# Appellees Brief — Bullock v. Carter

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0327%3A07

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appellees Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1972
- **Citation:** 405 U.S. 134

## Text

“ Ste ee oe +I ~
, I.No Question Present in Texas -—

Wr iakh ii ois g B95 wo 8S. 18 .
Il. Appeal Not Moot .........-.4. 18 |
IH. Wealth Classification per se’
Unconstitutional ....3.......0... 21

_ I Appellant Steal biluateabean con on

V. State Actloes:isé 56 oii os hded BS:
_ VI. Correlative Rights- Voters &
Candidates cece ee eeceesveccceee BO

4 Conclumitin is: 6xidvi cla.a's denied co5 saws 48
| Certificate of Service.............. 46

Exhibit "A'-Election Statutes ....... 47 |

Exhibit "B"- Dies ‘Legislative hieaes. 55- :
| Exhibit "C"-1970 Election Returns. “ 79 Se

°

INDEX OF. AUTHORITIES

Adair v. —— _ Page ;
74. Neb.776.......00. oe |

Anderson v, Martin . 1
+ | rrr 9 |

: Benites v. Hampton, » a

(123 :U.S.519 ...0....... 16
Boddie v. Connecticut
. _U.S | (dec. 3/2/71)......42..

Bollinger v. ‘McLaughlin
®° 22 S.D.206 .....
Buskin v. Brown -

S76: Fr, OG B08. cee cc ce BF
Campbell v. Davenport. |
ee | | ne 37
‘Cipriano v.City of Houma ;
e $75 U:S. 701 ..... ce esas . 41
Elmore v. Rice oe
165 F.2d 387........ re
Georgia Socialist v.Fortson’ = + .c
' 315 F.Supp.1035 ....... 40
Griffin v. Illinois é |
962°Ui6548..... seconde bd

-Jenness v. Fortson pe ges
_U.S. ",29L.Ed.2d 554 ..22, 40,42
Jenness_ v. Little -
306 F.Supp. 925.......%. 40

_ Harper v. Virginia aa. of Education.

‘383 U.S, 663--:--+-+-+++ 38,39
Kramer v. Union Pres School
395.U.S. 621+. es eee eee 41
Kelso v. Cook a ek
184. Ind.173 --ccccrseces 40 ©
Ledgerwood v. Pitts as = hye 4
122 ‘Tenn. 570......+++++- 40. :
Moore v. Ogilvie, bes |

906 GG. B14,» 62605545 -20

New Haven tacialiee Cases,

: 399 U.S. B92 >. 2.0.0... 2,16 * @.
Nixon v. Condon» | _
| 206'U.8. 78.5... 60 ES
Nixon. v. Herndon .
272 Y.S.536...........,.35
Portland v. United States = |
| OF U.S0 Poo 8
Russell v. United States |
369 U.S. 749... 0.0.2... 2,16
Smith v. Allwright. | 3
321 U.S. 649, cc coe 17, 35, 36

Smith v. Bennett — es | ap

365. U.S. 708,.......... 42
Snowden v. Hughes. _
| -321 U.S. 1 ek kee. eserves e 27, 41
. Terry v. Adams.

945 0.5. 464 ok ec tce. 37
‘Travelers Health v. Virginia —_
_. 339 U.S.643 ...... ees.
Turner v. Fouche, | .

| $96 U.S, 346...,........41

.
a

United States v. Alabama

252 F.2d 95 ........5....39
United States v. Texas - _ .

280 F. Od 836... oS; Ce
Whitcomb’ v.. Chavez ASS

U.S. dec. 6/7/71) ae > 8

Williams v.: Rhodes - .

Cucdetiod ha rita coweeye 44
Omitted Citations - =e toe. ¥ 4
J.I.€ase co. v.,Borak : v

. 2 U.S. 426 Sa. ia 2,16
Evans v. Cornman —- syopieh ys

| $98-U.S.419 ....e00, 48°.
-- Phoenix v. Kolodziejski |

$06 UU. M04, «0 05505505. .-

1. Constitution

_. First Amendment ...,... 1, 2,8, 9, 14, 21
= Fourteenth Amendment...1, 2, 7,8, 9,14, 21
2. Texas Election Code _ _
| 13.07 ccc ccccowrccsede 2,4,8,17,18 ,
eae a 1: 2,4, 8,12,17,18
_ ~.. *= $8; 08a . vee e ee eee ceeeene 2, 4,8,17,18
BS AO onc ts cewescss +++ 2, 5,8, 20, 34
“13. 16... see ws Casccacees, By Ot 47,18
s. ao 12
13. 08a-1 ...... bees - 18, 19, 20, 23, 43, 44, ct
~~ 18.50 wc ecccccccce sacs» 92,44

. HOB. 5- Texas (1971. ) ....18, 19, 20, 23, 43, 44, 4°

3. * Supreme Court Rules

Rule 40....... teceeon Bibl T

4. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. \
Rule 24 e e ee 6 eee78ee:s - . ee 3. e

5: Texas Constitutign | :
Article 4_ : | .
Section . he res 32 |
Section 22. gewews PviveE. -*

6. Texas Statutes - oat

bar Article 3945.. 6.0 0.0ceete© ‘43 ;

-* Ea General Laws......37

a.

“4, ' Arizona
N Constitution, Art. 7, —- 14......45
Statute 16-301 to 16-306.... 45

8. Law Review ee 3%
" §'Miss.L.J.139........ 37.
Direct Primary in Idaho: .37
9. The Poll Tax....... otewec.

Wena iA aes ely Sdn pennants

i Rt | ANB Ta 82 9 ea

©.

No. 70-128 .
IN THE ©
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
October Term, 1971

_ MARTIN DIES, JR., ET/AL.,
| Re Appellants,

,

vs.

. VAN PHILLIP CARTER, ET AL...

Appellees

On Appeal from the United States District. .

Court for the Northern District of Texas,
ee Dallas Division

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE PATE AND |
| '.__GUZMAN-ET AL. _

| §$TATUTES INVOLVED ,

FIRST AMENDMENT:' SACU ee
-. " Congress shall make no law * * *

abridging the freedome of speech, or .of the

press; or the right of the people peaceably

to assemble, and to petition the Government

for a redress of grievances.” 3
. : . * | ~

.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: —

‘ _"All persons born or naturalized in 3
the United States, and subject to the juris-

diction thereof, are citizens .of the United .

: States and the ‘State wherein thy reside. No-
‘State shall make or enforce any law which

shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States, nor shall .
any State’ deprive any person of life, liberty .

or property, without. due process of law; nor
-deny to any person within its jurisdiction the

equal protection of the > laws. 2

The Texas statutes held invalid by the
court below are Sections 13. O7a, 13.-08,

13.08a, 13.15, and 13.16 of the Texas

Election: Code. . These statutes are set forth.

in n Apgengie: A herein.

QUESTION PRESENTED

The sole question saps & by

Appellants in their Jurisdictional Statement

ae reads as. follows: son ageet

oe Whether Articles 13. 07a, 13.08,
13. 08a, 13.15, and 13.16 of the Texas Elect-
ion Code are unconstitutional in that they
violate the First and Fourteenth Aniendménite
of the Constitution of. the United States." °

‘The Rocetisints have not ievived their
sole question presented or any other question
in their brief and have accordingly abandoned °
their sole claim or any other claim by failure
to comply with Supreme Court Rule 40 (1) (d) .
(1) and 40 (1) (d) (2). New Haven Inclusion |

Cases, 399 U.S.392, 481, n. 78 ( 1970); Ji.

Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 428- 429
(1964). Russeil v.. United States, 369 U. Ss. )
749, 754,n.7 (1962 ); Travelers Health Assn.

v. Virginia, 339 U.S. 643-651, n.4 ( 1949 ).

