Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T06:02:50.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Legal Status of American Political Parties, II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Joseph R. Starr
Joseph R. Starr
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Political parties that cannot meet the requirements set up by statute for participation in the direct primary, or for the holding of legal conventions, are authorized in most states to choose their candidates by an alternative method. The statutory provisions on this matter vary widely. Some states follow a liberal policy, making it relatively easy for small parties to get a place on the ballot with their candidates' names identified by the party name or emblem. A few states follow a different policy, and make it difficult for small parties to put forward their candidates and allow no distinction upon the ballot between independent candidates and the candidates of small parties.

The forty-eight states may be divided into several classes as respects their statutory provisions for the nomination of candidates by new political parties and small parties which cannot meet the statutory definition of a political party:

1. States prescribing no minimum size for a political party to participate in the favored method of nomination, whether convention or direct primary—six states. In these states, new and small parties are in the most favored position. In the matter of nominating candidates and gaining a place on the general election ballot, they are accorded equal treatment with parties of long standing and substantial size.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , August 1940 , pp. 685 - 699
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1940

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

88 Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, and South Carolina.

89 Arizona Rev. Code, 1928, Sec. 1293; California Pol. Code (Deering), 1937, Sec. 1188; Colorado Sess. Laws, 1937, Ch. 142, Sec. 8; Connecticut Gen. Stat. Supp., 1935, Sec. 166 (c); Delaware Rev. Code, 1935, Secs. 1810, 1811; Illinois Rev. Stat., 1937, Ch. 46, Sec. 291; Louisiana Gen. Stat., 1932, Secs. 2755, 2757, 2760; Maine Rev. Stat., 1930, Ch. 7, Secs. 1, 32, Ch. 8, Sec. 2; Minnesota Sess. Laws, 1939, Ch. 345, Pt. 3, Ch. 1, Sec. 2, Ch. 3, Secs. 1, 2, 11; Missouri Rev. Stat., 1929, Sec. 10241; New Hampshire Pub. Laws, 1925, Ch. 25, Secs. 57, 59; New Jersey Rev. Stat., 1937, Tit. 19, Ch. 13, Secs. 1, 4, 5, 22, Tit. 19, Ch. 14, Secs. 6, 10; New York Consol. Laws Supp. (McKinney), 1938, Bk. 17, Sec. 137; North Carolina Code (Michie), 1935, Sec. 5913; Ohio Gen. Code (Page), 1938, Secs. 4785–3, 91, 99, 100; Oklahoma Stat. (Harlow), 1931, Secs. 5650, 5714, 5721; Oregon Code Supp., 1935, Sec. 36–1004, Sess. Laws, 1937, Ch. 93, Secs. 1, 2; Pennsylvania Stat. (Purdon), 1938, Tit. 25, Secs. 2831 (c), 2911, 2912, 2963; Rhode Island Gen. Laws, 1938, Ch. 317, Secs. 5, 12.

90 Alabama Code Supp., 1936, Sec. 462; Idaho Code, 1932, Sec. 33–639; Michigan Comp. Laws, 1929, Sec. 3063; Tennessee Code (Williams), Sec. 2046; Washington Rev. Stat. Supp. (Remington), 1937, Secs. 5167, 6170, 5203, 5274.

91 Iowa Code (Whitney), 1935, Secs. 528, 655-a1, 655–a17; Montana Rev. Codes, 1935, Secs. 612, 613, 615, 639; West Virginia Code (Michie), 1937, Secs. 91–93; Wyoming Rev. Stat., 1931, Secs. 36–501, 36–508, 36–509, 36–510, 36–640, 36–641, 36–1005.

92 Kentucky Stat. (Carroll-Baldwin), 1936, Secs. 1453, 1550–1e.

93 Utah Rev. Stat. Supp., 1939, Sec. 25–4–3 (g) (2), 25–6–5.

94 Indiana Stat. (Burns), 1933, Sec. 29–1003; Maryland Code, 1924, Art. 33, Secs. 49, 51, 63; Massachusetts Laws (Michie), 1933, Ch. 53, Secs. 1, 6, 8; Vermont Pub. Laws, 1933, Secs. 157, 158, 179, 180, 181, 182, 221.

