Chapter XXIII: The Problem of Restricting the Suffrage

During nearly the whole of the nineteenth century our American people played up hill and down dale with a very dangerous political doctrine. I refer to the theory of unrestricted suffrage. Probably a majority of our people actually came to believe that because a man (or a woman) had arrived at the age of twenty-one, that was reason enough for granting him the right to vote. This individual might be illiterate. He might be mentally undeveloped, perhaps an imbecile. If our imaginary voter were deaf, dumb and blind, besides being halt, he could still be carried to the polls and his vote registered and counted.

Only recently have any considerable number of our people come to take a practical view of this thing. At last we are beginning to see that this, like any other good principle of life, may be driven to excess. One may work too hard or think too much. Even the most exalted virtues may be overdone. So it is with the principles of democracy. Having succeeded with a large measure of democracy, by the time our government was put into operation, we did not lack those who were prepared to see it carried to fanatical and dangerous extremes. So the spoils system has been long defended as being a necessary attribute of democracy. Politicians discovered that votes might be secured through disclaiming all breeding, culture, and even denouncing efficiency in office. Instead of trying to make of our democratic system a sound and reasonable way of conducting public business, our people fell to advocating certain democratic political and social theories with a sort of religious frenzy.

So it was with universal suffrage. A corrupt government at Washington would never have been permitted to enfranchise the Negroes directly after their emancipation had it not been for the wide acceptance among our people of this false theory of the suffrage. If "everybody should vote," then, indeed, how could the freed Negro be denied this "inherent and inalienable right."

Of course, as a matter of fact, the vote has always been denied to certain groups and classes. To begin with, the young people under twenty-one years of age, in the eyes of the law, "infants," were disfranchised. These had no "inherent and inalienable" right to vote, because of their immaturity. Until recently women were not allowed to vote on the basis that the franchise would interfere with the performance of domestic duties. Paupers and criminals are also disfranchised.

However, it is quite true that heretofore our theory of the suffrage has been that any adult male could vote unless specific cause were shown why he should be disfranchised. Right here we must reverse our approach to the subject. The burden of proof should be upon the other side. Our prospective voter should be made to show indisputable reason for enfranchisement, instead of being permitted to vote unless cause for disfranchisement can be shown. In other words, the ballot must be considered a privilege and not an "inherent and inalienable right."

This brings us to the question of the standards to be enforced. No doubt this is a very difficult matter to decide. A very large proportion of our people are quite likely averse to any change. That the wind is blowing in the right direction is indicated, however, by a general tendency to raise the standards of the suffrage. Thus, in the State of New York, in the last election (1921) an amendment to the State Constitution was passed requiring that a prospective citizen and voter should read and write in English. What is needed is an amendment not only to the various state constitutions, but to the national constitution. In preparation for such a drastic and far-reaching step, the national mind should be prepared by the widest possible discussion of the problem.

The suggestion that I am to make here I wish to be understood as purely tentative. I realize fully that the whole discussion is just beginning.

Hardly anybody will deny that reading, writing and speaking the English language with facility should be required of every voter. Without the ready use of English it is impossible for foreigner or native born to keep himself sufficiently acquainted with affairs to vote intelligently. This requirement would disfranchise a considerable portion of our native born whites, and a much larger portion of our Negro and immigrant population. It is not too much to say that the graver danger of the ignorant voter would be abolished by this measure,--that is, if the measure were properly drawn and strictly enforced, and at the same time would guarantee absolute and complete rights of all under a real intelligent democracy.

But the literacy test is not enough. Government to-day is intricate and the duties of the voter are most varied and difficult. Very few Americans will hold it necessary to so restrict the suffrage that only a minority will be qualified to take part. But any American intellectually fitted to discuss this problem will presently come to hold, I believe, that the standards may well be raised. They should be so high that our more backward young people in the schools must be forced to strive diligently in order to fit themselves to attain this great privilege and responsibility.

