Tuesday, March 1, 2011

2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (Feb. 21-27)

Another week, another set of presidential primary changes in state legislatures on which to reflect.
  • Moving on up: With the stroke of his pen, Idaho Governor Butch Otter signed into law H 60 and in the process bumped the Gem state's presidential primary (and those for state and local offices as well) up a week to the third Tuesday in May. Idaho becomes the first state in 2011 to change the date on which its 2012 delegate selection event will occur. It joins Arkansas, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada and the Montana Republicans as the only states (or state parties) to have changed their dates thus far. With two bills having passed the legislature to change the date of Virginia's primary, Idaho likely won' t be alone in that distinction for long, though they will remain the only state to have moved up.
  • Pass it on: The Kansas Senate passed SB 128 this past week. The bill delays the next implementation of the state's presidential primary law to 2016, canceling the 2012 primary. Since the Sunflower state has gone without a presidential primary since 1992, this doesn't come as all that much of a surprise.
  • "Do Pass": This week was also a week that saw a few bills emerge from committee with positive recommendations. In Oklahoma, both SB 808 and HB 1614 came out of committees in their respective chambers with "do pass" designations. Both bills would move the Sooner state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. [There was a story on the bills' progress in The Oklahoman over the weekend. Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for the link.]
In Washington, action on the bills to expressly cancel the state's 2012 presidential primary has seemingly slowed to a crawl. The bill with momentum is HB 1860. It does not directly cancel the primary, but it does tie its use to the decision of the two state parties to not only use the primary but to allocate all of their national convention delegates through that means. After having received a "do pass" from the House Committee on State Government and Tribal Affairs a week ago, HB 1860 got another one from the House Ways and Means Committee as well this past week.
  • Introducing...: Finally, a late add is in order for a bill that was introduced in Massachusetts in January. HB 1972 would move not only the presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in June, but would shift the primaries for state and local offices from September to coincide with the presidential primary. Obviously, budget constraints have been cited by the secretary of state as a potential deterrent to the 2012 primary, but this is one way of circumventing that issue; by combining the two sets of primaries on the same date.
  • 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.
  • The Virginia legislature adjourned for the year last Saturday and Utah will follow suit next week on March 10.
  • During this next week, the state legislature in Alabama will convene bringing the total of non-compliant states currently in legislative session to 15. Those 15 early states in conflict with the national parties' rules will be the ones to watch. But we are to a point in the cycle where there are still state legislatures yet to convene but also states that are wrapping up business and are thus unable to make changes to election laws past that point.
  • 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

Saturday, February 18: Nevada Republican caucuses

Tuesday, February 21: Hawaii Republican caucuses, Wisconsin

Tuesday, February 28: Arizona, Michigan

Tuesday, March 6: Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, 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, Kentucky and Washington

Tuesday, June 5: California, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota

Tuesday, June 12: Washington, DC

Tuesday, August 7: Kentucky



Posted by Josh Putnam at 12:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Monday, February 28, 2011

Is This Deadline in Minnesota a Big Deal for the 2012 Primary Calendar?

Politico's Ben Smith points out an interesting deadline nestled in Minnesota's election law that may serve to unravel the 2012 primary calendar quicker than Florida's inaction in terms of moving the primary in the Sunshine state. As he states:
Minnesota law establishes February 7, one day after Iowa, as the default date for that state's caucuses. The date can only be changed with the consent of both political parties. The parties must, according to the statute, agree to change the date "no later than March 1 of each odd-numbered year" -- that is, tomorrow.
That's interesting, but there are a few things that bear mentioning here. First of all, caucuses are different in terms of mechanics than primaries. No, that isn't a groundbreaking statement, but it is especially true in this instance. Primaries are state-funded affairs and that funding carries with it some state-mandated restrictions (eg: timing of contests). In caucus states, however, state parties foot the bill for those contests. As a result those parties have more freedom in terms of setting the date on which their delegate selection event is held. In the Minnesota case there is the added layer of a state with a statute regarding caucus timing.

But the law is only effective to an extent. The state parties provide the funding and ultimately have the final say in when the caucuses will be held.1 Let's take Minnesota in 2008 as an example. The law in 2007 as other states nationwide were repositioning their primaries and caucuses in anticipation of active nomination races in both parties called for the precinct caucuses in the Land of 10,000 Lakes to take place on the first Tuesday in March. In July, Minnesota Republicans moved from March to February and the Democratic Farm-Labor state central committee followed suit in late August.

It wasn't until 2008, during primary season, that the state legislature changed the law (202.A.14) shifting the date of the precinct caucuses from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February and added the March 1 deadline in the process. This seems like more of an effort to organize/coordinate the caucuses between the two parties than anything else.

