TABLE SHOWING NUMBER OF CANDIDATES FOR U. S. SENATOR AND STATE OFFICES AND TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST IN PRIMARY FOR EACH OFFICE, 1908-1922

Governor

No. of candidates Total vote

3

2

3

3

4

1

4

1

1

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

181,863 176,900 181,219 142,596 227,863 127,753 213,186 286,518 50,065 47,552 57,370 73,776 74,791 39,161 38,063 47,366

Lieutenant

Governor

No. of candidates 3 Total vote

1

2

2

3

1

4

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

173,898 156,273 163,890 130,828 199,895 120,293 192,748 244,772 47,983 47,591 54,941 69,171 72,135 36,834 36,855 46,712

162,652 153,161 164,335 124,608 197,330 128,828 189,554 281,365 47,876 46,724 54,487 70,002 72,041 36,799 36,129 45,550

State Auditor

No. of candidates Total vote

2

1

4

5

1

1

4

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

168,041 150,840 163,085 127,979 185,447 121,913 186,963 244,365 47,520 47,202 52,599 67,551 72,429 36,344 36,310 45,940

State Treasurer

No. of candidates 1 Total vote..

1

1

1

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

161,966 149,425 156,543 123,986 190,988 118,864 184,039 263,682 47,826 46,828 54,503 67,532 72,109 36,140 36,401 45,654

159,152 152,774 151,396 119,048 197,760 111,025 187,415 243,611 47,510 44,074 54,593 64,496 70,733 36,492 35,977 45,584

2

7

1

4

3

2

1

1

1

1

164,069 148,824 148,521

117,912

277,489 43,900 46,675 53,876

35,004

44,886

as a rule contested nominations poll a larger vote than uncontested ones (see table, p. 150, bearing in mind that women have not voted in the primary elections of Iowa prior to 1922). According to table on page 150 it is evident that presidential election years seem to bring out more candidates for state offices than do the off years, and the number of votes cast seems to rise and fall accordingly in Republican primaries.

Thus it would appear that national politics stimulate an unusual interest in Iowa. This has been especially in evidence in the primary of 1922. In the general election of 1920 Senator Cummins received 528,499 votes while Governor Kendall received but 513,118. In the primary of 1922 Governor Kendall sought renomination and though unopposed, he received over 43,000 more votes than the lowest ranking candidate on the state ticket and 5,000 more than the next highest. Yet the Governor fell 37,000 votes short of the total vote cast for the six candidates for the office of United States senator. Thus 61 per cent of the Republican vote cast for Senator Cummins in the general election of 1920 was voted at the primary to nominate a successor to Senator Kenyon; while only 55 per cent of the vote cast for Governor Kendall in 1920 was polled for him in the primary election of 1922. During the past fourteen years, the office of governor has polled on the average about 70 per cent of the vote cast for the office in the general election, while the percentage for the minor state offices has varied from 60 to 65 per cent. The percentage in 1920 was very low, being only 41 per cent for governor and as low as 31 per cent for some of the minor state offices; this is easily explained, however, by the fact that the women voted in the general election of 1920 but not

in the primary of the same year. In like manner the high percentage of 1912 (98 per cent for governor) is explained by the split in the Republican Party through the organization of the Progressive Party after the primary had been held. Normally, only from 65 to 70 per cent of those eligible have voted at the general elections, and the aversion of many to making a declaration of party affiliation no doubt keeps a large percentage of those who vote at the general election from voting in the primary.

IS THE VOTING INTELLIGENT?

Granting that it would be highly desirable to have a larger percentage of the voters participate in the primaries, what evidence is there to support the charge frequently made that most of those who do vote, vote unintelligently? The alphabetical arrangement of names on the ballot always favored those of the top of the list. To remedy this situation, the system of rotation referred to above was adopted. It is now said that candidates for nomination, knowing in advance the counties in which their names will be at the head of the list, devote their campaign energy to the other counties, feeling assured that wherever their names are first they will win without effort. The writer has no data at hand to either prove or disprove this assertion. No doubt many electors will vote for the candidate at the top of the list when all are wholly unknown to them. But where the issue has been made clear to the voter, as in the primary campaign for United States senator in 1922, a consciousness of purpose in voting seems evident. That one candidate in a field of six should get 42 per cent of the vote cast and carry seventy-six out of ninetynine counties cannot be attributed to place on the ballot or to chance.

The total primary vote tends to diminish from the top of the ballot downwards, though contests usually raise the rank of the office above its position on the ballot.

The fact seems evident that the public is not greatly concerned about who is nominated for the minor state offices; and so unless the candidates for these offices are well known in the state or conduct a vigorous publicity campaign, the voter is apt for want of knowledge, to cast his vote for the one at the head of the list or pass the office altogether. The fact that thirtyseven thousand more persons expressed a choice among the six candidates for United States senator in 1922 than voted for governor is evidence that the campaign for the senatorship had impressed itself upon the mind of the voter, whereas the nominations for state offices with but three contests for minor offices failed to impress them.

PRIMARY CAMPAIGN EXPENSES The opponents of the Iowa primary law frequently speak of it as an expensive institution, which makes it impossible for men without means to become candidates for office. Campaigning for the nomination for a state office if contested, is largely a matter of advertising, since the candidates can meet personally but a small percentage of the voters. Some newspapers, however, will give considerable publicity to "pet" candidate which is not paid for as political advertisement.

The law of Iowa requires candidates to file a statement of campaign expenditures in both primary and general elections within ten days after such elections; but there is no limit upon the amount which he may spend.

