324 



ELECTION LAWS. 



to have it inserted if previously omitted, it 

 would constitute a serious objection to its va- 

 lidity. But we think it is not open to this ob- 

 jection. The law specially required that the 

 lists should be posted up a certain time previ- 

 ous to the election, and that the selectmen or 

 assessors should be in session immediately be- 

 fore or on the day of the election, so as to give 

 to every voter the means of knowing whether 

 his name was borne on the list,- and opportu- 

 nity to place it there if omitted." 



In an opinion delivered in 1868 (47 Illinois 

 Reports, 101), the Supreme Court of Illinois 

 said: "There can be no question that the 

 Legislature may provide all reasonable safe- 

 guards to preserve the ballot-box from fraud, 

 and to maintain the purity of elections. As 

 the wisdom of our laws, the fair and impartial 

 administration of justice, depends upon the of- 

 ficers chosen by the people, and even the per- 

 petuity of our present form of government can 

 only be maintained by preserving our elections 

 free from fraud and corruption, all reasonable 

 requirements for the purpose, not calculated to 

 abridge the elective franchise, are within the 

 scope of legislative power." The law in force 

 at that time was upheld, though the question 

 as to its constitutionality does not appear to 

 have been much discussed, if, indeed, it was 

 raised. The law prohibited the voting of un- 

 registered voters, but it permitted any elector 

 not registered to vote by proving his consti- 

 tutional qualifications on election-day. Similar 

 legislation has been sustained in California by 

 the Supreme Court, without discussing the con- 

 stitutional question. (See opinions rendered by 

 the Court in 1867 and 1868, and reported in 

 33 California Eeports, 55, and 34 id., 273.) 



The registration law of Iowa, in force in 

 1869, prescribed that no person should vote 

 who was not registered prior to election-day. 

 It provided, however, that an unregistered 

 elector might vote on giving a good reason 

 for not being registered. The Constitution of 

 the State was silent as to the power of the 

 Legislature to pass a registry law. The law in 

 question was upheld by the Supreme Court. 

 The opinion may be found in 28 Iowa Reports, 

 267. Chief-Justice Dillon said : " Those whom 

 the Constitution declares to be electors can not 

 be disfranchised ; and not one jot or tittle can 

 lawfully be added to or taken from the qualifi- 

 cations which the Constitution prescribes. But 

 the Legislature, while it must leave the consti- 

 tutional qualifications intact, and can not add 

 new ones, may, nevertheless, prescribe regula- 

 tions to determine whether a given person who 

 proposes to vote possesses the required qualifi- 

 cations; and these regulations are valid, pro- 

 vided they do not amount to a denial or inva- 

 sion of the right conferred by the Constitution. 

 To insure the integrity of the ballot-box, the 

 Legislature has determined that a registry law 

 is expedient. The Legislature is supposed best 

 to know the situation and wants of the State, 

 and whether there is a necessity for laws of a 



particular character; and when such laws do 

 not invade the constitutional rights of the citi- 

 zen, this Court can not sit in judgment upon 

 the wisdom of the General Assembly, but must 

 respect, obey, and carry out the legislative will. 

 The act in question professes to be one intend- 

 ed to prevent fraudulent voting ; and the Court 

 sees no reason to believe that the professed pur- 

 pose is not the true purpose. It aims to secure 

 this end by requiring a registry of voters. It 

 provides for notice, and fixes a time and place 

 in which the registry may be made or revised. 

 It gives every voter an opportunity to have his 

 name placed on the register." 



The General Statutes of Rhode Island require 

 the election officers to reject the votes of all 

 persons claiming to vote whose names are not 

 on the registry lists. The Constitution pro- 

 vides : " The General Assembly shall have full 

 power to provide for a registry of voters, to 

 prescribe the manner of conducting the elec- 

 tions, the form of certificates, the nature of 

 the evidence to be required in case of a dis- 

 pute as to the right of any person to vote, and 

 generally to enact all laws necessary to carry 

 this article into effect, and to prevent abuse, 

 corruption, and fraud in voting." In 1881 the 

 Supreme Court of the State gave an opinion 

 (13 Rhode Island Reports, 729) upholding the 

 law requiring the rejection of the ballots of 

 unregistered voters. The Court was of opinion 

 that the statute was "fully authorized" by 

 the constitutional provision cited above. 



In 1884 the Kansas registration law was held 

 constitutional by the Supreme Court of that 

 State. The opinion is reported in 31 Kansas 

 Reports, 537. The law required the registra- 

 tion lists to be completed ten days before the 

 election. No person was allowed to vote who 

 was not registered, and there was no opportu- 

 nity to register during the ten days preceding 

 the election. Any voter might, however, regis- 

 ter at any time in the year except during these 

 ten days and election-day. The Constitution ot 

 Kansas (Article V, section 4) provides that " the 

 Legislature shall pass such laws as may be ne- 

 cessary for ascertaining, by proper proofs, the 

 citizens who shall be entitled to the right of suf- 

 frage hereby established." " It seems to us," 

 the Court said, " that this manifestly contem- 

 plates a registration prior to the day of elec- 

 tion." " Requiring a party to be registered," 

 the Court continued, " is not in any true sense 

 imposing an additional qualification, any more 

 than requiring a voter to go to a specific place 

 for the purpose of voting, or requiring him to 

 prove by his own oath or the oaths of other 

 parties his right to vote when challenged, or 

 than requiring a naturalized foreigner to pre- 

 sent his naturalization papers. Each and all 

 of these are simply matters of proof, steps t 

 be taken in order to ascertain who are and 

 who are not entitled to vote. ... It is true, 

 isolated instances may occur where a party, 

 through sickness or absence, is unable to regis- 

 ter, and so loses his vote ; but the same result 