2
-

‘ STATEMENT
= Pome :

This case originated in three separate
suits filed in Federal District Courts in the
Western District of Texas and the Northern -
District of Texas ( A.9,11,34 ). A motion to.
intervene and consolidate was filed by Appell-
ees Jenkins and Guzman, et al., ( A. 49-94). -
Chief Judge John R. Brown, U.S.Court of
- Appeals for the Fifth Circuit took notice of the
transfer of Pate's. cause from the Western
’ District of Texds to the Northern District of
.Texas and ordered the three judge court below

: “reconstituted (A.3).. These-suits were con- -
solidated for all purposes and Appellees Jenkins
and Guzman, et al., were allowed to intervene
as voters Federal Rules Civil Procedure 24
e) (2) (A147) . eS

——

The Aielicee brought ‘thielt! ianicun: on
behalf of themselves and as class actions.( A.
11, 70,85) to enjoin and restrain the enforce-
ment of Articles: 13. 07a, 13.08, 13. 08a, 13.15
and 13.16, Texas Election Code and to have
these statutes declared unconstitution®. The
three judge court below granted the @lief i *
requested ( A./145-159 ) and enjoined the State
of Texas, through its political parties, from
_ the enforcement of these Statutes and declared
them unconstitutional ( A.160-161). The | |
. Appellees: Pate's and Wischkaemper's motions
for preliminary injunction were granted and
they were relieved from payment=of the filing .
_ °fees with the proviso that ‘should their claims
be, later rejected that they would then have to y
pay the fees not: paid -( A. 106-107) and their
names were “placed on a ballot in the razed 2,

Aw

ee Oe

filing fee . ‘prescribed for some counties.

1970 Demotratic Primary election - A. 112,
117). -

Article 13.07a, Texas Election Code

_ provides all candidates subject to assessment
ay the. County Exective Committee for a part

of the expenses of holding the. primary election

must. pay- fifty dollars at the time of filing’ their

application for a place on the primary ballot.
However, candidates for the State Board of
Education need pay only fifty dollars total and a

“candidate for the legislature need pay only the

maximum he may be assessed or the fixed

Article 13.08, Texas Election Code.

_ authorizes the’ county committee to estimate the

cost of the primary election and to apportion
such cost among the various candidates for
nomination for: District, County, and precinct
offices except for the offices of Justice of the

- Court of Civil Appeals, State Board of Education,

state senator, and state representative if their

assessment or fee is fixed at a definite amount,

"In making the assessment upon any candidate the
committee should give diie consideration. to the

_ impoftance, emolument, and term of offi¢e .

for which the nomination is to be made" i

"Article 13. 08a, ‘Texas Election Code.
provides that candidates for any precinct,
county or district office .and the office of

Congre s in counties with a population of

one million or more, except for. candidates

: for the State Legislature and State Boar of
Education, shall not be assessed more than .
_ ten percent of the annual salary for any |

ae

pee i, °)
office of two-years term and inode percent
for any office of four year terms. Firther-

more, in these counties a candidate for
'- State Representative may be required to
an amount not to exceed Five Hundred dollars». =
and One Thousand dollars for State Senator.
In counties with a population between 900, 000
and 1,000,000 candidates for State Senator
‘and State Representative shall pay $300 to have
their names placed upon the primary ballot, |
while candidates for State Senator and State
Representatives in counties with a population
between 650,000 and 900,00 shall pay $1,000
>», ‘and $600 respectively. Candidates for State

, Representative in districts covering from 8
to 9 counties need pay only os. in each county. |

Article 13. 15 Texas Election Code .
provides that candidates for #&).S.Senator and
all candidates for state officer must pay —
$1,000 to: the ‘Chairman: of the State Executive
‘Committee while candida for Congressman-
_ at-large and for justice of the court of civil |
appeals shall pay to state executive committee
five percent of one year's salary. The above
candidates need not’ pay a filing fée or assess-~.
ment to any other person r committee. .

"Article 13. 16,T Election Code
provides-unless otherwi provided, no candi-. —
date for State Senator’ shall pay to a county

- executive committee more than One Dollar.

for counties of less than 5, 000 population; .
five dollars for counties of; “000 to 10, 000
: population; ten dollars for.counties of more sg

_” than 10,000 dnd Jess than’ 40, 090 population;

. fifty dollars. for counties - 40,000 and. not

5.

rT

EX

mére than 125, 000 population; saeecity- tive

for counties of more than ,

Furthermore, except as. otherwise provided

-~ in. the code, any candidate for’State Repre-

sentative need pay- only: a total “fixed filing

fee of $150.00 to be prorated among the .
counties, if more than One *

The Appellees nae that the above

statutes were unconstitutional on the grounds

that said statutes deprived Appellees of, an

‘oe ok equally effective voice. —_—s
in the election process by an
invidious discrimination by § —
' imposing * * * exorbitant, unreason-
an te ably. arbitrary, capricious, — ar
. irrelevant, and outrageously high
filing fees or ‘assessments. which .
bear no reasonable relation to: any
legitimate. legislative ‘purpose. and
such filing fees are ‘not germane ~
- to_one's ability to participate 4
intelligently in the electoral pro-
™ cess as a. candidate for public office. .
. ‘The filing fees or assessments:
»- * are so high they may be presumed >
-to have been imposed with the
- intention of preventing the candidacy
of persons unable to pay. or who -
: fail or refuse to pay the filing fees
| @ 208 assessments imposed. om KN

“these fees also » peeouit t qualified - e

voters: front*voting for those persons
whose candidacy is prevented by © -

- guch filing fees. Furthermore,. |

the introduction of wealth as pay ow,
ment of a fee asa prerequisite

or measure of acitizen's or.

voter's qualification’ to- have his .
name. placed. on the primary _—

* e

~ ballot, or to vote, is to intro- -
_ duce a capricious or irrelevant -
factor , and the requirement of

fee paying in ‘this coritext as a
condition to be a candidate or voter

3 ** Causes an invidious discri-
‘mination that per se- -violates the.

Equal Protection Clause and ae Se
furthermore, the Texas Statutes
under attack permit and ‘provide
an invidious classification discri-

mination between various candidates |

for different offices. by having
different filing fees for the various
candidates .* * * Furthermore,

defendant. will effectively deprive

the plaintiff of hjs right to vote, .

for the right to’run for public

office is a correlative of the . .
right to vote.. The defendants have
denied the plaintiff and class. :

- plaintiffs their fundamental. political

right of freedom of association |
( political assocation) for the purpose |
of voting and ‘being nominated , jas .

7.

. candidates for ‘public office.

in the democratic primary ‘in

- violation of the First Amendment .

by reason of the Equal. Protection
‘and Due Process clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment, by an

>. invidious discrimination through
‘the establishment of filing fees |

as.a prerequisite to ‘running for -
nomination to public office * * *
Articles 13. 07a, 13. 08,13. 08a, 13. 15 .
and 13.16, Texas.Election Code, are
void.and unconstitutional as ‘they.

violate the equal protéction and

due process ‘clauses of the Four-

teenth Amendment,. and the Freedom

of Assembly clauses of the First
Amendment to the United States
Constitution, ‘in that they impose —
and’ permit filing fees or assess-
ments" * + + primary. election * * *
and in future primary elections, ©

‘ ‘upon persons who by reason of their |
‘ -lack of funds or ‘poverty, are un- —

able to. pay said filing fees or.
assessments or fail or refuse to

gpay said filing fees or assessments. |

“* * -%& In setting filing fees and

assessments at such unreasonable | .

and outrageously. high level, and
pexmntene some candidates to q file
* * by merely paying a fixed

; re ‘or for State Legislator, - the
fee of $150.00, the statute in

question * * * . deprive the plaintiff

_and:-all other persons similarly
situated, of rights, privileges, and

>)
8.

\

ee os ? } ae
immunities Secured by the seek =
protection and due process Clauses —
of the 14th Amendment, andthe
‘freedom of assembly clause of the ~
First Amendment * * * and establi-
shes an invidious classification
discrimination ** * * [Plaintiff]
are deprived of. their right to seek
‘nominations to public office, -to seek .
public office, and to the right to
- yote in thé 1970 and in all future
primary elections " ( A.11-13, 17-19).

oy The intervenors alleged they desired
to cast their votes in the 1970 primary and
future primaries for the particular Appellee.
they support and for candidates of the class.
represented by said Appellees. -However,-: «&
_ intervenors could not ‘so vote for the candidates *
of.their choice because they were poor persons»
unable or unwilling to pay tke filing fees ‘assess-
_ed agafgst their candidates who by reason .of .
their economig background-can-best_represer
intervenors' political views and economic
‘interest (A. 85-87 ). |

The precinct offices referred to in

"> (the “above .Texas Election’ Code Statute are

s

justice of the peace and county commissioners.
County offices include County Clerk, County |
-Treasurer,- County Surveyor, County Courts.
at Law and County Judge, while district
offices cover district courts, district
attorney and dist?ict clerk. These statutes
treat Justice of the Court of Civil Appeals,
_ State Board of Education, State Sénator and :
= State Representative in various ways. United
9. i °

z

p>
T

-_ States Senators and ftetirtesentatives: are also -

* meets) all qualifications to be a candidate in

ad

>

treated. in various ways in regard, to filing .

