Carson City daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1907-1930, 1916-08-22

preceding election, and that the party
of which he is a member, having had
no candidate for representative in
congress at such elections, is therefore
deprived OF participating in the pri-
mary election. 1t is conceded that
under the provisions OF section 2 OF
| the act in question the Progressive
! party is within the classification OF
parties entitled to the privileges OF
the act in question. 1t is not alleged
in the petition that the representa-
elves of the party OF which petition
er alleges himself to be a member
, made any attempt to avail themselves
| of the privileges OF the act by COM
( plying with the provisions OF section
3, or that petitioner made any request
Of the state and county central COM
mittees of his party to- apportion del
egates to the state and county cor
ventions as prescribed in such sec
ton. prior to the time fixed in such
section. or at all, for such action by
| such state Or county central co1nmrt-
tee.
Assuming, however, for the pur-
poses OF this decision, that the rights
of a party elector may not be cut off
by reason of the failure or neglect
OF the duly constituted state or
county party central committees. we
shall consider whether the provisions
Of section 3 actually have the effect
Of depriving a political party other
wise entitled to the privileges OF the
act from participating in the primary
election. 1t is provided in section
% of the act that This act shall be
literally construed, to the end that
the real intent Of the electors shall
prevail" As before pointed out, sec
ton ? OF the act gives the Progress
s;ve party the positive right to pro-
coed to elect delegates to party con
ventions as hereinafter provided II
we were to assume that section 3 is
Unconstitutional. and so hold, such
holding would not destroy the valid
lily OF other provisions OF the act,
which could stand independent Of
said provisions. 1t is the contention
OF counsel for respondents that the
provision IN question is directory
merely. and not binding upon a party
otherwise entitled to the benefits OF
the act, but which can o comply
with this basis OF apportionment
Authorities have been cited which
seem to sustain the view. (Morrow
Y. Wipf. lis \. w. 1920 As the
duly authorized representatives OF
petitioners party, 50 Jar as appears
from the petition. did not. within the
lime prescribed by the provisions OF
section 8. seek to preserve the rights
OF their party by any ether reason
able method OF apportionnent, we
can not see where petitioner IS emit
tied, particularly in this character OF
proceeding, to question the validity
Of this particular provision OF the act
1T is contendcd by petitioner that
section II OF the act renders the IN
tire act void because. under cont;n-
yencies which nay arise under the
provisions OF that section. the act
would be impossible OF enforcement
Oar attention has not been directed
to any specific provision Of the con-
stitution which this section violates.
II the officers and party representa-
tive, named i'll this section perform
the duties prescribed. no manifest
difficulty would arise in carrying out
the provisions of that section. We
think it not within the proper PROV
NICE OF the court, IN a proceeding OF
this extraordinary character. instl-
tuted virtually on the eve OF the cleo
ton provided for II the act, to spec
ulate upon what the effect would be
should certain possible contingencies
arise under the provisions OF this
section.
1t has been contended that the Act
is void because the provisions OF sec
tons y and IA together limit the
right to vote at the primary election
to electors only who have duly en-
tered upon the register the designa-
ton OF their party atfiliatton. 1t is
we'll settled that requirements tor
registration OF party a%tfiMation as d
prerequisite to the right to vote at a
primary election as a reasonable reg
ulation and a valid exercise OF legls-
lation and a valid exercise OF legisla-
tive power. r. c. l.. p. 1913. Sec. 80,
In this connection, the question
was suggested in the arguments OF
respective counsel as to what regis
tration controls for use at the prl-
mary election. The question is one
OF great Importance and doubtless
VIII result in future litigation unless
o determined.
We think it clear that the specific
provisions OF sections II and IA re-
lating to primary elections are CON
trolling as to what electors are en-
titled to vote at the primary election.
| Sec. u OF the Act i'll question, III pre-
scribing as TO qualifications and reg
| ulatiOn Of voters at the primary cleo
ton, among other things provides
| that the same officers who prepare
and furnish registers ior general cleo
| tions shall prepare and furnish them
! Tor use at primary elections, and 1t is
| made the duty OF these officers tC
| furnish and certify lists OF the voters
entitled to vote at such primary cleo
ton.
In providing as to how the register
for such primary election shall be
made, the statute sets forth:
Said register shall be made by
taking the anne OF al voters On the
register used at the last general cleo
ton i'll the city. precinct or county
together with supplemental register:
or additions showing all additional
registrations, changes and correc-
tlCuS made SilnCe the last genera