The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (7/19/11)

Following the Idaho Republican State Central Committee's decision over the weekend to replace its May primary with a March 6 caucus, an update of the 2012 presidential primary calendar is in order.

NOTE: Also over the weekend, I got a really good request via email from a reader for version of the calendar that can be imported into Outlook or iCal. This is something that I did for personal use in 2008, but the thought hadn't crossed my mind for the 2012 cycle. The result is that I put together a 2012 presidential primary calendar through Google Calendar. It can be accessed directly or uploaded for Outlook or iCal. You'll have to click ahead to December to get into the entries, entries which include links back to FHQ detailing any primary/caucus moves states have made or might make. You will also find both the mode of delegate allocation (winner-take-all or proportional) and whether the contest is opened or closed included once you have clicked on the entry. If there are any issues -- I think I've ironed most of them out -- please drop me a note via the email address at the top of the right side bar.

[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. Iowa, 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 North Carolina, the proposed movement is backward.]
3. 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.
4. 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.

An additional note on WHY ON EARTH Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina are placed in December.

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

Arkansas

California (bills: Assembly)

Connecticut

Delaware (bills: Senate)

Georgia (bills: House) (moved to no date: 5/13/11)

Illinois

Minnesota caucuses (+28) (bills: House/Senate) (moved: 3/1/11)

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

Montana Republican caucuses

New Jersey (bills: Assembly 1, 2/Senate 1, 2)

New York

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Utah

Saturday, February 11:

Louisiana

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 (bills: Assembly, Senate)

Tuesday, February 28:

Arizona³

Michigan⁴ (bills: House)

South Carolina (based on national party rules)

March 2012

Tuesday, March 6:

Colorado caucuses (+14) (bills: House) (moved: 5/27/11)

Idaho Republican caucuses (+70) (moved: 7/16/11)

Massachusetts⁴ (bills: House)

Ohio

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:

Alabama (-35) (bills: House 1, 2) (moved: 6/9/11)

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

Mississippi

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

Tuesday, March 20:

Colorado caucuses

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

Saturday, March 24:

Louisiana (-42) (bills: House) (moved: 6/29/11)

April 2012

Tuesday, April 3:

Kansas (bills: House 1, 2/Senate -- cancel primary) (canceled: 5/25/11)

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:

Idaho Democratic caucuses (-67) (moved: 5/1/11)

Kansas Democratic caucuses (-67) (moved: 5/24/11)

Nebraska Democratic caucuses (-63) (moved: 3/5/11)

Sunday, April 15:

Alaska Democratic caucuses (-68) (moved: 4/4/11)

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

Tuesday, April 24:

Connecticut (-77) (bills: House) (moved: 7/8/11)

New York (-77) (bills: Assembly/Senate) (moved: 7/13/11)

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island (-49) (bills: House/Senate) (moved: 7/1/11)

May 2012

Saturday, May 5:

Michigan Democratic caucuses (-67) (moved: 4/13/11)

Tuesday, May 8:

Indiana

North Carolina (bills: Senate)

Ohio (-63) (bills: House) (moved: 7/5/11)

West Virginia

Tuesday, May 15:

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

Nebraska

Oregon (bills: House)

Tuesday, May 22:

Arkansas (-105) (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 -119) (moved: 6/18/10)

New Mexico⁵ (bills: Senate) (died: legislature adjourned)

North Dakota Democratic caucuses (-119) (moved: 4/21/11)

South Dakota

Tuesday, June 26:

Utah (Republicans only) (-140) (moved: 6/5/11)

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 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:

Idaho Republicans Drop Presidential Primary in Favor of Super Tuesday Caucuses

Gardner Speaks: New Hampshire Might Not Stick with Feb. 14 Presidential Primary Date

California Senate Passes June Presidential Primary Bill

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

Idaho Republicans Drop Presidential Primary in Favor of Super Tuesday Caucuses

In an effort to bring presidential candidates into the Gem state, Idaho Republicans on Saturday, July 16 at their summer State Central Committee meeting, voted in favor of a resolution to drop the state-funded May primary as the means of allocating delegates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. The May contest, already a beauty contest for Idaho Democrats, is now completely meaningless with Idaho Republicans joining the their counterparts across the aisle in allocating delegates via caucuses. And all of this comes after the Idaho legislature moved the primary up a week in May during the 2011 session as part of an elections consolidation bill. As Idaho Republican executive director, Jonathan Parker said (via the Spokesman Review):

“It would just make it irrelevant. ...So (Idaho Secretary of State) Ben (Ysursa) and I have talked about reaching out to the Democrats … (about) getting a bill through that would just eliminate it altogether.”

