Voting

VOTING.

Modern Electoral Qualifications.— Most cf the States have uniform laws for electors of every officer to be elected in the State, though this statement must be qualified as to those States which permit women to vote in the election of school boards or committees, or which allow women who are taxpayers to vote upon financial measures. Unlike some Euro pean countries, such as Germany, the vote of the lodging-house dweller, the loafer, etc., in the United States carries as much weight in the election as the vote of the wealthiest or most distinguished citizen. Most of the States require that their voters be full-fledged United States citizens. As a rule the State constitu tions require that a voter be a male, at least 21 years of age, who is a citizen of the United States, either native or naturalized, and can read or write English or both. The ((male° provision, of course, is inoperative in those States wherein women enjoy the suffrage. Some States, particularly those that are anxious to obtain immigrants as agricultural laborers, extend the privilege of voting to an alien who has declared his intention of becoming a citi zen and has resided in the State a certain period of time before election—usually six months to a year. Such a voter is not bound by an oath of allegiance to the United States nor has he foresworn allegiance to his native land ,• hence a situation might arise under which this voter would help elect the officers of the United States government and the next day the United States might become involved in a dispute with the government of his native country over some question respecting his citi zenship. Courts have ruled that if a father become a naturalized citizen of the United States before his son shall have attained his majority, the latter, though alien-born, ipso facto becomes a citizen and need not undergo the formality of naturalization if dwelling within the United States ((lIhrised Statutes, Title XXX, § 2172); but the son of an alien cannot be vested with citizenship by implica tion merely because the father declared his in tention of becoming a citizen prior to the time the son attained his majority. Basing his state ments on court decisions, one authority says: "While it has been held that citizenship will not be pre sumed merely from the fact of having owned real estate, having voted, or having held an elective office, it seems that having participated in elections and having held elective offices are factsstronly tending to establish at least a prima facie ease of citizen•, and it has been held that, where the State confers the tight of State citizenship on aliens who have declared their intentions to become citizens of the United States, the act of voting is conclusive proof of an acceptance of such State citizenship by them.' (' Corplie June,' Vol. XI, p. 787).

Some States enfranchise men of Indian de scent, native of the United States, while others grant the privilege to Indians who have been declared citizens of the United States by act of Congress.and to civilized Indians, not mem bers of any tribe. As a rule, idiots, insane per sons and felons are not allowed to vote and sometimes vagrants, paupers, persons convicted of treason, bribers, embezzlers, bigamists, Chi nese, etc., are excluded. Some constitutions state that United States soldiers and seamen gain no voting residence by being stationed in the State, while the residents .of the District of Columbia, when it became the seat of the general government, lost the right to vote therein for national officers or on matters of national concern.

Educational and Other Tests.— The edu cational, property, tax, and good character tests, grandfather clauses, etc., have operated to exclude many thousands of voters—particu larly the negro voters of the South. Connecti cut in 1854 and Massachusetts in 1856 led the other States in requiring of voters the ability to read the constitution and (in Massachu setts) to write their own names. To some extent the national naturalization laws have offset the effects of these tests since an appli cant. for citizenship must sign the application in his own handwriting and when taking out his final papers must be able to speak the Eng lish language. (See ALIENS ; CMZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES ; NATURALIZATION). The exclusion of the negro in the South was undertaken to assure permanence of white rule, since the negro, during the Re construction period, had displayed a total unfitness to govern. Constitutional amend ments were adopted to attain this end by law rather than by force, intimidation or fraud. In addition to a new .registration law, already in vogue, the Mississippi constitution of 1890 required that a prospective voter be registered, a payer of a poll tax, and, after 1 Jan. 1892, able to read any portion of the constitution or to understand it when read to him, or to render a reasonably accurate interpretation of it. The South Carolina constitution of 1895 permitted the registration of an otherwise qualified per son, (provided that he can both read and write any section of this constitution submitted to him by the registration officer, or can show that he owns and has paid all taxes collectible during the previous year on property in this State assessed at $300 or more.° The Louisiana constitution of 1898 contained similar clauses, but for would-be voters, who might be excluded by these tests, the constitution pro vided that any male person °who was on Jan uary 1, 1867, or at any date prior ther.eto, entitled to vote under the constitution or stat utes of any State of the United States, wherein he then resided, and any son or grand.son of any such person not less than twenty-one years of age at the date of the adoption of this Constitution° should be allowed to register and vote at all elections without possessing the educational or property qualifications. In 1901

