Friday, May 20, 2011

Time Running Out, House & Senate at Odds on Texas Primary Decision

May 30 is the final day of the 2011 Texas state legislative session, and while there are any number of important issues before legislators as the session draws to a close, FHQ is keeping close watch over SB 100. The bill seeks to bring the Texas elections schedule in line with the mandates put forth by the federal MOVE act. We have discussed the details elsewhere, so I'll spare you this time around. The crux of it is that there are now two options facing the full legislature.

The Senate passed a bill that keeps the presidential primary on the first Tuesday in March but shifts the filing deadline up a couple of weeks. The latter would require a constitutional amendment which is a different and more time-consuming option. The House is currently considering a version of the bill that would leave the filing deadline -- and constitutional amendment -- issue alone, focusing instead on moving the presidential and state/local primaries back from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in April. The House Defense and Veterans' Affairs Committee has voted in support of the April primary plan, and the bill is now at a stage where it should be placed on the calendar for consideration by the full House some time next week.

Should the full House sign off on the committee-endorsed plan, it would put the House and Senate at odds with each other and force a conference committee to hammer out these thorny issues. Both the House sponsor of the bill, Rep. Van Taylor (R), and the Senate sponsor, Sen. Leticia Van de Putte (D), are of the opinion that this riddle can be solved by the time the legislature adjourns the week after next. Yet, that doesn't mean it will be easy as FHQ surmises Ms. Van de Putte's comment on the April primary idea suggests:
State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, R-Plano, said both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate "are vehemently opposed to a primary in April." Among the concerns is that any runoffs would not receive much attention as they would be held in late June.
Bipartisan opposition to the House plan exists in the Senate, then. But they may be stuck. The constitutional amendment path is going to be difficult to complete in time and it isn't clear that is something that would pass the legislature either. What's odd is the partisan juxtaposition on this issue in Texas relative to what's happening with primary movement nationally. Democrats nationally, where they have been able, have moved back into April or later in an effort to maximize their delegation size for 2012. Republicans, by and large, have chosen to go as early as possible except in states where winner-take-all allocation rules are valued over early influence over the Republican nomination. Texas Democrats -- at least those in the legislature -- are not thus far in support of this move and Texas Republicans, wary of penalties from the national party, have come out in favor of an April primary. According to Sen. Van de Putte, though, that group of Republicans does not include state Senate Republicans.

There are no easy options in Texas on an issue that will have to be fixed to ward off penalties from both the RNC (delegate selection rule mandates) and the federal government (MOVE act mandates), and it remains to be seen whether all of this can be fixed before May 30. FHQ will be watching.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 9:30 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Share |

Thursday, May 19, 2011

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (5/19/11)

First of all, FHQ wants to be very careful with the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar from this point forward. This calendar and those in the future will likely not go over well in some quarters, so let me explain the rationale behind where Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina are placed on the calendar now that Florida is officially without a primary date. The newly-created Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee has until October 1 to choose a date for the presidential primary. That date will be between the first Tuesday in January and the first Tuesday in March. Now, if the committee selects March 6 -- the first Tuesday in March -- like many other states, the dates the parties have set aside for the exempted four early states will hold. Those dates on the calendar below are denoted by a "based on national party rules" tag.

But there is an opposite end of that spectrum, too. If the Florida committee selects January 3 -- the first Tuesday in January -- for the Sunshine state primary, that will obviously have a very significant consequence. It would likely force the first four primary/caucus states into 2011. And due to the holidays, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina will be pushed into the first half of December. Right now, the best guess is Iowa on December 5, New Hampshire on December 13, and Nevada and South Carolina on December 17. That assumes that Nevada and South Carolina stay true to the 2008 precedent where both states' Republican contests were held concurrently. But that is something that is certainly unclear. South Carolina would conceivably be able to shift to the following Tuesday, December 20, but that would be cutting very close to the holidays.

