Bill to Move All Alabama Primaries to March in Presidential Election Years Introduced

Last week Rep. Steve Clouse (R-93rd, Dale & Houston) introduced HB 425; the representative's second proposed bill to amend the current election law regarding the state's presidential primaries. Whereas his earlier bill, HB 32, sought to shift the February presidential primary back to June to coincide with the primaries for state and local offices, though, the new legislation seeks to move the presidential primary back to the first second Tuesday in March -- to comply with national party rules -- and to move the June primaries for state and local offices up. The move for state and local primaries from June to March would only be in presidential election years and would keep Alabama early enough in the presidential primary process to ensure Alabama voters the opportunity to participate meaningfully in presidential nomination selection.

But the bill, if enacted, would also accomplish the task of saving the state some money by combining the presidential primary with the primaries for state and local offices. The savings were not enough in the initial bill to offset pushing the state's presidential primary out of the window of decisiveness over the nomination races. The new bill addresses that main concern in the original legislation.

Recent Posts:

Will Texas Move Its Presidential Primary Back?

Chairman Bitner’s Statement on Florida’s Republican Primary

Conflicting Signals in Missouri

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

Will Texas Move Its Presidential Primary Back?

That is the question before the Texas state legislature at the moment (via the Fort Worth Star Telegram); not because of budgets or strategy, but because of the federal mandate handed down from the MOVE act. Now, the MOVE act has wreaked havoc with some state's carefully balanced late summer/early fall primaries for state and local offices and the resulting temptation that has given some states to combine their presidential primaries with those state and local primaries. That would help not only with compliance with the MOVE act but also with state legislatures looking to trim budgets (see DC, Massachusetts and Missouri).

That isn't the case in Texas. State law requires that primaries for federal and state offices are held on the same date. Since 1988 that has meant a March primary in the Lone Star state (the second Tuesday in March from 1988-2004 and the first Tuesday in March in 2008). The budget, then, is not the concern. The 45 day window that the MOVE act requires for military service personnel abroad to have in order to fill out ballots is the complicating factor. Why? Well, the filing deadline to get on the primary ballot is set for January 2, and while that leaves over two months between that point and the March 6 primary in 2012, it won't give all local elections officials enough time to get their ballots printed up and sent out.

The filing deadline could always be changed, but that is not the quick fix in Texas that it is or has been in other states facing similar issues. The Texas filing deadline is set when it is because of the "resign to run" requirement in the state's constitution. Candidates have to resign one office in order to run for another, presumably higher, office. The deadline is set so that officeholders can do as much in the capacity to which they were elected prior to resigning that office to run for another. The functional dynamic of importance here is that changing that deadline would require a constitutional amendment. That's unlikely to be the course of action taken.

Instead, state legislators are looking at shifting the March primary back a few weeks to late March or early April. There are three bills before the state legislature currently dealing with the MOVE act, but none of them contain any provisions to move the date on which the Lone Star state's primary is held.

...yet. To keep track of this, keep an eye on HB 111, HB 3585 and SB 100. The two House bills are sponsored by Rep. Van Taylor (R-66th, Plano) and the Senate bill was brought forth by Sen. Leticia Van de Puette (D-26th, San Antonio). That the bills are sponsored in both chambers by one member from each of the two major parties points to at least some modicum of bipartisanship behind the idea. That said, FHQ should probably be careful not to overstate that in this instance. HB 111 is due for a public hearing later this week and that will be the first indication of what kind of consensus exists behind the primary date change or if it will be added to any of these bills in the form of an amendment in the future.

This move -- to later in March or in April -- would move Texas off the spot on the calendar the two national parties have reserved as the earliest point on which states can hold delegate selection events. If Texas were to move back and California to June, it would fundamentally reshape the delegate calculus in the Republican nomination race. The point at which one candidate could surpass the 50% plus one delegate level would shift back significantly as a result and potentially shift back the point at which the nomination is settled in the process. It would also make Florida a much more attractive early calendar prize. As an aside, if the Texas primary is moved back to April the Republican Party in the state to keep the winner-take-all elements they have maintained in terms of delegate allocation in the post-reform era.

--

Needless to say, this jeopardizes Rep. Alonzo's bill (HB 318) to move the Texas primary up to the first Tuesday in February. There had not been any serious movement on that bill any way, but now there is some reason as to why.

Recent Posts:

Chairman Bitner’s Statement on Florida’s Republican Primary

Conflicting Signals in Missouri

Same Thing, Different Month, Louder Trumpet: SC, FL & the 2012 Calendar

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

Chairman Bitner’s Statement on Florida’s Republican Primary

Tallahassee, FL: Republican Party of Florida Chairman Dave Bitner released the following statement on Florida’s Republican primary.