That is one thing to come out of this vote. There are a handful of states where one party uses a state-funded primary option for delegate allocation while the other uses caucuses. Idaho Democrats have traditionally used party-funded caucuses in lieu of the primary. Similarly, both Montana Republicans and Democrats have moved back and forth between the two options in the post-reform era. And just this cycle, Washington state's legislature was prompted to eliminate the Evergreen state's presidential primary for 2012 because neither state party has fully utilized the primary option since a ballot initiative brought the contest into existence in the 1990s. Idaho, then, joins Washington in some respects as a state that has completely transitioned this cycle to holding caucuses in both parties with a meaningless or eliminated presidential primary.

The other item to come out of the vote in Moscow, Idaho over the weekend is the proposition that this move was made to attract attention from the candidates. Again, Parker via KTVB.com:

"I don't know why it took so long for the Idaho Republican party to make this move."

...and..

"By moving up to Super Tuesday, it's the hope of the central committee and the state party to attract presidential candidates to Idaho, not just to raise money, but to actually campaign for Idaho's votes."

The intent is not new, but in execution, this sort of move rarely or never works out as planned. If Idaho Republicans had chosen a date on which their caucuses would have been the only ongoing contest, they may have had more luck in gaining attention. As such, they will have one among many contests on March 6, and most of the many are states in a different region of the country (the South). That said, I suspect Idaho will gain a few visits from Mitt Romney. As FHQ speculated in the context of a potential Utah move to the same date and later the early talk about the vote on this Idaho resolution, Utah, Idaho and Colorado would serve as something of a Romney firewall on a day when the former Massachusetts governor is likely to suffer a fair number of setbacks in the other contests in the South (and setbacks is putting it rather diplomatically depending on how the early contests in this race go). Romney did win in Utah and Colorado in 2008 and was out of the race by the time the Republican contest got to Idaho in May of that year. Now, it should be noted that caucuses are indeed a different ballgame, but if the other candidates are focused on the southern contests, Romney may be ceded the caucuses out west that day. He would start out with something of an organizational advantage in each. Will Idaho Republicans get the boost they are looking for? That depends. If they are looking to get multiple candidates into the state, probably not. But if they expect to bring in Romney, they will probably get what they are after as most of the other candidates will focus on the southern contests on the same date.

Thanks to Tony Roza at The Green Papers for sending this news along to FHQ.

Recent Posts:

Gardner Speaks: New Hampshire Might Not Stick with Feb. 14 Presidential Primary Date

California Senate Passes June Presidential Primary Bill

Second April Presidential Primary Bill Signed in Rhode Island

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

Gardner Speaks: New Hampshire Might Not Stick with Feb. 14 Presidential Primary Date

Rare are the times that New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner says much of anything about the presidential primary in the Granite state. ...unless or until, of course, he sets the date for the contest. It was more earth-shattering, then, that he gave a recent interview with Shira Shoenberg of The Boston Globe on the subject, than it was that Gardner indicated that February 14 is not all that likely to be the date on which the New Hampshire primary will be held in 2012.

Indeed, that date always depended upon other, non-exempt states moving their primaries and caucuses in line with the guidelines for delegate selection. And that's something FHQ has been saying was a low probability since last year because of all the states that had to move to comply with national party rules. The list of states has been whittled down, but there remains a handful of states that may serve as a threat to New Hampshire or any of the other early states. Again, as I said earlier this week, the most likely scenario will see the four earliest states in January with a smattering of rogue, non-compliant states mostly in February but perhaps slipping into the end of January. Every other state will follow on or after March 6.

--

On another note, the mention of Michigan, Florida, Arizona and now Missouri being possible threats to New Hampshire is not new, but the talk of of West Virginia and Wisconsin is. The legislature in Wisconsin has a bill that has passed the Senate and another that originated in the Assembly before the lower chamber now, but those probably will not get a vote until later in the summer. There is, however, bipartisan support for the legislation and the Republican majority in both chambers has sponsored it. As for West Virginia, there was talk out of the Mountain state earlier in the week that indicated at least some likelihood of West Virginia Republicans adopting a convention system beginning with January county caucuses and ending with a Super Tuesday (March 6) state convention. This is the same system Mountain state Republicans used in 2008. The sticking point for New Hampshire in the West Virginia proposal is the January 24 county caucuses. But those caucuses only select non-binding slates of delegates to move on to the state convention. With that said, in 2008, West Virginia Republicans held county caucus meetings across a two week period as opposed to one day. That may give New Hampshire Secretary of State Gardner pause. After all, Iowa's caucuses are similarly non-binding, as are the February 7 caucuses in Minnesota.

The main point remains that none of this is really a surprise. Given the lack of any real meaningful penalties on non-compliant states, there were bound to be a few states -- even beyond Florida and Michigan -- that would challenge the national parties (especially the RNC). In that environment, New Hampshire was a near certainty to move up ahead of the proposed February 14 date.

Recent Posts:

California Senate Passes June Presidential Primary Bill

Second April Presidential Primary Bill Signed in Rhode Island

Message to News Outlets: Cite Your Sources

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