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

= and unquestionable expression :.
: of the voters Of a party as to =
= who should be Its nominees and =
:: to prevent candidates receiving ::
: an insignificant number Of votes !:
: from posing as representatives !:
:: Of the party by securing the =.
:: printing of their names upon =
:: the party ballots. Il :
: *@*** 8 = ~~.
The second feature is likewise q
legitimate and necessary element in
q primary election law, which pro.
vides for all parties making lom!a ma
tions at the same time and places
and in meeting presided over by the
same officers. It is strenuously arg
ued that when 80 percent of the yot-.
ers have attended the meetings and
voted for. some of the officers, that
inasmuch as they can not call for
ballots for more than one party, this
purpose is accomplished 4 There is
much force in this argument; but
because the legislature might have
provided for a more effectual and per.
haps a more reasonable method Of
keeping voters within their own
parties than the one they saw fit
to provide, will not alone justify
this court in holding the provision
which was made, invalid. It I'M.
doubleday has, as 1t stands, a tend
ency in the direction mentioned.
The Controlling Proposition.
AS we view the purpose Of this
provision from the consideration
which we have been able to give it
in the brief time allowed us by the
EFFICIENCY OF the occasion, the third
proposition is the controlling one;
namely, that the legislature sought
by the limitation in question to. de-
fine what constitutes an expression
of the party will.
While the legislature assembly
might, and in our opinion could
have provided similar, more plain
~ expressed, and perhaps a more
reasonable method Of determining
the fact that a party does not care
to make a nomination or present a
candidate for particular office; yet
to us, one object Of this provision
seems to be to provide method
whereby the members of a political
body can express by their failure to
vote on the different candidates for
any specific Office their desire to
| make no nomination for that po.
sition. Under the terms of the law,
taken all together, they can not .ex-
ercise their desire to leave am 6fice
untitled on their party ticket in any
other manner.
The Question of Percentage.
We see no distinction between the
power Of the legislature to prescribe
what percentage of the voters OF a
state shall be deemed party and
its power to say what percentage OF
the members of party shall be
necessary to evidence that specific
act is the act of a party, or that a
certain individual is the candidate OF
the party.
= . = q = I. I. ~ q.
= IL the legislature has the pow I:
= er to- say that it shall require !.
. five percent Of the total vote i
= of state to constitute a party, !.
= it must certainly have the power =
= to say that 1t shall require the =
4 the votes of a definite percen- |:
= tage OF the members OF party /:
8 to evidence the act OF the q
| = party. 4
= = 4. Z. q y = 4 = = 4.
No Restriction Of Elective Franchise
We do not deem this requirement
a restriction on the elective fran,
chise. but rather a legislative ex.
preston OF definition Of what percen.
tage Of a party vote Is necessary to
J CONTINUED on Page 81