San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1923-03-05
A BLOW AT SECRET BALLOT

The Davenport primary election bill,
finally passed by the House of Represent
tatives by vote of SO TO 90 is likely to
be declared unconstitutional if it ever
reaches the courts for a conclusive test.
But if it should withstand such a test
the people of Texas might as we'll invite
Ex-kaiser Wilhelm to become their
overload; for the democracy of Texas"
would have ceased to exist except in
mere theory.
This measure undertakes to set I'D a
ruling class, to establish an autocracy
of numerical might. 1t provides, in eff
feet, for abolition of the secret ballot
IN the only kind of elections worthy of
the name-that is, general elections. If
this sounds like an exaggeration, Just
consider some of the bills provisions
in detail.
To begin with, every citizen is re-
CURED by this measure to announce in
advance how he IS going to vote in the
next general election. This is accom-
plished by the simple process of making
an oath to that effect when he pays his
poll tax. He must have a poll-tax re-
ceipt, or else he can't vote in any cleo
ton, primary or general. If he should
refuse to pledge himself to vote for the
candidates OF a particular party, he
wouldn't get his poll-tax receipt. If he
were a property owner, such refusal
would result in the clouding of his titles.
For no citizen is permitted to pay his
property tax without paying his poll
tax If he refused to pay his poll tax
under the requirements imposed by the
Davenport bill, his property would be
placed on the delinqucnt-tax list. Then
his property could be sold for taxes
and all because he would not bind him.
! self by oath to support a certain party
| m future election.
: Suppose citizen paid his poll tan
m accordance with, the requirements Of
the Davenport bill. At the next primar,
z elections-sH parties would choose thei,
nominees on the same day-he would
+. have no choice Of parties. He would BE-
!, branded IN advance as the property O
: the party with which he had taken al
oath to vote. The party overseers would
], know IN advance just how MANY human
!. chattels their organization owned. Til,
! only freedom the individual voter woulc
:. have would be in choosing among tn,
!, candidates OF the party to which he hac
/, sworn allegiance months previously. I
(, political conditions and issues or tn
!, character of parties should undergo
! change between the payment of his pol
:, tax IN January and the holding Of tn
:, primaries, several months later. he coul,
J not change his political allegiance f
:, correspond with his new convictions
4 He would have to vote with the part
! whose name appeared on his poll-ta,
!, receipt
:, After he had voted in the primar
!, election he would be the property of til
!, same party even in stricter sense. Hi
! only freedom would be negative-h
! could refuse to vote. If he voted 2
Z all the political overseers would kno,
4 exactly for what candidates he had voteC
4 There would be no secrecy about tn
. ballots cast in general election.
,, There comes Mr.. A; he's a Demo
(, crat, and therefore must vote for Cand
(; dates Smith, Jones and Williams. an
4, on down the line. There comes NJ
n B; he's Republican, and therefore mu,
\ vote for Candidates White, Brown ar
4 BLACK, and so on down the line Their
- would be no reason for having booths !
.-l II Z 4