The San Juan islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1908-10-24
is
VALID
OPINION OF STATE SUPREME
COURT ON DIRECT PRI-
MARY LAW.
SeyeralDifferent Attacks Disposed
of in One OpiniOn----Second
Choice Provision and Fee Clause
Upheld---Up to Legislature If
Change Is Desirable.

l.
rreme court yesterday unanimously
sustained the direct primary law in it's
entirety. The Coon contest of the
copstitutionality of the second choice
PROVISION is disallowed. the opinion
was written by Justice Fullerton and
signed by Hadley, chief justice, Dun
har. Mount and Rudkin. Justices
Root and Crow, who were candidates
before the primaries, took no part.
although it is understood that they
agree with the other members.
Regarding Coon's contest of the Sec
ond choice provision, the de cision says:
1.-The relator, Coon, was candidate
for the Republican nomination for the
office of lieutenant governor, there
being more than four candidates for
that nomination. The relator received
q plurality of all the first choice votes
east. but failed to receive more than
40 per centum Of such votes, and like
wise failed to receive plurality of all
first and second choice votes. Not
outstanding these facts, he now con-
tends that his name should appear on
the official ballot as the Republican
nominee for the Office, and by this
proceeding seeks to compel the secre-
tary of state 80 to certify the ballot.
The basis for this contention is the
claim that the second choice provisions
of the direct primary law are uncon-
stitutional.
80 far as this particular case is
concerned, it would avail the relator
nothing to uphold his contention as to
the invalidity of the law, for the legis-
lature has declared in express terms
that candidate receiving less than 40
per eentum of the first choice votes
shall not be the nominee where there
are four or more candidates for any
state office, and should we declare the
alternative method of nomination
void it would simply nullify the entire
law.
Elector Has Freedom of Choice
''The principal argument against
the second choice provision is that it
interferes with the freedom of election
guaranteed by the constitution, and
compels the elector to vote for q person
other than the candidate of his choice.
This content ion is untenable The
electOr has the utmost freedom OF
choice in casting his first choice ballot.
though his choice will not avail him
unless at least 40 per centum Of his
party agree with him.
1t was entirely competent for the
legislature to provide that candidate
receiving less than 40 per centum OF
his party vote should not be deemed
its nominee, and with such a provision
in the law it was incumbent on the
legislature to provide some other
method of nomination whenever can.
didate failed to receive the required
vote at the priamry. 1t might have
provided second primary, but Sec
Ond primary would perhaps prove
equally fruitiess, unless the number OF
candidates to be voted for we're re-
stricted. If the candidates to be voted
for at the second primary were restrict
ed to the two Or three receiving the
highest vote at the former primary,
then all those who did not favor these
particular candidates might complain
with equal justice that they were COM
PEELED to vote for candidates other than
those of their choice.
so long as voting is by ballot, an
official ballot is a convenience II not
necessity, and some authority vested
somewhere in government must deter
mine the names which shall appear on
that ballot, and those names must
necessarily be few in number; and,
We repeat, any reasonable method pres
erlbed by the lawmaking power which
accomplishes this result must be sus-
tanned by the judicial department OF
the government. The courts have no
concern with its wisdom or policy. "
Upholds Law at All Points
The opinion covers eleven typewrlt-
ten pages and consolidates in one decls-
Ion the four attacks upon the direct
primary law. The points upon which
the attacks were made and the decision
may be summarized as follows:
The court holds that the title is
sufficient and that the law is valid on
mat constitutional ground. In discus
sing this point the court admits the
mdefiniteness Of the provision that
candidates must file a statement OF
campaign expenses mot less than ten
Gays after the primaries, and says
IN such cases the rule is that they
must be filed within reasonable
Tine" The court refuses an opinion
as to whether nominations for repre-
sentatives in congress are properly
part of state law, as determination
o1 such question is not necessary IN
thls suit. Similarly no opinion is given
On the senatorial preference, although
reference is made thereto As to fees,
'lie opinion says:
The right to exact reasonable Zee
LOT running for Office may be sustained
oh the principle that fees in actions
ana proceedings in court and for filing
ana recording papers are sustained. "
As to the contention that the act IS
unconstitutional because it revises OF
amends other laws without setting