California Primary Bill Unanimously Passes Committee Hurdle in Assembly

The California Assembly bill to move the Golden state's presidential primary back to June and align it with the state's primaries for state and local offices passed the Committee on Elections and Redistricting on March 15. AB 80 would save the state $90 million by combining the two sets of primaries during the first Tuesday in June.

The bill passed the committee on a 7-0 vote.

Recent Posts:

Crossover Day Vote Sends Georgia Primary Bill to the State Senate

Colorado Bill to Shift Presidential Caucuses Up Two Weeks

Funding the South Carolina Presidential Primary

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

Crossover Day Vote Sends Georgia Primary Bill to the State Senate

Wednesday marked the 30th day of the 2011 legislative session in the Georgia General Assembly; the deadline by which legislation has to be passed in one chamber of the legislature in order for the other chamber to consider it (before the 40 day session is adjourned). Among the bills up for the deadline vote -- and it was tough to see it when seemingly everyone following crossover day in Georgia was more interested in the Senate vote to allow the Sunday sale of alcohol¹ -- was the House bill to shift the presidential primary date-setting authority from the legislature to the office of the secretary of state. As FHQ has mentioned previously, HB 454, would give the Peach state the flexibility to adapt more easily -- and more quickly -- to changing national party rules regarding the timing of primaries and caucuses allocating presidential delegates. More to the point, it would allow the secretary of state the ability to -- like the secretary of state in New Hampshire -- more easily set the date of the state's primary at a point that is first, competitive, but also maximizes Georgia's influence over the presidential nomination process.

That is a power that is unique to New Hampshire, though similar actions have been taken in Arizona to give the, in the Grand Canyon state's case, governor the ability to set the primary on a "better" date should the date called for by state law -- the fourth Tuesday in February -- fall outside of the window of influence. Georgia, then, is attempting to join a select few states with this ability and the bipartisan effort to accomplish this passed the House by a vote of 153Y-21N. The potential for added flexibility was cited by proponents of the measure while the few opponents brought up the constitutional balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.

One additional note that should be made is that Georgia was in the exact same position four years ago. It was around the same time that the Georgia House passed HB 487 by a similar margin in 2007. That bill was intended to shift the Peach state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. The state Senate subsequently passed a different version of the bill that did not pass the House when the altered bill was returned to its house of origin. A last minute amendment to a separate elections bill saved the cause of the earlier presidential primary date and brought it into effect. The moral here is that the legislative process happens. That said, this bill does seem to have bipartisan back -- in terms of its sponsorship -- and we'll have to see how far that takes in the Senate over the final ten legislative days of the session.

Hat tip to Andre Walker at Georgia Politics Unfiltered for passing this news along.

--

¹This is an annual rite of spring in the Georgia General Assembly. The Sunday sales issue always comes up and is always voted down. Usually, however, it is defeated in committee. Not in 2011. The bill (SB 10) passed the Senate and now heads to the House.

Recent Posts:

Colorado Bill to Shift Presidential Caucuses Up Two Weeks

Funding the South Carolina Presidential Primary

Goodbye Potomac Primary. Hello Mid-Atlantic Primary?

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

Colorado Bill to Shift Presidential Caucuses Up Two Weeks

Last week in the Colorado Senate a bill was introduced to move the date on which the state's state and local primaries are held from the last week in August to the last week in June. The bill was designed to bring the Centennial state into compliance with the federal mandates called for in the MOVE act passed by Congress in 2009. Sponsored by Senator Rollie Heath (D-18th, Boulder), the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee chair, SB 189 also shifts the state precinct caucuses -- used for presidential delegate allocation -- up from the third Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in March.

As was discussed earlier on FHQ in the context of the Minnesota caucuses situation that arose in February, it is rare for state law to cover the timing of caucuses. Typically that task is left up to the state parties. However, Colorado and Minnesota are the two most consistent exceptions to that rule.

The Colorado bill was introduced on March 10 and referred to Heath's committee then as well.

Recent Posts:

Funding the South Carolina Presidential Primary

Goodbye Potomac Primary. Hello Mid-Atlantic Primary?

Oklahoma House Passes Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March

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

Funding the South Carolina Presidential Primary

State funding.

Party funding.

State funding.

Party funding.

Tuesday was an interesting day in the South Carolina state House. On a day that saw the chamber debate Governor Nikki Haley's budget, much was on the line; including $1 million set aside for the state's first-in-the-South presidential primary next year. But Governor Haley didn't really get her way.

...not at first anyway.

Though the Republican-controlled House rejected that part of the governor's budget, maintaining state funding of the presidential primary, South Carolina Republican Party chairwoman, Karen Floyd, responded later in the day and offered a compromise of sorts:

South Carolina's GOP chairwoman says Republicans will try to raise private money to run the 2012 presidential primary but she's looking for taxpayer money as a backup.

