The San Francisco call., 1909-12-11
PASS REGISTRATION
QUESTION TOCOURT
Election Board Members Give
Up Trying to Interpret Law
for Primary
Rules Governing Nominations
for August Election Left
to Supreme Tribunal

The San Francisco election commits
sion has decided that it will not at
tempt to pass upon the legality of the
use of the present or old registration
in the preparation of nomination pa :
pers for the primary election next Au-
gust. The question was submitted to
the lawyer members of the board and
the formal. refusal to answer returned
by President Gator conveys rather more
than a broad intimation that the San
Francisco election commission has
given over attempting to guess what
the supreme court will decide. Here is
Gators opinion, returned on behalf of
himself and Commissioner Hugh Nc
Isaaes:
This board has referred TO the attorneys on
the board communication relating to the ques-
tion whether the new registration of voters, to
commence January ]. 1910, should be used alone
at the August primary election in 1910. OF
whether the old registration of 1908 and 1909,
with the registration a supplement
should be used at said primary.
of the political code must determine the matter.
That section enacted in 1901 a portion
of the delegate primary law, and section 10 OF
''all the provisions of section 1866 of the po
litfcal code, far they are consistent with
the provisions of this act hereby made ap-
plicable to this act.''
The language of said section 1866 was inter-
preted in the year 1902 by Franklin X. Lane.
then city attorney of San Francisco. who gave
his official opinion upon the request of our prede-
cessors in the election commission. That opin-
ion TO the effect that when a primary cleo
tion held in August in even numbered
year there had been sufficient time from
January l for all persons to register who de-
sired TO vote at the August primary, and that
within the meaning of said section 1856 the new
registration in such even numbered year alone
should be used at such primary
The election commission of San Francisco has
ever since acted on that opinion under the old
or delegate primary law, and so far as we are
aware every board of supervisors acting as an
election commission within the state has done
the same. No judicial decision has been had
upon the point that we know OF, and this board
as now constituted has rendered no decision
upon the point. II the decision of Mr.. Lane was
correct, as applied to the law of 1901. then the
question remains whether the insertion of said
section 1856 in the said act of 1909 surrounds
said section 1856 with system so different from
probation in operating the new act, and the use
of the old registration, with the new as a sup
pIement.
In the former system participation in dele
gate primary by petitions of various po-
litical committees, and resort TO the register OF
voters not required until election day I'm
der the act of 1909 the right of candidates 10
be voted for mainly depends upon signatures OF
registered voters TO nomination papers. which
may be filed as long as 60 days before the
August primary. and resort must be had to the
afhdayits Of registration for yerfcation and GER
tifcation, as provided by subdivision OF section
of said act of 1909. If this question were be-
fore court for determination much could rea-
sonably be said in favor of the proposition that
the old registration. with a supplement, should
in an numbered year be used at the August
primary.
In view Of the opinion of Mr.. Lane and the
long time that it has been acted upon, We think
this board should not at this time render a de-
cision upon the point involved. but that judi
cial decision by the court of last resort upon
this point should be had at the earliest time
possible. As the matter affects the entire state
and is OF general and vital Importance, doubt
not that such a decision may be had very early
after the LIST of January. 1910