Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Governor Bentley Sends Amended Alabama Primary Bill Back to Legislature

On Tuesday, May 31, Governor Robert Bentley (R) returned HB 425 to the Alabama state legislature. The move is more of a speed bump along the way toward the ultimate enactment of this legislation than any major obstruction. In other words, the governor's move is not a signal of an upcoming veto. The intent of the bill is to consolidate the presidential primaries and the primaries for state and local offices on the second Tuesday in March. However, as passed, there would have been some conflicting language in the Alabama statutes as to the scheduling of the primaries. As such, the governor has offered an amendment to the bill:
Section 2. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, in any year in which the primary election is held in March and the primary election is held in conjunction with the presidential preference primary election, as provided in this Act, any reference in any existing statutes to a primary election being held in June shall be construed to refer to the primary election in March.
The House concurred with the changes called for in the executive amendment and now the state Senate will presumably have to follow suit before the bill heads back to the governor for his consideration and likely signature.



Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Bill to Move Delaware Presidential Primary to April Introduced in State Senate

As expected, state Senator Michael Katz (D-4th, Centerville) introduced SB 89 in the Delaware Senate this afternoon. The bill would move the presidential primary in the first state from the first Tuesday in February to the fourth Tuesday in April. That would place the Delaware primary on the same date as the primary in Pennsylvania and the proposed date of the Connecticut primary. According to Secretary of State Denise Merrill last week, that date will also potentially add the primaries for New York and Rhode Island.

SB 89 will be added to the Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures section in the left sidebar. A link to the legislation will also be added to the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar.


Bill Introduced to Move Wisconsin Presidential Primary from February to April

On Friday, May 27, Wisconsin state representative, Gary Tauchen (R-6th, Bonduel), introduced AB 162. The legislation would shift the Wisconsin "Spring election" -- including the presidential preference primary -- from the third Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in April. This was the position the primary had held for much of the post-reform (presidential nomination) era. Other than the 2004 and 2008 cycles, the only other time Wisconsin has not held a presidential primary on the first Tuesday in April was in 1996 when the state coordinated its contest with Great Lakes neighbors, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio.

It is noteworthy that this legislation was introduced in the state Assembly and sponsored in the state Senate (by Sen. Mary Lazich (R-28th, New Berlin)) by members of the Republican caucus in both chambers of the legislature. Our hypothesis concerning 2012 primary movement here at FHQ has been that Republican-controlled legislatures would be less likely to move back than Democratic-controlled legislatures or that Democratic legislatures would be more willing to move further back on the calendar. Given the need to move back due to national party rules, Republican legislatures would opt, on average, to move back to the earliest allowed date -- March 6 -- as opposed to some later date. Recently, however, it has become necessary to moderate that series of hypotheses based on an emerging pattern in some Republican states. The new Republican proportionality requirement has forced some Republican states to reconsider the dates on which presidential primaries are held in order to preserve winner-take-all allocation rules. Those states that value winner-take-all allocation relative to earlier, but proportional influence over the presidential nomination process are opting to conduct presidential primaries and caucus meetings on or after April 1 -- the cutoff after which winner-take-all allocation can be utilized.

Having traditionally used winner-take-all allocation rules, Wisconsin Republicans (some of them in the state legislature at least) are positioning the presidential primary in the Badger state in this legislation to preserve that tradition.

AB 162 will be added to the Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures section in the left sidebar. A link to the legislation will also be added to the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar.


Sunday, May 29, 2011

Idaho Democrats to Caucus on April 14

Idaho Democrats earlier this month opted to stick with the caucus/convention system the state party has used in the past as a means of allocating delegates to the national convention. The original draft delegate selection plan (posted on the party website on March 1) called for April 7 caucus meetings, but the party has in the time since pushed that back a week to April 14. That is a date that will place the Idaho Democratic caucuses on the same day as Democratic caucuses in both Kansas and Nebraska. Neighboring Washington will have Democratic caucuses a day later on April 15. If Wyoming Democrats push their caucus meetings back a week to April 14, it could set up a "cluster" of caucuses on April 14. That would boost the delegate totals in Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming by 15%. [All clusters of three or more states falling after March 20 are eligible for that bonus under Democratic rules.]

[Click to Enlarge]


A thanks goes out to Tony Roza at The Green Papers for the news on Idaho Democrats' delegate selection plan.


Colorado Presidential Caucuses Move to March 6

Governor John Hickenlooper on Friday, May 27, signed a host of legislation into law. Among them was SB 189, a bill that not only moves the primaries for state and local offices from September to June, but shifts the precinct caucuses used in the Centennial state for allocating national convention delegates up by two weeks as well. Those caucuses, moved temporarily into February for the 2008 cycle reverted to their third Tuesday in March date afterwards. As a provision of SB 189, though, Colorado will now hold precinct-level caucuses commencing the allocation of presidential delegates on the first Tuesday in March. That March 6 date is evolving into the -- national party-intended -- Super Tuesday for 2012.

