Recent Posts:
Friday, February 25, 2011
Governor Otter Signs Bill Shifting Idaho Primary Up a Week
On Wednesday, Idaho governor Butch Otter signed H 60 into law. Among other things within the omnibus elections bill, the legislation moves the Gem state's presidential primary (and those for state and local offices that occur concurrently) up one week from the fourth Tuesday in May to the third Tuesday in May. Though Virginia may not be far behind in terms of moving the date of its primary, Idaho becomes the first state to move for 2012 during the 2011 state legislative sessions. And contrary to most states considering a date change, Idaho is moving forward and not back.
Is it really a "stampede" if no one moves?
I don't know that this headline ("Florida Threatens to Start a 2012 Primary Stampede") really fits the article that follows. The general focus is on Florida and the potential for the state legislature there to defy the national party rules and keep the Sunshine state's 2012 presidential primary in January. But there is not really anything after that that describes anything close to the massive 2008-like movement of states or why that would occur if Florida does nothing.
Of course, the headline implies it. And I suppose that sentiment is understandable given the experience with Florida in 2008. That, however, is a false premise. With the rules changes that both the Democrats and Republican coordinated -- pushing the starting point for all non-exempt states back to the first Tuesday in March -- most states that have proposed moves have proposed moving back to comply with those rules. By comparison, there are only two states with bills before their state legislatures currently proposing to move their presidential primaries forward. And one of those states, Idaho, isn't really a threat because the move in the Gem state is only up a week from the fourth Tuesday in May to the third Tuesday in May.
Texas, then, stands as the only state with a bill within the legislature to move its primary forward. That doesn't seem like much of a stampede. In fact, the real issue behind the development of the 2012 presidential primary calendar continues to be the states that are already scheduled early and in violation of the national party rules. They are already there. The cattle stampeded in 2004 and 2008 and the inaction now isn't so much a stampede as it is running in place.
Now, if Texas actually moves to February, well, that might set off a flurry of movement. But even then state legislatures will be constrained by bill introduction deadlines and beyond that the looming end of most legislative sessions across the country.
Recent Posts:
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
"Jockeying by states snarls GOP primary plans"
More than a third of the states have early Republican presidential primary elections scheduled next year that would violate national party rules, throwing the campaign calendar into disarray and risking sanctions that would diminish their influence at the nominating convention.
[Click to Enlarge]
--
I've got to outsource the graphical presentation of my data to the Boston Globe more often.
Recent Posts:
Kansas Bill to Cancel 2012 Presidential Primary Passes Senate
After SB 128 moved out of the Committee of Ethics and Elections and into consideration from the Committee of the Whole -- garnering a "Be Passed" label from each -- the state Senate voted today to pass the bill canceling the Sunflower state's 2012 presidential primary. The move will save the state $1.3 million during fiscal 2012, but the cancelation and the savings are not all that surprising. Kansas has voted to suspend the presidential primary during each successive presidential nomination cycle since they last held a primary in 1992.
Hat tip to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for making me aware of the action in the Committee on the Whole.
--
More from the Dion Lefler at the Wichita Eagle:
Recent Posts:
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
A Good, Old-Fashioned Conspiracy Theory of 2012 Primary Movement
There has been no lack of state legislative action to move or cancel 2012 presidential primaries during the first two months of 2011. With the national parties coordinating the development of the calendar aspect of their respective delegate selection rules -- settling on a first Tuesday in March start date for all non-exempt states -- most of that proposed movement in active legislation in state legislatures is backward and not forward thus far in the 2012 cycle. That can have implications for how the candidates approach certain states strategically. Depending on how the calendar ends up, and which states are where, certain candidates could have advantages over their counterparts. Most of this discussion has focused on the first four states; that Romney might skip Iowa or that he will do well in New Hampshire and Nevada. But what is missing is a look at what might happen after that. Much of that will, of course, depend on what states end up forming that second tier of contests behind the four exempt states. That is why the evolution of this particular primary calendar is consequential.
