Arkansas Senate Slated to Vote on 2012 Presidential Primary Today

Nearly two weeks after the Arkansas House voted unanimously to repeal the state's February presidential primary, the Senate has a vote (on HB 1021) scheduled for this afternoon. The bill has passed the Senate's State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee with a "Do Pass" designation. Thus far, the only amendment tacked on to the legislation has been one to add a Senate co-sponsor to the bill. In other words, this one seems like a done deal. And as FHQ mentioned recently, Governor Bebee has indicated that he would sign the bill should it wind up on his desk.

The only complicating factor is a bill recently read and referred to committee in the Senate. In its original form, SB 253 would have repealed the February presidential primary -- making that election concurrent with the primaries for state and local offices -- and shifted everything back to the third week in August. [What if the a major party's convention is before that point?!?] In its amended form (the one currently in committee), the bill would hold the presidential primary three weeks prior to that third week in August. In 2008, Michigan and Florida both defied party rules to hold their primaries ahead of the front end of the window in which the parties allowed non-exempt states to go. However, it is rare that a state would challenge the back end of that window. In fact, since the Democrats established the "window rule" prior to the 1980 presidential campaign, no state has held a delegate selection event later than the second Tuesday in June. Sure, as we saw during 2008, many of the caucus states wrapped up their delegate selection with late June and early July state conventions, but the first step in that process -- the one that counts in terms of media coverage and thus momentum -- came much earlier.

To say this is unusual, then, isn't a stretch. It would be a first. Of course, the new governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn, has expressed an interest in a September primary for the 2010 election (H/t to Ballot Access News for that link.). It isn't clear whether that extends to 2012 and the presidential primary, but Illinois is one of those states which has traditionally held its presidential primary together with its primaries for state and local offices.

In years when there is a massive frontloading shift, we typically see some backtracking (ie: the 1988 to 1992 transition following the Southern Super Tuesday), but if Arkansas and Illinois (and this one has not made it as far as being proposed as legislation yet) were to follow through with these moves it would represent an entirely new path for presidential primary movement. The other caveat is that the parties have incentivized primary scheduling since 2000. States going later in the process get bonus delegates. How many bonus delegates would a state get for holding its primary in August or September.

But let's think about this for a moment. [Allow me to jump off the deep end here.] Holding such a late primary is basically giving up. Oh, let's put that more diplomatically. How about opting out of the primary system? But as a result, the voters of the state don't have a say in influencing the decision of either party's nominee. On top of that, these contests would come after at least one of the major parties' conventions.

What effect, then, would such a contest have on the general election? This is somewhat similar to the conversation we had going last summer about Guam and the general election straw poll the island wanted to hold in September before the election. Now, if your state is already holding a primary or caucus after the point at which the nomination has been unofficially claimed, what does it matter where you go. Why not attempt to have some real influence? In essence, a state in such a situation would miss influencing the first step of the process, but could have a significant impact on the second, post-winnowing step.

Granted, this scenario would mean less if a state had a closed primary. Democrats vote for the one Democrat on the ballot (the party's nominee) and Republicans vote for the one Republican on the ballot. There isn't much to that. It isn't telling us too much. However, in an open primary state, we'd have a better chance of adding up both ballots and extrapolating something from that. Think about having a primary in between the conventions and the debates. Candidates would show up to a state like that and the coverage would be off the charts whether it was a gimme state or a competitive one (more so in the case of the latter).

But this isn't even the intent in either Arkansas or Illinois. It is fun to think about, though.


Recent Posts:
1976 Presidential Primary Calendar

Chairman Steele and the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Presidential Primary and Caucus Dates Over Time

1976 Presidential Primary Calendar

January

Monday, January 19:
Iowa caucuses (both parties)

Saturday, January 24:
Mississippi Democratic caucuses

Friday, January 27:
Hawaii Republican caucuses

February

February: Maine Democratic caucuses (all month long)

Wednesday, February 4:
Wyoming Republican caucuses (all month through March 5)

Saturday, February 7:
Oklahoma Democratic caucuses

Tuesday, February 10:
Alaska Democratic caucuses

Tuesday, February 24:
Minnesota caucuses (both parties)
New Hampshire primary

Saturday, February 28:
South Carolina Democratic caucuses

March

Tuesday, March 2:
Massachusetts primary
Vermont primary (beauty contest--no delegates at stake)
Washington caucuses (both parties)

