State ex rel. Eaton v. Schmahl

167 N.W. 481, 140 Minn. 219, 1918 Minn. LEXIS 587
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedMay 17, 1918
DocketNo. 20,999
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 167 N.W. 481 (State ex rel. Eaton v. Schmahl) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Eaton v. Schmahl, 167 N.W. 481, 140 Minn. 219, 1918 Minn. LEXIS 587 (Mich. 1918).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Proceedings to restrain the secretary of state from placing upon the nominating election ballot for the June, 1918, primary election the name of James A. Peterson as a candidate for United States senator, on the ground that since the filing of his affidavit as such candidate he was convicted of a felony in the Federal court, sitting in this state, and is now under sentence by the judgment of that court to imprison-[220]*220meat for a term of years, and is therefore ineligible to tbe office:

The proceedings must be dismissed. The office of United States senator is a Federal office created by the Federal Constitntion. The qualifications of those aspiring to or holding the position are also prescribed by the Federal Constitution, which the state is without authority to modify or enlarge in any way; and the provisions of the state Constitution imposing restrictions upon the right of suffrage, and upon the right to hold public office, can have no application to the office of United States senator. The method of election to such office is also prescribed by Federal law, and- the mere fact that the state election machinery is adopted for that purpose, does not render applicable to a particular candidate the general disqualifications for public office found in the state Constitution. Peterson is not disqualified under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.

Proceedings dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Donald James Gralike v. Rebecca M. Cook
191 F.3d 911 (Eighth Circuit, 1999)
U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton
514 U.S. 779 (Supreme Court, 1995)
Holley v. Adams
238 So. 2d 401 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1970)
State Ex Rel. Chavez v. Evans
446 P.2d 445 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1968)
State Ex Rel. Handley v. SUP. CT. OF MAR. CO., ETC.
151 N.E.2d 508 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1958)
Danielson v. Fitzsimmons
44 N.W.2d 484 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1950)
Shub v. Simpson
76 A.2d 332 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1950)
State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Crane
197 P.2d 864 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1948)
State Ex Rel. Sundfor v. Thorson
6 N.W.2d 89 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1942)
Stockton v. McFarland
106 P.2d 328 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
167 N.W. 481, 140 Minn. 219, 1918 Minn. LEXIS 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-eaton-v-schmahl-minn-1918.