viding that an elector might vote for a portion only of several officers to be elected. The reasons for adjudging this statute void were thus stated by the court: "No such thing as 'minority representation' or 'cumulative voting' was known in the policy of this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution in 1851. The right of each office to be filled at an election had never been doubted. No effort was made by the framers of the constitution to modify this right; and we think it was intended to continue and guaranty such right, by the provision that 'each elector shall be entitled to vote at all elections.' Such right is denied by this statute, which provides for the election of four members of the board of police commissioners, but denies to any elector the right to vote for more than two persons for such commissioners."

Also in Maynard v. Board of Canvassers32 the Supreme Court of Michigan held unconstitutional a statute providing that "in all elections of representatives to the state legislature in districts where more than one is to be elected, each qualified elector may cast as many votes for one candidate as there are representatives to be elected, or may distribute the same among the candidates as he may see fit, and the candidates highest in votes shall be declared elected"; i. e., a statute providing for cumulative voting, a practice very common in elections of directors of private corporations. After reviewing the restrictive, cumulative, Geneva, and Hare, plans for minority representation the court, speaking through Chief

32 84 Mich. 228.

Justice Champlin, makes the following clear and concise statement:

"There is in my mind no doubt that the act under consideration is unconstitutional. The Constitution is the outgrowth of a desire of the people for a representative form of government. The foundation of such a system of government is, and always has been, unless the people have otherwise signified by their Constitution, that every elector entitled to cast his ballot stands upon a complete political equality with every other elector, and that the majority or plurality of votes cast for any person or measure must prevail. All free representative governments rest on this, and there is no other way in which a free government may be carried on and maintained. That the majority must rule, lies at the root of the system of a republican form of government no less than it does in a democratic. When there are more than two candidates for the same office placed in nomination, it may often happen that one candidate, although he may receive more votes than any other, may not receive a majority of the votes cast. Still the principle of majority rule is preserved, for in such case more of the electors prefer such candidate than they do any other particular candidate to represent them. It is the constitutional right of every elector, in voting for any person to represent him in the legislature, to express his will by his ballot; and such vote shall be of as much influence or weight in the result, as to any candidate voted for, as the ballot and vote of any other elector. The Constitution does not contemplate, but by implication forbids, any elector to cast more than one vote for any candidate for any office. This prohibition is implied from the system of representative government provided for." 33

33 Maynard v. Board of Canvassers, supra.

15. Majority and plurality. In the absence of constitutional or statutory provisions that a candidate shall receive an actual majority of votes cast at the election for candidates for the office for which he is running, when there are more than two candidates, the one receiving the highest number of legal votes is elected. In other words the term "majority" is not infrequently used in the same sense as "plurality." Though an absolute majority, i. e., more than half of those eligible to vote, may be required to pass amendments to the Constitution, the term "majority" will not be so interpreted with respect to officers unless expressly required in the Constitution or statutes. As said by Chief Justice Waite in Cass County v. Johnston:34 "All qualified voters, who absent themselves from an election duly called, are presumed to assent to the expressed will of the majority of those voting, unless the law providing for the election otherwise declares. Any other rule would be productive of the greatest inconvenience, and ought not to be adopted, unless the legislative will to that effect is clearly expressed." When two or more officers of the same designation are to be chosen at a given election, a like number of persons voted for standing highest on the lists will be declared elected.35

16. The ballot.-The kind of ballot that shall be used is a matter for the legislature to determine." The propaganda now going on in favor of the short

34 95 U. S. 360.

35 Cooley Const. Lim. (5th ed.), 779. 36 Ransom v. Black, 54 N. J. L. 446.

ballot is one which should be directed to the legislatures, unless thought of sufficient importance to be placed in the constitutions. As state constitutions are already, as a rule, too long and cumbersome because too much matter is crowded into them which belongs in the statutes, it would hardly seem expedient further to encumber constitutions with amendments reducing the number of elective offices. Where the statute requires that the ballot be of a particular color, it has been held that this requirement is substantially complied with when all ballots used at the same voting place are of the same color. In the case of Boyd v. Mills,37 the election was contested on the ground that in a given precinct yellow ballots were used, whereas the statute required white ones, and the throwing out of this precinct would affect the result of the election. The court, speaking through Justice Allen, says:

"Without proceeding to review at greater length the authorities cited by counsel on both sides of the question, we conclude that the mere fact that the paper on which all the ballots used in one election district was of a color other than white, where the ballots were not only printed by the authorities designated by law, and by them furnished to the judges of election, but were furnished by the judges to the voters, and were the only ballots furnished to or used by any voter at that voting place, is not sufficient to prevent the counting of the votes. The secrecy of the ballot has been in no wise impaired; the voters themselves have manifested no disposition to disregard the law, and it may be fairly inferred that the

37 53 Kan. 594,

use of the colored ballots was an honest mistake on the part of the judges of the election. Had a part of the ballots been white and a part colored, so as to afford some grounds for identification of the votes cast by the individual voters, a different question would be presented. We reach the conclusion that the law has not been substantially infringed, because we are unable to see how the purposes of the act can have been impaired in any degree by the mistake made in using the colored ballots. By this decision we do not intend to say that any of the provisions of the law may be disregarded, or that any officer may escape liability to punishment for violating any of its provisions."

17. Assistance to voters.-Where an educational qualification is not a prerequisite to voting, the statutes may and should provide for the rendering of assistance to illiterate voters. In order to avoid corruption, assistance by others than election officials should be forbidden, but it is a travesty to expect a man who cannot read to mark his ballot without assistance. It therefore follows that if such are to be allowed to vote, the proceeding should be relieved of the character of a gambling operation by furnishing them official assistance. The high percentage of voters in our large cities who cannot read English makes this a question of practical, rather than one of merely academic, importance. The throwing out of ballots not properly marked is not a sufficient safeguard. The ballot may, by accident, be marked so that it is a legal ballot and yet not express the will of the voter, and unless it does, the election becomes, to that extent, a farce. An election purports to be