Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1909-04-11

! eva or "Gilpin" plan, the Hare
plan or single vote" and the "Cumu-
lative" plan. The cumulative plan re-
quires two or three or more to be
elected and permits the elector 10 cast
as many votes rs there are persons
10 be elected an to distribute votes
among the candidates as the elector
may choose. The courts have held
that none of these schemes were SUI
sceptlble of accomplishing the result
desired, namely. proportionate mi
nority representation, because the ac-
tual working effect of the cumulative
plan was to defeat and override the
will of an individual elector in such
case, but which do represent a legal
stuffing Of the ballot boxes with false
votes; the effect being in case ~ tine
restrictive plan, to take away
constitution rights Of the elector. All
Of the original state constitutions pro-
vided that the elector may express his
will by casting one vote for an off,
Ger to be elected or on proposition
submitted and no more, and by nee
essary implication forbid the casting
of more than one vote. This method
Is the only way to express the will of
the majority, and the majority rule
is the fundamental principle involved
in a Republican or Democrat g)vcra-
ment, that Is, a government by the
people. 1t is declared in the text of
the Am. and Eng. Encyclopedias of
Law Vol. 8, page 494, that the right to
cumu!ate votes did not exist as COM
mon law, nor does it now exist in
any case unless conferred by express
constitutional or statutory provision.
Illinois is the only state in the Union
that permits cumulative voting for
public officers by constitutional pro-
vision; the people included this feat
ure OF voting in the constitution
adopted in 1870. The legislative en-
actments Of every other state that at
tempted to provide any scheme to
secure minority representation, inde-
pendent Of constitutional authorize.
ton, have been held unconstitutional.
I'm michigan an act of the legislature
providing for cumulative voting for
Representatives,, in districts where
more than one was to be elected. was
held unconstitutional as unlawfully af-
fecting the elective franchise by CIV
ing an undue value to the choice OF
an elector who wished to cumulate his
votes upon one candidate. Maynard
VS.. Board of Canvassers, 81 Mich.
228. The Michigan statute was prac-
tically the same as ours. In an Hort
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, AZ Ohio st. 437, the supreme
court held the law unconstitutional
and that it 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 a 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 Da-
kota, and some other states, by con-
stitutional enactment, cumulative vot-
ing is permitted upon stock in corpor-
atoms. but not for public officers.
In the constitutional convention of
North Dakota held in 1889, with a
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 as 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. ~