Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:15:16.758Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The New York Direct Primaries Bill of 1909

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Arthur Ludington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The system of direct primaries for New York state proposed in the Hinman-Green bill (Senate, Int. 722; Assembly, Int. 1219) and advocated by Governor Hughes contains certain features which have never been embodied in the primary laws of any other state. The friends of direct primaries in New York have been sharply divided in opinion as to the merits of these features, some considering them an unfortunate compromise, designed to win the support of the party machines, and others regarding them as marking an advance over any primary law heretofore enacted. An outline of the bill and of the discussion which it has aroused, may be of interest to students of direct primaries in other parts of the country who have not had occasion to follow the New York situation in detail.

The more novel provisions of the bill center about the method of proposing candidates for nomination to public office. Under most of the direct primary laws now in force the names of candidates for nomination are placed upon the official primary ballot by petition. Sometimes a declaration of candidacy by the candidate himself is all that is required—except for the payment of a fee, which is occasionally demanded under both systems. Under the Hinman-Green bill there will be two methods by which candidates for nomination may be proposed—or, to use the language of the bill itself, “designated”—and their names placed on the official primary ballot. The first method is by a majority vote of one of the party committees specially provided for in the bill; the second is by petition.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , August 1909 , pp. 371 - 381
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1909

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This bill was drawn up, at a series of conferences, by a committee composed of members of the Brooklyn Young Republican Club and the Brooklyn Republican county organization, members of the legislature from other parts of the state, and several other persons interested in the subject. It was introduced on March 19, and was referred in each house to the committee on judiciary. Few public hearings were held, and the bill was rushed to a vote against the protests of its introducers. It was reported unfavorably by the assembly committee on April 8, and defeated in the assembly on the same day by a vote of 112 to 28. It was reported unfavorably by the senate committee on April 14, and defeated in the senate on April 15, by a vote of 33 to 14. Just before the close of the session Senator George L. Meade introduced a resolution providing for the appointment of a legislative commission to investigate during the summer the workings of the direct primary system in other states, and the conditions in regard to primary elections in New York state, and to report to the next session of the legislature on or before February 1, 1910. As originally introduced, this resolution provided for a commission of eleven, three members of which were to be appointed by the governor, three by the lieutenant-governor, and five by the speaker of the assembly. It also provided for an appropriation of $20,000 to defray the expenses of the investigation. The senate finance committee amended the resolution by striking out the members to be appointed by the governor, and by reducing the appropriation to $10,000. In this form the resolution passed both houses, and the commission of eight members, of which Senator Meade is chairman, has been appointed, and has begun its investigation.

2 For example, the democratic general committee of New York county was composed in 1908 of 7926 members elected from 35 assembly districts. The smallest number of members to be elected from any one district was 131, and the largest, 417.

3 In two of the counties within New York (ity each voter will vote for a member of one additional committee, the city committee. In the other two counties within the city each voter will vote for a member of the county executive committee (which acts as the city committee in each of these counties) and for a member, or members, of the assembly district committee. This system, though somewhat elaborate, is considerably simpler than those now in use by the principal parties.

4 Any party may, by its own rules, provide for other committees, but only those provided for in the bill may designate candidates for nomination.

5 As the latter will fall usually about the middle of September, this meeting would be held about the end of July.

6 That some such system was developing of itself under the primary laws of other states was suggested last fall by ProfessorMerriam, . (Primary Elections, p. 131.)Google Scholar

7 Under the strict theory of the Hinman-Green bill it is incorrect to speak of a “machine” or “organization element,” and of “independent elements,” within the party, no such distinctions being recognized. Officially—and in time, it is to be hoped, actually—there will be only party members and party officers, neither of these classes being fixed or permanent, but members of one constantly changing places with members of the other. As a matter of fact, however, it can hardly be expected that present habits and present modes of thought will be immediately abandoned; and, for some time to come at least, there will be a strong tendency on the part of the public to consider the party officers at any given time, and their more active adherents, as “the organization,” and a similar tendency on the part of these officers (many of whom will have been leaders under the present system) to act as if they were, not only the “organization,” but the party itself.

8 Speech before the Brooklyn Young Republican Club on February 20. Cf. his speech in Buffalo on March 27.

9 It will be remembered that candidates for party positions may be nominated only by petition.

10 The text of his veto message is, in part, as follows: “This bill in its preferential provisions for nominations by district committees and for the use of an organiza tion or ‘district’ committee column on the ballot, distinctly favors those of any party who are in control. The enrolled voters are not put upon an even footing. Instead of encouraging care and self-reliance in voting, the proposed form of ballot makes it easy to dispense with discrimination. It is open to the objections I have urged to our election ballot, and its adoption as a feature of a plan of primary reform I regard as a serious mistake.”

11 Speech before the Brooklyn Young Republican Club on February 20.

12 Pamphlet issued by the Citizens' Union, Supplementary Statement.

13 Senator La Follette computes this advantage at 20 per cent.

14 Cf. Merriam, , Primary Elections, p. 77.Google Scholar

15 This law is mandatory for cities of the first and second classes (all over 50,000) and optional for cities of the third class, and for villages of 5000 inhabitants or over.

16 The seven state executive officers are elected every two years, but the term of office of the justices of the court of appeals is.14 years, so that it is hardly possible that more than one or two candidates for this office would be voted for at any one election.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.