Thursday, May 5, 2011

Florida Senate Passes House Primary Bill

After a spirited debate, the Florida Senate passed the controversial elections bill (HB 1355) that includes a provision to create a bipartisan committee to select a date for the Sunshine state's presidential primary. On a nearly party line vote, the bill passed 25-13 with the 12 person Democratic caucus being joined by one Republican in opposition to the bill. Democrats in the chamber argued against the bill because of its new constraints on the timing of early voting (Republicans argued that it was only superfluous, sparse voting days that were being trimmed.), the stringent new requirements for third party petitioners (Republicans cited the potential for partisan mischief and raised the specter of ACORN in the process.), and one Democrat even attacked the proposed Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee as unnecessary.

Regardless of the arguments, the bill passed and now heads to Governor Rick Scott's desk. Assuming his signature, Florida will now have the flexibility through the new committee to wait out most states and select a primary date that is advantageous to it while also not infringing on the early states' territory.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 3:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

New Jersey Assembly State Government Committee Unanimously Passes Bill to Move Primary Back to June

FHQ just got finished listening in on the New Jersey Assembly State Government Committee's very quick consideration of A 3777. The bill that would shift the Garden state's presidential primary back to June was first introduced by its sponsor, Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D-19th, Sayreville). He prefaced his comments by saying that New Jersey had moved its primary in (2005 and) 2007 as a means of creating a "unique" opportunity for the state's contest, but it was less unique when other states had the same idea. That said, Wisniewski stressed the need to change the date based on the rules changes both the RNC and DNC instituted a year ago and then made the case for June based on the cost savings alone.

No one followed the assemblyman's comments with any testimony and the members of the committee praised the legislation's cost savings before voting unanimously (5-0) to recommend the bill for passage by the full assembly.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 2:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

Bill to Cancel Kansas Primary is Off to Conference Committee

Earlier this week, the Kansas House failed to concur with the Senate-amended version of HB 2080 and has subsequently called for a conference committee to which the Senate has agreed. The bill in question is an omnibus elections bill that originally did not include a section canceling the Sunflower state's 2012 presidential primary, but had it added in the Senate. It is doubtful that the primary provision is what is holding the process up, but the House now has before it three bills -- one that originated in the House and two others passed by the Senate -- upon which it has not acted.

As has been stated here previously, Kansas has not held a presidential primary since 1992, and as such the likelihood of the state-funded contest surviving for 2012 is quite low. The state would stand to save upwards of $2 million by cutting the primary for 2012 and forcing the state parties to pay for caucuses instead.

The Washington state legislature has already passed a bill to cancel the Evergreen state's presidential primary. Kansas would join that group should this legislation's sticking points be ironed out prior to the legislature adjourning later this month.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 1:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , ,
Share |

Florida Senate Poised to Create Presidential Preference Primary Date Setting Committee

With time running out on the legislative session (Friday, May 6 is the final day.), the Florida Senate moved Thursday on the House omnibus elections bill that would, among other things, create a committee to select a date for the Sunshine state's presidential primary. HB 1355 was first substituted for the Senate version of the bill (SB 2086) and then weathered a slew of Democratic amendments that sought to remove requirements in the bill it viewed as injurious to voters. To Democratic lawmakers the new law would disproportionately affect minority and college aged voters -- primary portions of the Democratic electorate. For FHQ's purposes, however, the main target of interest in this bill is the new committee which will have until October 1 to schedule a date for the presidential primary.

HB 1355 is on the May 5 calendar in the Senate and should see a vote today.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 12:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

New Jersey Assembly Committee Set to Examine Moving Presidential Primary Today

The Assembly State Government Committee will meet at 2 p.m. to consider legislation (A-3777) sponsored by Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D-Middlesex) to move New Jersey’s presidential primary election back to June.
This is one of three bills (two in the Assembly and one in the Senate) that would eliminate the separate presidential primary, placing it back in June with the primaries for state and local offices. That had been the traditional date for the presidential primary throughout the post-reform era (1972-present) until the 2008 cycle. It has been estimated that consolidating the two sets of contests would save the Garden state approximately $12 million.

Governor Chris Christie (R) has signalled that he is in favor of the cost-savings. If the bill passes the Democratic-controlled legislature, then, it will likely be signed into law.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

A Typo That Really Needs to Be Fixed

The AP is reporting that the House Committee Substitute to Missouri's SB 282 will move the Show Me state's presidential primary to March. That obviously doesn't jibe with what FHQ has been discussing.

From the Missouri Senate's page for SB 282:
The date of the presidential primary is moved from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

But here's the relevant section from the bill (as has just been passed by the House):

Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 1 of this section, an election for a presidential primary held pursuant to sections [115.755] 115.758 to 115.785 shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of each presidential election year.


