Budget Concerns May Affect Massachusetts Presidential Primary

UPDATE (2/27/11): Legislation is now in committee in Massachusetts to move both the presidential primary (from March) and the primaries for state and local offices (from September) to June.

One issue that continues to be raised as the 2012 presidential primary calendar evolves is one of budgetary constraints at the state level. This has manifest itself in a few ways and has become problematic in more and more states across the country as state governments wrestle over budget outlays for the coming year(s).

In Kansas and Washington, the talks have revolved around eliminating the presidential primary and shifting the cost of nominating candidates to the state parties; state parties that would, in turn, typically opt for caucuses as a means of nominating candidates over primaries. Still other states are looking at the possibility moving their separate presidential primaries to dates that coincide with later primaries for state and local offices. Some states are better able than others to pull this cost saving maneuver off. California and New Jersey, for instance, can eliminate their separate presidential primaries and move them back to the June dates on which their state and local primaries are held because the June date fits within the window of time in which the national parties allow states to hold presidential delegate selection events. California and New Jersey -- and Arkansas before them -- can do that. Florida, Massachusetts and other states with July, August and September primaries cannot. In other words, California and New Jersey have a way of cutting costs in the elections section of the budget that states like Florida and Massachusetts do not.

That fact, of course, does not in any way financially relieve that latter group of states. They still face the same budget crunch as the other states, but don't have that same cost-saving option. Florida doesn't seem to mind. Legislators there are more concerned with the state playing a role in selecting the, in 2012 at least, Republican presidential nominee. But elsewhere states are grappling with the costs of holding elections and what to do given that pressure.

The latest state to publicly deal with this is Massachusetts. There, the presidential primary is on the chopping block. In the eyes of Secretary of State Bill Galvin it is at least unless the Elections Division can convince the state legislature to add $3.5 million to its budget. Said Galvin:

“The number that was submitted by the governor despite the fact that he suggested, or his administration suggested, that it would be a 2 percent cut, in fact is a far more drastic cut. My budget will go down anyways for the coming fiscal year in the elections area because we have one fewer election in the upcoming fiscal year than we did in the last, but nevertheless, it’s a problem to run this March 6, 2012 event based upon the numbers they’ve submitted.”

As far as alternatives, Galvin suggested shifting to a state party-funded caucus system.

“I asked the legislature during my testimony yesterday on the budget to increase the line item, which I know it was a difficult thing given the circumstances of the year, or I suggested to them they could of course cancel the primary, and we could go to a caucus system.”

That is one option. But because Massachusetts has such a late date for its state and local primaries, it is subject to the MOVE act that passed Congress in 2009. The September 18, 2012 primary is just 49 days before the November 6 general election. That gives the state just four days to finalize general election nominees, print ballots and distribute them to military and overseas personnel to comply with that law. That is likely an inadequate window of time in which to complete those tasks. In other words, Massachusetts faces having to move the date on which its state and local primaries are held. The temptation, as was the case in the District of Columbia, may be to simultaneously move both the presidential primary and the primaries for state and local offices to a date that complies with both national party rules governing presidential delegate selection and the mandates required by the MOVE act.

This trend merits watching as state legislatures settle in to deal with the budgets in their respective states. It has the potential to affect the development of the presidential primary calendar and could ultimately suit the national parties' interests quite well. The more states that have to consider moving a presidential primary back to coincide with a traditional or newly timed set of primaries for state and local offices, the more likely it is that there will be fewer rogue states breaking the delegate selection rules. And the states that have been best able to move to those increasingly earlier presidential primary dates are the very same states that have very late primaries for state and local offices. Again, it merits watching.

--

Can Massachusetts Afford 2012 Presidential Primaries?

(via WBZ Boston)

BOSTON (CBS) – There’s a possibility that Massachusetts won’t be able to participate fully in the next presidential election.

Secretary of State Bill Galvin says there’s not enough money to run a primary in March 2012, according to Gov. Deval Patrick’s budget for the next fiscal year.

“The number that was submitted by the governor despite the fact that he suggested, or his administration suggested, that it would be a 2 percent cut, in fact is a far more drastic cut. My budget will go down anyways for the coming fiscal year in the elections area because we have one fewer election in the upcoming fiscal year than we did in the last, but nevertheless, it’s a problem to run this March 6, 2012 event based upon the numbers they’ve submitted,” Galvin told WBZ.

Galvin said he offered up suggestions for alternatives to the 2012 primary elections.

