Legaly should the dnc have run a primary rather than going with kamala haris?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
Based on the analyses provided, the DNC was not legally required to run a primary after Joe Biden's withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race. The Democratic Party operated within established party rules when selecting Kamala Harris as their nominee through a virtual roll call vote that occurred on August 5, 2024 [1].
Professor Sonia Gipson Rankin explicitly states that "there are no legal concerns with having a Democratic candidate who wasn't in the primaries, as each party decides how it would like to determine its nominee" [2]. The nomination process was based on delegate votes, with Harris receiving over 3,000 of the 4,000 pledged delegates and running unopposed [2].
DNC Chair Jaime Harrison emphasized that the process followed established party rules, noting that even an in-person convention would have followed the same steps [3]. The virtual roll call was actually planned in May 2024, before Biden's withdrawal, primarily to ensure ballot access in states like Ohio and avoid potential legal challenges from Republican opponents [3].
Harris became the first Democratic nominee since Hubert Humphrey in 1968 to be nominated without actively campaigning in the primaries [1], and she was officially certified as the Democratic presidential nominee after receiving the vast majority of delegate votes [4].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The original question lacks several important contextual factors that influenced the DNC's decision:
- Time constraints played a crucial role - according to Elaine Kamarck, the party had "run out of time to organize a mini-primary" [5], suggesting practical limitations beyond legal requirements.
- Strategic considerations - The virtual roll call process was designed to avoid potential legal challenges from Republican opponents and ensure ballot access across all states [3].
- Democratic legitimacy arguments - Kamarck argues that the process "is not undemocratic, as all delegates to the convention are elected" [5], presenting a viewpoint that delegate selection provides sufficient democratic input.
- Unique qualifications - Some argued that Harris was "uniquely qualified to step in as the nominee" [5], suggesting her role as Vice President provided special legitimacy.
The analyses don't present significant opposition viewpoints or discuss who might benefit from either approach, leaving gaps in understanding potential political motivations or consequences.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original question contains a fundamental misunderstanding of legal requirements. By asking if the DNC "should" have run a primary "legally," it implies there may have been a legal obligation to do so. However, the analyses clearly demonstrate that each party has the authority to determine its own nomination process [2], and the DNC operated within established party rules [3].
The question also uses informal language ("legaly" instead of "legally" and "kamala haris" instead of "Kamala Harris"), which may reflect casual assumptions rather than informed understanding of the nomination process. The framing suggests the questioner may believe the DNC bypassed required democratic processes, when in fact they followed their established rules for delegate-based nomination.