Los Angeles herald., 1909-06-29
DIRECT PRIMARY
LAW HELD TO BE
CONSTITUTIONAL
SUPREME COURT SUSTAINS
LEGALITY OF MEASURE
JUSTICES UNANIMOUSLY CONCUR
IN WRITTEN OPINION
Socialists Who Brought Case Are De-
MED Writ of Mandamus to Compel
Primaries to Be Held Under
1905 Provisions
(By Associated Press,>

.NAN FRANCISCO, June 2S.-The
constitutionality of the direct
~ primary law enacted by the last
legislature, March 20, 1909, was sus-
tanned today by the supreme court
The supreme court justices unan-
imously sconcurred in an opinion writ
ten by Justice w. G. Lorigan, denying
the petition of the Socialist party for a
writ of mandamus to compel the cleo"
tion commissioners of this city and
county to hold the August primaries
under the primary law of 1905.
Every contention of the petitioners
is answered in the opinion, which com
prises some 5000 words, and the valid
ity of the new law is upheld at every
point.
The concurrence of Justice f. M.
Angellotti is contained in separate
opinion in which he concurS In the
Judgment of his associates, but dis
agrees on one point, that respecting the
right of a candidate to go before the
people with more than one nomination
to the same office at any, election.
The majority of the court held this
is denied by the terms of the act but
Justice Angellotti disagreed, maintain
ing a candidate should be allowed to
secure as many nominations as he
could, that being "the obvious inten-
ton" of the law in allowing voters to
write the name of any candidate they
choose on the ballot
Socialists Bring Case
The petition was brought before the
supreme bench by Henry Hazeltin :,
county chairman of the Socialist party.
The election commissioners and the
county registrar of voters were named
as defendants.
Six of the main points Of contention
were taken up by Justice Lorigan and
presented at length with full state
ment of the courts position.
The first point on which the law was
attacked was that it did not comply
with the constitutional provision that
each act of the legislature shall en-
brace but one subject which shall be
contained in the title of the act. II
was contended that the advisory vote
on United States senators constituted
a separate enactment. The court
briefly argued that this point was not
well taken.
The second contention involved the
charge that the act was incomplete
legislation" inasmuch as 1t did not
sufficiently provide for electors not
affiliated with recognized parties or
FOR the making VI independent pal tiSS'
The court held the legislature was
empowered to legislate further pm this
subject.
The third point went to the provision
of the act that protects municipali-
ties already supplied by charter with
a primary election system from dis
turbance under the act. 1t was con-
tended the act should apply to all or
none. This contention was rejected,
many citations being made to support
the courts ruling.
The fourth point hinged on the fees
required from candidates on filing
nomination papers, it being claimed
that this was a violation of the non
property qualification clause of the
constitution.
To the fifth point that the making OF
affidavits filed by candidates conf1icted
with the constitutional provision tha;
no oath other than the oath of office
shall be administered, the court held
that this applied only to those elected
to office, not to candidates.
The sixth point questioning the pro-
vision that no defeated candidate shall
be eligible for nomination to the same
office at the same election.
The court reserved its opinion on
this point holding the matter could
not involve the constitutionality of
the entire act and might be settled
when a specific occasion for adjudica-
tion arises.