|
228 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE
After the 1888 legislative session, all such electoral reformers focused
their activ-
ities on ballot reform and the achievement of the Australian ballot. An
examination
of the process by which Maryland secured this law demonstrates the
interaction
between political conditions and electoral change, the continued partisan
features of
electoral legislation, and the growing role of the state in the electoral
process. First
adopted in Australia in 1856, this new voting system differed completely
from the
party-ticket system. In particular, reformers were attracted by three
features of the
Australian system. First, it provided an "official" ballot, prepared and
distributed
by public authorities; it therefore stripped parties of one of their most
influential
organizational functions and promised dramatically to alter campaign
practices by
abolishing the disruptive ticket peddlers. Theoretically this feature also
made it
easier for independent organizations and candidates by minimizing their
election
costs and reducing their dependence on party organizations for nominations,
while
it removed the parties' rationale for assessing their nominees and thus
eliminated a
major source of corrupt funds. Electoral corruption was also to be
eliminated by a
second characteristic of the Australian ballot: it was secret and therefore
presumably
discouraged vote buying while providing workers with "an escape from the
dicta-
tion and prying eyes of employers and overseers." Finally, it was a
consolidated or
"blanket" ballot, listing all candidates instead of only those of one
party. This
provision permitted more independent and split-ticket voting than was
possible
under the party-ticket system and seemed likely to weaken party control
over the
electorate, a prime objective of most reformers. 17
Election reformers eagerly championed this new system. Labor organizations
were the most active in promoting its popular acceptance. The Maryland Labor
Conference raised the subject in its 1888 meeting and encouraged public
discus-
sion. The Knights of Labor, in particular, agitated for legislative action,
drawing
up a model ballot law for the next legislature to consider." In 1889, the
mug-
wumps of the Reform League also drafted an election bill, although rather
than
requiring a blanket ballot it provided for separate party ballots from
which the
voter would select in secret. This adaptation reflected the mugwump
conviction
that the Australian ballot would effectively disfranchise illiterate
voters. Whereas
mugwumps in other states, particularly those with large immigrant
populations,
praised the Australian system precisely for its possible disfranchising
effect on illit-
erates, in Maryland a substantial portion of the illiterate population
consisted of
blacks whose votes, mugwumps realized, were essential to any possible
election
victory of a fusion coalition. Both Republicans and Independent Democrats
reached
the same conclusion and accordingly euphemistically endorsed those aspects
of the
Australian system which were "appropriate" for Maryland .29
Even many partisan Democrats joined in the demand for ballot reform. Among
them was a new group, the Democratic Business Men's Association of
Baltimore,
which although opposed to the parry machine refused to desert the party and
join
in the fusion of Independent Democrats and Republicans. They did, however,
appoint a committee to draw up an Australian bill and to lobby for its
enactment.
Still another ballot bill was prepared by Kent County Democratic legislator
J. A.
Pearce. He feared that election reform might permit Republicans to gain more
|
