PRIMARY ELECTION. A popular elec tion held by membbrs of a particular polit ical party, for the purpose of choosing dele gates to a convention empowered to nomi nate candidates for that party to be voted for at an approaching election. State v. Hirsch, 125 Ind. 210, 24 N. E. 1062, 9 L. R. A. 170.
Laws regulating primary elections are con stitutional ; 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 ; Kenneweg 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, 69 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, 66 Pac. 714, 91 Am. St. Rep. 457.
The following provisions in primary elec tion 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. 430 ; State v. Drexel, 74 Neb. 776, 105 N. W. 174 ; that when he has voted at a primary election he shall not sign a peti tion for another candidate ; Katz v. Fitz gerald, 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 Ill. 522, 81 N. E. 1109 ; pre cluding 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, and 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 ; Mor row v. Wipf, 22 S. D. 146, 115 N. W. 1121.
But a provision forbidding persons to vote whose names do not appear on the precinct register, etc., used at the last general elec tion, or upon its supplement, is unconstitu tional 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 citi zens which is an enlargement of the consti tutional right of suffrage; id.; also a pro vision 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 can didates 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 in valid where the fees were to go to the state treasury; People v. Board, 221 III. 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 sal ary 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.