Show A separate opinion on election law 1 simple illing of the act is not enough callot is not secret chief justice zane wrote the opinion first announce J by the supreme court sustaining the election law the other two judges announced that while they agreed in the conclusions they could not agree with the arguments of the chief justi e and they have filed an opinion written by associate justice bartch which contends that the journals of both branches of the legislature as well as the law on file are necessary in determining if the law is properly passed judge bartch gays tl concur in the result that the application for the writ must be denied but I 1 do not concur in the proposition which appears to be maintained in the opinion that when an enrolled act of the legislature is duly signed approved and deposited in the office of the secretary of state this court must conclusively clu presume that all constitutional requisites were complied with in its enactment this it to me is extending the rule further than is warranted by the decisions of the courts of the united states or by the welfare of this slate or by the will of the people as announced in the constitution carried to its legitimate effect this proposition means that when an enrolled act has been properly signed approved and deposited with the secretary ot the state it is the law of this commonwealth even though in its express limitations of the constitution haye been violated and that ched drawn in tion the judges who are called upon to its validity have no power to go beyond the enrolled act and look into the journals of the legislature required to be kept by the constitution to satisfy the judicial mind of ita constitutional tut ional passage this would plane tae legislature in tn e mode of the enactment beyond the control of the sovereignty itself and the limitations contained in the constitution respecting the manner of enacting lawe would be mere useless verbiage numerous citations are then made clearly proving the position taken by the dissenting opinion the opinion of aba other two judges also holds that much of the election law relating to the identification of the bailers bailees is wrong on this point judge bartch says 1 am also unable to agree with the chief justice in his views as to the secret ballot the constitutional provision on this question art 1 sec 8 is as follows all elections shall be by secret ballot nothing in this section dball by construed to prevent tho usa of adv ma chine or mechanical contrivance for the purpose of receiving and registering the votes cast at any election provided that secrecy in voting ba preserved this is an express provision for a secret ballot and clearly the word secret should in the interpretation of this section receive its plain and ordinary meaning because it dues not appear from the context that any other meaning was intended by the framers of the constitution in fact the words secret ballot appear to be emphasized for while the use of a machine or mechanical contrivance is permitted for a certain purpose it is only permitted provided secrecy in voting be preserved tensed as an adjective webster defines the word secret as hidden cons cealon As a noua something studiously concealed a thing kept from general knowledge that is not revealed or not to be revealed doubtless this latter ie the sense in which the words secret ballot were used in the constitution this view is in harmony with public thought and expression respecting the ballot system at the time of and before the holding of the constitutional convention and the courts have the right to take notice of the history of the times for the purpose of ascertaining the intent of the framers of the constitution it is well understood that the questions of open and secret ballots created much discussion in the several states as well BB in utah territory on account ot the improper influence whether supposed or real which could be brought to bear apon the humble citizens by the employers or those to whom they felt under obligations or which might result arom wealth and station the secret ballot is a question of public policy and trie fradera of the constitution ution doubt leaa intended to make the veil of secrecy EO that the voter could mako promises to whom hs pleased and vote aa ho pleaded without lear of afterward having ano secrecy of hia ballot violated the object to secure an independent hallos would be very imperfectly accomplish ed if the secrecy was limited to the moment of coating the ballot it is apprehended that it is not so much the fear of the voter of being exposed then as the fear ot afterward alt erward having hafl ballot identified and become exposed whether clandestinely or otherwise that deprives him dependence oin beyond all reasonable controversy the object aimed at by this provision of the constitution was to secure the independence of the voter how then can this object be attained if the voter be compelled to a ballot which can be identified to my mind the con elusion is inevitable that any contrivance or method by which the ballot can be identified and the voter exposed is unauthorized and no legislative enactment can give it the force of law under our constitution be the same for the purpose of contest in a court of justice or for any other purpose numerous citations are then made showing the numbering of the ballots under the utah law does not confirm to the constitution |