The first voting machine decision ever... 1897.

I just stumbled across what appears to be the first voting machine decision ever (19 R.I. 1729 (1897)). In 1897, Governor Lippitt of Rhode Island asked the state Supreme Court the following quesiton, "Can the General Assembly of Rhode Island, under our constitution, enact a valid law providing that the city of Providence may use the McTammany Voting Machine, so-called, in elections held in said city?"

Some interesting quotes follow. First from the decision by Justices Matteson, Stiness, Tillinghast and Douglas and then from the dissent (bold emphasis added, italics in original):

The constitution says, in article 8, section 2, [of the Constitution of Rhode Island] after providing that the voting for general officers shall be by ballot, "and in all cases where an election is made by ballot or paper vote, the manner of balloting shall be the same as is now required in voting for general officers, until otherwise prescribed by law." In this clause the meaning of the word "ballot" is explained by the words "paper vote." The primary meaning of "ballot," which signified a little ball, is not the one intended, but the broader meaning which has been substituted for the word by reason of the change in the mode of voting from little balls to that of a paper vote. The purpose of the constitution is evidently to provide a record more permanent than that of counting hands and the like, by which the declared result may be verified. That the manner of securing this might be changed is evident from the use of the phrase "until otherwise provided by law." We think, therefore, that the present proposal is within the terms and purpose of the constitution. It is a paper vote, on which the names of the candidates are printed, and from which the result may afterwards be ascertained by counting as well as in the case of individual slips of paper.

Now from the dissent by Justice Rogers (once again, italics in the original):

What significance, then, did the framers of the constitution attach to the words "ballot or paper vote" when used in the constitutional provision above quoted? The generic kind of voting was to be by ballot or paper vote, and the particular manner of using that generic kind was by the framers of the constitution fixed for the time being, as we have seen by the provision above quoted, in the same way as then in force; but the General Assembly was authorized to change the manner from time to time as it saw fit, but not the generic kind, which must continue to be by ballot or paper vote.

Now this last quote is the kicker (if you read anything in this post) as it is so very relevant for the current e-voting debate (italics in the original, bold added):

It is claimed that using the McTammany voting machine is also a change in manner of voting by ballot or paper vote only, and not in the generic kind, because it is urged that there is a roll of paper,--invisible to the voter to be sure, but still there--and that a pressure of the buttons cuts holes in that paper which records the voter's vote. It is said that though the voter does not see the paper on which his vote is recorded, yet that a blind man cannot see the paper ballot now in use and that he has to have the assistance of some one else's senses to enable him to vote. The blind man certainly has the ballot in his hands and has sensible knowledge of its presence. But even if a man in the full possession of all his senses must depend upon some one else for knowledge that there is a paper used, on whose senses does he depend for knowledge that he has made a distinguishing mark by perforation? The voter himself does not see it made, nor does any other living person see it. Even if the voter could stand at the back of the machine with the doors open he could not see the hole he was supposed to have made, until at least one other person, if not two, had voted so as to uncover his hole by the passage of so much paper as was required for the vote of one or two persons. It seems to me that for a person to vote by ballot or paper vote, he must have some sensible evidence, some knowledge by means of his senses, that he has performed some effectual act by means of paper to indicate for whom he has voted. After he has pushed the buttons, he cannot affirm, much less swear, that he has made any mark, perforation or other distinguishing character on, or by means of paper to indicate the persons voted for. Nor can any one else give him that assurance by any sensible knowledge. The most that can be affirmed is that if the machine has worked as intended, he has made a distinguishing mark or hole. It is common knowledge that human machines and mechanisms get out of order and fail to work in all sorts of unforeseen ways. Ordinarily the person using a machine can see a result. Thus a bank clerk, perforating a check with figures, sees the holes; an officer of the law, using a gibbet by pressing a button, sees the result accomplished that he sought; and so on ad infinitum. But a voter on this voting machine has no knowledge through his senses that he has accomplished a result. The most that can be said, is, if the machine worked as intended, then he has made his hole and voted. It does not seem to me that that is enough.

Too bad this is all about the Constitution of Rhode Island, and not the US Constitution.

Posted by joebeone at Mayo 9, 2004 03:00 PM | TrackBack