- fees and assessments. State offices’ include —

governor, lieutenant governor, attorney
general, state treasurer, commissioners

-—s« 28, 000 22,500°. 12,000 .
te * The salaries of state elected ‘officers

_ Tange from $55, 000 for. governor of Texas to _
$14,800 for the lieutenant governor ( A.140 en’

_«. * The Court below, in its opinion and ws
| judgment, has declared the challenged pro-
_visions of the Texas Election Code unconsti- a
tutional because they infringe upon thé exer-- —
cise of voting and associational-rights without
‘any compelling state justification in violation -
of the First and Fourteenth Amendments ( A. -
185 55%". a OR Te ie oid ais

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. Fe

’ -" The merits of this case -present Texas,
” laws that have for 75 years required candidates
in Texas Primary Elections to pay for the
, whole. cost of running such elections.

'. ... May Texas condition the right to be a
"candidate and to vote upon wealth? NO. Any
_. state interest in requiring-candidates in pri-

_Mary elections to pay from $50 to $8, 900 to
‘financg the cost of the election is ‘per se oe
. invidious discrimination. ‘May the State re-
‘quire’ that candidates show voter support by —
'- obtaining money from voters to pay filing fees

14, :

: oe
and assessments?. NO. "any state inane. in |
requiring ‘candidate to ask his voter-support-_ es
ers to contribute from $50 to $8, 900 for filing is.
fees 4s ‘per ge invidious discrimination. 0)

“
sro

“re

yo. The right to. vote. and freedom of asso- :
‘ciation ( political associates ) for the purpose, |

of voting and being nominated are destroyed |

_ by the Texas abe esse :f iad for snancing.
elections. |

Texas has not. explained why statewide- ac
_ candidates are not required to‘pay for any part" — .

- of the cost of primary, lections.. These candi- _.
dates pay a fixed fee of $1,000 to tHe state ~ ss.
executive committee. d state. legislators |
pay a fixed fee that is much less than their .
fair share of election costs. This aspect of

the Texas. election law is also per ae. invidious

discrimination.

Baek REE aa Naty) ee

OMA: SAA

A poor: person. anda‘ no.so poor person :
under our constitution may. be required tp : show

,a significant modicum of voter support bfi- —
"signatures on.a petition, but he cannot be re- . HAVEN INCLUSION CASES, 399 U.S. 392, 481,; ©
n. 78, Just ce Stewart has stated that " The "{
> ~ Commi as not revived the issue in its >

_brief, nor has it responded in its reply brief

~-. "to the Government's contention that it has—

8 abahdoned the claim. Accordingly, we do not
-..» ° eonsider*the matter further" . J. 1.7 CASE CO.

‘vy. BORAK, 377 U.S. 426 , 428-429 ( 1964 ).
In BENITES v HAMPTON ,..123 U.S. 519-( 1887 )
the Court dismissed the case for failure of the

_ brief to contain specifications of errors.

PORTLAND CO. ‘v UNITED STATES, 82 U.S.
1, 15 WALL. 1 €1873 ), RUSSELL v UNITED
STATES, 369 U.S. 749,754, n. 7:( 1962);

TRAVELERS HEALT®-ASSN. v VIRGINIA’,
339 U.S. 643, ee n.. 4 ( 1949 ) a

ee The brief of Texas. clgarty- reflects

that by way of argument an,attémpt has ‘been ".
made to present additional questiong orto
change the substance of the question present- . “3
ed-in the Jurisdictional Statement. This —
Court's Rule 40 provides that questions -
not presented in ae with peragrapn

a)
7 °
r ! .
SY > e e..
J -. .

(1) (d) (2) of Rule 40 will be disregarded,

a reqiest: a re-examination of the SMITH v

_ Action Rule, notwithstadning such was not
' raised in their Jurisdictional Statement.

as to which issues raised in the Texas “brief.
- . must be answéred. Indeed, this is the reason
why a brief must contain "questions. presented -

| of Texas Election Code Articles 13.07a, ~~ é

constitutional rights of voters and candidates

_ in primary elections. ‘Thé next step may have:

_ been the omission of any "questions presented :
_ in their brief before this Court. Therefore, _
appellees shall answer every issue. raised by :

that primary elections of political parties

‘this Court to affirm"upon the opinion below

: y a . . e °
~ ‘ ra ee ” a

unless plain error is noted. These addition- -
al arguments cannot be. deemed to be sub-
sidiary questions. fairly. comprised within -

the jurisdictional statement question pre-
sented. An example of the methods of Texas
is found in their brief. at page 9 when they

ALLWRIGHT, 821 U.S.649 (1944), State | * |

The Court below held that "It. is undisputed *

are state action and Oe sie to the Fourteenth —
Amendment. "CA: 148 } a

i

Appellees are faced with a- ‘dilemma

for review’. A proper solution would be for

Pe yey Me alll

where Appellees hada fair opportunity to_
reply to the contentions of Texas.

‘ It is obvious that with the amendment

13.08, 13.08a,613.08a-1, 13.16, Texas has
taken the first step to evade the. lower federal
court decisions in“order to defeat federal

isp

Ri 0 imino Se Nan

the.argument of Texas. Notwithstanding |
: fcartige fsa ticks © a2 p -

“Elgg,

DD
iG

7.

a

the foregoing, it: is urged that this Court .
affirm the judgment of the lower court in°

order to.establish a solid precedent in

_ this important area of law.

‘In the event. this Court doés not give
a difinitive answer by a memorandum affirm-
ance of the judgment below, or by a written

opinion,: then judicial time has been wasted
and future litigation concerning the same

situation will. appear shortly. Justice dic-

tates that this Court render a decision on the

merits now so that in the next ‘primary
election, Texas and citizen-voters of Texas
will know whether candidates can be forced |
to pay the complete cost of primary elections
in Texas. |

i .

THE CONTINGENT AND
_ TEMPORARY AMENDMENT
OF PART OF THE TEXAS .
ELECTION CODE HELD _—
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BELOW
‘ DOES NOT MAKE THIS APPEAL |
a MOOT. ?
. The Texas’ Legislature by H.B. 5
Special Call Session, 62nd Legislature,
¢ June 4, 1971 ) Amended Articles 13.07a,
13.08, 13.08a, 13.08a-1 and 13.16, Texas

- Election Code. However, these amendments

were contingent upon this ‘Court's action in
the case at. bar and such amendments are —
temporary in nature. Section 7 of H,B. 5

_ supra, eoncerning the contingent and

18.

and temporary nature of the Texas Election

.Code Amendments is set out. soca 2 3 £2

3 7 \ ‘

: ' Sec. 7 (a) This Act is enacted as a
contingent, temporary law, : to become oe

effective only as stated in Subsection ( b) |

of this section; and if jt

_ Texas admits "that a man's wealth
has little to do with his qualifications to hold
‘public office ( Texas.Brief p. 9 ). (Emphasis
-added ) Under. the democratic process and* \

, System, a mars wealth has _no relationship
‘to his qualifications to hold “public office.

