Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
In spite of the recent loosening of the membership or affiliation requirements in Illinois and a few other states, the general tendency throughout the development of party regulation has been toward greater strictness in this respect, toward more effective protection of the party organization against the independent voter with a careless party conscience. This is indicated, in the first place, by the turn toward an official definition and administration of these membership tests. That is, the parties are no longer left free to determine their own membership rules as they please, but these rules are to an increasing extent prescribed by state law and administered by state officials. Secondly, the tests of party membership have become, on the whole, more complex and more comprehensive, and therefore more difficult to evade—the closed primary has become more and more tightly closed. Thirdly, there has been a drift from the challenge to the enrollment or registration system, and, in general, legislation or other official action which requires greater care by the voter and the candidate in the selection of his party, and which imposes greater difficulty in changing his party affiliation.
98 During the period 1936–39, all tests of party affiliation were eliminated in Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, and Utah, these states turning to the open primary. See Louise Overacker, in this Review, Vol. 34, p. 501 (June, 1940).
99 For a summary of these tendencies, see Schaffner, Margaret A., “Primary Elections; The Test of Party Affiliation,” Wisconsin Legislative Reference Department, Comparative Legislative Bulletin, No. 13 (Aug., 1908)Google Scholar; McClintock, Miller, “Party Affiliation Tests in Primary Election Laws,” in this Review, Vol. 16, pp. 465–467 (Aug., 1922)Google Scholar; and Manning, R. E., “Party Affiliation as Prerequisite for Voting at Primaries,” Library of Congress, Legislative Reference Service (Dec. 13, 1932).Google Scholar
100 J. A. O. Preus, the regular Republican, was nominated over Dr. Shipstead by a plurality of less than 13,000 in a total vote of 320,000, and elected over Shipstead by a plurality of about 130,000 in a total vote of nearly 800,000. Minnesota Legislative Manual (1921), pp. 100–101, 526 [insert]. The election would certainly have been much closer but for the Harding landslide of 1920.
101 Minnesota Election Laws (1922 ed.), p. 60 [Sec. 371].
102 From 1922 to 1938, this Farmer-Labor party was strikingly successful in Minnesota, controlling the state in whole or in part. It lost heavily in 1938, and in 1940 Senator Shipstead, elected three times previously as a Farmer-Laborite, abandoned that party and was reëlected as a Republican.
103 Cf. Colorado law of 1927: “No person who has been defeated as a candidate in a primary election shall be eligible as a candidate for the same office in the next ensuing election.” Colorado Session Laws, 1927, p. 325 [Sec. 5].
104 Text of veto in New York Times, Apr. 28, 1937, p. 17.
105 In 1930, a bill was introduced in the New York legislature which would have required a member of one party seeking the nomination of another party to secure twice the usual number of signatures to his petition (“twice the number of enrolled voters of the party involved”), and to file a statement of his affiliation with a party other than that whose nomination he was seeking. New York Times, Feb. 15, 1930.
106 Composed of Secretary of State Louis L. Emmerson, Attorney-General Oscar Carlstrom, and State Auditor Oscar Nelson, all Republicans.
107 Text of opinion in Chicago Tribune, Oct. 20, 1926, p. 1, c. 1. This ruling applied also to the candidacy of James H. Kirby, who similarly filed as an Independent Democrat, but whose candidacy was less important than that of Mr. Magill in view of the dominance of the Republican party in Illinois at that time.
108 New York Times, Oct. 10, 1926. Mrs. Knapp apparently based her ruling in part on a statutory provision which permitted the use of an abbreviated party name on the ballot, but such use was permitted only if the full party name contained more than fifteen letters, and provided the abbreviated form contained not more than eleven letters. New York Election Law (1922), sec. 20.
109 See New York Election Law (1941), sec. 137, par. 3.
110 New York Times, Nov. 5, 1938, p. 6, c. 7.
111 Election Laws of Montana (1940 ed.), p. 48 [sec. 639]. In 1940, 39 states required candidates to be members of the party whose nomination was sought, and in only five states (California, Maine, New York, Vermont, and Massachusetts for certain offices) might candidates run under more than one party (or non-party) designation. See Harris, Arthur and Uhr, Carl, “Direct Primary Elections,” University of California, Bureau of Public Administration, 1941 Legislative Problems, No. 3 (March 31, 1941)Google Scholar, esp. Table I.
112 Kent, Frank R., Political Behavior, p. 7.Google Scholar
113 See Bryce's, interesting and suggestive discussion in American Commonwealth (rev. ed., 1916), Vol. II Google Scholar, ch. 57, “The Politicians,” esp. pp. 62–68.
114 Ostrogorski, , Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties (1902), Vol. II, pp. 285, 292.Google Scholar In a later edition of this volume, the figures as to the number of party workers were increased, but the ratio of one party worker to every four or five voters was maintained. Democracy and the Party System (1910), pp. 165, 170.
115 Kent, , Political Behavior (1928), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar
116 Merriam, and Gosnell, , The American Party System (3rd ed., 1940), p. 146.Google Scholar
117 Robinson, , The Evolution of American Political Parties, pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
118 Minutes of Democratic National Committee, in Official Proceedings, Democratic National Convention, 1920, Appendix, pp. 476–477.Google Scholar
119 Farley, , Behind the Ballots, p. 193.Google Scholar
119a Compare the attitude of minor parties on this point, illustrated by the following: “It is not enough to be a Socialist in sentiment; one must be a Socialist in action…. Each party member is expected to carry on Socialist work in whatever organization he finds himself.” Burt, Roy E., Executive Secretary of Socialist Party, in Socialist Handbook (1937), pp. 9, 11.Google Scholar
120 New Jersey Election Law (ed. 1939), pp. 88–89 [Title 19, ch. 23, sec. 45].
120a “May I just say to you, gentlemen, that there are practically 300,000 paying members of your party in the United States today. There is hardly a township in the country where we have not a member anxious to help do the work necessary in a campaign, to the extent not only of giving his time, but in giving evidence of that by having sent you his money. There is a live list on the cards that you can go to at any time and find there is a Democrat in that particular locality who wants to contribute to such an extent that he has already given his money, and you know he is there with his heart also.” Statement of Treasurer Wilbur Marsh to Democratic National Committee, Feb. 26, 1919. Proceedings, Democratic National Convention, 1920, Appendix, p. 470.Google Scholar
121 Under the party's 1920 constitution, for example, the dues were fixed at not less than $1.50 a quarter, distributed in certain proportions to the national, state, and local organizations. More recently, changes were made in the amounts and methods of assessment. Socialist Party Constitution (1920), Art. II, sec. 6, Art. IV, sec. 10, Art. IX, secs. 6–7 (leaflet copy); ibid., (revised 1937), Art. XI, in Socialist Handbook (1937), pp. 74–75.
122 Socialist Labor Party Constitution (1920), Art. VIII, in Reports of National Convention of Socialist Labor Party, 1920, p. 17; Articles of Association of the Nonpartisan League, sec. 10, in Howard, , The Leaders of the Nonpartisan League, pp. 54–55 Google Scholar; Resumé of State By-Laws and Rules of American Labor Party, in American Labor Party Handbook (1937), p. 19.Google Scholar
123 See summary of the party's financial report in New York Times, Oct. 26, 1936, p. 6, cc. 1–2; and election statistics in New York Red Book (1940), p. 547.
124 Pollock, , Party Campaign Funds, pp. 76, 81.Google Scholar
125 These figures are compiled by Overacker, Louise in her excellent studies, “Campaign Funds in a Depression Year,” in this Review, Vol. 27, pp. 769–783 (Oct., 1933)Google Scholar, esp. pp. 772–773; “Campaign Funds in the Presidential Election of 1936,” ibid., Vol. 31, pp. 473–498 (June, 1937), esp. pp. 481–482; “Campaign Funds in the Presidential Election of 1940,” ibid., Vol. 35, pp. 701–727 (Aug., 1941), esp. pp. 717–718. The figures are admittedly incomplete since they include only contributors to the respective National Committees, and not to state organizations nor to such national organizations as the Roosevelt Nominators in 1936 or the Willkie Clubs in 1940.
126 Pollock, op. cit., pp. 68, 70. See also report of Wilbur Marsh, Treasurer of the Democratic National Committee, Feb. 26, 1919, in Official Proceedings, Democratic National Convention, 1920, p. 740; and Louise Overacker, op. cit., Vol. 31, p. 482 (June, 1937). Miss Overacker's figure of 600,000 includes 350,000 Democrats who attended Jackson Day dinners.
