Election 1944: Pre-convention news

[NormanStewart]

Bricker to carry fight to convention

Washington (UP) – (June 3)
Roy D. Moore, Ohio publisher who is managing Governor John W. Bricker’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, said tonight that “our man is still in the fight and will stay there until the GOP Convention acts.”

He said in an interview that the Bricker forces do not anticipate or concede possible first-ballot nomination of Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York. He also challenged accuracy of newspaper polls and surveys by private organizations indicating that Dewey has enough pledged and claimed delegates to win on the first ballot.

Moore said:

Governor Bricker would not have entered this contest unless he and his friends thought he could win. The fact that we are still in this fight should prove that we haven’t changed our minds.

Bricker’s aides, he asserted, have made no claim to delegates except those from Ohio.

[NormanStewart]

The Brooklyn Eagle (June 5, 1944)

New Mexico GOP voters to pick governor nominee

Albuquerque, New Mexico (UP) –
Only about 33,000 Democratic votes, less than half the 64,000 party votes recorded in the 1942 primary, will be cast in New Mexico’s primary election tomorrow, Ray Rodgers, State Democratic chairman, predicted today.

Major interest in the Republican ticket was centered in the race for the nomination for Governor between Gallup banker Glenn Emmons and Grants businessman Carroll Gunderson.

Seeking nomination for the state’s two seats in the House of Representatives in the Democratic contest, Reps. Clinton Anderson and Antonio Fernandez are running for reelection, opposed by Robert Valdez and Capt. Bob Wollard.

---

ALP names Dickstein as Congress candidate

Rep. Samuel Dickstein, a Manhattan Democrat, who has served in Congress 22 years, yesterday was named as the American Labor Party candidate from the new 19th Congressional district.

Tammany leaders are scheduled to select a candidate today, and there was some doubt as to whether Dickstein or Rep. Arthur Klein would get the Democratic nomination.

[NormanStewart]

Farley’s name may be offered to convention

New Deal foes would prevent unanimous choice of Roosevelt
By Lyle C. Wilson

Washington (UP) –
Submission of James A. Farley’s name to the Democratic National Convention for the presidential nomination in opposition to President Roosevelt’s fourth term candidacy was under consideration today by conservative Democrats.

Farley’s permission still has to be obtained. No one expects the proposed maneuver to prevent the President’s renomination, but it would prevent unanimous action. It is the only method by which anti-Roosevelt Democrats can show the voters the extent of fourth term opposition within the party – be it large or small.

Convention spectators will see real political drama if Farley is placed in nomination. Among some of the big and little convention delegates already selected, there is a scattering of anti-fourth term sentiment which will never have an opportunity to express itself unless there is at least one name put up against Mr. Roosevelt.

Could poll delegations

But with two men in the contest, a situation will be created in which all or any of the state delegations can be polled. The usual way of casting ballots is for the chairman of each delegation to announce the disposition of its voters as the state roll is called. Some of the big states and some of the little ones bind their delegations with the so-called unit rule.

In Florida, for instance, the unit rule has been followed. That state’s 18 delegates to the Democratic convention are divided 14 for Mr. Roosevelt and four for Senator Harry F. Byrd (D-VA). Under the unit rule, the chairman could and probably will announce that Florida casts 18 convention votes for Mr. Roosevelt’s renomination.

But with Farley or any opposition candidate in the race, there could be a request for a poll of the delegation.

Foresee split in 20 states

It is believed that in upwards of 20 states, Farley’s name would cause a minority of the various delegations to split away from the Roosevelt parade to cast what would be, at most, courtesy ballots for the former Postmaster General and protest ballots against the President.

Farley was placed in nomination four years ago in opposition to a third term.

The purpose of the anti-fourth term campaign is not to elect some alternative Democrat President of the United States. It is to defeat Mr. Roosevelt. He has taken party control away from men who feel that they are entitled to consideration in Democratic affairs and they are determined to come back to power.

[NormanStewart]

The New York Times (June 6, 1944)

Gillette takes lead in Iowa primary

Senator ahead; Blue names in GOP race for governor

Des Moines, Iowa (AP) – (June 5)
Senator Guy M. Gillette, a Democrat campaigning for reelection, took a long lead over his opponent, Ernest K. Seemann, in the Iowa primary today.

