Freeland tribune. (Freeland, Pa.) 1888-1921, 1895-10-03
CAN VOTE FOR SEVEN.
LAWYER OLMSTEAD'S VIEW OF THE
SUPERIOR COURT ACT.

A Noted Constitutional Attorney Claim,
the Legislature Cannot Limit the Right
of Suffrage. Ther efore Electors MAY
Cast Their Ballots for Seven Judges
Since the holding of the political con
Ventlons that nominated candidates for
Judge of the superior court the question
of how many candidates voter can cast
his ballot for has been brought up and
seriously discussed by leading mon of
both parties One of them submitted
the matter to Attorney NJ. Z. Olmstcad
OF Harrisburg, one of the noted consti-
tutional lawyers of the state. Mr.. Ohm
stead's opinion on this point is as
follows:
The act of June 2l. 1895. establish
ing the new superior court attempts to
limit the voters right by declaring that
although seven judges are to be elected
mo clector may vote. either then or at
any subsequent election, for more than
| SIX candidates upon one ballot for the
said office" This limitation is in dero-
CATION of the voters constitutional right
and privilege. His right "to vote at all
elections is Incomplete if he may not
vote Tor as many Offices as are to be
hlled' or for as many persons as are to
be elected. If the legislature has the
power to enact that he may vote for six
ohly, II has equal power to declare that
he may vote for five, four, three. two CT
one only OF the candidates. The voter
Is as much interested in the seventh
judge as in any of the other six
The legislature has no more authori- |
~ 10 lIhlt the voter ; constitutional right |
to participate in the election of all the |
superior court Judges to be chosen than
1t has to declare that where two common |
pleas judges are to be elected at the
same time, or two, or three or four rep
reSentatlVeS are to be chosen in the
same city or county, no elcctor shall |
vote for more than one.
The act of 1895 is in conflict with the
constitution in that it is an attempt to
dcprlNe majority of the qualified voters
OF the privilege of participating in the
election of the seventh superior court
Judge. No matter how wise the princi-
pie of minority representation may be.
it cannot be enforced if contrary to the
letter and spirit of the constitution. and
If, as is apparently the case. the act of
1873 seeks to qualify, limit and restrain
the right OF suffrage which the constitu-
tlon has, Ill plain terms. conferred with
out any limitation whatever, then to
that extent the act of 1895 must fall.
l am of the opinion that each qualified
elector has the constitutional right to
vote Tor seven candidates, and that if
he shall choose to exercise that right his
ballot cannot lawfully be thrown ont
because containing more than six names.
There are number of other attoi
ncys besides Mr.. Olmstcad who believe
like him that the legislature exceeded
It's authority in limiting the voters
rights, while others claim that the law
IS not defective. If this difference of
opinion should continue and finally re-
suit in having the act declared uncon-
there would be few tears
she'd outside of those who expect to be-
come beneticiares of the law. The act
treating the superior court was unncc-
'ssary, and the quicker it is wiped from
,he statute books the better for litigaats
md the state treasury.