The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1910-03-15
North Dakota Political Gossip

&c. e--'s- ---s~--@--@--S--@
number OF votes cast for such once
shall be declared the nominee Of the
party for such Office"
Held, that the proviso limits the
application OF the so per cent rule,
construed In State ex rel. Montgomery
vs.. Anderson, for candidates for NOM
nation to offices Of which there IL not
more than one of the same name to be
filled at the succeeding election.
2. Under such proviso, when more
than one Office OF the same name
within the same territory or Bub-di-
vision is to be filed candidates for
nomination to the number TO be NOM
mated, receiving the highest number
OF votes Of the party which they rep
resent, are the nominees Of such
party.
(syllabus by the court.)
This is an appeal from an order
sustaining a demurrer to the allega-
tons of an alternative writ OF man
damus granted by the district court
of Grand Forks county upon the Pc
titioners of the appellant, commanding
the auditor of said county in his offici-
al capacity to recognize and treat
the relator therein as being a duly
nominated democrat candidate for the
Office Of county justice Of the peace
of Grand Forks county, or show cause
etc.
In the opinion this day, filed in the
case Of state ex rel Montgomery. VS.
Anderson as county auditor, we have
held that the 30 per cent provision
in section / OF chapter 109, laws of
1907, known as the primary election
law, Is valid. This proceeding is In
tended to test the meaning and valid
ity of clause 8, being proviso Of said
election. The whole section reads as
follows:
IF the total vote cast for any party
candidate or candidates for any Office
for which nominations are herein pro-
vided for shall equal less than 80
per cent OF the total number of votes
cast for secretary OF state of the po-
litical party, he or they represented at
the last general election, no nomina-
ton shall be made in that party for
such Office, but If 80 per cent or
more OF such vote is cast and there
is more than one candidate for any
such Office, the person receiving the
highest number of votes shall be de-
clared the nominee of such party for
such Office, provided further. that there
- more than one person to be elected
to the same Office the persons to the
number to be elected receiving the
highest number of votes cast for such
office shall be declared the nominees
of the party for such Offices"
Among the offices to which this pro-
-.
of representative in congress, commits
sioners of railroads, members of the
house of representatives, county con-
stables, and county justices of the
peace.
1t is unnecessary to enter upon a
lengthy discussion of this proviso or
its meaning. The latter appears very
clear on the face of the provision and
we construe it as meaning that for the
Office named, or for any others where
more than one Office Of the same kind
is to be filed at the same election,
the candidates to the required num-
Der receiving the highest number of
votes cast for such offices shall be the
nominees of the party. The reason
for this provision is apparent. When
we consider the fact that the bal
lots, after being counted. are de-
posted in a box which is locked and
sealed and is not accessible to any
officer or person except for purposes
and on occasions provided foi by the
statute. none of which have any re-
lation to the question before the court
in this matter, 1t would often be inn
possible for county auditors or canvas
sing boards to apply the 30 per cent re-
quirement. In instances where four
candidates are to be nominated for
offices OF the same name, one voter may
vote for one candidate, for two, for
three, or for four. and IL more than four
names appear he may vote for any
combination of such names, and no
provision is made for determining how
many voters vote for candidates for
such offices. This fact furnishes ample
reason for this proviso.
While the reasons which we have
assigned in the opinion in the other
case would logically have like force
in considering the case at bar, the
character of the situation renders it
impracticable and often impossible to
apply them.
Hence we are of the opinion that
the order was erroneous. 1t is re-
versed
Please instruct me as to the word
ing of the certificate to be mailed to
the various county auditors.
Very respectfully,
Peter Roth, chief clerk.