Returns from 748 of 2,463 precincts gave Gillette 12,093, Seemann 3,181.

Mr. Seemann, a Waterloo factory worker, was making his fifth bid for a place in the national political spotlight.

The winner in the Democratic primary is to meet Governor B. B. Hickenlooper in the general election. Mr. Hickenlooper was unopposed for the Republican nomination.

In the Republican governorship race, Henry W. Burma, Speaker of the House, conceded the nomination to Lieutenant Governor Robert D. Blue. They were trailed by Milton W. Strickler of Des Moines.

Returns from 757 precincts gave:

Blue	31,925
Burma	19,215
Strickler	3,548

Two of the eight Republican Congressmen seeking renomination were trailing opponents, Henry O. Talle in the 2nd district and Fred C. Gilchrist in the 6th.

[NormanStewart]

The Brooklyn Eagle (June 6, 1944)

Heffernan: Bricker or Dewey – which?

Governor John W. Bricker of Ohio concluded his address the Conference of Governors with these words:

The strength of America stems from the practice of representative government in the towns, the cities, the counties and the states of this nation. When state and local governments become paralyzed, the door is open to totalitarianism and every form of demagogy. When local responsibility is destroyed, citizenship atrophies and dies. But when state and local governments flourish, when men and women practice representative government and exercise home rule, the foundations of the Republic are secure. The more the history of the Republic is written at the crossroads and the less at the Capitol, the freer we shall be.

Mr. Bricker’s immediate predecessor on the platform was his rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Governor Dewey of New York. Mr. Dewey had also stressed the desirability of strong state and local governments.

As I read both these addresses, each delivered by a statesman in whose hands may soon rest the destiny of our nation, a memory came to me. Where had words of the same import and in some instances very similar form been uttered before and by whom? In the capital of this state, and by Franklin D. Roosevelt, then – as now is Mr. Dewey – Governor of New York. Then, as now is Mr. Dewey, an aspirant for the Presidency.

And it occurred to me that among men of high ambition the desire often existed to have the seat of power wherever they may be themselves located. It is perhaps natural. So with this in mind, as a seeker for my own candidate for the Presidency, I studied carefully the two addresses. For I wanted to find a man in whom this feeling would be fundamental, as it was, let us say, in Thomas Jefferson, and would govern his actions when he had ascended from the Chief Magistracy of a state to that of the Republic. Would Mr. Dewey, who ran for the District Attorneyship and used it as a stepping-stone and the echo of whose declaration that he was resolved to serve four years in the Governorship is still on the air, hold true to the views now expressed, if he succeeded Franklin Roosevelt?

Or would John Bricker, who after three splendid terms in the Governorship of Ohio voluntarily surrendered the certainty of another successive term in order to seek the Republican nomination for the Presidency, hold fast should his ambition be gratified?

I think Bricker rings true. And, as one of those Americans who found themselves four years ago without a candidate and are again threatened with a Hobson’s choice, I hope Mr. Bricker will be the nominee.

[NormanStewart]

The New York Times (June 7, 1944)

Dempsey leads in New Mexico

Albuquerque, New Mexico (AP) – (June 6)
Governor John J. Dempsey, seeking renomination on the Democratic ticket, had a lead tonight of 604 votes to 97 for Mrs. Edna Peterson of Albuquerque, on the basis of unofficial and incomplete returns from thirteen of New Mexico’s 900 voting points in the primary. In the contest for the Republican governorship nomination, unofficial, incomplete returns from 11 precincts gave Gallup banker Glenn L. Emmons 129 votes to 117 for former legislator Carroll G. Gunderson.

[NormanStewart]

House women aid poll

Named by Spangler to advise Republican campaign

Washington – (June 6)
The six Republican women members of Congress were named today by Harrison E. Spangler, chairman of the Republican National Committee, to a special women’s advisory committee for the 1944 campaign.

All except Rep. Winifred Stanley of New York, absent on a speaking engagement, attended a luncheon conference with Mr. Spangler at which he expressed great pride in “the largest contingent of women Representatives of any one party serving at one time” and said that it was “fitting they should be the original members of the Woman’s Advisory Committee.”

The others names were Reps. Edith Nourse Rogers of Massachusetts, Frances P. Bolton of Ohio, Jessie Sumner of Illinois, Margaret Chase Smith of Maine and Clare Boothe Luce of Connecticut.

