More Evidence of Florida's Willingness to Move Primary to Late February

It seems the Republican leadership in control in the Florida legislature is showing a bit more willingness to shift the Sunshine state's presidential primary back to some time in mid- to late February. It has been fairly clear as the discussions ramped up around the current, late January primary in Florida -- and the implications that held for the front end of the calendar overall -- that the leadership in the legislature was angling not to go first necessarily, but to carve out a position between Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina and the other states lining up to hold contests on March 6.

Until this past week, though, there have not been any real alternatives discussed outside of the black and white, either you're compliant or you're not options. Democrats in the legislature had proposed bills (House, Senate) to move the primary to March and back into compliance while the Republican state legislative leadership (Senate President Haridopolos and House Speaker Cannon) maintained a consistent hard line on the January primary. That seems to have changed some this lately. First Cannon spokesperson, Katie Betta said:

Cannon would be willing to move the date, she said, but only to mid-February, which would still violate RNC rules.

And now Senator Haridopolos (via Tom Beaumont at The Des Moines Register):

"This is not a hostage situation. Our goal is not to go No. 1. We think that is historically

Iowa's," Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos said last week. "Our goal is to be in

a spot where we would have a real say in the primary process, not to move ahead of Iowa

or New Hampshire."

The deadline for new legislation in Florida passed last week without a bill to reschedule

the primary, set ahead of the 2008 campaign for late January. Haridopolos said he was

planning to introduce an amendment to existing legislation that would move the date to

mid- to late February.

I'll gloss over the statement that no legislation has been proposed -- it has (see above about Democratic-sponsored legislation) -- but what is becoming more evident is that the Republican leadership in the Florida legislature is straying ever so slightly from the previous hard line on the January primary. If a position for Florida is being made in mid- to late February period, though, there still remain some significant questions. Why Florida and not other states? Will Florida move before other states currently scheduled in February but with no legislation proposed yet (New York, Wisconsin, Arizona and Michigan) to move their primaries or will those in the Sunshine state hold out for some sort of guarantee? [And then there's Georgia.]

To the first question, it is pretty clear that Florida has a pretty good argument about being a consequential state in both the primary and general election phase of the presidential race. Decision-makers there can stake a bigger claim to that than the four inactive primary states listed above. The second question is trickier with which to deal. There is no guarantee the national parties can offer Florida and the situation is complicated by the fact that Florida's legislature will conclude its business in May while those other states will have options after that point, whether by state legislature (New York, Wisconsin and Michigan) or other means (Arizona and Georgia). The other question that is a byproduct of this discussion is if Florida will be able to avoid sanctions from the RNC (or the DNC for that matter) if it settles in on a mid- to late February date for its primary. That may be as close to a guarantee that Florida can get should other states stick with their current February positions: that those states would be penalized while Florida would not.

But is that enough to get Florida to shift back its primary date? The legislature in Florida will give us some indication of that when House and Senate committees there begin considering and marking up the two bills concerning presidential primary timing that have been proposed.

Recent Posts:

Utah in June?

Louisiana Republican State Central Committee Passes Resolution on March Presidential Primary

Public Hearing on Presidential Primary Bill in Connecticut Draws No Input from State Parties

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

Utah in June?

The Utah GOP expects it.

Here's what Kathie Obradovich at The Des Moines Register had to say on the subject:

Last week, a mini-tempest arose amid reports that Utah's Legislature was set to

adjourn without changing a Feb. 7 presidential primary date. If that date held, it

could push Iowa and New Hampshire to move up their dates. The situation prompted

one national reporter to conclude, "Christmas in Iowa, here we come." Another

blogger envisions Halloween caucuses. Boo!

A throwdown to Iowa from the land of Mitt Romney? Not exactly. Lawmakers didn't

see fit to pay for a separate presidential primary. Utah GOP officials say they expect it

to be held at the same time as their state primary, probably in June. Crisis averted, at

least for the moment.

Sigh. Halloween caucuses? Crisis averted?

The only one dredging up Halloween, that I have seen, is FHQ and we're only the messenger there. South Carolina Republican Party chairman, Katon Dawson, was the one threatening that possibility back in 2007. No one is making such bold claims in 2011.

