Decorah public opinion. (Decorah, Winneshiek County [Iowa]) 1895-1928, 1906-10-31


cred as are his rights to personal IL
berty or property, but he must go to
court OF law Tor them a court OF
equity Is one man power, welding
the strong force of injunction, often
issued at chambers, and on au eXparte
hearing Neither III England or
America has this power been suffered
To extend to political affairs. -
Without further quotation, 1t VIII
be sumcIeuu 10 cite the follow ING
additional cases supporting the gem
eral proposition that court OF equity
cannot interfere by INJUNCTION, to pro-
tect political rights:
Georgia V. Stanton, IA U. ,. POO;
Shoemaker V. Des Moines, 100 n.
| w. $50.
The conclusion is inevitable that so
far as the order of the lower court re-
strains the use of voting machines
authorized by the Board OF Super
visors to be used at the November
election, it is beyond the jurisdiction
and power of the court TO make and Is
void.
But by way of illustrating the kind
of questions which court Of equity
would be compelled to pass upon and
made determinative of the method OF
conducting elections if the power
/ which the lower court has attempted
to exercise were held TO be within Its
jurisdiction, we may refer TO a few
of the most important grounds pre-
scented to the lower court for granting
preliminary injunction.
! 1t is urged that the statute (2S u.
| A. CHI. 81; Code Sup. 1877 a-u) au-
thorizing the use of the voting ma
chimes is unconstitutional because of
| the provision in the state constitution
| Art. II, 81 that "All elections by the
| people shall he by ballot - In other
words the lower court was asked to
| interfere with a policy Of the state
| declared by the Legislature, unqucs-
| toned for six years and i'll accordance
with which elections have already
| been held in some of the counties and
will doubtless be held in many more,
whatever the result of the determine
| tion of the lower court on final hear
! ing may be for the action of that
court can only be binding on parties
| to the suit and the state of Iowa un-
| der whose authority the county of
Winneshiek acted i'll adopting voting
machines is not and cannot be party
to that suit or any other, for the de-
| termination of the question. If such
power exists in a court of equity
then the method of conducting cleo
tions provided for under this or any
other law may be interfered with and
set aside. 1t had been held, however.
| that voting by such machines is vot-
ing by ballot.
People ex rel Detroit v. Board of
Inspectors of Election, Mich 1902
N. w. 100, 90 L. r. A. 1884,
/ Lynch V. Malley, 2l5 Ill. 574, "A N.
f. 1873.
Without celebrating the discussion
i it is enough to say that the cOnstitu-
tional provision was intended to re-
quire and protect the secrecy of the
ballot with the general purpose to
guard against intimidation, securing
freedom in the exercise of the elective
franchise and reducing to minimum
the incentives to bribery.
Elk Parte Arnold. 1873 Mo. EGO, 80
l.. r. A. 1856, Am. st. Rep. 500. And
see case referred to in those above
cited
In no case, as far as we can discover
has the use OF voting machine been
| held unconstitutional. In Massachu-
sets the Supreme Court divided on
! the question whether vote cast by
means of such machine was written
vote" within the language on consti-
tuition of that state, and three judges
! held that it was. Under the constitu-
tion of Rhode Island requiring voting
by ballot, it was held that a provision
for voting machines was constitution
al, the court saying, 1.-The primary
meaning of ballot which signified
little ball, was not the one intended,
| but the broader meaning which has
been substituted for the word by rea
son Of the change in the mode of vOt-
ing from little balls to that of paper
vote. " We see no merit in the con-
tention that the provision for use OF
voting machines is unconstitutional
and that an election in that method
would be invalid.
1t is urged by counsel that the ma
chine adopted by the Board of Super.
visor has not been approved by the
Commissioner, provided for in Code
Sup. Sec. 1877 cd. But they admit
that the Commissioner did approve OF
this very machine, the real claim now
prior to the recent constitutional
amendment providing for biennial
elections and prior to the enactment
of the recent statute (3l CT. A. Oh. Al
striking the circle from the Austria
liam ballot. The biennial election
amendment make no change in the
method of conducting elections anC
the statute referred to does not amend
or repeal the provision as TO the ust
of voting machines. We see no reas vi
for saying that vote cast by means
of an authorized machine will not be
as valid and effectual as one cast by
Australian Ballot in accordance will
the latest statute on the subject.
1t is claimed that the machine
adopted has not sufficient capacity fol
the number of candidates to be voteC
for in 1908 when presidential electors
must be chosen: but this suit relates
to the election of 1906, and the lower
court was not called upon TO deter
mine the sufficiency of the machine
for 1908. So far as the validity OF
the order preventing the use of tn,
machine at the coming election is in.
volved. it is wholly unnecessary &c
discuss the validity of the contract
between the county and the voting
machine company. That is left foi
determination i'll the lower court.
The use of the machine under the
adoption thereof by the Board of Su-