generally. A "declaration of candidacy" is filed by the candidate accompanied by "endorsements" of a small number of electors. The exact number is not important but perhaps it ought not to be less than ten. Each endorsement is made separately to emphasize the responsibility of the voter signing it, and the endorsers or "sponsors become in fact a sort of campaign committee for their candidate. Party organizations might easily propose ""tickets" but as local offices are already non-partisan, no party designations appear on the ballot, and in campaigning no one has any more right to the use of a party label than I another. Party organizations would have some advantage but no more than under the present direct primary. To avoid the disasters that sometimes follow three-cornered fights, a scheme of preferential voting, such as is used in San Francisco, might be adopted, though there is now some doubt about the constitutionality of that device in California. In a recent case the Court of Appeals for the third district declared the system of proportional representation established by the present Sacramento charter invalid partly on account of the preferential or "transferable" vote.32 However, the number of actual contests for county and city offices is so small, and the cases where there are more than two candidates so rare, that the system here suggested is probably safe without the preferential vote.

Of course the fundamental fact is that these local offices involve no partisan issues of any sort; they are wholly administrative. The fundamental reform, therefore, is to remove them from the elective class. That there is some opinion in this direction already is

People v. Elkus, 39 Cal. Ap., 277 (1922). This case is now before the Supreme Court of the State on appeal.

evidenced by the following editorial:33 . . Most of the county offices, in fact, are of such nature that issues cannot creep in. The work is routine and laid out in advance, and can be done but one way. In such offices we believe the man who is giving satisfaction should be as secure in his position as a man employed by a private business concern would be under similar circumstances. The time undoubtedly will come when certain county offices will become appointive, rather than elective, the appointees being entitled to continue in service as long as they are faithful and competent. The first step toward that ultimate reform was taken a few years ago when those contests were placed on a non-partisan basis. The next step will be to place the offices on a non-contest plane." The arguments made here apply equally well to the choice of judges. If this reform were adopted to apply to all existing non-partisan offices, the costs of the primary election would no longer be so important a grievance against it from the point of view either of the taxpayer or of the candidate.

NOMINATIONS DOMINATED BY

NEWSPAPERS

A final criticism of the direct primary is that nominations have come under the domination of the newspapers, particularly the big city newspapers. Yet the "power of the press" is probably no more pronounced now than in the old days, when party conventions also felt the journalistic influence. It appears to be accepted as a fact that the successful candidate for governor in the Republican primaries of 1922 owed his nomination very largely to the support of the country press which was united in his behalf. That this is subversive of the public good remains

1922.

The Daily Palo Alto Times, September 14,

to be proven; certainly if a greatly preponderant majority of the newspapers of a state are behind a candidacy, there must be some merit in it. It is possible of course, though hardly probable, that so many papers could be dominated by "sinister interests" in behalf of an unfit candidate.

It is true that the ownership of newspapers is uncontrolled by the public, and that owners can and often do influence the news as well as the editorial columns. It is also true that the ownership of a newspaper and the political and economic affiliations of that ownership are usually matters of common knowledge in the locality where it is published and where it circulates. Sometimes a paper's "politics" is known even to people among whom it does not circulate. The particular bias of such a paper as The San Francisco Examiner, for example, or The Los Angeles Herald, or The Sacramento Bee, or The Fresno Republican, is known throughout the state and due allowance is made for it. Moreover, a newspaper's editorial policy is probably influenced by its readers as well as by its owners. To be a success it must have readers; to have readers it must please them. It will not in the long run follow a consistently unpopular policy or endorse unpopular candidates. It is a notable fact that the leading papers of the state are quick to "back winning horses." For these reasons if the voters of the state were to choose between candidates produced by conventions dominated by bosses and machines, with or without newspaper influence, and candidates produced by a direct primary dominated by the newspapers, there is no doubt that they would take their chances with the latter.

CONCLUSION

It appears from this analysis of the operation of the direct primary in

California that there are two classes of criticism of the present law,—those which are addressed to certain features of the California primary and those which constitute attacks on the primary system itself as a method of nomination. Of the former only one difficulty of great significance is observable, i.e., the provision respecting candidacy by one person for an office in the primaries of more than one party at the same time. If a member of one party is to be permitted to run in the primaries of another party, he certainly ought to be permitted to become that party's candidate if he can get enough votes.

Of the objections to the primary itself the following may be noted: (1) Lack of interest on the part of voters is confined chiefly to local primaries where it is often the case that there are no contests. The indicated reform is either the adoption of a simpler system of nomination than either convention or direct primary, or to make the local administrative offices appointive by an elected legislative body, i.e., the adoption of the "short ballot." (2) The cost of conducting the direct primary is great, but not too great if its purposes have been accomplished. That these purposes have been in large part if not wholly achieved will be generally admitted. Again the adoption of the "short ballot" would materially diminish the cost. (3) The cost to the candidates for campaigning is in many cases prohibitive, but probably not more so than under the convention system. The most practicable remedy here is also the "short ballot" and a simpler nominating system for such non-partisan local offices as must be elected. (4) The influence of the press may on occasion be pernicious, but at its worst it is not an unmixed evil. It contains its own corrective in the inherent necessities of the competitive