Again, these are not definitive dates. Rather, they are contingency dates if Florida's Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee moves the presidential primary in the Sunshine state up to the earliest date allowed by the newly-passed law. FHQ, however, cannot stress enough that this is a contingency. Those December dates are the likely earliest dates on which the earliest states will hold their contests, but please take note that we have added dates for the latest possible dates -- those designated by the national parties' rules -- should Florida cooperate with those rules and choose March 6. When Florida selects a date, the options for the earliest four states will become clearer. But that means a long wait until as late as October 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. 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


December 2011

Monday, December 5:

Iowa caucuses1


Tuesday, December 13:

New Hampshire1


Saturday, December 17:

Nevada caucuses1


January 2012

Tuesday, January 31:

Florida (bills: House 1, 2/Senate) (moved to no date: 5/19/11)


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) (moved to no date: 5/13/11)

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

Utah


Saturday, February 11:

Louisiana (bills: House)


Tuesday, February 14:

Maryland

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 (+88) (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 (bills: House)

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

Rhode Island

Tennessee (-28) (bills: House 1, 2, 3/Senate 1, 2, 3) (moved: 5/9/11)

Texas (bills: House/Senate)

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:

Hawaii Republican caucuses (+67 and -21) (moved: 5/14/11)

Mississippi

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


Tuesday, March 20:

Colorado caucuses5 (bills: House)

Illinois (-42) (bills: Senate) (moved: 3/17/10)


April 2012

Tuesday, April 3:

Kansas (bills: House/Senate -- cancel primary)

Maryland (-49) (bills: House/Senate 1, 2) (moved: 5/10/11)

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


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)


Sunday, April 15:

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

Washington Democratic caucuses (-64) (moved: 4/30/11)


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) (moved: 2/23/11)

Nebraska

Oregon (bills: House)


Tuesday, May 22:

Arkansas (-107) (bills: House) (moved: 2/4/09)

Idaho

Kentucky (bills: House) (died: legislature adjourned)

Washington (bills: House 1, 2/Senate -- cancel primary) (canceled: 5/12/11)


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 6:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

Governor Scott Signs Florida Elections Bill, Creates Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee

Thursday afternoon, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed HB 1355 ushering in some sweeping changes to the state's elections law, but also creating a Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee. The committee will take over the responsibility of setting the date of the presidential primary in the Sunshine state from the state legislature. This provides the state with more flexibility in setting the date outside of the restrictions of the short, early-year legislative session in Florida.

The committee will be comprised of nine members (three each chosen by the governor, Senate President Mike Haridopolos and House Speaker Dean Cannon -- all Republicans) and will have at least three Democratic members. The committee will have until October 1 to select a date (some date between the first Tuesday in January and the first Tuesday in March) for the primary.


[Click to Enlarge]

The move shifts Florida, like Georgia, into the "no date" category on FHQ's 2012 presidential primary calendar map and move Florida off the January 31 line on the calendar itself.

Look back on the progress of the bill and the other Florida primary details by clicking here.

Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for passing this news along.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 5:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Connecticut House Passes Amended Bill to Move Presidential Primary to April

On Wednesday, May 18, the Connecticut House unanimously (136-0) passed the amended version of HB 6532. The bill originally called for the Nutmeg state presidential primary to be moved from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. Last week, however, amendments were filed in the House to to shift the primary back even further on the 2012 presidential primary calendar, to the last Tuesday in April.

The bill now moves on to the Connecticut Senate and inches the state closer to a proposed regional primary.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 12:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

Hints of an April 24 Regional Primary from CT Secretary of State

Here's the press release from Connecticut Secretary of State, Denise Merrill:
Secretary Merrill: 2012 Presidential Primary Likely to Move to April 24th in House Vote

House Passage of HB 6532 Puts Connecticut on Path to Have Unified Presidential Primary with Pennsylvania, New York, Rhode Island

Hartford: Secretary of the State Denise Merrill today noted that unanimous House passage of House Bill No. 6532, “An Act Concerning the Presidential Preference Primary,” sets Connecticut on a path to move the date of the 2012 Presidential Primary to back to Tuesday April 24, 2012. Current state law pegs the Connecticut Presidential Preference Primary to the first Tuesday following the first Monday in February, and the last such primary took place on February 5, 2008. Since then, both the Democratic and Republican national committees have provided state parties with incentives to move their primaries to later dates to avoid the front-loading of the Presidential selection process. Both state Democratic and Republican party leadership have agreed on the date of April 24, 2012 as an acceptable date for Connecticut’s next Presidential Preference Primary, a date which may result in a regional primary with the neighboring states of Pennsylvania, New York, and Rhode Island.

