The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1908-10-05
SUPREME COURT
ON THE PRIMARY
Syllabuses Of Tribunal of Jus.
tice on Thirty Per Cent
Provision of Law

The following are the syllabuses
in the primary election cases just de-
cided by the supreme court:
The state of North Dakota, ex rel
p. r. Montgomery, appellant, versus
Hans Anderson. as auditor Of Grand
Forks county, N. D.. respondent.
l. The legislature has the power
to legislate on subjects not prohibit
ed, either in express terms or by nee
essary implication, by the constitu-
ton.
2. 1t is competent for the legisla-
ture to provide for the nomination OF
party candidates for elective offices
by a direct vote of the members of
the different political parties at an
election held for that purpose.
3. While the legislature has the
power to provide for nominations by
a direct vote and to prescribe rules
and regulations for the conduct of
primary elections and the government
of political parties, such rules and
regulations must be reasonable and
operate on voters and candidates of
the same class with substantial equal
ity, but absolute equality in all things
is not a necessary requirement.
4. The fact that in the opinion of
the court simpler, and perhaps more
effectual or reasonable rules and reg
ulations might have been provided
than the legislature did provide, will
not alone justify courts in holding the
regulations made invalid.
5. Section IL of chapter 100, laws
of 1907, the primary election law
reads as follows: IF the total vote
cast for any party candidate or can
didates for any Office for which nom
nations are herein provided for shall
equal less than 30 per cent of the
total number of votes cast for secre-
tary Of state of the political party, he
or they represented at the last gen.
eral election, no nomination shall be
made in that party for such Office,
but If 80 per cent or more of such
vote is cast and there is more than
one candidate for such office, the per-
son receiving the highest number of
votes shall be declared the nominee
of such party for such office; provid-
ed, further, that where there is more
than one person to be elected to the
same office, the persons to the num-
Der to be elected receiving the high
est number of votes cast for such Of
flee shall be declared the nominees
of the party for such Offices"
Held: (a) That the 80 per cent
requirement therein contained APP
plies to county and district offices as
we'll as to other Offices. (b) That
under its terms candidates of sub
division of the state for a local Office
must receive 80 per cent of the party
vote of their party cast at the last
general election for the candidate OF
such party for secretary of state with
IN such subdivision, or no nomination
is made.
6. The 80 per cent requirement in
said action is intended (a) To prevent
the nomination of candidates to rep
resent party by accident, or when
the party did not intend to make a
nomination; ID To restrain the &C.
ton OF voters at primary elections
within the parties to which they be-
long; (c) To define and fix the
number of votes necessary to consti-
tute an expression of the party and
to determine what is the act of a par
ty as g party
z. The 80 per cent requirement re-
lates to offices of which there is only
one of kind and while, in the opin-
ION of the court, some other method
might have been provided which was
more simple and possibly more rea-
sonable, to accomplish the purposes
hereinbefore referred to, this matter is
not as a regulation so unreasonable
as to render said provision or require
ment invalid, and it Is accordingly
held, that when only one Office of the
same name is to be filled at an cleo
ton and candidates for nomination
for such Office at the preceding pri-
mary election failed to receive 80 per
cent of the party vote designated, no
party nomination is made for such
Office.
I. 8. Arguments as to the expediency
and reasons why the provisions made
may not be the most expedient, are
properly addressed to the legislature
and will not justify this court, for the
reason that the most expedient me-
thod has not been provided, in hold
Ing the provision Of the law in ques-
ton invalid.
(Syllabus by the court.)
Appeal from the district court of
Grand Forks county: Hon. Charles F.
.Templeton, judge.
From an order sustaining a demur-
rer to an alternative writ OF manda-
mus, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
JEFF M. Myers for appellant.
b. Wineman for respondent.
Opinion by Spalding, j., Morgan, G.
j. concurs. Fisk, j., dissenting.
Purcell Case.