Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1891-04-02
Nothing New 10 The Secret Ballot

It is somewhat remarkable, that during
the protrsc,ed exhaustive ard heated
debate in the Legislature upon the Austria
Ian ballot system--th opponents Of the
secret feature Of that bill should 90
unchslleuged when they assumed and
assented that cur present method of voting
was designed and intended to render each
electors ballot public and open. and the
reverse of the proposed secret ballot. II
may surprise some members Of that body,
to learn that our present system Of voting
by written ballot WAS Instituted and estsb.
hshed in this country, for the very object
for which the Australian system hiss been
accepted. nsmeiy for the sole purpo,e of
eHaJttng the eisetov to cypress hts choice
and ,e,u at the polls, secretly.
Ia the early times the more common
method OF voting was by ''rire roce', the
elector openly announcing at the polls the
names OF persons he wished to designate
for office. Il was found that many abuse
arose from this method Of voting. The
electors in many instances were ovsr-awed
or incurred the Ill will and persecution Of
those whom they opposed st the polls
when the state governments were estab.
iishsd by the thirteen colonies all except
Virgins sDd Georgis adopted the method
Of voting by written or printed ballot, these
two states siepsed aud retained for many
years the method OF voting rfre roce. Dor
rowed from the mother country. Judge
Cooley says the Distinguishing feature Of
the method Of voting by written ballot ia
that every voter is thus enabled to secure
and preserve the most complete srd
inviolAale secrecy in regard 10 the persons
for VIII ,m be votes AID thus escape the
influences which under the system of oral
suffrsges may be brought to bear upon him
with view 10 overbesr and iutimidate and
thus prevent the real expression Of public
sentiment.
The system OF hallos voting rests upon
the idea that every eieetsr 10 TO be entirely
free to vots for .h,m be plesses. and that
no one has the right or 10 be in position
to question for |, either then or az any sub
ssqueut time See Cooley Constitutional
Limitations GOA
In some states this principle Of secrecy
Of the ballot was fully recognized and care
fully guarded. and By their counts it has
been held that neither the elector or any
enc else without his consent could be com.
PEELED to testify in any case for whom th-
elector cast his ballot people vs. Pease IS
N. Y.st) People vs. Or Cote Is. Mich.
9s3 0she, states recognizing the same
principle have sought to protect the secrecy
Of the ballot box by requiring the ballots
to be upou clean white paper. without dis
finsuishinc marks, and to be est folded
Our own State in v;oistion Of thi. principle
has required the elscsor to cas-. his vote
unfelded, thus snorains the sps and party
checker to violate the ssnctity and sscrecy
of the ballot box. In this State under the
present rules regulating the voting. the
written ballet has become nearly Is devoid
Of secrecy - 10 the method Of voting vive
itai. 1t would seem then that in essshli.h-
ing the Australian method Of voting Gu.
Legislators heve returned 70 first principles
and have determined to secu.e to tie voter
the privilege Of secrecy for his bzllos
according b the intention and design Of tie
ffamefs Of our constitution in 1890 when
they established the method ot written bal
lot eecause they Supposed that method
would secure secrecy to the voter. The