CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH WW JLwu11II!1~;:;’i1iLw7:Z'£W CONGRESS iversit of Mis ELECTIONS:- FEDERAL RRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY PROPOSALS ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB75026 AUTHOR: Gorman, Joseph B. Government Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED DATE UPDATED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0306 CRS- 1 IB75026 UPDATE-O3/O6/80 ISSUE DEFIN ITION State-established Presidential primary elections have long played an iimportant role in the Presidential nominating system. This role has increased in recent years as more and more States (3fl States, the District of 1 Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico had such laws in effect as of Mar. 6, 1980) have established some variation of the Presidential primary. In addition, Republican Party organizations in South Carolina and Texas will [conduct Presidential primaries for Republican voters in those States. The spread of State-established primaries, as well as the trend toward democratization of other American political institutions, has led to renewed interest in a national Presidential primary or Federal regulation, standardization, or coordination of State-established Presidential primaries. §A§E§EQ§HQ-A§2.2QL£§Z-AE&L1§£§ The Presidential Primary is one of the legacies of the progressive movement, which, in the early years of the twentieth century, sought to open all institutions and processes of government to more direct control by the people. Florida (1901), Wisconsin (1905), Pennsylvania (1906), and Oregonw (1910) became the first States to enact legislation that provided the models for modern Presidential primaries. By 1916, 26 States had enacted some variation of a Presidential primary. However, after World War I, there was a reversal of the trend; by 1935, eight States had repealed their Presidential primary laws. ‘ "- Renewed interest in the Presidential primary as a dramatic means of * influencing Presidential nominations was sparked by Wendell Willkie's attempt to use the 19fl4 Wisconsin Presidential primary as the vehicle for demonstrating his popular support within the Republican Party. Although unsuccessful, Willkie did focus attention on the Presidential primary as ya gauge of popular support. Presidential primary competition has become a feature of every subsequent Presidential election campaign. Primaries played an especially important role in the campaigns for the Republican nominations in 1948 (Stassen, Dewey, and Taft), 1952 (Eisenhower and Taft), 196a (Goldwater and Rockefeller), and 1976 (Ford and Reagan); and the Democratic nominations in 1952 (Kefauver, Russell, and Truman-supported favorite sons), 1956 (Kefauver and Stevenson), 1960 (Kennedy and Humphrey): 1968 (McCarthy, Kennedy, and Johnson-supported favorite sons), 1972 (McGovern, Humphrey, Huskie, Wallace, and Jackson), and 1976 (Carter, Udall, Church, Brown, Wallace, Jackson, and Bayh). . Recent emphasis in both major parties on greater involvement of the electorate in the Presidential nominating process has led to a dramatic increase in the number of Presidential primaries since 1968. In that year,_ 16 States and the District of Columbia held some form of Presidential primary: Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, i Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. By 1972, six additional States had enacted such legislation: Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. Arkansas also passed legislation making Presidential primaries optional; however, no primary was held in Arkansas in 1972. CBS’ 2 IB75026 UPDATE-03/06/80 In 1975, six more States established Presidential primaries, effective in 1976: Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, and Texas. (The Texas Presidential primary law established a primary for 1976 only; new legislation twill be necessary if Texas is to hold a primary in 1980.) In addition Arkansas revised its Presidential primary law to make such a primary mandatory upon request of a Presidential candidate. (In 1980, party (organizations in Arkansas determine whether one or both parties hold Presidential primaries; only the Democrats will hold a primary in 1980). New Mexico, however, repealed the primary law which had been passed prior to the 1972 Presidential election. In addition, Mississippi passed legislation providing for a Presidential primary if requested by a State party organization. However, both parties in Mississippi chose delegates through a convention system in 1976; the Republicans will hold a primary in 1980. Vermont established a Presidential primary in 1976, New Mexico and Connecticut in 1977, Kansas in 1978, and North Dakota and Louisiana in 1979. (The North Dakota primary is being challenged through the state's »referendum process and no primary will be held in 1980.) In addition, South Carolina Republicans will hold a Presidential primary in 1980. 