IN SENATE, January 2, 1833. REPORT Of the Attorney-General, relative to the election and classification of justices of the peace. Albany, January 2, 1833. To the PRESident of the Senate. SIR, In pursuance of a resolution of the Senate, I transmit herewith a report relative to the election and classification of justices of the the peace. With great respect, Your obedient servant, GREENE C. BRONSON. [Senate No. 10.] 1 REPORT, &c. "STATE OF NEW-YORK, Resolved, That the committee on the judiciary be discharged from the further consideration of the engrossed bill from the Assembly, entitled "An act relative to the election of justices of the peace;" and that the same be referred to the Attorney-General, for him to report thereon at the next session of the Legislature. "By order, JOHN F. BACON, Clerk." The Attorney-General, in obedience to the foregoing resolution of the Senate, respectfully submits the following REPORT: In each of the towns in this State, the term of one justice of the peace expires annually with the close of the year; and a person to supply his place is elected at the preceding annual town-meeting. Besides the case of the regular expiration of the term for which a justice was elected, vacancies sometimes happen by death, resignation or removal; and in such cases, two or more persons are to be elected justices; the one for the regular term of four years, and the other or others for three, two or one year, or even a shorter period. Under the existing law, the class to which they respectively belong, is to be determined by lot: and it may chance that the person who was intended by the electors to supply an existing vacancy for only a single year, or even a shorter period, obtains the longest term; while the person who was intended by the voters for the longest term, obtains only the lot of the shortest period. But this is not the only difficulty in the present system. It often happens that the electors wish to retain a faithful magistrate whose term will expire at the close of the year, and at the same time an existing vacancy is to be filled. If in such case the person already a justice draw the shortest term, the intention of the electors as to the place he shall occupy is not only defeated, but the vacancy is not filled. The justice already in office is under no obligation to abandon what remains of his former term, and accept the vacancy: And should he do so, the number of acting justices is not increased; for the other person elected, having drawn the regular term, cannot enter upon the duties of his office before the first day of Ja nuary next following his election. The engrossed bill mentioned in the resolution of the Senate, was designed to remedy these evils, The first section is in the following words; At any election for more than one justice of the peace at the same time in any town, there shall be written or printed on the ballot containing the name of the person voted for, a designation of the term or vacancy for which he is to be elected; [and the words "first vacancy" shall mean four years, "second vacancy" shall mean three years, "third vacancy" shall mean two years, and "fourth vacancy" shall mean one year;] and the persons elected shall be deemed chosen to the term or vacancy thus designated on the ballots given for them respectively." Accompanying the bill is a proposed amendment, to strike out the words enclosed in brackets, and insert the following: "which designation shall specify the number of years for which it is intended that such justice shall be elected," The proposed amendment would simplify the bill, so that the electors would be less likely to fall into any mistake in expressing their intention. But there are serious difficulties in the way of requiring any designation of the term upon the ballot. It is not improbable that some voters, not conversant with the laws, would omit to make the necessary specification, or make it in an imperfect or insufficient manner, and thus lose their votes. And it consequently might happen that a person receiving only ten votes pro perly prepared, would be elected, over a man who had received ten times as many votes, imperfect for want of the proper designation, But if it be supposed that every elector will make the proper designation, the bill is still subject to objection. If required by law to designate the term, then the elector not only votes for a particular person for the office of justice, but he votes for him in reference to a particular term or vacancy; and the canvassers must determine which person has the greatest number of votes, not generally, but for that particular term or vacancy. And thus it may be that a person receiving a majority of all the votes, may nevertheless fail of an election, for the reason that his friends did not agree as to the place which he should fill. To exemplify this in a case where two justices are to be elected, one for four, and one for three years: Let it be supposed that there are one hundred electors; that 60 of them vote for A and B, and the remaining 40 vote for C and D. Should the 60 voters differ about the term-half of them designating A for four years, and B for three; and the other half designating B for four, and A for three years; and should those who vote for C and D agree in their designations of the term intended for each, then C and D, with only 40 votes each, would be elected against A and B, who respectively received 60 votes. If instead of two, three justices were to be elected, the objection already mentioned might be still greater, as will sufficiently appear from the following table, in which the capital letters represent the candidates; the figures 1, 2, 3, the classes as designated by the electors; and the figures in the left hand column, the number of votes received by each: In this case, although A, B and C, would have severally received 72 votes out of 100, yet, owing to a disagreement among their supporters about a collateral matter, D, E and F, with only 28 votes each would be elected; and if four justices were required to be chosen the case would be still worse. The project is also subject to the further objection that the same person might be elected to fill different places at the same time. The engrossed bill under consideration also provides that there shall be a separate box and poll list for the ballots for justices of the peace. But this would not remedy the difficulties that have been suggested. |