“I asked the legislature during my testimony yesterday on the budget to increase the line item, which I know it was a difficult thing given the circumstances of the year, or I suggested to them they could of course cancel the primary, and we could go to a caucus system,” Galvin said.

The combination of the upcoming presidential primaries and the necessary political reorganization of the state after the 2010 Census unfortunately happened during an economic crunch.

“If I were to spend all of the money on the primary, I then wouldn’t have any money for the rest of the election department’s activities: the local elections where we supervise, but also preparing for the regular state elections and the presidential election in 2012. So, all of that has to be done,” said Galvin.

He said he hopes the elections can still go on as scheduled.

“It’s my earnest hope that the legislature will find the money to help us continue the tradition of having a voter participatory primary,” said Sec. Galvin.

Galvin said his office needs an extra $3.5 million in the budget.

Recent Posts:

Companion Senate Bill to Move Missouri Presidential Primary to March Introduced

If they were deciding today, where would they choose to go? A Note about the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Idaho House Bill to Move Presidential Primary Up Passes Senate

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

Companion Senate Bill to Move Missouri Presidential Primary to March Introduced

On February 16, Missouri state senator, Kevin Engler (R-3, Farmington), introduced SB 282 which would shift the date on which the Show-Me state's presidential primary is held from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. The bill is exactly like the House bill (HB 503) in content and sponsorship. The senate version is also sponsored by the chairman of the Financial and Governmental Organizations and Elections Committee, giving it a similar level of institutional support from within the Republican majority. Republicans hold a three to one advantage over Democrats in the legislature's upper chamber, so the bill could proceed without bipartisan support like the House bill as well.

Recent Posts:

If they were deciding today, where would they choose to go? A Note about the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Idaho House Bill to Move Presidential Primary Up Passes Senate

Three New Presidential Primary Bills Emerge in Tennessee

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

If they were deciding today, where would they choose to go? A Note about the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

It has become apparent since FHQ's cameo appearance on The Fix earlier this week that the content here has been opened up to a broader political insider audience than before. It has been truer in this instance than in some of the other more general pieces in which I have had quotes on the primary calendar appear. That fact has been driven home by some push back I have gotten on the 2012 presidential primary calendar that we update when primary dates are changed. At issue seems to be where we have Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and until the state Republican Party changed the date in December, Nevada.

Nevada has preemptively moved to the mid-February date -- February 18 -- that the national parties have reserved for it. Well, the DNC specified that date while the Republicans allow more leeway, allowing the four exempt states a window of February 1 through the first Tuesday in March to hold a delegate selection event. In other words, the choice is up to the states. Nonetheless, Nevada Republicans opted for that date. That said, the Silver state Republicans have selected a date.

The other three have not. Each is waiting, as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina typically do, for the other states settle in on dates before deciding on their own earlier dates. This is not news. And while that is not news, it doesn't change the fact that those states and possibly even Nevada will look at which non-exempt state is earliest and make the decision as to the timing of their primaries or caucuses based on that information.

Ideally from the national parties perspective that will be no earlier than the first Tuesday in March 2012. But that conflicts with the reality of the situation from the states' perspective. Election laws already on the books specify when presidential primary elections are to be held and it will take state legislative action to alter that. But unless or until that reality changes we have to operate -- we do around here anyway -- under the aforementioned assumption. Florida election law currently has the Sunshine state's presidential primary scheduled for January 31. That is currently the earliest non-exempt delegate selection event and if Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina were to have to choose today on which date each would go next year, the decision makers in those states would choose based on that information. The latest possible dates for those states to go with Florida and others -- those other states scheduled to hold contests throughout February -- standing in the way of national party delegate selection rules is right where FHQ has them.

Monday, January 16: Iowa

Tuesday, January 24: New Hampshire

Saturday, January 28: South Carolina (and perhaps Nevada)

And even that is questionable because New Hampshire law requires a week long cushion on both sides of its primary. That proposed South Carolina date falls just four days after the primary in the Granite state and if Bill Gardner, the New Hampshire secretary of state who has the date-setting power there, wants to be a stickler, he could inch the state's primary up an additional week to January 17 and push Iowa to January 9. That, however, has yet to play out.

So no, the dates for those three states are not official -- something that has been noted in the sidebar calendar and in posts since I first posted them in December 2008 and is highlighted even more clearly now -- but until the information changes (read: Florida moves back), the dates FHQ lists for Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina are the latest possible dates on which their contests will fall in 2012.

