No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Toward a Model State Presidential Primary Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
Since 1948, there has been a marked revival of interest in the presidential primary. In all probability this has come about because of the cleavage between the bulk of the regular Republican leadership, most of whom favored Taft, and the rank and file of the Republican party, who, together with many independent voters, favored Eisenhower. Concurrently, in the Democratic party there was in 1952 a “free convention” for the first time since 1932. As a result, there was revived interest in the presidential primary, and in the system of selecting delegates to the national nominating conventions, during the preconvention campaigns of 1952. Since the untimely heart attack suffered by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1955, interest in the nominating process for the presidential candidates of the major parties is again at a high point. This article, after reviewing briefly recent developments with respect to presidential primaries, discusses in some detail the legislation enacted in 1955 by the state of Florida.
During the period of the 1952 contest, interest in the presidential primary was expressed in four ways. In the first place, Eisenhower's decisive show of strength in primary contests in New Hampshire, Minnesota, and New Jersey drew public attention to the contrast between the preference primary and the methods of delegate selection in other states. Texas is a prime example of the manipulations that characterized the worst use of the convention system.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1956
References
1 The term presidential primary is used in this article to describe what are actually three different systems. First, there is the preferential primary, in which presidential aspirants are listed and the voters in the primary choose between them. Second, there is the primary for electing delegates to the national convention. A third system, favored by the authors, provides for a combination system in which the voters select among delegate slates pledged to particular candidates. This inclusive definition follows Merriam, Charles and Overacker, Louise, Primary Elections (Chicago, 1928), p. 141Google Scholar. See also Overacker, Louise, The Presidential Primary (New York, 1926)Google Scholar.
2 For earlier proposals see S. 1726, 72nd Cong., 1st sess., Dec. 14, 1931, Congressional Record, Vol. 75, p. 443Google Scholar; and Norris, George W., Fighting Liberal (New York, 1945), p. 336Google Scholar. The first major reference in Congress to such legislation was in the 61st Congress. Speech of Sen. Jonathan Bourne (R) of Oregon, 61st Cong., 3rd sess., Feb. 27, 1911, Congressional Record, Vol. 46, p. 3550Google Scholar. Reference was to the Oregon state law.
3 S.J.R. 125, 82nd Cong., 2nd sess., Jan. 20, 1952.
4 S.J.R. 145, 82nd Cong., 2nd sess., March 25, 1952.
5 H.R. 8374, 82nd Cong., 2nd sess., June 26, 1952; S. 2570, 82nd Cong., 2nd sess.; Cf. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Rules of the Committee on Rules and Administration, U.S. Senate, 82nd Cong., 2nd Sess., on S. 2570 (March 28, 1952, G.P.O., 1952).
6 (Baltimore, 1954), pp. 194–224.
7 H.R. 96, 83rd Cong. 1st sess., Jan. 3, 1953, Congressional Record, Vol. 99, pp. 55–56Google Scholar; also S. 1049, 83rd Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 20, 1953, Congressional Record, Vol. 99, p. 1294Google Scholar.
8 H.R. 2532, 84th Cong., 1st sess., Jan. 20, 1955, Congressional Record, Vol. 101, p. 417Google Scholar. S. 652, 84th Cong., 1st sess., Jan. 20, 1955, Congressional Record, Vol. 101, p. 441Google Scholar, and “analysis,” ibid., pp. 445–46.
9 Douglas, Paul H., “Conventions and the Popular Will,” New Republic, Vol. 132, pp. 11–15, May 28, 1955Google Scholar.
10 The same may be said for most political scientists. See the American Political Science Association Report, “Toward a More Responsible Two Party System,” this Review, Vol. 44 (Sept., 1950)Google Scholar, Supplement; also Moos, Malcolm, “New Light on the Nominating Process,” in Research Frontiers in Politics and Government (Washington, 1955), pp. 135–67Google Scholar.
11 See Congressional Record, July 3, 1952, Vol. 98, p. 9082Google Scholar for tabulation; as to the number of states holding primaries, a check was made with David, et al., Presidential Nominating Politics in 1952, especially The National Story, pp. 173 ff. For changes, statutes of all 48 states were checked through 1954. Except for the Florida developments and those in the District of Columbia, 1954 is the end of the period for which legislation in the separate states is considered in this article. Legal supplements and other data for the 1955 legislatures were not available when this article was being written.
12 Congressional Record, Apr. 9, 1952, Vol. 98, p. A 2720Google Scholar; McNickle, Roma K., “Presidential Primaries, 1952” in Editorial Research Reports, Vol. 1, p. 46 (1952)Google Scholar. Also Paul T. David, et al., op. cit., chapters on Ohio, Alabama, New York.
13 David, et al., chapters on the states mentioned. Nebraska added in 1951 an amendment which required the consent of the candidate, which changed a traditional feature of her system that was known as the “all star contest.” Vol. 4, p. 286.
14 A different version of this bill was adopted in 1954 but vetoed by the President because of interference with principles of the Hatch Act in one clause. For the 1955 Act, see Congressional Record, 84th Cong., 1st sess., July 12, 1955, pp. 8839–41Google Scholar, for amended version and for Senate action. This became Public Law 376, 84th Cong., approved Aug. 12, 1955.
15 For 1953 acts see Title 19–31, New Jersey Statutes Annotated, 1954 Supp.; Annotated Indiana Statutes, 1953 Supp., Title 29–3619, giving Ch. 193 of 1953 Acts.; Ch. 214, Laws, Resolutions … by the 33rd Legislative Assembly [of Montana], 1953Google Scholar; Ch. 299, Statutes of Nevada passed at the 46th Session of the Legislative Assembly.
