Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1902-05-31

|
| ty, If any of its said individual nominees
| received l per cent. of the total stote
| vote cast at such preceding general elec.
| ton.
The voter, then, had this bill becoms
law, who cared to exercise his soy
erelgn right of choice by direct vote, In
| making nominations for office, would
nave had to see to it that, ut the first
| primary election held under the law, ha
belonged to a political organization thai
numbered more than 1000 voters Other
wise he might have found himself fore
| closed of his right of suffrage for the
want Of utilization with a party of the
prescribed size. Here nestled queer
comment upon the language of the plat
form, when compared with the wording
of the bill. Let me quote as follows:
| Sec. 13. There shall be sepa-
rate ballot for each political party, upon
which the names of its candidates shall
| be arranged according to sur
| name
Sec. 16. At any primary election
| no person shall vote any ticket but that
| of the party with which he aflli-
Upon the arguments before the COM
mittee, the Stevens bill was claimed to
I be fultllment of a platform obligation,
| while, by its very terms instead of re-
| storing to voters the rights of which
they were said to have been deprived,
! it excluded from its bencficcnt operation
! any voter whose judgment or conscience
| led him to affiliate with a political or
| ganization which could not muster a pre-
| scribed number of voters. Our consti-
! tuition had not so limited the right to
| vote. An election called primary is not
! different from an election called general.
| The courts have so decided. At an cleo
| ton the elector, qualified under the con-
stitution, has n right to vote. This state
will maintain this right, not destroy it.
| A similar provision in California cleo
ton law was declared by the supreme
court of that state to be unconstitutional.
Our Legislature rejected the Stevens
bill.
Having examined the provisions of
the Stevens bill with reference to the
ballot to be used at primary elections
and with reference to the method to be
pursued by candidates, to have their
names printed upon the ballot as NOM
inees, l should like to suggest what
would have occurred at a primary cleo
ton conducted under this law. One cleo
tor would have presented himself before
the election officers, giving his name and
residence and expressed his wish to vote.
His statement that he was a Republican
having passed unchallengcd he would
have received the ballot of that party.
Could Net Have Voted.
"Another elector would have come for
ward, and, having identified himself in a
similar way and declared his party afIil-
iation to be Democratic, he would have
received the ballot of that party. A third
elector would have attempted to qualify,
but having stated that he affiliated with
the --- party, which cast but 5000
votes at the last preceding election, he
would have been informed by the judges
that no ballot of that party was permit
ted. Still another elGetor would have
asked to vote. When his party affiha-
ton was inquired into he would have
stated that he belonged to no party, that
he was an Independent voter, or, per-
haps, a nonpartisan' voter. He would
have been informed that no ballot to fit
his case existed.
ELECTORS, as the above citations from
the bill show, who could not show party
qualifications would neither have been
provided with ballots, nor permitted to
vote. Under this law an election officer
had no authority to deliver either of the
authorized party ballots to an elector
who had declared his utilization with a
party whose right to a ballot was not
recognized by the law, or to another cleo
tor who had asserted his independence
Nth a1,r or4Ny
What would have become of the 'soyer-
eign right of choice Of our party friend
whose party was too weak to have bal
lot. or Of our independent voter who was
unwilling to declare an utilization with
anv marty? A practical illustration of
| this character shows the working of the
| hill and indicates how far short it fell
Of nr0viding a method i'll making nomin-
ations that would enable every voter
TO exercise his sovereign right of choice
by direct vote, without the Intervention
| or interference Of any political agency
Anticipated the Objections.
"Tbo distinguished speaker for the BILL
| whom I so often refer to, must have re-
\ allied that there were liable to be doubts
| EXPRESSED as to these features Of the bill.
Anticipating the objections that might be
made he SAID:
""Tbere is not a provision in this bill
nor shadow Of a provision which limits
| in auv way the right which the indie
! nanden+ voter has under existing laws.
| There is no provision in this bill which
prevents the birth or development of a
new political party. 1t must not be for
| COTTON that it applies merely to primary
| oIactions. that candidates can be placed
| IN tho field and their names placed upon
| tho official ballot in general elections pre-
! ciseIv as they have been. Even the re-
| on;roment for obtaining a place upon the
urinary election ballot is very slight and
aosv, of performance. Not every small
| Gathering Of men, who may assume to
| donominate themselves a political party,
| ought 10 be represented upon that prima-
w election ballot. A party, in order to
| rocaive recognition under this primary
| election measure, ought to be composed
| of something more than a few voters
| with large aspirations.
i" .The boast Of the Independent foater
+bo+ he votes only for the person whom
ho regards as the best man on a nominal
+ion ticket, regardless of party policies
| and marty principles, is a public confess
sion Of weak Judgment
Did Not Explain.
"vyhether the friends of the bill were
| satisfied with these statements of their
| champion, am not advised. His ex-
| .1o,o+ions did not explain to a nemher of