Tuesday, March 9:
Hawaii Democratic caucuses 
Florida primary

Friday, March 12:
South Carolina Republican caucuses (through March 13)

Sunday, March 14:
Wyoming Democratic caucuses

Tuesday, March 16:
Illinois primary

Friday, March 19:
Kansas Republican caucuses

Tuesday, March 23:
Connecticut Republican caucuses
North Carolina primary

Saturday, March 27:
Mississippi Republican caucuses

Monday, March 29:
Maine Republican caucuses

April

Saturday, April 3:
Kansas Democratic caucuses 
Virginia Democratic caucuses

Monday, April 5:
Oklahoma Republican caucuses

Tuesday, April 6:
New York primary
Wisconsin primary

Monday, April 19:
Missouri Republican caucuses (through April 24)

Tuesday, April 20:
Missouri Democratic caucuses

Thursday, April 22:
New Mexico Democratic caucuses

Saturday, April 24:
Arizona Democratic caucuses/Republican convention 
Vermont caucuses (both parties)

Sunday, April 25:
New Mexico Republican caucuses (through May 1)

Tuesday, April 27:
North Dakota Democratic caucuses
Pennsylvania primary

May

Saturday, May 1:
Louisiana Democratic caucuses
North Dakota Republican caucuses (through June 14)
Texas primary

Monday, May 3:
Colorado caucuses (both parties)

Tuesday, May 4:
Alabama primary
Georgia primary
Indiana primary

Saturday, May 8:
Louisiana Republican caucuses (through May 15)

Tuesday, May 11:
Connecticut Democratic caucuses
Nebraska primary
West Virginia primary

Friday, May 14:
Virginia Republican caucuses (through May 15)

Monday, May 17:
Utah caucuses (both parties)

Tuesday, May 18:
Maryland primary
Michigan primary

Saturday, May 22:
Alaska Republican caucuses

Tuesday, May 25:
Arkansas primary
Idaho primary
Kentucky primary
Nevada primary
Oregon primary
Tennessee primary

June

Tuesday, June 1:
Montana primary (Democrats only, Republican beauty contest--no delegates at stake)
Rhode Island primary
South Dakota primary

Tuesday, June 8:
California primary
New Jersey primary
Ohio primary

Friday, June 11:
Delaware Democratic convention

Saturday, June 19:
Delaware Republican convention

Saturday, June 26:
Montana Republican convention

[Primaries in bold; Caucuses in italics]

[Source: Congressional Quarterly and news accounts from 1976. The latter was used to double-check the dates or discover missing ones.]


A few notes:
1) The number of shared dates between state contests was relatively few in 1976.
2) Relatedly, the closest thing to a Super Tuesday in 1976 was May 25. Six states held primaries on that date. Outside of that, there were several dates with three contests, but that was the most.
3) Barely half of the contests were primaries (28 if you count the Montana primary.). The remaining states held caucuses, and of those caucus states, only 5 held both their Democratic and Republican contests on the same date. That leaves 17 states with separate dates for their major party caucuses. That number climbs to 18 if you count the Montana primary/convention split between the Democrats and Republicans, respectively.


Recent Posts:
Chairman Steele and the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Presidential Primary and Caucus Dates Over Time

Presidential Primary and Caucus Dates Over Time (Take 1)

Chairman Steele and the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Marc Ambinder has within the last week written some interesting stuff about the choice in the RNC chair race and the ramifications that may have on the presidential primary calendar for 2012 (see here and here). Let me put it this way: Michael Steele's selection was not greeted happily by Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee or any other social conservative thinking about throwing their name in the ring for a run at the White House in 2012.

Why?

Well, as the National Review mentioned in December, the new chairman is charged with some new powers that haven't been granted RNC chairs in the past. These new powers originated with the decision at last September's convention in Minneapolis to allow for the rules governing the 2012 nomination process to be altered outside of the bounds of the convention. In the past the GOP has simply crafted the rules for four years down the road at the preceding convention. As a part of opening that process up, the chair of the national party was given the ability to name nearly 80% of the members of this commission, or drafting committee, as Ambinder calls it.

Does this mean that significant change is on the way?

Not necessarily, but with Steele in place as the new chair of the RNC, it is more likely that a significant re-write of the rules will be undertaken than if one of the more conservative candidates for the position had won enough votes last Friday.