127 Statement (for 1936) by Ernest T. Weir, chairman of Republican Finance Committee, Mar. 16, 1940, in New York Herald-Tribune, Mar. 17, 1940, Sec. 1, p. 15, c. 1. John Hamilton, then chairman of the Republican National Committee, stated that there were 607,000 Republican contributors in 1936, and added that there was “no reason in 1940 why there should not be 1,000,000.” Quoted in New York Times, May 2, 1939, p. 24, c. 3. Miss Overacker makes no estimate with respect to the Republican total in 1940, but does say: “It is not unlikely that more voters contributed to Willkie's campaign than to that of any Republican candidate in history.” Op. cit., Vol. 35, pp. 717–718 (Aug., 1941).
127a Compare the statement of National Committeeman Arthur F. Mullen (Neb.) to Democratic National Committee, Feb. 26, 1919: “Now, Mr. Jamieson (Assistant Treasurer) has collected the campaign funds … and he has collected that money from the rank and file of the Democrats of the country, and that is the place to collect campaign funds. From personal experience, in the state in which I live, I would rather have each man pay a dollar apiece than have one man pay $100, because there is a certain amount of psychology in the matter of contributions. The individual man putting in his dollar instantly has an interest in the matter. The policy of Mr. Jamieson during the last three years has been a policy not only of collecting funds, but of collecting a general organization. He knows the men who have sufficient interest in politics and he gets their names in the various parts of the country, and they contribute money to support the party. Those are the men who will do the work.” Proceedings Democratic National Convention, 1920, Appendix, p. 469.
128 See New York Times, Sept. 18, 1932, sec. 1, p. 28, c. 4.
129 The plan, initiated by the New York State Republican Women, Inc., was to distribute 80,000 miniature elephant banks, into which “millions of pennies” would be dropped for the 1940 campaign fund. New York Times, Mar. 7, 1939, p. 2, c. 2. Cf. editorial comment: “It may be suspected that this call for cents is also a bit of political strategy. In their days of adversity, the Democrats never admitted that the Golden Calf was sound veal. For them no purple feasts. They were plain people, hating pomp and foreign kickshaws. Austere Jeffersonian Democrats have noted with pain that in power Democrats eat and drink like the Republican minions of the Money Power. Now the Republicans are the plain people. They look sadly at the high price of Democratic banquets. They deplore the raising of money to pay campaign debts by dinners at fifty or one hundred dollars a head. Beef and beans for the Republicans. Leave to the soft campanian Democrat his terrapin and his wine. So the Penny Drive is a reproach to the plutocrats in the other tent.” Ibid., Mar. 9, 1939.
130 Statement by Castle, William R., Acting Chairman, in New York Times, June 9, 1937, p. 6, c. 4.Google Scholar
131 Quoted in New York Times, May 2, 1939, p. 24, c. 3. Mr. Ernest T. Weir, then chairman of the Republican Finance Committee, also referred to the tendency within the party toward broadening the base of its financial support as a “healthy situation and one that should prevail,” declared that he would make every effort “to continue and further this trend,” and therefore not only welcomed any contribution, “whether the contribution be $5,000, $20, $10, or even $1,” but also accepted for the Republican party the proposed Bankhead amendment to the Hatch Act limiting individual contributions to $5,000. New York Herald-Tribune, Mar. 17, 1940, sec. 1, p. 15, c. 1.
132 New York Times, Nov. 3, 1940, sec. 1, p. 41, c. 1. For the general trend in both parties with respect to the number of contributors, see the articles by Louise Overacker, previously cited. With respect to 1940, she concludes that “the Democratic party has returned to its Jeffersonian tradition and is once again the party of ‘the little fellow’. In contrast to this, the small contributor played a less important rôle in the Republican party in 1940 than in 1936.” See this Review, Vol. 35, pp. 716–717 (Aug., 1941).
133 Michael, Charles R., in New York Times, Dec. 19, 1936, p. 9, c. 1Google Scholar; and Evans, Arthur, in Chicago Tribune, Dec. 19, 1936, p. 13, c. 3.Google Scholar
134 Chicago Tribune, Aug. 12, 1937, p. 7, c. 1. This plan was formally adopted by the Republican National Committee on Nov. 5, 1937, and Senator Hastings (Del.) was quoted as stating that it should bring in from $3,000,000 to $5,000,000. See accounts in Chicago Tribune, Nov. 6, 1937, p. 12, c. 1; and New York Times, Nov. 6, 1937, p. 4, c. 8.
135 Laws of New York (1911), Vol. 3, p. 2680 [ch. 891, art. 3, sec. 38]; cf. New York Election Law (1941), p. 5 [sec. 15]. The provision has remained substantially the same, with only a slight change in phraseology in 1916.