[NormanStewart]

Certainty in five weeks

That is period fixed in capital and President is said to base plans on it
By Arthur Krock

Washington – (June 6)
Members of the government were advised this forenoon that the invasion to liberate Europe was keeping exact pace with Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s timetable. They were informed that, up to the moment of this report, men, ships, aircraft and supplies had reached the destinations planned for them to reach today and at the time appointed.

In the late afternoon, the relation of the invasion to the timetable was said to be unchanged.

But only a very few high officials were given, with any exactitude, an idea of how long the military and naval commanders believe will be required before the operation under Gen. Eisenhower can be set down as an unqualified success, a general success, a moderate success, a stalemate or a defeat. This period was placed at a maximum of five weeks from June 6, or about July 11. The President, it is understood, is basing his summer plans on this calculation. Where he will go and when, and in some degree what he will do (including possible conferences abroad), will be governed by the progress of the invasion in these five weeks and its final outcome.

Air battles are expected

A military authority explained today that the lapse of time was fixed conservatively and that unforeseen events may reduce. But probably will not extend, it. He said the period will probably include one or more great air battles in which the Luftwaffe will still be able to give an account of itself. If it is virtually destroyed in one battle, since replacement facilities are believed to be inadequate, that will shorten the time. If two battles are required, the decision will be retarded that much.

He said further that the Germans can be expected to put great weight behind delaying actions until they have had to assemble as much manpower and supply as they can from their eastern and southern fronts in preparation for the great infantry and artillery battle which most authorities think will have to be fought before the road to Berlin is opened. During that time, the problem of the Allies will be to maintain and increase strength and broaden their lines of supply which, being by water, are subject to more obstacles from nature than the Germans will encounter over land.

Too early to celebrate

For these reasons and others, five weeks has been set as the period that must be passed before definite conclusions can be reached. High government officials, to whom with the President this calculation has been imparted, trust that the public will not be led by hope or native optimism to expect quick and crushing victory and the same low percentage of losses the Allies had on the first day. One of these said today that it is not yet the time to celebrate the toss harts in the air. This, he remarked, is not Armistice Day, though some people are behaving as if it was.

In the proving period of five weeks, the Republican National Convention will have met and adjourned, but there will still be nine days before the opening of the Democratic Party gathering. Thus, if the final decision does not come much more quickly, its outcome will be in doubt while the Republicans deliberate and after they have nominated their candidates for President and Vice President and adopted a platform. But the Democrats and all involved in their convention will be able to reach their conclusions (as to candidacy and otherwise) after the event.

[jacktyunmen]

boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Get out of here with that nonsense!

[NormanStewart]

I’ll give it a chance.

[jacktyunmen]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Get out of here you fucking john bircher!

[jacktyunmen]

I would rather peel my skin off than listen to what the fucking Westbrook Pegler has to say about anything.

[NormanStewart]

Wait till the end of this month or July. You’ll hear more from him.

[NormanStewart]

Invasion may dull Mississippi issue

Democratic convention today may show political effect of news amid rebellion
By Turner Catledge

Jackson, Mississippi – (June 6)
The domestic political reaction to the long-awaited invasion of Europe may have its first practical demonstration tomorrow at the Mississippi State Democratic convention which, until tonight, had been all set to “read the riot act” to President Roosevelt and the New Deal wing of the party regarding white supremacy, states’ rights, the poll tax and Vice President Henry A. Wallace.

The dominant anti-New Deal leadership of the Mississippi Democratic organization declared that they still had the strength to put through a series of resolutions demanding that the party nationally take no stand prejudicial to the South on the above-named issues. They were able, too, they said, to send an uninstructed delegation to Chicago and to nominate an uninstructed delegation to Chicago and to nominate an uninstructed set of presidential electors to vote for “any other Democrats” except those named at Chicago if the demands were ignored.

“These things we can do, invasion or no invasion,” one of the original planners of this strategy said tonight.

But news tones down issue

Regardless of this contention, there was evident among these leaders, and some of their followers, a disposition to crowd in behind the banner of the President’s war leadership as news of the invasion continued to flow through the newspapers and over the radio.

Leaders of the “revolt” wanted it distinctly understood that whatever was done here at their behest tomorrow, it must not be construed as aimed at Mr. Roosevelt’s war commandership but at the “anti-Southerners” with whim they maintain he has surrounded himself in management of domestic affairs.

