CRS INSIGHT Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

INSIGHTi

Recent Developments in the Democratic Presidential Nominating Process

Updated August 12, 2024

On July 21, President Joseph Biden announced that he would no longer seek the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination. This CRS Insight discusses selected issues that could be of interest to Congress as the party approaches the Democratic National Convention in August. With issues discussed herein developing rapidly, this Insight does not attempt to cover all issues that might be relevant before the nominating process concludes. The Insight does not provide legal analysis.

Former President Donald Trump accepted the Republican nomination on July 18, 2024, and the Insight does not discuss the now-concluded Republican process. Another CRS product discusses frequently asked questions about the 2024 presidential nominating process for both major parties.

Status of the Nominating Process

At the time of his withdrawal announcement, President Biden was not yet the Democratic nominee for the party’s 2024 presidential ticket. According to the Associated Press, President Biden had secured 3,896 pledged delegates (discussed below)—exceeding the 1,976 required for nomination. The formal nomination does not occur until delegates cast their votes, typically at the national convention. Hours after President Biden’s announcement, Democratic National Convention Chair Minyon Moore announced that the party’s quadrennial meeting would proceed as scheduled August 19-22 in Chicago.

The party also held a virtual roll call (discussed below) to nominate its presidential ticket before the convention. The virtual roll call plan emerged in May 2024 after it appeared that ballot-access deadlines in Ohio and other states could conflict with the timing of the Democratic National Convention. There was debate about the necessity of holding a virtual roll call. Attorneys for the convention Rules Committee advised during July 2024 meetings that the virtual roll call remained necessary to avoid potential litigation about ballot-access deadlines. Additional discussion of party rules affecting the status of the nominating process appears below.

Party Rules and the Nominating Process

Whether during routine times or extraordinary ones, party rules govern the presidential nominating process. For Democrats, provisions specified in the Call of the Convention and the Bylaws are particularly

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

IN12396

Congressional Research Service 2

noteworthy. Party rules generally establish broad provisions about how the party makes decisions and how candidates may seek the presidential nomination. They typically do not address specific detail such as the implications of any particular candidate’s decision to seek the nomination or to withdraw. Various party governing committees are responsible for developing and interpreting the rules. Ultimate decisionmaking responsibility generally falls to the convention, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), or both. Delegates select party nominees, typically at party conventions. As noted above, Democrats plan to use a virtual nominating process ahead of the 2024 convention, as they did in 2020. The DNC also may fill any nominee vacancies after the convention, as it did in 1972.

Recent Rules Affecting the Nominating Process

On June 20, 2024, the DNC approved an amended Call that, among other provisions, permits the Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) Rules Committee to adopt permanent procedural rules for the 2024 convention, set the agenda, and select convention officers. On July 24, the convention Rules Committee did so, including approving provisions that affect nominee selection in light of President Biden’s withdrawal.

Under those rules, by 6:00 p.m. on July 30, candidates had to secure 300 delegate signatures on an electronic nominating petition. Per Section C.4 of the convention rules and Appendix E in the amended Call, candidates must approve of their nominations, thus apparently precluding “draft” efforts without the candidate’s consent.

The number of qualifying candidates then determined the remainder of the nominating process.

• If only one candidate met the qualifying criteria, the virtual roll call to select the nominee was expected to begin on August 1.

• If multiple candidates met the qualifying criteria, the DNCC chair and the DNC chair would have determined when virtual voting began. The rules permitted a period of no more than five days for candidates to “make their case to delegates and the public.”

• The presidential nominee may name a vice-presidential nominee. That decision was expected to occur by August 7. On August 6, Vice President Harris announced Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate.

• A “ceremonial” in-person vote among delegates is expected to occur at the national convention in Chicago.

On July 30, the DNC and the DNCC chairs announced that Vice President Kamala Harris was the only candidate who met the qualifying criteria; that 3,923 delegates had petitioned to nominate Harris; and that virtual voting on her nomination would begin on August 1 and conclude on August 5. Given Vice President Harris’s margin of delegate support, superdelegates (discussed below) were permitted to participate in the first round of the virtual roll call. According to media reports, three other candidates attempted to qualify but failed to secure at least 300 delegate signatures to do so.

On August 6, the DNC and DNCC chairs, and the DNC secretary, “officially certified” Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as the vice-presidential nominee.

Potential Delegate Implications

As another CRS product discusses, Democrats rely on a combination of two types of national convention delegates to select their presidential and vice-presidential nominees: (1) those who are pledged to support particular candidates by virtue of their selection through state delegate-selection processes, and (2) party leader and elected official (PLEO) delegates that are allocated automatically, commonly called superdelegates.

Congressional Research Service 3

Pledged delegates do not automatically transfer to another candidate, if the candidate to whom they have pledged their support withdraws. Any candidate who withdraws may release pledged delegates, so that the delegates may support another candidate. Superdelegates are not pledged to support particular candidates, although they often voluntarily pledge such support.

Potential Campaign Finance Implications

Media reports have considered what might become of the Biden presidential campaign’s remaining funds if he withdrew. Federal Election Commission (FEC) data show that, through May 2024, the Biden presidential committee reported having approximately $91.6 million in cash on hand. Subsequent media reports indicate that the Biden campaign raised substantial additional funds through June. After President Biden’s announcement, the Biden for President committee notified the FEC that Vice President Harris would be the presidential candidate for the committee, which would be known as Harris for President.

There has been some debate about whether funds raised when President Biden was the presidential candidate remain available for the Harris presidential candidacy. Some commentators argue that because President Biden and Vice President Harris were running mates and shared a campaign account (through a single political committee), the campaign may spend all its funds advocating for Harris’s election to the presidency. Others take an opposing view, arguing that contribution limits apply to the transition between candidates. According to media reports, at least some members of the FEC disagree about whether the issue is settled. Questions might also arise about whether contributions raised when President Biden was still on the ticket must be refunded or permissibly transferred elsewhere, such as to a party committee.

Campaign finance questions might be unresolved until after the general election. The FEC could consider enforcement actions, advisory opinions (AOs), or both, about how or whether the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) or commission regulations apply. Issuing AOs and adjudicating enforcement decisions is time-consuming and requires agreement from at least four of six commissioners. Accordingly, it is unclear how much impact FEC action might have before the election. Litigation is also possible.

Author Information

R. Sam Garrett Specialist in American National Government

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.