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.


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

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.



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.