[Click to Enlarge]



Friday, May 27, 2011

Georgia Democrats Assume a March 6 Presidential Primary in Delegate Selection Plan

The Georgia Democratic Party today released for public comment the draft of their 2012 delegate selection plan. The document is peppered with assumptions that the Georgia presidential primary will be on either March 6 or some time in February or March.1
Section I, Part B.2:
The "first determining step" of Georgia's delegate selection process will occur on March 6, 2012, the assumed date of a primary.
A summary table outlining the process later in the document (see page 34) multiple times refers to the likelihood of the Georgia secretary of state setting the date for some time during February or March. A February date for the primary obviously would be a violation of national party rules. Despite that, Georgia Democrats did not do in their delegate selection plan draft what Florida Democrats did in theirs. Namely, Georgia Democrats did not make the date of the delegate selection process conditional on where the primary will be set on the calendar. There is no explicit trigger mechanism put in place as in the Florida plan. There is a caucus/convention system in place for the selection of actual delegates (based on the results of the primary), but it is not automatically made the primary means of allocating delegates if Secretary Kemp selects a non-compliant date for the primary.

The district caucuses, according to the plan, are set to take place in Georgia on Saturday, April 21 and culminate with the state convention on May 26. The option, then, exists if Georgia Democrats have to use the caucuses given a non-compliant primary date.

Thanks to Tony Roza at The Green Papers for passing the news of the delegate selection plan along to FHQ.

--
1 On a table on page 34 the party incorrectly states that the Georgia secretary of state can set the date of the presidential primary for as early as December 1. Secretary Kemp has to select a date for the primary by that day, but the primary has to fall at least 60 days after that.


Recent Posts:
Rank and File Passion vs. Establishment Support: Cain vs. Pawlenty




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

Rank and File Passion vs. Establishment Support: Cain vs. Pawlenty

Like everyone following these sorts of things, FHQ, too, saw the Gallup numbers on the 2012 Republican nomination yesterday. Sadly, we've been so caught up in the weeds of the formation of the 2012 presidential primary calendar that we've nary had time to examine some if any of the polling that has come out recently -- much less for 2011. Our usual line on this polling is that we like the information, but we're hard-pressed to see a way in which it matters very much relative to the outcome of the nomination (or the general election for that matter). But I, like Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight, was drawn more toward the Herman Cain's standing than the much-ballyhooed Palin numbers. But Silver's post and an earlier Jonathan Bernstein post on Palin kept knocking around in my head.

Look, the party decides these things -- more often than not. At the very least, the party filters the decision before it gets to the rank and file members voting in presidential primaries and caucuses. We are at the point in this cycle where we are beginning to get a feel for this among other things. Once again, we are learning that there are passionate voices out there; passionate voices among some faction of the rank and file that are lining up behind various candidates. But as Bernstein points out, the winner of either party's nomination is not a factional candidate, but one who can build a coalition. And this in a nutshell is the party establishment versus the mass public withint that party. The former is interested in the coalition builder with the general election in mind while the latter can be or is primarily focused on someone who reflects them. Sometimes those interests overlap (see Bush 2000), but sometimes they do not (see McCain 2008).

2012 is shaping up more like 2008 than 2000 from the vantage point of May 2011. In other words, there are competing interests between the party elite and the rank and file. And given the discontent with the idea of Romney as a frontrunner within some Republican circles, the argument could be made that there are competing interests within the Republican Party establishment as well.

That said, FHQ is partial to the Romney and anti-Romney narrative that has been making the rounds these last few months; that the race for the Republican nomination will come down to Romney and someone else. But I don't think that's Herman Cain. I'm more apt to side with Tim Pawlenty despite the fact that Cain edge the former Minnesota governor out in this latest Gallup poll.

Why?

Passion vs. Establishment.

Herman Cain has something of a passionate following, but Pawlenty has a higher ceiling in terms of attaining the status of anti-Romney and better yet, coalition builder. How can we best assess this, though? Nothing, and I mean nothing, picks up on hollow passion behind a candidacy better than Google Trends. And if you follow the isolated 2007 search trends of the top GOP candidates for the 2008 nomination, you'll see that an argument can be made that the tool also picks up on hollow poll leaders as well (see that Giuliani line -- in green). What do we really see in those numbers? Well, you see McCain trail off across 2007, Fred Thompson searches spike over the summer, and Huckabee and Romney gaining as Iowa approaches. If you look closely enough you'll also see McCain on the rise right before the new year, but also Ron Paul searches rocketing upward.

