Bill to Move Connecticut Presidential Primary to March Raised in Committee

Well, FHQ is fortunate the post on the relative lack of legislative action in Connecticut in regard to the Nutmeg state's 2012 presidential primary went up yesterday. As it turns out a substitute to a preexisting bill was not necessary. Despite the fact that the deadline to raise bills in Government Administration and Elections Committee (GAE) was on February 16, a bill to shift the Connecticut presidential primary has been raised as of today (March 3).

HB 6532 would move the state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March in 2012 and in all presidential election years thereafter. That reduces the number of states yet to act to move their presidential primaries back and into compliance with the national party rules from eight to seven. [Keep in mind Louisiana has yet to convene its legislative session and/or have any relevant bills pre-filed. The Pelican state will be added to that total once the legislature there convenes and has the ability to alter the date of its 2012 primary.] The clock is ticking on those states to act.

Recent Posts:

A Two-Thirds Potomac Primary? DC Might Try to Align Primary with Maryland

The Clock is Ticking on States to Change 2012 Primary Dates: Delaware

Kentucky Bill to Move Presidential Primary to August Appears to Have Died in Committee

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

A Two-Thirds Potomac Primary? DC Might Try to Align Primary with Maryland

A public hearing today by the DC Board of Elections and Ethics brought another 2012 primary date option there to the fore. Freeman Klopott from the Washington Examiner has more:

"I've taken the temperature of other council members and there seems to be some consensus around April 3," Ward 3 Councilwoman Mary Cheh told The Washington Examiner on Wednesday before a hearing on the city's 2012 primary date. Cheh heads the council committee that has oversight over D.C. elections. "We want to have a vote which serves as a presidential primary and a primary for local candidates," she said.

The options for this one have been all over the place. Early on there was talk of a July primary for local district offices and later when a bill was proposed, the talk shifted to holding concurrent presidential and district primaries in June on the closing date of the window in which the national parties allow states and territories to hold primaries or caucuses. With there being support among the leadership of both parties in both houses in Maryland to move the Old Line state's primary to April, though, and that being the likely destination for the primary there, council members in DC are reconsidering their date again. Both Maryland and DC would benefit from holding later (after March) primaries and, with the Democratic Party, by clustering together as the two did with Virginia in 2008.

Recent Posts:

The Clock is Ticking on States to Change 2012 Primary Dates: Delaware

Kentucky Bill to Move Presidential Primary to August Appears to Have Died in Committee

The Clock is Ticking on States to Change 2012 Primary Dates: Connecticut

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

The Clock is Ticking on States to Change 2012 Primary Dates: Delaware

This is Part Two in a series of posts examining early and non-compliant 2012 primary states and why they have not acted to move their presidential primaries to be timed in accordance with national party rules on delegate selection. See Part One (Connecticut) here.

Delaware

• Current Primary Date: February 7, 2012
• Legislature Convened: January 11, 2011
• Deadline to Introduce Legislation: none
• Legislature Adjourns: June 30, 2011

The story: Fortunately the legislative process in Delaware is less convoluted than in Connecticut, and that has implications for the ease and/or speed with which the legislature in the First state can alter the date of its presidential primary. The main difference between the two northeastern/Atlantic states is that Delaware does not have in place a deadline by which legislation must be introduced. Comparatively, then, legislators in Delaware are not quite as pressured by time to file legislation as in Connecticut. And while that may be the case, action will need to be taken in a reasonably timely manner to ensure that any bill has enough time to work its way through both houses of the legislature before the session adjourns on June 30.

Delaware was among the few February primary states during the 2008 cycle that had moved to that point on the calendar in the previous cycle. Looking back at the history of that bill (SB 54), it was presumably introduced -- it isn't clear -- and referred to committee on April 1, 2003 and quickly worked its way through the state Senate before passing the House and being signed into law in June. That legislators in Delaware have not acted to move the presidential primary back into compliance with party rules in 2011 (something the bill in 2003 accomplished also¹) is a reflection of the time in which they have to maneuver mostly. Legislators in 2003 had not acted at this point in the 2004 cycle either.

Clock is ticking rating: Low. Legislators in Delaware still have time to introduce and pass a bill to move the presidential primary to a later point on the calendar in 2012; time that other states like Virginia or Utah didn't have or don't have. Like Connecticut, Delaware is also a state with unified Democratic control. That may or may not have an effect on the speed with which the Democratic majority is operating, but with an uncontested nomination race on the Democratic side, the urgency is not there as it might be in Republican-controlled states. One can detect the potential for an interactive effect at work combining party control in state legislatures and length (or timing) of session. Again, Democratic legislators in Delaware as in Connecticut will eventually have to act so as to avoid the added penalties that may come from the Democratic Party for not moving into compliance when having control of the legislative means to do so (Rule 20.C.7 of the 2012 Democratic Delegate Selection Rules).

