Welcome to the Friday, Aug. 1, 2025, Brew.
By: Lara Bonatesta
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
- Which states let primary losers run in the general election?
- The problem with “hyperpalatable” politics, by Leslie Graves, Ballotpedia Founder and CEO
- Here’s a roundup of state supreme court vacancy news from July
Which states let primary losers run in the general election?
On July 14, Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) announced that he would run as a third-party candidate for New York City mayor in the November general election after finishing second to Zohran Mamdani (D) in the June 24 Democratic primary. Some Daily Brew readers may have had questions about Cuomo’s ability to do that because of policies that can restrict ballot access for candidates who do not win primaries, sometimes referred to as sore loser laws. Today, we’re going to take a look at sore loser laws and how they affect candidates up and down the ballot.
Forty-eight states prohibit candidates who seek but fail to secure the nomination of a political party from running as independents or as nominees of another party in the general election. New York is one of the two, with Connecticut, that do not.
Some states have explicit sore loser laws, while others have requirements that operate in a similar fashion. Examples of non-explicit sore loser laws include filing deadlines and cross-filing prohibitions that prevent candidates from running in a general election after losing a primary. Other examples include laws that prohibit candidates from running as independents for a certain amount of time after affiliating with a party.
Mississippi enacted the first sore loser law in 1906. Iowa was the most recent state to do so in 2021. The majority of states enacted sore loser laws between 1970 and 1995.
Supporters of sore loser laws have said that they contribute to the integrity of the election process and prevent polarization, voter confusion, and voter disenfranchisement.
During a 2023 legislative debate over whether Vermont should establish an explicit sore loser law, state Sen. Ruth Hardy (D) said the proposal “maintains the integrity of the nomination and primary election process. It encourages transparency, and it prevents voter confusion.”
Critics of sore loser laws say they contribute to political party polarization and fail to work in the public interest.
Eli Lehrer, president of R Street Institute, wrote in 2025 that sore loser laws “entrench party insiders and empower extreme activist groups.” The laws, Lehrer said, give primary voters an outsized say in the democratic process, even though they often constitute a minority of all voters. The R Street Institute’s website describes it as “focused on solving complex public policy challenges through free markets and limited, effective government.”
Whether these laws apply to presidential elections varies by state and has, in some cases, been the subject of litigation. Click here for more information about sore loser laws in presidential elections.
The problem with “hyperpalatable” politics
Today’s column is about political information — specifically, the lack of high-quality information that leaves so many voters either confused about, or increasingly removed from, our political process.
But to get there, let’s first talk about food, which is a great way to talk about politics because of the rich, sensory metaphors they share.
For example, you might have heard about candidates running on “kitchen-table issues” in a “meat and potatoes” or “bread and butter” campaign. Those speeches candidates make? They are often portrayed as “red meat” for the base, and the list goes on.
If we look back at these metaphors, they are all pretty high-calorie affairs, too. Not many garden salads, fresh fruit, or whole grain anything on the metaphorical menu.
But there’s another food term — a scientific one — we can apply to politics and how we get political information. That term is hyperpalatable.
In very basic terms, hyperpalatable food is designed to taste so good that we just can’t stop eating it. University of Kansas Prof. Tera Fazzino, one of the researchers who defined what constitutes hyperpalatable food, said:
Our bodies may not be evolutionarily prepared to handle the types of nutrient combinations found in hyperpalatable foods. The nutrient combinations can make the eating experience much more rewarding than it would be if any nutrient was eaten in isolation. As a result, hyperpalatable foods can be difficult to stop eating, even when we physically feel full.
In short, the ingredients in prepackaged snacks, ultraprocessed meats, and fast food taste amazing. The flavors hit our brains’ reward receptors hard, convincing us to eat a lot more than we should, and hurting our health in the process.
What does this have to do with how we get political information?
Think of it this way: it’s very much in the interest of campaigns, be they for candidates or issues, to frame their arguments in ways that generate passionate feelings among their target audiences. The goal is to motivate people to take an action — be it to cast a ballot, call a member of Congress, appear at an event, donate money, and so on. The campaigns and issue advocates prefer that the target audience carries out the desired action quickly and without thinking too much about alternative messages from other campaigns or opportunities for members of the target audience to look into issues and personalities more closely, and in their own time, before making a decision.
That’s the approach Ballotpedia takes to politics. We don’t do horse race coverage of elections, which falls into the hyperpalatable category because it focuses on who’s winning and who’s losing over everything else.
Instead, we look at the connections, the history, and the practice of politics and policy. Our aim is to provide our readers — and voters — with information that helps them understand issues and candidates more completely and at their own pace.
In a way, it’s like replacing the hyperpalatable food that may be lurking in your diet with foods found in nature. It may take longer to prepare them, in some cases. And the rewards for consuming them may not be instantaneous. But they make us healthier and happier.
So it is with political information. Yes, it can be a guilty pleasure to wade into the fast, contentious, ultraprocessed world of politics and elections. It’s what makes politics fun and exciting for so many.
Making a daily habit of it, though, can leave us ill-informed, confused, and maybe even angry about politics and the democratic process.
The answer: slow down, make the time to focus on an issue, a candidate, or an election. Learn as much as you can. Take your time doing it. And then take the action you think best reflects your interests and values.
Here’s a roundup of state supreme court vacancy news from July
In this month’s state supreme court vacancy update, let’s look at who retired, was nominated, appointed, confirmed, and sworn in May.
Here’s a quick summary:
- One justice retired
- One justice was sworn in
Retirements:
- On July 4, Justice Evelyn Z. Wilson retired from the Kansas Supreme Court. In her retirement announcement, Wilson cited her recent ALS diagnosis as her reason for leaving office.
Candidates nominated, appointed, and confirmed:
- On July 17, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) appointed Ben Land to fill the vacancy created when Chief Justice Michael P. Boggs retired on March 31.
- On July 18, the West Virginia Judicial Vacancy Advisory Commission released a list of four finalists to fill the vacancy created when Justice Beth Walker resigned on June 27. Gov. Patrick Morrisey (R) has 30 days to make the appointment. This marks Morrisey’s first opportunity to appoint a justice to the court.
Justices sworn in:
- On July 24, Ben Land was sworn in as a member of the Georgia Supreme Court. Land is the fifth justice Kemp has appointed to the nine-member court.
To learn more about state supreme court vacancies or to see our previous updates, click here.