Crisis? What crisis? There's no crisis. Utah and any other state can go where and when decision-makers in those states desire. The notion that this threatens Iowa in any way is misguided. Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina (and to a lesser extent Nevada) will go first. Period. There is a reason the date-setting apparati in those early states is such that they can individually wait out the decision-making process in other states and simply go before the Floridas and Michigans and Utahs of the world (see more on that decision-making calculus here). As such Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina can play along with the national parties rules for now -- a hollow action -- but will ultimately move ahead of the earliest state outside of the four exempt states. Right now that is Florida and if the Sunshine state maintains the January 31 primary date, those exempt states will move up to either something like the dates FHQ tentatively has them in at the front of the calendar or on even earlier dates. But that isn't a crisis; that's par for the course for Iowa and New Hampshire.

Now, back to this Utah question. I'm less willing to so quickly dismiss the idea of the Beehive states presidential primary being locked into that February 7 date. Fine, the Utah GOP expects to include the vote on presidential preference in the June with the primaries in the state for statewide offices. How? First of all, that primary is scheduled for the fourth Tuesday in June. That is a point that is two weeks outside of the window in time in which events for delegate selection can be held. All non-exempt states, according to the national party rules, have to hold a primary, caucus, or convention to allocate delegates between the first Tuesday in March and the second Tuesday in June. It should be noted that only the DNC rules specify a back end to that window; the RNC does not. There is, then, an opening for Utah Republicans to hold their delegate selection concurrently with the primary for statewide offices, but that puts something of a burden on Democrats in the state. They are provided two non-compliant options for presidential primary dates and would more than likely be forced to hold caucuses on their dime. Again, there's a history of caucuses and party-run primaries in the state, so it isn't unheard of but the possibility of the state-funded option has been in place for the last couple of cycles.

As I said earlier this week, though, it isn't clear to me that Republicans, given a state-funded option on February 7, would opt to comply with national party rules by paying for and holding a primary or caucus of their own. But what if the state party was given an option in June? Again, how? What is the state election law mechanism by which this happens? Looking at the Utah state codes, the Western States Presidential Primary is dependent upon the state legislature appropriating funds for that primary to take place. The parties had that in 2008 (see p. 33, "Western States Presidential Primary"), but not in 2004. And it doesn't appear that they will have the funding in 2012 either. None of the appropriations bills that passed the legislature during the 2011 session contained any provision extending the typical one-time extension of general funds for the purposes of the February presidential primary (see HB 3 and SB 2). The parties, it seems, will have no choice but to either fund a delegate selection event themselves or take advantage of the fall-back option, the state primary in late June. What is not clear is how the state-funded option for a presidential primary is extended to the June primary and how the filing deadlines work when that later, state-funded option is used. The only mention of presidential candidates and filing deadlines in the context of the June primary either defers to the guidelines of the Western States Presidential Primary specifically or in terms of certifying presidential candidates for the general election ballot. It seems to FHQ, then, that some change to the state election code is necessary in light of that separate mention of presidential candidates unless the provisions apply to candidates for all offices broadly. That is not clear but possible.

In any event, that late June primary would put the Utah Democratic Party at something of a disadvantage relative to the state Republican Party (if it wanted a state-funded option). What works in the favor of both parties -- or at least complicates things to a lesser degree -- is that the Democrats are likely to have an uncontested race for the party's nomination. Utah does have an out from the February 7 date, but it is not entirely clear exactly how that will play out between now and October 1, when state Republican Parties have to provide to the national party their plans for delegate selection.

Recent Posts:

Louisiana Republican State Central Committee Passes Resolution on March Presidential Primary

Public Hearing on Presidential Primary Bill in Connecticut Draws No Input from State Parties

The Case for a First Saturday After the First Tuesday in March Primary in Louisiana

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

Louisiana Republican State Central Committee Passes Resolution on March Presidential Primary

Apropos to our post earlier this morning on Louisiana, the Pelican state's Republican State Central Committee today met and passed a resolution calling on the state legislature to shift the presidential primary there from the second (or third) Saturday in February to the first Saturday after the first Tuesday in March. Now, FHQ had mentioned that there had been some discussion about that particular point or even moving the primary back to April, but it appears as if the former won out.

That isn't all that noteworthy, but some of the comments coming out of the meeting from various members of the committee were enlightening. Ed Anderson at the New Orleans Times-Picayune highlighted the fact that some on the committee had raised the issue of the budgetary constraints that have affected other states' plans -- or planning more appropriately -- for primaries next year:

Michael Chittom, a committee member from Baton Rouge, asked whether the Legislature would be in the mood to finance a presidential primary on any date next year in light of the state's money shortage.