95 Nebraska Comp. Stat., 1929, Secs. 1135, 1136, 1137; Nevada Comp. Laws (Hillyer), 1929, Secs. 2404 (g), 2405 (2), 2435; South Dakota Comp. Laws, 1929, Secs. 7096-A, 7241, Sess. Laws, 1933, Ch. 102; Wisconsin Stat., 1937, Secs. 5.02, 5.05 (6) (e), 5.26, 6.23. Cf. supra at footnotes 75–81.

96 State ex rel. Barnett v. Gray (1932), 107 Florida 73, 144 So. 349.

97 North Dakota Comp. Laws Supp., 1925Google Scholar, Secs. 959, 971a.

98 Texas Stot. (Vernon), 1936, Arts. 2978, 2980, 3154, 3155, 3159.

99 Virginia Code, 1936, Sec. 154.

100 Arkansas Stat. (Pope), 1937, Sec. 4738; Delaware Rev. Code, 1935, Sec. 1810; Tennessee Code Supp. (Williams), 1938, Sec. 2045.1. The passage is quoted from the Tennessee Code.

101 See generally on this subject Schafer v. Whipple (1898), 25 Colo. 400, 55 Pac. 180.

102 Louisiana Gen. Stat. (Dart), 1932, Sec. 2760; Maryland Code, 1924, Art. 33, Sec. 63; Minnesota Sess. Laws, 1939, Ch. 345, Tit. 3, Ch. 3, Sec. 11; New Hampshire Pub. Laws, 1925, Ch. 26, Sec. 3; New Jersey Rev. Stat., 1937, Sec. 19: 14–6.

103 Wisconsin Stat., 1937, Sec. 6.23 (4); Wyoming Rev. Stat., 1931, Sec. 36–1005.

104 Cunningham v. McDermett (Texas Court of Civil Appeals, 1926), 277 S.W. 218.

105 Brown v. Cole (1907), 54 N.Y. Misc. 278, 104 N.Y. Supp. 109.

106 Young v. Beckham; Meacham v. Young (1903), 115 Ky. 246, 72 S.W. 1092.

107 State ex rel. Williams v. Everett (1912), 130 La. 35, 57 So. 576.

108 Socialist Party v. Uhl (1909), 155 Cal. 776, 103 Pac. 181; Riter v. Douglas (1910), 32 Nev. 400, 109 Pac. 444; Francis v. Sturgill (1915), 163 Ky. 650, 174 S.W. 753; Smith v. Parish Executive Committee for Parish of Jefferson (1927), 164 La. 981, 115 So. 54; Love v. Taylor (Texas Court of Civil Appeals, 1928), 8 S.W. (2nd) 795.

109 Heney v. Jordon (1918), 179 Cal. 24, 175 Pac. 402.

110 Swindall v. State Election Board (1934), 168 Okla. 97, 32 Pac. (2nd) 691.

111 State ex rel. McMillan v. Schmahl (1918), 140 Minn. 220, 167 N. W. 797.

112 Brown v. Jensen (1902), 86 Minn. 138, 90 N.W. 155; McBroom et al. v. Brown (1912), 53 Colo. 412, 127 Pac. 957.

113 Porter et al. v. Flick et al. (1900), 60 Neb. 773, 84 N.W. 262.

114 State ex rel. Spofford v. Gifford (1912), 22 Ida. 613, 126 Pac. 1060.

115 Democratie Organization of County of Richmond v. Democratic Organization of County of Richmond, Inc. (1938), 253 N.Y. App. Div. 820, 1 N. Y. Supp. (2nd) 349.

116 State ex rel. LaFollette v. Hinkle (1924), 131 Wash. 86, 229 Pac. 317.

117 In re Fitzgerald (1906), 51 N.Y. Misc. 491, 100 N.Y. Supp. 753.

118 Ogg v. Glover (1905), 72 Kan. 247, 83 Pac. 1039.

119 Schafer v. Whipple (1898), 25 Colo. 400, 55 Pac. 180.

120 (1932), 286 U.S. 73. See especially Mr. Justice Roberta's summary of this opinion in Grovey v. Townsend (1935), 295 U.S. 45, at p. 48.

121 (1935), 295 U.S. 45.

122 State ex rel. Webber v. Felton (1908), 77 Ohio St. 554, 84 N.E. 85.

123 Morrow v. Wipf (1908), 22 S.D. 146, 115 N.W. 1121. See also People ex rel. Breckton v. Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago (1906), 221 Ill. 9, 77 N.E. 321, in which a primary law was declared unconstitutional because of the delegation of legislative power to party committees.

