In the whirlwind of political processes, few things have sparked as much debate as Vice President Kamala Harris's swift rise to the Democratic nomination in the wake of President Joe Biden's exit from the race. What was initially framed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as an “open primary” has now become a point of contention, with critics from across the political spectrum questioning the legitimacy of Harris’s path to the nomination. Pelosi's assertion that Harris won the nomination in a fair, open contest is facing heavy scrutiny, with many calling the process a mere formality rather than a true primary.
Leading up to Biden’s decision to step down in July 2024, there was much discussion about what the Democratic Party would do if the sitting president were to withdraw from the race. Pelosi herself was on record favoring a competitive primary should the need arise. However, when Biden endorsed Harris as his successor the same day he announced his exit, the landscape shifted dramatically.
What followed was a fast-tracked process that included a virtual roll call vote at the Democratic National Convention. Despite some potential challengers to Harris, none were able to officially qualify for the ballot due to the high threshold of delegate signatures required.
"We had an open primary and [Kamala Harris] won it. Nobody else got in the race," @SpeakerPelosi tells @kadiagoba. pic.twitter.com/y2O0JhKBgc
— Semafor (@semafor) September 18, 2024
As the sole candidate in the roll call, Harris secured an overwhelming 99% of the delegate vote. Pelosi, in defending this process, argued that while the primary was open to others, Harris's momentum and support from Biden effectively shut out other candidates before they even had the chance to formally run. Her remarks emphasized that Harris’s early backing and strategic positioning “saved time” and allowed the party to rally quickly around her candidacy in the short window leading up to the general election.
But for conservatives and skeptics, this "open primary" narrative rings hollow. Heritage Action for America’s Ryan Walker criticized the process, calling it a farce and claiming that millions of voters who initially cast ballots for Biden were essentially disregarded. Others, like Jenny Beth Martin from the Tea Party Patriots, echoed similar sentiments, accusing Pelosi of misleading the public and trying to paint a pre-determined outcome as a legitimate contest.
Political analysts, however, argue that while the process may not have followed contemporary expectations, it wasn't illegal or even unprecedented. Experts like Jeremy Mayer from George Mason University and Leonard Steinhorn from American University note that political parties ultimately have wide discretion in choosing their nominees. The system Harris ascended through mirrors an older style of convention-based selections, not dissimilar to how candidates were chosen prior to the adoption of widespread primaries. Mayer highlighted that, historically, figures like Gerald Ford were appointed without facing direct primaries, underscoring that party conventions have long played this role in American politics.
Ultimately, the criticism around Harris’s nomination is less about legality and more about perception. For some, it feels like a deviation from the democratic norms we've come to expect in modern elections, where voters anticipate an active primary with multiple candidates vying for the top spot. Instead, the Democratic Party quickly coalesced around Harris, leaving many to wonder whether anyone else had a real chance to challenge her.
Yet, as Steinhorn aptly pointed out, with less than four months until the general election, the party had little room for error. The stakes were high, and Harris, armed with Biden’s endorsement, had a clear path to solidify her position. Given the circumstances, the party acted decisively, and by the time Harris secured her nomination, any meaningful opposition had already been sidelined.