The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1912-04-09
ASSESSORS MUST
LINE UP VOTERS
contlnuea prom pags ono

cause requiring respondent to show
cause before this court on April @,
1912, why a peremptory writ Of man
damus should not issue as prayed by
REALTORS, commanding him to furnish
to each of the assessors appointed or
elected within Burleigh county with
all necessary books and blanks re-
quired to be used by them in making a
registration of the voters Of such
county pursuant to the provisions of
chapter 213 of the laws of 1911: said
cause came on to be heard before the
court on such return date, Palda,
Aaker & Greene appearing for REALTORS
and Andrew Miller. attorney general,
Alfred Zuger, G. Il. Young, John Car.
-nody Of counsel) appearing for re-
%spondent.
After hearing the arguments of the
respective counsel and having duly
considered the same,
1t is ordered, that the writ prayed
for by the REALTORS be and the same
is hereby allowed.
The grounds and reasons upon
which this order is based will be set
forth at length in an opinion to be
hereafter filed, but briefly stated they
are as follows: Such statute, except
as to portion hereafter mentioned.
contravenes no constitutional provis-
ion and its enactment was within the
legitimate exercise of the legislative
power. The legislative purpose in the
enactment of such statute clearly was
to require those electors who desire to
participate at primary elections to
declare their party Affiliations and TO
prevent them from voting the ticket of
any other party at such primaries.
The power of the legislature in this
respect is pIenary provided it does not
u~nreasopably exact requirements from
the voter which interfere with some
right guaranteed him by the constitu-
ton. We find nothing inthe act which
a reasonably be said to conflict with
any constitutional right of the voter,
except that portion of section / where
in the voter is required to make afi-
davit, among other things stating that
he was: ''naturalized or declared his
n In ....ss.sss.s. court, IN
.......... county, ............ state,
on ...,..........19.., as appears by
the naturalization papers exhibited
herein"
This portion of the statute is held
to be both unreasonable and discrim-
inatory in that it does not operate
alike upon all persons similarly stu
ated. 1t is unreasonable because
manifestly a large number of natur-
allied citizens will be unable to make
the proof thus required for various
reasons too apparent to mention. 1t
is discriminatory in that it makes no
provision for the registration or en-
rollment of that large number of for
eign born citizens who were residents
Of the territory and who became nat
uralized by act Of congress admitting
the state into the union. This objec-
tionable portion of the statute may be
eliminated and the remainder of the
law upheld. This is not such an emas-
culation of the statute as to require
the court to pronounce the entire stat
ute void for it cannot be said that
the statute would not have been en-
acted except with such Objectionable
feature of the law included.
Other points may be covered in the
opinion but the foregoing is In brief
the grounds of the decision.
We therefore hold in effect that the
various assessors must exact from the
voters an affidavit in accordance with
section 1 of chapter 213 aforesaid, with
the exception that the words above
quoted shall be eliminated from such
afidavits.