NOTE: A link to this post will be added to all archived and future updates to the calendar that appears here.

Recent Posts:

Idaho House Bill to Move Presidential Primary Up Passes Senate

Three New Presidential Primary Bills Emerge in Tennessee

"Rubio favors early presidential primary for Florida in 2012"

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

Idaho House Bill to Move Presidential Primary Up Passes Senate

Idaho is a Butch Otter signature away from shifting its presidential primary up a week after the state Senate passed an elections consolidation bill today. Among a host of other elections law changes requested by Secretary of State Tim Hurst, HB 60 calls for the Gem state's presidential primary to be moved up to the third Tuesday in May from the fourth Tuesday in May.

The House bill passed unanimously there on February 3 and passed by a vote of 35-0 in the Senate today. Should Governor Otter sign the bill, Idaho will become the first primary state to move forward in a primary calendar year when most states will be moving to later dates.

Recent Posts:

Three New Presidential Primary Bills Emerge in Tennessee

"Rubio favors early presidential primary for Florida in 2012"

Midweek Update on Presidential Primary Movement

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

Three New Presidential Primary Bills Emerge in Tennessee

Late last week, bills were introduced by the Republican leadership in both chambers of the Tennessee General Assembly to move the Volunteer state's 2012 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. Since that time, there have been three additional bills introduced that would affect the timing of the state's presidential primary. Two are revisions of the bills filed last week -- yet in the form of an all-new bill -- that would maintain the same shift described in the previous legislation, but would augment that with a change in the filing deadlines as well. As such, HB 793 and SB 929, also sponsored by Rep. Gerald McCormick (R-26, Chattanooga) and Sen. Mark Norris (R-32, Collierville) respectively, seemingly replace HB 612 and SB 599. Again, these bills, as was the case with their predecessors have the backing of the Republican (majority party) leadership and that stands to help the bill through the General Assembly.

In contrast, HB 760, introduced by Democratic House leader, Craig Fitzhugh (D-82, Ripley), while it does have the support of the minority party leader, will potentially face more institutional, not to mention partisan, barriers to passing. Complicating matters further -- from a partisan perspective -- is the fact that this bill calls for the presidential primary to be moved to first Tuesday in May to coincide with the municipal primaries in the state. This not only saves money, but it also moves the primary out of the window of time in which the Republican nomination is likely to be decided. The cost savings are attractive, but it is questionable how open Republican legislators are going to be toward moving the primary out of contention on the calendar. Democrats obviously have a bit more leeway on this front given that the party is very unlikely to have a contested nomination race next year.

These bills will be added to the Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures section in the left sidebar.

Recent Posts:

"Rubio favors early presidential primary for Florida in 2012"

Midweek Update on Presidential Primary Movement

Are we done writing the eulogy for the Iowa Caucuses?

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

"Rubio favors early presidential primary for Florida in 2012"

No, Rubio isn't a decision maker on the matter of the timing of Florida's 2012 presidential primary, but this is worth filing away. That's another Republican voice -- and a national one at that -- who is for the Sunshine state's primary being earlier than is allowed by national party rules.

--

Rubio favors early presidential primary for Florida in 2012

by George Bennett, Palm Beach Post (Post on Politics Blog)

WASHINGTON — Florida should keep its early presidential primary date in 2012 and the Republican National Committee would be wise to accommodate the important swing state, Republican U.S. Sen Marco Rubio says.

Both parties have agreed that only four states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — should have primaries before March 1. When Rubio was state House Speaker, the legislature moved Florida’s 2008 primary to January to give the state more influence. The 2012 primary will be in January as well unless the legislature changes the date.

Says Rubio: “I think if the Republican Party wants to pay for the elections in Florida, they can have them any day they want. But as long as the voters of Florida are going to pay for this election, it should be on the most meaningful day possible. An election in late January costs the same as an election in April, but it’s a lot more meaningful.”

Rubio added: “I’m OK with Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina — those are established states and I don’t think Florida desires to get ahead of any of them. But after that, why should Florida be behind anyone else? And as a Republican, I’ll tell you this flat out, no Republican can win the presidency of the United States without winning the state of Florida. We cannot win the presidency without winning Florida as a Republican, and so it behooves us to make sure that whoever our nominee is is someone that is palatable in Florida and does well in Florida. And the best way to do that is by winning the primary.”