Karen Floyd said Tuesday it would be prudent for legislators to set aside money for the primary to ensure first-in-the-South contest will pass legal muster and assure it is beyond reproach.

This is particularly pertinent given the discussions here at FHQ since the California bill to eliminate its separate presidential primary -- moving it back to June with the other statewide and local primaries to save the state $90 million -- was introduced back in January. Subsequent state actions have increasingly brought the issue of cost savings through combining or canceling presidential primaries to the fore. It is an evolving trend that the AP partially shed light on today. [I'll hopefully have some longer form comments on that tomorrow.]

And while the situation in South Carolina seems to fit the cost savings narrative, a bit of context is in order. Up until 2008, state parties in South Carolina paid for party-run primaries and caucuses. But the state legislature took on the financial burden four years ago while continuing to allow the state parties the freedom to select the date on which their held their delegate selection events. Four years later it is en vogue to reconsider the cost of presidential primaries -- or at least the prudence of holding them separately from in-window primaries for state and local offices. In other words, it is totally out of left field for the governor in South Carolina to ask the legislature to return the spending levels on the primary to pre-2008 levels, especially considering the history. That the effort failed before a Republican-led chamber, though, speaks to how much the funding would help a cash-strapped state party -- $5000 cash on hand at the end of 2010 -- on one hand. On the other, it speaks to some level to how quickly the process has become institutionalized in just four years:

Opponents, including House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Cooper, (R-Anderson County) argued that having the state pay for and run the primaries would add credibility to the process.

or...

Rep. Tracy Edge, R-Myrtle Beach, said the state has been embarrassed before by presidential primary problems. "I would think the taxpayers would rather spend a couple million bucks here than not be embarrassed on the national stage like we will be if we don't rise to the occasion," Edge said.

Funding aside, though, South Carolina Republicans still have the flexibility to choose the earliest date they can to stay ahead of all but Iowa, New Hampshire and maybe Nevada.

Recent Posts:

Goodbye Potomac Primary. Hello Mid-Atlantic Primary?

Oklahoma House Passes Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March

2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (March 7-13)

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

Goodbye Potomac Primary. Hello Mid-Atlantic Primary?

Freeman Kloppot at the Washington Examiner:

The D.C. Council moved forward with a bill Tuesday to set the presidential and local primary for the first Tuesday in April 2012.

There's one more vote on the bill before it becomes final. On Tuesday, as they discussed the bill, several councilmembers raised the idea of teaming up with Maryland and Delaware to hold their primaries on the same day. And a potential "Mid-Atlantic Primary" is not beyond reach: Both Maryland and Delaware are considering the first Tuesday in April as well.

There are hearings this week in the Maryland Senate over the two competing bills there to move the Old Line state's primary back to the first Tuesday in either March or April. The latter seemingly has more institutional support. That in conjunction with what is happening with the DC Council appears to put some movement behind the idea of an early April primary for Maryland and DC. But this Delaware twist is a new one. There may have been some interstate discussions between Democratic Party officials on the state party level, but that has yet to materialize in Delaware in the form of legislation to alter the date on which the First state's primary is held. That said, as FHQ mentioned a couple of weeks ago, we are right around the same time period in the cycle in which the Delaware legislature proposed legislation to move the primary ahead of the 2004 primaries.

The only observation one can take from this subregional cluster is that it lacks -- with Delaware substituting for Virginia -- some of the same punch the Potomac primary had in terms of delegates at stake in 2008. The Democratic bonuses for going in April and as a group will help make up some of that difference. And the state Republican Parties will have the option of allocating delegates on a winner-take-all basis as well. The move, then, is not without merit.

Developing...

Recent Posts:

Oklahoma House Passes Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March

2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (March 7-13)

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

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

Oklahoma House Passes Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March

On Monday, the Oklahoma House passed one of the four bills before it that would, if enacted, shift the Sooner state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. By a vote of 91Y-6N, the state House passed HB 1614. The Senate passed the companion to this House bill on March 1 and a subsequent bill (SB 602) last week. The passage of this bill leaves the two Senate bills and one remaining House bill in the House while HB 1614 moves on to the Senate where its companion was passed unanimously.

Recent Posts:

2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (March 7-13)

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

Utah in June?

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

2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (March 7-13)

We've gone from a busy week to a relatively slow week on the presidential primary movement front.

• Pass it on: The Oklahoma Senate passed a second bill last week to move the Sooner state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. There are now four bills (two passed by the Senate and two that originated in the House) now being considered in the state House.

