OCR Text |
Show ENTERPRISE .0 pragmatic dogmatics Off There has been, of late, federal infringe- ment upon the once comprehensive right of states to conduct their own elections as they pleased. One man, one vote has been imposed in both congressional redistricting and legislative reapportionment. Electoral elimination of illiterates can no longer be practiced. Racial restrictions will not be tolerated. Yet, important residual prerogatives remain with the states. At their option, they set dates and draw rules for primary and general as the United States Suelections. And they retain preme Court reiterated last week form and content of the power to specify the ballots. Utah has particular laws relative to that form and content. Especially in lesser races, It is they may determine outcomes. appropriate, therefore, to examine some of the provisions in this election year. .Arfangement ofNames. For the primary, contestants are listed alphabetically. Other 1 t C&tfflfl me MWlffb by Kent Shearer factors being equal, it is widely held to be advantageous to have one's name enumerated first. There is some pragmatic evidence, that, indeed, the foremost placment is of benefit. A majority (15) of our State Senators have family a names that commence from B to majority (38) of State Representatives are from H; A J. to Many of our sister states require name rotation so that a candidate will appear initially on no more ballots than does his competitor. As an "S, I have a selfish preference for the latter system. 2. Arrangement ofParties. For the general, partisan slates show from left to right on the ballot. In that we read in that direction unlike the Chinese who wrork right to left this is thought to afford an edge to the party on the typographical (not ideological) left. Here in Zion, the respective County Clerks ballots and names determine the party to receive the favored left. In that the 18 Republican Clerks now preside over almost 80 percent of the populace, the local GOP receives a most generous slice of whatever advantage partisan placement affords. Many other states rotate here also. In this case unselfish, I favor the latter system. 3. Names themselves. Utah candidates are entitled to electoral use of their appellations as chosen by them, not as imposed by their parents. Increasingly, this means that they will appear on the ballot as known informally, not as baptized. Thus, Utahs 1974 Senate race was between Jake (rather than E.J.) Gam and Wayne (rather than Douglas W.) Owens. Once more selfish, I want enforced formality. Were I to run as Alan K. (not Kent) Shearer, fewer people would know me. No doubt I then would fare better. ' In 1808, when Utah was yet a wilderness largely untracked in the by the white man, one Buchanan spught to recover 2000 courts at Guildhall, England. Buchanan had a judgment against a London merchant named Rucker, issued by the courts of the Island of Tobago and obtained after a summons had been nailed to the courthouse door at Scarborough in the far off West Indies. Lord Ellenborough of the Court of King's Bench balked at such arbitrary proceedings and said that Tobagos laws "can never be applied to a person who for aught appears never was present within or subject to the jurisdiction. He then pronounced the query, familiar to students of the law: "Can the island of Tobago pass a law to bind the rights of the whole world? Nothing very new or original ever seems to happen in the law, as is evident in the fact that this drama is now being reenacted in the courts of the State of Utah with reference to the Curtiss-Wrigpurchase of some nine percent of the stock in Kennecott Copper Corporation. The script reads the same: only the stage and the actors have changed. ht a Deleware corporation based at Wood-RidgNew Jersey, purchased the stock of Kennecott, a New York corporation, also based in New York but having offices and large scale operations in Utah. The purchases were on the New York Stock Exchange. Utah has no contacts with the transactions at all, but says that its Securities Commission must be given advance notice of purchases of more than five percent of any corporation which is important to the economy and welfare of the people of Utah. Curtiss-Wrigh- May the State off Utah rule the world? t, e, Lord Ellcnborough's dilemma was how Tobago could obtain power over one who "for aught appears was never within its jurisdiction. Judge David K. Winder has a similiar problem is not present in because, for aught appears Curtiss-WrigUtah and transacts no business here. Winder, like Lord ht Ellenborough, must address the problem of whether Utah can control transactions of a foreign corporation which were conducted in New York, or whether that is an unreasonable attempt by Utah to "pass a law to bind the rights of the whole world. When confronted with a similiar problem New Yorks famed Justice Cardozo said that "as long as a foreign corporation keeps away from this state, it is not for us to say what it may or may not do. Winder may be compelled to the same conclusion. In the end, though, Lord Ellenboroughs famous dictum may be as significant for that which was implicit as for what it made explicit. Had Rucker been present at Scarborough or otherwise subject to Tobago's jurisdiction when the summons was nailed to the courthouse door, however heavy handed that procedure might seem, Tobago might have, indeed, bound the has sufficient conwhole world. Similarly, if Curtiss-Wrigtacts with Utah, or if Kennecotts presence here satisfies that requirement, Utahs legislature might end up ruling the whole world, as curious as that might seem. At least that may prove to be so with respect to these disputed transactions. Who shall rule in cases such as this, as between Utah and New York, may be answered by whose courts get the first jump. ht |