CHAPTER 5
Nominations for State and Congressional Offices
Although Americans pride themselves on having
operated with free elections for over two hundred
years, the voter’s choice in general elections is
severely limited

In most elections, citizens are faced with a limited
choice between Republicans and Democratic
nominees

American democracy, therefore, is affected in critical
ways by the decisions the two major parties make in
selecting their nominees

As a result, controversy has surrounded the parties’
nomination decisions since the advent of political
parties in the United States
The Evolution of the Direct Primary

After the American Revolution, the legislative
caucus (an informal meeting of all the party’s
selected members of the state senate and house)
became the main means of nominations

Considered unrepresentative, this method was
replaced by a convention system of nomination,
where a greater number of delegates participated

Still considered a process susceptible to
manipulation, by the early twentieth century, the
convention system was replaced in most states by
the direct primary—nomination of party candidates
by the voters directly
The Evolution of the Direct Primary

The direct primary took power away from the party
organization, thereby lessening the power of party
leaders over elected officials

In the South, the direct primary evolved as a means
to permit popular government where interparty
competition had ceased to exist

The direct primary, however, also delayed the
development of two-party competition, by
weakening the minority party through focusing
public attention upon contests within the
dominant party

By 1976, all states had adopted the direct primary
State Regulation of the Direct Primary

There is a tremendous diversity among the states in
the operation of the direct primary

Although the direct primary is the predominant
method of nominating candidates, thirteen states
either permit or require a role for party conventions

There is also a wide variation among the states in
terms of the party affiliation requirements imposed
in order for a voter to participate in primaries

The states array themselves along a continuum
regarding the severity of their party affiliation
requirements (Table 5.1.)
Table 5.1. Party Affiliation Requirements for
Voting in Direct primaries
Closed: Party registration required; changes
permitted within a fixed time period
CT, DE, FL, KY, ME, NE, NV, NJ,
NM, NY, OK, PA, SD
Semi-closed: Unaffiliated voters permitted to
vote in a party primary; or voters may change
their party registration at the polls
AZ, CA, CO, IA, KS, MD, MA,
NH, NC, OR, RI, UT, WV, WY
Semi-open: Voters must publicly declare their
AL, AR, GA, IL, IN, MS, OH, SC,
choice of party ballot at polling place on election TN, TX, VA
day
Open: Voter decides in which party primary to
vote in privacy of voting booth
HI, ID, MI, MN, MO, MT, ND, VT,
WI
“Nonpartisan”: Top two primary vote- getters,
regardless of party, are nominated for general
election
LA
Source: Federal Election Commission, “Party Affiliation and Primary Voting 2000.” Malcolm E. Jewell and Sarah M. Morehouse,
Political Parties and Elections in American States (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2001), p. 103
Note: For more detailed differences within these groups, see the notes to table 5.1. in the book.
State Regulation of the Direct Primary
Regulation of Candidacies and Cross-Filing
In addition to regulating which persons may vote in
a party primary, states decide the qualifications a
candidate must meet in order to run


Most states permit a person to run in only one
party’s primary, and nine states allow cross-filing

Cross-filing tends to favor the dominant party to win
the endorsements of both parties, benefiting from
the generally lower turnout in primaries
State Regulation of the Direct Primary
The Runoff Primary and “Sore Loser Laws”
In eleven states a majority (50% +1) of the vote in
the primary is required for nomination, rather than a
plurality of the vote (more than any other
candidate)


If no candidate receives a majority, a second or
runoff primary is held between the top two finishers
in the first primary

The importance of a party nomination is enhanced if
a candidate who loses a primary is not permitted to
run in the general election as an independent

Such regulations, called “sore loser laws,” are
State Regulation of the Direct Primary
Regulating the Timing of Primaries

Because party primaries are administered by state
governments, each state sets the date for primaries,
and there is great variation among states in when
the primaries are held (Figure 5.1.)

