Devils Lake weekly world., 1912-04-05
REGISTERING THE VOTERS B
PARTY.

4Q3k1
REGISTERING THE VOTERS BY
PARTY.
The attorney general has given out
an opinion that the law requiring the
assessors to register the voters ac-
cording to their party affiliations is
not sound. While the attorney gen.
erals opinion has little merit except
that conferred upon it by statute, we
do not care to enter upon any discus
sion Of its merits at this time. It would
seem like common sense, however, that
if the legislature had the right to reg
ulate the management of political par
ties it would have the power to keep
the members Of one party from butting
into another party. The fundamental
principles of the primary law is the
regulation of a party by it's members.
The courts have held that this was
within the constitutional power of the
legislature: Certainly, then, if the leg
islature can regulate the party in max.
ing nominations, it can regulate the
keeping of one party out Of the other.
If the legislature has the right to
prevent members from one party from
participating in the nomination of can
didates in other parties, any agency
or method which the legislature may
create or select for accomplishing the
purpose must be constitutional. The
attorney general should distinguish be-
tween the voter in the general election
and the voter in the primary. In the
former he is citizen shoosing between
parties and in the latter he is mem
Der of party choosing between candi-
dates. Even a layman can see that
there is vast difference between the
powers exercised by the voter under
the two conditions.
We believe the law requiring the
party registration and the limiting the
primary; franchise Of the voter to the
party with which he afiliates is sound.
What a supreme court might decide the
law is would change only the effect,
not the principle.
All honest party men agree that the
selection of the party candidates
should be left to he members of that
party, and that for member Of any
other party to vote for such candidates
is dishonest unless such voter intends
to vote for the party candidate in the
general election. Some go even further
and assert that such voter should be
bound to vote in the general election
for either the candidate he votes for
in the primary, or if such candidate
is defeated, for his successful rival.
This is going rather far, and we believe
that the requirement of an oath that
the voter intends to affiliate with the
party with which he seeks to vote in
the primary is sufficient.
Two conditions arise in this con.
nection. One is that the limitation of
party participation to a long period
before the primary serves to keep out
those who desire to honestly join the
party. After two or four years of DEM
ocratic rule, this would prevent the
thousands of democrats who have in
the past and will in the future turn
with honest purposes to the republican
party from changing their political al
legiance. The other is that removing
the limitation permits the opposition
party, by having enough of its "hoat.
ers" voted, to determine who shall be
the other party's candidate, often Sc.
curing undesirable men for office, the
very thing the primary law was intend
ed to defeat.
No honest republican would vote the
democratic primary ticket for such
purposes as have been specified. There
is no difference in this particular be.
tween members of different parties,
but the reader can construct his own
converse deduction. The honest party
man will stay within his party if his
purpose is only to help select an un
worthy or weak candidate. The hon
est man needs no law to keep him from
committing larceny or arson or rob
berry. 1t is for those who seek to dc
such things that laws are necessary.
Few state constitutions make spec
lfic provisions for primary election
North Dakota's certainly does not
Yet it comes well within the implied
power of the legislature. If that be
true, We repeat, evidently the legisla
ture can regulate the primary even t,
the smallest detail. The johnson cas-,
in which the court held the fees reouir
ed Of primary candidates unconstitu
tional was based on another proposi
t1on. 1t was held that the requirement
OF such fees was limitation of tn,
rights of the candidate, not of tn,
voter. So that it does not come with
in our specification above.
Evidently the law must keep tn,
members Of the party within their ow,
lines, else the law must become mean
1ngless regulation or be entirely wipet
out. Men belong to parties from prin
ciple and in time they will refuse t.
tolerate condition which makes O.
such principles an absurdity in tn
hands of the nnnosition ond q lo,