The anti-New Dealers came here with a set of resolutions already virtually drawn. These resolutions called first for rejection of Mr. Wallace as the party’s vice-presidential candidate. They demanded that the party at the Chicago convention restore the rule requiring a two-thirds’ majority to nominate candidates for President and Vice President; that it reject any proposals for equality between the white and Negro races; that it turn down any platform plank proposing federal action against the poll tax, or limiting in any other manner the rights of the state to conduct its own affairs.

One of the first tangible reactions to the invasion news was a revival of the pro-Roosevelt forces among the Democratic ranks. Until today, these forces had remained quiet, seemingly content to let the anti-New Dealers go through with the program.

Agree on race question

They feared local repercussions over the race issue if they tried to stop it, and on that issue, there is no division among Mississippi Democrats.

But with the opening of the invasion, the pro-New Dealers saw a rare opportunity to raise the slogan of “stand by the Commander-in-Chief.” They were joined quickly by some of the forces of Senator Theodore G. Bilbo, who was not present for the convention in person. The Bilboites appeared not so much impressed by the virtues of the New Deal and the President as by the possibility of slapping down the prosperous business, professional, planter elements leading the other side.

Regardless of the new life of the pro-Roosevelt forces, most observers agreed tonight that the antis were in the saddle and whatever comes out of the meeting tomorrow will be their brew.

Moreover, it was evident on every hand here that Mississippi Democrats of virtually every strip are smarting irritably under what they regard as the efforts of the Northern wing of the party “to tell us how to run our business,” especially in dealing with the Nego problem. It seems an inevitable reaction to the pressures outside the South for the fuller emancipation of the Negroes, and particularly to the consciousness that those pressures are growing strong within the very party through which they have maintained white supremacy since Reconstruction. The invasion may have modified the immediate emphasis, but it has not changed the fundamental differences, nor can it.

[NormanStewart]

The Brooklyn Eagle (June 9, 1944)

Battle lines form as GOP meets to name candidates

Battle lines for the Kings County political campaign were being drawn this afternoon as Republican leaders went into session to name the first of their candidates for the 1944 elections.

Leaders of 24 Assembly districts, headed by County Chairman John R. Crews, assembled at GOP headquarters, 32 Court Street, to begin shaping their ticket.

Their first move was slated to be the designation of Judge Nicholas Howard Pinto, now serving as Governor Dewey’s temporary appointee on the County Court bench, as the GOP candidate for election the full 14-year term in November.

The Democrats, out to recapture the judgeship which their party lost when Dewey chose Judge Pinto to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Democratic Judge Peter J. Brancato, named Senator Carmine J. Marasco as their designee yesterday.

Meanwhile, as the vanguard of the leaders trooped into the GOP headquarters strong suggestions began emanating from usually well-informed quarters that a political surprise would be sprung at the leaders’ session. None of the leaders would comment.

Like the Democratic organization, the Republicans will name nine candidates for Congress, nine for the State Senate and 24 for the Assembly at Albany. It was indicated that the complete slate would not be filled immediately, but that further time would be allowed for the consideration of designees before primary petitions are filed June 27.

[NormanStewart]

Farley resignation seen as prelude to 4th term fight

May enter race for nomination

Democratic and Republican leaders today agreed in interpreting the surprise resignation of James A. Farley as State Democratic chairman to mean that he intends to take an active part in attempting to prevent a fourth-term nomination for President Roosevelt, even if his own name has to be entered as a contender for the nomination.

Farley’s announcement, based on his claim that “business duties and obligations” would prohibit him from giving to the campaign the time he felt would be necessary to its success, had a hollow ring to most political experts, who said they saw in the explanation a literal warning to the President that his former staunch ally was preparing to fight a fourth-term nomination more vigorously than he opposed a third term for Franklin Roosevelt.

After the former Postmaster General released his prepared statement announcing the resignation in his Hotel Biltmore office yesterday, newsmen piled him with questions, but he refused to be pinned down. The only query he answered for the record concerned his future interest in politics.

“It is only natural for a fellow who has always been a Democrat to be interested in the success of the Democratic Party,” he said. Beyond that, he would not go.

Farley said he will attend the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, July 19, as a delegate. But he flatly refused to say if he would be a candidate for the presidential nomination.

