SPECIFICATIONS FOR A MODEL STATE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY LAW By PAUL T. DAVID Reprint No. 11 WASHINGTON 6, D.C. April 1956 1956 By The Brookings Institution This reprint of a memorandum prepared by a member of the staff of the Brookings Institution is issued for general distribution. The interpretations and conclusions in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of other members of the Brookings staff or of the administrative officers of the Institution. The Brookings Institution is an independent organization engaged in research and education in the social sciences. Its principal purposes are to aid in the development of sound public policies and to provide advanced training for students in the social sciences. PROPOSED SPECIFICATIONS FOR A PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY SYSTEM IN FLORIDA Paul T. David Statement Prepared at the Request of The basic proposal is for the type of system in which the voter is required to make only one choice and one mark in order to vote the presidential primary ballot. The voter would choose among slates of delegates. But the specifications that follow could be expected to give the voter in each party a frequent choice between candidates for the presidential nomination as an aspect of his choosing between groups of candidates for delegate. In its basic structure, the proposed system contemplates and assumes that occasionally there may be a desirable candidate for President who is unwilling to campaign openly for the nomination, and who may have to be drafted if he is to be nominated at all. 1. The presidential primary would be a closed primary; voters would be allowed to vote only the ballot of the political party in which they are registered. Comment: This would be unlike the Wisconsin presidential primary, but like most of the others. 2. The ballot would carry organized slates of delegates; no would-be delegate would be allowed to run for election as an individual, but only as a part of an organized slate that includes a full list of candidates for delegate-at-large, together with a full quota of district delegates in at least half of the congressional districts of the state. Comment: The proposal for carrying slates that are organized and run as a unit but which need not be complete for all congressional districts is new. Oftentimes a group with strength in one part of a state is unable to complete its ticket in other parts of the state. The 1952 Kefauver delegation ticket in Ohio, for example, was incomplete but won state-wide and in most of the districts where it was filed. In California, the Kefauverites had great difficulty in completing their slate in order to qualify; and after President Truman withdrew and the regular organization had to refile its delegation, it was unable to complete 70784 0-61-pt. 4-11 its slate in the time available and went on the ballot with a short slate that may have been illegal, although no court test was made. 3. Delegates-at-large would be elected on the basis of the state-wide vote; district delegates on the basis of the vote in their respective districts. Comment: As in Wisconsin and Minnesota, but not in California and South Dakota, where the state-wide vote controls for the entire delegation. 4. In each congressional district, the ballot would carry only the portions of the slates to be voted on in that district: the candidates for delegate-at-large and for district delegate for that congressional district. Comment: As in Wisconsin and Minnesota; see illustration of 1952 Wisconsin ballot, page 179, Volume I, Presidential Nominating Politics in 1952, by Paul T. David, Malcolm Moos, and Ralph M. Goldman. 5. Organized slates that prefer a particular individual for the presidential nomination would be allowed to indicate their preference on the ballot, in a position prominently associated with the box or circle in which the voter places his mark. The consent of the potential nominee would not be required for the inclusion of such expression of preference on the ballot. Comment: California, Wisconsin, South Dakota, and Minnesota provide examples of this form of ballot construction, but all require the consent of a presidential candidate before a delegate slate can be placed on the ballot under his name. Under existing laws in Florida and New Hampshire, on the other hand, would-be delegates can put their presidential preferences on the ballot without securing consent from the person they prefer, but are not allowed to run as organized slates, to be voted for as units. The opportunity to express a preference on the ballot without securing consent from the proposed nominee is important if the possibility of drafting a presidential candidate is to be retained under a regime of presidential primaries. 6. If two or more slates are filed in support of the same candidate, he would be given an opportunity to choose the one to appear on the ballot. If he declined the making of a choice, the first slate filed would be placed on the ballot. Comment: This provision would meet the kind of situation that existed in Florida in 1952, when three different groups of would-be delegates favoring Russell were on the ballot, although not as organized slates. 7. Delegates would not be required to execute any formal pledge of support for the candidate they favor, the moral commitment implied in association on the ballot being deemed sufficient if the candidate proves to be available. Comment: The rigidities involved in formal pledges by delegates and formal action by the national candidates to approve slates have frequently proved undesirable in the experience of such states as California, Ohio, and Wisconsin. On the other hand, South Dakota does not require delegates supporting a national candidate to make formal pledges, and the re has been no difficulty on the point. 8. The ballot would carry organized slates running on a "no preference" basis where such slates are offered. Comment: As in South Dakota; see ballot at page 177 of Volume I, Presidential Nominating Politics in 1952. The opportunity to offer a no preference slate of delegates is particularly important whenever there is uncertainty as to the intentions of the incumbent President or uncertainty about the availability of leading potential candidates, with resulting confusion in the national situation. The provision for no preference slates has seemingly worked well in South Dakota, while the absence of such a provision has led repeatedly to "stalking horse" candidacies in such states as California, Wisconsin, and Ohio. 9. If two or more "no preference" slates meet the filing requirements in the presidential primary of the same party, all would appear on the ballot. Comment: While the forces supporting a single candidate for the nomination should probably be required to consolidate their strength in support of a single ticket of would-be delegates, this reasoning does not apply in the case of "no preference" slates. In the rare instances when two such slates might appear on the ballot, it can be assumed that there is a factional cleavage within the state party of sufficient importance to justify a choice by the voters. 10. In each slate of delegates carried on the ballot, the individual to serve as delegation chairman should be clearly indicated and he should head the list of candidates for delegates-at-large. Comment: This is a new proposal, never tried in the experience of any state. But the delegation chairman is so important in the functioning of a state delegation that the designation should be definite and public at the earliest possible date. The candidate who will serve as delegation chairman should run for election as a delegate-at-large in order to make the choice the result of a state-wide vote. The voters will be better able to appraise contesting delegation slates if each slate is equipped with a chairman; and a better organized campaign will be conducted by the contesting delegation slates if each has a chairman. In most states, it could ordinarily be expected that the governor would head one of the slates, and that other slates would be headed by a senator, a former governor or a candidate for governor. |