1 The importance of the Presidential primary in the Presidential nominating process may be seen by the fact that 2,007 of 3,016 votes (66.5%) at the 1972 Democratic National Convention and 807 of 1,3n8 votes (59.8%) at the 1972 Republican National Convention were cast by delegates from states holding some form of Presidential primary. In 1976, 2,287 of 3,008 votes (76%) at the Democratic National Convention and 1,60u of 2,259 votes (71%) at the Republican National Convention were cast by delegates from such States. In 1980, 1,555 of 1,99fl votes (77.98%) at the Republican National Convention and 2,5h8 of 3,331 votes (76.u9%) at the Democratic National Convention will 1 cast by delegates whose States or party organizations (Republicans in South Carolina and Texas) held some form of Presidential primary (figures reflect one-party primaries in Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas). It should be emphasized, however, that even in States holding Presidential primaries, not all delegates were selected or bound by the Presidential primary results. Federal Presidential primary legislation has regularly been introduced in both Houses of Congress, especially since 1952. These proposals range from constitutional amendments specifically establishing a national primary to legislation encouraging or requiring standardization of procedures followed by State-established primaries. Recent Federal proposals focus on three basic objections to the present method of nominating candidates for President: (1) the length of the pre-convention campaign, especially in them Presidential primary) states; (2) the inefficiency of simultaneous but . geographically scattered Presidential Primary campaigns; and (3) the possibility of the nomination of.a candidate not the choice of they rank and file party members. Those who seek to shorten the pre-convention campaign look to legislation 2 that will establish specific dates on which, or between ’which, State-established Presidential primaries must be held. Two legislative approaches have been proposed: »Congress could enact legislation to require State conformity with such a timetable; or Congress could provide, in the form of election cost subsidies, financial incentives to States to, acce‘ 'congressionally approved Presidential primary election dates. (The two most obvious criticisms of such proposals are: 7(1) State primary elections for other offices would have to be changed in several States to conform, or be CRS- 3 IB75026 UPDATE-O3/06/80 held separately, and (2) the value, .if any, of a longer pre-convention campaign, allowing greater opportunities to observe momentum and responses to emerging issues, would be minimized. Concern over the inefficiency of media expenditures and candidate ,cheduling in attempting to conduct simultaneous Presidential primary campaigns in geographically scattered States has led to suggestions that, at the least, States cooperate in coordinating primary dates to make possible regional campaigns in state-established primaries. An extension of this concept has also been suggested--the institution of a national Presidential primary on a staggered, regional basis. Proponents of regional plans point to several advantages: broadcast media reaching into several States could be efficiently utilized, ‘candidates could more easily conduct simultaneous multi-state campaigns, and regional issues would no doubt receive more attention. A possible criticism to either voluntary State coordination of already established State Presidential primaries or to a national regional primary is that the order in which the primaries were held might shape in unforeseen ways the public awareness of specific candidates or issues, which the present random (at least geographically) scheduling avoids or minimizes. The 1976 Republican platform endorsed" regional scheduling of State-established Presidential primaries. Those who object to the convention system of nominating Presidential candidates seek to substitute a national Presidential primary, with a runoff feature, through which the major parties would nominate Presidential candidates. This change would establish on a national level the nominating procedure used by the overwhelming majority of States in selecting nominees for statewide office. (Of the States outside the South, only Oklahoma provides for run—off primary elections, however.) Supporters of this proposal argue that it provides an easily understood method for selecting the ,st popular choice of the party. However, critics express reservations about replacing the national convention, which they perceive as a mechanism for compromise, with the.national primary, which they suspect, even with a runoff feature, has a potential for polarization. A Gallup poll released Feb. 26, 1976, showed that 68% of a nationwide sample ‘polled favored a national Presidential primary; 21% were opposed, and 11% had no opinion. A Harris poll (#59) released on July 15, 1976, _showed 35% of those polled favored a national primary, 33% favored a series of four regional primaries, 17% supported the existing system, 2% opposed all primaries, and 13% were unsure. other Harris results released at the same time showed support for a national primary (60% in favor, 24% opposed, 16% not sure) and four regional primaries (54% in favor, 29% opposed, 17% not sure). on July 12, the tHarris organization had released results of another poll (#58) measuring reaction to the present system of nominating candidates. Results were mixed. However, in’a Harris poll taken after the last Presidential primary, 46% of voters expressed a preference for a national conventiony with primaryéelected delegates; 26% favored primaries without conventions; 10% supported conventions without primaries; and 18% were "not sure.” The most recent poll, released by Gallup on Jan. 20, 1980, showed 66-2fl% support for a national primary over the present convention system, with 10% expressing no opinion. ' The 1976 Democratic National Convention expanded the size and responsibilities of the 1975—established Commission on Presidential if wination and Party Structure and gave it authority to make recommendations Iuf changes in party rules. The expanded