Massachusetts Bill Would Move All Primaries to June

Last week FHQ commented on Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin's discussion of the implications of budget constraints on the commonwealth's ability to hold a presidential primary in 2012. In that legislative hearing the secretary suggested an increase in the budget outlay for the elections division or a switch to what would be a state party-funded caucus system. FHQ offered an additional alternative: moving the primaries for state and local offices to an earlier, within-window date (in order to comply with the MOVE act) that could accommodate a concurrent and later presidential primary.

As it turns out, a bill was introduced in the Massachusetts House last month to accomplish just that. And on Friday, H 1972 was referred to the Joint Committee on Election Laws. The bill, sponsored by Rep. James Dwyer (D-30th, Woburn) and Minority Leader Bradley Jones (R-20th, North Reading), would move the presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in June to coincide with the primaries for state and local offices that would be moved from September (a date seven weeks prior to the general election more specifically).

The language of the law (Chapter 53, Section 28, Section 9) would change from

State primaries shall be held on the seventh Tuesday preceding biennial state elections and on the fourth Tuesday preceding special state elections, except that primaries before special elections for senator or representative in congress shall be held on the sixth Tuesday preceding said elections. Presidential primaries shall be held on the first Tuesday in March in any year in which presidential electors are to be elected. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, any town may hold its preliminary or regular town elections on the same date designated as the date to hold a presidential primary, in any year in which presidential electors are to be elected, provided that such election is by a ballot independent of the ballot used at a presidential primary. City and town primaries before all city and town elections shall be held on the twenty-eighth day preceding such elections.

to

State primaries shall be held on the first Tuesday in June preceding biennial state elections and on the ninth Tuesday preceding special state elections, including primaries before special elections for senator or representative in congress. Presidential primaries shall be held on the first Tuesday in June in any year in which presidential electors are to be elected. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, any town may hold its preliminary or regular town elections on the same date designated as the date to hold a presidential primary, in any year in which presidential electors are to be elected, provided that such election is by a ballot independent of the ballot used at a presidential primary. City and town primaries before all city and town elections shall be held on the sixty-third day preceding such elections.

In a unified Democratic state government, it is not clear that the bipartisan co-sponsorship of this bill is helpful or not. What is clear is that while this would more than likely remove Massachusetts and its voters from factoring into the decision-making on the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, it does assist the commonwealth in reducing elections costs by eliminating a separate presidential primary. One additional consideration for lawmakers in Massachusetts is how a potential move of the state and local primaries from September to June affects them. After all, such a move could affect their reelection/renomination calculus. That may not prove to be a deal-breaker in an instance where budgetary constraints are exerting unusual pressure on state legislators across the country, but it is a factor that could affect the life and ultimate success of this bill.

Recent Posts:

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (2/26/11)

Governor Otter Signs Bill Shifting Idaho Primary Up a Week

Is it really a "stampede" if no one moves?

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

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (2/26/11)

For the most up-to-date version of this calendar see the left sidebar under the 2012 electoral college projection or click here.

With the signing of legislation this week to move the Idaho primaries forward a week in May, the 2012 presidential primary calendar needs an update. For this update and for all subsequent changes to the calendar, FHQ will include a map in addition to the calendar indicating the timing of the nominating contests for next year's race. [This is similar to the maps for calendars from past cycles that appear in the left sidebar.]

[Click to Enlarge]

Reading the Map:

As was the case with the maps from past cycles, the earlier a contest is scheduled in 2012, the darker the color in which the state is shaded. Florida, for instance, is a much deeper shade of blue in January than South Dakota is in June. There are, however, some differences between the earlier maps and the one that appears above.

1. Several caucus states have yet to select a date for the first step of their delegate selection processes in 2012. Until a decision is made by state parties in those states, they will appear in gray on the map.
2. The states where legislation to move the presidential primary is active are two-toned. One color indicates the timing of the primary according to the current law whereas the second color is meant to highlight the most likely month to which the primary could be moved. [With the exception of Texas, the proposed movement is backward.] This is clear in most states, but in others -- Maryland and Tennessee -- where multiple timing options are being considered, the most likely date is used. Here that is defined as a bill -- or date change -- with the most institutional support. In both cases, the majority party leadership is sponsoring one change over another (February to March in Tennessee and February to April in Maryland). That option is given more weight on the map.
3. Finally, Kentucky is unique because the legislation there calls for shifting the primary from May to August. As August is not included in the color coding, white designates that potential move with the May shade of blue.

Reading the Calendar:

1. Caucus states are italicized while primary states are not. Several caucus states are missing from the list because they have not formalized the date on which their contests will be held in 2012. Colorado appears because the caucuses dates there are set by the state, whereas a state like Alaska has caucuses run by the state parties and as such do not have their dates codified in state law.
2. States that have changed dates appear twice (or more) on the calendar; once by the old date and once by the new date. The old date will be struck through while the new date will be color-coded with the amount of movement (in days) in parentheses. States in green are states that have moved to earlier dates on the calendar and states in red are those that have moved to later dates. Arkansas, for example, has moved its 2012 primary and moved it back 104 days from its 2008 position.
3. The date of any primary or caucus moves that have taken place -- whether through gubernatorial signature or state party move -- also appear in parentheses following the state's/party's new entry on the calendar.
4. States with active legislation have links to those bills included with their entries on the calendar. If there are multiple bills they are divided by chamber and/or numbered accordingly.
5. Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina appear twice. The earlier entry corresponds with the latest possible date these states would have if Florida opts not to move their primary into compliance with the national party rules. The second, later entry for each of the non-exempt states reflects the position the national parties would prefer the earliest states to hold their delegate selection events.