Where does the formation of the second tier currently stand? Some states have proposed legislation to shift the dates on which their presidential primaries are held, yet others have not. Is there any pattern that has emerged in the states where legislation has been introduced and those early states that have to this point remained inactive?
[Click to Enlarge]
Well, actually there is. There are 18 primary states with 2012 contests currently scheduled out of compliance with national party rules. That list expands to 19 if Washington, DC is included. Of those 19 states (highlighted in yellow and green in the map above), eight have proposed legislation to move their presidential primaries back (Those states marked by a black circle.). Ten of those states were states in which Mike Huckabee either won the primary or placed second to John McCain. The remaining nine states were ones where Mitt Romney either won or came in second to McCain.
While the overall division is nearly even, the distribution of states with legislation to move primaries to later dates saw decidedly more Huckabee support than Romney support in the early 2008 contests. Six of the eight states with legislation work its way through state legislatures were Huckabee states. And of the two Romney states one, Florida, has shown a certain resistance to moving despite Democrats having proposed legislation to move the primary back into compliance.
If the seven states with active legislation to move their primaries move back (excluding Florida) that would leave a second tier of 12 states; eight where Romney enjoyed success in 2008 and four where Huckabee won or was the runner-up. Now sure, it is early in the state legislative session, but there is an interesting pattern that has surfaced behind the states that have been either active or inactive in moving their 2012 delegate selection events.
Have at it Romney supporters and detractors.
Recent Posts:
Is Florida Culpable in a Potential 2012 Primary Mess?
It has become clearer and clearer that Florida Republicans in the leadership in the state legislature are resistant to moving the Sunshine state's presidential primary into compliance with the national parties' rules on delegate selection. What has struck FHQ over the last week or so is the amount and type of coverage this has been getting. There have been headlines or comments about Florida "shredding", "blowing up" and "wreaking havoc" with the 2012 presidential primary calendar. That may be the case, but I think it overstates the extent to which that is true by falling back on the example of the delegate battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over the state in 2008. It is easy to link up the negative implications from 2008 with the same sort of potential state versus national party conflicts in 2012.
But it unfairly heaps all of the blame for the situation on the state of Florida. And there is more than enough blame to go around here.
As a starting point, I should probably go ahead and say that I've been pointing to the Florida conundrum since December 2008. I don't say that to boast, but merely as a means of highlighting the fact that this is not and should not have been news. Now, to people who tune in and out of the presidential nomination/election process it may be news, but it should not have been to the national parties. Both parties should have been mindful of Florida's position on the primary calendar in 2012 and should have devised rules or more to the point, penalties with Florida and the other non-compliant states in mind.
The Republicans did alter their delegate selection rules, but did not change the 50% penalty it places on delegations from states that violate the rules on timing. It could be argued that the shift from state parties deciding how they allocate their convention delegates to the proportionality requirement for all pre-April states is something of a penalty, but I'm not convinced that is the case. Yes, it is still early in terms of presidential primary movement -- early in state legislative sessions in a period that sees the most movement -- but there is no evidence that states are actively moving away from the proportional window (pre-April) and to the winner-take-all window (April and after).
One could make the point that with fewer states seemingly moving forward, the proportionality requirement is working as a deterrent. However, that too, is a rather thin argument. The states that were left behind in March, April, May and June in 2008 are states that are not frequent movers or traditionally have not been. That they didn't move during the 2008 cycle when so many other states were frontloading their contests should at least be some indication of that. The states that have had the most freedom to move in the past, then, are the states that are scheduled in February or earlier and have to move back to comply with the national party rules. Some are moving back, but they aren't moving back to take advantage of bonus delegates or to gain the freedom to decide how to allocate their convention delegates. No, those states moving back to comply with national party rules, but are opting for the most part to position themselves on the earliest possible date; a date that places them in the proportionality window.
So while the Republican National Committee made what could arguably be described as fundamental changes to the party's delegate selection rule, they essentially did nothing to prevent rogue states from challenging the primacy of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. To be fair, the Democrats did not change their delegate selection rules much either, but because the party is unlikely to see a contested nomination race next year, observers are deprived of seeing whether the DNC having caved to the seating of Florida and Michigan delegates at the 2008 convention -- after the kerfuffle that stretched through primary season and into the summer -- will impact the future application of the state- and candidate-specific penalties the Democrats utilize. It should be noted that the 2008 Democrats largely steered clear of Florida and Michigan while their Republican counterparts did not.