“I am happy to see both parties have agreed on the April 24th date for our Presidential Preference Primary, and I call on the State Senate to approve this measure quickly so we can begin to plan for this important election,” said Secretary Merrill, Connecticut’s chief elections officer. “Pushing the primary date back a little will allow Connecticut to have more regional clout, especially if our neighboring states also move their primaries to that day. This helps both state parties and the voters, who are already paying close attention to the critical process of choosing our President.”

House Bill No. 6532 had originally named a date of March 6, 2012 to hold the next Presidential Primary in Connecticut, a date shared by the state of Massachusetts. The date was moved further back to April 24th due to further incentives from the national parties and in order to avoid coinciding with the Connecticut Mastery Tests taking place in schools, which could have created logistical problems as many polling places are public schools in Connecticut.

--
Hmmm.

This is an interesting follow up to FHQ's discussion of the amendments added to the Connecticut bill that would move the presidential primary to April 24. It is even more interesting in the face of the impending bill in Delaware (This would force the Delaware primary even further back into the shadows in the eyes of the presidential contenders.). Let's look at this regional conglomeration a little more closely. Pennsylvania will not have to do anything. The Keystone state is already scheduled for April 24. Connecticut and Delaware are both already eying that date in actual or future legislation.

But moves in New York and Rhode Island are news to FHQ. Given the fact that New York law schedules the Empire state's presidential primary for the first Tuesday in February, it is still among the states that, under national party rules, has to change the date of its contest in order to comply with those rules. In other words, New York is a state FHQ has been observing rather closely since the first of the year. No legislation has been proposed in either chamber in the New York legislature. And it should be noted that while Democrats control the governor's mansion and the state House, Republicans hold a narrow majority in the state Senate. On the surface, then, there would be a potential partisan roadblock to a move to April. That said, mention of that roadblock should be tempered by the fact that New York Republicans -- like their counterparts in Delaware, Georgia, Ohio and Texas and add Connecticut to that list -- have traditionally allocated delegates on a winner-take-all basis. If the Republican Party of New York desires the status quo on that front, members may be more amenable to a move to late April (a month in which New York scheduled its primary for all but one cycle between 1976 and 1992).

In Rhode Island, the story is slightly different. First of all, Democrats control both chambers of the Rhode Island legislature and Republican-turned-Independent Lincoln Chafee occupies the governor's mansion. The latter would not necessarily have a clear reason to sign or veto a bill to move the presidential primary in the Ocean state. Secondly, Rhode Island Republicans do not have the motivation that the above list of states does. The party has traditionally allocated national convention delegates proportionally. The states currently first Tuesday in March position is not a problem for the party then. The state already has proportional allocation and would not have to make a change to stay in compliance with RNC rules. Finally, Rhode Island, while not on FHQ's watch list, has not seen any legislation proposed to change the presidential primary date. There are two bills -- HB 5653 and SB 399 -- that "would make changes relating to the primaries for election of delegates to national conventions and for presidential preference". But neither bill addresses the Rhode Island statute (17-12.1-1) that sets the presidential primary date. Instead, both bills make minor changes to candidate filing deadlines and other smaller details. The original Senate version has already passed and moved to the House. Both bills, then, are in committee in virtually the same form in the House and neither includes any provision to move the presidential primary. Unlike New York and its year-round legislative session, the Rhode Island legislature adjourns late next month.

Obviously, this is something that bears attention over the next few weeks. This would be a fairly significant regional primary and the attendant delegate boost on the Democratic side due to "clustering" would be rather large for already delegate-rich states like Pennsylvania and New York. It would also have the effect on the Republican side -- where all the action is going to be anyway -- of stripping out from the beginning, February/March part of the calendar a grouping of comparatively more moderate states. But FHQ will save the discussion of that impact for another, future post. Stay tuned...


