Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1902-05-31
iectionable on other grounds. I quote as

| follows:
''Section IS. At all primary elections
| there shall be an Australian ballot made
ND of the several tickets herein provided
for, all of which shall be securely fas-
| tened together at the top, provided that
there shall be as many separate tickets as
! there are parties entitled to participate
in said primary election. There shall
also be a nonpartisan ticket, upon winch,
| under the appropriate title of each office,
shall be printed the names OF all persons
| for whom nomination papers shall nave
been filed as required by this act, who
are not designated on such nomination
papers as candidates of any political par
| ty
A New Feature.
GA new feature here introduced was
that all the different tickets to be USED
at the primary elections were to be fast
ened together at the top, so that the voter
would have in his possession each one OF
the party tickets, and could turn them
! over as he could the leaves of note
book. The 'non-partisan' ticket was not
| provided for in the Stevens bill, but the
other tickets were the same as before.
The requirement that parties should
make their nominations on the same date,
at the same place. and by the use of the
an embarrassment to parties, for relief
from which they might have had to APP
ply to the courts.
''The primary election was to be the
time when, under all the claims of the
| advocates of the bill, and under the hit
eral reading of the platform declaration,
there was to be insured to each voter an
equal voice in the selection of the candi-
dates of his party, without let or him
drance on the part of any man. The
form of ballot proposed in the substi-
tute bill offered an opportunity to the
voters of all parties to mass in an effort
to force upon any party an obnoxious
candidate.
''The substitute bill endeavored to
safeguard the use of the ballot by the
following: Section II. They
shall put aside and not count for any
candidate any ballot upon which an elect
or has attempted to vote for candidates
upon more than one ticket Of such bal
lot. > This protection would
have been inadequate, even if it had been
| proper, thus to throw out all electOr' S
vote, to checkmate the scheme of mass
ing voters of all parties in support of
particular candidates of some one party
by inducing them to forego a vote for
any other candidate on the ticket of
their own party; in other words, to leave
their own party candidates named on
their own ticket to shift for themselves,
in order that they might foist candidates
upon some party whose nomination
would not have been made by the voters
of that party. If half that was assert
I'D lyrH FpIo IT,, Al, 1
political trickery were true, one might
frequently expect, especially in primaries
relating to nominations for city offices,
to see practiced such an imposition as
have just described. The supreme court
of California used this language in a
primary election case:
that electors holding GER
tain political principles in common may
freely assemble, organize themselves in
to political party, and use all legiti-
mate means to carry their principles of
government into active operation,
through the suffrages of their fellows
is inherent in the very form and
substance of our government. The con-
troll of the party and it's affairs, the pro-
mitigation and advocacy Of it's principles
are taken from the hands of the honest
members and turned over to the venal
and corrupt of other political parties, OF
OF none at all. A law which
thus permits the disruption and misrep-
resentation of a political party is an in
noVation of their reserved rights.
Position was Umtenable.
"Under the bill, as interpreted by it's
advocates, every possible advantage,
and, of course, every possible protection,
was to be given to the individual voter
that he might exercise his sovereign
right Of choice by direct vote in making
nominations for office; but at the same
time, the friends of the bill insisted that
they had no disposition to interfere with
parties or to permit the voters of differ
ent parties to interfere with each other
The attempt to maintain the party led
the Trainer Of the Stevens bill into an
untenable position respecting the secrecy
of the ballot, when it was provided that
the voter should first declare his party
utilization before he could receive his
ballot, and then, in the attempt to es-
cape from this position, party protec-
ton, with respect to the integrity of the
party ballot, was lost sight of. If we
admit that the form Of ballot provided
in either the Stevens bill or the substi-
tute bill was to all intents and purposes
the Australian ballot, then the only con-
clusion to be reached by the Legislature
was that the declaration of the platform
was impracticable, for the reason that
in the one bill the secrecy of the ballot
was sacrificed, and, in the other the
party control of the ballot. The Aus
tralian ballot is practical in, and prob
ably a permanent feature Of, our gen
eral election system, but, under pri-
mary election system for the nomination
of candidates, where all parties are re-
quired to act at the same time and
place, and by the same ballot, in the
light Of all that was brought to our
knowledge in the consideration of these
two bills, about its possible uses and
adaptabilities to primary elections, we
might certainly have expected it to have
been regarded as entirely unsatisfactory
and insufficient, whether judgment had
been passed upon it by individual voter,
political party, or court.
"The main features of the Stevens BILL
with reference to the methods to be pur-
sued in making nominations to be voted
for at a primary election, were, with min
or changes, brought into the substitute
bill. In the case of candidates for state
offices, the nomination papers were to be
circulated and signed by at least 2 pei
cent. Of the party vote i'll each of twenty
counties instead of twelve In the case