GOP Caucuses and 2012 Scheduling: A Decision-Making Calculus

FHQ got a good question this afternoon in response to our Minnesota post about the impact delegate binding rules may have on the scheduling of Republican caucuses in 2012.

Reader MysteryPolitico asks:

How many other states hold caucuses that aren't binding? I remember in 2008, you had early February caucuses in ME, AK, MN, ND, KS, and WA. Is Minnesota the only one of those with caucuses that aren't binding towards delegate allocation? Because if not, then I guess some of those other states might end up sticking with early February as well, since they're not going to suffer any delegate penalties for it.


I would assume that if there are several non-binding caucuses in early Feb., that IA and NH would still consider that a threat, and move their contests into January, to maintain their first in the nation status...

In other words, if you are one of the traditional Republican caucus states, especially one that does not bind delegates at the precinct level, why not roll the dice and go earlier than other states? Well, it isn't really rolling the dice. As the caucuses in Iowa and Nevada demonstrated in 2008 -- on the Republican side -- if the state does not allocate delegates in the first step of the nomination process, then that state can circumvent the Republican National Committee rules on delegate selection. Iowa and Nevada were not doing anything to weasel out of the rules, but they were the only two states that held contests prior to the first Tuesday in February 2008 that were not penalized half their delegation to the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. The January primary states -- even New Hampshire -- obviously suffered that fate, but other caucus states like Wyoming were also penalized. Approximately half of the delegates to the Republican convention from the Equality state were allocated in the January 5, 2008 precinct caucuses and Wyoming Republicans were penalized as a result.

The question, then, is why don't the Iowas and Nevadas¹ on the Republican side move up into February -- like what Minnesota Republicans have fallen into based on the law in the Land of 10,000 Lakes -- and hold penalty-free precinct caucuses? Furthermore, why would the other caucus states not change their rules to bind delegates to the national convention based on the congressional district or state conventions?

Why indeed? Let's look at the decision-making environment confronting these states. But first, about which states are we talking? The caucus states break down into two categories: 1) states that allocate delegates in the first step of the caucus process (Alaska, North Dakota, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming in 2008) and 2) states where that mechanism is triggered at a later -- congressional district and/or state convention -- stage (Colorado, Maine and Minnesota in 2008). If that first group maintains its rules from 2008, going early is not an option. If any member of that group alters its delegate selection process and delays the binding of delegates, it could technically move up penalty free, joining the second group.

But does it really matter? Would states in this situation either change their rules or attempt maintain former February dates or move up into February or earlier in 2012? FHQ will take the first one on at the outset. Does it really matter? Not really. Candidates are not going to go out of their way to trek out to non-binding contest states with nothing on the line. Also, states have, by and large, heeded the rules change warnings from the national party and acted to comply. But Minnesota is outside of the window and Republicans there have shown no urgency to move. The Maine GOP has shown no signs of wanting to cross the national party either. So while, hypothetically, states could do this, there really isn't any real motivation to do so. Such a caucus essentially operates as a very small state straw poll.

But let's suspend our disbelief for a moment and consider a scenario where all the caucus states move up, delaying delegate allocation to a later date in the process. Presumably, the carrot here is some measure of influence over the overall nomination process. Under what circumstances would these states have influence when they have nothing to give the candidates? That's a tough one. The decision would be easier if more information was known; specifically when other (primary) states will hold their contests. The only scenario where small, non-binding caucus states have any sort of influence is if 1) they hold a collective caucus on one date and 2) that date does not coincide with the date of a primary state (penalized or not). One could add in the additional condition that this collective straw poll precedes all the other primaries as opposed to being sandwiched in between a couple of primaries.

That, however, is a difficult task to coordinate given the constraints that state parties have in changing their rules. In many cases, such rules changes within state parties can only take place at a state convention. And in several states 2011 Republican conventions have already been held and the window has closed. If they those states could pull it off, though, it would likely serve as sufficient enough a threat to Iowa and New Hampshire and force them to move.

But that's a pretty big if.

--
UPDATE: One other option that may be appealing to the remaining caucus states -- that may tempt them into February -- is if it looks as if the proposed caucus date guarantees a stand-alone date for the precinct caucuses. If a state has the only event going on in a given week, then the candidates will be there -- binding or not.

--

¹ Iowa and Nevada are not the best examples here because both are exempt from the Republican delegate selection rules governing the other states. Additionally, in an attempt to make the contest more influential, Nevada Republicans have made the precinct caucus stage binding on the delegate allocation process; a change from 2008.