¹Delaware had scheduled its 2000 presidential primary for the Saturday following New Hampshire and the 2003 bill removed that anchor and set the date for the primary as the first Tuesday in February.

Up next: Utah.

Recent Posts:

Kentucky Bill to Move Presidential Primary to August Appears to Have Died in Committee

The Clock is Ticking on States to Change 2012 Primary Dates: Connecticut

Oklahoma Senate Passes Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March

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

Kentucky Bill to Move Presidential Primary to August Appears to Have Died in Committee

Richard Winger at Ballot Access News is reporting that the Kentucky Senate bill (SB 4) that would have moved the commonwealth's presidential primary from May to August has died in the House Committee on Elections, Constitutional Amendments and Intergovernmental Affairs. The meeting considering several bills yesterday was the last meeting the committee is to have had before the legislature wraps up its business and adjourns on March 22. And while the bill was finally referred to committee last week, it never received a public hearing on the House side.

That the measure ultimately ended up bottled up in committee in the House as FHQ discussed last month should probably not come as that much of a surprise. The bill passed the Republican-controlled Senate three days into the legislative session on a party-line vote. Twenty Republicans and one independent senator voted for the bill while the 14 Democrats voted against it. Once the bill was transmitted to the Democratic-controlled House, the outcome was fairly obvious if viewed through a partisan lens.

NOTE: FHQ will leave SB 4 in the Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures section in the left sidebar classified as it is now. It may or may not be deemed "Died in Committee" until the legislature adjourns later this month. If the bill status on the Kentucky legislature's website changes before that time, the sidebar items will be changed to reflect that.

Recent Posts:

The Clock is Ticking on States to Change 2012 Primary Dates: Connecticut

Oklahoma Senate Passes Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/1/11)

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

The Clock is Ticking on States to Change 2012 Primary Dates: Connecticut

One comment that I have consistently encountered from academics when I have presented my research on presidential primary and caucus movement in various venues is that it seems like an area of study that could benefit from some case studies. The research I have done to this point has focused on explaining the factors that overall promote and impede states from shifting the dates on which their delegate selection events occur, but it is a fair point that there is a significant amount of variation in procedure from one state to another. One need look no further than the situations in Arizona and Minnesota as well as the various ways in which state legislatures have acted this far into their 2011 sessions for examples of this.

As such, it may be instructive to take a step back and look at what is happening in the currently non-compliant states with 2012 presidential primaries scheduled in January and February. Of those 19 primary states (DC included), ten of them have at various points of the legislative process bills to move their primaries into compliance. Among the nine remaining states where nothing has been done, one, Louisiana, has yet to convene its 2011 state legislative session. That leaves eight states with primaries at various calendar positions throughout February 2012 that are just as much in violation of the Democratic and Republican National Committee rules as Florida is. The only difference is that they are scheduled for dates that are not quite as early as the primary in the Sunshine state. In other words, even if the national parties were able to force Florida legislators to shift the primary there back into a date on or after March 6, there are still a fairly sizable number of states that are in violation of the delegate selection rules regarding the timing of contests.

The main question here is whether there is something functioning as a means of delaying action in these eight states relative to others where legislation has been introduced. More importantly, how quickly must each of these state legislatures act before the session is over? Each of the eight will be examined in individual posts, but here's the context in Connecticut to start:

Connecticut

• Current Primary Date: February 7, 2012
• Legislature Convened: January 5, 2011
• Deadline to Introduce Legislation: January 24, 2011
• Legislature Adjourns: June 8, 2011

The Story: On the surface the situation with Connecticut seems perhaps more dire than Florida. There is at least legislation that has been introduced in the Sunshine state. Nothing specifically addressing the timing of the 2012 presidential primary has been introduced in the legislature of the Nutmeg state. And on top of that, the deadline to introduce legislation passed over a month ago.

A glance back at Connecticut's 2008 move may prove instructive. During the 2007 legislative session no bill on the timing of the presidential primary was introduced ahead of the deadline either. The bill -- SB 1184 -- that ultimately provided for the shift from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February started out ambiguously enough as a bill to have the joint standing committee "conduct a study of election statutes". That was it. It wasn't until late March that the Government Administration and Elections Committee voted to pass a substitute version of the bill, a substitute that included a provision to move the primary. And, in fact, while the deadline for proposing legislation is typically in January, committees can draft their own legislation as well (a "raised bill") and usually have until mid-February to do so. Beyond that, a committee is required to have acted favorably upon a bill (reporting it "joint favorable" to the two chambers) if it is going to by late March or early April (depending on the committee). That point also serves as the point at which a committee has to have reported on a substitute bill as well. [For the Government Administration and Elections Committee that deadline is April 4, 2011.] Even if the committee does not act on the bill a petition can be filed by a week after the aforementioned deadline to pull the bill out of committee.

