Virginia Senate Bill to Move Primary to March Passes

SB 1246, the Virginia Senate bill to move the commonwealth's 2012 presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March, overwhelmingly passed the chamber today. Senator Vogel's (R) bill made it through the Senate with only one dissenting vote (39Y, 1N). As FHQ pointed out this morning, this clears the way for consideration of the one bill that is now before the House of Delegates. HB 1667, which would have changed the date of the presidential primary as well as reduced the petition signature requirement was incorporated into HB 1843 (the same bill as SB 1246) by voice vote in the subcommittee of the House Privileges and Elections Committee. HB 1843 subsequently emerged from that subcommittee with a unanimous (6Y, 0N) recommendation for reporting to the full committee with amendments.

As Virginia's state legislature is only in session until February 26, this bill, if it is going to be passed, is likely to move quickly.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Vote on Primary Bill Should Come in VA Senate Today, Hearings in WA & CA Later in the Week

Yesterday, SB 1246 received its second reading (consideration of amendments if any) and was engrossed, clearing the way for an up or down vote on the measure in the state Senate to shift Virginia's 2012 presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. That vote should come, barring other pressing business, some time today. The clearest way for this bill to pass is if its companion in the House of Delegates (the exact same bill), HB 1843, is passed and largely avoids the problem of any hiccups in conference. The next stop would be Governor Bob McDonnell's desk. And if the preliminary votes in the Senate are any indication, this bill has bipartisan support and would be difficult for the governor to ignore.

Later this week, there will also be public hearings on the bills in Washington and California. The Washington Senate bill, SB 5119, passed its first hurdle, receiving a "Do Pass" designation from the Governmental Operations, Tribal Affairs and Elections Committee, and was subsequently referred to Ways and Means which will hold the hearing on Thursday, February 3.

On the same day, California's Assembly committee on elections is due to hold a public hearing on AB 80, the legislation that would eliminate the separate presidential primary in California and place it in June with the primaries for state and local offices. That status tracker has said "may be heard in committee February 3" since it was introduced. However, I spoke with someone from the LA Times yesterday about the 2012 calendar and the California bill who is planning on covering the hearing on Thursday. No, that doesn't cement that hearing time, but it does add more certainty to it.

Both hearings will be interesting to follow from the standpoint of the pros and cons arguments that are likely to be made. Washington's state parties have scarcely utilized the state's presidential primary system for allocating delegates, and the move there is somewhat understandable from a financial perspective. And certainly there are financial concerns with the California bill as well, but the most populous state in the country would be giving up quite a position and some influence over the nomination in the process by moving. Despite the fact that California was behind the several January states and among the Super Tuesday logjam, it was still the fifth most visited state (by the candidates) overall in the 2008 cycle.*

*[Now, visits are only one metric we could use to quantify attention paid to the states, and thus, potential influence that state has over the race. One could also look at spending in each state or ad buys. The latter has been used more often lately as the matching fund system crumbled and it became more difficult to ascertain where candidates were actually spending, not raising, their money.]

CORRECTION (2/2/11): The California Assembly's Elections and Redistricting Committee -- to committee to which AB 80 has been referred -- does not have a hearing scheduled for February 3 to discuss that legislation. It should be noted that the committee meets regularly on the first and third Tuesday of every month at 1:30pm. Yesterday would have been the first opportunity for the committee to have addressed this bill and it will not have another chance until February 15 according to that schedule. Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for keeping FHQ apprised of the situation.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

DC to Move Back? Up?

Early indications from the Council of the District of Columbia are that a bill will be introduced to move the district's primary to early July 2012. No, not the presidential primary necessarily, but the primaries for other local and district-wide offices. There has been some push by the DC Board of Elections and Ethics to hold the presidential primary concurrently with the other primaries -- more than likely as a cost-saving measure like what California and New Jersey are attempting to do.

The problem with a July presidential primary is that it falls outside of the party-designated window in which primaries and caucuses can be held. Either the two sets of primaries will continue to be held separately or the two will be held together but slightly earlier so as to fall inside the window. And while the presidential primary may remain separate from the other primaries, the move to July (from the traditional September timing) is fairly significant. It would keep DC in line with the federally-passed MOVE act.

