For more, please see FHQ's earlier post on the draft resolution by the Illinois Republican Party.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Illinois Republicans Stick with Loophole Primary, Voting Down Resolution
The Illinois Republican State Central Committee voted down a resolution tonight to change the allocation of party's 2012 presidential delegates. By a vote of 11-6, the committee voted to maintain the party's traditional loophole primary in the March 20, 2012 presidential primary in the Land of Lincoln. What this means is that Illinois Republicans will continue to vote for delegates directly -- along with a poll of presidential preference -- on the primary ballot as opposed to voting for the candidates and having candidate campaign-selected delegates make up the Illinois delegation to the Republican National Convention.
For more, please see FHQ's earlier post on the draft resolution by the Illinois Republican Party.
For more, please see FHQ's earlier post on the draft resolution by the Illinois Republican Party.
Red Flags Raised, Some Comments on the Georgia Presidential Primary Situation
In yesterday's post FHQ questioned the Republican National Committee's ability to have a firm presidential primary calendar in place by the October 1; deadline by which state Republican parties must have informed the RNC about their method and mode of presidential delegate selection. Part of what came out of that discussion was not only that Arizona, Florida and Michigan (most likely) will be required by state law to set the dates of their presidential primaries by then, but that Georgia casts a long shadow over the process of setting the calendar in stone. Again, that advantage is structural. Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp has until December 1 to issue a decision on when the Peach state will hold its presidential primary next year. Arizona, Florida and Michigan (again, most likely) will have until the October 1 deadline to decide based on their own respective state election laws.
Georgia, then, is a potential threat if only because it is afforded the opportunity to sit back and wait as the other states settle on primary dates. Secretary Kemp can then place the Georgia primary at a place on the calendar that maximizes the attention the Peach state receives from the candidates and media during next year's presidential primaries.
But here's the catch: No one really knows just how willing Kemp is to flaunt the RNC delegate selection rules on timing. Sure, there's been talk of jumping ahead of March 6 if Florida does or coupling the Georgia primary with the primary in Florida. The secretary also recently mentioned that he would be inclined to wait as long or longer than Iowa and New Hampshire to set a date. Invoking Iowa and New Hampshire, at least, signals some willingness to move forward; not necessarily to challenge their position but to make a decision based on the fullest amount of information available. In other words, the decision on the primary calendar -- the full calendar -- is not likely to be known by October 1.
Kemp, then, has the ability to move the primary forward, but the willingness to this point remains an unknown. FHQ would like to focus on the ability for a few moments because it doesn't seem to be fully understood at this point. I keep reading in various places across the internet that Georgia's law allows the secretary the ability to set the Georgia primary for as early as January 31. That is partially true and additionally is something that I didn't explain fully in this space when the Georgia General Assembly first proposed its legislation ceding authority to set the presidential primary date to the secretary of state. Yes, Secretary Kemp can set the date, technically, as early as Monday, January 30, sixty days after the December 1 deadline. Of course, this is only a partial reading of the law. As I pointed out in FHQ's Primer for when the remaining undecided states may decide on primary states, the law allows the secretary the ability to set the date for any time in the calendar presidential year ahead of the second Tuesday in June.
Any time.
In other words, so long as Secretary Kemp makes a decision 60 days before the primary, it can be any date between January 1 and June 12. As I pointed out in the primer, if Georgia wanted to go as Florida's state law allows its Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee to schedule the primary in the Sunshine state (January 3), Secretary Kemp has the ability to do that as long as the decision is made before November 3. And back to yesterday's point, that could keep the presidential primary calendar in doubt until at least then with decisions in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina to follow.
Again, though, we just don't know enough about Kemp's willingness to push the envelope that far (January 3).
