The Mellette County pioneer. [volume] (Wood, Mellette County, S.D.) 19??-1971, 1913-01-10
RULING ON RICHARDS LAW,
the supreme Court of Dakota Hands
Down an Opinion.


=, me supreme court denied
'he application for writ of mandamus
10 compel the secretary OF state IN ac.
cept Endorsements for official appoint.
heh's made December IA under the
richards primary law.
IN defense of the constitutionalitv
OF the new primary law. called into
question by Attorney General John.
sons opinion, II. o. Richards claims Il
cannot honestly be construed 10 be
unconstitutional, because primary
ia" is purely party law to give a
regal form OF moral responsibility to
political organization procedure. and
the state constitution makes no regu.
lation for political parties. Richards
asserts II does not conflict with the
constitution, unless il infringes upon
individual rights. He says the people
are given wide latitude in regulation
OF political party transactions; that
they can bring in any reSyant subject
matter that will help regulate party
organizations, as such. without the
ieast fear of trespassing en- the con.
Stitution. lie says the only subject
covered in the title. or in the law IT.
self, is the regulation of political par.
~ transactions.
In an open letter 10 Royal c. John
son, attorney general OF South Dako-
Ia, Richards says in part:
The arguments put forth as an ex.
cuse for the non-enforcement OF the
law are weak and puerile. You claim
that the law repeats the present state
central committee: that even though
the committee meeting was held il
can only vote on applications previ.
Ously filed with the secretary OF state.
and. finally. that the law is unconsti.
tutional because IL infringes upon the
constitutional right of the governor TO
appoint state officers. The argument
that the committee is abolished or re.
pcaled by the law is scarcely worthy OF
notice. as the law specifically recog
rizcs the state central committee and
imposes duties on such committee.
That the committee may recommend
for appointment any person that may
appear competent and suitable for a
given position is very clearly apparent
because the law says the committee
shall determine who" shall receive
the committee Endorsement The word
who" is quite broad
THAT the law infringes on the con-
stitutional prerogatives OF the govern.
or is equally falacious. The law in
no wise seeks To control the Judgment
or discretion Of the governor. IL sim.
ply provides a method by which the
marty choice may be manifested and
leaves the governor free as ever to
make his own selections for appoint
i've offices Of better man If he can.
or a weaker man II he dares. The pur
nose of the new primary law is to bet
ter the public service. Also to create
a check and balance in party respon'
sibility 10 that end.
1T is clearly evident that the pass
age of the law by the people Is not
sufficient. The people must likewise
control the administrative offices by
electing those in sympathy with the
legislation enacted to carry out It's
enforcement in good faith; and that IL
what the new primary law is aiming to
do. Why should it be hindered in It's
operation by any government of'icia'
who is obviously searching Tor eN'
cuses TO delay It's operation"