The other irksome thing about the treatment of Florida in the wake of the legislative leadership's apparent defiance is that the decision makers are being portrayed as actively doing something to mar the 2012 primary calendar. In actuality, it is the state's potential inaction that is the story. No states are actively moving forward in 2012. Instead, because the national parties shifted the earliest date to hold nominating contests back to March, the question is one of states moving back or not moving back. Rogue states in 2012 are not like rogue states in 2008. The 2012 version is the state that ignores the national parties' desires and does nothing.
And on that point, Florida is but one of twenty states or districts that have to make a change. Seven states and the District of Columbia have legislation to move back, but twelve other states have yet to make any move at the state legislative or state party level. Florida just happens to be the earliest of those states and is necessarily the first domino that will have to drop. But there are others -- Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and New York most prominently -- that are also in violation of the national party rules, that have to this point in the cycle been quiet in terms of moving their delegate selection events and that could also threaten the scheduling of contests that the RNC and DNC had in mind when they finalized their respective delegate selection plans last summer.
Florida can take some blame, but there are other, later states that are also in violation of the rules that the national parties did not have the foresight to alter knowing this could or would be an issue. But the bottom line is that there is enough blame to go around for this situation. It stretches beyond just what is happening -- or not happening -- in Tallahassee.
Recent Posts:
The 2012 Candidates: Thune's Out
They're dropping like flies!
Two potential Republican presidential candidates have now dropped out in a little less than a month. Only 21 oft-spoken about possibilities left to decide. [Yes, the argument could be made that Bush, Christie and Jindal have all said they are not going to run, but we'll keep them on here for the time being.]
Michelle BachmannHaley BarbourJohn BoltonJeb BushHerman CainChris ChristieMitch DanielsJim DeMintNewt GingrichRudy GiulianiMike HuckabeeJon HuntsmanBobby JindalGary JohnsonSarah PalinGeorge PatakiRon PaulTim PawlentyMike Pence(1/27/11)Rick PerryMitt RomneyRick SantorumJohn Thune(2/22/11)
John Thune (via Facebook and his website) has withdrawn his name from the list of candidates vying for the 2012 Republican nomination to focus his efforts on the Senate. The South Dakota senator joins Mike Pence as the only prospective Republican candidates to announce anything -- in or out -- in terms of a run for the White House. Two outs and no ins at this point.
--
For months now, my wife Kimberley and I have received encouragement from family, friends, colleagues, and supporters from across South Dakota and the country to run for the presidency of the United States. We have appreciated hearing their concerns about where the country is headed and their hopes for a new direction.
During this time, Kimberley and I and our two daughters have given a great deal of thought to how we might best serve South Dakota and our nation. That process has involved lots of prayer.
Along the way, we have been reminded of the importance of being in the arena, of being in the fight. And make no mistake that during this period of fiscal crisis and economic uncertainty there is a fight for the future direction of America. There is a battle to be waged over what kind of country we are going to leave our children and grandchildren and that battle is happening now in Washington, not two years from now. So at this time, I feel that I am best positioned to fight for America’s future here in the trenches of the United States Senate.
I want to thank those who have encouraged us and prayed for us during the past several months. We are forever grateful for all the support.
John and Kimberley
Recent Posts:
Monday, February 21, 2011
From California, The Best Primary Bill Introduction Yet
How did California's SB 782 slip under the radar? It might have something to do with how the existing election codes are being altered. Here's the law as it reads currently:
Section 1202. The presidential primary shall be held on the first Tuesday in February in any year evenly divisible by the number four, and shall not be consolidated with the statewide direct primary held in that year.
And here is the newly proposed, amended version called for in SB 782:
Section 1202. The presidential primary shall be held on the first Tuesday in February in any year evenly divisible by the number four and shall not be consolidated with the statewide direct primary held in that year.
