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


their right to 4 certain percentage
II votes COST at the Prev III clcctl N.
.ni n O.. denial OF any COnstit .l'onll
riEhl st. long "a the law is uniform
IN providing what parties could avail
themselves OF the primary methods OF
selecting their nominees for office.
Some classification Is made nee
cssary, else any two, three OF o IL
men might call themselves a party,
and impose the burden OF placing
the names of their candidates upon
the ballot provided by the state law
4 condition which could easily be
made intolerable to the state, as we'll
as to the voter. classification be
coming necessary, the n here adopt
ed is rational, and does not impose
amy burden upOn one Oi a class that
i, not imposed upon all; nor upon
Inc other hand, docs it confer any
special privilege upon parties which
cast more than three per cent. ol
the vote. which i, not conferred upon
all such parties.
In Ladd v. Holmes (supra) the SUI
prcuc Cuurt ul the State of Oregon
ha, ais" held that the position OF
| Counsel III this point is not tenablc.
The Supreme Court of Minnesota,
in the case OF State v. Jensen, in
commenting on this point, said:
We are OF the opinion that the
Legislature may classify political part
les with reference to differences i'll
party conditions and numerical
strength, and prescribe how each
class shall select its candidates, but
it cannot do 50 arbitrarily. and con
Ter upou one elias, important privil-
egcs end partisan advantages and
deny them to another class, and ham
per it tn unfair and unnecessary
burdens and restrictions III the eelcC-
ton Of its candidates. While it seems
to some of us that the percentage ni
the vote selected a. the basis OF til,
classification in this act i larger thak
necessary, yet 1t was a question iol
the Legislature, and we are not JUST
ned i'll holding that the classification
was arbitrary. We hold the law 4:
we have construed it, constitutional
See also:
Is Cyc, 334. IS Colo. 400; S. pac
1870. 1875 H., 100; So n. f. l127
State V. Kinney, $50 Ohio St. 22l
Cocoran v. Bennett, 80 Att, ll22
Dawson Y Hanson, 81 Mimi. 2l1
81 N. w. ll24; 90 N. w, %. Ransom
v. DldSh, ~ ". J. L., ffo. - AL.
1927; 10 L. X. A. 100. State V, Pos
Dewalt v. BARLEY, Is l.. X. y. ~
The answer to the contention .
Counsel for Appellant that the law i
constitutionally detective III that II,
method is provided by which candi
date, ri other parties, other thar
those particularly designated by tn,
Act may 1nnpaT Innn fhn nthrI1
ballot, i, that such parties or thuSt
disqualified may avail themselves q
Subdivision {. oi Section ), whicl
among other thing. provides.
Nothing herein shall be con>tru,,
a. prohibiting the independent nom
irdtion OF candidates to be voted /.
, al amy general election by elect y"
or bodies OF electors, As now provide,
by law" = = =
Statutes (Nevads) 1900, page 27s.
Section 1893 CT sea. (Compil ;,
Ls"s OF Nevada which Az not rc
lpcalcd by the Primary Law ant tx,
now - full force md effect, pre-
Il method by wal,n ii Il - Eden, ~,
IdidatcS or new parties may avti
Themselves by petition i'll getting ul
the official ballot. The present law i
uniform insofar a. ii treats the warn
louS classes OF electors who may dc
sire to get on the official ballot, an,
ii candidates or political parties .l'
not wish to avail themselves OF tn,
privilege accorded them OF securing
their nominations as now %uprovidr,
by the Primary Law. or by reas, II
of o being able to qualify with III,
legislative requirements imposed
they still have the privilege ot rum
ming independently.
III. Counsel Tor Appellant al,
contends that " the law j. void i,
that it deprives political parties "I
the right to- say who shall be mcmhIr,
thereof and forces each politi, a
party to admit as a member amy
~elector who complies with the Log
~iSlative test.
The right OF the Legislature to- pre-.
scribe a test for party organizations
who may desire to comply with The
direct primary methods provided inr
the selection OF their candidates, We
believe ii thoroughly established. Ii,
as heretofore expressed i'll this opiu
ion, one OF the obvious purposes Of
the Primary Law is to preserve the
integrity OF parties. ii is maniiesily
proper Tor the Legislature to imp">t
Il test on those who ma desire ~
participate i'll the primary clccii"n
Tor the selection of candidates in
order that the integrity oi the party
may be better sustained.
The test required by the Law in
question Ill u reasonable one. EN.u
without the test an elcctor is in l,o-
litical honor bound to ppo ,he
nominee who his ote aids in bcc"m-
ing the party nominee. The oath
merely acts as a guarantee and AR
additional incentive to carry ,\t the
obligations which every nan parli
cipating in a primary election morally
assumes whether he takes the test or
moi.
The Supreme Court OF California.
i'll the case Of Socialist Party V. Uhl
(supra), and also in the case of .peo-
pie v. Griffith, held a similar objection
to that now raised by Counsel Tor
Appellant as untenable i'll primar,
law cases wherein this identical
question was squarcly raised and
passed upon.
SOCIalSr party I1h1 Xxx C.I