Growth of the Direct Primary

Primaries

PRIMARY ELECTION

Primary Election, a method by which a political party chooses its nominees for public office. Winners of primary elections run against nominees of other parties in the general election. The primary is a unique U.S. institution, born in the era of political reform at the beginning of the 20th century.

Growth of the Direct Primary

After distinct political parties began to emerge late in the 18th century, a would-be officeholder customarily obtained the nomination of his party through a caucus or convention in his town, city, district, or state. Sometimes state law sought to regulate this process, but more frequently it was left entirely in the hands of the parties themselves.

The first direct primary was held in Crawford county, Pa., by the Democrats in 1842. The first state laws relating to primary elections were passed in California and New York in 1866, but until the end of the century all primary laws passed by the states were either optional or covered only limited geographic areas. Late in the century two developments led to a mandatory statewide primary. The first was the introduction of the Australian, or secret, ballot, beginning in Massachusetts in 1888. The secret ballot meant that a voter could cast a really free, uninhibited vote in choosing party nominees. The second development was a wave of revulsion against the convention system under which--even when it was regulated by state law--political bosses and vested interests intent on personal gain used every unsavory tactic imaginable. Progressives considered the direct primary an immediate cure for these abuses. In an 1899 law, perfected in 1901, Minnesota instituted the first mandatory statewide primary system, placing the primary on the same plane as a general election and making it uniformly applicable throughout the state. By 1917 all but four states had some form of direct primary.

Direct primary nominations for statewide and local offices have predominated in the United States since the 1920's. In some states, parties endorse candidates before the primary, either by convention or by state committee action. The endorsing convention is one way to establish party responsibility in drawing up proposed candidate slates while leaving the final decision to the voters. In some of these states, a loser at the state or local convention may challenge the winner in a party primary.

Primaries Versus Conventions

The hopes of reformers that the direct primary would provide an escape from the evils of the "smoke-filled room" method of nominating have been largely--but not completely--fulfilled. Certainly the decline of the entrenched state and city political machines during the 20th century would have been much slower, if not impossible, had not the primary provided a way to dislodge corrupt or unpopular regimes from office. Many great state and congressional leaders who rose to power in the 20th century would have been unlikely choices under a convention system.

But the direct primary occasionally has led to the abuses its enemies predicted--the nomination of flashy and popular candidates who proved weak and incompetent, and an undercutting of responsible leadership within the established parties. Nor has the direct primary eliminated all the venal influences associated with the nominating system. Primary campaigns are often expensive, and candidates are sometimes obliged to seek money from the same special interests that controlled party conventions in the past.

The proponents of the convention system have rarely been able to stem the popular tide of direct primary laws. Where the convention system has been retained, some of the rankest 19th century abuses have reappeared. For example, until a primary was instituted in New York in 1968, statewide candidates were picked by convention, and candidates who lacked any semblance of statewide support were often selected. There were frequent charges that candidates were pawns of political machines.

Open Versus Closed Primaries

Once a direct primary system is instituted, the key question is often that of access to the primary ballot. Should there be an "open primary" system, in which any voter can request the primary ballot of either party? Or should there be a "closed primary," in which participation is limited to persons who have registered their affiliation with the party at an earlier date? Advocates of the open primary argue that a citizen should not be forced to disclose his party affiliation, and that he should be given an opportunity to vote in the primary contest he considers most meaningful. It is also wrong, they argue, to exclude independents from the nominating process by a closed system. The closed primary, on the other hand, is favored by the advocates of unified, disciplined parties, who argue that under the open primary it is possible for adherents of the opposition party to "raid" the other primary for the purpose of nominating a weak candidate.

Because party-oriented politicians write the election laws, the great bulk of the states employ the closed primary. But several states use a "challenge system" instead of party enrollment. A voter is normally given whichever party's primary ballot he requests, but if a poll watcher chooses to challenge him, he may be required to make an affidavit that he voted for a majority of the party's candidates in the last election, or will do so in the next election. Because voting is secret, the challenge system leaves the decision to the conscience of the individual voter and in practice may come close to the practice in the open primary.

Only a few states have "open primary" systems. Washington state has gone a step further with its unique "jungle" primary, in which the voter, regardless of party affiliation, is permitted to go back and forth between the major party columns to select one nominee for each office.