“As chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, my primary concern is what is in the best interest of Florida and Florida Republicans. I commend our Legislature for standing up for Florida voters, by ensuring we have an early voice in the presidential primary process. Florida is one of the most economically and financially diverse states in the nation and provides the perfect litmus test for selecting the most viable Republican presidential nominee. As the largest swing state with 29 electoral votes, Florida is critically important to the 2012 presidential election.

There are many reasons why Florida should have an early and significant role in selecting the Republican presidential nominee, yet I understand the Republican National Committee is looking to maintain an orderly primary calendar. Governor Scott, President Haridopolos, Speaker Cannon and I have expressed a willingness to work with the RNC to find a primary date that both respects the calendar while preserving Florida’s role in the process. We all agree that moving the primary into late February, making Florida fifth on the calendar, would sufficiently meet both criteria. I remain optimistic and committed to continuing to work with the Legislature and the RNC to resolve this issue.”

--

We have had a slow move toward the possibility of scheduling a late February presidential primary for a little over a month now, yet it was still unresolved enough to elicit a rather strong response from the chairpersons of both the South Carolina and Iowa Republican Parties. I'm not sure that the above statement really puts that fire out.

First of all, the Florida legislature is working under something of a time crunch. They are set to wrap up business for 2011 in early May. In other words, the Republican Party of Florida, the legislature there and the RNC have about a month to cut a deal of some sort. Florida legislators and other Republicans in the state want the Sunshine state primary to be positioned so that the party and its voters have maximum say over the Republican presidential nomination race. But for Florida to insert itself into a late February primary position without losing delegates would mean that the RNC would have to bend its rules for Florida. If the rules can be bent for Florida, why not in New York or Michigan or Wisconsin -- states whose legislatures have year-round legislative sessions and who have to alter their primary dates to comply with national party rules. And what about Missouri, where a plan to move to a week after New Hampshire is still on the table? A veto of that bill, should it also pass the Missouri House, would keep the Missouri primary on February 7, a day after Iowa's proposed date.

There won't be a full scale rush to the front in response to Florida in late February -- most state legislatures are confined at that this point in the legislative season -- but there are still some cracks to fill in in a little more than a month to ensure that Florida will not only come to the table on this issue, but get a move pushed through quickly. That would require some assurance from the RNC that the aforementioned February states will move sometime during 2011. Can the RNC guarantee the Florida GOP that those other states will move also? Maybe, but maybe not in a month.

This statement doesn't end this saga; it only keeps it going. It all begins with Florida, but it goes elsewhere across the country first before hopefully, from the RNC's perspective, ending with Florida. We shall see.

Recent Posts:

Conflicting Signals in Missouri

Same Thing, Different Month, Louder Trumpet: SC, FL & the 2012 Calendar

Primary Bill Passes Unanimously in Maryland Senate

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

Conflicting Signals in Missouri

Primary bills in both the Missouri House and Senate had been ready for a floor vote for a few days (The first time SB 282 appeared on the formal calendar for a vote was last Friday.), but both came up for a vote today. Originally, SB 282 and HB 503 called for moving the Missouri presidential primary from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. The House version of the bill retained that move, but the Senate version was amended to strike the March date which was replaced with language that scheduled the date of the Show Me state presidential primary for one week after the New Hampshire primary -- regardless of where New Hampshire is positioned.

Obviously, the House version would bring Missouri back into compliance with the national parties' rules for the timing of delegate selection events. The Senate bill, on the other hand, would continue to flout those rules -- taking an already out of compliance primary and shifting it anchored to New Hampshire. What's striking is that after a nearly even split in the vote on the amendment to change the target date (16-14), the vote for the full bill today got nearly unanimous support (29-3). That means a great many Democratic legislators voted for the plan. This happened in Florida in 2007, too. Democrats supported the bill before they were against it. Florida Democrats voted for the measure to move the Sunshine state's primary to the last Tuesday in January but cried foul when the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee stripped the state of all of its delegates in reaction. But Missouri Democrats have something in 2011 that Florida Democrats -- also in the minority -- didn't: a Democratic governor. Even if this plan makes it through the House, then, Governor Jay Nixon's veto can save them.

...to some extent. If the one week after New Hampshire version passes the House, goes to Nixon and is vetoed, the Missouri primary is still scheduled for February 7, in violation of national party rules. Speculating that the bill will get to that point is one thing. It actually happening is another. There is no indication at this point that the House, which passed a move to March plan, will go along with the Senate's changes.