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

Legislation to Move Delaware Primary to April on the Horizon

Celia Cohen at Delaware Grapevine notes:
After talking it over, state party leaders for the Democrats and the Republicans mutually decided the voting should be moved to April 24.

Legislation officially shifting the primary from the first Tuesday in February to the last Tuesday in April is expected to be introduced after the General Assembly returns May 31 from a two-week recess, so it can be passed by the end of the session on June 30.

The new date would have Delaware voting at the same time as Pennsylvania.

Of course, at one point, there was discussion of Delaware aligning its primary with the then-proposed moves (to April 3) of Maryland and Washington, DC. Ms. Cohen on that point:
Here in Delaware, the Democrats were the ones to approach the Republicans about making the change. John Daniello, the Democratic state chair, suggested they set up a mini-regional primary, either by voting on April 3 with Maryland and Washington, D.C., or on April 24 with Pennsylvania.

The Republicans were inclined to listen. Not only was it consistent with their own party's thinking, but the state Senate is run by the Democrats, the state House of Representatives is run by the Democrats, and the governor is a Democrat, so the Democrats could do what they wanted, anyway.

"We found ourselves in the position of not having a lot of negotiating strength," quipped Laird Stabler, the Republican national committeeman.

Both parties preferred aligning with Pennsylvania, mainly because of the influence of Philadelphia television on candidates' advertising and appearances.

"I think it's a good fit. There is a high probability that candidates will skip over the line and come to Delaware," said Priscilla Rakestraw, the Republican national committeewoman.

Depending upon which lens through which one views this, Republicans are either acting pragmatically, yielding to the Democratic majority, or in their own self interest. More accurately, it is probably a bit of both. Republicans do not have much of a choice here, but this move -- whether it would have been to April 3 or April 24 -- is not absent any benefit for Delaware Republicans. FHQ disagrees with the Republican National committeewoman about candidates crossing state lines from Pennsylvania into Delaware. That isn't where the true gains lie.

The best test of this is the Potomac Primary in 2008; particularly looking at the candidate visits the District got relative to Maryland and Virginia.1 Sadly, FHQ doesn't have the data for DC, but the distribution of visits between Maryland (13 visits) and Virginia (41 visits) was tilted toward the more delegate-rich Old Dominion. Another, less adequate test is to look at the contests of March 4, 2008; Texas and Ohio on one hand, and Rhode Island and Vermont on the other . The regional element is removed but the big state/small state factor remains present. Again, the visits were tilted toward the larger states. Texas (116 visits) and Ohio (70 visits) found candidates on the ground much more than in Rhode Island (6 visits) and Vermont (2 visits). Now, the argument could be made that the distribution here is roughly in line with the proportion of delegates each of those states (in both test cases) has.

Those cases aside, Delaware (2 visits) would not have to do much to double or triple its number of visits from 2008 in 2012. But as a tag-a-long with Pennsylvania, First state Republicans probably will not get the bump for which they are looking. Some bump, perhaps. Big bump, not really.

No, the true gain for Delaware Republicans is in the fact that by going along with the Democratic legislative majority's plan to move back to April 24, the state party will be able to -- like Georgia, Ohio and Texas -- maintain a winner-take-all allocation method in its delegate selection process; a method the party has traditionally used. This is an emerging trend among Republicans in various states. There is a group of states (see states that have moved to March 6) that value the influence but don't mind move to proportional allocation required of all pre-April states by the RNC and those that value winner-take-all rules over influence (see above). The latter group is gambling that the nomination race will still be competitive by the time it gets to them in April and May.

We shall see. Regardless, a move to April in Delaware is imminent.

*Thanks to Celia Cohen for sending this news along to FHQ.

