In response to criticism over Kamala Harris's rise as the Democratic presidential nominee, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the process, asserting it was open and fair, despite the lack of a competitive battle among other hopefuls.

Pelosi dismissed claims that the nomination of Harris was undemocratic, emphasizing that the VP "won it" after other potential candidates opted not to enter the race, as Fox News reports.

The former speaker has been a vocal supporter of Harris’s candidacy. When President Joe Biden officially stepped down from his re-election campaign on July 21, he immediately endorsed Harris as his successor.

This endorsement, combined with Harris's early momentum, reportedly discouraged other Democrats from joining the race.

Lack Of Challengers Raises Questions

Although Pelosi had initially hoped for a competitive primary, no other major candidates emerged to challenge Harris.

Some political commentators have suggested that Harris's early consolidation of support deterred potential rivals. "It wasn’t that we didn’t have an open primary. It’s just that nobody got in because she had a running start," Pelosi said, underscoring the influence of Harris's early efforts.

In August, the Democratic National Committee held a virtual roll call to officially select the party’s nominee. Harris secured the nomination with overwhelming support, receiving 99% of the delegates’ votes.

Three potential challengers failed to meet the qualification threshold of collecting 300 delegate signatures, further solidifying Harris’s uncontested path to the nomination.

Conservatives Criticize The Process

Despite Pelosi’s defense, some conservative groups and figures have criticized the process, claiming it lacked true democratic principles. Ryan Walker of Heritage Action for America was among the most vocal critics, arguing that Harris’s nomination was not earned through a competitive process. "Saying she won an open primary is a joke," Walker said, contending that the nomination had been "installed" rather than won.

Other conservative voices echoed these concerns. Jenny Beth Martin, of the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund, accused Pelosi of misleading the public. Martin suggested that Pelosi and other Democratic leaders had downplayed Biden's health issues for political gain, only to endorse Harris when it was convenient. She labeled Pelosi's defense of the primary process as an attempt to legitimize a flawed system.

Academic Experts Weigh In On The Nomination

Political scholars, however, have pushed back against claims that Harris's nomination was illegal or undemocratic. Jeremy Mayer, an expert from George Mason University’s Schar School of Public Policy and Government, pointed out that the nomination process, while unconventional, was still within legal bounds. "It’s not a coup, as some would say," Mayer remarked, explaining that Harris’s nomination resembled historical precedents where candidates ascended to power without primary contests.

Comparisons have been made to past presidential candidates like Gerald Ford, who also rose to prominence without facing a primary battle. Leonard Steinhorn, a professor at American University, noted that while the process may not align with modern expectations of open primary elections, Harris followed the rules in place. "She moved quickly with Joe Biden’s support to consolidate her support and get the majority of the delegates," Steinhorn explained.

Pelosi Defends Democratic Process

Pelosi has stood firm in her defense of the nomination process. During an appearance on ABC's The View, she reiterated that the primary was open and that Harris won due to her early momentum and political savvy. Pelosi acknowledged that other candidates could have entered the race but argued that Harris had effectively locked down the nomination before they could gain traction.

"Other people could have gotten in. She just locked it up. Politically astute, as I said to you before," Pelosi said, emphasizing Harris's ability to secure support early on.

Historical Precedents Highlight The Unique Nature Of Race

While critics have pointed out the lack of public vetting in Harris's rise to the nomination, some election experts have drawn parallels to how presidential candidates were selected in the past. Mayer noted that Harris's nomination followed a process more akin to conventions held from 1832 to 1968, where party delegates, rather than voters, played the dominant role in choosing candidates.

Steinhorn and Mayer both acknowledged that in today's political landscape, there is a greater expectation for public participation in the nomination process. However, given the circumstances surrounding Biden’s withdrawal and Harris’s strong early backing, they concluded that the outcome was not surprising.

Looking Ahead to General Election

As Harris moves forward as the Democratic nominee, questions remain about how the unconventional nomination process might impact her general election prospects. While Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have sought to cast Harris's nomination as legitimate, the criticism from conservatives and the lack of a competitive primary could pose challenges in the months leading up to November.

Despite these concerns, Pelosi remains confident in the Democratic Party's decision-making. "It was an open [process]. Anybody could have gotten in. She got in, and she won," Pelosi said, reinforcing her belief that the process was both fair and transparent.