124 Independence League (a political party) v. Taylor et al. (1908), 154 Cal. 179, 97 Pac. 303.

125 Independence League v. Taylor (1909), 155 Cal. 294, 100 Pac. 860; Socialist Party (a political party), and Hagelstein (as chairman of the county committee, representing said party) v. UhI et al., Election Commissioners (1909), 155 Cal. 776, 103 Pac. 181.

126 When the British Conservative party received a bequest to establish a permanent residential college for party workers, the title to the property was vested in a board of trustees. See Bonar Law Memorial Trust v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (King's Bench Division, 1933), 17 Tax Cas. 508, 77 S.J. 101, 49 T.L.R. 220.

127 Saxer and Pfeiffer v. Democratic County Committee of Erie County (1936), 161 N.Y. Misc. 35, 291 N.Y. Supp. 18.

128 People ex rel. Coffey v. Democratic Committee of Kings County (1900), 52 N.Y. App. Div. 170, 65 N.Y. Supp. 57; reversed in Same v. Same (1900), 164 N.Y. 347, 58 N.E. 124.

129 County Democratic Committee, Bexar County, et al. v. Booker (1932), 122 Tex. 89, 52 S.W. (2nd) 908.

130 McKane v. Adams (1890), 123 N.Y. 609, 25 N.E. 1057; Brown v. Cole (1907), 54 N.Y. Misc. 278, 104 N.Y. Supp. 109; Saxer and Pfeiffer v. Democratic County Committee of Erie County (1936), 161 N.Y. Misc. 35, 291 N.Y. Supp. 18.

131 Democratic Organization of County of Richmond v. Democratic Organization of County of Richmond, Inc. (1938), 253 N. Y. App. Div. 820, 1 N.Y. Supp. (2nd) 349.

132 Brown v. Democratic Parish Executive Committee of St. Bernard Parish et al. (1935), 183 La. 967, 165 So. 167; Smith v. Parish Democratic Executive Committee for Parish of Jefferson (1927), 164 La. 981, 115 So. 54; Rousseau v. Democratic Parish Executive Committee for Parish of St. Martin (1935), 183 La. 965, 165 So. 166.

133 Winnett v. Adams et al. (1904), 71 Neb. 817, 99 N.W. 681; Beene v. Waples (1916), 108 Tex. 140, 187 S.W. 191.

134 Ney et al. v. Whitley et al. (1904), 26 R.I. 464, 59 A. 400.

135 Davis v. Hambrick (1900), 109 Ky. 276, at p. 278, 58 S.W. 779. The case of White v. Democratic Executive Committee of Harris County (1932), 60 Fed. (2nd) 973, may belong in the same classification, for, while the committee is named as a party, it appears that only its chairman and secretary were required to respond.

136 Macdonald v. Lyon (1906), 43 Tex. Civ. App. 484, at p. 487, 95 S.W. 67, at p. 68.

137 McKane v. Adams (1890), 123 N. Y. 609, 25 N.E. 1057; People ex rel. Coffey v. Democratic General Committee of Kings County (1900), 164 N.Y. 347, 58 N.E. 124.

138 See also State ex rel. Merrill v. Gerow (1920), 79 Fla. 804, and Dastugue v. Cohen (1930), 14 La. App. 475, 131 So. 746, in which the courts as authorized by statutes inquired into the regularity of the election of party committeemen. In Raines v. Stone (1919), 112 S.C. 147, 99 S.E. 353, the court refused to make a simi lar inquiry on the ground that it was not so authorized by statute. In State ex rel. Kiel v. Riechmann (1911), 239 Mo. 81, 142 S.W. 304, it was held that the election of officers of a party committee was not reviewable by the court.

139 See an excellent statement of this doctrine in Brown v. Costen (1918), 176 N.C. 63, 96 S.E. 659. Other decisions to the same effect are: Davis v. Hambrick (1900), 109 Ky. 276, 58 S.W. 779; Winnett v. Adams et al. (1904), 71 Neb. 817, 99 N.W. 681; State ex rel. Webber v. Felton (1908), 77 Ohio St. 554, 84 N.E. 85; Ferguson v. Montgomery (1921), 148 Ark. 83, 231 S.W. 30; Tuck v. Cotton (1927), 175 Ark. 409, 295 S.W. 613.

