No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
On November 8, 1932, Minnesota, for the first time in her history, chose Democratic presidential electors. The breach in the ranks of the Solid South in 1928 was hardly more of a break with tradition. That, however, was not the only interesting feature of the recent election. In the first place, all nine of the state's representatives in Congress were elected at large. That alone would not confer any great distinction, but the importance of an election at large was magnified in the present case by the fact that Minnesota is the only state in the Union in which a genuine three-party system prevails. The third party, or Farmer-Labor party is in this instance not only a factor in state politics, but at present the dominant one.
1 2 U.S.C.A., § 2a.
2 Laws, Minn., 1931, p. 640.
3 See map, Minn. Yearbook, 1931, p. 19.
4 Apr. 21, 1931, p. 18.
5 Laws, Minn., 1931, p. 640.
6 Art. I, sec. 4.
7 Art. IV, sec. 1.
8 State ex rel. Smiley v. Holm, 238 N.W. 494.
9 Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355.
10 Art. IV, sec. 11.
11 37 Stat. 13, c. 5.
12 The Court has recently held that this part of the act of 1911 applied expressly to the reapportionment following the 13th census, and hence does not apply to that following the 15th census (Wood v. Broom, 53 S. Ct. 1).
13 For list, with biographical sketches, see Minn. Journal, June 12, 1932.
14 The three Communist candidates received a total of 34,799 votes.
15 See biographical sketch, Minn. Journal, June 12, 1932.
16 Art. VII, sec. 2.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.