But needless to say, on a day where the Florida primary was back in the news, Missouri adds a new wrinkle to the 2012 presidential primary calendar evolution.

Recent Posts:

Same Thing, Different Month, Louder Trumpet: SC, FL & the 2012 Calendar

Primary Bill Passes Unanimously in Maryland Senate

California GOP, Budget and the 2012 Presidential Primary

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

Same Thing, Different Month, Louder Trumpet: SC, FL & the 2012 Calendar

Well, it must be the end of the month because South Carolina Republican Party Chair Karen Floyd is back in the news calling on the RNC to strip the state of Florida and the city of Tampa of the 2012 Republican National Convention if the state legislature in the Sunshine state doesn't reschedule the state's presidential primary to a date that is in accordance with national party rules. And now she has Iowa Republican Party Chair Matt Strawn condemning the inaction in Florida as well.

This differs very little from what Floyd said at the end of February. It's just more formal now -- a letter to the RNC -- and has the added element of exempt state unity -- sans New Hampshire and Nevada.¹ First of all, I would be surprised -- bordering on shocked -- if the RNC pulled up its roots in Tampa and took the convention somewhere else. Not only would that draw additional resources in the form of start-up costs somewhere else away from the national party -- resources it will desperately need in an election against the president -- but the snub would in no way help with organizational efforts in a state that is more than likely going to be huge competitive and possibly decisive on the presidential election outcome. By the way, Florida knows this and that's why they are calling Floyd's bluff.

So is this a big deal? No, not really. Republican Party members in South Carolina, Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada will only go along with the national parties' rules as long as there are no other states threatening their status. Florida, and others just a week later, are filling that threat role quite well. The underlying issue is penalties. If Florida holds its current position, that causes the exempt states to move to earlier dates. But the move by the exempt states would put them in violation of the national party rules and, as in 2008, would open them up to the same penalties that face Florida (losing half the delegation). That's what this is about. South Carolina wants to prod Florida into action to avoid penalties that would arise through no fault of their own.

The unfortunate thing for South Carolina's Republican Party is that Florida has proven that it is more than willing to play brinksmanship with the national party and any other states in their way. The feeling that is seemingly emerging from Florida is that legislative leaders there are daring the national party to penalize the state. But that dare is affecting other states, too. That's the issue. If Florida stands pat, the four exempt states leapfrog them and the RNC doesn't penalize Florida, well, they cannot justifiably penalize South Carolina or New Hampshire either.

Florida holds the trump card.² It isn't fair, but state-level actors in the Sunshine state know how important the state is to the GOP's chances of taking back the White House in 2012. Florida will use that to their advantage, and at the end of the day, the RNC is very likely to go along with it because of the general election implications. All Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina can do is can move up. Fairness will take a back seat when the potential for winning is threatened. That threat is bigger to the RNC than the threat to the four exempt states.

Sit back and enjoy the ride South Carolina; Florida's legislature adjourns in May.

--

¹ Well, New Hampshire GOP chair Jack Kimball did make a statement, but he has nothing to do with the timing of the primary in the Granite state; not in the same way that Floyd and Strawn have in the selection of a primary or caucus date in their respective states.

² Florida isn't really to blame here. As I pointed out earlier, there are other states that have done nothing to change the dates of their delegate selection events. The bottom line is that the RNC knew or should have known where Florida was positioned and adjusted their rules and/or calendar accordingly.

Recent Posts:

Primary Bill Passes Unanimously in Maryland Senate

California GOP, Budget and the 2012 Presidential Primary

North Carolina Senate Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary to March

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

Primary Bill Passes Unanimously in Maryland Senate

On Tuesday, the Maryland Senate unanimously passed (46-0) SB 501, the amended version of which shifts the Old Line state's presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in April. The legislation would also move the primaries for state and local offices from September to the last Tuesday in June in order to keep the state in compliance with the federal MOVE act. Originally, the bill called for a first Tuesday in March presidential primary and a second Tuesday in July primary for state and local offices, but SB 501 was amended to resemble the competing Senate bill, SB 820, a bill that mirrored the House version (HB 671) passed last week. The two measures -- House and Senate -- have the bipartisan sponsorship of the leadership and have both subsequently passed unanimously. In other words, it is only a matter of time before these bills find their way to Governor O'Malley's desk for approval. And since the bills were introduced at the governor's request, his signature should be considered something of a foregone conclusion.