Regardless, this July timing is seen as a starting point.

[It should also be noted that DC held its 2008 presidential primary in conjunction with Maryland and Virginia on February 12, the week after Super Tuesday. Virginia has three bills proposed in its state legislature to move the commonwealth's primary back to March and Maryland has yet to act, though there has been some talk about when the 2012 primary will be held.]

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (Jan. 24-30)

While there wasn't any 2012 calendar movement this past week, there was some further movement toward movement. But what is known this week versus last:

• Virginia is moving closer to a vote in the state Senate on moving the commonwealth's presidential primary back to March.
• A host of bills to accomplish the same thing (February to March primary) in Oklahoma have been pre-filed and are waiting on the state legislature to convene there on February 7.
• The Senate bill to cancel the 2012 presidential primary in Washington emerged from committee and awaits the decision of the Ways and Means Committee before sending it to the floor for an up or down vote.
• The solution in Kansas is similar to Washington, but appears to be a permanent cancelation of the Sunflower state's presidential primary. No dates for the caucuses in either party are known now, and on the Republican side may not be known until next year according to one Republican activist at the state party's meeting over the weekend.
• Oh, and Idaho is looking into frontloading its primary. ...by one week to mid-May.
• As has been mentioned in this space several times, there are currently 18 states with presidential primaries scheduled for February 2012. That would put those 18 states in violation of both parties' delegate selection rules for 2012.
• Of those 18 primary states, 14 of them (California, Connecticut, Missouri, New York, Arizona, Georgia, Delaware, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Utah and Virginia) have convened their 2011 state legislative sessions.
• Of those 14 states, 3 (California, New Jersey and Virginia) have bills that have been introduced and are active within the state legislature to move their contests' dates. Both California and New Jersey have bills that would eliminate an early and separate presidential primaries and position those events with the other primaries for state and local offices. That would mean June presidential primaries for both states if those bills pass and are signed into law.
• For this next week, then, the 14 early states in conflict with the national parties' rules will be the ones to watch.
• Oregon's state legislature convenes this week, but none of the four additional states in violation of the national party rules begin their legislative work; not until Oklahoma next week.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Virginia Senate Bill to Move Presidential Primary Back to March Passes First Reading

As was discussed here earlier in the week, the Virginia Senate bill (SB 1246) to move the commonwealth's presidential primary from February to March emerged from committee and received/passed its first -- what's called a Constitutional -- reading from the full chamber. The upcoming second reading will have the full chamber consider and debate any amendments that were added to the bill in committee. No additional reports were issued on the bill, so it is likely that no amendments were added. To the extent that a debate is necessary on this bill, one will take place this week. If the bill passes that test on the floor, it will be engrossed and subsequently given an up or down vote for full passage. Again, most of that should happen this week, shifting the focus to the House of Delegates and the similar bills that chamber has before it.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Likely Replacement Bill to Move Idaho Presidential Primary Up Introduced

The election consolidation bill that was introduced in the Idaho House (HB 14) recently now has a what looks like a replacement. Like the earlier House bill, HB 60 would shift the date on which the Gem state's primaries -- including concurrent presidential primary -- from the fourth Tuesday in May to the third Tuesday in May. The only difference is that in this second bill secretary of state, Tim Hurst, inserted a section dealing with school trustees elections. The section that pertains to the timing of the presidential primary remains unchanged.

Both bills will appear in the Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures section in the left sidebar. HB 60 will likely be the one to track however.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Update on Bill to Cancel the 2012 Kansas Presidential Primary

News broke yesterday that Kansas secretary of state, Kris Kobach, was advising the state legislature to cancel the Sunflower state's 2012 presidential primary for budgetary reasons, but the bill was not formally introduced in the state House until today. HB 2126 cancels the state's presidential primary and given all the strikethroughs cancels it for good. Now, nothing is ever gone forever, but in this instance all the references to the first Tuesday in April primary in even-numbered years have been struck though and replaced with the first Tuesday in August -- the state's traditional primary date for state and local offices. That August date is one that would fall outside -- on the back end -- of the window in which the parties allow states to hold delegate selection events. Obviously, an August date would not work simply because it would cut things quite close to the national conventions.

