Woman Suffrage by Federal Constitutional Amendment | Page 8

have been notorious for political corruption.
From Ohio alone has evidence been found of the actual enforcement of
the disfranchisement provision. In this state nearly 1,800 bribed voters
of Adams County were disfranchised in 1910 for scandalous and
well-remembered corruption but in 1915 they were restored to
citizenship. These cases reveal a disgraceful provision in the Ohio law,
by which the briber is given immunity if he will turn State's evidence
on the bribed; the vote-buyer may purchase votes by the thousands with

perfect safety provided that when suspected he will deliver up a few of
the bought by way of example.
With a vague, uncertain law to define their punishment in most states,
and no law at all in twenty-four states, as a preliminary security,
corrupt opponents of a woman suffrage amendment find many
additional aids to their nefarious acts. A briber must make sure that the
bribed carries out his part of the contract. Whenever it is easy to check
up the results of the bribe, corruption may reign supreme with little risk
of being found out. A study of some of the recent suffrage votes gives
significant food for reflection. It shows how the form, color and
arrangement of the ballot may help the corrupt politician to organize
ignorant voters to do his will. In Georgia and Louisiana no party names
are printed on the official ballot and emblems only are used. In almost
half our states, though the party name is used also, the emblem is the
real guide. New York does not even relegate this emblem to the top of
the column. The emblem is placed before the name of each candidate,
so that the illiterate voter can make no mistake in recognizing the sign
of the machine which controls his vote. Scarcely more than a dozen
states have the headless ballot[A] which makes it impossible for
politicians to make corrupt use of the illiterate voter.
[Footnote A: Oregon, Nevada, South Carolina, Florida, Colorado,
California, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, Nebraska, Pennsylvania.]
In Wisconsin suffrage referendum the suffrage ballot was separate and
pink. It was easy to teach the most illiterate how to vote "No" and to
check up returns with considerable accuracy. In New York there were
three ballots. The official ballot had emblems which easily
distinguished it. The other two were exactly alike in shape, size and
color and each contained three propositions: those which came from the
constitutional convention and the other those which came from the
Legislature. The orders went forth to vote down the constitutional
provisions and it was done by a majority of 482,000, or nearly 300,000
more than the majority against woman suffrage. On the ballot
containing the suffrage amendment, which was No. 1, there was

proposition No. 3, which all the political parties wanted carried and to
which no one objected. It could easily be found by all illiterates as it
contained more lines of printing, yet so difficult was it to teach ignorant
men to vote "Yes" on that one proposition that, despite the fact that
orders had gone forth to all the state that No. 3 was to be carried, it
barely squeezed through.
In Pennsylvania there are no emblems to distinguish the tickets and on
the large ballot the suffrage amendment was difficult to find by an
untutored voter. In probable consequence Pennsylvania polled the
largest proportional vote for the amendment of any eastern state. In
Massachusetts the ballot was small and the suffrage amendment could
be easily picked out by a bribed voter. In Iowa the suffrage ballot was
separate and yellow while the main ballots were white.
In the North Dakota referendum the regular ballot was long and
complicated and the suffrage ballot separate and small. It was easy to
teach the dullest illiterate how to vote "No." It might be said that it
would be equally easy to teach him to vote "Yes." True, but suffragists
never bribe. Both the briber and the illiterate are allies of the
opposition.
A referendum on a non-partisan issue has none of the protection
accorded a party question. Election boards are bi-partisan and each
party has its own machinery, not only of election officials but watchers
and challengers, to see that the opposing party commits no fraud. The
watchfulness of this party machinery, plus an increasingly vigilant
public opinion, has corrected many of the election frauds which were
once common and most elections are now probably free from all the
baser forms of corruption. When a question on referendum is sincerely
espoused by both the dominant parties it has the advantage of the
watchfulness of both party machines and is doubly safeguarded from
fraud. But when such a question has been espoused by no dominant
party it is utterly at the mercy of the worst forms