This article in the Constitution Daily says they are regulated by the federal government. What it all means is still unclear, haven’t had time to read it all and follow the references.
Many do, but that’s not the point. The primaries are not functions of the federal government, nor transactions between states. They are purely functions of the respective parties in the particular state, conducted under the auspices of the state government. The parties and the state make the eligibility rules.
Yes, Congressional and presidential primaries are federal elections. The reason this is important is that Congress had broad powers over federal elections via the two “times, places, and manner” clauses of the United States Constitution (one of which applies to Congressional elections, and one to presidential). Congress has less power over state and local elections, limited mostly to the power to prevent discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age (if over 18), or failure to pay a poll tax.
This doesn’t mean that Congress controls every aspect of Congressional and presidential primaries and general elections; obviously, they don’t. But, they have the power to enact such controls as they desire.
For our purposes, one important such power is the power to define and punish voter fraud. And indeed, under Title 42, Chapter 1973 of the United States Code, we find the following:
My bolding.
Section 1973 aa-1 establishes limits on residency requirements. Short residency requirements and a long primary season create the possibility that a person could move and vote, otherwise legally, in two or more state primaries. The law, as I read it, makes that illegal. You can vote, for example, for Governor of Maryland in the Maryland primary, and then move and vote for Governor of California in the California primary, but you cannot vote in both presidential primaries (same office) in the same year.
It strikes me as unlikely that anybody would be prosecuted for this. But, it appears to be nominally illegal.
However, in at least some of the presidential primaries, you are not actually “selecting or electing any candidate for the office of President” as specified in 42 USC 1973. You are selecting a delegate who will go to the convention and vote for a party’s presidential candidate under a set of rules laid down by the party. For example, in the Illinois 6th Congressional District, the names on the ballot were Minch, Kois, Brady, Fakroddin, etc., not Kasich, Trump, et al. I’m not sure it is clear-cut that selection of convention delegates is the same thing as selecting or electing a candidate.
Even Illinois, however, also had a direct presidential preference vote which was used to allocate statewide delegates. If you were fastidious enough to vote only in the delegate election and not in the preference vote . . . well, I’ll let lawyers argue that one in the unlikely event that somebody some day does this and gets prosecuted for it.
Even if it is all under the states’ control, some states might well have rules that you can’t vote in their primary if you’ve already voted in the corresponding primary in any other state.
Unless you vote in different parties each time, it would seem (different candidacies.)
As you say, it’s unlikely anyone would ever notice or care, regardless.
Thanks for the research! The meaningful reveal to me is,
So all this mess with the different state rules could be cleaned up. Despite what I’ve heard from several commentators this season, Congress could lay down procedural rules for all the ~168 state-level parties and governments. Interesting.
Maybe, kind of, sort of, but . . . I wouldn’t go to the wall over that one.
I simplified above by speaking of two “times, places, and manners” clauses. Strictly speaking there is one “times, places, and manner” clause and one “time” clause:
In practice this “time” clause has been interpreted almost as broadly as the “times, places and manner” clause. This Yale Law Review summary (PDF) is 20 years old, but gives a good summary of the issue:
But, if Congress were to attempt anything so drastic as specifying a uniform presidential primary date and uniform presidential nominating rules, I feel sure that SCOTUS would take a fresh look at this issue, and I will not hazard a guess as to the outcome.
Just a small correction, Oregon doesn’t allow non-humans to vote in her elections … so the maximum number of primates to legally vote in during a year is zero.
