The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1912-07-01
a PRINIARY INJUsTIcE.

Considerable criticism Is being di-
rected in Kansas nowadays against
that provision of the primary law
which compels candidates to circulate
petitions so they can get their names
on the primary ballot. Regardless of
the merits of such objections as have
been raised in general to this petition
system, there is one feature of it
which is most unreasonable. This is
the one which seeks to bind signers
to petitions to vote in the primaries
for the candidates whose petitions
they have signed. Under the law a.
signer subscribes to the declaration
that he intends to support the candi-
date named in the petition. And it is
no more than natural to expect that a
man who signs one of these petitions
intends at the time to support the
candidate he has so favored.
But emergencies often arise in the
campaigns preliminary to the primary
where this feature of the petition sys-
tenn works an injustice to other can
didates and also places the signers OF
petitions in something of a position
that is far from being acceptable to
them. As an instance, a man hold
ing a state or county Office for a first
term naturally. intends to run for Sec
ond term. Many second termers now
adays have their minds made up to
run for third terms. BONG more or
less skilled in the political game they
circulate their. petitions many months
before the date for the ffIing of them.
Some candidates for a first term do
likewise. Othe:. candidates enter the
field Many of their friends have
- aY-Jx- ~ dc
among the candidates, not stopping to-
think that other candidates might
come out who would be more ac-
ceptable to them for purely personal
reasons and likewise becaure of their
superior fitness to fill the offices
sought. Of course 1T is reasonable to
prohibit a voter from signing more
than one petition among the candi-
dates for any one Office. But the I'M
reasonableness comes in In the at
tempt of the law to commit signer
irrevocab1y to the candidate. to whose
petition he has attached his Signature.
OF course; the law does not bind a
signer in this fashion because he is
not sworn when he signs the petition.
Bat the rank and file of men are rath-
er choice of what they may deem
to be of their moral obligations.
and good many of them feel them
selves bound to support at the pri-
maries, at least. the candidates whose
petitions they have signed.
This is grave Injustice to the sign
erss of many petitions and would be
especially so If it developed after they
had signed u petition that the can
didate they had so honored was Who'll
ly unfit for a denomination or the Of
fee he is seeking. Under these cir.
cumstances no signer to a petition
could be criticized by any one for vot-
ing at the primaries for u more ac-
ceptabIe candidate. This being true,
it is equally true that no signer of
petition should feel bound to support
the candidate named therein, if sub
sequent candidate enters the field
whom the signer deems more compe-
tent in every way to fill the office IN
question.
1t would seem that on moral and
all other grounds no signer of a petit
ton is obligated in any way to vote
for the candidate named therein ex-
cept under the conditions that pre-
vailed at the time he signed the petit
tions If exigencies arise later in the
ar1paign whereby he honestly thinks
his vote should be cast at the primary
for any other candidate in whom he
has more confidence, he should feel
free to do so.