The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-11-27
STORY OF PRECINCT NO. "a
Curious Study of Voting Under the
New Australian Ballot Law.
Some Notifications Shown Necessary by Ex-
perience-One Man Who Voted q Blank
4. Sheet Of Paper Rejected Votes.

OWu sulp, M6Eion COuutys II uOIc tnou al
average precinct. 1t is situated in the
heart of the city of Indianapolis. and
lies between Morrison and st. Clair
streets on the north and sonth
and North East. Central avenue and
Alabama streets on the east and west.
The evening before the election the in
s~pectors of this precinct worked until 10
o'clock putting in the booths and arrang-
ing the room. At 6 o'clock on the morning
of the election one of the judges had not
put IN an appearance, and the board was
not organized, although the two clerks,
the inspector. one of the the judges
and the two sheriffs were present.
\ The election officer. had to be
sworn in. the ballots unssaled, counted
and initiated. and all things prepared ready
for tho voter. And although the inspector.
judge and clerks worked with unusual
celebrity, it was not until $40 A. NJ. that
everything was arranged. The inspector
insisted on waiting Tor the absent judge.
until it was ascertained that he was sick,
when q man was selected and sworn in. 1t
was IA. NJ. when proclamation of the OPEN
ing of the polls was made. For nearly an
hour voters had been standing out in the
street in the GOLD. clamorinR for admittance.
The officers of election were unusuall lily
swift in ginG for the reception of the
votes, hut the machinery of the law was SO
cum bersOme. n so loaded with detail,
that more time was required to prepare for
the reception OF voters than anyone antic-
ipated. Att A. NJ. q steady stream of voters
begAn, aud, without a moments interval.
continued until 1890 A. NJ. The ballots
were cast at the rate o. thirty-three per
hour.
Two thin &c were noticeable that caused
delay in casting the bailots-the one. the
length of time the voter consumed IL pre-
pairing his ballot; the other the inability OF
the clerks to prepare the ballots for and
record the names of the voters. The last
was decidedly the chief cause of the delay.
No two clerks ever worked harder and very
few could have worked swifter. and yet the
voters were compelled to wait many min
utes. standing In the electIon-room. before
q ballot was ready for them. The law re-
Quires the clerks to first lndorse their in
itials on twenty-five ballots, and from
the top of the pile thus Endorsed to give
one to the voter. Then a new ballot must
be Endorsed and placed on the under side of
the pile before the second voter can receive
his ballot. 1t was found impossible to
comply with the statute in this particular.
If strict compliance had been made. not
twenty ballots an hour would have been
cast.
The law requires the clerks to explain
the manner of stamping to each voter. but
1t was found I'M practicable to do this. and
no explanations were made unless re-
quested. Each ballot was carefully in
spected before given TO the voter, and sew
ersl detective and several marked ballots
were found. Two undred and seventy
seven persons voted at this precinct, cast-
ing 554 separate ballot papers.
OF THE COUNT.
ION the counting Of the ballots it wa
found that five persons had stamped oppo-
site the name of the first elector on the
ticket. instead of the emblem at its head;
one stamped below the word Republican,
two stamped opposite the name of Charles
L. Henry. and three were not stamped. One
ballet paper, given out by mistake, was an
entire blank-a white sheet of paper which
the printing press had never touched; and,
impossible of belief as 1t may seem TO be.
the elector amps this blank near where
the emblem should have been. folded il and
voted it. Two ballots were protested md
not counted-one because q stamp had been
placed upon the back of the paper. and the
other because of q blur caused by folding
without using the blotter.
several things were especially notice.
able. One was that some persons who
would have been at once picked out as
persons OF Intelligence exhibited more
Ignorance of she method of stamping and
voting than some from whom little could
be ex 2ected. A young man holding q pub
lie Office in q department of the Rovern-
ment requiring considerable knowledge of
the law asked moresquestions and exhibited
more ignorance as to the method Of voting
than any elector in the precinct.
Another noticeable fact was the facility
with which those in the election-room
could tell whether a voter was voting q
straight party ticket or Q scratched ticket.
This could be done with ease by observing
the length of time the voter was in the
booth. and usually by the sound be made
with the stamp IN stamping bis ballot.
Still anoihe. noticeable fact was the
timidity displayed by the elector in voting
. scratched ticket. Not over fifty ballot
papers were scratched and possibly NOT
over forty. This makes two hundred and
hfty-two. or hfty-seven electors who voted
straight tickets. and only twenty or
twenty-five who voted scratched tickets,
or about one in eleven.
"The result of the count showed that ten
persons did not succeed in getting their
Totes counted on the national and State
tickets rs they desired TO vote, and four
persons failed on the local ticket. Ii this
ratio was kept mp throughout the State
land / have no doubt that it wasl, then the
wills OF IT, 5l4 electors. as to the national
ticket, were thwarted, and IL. 7Si as to the
local tickets.
DEFECT OF THE LAW.
Can it be possible that Q law which COM
pels the use of a ballot so cum bersome that
v ~ctVSV SAO|toio ~ oioltouOnloCu, 10 u
valid law7 1t may be said that the Legis-
lature can require certain formalities to be
observed by the elector In expressing his
preferences for candidates.; but cannot the
Legislature so hedge about the electors
with cum bersome requirements to hamper
him in the expression of his Will as
to practically prevent him from expressing
his preferencei When we look at this
law, with all its cumbersome details and
L 4YRrl10nQ ina nuaFU aHUDaQfG ltlQlfs ia
the election law made for the elector, or
the elector for the lawf Does the law serve
the ~elector. or the elector the lawP The
Australian election law, as first devised,
was q much better law than the Indiana
law. Then the ballot was short, with few
names upon 1t. and the elector Stang ped the
name OF each person for whom he desired
to vote. hat law il an excellent one, and
the principle embodied in that law is also
excellent. But in our Indiana Law we have
o good principle put to n wrong applica-
tion. Our ballots are too long and too
cumbersome for this method of voting.
AS we now stamp, the law is o clever
device To compel an elector to vote q
straight party ticket. or reveal to all in the
electioL-room that he is not loyal to his
party, and is scratching his ticket. 1t also
holds a club over the timid electors head.
compelling him to vote a straight ticket
rat her than run the risk OF losing his entire
vote. This Is not q supposition. but q fact.
and tallies exactly with the statements
made to me by many electors. one of whom
has been Attorney general of this State. " tho
expressed TO me his fear that IL he voted
o scratched ballot. as he desired. he would