This book explains the presidential election process in the United States. It provides general information about Presidential candidates and their campaigns and it reviews the laws, activities, and customs that govern each of the four stages of the process -- the primary campaign, the national nominating conventions, the general election, and the electoral college.

This report provides answers to frequently asked questions about the presidential nominating process, including how the delegates to the national conventions are chosen, the differences between a caucus and a primary, national party rules changes for 2012, and the national conventions themselves. It is not a comprehensive report on all aspects of the presidential nominating process. The Nominating Process The presidential nominating process is a subject of enduring congressional and national interest. Presidential elections are the only national elections held in the United States, and the initial phase of primaries and caucuses changes every four years. Congress has a legislative, as well as a practical and political, interest in the presidential nominating process. Presidential nominees lead the party ticket in the fall election; the elected president will set many policy and political goals in the ensuing four years; and many Members of Congress will serve as delegates to the major party conventions. No legislation has been introduced in the 112th Congress to reform the presidential nominating process, although several related bills would eliminate taxpayer financing of the national party conventions, including H.R. 359, H.R. 414, H.R. 3463, and S. 194.

This report considers contemporary developments in presidential elections. It emphasizes three topics chosen for their recurring importance and notable recent developments: (1) nominating procedures; (2) campaign finance; and (3) the electoral college. The report highlights significant developments in these areas, particularly for the 2008 and 2012 elections. It also provides background information about the presidential election process in general. Other CRS products cited throughout this report provide additional information about the topics introduced here. As the report notes, 2012 was expected to be a noteworthy election cycle for several reasons. Some are extensions of developments that started in 2008 or before, while others are more recent. Key themes discussed in this report include the following: In recent years, the two major political parties have made efforts to control the "front-loading" phenomenon, the tendency for states to vie to be first or among the first to hold caucuses or primary elections to select presidential nominees. As the result of inter-party cooperation following the 2008 election, front-loading was significantly reduced for 2012; Among Republicans, the winner-take-all method that had been widely used was replaced with a proportional system for contests before April 1, although strict proportional allocation was not mandated. With an open race for the Republican nomination, the pace of primaries and caucuses and the new allocation rule were expected to have an unpredictable effect. In the end, the changes prolonged the contest in comparison to recent previous contests; Significant changes in campaign finance law shaped campaign finance in the 2012 election cycle, largely as a result of the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In the aftermath of Citizens United, presidential candidates may face additional pressure to raise funds to be able to compete against their opponents and outside groups, particularly new organizations called "super PACs;" One of the most notable campaign finance developments in recent elections is the decline of the public financing system for presidential candidates. The 2012 cycle marked the first since the public financing program's inception that no major candidate accepted public funds; After decades of congressional inactivity, state-level initiatives to reform the electoral college were actively considered in 2012. Among these were proposals to establish the district system of awarding electoral votes in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and further discussion of the National Popular Vote initiative (NPV). NPV seeks to implement direct popular election of the President and Vice President through an interstate compact, rather than by constitutional Amendment; Various states have considered or are considering changes to their participation in the electoral college. Moreover, a nongovernmental organization, the National Popular Vote (NPV) campaign, has proposed an interstate compact that would achieve direct election without a constitutional amendment.

Some states require voters at a polling place to produce photographic identification (photo ID) before casting a ballot. Such requirements have emerged as a controversial issue in the 2012 presidential election, and they are the focus of this report. Since 2008, almost half the states have enacted laws, many in 2012, relating to voter identification, with several containing photo ID requirements. In contrast, while several bills with voter identification provisions have been introduced in the 112th Congress, none have received committee or floor consideration. About 30 states require voters to provide some form of identification when voting in person, although few require such documentation for absentee voters. Seven of these states require a photo ID for polling-place voting but permit alternatives such as signing an affidavit for voters without an ID. With respect to what type of photo ID is acceptable and what happens if a voter does not have it, no two states are the same. Four states-Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, and Tennessee-permit only voters who present a photo ID to cast a ballot, with few exceptions. Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin recently enacted similarly strict photo ID requirements that are not in effect at present because of court or U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) actions. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Indiana voter photo ID law under the U.S. Constitution on equal protection grounds. However, in more recent cases, the question being considered is whether such laws violate relevant state constitutions. Whether voter photo ID laws comport with the Voting Rights Act (VRA) has also recently been considered by the courts and DOJ. Section 5 of the VRA requires certain states and jurisdictions to obtain preclearance from either DOJ or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before implementing a change to any voting practice or procedure. For example, in March 2012, DOJ denied preclearance approval under Section 5 to laws in Texas and South Carolina that require voters to show photo ID prior to casting a ballot. Subsequently, federal courts also denied preclearance to both laws, so they will not be in effect for the November 6, 2012, election. The South Carolina law, however, was granted preclearance to take effect in any election beginning in 2013. Photo ID requirements enacted in Alabama and Mississippi are slated for implementation after 2012, and are also subject to preclearance. Supporters of photo ID requirements emphasize the need to prevent voter fraud, while opponents emphasize the need to avoid disenfranchising legitimate voters who do not have ready access to a photo ID. Polling data suggest that most voters and most local election officials support a photo ID requirement but that many are also concerned about the risk of disenfranchisement. The policy controversy centers largely on whether the risk of disenfranchisement or the risk of voter fraud is the greater threat to the integrity of the electoral process. This policy debate is being conducted in the absence of a broad consensus about the evidence pertaining to those risks. Election administration is complex, and changes in photo ID requirements may affect other aspects as well, among them the use of provisional ballots, the potential for long lines, and the possibility that poll workers could misapply the new rules. It may be advantageous to have as much time as possible to implement changes to voting procedures, so that election officials, poll workers, and voters have time to adjust.