Asked about the possibility the RNC would strip some or all of Florida’s delegates to punish the state for holding its primary too early, Rubio said, “If the RNC thinks the way to win Florida — which they cannot win the presidency without — is to sanction the most important swing state in the country, then good luck to them.”

Rubio said he plans to be neutral in the 2012 presidential primary and in the 2012 Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat of Democrat Bill Nelson.

Recent Posts:

Midweek Update on Presidential Primary Movement

Are we done writing the eulogy for the Iowa Caucuses?

Virginia Senate Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March Passes House

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

Midweek Update on Presidential Primary Movement

With the passage of SB 1246 in Virginia yesterday, the commonwealth moved closer to shifting its 2012 presidential primary back on the calendar to March. That said, there has been a lot of smaller movement this week on the primary date-setting front, that while not large in scope, is seemingly large in quantity. It is large enough to warrant noting at least.

In Virginia: One bill awaits the governor's signature while another is still chugging along. HB 1843, the House equivalent of HB 1246, emerged from committee yesterday (with a positive vote to pass -- 10Y, 1N) and should probably receive a floor vote by the end of the week. Both this bill and the one passed in the House of Delegates yesterday accomplish the same thing: moving the primary to the first Tuesday in March.

In Texas: The Democrat-filed bill to move the Lone Star state's presidential primary from the first week in March to the first Tuesday in February -- and into violation of the national parties' delegate selection rules -- was read into the record yesterday and referred to the Elections Committee in the Texas House. This is only significant because the bill was introduced in November and has been on the sidelines ever since. The big question in Texas is whether Republicans in the legislature are going to be to moving the state into violation of the parties' rules. On the one hand, the state would face sanctions. On the other, a state as big as Texas and as important to the Republican electoral vote coalition in the general election might deserve a better spot at the GOP nominating table, at least in the eyes of state legislators there.

In Washington: Two bills (HB 1324 and HB 1860) to either eliminate the presidential primary or tie its existence to its use for delegate selection by the two parties face public hearings in the State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee today. Little has trickled out of the Evergreen state following similar hearings on the Senate bill to eliminate the 2012 presidential primary, and FHQ is hesitant to expect much out of today's hearings. However, it is worth noting.

Recent Posts:

Are we done writing the eulogy for the Iowa Caucuses?

Virginia Senate Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March Passes House

Missouri House Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary to March

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

Are we done writing the eulogy for the Iowa Caucuses?

First Mitt Romney was going to skip Iowa and now there is a potential epidemic of prospective presidential candidate absences from the Hawkeye state? I'm glad the Iowa Republican Party came along and shot this one down tonight. Sure, the numbers cited (via Politico 2012 Live's fabulous candidate tracker) in that tweet are inflated with Obama visits and visits to surrounding areas that don't technically count as visits to Iowa (or any of the other four earliest states). Once you back those superfluous visits out the count looks like this (percentage of total visits to those four states in parentheses):

Iowa: 118 (41%)

New Hampshire: 82 (28%)

South Carolina: 73 (25%)

Nevada: 15 (5%)

The point is still the same: Iowa has the most visits of the four early primary/caucus states.

Now let's compare it to 2008. No, this isn't a fair comparison because it looks at the total number of visits to those states throughout the 2008 invisible primary and primary season periods. But let's focus on the percentage of total visits. [The numbers in the 2008 link are in terms of total visits to all states. We'll focus on the percentage of total visits to just Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.]

Iowa: 1943 (55%)

New Hampshire: 994 (28%)

South Carolina: 420 (12%)

Nevada: 145 (4%)

Yes, that includes Democratic candidate visits in 2008 as well. Now let's constrain it to just the Republican visits.

Iowa: 729 (48%)

New Hampshire: 489 (32%)

South Carolina: 277 (18%)

Nevada: 35 (2%)

Is Iowa getting a smaller share of candidate visits in 2012 as compared to 2008? In this oranges to tangerines comparison, perhaps a little. The Hawkeye state continues to command the largest proportion of visits thus far however. What can explain that? In FHQ's estimation, the explanation is not the rightward shift of the Iowa Republican Party. It has more to do with the fact that it is early and that no candidates have officially announced their candidacies. It might also have something to do with the fact that the nominal frontrunner's strategy is different in the 2012 cycle than it was in 2008. Mitt Romney spent a lot of time and money on both the Ames Straw Poll and the January caucuses to get just a quarter of the vote in Iowa. The former Massachusetts governor's strategy won't have as large a dose of Iowa in 2012. Romney will be in the state, but not like he was in 2008 and that is the real story here.