It was reported that President Roosevelt knew in advance of the resignation, but that the information did not come from Farley himself.

Farley called a meeting of the state committee for July 11, just a week before the national conventions opens, at which his successor will be chosen, but he made it clear he had made no recommendations to the committee or any of its members.

Kelly’s name mentioned

Although Frank V. Kelly, Kings County Democratic leader, announced that he is not a candidate to succeed Farley as chairman of the New York State Democratic Committee, Rudolph Reimer, former Commissioner of Immigration, said today he believes the committeemen should urge the election of Mr. Kelly to that post.

Farley’s political career began when he was elected town clerk of Stony Point when he was only 22. He rose through a succession of posts, including assemblyman, member of the State Athletic Commission, Postmaster General and chairman of the Democratic National Committee. His success in the party’s top position led Franklin Roosevelt to choose him to run his campaign for nomination in 1932. It was during the President’s second term that the rift between them began to make itself noticeable. Farley had never been a full New Dealer. He opposed the President’s Supreme Court “packing,” the purge of anti-New Dealers and the third term.

[NormanStewart]

The Brooklyn Eagle (June 10, 1944)

Bricker assails New Deal ‘policy of regimentation’

Governor John W. Bricker of Ohio, candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, last night assailed the “New Deal philosophy of individual regimentation and centralization of power” and said that in contrast the Republican Party proposed “an atmosphere of opportunity and real incentive to achievement.”

Bricker charged on a broadcast over NBC:

For 11 years our national leaders have tried to change our system of free enterprise and representative government. They argued now that our nation had reached maturity. The President himself said: “Our task now… is the soberer, less dramatic business of administering resources and plants already in hand.”

Upon that defeatist premise, the New Deal launched its program of administrative management and regimentation.

The New Deal degenerated into arbitrary and capricious management, Bricker charged, with governmental planners hostile to new business enterprises, strangling small business, devising tax legislation for the purpose of effecting social changes and launching upon a program of unlimited spending.

He attacked the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week holding that insurance was subject to federal antitrust statutes and said that the Democratic platform upon which the present administration was elected contained a plank “in unequivocal language favoring the continuance of state supervision” over insurance.

[NormanStewart]

The Brooklyn Eagle (June 11, 1944)

North Carolina Governor decries revolt in South

Governor J. Melville Broughton of North Carolina, whose delegation to the Democratic National Convention is instructed to vote for his nomination for Vice President, told a press conference yesterday that, regardless of “upsurges” occurring in the Southern states, the solid South would stand behind the President for a fourth term and that he would be reelected on the war and peace issue.

He also voiced the judgment that issues which have arisen would be “reconciled” at the national convention without being permitted to reach a point where a split might ensue.

Answering a question whether he believed President Roosevelt would run, he said:

I believe that he will be a candidate and will be reelected, notwithstanding various upsurges and the feeling of resentment which is directed against encroachment upon matters which the South feels should be treated purely at the state level.

I think the decisive issue to be the conduct of the war and the conduct of the peace after the war and that all other issues will be obscured in the minds of the people. I say this although I have heard some people say this with a great deal of reluctance and purely as a realistic appraisal.

Governor Broughton held a press conference at the Hotel Pennsylvania before meeting Governor John W. Bicker of Ohio, an active candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, in a radio discussion of national issues last night.

Asked about the so-called political “revolt” in some of the Southern states, Governor Broughton said he was “not competent to comment on what’s behind it.” He said that from information reaching him it had originated from resentment toward what was considered “interference with state prerogatives.”

“They don’t charge it to the President, but to some parts of the administration’s program,” he said.

His state has no poll tax

His own state has not had a poll tax for many years, but, at the same time, would not, the Governor said, attempt to tell another what stand it should take on the question. He said he did not consider the poll tax issue as one to be handled in the party’s platform. Later, he said, in answering questions, he did not believe the CIO Political Action Committee would insist upon an anti-poll tax plank in the Democratic platform to the point where a clash over the issue might jeopardize the President’s chances of reelection. He admitted the South’s fight for restoration of the two-thirds rule at the convention was “a right strong movement.”

He said:

I don’t know how far it will get, although I doubt this question alone would be sufficient to cause a split.

