Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T00:26:55.037Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Direct Primary Legislation in 1928–291

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

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

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Legislative Notes and Reviews
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , May 1930 , pp. 370 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1930

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.)

Footnotes

1

Legislation governing registration, absent voting, and corrupt practices is not included in this summary unless it relates exclusively to primary elections. Every legislature except that of Alabama was in regular session in either or both of the years 1928 and 1929. Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Virginia held sessions in 1928 only; Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wisconsin held regular or special sessions in both 1928 and 1929; while in the remaining thirty states the legislatures were in session in 1929 only. The session laws of Washington were not available at the time this note was prepared and the legislation of that state is not included.

References

2 For an excellent analysis of this law, see Berdahl, C. A., “The Richards Primary,” in this Review, vol. 14 (Feb., 1920), p. 93Google Scholar; ibid., “The Operation of the Richards Primary,” in Annals of Amer. Acad., vol. 106 (March, 1923), p. 158.

3 The Republican state platform of 1928 was opposed to the Richards law, and its repeal was urged by Governor Bulow (Democrat) in 1929. Efforts to invoke the referendum on the repeal were unsuccessful. The writer is indebted to Professor C. A, Berdahl for this information. For a discussion of the repeal of the Richards law and of the nature of the new Slocum law, see his article, “New South Dakota Primary Law Applies Short Ballot Doctrine,” Nat. Munic. Rev., vol. 19 (May, 1930), p. 235CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Laws of South Dakota, 1929, ch. 118, sec. 2, p. 125Google Scholar.

5 Ibid., sec. 55, p. 140.

6 Ibid., sec. 39, p. 137.

7 Ibid., secs. 2, p. 125 and 39, p. 137.

8 Ibid., sec. 55, p. 140.

9 Idem.

10 Idem.

11 Ibid., sec. 20, p. 131. Before 1927, the primary was held in March; in that year the date was changed to the fourth Tuesday in May.

12 Ibid., secs. 4 and 5, pp. 125-6.

13 Ibid., sec. 8, p. 127.

14 Idem.

15 Ibid., sec. 18, p. 131.

16 Ibid., sec. 30, p. 134.

17 Ibid., secs. 6 and 9, pp. 126-9.

18 Idem.

19 Idem.

20 See Overacker, The Presidential Primary, chs. 6, 7, and 12, for a fuller discussion of this question.

21 The writer is indebted to the officers of the Indiana League of Women Voters for this information. The League succeeded in getting its registration law through both houses of the legislature, only to have the governor pocket veto it. The death of ex-Senator Beveridge was a great loss to direct primary supporters in Indiana.

22 For a summary of the law, see Merriam, and Overacker, , Primary Elections, pp. 370–1Google Scholar.

23 Laws of Indiana, 1929, ch. 68, p. 223Google Scholar.

24 Idaho repealed its direct primary for state-wide and congressional offices in 1919, and in 1921 New York repealed the direct primary so far as state-wide offices were concerned.

25 Laws of Indiana, 1929, ch. 68, p. 223Google Scholar.

26 Legislative Acts of the State of Ohio, 1929, p. 307Google Scholar.

27 Laws of the State of Maryland, 1929, p. 1425Google Scholar.

28 Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1929, no. 530, p. 1672Google Scholar.

29 Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1928, ch. 158, p. 183Google Scholar.

30 Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1913, ch. 835.

31 Boston Herald, March 24, 1928, p. 1Google Scholar.

32 Legislative Acts of Ohio, 1929, p. 337Google Scholar, sec. 4785:67.

33 Ibid., pp. 341-43, secs. 4785:75-77.

34 General Laws of Oregon, 1929, ch. 143, p. 121Google Scholar.

35 Laws of Illinois, 1929, H.B. no. 24, 290, and 775, pp. 412–13Google Scholar.

36 Acts and Resolutions of Georgia, 1929, no. 174, p. 576Google Scholar (Clinch county); Public Laws and Resolutions of North Carolina, 1929, ch. 70, p. 55Google Scholar; ch. 77, p. 60; ch. 319, p. 375 (McDowell and Ashe counties); Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1929, No. 145, p. 154Google Scholar (in commission-government cities of 35,000 to 45,000 population); Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1928, ch. 242, p. 248Google Scholar (Fall River primaries of 1929).

37 Acts and Resolves of Rhode Island, 1928, ch. 1232, p. 249Google Scholar.

38 Acts and Joint Resolutions of South Carolina, 1928, no. 625, p. 1195Google Scholar.

39 Ibid., No. 931, p. 1920.

40 New York Times, April 20, 1929, p. 1Google Scholar.

41 Idem.

42 Legislative Acts of Ohio, 1929, p. 337Google Scholar, sec. 4785:67.

43 Public Acts of Michigan, 1929, No. 306, p. 791Google Scholar.

44 Laws of Wisconsin, 1929, ch. 112.

45 Legislative Acts of Ohio, 1929, p. 346Google Scholar, sec. 4785:82.

46 General Laws of the State of Idaho, 1929, ch. 260, p. 530Google Scholar.

47 General Acts, etc., of Florida, 1929, ch. 13761, p. 491Google Scholar.

48 Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1928, ch. 89, p. 57Google Scholar.

