Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-03-17
BALLOT LAWS.


fore the Legislature upon the subject
Their object is common, greater security
for the free expression of the viii Of the
voter 1t does not appear that the New
Workers, in their effort to secure absolute
secresy of the ballot, have given much at
tention to the California system. To us
that appears to clear the way greatly.
Uniformity of ballots in size, paper, tint
and character of type, and a peculiar and
uniform method of folding, with us comes
very near assuring that perfect secresy
essential to free exercise of the right of
the voter. We have tried the plan for
over fourteen years and with much sue
cess.
The New York Post favors the taking of
the printing and distribution of the ballots
from the control Of political organizations,
and giving the whole matter over to the
State. We have not found that to be
necessary in California, nor can we believe
that it is necessary in any State. In Cali
fornia the State furnishes the paper at
cost, and thus uniformity is secured to that
extent the law prescribes the permissible
form of the ticket, even to designating the
style of type to be used, and in this also it
secures uniformity. But the Post believes
the plan that it advocates will do more,
cut off the heavy assessments levied upon
candidates for ticket distribution purposes,
and viii narrow the possibilities for fraud
ulent practices, and there is a great deal of
force in the argument. But how it can
have any effect upon bribery and illegal
voting we fail to comprehend. The voter,
it is true, will receive his ticket if he
wishes from the hands of Government
agent, but if he is corrupted at all it has
been done before he secures his ballot,
while there is nothing in the scheme to
prevent the purchaser of his vote watch
ing him from the time he takes up
the ballot until he has deposited it.
1t would certainly be an improvement to
our law to make the 100-foot limit apply to
the exclusion Of all persons except the
voter and the officers of the election; that
is, to keepa space 100 feet wide in all direc-
tions from the polls clear for all purposes
As we now have it, the law simply pre-
vents the opening or displaying of the
ballot within that area, or the solicitation
of vOterc within tbaf cDaoa
The Post points out that the defect of
the principal bill before the people of New
York is in providing four sizes and forms
of tickets, to distinguish between those
used in voting for State, National and city
officers and those used in voting for judicial
officers. This judgment of the Post can be
fortified by our experience in California
We have not felt such friction in our cleo
ton machinery that calls for any such dis
tinctive forms for ballots. The proposed
scheme would be confusing and heavy
in operation. If there must be, on account
of the great number of officers to he voted
for, different ballots and separate BAL OF
boxes, it would be better to make all The |
tickets uniform and commit to the voter |
the entire risk of confusing the ballots |
Or the tints of the ballots might be maize |
strongly distinctive, and thus an aid to the
voter in making the proper deposit.
One of the New York bills proposes that
the State shall print the ballots putting
upon them the names of all candidates,
with the politics of each clearly desig-
mated. This would require, we should
suppose, an entry system by candidates, to
be closed some time prior to election. 1t
is a very reasonable and defensible plan,
and in one respect strongly resembles the
Australian system. There, with such a
ballot the voter enters booth, and while
alone marks the names of those for whom
he desires to vote. II, by reason of illit-
eracy he is unable to do so, Government
clerk does it for him. 1t is slow process,
but one that protects the voter, and pre-
vents the casting of ballot by any elector
when he is in such mental condition by
reason of intoxication as to prevent him
from voting intelligently.
One New York bill, that providing for
the four sizes and kinds of ballots, goes on
to require that every voter shall be sup.
piled with sets of the four ballots, repre-
senting all the tickets in the field This
is to be done in the voting room. He is
then to select the one he wishes to vote and
to destroy all the others in the presence of
the ballot clerk. He is next to enter a
booth provided for the purpose and pre-
pare his ballots for voting. He then re-
turns to the voting room and casts his
ballot. No one is to be permitted in the
room except challengers, watchers, officers
appointed and the voter.
This would be worse than the old Nor
mon system of numbering the ballots and
registering on the tally-sheet the name of
the voter opposite the number 1t would
just as effectually destroy the secresy of the
ballot, and put every voter at the mercy of
the spies or watchers the bosses might APP
point. Moreover, it would deprive citi-
zens of the right to challenge right that
must extend to all, and which cannot with
safety to our liberties be committed wholly
to appointed challengers. Another and
fatal defect is the requirement that the
voter shall openly select the ballots he
desires to cast The citizen must not be
forced to repose confidence, in that matter,
in any polling-place official, who would thus
become possessed of a power over the voter
that he could thereafter use with injurious
effect. 1t is amazing that, in the light of
this day of progress, any one can be found
to introduce and advocate so wicked
measure. 1t does not at all surprise us
however, to learn that it emanates from the
ranks of the New York bosses. 1t is Just
what we might expect from these wouId-be
some fine examples of which
are to be found nearer us than New York
Still another New York bill provides
that every voter, with his full set of of.