# why don't the US primaries system get challenged in court? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 2, 2016, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906 "2016-02-02T02:20:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2016, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/61 "2016-02-02T23:55:39Z")
> [@Carryon](#): > > There is still an undecided legal issue though. When Florida moved up it’s primaries both the Democrats and Republicans said they would penalize the state its votes for doing so. If other states moved their primaries/caucuses ahead of NH and Iowa and the political parties denied their votes, it could cause issues and lawsuits. > > For now it hasn’t been a major issue because holding elections is a costly process and many states would rather hold them later when the primaries are long since decided that way they will face low voter turn out and cheaper costs to run it. In 2012, the Missouri state legislature set the date for the presidential primary as February 7th. This violated the rules of the Republican party. [As a result, Missouri held a primary that counted for absolutely nothing.](http://electls.blogs.wm.edu/2011/12/08/mo-primary-beauty-contest/) No delegates were selected. The primary was derisively called a “beauty contest.” The estimated cost to the state of the beauty contest was $6 to $8 million. Instead of selecting delegates to the convention by primary, that year the Republicans held caucuses and Congressional district conventions before the state Republican convention. The delegates that went to the national convention were selected at the state convention. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/62 "2016-02-03T00:04:54Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > Well yes it is in part. When several states tried to move their primaries earlier, NH said they would move theirs even earlier. They were not content with having even a simultaneous first primary. Then the parties “conspired” with NH and Iowa saying they’d discount any earlier results. There have been various proposals for having 8-10 ‘regional’ dates, with about 5-6 adjacent states having their caucuses/primary on the same date. (The only one that really succeeded was started in the late 1980’s, Super Tuesday, when about 9 Southern States set the same date.) But both Iowa & New Hampshire object strongly to any changes. For good (to them) reason – these are msjor economic boosts to these states. Both are small, largely agricultural states – not that busy in the winter. But the sudden influx of campaign staff workers takes up most of the rental cars in the state, fills hotel rooms that would otherwise sit empty in an Iowa winter, generates news for their local media (and advertising). Lots of places are rented for public meetings & events, food is catered, etc. Those 2 states make lots of money from their early spot in esidential campaigns, in addition to all the attention. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/63 "2016-02-03T00:10:00Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > How do fewer voters make the cost cheaper? The state has to open exactly as many polling places for exactly the same number of hours and use exactly as many overseers for 10000 voters as for 100000. No they don’t. Election officials are well aware of the likely turnout for Primary/General/Special elections, and adjust the number of election judges hired for the day accordingly. And in locations (like here in Minnesota) where people use paper ballots, they adjust the number printed in advance based on expected turnout. Both of those allow them to reduce costs for low-turnout elections. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/64 "2016-02-03T00:52:04Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > In the UK candidates for MP at General Elections are chosen by the local constituency parties. Much the same thing, really. No, it’s completely different. In the UK a parliamentary candidate will be chosen by the local branch of the party. This could involve a ballot open to all paid-up party members, or selection by a committee of party officials, or some combination of the two things but, either way, everyone involved is an active member of the local party, there will rarely be more than two or three hundred people involved, and mostly many fewer. Whereas in the US pretty well anyone who is interested to do so can vote in the primary; they don’t need to be members of or activists for the party. There is in theory nothing to stop someone voting in the primary of the party they oppose, and voting for a candidate they consider unelectable, in order to benefit the candidate of the party they support. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/65 "2016-02-03T02:57:08Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > No they don’t. > > Election officials are well aware of the likely turnout for Primary/General/Special elections, and adjust the number of election judges hired for the day accordingly. And in locations (like here in Minnesota) where people use paper ballots, they adjust the number printed in advance based on expected turnout. Both of those allow them to reduce costs for low-turnout elections. I need a cite that Minnesota changes the number of election judges for primaries. The [election judge guide](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjg1eOJzNrKAhWHtIMKHfv_BFYQFggpMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sos.state.mn.us%2FModules%2FShowDocument.aspx%3Fdocumentid%3D5060&usg=AFQjCNEcqOZRrp720B49kWWMvC_o7XzHMg&sig2=9DY4ALtBplVahEe6GwBnUg) doesn’t indicate that. If there is a difference, then it’s state-dependent, because in New York all elections of all kinds, primaries and regular, have exactly the same set-up. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/66 "2016-02-03T06:09:44Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I need a cite that Minnesota changes the number of election judges for primaries. The [election judge guide](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjg1eOJzNrKAhWHtIMKHfv_BFYQFggpMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sos.state.mn.us%2FModules%2FShowDocument.aspx%3Fdocumentid%3D5060&usg=AFQjCNEcqOZRrp720B49kWWMvC_o7XzHMg&sig2=9DY4ALtBplVahEe6GwBnUg) doesn’t indicate that. > > If there is a difference, then it’s state-dependent, because in New York all elections of all kinds, primaries and regular, have exactly the same set-up. Your link is to the Secretary of State’s info – that’s a general guideline; elections are actually done by the local County or City Clerks’ office. The best cite I can give is the [Minneapolis Elections site](http://vote.minneapolismn.gov/judges/WCMS1Q-080052), where they say “Each precinct is assigned four to 12 judges, depending on the needs of the election.” But I know it is done that way from 20-some years of being an official observer at polling places in the City. The number clearly varies by election & expected voter turnout. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/67 "2016-02-03T13:33:40Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > No, O’Malley and Huckabee made that choice themselves. They had polling results in Iowa. They had polling results in other states. If something unexpected happened and they did better than the polls they had the option of staying in the race. If they were doing better in polls in other states with more representative demographics, they could stay in the race. Iowa was just a good excuse for them to face reality. Exactly. They dropped out precisely because they (and everyone else) perceived Iowa to be of representative of their chances nationally. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/68 "2016-02-03T13:39:10Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Exactly. They dropped out precisely because they (and everyone else) perceived Iowa to be of representative of their chances nationally. Except that Iowa isn’t. It’s much whiter than the US on average, more evangelical and the largest city is only 200,000 people. It’s in no way representative of the rest of the US. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/69 "2016-02-03T14:42:46Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Some more questions while I watch your ever more bizarre political process play out. > The Iowa caucus system as I understand it requires people to be physically present for several hours. Other states primaries are a simple ballot. Surely this skews the demographics? Is there any way people who can’t get time off work can vote in the Iowa caucus? If not can’t they file a law suit against the caucus system claiming they are being denied their chance to vote? > > Like wise can’t people in the states whose primaries are last file legal challenges because effectively their vote in the primaries are almost worthless? It just seems blatantly obvious to me that your vote in a primary is worth more or less depending on which state you live in. How is that reconciled with the Equal Protection Clause and “one man, one vote” ? > > I just can’t see how the current primary system is in any way an accurate indication of who the US population really wants as the parties nominees. The short answer is that it isn’t a vote. It’s part of the process of choosing a party’s candidate, not actually voting for public office. The rights of participation in that process aren’t the same as actual voting. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/70 "2016-02-03T14:44:05Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > But it does have an effect on your vote. > > As a result of Iowa, you won’t even have the option of voting for O’Malley or Huckabee. The voters of Iowa have taken that off the table for you. Is there a right to vote for someone? Or a right to have your preferred candidate on the ballot? ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/71 "2016-02-03T15:37:12Z")
These are ultimately political questions, not legal ones. The primary system came about because the public felt their “right” to select their preferred candidate was being trampled by the pols in the smoke-filled rooms. So the public fired up enough protest that eventually the pols had to answer with the current system, plus/minus some incremental changes since the big changeover. If enough people get worked up enough about IA & NH filtering out candidates the rest of the US would prefer, the system will change. The legal system may provide some prods in the back to keep things moving forward, but the actual impetus will be wholly political. In some Bizarro future world I could imagine Iowa as the last bastion of a wholly white, wholly Presbyterian, wholly reactionary culture totally alien to the rest of the US. As such if its primary / caucus came first it might have the same result as Iran’s “Guardian Council” ([wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council)): an initial filter that 100% of candidates for any / all national offices must pass through which ensures that only candidates orthodox enough by their standards ever see the light of day. If that ever started to really happen you can be assured the other 49 states would put a stop to it pronto. ---
**Author:** ![yabob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yabob/32/2821_2.png) [@yabob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yabob)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/72 "2016-02-03T15:47:23Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > The short answer is that it isn’t a vote. It’s part of the process of choosing a party’s candidate, not actually voting for public office. The rights of participation in that process aren’t the same as actual voting. Exactly. The thing you might note is that in most representative democracies, the process by which parties choose their candidates is opaque to you as an average voter. The primary season in the US can be seen as an extra level of choice, albeit one that is also a three ring circus. Foreign readers should realize that the primary process may also apply to candidates for lower offices. But since those are within a state, inconsistencies between the way states manage their primaries for, say, senate or gubernatorial candidates, aren’t an issue. (The fact that we effectively vote directly on our head of government separate from our representatives is also odd. OK, we vote on a set of electors pledged to vote for a particular candidate in the electoral college. Let’s not go there in this thread. I’m not sure it’s a good idea, and it wasn’t exactly what the framers of the constitution had in mind. It’s what the states turned it into by deciding to just run elections to choose their electors.) ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/73 "2016-02-03T15:53:20Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > In some Bizarro future world I could imagine Iowa as the last bastion of a wholly white, wholly Presbyterian, wholly reactionary culture totally alien to the rest of the US. As such if its primary / caucus came first it might have the same result as Iran’s “Guardian Council” ([wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council)): an initial filter that 100% of candidates for any / all national offices must pass through which ensures that only candidates orthodox enough by their standards ever see the light of day. > > If that ever started to really happen you can be assured the other 49 states would put a stop to it pronto. Keep in mind too that in the real world, the winners in Iowa have included Ed Muskie, Dick Gephardt, Tom Harkin, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum. The Iowa caucus by no means anoints the eventual winner, and plenty of candidates go on to success after losing there. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/74 "2016-02-03T16:53:08Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > I could be wrong, but I understood Exapno to be making the opposite point. What is unusual about the US system is that the government intervenes in party affairs, and makes laws basically controlling how parties can select their candidates. The notion that political parties can be controlled and directed by the government in this way looks profoundly undemocratic, since those who control the levers of government could use their power to neuter opposition parties that are critical or unsupportive. > > This strikes me, as a non-USonian, as one of those “it’s all very well in practice, but does it work in theory?” things. I thought that’s the point Exapno was making. One reason the government has intervened in the selection process to mandate primary elections is that in some places, the selection was, or still is, the de facto election because one party dominates the region. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/75 "2016-02-03T18:42:47Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Keep in mind too that in the real world, the winners in Iowa have included Ed Muskie, Dick Gephardt, Tom Harkin, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum. The Iowa caucus by no means anoints the eventual winner, and plenty of candidates go on to success after losing there. Quite. As I said, my example was Bizarro. It’s precisely the fact that Iowa isn’t really the Great Filter that some folks fear which lets it remain the first primary state despite its unrepresentative nature. If it ever became a Great Filter it’d be bypassed. Which was much the point I made here [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19043002&postcount=113](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19043002&postcount=113). Whichever states go first, be they representative or not, they’ll have a disproportionate effect on the back-of-the-pack no-hopers. Simply because that’s the first time actual voter reality intrudes on all the projections, polls, and wishful thinking. Of both candidates and their backers. Their effect on the front runners is much more nuanced. ---
**Author:** ![muttrox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a8b319/32.png) [@muttrox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muttrox)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/76 "2016-02-03T19:12:35Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Except that Iowa isn’t. It’s much whiter than the US on average, more evangelical and the largest city is only 200,000 people. It’s in no way representative of the rest of the US. Iowa is in many ways representative of the rest of the US. Just not all of them. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/77 "2016-02-03T19:18:28Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > These are ultimately political questions, not legal ones. > > The primary system came about because the public felt their “right” to select their preferred candidate was being trampled by the pols in the smoke-filled rooms. > > So the public fired up enough protest that eventually the pols had to answer with the current system, plus/minus some incremental changes since the big changeover. > > If enough people get worked up enough about IA & NH filtering out candidates the rest of the US would prefer, the system will change. The legal system may provide some prods in the back to keep things moving forward, but the actual impetus will be wholly political. > In some Bizarro future world I could imagine Iowa as the last bastion of a wholly white, wholly Presbyterian, wholly reactionary culture totally alien to the rest of the US. As such if its primary / caucus came first it might have the same result as Iran’s “Guardian Council” ([wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council)): an initial filter that 100% of candidates for any / all national offices must pass through which ensures that only candidates orthodox enough by their standards ever see the light of day. > > If that ever started to really happen you can be assured the other 49 states would put a stop to it pronto. Such a bizarro future IA and NH world wouldn’t come to pass such that candidates would drop out after a poor showing in a radical state. Say in 100 years, the residents of those two states are 98% members of the “Hitler was too nice of a guy” wing of a party. Suppose we have our current crop of candidates, but David Duke wins 70% of the vote and the rest of the candidates are in single digits. Nobody would drop out because the candidates could look at polling in states ahead of IA and NH and see that the HWTNOAG contingent wasn’t represented in the other states. The reason why the O’Malleys and the Huckabees drop out after IA is that IA is not so radically different from the rest of the US that they expect the same poor result elsewhere. In a future bizarro IA and NH, they wouldn’t see those same tea leaves and would not drop out. ---
**Author:** ![Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blue_blistering_barnacle/32/3386_2.png) [@Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blue_Blistering_Barnacle)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/78 "2016-02-03T19:47:54Z")
> [@Daylate](#): > > According the the news, the caucuses start at 7PM. Most folks are off work by then. Most, but not all. I missed the 2000 caucuses due to working the late shift. My wife went, but found herself quite distracted by the 2-year-old she had in tow. She might have had to miss entirely if she had to handle 2 or 3 wee ones. I can imagine numerous circumstances beyond work requirements which could force a parent or other busy person to sit out the caucuses, when they could have otherwise voted in a primary. The caucuses are cute 'cuz they’re weird. You even have to love the civic-mindedness of them (having to commit to being there, trying to persuade others to vote your way). But they are not a particularly fair representation of the will of the people. (Also, all those delegates are not particularly ‘committed’- I believe that there are lots of opportunities for changes as things wend their way to the conventions.) ---
**Author:** ![Chihuahua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dec6dc/32.png) [@Chihuahua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chihuahua)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/79 "2016-02-03T20:29:51Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > How is that reconciled with the Equal Protection Clause and “one man, one vote” ? > . You do get one vote… In November. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2016, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906/80 "2016-02-03T21:20:15Z")
> [@muttrox](#): > > Iowa is in many ways representative of the rest of the US. Name four. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-the-us-primaries-system-get-challenged-in-court/744906.md?page=5)