The times and democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1881-current, 1908-02-11
Reversed ITSELF.
That is What the Supreme Court
Did in the
Appeal of the DisfraDchised Voters in
the Calhoun County Election Case
Recently Decided.

There is no doubt but that the
State Supreme Court reversed itself,
in deciding as they did in the case of
the disfranchised voters in the CAL
houn County election, and we have
no doubt but that their decision will
be set aside by the Supreme Court of
the United States If the case is car
ried up to that>tribunal. We, give be-
low our reasons for saying that the
Supreme Court reversed itself in the
decision that robbed over one hun
dred voters Of this county of their
constitutional right to vote in a mat
ter of vital Importance to them
Messrs. Herbert and Wolfe made
magnificent fight for these disfran-
chised voters, and they were entitled
to verdict in their behalf
Messrs. Herbert and Wolfe clearly
proved that the secrecy of the ballot
was destroyed by two kinds of tick
cts being provided for the voters
This was in violation of the State
Constitution, which provides that the
ballot shall be secret, and was enough
to nulify the election of itself if we
are to take former decisions of the
State Supreme Court seriously. In
this State the secrecy Of the ballot
is so carefully guarded that ballot
to be legal is required to be printed
on certain kind of paper, certain
size and without devises or marks of
any kind thereon. Under this law
the "yes" ballots used in the CAL
houn County election was fatal to
that election If the Constitution Of
the State means anything.
Judge Cooley, who is an accepted
authority the world over on Consti-
tutional law, says "all devices by
which party managers are enabled to
distinguish ballots in the hands of
the voter, and thus determine wheth-
er he is voting for or against them,
are opposed to the spirit of the Con-
stitution, inasmuch as they tend to
defeat the design for which voting
by the ballo. is established" 1t was
brought out in the hearing before
the County Board Of Canvassers by
the testimony Of one of the mana
gers that he knew how the colored
voters voted at his poll from the
tickets they picked up and voted.
Anyone who is acquainted with the
circumstances will be compelled to
admit that the Eyes" ballot in the
Calhoun County election destroyed
the secrecy Of the ballot, except the
Judges of the State Supreme Court.
What the Law Books Say.
Messrs Herbert and Wolfe also
proved that the act Of the Legisla-
ture which failed to provide voting
places at which the qualified electors
in Goodbys, Parler and Orange
Townships residing within the pro-
posed new county might vote is un-
constitutional and void and the election
held hereunder illegal and a hulity.
They claimed this under the Con-
stitution Of the State which provides
that all elections shall be free and
open and every inhabitant Of this
State possessing the qualifications pro
vided for in this Constitution shall
have an equal right to vote" The
law books are unanimous on this
point. The American and English
Encyclopedia says: ANY law which
has the effect of disfranchising a
part Of the voters will be unconstitu-
tional"
"The legislature can pass no law
directly or indirectly either restrict
ing or extending the right Of suf-
frage as provided by the Constitu-
tion."
"The legislature cannot restrict
the constitutional right Of suffrage"
where authority is given by law
to hold an election, but there are pro-
visions in the law to restrict the Con-
stitutional right of suffrage, which
are enforced by the officers, the cleo
ton is void.
Judge Cooley, quoted above, says.
"It has been held on constitutional
grounds that a law creating a new
county, but SO framed as to leave
a portion of its territory unorganized
so that voters within such portion
could not participate in the election
of county officers was imperative and
void"
Judge Cooley further says: And
although the failure of any one elec-
tion precinct to hold an election, or
to make return Of the votes cast,
might not render the whole election
a nulity where the electors Of that
precinct were at liberty to vote had
they so chosen, or where. having
voted but failed to make return, it
is not made to appear that the votes
not returned would have changed
the result, yet If any action was re-
quired Of the public authorities pre-
liminary to the election, and that
which was taken was not such as to
give all the electors the opportunity
to participate, and no mode was open
to the electors by which the officers
might be compelled to act, it would
seem that such h' elect, constituting
as it would the disfrauchisement of
the excluded electors pro hac vice,
must on general principles render the
whole election migratory, for that