The record-union., 1892-11-25
Is THE BALLOT LAW UNCONsTI-
TUTIONALs

Lis enenlleS OF tne electlOn law do not
propose to leave unturned any stone to
defeat it. They have now secured the
issuance of an injunction to stop the can
vassing of the vote in San Francisco for
legislators. The suit is at the complaint
OF an eiector who is partially blind and
who alleges that he was deprived by the
ballot law of his constitutional right to
cast secret ballot, because, being una
bic to see his ballot clearly, he had to take
with him into the voting booth an cleo
tion officer to make his ballot out for him.
The converse he must, therefore, as
sumo in order to support his contention,
TO wit, if he had not been compelled to
take an official ballot he might have come
10 the polls with a ballot prepared at his
home or elsewhere. But while this is not
a strong point in our opinion, because if
he is partially blind the complainant
could not even outside the voting booth
preserve the secrecy of his ballot, no mat
ter what its form, the real question is.
does the Constitution guarantee absolute
privacy to the voter to conserve secrecy
of the ballot?
The only provisions of the Constitution
relating to the subject are those guaran-
teeing citizens who are by law qualified
the right to exercise the privilege of vot-
ing in elections authorized by law Cart.
IL, Sec. u, and that all elections shall be
by ballot (Sec. 81. Further Article ".
provides that there shall be no special
laws passed, except in certain cases,
and one of these is for Conducting cleo
tions." In Article XXX. it is provided
that ''the privilege of free suffrage shall
be supported by laws regulating cleo
lions, and prohibiting, under adequate
penalties, all undue influence therein.
from power, bribery, tumult or other
improper practice"
These are the only direct provisions in
the Constitution relating in the remotest
manner to the ballot. Unless from the
bill of rights the mover of this litigation
can draw some argument supporting his
claim, it is difficult to understand what
he bases it upon. The Constitution GER
tainly gives full power to the Legislature
to legislate in the regulation of elections,
and to protect the ballot-box from those
influences and assaults that tend to cor
ruption, tumult, bribery and "other i'm
proper practices"
If the Legislature had no power to pre-
scribe the form Of the ballot as we now
have it, and how it should be used to ex-
press the will Of the voter, then it had no
power to prescribe under the old law.
the size of the ballot, the style of its
printing, and that ALI ballots should be
uniform, and remain unexposed within a
certain distance from the polls. Nor
would It have power TO throw about the
ballot any guards whatever to conserve
its secrecy, for it would be the right of
the voter to reveal within any limits the
contents of his ballot. 1t follows that the
secret privilege in election is one secured
by legislation, not directly by the Con-
stitution. And we think it entirely clear
that such legislation as we now have is
warranted by the provisions of the Con-
stitution.
If this is not so, then it will be impos-
sible to maintain any regulation relating
to balloting, except such as prescribes
the time and place Of holding the cleo
tions, and possibly the conduct of the
officers in charge of the election ma
chinery.
But if there is nothing in the State Con-
stitution prohibiting the election regula-
tions we now have. is there anything in
the Federal Constitution securing to the
citizen perfect freedom to cast any kind
OF ballot he may choose to prepare?
Nothing is to be found in that charter re-
lating to the matter, except the prohibit
ton of the; Fourteenth Amendment
that no State shall abridge the privileges
OF citizens or deny to any the equal pro-
lection of the laws. Manifestly this is
not prohibition of legislation regulating
the conduct of elections, and the throw
ing about the ballot of those guards that
will prevent and punish bribery, undue
influence and improper practices.
But is there anything in the reserved