140 State ex rel. Smith v. County Court (1916), 78 W.Va. 168, 88 S.E. 662.

141 Phelps v. Piper (1896), 48 Neb. 724, 67 N.W. 755; State ex rel. Dahlman v. Piper (1896), 50 Neb. 25, 69 N.W. 378; Davis v. Hambrick (1900), 109 Ky. 276, 58 S.W. 779; Winnett v. Adams et al. (1904), 71 Neb. 817, 99 N.W. 681.

142 William v. Lewis (1898), 6 Ida. 184, 54 Pac. 619; Spencer v. Maloney (1900), 28 Colo. 38, 62 Pac. 850; State ex rel. Fosser v. Lavile (1900), 9 N.D. 461, 83 N.W. 914; State ex rel. Howells v. Metcalf (1904), 18 S.D. 393, 100 N.W. 923.

143 Phelps v. Piper (1896), 48 Neb. 724, 67 N.W. 755; State ex rel. Dahlman v. Piper (1896), 50 Neb. 25, 69 N.W. 378.

144 State ex rel. Howells v. Metcalf (1904), 18 S.D. 393, 100 N.W. 923.

145 State ex rel. Ponath v. Hamilton (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1922), 240 S.W. 445; Tuck v. Cotton (1927), 175 Ark. 409, 295 S.W. 613.

146 Miller v. Clark (1900), 62 Kan. 278, 62 Pac. 664; Allen v. Burrow (1904), 69 Kan. 812, 77 Pac. 555; State ex rel. Labbe v. Millsaps (1916), 139 La. 242, 71 So. 496; Hyde v. Logan, Boykin v. Logan (1919), 113 S.C. 64, 101 S.E. 41; State ex rel. Hatfield v. Carrington (1922), 194 Ia. 785, 190 N.W. 390.

147 Miller v. Clark (1900), 62 Kan. 278, 62 Pac. 664.

148 Ibid.

149 Allen v. Burrow (1904), 69 Kan. 812, 77 Pac. 555.

150 Spencer v. Maloney (1900), 28 Colo. 38, 62 Pac. 850.

151 Cain v. Page et al. (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1897), 42 S.W. 336; People ex rel. Lowry v. District Court (1903), 32 Colo. 15, 74 Pac. 896; State ex rel. Cook v. Hauser (1904), 122 Wis. 534, 100 N.W. 964; State ex rel. Rees v. Foster (1904), 111 La. 1087, 36 So. 200; Commonwealth v. Combs (1905), 120 Ky. 368, 86 S.W. 697; People ex rel. McCarren v. Dooling (1908), 60 N.Y. Misc. 132, 112 N. Y. Supp. 67; Hyde v. Logan, Boykin v. Logan (1919), 113 S.C. 64, 101 S.E. 41.

152 Hyde v. Logan, Boykin v. Logan (1919), 113 S.C. 64, 101 S.E. 41.

153 State ex rel. Yates v. Crittenden (1901), 164 Mo. 237, 64 S.W. 162.

154 Cain v. Page et al. (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1897), 42 S.W. 336; State ex rel. Buttz v. Lindahl (1903), 11 N.D. 320, 91 N.W. 950.

155 French v. Roosevelt (1896), 18 N.Y. Misc. 307, 41 N.Y. Supp. 1080; State ex rel. Fosser v. Lavik (1900), 9 N.D. 461, 83 N.W. 914; Walling v. Lansdon (1908), 15 Ida. 282, 97 Pac. 396.

156 Rogers v. Lawrence (1931), 253 Mich. 594, 235 N.W. 265.

157 State ex rel. Kiel v. Riechmann (1911), 239 Mo. 81, 142 S.W. 304.

158 Hyde v. Logan, Boykin v. Logan (1919), 113 S.C. 64, 101 S.E. 41.

159 Raines v. Stone (1919), 112 S.C. 147, 99 S.E. 353.

160 People ex rel. Coffey v. Democratic General Committee of Kings County (1900), 164 N.Y. 347, 58 N.E. 124.

161 Gilmore v. Waples et al. (1916), 108 Tex. 167, 188 S.W. 1037.

162 Moran v. Grasser, 1935, not reported but mentioned by Higgins, J., 183 La. 977.

163 Saxer and Pfeiffer v. Democratic General Committee of Erie County (1936), 161 N.Y. Misc. 35, 291 N.Y. Supp. 18.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.