Sore Loser Laws: Do They Apply To Presidential Candidates?

In the United States, sore loser laws prevent candidates who lost a primary election from running as an independent or representing another political party in the general election. However, these laws don't apply to presidential candidates in most states. Richard Winger, a ballot access researcher, argues that sore loser laws have been interpreted not to apply to presidential primaries. He claims that only two states, South Dakota and Texas, apply sore loser laws to presidential candidates. In Michigan, one of the few states where this law applies to presidential elections, Gary Johnson was denied ballot access as a Libertarian in 2012.

Sore loser laws in presidential elections: an overview

In the United States, sore loser laws refer to election laws that prohibit candidates who lose a primary election from running as an independent or representing another party in the general election. In other words, sore loser laws prevent candidates from appearing on the general election ballot if they have failed to secure their party's nomination.

Application to Presidential Candidates

Sore loser laws generally do not apply to presidential candidates, according to ballot researcher Richard Winger. John B. Anderson, who ran in the 1980 Republican presidential primaries, withdrew from the race and then declared as an independent candidate, setting a precedent for this interpretation. Other precedents include Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, Robert La Follette in 1924, David Duke in 1988, and Lyndon LaRouche from 1984 to 1992.

However, there are a few states that maintain their sore loser laws do apply to presidential candidates. These states include South Dakota, Mississippi, Ohio, and Texas. In 1993, Ohio amended its sore loser law specifically to include presidential candidates after LaRouche won a court case against the state in 1992.

Legal Arguments

Opponents of sore loser laws argue that they violate the Constitution, and legal challenges have been made on these grounds. In 2018, a federal judge agreed with the North Carolina affiliate of the Constitution Party, ruling that the retroactive application of the state's sore loser law was unconstitutional.

Supporters of sore loser laws, including the Congressional Research Service, argue that these laws contribute to the integrity of the election process by preventing inter-party raiding, intraparty feuds, unrestrained factionalism, ballot clutter, and voter confusion.

Impact

The presence of sore loser laws, when combined with ballot access laws, can discourage moderate candidates and result in more ideologically polarized nominees. This is because sore loser laws prevent candidates who lose a party primary from appearing on the general election ballot, effectively blocking a pathway to office for those who may have broader appeal beyond their own party.

States where sore loser laws apply to presidential candidates

In the United States, sore loser laws refer to legal restrictions that bar candidates who have failed to secure a political party's nomination from running as independents or on behalf of another party in the general election. These laws effectively block the candidates from appearing on the ballot for the general election, though they may still run as write-in candidates.

According to ballot researcher Richard Winger, sore loser laws generally do not apply to presidential candidates. Winger claims that, as of 2015, only two states—South Dakota and Texas—have sore loser laws that apply to presidential candidates. However, some sources suggest that there may be other states where these laws apply to presidential elections, including Michigan and Ohio.

It is important to note that the applicability of sore loser laws to presidential candidates has been a subject of debate and legal challenges. Some opponents argue that these laws violate the Constitution. In 2018, a federal judge agreed that the retroactive application of North Carolina's sore loser law was unconstitutional.

States without sore loser laws

In the United States, a sore loser law is a law that prohibits a losing candidate in a primary election from running as an independent or representing another political party in the general election. This effectively blocks the losing candidate from appearing on the ballot in the general election, although they may still run as a write-in candidate.

As of 2014, all but three states—Connecticut, Iowa, and New York—had some form of sore loser law. However, according to ballot researcher Richard Winger, these laws do not typically apply to presidential candidates. He argues that in 43 of the 45 states with sore loser laws, the laws do not seem to apply to presidential candidates. Only two states, South Dakota and Texas, have sore loser laws that apply to presidential candidates, according to Winger.

In addition to Connecticut, Iowa, and New York, there are a few other states that do not have sore loser laws or simultaneous registration deadlines. These include Arizona, Delaware, New York, Oklahoma, and West Virginia.

