Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:05:51.460Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Failure of the Farmer-Labor Party to Capture Control of the Minnesota Legislature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Arthur Naftalin
Arthur Naftalin
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Whatever the Farmer-Labor party in Minnesota may or may not have achieved during the period of its ascendancy from 1931 to 1939, it is obvious that its effectiveness was drastically impaired by its failure to control the state legislature. With the exception of 1933 and 1937, when the so-called Liberal caucus elected the speaker of the house of representatives and organized that body, the Farmer-Labor party did not have a majority in either house of the legislature. In other words, the party controlled neither the house nor the senate in the sessions of 1931 and 1935 and controlled only the house in 1933 and 1937.

Why was the party unable to control the legislature at a time when the state, by positive pluralities and majorities, was electing and re-electing Farmer-Laborites to state administrative offices? This question relates to a basic problem in representative democracy, for certainly here was a clear instance of the will of the “majority” submitting over a period of eight years to that of a “minority” among the state's voters. In 1943, the Farmer-Labor party, torn by inner strife and discredited in many quarters, had reached what appeared to be the bottom of a decline that began with an overwhelming defeat by the Republicans in the 1938 general election.

Type
American Government and Politics
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , February 1944 , pp. 71 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1944

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Minnesota Constitution, Art. IV, Sess. 2 and 24.

2 The language of Art. IV, Sec. 24, covering terms of senators is not clear. The wording suggests that the drafters contemplated staggered terms, but two opinions by the attorney-general have held the section to mean election of all senators at one time. The opinion of February 27, 1883, is printed in Opinions of the Attorneys-General of Minnesota, 1858–1884 (St. Paul, 1884), p. 527. The second opinion, that of August 11, 1892, appeared in full as a footnote to the section in each Minnesota Legislative Manual from 1893 to 1907. See also Anderson, William, A History of the Constitution of Minnesota (Minneapolis, 1921), p. 166.Google Scholar

3 Adoption of the nonpartisan device in 1913 was somewhat of a political accident. See Moos, Malcolm, Nonpartisan Legislative and Judicial Elections in Minnesota (M.A. Thesis, University of Minnesota, 1938).Google Scholar A portion of this thesis concerning judicial elections was published in this Review, Vol. 35, pp. 69–75 (Feb., 1941).

4 The 1930 vote for governor was: Farmer-Labor, 473,154; Republican, 289,528; Democrat—29,109—giving the Farmer-Labor candidate a plurality of 183,626.

5 The 1936 vote for governor was: Farmer-Labor 680,342, and Republican, 431,841.

6 In 1932, the Minnesota vote for Roosevelt-Garner was 600,806; Hoover-Curtis, 363,959. In 1936, it was Roosevelt-Garner, 698,811; Landon-Knox, 350,461.

7 In the determination of political complexions, election results for state offices in 1930, 1932, 1934, and 1936 were examined. A district found to be consistently in the Farmer-Labor column was declared Farmer-Labor. Those found to be Democratic or Farmer-Labor, but slightly doubtful, were declared uncertain. On the other hand, slightly doubtful Republican areas were declared Republican, along with the certain Republican districts, in an effort to resolve any doubts in favor of the party which actually did elect the legislative majorities.

8 In determining under- and over-representation, a hypothetically equitable district was established by dividing the total population of the state by the number of legislative seats. This quotient was then compared with the actual district population.

9 The Republican secretary of state has held office so long that the office has developed into something of a nonpartisan one.

10 The auditor is elected for a four-year term.

11 Minnesota General Laws for 1913, Chap. 389, Sec. 2.

12 As early as 1917, this defect of the nonpartisan device was noted by William Anderson. See Luce, Robert, Legislative Procedure (Boston and New York, 1922), Chap. 22, p. 498.Google Scholar

13 The Liberal was secretary of the Minneapolis Central Labor Union (Roy Weir); the other seat was held once by Burt L. Kingsley and twice by George MacKinnon, both prominently identified Conservatives.

14 House caucus affiliations were determined on the basis of votes for speaker. This criterion has obvious limitations, but it is the best single index available. Senate affiliations are based upon an analysis of alignments in crucial contests.

15 The fusion of conservative forces against the Farmer-Labor party is described by Starr, J. R. in “Labor and Farmer Groups and the Three-Party System,” Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 7–19 (June, 1936).Google Scholar

16 Moos, op. cit., pp. 121–122.

17 The Minneapolis Star-Journal, Jan. 6, 1943.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.