The Governor said in his judgment the border states of Kentucky, West Virginia and Oklahoma will go Democratic and he also suggested Ohio was more likely to be carried by President Roosevelt than for Kentucky to go Republican.

Governor Broughton, declaring North Carolina has enjoyed a huge industrial boom, said that, in his opinion, all the states were in an excellent financial condition to meet post-war problems “without looking to the federal government.”

[NormanStewart]

Lindley: Campaign in France scanned for effect on home politics

By Ernest Lindley

The Republicans have been relieved of one worry which had begun to plague at least a few of them: that the invasion had been timed to coincide with their national convention. The suggestion that this might occur originated some time ago, probably with a joking newspaper correspondent. But as time passed, and the invasion did not begin, some of the politicians began to take it seriously – even to the point of discussing what to do in such a predicament.

Now an effort is being made to read political significance into the fact that it may be six weeks before the success of the battle now begun can be accurately appraised. This would be just before the Democratic National Convention, whereas when the Republicans meet the issue between the Allied armies and the German forces in France probably will not have been decided.

That forecast may be correct, on both counts, although, since the enemy has something to say about the matter, the best-informed and most expert “insiders” can do no more than conjecture as to whether the main crisis will come in four weeks or 60 days or later. The inference is being drawn, however, that Mr. Roosevelt contrived the timing of the invasion so that the Republicans would have to meet amid uncertainty while he could have the advantage oi knowing whether the invasion was an assured success before deciding on his own course.

Some of this talk may be inspired by the hope that if all has gone well on the Western Front by mid-July, and the defeat of Germany seems likely to come before election, Mr. Roosevelt will decline renomination. In the opinion of many political observers, the surrender of Germany before Election Day would diminish Mr. Roosevelt’s chances of reelection. If that were so, and if Mr. Roosevelt were really eager for another term, and if he were that kind of man, one would assume that he would have seen that the invasion was delayed until there would be no opportunity of compelling the surrender of Germany before mid-November.

It may seem incredible that any sane person could think that the President would juggle war plans to suit partisan or personal political purposes. But it was charged in 1940 that he was overemphasizing the danger to this country in order to get himself reelected. It was charged then and since that he was contriving to get us into the war in order to fasten a permanent “dictatorship” on the country. And it is quite clearly the intention of certain elements in the extreme opposition to resume this line of attack during the campaign of 1944. Indeed, they have already done so. Compared to these charges, the adjustment of an invasion date would be only a misdemeanor.

Some who make these charges and insinuations do not believe them themselves. They simply regard some of their constituents as gullible. Others simply are gauging the President by their own political standards – although some of them, if they had the responsibility, might make these weighty decisions quite as conscientiously as he does. Their affliction may be that the only responsibility they feel, the only task to which they have been rededicated by the great campaign of liberation, is the winning of the 1944 election, no matter by what means.

Mr. Roosevelt would have preferred, I think, that the national nominating conventions be deferred until September. But the Republicans insisted on having theirs at the usual time, and the Democrats decided not to delay beyond July. Obviously, all of these months right up to the election, and probably for some time thereafter, will be months crowded with momentous events. Mr. Roosevelt has a great role to play in these. These events, and his role in them as the responsible head of the nation, will be the principal part of his campaign, assuming that he accepts renomination.

It would be surprising if certain spectacular occurrences did not coincide with political rallies, speeches, or tours, planned by the Republicans or, for that matter, by sundry Democratic candidates, including Mr. Roosevelt. All campaigns are fought at many levels, ranging from the noblest words of the leading candidates to the skullduggery of ward-heelers. In this, the various levels are likely to be especially noticeable. And the outcome may depend on whether the voters are taking their politics as usual or whether the greatest enterprise of our time – winning the war and organizing the peace – does make a difference.

[NormanStewart]

The Free Lance-Star (June 12, 1944)

Texas Democrats refuse to change

Dallas, Texas (AP) –
The Texas State Democratic executive committee by a vote of 37–6 today refused to certify the name of Texas Democratic presidential electors named at a pro-Roosevelt convention for printing on the July primary ballot.

The committee turned down a request by pro-Roosevelt Democrats to submit at the Party primary a question for binding presidential electors to vote for the party’s candidate for President.

Merritt Gibson, chairman of the Resolutions Committee, said that the question has been decided at the state convention, out of which the Roosevelt backers walked after losing two test votes.