One other point I wanted to address concerns not so much the setting of the date, but the allocation of the delegates in the primary independent of the date. Actually, the date matters because if Georgia holds a primary prior to April 1, the state Republican Party will have to alter the winner-take-all method by which it allocates delegates; something Jim Galloway of the AJC mentioned in a post over the weekend. Galloway, as so many others have done, is overstating the issue here. Yes, Georgia Republicans allocate delegates on a winner-take-all basis, but it does so not in terms of a candidate winning a plurality vote and taking all the delegates. Instead the allocation is split between the congressional districts and the statewide vote. FHQ has already torn down this notion, but it bears repeating. A candidate who wins the vote in a congressional district, wins all three delegates that district is apportioned according to the RNC rules. That is winner-take-all and the process of allocating those 42 delegates remains compliant with the current Republican rules. What is not compliant about the Georgia plan -- at least as it has been in the past -- is that the remaining statewide and bonus delegates can no longer be allocated by winner-take-all rules if the primary is before April 1. The rules regarding the allocation of those 30 delegates (10 base, at-large delegates and 20 bonus delegates) will have to be altered in some way by the Georgia Republican Party. That, in some way, will affect Kemp's calculus, though not as much as the prospect of seeing Peach state Republicans' delegate total whittled down to 38 in the event the party opts to hold an early, non-compliant primary.
And that is the one bit of information that we don't have: Is Kemp willing to take the delegate hit in exchange for early influence over the Republican nomination race?
Georgia, then, is a potential threat if only because it is afforded the opportunity to sit back and wait as the other states settle on primary dates. Secretary Kemp can then place the Georgia primary at a place on the calendar that maximizes the attention the Peach state receives from the candidates and media during next year's presidential primaries.
But here's the catch: No one really knows just how willing Kemp is to flaunt the RNC delegate selection rules on timing. Sure, there's been talk of jumping ahead of March 6 if Florida does or coupling the Georgia primary with the primary in Florida. The secretary also recently mentioned that he would be inclined to wait as long or longer than Iowa and New Hampshire to set a date. Invoking Iowa and New Hampshire, at least, signals some willingness to move forward; not necessarily to challenge their position but to make a decision based on the fullest amount of information available. In other words, the decision on the primary calendar -- the full calendar -- is not likely to be known by October 1.
Kemp, then, has the ability to move the primary forward, but the willingness to this point remains an unknown. FHQ would like to focus on the ability for a few moments because it doesn't seem to be fully understood at this point. I keep reading in various places across the internet that Georgia's law allows the secretary the ability to set the Georgia primary for as early as January 31. That is partially true and additionally is something that I didn't explain fully in this space when the Georgia General Assembly first proposed its legislation ceding authority to set the presidential primary date to the secretary of state. Yes, Secretary Kemp can set the date, technically, as early as Monday, January 30, sixty days after the December 1 deadline. Of course, this is only a partial reading of the law. As I pointed out in FHQ's Primer for when the remaining undecided states may decide on primary states, the law allows the secretary the ability to set the date for any time in the calendar presidential year ahead of the second Tuesday in June.
Any time.
In other words, so long as Secretary Kemp makes a decision 60 days before the primary, it can be any date between January 1 and June 12. As I pointed out in the primer, if Georgia wanted to go as Florida's state law allows its Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee to schedule the primary in the Sunshine state (January 3), Secretary Kemp has the ability to do that as long as the decision is made before November 3. And back to yesterday's point, that could keep the presidential primary calendar in doubt until at least then with decisions in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina to follow.
Again, though, we just don't know enough about Kemp's willingness to push the envelope that far (January 3).
One other point I wanted to address concerns not so much the setting of the date, but the allocation of the delegates in the primary independent of the date. Actually, the date matters because if Georgia holds a primary prior to April 1, the state Republican Party will have to alter the winner-take-all method by which it allocates delegates; something Jim Galloway of the AJC mentioned in a post over the weekend. Galloway, as so many others have done, is overstating the issue here. Yes, Georgia Republicans allocate delegates on a winner-take-all basis, but it does so not in terms of a candidate winning a plurality vote and taking all the delegates. Instead the allocation is split between the congressional districts and the statewide vote. FHQ has already torn down this notion, but it bears repeating. A candidate who wins the vote in a congressional district, wins all three delegates that district is apportioned according to the RNC rules. That is winner-take-all and the process of allocating those 42 delegates remains compliant with the current Republican rules. What is not compliant about the Georgia plan -- at least as it has been in the past -- is that the remaining statewide and bonus delegates can no longer be allocated by winner-take-all rules if the primary is before April 1. The rules regarding the allocation of those 30 delegates (10 base, at-large delegates and 20 bonus delegates) will have to be altered in some way by the Georgia Republican Party. That, in some way, will affect Kemp's calculus, though not as much as the prospect of seeing Peach state Republicans' delegate total whittled down to 38 in the event the party opts to hold an early, non-compliant primary.
And that is the one bit of information that we don't have: Is Kemp willing to take the delegate hit in exchange for early influence over the Republican nomination race?
Bill Moving Missouri Presidential Primary Introduced in House Special Session
The Missouri House during the short first day to its special session today, introduced a bill to move the Show-Me state presidential primary from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. Rep. Tony Dugger (R-144th, Hartville), as he did back in February, introduced the bill. HB 3 has the same sole purpose that its regular session House predecessor (HB 503) had: to move the presidential primary back to March. That bill passed the House but got stuck in the state Senate, as another broader elections bill was considered there and later passed by both chambers. That broader elections bill (SB 282) was later vetoed by Governor Nixon (D), laying the groundwork for the special session bill.
The expectation -- since a bill to move the primary to March among other elections matters already passed both legislative chambers -- is that this bill will pass and Missouri will move back to March 6 on the calendar.
NOTE: Keep in mind also, that the legislature has a veto session scheduled for next week and legislative Republicans -- the majority in both houses -- could opt to override the gubernatorial veto of SB 282 with the help of four House Democrats.
The expectation -- since a bill to move the primary to March among other elections matters already passed both legislative chambers -- is that this bill will pass and Missouri will move back to March 6 on the calendar.
NOTE: Keep in mind also, that the legislature has a veto session scheduled for next week and legislative Republicans -- the majority in both houses -- could opt to override the gubernatorial veto of SB 282 with the help of four House Democrats.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Arizona, Presidential Primary Calendar Chaos, and the Rules
The newly emerging conventional wisdom coming out of the Friday news that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer would not detonate the strategically placed bomb she had placed on the 2012 presidential primary calendar the Republican National Committee had gone to great lengths to construct post-2008 is that the calendar will now be less chaotic. At the very least, it will be less chaotic in terms of finalizing the calendar over the next month or so without a January 31 Arizona presidential primary "forcing" the early four states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina) and Florida into January as well.
But to that post-Arizona conventional wisdom I say, "Not so fast, my friend!"1 The reason FHQ says that is not so much that we are attempting to fan the flames of the dying December 2011 start to primary season. [The chances of that were already low prior to Friday, and shrunk even more after Brewer's press release.] Rather, as is FHQ's custom, we would like to shine the spotlight once again on the rules. Yes, the calendar may be safe from the chaos of a 2011 start, but the remaining calendar decisions and the finalizing of the calendar itself may not be as orderly as has been portrayed in some accounts over the weekend.
Yes, but what about the rules?
Friday, September 2, 2011
Brewer Scratches January 31 Primary and Keeps Arizona's Options Open
Again, much ado about a debate.
This is now the second time this year that Arizona Republicans have threatened to unravel the formation of the 2012 presidential primary calendar. First, the state party signaled they were ready to pass and then voted down a resolution that would have urged Governor Jan Brewer to use her proclamation power to move the Grand Canyon state's presidential primary to an earlier date. And now, just over seven months later, after a month of doubt, Governor Brewer has decided to pass on a January 31 presidential primary date that would have forced at least five other states into January as well and the calendar into a heighten level of chaos.
On this, the day before she would have had to have set a January 31 date, Brewer has opted to accept an RNC-sanctioned debate and to keep her options open in terms of the date. The new date to watch in Arizona is September 30. If Brewer is to move the date at all from its current February 28 position, she will have to act before October 1 -- 150 days before the February 28 primary, and ironically enough, the RNC deadline for setting a date. Realistically though, if the primary is to be moved to a Tuesday the deadlines will be September 24 for a February 21 primary, September 17 for a February 14 primary and September 10 for a February 7 primary.
As always, stay tuned to FHQ for the latest.
--
Here's the press release from Governor Brewer's office:
This is now the second time this year that Arizona Republicans have threatened to unravel the formation of the 2012 presidential primary calendar. First, the state party signaled they were ready to pass and then voted down a resolution that would have urged Governor Jan Brewer to use her proclamation power to move the Grand Canyon state's presidential primary to an earlier date. And now, just over seven months later, after a month of doubt, Governor Brewer has decided to pass on a January 31 presidential primary date that would have forced at least five other states into January as well and the calendar into a heighten level of chaos.
On this, the day before she would have had to have set a January 31 date, Brewer has opted to accept an RNC-sanctioned debate and to keep her options open in terms of the date. The new date to watch in Arizona is September 30. If Brewer is to move the date at all from its current February 28 position, she will have to act before October 1 -- 150 days before the February 28 primary, and ironically enough, the RNC deadline for setting a date. Realistically though, if the primary is to be moved to a Tuesday the deadlines will be September 24 for a February 21 primary, September 17 for a February 14 primary and September 10 for a February 7 primary.
As always, stay tuned to FHQ for the latest.
--
Here's the press release from Governor Brewer's office:
Statement by Governor Jan BrewerArizona Presidential Debate“I’m thrilled today to learn that Arizona has preliminarily been awarded a presidential debate sanctioned by the Republican National Committee. This is a tremendous opportunity, as Arizona will be one of just a handful of states to play host to an RNC debate. Additionally, I’m hopeful this debate will make certain that the major presidential candidates travel to Arizona, speak with our voters and address issues unique to the Southwest.
“Arizona is a battleground for critical issues ranging from illegal immigration to Medicaid reform and the housing crisis. Our voters deserve to hear the presidential candidates speak to these and other important matters.
“Just as important as what I’m announcing today is what I’m not announcing: a formal date for Arizona’s Presidential Preference Election. I will for the time being keep my options open.
“With whatever date I choose, my goal remains the same as ever: To provide Arizona voters the biggest possible platform with which to impact the presidential nomination process. In such a critical election, this is a decision that is owed careful consideration.”
Will Arizona Trigger a February "Dead Zone" on the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar?
The folks at First Read raise an interesting (second) point:
However, I apt to push back against the second point to some degree. Again, this is a possibility. February may be a dead zone, but I don't think it will be necessarily.2 We don't know that with any level of certainty because the situation is still so fluid. First of all, if you are Brian Kemp in Georgia, you look at all that real estate in February and dream of all the possibilities for the race in the Peach state. Georgia is a free agent after all. The gamble for Georgia -- and it won't really be a gamble because Kemp can wait until December 1 to make a decision -- is that it has to figure out what the other, limited number of states that can still move will do.
Then there is Colorado. The chair of the Republican Party in the Centennial state has already gone on record as saying that the party may opt for the earlier date allowed by state law. Chairman Call has also said that the party is "much more inclined" to leave the Republican caucuses right where they are while still leaving the door open for a move. The Colorado caucuses are currently scheduled to occur on Super Tuesday, March 6. But if February is wide open, Call and the Colorado Republican Party may be tempted to shift up into that February 7 slot allowed by state law. The "much more inclined" caveat was predicated on the idea that the race would still be competitive on March 6. Yet, if Colorado Republicans are to act rationally (with the goal of maximizing their attention in the presidential nomination process), it would be greatly more advantageous for the party to move to a stand-alone February 7 date rather than sharing the spotlight with around ten other states on March 6. In other words, the incentive is there -- despite the penalties3 -- to move up.
And what about Wisconsin? Here is another situation where a state, in this case because its state legislature has a year-round session, has yet to determine a date for its primary. Now, there is Republican-sponsored legislation to move the Badger state primary to April 3, but the legislature has yet to finish consideration of those bills. Again, if February is wide open, the Republican majorities in the Wisconsin legislature may reconsider the effort to shift away from that February 21 date the primary there currently occupies.
FHQ wants to be extremely careful here. These states are not on the verge of moving to or staying in February, but the relevant primary date-setting actors within each would be very tempted, FHQ would think, to at the very least allow the possibility of February enter into their decision-making calculus. If anything, it is this secondary jockeying (or possible jockeying) that may "force" Arizona to select a January 31 primary date.
Maybe it is expected.
NOTE: You can read more about the Arizona-triggered February possibilities here and here.
--
1 Given the consistent language used by the governor's spokesperson, it appears expected, but I strongly question whether January 31 will be the ultimate landing spot for Arizona. There is just enough room for doubt there given this debate bargaining chip and some of the more recent comments from the governor's office. Then again, I am not privy to the sources the folks at NBC News are.
2 And I want to make clear that I'm not coming down on the folks at First Read here. That was a quick hit burst of information. My point is to parse that out a bit more. ...as FHQ has been known to do.
3 Colorado, like Iowa, does not directly allocate any delegates in the first step of its caucus/convention process. As such, the state would not be open to the RNC penalties. Minnesota Republicans are in the same situation.
As soon as today, we could know what Arizona plans to do with the GOP primary. If it holds its primary on Jan. 31 -- as expected -- that would force Iowa, New Hampshire, and the other early states to move up from February to January. That would have two possible reactions: One, you’ll probably have six significant early contests in January -- IA, NH, NV, SC, AZ, and FL. And two, with those February contests moving to January, that means there’s the possibility that February becomes a dead zone. So you’ll have these flurry of early contests in January, but then a relatively empty February before the Super Tuesday races in March.Now, that isn't to suggest that the first point isn't worthy of comment. It's just less variable than the second point. Sure, if Arizona moves to January 31,1 then that is absolutely true that Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Florida and Arizona will dot the January landscape. There is no doubt there. [That makes this South Carolina/Florida reaction kind of, well, duh.]
However, I apt to push back against the second point to some degree. Again, this is a possibility. February may be a dead zone, but I don't think it will be necessarily.2 We don't know that with any level of certainty because the situation is still so fluid. First of all, if you are Brian Kemp in Georgia, you look at all that real estate in February and dream of all the possibilities for the race in the Peach state. Georgia is a free agent after all. The gamble for Georgia -- and it won't really be a gamble because Kemp can wait until December 1 to make a decision -- is that it has to figure out what the other, limited number of states that can still move will do.
Then there is Colorado. The chair of the Republican Party in the Centennial state has already gone on record as saying that the party may opt for the earlier date allowed by state law. Chairman Call has also said that the party is "much more inclined" to leave the Republican caucuses right where they are while still leaving the door open for a move. The Colorado caucuses are currently scheduled to occur on Super Tuesday, March 6. But if February is wide open, Call and the Colorado Republican Party may be tempted to shift up into that February 7 slot allowed by state law. The "much more inclined" caveat was predicated on the idea that the race would still be competitive on March 6. Yet, if Colorado Republicans are to act rationally (with the goal of maximizing their attention in the presidential nomination process), it would be greatly more advantageous for the party to move to a stand-alone February 7 date rather than sharing the spotlight with around ten other states on March 6. In other words, the incentive is there -- despite the penalties3 -- to move up.
And what about Wisconsin? Here is another situation where a state, in this case because its state legislature has a year-round session, has yet to determine a date for its primary. Now, there is Republican-sponsored legislation to move the Badger state primary to April 3, but the legislature has yet to finish consideration of those bills. Again, if February is wide open, the Republican majorities in the Wisconsin legislature may reconsider the effort to shift away from that February 21 date the primary there currently occupies.
FHQ wants to be extremely careful here. These states are not on the verge of moving to or staying in February, but the relevant primary date-setting actors within each would be very tempted, FHQ would think, to at the very least allow the possibility of February enter into their decision-making calculus. If anything, it is this secondary jockeying (or possible jockeying) that may "force" Arizona to select a January 31 primary date.
Maybe it is expected.
NOTE: You can read more about the Arizona-triggered February possibilities here and here.
--
1 Given the consistent language used by the governor's spokesperson, it appears expected, but I strongly question whether January 31 will be the ultimate landing spot for Arizona. There is just enough room for doubt there given this debate bargaining chip and some of the more recent comments from the governor's office. Then again, I am not privy to the sources the folks at NBC News are.
2 And I want to make clear that I'm not coming down on the folks at First Read here. That was a quick hit burst of information. My point is to parse that out a bit more. ...as FHQ has been known to do.
3 Colorado, like Iowa, does not directly allocate any delegates in the first step of its caucus/convention process. As such, the state would not be open to the RNC penalties. Minnesota Republicans are in the same situation.
Facing a Move Back to March, Ohio Legislature Set to Introduce Stand Alone Legislation to Keep Presidential Primary in May
The Associated Press reported last night that the Ohio legislature is prepared to introduce legislation to move the Buckeye state presidential primary to May. Now, if you have been reading FHQ at all during 2011, you probably know that Ohio has already moved its primary to May. Yeah, I did a double take too and then thought that the story was an accidental reprint from May. It isn't.
Some space has recently been devoted to describing Ohio Democrats' efforts to place a challenge to the recently-passed elections overhaul legislation on the ballot in 2012. That effort now includes a complete overturning of the newly-enacted law which also contains a provision moving the Ohio presidential primary to May. If Ohio Democrats are successful in gathering the necessary number of signatures on their petition, the elections law would be put on hold until the voters have a chance to vote on the matter in November 2012. That means that the presidential primary would move back to March. To head off that potential conflict Ohio state legislators of both parties are ready to introduce a stand-alone bill with the sole purpose of shifting the primary to May.
...again.
In terms of the timeframe for the bill, the legislature is scheduled to have a couple of "if needed" session days on September 13 and 14 and are back in session on September 20 and 21 with a committee hearing day slated for September 22.
The net effect of this is next to nothing since the primary is likely to stay on May 8. Still, this is an interesting footnote to the evolution of the 2012 presidential primary calendar. Along with Missouri, the lesson from Ohio seems to have been a warning to state legislatures: placing presidential primary moves in sweeping election overhauls at your own risk (especially if the remaining elections changes are controversial and the primary move is necessary).
Some space has recently been devoted to describing Ohio Democrats' efforts to place a challenge to the recently-passed elections overhaul legislation on the ballot in 2012. That effort now includes a complete overturning of the newly-enacted law which also contains a provision moving the Ohio presidential primary to May. If Ohio Democrats are successful in gathering the necessary number of signatures on their petition, the elections law would be put on hold until the voters have a chance to vote on the matter in November 2012. That means that the presidential primary would move back to March. To head off that potential conflict Ohio state legislators of both parties are ready to introduce a stand-alone bill with the sole purpose of shifting the primary to May.
...again.
In terms of the timeframe for the bill, the legislature is scheduled to have a couple of "if needed" session days on September 13 and 14 and are back in session on September 20 and 21 with a committee hearing day slated for September 22.
The net effect of this is next to nothing since the primary is likely to stay on May 8. Still, this is an interesting footnote to the evolution of the 2012 presidential primary calendar. Along with Missouri, the lesson from Ohio seems to have been a warning to state legislatures: placing presidential primary moves in sweeping election overhauls at your own risk (especially if the remaining elections changes are controversial and the primary move is necessary).
Arizona: Much Ado About ...a Debate?
FHQ finds it hard to fathom that all this ballyhoo since the end of July in Arizona has been about getting the 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls into the Grand Canyon state for a debate. But that is what appears to be the alternative to a January 31 presidential primary in Arizona according to former Arizona Republican Party Chair Randy Pullen.
"That's pretty much it," former chairman Randy Pullen said when asked whether topics other than hosting a debate in Arizona were being discussed as alternatives to moving up the primary date.Of course, Governor Brewer in comments on Thursday stated:
"I would like an early primary if at all possible. I think that kind of highlights Arizona a lot more," she said. "But depending on what we can negotiate as far as what's good for Arizona and what's good for the country as a whole ... I'm open."The catch here is that Arizona is already scheduled to hold a non-compliant February 28 primary. In other words, the primary is already "early". As we have argued here at FHQ, the January 31 proposition was the opening offer in an ongoing negotiation to reserve Arizona a seat at the table in the 2012 Republican nomination process. But does a debate and a February 28 primary -- Is that early enough? -- achieve that or will Arizona push to schedule a debate or move its primary up to its centennial on February 14? We will likely have an answer to those questions today or tomorrow. Regardless, the debate wrinkle, while not new, is suddenly a lot more serious as far as Brewer's and Arizona Republicans' goals are concerned.
Ohio Arm of Obama Campaign Gets Involved in Battle Over New Election Law
Thursday, September 1, 2011
2012 Calendar Correction Corner
There have been an awful lot of 2012 primary calendar stories out there the last few days. Layered into them has also been a fair amount of, oh, FHQ doesn't want to call it misinformation, but certainly things that could have used some footnotes or -- ideally -- more space. Look, the rules and the calendar are complicated. As I'm fond of saying, there's a reason someone can maintain a blog on the subject.
That said, I did want to point out a few of the more egregious instances of this.
The Mother Jones piece by Kate Sheppard that came out on Wednesday just didn't sit well with me. ...and right from the get-go:
That said, I did want to point out a few of the more egregious instances of this.
The Mother Jones piece by Kate Sheppard that came out on Wednesday just didn't sit well with me. ...and right from the get-go:
The 2012 Republican primary contest might be all anyone can talk about these days, but there still isn't a very clear picture of what the primary calendar even looks like. With just months left before the first votes, the Republican National Committee has done little to reduce the uncertainty: GOP officials have yet to issue a final decision on which states will be first in 2012, and it's not clear when they will.
While the RNC dawdles, several states are taking action. Arizona and Florida are considering jumping ahead of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary to claim the first-in-the-nation title for themselves. If they do so, they could throw the entire primary calendar—and candidates' plans—into chaos.
If one is to purport that one is "explaining" the primary calendar (in the headline), then one had better have a basic understanding of the mechanics of the process behind what is being described. Some may say that the RNC should exert some power over rogue calendar states, but the typical reply around these parts is "What Power?" The notion that the RNC has "yet to issue a final decision on which states will be first in 2012" is borderline ludicrous. The parties set the guidelines -- both the RNC and DNC did so in 2010 -- and the states set their dates accordingly. Well, ideally states set their dates accordingly. Florida and Michigan (and Wyoming Republicans) broke with that tradition in 2008 and ushered in an era in which some states -- not all, mind you -- have decided to challenge the national party rules in an effort to maximize the state's influence over the nomination process. But again, the states are the ones making the decision here. The national parties only provide the guidelines and a set of (mostly toothless) penalties to keep states in line. The RNC and DNC have already weighed in on this (see figure below). Both would prefer the first four states to hold February contests with the remaining states following in March or later. So no, the RNC is not "dawdling". The national party may have lengthened this process by setting an October 1 deadline by which states have to decide on dates, but the party has not dragged their feet on this. Things are undecided as of now, but we absolutely know that Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina will go first.
...we just don't know when.
 |
| [Click to Enlarge] |
Next on the list:
I tweeted this yesterday, but thought I'd offer a slightly broader explanation here. Michael Shear at The Caucus blog at The New York Times in a rundown of the Arizona situation had this to say about the potential chain reaction an Arizona move to January 31 might set off:
So what?
The calendar scramble is a rite of passage every four years for the candidates, reporters, pundits, pollsters, ad makers, schedulers, cable TV hosts and others who plan their lives around the presidential campaign. Just about everyone involved wants to know whether the campaigning will be reaching a crescendo during the Christmas and New Year holidays.
