Page:A History of the Australian Ballot System in the United States.djvu/69



Practically every reform statute has had to run the gantlet of constitutional objections, and the Australian ballot is no exception to this rule; for every important section of this act has been attacked in the courts as being unconstitutional. The state constitutions at the time of the introduction of the Australian ballot commonly had three provisions relating to the conduct of elections: that “elections should be free and equal,” that all votes should be by ballot, and that a definition be given of the qualifications of electors.

The term “ballot” or “written ballot” as used had been interpreted by the courts to mean secret ballot. This was the view taken in Vermont in 1832 in the case of Temple v. Mead. Justice Williams in delivering the opinion of the court said:

These constitutional provisions, while laying down these general principles of a free, equal, and secret election, are unworkable without legislative action. This was early pointed out by Justice Baldwin in delivering the opinion of the court in McKune v. Wheeler. “All the efficacy given to the act of casting a ballot is derived from the law-making