The cost of candidacy is often very large larger than the candidates can afford. It is doubtful if all candidates report their expenditures. The Demo

1

cratic candidates for state offices seldom spend much money nor do they spend much in the congressional districts which are solidly Republican; but there are one or two congressional districts in which a Democrat feels that he has a fighting chance and in those he may spend a few hundred dollars. In the Republican primary campaign for the nomination of United States senator in 1922, six contesting, the smallest amount reported as spent was $118.68, while the largest amount was $6,869.88. The successful candidate reported $453.98 of which he claimed the Spanish War Veterans contributed $112, his home town $75, and the remainder represented his personal expenditures. He, however, had the active support of the most influential farm paper in the state and got a large amount of publicity, which would have cost a great deal if it had been paid for as political advertisements. The other candidates spent about $3,000 each. The governor seeking renomination and uncontested, reported having spent $110.18, while the Secretary of State seeking renomination, but contested, spent $1,511.04. In many instances candidates for nomination to local offices or that of state senator or representative report no expenditures at all of less than $25. Contests, of course, invite large expenditures, but that was also true under the caucus and convention system.

THE CHARACTER OF CANDIDATES The question whether the primary keeps the best men out of office because they are unwilling or unable financially to enter a primary campaign; or whether the candidates nominated by the primary are no worse than those chosen under the convention system, are questions upon which it is difficult to get trustworthy data. The people have made serious mistakes at times in selecting candidates by the primary system; nor did the convention system pick all good men. candidates? This is the charge that the opponents of the primary are constantly making. It is probably true that others than Republicans participate in Republican primaries. The Democrats, being the minority party, having fixed their slate in advance of the primary, and having no contests for state offices, have little incentive to bring their party voters to the polls. The Socialist, FarmerLaborer, and Socialist-Labor Parties combined, cast a little more than twenty-eight thousand votes for presidential electors in Iowa in 1920, while only the Socialist Party offered candidates in the primaries of the same year and their maximum vote cast in that primary was seven hundred and ninety

EFFECT OF THE PRIMARY UPON PARTY ORGANIZATION

There is much evidence going to show that the primary has not been a menace to party organization. Indeed, party organization really controls the primary election to a considerable extent. In theory, anyone is free to circulate his own petition and contest any nomination; but in practice, it is usually futile to oppose the organization slate unless public sentiment is aroused, as was the case in the senatorial primary of 1922. The failure of the organization to control at all times is one of the chief causes for the demand for the repeal of the law by it.

Iowa is essentially a one-party state and a glance at the table on p. 150 suggests that it is no mere accident that the Democrats in Iowa have had no primary contests for state offices since 1914. The party organization makes up the slate of those who are to represent the party in the primary and where there are no contests it is a foregone conclusion that those persons will also represent the party in the general election. In 1920, the writer succeeded in getting primary ballots from sixty-eight of the ninety-nine counties of the state. These ballots showed that the Democrats had no candidate in the primary for more than 50 per cent of the county offices, while for 50 per cent of the county offices only one candidate appeared in the Republican primaries. On the other hand, the Republicans were without any primary candidate for fifty-one county offices in the sixty-eight counties, and the Democrats were without any for two hundred and eighty-four offices. The figures for the Republican

Party, however, do not appear so bad when it is said that the office of coroner appeared thirty times of the fifty-one offices without primary candidates. This office is without salary and few fees in the majority of the counties of Iowa, and consequently sought only in the more populous counties.

There were three hundred and seventy offices out of five hundred and forty-four with only one candidate, or no candidate in the Republican county primaries and five hundred and seventeen in the Democratic primaries in the sixty-eight counties referred to above.

Thus it is apparent that in the primaries of the year 1920, most of the county offices, even in the majority party primaries, were uncontested, indicating either that the party organization had fair control of the situation or that there was general lack of interest in public offices. Instances have come to the attention of the writer where the two-party organizations, in counties where the parties are nearly equal, have divided up the offices each organization agreeing not to put in nomination any one for certain offices, thus assuring the election of the bi-partisan slate.

IRREGULARITY OF PARTY VOTING AT

THE PRIMARY

ex

In the Republican primary of 1922, the six candidates for the nomination of United States senator received a total of 323,650 votes, while the head of the state ticket received but 286,518. It is therefore evident that some thirty-seven thousand voters entered the Republican primaries and pressed a choice on United States senator and nothing else. It has been too generally assumed that these thirty-seven thousand votes were not Republicans. In this the writer cannot concur, because the total primary vote for senator was 61 per cent of the vote cast for Senator Cummins in 1920 and 63 per cent of the vote cast

for Governor Kendall in the same election. The office of governor has on the average polled about 70 per cent of the party vote, while the other state offices have averaged from 61 to 65 per cent. Governor Kendall being unopposed in 1922 and the center of political interest being in the contest for the senatorship, he fell far below the average percentage of the party vote which the head of the state ticket usually gets - receiving only 55 per cent of his general election vote of 1920. These facts convince the writer that the Republican primaries of 1922 were not overrun with outsiders.

NOMINATION BY CONVENTION

Does the primary accomplish its purpose as a popular nominating system? Only three times out of eight have all the nominations been made at the primary; that is, the successful candidates received 35 per cent of the vote cast for the office sought. But never before 1920 was there more than one state office at any one primary which failed to get the requisite vote. In 1920, however, the primary failed to determine the nomination of five out of seven offices. Every nomination for which there were more than two candidates went to the state convention. The primary law leaves the convention free to make a nomination wholly outside of the contestants in the primary, but as a matter of practice, this has never been done. Nor have the state conventions adopted the policy of selecting the high man in the primaries; on the contrary, in five times out of eight they have not

done so.

REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION TO THE PRIMARY

Most of those who originally opposed the adoption of the primary law in