The odd thing is that there is only one reference in the bill to presidential preference primaries and it is in regard to the filing deadlines, not the timing of the contest. The option is still there, then, to hold a presidential primary in the future, but it will take a change in the law if this bill is passed and signed into law by Governor Brownback. [It should be noted for the sake of clarity that unlike the similar bill(s) in Washington, HB 2126 does not have a sunset provision temporarily canceling the presidential primary.] Given the facts that, one, the state rarely holds a presidential primary (see 2007 legislature's unsuccessful efforts to move it up) and, two, it saves the state as much as $2 million, this bill will likely pass. But we'll see.

This bill will be added to the Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures section in the left side bar (under the current 2012 primary calendar and the rules). The status of HB 2126 and the bills from other states can be tracked from there.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

2012 Presidential Primaries: North Carolina

Earlier this week the North Carolina General Assembly convened for the first time under Republican control since the Reconstruction era. This actually has some implications for the timing of the Tarheel state's presidential primary in 2012. In the Senate at least there has been Republican support for a February presidential primary for the last three sessions. Those bills (S18 -- 2005-06, S168 -- 2007-08, S150 -- 2009-10) were all proposed by Republican senator, Andrew Brock, and supported by a group of Republicans who signed on as cosponsors. However, during each of those sessions, the bills inevitable got stuck in the Judiciary (I) Committee then controlled by Democrats.

If the past three sessions are any indication, Brock and others may once again propose legislation to try and shift the presidential primary to an earlier date. But the change in control of the General Assembly doesn't make this a done deal. Republicans do control the committees now, but that's only part of the story. First, the Senate has yet to finalize the committees and committee assignments under the new regime. Secondly, there is no indication that there will be any support for such a measure in the lower chamber.

Finally even though North Carolina has some past experience with shifting the date on which its presidential primary is held (1976 and 1988), the state has consistently held that contest concurrently with the primaries for state and local offices (as a matter of convenience). The past two experiences with frontloading have been temporary actions that created and funded a separate presidential primary that was later canceled and moved back to coincide with the other primaries on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May. There is emerging some evidence to suggest that, given budgetary constraints at the state level, states are less willing to fund a separate primary. California, New Jersey and Oklahoma already have proposed legislation on the table to pull separate presidential primaries back in line with the primaries for state and local offices or to defund the presidential primary altogether. Even with Republicans now in control of the North Carolina General Assembly, there may be some budgetary resistance to creating and funding a separate presidential primary.

And while there may yet be a bill proposed, there is still a question of when the new primary would be scheduled. Brock's past bills have called for a February primary, which at the times the were introduced were in compliance with the national party rules. But it is yet to be seen if there is a willingness to just move up to the earliest allowed date (March 6, 2012 in this case) or to go against both national parties' sets of delegate selection rules and go in February some time (as the proposed bill in Texas would do). This is all speculative, but much would likely depend on what the 18 currently non-compliant states do and how quickly they do it relative to when the General Assembly in North Carolina wraps up its business over the summer.

North Carolina, then, potentially represents a rare case during this cycle of a state that may move forward. The focus remains on those states that have to move back to be in compliance with the DNC's and RNC's rules. That new mandate for moving back is what makes this 2012 cycle and the formation of its presidential primary calendar unique compared to the race to the front that has marked recent cycles.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Bill to be Introduced to Cancel 2012 Presidential Primary in Kansas

Here's the story from the Lawrence-Journal World:

TOPEKA — Kansas voters won't be able to participate in a presidential primary in 2012 under legislation introduced Thursday by Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

Kobach, a Republican, said he would like to have a presidential primary, but the $1.5 million to $2 million cost is too steep during the state's current budget problems. The state faces an estimated $550 million revenue shortfall.

If approved by the Legislature, it would be the fifth straight time Kansas voters have been denied a presidential preference primary. The last one held in Kansas was 1992.

Most of the primaries have been skipped because of budget concerns.

