{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/105778"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/105778","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"A primer on primaries: Exploring the variation in U.S. primary election laws","abstract":"Candidate nominations in the U.S. are governed by an intricate system of laws and party rules that vary substantially across the states. The reasons why these laws and rules differ—and the considerations that motivate state elected officials and party leaders to change them—are not well understood. In this dissertation, I analyze the variation in enfranchisement, or the type of primary, focusing on primary elections for offices below the level of the presidency (e.g., congressional, gubernatorial, state legislative, etc.). Some states’ primaries are open to all voters, while other states permit participation only by those registered with the party, and still others use some type in between. I study potential explanations for these differences, using both quantitative analysis to identify aggregate patterns and in-depth qualitative investigation of significant cases. This research enhances our understanding of the nominations process and yields insight into the complex nature of institutional change. Analyses of the present-day variation in enfranchisement indicate that the state-level contextual variables often assumed to be related to the type of primary in fact demonstrate little explanatory power, but this does not mean that the variation is merely idiosyncratic—it is still the product of reasoned choices made by state governments and party leaders. The causes of the initial adoption of the direct primary resist easy explanation because the two most commonly cited forces (pressure from progressive reformers and leaders acting to preserve the parties’ self-interest) were both influential, depending on the context. A study of selected changes in the type of primary that have occurred in recent decades suggests that there is a logic underlying elected officials and party leaders’ preferences for one type or another, but because elites’ expectations regarding the anticipated consequences of changing the type of primary are highly conditional, it is difficult to explain or predict changes in enfranchisement based on knowledge of their preferences alone. And these partisan elites are not the only relevant actors; both the courts and the electorate have frequently played a role in shaping enfranchisement, further complicating the task of predicting when or why changes occur. Primary elections, like many other political institutions, are prone to inertia, and formal changes are rare. When they do occur, explaining them requires careful attention to the details.","abstract_html":"Candidate nominations in the U.S. are governed by an intricate system of laws and party rules that vary substantially across the states. The reasons why these laws and rules differ—and the considerations that motivate state elected officials and party leaders to change them—are not well understood. In this dissertation, I analyze the variation in enfranchisement, or the type of primary, focusing on primary elections for offices below the level of the presidency (e.g., congressional, gubernatorial, state legislative, etc.). Some states’ primaries are open to all voters, while other states permit participation only by those registered with the party, and still others use some type in between. I study potential explanations for these differences, using both quantitative analysis to identify aggregate patterns and in-depth qualitative investigation of significant cases. This research enhances our understanding of the nominations process and yields insight into the complex nature of institutional change. Analyses of the present-day variation in enfranchisement indicate that the state-level contextual variables often assumed to be related to the type of primary in fact demonstrate little explanatory power, but this does not mean that the variation is merely idiosyncratic—it is still the product of reasoned choices made by state governments and party leaders. The causes of the initial adoption of the direct primary resist easy explanation because the two most commonly cited forces (pressure from progressive reformers and leaders acting to preserve the parties’ self-interest) were both influential, depending on the context. A study of selected changes in the type of primary that have occurred in recent decades suggests that there is a logic underlying elected officials and party leaders’ preferences for one type or another, but because elites’ expectations regarding the anticipated consequences of changing the type of primary are highly conditional, it is difficult to explain or predict changes in enfranchisement based on knowledge of their preferences alone. And these partisan elites are not the only relevant actors; both the courts and the electorate have frequently played a role in shaping enfranchisement, further complicating the task of predicting when or why changes occur. Primary elections, like many other political institutions, are prone to inertia, and formal changes are rare. When they do occur, explaining them requires careful attention to the details.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Evans, Jillian Elizabeth"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Political Science","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Gaines, Brian J","Sin, Gisela","Sulkin, Tracy","Bernhard, William T"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2019,"date_issued":"2019-11-26T20:49:19Z","date_published":"2019-11-26T20:49:19Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:45Z","subjects":["primary elections","political parties"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Copyright 2019 Jillian Evans"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/105778","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Gaines, Brian J","Sin, Gisela","Sulkin, Tracy","Bernhard, William T"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Evans, Jillian Elizabeth"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2019-11-26T20:49:19Z","2021-11-27T10:15:37Z","2019-07-02","2019-08"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Political Science"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["primary elections","political parties"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright 2019 Jillian Evans"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/105778"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["Candidate nominations in the U.S. are governed by an intricate system of laws and party rules that vary substantially across the states. The reasons why these laws and rules differ—and the considerations that motivate state elected officials and party leaders to change them—are not well understood. In this dissertation, I analyze the variation in enfranchisement, or the type of primary, focusing on primary elections for offices below the level of the presidency (e.g., congressional, gubernatorial, state legislative, etc.). Some states’ primaries are open to all voters, while other states permit participation only by those registered with the party, and still others use some type in between. I study potential explanations