The Origin of Minnesota's Nonpartisan Legislature

Home , Commercial (Second), Minnesota Legislature

A FEATURE of Minnesota government that stimulated much discussion during the 1951 legislative session is here traced back to its beginning in 1913 by an instructor in government at Wayne University, Detroit.

The ORIGIN of Minnesota's Nonpartisan Legislature

CHARLES R. ADRIAN

ONLY TWO STATES - Minnesota and legislature, council-manager and commis Nebraska — select their legislators on a bal sion government in cities, the initiative, lot without party designations. Minnesota's referendum, and recall, and the nonparti unusual arrangement dates from 1913 and san election of certain public officials. Some is largely the result of a political accident reformers urged that judges and city and — of a series of events strongly resembling county officials should be chosen on a non a comedy of errors. Nebraska acquired its partisan ballot. A few extremists went so nonpartisan legislature more than two far as to propose the use of nonpartisan decades later, in 1934, when that state's elections in selecting all state officials. lawmaking branch was completely reor When the thirty-eighth Minnesota legis ganized. lature met in January, 1913, probably not In 1913, like most of the rest of the a single member suspected that before the United States, Minnesota was affected by session ended the state would have a law a reform movement in state and local gov making body chosen without party desig ernment — a movement that spread the nation. It was generally assumed that concept of "efficiency and economy" to na debate during the session would center tional as well as state government. It was about county option on the liquor question, inspired by the successful example of the industrial accident insurance, the desirabil business corporation and by general dis ity of the initiative, referendum, and recall, gust for the low moral standards that and the nonpartisan election of county offi marked much political party activity about cials. the turn of the century. Muckrakers had Minnesota reformers had precedents for been exposing politicians, and as a result the nonpartisan ballot in electing county party prestige was very low. oflBcials. Not only had California recently The movement toward political reform, furnished an example, but the year before which reached its peak in the second dec Minnesota itself had apphed the nonparti ade of the twentieth century, urged such san principle to county superintendents of innovations as the primary election, pro schools, officers of first-class cities, and portional representation, a shorter ballot, state judges. Laws passed in 1912 by a concentration of responsibility in state ad special legislative session called by Gov ministrative structure, the unicameral ernor A, O. Eberhart provided for the

Winter 1952 155 Minnesota changes. Five other states had and 19 for Frank E. Minnette, a Democrat. previously removed the party label from On February 7, 1913, Senator Julius E. their judicial ballots, and the move to Haycraft of Madelia, a progressive Repub "purify" this branch of government was in lican who was chairman of the Senate elec full swing. In four years, twelve states had tions committee, introduced a bill to extend adopted the plan.^ the nonpartisan provisions of the 1912 pri The nonpartisan principle was then ex mary election act to include all judges and tended to other areas of government. Re all city and county officers. He was con formers argued that local officials should vinced that the plan was sound and pro be businesslike administrators, since there gressive, and the general feeling seemed to was no Republican way to gravel a road be that, although important and powerful and no Democratic way to lay a sewer. party regulars opposed it, the bill was al California made all its district, county, most certain to pass.^ township, judicial, school, and city officials When the Haycraft bill reached the floor nonpartisan. Other states considered ex of the Senate on February 13, it was at tending the plan to the state superinten tacked from several angles by Senate dent of public instruction, university re leaders. F. A. Duxbury of Caledonia imme gents, local school officials, and city and diately introduced an amendment to elim village officials. inate the provision regarding all county In 1913 Minnesota's political atmosphere officers except superintendents of schools. was marked by many discordant elements, Joining him in the opposition was Senator and was further complicated by the wet- A. J. Rockne of Goodhue County, a con dry issue which transcended party lines. servative and a long-time leader both in The Republicans, who were rapidly be the Senate and in the Republican party. Rockne argued that political parties were coming known as the dry party, were in necessary to the American system of gov complete command of all three branches ernment. The party system, he said, was of the state government. anchored in the local community. Its elim In the organization of the 1913 legisla ination would destroy the roots of an ture, the Senate was guided by Lieutenant important American institution. The Repub Governor J. A. A. Burnquist of St. Paul, a licans, entrenched in all branches of state dry Republican. After a close fight among government, and powerful also in county the Republican elements, Henry Rines of and city government, had nothing to gain Mora was chosen as the Republican can from a change in the party system. The didate for speaker of the House, He was Rockne group had little choice but to fight not a radical prohibitionist, but favored the bill on the Senate floor, since progres county option and pursued a middle-of- sives controlled the elections committee. the-road policy. His solid reputation for honesty made him a natural choice for presiding officer —a man acceptable both ' The nonpartisan judicial movement died al to the drys and to the progressive Republi most as suddenly as it began. Many states aban doned the plan after a few years. Since it was cans,- This was an important asset in a adopted by Nevada in 1923, no new states have period when the drys were regularly split tried it. between the county optionists, who favored "The term "progressive" as used in this article refers merely to the branch of the Repubhcan leaving the liquor question to the voters of party that supported the general principles of each county, and the prohibitionists, who Theodore Roosevelt, as well as other moderate would settle for no less than a completely reform proposals. The progressives were opposed by the conservatives, standpatters, or regulars — dry state, and therefore opposed county all fairly synonymous terms. option. When a vote was taken on the " For the text of the Haycraft bill see Minnesota speakership, it resulted in 101 for Rines Legislature, Thirty-eighth Session, 1913, Senate File 412.