There are a couple of take home points from all of this. One important point that this raises is that while Florida is tops on the list of states the national parties would like to shift to a later date, there are a whole host of other states with primaries (and caucuses) peppered throughout the month of February. Those states are just as much in violation of the national party rules as Florida. In Florida's absence, those states continue to disrupt the scheduling both the DNC and RNC prefer. Secondly, and more specific to Minnesota, it appears according to Smith that the state party has the leeway to change the date of the precinct caucuses if they want or need to:
Minnesota's Sutton said he was unfamiliar with other states' rules, but that he believed the state party didn't necessarily have to follow the timing set out in state law -- something that has soothed the nerves of some in the traditional early states. He also said he's not aiming to disrupt the process, and believes that despite the state law, he can move his party event's date at will if it becomes disruptive.
Attendant to that is the idea that the national parties can hypothetically lean on state parties to comply with their will more so than they can state governments. That may be less a function of the national parties' strength than it is one of state governments flexing their muscle against a penalty regime with little or no bite.

This case seems like less of an issue than, say, Utah where there is no legislation to move the Beehive state's February 7 primary and where the legislature adjourns next week. That is more problematic to the national parties.

1DFL Chairman Brian Melendez raises the point about the party funding the caucus on page 5.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 6:46 PM 2 comments
Labels: , , ,
Share |

A Potential Florida Primary Compromise?

William March at the Tampa Tribune has put together a nice piece on the back and forth among early state GOP chairs, the RNC and the various actors/decision-makers in Florida over the timing of the Sunshine state's 2012 presidential primary. It isn't or shouldn't come as a surprise that the powers-that-be in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina are up in arms over the potential for Florida -- or Florida's state legislature -- to stand pat with a January 31 primary that would disrupt the national parties' plans for a later start to the vote-casting portion of the nomination process in 2012.

In fact, it appears that South Carolina Republican Party chairwoman, Karen Floyd is picking up right where her predecessor, Katon Dawson did in 2008: making outlandish claims that don't necessarily jibe well with the reality of the situation. Dawson threatened move South Carolina's 2008 primary to before Halloween to protect the Palmetto state's first-in-the-South status in the face of Florida's defiance of the 2008 delegate selection rules. Now Karen Floyd is saying that all options should be considered including:
"I would not be averse to pulling the convention if Florida doesn't follow the parameter of the rules," said Karen Floyd, party chairman in South Carolina, one of four states approved by both parties to hold early primaries.
...but also:
"There's nothing off the table," Floyd said.
Presumably that would include severely cutting back the size of Florida's delegation to the 2012 Republican convention or refusing to seat them at all. Now, my previous statement about these statements not reflecting the reality of what is possible is probably not entirely fair. This process has some give and take and the early states have to pull out everything they can to protect their position whether it will or can actually happen or not. It is a PR battle to ramp of the urgency of the situation and dispatch Florida and other rule-breaking states with as little public infighting as possible (or at least to do it now when fewer people are paying attention compared to the fight occurring during primary and caucus season next year).

On the Florida side of the matter, Florida Republican Party chair, David Bitner is suggesting an alternative:
Bitner said he hopes for a compromise in which Florida would get the fifth spot, immediately after the four early states.
This is really all Florida Republicans -- those within the state legislature and elsewhere anyway -- want: to be that all-important second round behind the early states, but before Super Tuesday on the first Tuesday in March (assuming all the other non-compliant states cooperate). Of course, Bitner is between a rock and a hard place on this issue. Despite wanting to avoid sanctions and a potentially damaging public dispute with the national party, he is powerless to compel state legislators to move the primary back into compliance. Bitner is, however, well-positioned to serve as a middleman on a potential compromise between the RNC and state legislators.

What would Bitner have before him in that capacity? The Republican National Committee desires a later start to the primary season and has enacted rules to that effect. Florida legislators and others want the Sunshine state to have an influence over who is ultimately chosen as the Republican nominee and they have come up with several good arguments as to why. First of all, those Florida Republicans in favor of keeping the primary where it is have maintained all along that it is not their wish to jump in front of the party-designated early states (They aren't really jumping at all.). They seemingly want to establish Florida as an early state; not the earliest among them, but the latest of the earliest states. Proponents of the January primary also astutely point out Florida's position as a swing state in the general election. In other words, pick a nominee Florida Republicans like and increase the chances building an organization there in the winter/spring and of winning the state in the fall.

But can that compromise work? In a vacuum where only the Republican National Committee and Florida state legislators are party to this decision, perhaps. But that simply isn't the reality of the situation. Let's assume that the two sides agree on this compromise and Florida is able to pass a law that moves the state's presidential primary to the last Tuesday in February. This also assumes that the RNC has issued a waiver of some sort to the state (a process that exists on the Democratic side, but I'm unsure of for Republicans). That solves the Florida problem, sure, but there are still six states scheduled just a week later than where Florida is now that have yet to propose or advance legislation to shift the dates on which their primaries are scheduled to be held next year.

