Alabama Bill to Eliminate Separate February Primary Introduced

Legislators in Alabama wasted little time on the opening day of the state's legislative session in acting to alter the election law regarding the timing of the presidential primary there. Rep. Steve Clouse (R-93rd, Dale & Houston) introduced HB 32 which would eliminate the state's separate presidential primary and move it from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in June where it would coincide with the primaries for state and local offices. The move would save the state $3.9 million (see the Financial Note on the bill below). Another $250,000 is saved by removing the Mardi Gras-specific language that was added to the law in 2007 when the primary was created and moved to February. The February primary conflicted with Mardi Gras in 2008 and required state reimbursement of funds used in localities forced to make alternative arrangements because of that conflict.

The bill has some bipartisan support among the eleven co-sponsors (9 Republicans and 2 Democrats) of the measure. Given the shift from Democratic to Republican control of both chambers of the Alabama legislature and the fact that Republicans hold a nearly two to one advantage in both House, it is unlikely that Democratic support is necessary. But it does exist.

Alabama becomes the eleventh state (including DC) to propose legislation moving its presidential primary back during 2011 and the fifth (including DC) to propose eliminating a separate presidential primary in order to combine that process with later primaries for state and local offices. These cost-saving measures are slowly proliferating in 2011 after (but not necessarily because) Arkansas started the trend in 2009. These moves along with efforts to eliminate 2012 presidential primaries altogether in Kansas and Washington paint a clear picture of the financial environment in which state legislatures are working and the means through which they are cutting costs.

Finally, Alabama is no stranger to moving a presidential primary backwards. The state, after having occupied a position on the second Tuesday in March from 1980-1988, moved back to June in 1992.

--

Fiscal note to HB 32:

FISCAL NOTE

House Bill 32 as introduced moves the presidential preference primary to June, beginning in 2012, which will result in one less election during 2012 and every fourth year thereafter. Having one less election will reduce election expenses paid from the State General Fund by an estimated $3,900,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and by a similar amount every fourth fiscal year thereafter.

In addition, this bill deletes language that allows counties that recognize Mardi Gras as a holiday to be reimbursed for election expenses as a result of the day of the presidential preference primary being the same day as Mardi Gras. The deletion of this provision will further decrease the election expenses, paid from the State General Fund, by an estimated $250,000 for any fiscal year in which the presidential preference primary date is on the same day as Mardi Gras.

Recent Posts:

A Response to the Minnesota Calendar Discrepancy

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

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

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

A Response to the Minnesota Calendar Discrepancy

Politico's story about the situation with the 2012 Minnesota caucuses was as much a newsflash to FHQ as it was to anyone else. Sadly, however, for a site that tracks the evolution of the presidential primary (and caucus) calendar, that is an embarrassing admission. The correct date for the 2012 Minnesota caucuses up until today, according to the 2010 Minnesota statutes should have been no date at all and not March 6 as it has been listed in every iteration of FHQ's calendar since December 2008. Today marks the point at which Minnesota should have first appeared on the calendar -- assuming no coordinated state central committee action between the two major state parties to select a date -- and it should appear starting today along with the other states currently positioned on February 7, 2012. That is the starting point for any change that is to occur moving forward from today.

My expectation is that, regardless of the state law, the Democrats will independently shift the date of their caucuses to a point on the calendar that is compliant with Democratic National Committee rules on delegate selection. I further expect Minnesota Republicans to move the date of their caucuses as well if it is viewed as problematic to the RNC relative to their interpretation of the party's delegate selection rules. This may or may not result in the two state parties holding concurrent caucuses next year. Years with different dates have occurred in the past but not since 2000.