While there are no similar bills before the General Assembly in Connecticut in 2011, there are several bills dealing with primaries in some capacity. The most interesting of those -- that could, as in 2007, be substituted in committee -- are HB 5226 and HB 5228. The former would end the convention system that is typically used in conjunction with a primary for nominations to statewide offices and replace that with a direct primary only system. The latter seeks to move the state's primaries for state and local offices from August to June (presumably because of the MOVE act). Each could have provisions concerning the timing of the presidential primary added during, because of and/or after public hearings -- should one be scheduled -- before the deadline to report bills from committee next month.

Clock is ticking rating: Medium. With one month to go the Connecticut legislature needs to act quickly. That said, this is well within the timeframe in which a similar change was made four years ago. Keep in mind also that Connecticut is one of the few states in which the Democrats emerged with unified control of the state government following the 2010 elections. Given the DNC rules, those legislators have to act to change the primary date in Connecticut to avoid having the Rules and Bylaws Committee stiffen the 50% delegation penalty. With close to two to one advantages in both chambers of the General Assembly, Democrats have no real obstacle to moving the primary date into compliance with national party rules.

Up next: Delaware

Recent Posts:

Oklahoma Senate Passes Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/1/11)

Bill Emerges to Shift All Missouri Primaries to June

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

Oklahoma Senate Passes Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March

The AP is reporting that the Oklahoma Senate passed SB 808 during its floor session today. The bill changes the date on which the Sooner state's presidential primary will be held in 2012 and every four years thereafter from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. This brings Oklahoma one step closer to scheduling its delegate selection event in accordance with the national parties' delegate selection rules.

And while the vote is not accounted for on the history of the bill linked above, it passed unanimously (see SB 808 on the second page of the Senate's March 1 journal) with 43 ayes and no nays with five members absent.

Oklahoma moved from the second Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February for the 2004 cycle and now is apparently close to moving back to March where the state held its primaries since first having one back in 1988.

Recent Posts:

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/1/11)

Bill Emerges to Shift All Missouri Primaries to June

Alabama Bill to Eliminate Separate February Primary Introduced

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

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/1/11)

FHQ does not want to get in the habit of flooding the market with a million iterations of the 2012 presidential primary calendar, but given the shake up in Minnesota, we will use the excuse to make that change -- on the calendar and map -- and add in links to the newly introduced bills in Alabama and Missouri. For the record, due to an oversight, the Minnesota caucuses were incorrectly slotted into the March 6 position on the calendar in previous versions of the primary calendar. As the state parties in the Land of 10,000 Lakes did not coordinate a date on which to hold next year's caucuses and notify the secretary of state by today, a February 7 date for the caucuses was triggered. For reasons explained in the "shake up" link above, that non-compliant date is not likely to cause too much trouble in view of the parties's delegates selection rules. The state parties still pick up the tab for the caucuses and can move them where and when they want.

The states that bear watching are the states in February below and have yet to introduce legislation to move their contests to later and compliant dates.

[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 (bills: House)

Arkansas

California (bills: Assembly)

Connecticut

Delaware

Georgia

Illinois

Minnesota caucuses

Missouri (bills: House 1, 2/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:

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.

Recent Posts:

Bill Emerges to Shift All Missouri Primaries to June

Alabama Bill to Eliminate Separate February Primary Introduced

A Response to the Minnesota Calendar Discrepancy

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

Bill Emerges to Shift All Missouri Primaries to June

Yesterday, Rep. Jay Barnes (R-114th, Cole) introduced legislation (HB 694) to move the Show-Me state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the second Tuesday after the first Monday in June. The legislation also includes a provision to shift the date of the primaries for state and local offices from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in August to coincide with the presidential primary in June. Missouri is another state with primaries at opposite ends of the presidential year primary calendar; an early presidential primary and a late primary for state and local offices.

As FHQ has discussed most recently in the case of Massachusetts, but elsewhere also, states in this position are receiving pressure from both ends. There is pressure from the national parties to move February presidential primaries back into March and into compliance with the parties' rules. And there is also pressure from the federal mandate laid out in the MOVE act to move late state and local primaries earlier in order to print and distribute ballots to military and civilian personnel overseas in a timely manner. A trend is now beginning to emerge among states and territories in this position. Legislators are introducing legislation to combine the primaries at a point in time that complies with both sets of rules and saves the state the money used on a separate presidential primary in the process. There is no estimate of the savings in the case of this bill and Missouri, but considering similarly-sized Alabama estimates its savings based on eliminating the separate presidential primary at around $4 million, the total is likely at least a couple of million dollars.

Though the bill is sponsored by a member of the majority party, Republicans on the relevant elections committees in both the Missouri House and Senate have put forward bills to move the state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. It is unclear how likely this new bill is to move forward given the seeming institutional suppost the other two bills have. The cost savings may end up being tempting to legislators, but they will have to weigh that against the influence the state may lose if the primary is moved back to June.

Recent Posts:

Alabama Bill to Eliminate Separate February Primary Introduced

A Response to the Minnesota Calendar Discrepancy

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

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

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.