In 2008, the Republican and Democratic parties held presidential caucuses that were well-attended.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

So Mitt Romney Might Skip Iowa

As FHQ tweeted a little while ago, strategically, this would be less than wise. Yet, there it is: Romney's advisers are talking (or floating a trial balloon) about skipping the Republican nomination race's first contest. First, let's look at why this is a bad idea. Then we can look at why it is, as I called it, a trial balloon.

Why skipping Iowa is a bad move

In many ways, a presidential nomination race, particularly one without a clear frontrunner, is about expectations. This point is debated in the political science literature, but this is why the caveat about the presence of a clear frontrunner is an important distinction to make. Regardless of expectations and the comparison to actual results when the inevitably come in at the beginning of primary and caucus season, a clear frontrunner from the invisible primary typically emerges as the nominee. The George W. Bush experience from 2000 is a good example. Candidates, Lamar Alexander and Liddy Dole among them, were dropping out of the race prior to even Iowa and New Hampshire and they were citing Bush's financial advantage. The expectation heading into primary season, then, was that Bush was going to run away with the Republican nomination. He did, but not before John McCain defied those expectations and crushed Bush by 19 points in the New Hampshire primary. McCain also peeled off a few additional victories, but in the end Bush's institutional support within the party was too great.

But 2012 doesn't have a clear frontrunner. If there is a frontrunner, Romney is, at least according to conventional wisdom (something that isn't necessarily trustworthy), the nominal frontrunner. So what would skipping Iowa mean? Is it a sign of weakness from the nascent Romney campaign? Is it a signal that Romney is focusing on New Hampshire? Is it a nod to the fact that Iowa is likely to support a "more conservative" candidate? FHQ is of the opinion that it is none of the above, but I'll hold off on that for a moment. Skipping Iowa is a bad idea precisely because it raises the expectations in New Hampshire. And that's something that polls and straw polls are already doing for the former Massachusetts governor. Romney, in other words, would have nowhere to go but down. That's fine if you're George W. Bush in 2000, but Mitt Romney doesn't have that sort of cushion heading into the home stretch of the invisible primary and into the actual contests next year.

It is a lose-lose situation. Romney loses Iowa by virtue of having skipped it and then is potentially likely to "lose" New Hampshire in the expectations game. That's not the kind of start you want if you are the frontrunner, no matter how nominal.

Why the skipping Iowa story is just that -- a story

As Jonathan Bernstein rightly pointed out in a response to my aforementioned tweet, this story is all about expectations, but about lowering them in Iowa not raising them in New Hampshire. The tendency here is to compare what's going on now to what happened with those candidates who ran in 2008. For Romney (and Huckabee) there had been a lot of activity to this point in 2008 in Iowa. Both were intent on doing well at the Ames Straw Poll in August 2007. Their resource allocations -- visits to the Hawkeye state and expenditures there -- reflected that. So did the eventual results. Romney edged Huckabee in the straw poll in August and the reversed positions in the January caucuses. So they should be doing what John Edwards did before 2008, right? [No, not that. I mean the actual campaigning.] Camping out in Iowa and basically putting all your eggs in that one basket. Well, that didn't work out so well for Edwards. Despite the presence there from 2004 onward, it didn't yield him anything other than second place in Iowa in 2008 (and barely at that. Clinton finished a fraction of percentage point behind the former vice presidential nominee.).

Despite the fact that the dynamics are different between 2008 and 2012, that tendency still remains: What did Romney do in 2008 in Iowa and what is he doing now for 2012? Romney learned a lesson from Iowa in 2008: Don't spend so much. Well, he really doesn't have to. He is a known quantity now and wasn't before 2008. All in all, then, this is an effort to lowball the Iowa effort in 2012. If the expectation is that Romney won't be a presence there, then any visit he makes or money his campaign spends there is seen as a net positive.

After all it still remains quite possible that social conservative caucus-goers in the state will split their vote if they cannot coalesce behind one candidate. And Mitt Romney, who still has something of a leftover campaign structure in the state, can emerge, if not with a victory, then a solid showing that will help him heading into subsequent contests.

UPDATE: Jonathan Bernstein adds his two cents as well. [I may be quicker than you, JB, but David beat me to it.]

Tom Jensen at Public Policy Polling has more but from a polling perspective.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.