Devils Lake inter-ocean and Devils Lake free press. (Devils Lake, Ramsey County, N.D.) 1905-1909, 1906-04-13
.NOlMIN ION FEES
NEED NOT BE P aid
Supreme Courts Of Illinois and Nebraska
Hold That Part Of Primary Election
Law Unconstitutional North Dakota
Has The Same Law.


exercise the elective franchise at a
general election for nominees. in the
choice of which unWarranted restric-
ltions and hindrances were interpo
would be a hollow mockery. The right
to freely choose candidates for pub
Lie Office is as valuable as the right
ito vote for them after they are chosen.
Both these rights are safeguarded by
1.-THE constitutional guaranty Of free
dom in the exercise of the elective
franchise. Says the supreme court of
Pennsylvania: t'Ehe Importance of
the relation Of the primary to the
general elections must be apparent.
Primary elections and nominating CON
tventions have now become a part of
one great political system, and are
welded and united into it so firmly as
! to be difficult of separation. The law
| is as much an election law when it
Istrikes at the fraud in the primary
| Election as when it arrests the fraud
ulent ballot Just as it is ready to be
dropped into the box at the general
election" Leonard VS.. Commonwealth,
liz Pa. GOT, A Att 220. Nominations
| for public Office are to be considered
in a dual aspect. There is involved,
first, the right of every eligible person
to be voted for by any elector who
desires to do so, and, second, the right
OF each elector to exercise choice
among those who are eligible. THE
two rights may be protected by the
same legislation. but it is important
to remember that there is involved,
not merely the right OF an individual
to be a candidate, but the right OF
every other person to select HIM for
the office. Practically the feasibility
OF independent political movements
depends upon the second right. Now
these rights, like, the right or suffrage,
depend Tor their effectual exercise
upon an appointment OF time, place,
and manner; and the legislature has
undouDted power TO make regulations
for protecting these rights and lnsur-
ing their enjoyment. Z : Ballot ke-
form: Its Consult ality;; Wig
more) rs Am. Law Rev. 73O. We
should not, OF course, confuse pro-
visions amounting only to regulation,
even though an lnconE enienee results
with such as in a substantial way in
tertere with the free exercise OF the
elective franchise. The provisions UNI
der consideration, we are satisfied, go
beyond those OF regulation and operate
as a substantial impairment Of the
right Of the electorate to freely choose
its candidates for public ONCE, and
therefore infringe on the. constitutional
guaranty above quoted. In Michigan
a primary law required that person
should be denied a place on the prim-
airy ballot as candidate for nomin-
alton unless he should in advance de-
clare on oath the fact that he was a
candidate for the Office. The supreme
court held such provisions to be viola
tive Of the constitutional provisions
prescribing the oath required of pub
lie officers. and that no other oath,
declaration, or test should be required.
In the discussion of the principles in
volved the court very pertinently
argues .The provision Of this law
requires that, before the name of any
candidate shall be placed upon the
ballot at the primary election, such.
candidate shall on oath declare his.
purpose to become such. and excludes
the right of the electorate Of the party
to vote for the nomination of any man
who is not sufficiently anxious to fill
public station to make such a declar-
alton The man who may be willing
to- consent to serve his state or his.
community ii answer to the cali Of
duty when chosen BY his fellow citi-s
z zss' 70 do 50 is excluded. and the
electorate has no opportunity to cast
tneir votes Tor him. 81 Z n The
authority OF the legislature to enact
laws for the purpose of securing pur-
ity in elections does not include the
1fl,sF 81
right 70 impose any conditions which
Will destroy or seriously impede the
enjoyment of the elective franchise.
Attorney general Us. common council,
I 5S Mich. 2I3. ~ N. NJ. S87. SIS Ar1.
Rep 675s We cannot escape the con-
lclusion that the provision in question
does most seri ousIy impede the cleo.
tors III the choice of candidates for