Some argue that late primaries will increase turnout
in the general election by focusing the electorate’s
attention for a shorter time period

Others argue that late primaries do not allow
enough time for citizens to get to know the
candidates, and that this potentially benefits
Figure 5.1. Timing of Congressional Primaries in 2006
16
NM, MS, CA, IA,
MT, SD, AL, NJ, ME,
SC, ND, VA, UT
Number of Primaries
14
FL, DE, AZ, NH, RI,
MD, WI, NY, VT,
MN, WA, MA, HI
IL, OH, IN, NC, WV,
NE, KY, OR, PA, ID,
AR
12
KS, TN, MO, MI, CT,
CO, NV, AK, WY
10
8
6
4
TX, IL
OK, GA
2
0
March
May
June
July
Month
August
September
Preprimary Endorsements
Although one of the consequences of the direct
primary has been to reduce party organization control
over nominations, the use of preprimary endorsements
by the party organizational leadership has retained
some of its influence over the nomination process

In seven states, state law requires preprimary
endorsement by party conventions

Endorsement carries with it the right to have one’s
name placed on the primary ballot while other
candidates might have to qualify by petition

In fifteen states, endorsements by one or both
parties are allowed by party rules, while not
required by law
Preprimary Endorsements
Consequences of Preprimary Endorsements:

Preprimary endorsement reduces the amount of
competition in primaries, since candidates who fail
to gain endorsement often withdraw from the race

The ability of party organizational endorsements to
give the winning edge to their candidates has
declined in recent years, often because other
candidates have larger funds or a more effective
media campaign

A potential disadvantage of being the endorsed
candidate is getting tagged with the label of being
the candidate of the “bosses” or “king-makers”
Competition in Primaries
It was the expectation of the reformers that the direct
primary would stimulate competition among
candidates for party nominations, but this hope has
not been fulfilled

In a substantial percentage of the primaries,
nominations either go uncontested or involve only
nominal challenges to the front-runner

The two key determinants of intraparty competition
in the primaries are the extent of the interparty
competition and incumbency
Competition in Primaries
The impact of interparty competition

Research shows that competition in primaries is
greatest where a party’s prospects in the general
election are the highest

Thus, where the opposition party is weak,
competition in primaries tends to be greater
The impact of incumbency

Because incumbents have an advantage in general
elections, primaries where an incumbent is present
tend to ward off any serious opposition, particularly
in nominations for the U.S. House of
Representatives
Voter Turnout in Primaries

Turnout rates in primaries tends to be quite low—an
average of 24 percent in midterm elections from
1962 to 1994 (and as low as 17 percent in 1998),
but with substantial regional variations

Like in general elections, primary voters tend to be
better educated and older than nonvoters, and they
tend to have a strong party identification

Party activists, who also have stronger ideological
orientations, tend to have higher rates of turnout,
and could thus possibly bias the primary results

Statutory regulations, such as whether the primary
is open or closed, also affect turnout
The National Party Organizations and
Nominations in the States

The national party organizations traditionally played
only a minor role in candidate recruitment and
nomination

This changed in the late 1970s and early 1980s
because of the realization that candidate quality is a
major determinant of electoral success

The national party committees now aggressively
recruit candidates to enter primaries

This involvement could potentially create a pool of
strong candidates with strong ties to national party,
thus contributing to a stronger party unity
The Direct Primary and the General Election

The direct primary has significant implications for
the general election, in that it narrows the field of
candidates and the choice available to the voter

The outcome of a primary may also affect a party’s
general election prospects—enhancing the
prospects if a strong candidate wins and diminishing
them if a weak candidate is nominated

Preprimary endorsements is one method of seeking
to prevent divisive primaries

There are also cases when a contested primary may
help the nominee, such as increased publicity and
name-recognition before the general election
The Direct Primary and Political Parties

The institutionalization of the direct primary as the
principal method of nomination is part of a longterm trend toward shifting power away from party
leaders toward voters

Only in a few states are party organizations strong
enough to secure an individual’s nomination through
their endorsement

Although party support can be helpful to a candidate
in gaining a nomination, it is rarely sufficient, but
the candidate must build a personal organization

The direct primary has thus contributed to a
candidate-centered type of politics in America