136 New Jersey Election Law (1936), p. 143 [Art. XXII, par. 310, sec. 45]. This repeats the provision of 1930.
137 See this Review, Vol. 36, pp. 30–31 (Feb., 1942).
138 A typical party enrollment system is that of Pennsylvania, where the statutes provide that the regular registration held at stated periods before the spring primary and before the general and municipal elections is to include a designation of the voter's political party; permits this party enrollment to be challenged, in which case the voter must take an oath that he voted at the last election for a majority of the candidates of the party with which he desires to enroll; provides a method of cancelling and changing the party enrollment; allows an enrolled party member to vote at the primary of his party without challenge, but expressly forbids him to participate in the primary of any other political party. See New Registration Laws of 1937 (revised and adapted to permanent registration), in Pennsylvania Manual, Vol. 37 (1937), pp. 339–407. For comparison, see Connecticut law of 1909, in Republican Handbook of Connecticut, 1916, pp. 187–202; and New York Election Law (1941 ed.), pp. 116–129 [esp. secs. 171–172, 183–184.]
139 This is suggested by the pertinent, even though facetious, remark of a prominent professor of law: “I have often voted for Democrats, but I have never sunk so low as to register with the Democrats.”
140 See Report to the Socialist National Convention, 1940 [mimeographed copy], p. 3.
141 During the preliminary discussions concerning the Illinois delegation to the Democratic National Convention, the question was raised “whether Ickes, who has been a Republican and a Bull Mooser, had joined the Democratic party,” and it was pretty clear that the Democratic leaders in Illinois agreed to his selection only because it was particularly requested by Sen. James Hamilton Lewis. Chicago Tribune, May 1, 1936, p. 4, c. 1; May 2, p. 6, cc. 2–3; May 6, p. 4, c. 2.
142 Wallace's right to serve as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention of 1936 was seriously questioned by Iowa Democrats in view of his Republican enrollment, and he was not chosen as a delegate; he changed his party after the delegates were selected. Chicago Tribune, Apr. 3, 1936, p. 10, c. 3; Apr. 28, p. 5, c. 2. (Facsimile of Wallace's change of party affiliation in latter issue.)
143 “I appear here to second the nomination of a real Democrat, and to tell you, my friends, we want to carry the ticket in November down in Missouri, and we can't do it with a Republican running for Vice-President of the United States. (Applause and cheers.) … Let the world know that this is a convention where we voted for President Roosevelt and drafted him because as thinking men and women we wanted him for President of the United States. Let us show the United States and the world that as thinking men and women we want a Democrat to run with a Democrat in November. (Applause and cheers.)…” J. V. Conran (Mo.), seconding the nomination of Speaker Bankhead, in Proceedings, Democratic National Convention, 1940, p. 228. Cf. seconding speeches of John H. Morehead (Neb.), Francis W. Durbin (O.), and Maury Hughes (Tex.), in ibid., pp. 229, 232–233.
144 See Table II below. New York has had a party enrollment system for more than forty years (since 1898). The party enrollment figures, published regularly since 1920 and occasionally before that, are found in N. Y. Legislative Manual and N. Y. Red Book for the respective years. For the earliest and most recent statutes, see Laws of New York, 1898, Vol. 1, pp. 331–359 (ch. 179, esp. secs. 3, 11); N. Y. Election Law (ed. 1941), pp. 90–135 (Art. 7, esp. secs. 171–172, 183–184).
145 The Republican vote exceeded the Democratic vote by 331,198 in 1938 and by 192,978 in 1940; Governor Lehman and President Roosevelt carried the state only because of the American Labor vote of 419,979 and 417,418 in those respective years.
146 An analysis of the period 1920–26 shows that in 1922 the Republican enrollment exceeded the Republican vote for governor in only one of the 62 counties in the state, and never during these years in more than 26; while the Democratic enrollment was in 1922 below its gubernatorial vote in 61 counties, and was never below in less than 53. N. Y. Red Book, 1928, pp. 375–378.
147 Note this pertinent comment on the party enrollment for 1926: “These figures show that the State in 1926 was Republican by a majority of 139,226. If they are an index of party strength, they indicate that Governor Smith must have received in the election that year about 200,000 votes of Republicans and independents….” Ibid., p. 366.
