Arizona republican., 1918-09-19
The Democratic Fix


 A careful and comprehensive study of decisions has convinced intelligent lawyers those who view things they and not they think they ought be- that fin order that Mir Colter might office governor in the of his receiving plurality of votes In November the law increasing the salary of the must be repealed be declared to he law. the ground that 1t is unconstitutional
 It is said though that 1t is law and a good one that by of the feature of 1t increasing the salary of the incumbent it is merely imperative, but will become operative at the end of the incumbents tcrm that whoever succeeds Governor Hunt may begin to draw the increased salary.
 As to the supposton that Mr. Coter could es- cape in indefinite lapse between the end of his term legislator and the beginning of his term governor. there is opportunity for escape be- cause there is no interim. As member of the Third legislature his will expire under the consti- tuition until the first Monday in January, that is on January next, though a statute ends the term on January His term of office governor would be- sin at the same time and the law requires that he must take the oath Of office the day before. These plain requirements and provisions of the law
 There has been put forward fanciful theory that the constitutional provision does not mean what it says That when it prohibits the election sit uatcd as Mir. Colter is Mir Sutter s to the of- flee of it does not refer to the ton in November but to the taking of office in uarN. Hut our law whether 1t intended to be not is essentially different from the of other states which provide that in certain circumstances, persons shall be ineligible" office Our law says they shall not be elected office There may be here vast difference. and in this the vast difference Is apparent and real Election is election and not induction into office Whenever the place, the election must in November when Mr. Colter will yet be a member of the legislature which enacted tho increased salary law. So with that law standing he be elected governorship on that date any date earlier than the first Monday January next Therefore certificate of election which cannot occur can be issued to him.
 There two ways and only two by which Mir Colter may become eligible to election and one or the other must be taken before election day His negibty cannot be removed afterward Either the law which stands in his way must be re- psaled in special session of the legislature or else the supreme court hold that it is no lava shadow.
 In neither remedy is applied and no action has been taken by the party in the meantime the democrats will be without candidate for governor election day.
 The theory advanced at first that Mir. Osborn tho only candidate before the primary eligible to the office. might succeed to the nomination has been thoroughly exploded. That has been tried out in all most every state in the union and decisions are almost unanimously against the succession of mil nori;y candidate.
 There is an English rule and it prevails also in Indiana. that where the disqualification of a candidate is known the party receiving the next highest vote will he entitled to the office, on the theory that the voters have wilfuly thrown away their votes and that the office should go begging on that account Rut says Lawyers Reports Annotated co 1918, "The weight Of American authority both legislative and judicial seems to be that such intention to throw vote he ipnnu hut vote for the disqualified candidate must be consd cred as protest against the qualified person. and es- recay should this be the case where there are only two candidates The authorities lay stress indeed upon tho proposition that by the jority seems 'o oe an American maxim and that should be deemed elected against the protest of the majority"
 This view has been universally sustained and most clearly SO in California decision in case in which minority candidate contested the election of district attorney, who found cleo ton to he ineligible
 The court said:
 The appellant did not receive plurality of the votes st the election. He contends that the votes cast Tor the respondent should be considered in any manner in the count, for the reason that the respondent is ineligible; that the case should be determined in the manner as if the votes re- spondent received had been for the King Eng ana oi the Man in the Moon. To such doctrine we C"nho' aoceae The respondent citizen of the state resident and eector oe the county and if does not appear that he even knew of his inelgibiy The law contemplates that the electors shall decide inc question as to who shall be elected an office and ihat t IS necessary 10 choice that some one legally quated shall receive plurality of the votes given at the election" The appellant did not receive such plurality. The votes cast for respondent were votes gwen at the election. 1t is not necessary to oScuSs the question 10 tho effect of votes given Tor name in mythology. to some one whose name has come down in history, Julius Caeser or Mo hammed. In such tho eector would clearly appear not to have intended to express his choice as Co who should hold the office The electors usually take pride and interest casting their votes for tho person candidate Of their choice not as an idle act. but with view of giving the office with it's