_ Then Texas asserts that "a poor man * : *.
‘does. not have to run in a party primary". \

''( Texas Brief pp. 9-10 ) Yet, in the over-
whelming majority of Texas political
offices, nominations by the Democratic Party
is tantamount to. election, it is clear that

e —- 24.

restrictions on entry into the ( democratic )
primary may significantly impair the right
to cast one's vote effectively". ( Thornberry,

Circuit Judge, concurring specially in court
below, A. 156 ).- '' Texas, open to economic .
initiative-and technical innovation as are few _
places on earth, changes at a-dizzy pace,

but its politics remain old-fashioned, © the
politics of a-one-party state resisting outside |

influence and rejecting northern preoccupations", |

WILE TEXAS VOTE? 237 The Economist 44
( October 31, 1970, number 6636 ). Then

Texas endorses the methods of "democratic
counties" under communist rule with the

_ position that "no voter is fenced out of the.

voting booth by the filing fee requirement. *

Sonsenenetemnmmmmennmmeeetl

- The filing fee simply limits the person for »
(

-
-_—-—>'_

whom the voter may cast his ballot”. Texas

Brief, p. 13) ( Emphasis added ). :

Appellants urge that "this case is about

_ fees and political party primaries, and whether

two _men:* one rich and one poor, are ‘being
treated ‘equally, or whether there is invidious
distrimination" ( Texas Brief, p. 14) and

that stability of our country is due primarily °

to the two party system ( Texas Brief, p. 17 ) 7
for any. other system will contribute to the
breakdown of such stability. Then they -complain ©
that the lower court's decision has placed

the ‘burden of financing primary eléctions upon
the taxpayers-voters ( Texas Brief, p.° 18-19).
What other burden should, a ‘free country meet °
first than to finahce the primary, general and

‘special elections that makes it a free country!

Texas ther says that the lower court decision

will insure a large list of candidates and that

25.

.
‘the Equal Protection Clause, ==. —..
classification which might invade’ -’
' or restrain them must be closely
scrutinized and carefully confined —
e {citation omitted]; * *: * the right
to vote is too precious, too funda-. —
mental to es burdened or _
“congiitioned. 383 U.S. Albee

ae ae

M LOL SG aE RL ODBEREL OL BENE ABE TDi
a ae > ‘ pr emar at ll Bd ° G . .

Once Texas granted the electorate the franchise ‘
“a ;

, and the right to be Candidates in pr i ee
elections, then classificationg may not be -. © 7
_- . drawn which are inconsistent with the First ieee: a
"and Fourteenth Amendments, and "voters —=s_ g
qualifications have no relation to ‘wealth nor. | {
“*. to paying or -not’ paying this or any other tas! oa
‘ HARPER | CASE, .383 U.S. at. 666. UNITED Mine ‘4
STATES v TEXAS, 252 F. Supp.234,252 . =-— Fs
' ( W.D.Tex.1966 ); UNITED STATES y > Sa
ALABAMA 252 F.Supp. 95 ( 1966 ). Texas ©
© filing fees. and: assessments are .uged to raise
. revenue and are considered a tax. CAMPBELL
Ne vs. DAVENPORT, 5 Cir. 1966, 362 F.2d 624. |
Cf;-Waples ‘v. . Marrost, Texas Supreme Court 1916,
- _ 184 S.W. 184; holding that the taxing power of
(8 if Texas cannot be used to pay the expense of | i
. , Primary elections for such elections ‘do not x
serve " a public purpose " . : e
QQ ‘ Justice Douglas fells the true standard el |
_ for testing the Texas Scheme for financing ay
_ primary elections — he wrote in the HARPER 2
case that: : ° Ss
"But we “miuat. remember ee x
‘the interest of the State, when + . i
' it comes to voting, is. limited &
to the powet fo fix qualifications, as
Wealth, liké¢#ace; creed , or Ee -
color, is not germane to one's ao
, ability to participate intelligently - a
inthe electoral process. Lines a
drawn on the basis, of wealth or ete
“. . property, like those of race (citation &§
‘ omitted] are traditionally disfavored. ' BO Pa

ie 383 :U.S. at 668. _

o. : "
PC Pp mee ETI a ve La atti te

' Subsequent to- the HARPER case three
federal caurts have held a. requirement of ,
paying a filing fee to qualify as a candidate ©
' in the electoral process is unconstitutional -
| aS a-violation of Equal Protection. JENNESS -
_ wv. LITTLE,.N.D.Ga.1969, 306 F. Supp. 925;
‘GEORGIA SOCIALIST WORKING PARTY v.
os FORTSON ,N.D. Ga. 1970, 315 F.Supp 1035,
. : 1040,affirmed _ On other grounds JENNESS-
ve v. FORTSON, - 7. US. , 29 L.Ed. 2d 554.

\ Filing fees as requirement to run for office
‘have been held unconstitutional in BOLLINGER
Av. McLAUGHLIN, 22 S.D. 206, 116 N.W. 70
Bee: );. ADAIR v DREXEL, 74 Neb. 776, 105

174 ( 1905 ); KELSO v COOK 184 Ind.173,
110 'N. E. 987 ( 1916 );; LEDGERWOOD v PITTS,
122 Ténn. 570, 125 S. W. 1036 ( 1909 ),

. ta dees v FORTSON U.S... _, 29
L. Ed. 2d 554°-%
pauper's oath) under which the affluent
' qualify for election through the easy route ~
- (for them ) of paying a filing fee while the
poor or not so poor will be required as a
condition of candidacy in the same primary
election to meet other, onerous, requirements.
The Texas 10% petition must be notarized
and. completed within 90 days with each: signer —
becoming ineligible Ae thereafter affiliate with ©
other parses.

. ‘In El Paso County in the last paiierelk
election 27,315 persons voted for democratic
governor. See Appendix. C herein for the
official vote for Texas governor in the 1970
General Election by counties. Therefore, a
petition for any country-wide race in El Paso
must contain 2, 732-notarized signatures to
qualify a poor candidate in the 1972 primary .
election and at a cost of $.50 for each oath
_.administered and the notary fees would be ©
_ $1,325.00 for such petition. Article 3945
V.A.T.S.; H.B. 5, supra. The 10% notarized -
petition resulting in a $1,325 cost is unconstitu- |
' tional. See EVANS v. CORNMAN, 398 U.S.

cs

43.

J
oo eer woraly

¥°
7

419 ( 1970 ) ; -PHOENIX. ve KOLODZIEJSKL

-394°U,S. 204 ( 1970 ) on ks alt state
interest. | :

*

Padebrmore Texas law places an
arbitrary restriction upon independent candi-
dates in that they cannot obtain notarized

signatures on their petitions until the primary

-+ elections.are over and.no one voting in a

.. primary may sign the petition of an independent

' candidate... Article 13.50 et. sq. .Texas Eleetion —

Code. See WILLIAMS ve _ RHODES, 393 U. S.

23 ( es 33:

While this Court hepa not sit to decide

abstract. questions, it is also true. that the

law is not a game. . The. legal resources
available to. Appellees' class are “sorely. limited.

_ It would be equally unfortunate to dissipate

these resources and to have unsettled constitu-
tional questions raised here, thereby neces-

eee sitating additional legal action to obtain relief
- ‘for the 1972 primary elections. Therefore,
Appellee Pate and Guzman, et al, join with

the State in presenting H. B. 5, sypra, for
Constitunenel review by the Court. 7

. There seems to be’ no real issue ’ that:

Texas has created a classification that dis-

criminates by wealth in regard to primary

‘election. The real issue in whether that -

discrimination is justified by the State interest

advanced by way of argument. It has long been
argued that putting a price on the right to vote

is bad for both negro and white voters. “Political

_ machines for years have made a regular practice
‘of buying blocks of Poll Tax receipts for their
‘henchmen and.herding them in to yote the will.

44, . *

. ; :
t ‘ eo : : , ; oper

- Of the political boss." The Poll Tax, American
' Council on Public Affairs, 1942, p. 6, Call -
Number 336.25 Am 35p. The effect of high
filing fees is that many candidates are bought.
by wealth. ag : tutties Dex
The State 6f Arizona has not experienced

.

the evils raised. by Texas in their brief against

State financial primary elections. Article %;
Section 14 ‘of the Arizona Constitution reads
as follows: ) Se eal “3

. “No feé shall ever Be required
in order to have the name of
any candidate placed on the
official ballot for any election or
: primary.” ose
_ Arizona-does require a non-notarized nomin-
_ ating petition with voter signatures represent-
ing from one to five percent of the vote in the

last el@etion. Article 16-301 to 16-306, Arizona

Revised Statutes. \
CONCLUSION

ae. ‘It is respectfully submitted that the
three-judge district court below was correct
' -in its‘ conclusion that Texas Election Code -
Scheme for financing Primary Elections vio-
lated the First and Fourteenth Amendments
- and the judgment below sHould be affirmed.
Furthermore, the new Texas. legislation on
-primary elections ( H.B.5, Texas Brief pp.
33-42 ) violates the First and Fourteenth
Amendments and to that.end we urge this
_ Court to declare said Texas enactment uncon-
stitutional. 3 aoe : |

45.

