10 It appears also from the evidence that twenty-five independent candidates for representative in Congress filed with the Secretary of State petitions within the time set by the statutes as amended and that five independent candidates for United States senator also filed by the prescribed time. It should be pointed out that one of the independent candidates for representative in Congress resides in the plaintiff's home district; viz, the Ninth. It further appears that only one petition other than that of the plaintiff, was attempted to be filed after March 11, 1948
Under the law of New Jersey the Secretary of State is not required to certify the candidates to the respective election districts or counties until fifty-one days prior to the general election, to be held this year on November 2, 1948; in other words, the Secretary of State is not required to perform any official function respecting the certifying of names of candidates until September 13, 1948.
See R.S. Sec. 19:13-22, as amended, N.J.S.A. It appears also that since 1930 until the enactment of the 1948 amendments it had been the law of New Jersey that petitions for independent candidates who desire to have their names voted on at a general election must be filed ' * * * at least five days previous to the day of the holding of the primary election for the general election.' See P.L. 1930, Ch. 187, Par. 118, p. 723, as amended by P.L. 1935, Ch. 253, Sec. 1, p. 777
To sum up the pertinent facts set out in the preceding paragraphs of this opinion and on which the plaintiff in fact must rely, we state that following the 1948 amendments to the election law the plaintiff had only twenty-two days in which to file his petition with the Secretary of State, whereas if the law had remained unchanged and Ring had made up his mind to run for Congress on February 18 instead of April 18 or 19 (as he actually did) he would have had a total period of three months and eight days in which to file it. The time for filing under the law as it existed prior to the amendments would have expired on May 26, 1948 instead of on March 11, 1948.
The question which we must resolve is whether Ring was denied any right guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the United States by the amendment which we have referred to in this opinion. We think that the answer must be in the negative. It is well established that ' * * * the times * * * the manner of holding elections for Federal senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each State by its legislature, * * * .' See Blackman v. Stone, 7 Cir., 101 F.2d 500, 503. Cf. Winston v. Moore, 244 Pa. 447, 91 A. 520, L.R.A. 1915A, 1190, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 498. The right of the State of New Jersey to fix the time and the manner for holding elections for representatives in Congress has not been altered or limited in any respect here pertinent by Congress. This does not mean that the legislature of New Jersey or of any State may act arbitrarily, unreasonably or capriciously in respect to such matters.
We cannot say that the changes effected in the election laws by the New Jersey Legislature in 1948 are unreasonable, capricious or arbitrary insofar as they are applicable to or affect the plaintiff or any other candidate for public office. That the amended provisions are not unreasonable in their application to the plaintiff is demonstrated by the fact that within one week he secured the necessary signatures on his nominating petition and that thirty other candidates for offices in Congress filed their direct nominating petitions with the Secretary of State of New Jersey within the time prescribed by the amended law. It was reasonable, despite the plaintiff's contentions to the contrary, for the Legislature to allow the Secretary of State of New Jersey until September 13 to certify the names of candidates. The Secretary actually may not require such an extended period of time, from March 11 to September 13 or about six months, to prepare and make the certifications but we may not say that the allowance of the stated period to this official to perform complicated administrative functions is either arbitrary or capricious or is not within the discretion of the Legislature. Moreover, the date for filing independent nominating petitions had been geared to the primary election date for about eighteen years and has remained so geared under the 1948 amendments. The substantial reason for changing the date for filing independent nominating petitions, effected by the 1948 amendments, was, as was stated by the Chief Clerk to the Secretary of State, so that independent candidates should have the same filing date as party candidates. This was a reasonable purpose and end.
The plaintiff was well aware of the date of the primary election for, as we have said, he participated in its as a voter. The plaintiff is an intelligent man, a member of the bar of New York, who for some years was a practicing attorney. He knew, or at least he should have known, that the system provided by the law of New Jersey for direct nominating petitions for years, as has been stated, had been geared to the primary election date. He was also chargeable with knowledge of the 1948 amendments enacted by the Legislature of New Jersey and the effective date thereof. The statutes which he has attacked are constitutional and their application is reasonable and puts upon the plaintiff no greater burden than that put upon any other candidate for office.
The other points raised by the parties do not require discussion.
The complaint will be dismissed for want of equity. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are filed with this opinion in accordance with the provision of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A.following section 723c.
A decree may be submitted.