"$6 million is a lot of money in today's budget crisis," Villere said. If canceling the primary is what "we need to do to help with the budget," he said, "I wouldn't see us fighting it. We all have to sacrifice."

Villere said that if the primary is canceled by the Legislature as a cost-saving move, the GOP could hold caucuses, stage its own elections or hold a state convention to pick delegates to the national meeting next year.

So, the tab on the presidential primary in the state comes to approximately $6 million and the Louisiana Republican Party would not be all that averse to shifting to a caucus or convention set up if the state legislature deemed the presidential primary too costly and cut it. That is fairly significant and contrasts with how I described the likelihood of Utah Republicans adopting a later caucus system in the face of a non-compliant -- and less delegate-rich -- primary in February. Why is it that Utah would eschew that option and Louisiana Republicans would seemingly nonchalantly accept it?

Louisiana, like any other state, is unique in how it allocates national convention delegates. On top of that there are differences in how the two parties in the Pelican state accomplish that task. Democrats have typically used the state-funded primary, while Republicans have used, depending on the year, a combination primary-caucus. In 1996, for example, Louisiana Republicans held an early February caucus to allocate some delegates and that preceded the usual second Tuesday in March primary. But in other years, the delegate allocation balance between the two has varied. The point is that Louisiana Republicans have an attendant caucus process alongside the primary.

The issue with Utah Republicans was or would be that they would have to fund a caucus if they were somehow forced to abandon the state-funded primary as a means of allocating their delegates. That isn't the case in Louisiana. Republicans in the state already have the caucus option covered and can fall back on that were the presidential primary to be defunded by the state legislature. Of course whether that is actually a proposal that is on the table is unknown. But what is known is that this is why the Republicans from the meeting today mentioned the Democratic Party in the state. The burden would be higher for Democrats -- sans primary -- than it would be for Republicans, and the state party and the Democratic-controlled Senate may be less willing to go along with such a plan.

The March primary resolution from state Republicans, the possibility of the state legislature eliminating the primary altogether and potential Democratic opposition to the idea are all matters to keep close watch on when the Louisiana legislature convenes next month.

Recent Posts:

Public Hearing on Presidential Primary Bill in Connecticut Draws No Input from State Parties

The Case for a First Saturday After the First Tuesday in March Primary in Louisiana

A Follow Up on the Oregon Primary Bill

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

Public Hearing on Presidential Primary Bill in Connecticut Draws No Input from State Parties

According to this report by Mark Pazniokas in The Connecticut Mirror, the public hearing on HB 6532 on Friday drew no response from either the Democratic or Republican Parties in the Nutmeg state. As the article mentions, the state has to move the date on which it holds its presidential primary in 2012 to comply with the national parties' rules on delegate selection event timing. And that is exactly what this bill is seeking to accomplish, moving the primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March.

The thing that seems to be frustrating Connecticut Secretary of State Denise Merrill is that the state has some options to maximize its delegates based on both parties' delegate selection rules and the state parties have yet to "weigh in", as she said, on whether moving further back for bonus delegates is a worthwhile pursuit. On the Democratic side of the ledger...

If the state delays its primary until April, it will be rewarded with a 10 percent bonus in the number of delegates. Wait until May 1, the bonus doubles to 20 percent.

And if the state can manage to convince two neighboring states to agree on a regional primary date on or after March 20, it will receive an additional bonus of 15 percent.

But that is only part of the equation. Though the RNC does not have the same incentive system, the national party is allowing state parties to decide how they would like to allocate their delegates if they hold contests after April 1. Connecticut Republicans could maintain their winner-take-all allocation they have used in recent election cycles. That tradition would be affected depending on how the state legislature acts on this bill.

The argument could be made that by not voicing an opinion at the hearing the two state parties are in support of the move back to March. Could be. Merrill says it is "all about being relevant" and for a state the size of Connecticut relevance may well be defined as holding a delegate selection event prior to the point at which the nomination has been decided as opposed to attempting to maximize delegates by holding a primary that may fall after that point.

NOTE: As an aside, I think it is noteworthy that the DNC has contacted secretaries of state in the non-compliant states like Connecticut to remind them of the window of time in which states can hold contests.

