The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1911-10-11
LEVY ELECTION Law
DECLARED INVALID


Continued from First Page.
that each voter shall have the same fa-
ciities as any other voter in expressing
his will at the ballot box. so far as practi-
cable. Any other principle, in our judg-
ment. would be destructive Of fair elec-
tons Some impediments to the exercise
of the right to vote are. as already ated,
under any practicable system of conduct
ing elections unavoidable. and when
these impediments are dependent on
circumstances and conditions not con-
| nected with the status OF the candidates
for whom the vote is to be cast they rarely
affect the result Of an election-the losses
Of one candidate being offset by those
Of the others.
| MAKES VOTING MORE DIFFICULT.
Not 80 with the impediments of the
kind prescribed by this statute, which
are directed solely at the character OF
the particular nominee for whom the
vote is to be cast The change from the
old system does not diminish the size Of
the ballot, nor does it decrease the printing 9
| on IL. 1t does not tend to make Votin Z
easier for the elector or to avoid con-
fusion in his pcrty. but has the contrary
effect Surely the name of a candidate
printed in the appropriate column is less
confusing to the elcctor than reference
to some other column denoted only by
its party neEle
while the Constitution does not guar
sntee that the elector shall he allowed
| to express his vote by sinkle mark. our
position is ths; he is guaranteed the right
to express his will by single mark il
other voters ere given the right to expres'
theirs by q single mark. and there is no
difficulty in according the right to all
Inequality in the facilities afforded the
electors in casting their votes may defeat
| the will of the people as thoroughly as
restrictions which the courts would hold
20 operate as disfranchisement Of voters
CLOSE VOTE OF 1884 CITED.
"In 1884 the control of the government
of the whole country was transferred
through the votes Of this State by an
average plurality of less than l.i5O votes.
The vote for the electors OF the successful
party was over $4,000. Therefore if
an inconvenience in the method of cast
ing his vote. applicable to one candidate
only. had Affected but one man in 500
the result would have been changed.
If il were provided that voting on the
blanket ballot should be done by either
writing or pasting thereon under the
names Of the offices to be filled the names
Of the candidates it is not GER, Iin that
this plan could be condemned as creating
such obstacles to the exercise of the
rights of the electors as to render the
scheme unconstitutional, but if the plan
went further and provided that the can
didates of the party polling the highest
vote at the last election should be printed
in one column and the electors allowed
to vote therefor by a cross (X) mark while
all the other candidates were requi red
TO be e.voted for by writing or pasting their
names on the ballots think no one would
hesitate to condemn the scheme as un-
constitutional. Certainly under that
turning out the party in power.
The condemnation of such statute
would proceed, at least primarily, not on
the ground that it disfranchised the
voters. but on account OF the unequal
opportunities to vote afforded the elec.
that equality Of opportunity should he
afforded electors is fundamental prin
ciple Of the constitutional law of thi.
State we need only refer to the first Con
stitution adopted by us: Previous t'
the Revolution elections in the Colony
were held viva voce. The Constitution
| of i777 recited:
Whereas an opinion has long prevailec
among divers of the good people of thi
State that voting at elections by ballo
| would tend more TO preserve the liberty
and equal freedom OF the people thar
voting viva voce: to the end. therefore
that fair experiment be made which OF
these two methods of voting is to be pre-
ferred. and it directed that after the ter
mination of the war then existing he
tween the Colonies and Great Britain
the Legisla ture should enact that election
| for Senators and Representa- tives shoulC
be by ballot and should direct the manner
in which the same should he conducted,
DETERMINATION SERIOUS,
I'VE therefore hold the statutory
provisions challenged to he unconsritu
tional because they unnecessa rily anC
substantially discriminate between cleo
tors in the opportunities and facilities
afforded for voting for the candidates Of
their choice. II the discrimination were
trivial our decision would be different
and where voting machines are used ths
difficulty Of voting split ticket is still
greater than where voting is by ballot.
1T is urged that there are inequaltie,
under the old form of ballot, but at leas,
tho most of these inequalities are un
avoidab BILE The party that polled at thu
last election the greatest number of vote,
is given the first column on the ba allot
As long as the face OF the ballot is plair
surface, which has always been the cass
with us, and there is party column some
party must have the first place Every
candidate is not given the right to have
his name printed on the official ballot
Such provision would render an ofiioia
ballot impossible. But not only are al
parties or bodies polling 10000 votes
which Is less than per cent OF the whole
vote OF tho State. given the right to a
separate column but independent bodies.
on the petition Of but a small fraction OF
the electorate. have the, same right. -,