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

for certain classes If electors, III
violation of Section | OF Article III OF
the Constitution OF the State which
| Section prescribes the qualifications
Of electors.
An examination OF Section l 81
Nrticlc II OF our Constitution Will
reveal that the constitutional right
to vote is, that they shall be entitled
to vote for all OFFICERS that are
now or hereafter may be ELECTED
BY THE PEOPLE," With this tc>t !
in mind, and keeping in view the sub
s@tantial distinction that a PRIMARY
ELECTION at which the choice ii
CANDIDATES or NOMINEES ri
political parties are elected, as distH!-
guishcd from the GENERAL. ELEt-
lTION in November wherein the En-
TIRE ELECTORATE elect the
OFFICERS, provided form the test.
the taHacy "i this poin, assigned,
by Counsel Is too apparent
after what has been heretofore said / o
That 4 PRIMARY ELECTION Of
lCANDIDATES is not an EI.EC-
lTION OF OFFICERS within
the meaning of the constitutional
test has been sustained by an over
whelming weight OF authority in
States with similar constitutional
provisions to those contained in the
Constitution OF Nevada,
Line v. Board. l54 Mich. 32o,
Morrow V. Wipi. us \. W. ll2l-
ll24 Is. ID. 1909. Montgomery V.
: Chcli. 81 S. w. 1888 Ky. 1000.
, State V. Johnson, 81 Mimi, 22l. State
! v. Nichols CWash,) 81 Pac., z2S,
, State V. FELTON,, II O.. St. 554-51S,
J.. Dooley V. Jackson, l04 Nc. App, p.
The law is not mandatory in com
polling candidates who may desire
, to get on the official ballot to submit
they have the privilege. As heretofore
, stated, ri running independently II
they desire. In the event they desire
to submit themselves to the primary
- election, II i lot unreasonable OF
{ unrighteous to make them comply
= with any reasonable test made by the
! Legislature for the purpose of pre-
serving the integrity Of the party
with which they desire to affiliate.
> Nor do we see anything unreasonable
or unrighteous in limiting a man, who
desires to vote to cast his ballot for
, but one candidate for each office.
This is also ,alutary regulation III
J. rcserving the integrity OF political
o, parties. ~, dlleI tit plilldiy IL oNCi
an elector who has participated in
the primary changes his mind and
- desires to vote for some other candi-
date named by some other party OIL
or an independent candidate, there
is nothing in the Primary Law tC
preclude him from so expressing his
choice at the general election. This
- ) the only constitutional right which
! he is guaranteed by the Constitution
ii OF the State, insofar as his privileg,
I of expressing his right to designate
~ the various officers who are to adj
x minister the affairs OF State is con
- Ccrned.
II" Further answering this assignment
OF Appellants, We advert to the ad,
j mission OF Counsel for Appellant on
y pages SO and 80 of their hricf. where
in it is said:
1T may be admitted that the Leg
u islature might require a certain quail
~tcation ior office ii the qualification
applies to all electors alike. \
" qualification Tor office l. something
/ that tits one for office, something ID
electors must comply with before
: becoming Il candidate"
= This the Act without question does
Ii This admission ui Counsel tcreely
II >>prr>-v- the law ON thi, point. |
- will not be questioned that the Leg
| ~I>laturc has the right t. add uullih
cations to electors desiring lu become
" candidates lur >pcritic offices, 81
" long As the added qualifications az,
&c reasonable and not vinlaliNc OF any
:; Constitutional provision. Law, have
u been enacted by Legislatures and
II have been sustained ON ~innumrrabl,
e have been required To- qualify, before
occasions wherein qualified electors
becoming ,ualltlrI candidates for iue
various offices throughout the State.
" ot being property holders or OF HAY
ing some especial qualification for
such offices. Oh course. the l.egi>la-
, ture has no authority I" add qualiiica-
l iti"n, t. candidates Tor Federal
offices created under the Federal
Constitution where that instrument
has defined the qualifications of such
Officers.
In the consideration nl this error
, assigned, as Ill other assignments to
i. follow, the distinction between the
right To vote and the right to hold
Office must not be ~confounded or lost
+ sight of. An elector may be on
, stitutionally qualified to vote and yet
be legisIatively debarred from be
>, coming a candidate for some official
position within the State,
, V. 1t is further contcndcd by
Counsel for Appellant that the law is
: unconstitutional in that it prevents
one from being a candidate for office
ii he has been defeated at 4 primary
election"
The Supreme Court Of California.
i'll the recent case OF Socialist Party
v. Uhl, in disposing OF this objection
raised by a petitioner OF the same
standing at the one at bar, expresses
our views in the following language:
"The act further provides that a
candidate defeated at Il primary cleo
tirn shall be ineligible fur uomm-
alton to the same Office at the same
election. 1t is insisted that this pro
vision is void. The determination of
this question may be properly rescrv-
ed t o a case when it %afises. 1t is
sufficient here to say that If this pro
80. " .-:I .l:- tn~t uy~,,1I ,,>t |