Carson City daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1907-1930, 1910-06-04

ing. In view of the fact that If the
Section covering this provision were
declared void it would not affect the
remainder of the law, 1t renders it
unnecessary for us to give this point
further consideration.
vi. The further contention is
made by Counsel for Appellant that
the law is void in that 1t prohibits
CERTAIN classes OF electors. cOnStltu-
~tionally qualified, from being candl-
dates for office.
! In alleging the law to be VOID upon
! TIN assignment of error. Counsel
for appellant lail 10 appreciate tho
distinction between the constitutional
requirements "f an tlcctor and the
constitutional qualification OF Il can
dida1v , . be voted for as an officer
at the general election. The Constr
tuition defines the quallilcallona
OF an ~clcct"r. but the I.egiela-
turc may prescribe reasonable
qualifications lrr All clec,"r
who may desire to become a can
didate, providing such qualifications
are not in conflict with some COnstl-
tutional provisions. The qualitiCa-
tons required by the Primary Law
are not, as we view the Constltu-
don. ,inlati\r OF any such rcQulrr-
menI. While citizenship, age, SEX and
residence enter into the qualifications
made necessary by the Constitution
to make a legal voter, yet, in add
ton to these, other qualifications are
Essential to the efficient performance
OF discharging the duties connected
with almost every office; and these
additional qualifications the Legisla-
lure is privileged to impose so long
as they do not conflict with any con-
s%titutional requirements.
For instance, for certain offices
:, qualifications are imposed by the
Legislature that electors. before they
, tmav become candidates for such
: offices. must qualify by being tax
payers or by having some qualitlca-
, ton OF ability to discharge the pecu-
: liar functions of a particular otnce-
+ These additional qualifications i'm
lpOoed have been sustained on IN
Vulnerable occasions a. no violation
OF the Constitution.
The cases are innumerablc, whele
). qualifications not possessed by all
electors are required OF candidates
D | for office. The trainers of the Con
r stitution of our State did not intend
when they enumerated the Qualltlca-
tions ofevery e~leCtor, to make those
qualifications the test OF the eliglbll-
:, ity Of the various civil officers
n throughout the State, and except IN
i solar As The Constitution has express
ly provided the qualifications of the
r various officers, the Legislature has
c tn. unquestioncd right +" add ad
o i'a1r2. qualifications.
5 barrow Y. People tN rel. Norris
; s Pacific COL.
h Chief Justice Beatty OF the Su
prrmc Court OF California, III the case
( OF ShO,tag y. Gator. i'll lrcaung n
c objection adversely to the cOnten'
/ tiOnS OF Counsel for Appellant, II
I that the law is unconstitutional fol
the reasons set forth i'll this assign
meNt, very appropriately said:
! These views, if correct, dispose
II OF several other objections urged BY
: petitioner, and relieve us OF the nee.
c>>ity OF taking them III scrlatim
We shall. however. notice some Of
the arguments that have been most
II strongly urged upon our entl
\ 1t is contended that the test presCrlb
( ed by section lS0oa i unreasonable
because with the close OF registration
4 the elector loses his right to chang,
his party allegiance i'll consequence
oG a change in political convictions
y and j. prerluded from taking part IL
tn" election of delegates at the CON
= vent II OF the party with WHICH 'f
l the day OF his election his more ma
c turcd opinions would ilnpcl him /,
u cast in his lot. This Inconvenience
( certainly does result from the provi>
y lions OF the act, but the Legislature
( which must be presumed to have
Iforsccn it, probably regarded such
{ sudden conversions during the shOr
c Interval between the close OF regis
@tration and the date of the primary
c election as likely to be ol such rare
: Occurrence as not to Justify the
lOmiSsion OF Il provision evidently de
+ signed to prevent u~nSrrupuluu> and
Imcrcenary electors from holding
hrm>cIyr, Tree down |" the day
/ ni election To- vote with any party,
Inp"n any corrupt motive, tor the pur
[ pr~r "l influencing the nomination OF
l its candidates for public office, while
without any interest III their success,
and perhaps with AN interest IN their
ideieal. Ii IL shall sometimes happen
that d conscientious voter is con
verted from one political faith to an
other between the close OF rcei>trn-
ton and the primary election, he may
console himself for the loss OF hi,
vote by the reflection that his loss
l. trltiIn9 in comparison to his share
IOi the advantage to the state OF which
he is a citizen, flowing from a meas
urc which tends to prevent a grave
abuse, especially i'll those centers OF
population where the primary election
law is made obligatory.
"AnOthcr inconvenience suggested
bv the fact that in the city and county
OF San Francisco one political party
entitled to participate i'll the primary
election has determined not to dc
a convention or nominate candidates
is that the members OF that party III
this instance, and the members OF all
parties in similar cases hereafter, will
be deprived OF the right to vote at
the ensuing primary. This i1COnven-
fence does not seem to afford valid
ground of complaint. since it amounts
only to this: That the members OF
a party which holds no primary cleo
ton are merely prevented from IN
| tRrtcT1np IN the m"1nappIncnt OF Il |