Case Name: STATE EX REL. FRED D. McMILLAN v. JULIUS A. SCHMAHL
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1918-05-23
Citations: 140 Minn. 220
Docket Number: No. 21,007
Parties: STATE EX REL. FRED D. McMILLAN v. JULIUS A. SCHMAHL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 140
Pages: 220–223

Head Matter:
STATE EX REL. FRED D. McMILLAN v. JULIUS A. SCHMAHL.
May 23, 1918.
No. 21,007.
Election — affidavit of filing — party affiliation of candidate.
One who files as a candidate for office as a member of a political party which becomes defunct before the election may, notwithstanding his candidacy, affiliate with another political party, and may at a succeeding election file for nomination as the candidate of such other party.
Upon the relation of Fred D. McMillan the supreme court granted its order to show cause directed to Julius A. Sehmahl, as secretary of the state of Minnesota, commanding him to refrain from causing the name of Thomas D. Schall to be placed upon the official primary bal lots of the'several counties as an elector seeking nomination for representative in Congress.
Order discharged.
G. B. Elliott, for relator.
Clifford L. Hilton, Attorney General, and Bollim, L. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
Reported in 167 N. W. 797.

Opinion:
Hallam, J.
Tbomas D. Sehall has filed as a candidate for the Republican nomination for Congress. Petitioner asks the court to direct the secretary of state not to place bis name on the ballot as a Republican because at the last election he filed and was nominated and elected as the candidate of .the Progressive party and in opposition to a Republican candidate.
The statute provides that a candidate for nomination on a party ballot shall, in his affidavit of filing, state that he affiliated with said party at the last general election, and either that he did not vote thereat or voted for a majority of the candidates of said party. Section 339. Mr. Sehall, in his filing affidavit, says he did affiliate with the Re publican party at the last election and voted for a majority of its candidates. There is no showing that he did not so vote. There is no showing that he did not affiliate with the Republican party at that election, except as it may arise from the fact that at the same election he was the candidate of the Progressive party. If the Progressive party had continued as a political party down to the time of the election in 1916, there would be force to the contention that he could not be a candidate of that party and affiliate with another. But it did not. A political party is defined by statute as one maintaining a party organization and presenting candidates for election in each county in the state and Avhich receives not less than five per cent of the total vote cast. G. S. 1913, § 336. Though there were party offices to be filled, from President down, the Progressive party had no candidate other than Mr. Sehall. As a political party, it had expired. Mr. Sehall was, to all intents and purposes, an independent candidate at that election. Gnless it can be said that it is an impossible feat for one who is an independent candidate for office to affiliate with any political party at the same election, we must, in the absence of any showing to the con trary, accept Mr. SchalPs sworn statement that he did affiliate with the Bepublican party at the last election. We think it is not impossible. We think a man may affiliate with a party, that is, unite with it and generally support its policies, though he opposes one of its candidates, even by his own independent candidacy.
Order to show cause discharged.