State ex rel. Thompson v. Scott
| Decision Date | 27 July 1906 |
| Docket Number | 14,871 - (212) |
| Citation | 108 N.W. 828,99 Minn. 145 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. WILLIAM C. THOMPSON v. HUGH R. SCOTT |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Application by William C. Thompson to the district court for Hennepin county for a writ of mandamus requiring defendant as county auditor to accept and file relator's affidavit of candidacy for a public office without exacting the filing fee provided by section 184, R.L. 1905. The case was tried before Dickinson, J., who denied the writ. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, relator appealed. Affirmed.
Election -- Nomination Fee.
Section 184, R.L. 1905, requiring the payment of fees upon filing for nomination at the primary election, is a reasonable regulation, and constitutional.
Harrison E. Fryberger, for appellant.
Edward T. Young, Attorney General, George T. Simpson, Assistant Attorney General, and Wm. C. Leary, County Attorney, for respondent.
Proceedings in mandamus to compel respondent to accept and file relator's affidavit of candidacy for nomination as member of the Prohibition Party for the state legislature in the Fortieth legislative district.
The constitutionality of section 184, R.L. 1905, is the only question involved. It provides that at least twenty days before the primary election any person eligible and desirous of having his name placed upon the primary election ballot as a candidate for any office shall file his affidavit with the secretary of state, when to be voted for in more than one county, and with the county auditor when in a single county, stating residence, qualifications, etc., and, if the office be one for which pecuniary compensation is provided, upon payment of $20 to the secretary of state, when the affidavit and petition is filed with him, and $10 to the auditor, when filed with him, and the officer then to place such name upon the primary election ballot of the party designated. The constitutionality of this section is assailed upon the ground that it violates section 1, article 9, with reference to the equality and uniformity of taxation, and section 17, article 1, that no amount of property shall ever be required as a qualification for any office of public trust. The general claim is made that the filing fee bears no relation to the emoluments of the office, the cost of filing, or to the cost or expense of the election; that it is an unwarranted interference with the rights of the voter, and, if intended as a regulation, it is arbitrary, unreasonable and void, ignoring the principles of equality and uniformity.
Different features of the primary election law have been under consideration several times by this court, and in sustaining its constitutionality the general phases of the act have been considered. State v. Jensen, 86 Minn. 19, 89 N.W 1126, presented the question whether that provision was constitutional which required a political party to have at least ten per cent. of the total vote cast at the last preceding election for its leading candidate, or a petition asking for the right to have a primary election ticket contain at least ten per cent. of the qualified electors of the county; and it was held that the restriction was reasonable and within the limitations imposed upon the legislature. In State v. Johnson, 87 Minn. 221, 91 N.W. 604, 840, the court had under consideration the constitutionality of the act, which was attacked upon the ground that no space was provided in which the names of candidates could be written, and it was held that the absence of such provision was not an interference with the exercise of the elective franchise. Again, in State v. Moore, 87 Minn. 308, 92 N.W. 4, 59 L.R.A. 447, 94 Am. St. 702, the constitutionality of that provision of the act was assailed which prohibits an unsuccessful contestant for nomination at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial