permitting both the National Democratic Party and the Democratic Party to be on the ballotSummary of this case from Indep. Party v. Padilla
Petition in the Supreme Court for a writ of mandate to the Secretary of State.
W. W. Foote, Patrick Reddy, Garret W. McEnerney, E. R. Taylor, William Thomas, and R. Y. Hayne, for Petitioners.
W. F. Fitzgerald, Attorney General, for Respondent.
JUDGES: In Bank. Henshaw, J., Van Fleet, J., Harrison, J., Temple, J. McFarland, J., concurring. Garoutte, J., dissented. Beatty, C. J., dissenting.
THE COURT We are of opinion that the application for a writ of mandate should be denied, holding that the designation "National Democratic" is not calculated to deceive.
McFarland, J., concurring. I concur in the judgment; but I also think that the question -- under the peculiar form which this petition for a writ takes -- was determined by the secretary of state when he accepted and filed the certificate, and that his action cannot be reviewed on this proceeding.
Beatty, C. J., dissenting. I dissent.
I cannot distinguish this case from the Dolan and Ewing cases, in which we held that candidates nominated by petition are not entitled to a party designation which might mislead voters.