The age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1897-1902, 1899-07-02

shall deposit ballot which on its face, as
summing knowledge on his part of its cons
tents, evidences his wish that the proposed
amendment should beome part of the or
ganic law. And so, indulging this presump-
ton, because it is justified by the facts and
Is a sine qua non to government by the
people, there is no difficulty in ascertaining
with the same certainty that has always
sufficed in elections whether a majority of
the voters voting at the election provided
for in this act actually and affirmatively
voted for the amendment within the spirit
and meaning of the constitution" Since
the result is to be arrived at by counting
for the amendment all the ballots which
have the words For Birmingham Amend
ment' intact upon them, and against it all
those ballots from which those words have
been erased, there is no danger of the adop-
ton of the amendment being declared al
though majority of the voters had no in
tention to vote on for the amendment:
but to the contrary, the ballots themselves
conclusvely evidence that manifestation of
the voters intention which the constitution
requires. And this is all that the constitu-
ton does require-a majority of the votes
cast at that election for the amendment
When there is such majority shown by af-
firmative ballots the constitution is not
concerned about the minority If that min
GRITTY desired not to vote al all on the propo-
stion and so to be counted against it, the
one way or the other, had either to strike
off the amendment so vote against it, or
leave 1t on, and so vote for 1t, does not de-
stroy the integrity of the majority of the
whole vote at that election who have in le-
gal contemplation afflrma lively expressed
their favor for the amendment.
The whole argument for appellant on this
part of the case, it seems to us, is at fault
in assuming that the casting of a ballot
upon which is printed the words "For Bir-
mingham Amendment is not affirmative
action on the part of the voter in favor of
the amendment. That assumption being
eliminated, the argument falls to the
ground, and the conclusion we are asked in
this connection to draw aganst the law has
nothing to rest upon.
AS part and in conclusion of our discus
sion of the case in this connection, we
adopt an opinion upon it prepared by Judge
r. w. Walker at the instance of appellee's
counsel After stating the provisions of
section of the act he says:
1.-The question submitted is: Is there any
thing in the constitution OF Alabama which
prohibited the legislature from making the
regulation contained in said section in
spect of the preparation of the ballot and
the manner of voting; in other words, was
it competent for the legislature to prescribe
that the words For Birmingham Amend
ment' should be printed the official bal
lots andto declare that the leaving of said
words upon the ballot shall be taken as a
favorable vote, and the erasure striking
out of said words shall be taken an adj
verse vote upon said amendment?
1.-THE extent of the requirements of the
constitution of Alabama touching the meth
cd of voting upon a proposed amend
ment of that instrument Is the provision
that all elections by the people shall be by
ballot and the provision for the opening of
a poll for the vote of the qualified electors
on the proposed amendment. These two
provisions together amount simply to a re-
quirement that a proposed amendment
shall be submitted to the qualified electors
of the state for their vote upon it by bal
lot. The constitution expressly RENTS to
the general assembly the matter of regulat-
ing and governing elections by laws which
are required to be uniform throughout the
state. 1t cannot be doubted that the form
of the ballot and the method of indicating
the voters choice are matters for legisia-
tive regulation OF course, 1t would not he
competent for the Legislature under the
guise of regulations, to effect practical
denial of the free exercise of the elective
franchise. But there can be no question OF a
regulation really amounting to depriva-
ton of the right to vote where the meaning
of what is put upon the ballot requires to
be used by the voter is plain to a common
understanding, and the method prescribed
for the indication of his choice by the voter
is easy to be comprehended and not dill
cult to be followed. 1t is certainly not I'M
reasonable to assume that the voter is to
inform himself of the contents of the bal
lot he casts where the meaning is obvious
to one who can read, and could not be mis-
understood by an illiterate voter who seeks
information as to what is upon the ballot
put into his hands. The words For Biz
mingham Amendment printed in conspic-
uous place upon the ballot in question,
plainly indicate a choice In favor of the
A sting q ballot known
to have these words upon it must have I'M
derstood that he was thereby expressing
himself in favor of the amendment If he
wished to vote against the proposed amend
ment all that was required was the erasure
or striking out with pen or pencil of those
words. The method prescribed by the stat
ute for the voter indicating his choice to
vote for or against the amendment was
simplicity itself; and, though that method
varied from the one adopted in the recent
ly enacted general election law, yet it was
a method by no means unfamiliar to the
electors of the state. AS to the method of
voting on this amendment, the Legislature
simply revived the old way, familiar to the
people. of casting an adverse vote by
scratching the ticket 1t seems that any
suggestion against the validity of the pro-
vision in question must be based upan the
assumption that it was not competent for
the legislature to make a provision in
ference to the ballot which involves the
possibility of a vote in favor of person or
proposition being the result of the voters
deliberate or negligent failure to inform
himself of the contents of the ballot he
casts and of the method prescribed by law
for the indication of his choice. Any such
assumption 1 regard as wholly unwarrant-
ed. Where the method of indicating his
choice the one way or the other is plain
and simple, the provision on the subject
cannot be rendered invalid by the mere
possibility that, the result of the care
lessness of the voter, his act in casting his
ballot may have an effect not actually con-
templated by him."
And so we conclude that the first objec-
ton to the act relied on, as stated in the
beginning of this opinion, by appellants
counsel is untenable and unavailing. aSTe
On the second ground of objection to the
act above stated, little we think needsbe
said. 1t is, to repeat. that 1.-THE statute
violates section / of article of the consti-
tuition, which fixes the qualifications of
voter and guarantees to every citizen pos
sessing these qualifications the right to
vote at every election by the people," And
the argument Is that inasmuch as the con-.
stitution does not require the election to
vote upon all Offices to be filled at an cleo