In Case You Were Wondering

Can a Candidate be Nominated Despite Receiving no Votes in the Primaries?

Have you noticed that Donald Trump is more angry, confused, and explosive than ever? The nation’s first convicted felon-in-chief doesn’t know what to do about Kamala Harris. Aside from a barrage of baseless and crude personal attacks on her race, gender, intelligence, and experience, his latest charge is that the Democratic Party staged a coup against President Biden and that Harris is an illegitimate, illegal, or unconstitutional candidate. Fair point? What does the law and the Constitution say?

Let’s first dispel this notion of a “coup.” Since Trump attempted to stage one on January 6, 2021, he should know that a necessary element of a coup requires that the person being deposed aims to stay in office. Whether pressured by certain party members or not, Joe Biden withdrew from the race. Party delegates chose Harris to replace him—end of story—how a political party selects its’ nominee after the primary winner withdraws is left to the discretion of that political party.

Constitutional Framework

There is no constitutional requirement for a candidate to have participated in or won a primary election to be nominated as a party's candidate for the presidency. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution sets out the requirements for eligibility to run for President. A candidate must be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. That’s it—those are the constitutional requirements. The Constitution does not address or mandate how a party selects the nominee. Thus, it is entirely kosher, legal, and even constitutional for a party to nominate a candidate who did not receive a single vote in the primaries.

The Role of Political Parties

Political parties in the United States are private organizations with significant leeway in determining their nomination processes. While primary elections are the most visible way parties choose their candidates, the ultimate decision rests with the delegates at the national convention. Delegates are typically pledged to support candidates based on primary or caucus results but can be released from these obligations for many reasons. Flexibility is essential in understanding the legality of nominating a candidate like Kamala Harris, who did not win a primary. The party's rules permit the delegates at the convention to nominate her regardless of the primary outcome. In this case, the leading candidate withdrew from the race.  Other examples might be a candidate’s disqualification or a deadlocked convention.

Historical Precedents and Legal Interpretations

There have been instances in U.S. history where candidates who did not participate in or win primaries were nominated by their parties. Before the 1970s, party conventions were the primary method of selecting presidential nominees, with little to no input from primary voters. Even after the primary system became more established, there have been situations where the nominee was not the leading candidate in the primaries. For example, Hubert Humphrey secured the Democratic nomination in 1968 without winning a single primary.

Courts have consistently ruled that political parties have broad discretion in their internal processes, including how they select their nominees. The Supreme Court has affirmed the autonomy of political parties in cases like Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut (1986), which held that a party's right to define its membership and processes is protected under the First Amendment.

Political Implications

Trump certainly has a First Amendment right to question this process. Some Democratic voters have expressed concern that the Harris candidacy undermines the will of the people. While bypassing the primary result may be unusual and, in some cases, may lead to voter disillusionment or party conflict, that does not seem to be the case here. Democratic leaders and most of the electorate seem happy with Harris at the top of the ticket. She is surging in the polls, and voters are energized. I suspect these factors trouble Trump far more than the Democrats’ nominating process. I see almost no potential for backlash at the polls.

The Party’s primary responsibility is to nominate a candidate with the best chance of winning the general election. The party's leadership and delegates believe that Kamala Harris is the strongest candidate. The voters seem to agree, much to the chagrin of Donald Trump and his radical Project 2025 friends.

The bottom line? It is legally and constitutionally permissible to nominate Kamala Harris for president despite not receiving any primary votes. The political legitimacy of her nomination is for the voters to decide in November. Fellow citizens, it’s a whole new ballgame.