Tombstone epitaph., 1916-08-27

of Arizona, in ard Tor the county oi Ccchise-
 James A. Chapman,
 Owen F.. Murphy. County Recorder etc.
 This is an action wherein plaintiff seeks Writ Of Mandamus against the County Recorder to compel hlm to cancel the entry of plaintiffs -eg'stra tion heretofore made. The complaint alleges that plaintiff hereto'nys rcs'r- tered in pursuance of law. and thai among other matters required by law to be stated by the elecror ipuE reS's. tr.t'on, he at tha: iimo cla.E,ei hIs political party afiiliat.on to be n,7 party" It further alleges that since said registration he has become affih- ated with the Democratic party. shd has. in writing, requested of the Coun- ty Recorder. the cancellation of his previous registration tor the reasnn of his change of party utilization as aforesaid. and that the County Record CT has refused to make such cancel. lation. Plaintiff claims that great in jury will be done him if he is not allowed to have his registration here tofore made, cancelled. and a new en- try made showing his new party af filiation. He does not state exactly wherein the injury lies. but it may be presumed from a reading of the entire complaint that the injury is that he will not be allowed to participate in the primary of the Democratic party. He therefore brings this action under Paragraph 2s99 of the Civil Code. 1913, to compel such cancellation.
 To this complaint the defendant, owen E. Murphy. as Coun- ty Recorder. aforesaid, has filed a de- murrer, which raises the true issue in this case. to-wit: Is the reason given "a change of party utilization after registration-a sufficient one to allow the elector to cancel his registration heretofore made, and presumably, re- register with a different party affilia- ton.
 Under the Constitution of our state Article VII. Sec. F, the Legislature is directed to pass registration laws for the purpose of securing the purity of elections and guarding against abuses of the elective franchise. By Article VII, Sec. 10 of that same organic law. We have formally recognized the party system of nominations. and have. through various acts of the legislature placed partisan primary elections on practically the same footing as the genera lelections. Whether this be wise or not may be disputed; that it is fact cannot be denied.
 The Constitution itself provides the qualifications for voters at the general election, but left to the Legislature the requirements for participating in the party primaries. That body, in its wisdom. after experimenting with vari. ous methods of testing party fealty, has finally provided that the elector at the time he registers must state his party affiliation. and that he shall only participate in the primary of the party shown to be his by precinct register
 In order to understand and interpret law which may be ambiguous on its face, it is necessary to know the req. sons which led up to its enactment The reasons for the requirements of the registration law in regard to party affiliation are known to every follower of our recent political history. It is an unfortunate fact that many voters otherwise honest, do not appreciate the meaning of a party primary. Such primary, both in law and common honesty. is purely familyaffair, and . Democrat should no more enter . Republican primary than John Doe should interfere in the family differ
 n,es of Richard Roe. It is notoriour however, that before the passage ot the last registration law. there was . reckless disregard of this principle and that thousands of voters parti