^{page 208 note 1} In spite of the objections to this rule when applied in conjunction with the “party column” form of ballot, fourteen out of the twenty-seven states now using this form of ballot have adopted it. In several of these states its constitutionality has been upheld by the courts. (Todd v. Election Commissioners, 104 Mich. 474; State v. Anderson, 100 Wisconsin, 523; State v. Bode, 55 Ohio, 224; State v. Porter, N. Dak., 100 N.W. 1080.). In several other states, however, the rule has been declared unconstitutional (Murphy v. Curry, 137 Cal., 479; Commonwealth v. Martin, 6 Pa. Dist. Rep. 645) or in the absence of express provision, it has been held that on a “party column” ballot the name of a candidate nominated by two or more parties or groups for any office should be printed in the column of each of such organizations. (Fisher v. Dudley, 74 Maryland, 242; Simpson v. Osborn, 52 Kansas, 328.) In several of the law encyclopedias the general rule, in spite of the contrary decisions above noted, is stated to be, that a provision that each candidate's name shall appear but once is entirely proper in conjunction with the “office group’ form of ballot, but not with the “party column” form.

^{page 208 note 2} Senate bill (1908) Int. No. 490; introdued by Senator Gilchrist.

^{page 208 note 3} Assembly bill (1910) Int. No. 21.

^{page 210 note 1} Assembly bill (1910) Int. No. 695.

^{page 210 note 2} Assembly bill (1910) Int. No. 982; Introduced by Assemblyman Green.

^{page 210 note 3} Assembly bill (1909) Int. No. 772.

^{page 210 note 4} Senate bill (1910) Int. No. 389.