It would be simple enough, in connection with our public school system, to establish boards of examination to pass upon prospective candidates. A majority of these boards should have had experience as school-teachers. They should have in hand the matter of providing facilities for educational preparation on the part of the student, young or old, who might wish to continue his school work in order to qualify for the use of the ballot.

The nature of the educational requirement, in my opinion, would have to do with two sorts of preparation other than the ability to read, write and speak the English language. First, we should demand an intelligence test such as is now required of every applicant for enlistment in the United States Army or Navy. These tests have been reduced to a high degree of scientific accuracy. The specific requirements would be somewhat different, of course, than those demanded for the admission to the Army or Navy, insofar as they would have a different object. But the principles should be the same. The purpose of such a test would be to reject all imbeciles, morons, and the mentally unbalanced. We now know that these groups number from ten to fifteen per cent of our population. Placing the ballot in their hands amounts to the same thing as intrusting it to children from six years to fifteen years of age.

The second feature of our test should have to do with a different sort of qualification. The purpose of the intelligence test should be to reject those who are so lacking in natural intelligence as to be unfitted for the simpler responsibilities of life. Our second requirement would have to do with positive preparation. Any applicant should have a full measure of sound knowledge with regard to the history and government of the United States and current political and social problems. Unhappily not only many immigrants, Negroes, and illiterate native whites are at present unfitted to vote intelligently. I fear that an enormous percentage of quite intelligent, and in some respects well educated, persons are not in a position to pass the simplest examination upon the elements of our history and government. Let me not be misunderstood here. I do not propose to limit the suffrage to those who are qualified to become judges on the bench or professors of history and political science. I would favor no standard so high that an intelligent young person could not fully prepare himself in a year, by careful study for a few evenings a week. The last two years of any efficiently graded school should furnish courses sufficient to prepare the student in these things. Indeed, any child completing his grade course where such studies were offered and required would naturally be considered as having measured up to this part of the suffrage requirement. His diploma on leaving school, properly attested, signed and publicly registered, should give him, upon arriving at the age of twenty-one, the right to vote. For children who have not been enabled, for any reason, to complete the grade school work, the necessary process seems simple enough. Evening classes or other means of preparation can be furnished them at any time during the years preceding voting age. Whenever they can pass the examinations they will receive the testimonial of proficiency, so there will be placed in their hands a most valuable and precious document entitling them to the sacred privileges and duties of an American enfranchised citizenship.

My basic contention in this matter is simply this: both our young people and our immigrants must be asked to fit themselves with the greatest care for the use of the ballot. I am agreed that a great many, native-born and foreigners alike, should be admitted to every other privilege and right of citizenship except that of the ballot. Nothing should be denied these except the power to degrade and destroy our government through ignorance and incompetence. The ballot is both a sacred heritage and sacred privilege. It must be recognized and appreciated as such. The scandal of the criminal use of the ballot by outright purchase is the primary source from which flows political corruption. A premium is put upon the achievement and honors conferred in the hearts of the people upon the successful politician regardless of the methods by which he attains success. Most recently this has broken out upon the body of the nation as a putrid sore, revealing within a systemic condition portending the decay and death of our democratic civilization.

Our American democracy, generally successful at first, has more recently left much to be desired. Even a hundred years ago, when we were a primitive, farming population, our victorious democracy had its seamy side. It brought with it every sort of inefficiency. It thrust upon the nation the diabolical spoils system, which is still so largely with us. Yet at that time democracy was saved by the very simplicities of our national life. To-day all is so different. It is time for democracy to tie up its loose ends and pull up the slack at every point. Our public problems to-day are most perplexing to the best informed minds among us. Our whole citizenship must not only acquire a degree of education in public affairs which no people has ever yet attempted--they must be reanimated by a spirit of sound morals and an intense desire to serve their country well. Otherwise no purely negative reforms can save our democratic system.