. : ‘ a g
A EY Wee ts Ye tame 227. a % is oh ts h toalog Kinds Ment ihn ose ie
ee deck ML Re ee ES, Soy a ie pes its S87) ta

* . —— —

a

= Aen At 9, 0 Lg 80, 7,3,
off. Aug. 28, 1967. 7 >

_ Art 13.08 Expenses of primary .

(1) Prior to the assessment of- the. candidates, the
. county committee shall carefully estimate the cost of
printing the official ballots, renting polling places where
same may-be found necessary, providing and distribut- _
ing all necessary poll books, blank stationery and
voting booths required, compensation of election of-
_ ficers and clerks, and ‘all other necessary expenses
| of holding the’ general primary and second primary
in such county and on the second Monday in Feb-
_ Yuary preceding each primary, shall apportion such
2 cost in such manner as in their judgment is just and
_ equitable among the various candidates for nomination ~
for district, county, and precinct offices only ‘as herein
defined, except the offices of Justice of the Court of

o

cation, and except the office of state senator and state
representative if the assessment or fee payable to the
county; chairman is fixed at a definite amount, but tak-
ing info account the assessments and filing feés re-
eamal from candidates for the Legislature and the
‘State Board of Education. Where a district office
covers more than one county, the assessment of such
candidate by the county shall be not more than a sum
which is the quotient of the amount.which he would
__. . be assessed if he represented only one county: deter-
mined by the formula used to assess county candidates,
' when divided by the number of counties in his district.
In‘making the assessment upon any candidate the'com-
mittee shall give due consideration to the importance,
- emolument, and term of office for which the nomination
is to be made. Within 24 hours after adjournment 'of
the — the chairman shall mail to, each. ae

48.

' Civil Appeals and member of the State Board of Edu-

: shall pay a filing fee of fifty dollars, which shall be

sigs hone i tani at oleae:
the amount of such expenses apportioned to him and

infirasing him thatthe dif@ereies hatwosn the.aepeent
of the assessment and the amount of-the deposit which. . |
accompanied the candidate’s application must be paid |

to the chairman on or before the fourth Monday in” ) 2
_ February ; and no person’s name shall be placed on the — a
ballot unless he pays the assessment within the pre = ss
scribed time. The notices shall be sent to the candidates

by registered or certified mail, and the chairman shall .

obtain a receipt for each letter, postmarked by the — .

post office at which the letter is mailed, as evidence of |
_ the'mailing, ne bl poseacen Cop Repel Tat Seen 7
_ of three months. - rset Soe

| (2) A candidate filing after the date of the i atresia

meeting shall not be required to accompany his ap- -

plication with the deposit provided for in Section 185a y

of this code,” but shall pay the full amount assessed 3
' against him by the county executive committee within

one week fromthe date on which his application is filed ; ,
provided, however, that where a fixed filing fee is re- oe
quired for an office included in this section, the amount ra

of the fee must accompany the application. | fa

‘ ° (8) It shall be sufficient to meet the requirements of

_ this law to mail by: registered or certified letter to the

chairman before the deadline herein provided, as shown

by the postmark on the letter, a money order, a certified

_ check, or a cashier’s check ; but it shall not be sufficient
to make the payment by any other type of mail reeds

iti is delivered before the deadline. Kae a

7) A candidate for the State Board of bo

Pstanain eee eee ent awe qomarcising the.

a
"hArticle 18.07a. , ety
49,

4 wit are cn adel aman oan:

vided for any office of two-year and fifteen per- ,
-eent- (15%) of the aggregate salary provided.
\. for any office of four-year terms, to Have their nanies, .

\ placed on the ballot in any primary election. Candi- |
dates. for the State Board of Education shall not be :
sequel seams tn, enone at Gen anc asta St Beatin.
186 of this. Code.’ ae :

: -. Notwithstanding other provisions of 1: the shen”
executive committee in any county which has a popu- ,
. lation of one million (1,000,000) or-more, according to.

‘the last, preceding Federal Census, may require candi-"
: dates for State Representative to pay an amount not -
exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500) to have their
names: placed upon the ballot in a. primary election.
‘A ieandidate for nomination for State Senator shall] ©
pay. the full amount of Oné Thousand Dollars ($1,000)""
-as filing fee for office of State Senator to have his name'':

3 -50. . -

The payment must accompany the applicationand

» plncsih spent Seettth a igtbieeeey sities

time he-files his application for a place on the ballot.
must be in the form of cash, money order, cashier’s

check or certified check. The application and payment

must be delivered to the proper party chairman or sec-, os
retary by the deadline for making application for a

place on the ballot, and it shall not be sufficient for

_ the application’ and payment to have been, mailed be-

fore the deadline unless they. are actually delivered. by
the deadline. After the county executive committee

‘makes the assessments as provided in Section 186 of

this Code, it shall refund to each candidate within |

thirty (30) days thereafter the amount of the payment.

in excess of the assessment against the candidate.

Notwithstanding other’ provisions of law, the county.

executive committee in any county which has a popu- ;
' lation of nine hundred thousand (900,000) to one mil-

lion (1,000,000), according to the last preceding Fed-

eral Census, shall require candidates for State Sena-

tor or State Representative to pay the amount of Three:

ee

upon the ballot in a primary election.

- Notwithstanding other provisions of law, the odsintiy )
executive committee in any county which has a popu-
lation of six hundred fifty. thousand (650,000) to nine

hundred thousand (900,000), according to the last pre-

ceding Federal ‘shall require candidates for

State Senator pay the amount of One Thousand
Dollars ( ) and candidates for State Represent-

ative to pay the amount of Six Hundred Dollars ($600)
respectively to have their names placed upon the ballot

_in a primary election; however, if part-of such a coun- 3
ty is joined: to two (2) or more other counties to com- a

: a eee _

51.

st iit aniiilia daatiteied desta lien ob
senatorial district to pay the amount of Two Hun-
‘Fifty Dollars. ($250) to have their names placed

. ment taust accompany the application and must be in .
_ the form of ¢ash, money order, esshier’s check, or cer-
tified check and which shall in no event be refunded

=~ :\4-din whole or in part except in case of the death of the
| applicant before the primary election. Any person mak-
_. ing a refund or participating in making a refund in
o _» Violation of the provisions of this paragraph is guilty
‘=: Of a& misdemeanor and upori conviction is punishable
ef ' by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than

‘ninety. (90). Oe ee ne See mnere then Five
aa ee ee ee ee 3

In any State Representative District . consisting af.

the ballot in primary lection; and such pay--_

_ .
‘é.

\ lata (8) “arid not: more than ‘nine (9) counties, the |

cect chairmen of the county executive committees shall re-

~~. quire candidates for State Representative to pay an

"4 amount of ‘Twenty-five Dollars ($25) for each of the

’ counties in said Representative District, to have their
names placed upon the ballot in a primary election.

~ Amended by ‘Acts 1989, Gist 12g, 2275, Te
eff. Bept. 3; 1969...

oo - Art, 13.15. ‘Ying tonto crt oona ee

s Candidates for United States Rieiaaabun ans

_ who" are €andidates for stato offices to be voted upon.
; _ by thie qualified: voters of the whole state shall pay to.
| the:¢hairman of the state execitive committee $1,000, .
- . Candidates for Congresaman-at-large or for justice of
a the court of civil appeals shall pay to the chairman of

| * gallaty>Avcandidate who is required'to pay’a filing fee .
[Ae Ene ne Matindinpey ane:
ae Sore eS

the state executive committee five percent of one year’s |, pe

other sum to any other person or committee to have

~ his name placed on the ballot as such candidate. Pay-

ment of the fee herein required must be made at the =

time tho candidate files his application for a place on

- the ballot, and the name of no person who is required
+ to pay. a filing fee in any place or to the chairman of |
' » the state executive. committee shall .be placed on the
Se ee ae

these provisions.

Amended by Acts 1969, 61st Leg, p 266, ch. TB § 3, aD,

: eff. Sept: 1, 1969. ee ) \

~~ Art. 13.16. Piviiabits by candidates for state — q

‘or representative or dita

Subdivision 1. Except as otherwise aunt in this
code, no candidate for’nomination for state senator, :

shall be required to pay to the county executive com- 3
mittee to have his name placed on the pelmary ballot’

more than the following amounts :

1, One dollar per courity for counties Knawing a pop-

ulation of less than 5,000. ©

2. “Five dollars per county for counties having a pop-
aioten of 5,000 and not more than 10,000. .