Recent Posts:

California GOP, Budget and the 2012 Presidential Primary

North Carolina Senate Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary to March

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/28/11)

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

California GOP, Budget and the 2012 Presidential Primary

Much is being made of the apparent discontent within the California Republican Party over proposed and Democratic-backed legislation to move the Golden state's presidential primary back to June. It started with talk coming out of the Republican convention in the state the weekend before last and has continued in the time since. For the record FHQ is not particularly swayed by either side of the argument over the timing of the presidential primary -- either political or budgetary -- in California next year.

Democrats have the luxury of not only having unified control over the state government, but because of that can also afford to save money combining the presidential primary with the primaries for state and local offices already scheduled for the first Tuesday in June. Republicans in the state are just out of luck. It doesn't seem entirely political, but the move to coordinate the two sets of primaries and save money in the process seems more like a means to an end. Yet, former California GOP chairman, Rob Nehring, is absolutely right that if the national Democrats had a contested nomination race in 2012, California Democrats would not be making this move to June. Instead, they would presumably be doing what California Republicans and the national parties want them to do: moving the primary back into compliance with a first Tuesday in March separate presidential primary. And would assuming Democratic control of the state and a competitive nomination race in 2016 make some effort to put California's primary back into the window of decisiveness.

What I think is being lost in all of this discussion is that we do and don't have an official Republican response to the Assembly bill (AB 80) that proposes the change to the presidential primary date. Sure, state Republicans have made their demands -- among them a March presidential primary -- but we have yet to see that plan manifest itself in the form of legislation. Well, we have, but most just don't know it yet. Senate Minority Leader Robert Dutton (R-31st, Rancho Cucamonga) just beat the deadline to introduce legislation last month when he introduced SB 782 which makes a non-substantial change to the portion of the California statutes dealing with the timing of the presidential primary. The removal of the comma will eventually be augmented by a change in committee; likely a rescheduling of the presidential primary from February to March.

Of course, it may seem more pragmatic to suggest that that new version would call for not only a March presidential primary, but concurrent primaries for state and local offices then as well. Now, it should be noted that California moved back before it moved forward in 2008. The assembly moved the primaries -- all of them -- from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in June for 2008 back in 2004 and then created the separate, February presidential primary in 2007 when a host of other states were shifting up to February primary dates. Part of the initial move back to June was triggered by what was deemed the "utter failure" of the March primary. Low turnout in the midterm election years and an overly long general election campaign were cited as problematic. With those issues out in the open, though, concurrent primaries in March seems like the compromise position on all of this. Democrats get the budgetary savings they want and Republicans get the date they want for the presidential primary and remove the necessity of inevitably moving the date again in 2016. But what about the turnout problem and lengthy and costly general election campaigns in midterm years? Why not keep the midterm primaries in June in midterm election years and the March primary in presidential election years? Other states do this. Pennsylvania, for example, hold concurrent primaries in presidential election years in April, but has May primaries in midterm years.

That would be the pragmatic, compromise approach in California, but we'll have to see what Republicans do with SB 782 first. If Republicans push this plan and Democrats quash it, then Nehring would have a point about the move to June being political.

Recent Posts:

North Carolina Senate Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary to March

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/28/11)

Gov. McDonnell Makes It Official: Virginia Primary to March

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

North Carolina Senate Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary to March

Back in January when the North Carolina General Assembly reconvened under Republican control for the first time since Reconstruction, FHQ wondered aloud if Republican Senator Andrew Brock (R-34th, Davie, Rowan) would introduce for the fourth consecutive legislative cycle a bill to create a separate presidential primary election; a primary that could then be shifted up to an earlier date on the presidential primary calendar. On Monday that wait ended. Brock and Senator Brent Jackson (R-10th, Autryville) introduced S440 which would establish a separate presidential primary and schedule it on the first Tuesday in March.

North Carolina has typically held its presidential primary concurrently with its primaries for state and local offices in early May in the post-reform era. The Tar Heel state has, however, held early (March) primaries before. Before both 1976 and 1988 the legislature moved the presidential primary into March. It proved consequential on the Republican side in the former (propping up Ronald Reagan's at-that-point flagging campaign) but was lost in the shuffle of the host of other southern states holding simultaneous contests in the latter. It is unclear what effect this proposed move would have should it be passed and signed into law. It is a fairly safe bet that the Old North state voters would more than likely have a say in determining the Republican nominee in March next year -- that the nomination will have yet to have been determined by that point. Yet, if the nomination remains unclear deep into the calendar, North Carolina could once again, like 2008, be well-positioned to influence a nomination race at a juncture in the calendar with a relative lack of contests.

