Michigan, Florida, Missouri, Colorado, and Montana. Similarly, a political party may be compelled to use only a certain method to nominate candidates to be placed on the official ballot.[1]
Objections to the form of the ballot.–The laws of fourteen states prohibit the printing of a candidate’s name in more than one place on the ballot. This ruling has been attacked in the courts as being an unwarranted interference with the freedom of elections, and as debarring one party from indorsing the candidates of another except on condition of surrendering its existence as a party and its right to representation upon the official ballot in the future.[2] In the cases of Murphy v. Curry[3] and Commonwealth v. Martin[4] the provision that a candidate’s name should appear but once upon the ballot was held to be invalid. The courts in a larger number of jurisdictions take the other view and hold that this regulation is within the power of the legislature. If a candidate’s name is printed once on the ballot, the individual has ample opportunity to vote for him, and the right of the individual elector is not interfered with, and this is the only constitutional right guaranteed. Party fealty and sentiment and the continued existence of parties are not subjects of constitutional care, while the confusion and uncertainty arising from double printing is a sufficient reason for prohibiting it.[5] A recent decision in Illinois, People ex rel. McCormick v. Czarnecki, upholds the same principle.[6]
The question has also been raised whether the legislature can validly provide for the election of judicial officers on a separate ballot. This right was upheld in an Ohio case in 1912, State v. Miller, 99 N. E. Rep. 1078. The courts have also declared that the legislature is competent to provide for the submission of amendments by their titles or a brief description showing their character and purpose.[7]
Objections to the procedure of voting.–There have been a number of objections to the manner of voting provided by the Australian-ballot laws of the several states. The most important of these are: Is it
- ↑ Hager v. Robinson, 157 S. W. Rep. 1138.
- ↑ Dissenting opinion of Justice Winslow in State ex rel. Runge v. Anderson, 100 Wis. 523.
- ↑ 137 Cal. 479.
- ↑ 20 Pa. Co. Ct. 117.
- ↑ State ex rel. Runge v. Anderson, 100 Wis. 523; Todd v. Election Commissioners, 104 Mich. 474; State v. Burdick, 46 Pac. 854; Hayes v. Ross, 127 Pac. 340; State ex rel. v. Bode, 55 Ohio St. 224.
- ↑ People ex rel. McCormick v. Czarnecki, 107 N. E. 625.
- ↑ State v. Winnett, 110 N. W. 1113; Lovett v. Ferguson, 10 S. D. 44.