A compromise would then have to be made with those states. How would the national party deal with them? It would seem that those states would want a position similar to Florida's -- Why Florida and not us! -- and if those states shifted their contests back to that last Tuesday in February date with Florida, the Sunshine state's influence would be diminished in the process. And decision-makers in Florida don't want that. To top it off, those in the state legislative leadership know this already, so they aren't going to budge. Now, the national party could make the same Florida's-importance-in-the-general-election argument to other currently non-compliant states, but that is likely to fall on deaf ears in a scenario where state actors are compelled to maximize their state's influence or barring that ensure that the state's, in this case, Republican voters at least have a say in determining who the nominee is (by holding a contest that comes on or before the time in which the nomination is effectively over).

Sequence and process matter in all of this, too. Florida is not going to unilaterally move with several other non-compliant states still scheduled in February and with no signs of moving their 2012 contests. Florida is also limited in that regard in terms of when the state can act to move the primary. The state legislature there convenes on March 8 and will wrap up its business in May. There will still be non-compliant states that will not have adjourned their state legislative sessions at that point in May. Those states could still move, but those other states where legislatures have adjourned will not have that option and thus cannot guarantee that Florida, by moving to late February, will be able to serve as the second round after the exempt states and before Super Tuesday.

The bottom line is that Florida holds all the cards and can hold their ground and let the RNC come to them with a solution or simply let Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina jump them to "resolve" the issue. In the end, the RNC will have to cave because they don't want to do anything to hurt the GOP's chances in a state that is likely going to be a valuable part of either party's electoral vote calculus in 2012.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:13 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , ,
Share |

Sunday, February 27, 2011

An Update on the 2012 Republican Delegate Selection Rules

See additional posts on the subject of Republican delegate allocation for 2012:
In January FHQ posted a partial version of the Republican Delegate Selection Rules for 2012. The partial and outdated (The link was based on the recommendations from the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee.) nature of that version and more likely where I place Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina on the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar got me a call from the legal team at the RNC. Their intent was to keep FHQ apprised of the party's adopted delegate selection rules and to share with us the rules (in full), the intent behind them and some history of how they came into being.

Below is that memo from the RNC:


The real bonus in this is that it not only includes the rules on the timing of delegate selection events, but provides the clearest set of guidelines -- as well it should; it's coming from the party after all -- on the new proportionality requirements for contests that occur prior to April 1, 2012 (see page 3). The highlights:
  1. The RNC draws a distinction between at-large delegates and those allocated based on the congressional district vote. A state scheduled prior to April 1 is required to allocated at-large delegates proportionally, but has choice and can continue to allocate congressional district delegates on a winner-take-all basis (win the district, win all the delegates from that district).
  2. The vote share threshold for candidates receiving delegates can be no higher than 20%. In other words, if a state set that threshold at 20% a candidate would have to net at least that much support to receive any delegates.
  3. A candidate can still receive all the delegates from a state if that candidate surpasses a minimum threshold set by the state. That threshold can be no lower than 50%. A candidate could, then, clear the 50% mark statewide and take all the delegates. If Utah had operated under these rules in 2008, Mitt Romney, by virtue of having won 89% of the vote, could have taken all of the Beehive state's delegates despite the primary having been in February (assuming Utah used the threshold rule).
There are currently 33 states -- including Washington, DC -- with delegate selection events scheduled before April 1, 2012. Of those 33, 19 states would be required to make changes to their delegate allocation rules in 2012 compared to the state-level plans in 2008. The remaining 13 either already had proportional allocation, required a certain threshold to trigger winner-take-all allocation or did not allocate delegates during the first step of the caucus/convention process. If current legislation that proposes moving presidential primaries is passed the total of states being required to make a change in allocation rules from 2008 to 2012 will drop to 15 (since California, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey would shift to post-April 1 dates). Those 15 states made up 747 total delegates or 31% of the total 2380 delegates and 63% of the 1190 delegates needed for the 2008 Republican nomination. That is a great many delegates in states that will have to be allocated slightly differently in 2012. Of course, the question remains whether that difference will create a substantive change in who emerges as the nominee for the GOP next year.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 3:28 PM 10 comments
Labels: , ,
Share |

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.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 9:28 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Saturday, February 26, 2011

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


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

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.




Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 4:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , ,
Share |

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.



Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:30 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , ,
Share |

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.



Posted by Josh Putnam at 8:42 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , ,
Share |

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.



Posted by Josh Putnam at 5:40 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

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:



Posted by Josh Putnam at 3:01 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)