Alternate Bill to Cancel Presidential Primary Proposed in Washington State

In Washington state today, Rep. Christopher Hurst (D) introduced a bill (HB 1860) to tie whether the state has a presidential primary to the two parties collectively utilizing the system as a means of allocating all of their national convention delegates. If, as has been the custom in the state during recent presidential election cycles, the Republicans split the allocation of their delegates between both the primary and a caucus and the Democrats shun the primary in support of a caucus, the presidential primary in the state would be cancelled during that cycle. This has the effect of avoiding the sunset provision that is included in both SB 5119 and HB 1324. Instead, it makes the expenditure of funds for the primary dependent upon the parties both adopting the primary as the sole method of delegate allocation.

The bill also gives the parties the option of together agreeing upon and notifying the secretary of state of an alternate (and presumably earlier) date for the primary. It is currently set for the fourth Tuesday in May.

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

Virginia House Bill to Move Presidential Primary on Cusp of Tuesday Vote

It looks like the Virginia legislature put in some time over the weekend to beat the Tuesday cross-over deadline -- when bills must be finished in one chamber to be considered in the opposite chamber. The House of Delegates is on pace to finish up work on HB 1843 -- the bill to move the commonwealth's presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March -- with an up or down vote tomorrow after Sunday's first constitutional reading and the second reading today.

The bill is now engrossed as a substitute and will more than likely beat tomorrow's deadline with a vote to send it to the Senate.

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. 31-Feb. 6)

Another week came and went and while no states officially moved, there were a couple that actually passed bills shifting the dates on which their nominating contests will be held.

• Pass it on: Virginia's Senate passed SB 1246 to move the state's presidential primary from the second week in February to the first Tuesday in March. Idaho's House also passed HB 60 to move the primary election up a week to the third Tuesday in May.
• You're out: The Kansas House bill (HB 2126) to cancel the Sunflower state's presidential primary was referred to committee on January 31.
• Out the window: This one has flown under the radar, but the Kentucky House voted in January to move all its primaries from May to August. Yeah, it's more problematic than it sounds.
• It's always sunny: RNC Chairman Reince Priebus got in on the act this week by urging Florida to move back the state's presidential primary and state Democratic Party Chair Rod Smith warned again about the impact the noncompliant primary could have on Democrats.
• 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 the 14 early states in conflict with the national parties' rules will be joined by Oklahoma which convenes its state legislative session on February 7 (see HB 1057, HB 1614, HB 2138 and SB 808; four bills that would alter the date on which the state's presidential primary is held.). Those 15 states will be the ones to watch.

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

Kentucky Moving to August?

I'm not sure how this one ran so far beneath my radar, but it does make for an interesting discussion on a Monday morning on a couple of levels.

First of all, a bill (SB 4) was introduced and passed in the Kentucky Senate in January proposing a move of the Bluegrass state's primary -- both the presidential primary and those for state and local offices -- from the first Tuesday after the third Monday in May to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in August. The stated intent of the bill is to free up the legislature to focus on their work -- at least the controversial work -- without fear of being challenged in a primary by an opponent who entered the race because of a vote on a contentious piece of legislation. The filing deadline is in January for the May primary and many Kentucky legislators apparently wait until after the filing deadline and know who, if anyone, they will be facing off against in May before addressing potentially divisive legislation. And with the legislative session ending in March, the overall efficiency of activity in the legislature can be negatively affected.

But moving the primary back is an interesting way of dealing with this problem. The simpler solution, it seems, would be to shift the filing deadline back to a point that occurs prior to the start of the legislative session instead of trying to incur the wrath of the national parties with a presidential primary date that is in violation of both parties' rules; not for being too early, but for being too late. An August Kentucky primary would occur in 2012 on August 7, according to the provisions of this bill, just less than three weeks before the opening of the Republican National Convention on August 27.

Is this even doable given the national party rules on the window of time in which primaries and caucuses can be held? Well, there are a couple of ways of looking at that. The first concerns the parameters of the window rule and the other revolves around the structural and political constraints internal and external to Kentucky.

