Court Opinion

ID: 9551901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:01:45.658242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:56.564390
License: Public Domain

Rosellint, J.
(dissenting) — I do not agree with the conclusion of the majority that the authority of the state committee should be sustained by this court. I can find nothing *213in the statutes quoted in the majority opinion which purports to govern the manner of selecting delegates to major party conventions or to allocate authority to make rules respecting the selection of delegates. By reading into the statute a provision that the state committee shall determine the manner of selecting delegates, this court has, in my opinion, engaged in judicial legislation.
The disposition of this case is not governed by statute, for there is no applicable statute. We must look to the common law. Under that law, the courts have traditionally refused to interfere in controversies within a political party, in the absence of a controlling statute or where there is no clear legal right involved, and have left such matters for determination by the proper tribunals of the party itself or by the electors at the polls. See Annots., 20 A.L.R. 1035 (1922) and 169 A.L.R. 1281 (1947). Here, the matter was one to be determined by the highest tribunal of the party, which is the state convention. See 25 Am. Jur. 2d Elections § 120 (1966). The county central committee has attempted to bypass that tribunal by appealing to the courts. We should not entertain the action.
I would direct the superior court to dismiss the cause.
Hunter and Hale, JJ., concur with Rosellini, J.