[Click to Enlarge]

Rick Perry could be the new Fred Thompson, but I think Herman Cain finds some territory somewhere between what Thompson was and that passionate Ron Paul faction. In between, mind you, but closer to Paul. The search trends thus far kind of bear this out. The establishment, coalition-building candidates are laying low while the passion builds behind factional candidates. If you look at the trends graphic above you can see that Romney and Pawlenty are in that low-lying area while candidates like Cain and Paul and even the uproar around Gingrich finds much bigger swings -- much bigger spikes. Yes, Pawlenty got something out of his announcement on Monday and if you back the trendline up, Romney's exploratory committee announcement elicited a similar bump for the former Massachusetts governor. But note that both are more modest than the factional candidate jumps (and their average position overall).

No, this isn't a definitive examination on the state of the race for the Republican nomination, but it does give us a glimpse into the position of these two types of candidates and a comparison to 2008. Does Cain have a chance? Sure. That case is easier to make than the case that he has absolutely zero chance of winning. But Cain is nothing more than a factional candidate, and even if you argue that he isn't, he is not as solid a coalition-building candidate as some of the alternatives; namely Pawlenty.

NOTE: Incidentally, if you want to mess around with the various five candidate combinations on the 2012 GOP Candidate Emergence Tracker, you can do so here. Just click on "edit" in blue and change the search parameters. [Yes, Mitch Daniels will be removed as a default option soon enough. Also, I can't wait to see what kind of bump Palin gets out of this bus tour announcement.]


Ohio Senate and House at Odds Over Presidential Primary Date

FHQ glossed over this earlier in the week, but I didn't want to let the week end without mentioning that the Ohio Senate passed its version of the elections overhaul. On Tuesday, the Ohio Senate passed SB 148, but unlike the House version, the Senate's bill does not include a provision moving the presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in May. Each chamber's bill is now in the opposite house for consideration, and the discrepancies between the bills will have to be ironed out in one version or in a conference committee later on.

Time is not a pressing issue in Ohio as it is in many other states nearing the conclusion of their 2011 state legislative sessions. The legislature in the Buckeye state operates on a year-round calendar. That said a remedy to this presidential primary situation should arise sooner rather than later.

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


Thursday, May 26, 2011

Alabama Senate Passes Bill to Consolidate All Primaries in March

UPDATE: Perhaps I was too hard on Alabama legislators in the original update below. As it turns out, HB 425 moves the Alabama primaries to the second Tuesday in March which coincides with the Mississippi primary on March 13. This sets up an interesting series of contests from March 6-13. Texas would anchor the March 6 set of southern primaries with Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Virginia. That would be followed by Louisiana (assuming the move there is completed) on Saturday, March 10 and Alabama and Mississippi on March 13 the following Tuesday.

Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for pointing out our error.

--
Original Post:

The Alabama Senate voted this afternoon in favor of HB 425. The legislation would shift the presidential primary back from the first Tuesday in February to the first second Tuesday in March and the primaries for state and local offices up from the first Tuesday in June to the same March date. The move will save the state nearly $4 million if Alabama Governor Robert Bentley (R) signs the legislation. The bill passed 21-11 and now heads to the governor's desk for his consideration.

Alabama joins both Colorado and Missouri as states where legislatures have passed measures moving 2012 delegate selection events to March 6. All three are awaiting gubernatorial approval. As of today the legislation in Colorado and Missouri has been officially passed on to the governors in the respective states. Alabama and Missouri would move into compliance with national party rules while Colorado would be bumped up by two weeks to the earliest allowed date under national party delegate selection rules. Together, all three bills are expected to be signed.

UPDATE: Here are a couple of quotation from Alabama senators on the move (via Jason Cannon at The Demopolis Times):
“This legislation will help save Alabama taxpayer-dollars by having Alabama primary election on the same day as the Presidential Primary elections, and put the tax dollars of hard working Alabamians to better use,” said Senator Scott Beason (R – Jefferson). “Alabama will once again be at the forefront of national attention during the presidential election process as more national candidates will come to Alabama since we will be an early primary state,” Beason added.

Senate Majority leader Jabo Waggonner (R-Vestavia), said, “by moving the Alabama Primary election to the same day as the Presidential Primary election we will save the state of Alabama $3.9 million dollars.”
At some point state legislators are going to wise up to this "earlier equals more attention" mindset. Granted, Alabama legislators are merely attempting to keep with or slightly ahead of the curve. The chances that the state receives any more than the 13 candidate visits it received in 2008 are pretty low. March 6 will be slightly less crowded in 2012 than February 5 was in 2008, but it won't translate into a significant gain in terms of attention for the state. Holding a primary a week later, on March 13, with western neighbor, Mississippi, might be a more advantageous position. Admittedly, that might be a gamble if it appears as if the nomination will be decided on or before March 6. But we're too far out to know that with any level of certainty.