For many years, California had a cross-filing system. A candidate could enter primaries in both parties, and thus be assured of election if he won both--as Republican Gov. Earl Warren did in 1946.

Dates

Each state may set its primary dates as it pleases. Most primaries for state and congressional offices are held in May, June, or September of every even-numbered year.

Qualifying for the Ballot

There are three principal methods--sometimes used separately, sometimes in combination--by which candidates may qualify for their party's primary ballot. The first method is simple declaration of candidacy, almost invariably combined with a filing fee (which may run up to several thousand dollars for major offices to discourage frivolous candidates). The second is petition by a set number of voters. The third is designation by an official party convention in the state.

Plurality Versus Runoff

If many candidates are seeking a single office, the winner may have a small percentage of the total vote. In the North, almost without exception, the nomination goes to the candidate who wins the primary, no matter how small his percentage. In the South, however, the Democratic primary was so often the real election, with the subsequent election a mere formality, that most states decided to require a runoff election if no candidate won an absolute majority in the first primary. In the runoff, the two leading candidates from the first primary compete.

The runoff primary can be defended as a desirable institution to assure that the person nominated enjoys a wide base of support in the party. The runoff has been shunned outside the South, however, because it is expensive, both for the candidates and for the public. In any case, one candidate usually wins a clear majority in the first primary.

Nonpartisan Primaries

Many mayors, local city officials, and judges, as well as state legislators in Nebraska and Minnesota, are elected on a nonpartisan basis. In many cases, the law provides that a candidate is automatically elected if he receives an absolute majority in the first primary. But if there is no majority, then the two candidates receiving the most votes--even if both belong to the same party--are qualified for the general election.

Usually, nonpartisan elections are not really nonpartisan. REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS push their own candidates, and the outcome reflects the general political orientation of the area.

Suffrage

The general withering away of property, tax, and other special suffrage requirements has applied to primary as well as general elections. But after Reconstruction, the South had a one-party system in which the Democratic nomination was tantamount to election. Southern Democrats threw up a bewildering array of obstacles to exclude blacks from voting. Through application of the 14th Amendment, with its guarantees of equal protection of the laws to all citizens, restrictive statutes have gradually been replaced or invalidated.

The "grandfather clause," which qualified as voters only those who could vote in a specified earlier year, or their descendants, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1915, in Guinn v. United States. The "white primary" (in which the Democratic party was declared a private organization that could exclude whomever it pleased) was declared unconstitutional in 1944, in Smith v. Allwright. The poll tax, as applied to primaries for general elections for federal office, was abolished in the 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 made both the literacy test and the poll tax invalid if used in a discriminatory manner.

The Presidential Primary

Progressives decided that the primary might also be used to break the power of political machines to name delegates to the national presidential nominating conventions. Florida introduced the first presidential primary in 1901, but Wisconsin passed a more comprehensive law under the leadership of Gov. Robert La Follette and the Progressive-dominated legislature in 1905. Oregon in 1910 went beyond the simple election of delegates by the people and adopted the presidential preference primary, in which voters indicate directly whom they prefer for their party's nomination.

The move for presidential primaries received further impetus after the 1912 election, during which supporters of former President Theodore ROOSEVELT charged that the Republican nomination had been stolen from him by the "Old Guard" Republicans who controlled the state conventions where delegates friendly to President TAFT were selected. By 1916, presidential primary laws had been passed in 26 states.

With the waning of the Progressive era, interest in presidential primaries declined. Candidates tended to downgrade the presidential primary during the 1920's and the 1930's. One reason may have been the Republican fight in 1920, in which the three leading contenders all competed vigorously in the primaries--only to see a deadlock develop and the nomination go to Ohio's Warren HARDING, the man chosen by party bigwigs in a smoke-filled room.

Since World War II

The presidential primary grew in importance after World War II. In 1948 former Minnesota Gov. Harold Stassen won several crucial early primaries and might well have overwhelmed his prestigious competitors--New York Gov. Thomas Dewey and Ohio Sen. Robert Taft--if he had not stumbled badly in the key Oregon contest. In 1952, Sen. Estes Kefauver of Tennessee upset President Harry TRUMAN in New Hampshire. Three weeks later Truman announced he would not run for reelection. The same year, primary victories by Gen. Dwight EISENHOWER enabled him to overtake the lead enjoyed by Taft in the Republican nomination race.

