The Goldfield news. [volume] (Goldfield, Nev.) 1904-1911, 1910-06-11
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS
VALIDITY OF PRIMARY LAW
Especial to The News)

CARSON Nevada June The supreme court of Nevada in unanimous opinion written bJ Justice Sweeney uMdM the u
@mtmOmhyf he dntp primary law mey particular The pmm say lnhv one and um literally from ue 81
GS %hr @@m Npprd drt pmmr@ thk@p the objections of the pmn and d@s of them mhn u
showing That w wr y nothing Snsm the cmtnhusf h@w who wmd mmhnhw wmmmmom rm ha 81
counsel for appellant placed their main rne for hen notification dhm dm he California decisions h farsi V 81
EMv III Cd6n smv Rr mCh6mnm ON prn v r.P~ " u" : ", II
Ghd the supreme court ofC California mr to mamadmnto hm constitution haa Mm 8mUm hmwwho ma 81
mmtd dtp y law 81
The constitution CMfma hWNra says the ctp prior hh amendment was not dhml with the constitutional 81
Nevada nor vast as bndm Mg grant, powers sis thee constitution dNdah me the California decisions relied um by 81
appellant have absolutely NOV weigh in this state The court states that the legislature tn rbhdf from nmmpb m he 81
contrary BvSdw with ample hUmyh ma dp primary law 81
Answering the contention of counsel fa appellant that law destroys d parties the curt says that the voters u
amt being deprived hen right fort reason hhh majority dhe electors of ANY party hay the power retained them 81
selves override any candidate or gp of candidates edW @nmtnm ohu@n hyd mt mtw with a approval u
dhe electors With rfrmeh he contention appellant hhh hwB unconstitutional that prevents one from being u
aanihtf for en h beer dfdH alta primary election hc curt s whn nwdf from Adhesion fm supreme 81
court &caihmhm which @th the determinations tH question may be properly reserved to case wm it arises and the u
opinion goes on to @y hdh wnh ample mfm the court to consider tn ptw when some appellant whose right mdy II
this provision comes bmh thee rm IA proper proceedings lh lat wx dhe fact that the section covering this provision ~
we@ddmeiw void hwddm not affect her remainder the bwhB Unnecessary to give the point ma consideration After u
dsmgf wm other minor 6emSh court comes the last one raised ndy that "m law provides an exclusive 81
method fro hmmga place on the official ballot and fr provides that only ha whose names are on the ballot CAM voted 81
&r thus dpmgd erd the right fafrw"T The court says that the mthmd counsel for apmn that the ks 81
hhec dp ruh an dmr from voting any qualified dem for any office for which such der is cmshuMnhy u
qualified d involved 1.-THE present case which relates only bpmay dns but says court Hhra my reason hehw u
pmudSa qualified hr and cnihh from pmmgn the official ballot pem@ any qualified dhr from voting for u
any qualified candidate the bwh hh@ extent would be unconstitutional However, p hmrm this proceedings limo posi- II
been dpmdd fan electoral fright gmmM him uhr h cuMMmw 6 not mh nayh Su n hmhwn TIL ~
aspect until ha condition arises adS py hheh his court Il
The concluding paragraph the dmn states that Nevada in omn with the mJrH 6he states the UmOl is ~
abreast dM, ines this legislation Iadwh With our constitution and the principles herein mmmtd we believe that the u
pmmf selecting candidates sand the privilege initiating hWHnh should be bht@ d directly in touch with hp people @h u
BIMh om dh that 8@m& h present. t urinary Sn now being initiated is perfected the wm states will -
adopt this me Of shmgm nm@@f r office with equal rmMNm dd practically every state the Union mhe solution q
the effort of securing a@e thorough secret honest and mhduth Hot nadptnd te Australian hmdm Shmu y
ton dhed dhnd. used for pa@dyow a hmMdw years