148 Even the popular Governor Smith, as the presidential candidate in 1928, “showed surprising weakness, measured by enrollment, in all five counties of New York City.” Ibid., 1930, p. 421.
149 For the party enrollments, as well as the primary and election vote, see Pennsylvania Manual for the respective years. The enrollment for the major parties only, during the period 1925–37, is found in the Manual, Vol. 83 (1937), p. 166. Cf. following comment with respect to the situation in 1933: “Democrats here [Pittsburgh] and in many other parts of the State feel that a fundamental change has begun in Pennsylvania; for many of the Republicans who voted for Roosevelt last Fall are now registering Democratic…. While hundreds of thousands of Republicans voted for the Democratic candidate for Governor in 1930, they continued to enroll as Republicans…. It is to be borne in mind that the Roosevelt vote in Pennsylvania, only 157,592 below that of Hoover, compared with Republican pluralities of nearly 1,000,000 in the two preceding Presidential contests, was on a registration or enrollment more than three to one Republican. In Allegheny county [Pittsburgh], which went for Roosevelt by more than 37,000, the enrollment was Republican by nearly nine to one.” Martin, William T., in New York Times, July 2, 1933, sec. 4, p. 6 E, cc. 4–5.Google Scholar
150 “The Republican leaders … have figured it out that tens of thousands of Pennsylvanians who have voted with the Democrats in the last eight years while registering their affiliation with other parties, now [1936] have registered Democratic. This, they argue, will help reduce the margin of Democratic votes in excess of the party registration. The figures boil down to this, according to the Republicans: they come nearer than at any time since before the depression to showing the actual relative strength of the two major parties in Pennsylvania.” Davies, Lawrence E., in New York Times, Oct. 25, 1936, sec. 4, p. 6 E., c. 6.Google Scholar
151 “Pennsylvania has become a two-party state, with a promise of better government in the future. When the State registration and vote was one-sided and the minority party stood no chance whatever, the people of the Commonwealth had little voice in the government.” Pennsylvania Manual, Vol. 83 (1937), p. 166.
152 These permit non-voters to be members, the age requirement for membership being eighteen, although members under twenty-one are not permitted to take part in nominations of party candidates for public office; the residence requirement is residence in the United States merely, with no stated period; for many years, there was a requirement that a person be a citizen or immediately apply for citizenship, but the 1937 constitution contains no provision with respect to citizenship.
153 In 1927, Jacob Panken, the only Socialist on the Municipal Court of New York City, declined to accept a Republican nomination for reëlection, saying: “I am the candidate of the Socialist Party. My own convictions and the policy of the Socialist Party do not permit my acceptance of the nomination from any other political party…. If my services to the people merit reëlection … I want to be reëlected as a Socialist.” New York Times, Aug. 31, 1927.
154 Socialist Party Constitution (adopted Mar. 29, 1937), esp. Arts. III, X, XI, in Socialist Handbook (1937), pp. 62–78.
155 American Labor Party By-Laws and Rules, in American Labor Party Handbook (1937), p. 19 Google Scholar; Workers [Communist] Party Constitution, esp. Arts. 3, 15–16, in Report of Special House Committee on Un-American Activities [Dies Committee] (H. Rept. No. 2, 76th Cong., 1st Sess.), Appendix, Pt. I, pp. 310–319 (1940). [This part of the Dies Committee Report is generally known as the Red Book, not to be confused with the New York Red Book, the manual previously cited.]
156 “The State office of the Party will not be satisfied with membership results until the organization has enrolled at least ten per cent of the citizens who cast their votes for the American Labor Party.” American Labor Party Handbook (1937), p. 13. Attention has previously been called to the fact that in the case of this party there was in 1940 a close correspondence between the dues-paying membership and the vote, although if individual membership only were counted the membership was approximately twenty per cent of the vote. Supra, p. 249.
157 See Sait's distinction between the “dues-department organization” and the “legal organization” of the Socialist party. Sait, , American Parlies and Elections (ed. 1927), p. 314, n. 3Google Scholar; (rev. ed., 1939), p. 395, n. 3. Cf. this pertinent item in respect to the New York Socialist convention, Apr. 18, 1936: “Today's convention was devoted to the task of setting up the new party State organization on the basis of the dues-paying membership, as distinct from the purely legal machinery represented by the State committee elected in the primary.” Shaplen, Joseph, in New York Times, Apr. 19, 1936, sec. 1, p. 17 Google Scholar, cc. 1–2.
