to dishonesty and corruption in most elections upon referendum questions.  In several states there is little doubt that suffrage amendments have been lost through fraud.  All the suffragists in Michigan seem to agree that the amendment was counted out in the first campaign of 1912 and that ballot boxes were stuffed in the second, 1913.  Willis E. Reed, Attorney General of Nebraska, has declared that he believes the amendment was counted out in that state.  An investigation has revealed forty-seven varieties of fraud or violation of the election law in forty-four counties in the Iowa suffrage election of June 5, 1916.  Given a group determined to prevent women from getting the vote, a group provided with money and knowing no scruple, and the inadequacy of the law in many States offers a positive guarantee at the outset of a campaign that a suffrage amendment will be lost.

If suffrage amendments are defeated 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 found in Appendix B.]