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

he payment of certain fees as a en-
iition precedent TO becoming a cen
do ate"
There is no melt IL thu, ronten-
tor, in view Of the fact Tat TIC !rr
is not an unreasonable one
and within the discretion OF The Leg !
islaturc to impose upon candidates,
who may desire to avail themselves
of the benefit Of the Act. he right
OF the Legislature to exact a reas-
enable fee from candidates for office
has been sustained iii practically every
State where a Primary Law exists,
uron the same principle that fees in
actions at law and proceedings i'll
court, and for the filing and record
ing OF documents are sustained.
These cases maintain the right OF the
Legislature to exact tees, upon the
theory thai those who seek the benc
fit Of a particular proceeding, proVid-
ed by law, should be compelled to
reimburse the State for 1t least a
portion of the expense which the
State incurs in maintaining the means
whereby they accomplish their de
sireS.
State V. Scott, % Mimi, l45.
Kcnneyed y. Comrs., lO2 Mary, ll9.
State '. Nichols, 81 Pacific, 72S
Socialist Party v. Uhl, l55 Cal, 100,
VIII. Counsel for Appellant 'ul
theT assigns that " the law !, nd n
that Ii requires OF officers an .ath
other than and different from that
required by the Constitution.
HAS contention is also Gc&n&l II
merit. in that the oath required by
the Constitution is an oath an officer
IS required to take when he Is abuu1
to enter office, as distinguished from
the primary election oath, which /.
one of iealty to 4 party, a. a candl-
date for Office, and is not regulated
nr imposed by the Constitution
As before stated III this opinion, a
primary election is not an election
IN the constitutional SENSE OF III
election OF officers, but merely AZ
election Of parties to select nominees
to run for office. Section ; OF \rtiCl,
IS of the Constitution OF Nevada
provides:
Members, 81 the Legislature and Al
officers. executive. judicial, and min
l|>Ierlal shall. before they rulcr upon
the duties OF their respective offices
take and subscribe to the following
oath or atfrmation:" (The oath being
set forth).
\ reading Of this Section disclose
that the Constitution does not pre-
clud the Legislature from providing
an additional oath for candidates 4
primary elections.
Socialist Party v. Uhl, l55 Cal.
700. State v. Nicholas, % Pacific
72S.
The case OF the State v. tindlay
20 Nevada, 1913, cited by Counsel TO
Appellant, i, i'll no way applicable t,
the test required III thi, Primary
Law. In that case thi, Court yer,
properly held that an Act which at
tempted TO prescribe the qualihCa
tons OF an eleCtor by prohibiting
MOrmons from voting and reQuirin!
applicants for registration to take al
oath, that they were not member
of the Mormon Church, was a dircc
Violation 81 Section ui Artlr.
II ri the Constitution ii "ar Slal,
l. N,lI a. N"lHlNc 81 the Feeder;
constitution. CmuucotIpnablN IL
cIN!pu~ test i'll this country ca
oc made A qualification OF an c~lrctu
~ lhr exercise "I hi righr ,
suffrage.
The oath required by til, TRIM
airy Law is a reasonable one and il
no way violates any OF the provis
ions OF the Constitutions. Federal -
State.
TX. The mex point raised b.
Counsel for Appellant is that "th,
law prohibits the nomination ii In
dependent Candidates., and thu
shows the Legislative intent to con
fine participation in the primaries tC
=, parties having candidates at the LII,
Presidential election"
This contention is also devoid o
merit. The Primary Law expressl,
preserves the existing law, (Sectiol
1903 ct seq. Compiled Laws of Ne
vada) wherein independent candidate,
and parties who may not be able tt
qualify or avail themselves Of the
Primary Law may get on the ofticia
Dall"t Nv independent nrllnu. No
where in the law are independent
candidates prohibited from being
voted for at the general election.
We believe this assignment ha,
been thoroughly covered in previous
parts of this Opinion, in answer to
other objections raised. that it is un
deserving of further comment.
we come now to a consideration
of the hftv-seventh and last objection
~1nterposed by Counsel for Appellant
to the validity OF the Act in quest
ton, setting forth that the law is un-
constitutional in this: 1t provides an
exclusive method for obtaining a
! place on the official ballot and further
provides that only those whose
, names are on the ballot can be voted
for, thus depriving electors OF the
right OF suffrage"
This assignment OF error has more
or less been touched pom in IL
various aspects during the course 81
this Opinion. UnquestiOnaDly the
Legislature has not the right to pre-
clude any qualified electOr, who may
be qualified as a candidate under the
Constitution and laws Of the State
from being a candidate 1Or office.
The contention OF COunsel Tor Ap
p%ellant that the Legislature canno
preclude an elector from voting for
any qualified elector for any office
for which such eleCtor is constitu-
.tionally qualified, is not involved III
the present case, which relates only