In 1960, Sen. John KENNEDY of Massachusetts swept the primaries to prove his vote-getting abilities and to overcome opposition to his candidacy based on his youth and Roman Catholicism. Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota and ex-Gov. Jimmy CARTER of Georgia won the Democratic nominations in 1972 and 1976, respectively, after defeating opponents in key primary states.

Presidential primaries are not always the only road to the WHITE HOUSE, however. Kefauver won most of them in 1952, but was not nominated. Vice President Hubert H. HUMPHREY steered clear of the primaries in 1968, but won his party's presidential nomination nevertheless. Thus a candidate highly acceptable to the regular organization leaders of his party may win without the primaries. But a candidate who lacks organizational support has no other alternative than to enter the primaries, and do well in them, if he hopes to be nominated. Even then, he may be thwarted if the leaders of the party are opposed to him--the fate that awaited Kefauver.

Current Law

Two Democratic party reform commissions have led to an increase in the number of presidential primaries to more than 30.

There are basically two types of presidential primaries. In the preference poll, voters mark their choice of nominees on the ballot. Alternatively, or concurrently, voters may select all or part of their state's delegation to the nominating convention in the primary. Democratic party rules require that the delegates be elected on a proportional basis, thus eliminating the "winner-take-all" feature of earlier years. The practice is still legal in Republican primaries, however.

These Democratic party rule changes together with federal campaign finance law reforms that limit the amount a donor may give and the amount that a candidate may spend for preconvention campaigning have helped the challenger who can pick states where he can spend the least for the best result and gain "momentum" for future primaries.

Because it comes first (late February or early March), the New Hampshire primary usually attracts major attention. Florida, Wisconsin, Oregon, Nebraska, Maryland, North Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Indiana, and Pennsylvania also draw major attention as tests of popularity in regions of different geographic and voting characteristics. The season continues through early June when the important California, Ohio, and New Jersey primaries are held.

Arguments Pro and Con

Some critics argue that presidential primaries often polarize a party's constituencies along ideological lines; that no true national consensus can come from them; that they deplete the candidates' energies in irrelevant hand-shaking tours; that they divert attention from basic issues; and that they cost inordinate amounts of money. Friends of primaries reply that they provide at least one opportunity for the voter to express his opinion on potential nominees, without party bosses speaking for him, and are a vital testing ground that will show which candidates possess the stamina and coolness under fire expected of a would-be president. Possibly the greatest contribution of the primaries is that they quickly end untenable candidacies.

Taken together with national OPINION POLLS in presidential election years, the primaries have made it more difficult for national conventions to disregard the wishes of rank-and-file party members. Television gives major publicity to candidates' campaigns in the primary election states. More often than not, a strong leader emerges in the nomination race before the convention, and the delegates feel compelled to nominate him. Convention deadlocks are now rare, and delegates seldom turn to a dark horse.

Regional or National Presidential Primaries?

Ever since President Woodrow WILSON first proposed the idea in 1913, there has been sporadic discussion of a nationwide presidential primary. The national party conventions, if held at all, would no longer nominate candidates.

Other persons favor a series of regional primaries each year, which would cut down candidates' cross-country travel. But opponents say that candidates viable in only one section of the country might emerge the winners.

Proponents of the national primary say it would let the people decide directly on a presidential nominee for their party, depriving political manipulators of their influence over nominations for the nation's top elective office.

Opponents maintain that the national convention plays a positive role by forcing the delegates to decide on a platform and a ticket for president and vice president acceptable to the divergent wings of the party, thus effecting the necessary compromises of a two-party system.

The Democrats' Commission of Party Structure and Delegate Selection, after exploring the idea of a national primary with initial enthusiasm, concluded in 1970 that "there was nothing inherently undemocratic about a national convention ... that purged of its structural and procedural inadequacies, the national convention was an institution well worth preserving."

American Government

A Delegate’s Road to a Presidential Nominating Convention

Examining the Campaign’s First Step: The Iowa Caucus

Overview

The road to the presidential nominating convention is a long one for most delegates. Over a period of several months, most delegates advance through at least four levels of their political party’s organization (e.g., precinct, legislative district, county, congressional district) before they are selected to represent their state political party at the national convention.

Objectives