Here's the thing, though: I don't see the nomination process being turned upside down. [FAMOUS LAST WORDS!] What I do see is an effort to make some more moderate Republican (perhaps even Democratic) states a part of the exempt group of states at the beginning of the process (See the Democratic Party in 2006 with the exemption of South Carolina and Nevada.). No Republican since 1980 has won the party's nomination without winning South Carolina's primary first. Water down the impact of the Palmetto state's contest on the process with some less conservative states and the dynamics of nominee selection could be changed dramatically.

That is a far easier way of creating a path to the nomination for a more moderate Republican. It doesn't involve a complete overhaul of the system -- needed though it may be in the eyes of some -- and totally circumvents the possibility that there are multiple states that cannot comply with Republican Party rules, thus having to face holding a less representative caucus instead of a primary.

Again, nothing is written in stone at this point. But Steele's position at the top of the Republican Party makes it more likely than any of the other five candidates, save former Michigan GOP chair, Saul Anuzis, that there will be some significant changes to the 2012 presidential primary calendar.

[NOTE(S): Speaking of primary calendars, I'll be posting the dates of the contests from 1976-2008 to go along with the maps I posted last week. When that process is complete, all those maps in the left sidebar will be "click to enlarge" ready. I realize that is one major drawback to their presence there now, but the slideshow is still basically at the top of the front page. Also, I'll have a bit more on reform as the week goes on. I'm busily plowing through the symposium on presidential primary reform in the latest issue of PS as well as the Dan Lowenstein chapter on the possibility of federal intervention. Good stuff and it is all comment-worthy. Finally, thanks for your patience. I was on the road last week at a job interview and was busy, busy, busy while I was there and exhausted when I got back. That's why posting has been light since I put the maps up last week. However, with state legislatures back in session and me putting the finishing touches on my dissertation, relevant posts should be increasing in number as we head into spring.]


Recent Posts:
Presidential Primary and Caucus Dates Over Time

Presidential Primary and Caucus Dates Over Time (Take 1)

New Jersey in 2012

Presidential Primary and Caucus Dates Over Time

[Editor's Note: After having gotten similar feedback on the maps from some folks here at UGA today, I thought I'd attempt to edit them. They were nice in isolation -- if you had the time to learn and discern the color coding -- but for showing a trend quickly, the original colors weren't cutting it. So I decided to take Matthew up on his suggestion and see if I could make a six shade gradient work. I think it does. You can definitely see a stark contrast between 1976 and 2008 if you toggle back and forth between the two at the end of the slideshow. Here, for the sake of a reminding everyone, are the rules for reading the maps.]

This weekend I put together a few maps for a job talk and class lecture I'm doing later this week on frontloading and thought I'd share them with everyone. The slideshow below has the states color-coded based on the month in which their delegate selection event occurred in the elections from 1976-2008. You'll see that some states are divided with two separate colors in some years. That reflects the different dates on which Democratic and Republican states held (in most cases) their respective caucuses. Though there are states that had primaries for one party and caucuses for the other. In those instances where the state is divided, the left half color corresponds to the Democratic contest date and the right color, the Republicans'.

Recent Posts:
Presidential Primary and Caucus Dates Over Time (Take 1)

New Jersey in 2012

Out of Committee and On to the Floor: Back to May for the Arkansas Presidential Primary

Presidential Primary and Caucus Dates Over Time (Take 1)

NOTE: For an updated version (with better color-coding) please see here and for the full calendars in each of these election years, please see the left sidebar.

This weekend I put together a few maps for a job talk and class lecture I'm doing later this week on frontloading and thought I'd share them with everyone. The slideshow below has the states color-coded based on the month in which their delegate selection event occurred in the elections from 1976-2008. You'll see that some states are divided with two separate colors in some years. That reflects the different dates on which Democratic and Republican states held (in most cases) their respective caucuses. Though there are states that had primaries for one party and caucuses for the other. In those instances where the state is divided, the left half color corresponds to the Democratic contest date and the right color, the Republicans'.

View Album

Get your own

When I get a chance, I'll post these in one of the sidebars so that they'll constantly be there for easy access.


Recent Posts:
New Jersey in 2012

Out of Committee and On to the Floor: Back to May for the Arkansas Presidential Primary

Illinois in 2012

New Jersey in 2012

You have now entered the speculative zone. Oklahoma and Illinois were one thing, but this is quite another. FHQ finds it helpful to do exercises in hypotheticals from time to time, but this one may be a stretch. Yet, when I came across this discussion about New Jersey's 2009 governor's race, it triggered a memory of a recent addition to the law governing the Garden state's presidential primary.