Recent Posts:

The Case for a First Saturday After the First Tuesday in March Primary in Louisiana

A Follow Up on the Oregon Primary Bill

Substitute House Bill in Missouri Now Includes Provision to Move Presidential Primary to March

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

The Case for a First Saturday After the First Tuesday in March Primary in Louisiana

Earlier this week FHQ took a look at some of the preliminary discussions in Louisiana as to where the state should move its presidential primary in order to comply with national party rules governing delegate selection in 2012. The two main ideas within the ranks of the Republican Party in the Pelican state -- the party that controls the state legislature and thus the means of altering the primary date -- were to either carve out a less populated date the weekend after the first Tuesday in March or to shift back into April to take advantage of the RNC allowance for winner-take-all allocation after April 1.

Louisiana Republican Party chair, Roger Villere, prefers the latter while Republican State Central Committee member, Mike Bayham, continues to make a push for a set up similar to 2008 when the state positioned its primary on the second Saturday of February. As Bayham points out...

However, by moving to the first Saturday allowed by the national parties in March, Louisiana would be holding its primary before the nominations have been wrapped up.

Most importantly, candidates will have an interest in campaigning here since the major contenders will be assured of leaving the state with something (unlike the controversial system in 2008 where Mike Huckabee received a plurality of the vote but not a single delegate).

With the Louisiana primary held only a few days after the front-loaded first Tuesday in March primary date, the nomination will still be undecided, thus candidates will have to spend time here and educate themselves about federal issues that affect our state, specifically energy production and coastal erosion.

The difference between having the Louisiana presidential primary on the first Saturday following the first Tuesday in March versus any date in April is whether we want our state to matter enough for presidential candidates to visit and make commitments on the federal issues that affect our state versus reverting to our previous role as an irrelevant amen corner.

This discussion highlights the calculus that goes into the primary positioning decision in states the size of Louisiana. More often than not the calculus is simply a matter of giving primary voters in a state a say in selecting a nominee as opposed to gambling with falling after the point at which one candidate has amassed 50% of the delegates plus one (or has a large enough delegate lead to made surpassing that point inevitable). The later a contest is, the less the chances that the results in that state will prove consequential in a nomination race. Bayham is making the point that April will fall too late for Louisiana to matter in 2012. And it is a gamble to be sure. But so too is holding a primary the weekend immediately after Super Tuesday. It isn't clear at this point that the Republican nomination race will not have wrapped up by that point either. The intention is understood though. The attempt is to carve out a niche where Louisiana might have an influence over the process.

Again, it isn't readily apparent that that Saturday position is going to be any more advantageous than an early April date or for that matter any different than the similar position Louisiana was in during the 2008 cycle. I can understand that changing the state-level method of allocating delegates may make a difference,¹ but how much impact will a change there have on the clearest ways of quantifying influence: candidate visits and media attention. How much better than 23 visits can Louisiana do? Will tweaking the delegate allocation rules on the state level impact that to any great degree?

If states seek to increase either of these measures of attention there are a few rules of the game to use as a guide. Bayham follows one of them quite closely: take note of the number of states with simultaneously scheduled contests. The less crowded the date is, the more it follows that the state would receive more attention. This is also conditioned by how early or late a contest is. Earlier is still better in most cases. The other thing for state actors to look at in making this decision is the national party rules.

Again, it appears that both Republican ideas in the Louisiana case attempt to effectively utilize the national party rules as a means of maximizing the Pelican state's influence. On the one hand, Villere is following the 2008 model; that the race will last longer and that Louisiana could fall into that sweet spot in the calendar where there are not a great number of contests. On top of that, Louisiana could opt for winner-take-all allocation after that point and potentially increase its influence even more. On the other hand, Bayham is estimating that Super Tuesday (and any contests prior to that point) will go a long way toward deciding who the Republican nominee will be and that Louisiana could either continue to help or actually put one candidate over the 50% plus one delegate threshold.