Recent Posts:

Democratic-Sponsored Bills to Move Minnesota Presidential Precinct Caucuses Appear Dead

Companion Bill to Eliminate Separate Presidential Primary Introduced in New Jersey Senate

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

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

Democratic-Sponsored Bills to Move Minnesota Presidential Precinct Caucuses Appear Dead

On the final day of the 2011 Minnesota state legislative session, two bills (one each in the state House and Senate) introduced in March appear ready to expire for the year along with the session. Both bills seem to have been proposed in reaction to the revelation back at the beginning of March that a provision in the state's election law had been triggered, moving the 2012 precinct caucuses to the first Tuesday in February. Since the two political parties had failed to agree on and/or submit a date for the presidential precinct caucuses, the law -- changed in 2008 -- automatically designated the first Tuesday in February as that date. Given the fact that February contests outside of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina were prohibited by the DNC's and RNC's informally coordinated delegate selection rules, that shift put (or would put) Minnesota in violation of the rules, making the state parties' national convention delegations vulnerable to the penalties associated with those rules.

Democrats in the Minnesota legislature, whether acting in accordance with the Democratic delegate selection rules or not (see Rule 20.C.1¹), soon thereafter proposed legislation in both the state House (HF 986) and Senate (SF 696). What the bills do, though, is merely change the date on which the caucuses occur -- from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March -- should the chairs of the two state parties not jointly submit an alternate date. It is not clear whether that action would be (or in light of the fact that after today it will be moot, would have been) sufficient to change in any way the date of the 2012 caucuses. The trigger has already been tripped and set in place the election for the first Tuesday in February next year. That happened on March 1, and because neither bill has an "effective on" date, there is no way of knowing if the provisions of the House and Senate bills are retroactive.²

Again, with both bills bottled up in committee virtually since they were introduced in March and with the session adjourning today, the point is moot. The date looks to be set in stone for February 7, 2012, which on its face would put both state parties in violation of national party rules. In reality, only the Democrats would suffer. Since state Republicans don't allocate any delegates during the initial step of the nomination process -- that comes at the later convention -- they are not penalized under RNC rules. No step, binding or otherwise, can occur before the first Tuesday in March on the Democratic side. That is why Minnesota Democrats have submitted a delegate selection plan to the DNC with the February 7 date, but with the addendum that the results will not be released until March 6. That is unlikely to pass muster with the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee.

The point here is that Republicans in the majority in both houses of the Minnesota legislature faced no urgency to move the date of the caucuses. It did not affect them in the least. Democrats, then, found themselves in the unenviable position of requiring a change of the election law but were absent the means of affecting that change.

Links to this legislation will be added to the 2012 presidential primary calendar and to the Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures section of the left side bar.

--

¹ The rule provides some cover for non-compliant states where the Democratic legislative minorities in which make some effort to change state laws, but ultimately do so in futility (see Florida in 2008 for an example. Democrats in the legislature voted for the plan to move the Florida primary to January and then argued when the state was in hot water with the DNC that Democratic state legislators were at the mercy of the Republican majorities in both houses. In other words, those legislators had done little to prevent -- and even supported -- the move.).

² This does happen. The bill signed into law moving the Idaho primaries up a week was signed in late February of this year, but was effectively as of January 1, 2011, a date nearly two months prior.

Recent Posts:

Companion Bill to Eliminate Separate Presidential Primary Introduced in New Jersey Senate

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

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

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

Companion Bill to Eliminate Separate Presidential Primary Introduced in New Jersey Senate

On Thursday, May 19, Senator Donald Norcross (D-5th, Audubon) introduced S2883. The bill, like its Assembly-passed counterpart, A3777, would eliminate the separate presidential primary and consolidate that election with the primaries for state and local offices on the first Tuesday in June. It is not clear why a fourth bill with the same intent was necessary, when 1) there is already a Senate bill with the exact same language that was introduced in the 2010 state legislative session and is still active and 2) the Assembly-passed legislation is already in the state Senate awaiting consideration in the Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism and Historic Preservation Committee. On the first question, Michael Symons mentions that it is customary for legislation to have a sponsor from the majority party in the chamber. The previously introduced legislation (S71) was and is still under Republican sponsorship. That also indirectly answers the second point.

Both this bill and the A3777 will be considered at the next State Government, Wagering, Tourism and Historic Preservation Committee meeting on June 2.

Recent Posts:

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

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

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

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

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.

Recent Posts:

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

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

Connecticut House Passes Amended Bill to Move Presidential Primary to April

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

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

South Carolina¹

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

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.

--

Recent Posts:

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

Connecticut House Passes Amended Bill to Move Presidential Primary to April

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

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

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.

Recent Posts:

Connecticut House Passes Amended Bill to Move Presidential Primary to April

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

Legislation to Move Delaware Primary to April on the Horizon

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

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.

Recent Posts:

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

Legislation to Move Delaware Primary to April on the Horizon

Ohio House Passes Bill Moving Presidential Primary Back to May

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

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 24^th 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 24^th 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...

Recent Posts:

Legislation to Move Delaware Primary to April on the Horizon

Ohio House Passes Bill Moving Presidential Primary Back to May

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

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

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.

Recent Posts:

Ohio House Passes Bill Moving Presidential Primary Back to May

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

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

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

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.

Recent Posts:

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

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

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

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