Now, that said, there are a few other notes to make about this situation. S440 is just the fourth bill to be introduced nationwide to propose moving a delegate selection event forward in 2012 (see Colorado, New Mexico and Texas). North Carolina, though, is the only state thus far to propose creating an all new presidential primary election. Colorado previously had the separate caucuses and both New Mexico and Texas would (or would have) moved not only the presidential primary, but the primaries for state and local offices to earlier dates as well. The bill Sen. Brock has introduced, then, flies in the face of much of the primary movement legislation during the 2011 state legislative sessions. Not only does it propose moving forward, but it also would require the added expenditure of taxpayer money to fund the new, separate presidential primary. Sadly, there is no fiscal note included with the other information on S440; nor is there a price tag on the past versions of this series of bills Brock has brought forward. And if that expenditure doesn't face obstacles among Democrats and Republicans alike in both houses of the General Assembly, it very well could face a veto from Governor Beverly Perdue. North Carolina, like most states, is facing a budget shortfall that may not allow for an additional line of appropriations for fiscal 2012 for a new election.

Shunting the financial aspect of this to the side for a moment, there are also political implications for this as well. Sure, there's the fact that a Republican-controlled legislature would want its voters to have a say in a contested nomination race, but outside of that, this move, if the bill is enacted, could affect the reelection chances of members of the General Assembly and the governor. The governor isn't likely to see a primary challenge, but for members of the legislature, that may not be the case. They may face challenges and may do so in a much lower turnout environment. Voters being asked to come back to the polls two months after having cast a ballot for presidential preference are much less likely to turnout to vote. Atkeson and Maestas (2008) have shown a significant drop off in the number of voters from an earlier presidential primary to a later primary for state and local offices. And that does have implications for those running for state legislative nominations.

All of this will be on the table as the state Senate considers this legislation.

Thanks to reader Thunder Pig for passing this news along.

Recent Posts:

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/28/11)

Gov. McDonnell Makes It Official: Virginia Primary to March

Utah Democrats Settle on March Caucuses for 2012

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

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/28/11)

With plans finalized for the scheduling of the presidential primary in Virginia and caucuses for Utah Democrats an edit of the 2012 presidential primary calendar is in order.

[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. 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.
4. 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.
5. States that are bisected vertically are states where the state parties have different dates for their caucuses and/or primaries. The left hand section is shaded to reflect the state Democratic Party's scheduling while the right is for the state Republican Party's decision on the timing of its delegate selection event.

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 (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 (+28) (moved: 3/1/11)

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

Washington, DC (bills: Council)

Saturday, February 18:

Nevada Republican caucuses (-28) (moved: 12/16/10) (based on national party rules)

Nevada Democratic caucuses² (-28) (moved: 2/24/11) (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

Virginia (-21) (bills: House 1, 2/Senate) (moved: 3/25/11)

Tuesday, March 13:

Mississippi

Utah Democratic caucuses (-35) (moved: 3/25/11)

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)

Saturday, April 7:

Hawaii Democratic caucuses (-46) (moved: 3/18/11)

Wyoming Democratic caucuses (-28) (moved: 3/16/11)

Saturday, April 14:

Nebraska Democratic caucuses (-60) (moved: 3/5/11)

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) (died: legislature adjourned)

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

June 2012

Tuesday, June 5:

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

New Mexico⁶ (bills: Senate) (died: legislature adjourned)

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 24, 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.

Keep up with the development of the calendar at its permanent home.

Recent Posts:

Gov. McDonnell Makes It Official: Virginia Primary to March

Utah Democrats Settle on March Caucuses for 2012

Maryland House Unanimously Passes Primary Bill, But Senate Version May Now Be at Odds

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

Gov. McDonnell Makes It Official: Virginia Primary to March

On Friday, March 25, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell signed both HB 1843 and SB 1246 into law, officially moving the Virginia presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. Virginia now joins Massachusetts, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont on March 6, the first date on which the national parties are allowing non-exempt states to hold their delegate selection events. The Old Dominion becomes the first state to move its primary back during the 2011 state legislative session. Arkansas and Illinois had moved back previously, but both had done so before the DNC and RNC had settled in on their respective delegate selection rules; requiring all states with primaries scheduled prior to the first Tuesday in March to alter the dates on which their primaries or caucuses are to be held.

A number of bills in other states seek to move primaries back to that point or later on the calendar, but Virginia because of its short legislative session -- one that expired at the end of February -- was forced to move (if it was going to) ahead of most other states.

The updated 2012 presidential primary calendar can be found here.

Recent Posts:

Utah Democrats Settle on March Caucuses for 2012

Maryland House Unanimously Passes Primary Bill, But Senate Version May Now Be at Odds

Much Ado About Nothing in New Mexico

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