Mountain advocate., 1913-06-27
PRIMARY LAW
MOI VERY CLEAR
Court Of Appeals DepIores
Possibilities of Disaster
10 Candidates and
Voters Growing
Out OF One
Section.

Frankfort, Ky, June 21-"Con.
fusion worse COMPOUNDED" described
the provisions Tor the qualification
OF candidates in the State primary
act Of 1912 after the Court of APP
pals passed on them Friday, or
rather regretted that it could not
do so effectively, and concerning
which the Court remarked:-
1--WE well apprehend and deplore
the possibilities OF disaster tp the
rights o both candidates and voters
that flow from the committal into
so many different judicial hands,
some OF them unskilled, and others,
perhaps, partisan, the designed to
be prevented bv the section of the
act in question
This section provides that: when
ever it shall he made to appear by
affidavit filed in the Circuit Court
that an error or omission has oc.
Cured or is about to occur in the
placing OF any name on an official
primary ballot or that an error or
wrong has been committed in print
ing such ballot, or in the perform
ance of any duty imposed by this
act, the court shall order the officer
or person charged with such error,
wrong, or neglect, forthwith to cor
rect the error, desist from the
wrongful act or perform the duty
or show cause why he should not
be compelled to do so. Failure to
obey the orders of tine Judge or
court shall be contempt of court
and punishable as suck II the Cir
cult Court be not in session in the
county, the Circuit Judge shall hear
and determine the complaint in va
cation unless he he absent from the
county, Ia which case said affidavit
shall be filed before the Judge OF the
County Court, who shall have full
power to hear and determine the
complaint and make appropriate
orders therein. The orders OF a
court or Judge under this section
shall be final and not appealable.
Only candidate may institute pro.
ceedings under this section" This
the court OF Appeals said today is
the exclusive remedy OF the candi
date, who cannot proceed in equity
to secure his rights.
The effect of this provision was
seen in three cases before the Court
Friday. The Clerk of Johnson coun-
ty refused to accept the petition OF
f. W, Robinson, who sought to be
come candidate in the primary for
the Republican nomination for As.
SCISSOR, because he did not state
that he had supported the candi.
dates OF that party at the last elec.
ton. as required by the primary
act. lie secured a writ OF manda-
mus from the Circuit Court, from
which the Clerk appealed. His APP
peal was dismissed. although the
Court OF Appeals declared the pro
ceeding in mandamus was wrong
aud should have been an affidavit.
A similar writ granted voters who
signed Robinson's petition, was re.
versed aud in that case the Court of
Appeals held that the primary law
provisions are constitutional, and
the requirement that the candidate
state tor what party ticket he vot-
ed al thr last election does not
violate the constitutional guaranty
OF the secrecy OF the ballot. Robin.
son consequently cannot get his
name on the ballot, although he
does not qualify as candidate
under The primary act, upheld nv
the Conrt OF Appeals.
The situation in two cases from
Jefferson county is almost exactly