Notice the difference? I didn't either; not at first anyway. It's that comma before the phrase, "and shall not be consolidated with the statewide direct primary held in that year." I have no idea what difference that comma's exclusion makes. However, that the bill is sponsored by the Republican leader in the state Senate, Bob Dutton (R-31st, Rancho Cucamonga) reads like some implicit endorsement of the current schedule for primaries in the Golden state.
As a refresher, California separated its presidential primary from its state and local primaries for the 2008 cycle. Instead of all of the elections being held concurrently during the first week in March, the presidential primary was shifted to the more advantageous February position while the primaries for state and local offices were moved back to June where presidential year primaries had historically been held in the state prior to 1996. Legislation on the Assembly side (AB 80) has been introduced to re-couple those two sets of primaries, but in June 2012. Given that late date and the fact that it will likely fall after the point at which the Republican nomination will have been decided next year, it is understandable that California Republicans in the state assembly would be opposed to the measure. That may be the reality they face as the minority party, however.
Still, whether SB 782 is motivated by concerns over the timing of the presidential primary in 2012, it represents the most non-substantial of non-substantial changes to election law one can imagine.
UPDATE: It turns out that comma strikethrough was a legislative maneuver to "create" a change in the law to beat the bill introduction deadline in the California Assembly last week. Changes can be made later in committee, but a bill had to have been introduced by February 18. Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for the information.
Recent Posts:
Companion Senate Bill to Move Tennessee Presidential Primary to May Introduced
Last week, Tennessee House Democrats proposed a bill (HB 760) that would shift the state's presidential primary back from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in May. The Democratic leadership on the state Senate side has now followed suit. Minority Leader Jim Kyle (D-28th, Memphis) introduced SB 1875 last Thursday (February 17) which would have the impact of scheduling the presidential primary concurrently with municipal elections held in May.
The intention of Democrats in a time where budget deficits are a real concern on the state level is likely to prioritize elections outlays. However, it is much easier for the minority party Democrats to do this in a cycle where the party's standard bearer is likely to receive no concerted opposition in the primaries next year. Majority party Republicans, with a contested nomination to come in 2012 are more likely to balk at this as a result. Tennessee has moved its primary the last two cycles -- from the second Tuesday in March to the second Tuesday in February in 2004 and from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in February in 2008. Legislators in the Volunteer state, then, have had a recent history of moving the state's presidential primary around to maximize the state's influence.
The reality is that legislators there have merely moved the state into a period of time before or simultaneous with a decision on the nomination having been determined. Tennessee has not proven decisive, but it has been a part of the decision. And while Tennessee Democrats may have the thought of the bonus delegates that are awarded to later primary states, they are unlikely to see those with Republicans in control of the state government and a contested nomination race on the horizon.
If one was to place bets on which set of primary bills will emerge, one would have to wager on the primary moving to March and not May based on partisanship and partisan control alone. However, this is yet further evidence of 2012 primary laws being crafted with budgetary concerns at least secondarily in mind.
Recent Posts:
2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (Feb. 14-20)
State legislative sessions are now to a point, where we are beginning to see a steady flow of actions to move, cancel or in some other way change the date on which presidential primaries will be held in 2012. Here's the week in review:
- Pass it on: Virginia and Idaho moved closer to shifting the dates on which their respective presidential primaries will be held next year. In Virginia, the two bills that had already passed one chamber and had crossed over to the other for consideration both passed last week. That clears the way for Governor Bob McDonnell to sign into law the bill(s) that would move the presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. Idaho is seeking to move in the opposite direction. The bill moving the primary (presidential and state & local primaries) up one week from the fourth Tuesday in May to the third Tuesday in May passed the Senate last week -- after having earlier passed the House -- passed the Senate and awaits Governor Butch Otter's decision on whether to sign it. Both Virginia and Idaho would become the first states to move their 2012 primaries during the 2011 state legislative session.
