Story of the Session of the California Legislature of 1909Hichborn, Franklin
History
Story of the Session of the California Legislature of 1909
Hichborn, Franklin
California -- Politics and government
For the McCartney amendment and in effect against the bill agreed upon
by the anti-machine Senators: Bates, Bills, Finn, Hare, Hartman,
Kennedy, Leavitt, McCartney, Reily, Savage, Weed, Willis, Wolfe - 13.
[41] Cutten showed that Section 13, Article XX of the State Constitution
provides that "a plurality of the votes given at any election shall
constitute a choice where not otherwise directed in this Constitution."
Senator Cutten then proceeded to demonstrate that a primary election is
an election within the meaning of the terms used. The Supreme Court of
Indiana has so declared, and, coming nearer home, Cutten showed that the
California Supreme Court has so held also.
In The People vs. Cavanaugh, 112 California, the Supreme Court held that
any primary election that should become mandatory becomes an election
and only those primaries that may be optional with a party as to whether
or not they should be held, are not elections.
The Wright-Stanton bill and the Direct Primary amendment to the
Constitution make the direct primaries mandatory, nor is there anything
in the State Constitution providing that anything other than a plurality
vote shall be required to nominate. For the Legislature to have yielded
to the machine's demand that a majority or high plurality vote be
required to nominate and inserted such a provision in the Direct Primary
bill, would have been to render that measure unconstitutional, for under
the plain provisions of the Constitution only a plurality vote can be
required to nominate.
Were a majority or even high percentage plurality vote required to
nominate, the Direct Primary law would have been made unconstitutional,
because:
1. A plurality might not be equal to the percentage or majority.
2. A percentage or majority contemplates a convention to nominate in
case the candidate does not receive the percentage or majority, and a
convention, the best authorities hold, is prohibited under the
constitutional amendment providing for the primary election.
Chapter X.
Fight Over Assembly Amendments.
Machine Succeeds in Amending the Direct Primary Bill in the Assembly -
Assemblyman Pulcifer at Critical Moment Votes with the Machine - Senate,
Although Held Up By Machine Element for a Week, Refuses to Concur in
Assembly's Action.
The machine Senators, having failed to amend the Direct Primary bill on
its second reading, apparently accepted their whipping, and allowed the
measure to go through third reading and final passage without
opposition[42].
Twenty-seven Senators at the final roll call voted for it; not one vote
was cast against it. Even Leavitt and Wolfe voted for it. The
anti-machine Senators had won "a glorious victory."
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account