primary election

an election, including a runoff election or a nominating convention or caucus held by a political party, for the selection of delegates to a national nominating convention of a political party, or for the expression of a preference for the nomination of persons for election to the office of President of the United States.

A popular election held by members of a particular political party, for the purpose of choosing delegates to a convention empowered to nominate candidates for that party to be voted for at an approaching election. State v. Iiirsch, 125 Ind. 210, 24 N. E. 1062, 9 L. R. A. 170. Laws regulating primary elections are constitutional; In re County Treasurers, 9 Colo. 631, 21 Pac. 474; if there is nothing in the constitution forbidding such laws; State v. Miles, 210 Mo. 127, 109 S. W. 595; Kenncweg v. Co. Com’rs, 102 Md. 119, 62 Atl. 249. See a note in 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 465. They have been upheld as a valid exercise of the police power; Hopper v. Stack, G9 N. J. L. 569, 56 Atl. 1; State v. Felton, 77 Ohio St. 554, 84 N. E. 85, 12 Ann. Cas. 65. Such laws do not violate the constitutional provision which forbids the restraining of any of the inhabitants from assembling in a peaceable manner to consult for their common good; the act is considered as merely providing for reasonable regulation; Ladd v. Holmes, 40 Or. 167, 60 Pac. 714, 91 Am. St. Itep. 457. The following provisions in primary election laws have been held not to render an act invalid: Requiring the voter to declare his membership in the party holding the election and to agree in advance to support the nominee; State v. Michel, 121 La. 374, 46 South. 4,30; State v. Drexel, 74 Neb. 776, 105 N. W. 174; that when he has voted at a primary election he shall not sign a petition for another candidate; Kate v. Fitzgerald, 152 Cal. 433, 93 Pac. 112; that no person shall vote at a primary election who has signed a petition for a candidate of a party to which he does not belong, or has voted at a primary election of another party within one year, or refuses to state his name, residence, and party affiliations; Rouse v. Thompson, 228 111. 522, 81 N. E. 1109; precluding voters at a primary election from taking part in other nominations for the same office; State v. Michel, 121 La. 374, 46 South. 430; that no person shall vote at a primary election unless he be a resident of the voting district in which he desires to vote, atid unless he voted with a particular political party at the last general election; State v. Felton, 77 Ohio St 554, 84 N. E. 85, 12 Ann. Cas. 65; Ladd v. Holmes, 40 Or. 167, 66 Pac. 714, 91 Am. St. Rep. 457; Morrow v. Wipf, 22 S. D. 146, 115 N. W. 1121. register, etc., used at the last general election, or upon its supplement, is unconstitutional because it debars native-born citizens who since the last election have attained the right to vote, and persons naturalized since the last election, etc., and voters who have changed their residences; Spier v. Baker, 120 Cal. 370, 52 Pac. 659, 41 L. R. A. 196; and so is a provision as to native-born citizens w r hich is an enlargement of the constitutional right of suffrage; id.; also a provision that in case of a special election to fill a vacancy, the various political parties shall nominate candidates; id. It has been held that a provision that candidates must first pay a polling fee of from $10 to $50 is valid; Socialist Party v. Uhl, 155 Cal. 776, 103 Pac. 181; especially if it was to be used to pay the expenses of the election; Kenneweg v. County Com’rs, 102 Md. 119, 62 Atl. 249; so of a requirement of the payment of filing fees aggregating $30; State v. Scott, 99 Minn. 145, 108 N. W. 828; other cases have held such requirements invalid where the fees were to go to the state treasury; People v. Board, 221 111. 