For the record, whoever summarized the bill for the main bill page didn't do the best job. There seems to have been some confusion over the date of the presidential primary (mentions of March are completely excluded) and the primaries for municipal offices (to be held in November). And further for the record, FHQ is also at fault for having missed this discrepancy simply because the HCS version had not been posted when we first reported the November news back in mid-April. No, that's probably not an adequate defense.

In any event, the bill now heads back to the Senate, where it and the House version of the bill (HB 503) both seek to move the primary back to March. So, crisis averted.

...unless the Senate balks at that proposed change and maintains the non-compliant status quo -- a first Tuesday after the first Monday in February date.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:45 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Missouri Senate Presidential Primary Bill Now Heads Back to the Senate After House Passed with Amendments


The Missouri House today passed the House Committee Substitute to SB 282, the Senate bill initially drafted to shift the Show Me state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. That bill got out of committee in that form but has been on a rollercoaster ride ever since. Let's take a look back:
To say the process in Missouri has been a rollercoaster ride, then, may be an understatement. And that November provision was retained in the final and floor-amended version that passed the House today. Of the five amendments added, none of them pertained to the presidential primary provision in the committee substitute. However, the final amendment does add the first Tuesday in February as an option for public elections -- something the House Committee Substitute removes.

Now the bill heads back to the Senate, where the House bill in its original form is due for floor consideration in the very near future. That bill, it seems, is the only hope of moving the Missouri primary to a compliant date. Governor Jay Nixon (D) would be likely to veto any bill that kept the state in violation of the national party delegate selection rules. Of course, the legislature could override that veto like it did the redistricting plan today, but it isn't clear that a similar winning coalition would be there for such a presidential primary plan.

...and so it continues. SB 282 now heads back to the Senate.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 8:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (5/3/11)

Washington, DC and Oklahoma are on the move as is the presidential primary calendar.

[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


Florida (bills: House 1, 2/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 1, 2)

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

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

Utah


Saturday, February 11:

Louisiana (bills: House)


Tuesday, February 14:

Maryland (bills: House/Senate 1, 2)

New Hampshire (based on national party rules)

Virginia

Washington, DC


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 (bills: House)

South Carolina (based on national party rules)


March 2012

Tuesday, March 6:

Massachusetts4 (bills: House)

Ohio

Oklahoma (-28) (bills: House 1, 2, 3/Senate 1, 2) (moved: 5/3/11)

Rhode Island

Texas (bills: House)

Vermont

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


Sunday, March 11:

Maine Democratic caucuses (-28) (moved: 3/27/11)


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)

Washington, DC (-49) (bills: Council) (moved: 4/27/11)


Saturday, April 7:

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

Washington Democratic caucuses (-56) (moved: 3/26/11)

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


Saturday, April 14:

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


Sunday, April 15:

Alaska Democratic caucuses (-70) (moved: 4/4/11)


Tuesday, April 24:

Pennsylvania


May 2012

Saturday, May 5:

Michigan Democratic caucuses (-111) (moved: 4/13/11)


Tuesday, May 8:

Indiana

North Carolina (bills: Senate)

West Virginia


Tuesday, May 15:

Idaho (+7) (bills: House) (signed: 2/23/11)

Nebraska

Oregon (bills: House)


Tuesday, May 22:

Arkansas (-107) (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 -121) (moved: 6/18/10)

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

North Dakota Democratic caucuses (-121) (moved: 4/21/11)

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.


--


Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 PM 2 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

The Links (5/3/11): Quick Presidential Primary Hits

From around the country, some presidential primary news:

The Alabama Senate Committee on the Constitution, Campaign Finance, Ethics and Elections unanimously passed HB 425 (5-0) today. The bill could see a vote before the full Senate as early as Thursday.

Washington state Democrats called an audible on the date of their presidential caucuses for next year. What was April 7 is now Sunday, April 15. The Rules and Affirmative Action Committees made the change at a party meeting over the weekend.

One of the New Jersey bills to eliminate the separate presidential primary and move it back to June may actually get a committee vote on Thursday. Of course, Sen. Richard Codey, who pushed the move to February four years ago, is against the move.

Superfluous though it may seem, the Oklahoma House passed the Senate-amended version of HB 1615 (73-15) today. Yes, it moves the presidential primary to March 6 -- something HB 1614 already accomplished -- but the bill also moves the primaries for state and local offices from the last Tuesday in July to the last Tuesday in June, among other things.


Recent Posts:




Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 9:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Has the Clock Struck in Arizona on the Timing of the Presidential Primary?

This is Part Four in a series of posts examining early and non-compliant 2012 primary states and why they have not acted to move their presidential primaries to be timed in accordance with national party rules on delegate selection. See Part One (Connecticut), Part Two (Delaware) and Part Three (Utah and Utah Revisited) as well.