Now bear with me here...

The bill (A3186) keeps the date of the now separate presidential primary on the same first-Tuesday-in-February date, but now allows for the secretary of state to shift the date should it coincide with a "period of religious observance" that imposes "a substantial burden on an individual's ability to vote."

Now, I'm not sure about what religious observances may pop up during the first week in Tuesday in February 2012. And I certainly don't see the state of New Jersey being motivated to shift its presidential primary again, especially since just the Republican nomination will be at stake. But what if New Jersey Republicans were able to unseat Democratic Governor Jon Corzine? It isn't likely to happen if you listen to the folks over at Daily Kos, but the catch here is that the office of secretary of state in New Jersey is not an elective office. It is a position appointed by the governor. If that governor was a Republican would the administration be motivated to move the primary forward -- likely in violation of either parties' rules -- thus challenging the language of the new law?

Yeah, I didn't think it was likely either. New Jersey would be a nice medium to large chunk of delegates for one well-positioned candidate after New Hampshire, though. It is a winner-take-all primary after all.

We'll see. My bet is that Arkansas moves back to May over New Jersey ultimately pulling the trigger on this scheme.


Recent Posts:
Out of Committee and On to the Floor: Back to May for the Arkansas Presidential Primary

Illinois in 2012

Inauguration Day

Out of Committee and On to the Floor: Back to May for the Arkansas Presidential Primary

The bill to move the Arkansas presidential primary back to May in 2012 has passed the House State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee and now moves to the floor for a vote. HB 1021 would move the presidential primary back to coincide with the primaries for state and local offices usually held in late May. After getting lost in the shuffle in 2008, Arkansas is making the move largely as a cost-saving measure. The bill has had bi-partisan support and Democratic Governor Mike Bebee has already signaled that he would sign the bill into law should it reach his desk.

Quick four years ago, Arkansas once again will be among the first to reposition with the 2012 presidential primary season in mind.


Recent Posts:
Illinois in 2012

Inauguration Day

Oklahoma in 2012

Illinois in 2012

Yesterday we took a glance at the prospects for presidential primary change in 2012 in Oklahoma. Today FHQ shifts the focus northward to the newly inaugurated president's home state of Illinois. While the Sooner state has a new bill before its legislature to place more of the financial burden of the conducting the state's presidential primary to the parties, Illinois is taking the Arkansas approach (potentially moving to a later date) but for different reasons. The experiment in Arkansas was one in which the presidential primary was not only moved but split off from the Natural state's primaries for state and local offices. Illinois opted instead to move its all-everything primary from mid-March to the first week in February in 2008. That made for an extremely early congressional primary (and lengthy general election campaign).

But State Senator Dale Rissinger has introduced legislation to move everything the primaries for state and local offices back in 2012 (SB46). No, not back into March as in 2004, but all the way back to June at the end of the process. In Arkansas the frontloading move was a failure both financially and from an influence standpoint, but in Illinois, the delegate boost the state legislature foresaw the state's primary potentially handing its native son actually came to pass. Obama needed those delegates on Super Tuesday to stay even with the delegate advantages Hillary Clinton was getting in places like New York and California during the onslaught of delegate selection events on February 5.

[Editor's note: The following was a hypothetical scenario analysis included when it looked as if this bill included the presidential primary in the move to June as well. This bill however, simply moves the primaries for state and local offices while leaving the presidential primary in February.]

And it is interesting that Republicans on the state legislative level are pushing these plans forward. In Arkansas there doesn't appear to be any ulterior motive, but in Illinois [It is Illinois after all.] a scenario can be envisioned where a vulnerable President Obama gets a primary challenge and doesn't have a home state to lean on with it falling at the tail end of primary season. [Consider, for example, President Carter's administration in the lead up to 1980 persuading Georgia and Alabama to move up to where Florida was in 1976 to counteract the likely boost Ted Kennedy would have gotten in the northeastern primaries in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. It has happened.] Is that likely? Probably not, especially if the Democrats want to have any hope of winning a general election under such circumstances. But that's something to keep tabs on as this bill navigates the Illinois senate.

Tomorrow: New Jersey.


Recent Posts:
Inauguration Day

Oklahoma in 2012

End of Unannounced/Unintended Hiatus

Inauguration Day

I would be remiss if I didn't say at least something of the day the United States just encountered. FHQ often focuses on the means, but today was about ends. Today was one of those days where the means come to their ends; a day where campaigns and elections come to fruition.