2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

January 2012

Monday, January 16:

Iowa caucuses¹

Tuesday, January 24:

New Hampshire¹

Saturday, January 28:

Nevada caucuses

South Carolina¹

A note on the placement of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

Tuesday, January 31:

Florida (bills: House/Senate)

February 2012

Monday, February 6:

Iowa caucuses (based on national party rules)

Tuesday, February 7 (Super Tuesday):

Alabama

Arkansas

California (bills: Assembly)

Connecticut

Delaware

Georgia

Illinois

Missouri (bills: House/Senate)

Montana Republican caucuses

New Jersey (bills: Assembly 1, 2/Senate)

New York

Oklahoma (bills: House 1, 2/Senate -- see sidebar for link to track bills)

Tennessee (bills: House 1, 2, 3/Senate 1, 2, 3)

Utah

Saturday, February 11:

Louisiana

Tuesday, February 14:

Maryland (bills: House/Senate 1, 2)

New Hampshire (based on national party rules)

Virginia (bills: House 1, 2/Senate)

Washington, DC (bills: Council)

Saturday, February 18:

Nevada Republican caucuses (-28) (moved: 12/16/10)

Nevada Democratic caucuses² (-28)

Tuesday, February 21:

Hawaii Republican caucuses (+87) (moved: 5/16/09)

Wisconsin

Tuesday, February 28:

Arizona³

Michigan⁴
South Carolina (based on national party rules)

March 2012

Tuesday, March 6:

Minnesota caucuses

Massachusetts⁴ (bills: House)

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas (bills: House)

Vermont

Tuesday, March 13:

Mississippi

Tuesday, March 20:

Colorado caucuses⁵

Illinois (-42) (bills: Senate) (signed: 3/17/10)

April 2012

Tuesday, April 3:

Kansas (bills: House/Senate -- cancel primary)

Tuesday, April 24:

Pennsylvania

May 2012

Tuesday, May 8:

Indiana

North Carolina

West Virginia

Tuesday, May 15:

Idaho (+7) (bills: House) (signed: 2/23/11)

Nebraska

Oregon

Tuesday, May 22:

Arkansas (-104) (bills: House) (signed: 2/4/09)

Idaho

Kentucky (bills: House)

Washington (bills: House 1, 2/Senate -- cancel primary)

June 2012

Tuesday, June 5:

Montana (GOP -119) (moved: 6/18/10)

New Mexico⁶

South Dakota

¹ New Hampshire law calls for the Granite state to hold a primary on the second Tuesday of March or seven days prior to any other similar election, whichever is earlier. Florida is first now, so New Hampshire would be a week earlier at the latest. Traditionally, Iowa has gone on the Monday a week prior to New Hampshire. For the time being we'll wedge South Carolina in on the Saturday between New Hampshire and Florida, but these are just guesses at the moment. Any rogue states could cause a shift.

² The Nevada Democratic caucuses date is based on both DNC rules and the state party's draft delegate selection plan as of February 25, 2011.

³ In Arizona the governor can use his or her proclamation powers to move the state's primary to a date on which the event would have an impact on the nomination. In 2004 and 2008 the primary was moved to the first Tuesday in February.

⁴ Massachusetts and Michigan are the only states that passed a frontloading bill prior to 2008 that was not permanent. The Bay state reverts to its first Tuesday in March date in 2012 while Michigan will fall back to the fourth Tuesday in February.

⁵ The Colorado Democratic and Republican parties have the option to move their caucuses from the third Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February.

⁶ The law in New Mexico allows the parties to decide when to hold their nominating contests. The Democrats have gone in early February in the last two cycles, but the GOP has held steady in June. They have the option of moving however.

A note on the Minnesota caucuses.

Recent Posts:

Governor Otter Signs Bill Shifting Idaho Primary Up a Week

Is it really a "stampede" if no one moves?

"Jockeying by states snarls GOP primary plans"

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

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.

Recent Posts:

Is it really a "stampede" if no one moves?

"Jockeying by states snarls GOP primary plans"

Kansas Bill to Cancel 2012 Presidential Primary Passes Senate

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

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:

"Jockeying by states snarls GOP primary plans"

Kansas Bill to Cancel 2012 Presidential Primary Passes Senate

A Good, Old-Fashioned Conspiracy Theory of 2012 Primary Movement

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

"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.

More from Matt Viser at the Boston Globe...

[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

A Good, Old-Fashioned Conspiracy Theory of 2012 Primary Movement

Is Florida Culpable in a Potential 2012 Primary Mess?

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

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.

The House is considering a similar bill.

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:

Senate votes to skip presidential primary again

Recent Posts:

A Good, Old-Fashioned Conspiracy Theory of 2012 Primary Movement

Is Florida Culpable in a Potential 2012 Primary Mess?

Thune's Out

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

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?

Thune's Out

From California, The Best Primary Bill Introduction Yet

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

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:

Thune's Out

From California, The Best Primary Bill Introduction Yet

Companion Senate Bill to Move Tennessee Presidential Primary to May Introduced

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

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 Bachmann

Haley Barbour

John Bolton

Jeb Bush

Herman Cain

Chris Christie

Mitch Daniels

Jim DeMint

Newt Gingrich

Rudy Giuliani

Mike Huckabee

Jon Huntsman

Bobby Jindal

Gary Johnson

Sarah Palin

George Pataki

Ron Paul

Tim Pawlenty

Mike Pence (1/27/11)

Rick Perry

Mitt Romney

Rick Santorum

John 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.

--

Thune's statement:

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:

From California, The Best Primary Bill Introduction Yet

Companion Senate Bill to Move Tennessee Presidential Primary to May Introduced

2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (Feb. 14-20)

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

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

2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (Feb. 14-20)

New York GOP to Switch to Proportional Delegate Allocation in 2012?

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