ascertain exactly how he
voted" and for this reason it was held to be in
conflict with the constitution and void.
The defendants counsel comedies what must
be apparent at glance that the provision for
numbering the tickets, if unqualified, destroys
the secrecy of the vote, but it is claimed that
the result is avoided by other provisions of
the act, not contained in the Indiana statute
Those provisions are that neither the judges
of election nor any other person shall willfully
or corruptly ascertain or reveal how any
elector voted, under severe penalties, that
the votes having been counted shall
be securely sealed and delivered to
the proper officer, and at the end of six months
if no election contest is pending, shall be de-
stroyed without opening. In case of a contest
the parties shave the RIGHT To have the nackaoas