156 MINNESOTA History The Duxbury amendment, however, was primary law passed in 1912. Consequently, voted down 34 to 20. the Clague amendment passed by a vote Backed by thirteen conservative party of 35 to 22 almost without discussion, al regulars, including Duxbury and George though only 21 senators actually favored H. Sullivan of Stillwater, Rockne then con the proposal. With only a few of the ceived the idea that the proposal could be Rockne group opposing it, the amended killed by adding members of the legislature bill was passed 53 to 8, and was then sent to the list of nonpartisan officers. After con to the House.° ferring with Speaker Rines and being as sured that the House would kill any such SENATE FILE 412 was given a first read provision in its elections committee, on ing in the House on March 1, 1913, and February 27 the Rockne group, represented was referred to the elections committee, by Frank Clague, proposed an amendment where it remained for nearly three calling for the nonpartisan election of legis weeks. During this period, the political lators.* significance of the bill received real con The proposal caught the Senate by sur sideration, and lobbyists went to work. prise. Battle lines that had been forming Seeing the Republican party, which nearly slowly were altered and reinforced, for the always controlled the legislature, securely bfll now affected every member of the leg in the hands of the drys, the liquor and islature. Senator Haycraft, as the author of brewery interests quietly began to work the original bill, let it be known that he for the bill in its Senate form. Lacking a had not contemplated including state of majority in either house, the wets resorted ficers and that he was opposed to the al to an ancient propaganda technique in tered plan. He, too, hurried to the speaker order to advance the cause of the bill. of the House, and received assurance that Through Democratic Senator John Moonan the bill would not pass if it included legis and Republican Representatives G. W. lators, or that it would be so changed that Brown and H. H. Dunn, former speaker a conference committee would become of the House, the wets let it be understood deadlocked over it. that they opposed any type of nonpartisan- In the Senate, progressives who had ship, since only the drys could benefit from looked with favor upon the Haycraft bill abolishing parties. Many drys rose to the were obliged to reconsider their position in bait. the light of the maneuvers of the conserva Rural legislators, feeling that the pro tives. Confusion seemed general. Regulars posal to put county elections on a non assumed that the Republicans favored the partisan basis was sure to win, feared that proposal. Some progressives evidently as the whole burden of local political organ sumed that if a little medicine was good ization and support would fall on them. for the body politic, a lot of medicine Unhappy at the thought of assuming this should improve it. Other senators appar thankless task alone, many decided that ently felt that a vote for the bill would find a nonpartisan legislature would be a simple favor with the voters at home. Besides, it solution for their problem. City members was common knowledge that the bill was had still another reason for becoming inter to be killed in the House. The Senate was ested in the novel and unexpected Clague more concerned with the bill's main pro amendment. They had been troubled in posal, which was intended to revise the recent elections by the growing popularity of the Socialist party in the poorer sections * Minneapolis lournal, February 27, 1913. of large cities. Since the bill provided that ° For the progress of Senate File 412 through only the names of the two candidates who the Senate see Minnesota, Senate lournal, 1913, received the largest votes in the fall p, 251, 288-290, 337-344, 472-475, 494-500, 513-515, 1055, 1409, 1681. primary could appear on the election bal-

