No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Some Disputed Points in Primary Election Legislation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 October 2013
Extract
The widespread interest in nominating systems, particularly during the last ten years, has given rise to a great number of problems new to American politics. These questions are puzzling the reformer, the practical politician, the lawmaker and the judge. They are of absorbing interest to the student of political institutions and tendencies. It is the purpose of this paper to discuss only three of these problems, namely: the test of party allegiance, the formation of the platform under the direct primary system, and the majority required for nomination.
As the party primary becomes more and more like an election, the more important does the question of party membership become. What constitutes a republican or a democrat? and how shall a satisfactory legal test be made? Originally this was a matter over which the party authorities possessed exclusive jurisdiction, and which they might regulate and control in their discretion. The republican committee decided what evidence was necessary to establish a right to participate in republican primaries, and the democratic committee denned and determined the essentials of democracy. The abuse of this power in many cases led to legal regulation of the party test. The most frequent test required is an expression of intention to support the party candidates in the ensuing election, coupled with a statement of past support of or affiliation with the party. In Michigan the test includes a declaration of sympathy with the objects of the party. In New Jersey, the voter must state that he supported a majority of the party's candidates at the last election, and intends to support the candidates named in the primary. South Dakota requires previous support of the party, belief in a “substantial part” of principles of the party, and intention to support the candidates nominated. Pennsylvania requires a declaration that the intending voter supported a majority of the party's candidates at the last election. The Missouri law of 1901 merely required that the voter answer affirmatively the question
Are you a——?
- Type
- Papers and Discussions
- Information
- Proceedings of the American Political Science Association , Volume 4: Fourth Annual Meeting , December 1908 , pp. 179 - 188
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1908
References
1 Ch. v, sec. 9, 1905.
2 N. J., 1903, ch. 248.
3 S. D., 1905, ch. 107.
4 Pa., 1906, ch. 10. sec. 10.
5 Mo., 1901, p. 149, sec. 18.
6 1899, 662, sec. 11.
7 1906, p. 450, sec. 33; La., 1900, ch. 33, sec. 15; Minn., 1903, ch. 90.
8 See Tenn., 1901, ch. 39; La., 1906, ch. 49.
9 Miss., 1902, ch. 66, sec. 9.
10 La., 1900, ch, 133; 1906, ch. 49, sec. 10.
11 1903, ch. 214, sec. 2.
12 1904, ch. 2, sec. 4.
13 See Britton v. Board of Election Commissioners, 61 Pac, 1115, 1900.
14 Where the commission plan of government is adopted in Iowa, a non-partisan primary is provided. Iowa, 1907, ch. 48. See also Wisconsin, 1907, ch. 670.
15 1903, ch. 451.
16 1907, p. 263.
17 1907.
18 1907, ch. 52.
19 1907, ch. 177.
20 See Nebraska, 1907, ch. 52, sec. 35.
21 1904, sec. 12—“If I am nominated and elected, I will, during my term of office (here the candidate, in not exceeding one hundred words, may state any measure or principle he especially advocates and the form in which he wishes it printed after his name on the nomination ballot, in not exceeding twelve words.”)
22 See also Michigan, 1905, ch. 476; special acts:
23 Applied to county offices, 1905, p. 227; In North Dakota, 1907, no nomination is made unless the total vote cast for candidates for a given office equals thirty per cent of the total party vote for secretary of state at last election.
24 Laws of 1907, ch. 209, sec. 18 and 23. In Alpena county, if no candidate receives 25 per cent of the vote, a second primary is held; 1905, ch. 476, special acts.
25 Nomination of representatives in Illinois, aldermen in Boston, etc.