The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1910-05-19

a nomination, by the voters of party
of candidates for the house OF repre-
sentatives and senators of the United
states. 1t also provides that all can.
didates for the state legislature must
file, with their petitions for nominal
ton, pledge to support the choice
| OF the voters of the party to which
they belong, for United States sena-
! tor, and that in case no candidate OF
| the, party receives forty per cent OF
all the votes cast for United States
senator by the party, then, and in that
case, he pledges himself the highest
number of votes at the general cleo
ton succeeding such primary cleo
! ton F
! This pledge feature of the act was
| declared unconstitutional by this court
as contravening the provisions of
section 211 of the state constitution,
in that 1t was an exaction of pledge
/ from the candidate, inconsistent with
| that section.
! State VS.. Blaisdell, 11S, N. w. 141.
| Although this pledge cannot now
be exacted from a candidate for the
! legislature as prerequisite to fling
a petition under this law, the pro-
vision is here referred to as it may
| have some bearing on other provisions
of the law relating to the question I'M
der consideration.
This brings us to the precise ques-
| ton involved on this application, and
all questions involved are to be de-
cided on the application. The ques-
ton is whether the petition of the
voters to the secretary of state. re-
questing Judge Engerud to become a
candidate for United States senator
and his affidavit accompanying the
same, must state what particular
term Of said office he is a candidate
for. In another for the question is.
is the petition as fled in compliance
with the statute, inasmuch as 1t only
asks, generally, that he become can
didate for the office of United States
senator, without designating the par
ticular term of office for which he
is to become a candidate?
Before considering the primary
election law as Learing on this ques-
ton. it may be stated, as having some
bearing upon the question, that under
section 3, article 1, of the u. S. consti-
tuition, the senators from each state
body, so that the terms Of approx
mately third Of them, only, expire
at the same time, and that the sena-
tors thereafter remain in these classes
and that the two senators from the
same state are never placed in the
same class. AS far as each state is
concerned, the same classification is
continued, regardless of however many
vacancies may occur in these offices.
In consequence of this classification,
the terms of office of the two senator's
from each state do not ever regularly
end at the same time. Under such
classification, as soon as made, the
terms Of the two senators under an
election do not ever, and can not ever
expire at the same time. 1t therefore
follows that the two senators from
each state do not, strictly speaking, fill
the same office, but distinct and indie
pendent offices. Although the same so
far as duties are concerned, and in
every other respect the terms thereof
are not the same, as they do not ex-
pire at the same time. This fact con-
stitutes them different offices so far as
the question at issue on this applica-
ton is concerned.
In reference to the question wheth-
er the primary law applies to the
filling of vacancies in the office of
United States senator, the attorneys
do not disagree. 1t is conceded that
the law does apply to the filling Of
vacancies where a part of the term
has not expired. This law specifies
for a nomination to that office "in the
year previous to his election by the
legislative assembly" The United
States constitution provides for a tenn
pOrary appointment by the governor
Of the state to fill a vacancy until
the next meeting Of the legislature, !
which shall then fill the vacancy" 1t
therefore seems clear that the pro-
visions of the primary law, consid- !
cred in connection with the federal |
includes the matter of |
voting for a candidate to fill all va
cancies in the Office of United States |
senator whenever or however such |
vacancies may occur. The law, how |
ever, does not specify the procedure !
to be followed so far as the contents !
Of the petitions, form a ballot and |
other matters, in case of an election |
when two senators are to be elected |
at the same time, is concerned. For |
instance, there is no provision in that !
law that enacts expressly that the |
petition on behalf of a candidate for
United States senator, or his accom-
paying affidavit shall designate |
what particular term of office, SO far
as the expiration there TO is concern
ed he is a candidate for. This alb
sence of express provision in that re-
gard does not, in our judgment, reas-
onably lead to the conclusion that no
designation could have been contem-
plated by the lawmakers. It is evident
that the terms of the act should be so
construed as to further it's purposes,
so far as the same reasonably appear
rom its provisions. In this regard
It's purpose is to give the voters the
right to express to the legislature
heir choice for United States sena-
,or whenever an election is about to
occur. When two senator's are to be
elected at the same election, and one
necessarily for a longer term than
he other it is easily seen that there
can be no choice expressed, where
he particular Office is not designated
by each candidate.
1t is true that such a vote NAV ex-
press the voters choice so far as the
,wo candidates best fitted for such
places are concerned, but it expresses
1othing as to which vacancy each
shall fill. The primary law, however
was designed to give each voter a