Commission has been chaired by Morley Hinograd, Democratic State Chairman of Michigan. The 58-member Winograd Commission met periodically in 1977 and, in January 1978, adopted cns-» u IB75026 UPDA‘I‘E"'03/06/80 changes in the way Democratic Presidential candidates would be chosen, beginning in 1980. The Democratic National Committee's Executive Committee was originally scheduled to act on the proposals on Mar. 16, 1978, but widespread criticism of some of the proposals led to a postponement C’ y consideration until may 9, when the Executive Committee held informal hearings on the changes, with a vote the next day. The proposals as passed by the Executive Committee then went to the full Democratic National vcommittee on June 9 for approval. Among the most controversial of the changes proposed by the Winograd Commission and approved by the National Committee on June 9, 1978, were: (1) a shortening of the pre-nomination campaign (which could begin no earlier than the second Tuesday in March and must end by the second Tuesday in June) from five months to three (with exceptions for already established primaries and caucuses); (2) a requirement that the percentage of the vote necessary to qualify for delegates under proportional representation would be 25% for primary States and 20% for caucus states (with even lower cut-offs possible at the preliminary stages of caucus-convention States; winner-take-all outcomes are effectively banned by the new rule; and "loophole" primaries, in which a frontrunning candidate could win all the delegates from a district by winning a plurality, were also prohibited); (3) requiring candidates to file petitions of candidacy 30 to 90 days before a primary; (Q) expanding the national convention delegations by 10% to include automatically State party leaders and elected officials; and (5) elimination of cross—over voting. The National Committee voted to defer a decision on proposals to (1) require an even division between men and women delegates in 1980 and (2) ban the election of delegates from single-member districts. However, both of these proposals were also approved on Dec. 8, 1978. Therefore, national pressure on States to conform to standardized procedures in conducting Presidentia‘ primaries has thus far come from the national parties, not the Congress. L§§l§LAIlQ! H.J.Res. 31 (Smith) Provides for a national Presidential primary, with each voter eligible to vote only in the primary of the party of his registered affiliation. No independent candidates would be allowed, but there are provisions for non-major party candidates. If no candidate in a party's national primary receives 40% of the total vote cast in the party's primary, a runoff election would be held between the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in the party's‘primary. Between seven and 30 days after the Presidential .candidate is selected, a party.» would" select its ivice-Presidential candidate, presumably by convention. Introduced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to House Judiciary Committee. H.J.Res- 24 (Bennett) In addition to providing for direct popular election of the President and Vice President, this proposal gives Congress the power “to establish, by appropriate legislation, procedures relating to the nomination of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates by primary elections or otherwise." Introduced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to House Judiciary Committee. a 1 H.R. 125 (Bennett) .Provides for the scheduling of Presidential primaries by region, beginning'h on the last Tuesday in March and continuing approximately every two weeks for CRS- 5 IB75026 UPDATE-03/O6/80 the next ten weeks, the order of the primaries to be determined by lot. No State would be required to hold a primary, but any State holding a primary would be required to schedule it on the date assigned to its region. A State which conducts a Presidential primary would conduct that primary in accordance with laws of the State, except that voters would be able to vote ,nly in the primary of the party with which they were affiliated through registration. If delegates to national conventions were elected in the _primary, delegate candidates would be required to indicate the candidate, if any, to whom they were pledged. Presidential and Vice-presidential nominations would continue to be made by national political conventions. In ;order to receive Federal matching funds during the preconvention campaign, a candidate would be required to enter at least one State primary in each of the six regions established by this legislation. Introduced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to Committee on House Administration H.R. 1169 (Ashbrook) Provides for the regulation of State Presidential primary elections, which would be held on the second Tuesday of uarch, April, nay, or June. All candidates receiving at least 10% of the primary vote would receive a ;proportionate share of a State's delegates. Ballot access would be by Federal Election Commission designation or by petition. Introduced Jan. 23, 1979; referred to Committee on House Administraiton. H.R. 190R (Applegate) Provides for mandatory Presidential primary elections in every State on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May of Presidential election years. Qualification for placement on the primary ballots would be accomplished on a regional basis; five regions are defined. Joint tickets of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate would be voted on. A plurality would bem required