Coon v. Hay: When a Newspaper Ad Became an Election Law Fight
Former Lt. Gov. Charles E. Coon asked the state Supreme Court to rehear his suit against M. E. Hay, hoping to settle whether candidates who buy newspaper ads are barred from office.
Declaring that the supreme court has failed to make definite whether or not the direct primary law disqualifies candidates for office who advertise in newspapers, the attorneys for former Lieut.-Gov. Charles E. Coon have asked for a rehearing of his suit to oust M. E. Hay from office. The petition sets forth that the question of who is rightly lieutenant-governor is of minor importance, but that a final determination of the primary law is absolutely necessary to guide future candidates. While the supreme court in its first decision found in favor of Mr. Hay, the judges rendered various dissenting opinions on the clause in the primary law which disqualifies a candidate who advertises in the press, and some of the judges declined to pass on it at all. Mr. Coon's attorneys ask a rehearing in order that future candidates may know where they stand on the question of advertising.
“The petition sets forth that the question of who is rightly lieutenant-governor is of minor importance, but that a final determination of the primary law is absolutely necessary to guide future candidates.”
The fight over whether a newspaper advertisement could disqualify a candidate feels unexpectedly current: campaign finance, paid political speech, and the rules of who may run for office remain live issues. In 1909, Washington's direct primary law was new and its edges were being tested in court. The case shows that even procedural election rules can decide who holds power.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.