It is important to note that the applicability of sore loser laws to presidential candidates is a matter of ongoing debate and legal challenges. Opponents argue that these laws violate the Constitution, while supporters argue that they contribute to the integrity of the election process and prevent polarization, voter confusion, and voter disenfranchisement.

The impact of sore loser laws on political candidates

Sore loser laws refer to election laws that prohibit candidates who lose a primary election from running as independents or representing another political party in the general election. In other words, sore loser laws prevent candidates from appearing on the general election ballot if they have already sought the nomination of a political party and failed to secure it.

In the United States, sore loser laws are determined at the state level, and as of 2014, all but three states—Connecticut, Iowa, and New York—had some form of sore loser law in place. However, despite their prevalence, the impact of sore loser laws on political candidates, particularly presidential candidates, is a complex and nuanced issue.

Firstly, it is important to note that sore loser laws do not apply uniformly to presidential candidates across all states. While some states explicitly include presidential candidates within the scope of their sore loser laws, others do not. Richard Winger, a ballot researcher, argues that in most states, sore loser laws do not apply to presidential candidates. As of 2015, Winger identified only two states, South Dakota and Texas, where sore loser laws were applicable to presidential candidates. However, other sources suggest that a few other states, such as Mississippi, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, may also consider presidential candidates subject to sore loser laws.

Additionally, sore loser laws can impact the strategies employed by candidates during the primary election campaign. Candidates may be incentivized to adopt more extreme positions to appeal to their party's base, knowing that they will not have the option to pivot and run as independents or with another party in the general election. This dynamic can further contribute to the ideological polarization of politics and limit the representation of more moderate voices.

However, it is worth noting that sore loser laws have been challenged on constitutional grounds. In some cases, courts have ruled that sore loser laws, particularly when applied retroactively, violate the Constitution. For example, in 2018, a federal judge agreed with the North Carolina affiliate of the Constitution Party that the retroactive application of the state's sore loser law was unconstitutional.

In conclusion, sore loser laws can have a significant impact on political candidates, particularly those who are considered moderates or do not align closely with their party's base. By limiting the options for candidates who fail to secure their party's nomination, sore loser laws can contribute to political polarization and influence campaign strategies. However, the specific impact of these laws on presidential candidates varies across states, and they have been subject to legal challenges on constitutional grounds.

Legal challenges to sore loser laws

Opponents of sore loser laws have argued that they constitute a violation of the US Constitution, and have launched several legal challenges on those grounds. In August 2018, a federal judge agreed with the North Carolina affiliate of the Constitution Party, ruling that the retroactive application of the state's sore loser law was unconstitutional.

In Michigan, one of the few states where this law applies to presidential elections, Gary Johnson was three minutes late to withdraw from the 2012 Republican Primary and was therefore denied ballot access as a Libertarian. The Libertarian Party put forward a Texas businessman with the same name, Gary Johnson, to run for president as a Libertarian in Michigan, but a US District judge denied their motion.

In 2006, Joe Lieberman was able to run as an independent in the general election after losing the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary, as Connecticut was one of just three states without a sore loser law at the time. During his ensuing Senate term, Joe Lieberman blocked the public option for healthcare by threatening to join Republicans in filibustering the Affordable Care Act.

In 1992, Lyndon LaRouche won in court against Ohio, which subsequently amended its “sore loser” law in 1993 to specifically apply to presidential candidates. In 1996, a federal judge refused to enjoin Texas's interpretation that the “sore loser” law does apply to the president.

In 2015, journalists sought comment from state election officials concerning the applicability of their sore-loser laws, and the responses were mixed. The North Carolina State Board of Elections general counsel conceded that the state had a sore-loser provision that applied to presidential primaries but added that it was unclear how the statute would apply. By contrast, the Tennessee Secretary of State confirmed that “ [i]f a candidate doesn’t win the primary, they cannot appear on the ballot during the general election for another party or as an independent”.

Frequently asked questions