The only clear way for states historically to greatly affect their influence is to move in a year when the parties open the window in which contests can be held. Early adopters of earlier and earlier primaries over the years have been able to increase the amount of attention they receive and that that lasts until that date becomes crowded with other contests in subsequent cycles. This was a point I made back in 2009 when Indiana's legislature was considering a resolution to study the prudence of moving the state's presidential primary to an earlier date was that Indiana had missed their chance. In a series of posts (here, here and here) I found that Indiana would have been better served having moved ahead of the 2004 nomination cycle when the Democrats opened their window to, like the Republicans, allow for February primaries and caucuses. The handful of states that moved up in 2004 by and large increased their amount of attention from 2000 to 2004. When the mass of states that moved to early February for 2008 joined those states, their influence from 2004 disappeared.

Obviously, this is not an option for Louisiana in 2012. They could continue to hold a February primary, but as Bayham points out, that would reduce Louisiana's delegate total enough -- by 50% -- to make it virtually meaningless; not a recipe for drawing candidate and/or media attention. That means that those with the date-setting decision-making power in the state have to find a date that somehow maximizes the state's influence rather than placing it in a position after which the nomination is settled and Louisiana primary voters only ratify a decision made in other states.

To me neither option of the two being discussed by Louisiana Republicans is clearly better than the other. What's driving that to some degree is the uncertainty surrounding the race for the Republican nomination. With prospective candidates holding off on their decisions to enter the race, the development of the field has been stunted. And what, more than anything else, is going to determine how long the nomination race lasts once it enters the primary and caucus phase is whether a clear frontrunner has emerged from the field either during the invisible primary or through success during that period combined with solidifying wins in early contests. No, that doesn't directly affect the decisions that are being made at the state level now on where primaries and caucuses are positioned for 2012, but it is affecting how those actors think about how long the nomination process will last. And that is affecting where states that are considering a move -- or being forced to move due to national party rules -- are considering where to move those contests.

---

¹The state required a candidate to receive a majority of the votes in the primary to win any delegates to the Republican Convention, and though both Mike Huckabee and John McCain cleared 40% of the vote in Louisiana, the delegates allocated in the primary went to the convention unpledged.

Recent Posts:

A Follow Up on the Oregon Primary Bill

Substitute House Bill in Missouri Now Includes Provision to Move Presidential Primary to March

The Links (3/11/11): Staffing Up

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

A Follow Up on the Oregon Primary Bill

FHQ was fortunate enough yesterday and today to have exchanged emails with Tyler Smith, the attorney who spoke on behalf of the Oregon Republican Party at the public hearing on HB 2429 on March 9. As we have discussed here during this week, that bill proposes moving the Oregon primaries -- including the presidential primary -- from the third Tuesday in May to the second Tuesday in June. No, that shift is not on the surface all that consequential, moving the Beaver state's primary from late in the presidential nomination process to latest in the presidential nomination process.

However, as is often the case, local factors can play a significant role in shaping a state party's reaction to any elections legislation and that is the situation here. FHQ's statements regarding the points raised in the hearing on HB 2429 were extensions of an Oregon-based blog that left some doubt as to the true nature of both the Republican and Democratic stances on the bill in question. First of all, as Mr. Smith pointed out to me, he was the only one who made any statement at the hearing. The Democratic Party of Oregon has yet to weigh in and the only representative of the party to speak on the matter was House Leader Dave Hunt who co-chairs the committee from which the legislation originated. And that was not necessarily the official position of the state party.

As for the Oregon Republican Party response, it makes more sense given the proper context. Mr. Smith explained that Oregon Republican Party bylaws require the party to have completed the delegate selection process -- a process that is complicated by the fact that the party allocates delegates proportionally --by July 1 (Article XVII, Section A). However, if in 2012, the Oregon presidential primary is on June 12, the results would not be certified until thirty days later, or July 11. As the allocation is proportional, that certification is necessary in order complete the allocation properly. But beyond that, it is less than proper to have allocated delegates ten days after the deadline to have done so. The primary move proposed in HB 2429, then, is a very real problem for the Oregon Republican Party.

Well, why not just change the deadline? Why indeed. Again, let us look to the Oregon Republican Party's bylaws. Changes can only be made at the Biennial Organizational Meeting (Article XXVI, Section A) which occurs between January 1 and February 28 of odd numbered years (Article IV, Section A), a point that has already passed in this presidential election cycle. The party also has the option of make amendments to the bylaws -- presumably including the aforementioned July 1 deadline -- at "duly convened" meeting of the Oregon Republican Party State Central Committee (Article XXVI, Section A). There is time in which to make that change, but it is unclear if the State Central Committee is willing or able to get together to get that done should the bill passed the Oregon legislature and be signed into law.