Winter 1952 157 SENATOR Haycraft at his desk in the Senate, 1911

lots, city members thought this would be a posed the bill. The legislature contained way to get rid of the Socialist threat. a Populist, a Prohibitionist, and a Public Still another group of representatives Ownership member. Among them, only the who became interested in the new plan Prohibitionist, Representative George H. were those who favored Theodore Roose Voxland, favored nonpartisanship. Some velt's Progressive party, which the legisla drys opposed the bill because they were ture was considering legalizing. If this were skeptical of the wets' argument that Pro to happen, the "Bull Moose" Republicans hibitionist candidates would no longer would be faced at the next election with draw votes away from dry Republicans if the difficult decision of whether to run as the nonpartisan bill were enacted. Appar Progressives or Republicans. In a legisla ently it occurred to some legislators who ture elected without party designation, this favored county option that they were en problem could be avoided. The bill ap trenched within the larger of the major pealed to still others as a de facto recogni parties, and could make the state dry with tion of the breakdown of party lines that out altering the traditional legislative ar occurred in the previous session.® rangement. Speaker Rines and Representative N. J. The elections committee reported the Holmberg, Republican chairman of the bill out on March 20 with the unanimous elections committee, led the opposition to recommendation that it should pass after the bill. They believed that the measure being amended to exclude from the non would destroy the vitality of political par partisan ballot members of the legislature ties, which they regarded as necessary and all county officers except superintend- since they provided the opportunity for a "natural cleavage" on questions of public policy. They also argued that state officers °For summaries of the attitudes of various groups see the Red Wing Daily Republican, would not be able to carry out party policy March 31, 1913; the Willmar Tribune, April 2, with a nonpartisan legislature.^ 1913; and the metropolitan daihes, especially Some minority party members, appar Charles B. Cheney's report in the Minneapolis lournal, March 28, 1913. ently fearful of losing their identity, op ' Interview with Henry Rines, August, 1949.

MINNESOTA History ents of schools. This was the form of the amendment prevailed 71 to 39. Thirty- bill that had been promised Senator Rock seven Republicans, one Democrat (Henry ne and his group, but the elimination of Steen, a wet), and one Public Ownership county officials was not acceptable to the member voted against the measure.^ Oppo progressive followers of Senator Haycraft, sition came from progressives like Speaker The effects of lobbying and propaganda Rines and Charles A. Lindbergh, as well were fully evident when the bill was taken as from conservatives such as W. I. Norton up by the House on a special order on and C. E. Stone. Republican leaders, con March 27, During the debate. Republican vinced that nonpartisanship would greatiy Representative G, W. Brown of Glencoe weaken the party, voted against the moved to restore county officers and mem amendment. Negative votes were recorded bers of the legislature to the list of non by R. C. Dunn, Thomas Frankson, Nolan, partisan positions. According to the Si. Norton, and Rines. Paul Pioneer Press of March 28, Brown The bill, which also contained numer asserted that no partisan issues had been ous amendments to the primary election raised in the current session, and he as act of 1912, was adopted by a final vote of sured his colleagues that none would be. 94 to 17 on March 27, 1913. Die-hard oppo Representative W. I. Nolan, a leader sition came from the Public Ownership among House Republicans, made a sub member, a Democrat, and fifteen Republi stitute motion that only county officers be cans, all but one of whom were drys. reinserted. This move would have restored Apparently the relative merits and de the bill to its original form, but the amend merits of a nonpartisan legislature never ment was defeated by an overwhelming were considered either on the ffoor of the 74 to 34 vote.8 House or in private discussions while the According to the Minneapolis Journal of bfll was under consideration. Voting seems March 28, Representative G. B. Bjornson to have been motivated purely by ques of Minneota, who favored making all state tions of political expediency. Eighteen wet officers nonpartisan, held that such posi Democrats supported the bill, while one tions were not political in nature. "The opposed it. Most Republican wets favored governor," he explained, "is the state's it, as did a large number of drys, including oflBcial traveling lecturer." Representative the Prohibitionist. The efforts of the bever Charles N. Orr of St. Paul pointed out that age lobby seem to have been successful. the Senate had extended nonpartisanship to the legislature in an effort to kill the On March 28, C. H. Warner, a Republi bill, and that the action had not been can, moved for reconsideration, but the sincere. He warned the House that affirm proposal lost 63 to 47. In support of the ative action would not support the genuine motion, Nolan claimed that liquor groups attitude of a majority of senators. Repre had approved the nonpartisan measure and sentative Albert Pfaender of New Ulm, a that this alone should be enough to war Democrat, thought the Senate version of rant reconsideration.1" The Willmar Trib the bill excellent, but feared that nonparti une of April 2 reported that "the brewery sanship might be extended to the governor interests, and their representatives, were ship. beside themselves with delight when the House . . . decided to retain this [nonpar When a vote was taken, the Brown tisan] feature in the primary election law.' "For the progress of Senate File 412 through the House, see Minnesota, House Journal, 1913, p, 626, 1028, 1166-1170, 1193, 1214, THE BILL was not yet law, however. "The Repubhcans included thirty-four drys Under an act of 1912, the date for the and three wets, as indicated by the vote on the county option bill of 1913. election was set in September. The Senate " Minneapolis Journal, March 28, 1913. version of the Haycraft bill proposed to