Everyone can hope on day one, but the real work begins tomorrow.

...and no, I don't necessarily mean on initial re-election efforts. Well, 2012 is in the back of my mind, I suppose.


Recent Posts:
Oklahoma in 2012

End of Unannounced/Unintended Hiatus

A One State Presidential Election in 2012?

Oklahoma in 2012

The bills regarding the presidential primaries of 2012 are already starting to be filed in several state legislatures across the country. Arkansas has been talking for almost a year about moving its newly established presidential primary from February back to May to coincide with its primaries for state and local offices. But now several states are starting to look at not only the timing of these contests but other issues as well. This week we'll look at three such states: Oklahoma, Illinois and New Jersey.

One thing we can say about states that attempt to move so early in the process is that they often aren't successful. Between 2000 and 2002, for instance, there were 26 bills before state legislatures that would have changed the timing of those states' delegate selection events, but only one was successful according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In 2003, though, there were 23 bills, of which, eight passed. One out of every three bill proposed passing in the year before the primaries are to be conducted is far better than the one in twenty-six chance the bills prior to 2003 had. The period between 2004 and 2008 was much the same. There was an unusual amount of successful early action, but it paled in comparison to all the movement that was witnessed in 2007. In other words, this is a long way of saying that you have to take much of this legislative action with a grain of salt (...and New Jersey hasn't even had any legislative action. In fact, much of the story on New Jersey is simply speculative at this point. There's a bit of a quirk in the law the legislature passed last year refining the timing of the presidential primary there. I'll get to that later, however.). What we do have are three interesting situations in three different states that are worth talking about.

In the Sooner state, the bill that has been filed does not deal with the timing of the state's presidential primary in 2012. The primary will still be held on the first Tuesday in February (February 7, 2012). Instead, HB 1340, sponsored by Republican Rep. Charles Key, would shift the financial burden for carrying out the primary from the state to the political parties that desire to be included on the ballot. This would put Oklahoma in a situation that is the opposite of the system that emerged in South Carolina for the 2008 cycle. South Carolina, for years has held either a party-run caucus or primary for allocating national party delegates for the purposes of presidential nominations. The parties were charged with footing the bill(s) for the contest(s). Prior to 2008, though, the South Carolina legislature passed and then overrode a gubernatorial veto to grant the state power to conduct presidential primary elections, but to also have them foot the bill. The parties maintained the ability to set the date of the election, though, to ensure that South Carolina remained the earliest primary in the South.

If, however, this bill is to pass the Oklahoma legislature and be signed into law (Republicans control both the House and the Senate in the legislature, but Democratic Governor Brad Henry may have something to say about whether the bill becomes a law.), Oklahoma could establish a model for other states to follow in these increasingly difficult economic times. The state in essence is saying, "We'll run the show, but only if you put up the money." [Alternately, South Carolina said, "We'll run the show and take the bill, but you [the parties] set the date."] And that certainly makes sense in a state where the presidential primaries and the primaries for state and local offices are separate. The presidential primary is a matter of party business and not necessarily in the domain of the states. State legislatures having control of presidential primaries in most states is simply a function of the fallout from the McGovern-Fraser reforms that were put in place in 1972. States had to come into compliance with the new rules and in most cases, the easiest way to accomplish that was to combine it with the primary elections for state and local offices -- a decision controlled by the state legislatures.

If, then, Oklahoma pulls the trigger on this bill, the example would certainly be set for other states to follow suit. Again, though, there would potentially be some variation in terms of how able states are in following the Sooner state's lead. States like Oklahoma, where the presidential primary is a separate election, would likely find it easier to pull this off than in states like North Carolina or Indiana or Texas where every elective office at stake has a primary on the same day. I suppose the latter states could simple call for parties to assist in paying the costs of the primary. And in the end, that is all HB 1340 in Oklahoma is asking, not for the parties to take on all the costs, but to take on most of them. The level would just potentially be lower in the states with concurrent primaries for president and state and local offices.

This bill, though, is certainly worth tracking.

I'll be back tomorrow with a look at the situation in Illinois for 2012. And I suppose that is fitting on the day the Land of Lincoln sees its favorite son inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States.


Recent Posts:
End of Unannounced/Unintended Hiatus

A One State Presidential Election in 2012?

A Projected 2012 Electoral College Map (version 2.0)