for nomination. .Introduced Feb. 8, 1979; referred to Committee on House Administration. ‘S. 16 (Weicker) Provides for a national Presidential primary, on the first Tuesday in August of each year in which a Presidential election is to he held. Bach voter shall be eligible to -vote "only in the party of his registered affiliation. If no candidate in a party's national primary receives 50% of the total vote cast in the party's primary, a runoff election would be held between the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in the party's primary. It is«unclear how Vice-Presidential candidates would be nominated, but the proposal makes tprovision _for vacancies ~in both qnominations. No independent candidates would be allowed, but there are provisions for non—major party candidates. This legislation also would end public financing of Presidential primaries and general elections and limit Pederal campaign contributions and expenditures to the year in which a Federal election is held. Introduced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. « i 7 S . 9 61: (Packwood) Provides that five regional primaries will be held, once a month on the r tond Tuesday for five months. Ballot access by FEC recognition of a ailability and intention, or by petition.u Candidates receiving at least 5% of the vote in a region would receive a share of the delegates from the States therein proportional to his share of the vote in the respective CRS- 6 IB75026 UPDATE—O3/06/80 states. Delegates would be bound for two ballots [or until a candidate received less than 20% of a vote on a ballot. Introduced Apr. 10, 1979; referred to Committee on Rules and Administration. [Similar legislation' H.R. H212 (Ottinger)] E.§1.1.‘—$lE..Cz'§. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments. Presidential primaries. Hearings, 92d Congress, 2d session, on s.J.Res. 97, S.J.Res. 214, S.J.Res. 215, and S.J.Res. 2H9. [Unpublished] Hearings held June 21, 22, 29, 1972, in Washington, D.C. U.S. Congress. Senate. Nomination and election of the President and Vice President of the United States, including the manner of selecting delegates to national political conventions; printed for the use of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. 41M p. Ottinger, Richard. Regional primary bill. Remarks in the House [on introducing H.R. 4212] Congressional record [daily ed.] May 23, 1979: H3671-H3673. ' Packwood, Robert. Remarks in the Senate [on introducing 3. 96h]. Congressional record [daily ed.] Apr. 10, 1979: Sfl335—S4337. Stevens, Ted. The primary system and the Senate workload. Remarks in the Senate. Congressional record [daily ed.] Weicker, Lowell. Remarks in the Senate. néongressional record [daily ed.] v. 125, Jan. 15, 1979: S116. Brace, Kimball W. The 1976 Presidential primaries: An analysis of how many people participated and how much money was spent. A report compiled for the Commission on Presidential Nomination and Party Structure [of the Democratic Party] may 9, 1977. 1&0 p. 1 9 Cook, Rhodes. Attention shifts to first presidential primaries. Congressional quarterly, v. 38, Feb. 2, 1980: 281-289. cRs- 7 11-37 5026 UPDATE-O3/06/80 Caucuses: a little noticed source of power. Congressional quarterly, v. 37, Dec. 29, 1979: 2957-65. ---- Presidential primaries reach record level. Congressional quarterly, v. 37, Aug. 9, 1979: 1609-16. Davis, James W. Presidential primaries; road to the White House. New York, Crowell [1967] 324 p. A Jewell, Malcolm E. A caveat upon the expanding use of Presidential A primaries. Policy studies journal, v. 1, Summer 1974: 279-83. Keech, William R. Anticipating the consequences of a national Presidential primary. Policy studies journal, V. 1, Summer 1979: 274-78. Keech, William R., and Donald R. Matthews. The party's choice. Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution. [1976] 258 p. Presidential primaries. Guide to U.S. elections. Washington, Congressional quarterly [1975]: 309-49. Supplement [1977]: 26-30. Presidential primaries: Proposals for a new system. Congressional quarterly, v. 30, July 8, 1972: 1650-Sn. Ranney, Austin. Participation in American Presidential nominations, 1976. Washington, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research [1977] 37 p. The federalization of presidential primaries. Washington, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research [1978]Q0 p. ' U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Federal presidential primary proposals, 1911-1976 [by] Joseph B. Gorman. Mar. 27, 1976. [Washington, 1976]. 47 p. Multilith 76-53G C, ---- Presidential preference and delegate selection primaries: a selected -annotated bibliography [by] Carol F. Casey. Oct. 22, 1975. Revised Jan. 10, 1977. [Washington, 1977] 19 p. Multilith 774126 . ---- Procedures for selection of delegates to the Democratic and Republican 1976 national conventions: a survey of applicable State laws and party rules [by] Carol F. Casey. February 1976. [Washington 1976] 300 p. -—-- Procedures for selection of delegates to the Democratic and Republican 1980 national conventions: a preliminary survey of applicable State laws and party rules [by] Carol P. Casey. Oct. 22, 1979 [with periodic updates]. [Washington 1979] Wildavsky, Aaron B. on the superiority of national conventions. Review of politics, v. 2n, July 1962: 307-19. .*cRs- 8 IB75026 UPDATE’-03/O6/80 Zeidenstein, Harveyggeififesidential primaries-reflections of the people's choice? AJofirna1 of politics, v. 32, November 1970: 356".”-I». F % % L ‘if C; ET: \a'V.&5E I L5 N 3 VE§':7§ ~‘3:i53mfim‘{ — 5 ST. - SW30‘.