Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1911-07-04
OPEN LETTER TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
Wherein the Present Ballot Law is
Unconstitutional.
To the judiciary Committee of til
L

To the Judiciary Committee of the
Connecticut Legislature:
Gentlemen: AS l was not informed
of the time set for the hearing before
you on proposed changes in the exist
ing ballot law of this state, l failed to
attend on that occasion, and now beg
the privilege of making a few brief
suggestions which | should have Of
fered had 1 been present.
You are probably aware that l am
strongly opposed to the Australian bal
lot system both in it's principles and
details for reasons which / have so
often publicly explained that 1t would
be superduouS to repeat them here
especially as they have been so fully
supported by the troubles which have
attended the town and state elections
in Connecticut during the past year.
shall therefore not now dwell upon
these objections so far as they are of
general nature, but desire to call
your serious attention as lawyers, leg
islators and citizens sworn in those
three different capacities to support
the constitution of the state to the
following features of the existing bal
lot law. which as I claim directly vic
late that constitution and which. if so,
cannot consistently receive your rec
ommendation as continuing features in
that enactment.
My contention is that the present
ballot law is unconstitutional in at
least the following particulars:
lit forbids a written ballot, which
the constitution expressly allows.
Const Art. III, sec. ), and amendment.
Art. III.
lit forbids votes to be counted,
which the constitution declares shall
be counted. Const., Art. III, sec. 5, and
amendment, Art. III.
Hit commands that electors be
disfranchised by the wholesale in an
unC0n Stif1tinn9l ri no
mere inspection of their ballots; for
unconstitutional reasons, viz, not on
account of previous conviction of crime,
but by the imputation against proba-
bility and against legal presumption
of a corrupt intent, and regardless
intent to exist or not; without notice
to the parties affected and without
their knowledge without opportunity
for them to appeal; and, as the su-
preme court has decided, without the
possibility of personal redress. Const.,
Art. VI. sec. 8, Decl. Rights, secs. 81,
%, II, 81 Conn. Reports, 324.
1t will be noticed that the supreme
court has never passed upon the con-
stitutionality of the existing law or its
predecessor in respect to any of the
above named features and that when
at four different times their constitu-
tionality was put directly in issue be-
fore it, it strenuously avoided deciding
that question, which it unquestionably
would not have done had it believed
the law constitutional. 1t must be re-
garded, therefore, as having virtually
given an adverse opinion N opinion
not expressed only through its well
known reluctance to set aside a legis-
latiye enactment. Such a sentiment,
however, can have no plaza in your
committee, which is the legal adviser
of the legislature, and now that the
question of constitutionality is direct
ly raised the responsibility rests upon
yourselves individually and collectively
to determine whether any of the fore
going objections to the law are well
taken or not. A report from you which
ignores them will of course be regard
ed as your decision both professionally
and personally that they are ground
less. If, however, your conclusion is
otherwise you will undoubtedly indi-
cate in some way your sense of obli-
cation both as LAWYERS and legisla tors
to support the constitution and to pro-
tect the rights and liberties of the
citizen.
HENRY T. BLAKE
New Haven June %, 1911.