Iowa will still be first in 2012, it will continue to attract candidate attention and it will have an impact on the course of the Republican presidential nomination race. That hasn't and won't change, but its impact and level of attention will vary from cycle to cycle depending on exogenous factors.

Recent Posts:

Virginia Senate Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March Passes House

Missouri House Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary to March

2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (Feb. 7-13)

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

Virginia Senate Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March Passes House

Following a third reading of the Senate bill that would move Virginia's 2012 presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March, the commonwealth's House of Delegates passed SB 1246 (97Y, 1N) today. There is an analogous House bill (HB 1834) still in Senate committee, but even with that bill out there, this would presumably clear the way for the Senate bill -- having now been passed by both chambers and assuming no amendments were added in House -- to move on to Governor Bob McDonnell's desk. And given the level of bipartisan support, the governor's signature should prove a formality.

If that is the case, Virginia would become the first state to move its presidential nominating contest during the 2011 state legislative sessions. Arkansas shifted back in 2009 and Illinois did likewise last year. Hawaii Republicans opted for a February 2012 caucus in 2009 -- up from May -- and Montana Republicans abandoned their February caucus for the June state-funded primary in 2010.

UPDATE: Here's the rundown of the situation from The Washington Post's Rosalind Helderman. Most instructive:

"We're still going to be early," said Sen. Jill Holtzman Vogel (R-Winchester), who sponsored the bill. She is a lawyer who specializes in election issues and helped advise the RNC as it considered the new rules.

The Virginia House of Delegates adopted a bill setting the date on a bipartisan 97 to 1 vote on Tuesday. The bill has already passed the Senate and will now go to the governor. Vogel said it was written with Gov. Bob McDonnell's input, and she expects he will sign the measure into law.

"Democrats, Republicans and the governor joined hands to make sure we were together on this important issue," she said.

Vogel said that Virginia is dealing with the scheduling issue earlier than other states but that it is likely that a number of states will choose March 6 for their primaries, in an attempt to hold their elections as early as possible under the new party rules. She said the date could emerge as the nation's "new Super Tuesday."

The governor's signature seems like a formality given that he has already provided some input on the matter. As for March 6 being the "new Super Tuesday", we'll see. Several states are moving in that direction with legislation, but ten states have remained silent thus far -- two because their legislative sessions have not convened yet.

Recent Posts:

Missouri House Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary to March

2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (Feb. 7-13)

Mitt Romney's already got trouble in Nevada?

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

Missouri House Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary to March

Republicans in the Missouri House yesterday introduced a bill (HB 503) to move the Show Me state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. Missouri now becomes the sixth state scheduled to have a February or earlier contest to introduce legislation to shift its presidential primary back to the national parties' newly designated first Tuesday in March starting line.

The bill was introduced by House Elections Committee chair, Tony Dugger, and was co-sponsored by 14 other Republican representatives. Among that 14 were five of the six other Republican members of the Elections Committee; the committee to which the bill will most likely be referred. With a nearly two to one Republican to Democrat ratio in the House, this is a bill that will likely not require any bipartisan support until it gets to Governor Jay Nixon's desk -- assuming it passes both Republican-controlled Houses first. Of course, as the only Democratic check within the state government -- in terms of presidential primary timing -- Nixon would be compelled by Rule 20.C.7 of the 2012 Democratic Delegate Selection Rules to sign legislation bringing the state's nominating contest back into compliance with those rules. Not doing so could open the Democratic Party in the state to additional penalties from the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. That scenario, however, is unlikely.

One other additional note about this bill concerns its language. The terminology is slightly different from the language witnessed in other similar legislation in other states, but the meaning is essentially the same. By inserting "after the first Monday" into this segment of the election law, Missouri legislators are setting up a situation where they could fall a week after the earliest allowed date (should it continue to be the first Tuesday in March) when and if the first Tuesday in March falls on March 1. While states like Oklahoma, Virginia and Tennessee would continue to hold contests on the first Tuesday of March, Missouri would have to wait until the first Monday has passed in order to hold their presidential primary. Again, this would not occur all that often.

Recent Posts:

2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (Feb. 7-13)

Mitt Romney's already got trouble in Nevada?

New Bill Introduced to Eliminate Separate Presidential Primary in New Jersey

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