Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1912-05-18
Supreme Court

! Supreme Court !
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the Supreme Court, State Of
North Dakota, April Term, 1912.
State of North Dakota ex rel,
Andrew Miller, Attorney General,
and J. S. Knauss, Realtors
T. E. Flaherty, as County AUDITOR
of Burleigh County, North Dako-
ia, Respondent
Chapter 213 of Session Laws OF
1911, providing for party enrolment
of electors by assessors before pri-
mary election, and prescribing the
form of affidavit to be so required OF
each elector to entitle him to enroll
ment as partisan and to qualify him
to vote at the coming primary cleo
ton, construed and HELD:
/. The legislature has the rigat
to require nominations to be made at
primary elections by the use of bal
lot, and may provide that such elec-
ton shall be conducted within organ
lied political parties, and may deny
the riglt to vote to those electors
not belonging to any organized politi-
cal party, and may require as rea'
sonable test of party fealty that the
elector shall subscribe an oath stat
ing that he belongs to an organized
political party and requiring him to
designate it therein by name.
(a) The law requiring such a test
and making the required oath con-
dition precedent to the right Of an
elector to participate at the party prl-
mary election is not unconstitutional
as prescribing an added franchise re-
quirement or as restricting right OF
suffrage or as violating the secrecy
of the ballot, within the meaning OF
Secs 121, 122 and 1923 of our state
constitution.
a part of Art. of the state constitu-
ton, are applicable to the extent OF
limiting such primary election to con-
stitutional electors and guaranteeing
a secret ballot at primaries, but are
limited in application by the purpose
for which the election is by the leg
islature provided. the power to de-
clare such purpose being reserved to
it by said constitutional provisions.
The constitutional rights of the elect
or are not paramount to such contem-
plated legislative purpose, and par
ty primary election law is not rend-
cred unconstitutional because the
right of suffrage at the primary is
made dependent upon the assertion
of a partisan belief by the elector
and because such election regulations
forbid an elector from voting who
belongs to no political party.
2. The portion of the statutory at
fidavit exacted upon enrolment, pro-
vidfng for proof of naturalization, Is
unconstitutional, because in opera
ton it DISTINGUISHES from participant
ing in any party primary election
those electors naturalized by being
within the terms of the Act of uon-
gress naturalizing certain foreign
born residents within the limits of
this state at the time Of its admis.
sion into the Union.
That said act is likewise void be-
cause it excludes those electors SINH
larly naturalized by Act of Congress
because of having been residents OF
other states upon the admission Of
such states into the Union. Except
as to feature of the statute requiring
proof of naturalization the statute re-
mains unaffected and in force.
3. The statute in question contem-
plates that both the minor reaching
majority on or prior to election day,
but after the return of the enrolment
books to the auditor, and any male
person Of legal age naturalized by
court decree during said period, may
vote, and does not dis ,riminate be-
tween the new voter and such natur-i
allied elector, both of whom may
participate at the primary election
upon taking the oath required by the
act, and similar to that provided by
Sec. 1888, R. c. 1905.
Syllabus by the court.
Application for original writ to-
compel the county auditor of Burleigh
county to conform to the provisions
of Chap. 213 of Session Laws 1911
Writ granted.
Opinion by Goss, J.
Palda, Aaker & Greene, of Minot
N. D., attorneys for REALTORS.
Andrew Miller, Attorney General,
Alfred Zuger and c. L. Young, As
sistant General, and John Carmody,
all of Bismarck, N. D., attorneys for
respondent.
In the Supreme Court, State o
North Dakota, April Term, 1912.
State of North Dakota, Respondent.
VS..
Phinneas DOdson, Appellant
/. Under Section 10000, R. c. 1905
which provides that "A conviction
cannot be had upon the testimony of
an accomplice unless he is corrobor-
ated by such other evidence as tends
to connec- the defendant with the
of the offense, anu the
corroboration is not sufficient if It'll
merely shows the commission of the
offense or the circumstances there
Of" it is not necessary that the cor
evidence shall cover ev
cry material point testified to by tho
accomplice, or be sufficient in itsel
to warrant the verdict If 1uiltv ri