[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 have been notorious for political corruption.

From Ohio alone has evidence been found of the actual enforcement of the disfranchisement provision.  In this state nearly 1,800 bribed voters of Adams County were disfranchised in 1910 for scandalous and well-remembered corruption but in 1915 they were restored to citizenship.  These cases reveal a disgraceful provision in the Ohio law, by which the briber is given immunity if he will turn State’s evidence on the bribed; the vote-buyer may purchase votes by the thousands with perfect safety provided that when suspected he will deliver up a few of the bought by way of example.

With a vague, uncertain law to define their punishment in most states, and no law at all in twenty-four states, as a preliminary security, corrupt opponents of a woman suffrage amendment find many additional aids to their nefarious acts.  A briber must make sure that the bribed carries out his part of the contract.  Whenever it is easy to check up the results of the bribe, corruption may reign supreme with little risk of being found out.  A study of some of the recent suffrage votes gives significant food for reflection.  It shows how the form, color and arrangement of the ballot may help the corrupt politician to organize ignorant voters to do his will.  In Georgia and Louisiana no party names are printed on the official ballot and emblems only are used.  In almost half our states, though the party name is used also, the emblem is the real guide.  New York does not even relegate this emblem to the top of the column.  The emblem is placed before the name of each candidate, so that the illiterate voter can make no mistake in recognizing the sign of the machine which controls his vote.  Scarcely more than a dozen states have the headless ballot[A] which makes it impossible for politicians to make corrupt use of the illiterate voter.