3. Ten dollars per county for counties having a pop- -
plation of more than 10, 000 and less than 40,000. .

4. Fifty dollars per. counity for counties having 7

: population of 40,000 and not more than 125,000.

5. Seventy-five dollars per county for counties hav-
ing a population of m more than 125,000 and not more:

> than 200,000,

6. One Seno detain per county for counties s av. |

ings Hopelation of more than 200,000:
53. ‘2. me

1. ‘One hundred dollars per viiaatih for all senatorial .
3 ‘Aiataletidommpaeel 08 ho: mote and ‘0: less than two ~
counties, regardless of the population of such counties. _

The population in each case is to be determined by
the last preceding federal census. — :

. * Subdivision 2. Except as otherwise seeded § in this

code; each candidate for nomination for state repre-.
sentative shall pay a filing fee of $150. In districts
containing all or part of more than one county, the fil-
ing fee.shall be prorated among the counties compris-

' _ ing the district on the basis. of the percentage of the
. '. population of the district residing in each county, as

determined by the last preceding federal census. The :
- chairman of the state asian committee of each po-
litical party which is holding a primary election shall

compute the prorations and shall forward to the chair-: |

man of each county executive committee of that party
the pertinent information for his county not later than
| the first day of December preceding the election year.

. Subdivision 3. Where some other. section of this

code provides for an assessment or filing fee at variance. __

with this section, the Special provision of the other
_ section shall control. ’ ,

Amended by Acts 1969, dist bane p. 2662, ch. 878, § 32,
eff. sieabehs, 1969. .

84:

..* | APPENDIX "B"

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

'@TMSTMOS IO IIGAT
| “WOITOUGOABMI .I
— PROPOSED ELECTION: LAW (CHANGES so.
° euciToOasa YRAMIAG Ss.
VOITAAT@IOGH AATOV-: .b|
9° o . - ¢
GAGvaMMOoa A AASHTO .b | a
PORT TR GUA &2 ND. LEGISLATURE
| OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
i
° . 7
Cc so
55, oa
8: . . .

:

9 TABLE OF CONTENTS

¢

aa

INTRQDUCTION

PRIMARY ELECTIONS

_ VOTER REGISTRATION

re)

_ OTHER RECOMMENDED
AMENDMENTS .

lartin Dies Jr: a, . ‘
RETARY OF STATE ; os ASST. SECRETARY OF STATE “

— STATE OF TEXAS
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STA
a AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

:

To The 62nd Legislature:

¢ - \ , A Sma
_ Our state now ranks fourth in the nation in populgtion. This ~
growth has put great strains in our election procedures that once ;
' worked well in a rural state. During my tenure as Secretary of
‘State, I have observed areas of our present election process that
- are now failing to fulfill the-needs of the state. Also, some of
our present election laws have been challenged in the courts, If
the challedges are successful, many changes will have to:be made

by the 62nd Legislature as we will be unable to hold primary elec-

tions or r¢gister voters until the changes are adopted.

t :
* In this jeaane. I address myself to the areas that deserve inime-
. diate attention, primary elections and voter registration. As _
the chief-election officer of the State of Texas, I have made studies
of the present systém in this state and in many other states with .
comparable populations. The recommendations made. reflect pro-
cedures which.are now being used in other states with great effi-
ciency and accuracy. :

a

~
pr

I believe Texas must soon adopt new procedures in regard to the.
operation of our primaries and the method of registering voters.
Hopefully, the information contained in this report will be of help
to the 62nd Legislature when it considers election iaw reform.

.
«

8 . ae

MARTIN DIES, JR..
Secretary of State

PRIMARY ELECTIONS - |
ap : AF,

The Texas primary election process is unique améng the major
states in the nation, A vast ‘majority of the states and all of the
Papeose etal that hold primaries nolan their primaries ina

. Manner similar to their general elections. This office did not en-
counter a single state witha similar population which Placed the
; burden of holding and: fiance primary elections upon the parti-

cipating political parties, . ee

However, the need for change in Texas’ primary system does |
not stem from the fact that Texas is the only state in the nation
utilizing party operated primaries. This office does not believe

that uniqueness is bad-or that popularity is necessarily good. The |
present Texas system has simply reached a crisis in its ‘operation

“that Cannot be cured by slightly altering eur present procedures.
_There are three factors that make — of future primaries

under our present system impractical if not. impossible. These |
factors are: pan Se the failure of the present system to pro-
vide adequate financing; the present — fees cannot be increaséd
to cover the need for\{unds; and the courts are-very likely to strike
down the entire primary assessment sewediliiiis: A discussion of

a a 58.

these factors follows.

of election costs could be relieved somewhat by removing the limi-

_ tations on assessments for candidates. ‘This avenue might be fea-
sible if it were not for the fact that at present Texas has the highest-
os filing fees in the nation. ‘In fact, a survey of all of the states
shows absolutely no state which has primary filing fees that even
approach the eines in Texas. Attached in Appeddix "A" isa sche-

° mis 5 8
dule of filing sei for county and state offices in other states. It

should be gated th that. Gaels Texas, 6 percent of an annual salary

* ia apparently the highest levy in the United States for primary filing

fees for courty and state ‘offices. Most’ states — 2 percent or
less of the annual salary." 3

Present assessments in Texas' metropolitan a areas aré now in,
_ the rangé at 20 to 30 percent of the annual salary of the. office. tbven
after distribution, of the surplus fund’, if any, many county and district
officials paid 20 percent or more of their. annual salary in filing fees.
District judges in Tarrant County were assessed approximately $8, 900

in 1970. This figure represents about 30 percent of their annual salary.

o

60,

°

Praising ‘the assessments would not solve the ‘problem.. The

expenses of a primary election vary proportionately with the num-

ber of voters. The number of candidates in. each race has relatively”

7

little effect on overall ‘dkpeniditess: Extremely high Hiling fees

sometimes have. the effect of reducing the umber” of candidates who .

will file for haan dinibei: ‘When fewer Sind iiitds file for office, a,” \

a a o

‘ there is less money | to 0 operate the primarits. For hnatanse. Harris i :

Cousay Democratic primaries in 1970: cost less than the primaries in .

1968. Yet the assessments to ‘the Candbiahan were ee because

fewer candidates filed for nomination. -

‘ * 24
om

(3) The most impor tant factor is that of the _questignable constitu-

tionality of Texas' timers assessment s system. ‘Suits were filed in.

i Federal District Courts prior to the 1970 primary sisaiinie claiming .

_ the fees made it impossible for a man of medest means to run for

county office. A three judge federal panel i in | Dallas ordered the names
of three candidates be placed on the ballot without paying the filinglees. —
‘The'court will soon deliver a final dpinion in the matter. Considering
previous federal c cases in other sales and the prior ruling of hie fed-" :
eral panel, it is most likely that the present filing fee system ——_— ~
held unconstitutional. Such a ruling will make it imposgibie to operate

another. general primacy under present lowe. However, the omer fac- :

PS %
° .

.
.-
EE GST IE RST tata 8 4 4 ete

es - @
tors discussed also make it imperative that some different route be
‘bina in the financing and operation of Texas primaries. A short a
discussion of present primary sonaikin is helpful in understanding |
"what changes are needed. ! ~ | } | os

- The. Texas Primary Operation at Present
yr ( ’

; Presently the operations of the Texas primaries are almost en-

tirely candidate f inanced. “A statutory system of assessments allows

the tocal county committees to estimate the cost ofthe primaries and

assess most primary candidates somé share = the cost. Some offices

have fixed fees, but the candidates must eae all the election expenses ‘4

in, each county. Rural counties, where county salaries are low, assess.

between $400. 00 and — 00 for county offices. However, in metro~
politan areas it is st uncommon to find assessments of over $4, 000. 00

for some ‘offices. These figures. contrast with the fixed fee of $1, 000.00 —

for ah statewide offices including United States Senator..

The assessment system is also subject to criticism Sinctnive it is

‘ common for the original ‘sqeessmentq to be inflated. There are few
statutory Naiitations on the céunty committees and these erates are
" afeatitipbiy afraid’ of’not having enough moriey to pay for the primary.

