The sun., 1892-01-15
A Secret Ballot impossible.

In commenting upon the recent decision
Of the Court Of Appeals in the Onondaga
county election case. under which 1900
voters lost their votes because their ballots
were wrongly endorsed BY the County
Clerk. the Albany Lo,r Journal regrets that
decision recently made by the Supreme
Court Of Missouri WAS not referred to in the
argument before the Court Of Appeals.
In Missouri an Australian ballot law has
lately taken effect. 1t prescribes that votes
shall be received by the election judges
at only one polling place in a particular
precinct. This requirement Of the law was
disregarded. and votes were received ut
two polling places. The Supreme Court OF
the State holds that the returns were
not invaldated by reason OF this act
OF the election officers. II the law it
SELF declares specified irrcgu!arity to be
fatal. the courts must follow that COM
mand: but in the absence OF any such
declaration. says the Supreme Court OF
Missouri. 1.-The judiciary endeavor. as best
they may. to ascertain whether the devia-
ton from the prescribed forms Of law had
or had not such vital bearing on the pro-
ceedings as probably prevented free and
full expression Of the popular will. II it
had. the irregulaHty is deemed fatal: other
wise it is not"
Even II this Missouri case had been before
the Court OF Appeals. it is probable that the
decision in the Onondaga case would still
have been the same. because a majority OF
the court deemed it to be the paramount
object OF the new ballot law in this State to
insure secrecy at all hazards. and regard
hn Ntos~
more important than the expression Of the
popular will. II expressed by means OF bal
lot which could be identified.
1t is very strange. however. that all ballot
reformers. wise or simple. have not by this
time become able to perceive that the at
tainment OF absolute secrecy in regard 20
the contents OF a ballot, against the will OF
the voter who casts it. Is utterly impossible.
whether the ballot be one OF the old-fash-
ioned sort or one OF the new-fashioned sort.
or an Australian blanket. Nobody has yet
had the audacity to propose. and nobody
ever will propose seriously to restrict the
choice OF the voter to candidates whose
names are printed upon the Official ballot
placed in his hands. He must be left at
liberty to change every name II he likes.
and substitute the names OF qualified
persons whom he regards as more
fit for the offices to be filled than those
whose names are printed on the ballot.
Having this liberty Of choice. he may al
ways erase one OF the printed names. and
with his Own hand write some other name
on the ballot. BY doing this he furnishes
an absolutely certain means OF identifying
his vote: and IL he is wicked enough to
take bribe. his own writing on the ballot
affords clear and convincing evidence that
he has cast his vote in accordance with his
corrupt agreement.
But even II We go much further and main
tain the constitutionality OF prohibition
against voting for any candidates except
those whose names are printed upon
blanket ballot. II would be easy enough.
even then. by preconcerted arrangement
to vote for a single candidate of the op-
posite party. for any voter to identify the
ballot cast by him. and prove that he had
kept his word to vote in O particular way.
We have considered two OF the very SIM
plest and easiest methods OF Identifying
ballots: but a college freshman OF very lit
tie ingenuity could devise dozen others.
In view. then. Of the utter inpossibiiity o.
ene"ting any statute which shall lie ooDsti-
tutional and yet prevent the iden ti.ication
OF ballots. il voters want to identify them,
is 1t not about time that the people who
seek in . free Government to impose the
obligation Of secrecy upon voters against