Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-05-03
THE BAKER LAW ALL RIGHT.

| Pennsylvania Supreme Court Says It's
ConstitutionaI-It Does Not Disfranchiss
Voters Belonging to the Smaller Par
ties-It Merely Regulates tho official
Ticket.
| PHILADELPHIA, May "A decision was
rendered to-day by the Supreme Court. sus-
tanning the constitutionality of the Baker
| ballot reform law, passed by the last Legis-
| lature. The cases upon which the decision
was based were those of DeWalt appealed
| from the Philadelphia courts; Meredith,
| from the Lebanon County Court, and Rip
pies, from the Lackawanna County Court.
The opinion, delivered by Chief Justice
Paxson, is, in BRIEF as follows:
Each of the above cases Is an appeal from
the refusal of the learned Judge below to
grant preliminary injunction. The object
| of the respective bills was to test the con-
| stitutionality of the act of Assembly ap-
| proved on the 18th day of June, 1891, enti-
| tled AN act to regulate the nomination
and election Of public officers, requiring cer-
| tain expenses incident thereto to be paid by
! the several counties and certain other ex-
penses to be paid by the Commonwealth,
and furnishing. certain offenses in regard to
such elections
"1t is proper to be observed at this point
that the bill in each case asks US to declare
certain sections of it have been especially
criticised the litigation is directed against
the act as whole. We're we to declare the
sections thus criticised Unconstitutional the
act, thus emAsculated, would be of little use,
oven If the remainder of it could be enforced
The Motive for the Various Tests.
'There is no doubt of the power of the
Legislature to regulate elections Abundance
of authority might lie cited were it neces-
sary. The test is. whether such legislation
denies the franchise or renders its exercise
so difficult andfnconvenient as to amount to
denial The act provides for a secret
ballot. That is manifestly its main purpose
and it is in entire harmony with Article l,
Section of the Constitution, which declares
that, elections shall be free and equal
"The trainers of the act in question have
evidently reached the conclusion that the
only adequate guarantee of free and equal
elections within the letter and spirit of the
Constitution, is absolute secrecy. They
have. therefore, provided for secret ballot.
The ground of complaint, as set forth in
DeWalts appeal, is not that the act denies
the right OF suffrage, but that it abridges
the freedom of voting in its practical oper-
alton and destroys the constitutionality and
uniformity by discrimination against some
voters in favor OF others, Notwithstanding
that all of them are equal under the Consti-
tuition; that instead of dealing with the
electors in the relation which each stands to
the State and collectively as members of
one body, and that body the State, the act
treats of the voters as they are divided in to
political parties by their voluntary choice,
and it then confers upon the voters of some
political parties favors and 1mmunftieJ
based exclusively on numbers in party asso-
Citations or groups, which it absolutely de-
nles. under the prohibition and penalties of
the act, to the voters of other political par
ties in which voters are less numerous, thus
making numbers in political association the
basis for con ferring on some voters the free
dom, the quality and the uniformity assured
to every Qualified elector of the State by the
Constitution and for denying them to
others.
Minority Voters Not Disfranchised.
This contention is plausible but unsound.
The act does not deny to any voter the ex-
ercise of the elective franchise because he
happens to be a member of party which at
the last general election polled less than
three per cent OF the entire vote cast. The
provision referred to is but regulation, and
we think a reasonable one in regard to the
printing of tickets. The use of official bal
lots renders it absolutely necessary to make
some equations in regard to nominations,
in order to ascertain what names shall be
printed on the ballots.
"The right to vote can only be exercised
by the individual elector. The right to nom-
mate, flowing necessarily from the right to
vote, can only be exercised by a number of
voters acting together. 1t follows, II an Of
ficial ballot is to be used, nominations must
be regular in some way, otherwise the
scheme would be impracticable, and the Of
fcial ballot become the size OF a blanket.
"While so regulating it, the act carefully
preserves the right of every citizen to vote
Ior any candidate whose name is not on the
official ballot, and this is done in q manner
which does not impose any unnecessary in
convenience on the voter. The actual en-
forcement of the act will test this, as well as
many other matters connected with its oper-
alton. 1t is, ut least, probable that when
tested by experience it will be found to con-
tain many features that will need revision
and amendment. This can be safely LETT to
the Legislature, and is no reason why We
should declare the act unconstitutional.
Tho Ballot Law Is General
''The only specification of error in the
Ripples appeal, is that the court below erred
in refusing to grant the preliminary in
junction asked for. The principal ground of
contention in this, as in Merediths appeal,
is that the act i'll question Is a local and
special law, and, therefore, in contradiction
of the Constitution. 1t was alleged to be
special and local legislation because it does
not apply to any one of the cities of the Com
monwealtE whose boundaries are not CO.
extensive with the county. If the Tact were
as alleged, we would be compelled to de-
clare the act unconstitutional. An eXamina-
tion of it, however, does not satisfy us that
it does not apply to every portion OF the
State. Its language is general and applies to
all public offices, whether in counties, cities,
boroughs or townships.
"The law itself may be regarded in the
light of an attempt on the part of the people
to secure pure, free and unintimidated
ballot. Every presumption is in favor of
the constitutionaiity of the law, and it
would require q very clear case to justify us
in striking it down on the ground or its un-
As We view the act, there |
is nothing i'll which is so clearly violation
of the Constitution as to justify the Court in
striking it down. 1t would be out OF place
at this time to discuss its wisdom. Ifitshall
prove beneficial, the people will probably |
retain it with such amendments as the |
future may show wise Ii 1t does not meet
with the expectation of the people, they will |