158 Figures in Literary Digest, Sept. 20, 1919; Oneal, James, “Changing Fortunes of American Socialism,” Current Hist., Apr., 1924, esp. p. 92 Google Scholar; Report of National Secretary to the Socialist National Convention, 1940 (mimeographed), p. 3.
159 Report of House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities in the United States [Fish Committee] (H. Rept. No. 2290, 71st Cong., 3rd Sess., Jan. 17, 1931), pp. 15, 94. See also membership tables for 1922–1925, in Report of 4th National Convention of Workers [Communist] Party (1925), pp. 27–41.
160 Minutes and Reports of 16th National Convention of Socialist Labor Party, 1924, pp. 94, 101; ibid., 17th Convention, 1928, p. 59.
161 E.g. Socialist: (1912) membership 118,045, vote 897,011; (1920) membership 26,766, vote 919,799; (1932) membership 16,000, vote 884,784. Communist: (1932) membership ca. 12,000, vote 102,991; Socialist Labor: (1928) membership 2,000, vote 21,644.
162 For example, the Socialist dues-paying membership in New York State was estimated at about 4,000 in 1936, while the statutory enrolled membership was 20,029, and the gubernatorial vote 96,233. New York Times, Apr. 19, 1936, sec. 1, p. 17, c. 1; N. Y. Red Book, 1937, pp. 429–431. It should be noted that this was a year of bitter dissension between right- and left-wing Socialists, which no doubt caused a loss of membership, and which, in fact, raised problems of rightful membership that cannot be examined in this article.
163 The Socialist Party Constitution empowers the local organizations to expel or otherwise discipline members, subject to appeal to State and National Committees, and “subject to the uniform conditions of membership and discipline laid down by the National Executive Committee on the basis of national convention decisions.” (Art. III, sec. 5; Art. X, sec. 1.) The Communist party provisions are much more stringent on this point. (Art. 15). For an interesting attempt to explain the meaning and importance of party organization and discipline, see Report of National Executive Committee, in Minutes and Reports of 17th National Convention of Socialist Labor Party (1928), pp. 69–79.Google Scholar
164 The National Secretary of the Socialist party claimed, in his report for 1940, that “it is possible to have a relatively small party in terms of year-round membership, which is highly effective,” and pointed out that the party polled almost as large a vote in 1932, with one-seventh of the membership, as it did “at the peak of our membership strength in the radical ‘Golden Age’ of 1912.” Report, 1940, op. cit., p. 3. Cf. Report of Socialist Labor National Executive Committee in 1924, op. cit., p. 16.
165 “It is essential to understand in considering the subject that the Communist party of the United States is not a political party in the true American sense…. Under our political party system, any citizen having proper residential qualifications cannot be denied the privilege of joining a party nor can he be expelled from it. He is not even bound to vote for the candidates of his own party; in truth, under the American system of parties the initiative rests wholly with the individual and assures his complete freedom of political action…. It will be observed, therefore, that stringent conditions are imposed upon the [Communist] party membership which are wholly foreign to the American conception of political organization….” Report of Special House Committee for Investigation of Nazi and Other Propaganda (H. Rept. No. 153, 74th Cong., 1st Sess.), pp. 21–22.
166 In Pennsylvania, the Republican party has provided that whenever a member of the Republican National, State, or other committee, or a delegate to a Republican convention, is charged “with not being a qualified Republican elector, or who opposes or is about to oppose the Republican Party or any of its candidates, or who neglects or refuses to attend to the duties of his office,” he is to be given a hearing by a committee of “three qualified Republican electors,” and if the charges are substantiated he is to be removed from his office. Rules of the Republican Party of Pennsylvania (adopted 1921, amended 1932), Rule I, sec. 3. In Colorado, the Democratic State Central Committee was empowered to hear charges against and to remove party state or county committeemen or officers “for disloyalty to the party, failure, refusal or neglect to perform the duties of the office, including failure to support any party candidate, … failure to comply with the rules of the party, or for any political reason which in the opinion of the State Central Committee is for the best interest of the party.” Plan of Organization and By-Laws of the Democratic Party of Colorado (adopted 1922), Art. III, Sec. 9. In New York, the statutes provide that after notice and hearing “a member of a party committee may be removed by such committee, for disloyalty to the party or corruption in office.” N. Y. Election Law (ed. 1941), p. 5 [Art. 2, sec. 16]. This provision dates back at least to 1911; similar provisions are found in statutes or party rules in other states.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.