The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-12-23

WneIner the court DronounceS ii a legal
secret ballot or not. The fact is that
such ballot is not secret within the
meaning and intent of the constitution.
Whether the method provided by the
legislature is the best. or only method
which can be of avail in an election con-
TEST, does not concern this court IL
might be suggested. however, that cleo
ticn contests occupied the attention of
courts before such a ballot was invented,
and considera tons of conyeniences in
election contests can have no influence
with the court in determining the Ques-
ton under consideration. legal voter.
even IN contest. cannot be compelled
10 disclose his ballot much less should
re be compelled to vote one from which
1t may be ascertained by others. or even
court, how he voted. And this upon
consideration of public policy that the
preserved
PERTINENT CITATIONS.
Ia Cooley's const. lin. 7s2 9th ed) the
The courts have held that a voter.
even IN case of a contested election, can
not be compelled to disclose for whom
I re voted: and for the same reason we
think others who may accidentally, or
by trick or artifice, have acquired knowi-
edge of the subject should not be allowed
to give any Information in the
courts upon the subject. Public pol
icy requires that the veil of secrecy
should be inlpenetrable, unless the voter
himself voluntarily determines to list it,;
ms ballot is absolutely privileged, and to
allow evidence of its contents when he
mas not waived the privilege is to en-
courage trick and fraud. and would in
erect establish this remarkable anomaly.
that, while the law of motives of public
poAcy establishes the secret ballot with =
view 10 conceal the electors action, 1t at
the same time encourages a system of
! espionage, by means of which the veil of
secrecy may be penetrated and the voters
action disclosed to the public"
it Is said:
THE secret ballot is justly regarded as
an important and valuable safeguard for
the protection of the voter, and partic-
ularly the humble citizen. against the
innuence which wealth and station may
/ De supposed to exercise. And it is for this
reason that the privacy is held not to be
UNITED TO the moment of depositing the
pallot, but is sacredly guarded by the
law FOR all time unless the voter him
self shall voluntarily divulge it,
IN Paine on Elections section 535, the
author states the law as follows:
constitutional provision that all cleo
IONS shall be. held by ballot. guarantees
the secrecy of the ballot and is violated
Dy statute requiring the tickets to be
numbered, to correspond with-the voters
numbers on the poll list
In the case of the People VS.. Cicott. 16
Mich. 2S3, Mr.. Justice Campbell said:
:, Inc reason why the ballot is made OBJ
ngatory by our constitution is to secure
/
one else from knowing how he voted, and
there Is no propriety in any rule which
renders such safeguard valueless.'
And again he says:
1T would be better to do away at once
with the whole ballot, than to have legal
tribunals give any aid or countenance to
indlrect violations of its security"
so the supreme court of Minnesota, in
Brisbin vs.. Cleary. IS Mimi, 107, speaking
through Mr.. Justice Berry, said:
Inc statutory provision with regard TO
L a fVr Of rsAl-A -
clearly interferes with and violates the
voters constitutional privilege of secrecy.
Inc voter cannot be required to submit
to its application to the ticket offered
by him, and if. upon refusing to so sub
NIT, he is debarred from voting. he may
maintain his action for damages against
the persons debarring him."
The constitution of Indiana containing a
provision that "All elections shall be by
Dallot, statute was enacted which pro-
v:ded as follows: 1T shall be the duty
this state on receiving the ballot of a
voter to have the same numbered with
figures on the outside or back thereof. TO
correspond with the number placed op-
posite the name of such voter on the poll
list kept by the clerks of said election
The supreme court of that state. in
the ballot secured by the constitution was
secret ballot, Mr.. Justice Petit. deliver
ing the opinion of the court. said:
MY convictions are clear that our con-
cure the absolute secrecy of a ballot, and
that the act in question, which directs
the numbering of tickets, to correspond
with the numbers opposite the names of
the electors on the poll lists. is in palpable
conflict not only with the spirit, but with
the substance of the constitutional pro-
vision.
This act was intended to. and does,
clearly identify every mans ticket. and
renders II easy to ascertain exactly how
any particular person voted. That Sc
xnrfaf lob aed Nv oil y
TO be essential TO the free exercise of
suffrage, is as much violation by this law
as if 1t had declared that the election
should be viva voice."
Mr. Justice DEMO, in People VS.. Pease,
q n. ", IS. 81. used the following Ian
guage:
Il have already alluded to the policy
of the law providing for a secret ballot.
The right TO vote in this manner has
usually been considered an important and
valuable safeguard of the independence
Of the humble citizen against the influence
which wealth and station might be sup
posed to exercise This object would be
accomplished but very imperfectly, If the
privacy supposed TO be secured was limit
el 20 the moment OF depositing the bal
lot. The spirit of the system requires
that the elector should be secured then,
rroach or animadversion. or any other
prejudice. on account of having voted
according to his own unbiased judgment;
and that security is made TO consist in
mind all knowledge of the manner in /
which he has bestowed his suffrage
Cooley on Consti. lin. 9th ed D. 200.
McCreary on Elections, Sec 454.
Williams VS.. Stein, IS Ind, So
Pennington VS.. Hare. 81 n. W. r. 1l6
Atty. General VS.. McQuade, 81 Mich, |
4S9.
Parvin VS.. winberg ct al. 30 n. E. S.
79i
State ex. rel VS.. Anderson. S. So. Rep. /. |
In states where the constitution ex-
pressly provides for numbering the bal /
lots the courts doubtless hold such num-
berng lawful, and the provision manda- |
constitution in article 6. section 4, pro- 1
IN all elections by the people. the vote
shall be by ballot. and the legislature |
shall provide for the numbering of |
tickets. etc"
AS wiz be seen in that state the num-
bering of ballots is expressly authorized |
by the organic law. whereas our con-
stituticn not only has no such provision |
but expressly commands a secret ballot. |
The case of Hodges il VS. Linn, 100
H., 397, cited in the opinion of the ch;eI
Justice ought to be regarded as con-
cause the constitution of that state does
rot especially provide that the ballot
shall be secret See constitution of III. /
GS70). art. :, sec. 2.
The same may be said of the Missouri
cases, cited in the opinion See consti-
tuition of Missouri QS65). art 2. Sec l.
WHOLE OF THE ACT NOT INVALID.
/ am of the opinion that SO much of sec
ton %. of the act approved March 18th.
1895. session laws. 49, as provides for
the identification of the ballots is in viola