This really is a fabulous example of the overlap of state party and national party rules with state law. And that in a nutshell is why fundamentally altering the presidential nomination process is so difficult.

Recent Posts:

Substitute House Bill in Missouri Now Includes Provision to Move Presidential Primary to March

The Links (3/11/11): Staffing Up

Oregon Democrats and Republicans on Opposite Ends of Primary Debate

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

Substitute House Bill in Missouri Now Includes Provision to Move Presidential Primary to March

A committee substitute to a broader elections bill in the Missouri House now includes a section that would move the Show-Me state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. The bill, HB 121, is sponsored by the same representative -- House Elections Committee chair, Tony Dugger (R) -- as the other state House measure designed to shift the date on which the presidential primary is held. At this point, both HB 121 and HB 503 have emerged with favorable reports from committee and the only difference between the two bills in terms of election dates is that the former seemingly eliminates the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February as a date on which general municipal elections can be held. The latter leaves that February date as an option. In terms of the presidential primary, though, the intent is the same; to move the date back to March.

Recent Posts:

The Links (3/11/11): Staffing Up

Oregon Democrats and Republicans on Opposite Ends of Primary Debate

An Update on Utah: Locked in on Feb. 7?

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

The Links (3/11/11): Staffing Up

The week that was in the invisible primary in the 2012 race for the Republican nomination was one of signing staff for nascent presidential runs.

Haley Barbour brought in Jim Dyke as a communications adviser and James Richardson as an online communications aide to Haley's PAC. Dyke has South Carolina ties and John DiStaso at the Manchester Union-Leader links Richardson to New Hampshire, though he's made the rounds online, with the College Republican National Committee and with the RNC in 2008 and the NRSC in 2010.

Tim Pawlenty meanwhile has either signed Eric Woolson or at the very least gained his support if Pawlenty runs. Regardless of the distinction, this is big simply because Woolson worked with Mike Huckabee in 2008.

Rick Santorum continues to add PAC staff in New Hampshire.

And even though this isn't technically staff, Mitt Romney continues to work Florida for important campaign donors and endorsements. The move could pay dividends in the state during the primary and general election phases of the campaign.

Recent Posts:

Oregon Democrats and Republicans on Opposite Ends of Primary Debate

An Update on Utah: Locked in on Feb. 7?

Oklahoma Senate Passes Second Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March

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

Oregon Democrats and Republicans on Opposite Ends of Primary Debate

The public hearing yesterday on HB 2429 -- a bill proposed in the Oregon House in January to move the Beaver state's primary from the third Tuesday in May to the second Tuesday in June -- clearly indicated a partisan break in sentiment on the intent of the legislation. Oregon Democrats -- the majority party in the Oregon House -- came out in favor of the move.

House Democratic Leader Dave Hunt, who co-chairs the House Rules Committee, said he's considering the bill because it would shorten the period for the general election and provide more space between the new even-year sessions of the Legislature and the primary.

In the even years, the session could run as late as the filing deadline in early March, said Hunt, adding that he would prefer to provide some breathing space between the two.

Shortening the general election by what would amount to three weeks is probably not a solid enough argument for Democrats to make, but the filing deadline argument has some precedent. Discussions in Kentucky during the 2011 legislative session and in Arkansas in 2009 -- both concerning bills to move primaries to August -- contained similar arguments. The perceived benefit is that the filing deadline and thus the decision to run for candidates comes at a point in which the legislature is no longer in session. The "breathing space" Hunt mentions would separate legislative decisions from decisions to run for office; that the latter would have less influence on the former.

Legislative members of the Oregon GOP and the state party voiced far different opinions on the proposed move.

At the hearing, Tyler Smith, a lawyer representing the Oregon Republican Party, opposed the bill. He said the later primary date could complicate the ability of the party to select delegates for the Republican National Convention. And Rep. Vicki Berger, R-Salem, said she was skeptical of holding elections so close to summer when voters have their attentions diverted.

I don't know that either side has really developed a clear set of arguments on this proposed move. Three or four weeks deeper into the spring (or school year summer) probably won't make all that much difference to voters and it certainly won't complicate national convention delegate selection. Other states have scheduled and have had in the past early June primaries with little or no difficulty. The only potential conflict is that a later primary may come slightly closer to the point at which the state parties hold state conventions and begin identifying actual delegates to attend the national conventions. Those occur in July in Oregon, though, and the results of any primary would certainly have been finalized by that point whether in May or June.

