Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1917-07-11
yer been given an opportunity to select OF

- " ~ pSeu gwen u opportunity . Sel0ct Ok
endorse him.
because there had been no court ruling on the man
nr in which nominations should be made, and i ques-
ton relating thereto had been raised, Mr.. Burtness and
other men who expected to be candidates for the Repub-
ltcan convention nomination had their names filed by
petition, the intent being that the convention nominee
should stand as the Republican candidate and the others
should withdraw. After the convention. following the
usual forms. the secretary certified to the secretary OF
state the nomination OF Mr.. Burtness as the Republican
candidate. with the request that his nam be placed on
the ballot in the Republican column. Following the rul-
ing Of the attorney general the secretary Of state refused
to comply, and the supreme court was asked to issue an
order for the placing of Mr.. Burtness' name in the Re-
publican column. Just prior to the hearing Mr.. Lemke,
Republican state chairman and attorney for the Nonpar-
tisan league, had called a meeting of certain members of
the state executive. committee. and had secured from that
gathering an endorsement of the candidacy OF Mr.. Baer.
Mr.. Lemke then appeared before the court with the con-
tentton that only nominations by petition were lawful,
but, If the court found that party nominations could be
made, Mr.. Baer was the regular Republican nominee by
virtue Of the action Of the executive committee.
That is an accurate statement Of all but one of the
essential features Of the case presented to the supreme
court. The other feature is that Of the time required
for filing the record Of convention nominations. The
convention law requires such nominations to be filed 80
days before an election. The Burtness nomination was
not filed 80 days before the election because the con-
vention was not held. until a later date. The time was
too short. not because Of any dilatoriness in the calling
or handling Of the convention, but because the governor
of the state had knowingly fixed the date Of the election
at a time when convention nominations could not legally
be certified IL the 30 day0' notice were insisted on lit
orally.
On that single point, the insufticiency of the time of
filing, the court held that the convention nomination
could not be recognized. On every other point he con-
tentions Of the supporters of Mr.. Burtness were upheld.
The court declares that party nominations must be made
for special as we'll as for general elections; that as the
primary law is not operative at such elections, the con-
vention plan applies; that the convention at Grand Forks
was regularly called and held; that the convention NOM
inee war the legal candidate Of the Republican party in
the First district, and as such was entitled to have his
name placed in the Republican column on the ballot:
that neither Mr.. Lemke as chairman nor the executive
committee had authority to nominate or endorse a can
didate.
Burtness in the proper column on the ballet was the fact
that the nomination was not certified in time, and for
that neither Mr.. Burtness nor his supporters were re-
s%ponsble. Responsibility for that rests on Givernor Fra
zier, who called an election without giving sufficient no-
tice Of 1t.
The Herald has devoted some space to this case. 1t
has not attempted to instruct the supreme court in the
law, but 1t has called the attention Of its readers to some
very plain and pertinent facts relating to the subject. It
has pointed out that in all our election laws there is am
pie evidence Of the purpose to preserve the integrity Of
political parties, and to provide in the most certain and
convenient manner for the nomination Of party candi-
dates by and through the action of the party members.
It has shown that II the contentious Of Ienke ard his
associates were we'll founded, and nominations by petit
ton only can be made for special elections, 1t is impos-
special election. 1t has shown that in this case there Is a
giaring inconsistency between the laws governing ordin-
airy elections and those governing special elections, the
one providing carefully and definitely for party action,
and the other prohibiting it. The court finds that all the
contentious Of Lemke and the attorney general on these
points are all unsound.
If any readers Of The Herald have questioned the
accuracy Of its analysts Of the case those readers are re-
spectfuly referred to the decision of the sprene court.
which sstains the position Of The Herald. point by point.