The San Francisco call., 1908-05-31
Ballots and Machines
Election commissioner tells why he deems
purchase of mechanism under present law
is inexpedient

When that amendment is made the
machine company can so construct or
readapt its machines as to- meet that
requirement and when the state voting
machine commission shall have It's ex-
perts examine IL and certify that it Is
a safe device to so register the vote at
an election we shall be In position
to purchase a machine that can be used
at every election to certainty. and IL
viii be more simple. as there will be
no additions made by the machine.
This is the kind of machine IN uSs
in Minnesota. as lam informed by ons
to the officers of the machine COM
pany, and the new consolidated com
pany, which owns the Standard ma
chine (Which il is sought TO sell to us).
owns the patents under which the Min
nesota machines were built. 1t Is said
the Standard machine can readily bes
changed to such system III SO the
state voting machine commission will.
when the law is amended. certify It
when 50 changed 1t is not for the To-
cal election commission to determine
that point but for the state commits
sion.
Under the present conditions the
board of supervisors has. after con-
sidertng these facts. declined to ap-
propriate any money to purchase ma
chimes for this year. The election COM
mission is authorized by law when 10
shall resolve to hold an election by ma
chine to provide the machine 'as soon
as practicable thereafter" Why should
we resolve to hold an election by ma
chine when we have no certainty that
IL can be so held. and the situation
renders it very doubtful? Again. the
charter giving the board of supervisors
complete power over appropriations OF
money. II is not practicable" to pur-
chase machines. and believe we have
rn ha "a
been refused. If we had power TO run
the city in debt technically the action
of the supervisors would have the
greatest weight.
One hundred and fifty machines are
offered US for $3.50 each or ss7. 500 cash.
For the reasons stated no money Is
given to purchase. 1t Is now proposed
to US to purchase these machines upon
the installment plan and pay for the
same In six years. about $116,000. the
addition of more than SIT, 900 being for
interest on deferred payments 1t be-
ing concededly Illegal for US TO again
to pay in future years. IL is proposed
that we do the same thing by calling
the annual payments rent" This does
not alter the substance or purpose OF
the project and the purposes not ex-
pressed in the writing. that were
avowed. are part of the agreement.
The board in future years. IL II does
ments. is to forfeit all the money of the
city previously paid
This proposition, as to It's legality.
has been sent to the city attorney. but
it was stated that such action in no
way committed the commissioners TO
accept II even II it could be declared
legal II is in effect purchase. I'm one
way as much as another. and an in
vestment Of the funds of the city in.
and committing the city TO, a machine
that there is no certainty we can use.
If il may be used some years in others
it may not. Neither the commission
nor the voters can desire or endure
such uncertainty II we use machines
we should have one that can certainly
be used regularly so the voters may be
continuously educated to It's use and
not run the risk OF change from ma
chine to ballot at alternate elections.
Finally. the legislature meets next
January. and all this matter may be
settled speedily In the meantime the
November election, 1908, presents a
short ballot-only II names by any
party-and the ticket cannot require
one-half the time TO count required at
the city election Of last year.
These are the facts which induce me
to believe that the position I took
nearly a year ago in letter to The
Call. when the supervisors desired a
change to ballots. is correct. viz: That
the city should not invest in any vot-
ing machine until the next Legislature
meets and enables ii to get a machine
as above specified and the same is GER
titled by the state commission.
THOMAS v. GATOR.
May 81. 1908,