The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-11-08
---<D-G1a- <---
AN IDAHO PROBLEM.


In Idaho a very interesting question
is raised in connection win the vote
on amendments to the STATE cc1atitu-
ton, one OF which is that giving the
ballot to women While this amend
ment and the others voted on have re-
ceived a majority eff the votes of
those voting on them, there is doubt
about their having been carried.
The doubt IS cast upon the result by
a provision Of the state constitution
which is that an amendment shall be-
come a part of the organic law if g.
When, at a previous election, an
amendment was submitted, the state
board Of canvassers drd not certify it
as having been adopted, though it re-
ceived a. majority of all votes cast on
the subject. The total vote on the
amendment was much less than the
vote cast for state officers, and the
board did not feel warranted in hold
ing that a majority of electors had
voted for it. No action was brought to
determine the meaning of the consti-
tuition, and now the question Will be
raised again. This year the problem
will be taken into the courts for solu-
ton.
The question simply is whether ma
jority of all the electors of the state
is necessary to carry an amendment
or only a majority of these voting on
the amendment. While the language
the latter view, some very peculiar
complications at once arise when the
attempt is made to depart from it.
If we accent the language majority
of electors" literally, we are confronted
with the question, What constitutes
such majority? Can it mean ma
jority of all those who are qualified to
vote? That would be the most reason
able meaning to put upon it, as the
assumption of those adhering to this
side of the question is that the con-
stItution intended that it shall not be
changed unless the change is favored
by a majority of all the people as repre-
scented by the electorate. But how can
the number of electors in the state be
determined? 1t cannot be determined
definitely, and therefore some other
criterion must be found.
Is it, then, a majority of all those
registered? That would come nearer
it, but there may be many persons
registered who are not qualified elect
ors; and many may leave the state
after registration. There is no provision
for reporting the number registered.
For these reasons it is impossible TO
determine from that source exactly
what majority of electors is. Such
majority may then be a majority of
those actually voting at an election
But tickets are always more or less
scratched, and there is no provision by
which the exact number of ballots cast
is reported to the canvassing board
the judges simply certifying the vote
So we find that. in the attempt to de-
termine what constitutes a majority of
the electors, we first have to leave out
of the computation that class who
failed to register Next we have to
leave out that class who, having
registered, failed to go to the polls
Both those classes have had full op-
portunity to participate in the election
upon the amendment. They have not
taken advantage of the opportunity,
and for manifest reasons they have to
be left out Of the calculation that de-
termines what a majority is. There
would then seem TO be much reason
for the contention OF those who hold
that those should also be left out who,
though going to the poEs, failed to
embrace the opportunity to vote on the
amendments. This would at least re-
duce the problem to a definite basis
and enable the board to determine ex-
actly whether or, not the amendments
had secured a majority. If 10000 votes
were cast on the question or questions
and 5,001 of them were yes" the
would be carried; whereas.
under any other construction it would
be impossible to determine what figure
constituted a majority