of the watchfulness of both party machines and is doubly safeguarded
from fraud. But when such a question has been espoused by no dominant
party it is utterly at the mercy of the worst forms of corruption.
The election officers have even been known to wink at irregularities
plainly committed since it was no affair of theirs. Or, they may even
go further and join in the entertaining game of running in as many
votes against such an amendment as possible. This has not infrequently
been the unhappy experience of suffrage amendments in corrupt
quarters.

Honest election officers, respecting "the will of the majority" as
the sovereign of our nation, would protect honesty in elections,
regardless of their own or their party's views, but unhappily that
high standard is not universal.

Surely, the method of taking the vote and of safeguarding the honesty
of elections should be the most important and fundamental of all
questions in a republic. Such laws ought to be preliminary to all
other laws. Yet as a matter of fact the laxity and ambiguity of
many state election laws and the utter inadequacy of provisions for
enforcement are almost unbelievable. The contemplation of the actual
facts seriously reflects upon the intelligence and good faith of the
successive lawmakers of our land.

With no one on the election board whose special business it is to see
that honesty is upheld, a suffrage amendment must face further hazards
through the fact that most states do not permit women, or even special
men watchers, to stand guard over the vote and the count upon such
questions.