Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1908-10-03

holding of the ma ority of this court |
that SO percent of those who did vote
for relator or. 573 Democrats in said |
county, are practically disfranchised
as to ssuch Office, and this without |
any corresponding benefit to the pub
lie. To N.Y. mind such result |!
ought not to- be possible. After a |
mature deliberation j am forced, to
the conclusion that the 81 argument
and reasoning oftrelator's counsel is
l. can discover no
beneficial Or reasonable purpose in
the 3Os percent limitation clause
aforesaid except to prevent the mem,
bers eoffone political party from par
ticipating in the nominations of cam
dfdates in other party organizations,
and suchja1result will fbe just as fully
accomplished without extending such
to any candidate upon the
primary ballot. FL
~. - Not "a Legitimate Argument.
It is idle to argue that the 80 per-
cent clause can be justified as a
reasonable exercise Of ], legislative
power ins;order to obviate accidental
nominations not desired BY the
party The party's will lis. expressed
solely by the members thereof who
attend the primary and II is not a.
legitimate argument to- say that
those who remain at home or do not
attend thereby in any manner give.
expression to the party will.
SO. ~:
s. AGholding to the effect that =
I: party which Is recognized by =
e the law as such cannot make 8
. a nomination where the per- 9
= cent Of those actually attending !.
. the primary and voting thereat :.
8 falls below 80 percent of it's to- 1.
sstal vote cast at some time in q
: the past, although every elector .
: therein who attended such pri- I:
= mary voted for a particular can =
= didate as its nominee, is, to my I.
4: mind, a startling and unheard .
!: OF principle, and is, ]. believe, in 8.
8 defensible. from a constitution .
= al standpoint. T.. s# z.
*$%*%**+***%**%=**
1t would be just ais reasonable to
say that a candidate at a general
election, although he receives a ma
jority OF the votes cast, shall not be
deemed elected unless he also re-
! ceives a certain percentage of the
total votes cast at some prior cleo
ton. The general rule in this coun.
try is that the will Of a majority
of those voting shall control.
Under the practical operation of
such provision it is a very easy mat
!, ter for the dominant party, and for
! that matter any party having suf-
,ficient strength, to completely ami
I hilate all opposition in the future BY
other party organizations.
80 y y % y y q .. q q q = ~ .
{. 1t must be remembered that !:
. the right to nominate candi- !:
| $ dates for Office is inseparably /.
q connected with the right to =
!: vote for such candidates when !:
q nominated. The exercise of the {
= elective franchise is the most !:
/ . important right Of the citizen !:
= and unreasonably restricts, or I
A I. interferesg with, the free exer- I
q else thereof !:
The Purcell Case.
q This was an appeal from the dis
trict court Of Grand Forks count.
wherein Judge Temp1eton held ii
i substance that to- entitle the candi
4 date for Justice Of the peace to
place on the official ballot as part,
4 nominee, he must have had yot
equal to 30 percent of the total vot
& east for secretary Of state Of hi
'fparty at prior election. etc.
/. The syllabus after section IL of th'
/ primary election law. as 10 percen
'ltage required, says: