Iowa are still opposed. Their newspapers welcome every attack upon the primary and continually demand its repeal or suggest such amendments as would practically nullify it. In the past two years the attacks upon the primary system in Iowa have been more vigorous than ever before. The Republican State Convention in 1920 declared that, Actual experience has demonstrated that great evils have arisen in the use of the present primary law of this state. It has been given a fair trial and found to be unwieldy, expensive, and unsatisfactory. We favor its repeal and the substitution therefor of such primary legislation as will guarantee to all voters the full right to take part and be heard in the councils of their party, and will provide for them an opportunity for free and fair expression as to both candidates and measures. In the General Assembly of 1921 the Republican Party had almost complete control; out of fifty senators, fortyeight were Republicans and of a hundred and eight members of the lower house, one hundred and one belonged to the Republican Party. Yet the Assembly adjourned without having touched the primary law. The Republican State Convention in 1922 declared that it "emphatically" reaffirmed the declaration of 1920 respecting the primary law and added: In the event, however, that the General Assembly shall not comply with this demand for a substantial revision of our nominating system, then we instruct the Republican State Committee in calling the state convention for electing delegates to the next Republican national convention, to call such state convention for a date not later than February, 1924, and to include in the call therefor, as a part of the business of that convention, the duty of indorsing candidates for senator, governor, and other state officers to be supported by the party as a party in the ensuing primaries; and the state committee shall at the same time prescribe suitable rules for a fair and free choice of delegates to such state convention under republican auspices and by republicans only. At the present writing no one seriously believes that the legislature of 1923 will materially change the primary law. The reason for this difference between party declaration and legislative action is easily told. The primary law sought to preserve the party organization and make it subject to popular will. It therefore provided for both county and state conventions to be assembled subsequent to the primaries, for the purpose of naming candidates where no one received the requisite 35 per cent or where vacancies occurred, and for the purpose of drafting a platform of party principles. For the selection of delegates to the county convention the law provides that, "The requisite number of names of candidates of his choice for delegates to the county convention to which each precinct is entitled, shall be written or pasted with uniform white pasters on the blank lines upon the ballot by the voter while in the booth." Also, "One member of the county central committee for each political party from each precinct shall be elected." In practice very few voters find themselves able, on the spur of the moment, to write out a list of from ten to twenty names of persons whom they know to be residents of the precinct and members of the party designated. The result is that the party organization or some of its members distribute lists of delegates and candidates for party committeemen printed on gummed paper, in practically every voting precinct. The voter obediently licks this gummed slip of hand-picked delegates and pastes it on the proper place on the ballot, without knowing who they are or for what they stand. The delegates thus chosen in the several voting precinct make up the county convention, and the county convention in turn chooses the delegates to the state convention. Thus the party organization perpetuates itself and may often be altogether out of accord with the mass of the party voters. The voters seem to show an interest in candidates for office, especially if there are contests; but seem to fail to realize that in case the primary fails to nominate a candidate, the selection will fall to a group of delegates picked by a mere handful of men. The declaration in the Republican state platform demanding a repeal of the primary does not, as far as the observation of the writer goes, represent the popular sentiment in Iowa. Outside of the so-called "old guard," one hears more demands for open or non-partisan primaries than for repeal. The Democrats, though a minority party, have declared strongly in their last two platforms in favor of the primary. The progressive wing of the Republicans favors it and the League of Women Voters has recently expressed its disapproval of any attempts to repeal the primary system in this state. PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE IOWA PRIMARY LAW It would be as hard to find a substitute for the primary election as it is to find a substitute for the jury system. Both have their faults, and both can be improved. The time of holding primary elections in Iowa is unfortunate. The first Monday in June is one of the hardest times of year for a farmer to leave his work and consequently the rural vote is usually small. Again, the interval between the primary and the election is altogether too long. The issues of the primary are either forgotten by November or the people are weary of a long drawn-out campaign. The early part of September would be the best time for holding a primary in Iowa. Some of those who talk primary election reform in Iowa advocate the short primary ballot; by which they mean permitting the voters to nominate candidates for United States senators, congressmen, governor, lieutenant governor and local officers, the candidates for the rest of the state offices to be nominated by the state convention. It is doubtful if such a proposal would receive much popular endorsement. Both the advocates and the opponents of the primary system seem to be agreed that the 35 per cent rule should be changed. The first group would adopt the so-called "high man rule, while the latter insist upon majority nominations. Majority nominations being difficult to obtain when more than two candidates are in the field, it would be necessary to have a second primary or throw the nomination to a convention. Opponents of the present law want to make the test of party affiliation more rigid. They advocate registration for the primary, and would permit no change in party affiliation to be made, unless made anywhere from thirty days to six months before the primaries. The woman voter has made such a proposition impossible. As far as the writer is informed, the women of Iowa are more interested in open or non-partisan primaries than in more rigid tests of party affiliation. A provision limiting by law the amount of money which one may be permitted to spend in a primary contest, would be wholesome and would no doubt overcome much criticism now directed against primary election expenditures, Probably one of the most unsatis! factory features of the Iowa primary law is the unrepresentative character of the conventions called by its authority. The inability of the average voter to name lists of delegates to the county convention or to pass judgment on the lists submitted to him by the party organization on primary day, I has been mentioned above. If the convention is to be retained, the delegates should be named in advance of the primary in order that the voter may have an opportunity to know who they are; but of course if the "high man" rule were adopted, the convention I would be shorn of all power except filling vacancies and drawing up the party platform. The so-called Hughes plan is largely condemned because it has been advocated in Iowa by those who have been hostile to the primary system. The suspicion grows that the reactionaries would like nothing better than the ability to name all candidates in a convention and give them first I place on the ballot bearing the party endorsement. Popular candidates without an organization endorsement would appear as "scabs" and irregular and would have difficulty making much headway against such odds as these. CONCLUSION It is the writer's belief that we should proceed slowly in making any changes which will reduce the power of the voter, especially so in as much as the electorate has been doubled by the adoption of the nineteenth amendment. The women of Iowa should be given ample opportunity to become familiar with the workings of the primary system before radical changes are made. made. The fact that a particular candidaté nominated at the primary is not acceptable to the organization leaders is no reason for overthrowing the system by which he was nominated. Moreover, too rigid a test of party affiliation is more apt to keep the honest and conscientious from the polls than the venal and corrupt; thus reducing the percentage of those who participate in the primary. In such a case we would probably witness worse abuses than those now complained of. Perhaps we would have more confidence in the demands for the repeal of the primary system if they did not come so consistently from those who have suffered disppointment under it. The Operation of the Richards Primary By CLARENCE A. BERDAHL, PH.D. Upimury law on the statute books NDOUBTEDLY the most unique the most unique primary law on the statute books is that of South Dakota, known as the Richards primary. In the words of its author, "it differs from primary laws of other states in that it retains the representative convention system in proposal of party platform and candidates; also differs in making principles, instead of persons, . . . the paramount issue; . . . it provides a free proposal system to raise, join, discuss and elect the paramount issue for party platform and nominations of candidates."1 In an attempt to provide for a more effective expression of public opinion in the selection of a party's candidates and issues, and to secure in general more responsible party government, the Richards law includes several features that are decidedly novel; the proposal of candidates and issues by representative conventions, the emphasis on the "paramount issue," the scheme of public joint debates, the postmaster primary, the attempt to apply the merit system in appointments and the party recall. The law has been denounced as freakish, unworkable, unduly expensive, destructive of party organization and discipline, and productive of political turmoil. Since its first adoption through the initiative and referendum in 1912, it has been subjected to almost continuous assault by the state legislature and the party machine, 1 Statement by R. O. Richards, in Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, Aug. 8, 1921. 2 The precinct elections of the last primary campaign were referred to as "the first act of the Sunshine Follies of 1921-22." but has received the sanction of popular approval at the polls on four separate occasions.3 It has now been in operation during three primary campaigns-those of 1913-1914, 19191920, and 1921-1922, and it may therefore be in order to inquire into its working. 4 PARTY ORGANIZATION Party Membership. Although the Richards primary is of the closed primary type, the test for party membership "does not amount to a continental as a restriction," as was remarked by one of the South Dakota newspapers. The test provided is that of present affiliation, a voter being merely required at the polls to declare his party allegiance "in a distinct and audible voice," and, if challenged, to state under oath that he is "in good faith" a member of that party and a believer in its principles "as declared in the last preceding national and state platforms.' The Republican Party being the normally dominant party in South Dakota, there is regularly a lively contest for its nominations, and just as regularly comparative quiet within the other parties. In 1922, for example, Mr. Louis N. Crill and Miss 3 In 1912, 1914, 1918, and 1920. In 1916 the law failed by a small majority to secure popular approval. For a sketch of these events in the adoption of the law, as well as for a summary of its salient provisions, see an article by the writer on "The Richards Primary," in Am. Pol. Sci. Rev., XIV, 93-105 (Feb., 1920). The law may be found in Session Laws of South Dakota, 19161917, Ch. 234; or in the Revised Political Code, 1919, Sections 7097-7200. In amended form in the last case, however. Alice Lorraine Daly were unopposed for the Democratic and Nonpartisan League nominations respectively for governor. Within the Republican Party, however, there was a bitter contest between Governor McMaster, representing the regular party organization, and the picturesque George e W. Egan, posing as the champion of the people against the machine. Consequently, there were frequent suggestions and even open appeals that Democrats and Nonpartisan Leaguers participate in the Republican primaries in order to “smash the machine.” Apparently an effort was made to interpret the loose provision noted above in such a way as to prevent this, the Attorney General (and at least one state's attorney) issuing a statement in which he called special attention to the penalties for illegal voting at the primary.5 3 In reply, it was pointed out that under the law a voter who was a Democrat yesterday may legally be a Republican tomorrow. In reality there is no distinction between the parties save in name alone. A voter is neither a poor citizen nor a poor sport who chances to change from the Democratic primaries to the Republican primaries, because in his belief he can perform better the obligations he owes the state." 6 One of the leading newspapers of the state likewise declared very bluntly that "any Republican, any former Democrat, any former Nonpartisan Leaguer may go into the primary election on March 28 and demand a Republican ballot, vote that ballot and have it counted. If the right of an applicant to vote the Republican ticket is challenged, with 5 See statement of Attorney General Byron S. Payne, in Sioux Falls Press, Mar. 23, 1922. Letter of Attorney Thos. H. Kirby to the state's attorney of Minnehaha County, in Sioux Falls Press, Mar. 19, 1922. a view of intimidating the voter, it is only necessary for the challenged person to declare himself or herself a Republican. The desire and intention to vote the Republican ticket at that particular time makes the voter a bona fide Republican. There is no other test that need concern the conscience of the voter. There is no other clean-cut division between the parties except that demonstrated in the balloting." 7 In the following primary of March 28, 1922, the Republican vote for governor in Minnehaha County, the most populous county in South Dakota, reached a total of 13,435, as against a Democratic and Nonpartisan League vote of 83 and 17, respectively. In the November election, on the other hand, the Republican vote in the same county fell to 5,118, while the Democratic vote increased to 4,208, and the Nonpartisan League vote to 3,028. Similarly, the Republican vote in the state at large fell from 101,758 in the March primary to about 78,000 in the November election, with corresponding increases for the Democrats and Nonpartisan Leaguers. These figures seem to demonstrate that Democrats and Nonpartisan Leaguers in South Dakota probably do like to invade the Republican primaries on occasion, and that such invasion cannot be prevented (if, indeed, it be desirable to prevent it) by the test of party allegiance imposed by the Richards law. In this respect, however, the charge that party organization and discipline are practically destroyed is no more valid against the Richards plan than against any other primary law with a loose provision of that sort. It is possible, of course, that other features 7 Sioux Falls Press, Feb. 8, 1922. 8 These are the unofficial figures, obtained from newspaper reports. |