Winter 1952 159 change the time to June, while the House House managers, moved that the commit bill suggested October. This discrepancy tee be allowed to consider this question. probably reflected an effort to create a H. H. Dunn, leader of the wet Republicans, deadlock between the two houses." moved that the House committeemen be A conference committee appointed on instructed to confer on only one difference March 29 was deliberately "stacked" between the House and Senate bills —the against nonpartisanship by Lieutenant date for the primary election. The Minne Governor Burnquist and Speaker Rines.^- apolis Journal reported on April 12 that When it did not report promptly, a political G. W. Brown criticized the committee for writer for the wet Democratic St. Cloud attempting to say it knew what the House Daily Times, in an article published belat wanted better than did the House itself. edly on April 18, commented: "Though The Dunn motion carried, but by a vote passed by both houses over a week ago of only 64 to 47. This represented eight the nonpartisan primary bill is still a long more negative votes than had been cast ways from being a law. A conference com against the crucial Brown amendment to mittee composed of members of both override the recommendations of the houses has it in charge, and . . . they are House elections committee. The changes out to either kfll it or make it so obnoxious of heart took place among dry Republicans, that neither house will adopt the changes who became doubtful as a result of the proposed. The objectionable feature is the interest taken in the bill by brewery repre nonpartisan idea as applied to the election sentatives.^-^ of members of the house and senate and Opposition to nonpartisanship then which the house leaders, after giving their abruptly collapsed. After a brief meeting sanction, woke up to the fact, or rather of the committee. Senator Haycraft an they charged it, that unfriendly interests nounced that he remained opposed to a had put one over on them. They are trying nonpartisan legislature, but that he was to get back now by proposing that the non willing to go along with the majority. partisan idea be extended to state officers, When the report of the committee was which would include the governor. This heard in the House, light attendance forced simply means that the bill will never be proponents of the bill to engage in hasty come a law." parliamentary maneuvering. The roll call Just what the conference committee on the adoption of the conference report wanted to do is not certain. According to lacked an absolute majority, with a vote the St. Paul Pioneer Press of April 12, com of 48 to 32, and a motion to reconsider mittee members searched unsuccessfully had to be made to keep the report alive. for a precedent in Minnesota legislative On the following Wednesday, Aprfl 16, history that would allow them to add com after the dry Republicans had twice tried pletely new material to a deadlocked unsuccessfully to adjourn the House, the measure. It seems improbable that they bill was repassed, 65 to 48.^'' believed they could add the state execu The Senate adopted the conference com tive oflBcers to the nonpartisan ballot and mittee's report 36 to 15.^^ Among those thus force both houses to reject the bill. "Fergus Falls Daily Journal, March 29, 1913; After stalling as long as possible, on St. Paul Pioneer Press, March 28, 1913; Minneap April 11 the committee finally reported olis Journal, March 29, 1913. that its members were unable to agree on ^'Interview with Henry Rines, August, 1949. " House Journal, 1913, p. 1621-1623; Willmar the scope of its authority. Specifically, Tribune, April 16, 1913; St. Cloud Daily Times, they did not know if they could strike out April 18, 1913; Red Wing Daily Republican, the provisions concerning the nonpartisan March 31, 1913. legislature. N. J. Holmberg, one of the " House Journal, 1913, p. 1745. " Senate Journal, 1913, p. 1409.

