Legal Opinion · Dissent

Spreckels v. Graham

California Supreme Court

Decided September 24, 1924No. S. F. No. 11298Published

1Dissent

LAWLOR, J., Dissenting.

I dissent.

Plainly put, the effect of the decision is that only parties organized at the time of the preceding general election or one coming within paragraph (b), subdivision 9, section 1 of the direct primary law are entitled to have placed on the general ballot in the November election candidates for electors for President and Vice-President, and that since petitioners did not organize under said paragraph (b) they cannot nominate such electors. In other words, such independent voters not having affiliated with a party could have no voice, either in the May or August…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. HartwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
  2. Hall v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  3. Todd v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1896
  4. State ex rel. Spofford v. GiffordIdaho Supreme Court · 1912

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API