16 For changes in Nevada in 1955 see Ch. 304, Statutes of Nevada, 1955 and for changes in Montana, Sec. 29–909 (639), Sec. 23–1006 (673.6) 1956 Supp. to Election Laws of Montana.
17 Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups, 2nd ed. (New York, 1947), p. 392Google Scholar.
18 Ch. 5014, Acts of Florida, 1901.
19 Jacksonville, , Florida Times Union, May 1, 1904, p. 15Google Scholar, cols. 1–2; May 10, 1904, p. 3, cols. 4–5; May 22, 1904, p. 2, cols. 1–5.
20 See Overacker, The Presidential Primary, which considers early statutes and lists the Wisconsin law of 1905 and the Oregon law of 1910, and Merriam, and Overacker, , Primary Elections, p. 141Google Scholar.
21 Ch. 6469, Laws of Florida, 1913.
22 Ch. 6874, Laws of Florida, 1915.
23 Jacksonville, , Florida Times Union, May 10, 1912, p. 13Google Scholar, cols. 1–2, p. 17, cols. 1–2.
24 Ch. 22058, Laws of Florida, 1943.
25 Ch. 22729, Laws of Florida, 1945.
26 Manning J. Dauer, et al., “Florida” in David, et al., op. cit. Vol. 3, p. 137.
27 Jacksonville, , Florida Times Union, April 6, 1955, p. 1Google Scholar.
28 Florida Statutes Annotated, Sec. 103.101.
29 “Outline of a Model State Primary Law” (mimeographed).
30 David's “proposals,” Jan., 1955. In preparing his “Proposed Specifications,” David drew on research at the Brookings Institution, financed by a grant from The John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation of Los Angeles, as well as on the earlier work for The American Political Science Association.
31 David to Dauer, Aug. 3, 1955.
32 Subsequently enacted as Ch. 29,936, Laws of Florida, 1956.
33 Subsequently enacted Ch. 29,947, Laws of Florida, 1955. Also Florida Statutes Annotated, 97.021 (6) (b) requires a party primary for nominees for all elective county, state, and national offices when a party registers over five per cent of the voters under its designation.
34 Subsequently enacted as Ch. 29,936, Laws of Florida, 1955; for earlier provision, see Roady, Elston, “Florida's New Campaign Expense Law, and the 1952 Democratic Gubernatorial Primaries,” this Review, Vol. 48, pp. 465–76, at pp. 465–66 (June, 1954)Google Scholar.
35 Subsequently enacted as Ch. 29,934, Laws of Florida, 1955.
36 The omnibus law, H.B., 1204, was 62 double-space legal pages long. It was introduced on May 11, 1955 by H. T. Cook, chairman, and other members of the election committee in an effort to get something in print for public hearings. For summary see Florida Legislative Service, Summaries of House Bills, Tallahassee, May 11, 1955.
37 The Florida law and Florida Senate Rules have no requirements for lobbyist registration. The Florida House Rules require such registration of all those who appear and testify before any House committee. The senior author appeared eight times before the committee; Stephenson appeared innumerable times and worked with the House Committee and the bill drafting section of the Attorney General's office continuously in Tallahassee for the last four weeks of the legislature. In addition, both worked with the Senate Committee headed by Senator J. C. Getzen, and the Senate sub-committee headed by Senator George Tapper. Among the House and Senate members who were delegates to the 1952 Democratic Convention there was strong support for the presidential primary bill. These included the Chairman of the Florida delegation, former House Speaker Farris Bryant, Rep. J. A. Boyd, and Senator John Rawls.
38 For editorial comment see, for example, Tampa Tribune, April 8, 1955; Ft. Pierce, News-Tribune, April 8, 1955; Ocala Star-Banner, April 17, 1955; and feature article in St. Petersburg Times, June 13, 14, 15, 1955.
39 This provision backfired. At one stage there was favorable report on Florida HJR 260 to shorten the campaign by moving all general elections except the vote for President to the third Tuesday in June, retaining the primary dates in May. This constitutional amendment was dropped when it was found to be contrary to federal law covering the election of senators and representatives in Congress.
40 See Florida Senate Journal, May 24, 1953. The bills were: S.B. 1130 (H.B. 1584 companion bill), presidential preferential primary; S.B. 1131 (H.B. 1591) registration procedures; S.B. 1132 (H.B. 1588), filing fees to state committees; S.B. 1133 (H.B. 1589) campaign expenditures and contributions; S.B. 1134 (H.B. 1590) changes in primary and general election ballot forms; S.B. 1157 (H.B. 1587), filling vacancies in party nominations. For summary see Florida, Attorney General, Summary of Election Law Changes Made by 1955 Legislature (Tallahassee, June, 1955)Google Scholar.
41 Florida Senate Journal, 1955, May 30, 1955, p. 1190Google Scholar; Florida House Journal, 1955, June 2, 1955, p. 1955Google Scholar.
42 Telegram, Governor LeRoy Collins to Dauer, June 21, 1955.
43 July 8, 1955, p. 22, col. 5.
44 Douglas to Stephenson, July 11, 1955.
45 Congressional Record, July 13, 1955, Vol. 101, pp. 8997–98Google Scholar.
46 Press Release to National Meeting of the League, July 27, 1955.
47 This committee has as its chairman Mr. Willoughby A. Colby of New Hampshire, and one of the members is Mr. Charles Tom Henderson, Assistant Attorney General of Florida. David to Dauer, Oct. 21, 1955.
48 Congressional Record, July 13, 1955, Vol. 101, p. 8998Google Scholar.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.