9, 77 N. E. 321, 5 Ann. Cas. 562; Ballinger v. Mc- Laughlin, 22 S. D. 206, 116 N. W. 70; so of a requirement that every candidate should pay a filing fee of two per cent, of the salary of the office; Johnson v. Grand Forks County, 16 N. D. 363, 113 N. W. 1071, 125 Am. St. Rep. 662; so of a one per cent, filing fee; State v. Drexel, 74 Neb. 776, 105 N. W. 174. A provision is valid that a candidate defeated at a primary election shall not run on an independent ticket; State v. Moore, 87 Minn. 308, 92 N. W. 4, 59 L. R. A. 447, 94 Am. St. Rep. 702; otherwise of a provision which requires a candidate to declare under oath his purpose to become a candidate; Dapper v. Smith, 138 Mich. 104, 101 N. W. 60; and one which requires candidates ifor the legislature to pledge themselves to support the candidate for United States senator who shall receive the majority vote of that party at such primary; State v. Blaisdell, 18 N. D. 55, 118 N. W. 141, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 465, 138 Am. St. Rep. 741; State v. Berry, 18 N. D. 75, 118 N. W. 150. Provisions are valid which limit the primaries to parties w r hich polled three per cent, of the total vote at the last preceding election; Katz v. Fitzgerald, 152 Cal. 433, 93 Pac. 112; Ladd v. Holmes, 40 Or. 167, 66 Pac. 714, 91 Am. St. Rep. 457; so if the limit be one per cent.; State v. Drexel, 74 Neb. 776, 105 N. W. 174; or ten per cent.; State v. Felton, 77 Ohio St 554, 84 N. E. 85, 12 Ann. Cas. 65; State v. Jensen, 8G Minn. 19, 89 N. W. 1126; State v. Michel, 121 La. 374, 46 South. 430; or even if the primaries be restricted to the two parties which had polled the largest vote, the. primary of the A voter at a primary election cannot be required to declare his Intention to support the nominee; Spier v. Baker, 120 Cal. 370, 52 Pac. 659, 41 L. R. A. 196. A provision that in a senatorial district, consisting of two counties, not more than two persons of the same political party, that is, one candidate for senator and one for representative, shall be nominated from any one county, is held in conflict with the constitutional provision merely requiring that senators and representatives shall be residents of the district. Provisions to the effect that in Cook county no party may hold a primary election unless it cast twenty per cent, of the vote at the last election for president, while outside that county a party which cast ten per cent, may hold a primary election, and that outside of Cook county a person may vote at the primaries upon stating his present party affiliations, while in Cook county he cannot so vote if he has voted at the primary election of another party within two years, are declared to be void because special legislation and interfering with the freedom of voters; People v. Board of Election, 221 111. 9, 77 N. E. 321, 5 Ann. Cas. 562. Provisions in primary election laws which fail to preserve the secrecy of the ballot do not render such acts unconstitutional; State v. Felton, 77 Ohio St. 554, 84 N. E. 85, 12 Ann. Cas. 65; State v. Michel, 121 La. 374, 46 South. 430; Hopper v. Stack, 69 N. J. L. 569, 56 Atl. 1; Line v. Board of Canvassers, 154 Mich. 329, 117 N. W. 730, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 412, with note, 16 Ann. Cas. 248. The legislature may provide that a party committee may establish qualifications for voters at primary elections in addition to those provided by the general election laws; State v. Mechel, 121 La. 374, 40 South. 430; or may prescribe the time, manner, etc., of holding primary elections and also the qualifications of voters; State v. Felton, 77 Ohio St. 554, 84 N. E. 85, 12 Ann. Cas. 65. But in People v. Board of Election, 221 111. 9, 77 N. E. 321, 5 Ann. Cas. 562, it was held that a law authorizing a party’s central committee to determine whether candidates should be nominated at the primaries or by delegates chosen there or should be selected by a majority or plurality vote, was an invalid delegation of legislative power. An act permitting the voters at primary elections to name their choice for a senator of the United States is not an invalid delegation of power; State v. Blaisdell,,18 N. D. 55, 118 N. W. 141, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 465, 138 Am. St Rep. 741; Socialist Party v. Uhl, 155 Cal. 776, 103 Pac. 181. See note in 22

An election by the voters of a ward, precinct, or other small district, belonging to a particular party, of representatives or delegates to a convention which is to meet and nominate the candidates of their party to stand at an approaching municipal or general election. See State V. Hirsch, 125 Ind. 207, 24 N. E. 1062, 9 In R. A. 170; People v. Cavanaugh, 112 Cal. 676, 44 Pac. 1057; State v. Woodruff, 68 N. J. Law, 89, 52 Atl. 294.

Defined under Election in Black's Law Dictionary.