The San Francisco call., 1896-01-16
TO TEST THE NEW
PRIMARY LAW,
The Sacramento Democrats
Have Taken the
Step.
A MANDAMUS ASKED.
The Supreme Court Will Give
the Matter a Speedy
Hearing.
is IT SPECIAL LEGISLATION?
An Important Open Question of the
Classification of Counties Also
Involved.
is IT SPECIAL LEGISLATION?

The constitutionality of the new primary
law, which makes such a radical change
| in the methods Of primary elections, is to
be passed upon by the Supreme Court at
| once.
| For months politicians, both friendly
and hostile to the new law, have been in
doubt as to whether or not the law would
stand a constitutional test, and there has
| been a constant anticipation in all quar-
tiers that steps would taken bv somebody
to bring the question before the Supreme
Court before it became necessary to put
the law into operation.
1t has been expected that the issue
would be raised in this City in some way,
because it is here that the law would have
its most important effect, and, owing to
the great cost in time and labor and money
of holding primary In San Francisco at
public expense, it is here that the import
ance of avoiding needless xpense-ifn need
less it should prove to be-is greatest.
But the issue has been raised in Sacra-
mentO County, and it is an application for
a writ of mandate compelling the Super
visors of that county TO proceed to carry
out the law that brings the matter before
the Supreme Court.
Briefly, the law requires that the primary
! elections of all parties shall be held on GER
tain fixed days. Primary elections are
| made general elections.
They are held at public expense, under
| the sole direction and control of Election
| Commissions or Boards of Supervisors and
| around primary elections are thrown as
| strong safeguards in the way of require
ments, exact election machinery and pen
alties as guard the sacredness of general
elections proper.
| II this highly salutary law can be made
| legally operative it will at once raise prim.
! ary elections, the foundation of our politi-
| cal system and the fountain of our political
fortunes, to the high plane OF being
legitimate expressions of the will of the
| voters.
There are provisions in the law which
make it difficult TO carry out in practical
operation. But these, of course, do not
! figure before the Supreme Court.
| The main point on which the doubts of
its constitutionality rest is that ii is linn
| tied 10 certain counties of the State, and so
is special legislation. 1t regulates the
elective franchise in some portions of the
State in a manner different from that pre-
scribed for other sections.
The law was framed and introduced as q
general law. but owing to the objections
| of interior counties, where the expense of
another general election was regarded as
needless, an amendment was tackled on
| making the act apply only TO counties of
| the first and second class.
! Now, the unsettled question arises, What
are counties of the first and second class
! The legislators intended to make the law
! applica Bile to San Francisco and Los An
| geles only. The classification which puts
! these cities alone in the first and second
| classes respectively has been held by the
| Supreme Court to apply only to the regu-
! lation of the fees OF county officers. 1t is
| held by many able lawyers that for the
purpose of such a law as this the old clas-
| siication of section 1905 of the Political
| Code, existing before the adoption of the
new constitution and never effectually re-
| peaied, must apply.
! This classification makes counties of the
first class all those with a population of
! over 10000 and those of the second class
all those of over 5000 and under 20, 0OO
There is thus doubt whether the law is
to apply to San Francisco and Los Angeles
only or to all but sixteen counties of the
State.
1t is under the assumption that the law
applies to Sacramento County that the
petition has been filed from there This
is an important legal point to be decided
outside of the issue OF the primary law
itself.
The petition is filed by w. A. Gett j.
of Sacramento. He is a member of the
Democracy there. 1t was filed with the
practical cooperation of others in Sacra-
mento and at the particular instance OF
d. E. Alexander, who is seeking the nom
ination for Superior Judge of that county,
and who appears as an attorney for the
petitioner.
AS the petition is one in support of the
law the points against 1t do not, of course,
appear in it.