49 Laws of New York, 1928, ch. 779, p. 1650Google Scholar; ch. 815, p. 1731.

50 Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536.

51 See this Review, vol. 22 (May, 1928), p. 356.

52 New York Times, July 25, 1928.

53 Newberry v. United States, 256 U. S. 232.

54 The act was held to be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the effect of the Fifteenth amendment was not considered. See Cushman, R. E., “Constitutional Law in 1926-27,” in this Review, vol. 22 (Feb., 1928), p. 70Google Scholar.

55 Public Acts of Michigan, 1929, no. 306, p. 791Google Scholar.

56 Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1929, ch. 135, p. 116Google Scholar.

57 General Acts, etc., of Florida, 1929, ch. 13761, p. 483Google Scholar; Laws of Illinois, 1929, p. 414Google Scholar; Laws of Mississippi, 1928, ch. 128, p. 172Google Scholar; General Laws of Oregon, 1929, ch. 104, p. 71Google Scholar, and ch. 105, p. 71.

58 Session Laws of Wyoming, 1929, ch. 23, p. 28Google Scholar. Formerly, names were arranged alphabetically.

59 Laws, etc., of the State of Montana, 1929, ch. 67, p. 110Google Scholar.

60 Acts and Joint Resolutions of Iowa, 1929, ch. 40, p. 72Google Scholar; Acts of New Jersey, 1928, ch. 103, p. 212Google Scholar.

61 Laws of Illinois, 1st special session of 1928, pp. 48, 60Google Scholar.

62 General Acts, etc., of Florida, 1929, ch. 13761, p. 488Google Scholar; Session Laws of Oklahoma, special session of 1929, ch. 241, p. 303Google Scholar.

63 See Merriam, and Overacker, , Primary Elections, pp. 82–83Google Scholar.

64 Dove v. Ogleby, 244 Pacific 798 (1926). For a discussion of the case, see Cushman, Robert E., “Public Law in the State Courts in 1926,” in this Review, vol. 20 (Aug., 1926), p. 588Google Scholar.

65 Laws of Wisconsin, 1929, ch. 381.

66 Laws, etc., of the State of Montana, 1929, ch. 67, p. 110Google Scholar.

67 Statutes of California, 1929, ch. 834, p. 1767Google Scholar.

68 Laws of Illinois, 1929, p. 405Google Scholar; Statutes of California, 1929, ch. 834, p. 1767Google Scholar; Laws of Illinois, 1929, p. 406Google Scholar; and Public Acts of Michigan, 1929, no. 306, p. 792Google Scholar.

69 Laws of North Dakota, 1929, ch. 123, p. 149Google Scholar.

70 Public Acts of Michigan, 1929, no. 306, p. 792Google Scholar.

71 Statutes of California, 1929, ch. 834, p. 1767Google Scholar.

72 Laws of New York, 1929, ch. 542, p. 1115Google Scholar.

73 Laws of the State of Illinois, first special session, 1928, p. 40Google Scholar.

74 Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1928, ch. 212, p. 220Google Scholar.

75 General Acts, etc., of Florida, 1929, ch. 13761, p. 481Google Scholar; Laws of Illinois, 1921, p. 420Google Scholar; Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, ch. 188, p. 206; Laws, etc., of the State of Montana, 1929, ch. 98, p. 337Google Scholar; Acts of New Jersey, 1928, ch. 99, p. 207Google Scholar; Laws of North Dakota, 1929, ch. 125, p. 151Google Scholar; General Laws of Oregon 1929, ch. 397, p. 535Google Scholar; Session Laws of Wyoming, 1929, ch. 115, p. 198Google Scholar.

76 Acts, etc., of Arizona, 1929, ch. 13, p. 32Google Scholar (limitations); Statutes of California, 1929, ch. 103, p. 188Google Scholar (filing of expense accounts); General Acts, etc., of Florida, 1929, ch. 13761, p. 490Google Scholar (regulations governing campaign expenditures applicable to new “run-off” primary); Acts of General Assembly of Kentucky, 1928, ch. 160, p. 539Google Scholar (increasing amounts which candidates for nomination in cities of first class may spend); Public Acts of Michigan, 1929, No. 306, p. 816Google Scholar (changing basis upon which amounts to be expended in primary elections are to be figured); and Acts of the State of Virginia, 1928, ch. 119, p. 530Google Scholar (changing filing date).

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.