The main question that Richard Winger raises at Ballot Access News is one that came up here at FHQ last week in our discussion of the potential bill to move the District of Columbia primary elections -- including the presidential primary possibly -- to July. Namely, why has the back end of the window not been adjusted since 2004 as the national conventions have crept into September, later than the traditional end of July (for the party out of the White House) and the end of August (for the party in the White House)? This is a valid point. I'll grant the argument that the parties need some time to shift from the primary phase to the general election phase of the presidential election and that there may be some logistical concerns that need to be addressed in that intervening period between the close of primary season and the conventions that formally nominate presidential candidates. What is not clear to me is that the burden on the parties has in any way changed since 2004. In other words, has it become more burdensome to accomplish those logistical tasks in the period from the second week in June to the beginning of the conventions -- now in late August instead of late July?

There is no evidence that I could muster that would point to the necessity of essentially an extra month to accomplish those matters. One could highlight the Florida and Michigan problems from the 2008 cycle on the Democratic side or the issues Mike Huckabee had about the caucus results (and challenges to primary and caucus results and subsequent delegate disputes more generally) in Washington in 2008 on the Republican side. Those are, however, issues that were dealt with either before the end of the primary process (The Rules and Bylaws Committee met the weekend before the last round of contests to deal with Florida and Michigan.) or in the regular course of the primary/caucus winnowing of candidates (The voters spoke and made McCain the nominee and any argument from Huckabee as to the Arizona senator's legitimacy as the party's nominee because of what had happened in Washington moot.). But that doesn't change the fact that there are challenges (see the 2012 Democratic Delegate Selection Rules, section 20 for a look at the number of ways things can be challenged and the amount of time it could take to deal with them) and other logistical issues that arise and need to be taken care of during the period between the end of the primary process and before the beginning of the conventions.

But that period does not probably need to be as long as it was in 2008. There's nothing to suggest that it there is any greater frequency of issues which in turn necessitates an extra month for this period. Why not shift the back end of the window back to correspond with the backward shift the conventions have now taken?

But that doesn't really address the potential Kentucky move. It merely suggests that the national parties want some time between the end of the nominating contests and the conventions. Would the three weeks between the proposed August Kentucky primary in 2012 and the Republican convention be enough time? To Kentucky, probably. It is unlikely that there would be issues with the results. One candidate likely would have consolidated enough delegates by that point that Kentucky would not be decisive in the nomination and a court challenge by another candidate would be frivolous at best.

That point about court challenges (or any other problems) underlines why the national parties would have an issue with such a small window of time between the end of contests and a convention. Sure, even the national parties would view that scenario as far-fetched, but even they plan for worst-case scenarios. And even if that worst-case scenario did not happen, the parties have a vested interest in putting as much space between the primary phase of the competition and the general election phase as possible. First of all, if the primary process has been divisive, another contest simply serves as a means of reopening that wound when the party would rather be focusing on unifying the party ahead of its convention. Absent divisiveness, one could also foresee a situation where the parties would not want such a late contest. Let's look at the 2008 Republican nomination race for an illustration of this, but assume there was an August Kentucky primary during that cycle. McCain had wrapped up the nomination as of the first week in March. However, the thing that marked that final stretch of contests on the Republican side was not how Romney and Huckabee -- two candidates who had withdrawn from the race -- were doing, but how much support Ron Paul continued to get into the June contests. Of the final nine contests for the Republican nomination, Paul received double digit support (an average of 17%) in five. Even if Paul wasn't a serious contender for the nomination, that is a significant protest vote; one that no party would want less than three weeks before a convention.

Again, the parties want a transitional period between the two phases of the campaign, but there is nothing that would point toward a need for that period to be expanded or that the back end of the window should not be adjusted due to convention creep. But neither party would want a late contest like what Kentucky is proposing.

--

That first area of discussion ended up with a point about the external pressures Kentucky is getting (or will potentially get if this bill becomes law) from the national parties, but that is only one piece of the structural/political puzzle this primary date shift makes up. What other considerations are involved?

At first glance, the Kentucky bill seems like a more institutionally crafty way of doing what HB 1057 in Oklahoma seeks to accomplish: forcing the state parties to take on funding of presidential nominating contests. If the presidential primary is too late, the state parties will have to pick up the bill for a contest of a rules-compliant date. More insidiously, that would be a means of more than likely forcing a caucus with far less participation, but more party control (see Meinke et al. 2006). In a scenario where Kentucky had an open or semi-open primary that would make more sense. It would be a means of closing off the process and limiting who could participate. But Kentucky's primaries are already closed.