160 MINNESOTA History who voted in the negative were six sena cans thought the plan would destroy party tors who had joined in the scheme to inject organization. the legislature into the bill and who had According to the Red Wing Daily Re opposed Senate passage earlier. Many con publican of March 31, a nonpartisan legis firmed opponents of the bill, including lature "was a suggestion so new and so Rockne, found it expedient to support it. radical that even the members who voted Some senators saw fit to explain their for it hardly realized what a revolutionary votes. Among them was Senator Edward change" they were proposing. In fact, there Rustad of Wheaton, who said that although is no evidence that any legislator expected he opposed the nonpartisan legislative the new arrangement to cause important principle, he found the June primary date problems of organization or to change so desirable that he voted for the bill. executive-legislative relationships and re Senator George H. Sullivan of Stfllwater sponsibility. A few were concerned lest it explained that there were no longer any weaken party strength needed for more party lines anyway, since the state conven important state and national offices. Other tion had been abolished. One might, he provisions seem to have been the determin felt, just as well vote for a nonpartisan ing factors in the final passage.^" legislature and abolish party lines in name Contemporary newspaper reports indi as well as in fact. The bill was signed by cate a lack of interest in the new law, as the governor without comment on April well as of any realization that its applica 19, 1913. tion would involve important problems. Many rural papers did not even bother to THE MINNESOTA legislature had be comment. Country editors who did offer come nonpartisan without a single word of opinions seemed chieffy concerned with debate on the merits of the question. The the probability that the new law would proposal had been introduced without "hamstring" local party organization. The thought or intention that it ever would metropolitan dailies were not enthusiastic become law. Wet sponsorship of the bill about the change. The Minneapolis Journal had been entirely spontaneous and was gave the plan tentative approval, although based upon simple political expediency. its chief political observer was skeptical The wets hoped that nonpartisanship and never approved nonpartisanship. The would help break the strength of the Re St. Paul Pioneer Press opposed the change. publican caucus in the legislature and Preoccupied with the prohibition issue, disorganize the forces demanding county the Red Wing Daily Republican of April option. Subtly, the drys had been influ 26 merely noted casually that "a great enced to think that they, too, could gain change was brought about." On April 24 politically by supporting the bill. To add the Fergus Falls Daily Journal stated that to the confusion, the opposition consisted the "nonpartisan primary bill is a step far both of progressive and extremely con servative Republicans. The progressives ther than any other state has gone and felt that nonpartisanship on the local level much farther than any member dreamed was desirable, but deplored its extension of going when the session opened." to the legislature. Conservative Republi- The Willmar Tribune reported that county officials seemed pleased that hence '" Red Wing Daily Republican, March 31, 1913. forth they would be elected on a nonparti The enactment was a surprise not only to the state san ticket. The paper suggested that the at large, but to "most of the rtiembers responsible for its enactment into law," according to Robert E. new system would be worthwhile if onlv Cushman. See his "Non-partisan Nominations because it would save money by reducing and Elections," in the American Academy of Po the size of the ballot. After considering the litical and Social Science, Annals, 106:90 (March, 1923). change in the light of the 1912 election.

Winter 1952 161 ticket finds no favor with the Union," com mented the edffor. "It believes in party organizations, and particularly the old Re publican party. ... If a non-partisan ticket for county oflBcers does not work out any better than the non-partisan judiciary ticket did last election, it will prove a gi gantic failure." ^^ The St. Peter Free Press suggested that the new system "means a concentration of political power in a comparatively few THE Minnesota Senate chamber about 1913 people." Opinion was more favorable, how ever, in Fairmont. "Thank the Lord and the editor suggested that the nonpartisan the Legislature, hereafter a good and de feature might well be extended to the oflBce serving man will not have to wear the of governor. "Men are elected to office, not brand 'Republican' in order to get a county parties," read the editorial. "The oflBcial oflBce or be elected to the Legislature in state ballot should not recognize any party Minnesota," wrote the editor of the Senti- organization." ^'' neU^ The St. Cloud Daily Times of March 3, Of all newspapermen, the Minneapolis looking toward the passage of the bill, was Journal's veteran observer, Charles B. nostalgic concerning the party system. Cheney, proved the wisest. After the Sen "Truly the day of political parties is pass ate added the legislature to the primary ing away," it said. On March 7 the same election bill, he commented on March 1: newspaper reported that Steams County "Nonpartisan nominations in local govern officials generally favored the nonpartisan ment are sound in principle and work well bill on the local level, but felt that it might in practice. But the case is very different be detrimental in state and national poli with legislative nominations. The Minne tics. They proved poor prophets, however, sota plan throws the door open to nomina in predicting that the bfll would result in tions of the liquor and other interests. They shorter official lives, in increased competi find it easy to juggle the contests, once tion for oflBces, and in the total elimination these have degenerated into mere personal of party lines in offices elected without struggles." party designation. Others thought the plan On March 28 Cheney demonstrated that would work to the advantage of a can he had a more truthful crystal ball than didate active in a party, since he would get did the brewery lobbyists. The final result, the support not only of his party but of he said, "might properly fool the liquor independents as well. interests. The law would also wipe out the A hidden danger in the new plan was prohibition factor which has divided the suggested by the editor of the Caledonia temperance forces in many legislative dis Journal when he wrote: "The legislature tricts. With nothing but the temperance seems to be determined to so amend the issue involved and the temperance forces election laws that candidates for the legis lature must run on a non-partisan ticket. " Willmar Tribune, April 9, 23, 1913. It is a mistake. Extravagance is rampant ^'Caledonia Journal, quoted in the St. Paul now, and when we get a non-partisan Leg Pioneer Press, April 18, 1913; Anoka Union, quoted in the St. Cloud Dailu Times, February 6, islature it will be still worse. 'There will be 1913. no minority to watch over the extravagance '° Si. Peter Free Press, quoted in the St. Cloud of the majority." The Anoka Union also Daily Times, February 7, 1913; Fairmount Sen tinel, quoted in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, April expressed disapproval. "A non-partisan 24, 1913.