Michigan Democrats Call on State Republicans to Cancel Presidential Primary

In a press item1 released on Monday, the Michigan Democratic Party called on Republicans in the state to cancel the Wolverine state's 2012 presidential primary. Democrats cited the $10 million savings as the prime reason for the call and raised the point that Michigan Democrats will allocate delegates to their national convention via caucuses. The primary, then, would cost the state the same amount, but only be used by one of the parties as a means of allocating delegates.

The release is new, but the sentiment is not. Michigan Democratic legislators earlier in the month bemoaned the budget expenditure for the primary, but Republicans deferred:
Resolving that conflict [the presidential primary issue] is “a discussion further down the road,” said Michigan Republican Party spokesman Matt Davis. He said it’s up to the Legislature to pay for a primary that’s required under current law.
That may be, but the Republican-controlled legislature is likely to wait until later in the year -- when Michigan Republicans make their decision on when and how to allocated their delegates in August -- before moving on the presidential primary question and relatedly, whether to fund it.

But Democrats came with additional ammunition, seeking -- futilely perhaps -- to goad Republicans closed to their position. Understandably, Republicans in any state would be hesitant to shift from a primary to a caucus in a year in which the Republican presidential nomination is at stake based on a loss of (candidate and media) attention (see Gurian 1993). But Democrats pointed to the fact that the state canceled its 2004 primary when only the Democratic Party had a competitive presidential nomination race. That seems like a good point, save for two realities. First, Republicans controlled the legislature in 2003 when the primary was canceled. Sure Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm signed off on the move, but it was a Republican-initiated effort (see SB 397, five Republican co-sponsors) that received Democratic support in the legislature.2

And while that can be dismissed as a bipartisan effort that lends some credence to the point of the Michigan Democratic Party ("Let's work together and save the state some money."), the history of the two Michigan parties in presidential nominations should not be ignored. That is the second point. Michigan Republicans have historically been more active in presidential nominations. This has come in fits and starts, but Michigan Republicans began their 1988 delegate selection process in 1986, held a February primary in 2000 (while Democrats were forced to hold a later caucus) and there's the 2008 presidential primary saga in Michigan. Granted, Michigan Democrats were being proactive in going along with Republicans in the legislature in moving the primary up and into violation of both parties' delegate selection rules.

This is a long way of saying that Michigan Democrats probably shouldn't hold their breath on this. Even if it does work out and Michigan Republicans opt for a caucus system, we won't know that until August.

--
Michigan Democrats Call on Michigan GOP to Agree to Cancel Presidential Primary, Save Hundreds of Jobs

LANSING – The Michigan Democratic Party today called on Michigan Republicans to agree with Democrats to cancel the 2012 presidential primary election, which would cost the state $10 million dollars. The Michigan Democratic Party will not participate in the primary and will instead hold a presidential caucus on May 5, 2012.

“Canceling the primary and saving $10 million would help to save more than 200 jobs for teachers, police officers, firefighters, and emergency responders,” Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer said. “This money is much better spent protecting jobs and Michigan families rather than on a primary election.”

“We have chosen not to participate in a primary and to hold a caucus to save the state money,” continued Brewer. “We ask the Republicans to agree with us to cancel the primary and help save jobs.”

The 2004 Michigan presidential primary was canceled by agreement of the parties, saving money. This year, Republicans and Democrats in several states, including Washington and Kansas, have already passed legislation to cancel the presidential primary to save money.

Schools are already suffering thanks to Governor Snyder’s budget that cuts public education, and unfairly increases taxes on seniors, middle class families, and low-wage workers all to pay for a record tax giveaway to CEOs, banks, and insurance companies. The Lansing School District alone would be forced to lay-off dozens of teachers – leading to increased class sizes and less individual attention for students.

“The people who will really suffer with this budget are our kids,” Lansing School District teacher Alfonso Salais said. “We need to be investing in our kids and putting money back into the classroom. This budget tells our students that we don’t care about their future and that’s wrong. We need to save money anywhere we can so we have more to put back into schools. Canceling an unnecessary presidential primary will help save $10 millions and more than 200 teachers’ jobs and will provide a better education for our students in Michigan so they can compete in a global economy.”

Concluded Salais, “The savings of $10 million to invest in educational resources and other service-oriented professions, will provide concrete proof to the citizens of Michigan that their children’s future and the needs of the people are a priority.”

2 The bill passed unanimously in both chambers.