ated by illegal practices, why not
demand redress, asks the novice in suffrage campaigns. Ah, there's the
rub. In twenty-four states, no provision has been made by the election
law for any form of contest or recount on a referendum nor are
precedents for a recount found. Political corrupters may, in these
states, bribe voters, colonize voters and repeat them to their hearts'
content and redress of any kind is practically impossible. If clear
evidence of fraud could be produced a case might be brought to the
courts and the guilty parties might be punished, but the election
would stand. In New York, in 1915, the question was submitted to the
voters as to whether a constitutional convention should be called.
The convention was ordered by a majority of about 1,500. Later the
District Attorney of New York City found proof that at least 800
fraudulent votes had been cast in that city. Leading lawyers discussed
the question of effect upon the election and the general opinion among
them was that, even though the entire majority, and more, should
be found to be fraudulent, the election could not be set aside. The
convention was held.

In the other twenty-three states,[A] contests on referenda seem
possible under the law, but in practically every one, the contest
means a resort to the courts and in only eight[B] of these is
reference made to a recount. The law is vague and incomplete in nearly
all of these States. In some of these, including Michigan, where the
suffrage amendment is declared to have been counted out, application
for a recount must be made in each voting precinct. To have secured
redress in Michigan, provided the fraud was widespread, as it is
believed to have been, it would have been necessary to have secured
definite evidence of fraud in a probable 1,000 precincts and to have
instituted as many cases. This would have consumed many months and
would have demanded thousands of dollars.

[Footnote A: In Ohio, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, New Jersey, Minnesota
and Michigan by law; in Illinois, Texas, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Oregon, Arizona and Iowa by precedent; in West Virginia, South Dakota,
Kentucky and Colorado, officials express the opinion that the
law governing candidates's contests could be stretched to cover
amendments. In Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and
Washington, the law is so fragmentary as to make the possibilities
very uncertain. Information on this last group of laws will be f