Court Opinion

ID: 9750163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 14:26:11.510882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:03.480485
License: Public Domain

Joslin, J.,
concurring. I concur with the result reached by the majority, but for a different reason.
*43Martin S. Malinou, plaintiff, pro se.
Attorneys for defendant:
Moore, Virgadamo, Boyle & Lynch, Salvatore L. Virgadamo, Francis J. Boyle, Laurent L. Rousseau; Maurice W. Hendel, Stephen F. Achille, John Quattrocchi, Jr:, Herbert F. DeSimone, Attorney General, W. Slater Allen, Assistant Attorney General.
■ -The - challenge is'to the fundamental fairness of a System1 'which entitles the names of an endorsed'candidate for a party nomination to be marked with an asterisk and to first-column listing on the voting machine; [G. L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §17-15-8];. and which also requires that the names of all candidates for state and local offices be listed in the same first column, even if there are no primary contests for those offices §17-15-12 (1969 Reenactment). ■
The question raised, while serious and one which some day must be answered, cannot be resolved in this case. Here, during oral argument, the court inquired of and was advised by the Secretary of State that to remedy the complaints would necessitate a postponement of the primary election. I am not convinced that this . court has the power to do that. De Stefanis v. Board of Elections, 107 R. I. 625, 627, 268 A.2d 819, 820.