In the early days a ballot was simply a piece of paper with the names of
the candidates written or printed on it. As party organizations became
more ambitious, the party printed its own ballots, and "scratching"
was done by pasting gummed stickers, with the names of the substitutes
printed on them, over the regular ballot, or by simply striking out a
name and writing another one in its place. It was customary to print the
different party tickets on different colored paper, so that the judges
in charge of the ballot boxes could tell how the men voted. When later
laws required all ballots to be printed on white paper and of the same
size, the parties used paper of different texture. Election officials
could then tell by the "feel" which ticket was voted. Finally paper of
the same color and quality was enjoined by some States. But it was not
until the State itself undertook to print the ballots that uniformity
was secured.
In the meantime the peddling of tickets was a regular occupation on
election day. Canvassers invaded homes and places of business, and even
surrounded the voting place. It was the custom in many parts of the
country for the voters to prepare the ballots before reaching the voting
place and carry them in the vest pocket, with a margin showing. This
was a sort of signal that the voter's mind had been made up and that
he should be let alone, yet even with this signal showing, in hotly
contested elections the voter ran a noisy gauntlet of eager solicitors,
harassing him on his way to vote as cab drivers assail the traveler
when he alights from the train. This free and easy method, tolerable in
sparsely settled pioneer districts, failed miserably in the cities. It
was necessary to pass rigorous laws against vote buying and selling, and
to clear the polling-place of all partizan soliciting. Penal provisions
were enacted against intimidation, violence, repeating, false swearing
when challenged, ballot-box stuffing, and the more patent forms of
partizan vices. In order to stop the practice of "repeating," New York
early passed laws requiring voters to be duly registered. But the early
laws were defective, and the rolls were easily padded. In most of the
cities poll lists were made by the party workers, and the name of each
voter was checked off as he voted. It was still impossible for the voter
to keep secret his ballot. The buyer of votes could tell whether he got
what he paid for; the employer, so disposed, could bully those dependent
on him into voting as he wished, and the way was open to all manner
of tricks in the printing of ballots with misleading emblems, or with
certain names omitted, or with a mixture of candidates from various
parties--tricks that were later forbidden by law but were none the less
common.
Rather suddenly a great change came over election day. In 1888
Kentucky adopted the Australian ballot for the city of Louisville,
and Massachusetts adopted it for all state and local elections. The
Massachusetts statute provided that before an election each political
party should certify its nominees to the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
The State then printed the ballots. All the nominees of all the parties
were printed on one sheet. Each office was placed in a separate column,
the candidates in alphabetical order, with the names of the parties
following. Blank spaces were left for those who wished to vote for
others than the regular nominees. This form of ballot prevented "voting
straight" with a single mark. The voter, in the seclusion of a booth at
the polling-place, had to pick his party's candidates from the numerous
columns.
Indiana, in 1889, adopted a similar statute but the ballot had certain
modifications to suit the needs of party orthodoxy. Here the columns
represented parties, not offices. Each party had a column. Each column
was headed by the party name and its device, so that those who could not
read could vote for the Rooster or the Eagle or the Fountain. There was
a circle placed under the device, and by making his mark in this circle
the voter voted straight.
Within eight years thirty-eight States and two Territories had adopted
the Australian or blanket ballot in some modified form. It was but a
step to the state control of the election machinery. Some state officer,
usually the Secretary of State, was designated to see that the election
laws were enforced. In New York a State Commissioner of Elections was
appointed. The appointment of local inspectors and judges remained for
a time in the hands of the parties. But soon in several States even this
power was taken from them, and the trend now is towards appointing all
election officers by the central authority. These officers also have
complete charge of the registration of voters. In some States, like New
York, registration has become a rather solemn procedure, requiring the
answering of many questions and the signing of the voter's name, all
under the threat of perjury if a wilful misrepresentation is made.
So passed out of the control of the party the preparation of the ballot
and the use of the ballot on election day. Innumerable rules have been
laid down by the State for the conduct of elections. The distribution
of the ballots, their custody before election, the order of electional
procedure, the counting of the ballots, the making of returns, the
custody of the ballot-boxes, and all other necessary details, are
regulated by law under official state supervision. The parties are
allowed watchers at the polls, but these have no official standing.
If a Revolutionary Father could visit his old haunts on election day, he
would be astonished at the sober decorum. In his time elections lasted
three days, days filled with harangue, with drinking, betting, raillery,
and occasional encounters. Even those whose memory goes back to the
Civil War can contrast the ballot peddling, the soliciting, the crowded
noisy polling-places, with the calm and quiet with which men deposit
their ballots today. For now every ballot is numbered and no one is
permitted to take a single copy from the room. Every voter must prepare
his ballot in the booth. And every polling-place is an island of
immunity in the sea of political excitement.