There has also been some more widespread discussion this cycle among other states about costs savings and the presidential primaries -- moving a separate presidential primary back in line with those for state and local offices (see California, New Jersey) or eliminating presidential primaries altogether (see Kansas, Washington). That is not the case in Kentucky. There is nothing to be gained financially for the state from such a move. Removing the presidential line from the ballot decreases the burden little if any since the presidential primary and those primaries for state and local offices are held concurrently as is.

While the above structural constraints -- outside of the national party rules -- may serve as no hinderance to the movement of this bill through the Kentucky legislature, the political roadblocks are much greater. First of all, this bill was proposed in and passed by the Republican-controlled state Senate and though I don't know for sure -- the Kentucky legislature's web site was less than forthcoming about who voted for and against this bill -- I suspect that the 21-14 vote to pass it was largely along party lines. The Republicans have a 22-15 advantage in the Senate with one independent. The state House and beyond that chamber, the governor's mansion, are controlled by Democrats, Democrats who are likely to get some pressure from the DNC to ignore or vote down this legislation. The Democratic Delegate Selection Rules for 2012 (section 20.C.7) call for Democrats in states in situations such as these to take "all provable and positive steps" to keep the state's Democratic delegate selection compliant with the rules. If the House doesn't do that, Governor Beshear likely will.

But why enter this scenario in the first place? Why not just shift the filing deadline back? That's a much easier route. [Yes, there are implications for an earlier filing deadline, but they have to be less onerous than those taken on in the event that Kentucky's presidential primary is moved back and out of compliance with the national party rules.]

Hat tip to Richard Winger over at Ballot Access News for sending this Kentucky information my way.

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

Companion House Bill to Move Primary to March Moves Forward in Virginia

Earlier in the week the Virginia Senate passed SB 1246 which would shift the date on which the state's 2012 presidential primary would be held from February to March. On Friday, the effort in the House of Delegates -- HB 1843 -- inched closer to following suit. The legislation emerged from the House Privileges and Elections Committee after a unanimous vote (22Y, 0N). Despite the fact that the bill was reported from committee "with substitute", it appears to be identical to the Senate bill. It not only seems that the legislation in both chambers has bipartisan support, but that crossover of the bills -- since they are identical -- will be a seamless transition as well. The date for crossover is on Tuesday, so a vote on passage will likely take place sometime this week.

Hat tip to Frank Leone at DemRulz for passing this along to FHQ.

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

Presidential Election Funding Bill Introduced in the US House

Occasionally FHQ will wade into discussions on campaign finance or campaign finance reform and typically those instances are reserved for times a consequential loophole has been discovered and utilized or when new legislation is introduced to deal with the perceived problems within the system. And hey, go ahead and throw in a reference or two to the Citizens United decision while you're at it. But as was the case with the congressional election funding system proposed during the 2009 session of the 111th Congress, David Price's (D-NC, 4th district) revamped presidential election funding bill (HR 414) that was introduced on January 25 is likely going nowhere fast. This is even clearer given that the Republican Party now controls the House and furthermore that the party just voted to eliminate the system altogether as a means of cutting costs.

But let us set those realities to the side for a moment and look at the new provisions within the bill on the merits. The key with any bill on the campaign finance front is that it offer prospective candidates enough of a carrot that they voluntarily opt into the system in the first place. In other words, if a candidate has to think about whether he or she can out-raise the new limits then the battle has already been lost. Here are some of the highlights:

In the primaries phase:

• The dollar for dollar match from the federal coffers jumps to a 4:1 ratio. For every dollar raised, the federal government matches with four. This was the same ratio that was used in the congressional funding system from 2009.
• The US government will match up to $100 million. If, as a candidate, you can raise $25 million, then you get $100 million from the government funding system. That $125 million sum -- which would/could be available six months prior to the first delegate selection event -- sounds reasonably sufficient until you see that Obama was able to raise that $25 million in the first quarter of 2007 and was just getting started at that point. In a crowded field with multiple frontrunners that might work, but that doesn't happen all that often.
• Contributions limits are adjusted based on inflation, but the overall caps on what the government will match do not.