—_— assessments must be partially refunded to the candidates later. ,

. J ° 4

e re e Ee : / .
“wiLe

= procedure consumes a considerable amount of the county Sammit-

tee's time because the pataeny- tant must be audited and all expeasia,.
Ys

" must be paid tediets the refunds can be made. Disagreements be-
tween y candidates and county committees are frequent, and many can-
didates feel that they were over- -assessed pecense of the large refunds

‘ which | in pees instances are not returned until months after the =.

_maries.

«
a

Finally, the party Cannot retain ahy of the money in. the: primary

fund. This practice leaves the local parties sirapped for operating

ff
expenses. In many states this is not the case and those systems will

be discussed later.

Present Cost of Primaries
a
; oa ¢ .
- This office has made an exténsive study of thegigeseat cost of ©

‘the primaries. Attached in Appendix "B" is an abbreviated list of

county by county cost figures for the 1968 and 19m primaries. Since
some counties did not Feport, we have made some iidenetiae to ,
seach the total cost figures. From this study, w have concluded

dint hn tee primaries cost approximately $1,400, 000 in.1970. =

This figure does not include the cost of the. couhty clerks' time in

holding absentee voting. It does include both Democratic. and ahem:

63. ots ee

b = . , a . . al ’

lican a 968: figures, are incomplete, but it is esti-

" mated that the total aceite exceed $1, 600, 000.

$2. .° , a e - £

sonnel. The Republican party's expenses are not representative as
© 2 ‘ © . Z > ) . ae

-The major cost of the primaries are voting equipment “{ per- —

they do ‘Adt hold primaries in all counties and they usually do not field
: : ie ” . « . ‘ ; We ,

. ° = r Q »”
a full slate of candidates in counties where primaries are held. Also

*

the party gets a large amount of volunteer help whith reduces its costs.
' The cost of the primaries are increased by the practice of holding
dual primaries. If the Republican party held primaries in all Texas

-

counties, there weld Ue a complete duplication of effort. in every elec-

tion precinct. As far as this office could determine, this situation

exists L no other state. This cost. in. manny and manpower is elimin-

ated in all other states om holding, a asim primary. ° A description
; : ong”
ofa ae ‘unitary prtaiony system will be discussed later’ in this re-

“port, It is enough to say that presently our primary i i is cost-

ing. more than: wasneanis _—e both parties are holding diections in .

the same precincts. of

“The,Problems of Partisan Primary Operations

ee the primary election operation isa completely partisan

_ operation. This factor may well have some good points, but it is not

e a 64

‘2

the optimum: haemo for serena

?

Actual election cost figures from other states are not particular-
ly helpful in determining cost as differing election procedures may

result in vastly different expenditures. Studies by this oes indicate 7
-that. the han operationa? ‘cost of a — primary system in n Texas
| will not be a great burden on the ‘state or counties. The cost fi igures
listed in Appendix "B" give some skiiadete as to present election
cost. The initial changeover to a unitary eystem could create some
extra expense. It appears, however, that most precincts Pree con-
a
vert with a minimum of expenses. Only in areas with bine outer
participation in both. primaries would: —— increase over, the
present cost of teecetd. primaries. Dus to ws voter finaout in
_ the Republican — in 1968 and 1970, it would seem that these
‘ primaries could nies been financed at a ievel.near the cost ‘of the ~~
Democratic oie. : 7 oS | :
: (Ye \ _
on

Statutory Changes Necessary for Unitary Primary Procedure

This office has reviewed the present statutes governing our pri-,
* maries. A majority of. the Articles in Chapter 13 of the present Code.
will, require either elimination or amendment. These laws deat -.

marily with the organization and financing.of the present printary

system. - A number of oer statutes will require changes. This of-
4 : : oe. a ty - ars

are

”

: fia af
fice is now in the Process of ‘identifying’ every statute _ relates to

yn

“the party primaries. if: the court holds that the present system is

-invalid or if the legishature feels that the changes should be made in

er

‘any case, this’ office stands ready to provide specific suggestions oa

amendments to change the present ayetsm. SP ne

-

e '
Conclusion

° - "8

. The Secretary = State believes that a change in present primary
G-

operations are needed 1 regardless ‘of the outcome of wpe court cases,

e

Public confidence in the primary election process is imperative if

our representative form of government is to continue to ave the

support of all the people. The present procedures simply cannot

. perform adequately in today's Texas, much less in the future.

“

i) *

= ‘ll, 423, 48
Brazos — 7,749, 38
‘Burnet ‘ : , 1, 938, 00
Calhoun =. . e. . « 4,190, 89
Callahan | . — «+. No Figures
‘Camp . » it: $, 017.45
ass . - - §, 052,39 |
CastrO° 0’ iy. No Figures -_
_ Childress © &.S.- 1,272.70 |
Coke nA an No Figures
Collin : _ 9,730, 03
Collingsworth * 1,958. 34
. Colorado -.Y 3, 909, 33
Comal +. 1% 3, 100. 3
Comanche © ~~ *° 3, 633.04
Cooke 5, 427. 06.
Coryell - No Figures
Cottle . No Figures
Crane. : 1, 825. 35
Crockett . 1, 148. 87
- Dallas eS S 118,793. 20.
Dawson £8 “ey No Figures
Denttn 2 it 8,898.75 .
Dickens ee % - 1,294, 75
Dimmit (92+) at oO L 1,104:04
Donley — tg See ee 1, 621. 65
Duval | Mees eee, 3,188, 01
Ellis Ree er 7,620.45 |
Falls . “No Figures _.-
' Fannin St 4,098,00 —
Fayette ; ee 3,359.27 ..-
Foard. © ee eee 1,438.27 ©
‘Fort Bend ee ". 6, 817. 88
Franklin >. $,616,12 .
‘Freestone 2, 992. 0g.
14,
. * _~

APPENDIX We

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY ELECTION: 5X LENSES
ry 7 ‘ 1970 Se oo

6, 862. 00...

1,976.97 \.

814, 23

* 4, 182,.00

1,477, 13
3,008.47 .

2,450:04 |

_ 4,836.48 -

. 10, 372.94 .
“22! 388, 16

1,121. 92 ©
12,617.00

6,634.67
1, 344, 00
2, 893. 91.

2,322.77

4,357.17

.§, 091, 80 |
* "132. 47
Figures

1, 083.25

10, 687. 40

1, 832. 79
3, 124. 89

3, 809. 80 -

2, 998,19
7, 571. 17
2,230. 59

1, 621. 69
1, 463.67

616. 98

158867 .03 . -.
* 2,404. 71
"9, 518,15

1, 746, 01

1, 177,98
1, 287, 36

3,231.04

. 8,280.53 °°

2,935, 29

. 5240200.
~ 2,326, 97
852,11
5,990.53 -

* 2,505, 74 -
. 3,415, 09

ee

4

Galveston
: arual

| piasnes \

Gaay .

\ Grayson
Grimes
Guadalupe
Hale
Hall
Mardeman
Hardin, +:
Harris
Hartley.

' Henderson

Hill « |)

~-

‘Hockley
Hudspeth
-Hutchinsoa
Jacksen

- Jasper

Jeff Davis

Jim Hogg

Jim Wells ©

Jones
Karnes _
‘Kaufman
Kenedy
Kerr
Kimble
King
Knox
amb
Lampasas
LaSalle
Lavaca:
... Lee ,
> Liberty
Limestone
Lipscomb
Live Oak
Lubbock -
Lynn
. Marion:
Mason. .
Maverick
_, McCulloch

1968__
: 3G, Gi0, 38

1, 809, 46 -

2,075. 00

4 3, 500, 00.
* 20,010.00...
No Figures

2,580, 05
2,796. AT
1, 849, 92
1, 403, 48

No Figures

173,848, 00 :
1, 108, 00

3, 815.13. °°

6, 010, 43
3, 787. 48

~ 1,439, 00

5, 953. 6]

No Figures ©
- £5, 247. 81

627. 75
5, 779. 66
5,497. 68 —

Be ep B 14!

4, 879. 6S .

ry 087. 97
441. 63

3,534. 94

— 655.18

No Figures

2,552.30

3, 861.17

1,608, 00

1,325. 62
2, 447. 80
3, 491. 88
7,352.18
2, 725.90
*870. 32

" 3,577.16
17,158. 36.