- Rerouted: In Oklahoma, one of the bills proposed to shift the presidential primary in the Sooner state back to the first Tuesday in March (from the first Tuesday in February) has been removed from the Rules Committee and re-referred to the General Government Committee. Of the three bills in Oklahoma to propose this move, HB 2138 is the broadest in scope, changing not only the presidential primary date but the date for statewide and local office primaries as well (from July to June). The other House bill and Senate bill are still in their respective chamber's Rules Committees.
- Introducing...: In Missouri, bills were introduced in both chambers by the Republican chairs of the relevant committees dealing with elections to move the Show-Me state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March -- in compliance with national party rules. In Tennessee, the Republican leadership in both legislative Houses introduced new bills that seemingly augment the original legislation to move the Volunteer state's presidential primary to March. The new versions addressed filing deadlines as well, but would have the same impact on the primary's timing as the legislation introduced earlier. In a twist, Democrats in Tennessee have come up with an alternative plan that would move the primary from February back to May to coincide with municipal elections. Though the cost savings may be tempting to the Republican majority, the state having at least a vote in who the Republican nominee will be -- or having an early enough primary date to warrant that -- likely trump that concern.
- Can you hear me now: In Washington state, the movement to cancel the 2012 presidential primary had public hearings before committees this past week. The Washington Republican Party had come out against the Senate version of the legislation in earlier hearings, but this time, on the House side, state Democrats voiced concern based on a potential movement by the party in the direction of utilizing the primary for delegate allocation as opposed to the caucus system the party has traditionally used in the state. That said, the party did not seem to come out in opposition to the bill; it only raised the issue of using the primary.
- 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, 15 of them (California, Connecticut, Missouri, New York, Arizona, Georgia, Delaware, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia) have convened their 2011 state legislative sessions.
- Of those 15 states, 7 (California, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia) have bills that have been introduced and are active within the state legislature to move their contests' dates back. 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. In the remaining states, the efforts are to simply shift the states' presidential primaries from dates in violation of the two major parties' rules to the earliest allowed date (the first Tuesday in March). There is also an active bill in Washington, DC to move the districts primary back to June.
- For this next week the 15 early states in conflict with the national parties' rules will be the ones to watch. They will not be joined by any additional states this week or for that matter the rest of February. Alabama will be the next February primary state to convene its legislative session on March 1.
- How would all of this look if all these bills happened to be passed and signed into law? States with active bills to move their primaries are listed twice, once where law has them currently and once in bold and italicized for where active legislation could move them.NOTE: THIS IS NOT THE CURRENT CALENDAR, ONLY WHAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE IF CURRENT LEGISLATION IS ENACTED.
Tuesday, January 31: Florida
Tuesday, February 7 (Super Tuesday): Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Utah
Saturday, February 11: Louisiana
Tuesday, February 14: Washington, DC, Maryland, Virginia
Tuesday, March 13: Mississippi
Tuesday, March 20: Colorado caucuses, Illinois
Tuesday, April 3: Kansas, Maryland
Tuesday, February 7 (Super Tuesday): Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Utah
Saturday, February 11: Louisiana
Tuesday, February 14: Washington, DC, Maryland, Virginia
Saturday, February 18: Nevada Republican caucuses
Tuesday, February 21: Hawaii Republican caucuses, Wisconsin
Tuesday, February 28: Arizona, Michigan
Tuesday, March 6: Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota caucuses, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia
Tuesday, February 21: Hawaii Republican caucuses, Wisconsin
Tuesday, February 28: Arizona, Michigan
Tuesday, March 6: Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota caucuses, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia
Tuesday, March 13: Mississippi
Tuesday, March 20: Colorado caucuses, Illinois
Tuesday, April 3: Kansas, Maryland
Tuesday, April 24: Pennsylvania
Tuesday, May 1: Tennessee
Tuesday, May 8: Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia
Tuesday, May 15: Idaho, Nebraska, Oregon
Tuesday, May 22: Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky and Washington
Tuesday, June 5: California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota
Tuesday, May 8: Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia
Tuesday, May 15: Idaho, Nebraska, Oregon
Tuesday, May 22: Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky and Washington
Tuesday, June 5: California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota
Tuesday, June 12: Washington, DC
Tuesday, August 7: Kentucky
Recent Posts:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)