The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1920-02-28
ss. 4.n~ W0n1ens Home Page 7" S%.ss:,, ,~.
Predicts Crisis On
 Suffr' age AIrleIldIrlen

Wisconsin and Ohio elections are al- ready jeopardized by the passage of
 bills (contrary to their State Consti- tutions) allowing women to vote on
 the Presidential election. The Indiana Supreme Court October g, 1917l has held this legislation unconstitu- tional, but the Indiana legislature, under the suffrage whip, and ap-
 parent1y wishing to please the wo-
 men, by passing another bill of this
 sort, again adopted a Presidential suffrage resolution in 1919 - which has not yet been attacked in the courts. In Ohio and Maine, the anti suffra gists have filed referenda on the Presidential suffrage bills, which vii lbe decided by popular vote next No vember. In all the above States either party Cor any candidate) can challenge the electoral vote on the grounds of the il1egaIity of votes cast by women, contrary to the State con- stitution.
 In Illinois, Tennessee and Rhode
 Island (where the constitutions do
 not specify that only "ma1es'' are en- i titled to vote in ''al1 elections") the Presidential suffrage bills are con- stitutional- The Illinois and Ten nessee Supreme Courts have upheld them in these States, but solely be- cause there was no conflict with the State Constitutions, which vary, of ! course, in the different States.
 In Indiana, the 'tall elections" ! clause prohibits Presidential suffrage i as decided by the Indiana Supreme i Court in 1917, while in North Dakota, 1 Wisconsin and Minnesota stronger
 and more specific clause positively prohibits the 1egisla ture from extend | ing suffrage until the proposal has i been approved by the voters None /; of these Presidential suffrage bills
 has been so submitted in these i States. In Ohio, in 1917, the anti | suffragists filed a referendum peti-
 ton on Presidential suffrage, and re- pealed it by 146,12 majority-but l the legislature in 1919, passed an | other such bill, and we filed another l referendum, so that there is a double 1 referendum now pending in Ohio, on
 ratification of the Federal amend
 ment (which is now before the U. S. 1 Supreme Court) and on Presidential
 suffrage. Both will be voted upon in 1 November.
 1 A correspondent of the Associated
 Press recently asked the writer. in a
 tone of shocked surprise, whether we l anti-suffrag agists would deliberately
 throw Presidential election into l the courtS.'
 Our point has been to try to pre- vent any such complication by block 1 ing ratification. But it should be re- | membered that the question of le- ! gality is certain to be raised, and all
 good citizens will agree with us, we
 believe, that it is better to challenge
 it now before a great Presidential election, and have it decided calmly as a legal question, rather than nave
 it provoke another Hayes-Tilden con- test next November.
 We have no objections to these
 facts being made public. Or It woul6 be better for the people to know
 them now rather than learn them 1T
 tn heat of a party passion next No
 vember, but we have no way of per
 suading newspapermen, political lead
 CTS and lawyers to consider these
 grave issues, except by appealing tc
 them in a fair and candid manner tc
 face the facts in this case and let the
 people know them.