The record-union., 1892-03-15
THE SUPPOSED DEFECT IN THE
ELECTION LAW.

AdIuOuS one, one Cd1cu1dtSu W uSISdI GIe
ends of the law.
| The San Francisco Chronicle, which has
been the consistent opponent of the re-
form ballot system, quotes the RECORD
| UNION, in response to our contemporary,
| the Bee, as saying that no section of the
law can be safely stricken out, and that
its success is due to the detailed and ex-
| plicit character of the law. 1t then
| quotes the denunciation of the illiterate-
/ voter section by the Bulletin and the de-
mand of that journal for its repeal. and
adds that there is thus illustrated ''an ir
repressible conflict between the friends
and admirers of the ballot law" and de-
clares that it the Gtro1dcte) pointed out,
when the bill was before the Legislature,
the danger of the illiterate-voter section.
Thereupon the San Francisco Examiner
takes up the matter of the reported eva
sion of the law under the section referred
to, and very properly suggests that this
weak point is not new. Aid to illiterate
voters, it says, was provided in England,
Italy and New Zealand long before the
reform ballot system was introduced
here. Massachusetts put it into her re-
| form ballot system, and retains it after
| full debate and trial, while some of the
States even permit friend from the out
side to be brought into the booth by the
/ Nbo II II
/ The permission to bring friend" is more
! liable TO abuse than the California system, but
! the latter could be improved by providing
! that one officer of each party represented
should assist the iliiterate. The provision viii
! probably be found to give less opportunity for
| fraud than is feared even i'll its present condi-
ton. To use it for insuring tne delivery of
! purchased votes requires the corruptionist 10
have trusted agent on the election board.
The agent must violate his oath and the cor
rupt voter must commit perjury, and both
must take considerably greater chances of 60
ing to jail than under the Old system.
If the abuse is found to be very extensive it
can be corrected by dropping all provision for
! iliterates. In this day of universal education
! it would probably interfere with few electors
| Ii it is not thought necessary to 90 as far as
this the voter might be allowed to take a
sample ballot tan unoffcia1 paper into the
booth. With this, already marked by his
| friends, as a guide, even a man who could not
read would be able TO mark his ballot without
assistance, and without giving any one n
chance to make certain how he voted.
The section that creates all this debate
reads: "120S. Any elector who declares,
under oath, to the presiding election Off
Ger that he cannot read, and that by rea-
son thereof, or that by reason of physical
disability he is unable to mark his ballot
shall, upon request, receive the assistance
of any one of the officers Of election that
he may choose in the marking thereof"
etc.
Now, we reiterate, we would not have
any section of the law stricken out; cer-
tainly not that above quoted. So long as
illiterates are electors they must not be
deprived of the right to vote by indirec-
| ton. Any effort to do SO, under the or
ganic law as it stands, would be uncon-
next fall by the voters of the proposition
to be then submitted to advise the amend
ment of the Constitution, that those who
cannot read or write excepting the blind
shall not be deemed electors.
| But the elector who is without arms,
who is blind, who is paralyzed, who is
otherwise physically unable to prepare
his ballot, and is not an idiot, insane or
! incapacitated by drunkenness, should be
| entitled to assistance in the booth in
making his ballot. To the Bulletin let us
say that the section it pronounces as Evil
| 1ainous," does not one whit enlarge the
| opportunity the vote-buyer enjoyed under
the old law, but cripples it by requiring
an oath, thus interposing the menace of
| punishment for perjury. To the Chron-
icLe let it be replied also, that the promot-
ers of the law before the Legislature did
not lose sight of its objections to the Sec
tiops, but, with the Constitution as it is,
| could see no way of avoiding them with
out doing injury to some innocent voters.
/ To the Examiner also, let it be sug-
| gested, that a sample ballot is, under the
law as it is, furnished to every voter, and
I there is nothing to prevent him taking it
into the booth as guide, nor to the en-
ployment Of any other device. He is in
the booth alone, and it is matter resting
solely with himself as to the means he
may employ to refresh his memory or
guide his hand or his intelligence.
What the Examiner says is entirely true,
the supposed evil of the section is greatly
magniied, and by none more than by the
enemies of the law. who are frantic in the
endeavor to open the joints of its armor.
No law can be devised to prevent an cleo
ton officer violating his oath of Office
Honesty cannot be legislated into the
hearts of men. All that laws can do is to
direct what shall be done, and forbid that
which shall not be done, and attach pen
alties for violation of the law.
Out of 500 votes cast in this city last
week there were voted about 65 who took
the oath and received the aid guaranteed
/ by Section 120S. The weakness of the law
is in the failure to require an entry to be
made. or list kept in the challenge
book, by the ballot or tally clerks, of the
names and register number of those who
take the oath and receive the aid IF that
were done and the record made prima
facie evidence OF the fact in prosecutions
for perjury. we apprehend that there
would be very little perjury committed
! under the law. For the reform ballot