Alabama incorporated a provision requiring that voters be of ugood character° and ((under stand the duties and obligations of citizenship under a republican form of government.° Vir ginia has imitated this qualification. (See also UNITED STATES--SUFFRAGE IN THEk The consti tutionality of these provisions as not been definitely decided by the Supreme Court, though several cases have been considered. .Re garding the Mississippi constitution (Williams vs. Mississippi, 170 U. S. 213), the Court de clared that the qualifications did not uon their face discriminate between the white and negro races, nor amount to a denial of the equal pro tection of the law secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution; and it has not been shown that their actual administration was evil, but only that evil was possible under them." The Court further stated (Giles vs. Harris, 189 U. S. 474) -- °Relief from a great political wrong, if done as alleged, by the peo ple of a State, or by the State itself, must be given by them, or by the legislative and political departments of the government of the United States.° On 21 June 1915 the Supreme Court de clared void the agrandfather clauses° of the Maryland and Oklahoma constitutions. In Maryland the clause was inserted in laws gov erning elections in various cities. In 1908 it was inserted in the law governing.mu.nipal elections in the city of Annapolis. It author ized the registration as voters of all taxpayers of the city assessed for at least $500; all duly naturalized citizens, all male children of nat uralized citizens 21 years of age, and °all citi zens who prior to Jan. I, 1868, were entitled to vote in the State of Maryland or any other State of the United States at a State election, and the lawful male descendants of any person who prior to Jan. 1, 1868, were entitled to vote in the State of Maryland or in any other State of the United States at a State election.° The constitution of Oklahoma, upon which that Ter ritory was admitted to the Union as a State, gave something very like manhood suffrage. Prior to the election of 1910, however, an amendment was adopted restricting the fran chise. The amendment in part was as follows: "No person shall be registered as an elector of this State or be allowed to vote in any election herein unless he shall be able to read and write any section of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma; but no person who was on Jan. 1. 1866, or at any tiine prior thereto, entitled to vote under any form of goveniment, or who at any time resided in some foreign nation and no lineal descendant of such person shall be denied the right to register and vote because of his inability to so read and write sections of such Constitution." The contentions of the election officers as plaintiffs in error, really setting forth the posi tion of the State, are thus outlined by the chief justice: "It said the States have the power to fix standards for suffrage and that power was not taken away by the Fifteenth Amendment. but only limited to theeatent of the prohibitions which the amendment established. This bei true, as the standard fixed does not in terms make any *nation on account of race. color or previous condition of servitude. since all. whether negro or white, who come within its require ments. enjoy the pnvilege of voting, there is no ground upon which to rest the contention that the provision violates the Fifteenth Amendment. This. it is insisted. must be the case unless it is intended to expressly deny the Statea right to provide a standard for suffrage. or what is equivalent thereto. to assert: (a) That the judgment of the State exercised in the execution of that poses is subject to Federal judiciS1 review or to supervision. or (b) that it may be questioned or be brought within the prohibitions of the amendment by attributing to the legislative authority an occult motive to violate the amendment or by assunuag that an exercise of the otherwise lawful power may be invalidated because of conclusions concerning its operation in practical execution and resulting discrinunation arising therefrom. albeit such discrimination was not expressed in the standard fixed or fairly to be implied. but sunply arose from inequalities naturally inhering in those wbo must come within the standard in order to enjoy the right to vote.** The government insisted, on the other hand, that the ureal question involved is the repug nancy of the standard which the amendment makes, based upon the conditions existing on Jan. 1, 1866, because on its face and inherently considering the substance of things, that stand ard is a mere denial of the restrictions imposed by the prohibitions of the Fifteenth Amend ment and by necessary result creates and per petuates the very conditions which the amend ment was intended to destroy.° The chief justice summed up the opinion of the court in these words: "Them seems no escape from the condusion that to hold that there was even pmibility for dispute on the s-ubject would be hut to declare that the Fifteenth Amendment not only had the self-executing power which it her; beearocognised to have from the beginning. but that its provisions were wholly inoperative because susceptible of being rendered inapplicable by mere forms of expression embodying no exercise of judgment and resting upon no discernible reason other than the purpose to disregard the prohibitions of the amendment by creating a standard of voting 'Mich on its face was in substanoe but a revitalization of the conditions which, when they prevailed in the past. bad been destroyed by the self-operative force of the amendment. . .