• Do Pass: In Georgia, the bill to have the state legislature cede its power to set the date on which the presidential primary is held to the secretary of state passed and received a favorable recommendation from the committee to which it had been referred in the state House.

Two state House bills in Missouri got the same. HB 503 got favorable nods from both the Elections Committee and the House Rules Committee. The substitute to HB 121 also moved out of the Elections Committee with positive marks. Both bills would shift the Show-Me state's primary to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

• Shut it down: Utah's legislature adjourned this past week and did not shift the date on which the Beehive state's presidential primary is scheduled, nor did it appropriate any funds for the primary. The latter fact is something some in Utah were more than willing to point out. [I'm just disappointed they didn't use the "walking it back" terminology to describe my follow up post.]

• Killer crossover: Crossover day -- the day on which bills must be passed in one house and sent to the other -- came and went in Washington state on March 10 and took with it both the House and Senate bills to directly cancel the Evergreen state's 2012 presidential primary. All that is left is HB 1860 which would make the primary dependent upon the two parties using it.

• Can you hear me now?: Several of the bills being considered in subcommittee this week. Either a Senate or House version of each of the three pairs of bills receive some scrutiny this week. In Washington, the aforementioned HB 1860 will have a public hearing on Thursday in the Senate. The public hearing in Connecticut also didn't seem to garner much attention.

• Introducing: Though it wasn't formally introduced this week, Oregon HB 2429 came on FHQ's radar, and speaking of public hearings, had one itself last week.

• 2012 resolutions: Though the state legislature is not in session yet, the Louisiana Republican State Central Committee met over the weekend and passed a resolution calling on the legislature to shift the state's primary back to the first Saturday after the first Tuesday in March. An April primary was also presumably considered.

• As has been mentioned in this space several times, there are currently 18 states with presidential primaries scheduled for February 2012. That would put those 18 states in violation of both parties' delegate selection rules for 2012.

• Of those 18 primary states, 17 of them (Alabama, California, Connecticut, Missouri, New York, Arizona, Georgia, Delaware, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Utah, Oklahoma, Florida and Virginia) have convened or completed their 2011 state legislative sessions.

• Of those 17 states, 11 (Alabama, California, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, Connecticut, Georgia, Florida and Virginia) have bills that have been introduced and are active within the state legislature to move their contests' dates back. California, Missouri and New Jersey have bills that would eliminate an early and separate presidential primaries and position those events with the other primaries for state and local offices. That would mean June presidential primaries for both states if those bills pass and are signed into law. In the remaining states, the efforts are to simply shift the states' presidential primaries from dates in violation of the two major parties' rules to the earliest allowed date (the first Tuesday in March). There is also an active bill in Washington, DC to move the district's primary back to June.

• The only state currently in violation of the national party rules that has yet to convene its legislative session is Louisiana, and that won't occur until next month. During this next week and into April, then, the total number of non-compliant states currently in legislative session 15 -- now that both Virginia and Utah have adjourned. Those 15 early states in conflict with the national parties' rules will be the ones to watch. But we are to a point in the cycle where there are still state legislatures yet to convene but also states that are wrapping up business and are thus unable to make changes to election laws past that point. To some extent the focus should shift to when those states adjourn and how quickly they have to act to make changes.

• How would all of this look if all these bills happened to be passed and signed into law? States with active bills to move their primaries are listed twice, once where law has them currently and once in bold and italicized for where active legislation could move them.

NOTE: THIS IS NOT THE CURRENT CALENDAR, ONLY WHAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE IF CURRENT LEGISLATION IS ENACTED.

Tuesday, January 31: Florida

Tuesday, February 7 (Super Tuesday): Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Minnesota caucuses, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas

Saturday, February 11: Louisiana

Tuesday, February 14: Washington (DC), Maryland, Virginia

Saturday, February 18: Nevada Republican caucuses, Nevada Democratic caucuses

Tuesday, February 21: Hawaii Republican caucuses, Wisconsin

Tuesday, February 28: Arizona, Michigan

Tuesday, March 6: Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Ohio,Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia

Tuesday, March 13: Mississippi

Tuesday, March 20: Colorado caucuses, Illinois

Tuesday, April 3: Kansas, Maryland

Tuesday, April 24: Pennsylvania

Tuesday, May 1: Tennessee

Tuesday, May 8: Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia

Tuesday, May 15: Idaho, Nebraska, Oregon

Tuesday, May 22: Arkansas, Kentucky and Washington

Tuesday, June 5: Alabama, California, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota

Tuesday, June 12: Missouri, Washington (DC)

Tuesday, August 7: Kentucky

Recent Posts:

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

Utah in June?

Louisiana Republican State Central Committee Passes Resolution on March Presidential Primary

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

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.