Friday, March 4, 2011

The Links (3/4/11) -- Calendar Edition

I must admit that in getting back in the swing of things with posting in 2011, I've gotten quite bogged down in the minutiae of the 2012 calendar at the expense of other and equally as relevant things (...at least relative to the 2012 presidential election). One of those is a series of posts I used to put out on a semi-regular basis that simply pointed FHQ readers to other matters that, while important, FHQ just didn't have the time to comment on in any great detail if at all. Part of the reason for this is that I do a lot of that linking through retweets on Twitter. But believe it or not, not everything gets tweeted in the first place. So let's resurrect "The Links".

No, today's edition doesn't stray too far from the calendar topic, but each link provides a different perspective on both the rules of delegate selection and the "craziness" of the evolution of the calendar itself. Incidentally enough (Modesty Alert!), each link also either mentions FHQ or quotes me. But as I said, there are some interesting talking points from some of the players on the ground nationally and in a series of states relevant to the calendar and that's something that should be shared. [Look, if you're coming here regularly, you probably get enough of me as it is.]





A Note on FHQ's 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar(s)

We are entering a phase in the formation of the 2012 presidential primary calendar that is much more difficult to track efficiently. Some states are moving dates, others are proposing legislation to the move dates of their presidential primaries and still others are to this point doing nothing. With all of this going on it, the potential exists for there to be a number of iterations of the calendar out there to account for all of the minor details that are changing. Our effort is to get as much information out there as possible about this process, but if we continue to produce calendar after calendar every time something changes, we run the risk of confusing visitors who enter the site on a past calendar page and are unable to get the most recent update. Links to the most recent calendar posts are always added when the calendar is updated, but those have proven ineffective.

As such, FHQ has made the proactive decision to automatically redirect visitors coming into those past 2012 calendars to a static page that has been created to house the most current update. This will first and foremost get visitors the most up-to-date information on where the calendar stands. That is the primary objective.

But what does that mean for you old hands who drop by on a regular basis to check on the calendar. Well, for folks who come into FHQ from our RSS, Twitter or Facebook feeds, not much. It is still business as usual. When a change to the calendar takes place, a new update will be posted. You will get that notification through the channels listed above once that update posts and can choose to follow that link to the post or to go to the static page for the calendar. They will both be updated (nearly) simultaneously. One of the advantages of a page (and link) devoted to the latest update is that it gives FHQ the ability to add links to new legislation from states to that calendar without having to put out an all-new calendar for that one minor change. Again, we don't want to flood the market with seemingly conflicting calendars. Updates, then, will be reserved for when the calendar actually changes -- like when Idaho moved or once Minnesota's first Tuesday in February date was triggered. For those just interested in a quick glance at where the calendar stands, but not necessarily how it got to that point, it is probably a good idea to bookmark the new page, and check in for the latest update at your own leisure.

Everyone has their own way of checking these things and we don't want to mess with that, but FHQ has to balance being completely open and making sure that people are getting an updated and informative look at where the calendar stands at the moment they enter the site. Once the calendar is set in stone, the redirects will be removed and people can once again go through the archive of updates. A post linking to all those updates will probably be useful at that point.

--
Thanks.
Josh


Thursday, March 3, 2011

The 2012 Candidates: Newt's In (?)


But it is a website announcing his intention to explore the option of exploring the exploration of the formation of an exploratory committee for the office of president of the United States. In a time when all that is out there officially are Herman Cain and Buddy Roemer candidacies, Newt Gingrich exploring anything remotely related to the presidency or a White House run is noteworthy (...especially for someone who has been lumped in with the first tier of candidates -- from a polling perspective). It may not be what the former Speaker wanted today to be about, but it'll be something to take to Iowa next week.

Let's update the list to include exploratory committee timing:
Michelle Bachmann
Haley Barbour
John Bolton
Jeb Bush
Herman Cain (exploratory: 1/12/11)
Chris Christie
Mitch Daniels
Jim DeMint
Newt Gingrich (exploratory: 3/3/11)
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
Jon Huntsman
Bobby Jindal
Gary Johnson
Sarah Palin
George Pataki
Ron Paul
Tim Pawlenty
Mike Pence (1/27/11)
Rick Perry
Buddy Roemer (exploratory: 3/3/11)
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum
John Thune (2/22/11)
--
A message from Newt and Callista (from NewtExplore2012.com):
America's greatness lies in 'We the People.'

We are a nation like no other. To remain so will require the dedicated participation of every citizen, of every neighborhood, of every background. This is the responsibility of a free people.

We are excited about exploring whether there is sufficient support for my potential candidacy for President of this exceptional country.


Is There a Utah Problem for the 2012 Primary Calendar?

This is Part Three 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) and Part Two (Delaware) as well.

Utah
  • Current Primary Date: February 7, 2012
  • Legislature Convened: January 24, 2011
  • Deadline to Introduce Legislation: February 3, 2011
  • Crossover Deadline: March 7, 2011
  • Legislature Adjourns: March 10, 2011
Unlike Connecticut and Delaware, the situation in Utah -- in terms of moving the date on which the Beehive state's 2012 presidential primary will be held -- is seemingly much more dire. To this point in the legislative session in Utah, no bills have been advanced dealing with the timing of the presidential primary directly and only two bills (HB 264 and SB 162) even cite the section of the Utah code that deals with the "Western States Presidential Primary". Needless to say, neither alters in any way the date on which that primary is to be held -- the first Tuesday in February. The former ties board of education primaires to municipal primaries while the latter changes the date of municipal primaries from September to August. But the presidential primary remains untouched.

What further complicates the situation is that there are a couple of important legislative deadlines in the Utah legislature next week. March 7 is the date on which one chamber must have finished consideration of, passed and transmitted to the opposite chamber -- a so-called "crossover" deadline -- any bill so that it can be considered there before the legislature adjourns on March 10. That is a week from today. Given how far into the legislative session Utah is, the date for having proposed legislation has already passed as well. In other words, there will have to be an amendment added to an existing piece of legislation that is agreed to by both chambers before next Thursday if a move is going to take place.1

The logical next question is whether there is any motivation to move the primary at all. And if not, what alternatives does Utah have? With no legislation to show for it, moving the 2012 primary does not seem to be something that is high on the list of legislative priorities. That said, what does Utah stand to gain by flaunting the national party rules on primary/caucus timing? Well, Mitt Romney won the state handily in 2008 and having Utah early may be of some benefit to the former Massachusetts governor. The catch is that by ignoring the rules Utah would be hit with a couple of penalties. First the state delegation would be cut in half, but on top of that the delegation -- one the make up of which is typically determined by winner-take-all allocation rules -- would have to allocated its delegates proportionally according to the new RNC rules change. Even though Romney took all the delegates from Utah in 2008, that haul would be halved and allocated differently if Utah stands pat and he is able to repeat the 2008 win in 2012.

As far as alternatives are concerned, Utah has a history of state party-run primaries and it is conceivable that the state could move in that direction without action from the legislature. But it is unclear at this point whether the state parties actually want to pick up the tab for such a contest and if they would even be willing to schedule it later to comply with national party rules if so.

What is clear is that Utah is running out of time to alter the date of its 2012 presidential primary.

Clock is ticking rating: Very High.

1This is not unprecedented. In 2007, after a bill specifically to move the presidential primary in Georgia from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February died in committee, an amendment was added to a broader elections bill to accomplish the move.


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.


Wednesday, March 2, 2011

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.


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.

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.


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



Tuesday, March 1, 2011

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.