The California Direct Primary
| Author | Victor J. West |
| Published date | 01 March 1923 |
| Date | 01 March 1923 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/000271622310600114 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
116
The
California
Direct
Primary
By
VICTOR
J.
WEST
Professor
of
Political
Science,
Stanford
University
THE
California
direct
primary
has
i-
not
escaped
the
wave
of
criticism
which
has
risen
over
the
whole
country
against
that
method
of
nominating
candidates
for
public
office.
Indeed,
the
California
direct
primary
has
been
criticized
severely
ever
since
the
law
establishing
its
use
was
adopted
in
1909.
It
has
pleased
neither
its
friends
nor
its
enemies.
Each
year’s
experi-
ence
has
revealed
some
defect
in
the
system,
and
the
law
has
had
to
be
amended,
or
repealed
and
reenacted
in
revised
form
every
time
the
legislature
has
met.
Even
now,
after
a
dozen
years,
the
system
while
approved
in
the
main,
does
not
wholly
satisfy
the
people
of
the
state.
TWO
CURRENTS
OF
CRITICISM
In
the
last
few
years
two
currents
of
criticism
have
been
apparent.
One
of
these
manifests
itself
in
a
demand
that
the
direct
primary
be
abolished
and
the
convention
system
reestablished.
This
attitude
is
taken
generally
by
the
more
conservative
interests
in
the
state
and
is
expressed
through
the
columns
of
some
newspapers
which
have
been
con-
sistently
opposed
to
direct
nominations
from
the
beginning.
The
Los
Angeles
Times
has
opposed
the
California
direct
primary
chiefly
on
the
ground
that
candidates
are
nominated
by
less
than
a
majority
of
a
party;
that
candidates
of
a
party
are
nominated
by
the
voters
of
another
party;
and
that
the
law
oc-
casionally
actually
defeats
the
will
of
the
voters
of
a
party.
1
The
San
Diego
Union
has
opposed
it
on
much
the
same
ground.2
2
The
San
Francisco
Chronicle
opposes
the
direct
primary
on
the
ground
that
this
method
of
nomina-
tion
has
not
caused
an
improvement
in
the
character
of
o~ce-holders.3
The
Democratic
national
committeeman
for
California
is
also
reported
to
have
strongly
urged
the
restoration
of
the
convention
system
4
He
suggested
that
nominations
for
the
primaries
be
made
by
party
conventions
instead
of
by
petition.
Others
have
advocated
a
return
to
the
convention
on
the
ground
that
the
number
of
voters
participating
in
the
direct
primary
has
been
so
small
as
to
indicate
no
genuine
public
interest
in
the
nominating
procedure.
The
second
attitude
toward
the
direct
primary
is
that
it
should
be
con-
tinued,
but
made
completely
non-parti-
san.
This,
of
course,
is
not
a
criticism
of
the
direct
primary
but
of
the
whole
idea
of
partisan
elections.
This
line
of
attack
on
the
electoral
system
is
more
likely
to
succeed
than
the
other.
In
fact
there
has
been
a
tendency
in
Cali-
fornia
in
favor
of
abandoning
the
party
label
in
state
and
local
elections.
Since
1913
all
county
and
other
local
offices,
and
all
school
and
judicial
officers
have
been
on
a
non-partisan
basis.5
Efforts
made
since
then
to
have
the
rest
of
the
state
officers
chosen
the
same
way
have
failed.
In
1915
the
legislature
passed
an
act
which
made
all
offices
except
United
States
senator,
representative
in
Congress,
presidential
elector,
and
party
committeeman
non-partisan.6
6
1
The
Los
Angeles
Times,
September
6,
1918.
2
The
San
Diego
Union,
September
20,
1918.
3
The
San
Francisco
Chronicle,
December
29,
1918.
4
The
San
Francisco
Chronicle,
December
25,
1918.
5
California
Statutes,
1911,
Ch.
398;
1913,
Ch.
690.
6
California
Statutes,
1915,
Ch.
135.
at SAGE PUBLICATIONS on November 28, 2012ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
To continue reading
Request your trial