The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/17/11)

With the Utah legislature adjourning last week without either changing the date on which the Beehive state's presidential primary will be held or appropriating funds specifically for the contest, a change is in order with the 2012 presidential primary calendar. Utah has been shifted into the "No Date" category because while there was talk of Utah Republicans utilizing the late June primary for statewide offices as the means of allocating its delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, no official decision has been made.

A change was also made regarding Nevada's shading on the map. Though the two parties in the Silver state have opted to schedule their caucuses for the party-designated February 18 date, with Iowa Republicans now following suit in accepting the February 6 party-designated date there was a discrepancy between how each was being treated on the map. Again, it is FHQ's position that while Nevada or Iowa or even South Carolina or New Hampshire may select a date now, it is only a tentative date until the states currently scheduled throughout the end of January and February move to comply with national party rules. If that doesn't occur, the four exempt states will select dates ahead of the earliest non-exempt state (now Florida).

Links have also been added for new legislation in Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia and Oregon since the last update on March 1.

[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. Georgia, too, is unique. The state legislature is considering a bill to shift primary date-setting power from the legislature to the secretary of state. The effect is that the Peach state has a dark blue stripe for its current February primary date and a gray stripe to reflect the fact that a change from that based on the bill in question would put the future 2012 primary date in limbo until December 1 at the latest.
5. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina are shaded on the map according to the latest possible date these states would have if Florida opts not to move their primary into compliance with the national party rules. Iowa Republicans and Nevada Republicans and Democrats have decided to accept the party-designated dates, but FHQ operates under the assumption that both will move to a point ahead of the earliest exempt state should one or more move or maintain a February or earlier date.

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, Nevada 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 caucuses¹

South Carolina¹

A note on the placement of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

Tuesday, January 31:

Florida (bills: House/Senate)

February 2012

Monday, February 6:

Iowa caucuses (-34) (moved: 2/8/11) (based on national party rules)

Tuesday, February 7 (Super Tuesday):

Alabama (bills: House)

Arkansas

California (bills: Assembly)

Connecticut (bills: House)

Delaware

Georgia (bills: House)

Illinois

Minnesota caucuses

Missouri (bills: House 1, 2, 3/Senate)

Montana Republican caucuses

New Jersey (bills: Assembly 1, 2/Senate)

New York

Oklahoma (bills: House 1, 2, 3/Senate 1, 2)

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) (based on national party rules)

Nevada Democratic caucuses² (-28) (based on national party rules)

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 (bills: House)

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 (bills: House)

Tuesday, May 22:

Arkansas (-104) (bills: House) (signed: 2/4/09)

Idaho

Kentucky (bills: House)

Washington (bills: House 1, 2/Senate -- cancel primary)

June 2012

Tuesday, June 5:

Montana (GOP -119) (moved: 6/18/10)

New Mexico⁶

South Dakota

--

¹ New Hampshire law calls for the Granite state to hold a primary on the second Tuesday of March or seven days prior to any other similar election, whichever is earlier. Florida is first now, so New Hampshire would be a week earlier at the latest. Traditionally, Iowa has gone on the Monday a week prior to New Hampshire. For the time being we'll wedge South Carolina in on the Saturday between New Hampshire and Florida, but these are just guesses at the moment. Any rogue states could cause a shift.

² The Nevada Democratic caucuses date is based on both DNC rules and the state party's draft delegate selection plan as of February 25, 2011.

³ In Arizona the governor can use his or her proclamation powers to move the state's primary to a date on which the event would have an impact on the nomination. In 2004 and 2008 the primary was moved to the first Tuesday in February.
⁴ Massachusetts and Michigan are the only states that passed a frontloading bill prior to 2008 that was not permanent. The Bay state reverts to its first Tuesday in March date in 2012 while Michigan will fall back to the fourth Tuesday in February.
⁵ The Colorado Democratic and Republican parties have the option to move their caucuses from the third Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February.
⁶ The law in New Mexico allows the parties to decide when to hold their nominating contests. The Democrats have gone in early February in the last two cycles, but the GOP has held steady in June. They have the option of moving however.

Recent Posts:

Missouri to a Week After New Hampshire?

California Primary Bill Unanimously Passes Committee Hurdle in Assembly

Crossover Day Vote Sends Georgia Primary Bill to the State Senate

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

Missouri Primary to a Week After New Hampshire?

The AP and Missouri News Horizon blogger Tim Sampson are reporting that the Missouri Senate has passed an amendment to SB 282 that would place the Show-Me state's presidential primary one week after New Hampshire's primary.¹ The state Senate bill initially called for the presidential primary to be moved from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. But the original intent of the bill has been hijacked from the bill's sponsor and Financial and Government Operations and Elections Committee chairman, Senator Kevin Engler (R-3rd, Farmington), who shepherded the bill through his committee.

There are a few things to note about what is an otherwise very interesting move given the current situation with Florida trying to carve out the fifth position in the primary and caucuses queue. First of all, the vote that took place today was on an amendment offered by Senator Brad Lager (R-12th, Savannah). It was the second amendment on the bill that was offered and adopted by a 16-14 vote. That said, the final bill and all its amendments require a vote by the full state Senate. Second, this complicates what looked like a sure thing move to March in Missouri. Both the Senate and House bills were introduced by the chairs of the committees dealing with elections in both chambers and though both are Republicans in Republican-dominated houses of the legislature, the bills -- at least the one in the Senate -- did not have the full support of a united Republican majority.

If the amended bill with its new, one-week-after-New-Hampshire requirement passes the Senate it sets up a showdown scenario on several levels. Much of that depends on what happens in the House. Assuming the House passes an unamended version of one of the two bills moving the primary to March, then the House and Senate have to in some way reconcile those two once each crosses over to the opposite chamber. Of course, nothing would stop the House from also acting on the amended version of the Senate bill while the March House bill dies in the Senate. Needless to say the legislative process could fall apart at any point at which time the Missouri primary would remain on the first Tuesday in February -- in violation of the national parties rules.

Hovering over all of this is the fact that Missouri Governor Jay Nixon is a Democrat, and the Democratic Delegate Selection Rules for 2012 dictate that all Democratic state-level actors prevent a primary timing violation (Rule 20.C.7). In other words, the threat of a veto looms over this process if a bill comes before the governor that sets the Missouri primary a week behind New Hampshire. The quirk in all of this is that Nixon would have his hands tied either way. Signing the bill would put the primary in violation of the national party rules, but not signing keeps the primary in February and is still a violation of the same rules.

This is a conundrum that may, if legislators realize the road they are going down, may give rise to some momentum behind the bill that seeks to combine the Show-Me state's presidential primary with its state and local primaries in June, a bill that has seemingly stalled in committee since being introduced late last month. But there's a lot to play out in the legislature first before that may happen.

--

¹ Tethering a primary to the date of the New Hampshire primary is not new. Wyoming Republicans early in 2007 anchored their caucuses to New Hampshire's then late January date. New Hampshire was later forced to move and so too did Wyoming Republicans, only they moved three days ahead of New Hampshire. Delaware's state law prior to 2003 placed the First state a week after the New Hampshire primary like this Missouri amendment as well. That was altered in 2003 to comply with Democratic Party rules disallowing that because it would have meant a January primary for non-exempt states when February was as early as was allowed.

Recent Posts:

California Primary Bill Unanimously Passes Committee Hurdle in Assembly

Crossover Day Vote Sends Georgia Primary Bill to the State Senate

Colorado Bill to Shift Presidential Caucuses Up Two Weeks

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

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.