While the people were thus assuming control of the ballot, they were
proceeding to gain control of their legislatures. In 1890 Massachusetts
enacted one of the first anti-lobby laws. It has served as a model for
many other States. It provided that the sergeant-at-arms should keep
dockets in which were enrolled the names of all persons employed as
counsel or agents before legislative committees. Each counsel or
agent was further compelled to state the length of his engagement, the
subjects or bills for which he was employed, and the name and address of
his employer.
The first session after the passage of this law, many of the
professional lobbyists refused to enroll, and the most notorious ones
were seen no more in the State House. The regular counsel of railroads,
insurance companies, and other interests signed the proper docket and
appeared for their clients in open committee meetings.
The law made it the duty of the Secretary of the Commonwealth to report
to the law officers of the State, for prosecution, all those who failed
to comply with the act. Sixty-seven such delinquents were reported the
first year. The Grand Jury refused to indict them, but the number of
recalcitrants has gradually diminished.
The experience of Massachusetts is not unique. Other States passed more
or less rigorous anti-lobby laws, and today, in no state Capitol, will
the visitor see the disgusting sights that were usual thirty years
ago--arrogant and coarse professional "agents" mingling on the floor
of the legislature with members, even suggesting procedure to
presiding officers, and not infrequently commandeering a majority. Such
influences, where they persist, have been driven under cover.
With the decline of the professional lobbyist came the rise of the
volunteer lobbyist. Important bills are now considered in formal
committee hearings which are well advertised so that interested parties
may be present. Publicity and information have taken the place of
secrecy in legislative procedure. The gathering of expert testimony by
special legislative commissions of inquiry is now a frequent practice
in respect to subjects of wide social import, such as workmen's
compensation, widows' pensions, and factory conditions.
A number of States have resorted to the initiative and referendum
as applied to ordinary legislation. By means of this method a small
percentage of the voters, from eight to ten per cent, may initiate
proposals and impose upon the voters the function of legislation. South
Dakota, in 1898, made constitutional provision for direct legislation.
Utah followed in 1900, Oregon in 1902, Nevada in 1904, Montana in 1906,
and Oklahoma in 1907. East of the Mississippi, several States have
adopted a modified form of the initiative and referendum. In Oregon,
where this device of direct government has been most assiduously
applied, the voters in 1908 voted upon nineteen different bills and
constitutional amendments; in 1910 the number increased to thirty-two;
in 1912, to thirty-seven; in 1914 it fell to twenty-nine. The vote cast
for these measures rarely exceeded eighty per cent of those voting at
the election and frequently fell below sixty.
The electorate that attempts to rid itself of the evils of the state
legislature by these heroic methods assumes a heavy responsibility. When
the burden of direct legislation is added to the task of choosing from
the long list of elective officers which is placed before the voter at
every local and state election, it is not surprising that there should
set in a reaction in favor of simplified government. The mere separation
of state and local elections does not solve the problem. It somewhat
minimizes the chances of partizan influence over the voter in local
elections; but the voter is still confronted with the long lists of
candidates for elective offices. Ballots not infrequently contain two
hundred names, sometimes even three hundred or more, covering candidates
of four or five parties for scores of offices. These blanket ballots are
sometimes three feet long. After an election in Chicago in 1916, one of
the leading dailies expressed sympathy "for the voter emerging from the
polling-booth, clutching a handful of papers, one of them about half as
large as a bed sheet." Probably most voters were able to express a real
preference among the national candidates. It is almost equally certain
that most voters were not able to express a real preference among
important local administrative officials. A huge ballot, all printed
over with names, supplemented by a series of smaller ballots, can never
be a manageable instrument even for an electorate as intelligent as
ours.
Simplification is the prophetic watchword in state government today. For
cities, the City Manager and the Commission have offered salvation. A
few officers only are elected and these are held strictly responsible,
sometimes under the constant threat of the recall, for the entire
administration. Over four hundred cities have adopted the form of
government by Commission. But nothing has been done to simplify our
state governments, which are surrounded by a maze of heterogeneous and
undirected boards and authorities. Every time the legislature found
itself confronted by a new function to be cared for, it simply created
a new board. New York has a hodgepodge of over 116 such authorities;
Minnesota, 75; Illinois, 100. Iowa in 1913 and Illinois and Minnesota in
1914, indeed, perfected elaborate proposals for simplifying their state
governments. But these suggestions remain dormant. And the New York
State Constitutional Convention in 1915 prepared a new Constitution for
the State, with the same end in view, but their work was not accepted
by the people. It may be said, however, that in our attempt to
rid ourselves of boss rule we have swung through the arc of direct
government and are now on the returning curve toward representative
government, a more intensified representative government that makes
evasion of responsibility and duty impossible by fixing it upon one or
two men.