That means that FHQ will have to make a change to the past versions of the calendar. Normally under these circumstances it is our policy to be as transparent as possible and to either strike through the portion of any post that requires some correction or to issue some some sort of statement regarding the correction. The latter seems to be the appropriate course of action in this case. That is especially true in view of the fact that FHQ routinely uses strike throughs on the calendar to indicate the past position of a state prior to a change. To correct this the "Minnesota caucuses" entry on past calendars will be removed, but a note with a link to this post will be added to explain what has happened. A new calendar will be issued later today to reflect the change for Minnesota that was put into action today.

How did the mistake occur?

I sincerely hope that above corrective measures prove to be adequately transparent and surpass the bar for having actually righted an embarrassing wrong. And yes, for a site that is trusted to track the changes in the calendar this is a glaring mistake. It is therefore incumbent upon us to explain as best we can how the wrong date came to appear in our calendar. It is best to examine that process sequentially.

1. During the 2008 state legislative session and in the midst of the 2008 nomination process, the Minnesota legislature proposed, considered and passed HF 3066. That retroactively brought the state law in to line with the calendar position both state parties had chosen for their 2008 precinct caucuses in 2007. It also added the March 1 deadline for coordinated action between the two parties. Admittedly, FHQ was not following the development of the 2012 calendar at that point in 2008. To the extent that anything appeared on the site related to the 2012 cycle, it was a function of something having appeared in the news. I had not taken to combing through state legislative web sites at that point. Plus, I, like most everyone else, was following the developments of the 2008 nomination races.
2. In May 2008, that bill was signed by Governor Tim Pawlenty and was to take effect on August 1, 2008. It did take effect on August 1, but it did not show up in the 2008 Minnesota statutes until they were posted online; presumably in anticipation of the calendar turning over to 2009. The thing about the Minnesota statutes is that the year affixed to them is one that describes not the year in which they are being used, but rather the year in which they were changed/established. Any changes that current 2011 legislature makes to the law, for example, is being made to the 2010 Minnesota statutes. Changes that were made in 2008, then, were being made to the 2007 statutes -- a version that would still have the first Tuesday in March as the date on which precinct caucuses were to have occurred.
3. As far as I can tell -- and for once the Internet Archive - Wayback Machine is failing me -- the 2007 statutes were still online when I first put the 2012 primary calendar together in December 2008. The 2008 statutes did not post until the 2009 legislature convened and set to work to alter them. Having missed the change to the law in early 2008 caused me to miss being on the lookout for the change to take place heading into 2009 when FHQ began tracking the 2012 calendar in earnest. And since the only legislation to come forward in Minnesota regarding delegate selection events since that time concerned establishing a presidential primary, I was never cued to look again at the precinct caucuses statute.

The good news is that FHQ's process of looking for state legislative changes to election laws has been streamlined in the time since, so future instances of this issue should not occur. But it is a tricky process, following the development of the calendar, and it is even more difficult in some cases in caucus states. Minnesota has proven that, but the matter is not without human error.

Recent Posts:

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

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

A Potential Florida Primary Compromise?

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

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.

• 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.

• 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

Recent Posts:

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

A Potential Florida Primary Compromise?

An Update on the 2012 Republican Delegate Selection Rules

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

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.

Recent Posts:

A Potential Florida Primary Compromise?

An Update on the 2012 Republican Delegate Selection Rules

Massachusetts Bill Would Move All Primaries to June

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

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.

Recent Posts:

An Update on the 2012 Republican Delegate Selection Rules

Massachusetts Bill Would Move All Primaries to June

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

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

An Update on the 2012 Republican Delegate Selection Rules

See additional posts on the subject of Republican delegate allocation for 2012:

• The Myth of Republican Presidential Primary Proportionality
• The Myth of Republican Presidential Primary Proportionality Revisited
• Republican Delegate Allocation Rules: 2012 vs. 2008

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:

Presidential Nominating Schedule Memo 021111 by frontloading_hq

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.

Recent Posts:

Massachusetts Bill Would Move All Primaries to June

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

Governor Otter Signs Bill Shifting Idaho Primary Up a Week

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

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.