for these differences, using both quantitative analysis to identify aggregate patterns and in-depth qualitative investigation of significant cases. This research enhances our understanding of the nominations process and yields insight into the complex nature of institutional change. Analyses of the present-day variation in enfranchisement indicate that the state-level contextual variables often assumed to be related to the type of primary in fact demonstrate little explanatory power, but this does not mean that the variation is merely idiosyncratic—it is still the product of reasoned choices made by state governments and party leaders. The causes of the initial adoption of the direct primary resist easy explanation because the two most commonly cited forces (pressure from progressive reformers and leaders acting to preserve the parties’ self-interest) were both influential, depending on the context. A study of selected changes in the type of primary that have occurred in recent decades suggests that there is a logic underlying elected officials and party leaders’ preferences for one type or another, but because elites’ expectations regarding the anticipated consequences of changing the type of primary are highly conditional, it is difficult to explain or predict changes in enfranchisement based on knowledge of their preferences alone. And these partisan elites are not the only relevant actors; both the courts and the electorate have frequently played a role in shaping enfranchisement, further complicating the task of predicting when or why changes occur. Primary elections, like many other political institutions, are prone to inertia, and formal changes are rare. When they do occur, explaining them requires careful attention to the details.","Submission published under a 24 month embargo labeled 'U of I Access', the embargo will last until 2021-08-01","The student, Jillian Evans, accepted the attached license on 2019-07-02 at 15:48.","The student, Jillian Evans, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2019-07-02 at 15:56.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2019-07-02 at 17:01.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #14136 on 2019-11-26 at 13:04:21","Made available in DSpace on 2019-11-26T20:49:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 EVANS-DISSERTATION-2019.pdf: 1824519 bytes, checksum: 275fed9317d73fdecb66d38a17af3a1d (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4210 bytes, checksum: e5acc245160973a1b1b03e40496c641a (MD5) PROQUEST_LICENSE.txt: 4556 bytes, checksum: a03ddc444643304f515c2ebcbf1c1742 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019-07-02","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 112923 Lift date: 2021-11-26T20:49:41Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","U of I Only Restriction Lifted for Item 112923 on 2021-11-27T10:15:37Z."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["A primer on primaries: Exploring the variation in U.S. primary election laws"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Gaines, Brian J","Sin, Gisela","Sulkin, Tracy","Bernhard, William T"],"dc:creator":["Evans, Jillian Elizabeth"],"dc:date":["2019-11-26T20:49:19Z","2021-11-27T10:15:37Z","2019-07-02","2019-08"],"dc:description":["Candidate nominations in the U.S. are governed by an intricate system of laws and party rules that vary substantially across the states. The reasons why these laws and rules differ—and the considerations that motivate state elected officials and party leaders to change them—are not well understood. In this dissertation, I analyze the variation in enfranchisement, or the type of primary, focusing on primary elections for offices below the level of the presidency (e.g., congressional, gubernatorial, state legislative, etc.). Some states’ primaries are open to all voters, while other states permit participation only by those registered with the party, and still others use some type in between. I study potential explanations for these differences, using both quantitative analysis to identify aggregate patterns and in-depth qualitative investigation of significant cases. This research enhances our understanding of the nominations process and yields insight into the complex nature of institutional change. Analyses of the present-day variation in enfranchisement indicate that the state-level contextual variables often assumed to be related to the type of primary in fact demonstrate little explanatory power, but this does not mean that the variation is merely idiosyncratic—it is still the product of reasoned choices made by state governments and party leaders. The causes of the initial adoption of the direct primary resist easy explanation because the two most commonly cited forces (pressure from progressive reformers and leaders acting to preserve the parties’ self-interest) were both influential, depending on the context. A study of selected changes in the type of primary that have occurred in recent decades suggests that there is a logic underlying elected officials and party leaders’ preferences for one type or another, but because elites’ expectations regarding the anticipated consequences of changing the type of primary are highly conditional, it is difficult to explain or predict changes in enfranchisement based on knowledge of their preferences alone. And these partisan elites are not the only relevant actors; both the courts and the electorate have frequently played a role in shaping enfranchisement, further complicating the task of predicting when or why changes occur. Primary elections, like many other political institutions, are prone to inertia, and formal changes are rare. When they do occur, explaining them requires careful attention to the details.","Submission published under a 24 month embargo labeled 'U of I Access', the embargo will last until 2021-08-01","The student, Jillian Evans, accepted the attached license on 2019-07-02 at 15:48.","The student, Jillian Evans, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2019-07-02 at 15:56.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2019-07-02 at 17:01.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #14136 on 2019-11-26 at 13:04:21","Made available in DSpace on 2019-11-26T20:49:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 EVANS-DISSERTATION-2019.pdf: 1824519 bytes, checksum: 275fed9317d73fdecb66d38a17af3a1d (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4210 bytes, checksum: e5acc245160973a1b1b03e40496c641a (MD5) PROQUEST_LICENSE.txt: 4556 bytes, checksum: a03ddc444643304f515c2ebcbf1c1742 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019-07-02","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 112923 Lift date: 2021-11-26T20:49:41Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","U of I Only Restriction Lifted for Item 112923 on 2021-11-27T10:15:37Z."],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/105778"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:rights":["Copyright 2019 Jillian Evans"],"dc:subject":["primary elections","political parties"],"dc:title":["A primer on primaries: Exploring the variation in U.S. primary election laws"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Political Science"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:45Z"}