The Topeka state journal., 1902-11-20
IT is NO GOOD.
California Supreme Court Knock
Out Ballot Law.
1t Was Almost Identical With
That in Kansas.
ANTI-FUSION FEATURE.
Provided Name Could Be on
Ticket But Once.
'.NO Nomination" Clause Also IA
Part ofthe Law.

BY a vote of to 3, the supreme court
of California in a deciion rendered on
October IA, declared invalid the Cali
fornia anti-fusion election law which is
almost identical in form with the Kan
Sas law.
The syllabus Of the case is as follows:
Political code paragraph 1897, relat-
ing to official election ballots, which
provides that the name of candidate
shall be printed only once upon ballot,
and, If any candidate is nominated by
more than one certificate of nomination
he must choose which of the party
designations he desires to have his name
printed under, and if the candidate
shall fail to make the choice, his name
shall be placed on the ballot under the
party designatio named in the certifi-
cate first filed, and underneath the title
of the office in the other party column
shall be printed the words No Nomina-
t1on, is unconstitutional, as interfering
with the rights OF political parties to
make nominations, and with the right
of a candidate to demand that his name
shall be placed on the ballet SO as to
inform the voters that he is the nominee
of a particular party; and therefore a
man nominated by two parties for the
same office is entitled to have his name
printed twice on the party ballot, under
the two designations.
The case before the court was brought
as a test to compel Secretary OF State
Chas. F. Curry to certify the nomination
of Edward ]. LivernaSh as Democratic
candidate for the house of representa-.
tives from the Fourth congressional dis
trict. Livernash was also nominated
by the Union Labor party, and the
Union Labor certificate filed first.
The secretary of state proposed to have
Livernash'S name placed on the Union
Labor ticket. and omitted from the
Democratic ticket.
The court granted a peremptory writ
of mandamus against the secretary of
Dyke and Temple concurred: Justices
Harrison. Mcfarland and Garoutte dis
sented.
The law of California on the matter at
issue, as quoted in the November II issue
of the Pacific Reporter, is as follows:
THE name of a candidate shall be print
ed only once upon the ballot, and if any
candidate is nominated by more than one
certificate of nomination, he must by
writing signed and verified by him and
filed with the officer where the certificate
of nomination is filed choose which of
such party designations he desires to have
his name printed under. Such writing if
filed with the secretary of state, must be
filed at least twenty-seven days before the
day of the election a1l if any
such candidates shall not have so chosen,
his name shall be placed upon the ballot
under the designation of the party named
in the certificate of nomination which was
first filed"
The opinion of the court which is writ
ten by Justice ]. Henshaw, goes on to
comment on the action of the secretary
of state in refusing to certify Livernash's
nomination on the Democratic ticket. II
says:
The only difference of consequence be-
tween our law and that which those
courts had under review is that ours re-
quires the printing in the blank space re-
served for the name of the candidate the
words No Nomination while by the other
statutes the space is left blank. In one
case, therefore. the law puts before the
voter the positively misleading and in
deed untruthful staten ent that the party
has made no nomination. while in the 9th
er, by a vacancy. it merely ignores the
fact of such nomination. This, however,
is minor consideration and the legal
principles which should govern are as ap-
plicable to the one statute as to the
other"
The majority of the judges of the court
took the position that the rights of DO
litical parties are paramount to the rights
of the individual voter. 1t reasons as fol-
lows:
Throughout the opinions in all these
cases, it would seem that attention has
been paid to the right of the Individual
voter which after all is only incidentally
here involved, to the exclusion of the
rights of political parties and of the
rights of the nominees whom they have
selected. From the moment that the leg
islature, under the Australian ballot law
saw fit to recognize political parties as
entities. and to circumscribe their spheres
OF action, 1t became its duty to treat ali
justly and impartially, and it is unjust.
discriminating and illegal to deprive in
this instance the Democratic party of
the right to place the name of it's nom
inee for the house of representatives upon
the official ballot