Government in the United States, National, State and Local

by James Wilford Garner

To vote ballots containing many names requires a good deal of care, if not experience, to avoid error which will result in having it thrown out, for the regulations governing the marking of the ballot are very strict and must be observed if the vote is to be counted. Accordingly, elaborate instructions covering large sheets are posted throughout the election district and at the polls for the guidance of the voters, and these have to be carefully studied by inexperienced voters who desire to avoid mistakes. Sample ballots also may be provided for practice. One result of the increasing complexity of the ballot is to give an undesirable advantage to the professional politicians who understand how to vote such ballots, and to discourage those who are not politicians.

Voting Machines.—A few states have adopted voting machines, especially for their large cities. These are so arranged that the voter may, by going into a booth and pulling a number of knobs, register his vote quickly and without the danger of spoiling his ballot. When the polls are closed the results are already recorded on a dial, and the long delay in counting the returns is eliminated. The chief objection to the voting machine, however, is the expense, and this has prevented its more general adoption.

Formalities of Voting.—When the voter presents himself at the polls[21] he must announce his name and address to the election officials. If his name is found on the registration list, he is given a ballot and his name entered on the poll book. He then enters a booth, where he marks his ballot, for which purpose he is allowed to remain therein not exceeding a certain length of time. He must not mark his ballot in such a way that it can be identified after it has been placed in the ballot box, and no erasures are allowed. If he spoils his ballot he will be given another, and if he is physically unable to mark it, or if, in some states, he is illiterate, he will be allowed the assistance of two persons representing different political parties. His right to vote may be challenged, in which case he will be required to identify himself or "swear in" his ballot, a record of which must be duly kept. When he has marked his ballot he must fold it in such a manner as to conceal its face, and hand it to one of the election judges, who announces the name of the voter; the fact of his voting is recorded, and the ballot placed in the box.

At a certain hour prescribed by law the polls are closed, after which the votes are counted; and when this task is complete the returns are announced. Generally the ballots must be preserved for several months in order that an opportunity may be offered for a recount in case the election is contested. Usually the ballots cannot be reopened and recounted except by order of a court or of the committee on elections of the legislature.

Legislation Against Fraudulent Voting; Corrupt Practices Acts.—For a long time in this country there was little legislation designed to regulate the conduct of elections and to protect the exercise of the electoral privilege against fraud. The principal evils of the old system were: lack of secrecy in voting; the use of separate ballots printed by the candidates or their party organizations; the distribution of these ballots before election day; lack of means for identifying the voters; bribery, intimidation, treating, and the use of other objectionable means for influencing voters; "repeating"; ballot box "stuffing"; and the like. To eliminate or diminish these and other evils, practically all the states have passed laws of one kind or another. They are generally known as corrupt practices acts and are, for the most part, based on the English law of 1883. Much of this legislation is detailed and complex, and some of it is still in the experimental stage.

The corrupt use of money in elections has come to be one of the greatest political evils of our time. The buying of votes is a very common practice in some communities, and unfortunately is not as strongly condemned by public opinion as it should be. Some 50 per cent of the voters in one county of Ohio were disfranchised by the court for selling their votes in the general election of 1910. The growth of great corporations, many of which desire legislation in their interest, or immunity from unfavorable laws, has introduced a more or less corrupting element in our political life. Some states have enacted laws forbidding corporations, under heavy penalties, from making contributions to the campaign funds of political parties. Others have forbidden the practice of political committees of assessing office holders for campaign purposes. Some have gone to the length of forbidding "treating" and other similar means of influencing voters. Some limit the amount of money that may be spent by a candidate or his friends in the conduct of his campaign, usually specifying the purposes for which expenditures may be made. Thus the Connecticut and New York laws allow expenditures only for such matters as the rent of halls, compensation of speakers and musicians, fireworks, printing, lithographs, advertisements, traveling expenses, postage, telegrams, hiring of carriages to take voters to the polls, and the like. A few, however, prohibit the hiring of carriages, and some forbid the giving away of liquor at elections. Some states require candidates to make sworn itemized statements of the expenditures incurred by them on account of the election, and some fix the maximum amount that may be expended. Thus in New York a candidate for governor may expend only $10,000 on account of his candidacy; candidates for other state officers are permitted to spend $6,000. The need of limitations was illustrated by the fact that the Democratic candidate for governor of New York in 1906 spent over $256,000 in the prosecution of his candidacy, and a candidate for state senator spent $30,000 to secure an election.[22] A recent candidate for the United States senate in a Western state admitted that his aggregate expenses were $107,000, and another testified that he spent $115,000 in the effort to secure an election.

State Contributions to Party Campaign Funds.—In the belief that the state ought to bear a part of the candidate's expenses, to the end that the poor office seeker may be more nearly on an equal footing with the candidate of means, Colorado recently passed a law providing that the state should contribute to the campaign fund of each political party a sum of money equal in amount to twenty-five cents for every vote cast by the party for governor at the preceding election. The law allowed the candidates themselves to spend their own money to aid in their election, but prohibited other persons or corporations from making contributions. In short, the expense was to be borne by the state and the candidate alone. This Colorado law, however, was declared unconstitutional by the state courts.

Other Restrictions.—In some states also the expenditures of party committees are limited, and such committees are required to make sworn statements of their expenditures and the purposes for which they were made. Several states prohibit the payment by other persons of a voter's poll tax where the payment of such a tax is a condition to the voting privilege.

Everywhere there are laws against bribery, intimidation, fraudulent voting, and most of the other election offenses. More and more, public sentiment demands that elections shall be free from the taint of corruption, to the end that the results shall represent the real choice of the people and thus popular government made to be what its founders intended that it should be.