Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-02-03
The Primary Law Wise.

| party utilization. He demands prl-
| mary wherein no enrolment, no sub
scription to an oath, no party designa-
| ton shall be made conditional to a
| qualified voter receiving ballot and
| voting"
1t is affirmed that TO deny this
right of an open primary and secret
ballot is to go back generation IN
political thinking, in the State; and
the impression is conveyed that our
| present primary laws deny this right.
Even the language of the statute is
misduoted in the zeal to prove the
contention. The oath required of a
qualified voter enrolled at a caucus
eempels the affirmation, this Demo-
cratic leader says, that he WILL vote
for the candidates of said party at
the election next ensuing" while the
statute uses the expression THAT he
INTENDS to vote, etc
This writer also overlooks several
important facts.
LIST. We are governed by parties. 1t
is through parties that the people
rule.
End. The primaries are called to
nominate the candidates of the par
ties.
Srd. The opponents of a party have
,,,r+ininota in its nr-
mary, to NEEDLE with it's ballot.
The new primary law provides for
the nomination of the candidates of
all parties at common primary.
This primary is OPEN. All qualified
voters may participate.
The ballot is secret. Each qualified
voter receives his party primary bal
lot, enters a booth, votes for such can
didates named on the ballot as he
pleases, or places on the ballot the
names of any persons he desires to
vote for in place of those named on
the ballot, and then casts this secret
ly market ballot.
The only publicity in this primary
participation is the voters public
Identification with a party. If he is
ashamed to do this he had better stay
at home or abandon his party and
train with one he is not ashamed of.
One of the wisest, sanest and, for
fraud elimination, most necessary
provisions of our primary law is the
required enrolment of the qualified
voters according to party.
Such an amendment as the Demo-
cratic ohjector suggests would again
open doors to the most serious pri-
mary abuse
Let US give a case in point. Some
years since an aspirant for office
counted ON the presence at the party
caucus of his party friends only. But
a decided opposition to this candidate
developed. and prominent men in his
party worked to prevent his nomina-
ton. This came to the ears of the
candidate. He packed this caucus
| with willing allies of the opposite par
| ty and by their aid secured the COW
eted nomination.
This provision criticised by our
Democratic friend is intended to pre-
vent such caucus packing. His amend
ment would make such caucus pack
ing easily possible. One party that
had settled upon one candidate for an
Office might easily unite to nominate
| the most undesirable candidate of an
| other party and could so turn dis
| gusted voters to their own candidate
| il this gentleman's amendment should
| carry. But under the enrolment plan
1 of the present law such a scheme
/ could not be worked.
| The chief defects of the old caucus
| law were:
The caucuses We're held separately
and so could easily be packed.
The caucuses We're easily dominated
by the political boss, and too frequent,
| ly were but the ratification of nomina
tons made by him.
The caucuses were largely neglected
by the electors.
Augustans have in mind local exam
pies of all these evils.
The new law provides for a common
caucus for all parties and protects
each party's rights.
The new law does not eliminate TIL
party boss: that is an impossibility
but it does make it far more Difficult
for him to control the primary.
The new law does not, and no Law
! can, remedy the electors neglec
which, more than any other has mad
possible the caucus abuses of the past
/ The new law will be useless as
remedy for existing evils unless tn
electors generally use it to secure tn
, nomination of candidates satisfactor
:. TO themselves.