Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1909-04-09

more than one was to be elected, was
held unconstitutional az unlawfully al
fecting the elective franchise by CIV
ing an undue value to the choice OF
an elector who wished to curnulate his
votes upon one candidate. Maynard
vs.. Board of Canvassers, "a Mich.
22S.< The Michigan statute was prac-
tically the same as ours. In an fort
to realize minority representation In
Ohio the restrictive plan was enacted
into law without constitutional author
ity. In the case OF State VS.. Constan-
tine, ~ Ohio st. 437, the supreme
court, held the law unconstitutional
and that 1t was the right of every
elector to vote for every candidate or
person to fill the Offices provided by
law to be elected by vote of electors,
and law which said that no person
could vote for more than two of the
four persons to be elected, took away
from the elector a substantial right
guaranteed him by the constitution.
In Pennsylvania, West Virginia. Ne
braska, Missouri, California, North d.
kota, and some other states, by con-
stitutional enactment, cumulative vot-
ing 10 permitted upon stock IN corpor-
ations, but not for public officers.
In the constitutional convention OF
North Dakota held in 1889, with
view Of securing minority representa-
ton, Mr.. Purcell moved that leach
elector may cast as many votes for
members Of the house Of representa-
tives "a there were members to be
elected in his district, or may cast
the whole number OF votes for one
candidate, or divide his votes among
the candidates as he may see At"
This resolution was not adopted by
the convention. Upon being put to
vote the motion was lost by vote
Of "a to 40. The proposition was not
presented for the purpose of having
1t incorporated in the constitution,
but for the purpose of having it sub
mitted to a vote of the people. These
proceedings are recorded In the de-
bates of the constitutional convention
beginning at page 347. This action on
the part OF the trainers Of our consti-
tuition throws light on those provis-
ions in that instrument relating to the
elective franchise in this, that the
courts would not be left to q con-
struction of those provisions by i'm
plbcation solely; in other words, a con-
tention that legislative enactments
permitting cumulative voting should
be construed as constitutional because
the constitution did not expressly pro-
hibit such, would not be sustained. It
is frequently urged that any subjec:
not considered by constitutional con-
vention may be deemed by implication
as authorized by the constitution
adopted In this case no such claim
can be made for the question Of cumu-
lative voting was fairly before our
convention, duly con-
sidered and the idea rejected. In all
the case on this subject the courts
have held that under popular gov
the majority must rule and
the will Of the majority can only tH
by the scheme allowing
each elector >one vote. In the Noun
traille county case decided by the SUI
preme court of North Dakota Jan: 16,
1909, the court indirectly expressed
itself on this question. The court not
only committed this state to the doc
trine of majority rule but assumed
that it extended to all other states.
The court said: According to the
doctrine the majority is en-
titled to- rule-the preference of a
on any question is expressed