--
1 The number of candidate visits is one that depends on several factors. Competition breeds more visits. The more competitive a state is, the more visits it will receive. As a means of extension, the number of parties with competitive nomination races and the number of candidates involved also must be taken into account. 2012 will only see one competitive nomination race. Also, earlier states will receive more visits relative to later states. This is a function of the fact that recent nominations have been decided early, and furthermore, a function of the intra-primary season winnowing of candidates that takes place. On that latter point, the later it is in the process, the fewer viable candidates will be involved.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Ohio House Passes Bill Moving Presidential Primary Back to May

On Wednesday, May 18, the Ohio House passed HB 194, an omnibus elections bill. Like the Florida elections bill recently passed, the legislation is being roundly dismissed by Democrats who called some of the provisions in the bill "voter suppression" and also addresses the Buckeye state's presidential primary. Unlike the bill in Florida, though, the Ohio legislature is leaving the presidential primary scheduling in the hands of the state legislature, but is moving it back from March to May.

FHQ has been eying this legislation -- and a comparable bill in the state Senate (SB 148)1 -- for a while now, but the bill never comes out and directly moves the primary. Legislators have stricken references to the first Tuesday in March -- the date on which the Ohio presidential primary is currently scheduled -- but no substitute date is inserted. The law must fall back on the special elections provisions contained therein (another section where references to the March presidential primary were removed). The special elections law specifies the first Tuesdays in February, May, August and November as options for special elections to occur. February is not a possibility for the Ohio presidential primary if the state is to comply with the national parties' rules regarding delegate selection. And the August and November dates obviously fall outside of the back end of the window in which states can hold primaries and caucuses. The only option, if the March presidential primary date is not available -- is to hold the primary on the first Tuesday in May.

This was a move that was raised back in January by Republican Secretary of State John Husted due to complications from the redistricting process. Still in a state controlled by Republicans (both houses of the legislature and the governor), this is a curious move. One motivation, as has been talked about in relation to the primaries in both Georgia and Texas, is that by moving from March to May, Ohio Republicans would be able to maintain their tradition of allocating delegates on a winner-take-all basis. Republican National Committee rules prohibit that practice prior to April.

This House bill will be added to the Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures in the left sidebar.

--
1 The Senate version does not remove references to the March date for the presidential primary in the way that the House version does and as such does not propose a primary move.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 6:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

Suggestions Needed: Who Should Replace Mike Huckabee on the Candidate Emergence Tracker?

Now that Mike Huckabee is out of the race for the 2012 Republican nomination, there is an open slot on the FHQ 2012 GOP Candidate Emergence Tracker. I'm leaning toward Mitch Daniels, but the comments section is open to your suggestions.

Have at it.

[Yes, sadly there are only five items that Google allows to be embedded.]


Posted by Josh Putnam at 4:30 PM 6 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

Louisiana House Committee Favorably Reports Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March

The Louisiana House and Governmental Affairs Committee met this morning and unanimously (12-0) passed HB 509, the bill that would shift the Pelican state's presidential primary back from the second (or third) Saturday in February to the first Saturday after the first Tuesday in March. HB 509 was the first bill considered, and the discussion of the legislation was non-controversial; lasting only about five minutes. One of the bill's co-sponsors, Representative Alan Seabaugh (R-5th, Shreveport), and Louisiana Republican State Central Committee member, Mike Bayham, spoke on behalf of the bill. Each made the case before the committee that the move to February in 2007 was made to make Louisiana a relevant player in the 2008 presidential nomination process. Furthermore, both pointed out that both Louisiana Democrats and Republicans would be penalized1 by their respective national parties if the state's primary was not moved into compliance (on or after the the first Tuesday in March) with the national parties' rules for delegate selection event timing.

The bill now moves on to the floor of the House for full consideration there.

--
As an aside, John Maginnis, founder of LaPolitics.com, wrote in a column about the presidential primary in Louisiana this morning that Republicans would forego the presidential primary in favor of a caucus if the state legislature did not pass a law changing the date of the primary (citing the state party chair, Roger Villere). The premise of the column is simple enough: Louisiana Democrats, in a year when their nomination won't be contested, are willing to offer up the presidential primary (and the $6 million it would cost) as a cut in spending that Republican legislators and Governor Jindal -- parties interested in cuts -- should consider. That is obviously not part of HB 509, but will likely be a part of the discussion as the bill continues its route through the legislature.