Arizona
  • Current Primary Date: February 28, 2012
  • Legislature Convened: January 10, 2011
  • Legislature Adjourned: April 20, 2011
In keeping with the "clock is ticking" theme used in the cases of Connecticut and Delaware...

Now that the Arizona legislature has adjourned without taking action to move the date of the presidential primary, it is probably past time to ask whether the clock has struck midnight in the Grand Canyon state. More to the point, is Arizona's presidential preference election locked in on February 28, 2012? That question deserves a more nuanced answer as opposed to a yes or no (though it is a little bit of both). First of all, technically, no state is ever locked into a date mandated by state law because the state party always has the option of holding its own primary or caucus on a date of its choosing. That happens occasionally, but state parties more often than not opt for the convenience of the state-funded option. And when state parties don't is usually a function of the state-funded primary being too late (ie: Think Idaho Democrats or Montana/West Virginia Republicans in 2008.). In the case of Arizona, however, the mechanisms are in reverse. The state party would have to choose a later date than that provided for by the state in this instance.

That situation, we haven't witnessed. And neither party in Arizona seems prepared -- not at this point anyway -- to move away from the state-funded option and toward a later, party-funded contest. Arizona Democrats would have more motivation to do so because the national party is unlikely to have a contested nomination race and because the date of the primary as it currently stands is not compliant with the DNC's delegate selection rules. That said, the state party's draft delegate selection plan lists the date of the primary as February 28. Republicans, similarly, have not shown any desire through the legislative process -- a means the party controls -- to alter the date of the primary.

The party-funded caucus option, then, seems to be a nonstarter. Absent that and given the lack of legislative action by the Republican majority,1 there is only one other avenue by which the date of the primary can be changed and that is by gubernatorial proclamation. But there are limits to that proclamation power if it is even utilized. Here are the first two (and most relevant) subsections of the Arizona statute concerning the presidential preference election:

16-241. Presidential preference election; conduct of election

A. A presidential preference election shall be held on the fourth Tuesday in February of each year in which the president of the United States is elected to give qualified electors the opportunity to express their preference for the presidential candidate of the political party indicated as their preference by the record of their registration. No other election may appear on the same ballot as the presidential preference election.

B. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, the governor may issue a proclamation that the presidential preference election is to be held on a date earlier than the fourth Tuesday in February. The proclamation shall be issued no later than one hundred fifty days before the date of the election as set forth in the proclamation. The governor shall transmit a copy of the election proclamation to the clerk of the county boards of supervisors.


Is Arizona locked on February 28? No, but they are locked into a date on or before February 28. The governor has the power to move the primary up, (Remember, there was a resolution at the Arizona GOP's meeting earlier this year to urge Governor Brewer to move the primary up. It ultimately failed.) but not to move it back (see 16-241.B), and that will keep the Grand Canyon state out of compliance with both national parties' sets of delegate selection rules.

But is this really of much consequence? Well, yeah, it is. February 28 is one week before the first week that the parties are allowing all non-exempt states to hold primaries and caucuses (March 6) and is the date that the Democrats have reserved for the South Carolina primary.2 More importantly, February 28 is the date most often discussed as a landing point for the disputed Florida primary as well. Arizona may be able to hold a February 28 primary and not affect the timing of Republican contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. But if they take up the spot Florida Republicans -- in the legislature -- want all to themselves, it may push them to keep the Sunshine state's primary where it is on January 31. Once that domino falls, it bumps Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina into January as well.

As FHQ has argued throughout the year, it only takes one state to unravel the process, but that since Florida is the earliest non-compliant state, it has deflected attention away from other potentially-defiant states. Florida has gotten the bulk of the negative attention for attempting to defy the national parties' rules, but there are other states with primaries scheduled for dates that conflict with the calculus Florida is operating under. Arizona falls into that category.

And now that the state legislature has failed to act to move the date on which the presidential primary is held, Arizona is locked in to February 28 at the latest.

...unless of course the state parties fund later contests. Don't bet on that.

--
1 For the record, Arizona Democrats in the legislature did nothing -- proposing legislation or otherwise -- to change the date of the primary. As a result, the party will face an uphill battle in arguing for a waiver or for the DNC to spare them the 50% delegation reduction that comes with a violation of the timing rules (see 2012 Democratic Delegate Selection Rules, rule 20.C.7). Arguing that the Republicans held unified control of the state government is not a sufficient argument as Florida proved in 2008.

2 Republican delegate selection rules allow the non-exempt states to hold contests at any point throughout February. The states are not assigned an order or a specific date, though the assumption is that Iowa and New Hampshire would go first.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 5:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)