162 MINNESOTA History united, the demand for county option may be seriously doubted . . . whether would very likely be able to make gains in the nonpartisan movement is not over several districts." That is exactly what hap reaching itself when it invades the field pened in the election of 1914. of political oflBces as it does for the first A Journal editorial of March 29, how time in Minnesota."-" ever, expressed a different view. It con The lone enthusiastic comment seems to cluded that "the Legislature has dropped have come from the muckraking C. J. the party distinction" because through the Buell, an ardent prohibitionist, who wrote: adoption of the primary and "other "It is to be hoped, that the time is near changes," party lines had been all but when men will be chosen for public posi obliterated and there was no longer a re tions in state and city, village and county, sponsible party in the state. The writer upon their honesty and fitness instead of expected that there would be some self- how they line up on national issues that seekers, some one-idea men, a scramble have no necessary relation to state and for places, and an outcropping of personal local affairs."-^ platforms. He expressed the opinion that Less than a week after the bill passed, because of weakness in numbers, the Dem a group of prominent attorneys who were ocrats had tended to make secret bargains, active Republicans publicly announced "horse-trading" rather than serving as an that the bfll creating the nonpartisan legis alert opposition. This the Journal writer lature was, in their opinion, unconstitution thought unfortunate, concluding that "A al. They argued that the act violated nonpartisan legislature could hardly be Article IV, Section 27, of the Minnesota worse." Constitution, since it embraced more than The St. Paul Pioneer Press of April 15 one subject and that subject was not ex expressed orthodox political theory in an pressed in the title. The new law, in truth, editorial which asserted that "The Legis was a fairly extensive revision of the Pri lators would do well to consider carefully mary Elections Act of 1912, and it actually whether it is desirable to extend the non amended sections of the Revised Laws partisan feature to legislative and other other than those listed in its title. The at state officials. There is no doubt about torneys said that the act had not been getting rid of party politics in local affairs. adopted in a strictly constitutional fashion, . . . But there is grave doubt if such and urged someone to test it by filing for should be the case in state and national oflBce on a partisan basis. No one made affairs," it continued. "The best check such a move, however — probably because against authority is a vigorous and well both the wets and the drys expected to organized opposition. One party will keep gain from the law in the 1914 election. another up to its duty." Consequently the legality of the non A writer in the official journal of Ameri partisan legislature was never tested in the can political science took note of the courts. The state supreme court upheld the change in Minnesota politics as follows: "It nonpartisan ballot for judicial nominations and elections, but the court decided that "" Victor J. West, "Legislation of 1913 Affecting Nominations and Elections," in American Political the case did not apply to the part of the Science Review, 7:439 (August, 1914). law that concerned the legislature.^^ Al °' C. J. Buell, The Minnesota Legislature of though the origin of Minnesota's nonparti 1913, 13 (St, Paul, 1914), ^ State ex rel. Nordin v. Erickson, in 119 Min san legislature can be traced to an accident nesota Reports, 152 (St. Paul, 1913). resulting from a series of political maneu THE PHOTOGRAPH on page 158 is reproduced vers, at mid-century the state is still elect through the courtesy of Senator (later Judge) ing its lawmakers on a nonpartisan ticket Haycraft's daughter, Mrs. George C. Hellickson of Minneapolis, who owns the original. under the provisions of the act of 1913.

Winter 1952 163 Copyright of Minnesota History is the property of the Minnesota Historical Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles, however, for individual use.

To request permission for educational or commercial use, contact us.