Evening star., 1950-11-08
|0ber Law Is Ratified
by Maryland Voters
with Wide Margin
tured above.

Maryland voters have ratified
their States anti-subversive Ober
Law. .....
While returns were still incom-
plete today they showed margins
as great as 4-to-1 in favor Of most
of the six other propositions In
yesterdays Statewide referen-
dums. These included the calling
of a constitutional convention
for the first time since 1867.
The closest vote, according to
early returns, was on the proposal
to authorize the General As
sembly to override bills vetoed
by the Governor during o pre-
ceding Legislative session. That
tally. compiled from sos of the
States 1929 polling places. was
so, ,545 for: 53,455 against.
With $50 precincts accounted
for, the Ober Law vote stood at
112,804 for; 1920 against. In
Baltimore City, where the
strongest opposition had been ex-
pected, the complete count for
all 507 precincts was 101.7 for;
$685. against.
100000 Ballots Expected.
Total balloting on the refer
endum questions seemed likely to
go over 300. 900, as compared with
the more than 100000 voters who
decided the senatorial and gu
bernatorial elections.
The constitutional convention
proposal, according to returns
from GIL polling places. received
112.085 votes tor and 22.925
against.
TabulationS on the other prop
ositions, according to figures from
almost half Of the States pre-
cincts, were:
Freezing the number of mem
bers of the House of Delegates:
1o0,182 for. 22,805 against, from
SIS precincts.
Allowing judges to decide
whether the State has presented
enough proper evidence to con-
vict a person charged with a
crime: 96,709 for, 23,087 against.
from GIL precincts.
Permitting courts to jail a man
for failure to pay alimony or sup
port his dependent children: 95,-
554 for. 21.519 against. from 500
precincts.
Authorizing Chief Deputy Con-
troller and Chief Deputy Treas
urer to sign bonds and other cer-
tificates of State debts: 90,S71 for,
20,041 against, from GA precincts.
The Ober law requires loyalty
affidavits of public employees and
provides stiff penalties for sub
versive activities and membership
in subversive organizations. It
got on the ballot after filing of a
petition listing more than $4,000
names.
Court Action Pending.
The controversial statute al
ready has been in the courts, and
recently was involved in Supreme
Court proceedings. But its con-
stitutionality has not been decided
by higher courts.
Although subject to ratification
at yesterdays election, it went
into effect as an emergency meas
ure in June, 1949. It was ruled
invalid by Baltimore City Court
Judge Joseph Sherbow in August,
1949, the Maryland Court of
Appeals last February reversed
that decision without acting on
the constitutional question.
The Supreme Court has been
asked to review that action and
also decide the constitutional
issue. Meanwhile, within the last
three weeks the Supreme Court
refused to rule Immediately on
the petition of a Progressive
Party gubernatorial candidate
whose name was barred from the
ballot because he would not take
the loyalty oath.
The tribunal at the same time
refused to intervene in a Mary
land appeals court decision that
a Progressive Party candidate for
Congress could stay on the ballot
despite her refusal to take the
Ioath