THE adoption of the direct primary

HE adoption of the direct primary law in Maine in 1911 was due largely to the progressive movement which placed on the statute books, in addition to the direct primary law, the initiative and referendum, and a corrupt practices act. An opinion which prevailed generally with the masses in both parties was that "the official class has long relieved the voters. . . of the obligation of self-government." 1 It was contended that the official class "had packed legislative committees," had "resisted state printing reforms," had been guilty of "charging up deadhead tickets against the taxpayers, and had exempted from taxation railways, "wild land, and other public utilities." 2

A plank demanding "honest caucuses," and "full publicity of all expenditures" for nominations as well as elections, appeared in the Democratic platform of 1908. Both of the major parties advocated a direct primary law in their platforms of 1910.3 The legislature which convened in January,

1 Lewiston Evening Journal, July 1, 1908. 2 Ibid., June 30, 1908.

3 Maine Republican Party platform, 1910: "We urge upon our legislature the enactment of such direct primary and other laws as may properly regulate the conduct of all caucuses to secure the honest and free expression of the proper voters therein." Lewiston Evening Journal, June 29, 1910.

Maine Democratic Party platform, 1910: "The Democratic Party of Maine in convention assembled declares that it will . . . demand a direct primary law." Lewiston Evening Journal, June 15, 1910.

House: Democrats, 87; Republicans 64. Senate: Democrats, 22; Republicans, 9.

1911, was Democratic in both of its branches. The Republican members of the legislature were not willing, however, to leave to their Democratic colleagues the task and honor of providing the state with a direct primary law. Under the leadership of Howard Davies of Yarmouth a direct primary law was drawn up, filed with the Secretary of State, February 3, and transmitted to the legislature, February 6, 1911. It became the Republican measure and was commonly called the Davies Bill. The Democratic or Administration Direct Primary Bill was introduced into the House, March 10, just three weeks before the legislature adjourned." It was drawn up by Nathan Clifford and William M. Pennell of Portland and was commonly known as the Pennell Bill." Both Bills were referred to the Judiciary Committee. The Democratic majority in the committee reported in favor of the Pennell Bill, while the Republican minority members favored the Davies Bill.8 The majority report in favor of the Pennell Bill was adopted by the House by a vote of seventy-five to twenty, and by the Senate by a vote of nineteen to five.10 The vote closely followed party lines. The debates in the legislature on the measures were surprisingly short. With one or two exceptions the arguments clashed 5 State of Maine, Journal of the Senate, 1911, p.

202.

Ibid., Legislative Record, 1911, p. 458. 7 Ibid., p. 1061.

8 Ibid., p. 739.

Ibid., p. 1066.

10 Ibid., p. 1046.

only on the difference between the bills and not on the general principles of the direct primary.

The only attack in either House on the general principles of the direct primary was made by the Democratic senator from Knox County, Mr. L. M. Staples. He contended, first, that a direct primary would make it "almost impossible for any man of moderate means to become a candidate for office," on account of the great expense involved in getting the voters out to the polls for the primary election; " and, second, that there was "no call for it by the voters of Maine." Senator Carl E. Milliken (Republican), of Aroostook, answered that he considered that the argument about the expense had no force whatever and that he favored the direct primary because it would. "give the people a right to express directly their choice." 12

11

The relative merits of the opposing measures were argued more at length. Both Bills applied the direct primary to the nomination of governor, representatives to Congress, and United States senators. The Davies Bill, however, went further and applied it to the state auditor, members of the state legislature, and county officers. The Davies Bill, furthermore, contained detailed provisions not found in the Pennell Bill for holding state conventions prior to the primaries, for limiting the expenditures of candidates, and for publicity of campaign expenditures; while the Pennell Bill alone provided that candidates for governor should pay to the Secretary of State a fee of one hundred dollars and for representative to Congress, or United States senator fifty dollars.

The Democrats, led by Mr. Williamson of Kennebec County, contended "State of Maine, Legislative Record, 1911, p. 1045.

12 Ibid., p. 1046.

that county officers should not be included, since candidates for county positions are not usually well known throughout the county; hence the voters will naturally vote for the candidate from their own section. The result, he believed, would be that candidates from the cities or large towns would always win and that the smaller towns would be "almost wholly deprived of representation." He believed also that where several towns made up a representative district, the representative to the state legislature would always come from the largest town.13

Since the legislature refused to enact the initiated Davies Direct Primary Bill, it automatically went before the voters of the state. The question came up for decision at the special election held on September 11, 1911. Very little public interest seemed to have been aroused, if we may judge from the newspaper accounts. Public attention during the weeks preceding the election was absorbed almost entirely by the prohibition constitutional amendment which was resubmitted to the voters.

At the polls, however, the people expressed their approval of the Davies Bill by a vote of 65,810 to 21,744. The popular majority in favor of the measure was almost as pronounced as was the majority in the legislature in favor of the Pennell Bill. Not only the country towns but the cities, including those under Democratic control, voted in favor of the measure. It is difficult to account for the large "yes" vote in such Democratic cities as Lewiston, where the vote was 2,613 for to 340 against.14 Possibly the great mass of city voters were instructed to vote "yes" on all the ques