In the general election phase:

• The bill includes a repeal of federal funding of national party conventions. This is strange to me. I get the intent, but if you are going to argue that the parties should fund this, should not the argument also be made that parties should handle the funding of candidates as well? Both are party business after all. [Yes, there are several attendant conflicts on the latter point, but it should not go unmentioned.]
• To receive any general election matching funds a candidate must have participated in the primary matching phase.
• The cap on what the government will match is $150 million ($50 million plus a 4:1 match capped at $100 million). That's approximately double what McCain got in 2008 and about the same amount that Obama raised in September 2008 alone.

The campaign finance system may be worth saving, but it will ultimately take more than baby carrots to entice candidates into the program in the first place. There is a lot more to this bill (have a look yourself), but given the comparatively low caps and the fact that the Republican-controlled House will never go for this, HR 414 is destined to die in committee. Still, it represents something interesting at which to look.

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

Idaho Bill to Move Presidential Primary Up a Week Passes State House

The election consolidation bill that includes a provision to shift the date on which Idaho's primary -- including the presidential primary -- up from the fourth week in May to the third week in May has passed the state House by a vote of 67-0 with three members absent. HB 60 now moves over to the state Senate for consideration there.

No, this isn't a significant potential shift, but it does join the bill in Texas (HB 318) as the only active bills which seek to move their state's presidential primaries forward. Due to the mandates from the national parties to allow only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina to hold their nominating contests in February, there are a number of states with February or earlier dates that require a change to be compliant. The expectation, then, is that the majority of movement ahead of 2012 will be backward, not forward. As we have mentioned here, though, that assumes those noncompliant states opt to follow the parties' new guidelines. And that's a big if.

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

A Favorite Son Strategy by Republican Governors? In 2012?

Maybe in 1912, but not in 2012.

FHQ is hesitant to play along with David Broder's thought exercise about Republican governors being able to leverage their influence over the 2012 Republican presidential nomination process. Look, we're big proponents of thought exercises around here (See FHQ poke constructive holes in the various presidential primary reform plans here, here, here, here and here for instance.), but this one seems like a reach. And sure, it is probably fair to say that I tend to be a contrarian within these confines, so let's look at this one a bit more closely.

First, let's look at the assumptions the outcome to Broder's exercise makes. I think he is right to look at the signals gubernatorial endorsements send to rank and file primary voters and potentially have on the presidential nomination process. The significance of those endorsements is the primary contribution that Cohen et al. made to the political science literature in The Party Decides. In other words, gubernatorial endorsements serve as an institutional party cue to primary voters and caucus-goers of elite support from within the party during the invisible primary. Of course, there is a difference between the level of influence Broder is speaking about and the what Cohen et al. posit. Broder's is a more calculated and coordinated impact whereas Cohen et al. discuss more of a general influence borne of the aggregated actions of individual governors.

Often it is more about who is on the sidelines rather than who is actually endorsing presidential candidates for your party's nomination. There were, between 1980 and 2004, only two races in which more than three quarters of the governors from one party actually made endorsements. The Republican races in 1996 and 2000. Republican governors overwhelmingly backed both Bob Dole and George W. Bush in the invisible primary phase of the race. I don't have the numbers pre-Iowa from 2008, but as of the end of February there were still ten Democratic and ten Republican governors who had yet to endorse candidates. Will that change in 2012 on the Republican side? There is no way of knowing, but it should be noted that when no clear frontrunner emerges, the tendency is for more governors to wait it out. The 1988 and 2004 Democratic nomination races illustrate this nicely. Only 19% and 5% of Democratic governors in those respective cycles came forward to endorse a candidate during the invisible primary period.*

The major problem with Broder's idea, then, is that it requires a level of coordination on the part of the Republican governors not seen since the days of before presidential nomination reform. And even then, such action was likely to have manifest itself at the nominating convention rather than the invisible primary.