--
1 Seabaugh and Bayham, both Republicans, correctly identified the Republican penalty for violation (50% of a state's delegation) but overstated the Democratic penalties, seemingly falling back on the 2008 Florida/Michigan precedent. Both went on record as saying the Democrats would strip a non-compliant Louisiana Democratic delegation of its entire slate if the state failed to move. That is wrong (see Rule 20.C.1.a). That argument might work better in the DemocraticRepublican-controlled state Senate if the bill crosses over into the upper chamber. [Due to party switches in the state Senate since the first of the year, the Louisiana Senate is no longer controlled by Democrats.]


Posted by Josh Putnam at 4:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Missing the Point: A Follow Up on the Bill to Move the North Carolina Primary to March

As FHQ mentioned earlier today, the North Carolina Senate Judiciary (I) Committee considered S 440 at one of its bi-weekly meetings this morning. Again, this is the bill that would create a separate presidential primary in the Tarheel state and schedule it for the first Tuesday in March. Some of the information that came out of the meeting was predictable while the other parts of the discussion indicated a fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanics behind the formation of the current presidential primary calendar.

First of all, cost came up. According to the State Board of Elections executive director, Gary Bartlett, the price tag a separate presidential primary election would be $5 million, with counties shouldering most of the load.

And the bill's sponsor, Senator Andrew Brock (R-34th, Davie and Rowan), made a statement as well:

“Our issues haven’t been made relevant,” Brock told a Senate Judiciary Committee looking into the bill on Tuesday.

“The campaign is actually already happening here,” Brock said, referring to advertising that goes on in markets near the South Carolina border for that state’s earlier February primary. “But we just don’t have the impact as far as having our voice heard as North Carolinians.”

True, but that's where the train ran off the tracks.

On moving up earlier than the first Tuesday in March (see audio clip): "And the one reason it's in March is 'cause if we move up in to February all the other states will move up."1

It is that idea coupled with the notion above of making North Carolina issues relevant in the presidential campaign that completely misses the mark. First, if North Carolina were to move its primary up, ideally the primary would fall on a date on which no other states (or very few other states) were also scheduled. That maximizes your state's potential influence and the amount of time candidates in a competitive race spend there. That's what happened in both of the examples of North Carolina's past presidential primary relevance that were cited. In 1976, North Carolina had March 23 all to itself, among the earliest primaries in that cycle. The contest proved vital to keeping Ronald Reagan's campaign for the Republican nomination alive. And in 2008, the competitive Democratic nomination between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton rolled into North Carolina in early May and the Tarheel state only had one other state to compete with, Indiana.

But this legislation proposes moving North Carolina to a date that was already occupied by five states and could see that total double in the very near future if Alabama and Missouri pass or sign legislation, respectively to move their February contests back to March 6. That's not a recipe that will yield a 1976 or a 2008 for North Carolina. No, with that many contests, that will end up recreating the scenario North Carolina saw the last time it moved its presidential primary up to an earlier date, 1988. That first Southern Super Tuesday was so effective that North Carolina immediately scrapped the separate March primary and has been scheduled in May, concurrent with the primaries for state and local offices ever since (1992-2008).

The only other news item that emerged from this committee hearing was that Democratic senator, Josh Stein, mentioned -- as did others -- that he wouldn't sign off on any move like this (moving to March) unless it meant that all the primaries moved up, saving the aforementioned $5 million. There was, then, enough evidence today that there is a moderate level of support for the idea and if the bill is amended so that all the primaries move up, it could happen. But North Carolina won't get the bang for its buck or even the attention they want from this move if state legislators merely join the logjam on March 6. Granted it won't be a February 5, 2008 logjam, but it will be a logjam nonetheless. North Carolina, looking like a swing state for the 2012 general election and among the bigger states scheduled for that date (assuming a move), would be able to gain more attention perhaps, but not as much as if they had a date to themselves. And that's something that is far less than guaranteed at the front end of the calendar.

--
1 Other states are just as similarly constrained as North Carolina is. Legislative sessions across the country are drawing to a close as summer approaches and the ability to propose, much less pass, legislation is shrinking as well.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 6:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)