The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-04-10

ties by the reglStrarb. NO UOuDS this fact accounts for the some what drastic provisions for de- cIaring the office of registrar va- cant upon a petition alleging that he has been guilty of "any violation" of any law" re- lating. to primaries or caucuses and upon a finding that he has violated any such provision" The Legislature having in clear language thus defined the cause of removal, it is the duty of a court, if it finds such cause to exist, to declare the office vacant. No doubt there might be minor unintentional attractions of the law which the court could over look. upon the principle de n1in- imis non curat lex. But for any substantial violation of law, whether it be intentional or merely due to negligence, the court has no choice under the statute except to act in accord- ance with its provisions. Indeed, the facts of this case show how thoroughly mere neglect of duty can defeat the purpose of the statute. because the 2.630 elec- tors whose names appear upon the lists of both parties might have voted in the primaries of either, whether or not 1t was the party of their preference, or Inc deed in both, and thereby the plan of the statutes to have the candidates of a party chosen by those definitely affiliated with fl and by no others might well have been defeated.
 GUILTY
 That both the registrars were guilty of substantial violations of the law cannot be denied. The removal of the IA names of the electors from the republican list, without notice to them pr hearing and hence without op- portunity to them have their names restored was without warrant of law; and that those names were in fact later re- stored when the matter was called to the attention of the republican registrar, and that as 1t turned out, no harm was done save the denial to ono elec- tor of his right to vote, does not alter the fact that there was such a violation of law as the statutes makes a ground Of de- claring the office vacant.
 Both registrars were, however, guilty of a much more serious violation. Under the statute, whenever a registrar shall be of the opinion that any person on the list of the party which he represents is not affiliated with or in good faith a member of that political party and does not in- tend to support it's principles or candidates. it is the duty of the registrar to cite such person to appear before him and a repre- sentative of the party concerned to show cause why his name should not be erased from such enrolment list and if, upon hear ing duly had. 1t appears that the opinion of the. registrar is well grounded, the name of the elec- , tor may be erased from the list; and enrolment in any other poli- tical party is prima facie evil dence that the conditions justi- flying the erasure of his name are present. Both registrars knew that large number of names appeared upon the lists of both parties before and after the preparation of the 1898 lists and the investigation of this situa- ton would have naturally led to the discovery of the 2,630 dupli- cations of names. Yet they did nothing about the matter. This was to neglect statutory duty in such a way as to strike at the essential purpose of the law. That both registrars were guilty of such violation of the stat utes as to constitute ground for the court to declare their offices vacant is clear.