In any event, there don't seem to be strong arguments for or against this measure and that doesn't necessarily bode well for the bill passing and being signed into law. Plus, in the grand scheme of things, it isn't in any way altering the impact Oregon is likely to have on the outcome of the Republican nomination race. Both dates are late enough that any impact would be dependent upon the race lasting that long. It could happen, but that goes against the grain of all post-reform Republican nominations.

NOTE: See an update on this post (with a deeper explanation of some of the state-level factors) here.

Recent Posts:

An Update on Utah: Locked in on Feb. 7?

Oklahoma Senate Passes Second Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March

The Links (3/9/11): Ohio

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

An Update on Utah: Locked in on Feb. 7?

While some continue to harp on the Florida problem, there are other states that more immediately threaten the informally bartered scheduling arrangement the two national parties hammered out last year for the 2012 presidential primaries. Minnesota is somewhat locked into a February 7 caucus date for 2012, and while that falls just a day after when the national parties would like Iowa to hold its first in the nation caucuses, the state parties in Minnesota have the final say in the matter. The Minnesota GOP and DFL have to pay for the caucuses and can choose to schedule them when and where they want, though the national parties can lean on the state parties in a way that they cannot with state legislatures. The Minnesota situation is one, then, that has yet to completely play out. To some extent, it may depend on what happens in Florida. Should the state legislature in the Sunshine state opt to shift the primary back, pressure would grow on Minnesota's GOP to shift back as well.¹

Minnesota aside, however, the most imminent threat to the 2012 calendar is Utah. As FHQ pointed out last week, the state legislature in the Beehive state was set to wrap up the work of its 2011 session by March 10 -- today. At that point there were several active bills that dealt with or mentioned the state's Western States Presidential Primary, but none that directly dealt with an alteration of the February 7 date on which the primary is scheduled for 2012. In other words, there was active legislation dealing with elections, but it would take an amendment including a provision to change the presidential primary date as opposed to a newly introduced piece of legislation.

That window now seems to have closed. First of all, the deadline for one chamber of the legislature to have finished up consideration of bills and transmit them to the opposite chamber came and went with little fanfare on March 7 -- this past Monday. That deadline does not preclude the second chamber from adding amendments to an engrossed bill -- one that has passed one chamber -- but no such action has occurred between Monday's deadline and the today's final day of the session. In fact, the bills that even make mention of the Western States Presidential Primary now fall into two categories: 1) Bills that failed to pass one chamber by Monday and 2) Bills that have already been enrolled -- passed both chambers -- and are in the process of being transmitted to the governor for his consideration. Neither the bills that are dead nor those that are on the way to the governor include any provision to shift the February date on which the 2012 Utah presidential primary will be held.

Utah, then, is locked into February 7 for next year. The state-sanctioned, state-funded primary will take place on February 7 and while it is true that the state parties in Utah, like Minnesota, have some final say in this, they are less likely to pony up the money necessary to hold a caucus at a later date when a state-funded option is available. Utah Democrats may face some pressure from the DNC to hold a later caucus, but it is unclear how receptive the party would be to that. The best indication of their motives will be when the state party releases a draft of its delegate selection plan for public comment. Republicans in the state, however, have more incentive to buck the national party rules. They have a contested nomination race that might involve up to two favorite son candidates (Romney and Huntsman) and they, of course, have a state-funded option on February 7 at their disposal. So while there is a tradition of caucuses -- early in the post-reform era -- and party-run primaries in the Beehive state, Republicans are now likely to ignore that given a state-sanctioned alternative, albeit at non-compliant time -- on the first Tuesday in February.

With Utah seemingly more locked in on February 7 than Minnesota, the Republican calendar will undoubtedly and now somewhat more officially, kick off some time in January as opposed to the parties' preferred point in February.

NOTE: More on the situation in Utah here.

--

¹There is no doubt that the Minnesota DFL will schedule a later caucus date to comply with DNC rules. They will not pay the full costs of a caucus in February only to have the national party strip the state's Democratic delegation of half or more of its ranks in an uncontested race.

Recent Posts:

Oklahoma Senate Passes Second Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March

The Links (3/9/11): Ohio

Oregon Bill to Move Primaries Back to June

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