Can Republican governors coordinate that collective action problem (Broder is assuming in his op/ed that they can.) and even if they can, what impact do those endorsements play? I'll take that second first as it builds nicely on the point from above. With the exception of 2004, those governors who endorsed candidates during the invisible primary were more likely to have throws their support behind the eventual winner of the nomination. Again, the numbers I have for 2008 were collected in the midst of the battle for the nominations, but the Republican endorsements follow the trend (7 of 22 Republican governors supported McCain) while the Democratic endorsements were like 2004, inconclusive (10 of 28 Democratic governors backed Clinton while 7 supported Obama.). What this all seems to indicate is that the governors who play the endorsement game typically send a collective signal of their choice to voters. Typically. Now, first of all, we're talking about a plurality, not unanimity. But we also see that in multi-candidate races, there's less of a chance that even a modicum of consensus builds behind one candidate. In other words, when there is no clear frontrunner.

The conditions seem right, then. But can or will Republican governors pull the trigger on such a plan. They perhaps can, but Broder's idea also seems to require some help from the candidates; that they acknowledge that one candidate is more likely to win in one area than another and stay away. It isn't clear to me that that is a viable strategy. "Skipping" has not been and will not more than likely be a winning strategy for any candidate. Just look at Rudy Giuliani in 2008. He ceded the bulk of attention to Huckabee, McCain and Romney waiting on Florida's primary to roll around. But by then it was too late. The same will be true in 2012 no matter what the calendar ultimately looks like.

The more I think about this, the more it seems like a way to elevate someone other than the four candidates who have been talked about (and polled) the most frequently: Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin and Romney. If the longer shots like Pawlenty or Barbour try and pick and choose their spots -- and one would have to think that they would have to pick off Iowa and South Carolina respectively to catapult themselves into the conversation -- they risk yielding attention to the other candidates who may or may not be organizing and spending money in all the early states and into Super Tuesday instead of based on geography.

I just don't see the governors being able to coordinate this with the candidates. Now collectively, some group of governors and others within the party's establishment may be able to signal to voters who they want to be the choice, but that's the only way that that's going to occur. This individual endorsement having a direct influence over the outcome of a given primary or caucus hypothesis is a stretch. It is an aggregate versus individual-level issue. We see an aggregate influence over the identity of the eventual nominee, but not an individual influence over individual state results in terms of these gubernatorial endorsements.

I mean, look at how quickly Terry Branstad responded to the Broder's assertion that the Iowa governor was backing Pawlenty.

*These numbers come from Figure 1.1 in "The Invisible Primary in Presidential Nominations, 1980-2004." by Cohen et al. which appears in Mayer's The Making of the Presidential Candidates, 2004.

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

Vote on Idaho Election Consolidation Bill Scheduled for Feb. 3 in House

The election consolidation bill (HB 60) that is before the Idaho state House emerged from the State Affairs Committee with a "Do Pass" recommendation and received a second reading -- following the reading upon introduction -- today. The bill is scheduled for its third reading -- the voting stage -- tomorrow. Among the provisions embedded in the bill is one to shift the date on which the Gem state's primaries -- including the presidential primary -- from the fourth Tuesday in May to the third Tuesday in May. To be sure, it isn't a significant shift, but is nonetheless a primary move.

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

Woe is me.

Folks, Florida's presidential primary is already early. Perhaps you've heard me say this about two million times since I first put the 2012 presidential primary calendar together back in December 2008. I don't want to make this a reoccurring item because I suppose I've griped about this before, but I have to draw the line somewhere.

And today that somewhere was headlines about RNC Chairman Reince Priebus calling on the Florida state government to move the Sunshine state's presidential primary back to a time that would comply with the national parties' rules on delegate selection (some time on or after March 6). But that's not the image everyone got from some of the headlines floating around out there.

From Politico:

Priebus to Fla.: Don't move primary

From CNN:

RNC Chairman urges Florida not to move up 2012 primary

Now look, FHQ is not perfect (We make and have people call us on mistakes too.), but these headlines are just misleading. And to be fair, these are just the headlines. The stories are right on which is a far cry from some items that can't get some of the basic facts of the Florida situation right (like the date of the primary -- January 31, 2012 -- and various other outlets that are blurring the line on the differences in penalties for going early in both parties -- GOP takes 50% of the delegates and that is it).

For the record, then, Florida is already scheduled early and the RNC is hoping that the state will move its primary back.

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