A provision is valid that a candidate de feated 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 for the legislature to pledge themselves to sup port 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 pri maries to parties which polled three per cent. of the total vote at the last preceging elec tion; 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, 86 Minn. 19, 89 N. W. 1126 ; State v. Michel, 121 La. 374, 16 South. 430; or even if the primaries be restricted to the two parties which had poll ed the largest vote, the primary of the largest party to be held first ; Kenneweg V. County Com'rs, 102 Md. 119, 62 Atl. 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 pres
ident, 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 stat ing his present party affiliations, while in Cook county he cannot so vote if he has vot ed at the primary election of another party within two years, are declared to be void be cause 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. Michel, 121 La. 374, 46 South. 430; or may prescribe the time, manner, etc., of holding primary elections and also the qual ifications 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 Ill. 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 dele gation 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 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1135.