Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T15:15:20.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Direct Primary Legislation in 1934–351

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Louise Overacker
Louise Overacker
Affiliation:
Wellesley College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although few important changes have been made in the laws regulating primary elections during the last two years, some of those which have been made are novel and may foreshadow interesting future developments.

The year immediately preceding a presidential campaign usually brings some changes in the presidential primaries, and 1935 was no exception. North Dakota has repealed its presidential primary provisions, and in Oregon repeal was voted by the legislature but defeated at a referendum vote. Hereafter, delegates to the national nominating conventions in North Dakota are to be chosen by a state convention meeting at a time and place fixed by the party state central committee. The Oregon law, which was defeated, provided for the choice of delegates at large by the state central committee and of district delegates by district nominating committeemen.

Type
American Government and Politics
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , April 1936 , pp. 279 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1936

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

2 Laws of North Dakota, 1935, ch. 135, p. 169Google Scholar; Oregon Laws, 1935, ch. 261, p. 406Google Scholar (defeated at referendum election, January 31, 1936, by a vote of 5 to 2).

3 Laws of North Dakota, 1935, ch. 135, sec. 9, p. 172Google Scholar.

4 Oregon Laws, 1935, ch. 261, secs. 11–13, p. 410Google Scholar.

5 Ibid., secs. 7–9, p. 409.

6 For a discussion of their imperfections, see the writer's Presidential Primary, pp. 65–76, 87, 88.

7 The Oregon State Library writes of the proposal: “The newspapers showed considerable interest in the question, and the majority seemed to favor it.”

8 Acts of the General Assembly of Kentucky, 1920, p. 335Google Scholar.

9 Ibid., extra session of 1935, ch. 1, p. 5.

10 Laws of Minnesota, 1935, ch. 201, p. 384Google Scholar (villages of the fourth class); Public Laws of North Carolina, 1935, ch. 141, p. 155Google Scholar, ch. 365, p. 424, ch. 391, p. 605 (placing Avery, Stanley, and Watauga counties, respectively, under the state-wide primary law); Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia, 1934, ch. 352, p. 554Google Scholar (cities having a population of 45,000 to 125,000).

11 Acts and Resolves of Rhode Island, 1934, ch. 2165, p. 239Google Scholar. In 1930, Rhode Island passed a uniform caucus law superseding all special laws except that applying to Westerly.

12 Acts of New Jersey, 1935, ch. 299, p. 935Google Scholar.

13 Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1934, ch. 89, p. 91Google Scholar; Laws of New York, 1934, ch. 160.

14 Acts and Resolutions of the General Assembly of Georgia, 1935, No. 188, p. 462Google Scholar.

15 Session Laws of Washington, 1935, ch. 26, p. 60Google Scholar.

16 Ibid., ch. 26, sec. 5, p. 64.

17 Ibid., sec. 2, pp. 61–62.

18 Idem.

19 Idem.

20 Ibid., sec. 3, p. 63.

21 The law does not provide that the names of those who receive the highest number of votes, irrespective of party affiliation, shall appear as the candidates in the final election. It would seem, therefore, that the Republican candidate for each office who receives the highest number of votes would fight it out in the general election with the Democratic candidate who receives the highest number of votes for the same office.

22 Laws of Nebraska, 1935, ch. 112, p. 358Google Scholar. See also amendments to Art. III of the state constitution, adopted by referendum vote in November, 1934.

23 Idem.

24 Idem.

25 Laws of Montana, 1935, ch. 182, p. 389Google Scholar.

26 Idaho Session Laws, 1935, ch. 12, p. 27Google Scholar.

27 Oregon Laws, 1935, ch. 182, p. 271Google Scholar.

28 Session Laws of Colorado, 1935, ch. 108, p. 392Google Scholar.

29 General Laws of Mississippi, 1934, chs. 308 and 309, pp. 579–581Google Scholar.

30 Amendment to the constitution adopted November 7, 1933. See, also, Laws of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, special session of 1934, No. 58.

31 Laws of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, special session of 1934, Nos. 35 and 62; 1935, Nos. 19 and 195.

32 Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1935, No. 41, p. 48, and No. 107, p. 142Google Scholar.

33 See note in this Review, Vol. 28 (April, 1934), p. 268, for the history of these enactments.

34 Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U. S. 45 (1935). For an excellent summary of the history of this long-drawn-out controversy and a discussion of the significance of the decision, see Weeks, O. Douglas, “The White Primary”, Mississippi Law Journal, December, 1935Google Scholar.

35 See Weeks, op. cit.

36 General Laws of Idaho, 1935, ch. 123, p. 287Google Scholar.

37 Laws of Indiana, 1935, ch. 191, p. 930Google Scholar.

38 Public Acts of Michigan, 1935, No. 176, p. 278Google Scholar.

39 Ibid., No. 249, p. 421.

40 Ibid., No. 60, p. 95.

41 Laws of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, 1935, No. 154.

42 Acts of the State of Louisiana, 1934, No. 110, p. 427Google Scholar.

43 Idem.

44 Acts of the General Assembly of Kentucky, 1934, ch. 63, p. 195Google Scholar.

45 General Laws of Alabama, 1935, No. 424, p. 894Google Scholar (filing dates); General Acts and Resolutions of Florida, 1935, ch. 16990, p. 481Google Scholar (excepting justices of the supreme court from regular requirements governing the payment of filing fees); Laws of Kansas, 1935, ch. 172, p. 256Google Scholar (filing dates); Public Laws of North Carolina, ch. 236, p. 257 (changing percentage of voters necessary for independent nominating petitions); Laws of Ohio, vol. 116, 1935, House Bill 208, p. 149Google Scholar (requiring fees of those filing independent nominating petitions); Session Laws of South Dakota, 1935, ch. 109, p. 159Google Scholar (filing certificates of nomination and withdrawal of candidacy); Public Acts of Tennessee, 1935, ch. 54, p. 148Google Scholar (filing dates); General and Special Laws of Texas, 1935, ch. 129, p. 356Google Scholar (filing fees); Session Laws of Wyoming, 1935, ch. 17, p. 12Google Scholar (filing nomination papers).

46 Acts of the General Assembly of Kentucky, extra session of 1935, ch. 1, sec. 5a, p. 7Google Scholar. This list includes Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.

47 Laws of Indiana, 1935, ch. 246, p. 1255Google Scholar.

48 Laws of New Mexico, 1935, ch. 58, p. 107Google Scholar.

49 Laws of Illinois, 1935, Senate Bill No. 481, p. 805Google Scholar.

50 Ibid., House Bill No. 653, p. 789.

51 Laws of North Dakota, 1935, ch. 135, p. 169Google Scholar.

52 Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1934, ch. 288, p. 357Google Scholar. Public Acts of Michigan, 1935, No. 185, p. 291Google Scholar, and No. 233, p. 390; Acts of New Jersey, 1935, ch. 9, p. 19Google Scholar; Statutes of the State of Nevada, 1935, ch. 108, p. 230Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.