Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1896-12-23

| guarded by tho law for all time unless
| tho voter himself shall voluntarily
| divulgo IL.
In Paiue on Elections, sec. 635, the
author states the law ~ folIow.:
a constitutional provision that all cleo
| Il Ms shall be held by ballot, guarantees
| he secrecy OF the ballot, ana Is violated
| by II statute requiring tho lir cts TO be
numbered to correspond vt. he voters'
numbers on the poll-list
In tho case OF the rao lie VS. CicOtt,
10 Mich, 2s8, Mir. J.-..5l Campbell
silI:
The reason w tio ballot is made
obligatory by GU, constitution is 10 So
cure every one tho right OF preventing
anyone elso from knowing how he voted,
and thgro is no proprioty In any rule
which renders such n saiegunrd valueless.
And AGAIN. I've aye
It would DO bouoi To do away ut once
| with tha whole ballot TO to have legal
4 tribunals give any aid or counienance 10
indirect violations VI us security.
So the Supreme oourt Of Minnesota,
In Btispin vs. Cieury, SO Mimi, LOO,
speaking through Mr.. Justice Borry,
said:
Tho statutory provision with regard to
| the numbering oftickets, above quoted,
| clearly intorferes win and violates tho
voiera constitutional privilege OF
| secrecy. The voter cannot be required
TO submit to its application to the ticket
| offered by him, and u, upon refusing TO
~ submit, be is dobarred from voting
no may MAINTAIN his action for damages
against the persons debarring him.
Tho constitution OF Indiana contain-
lug n provisi nIthet" Gan elections stall
be by ballot,"a statute was enacted,
which provided no iollows:
Il shall be the duty Of tho inspector OF
any election held in this state, on Ioceiv-
ing the ballo. of voter,tp have the same
numbered wi Ii figures on the outside or
| back thereof, to correspond with the
number placed opposite tho name OF such
voter on the poll-lisl kept by the clerks
OF said election.
The Supreme court OF that state, in
Williams VS. Ste,u, IS inp. 30, held that
the ballot occurred by the constitution
was secret ballot. Mr.. Justice Petit,
delivering the opinion OF the couri,
said:
My convictions are clear that our con-
stituiion was Intended to, and does, Sc
euro the absolute secrecy OF u ballot, and
thhe tHb tct III lubsuhu, NulCn ulTects
| the numbering OF ticke 5, TO correspond
with tho numbers opposite the names OF
tho electors on the poll-lisis, is in palp-
ablo conflict not only with the spirit but
with tho substance OF the constitutional
provision.
This act was intended to, and does,
| clearly IDENTITY every mans ticket, and
renders it easy to ascertain exactly how
any particular person voted. That
secrecy when Is esteemed by all author
ity to be essential to the free exercise of
suffrage, is as much violated by this law
as IL 1t bad declared that the election
should DO viva voce.
Mr.. Chief Justice DEMO, in People
vs. Pease, q n. Y, As, 81, used tho
following language:
have already alluded to the policy OF
the law providing for secret ballot.
The right to vote in this 'lnanner has
usually been considered an important
and valuable safeguard of the indie
pendence OF the humble citizen against
tho influence which wealth aud stati on
might be supposed to exercise. This
object would be accomplished but very
imperfecily If the privacy supposed to
be scared was limited to The moment OF
, depositing the ballot. The spirit Of the
system requires that the elector should
, be secured then, and nj all times there
after, against reproach or animad-
, version, or any other prejudice, on &C.
count OF having voted. according 10
his own unbiased judgments; aud that
security IL made to consist In
shutting up within the privacy of his
own mind all knowledge OF the manner
in which he has bestowed his suffrage
Cooley on Const. Lin. 10Th ed.) ~. 760; Nc
Crary on Elections, sec. 45i; Williams va
Stein, IS Ind, 50; Pennington VS. Hare, @.
H. a q.
/ n W. n? iio; Attorney General vs. Nc
, Q nde, 81 Mich, 432: Parvin VS. Winberl
etRl, Il. r., 79l; State ex rel Smith v,
Anderson, So. Rep, l.
In States where the Constitution ex
/ pfessly provides for numbering the bal
?. lots tue courts doubtless hold spct
numbering lawful, and the provision
? mRndatory. THIS Ia 80 in rsxss, wher,
I the Constitution In art. vi, acc. 4, pro
/. videt:
In all elections by tho people, the vot,
shall he by ballot, and tho LegislatuT,
Q shall provide for tho numbering o
, tickets, etc.
a The State VS. ConDor, So Texas, 1888.
AS will be seen In that State tn,
r numbering OF ballots is expr, ssly au
thorzed by the organic law, wherea
our Constitution not only has no sucl
q | puS eAfhe11io
!, secret ballot.
y The case OF Hodge, Jr. va Linn, l0l
a III, 1857, cited in the opinion OF tn,
!, chief justice, ought not 10 be reRarde,
rs o Controlling authority In the css
!. at bar, because the Constitution o
4 that state does not expressly provid,
!, that the ballot sball be secret. Sc,
= Consultation OF ILL.,, US7O) art. vii
/, sec. 9.
4. The same may be said OF the Mis-
eouri cases, cited in the opinion. SCI
!. Constitution OF Missouri, (lse5) art. II
- sec. /.
l am Of the opiBion that go much o
i. sec. 20, OF the act approved Marcn 2S
4 1895, sess. laws, 1853, as provides for tn,
Identification OF tue ballot, Is In viola
: ton OF the Constitution and void, ant
. unmindiul oil the salutary rule that, II
n tho Interpretation OF statutes, al
n doubts should be solved in favor Of tn,
a constiIutionslity of their enactment,
"a The rule is well established ami founu
cd In the highest wisdom. Because
, hnwever, a small portion Of 40 act /
invalid, 1t does not necessatily follow