Noe Figures

No Figures |
' No Figures

4,491, 52

> 2, 116, 96

Lae

oS

— Ba, 78. oe

2,165
~ 464. a
3, 528. 41.
ai. 537,-61
1, 929, 31
1,979, 08.
3,225, 37°
986, 97

1, 288, 59

“12, 400.00.
162,.000.00 ©
1,126, 00
4,537, 04°
7, 425,00 —
2,422, 48
. 1,550, 87.
. 6,040; 35

6,040.52

- 4,266, 47
560, 33
“9,301. 95
7,979. 31
1, 899. 11

. > 3,146, 82 —

5, 341, 83
(274. 64.

3, 4a8. 44
532, 20 :

“ . §50..33

2,117. 83
2,101.16
1, 957,00.
1,538. 96
2, 860. 89
2;649.15
6, 314. 30
2,102. 36
913. 28
2, 060. 71.
11, 315. 26
1, 300, 09
_ 2,300, 00
15164.'24
5, 382. 00
2,117. 95

* .McLennan
Menard
Milam ,
- Mills *
Mitchell -
Montague

= Montgomery

Moore ~
Morris
Moticy
Nucces
Ochiltree

. Oldham
Parker
Parmer
Rains *=-
Randall
Reagan
Real cA,
Red River”
Robertson
Rockwall ~~
Runnels
Rusk
Sabine

San Augustine —

San Jatinto
San Saba _

Shackelford
Smith

- Somerville

Sterling
Sutton
-Tarrant
Taylor
Terry

Throckmorton

Tom Green
Travis
Tyler —
Upshur’
Upton

' Uvalde.

* Val Verde
Waller

1968 :

. 13,546.04 -
* . 921; 30°

6, 686..66 .
2,100.00 —
No Figures
3,588. 34
3,577.16

, 4,721, 13
No l*igures

479, 25
34, 6Q0. 00:
1, 242, 98

712, 75
4,677. 56

14 _ * 788. 30

1, 056, 81
4,587.57
No Figures
1,165. 00
4,200, 00
4,828, 96
2,099. 11
No Figures
1,348. 49
- 3,297.29 |
3, 461. 84 -
2, 856. 66
2° 634, 88
*1,041. 62
10,457, 94
No Figures
' 868, 00
457, 28
61, 825. 41

9,475.00 ~

4, 358, 33
1, 890. 87

. No Figures

No Figures
4, 482, 36

_ No Figures”
. 2,037.11
8, 16,19

3,444. 83
4, O11. 42

1w970 |

73, 574. 26

1, 694; 18
3,925. 86
977,52 .
2,699. 46
3,180, 27
2,060, 71 -
4,141, 43
2, 082.16.
464, 25 |
39,900, 00
- 1,470, 00°
996..78
4,393.77
1, 508. 15
987, 22

- 3,972, 09
ri be 598, 66
: 475, 00

3,158. 00
5,154, 65
1, 855. 76
2,041, 72

9,074, 55

3, 719. 05
2,747. 11
2, 408, 75

- , 2,781. 21.

1,197.65
13,598. 03
698, 47

...° 740, 00

381. 84
92,470. 43
* 5,295. 51

3,780, 08.
1, 700, 34°

6, 425, 76

- 30,866, 93

4, 412, 41
7,507. 10
2,491. 62
2,502.15
5, 496, 09
. 3,549. 60 .

Ward ° 7 \
4 Washington ;
Wheeler .

Wichita

Wilbarger

Williamson” o> oe » . ine,
W ilson : : . . gee . i=

Winkler -
Wise e .
Yoakum:
Young
Zapata

2. O08. 2

oi Pe

1968

4,950. 00°

2, 000,00.
No ligures
10, 587. 76
4,280. 48
5, 246.98
3,890.09
2, 444, 20

No Figures: -

2, 216. 33

" 3,070. 08

No Figures

1970 |

- —

4, 956.5
_ 4,700, 00

2, 297. 00
8, 420. 95
5,14]. 54
4,639. 98

. 3,109, 01 .

2,936. 98
2,718.17

2,020.13 |
“1, 638, 89
_ 2,183, 82

oO

* a

al icsaatashs Cc

Election. Crimp

T
a

Due | ]

County Growth Puts Ceiling on Filing Fe ees

By TOM JOLNSON
Dallas County's ‘preliminary 1970 census
-" figure of more than a million people could
well put a serious crimp in future primary
elections, at least as far as moncy g0cs,

State law specifiés limits for filing -

_ fees which can be assessed candidates by
political parties in counties of more than

1,000,000 population — carrently only Har

- gis (Houston) and Dallas. —

This means, paradoxically, that Dallas
County political parties in 1972 primaries
will be prohibited from collecting assess-
ments as large as they could have been this
year.

Dallas County's 1960 gensus mark of”

« 951,000 put it in a statutory category in
which there were no limits on filing fees
which could be .charged. ©

Now, though, by virtue of eclipsing the
_ milnon figare an upper .limit will be
clamped on such fees.

“WE JUST CAN'T finance elections in

. Dailas County as we have in the past on .

such a system,” said Democratic County
Chairman Earl Luna. “All our inne workers right now
are volunteers, they work on a free ba

this
GOP primary cost in the neigh

name

SI you know a poing to have
only about 150 people voling on siection
day, it's not too hard to get volunteers. A
lot of them are women who know they'll
be able to keep on with their knitting
while they're conducting the election.

“But it becomes a much more difficult

“++ job if you know and they know that 1,000
- people will vote, and the workers wiil

have to put in a hard,” Ighour day,”
Crouch said. *

\ Both county chairmen agreed that lowe
eri

ing the voting age to 18 would add to
"their -problems, in that it’s a general rue
“that elections get more expensive in p:o
portion to the number of pcopie who Vole.

*COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR-Celiector

“Ben Gentle predicted last week ‘that tow.

ering the voting age .could sweli the num-
ber of ‘etigible voters in the county by
perhaps 100,000.

President Nixoa fas reportedly rot yet
“decided whether to sign a bill on his desk

that would lower the voting age to 18.
The Texas Constitution holds that no per-
__ sen under 21 can vote. =

* Luna said the aatural population ir-

crease -projecied for Dailas County wi.

make the voting lists get longer-and-loz¢-
er, regardless “of the voting age situation
He said the number of voting precircis

‘ in the county will continue to increase as
: Certain precincts get.over-populaiced.

The Texas Election Code says county
Commissioners must keep redrawing pre-
cinct lines * eve: lle fone Esai yee
So more than 2,000 voters
~ 00 if machines are ased).

e % x

APPENDIX "C">

F
a

FROM: MARTIN DIES, 3R., SECRETARY OF STATE —

; OF THE STATE OF TEXAS)
TEXAS OFFICIAL YOTE FOR GOVERNOR
- . G@ENERAL-ELECTION - NOVEMBER 3, 1970
’ 7 .
79. . a". s

Camp ' (1,494 881

80.

LEAL

TE

&

1,380

fy, .

a
|
=
rape
—_
Peard :
en

ute

82.

sp

:

Jacksen

83.

F)
s

9

: .

; 9°

3

5 .

*.
e

2 - -
Ca
) ied

¢

Sutten o#864SF=s—i‘iéiéiS@V

Swisher ~ ‘1,879
Tarrant . 62,117
_ Tyaler . 10, 378
. Terrell 246.
Terry 2,029 .
Threckmorten 646
_ Titus £ -2,922
Tom Green .7,652
Travis. 34, 933
Trinity 1,179
Tyler . 1,798
Upshur — 3,238
-Upten . 718
Uvalde 1,985
Val Verde 2,919
Van ZAndt 3,080
Victoria 6,061
Walker 2,426
Waller 1,579
Ward 1,971
Washington 2,410
Webb . 6, 962 -
Wharton 3,938
‘Wheeler 1,060
(Wichita 16, 264
Wilbarger 2,764
Willacy _ 1, 964
Williamson 4,594
Wilson 2,135
Winkler 1,716
Wise 2,842
. Weed 2,761
Yoakum 1,123
Young _ - 2,714
Zapata 745
Zavala ~~ = 4,123.
1,197,726

1,428
392

472 |.

1,037,723

¢

86.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0327%3A07. Public record. Not legal advice.