Woman Suffrage by Federal Constitutional Amendment | Page 7

in most elections upon referendum questions.
In several states there is little doubt that suffrage amendments have
been lost through fraud. All the suffragists in Michigan seem to agree
that the amendment was counted out in the first campaign of 1912 and
that ballot boxes were stuffed in the second, 1913. Willis E. Reed,
Attorney General of Nebraska, has declared that he believes the
amendment was counted out in that state. An investigation has revealed
forty-seven varieties of fraud or violation of the election law in
forty-four counties in the Iowa suffrage election of June 5, 1916. Given
a group determined to prevent women from getting the vote, a group
provided with money and knowing no scruple, and the inadequacy of
the law in many States offers a positive guarantee at the outset of a
campaign that a suffrage amendment will be lost.

If suffrage amendments are defeated by illegal practices, why not
demand redress, asks the novice in suffrage campaigns. Ah, there's the
rub. In twenty-four states, no provision has been made by the election
law for any form of contest or recount on a referendum nor are
precedents for a recount found. Political corrupters may, in these states,
bribe voters, colonize voters and repeat them to their hearts' content and
redress of any kind is practically impossible. If clear evidence of fraud
could be produced a case might be brought to the courts and the guilty
parties might be punished, but the election would stand. In New York,
in 1915, the question was submitted to the voters as to whether a
constitutional convention should be called. The convention was ordered
by a majority of about 1,500. Later the District Attorney of New York
City found proof that at least 800 fraudulent votes had been cast in that
city. Leading lawyers discussed the question of effect upon the election
and the general opinion among them was that, even though the entire
majority, and more, should be found to be fraudulent, the election could
not be set aside. The convention was held.
In the other twenty-three states,[A] contests on referenda seem possible
under the law, but in practically every one, the contest means a resort to
the courts and in only eight[B] of these is reference made to a recount.
The law is vague and incomplete in nearly all of these States. In some
of these, including Michigan, where the suffrage amendment is
declared to have been counted out, application for a recount must be
made in each voting precinct. To have secured redress in Michigan,
provided the fraud was widespread, as it is believed to have been, it
would have been necessary to have secured definite evidence of fraud
in a probable 1,000 precincts and to have instituted as many cases. This
would have consumed many months and would have demanded
thousands of dollars.
[Footnote A: In Ohio, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, New Jersey,
Minnesota and Michigan by law; in Illinois, Texas, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Oregon, Arizona and Iowa by precedent; in West
Virginia, South Dakota, Kentucky and Colorado, officials express the
opinion that the law governing candidates's contests could be stretched
to cover amendments. In Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Louisiana,

Mississippi and Washington, the law is so fragmentary as to make the
possibilities very uncertain. Information on this last group of laws will
be found in Appendix B.]
[Footnote B: Ohio, Texas, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Minnesota,
Michigan, Massachusetts and Utah.]
In some States the courts decide what the redress shall be, but where
such provision exists, no assurance is given by the law that such redress
will include a correction of the returns. In at least seven States,[A] the
applicants must pay all costs if they fail to prove their case a provision
amounting to a penalty imposed upon those who try to enforce the law.
[Footnote A: Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, West Virginia,
Minnesota, Utah.]
The penalties for bribery range from $5 to $2,000 and from thirty days'
to ten years' imprisonment, but only one state (Ohio) provides in
definite terms for punishment of bribery as a part of the penalty in an
election contest. In most cases proof of bribery does not throw out the
vote of briber or bribed, nor does an action to throw out purchased
votes in contest cases bring with it automatically punishment of the
purchased voter. This omission from the contest provisions
presupposes that these bribery cases would be separate actions.
Thirty-two states in clear terms disfranchise (or give the Legislature
power to disfranchise) bribers and bribed, but few make provision for
the method of actually enforcing the law, and upon inquiry the
Secretary of State of many of these states reported that, so far as he
knew, no man had ever been disfranchised for this offense. This was
true of states which