FHQ agrees that calendar jockeying is the norm -- or has been in the post-reform era -- but what we are witnessing in 2012 and before it in 2008 is something different than the frontloading that came before it. Before 2008, and even during that cycle, states in varying numbers customarily clustered their contests at the earliest date allowed by the two national parties. But Florida's and Michigan's (and Wyoming Republicans') challenges to the "earliest allowed date" rule, as was mentioned above, fundamentally changed the process of the primary calendar developing. This was especially true after neither party did much to alter the penalties that rogue states face for violating the rules on timing between 2008 and 2012. Viewed through that lens, the challenges that we are seeing from Arizona, Florida, Michigan and Georgia at the moment are entirely predictable.
So yes, the primary/caucus movement may be a rite of passage, but that rite has taken on a different form in the last two cycles.
Finally, I want to gently push back against the NPR story on the calendar on All Things Considered this afternoon. The information was based on Liz Halloran's post on NPR's It's All Politics blog. I say gently push back because FHQ spoke with Ms. Halloran for that story. They opted to play up the primaries in December angle. And that's fine. People should know that it is a possibility. But Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina leaping into 2011 is a remote possibility. That December 5 date Elving cites is FHQ's and it is entirely predicated on Florida moving its primary to the earliest date that its state law allows the Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee to set. Barring the Sunshine state moving to January 3, then, December primaries and caucuses are not going to happen. And given the current dynamics, it looks as if everyone will be able to fit into January even if Arizona moves to January 31.
If you want to read a fairly quick synopsis of what is going on -- if you aren't reading yourself to sleep here -- I'd recommend Aaron Blake's post on The Washington Post's The Fix blog. I thought it was spot on.
Draft Resolution Changes to 2012 Illinois Republican Delegate Selection Rules
There has been some discussion over the last few days about the potential impact of a series of proposed changes to the traditional delegate selection rules employed by the Illinois Republican Party. Is it a proxy war between the Romney and Perry camps? Is it a fundamental departure from the loophole primary rules? Does it represent a switch to proportional allocation of Illinois Republican delegates? Without the actual rules changes before us, though, it is difficult to assess just how much impact the proposed changes would have.
But now we have access to the draft resolutions seeking to change the Republican delegate selection rules in Illinois. The picture painted indicates some interesting changes to the rules. For starters, there continues to be a tremendous problem throwing around the terms winner-take-all and proportionality without much consideration of the lines gradation between them. FHQ will continue to urge those following these changes -- in Illinois or elsewhere -- to look closely at the rules or proposed rules changes.
Let's breakdown the proposal and attempt to assess the changes.
If these rules are instituted their impact will largely depend on the dynamics of the race as it approaches March 20. If the race is down to just two candidates, the chances that one of the candidates receives 50% of the vote statewide or on the congressional district level increases. If however, someone like Ron Paul sticks around as he did in 2008, that could affect Romney's or Perry's or Bachmann's ability to reach 50% and claim all of the delegates, whether at-large or in the congressional district. Those are some pretty big ifs though. IF there are more than two active candidates in the race. More importantly, IF these rules changes are passed by the Illinois Republican Party State Central Committee. Of course, it also depends on the race hinging on delegate count instead of one candidate overwhelming the race early -- something that seems somewhat remote, at least from our September 2011 vantage point. March 2012 is still a ways off.
--
1 Please note that an earlier version of this post said that Illinois in previous years had a 20% minimum threshold. That is not the case. The state party has not had a minimum threshold prior to this -- assuming the rules change. FHQ is stuck in a "reading primary bills" mindset where strikethroughs in bills mean that is a portion of the bill that is being replaced. Again, that is not the case with this draft resolution. The 20% figure was from a previous draft of the resolution. Thanks to Steven Daglas of the Illinois Republican Party for pointing that out.
But now we have access to the draft resolutions seeking to change the Republican delegate selection rules in Illinois. The picture painted indicates some interesting changes to the rules. For starters, there continues to be a tremendous problem throwing around the terms winner-take-all and proportionality without much consideration of the lines gradation between them. FHQ will continue to urge those following these changes -- in Illinois or elsewhere -- to look closely at the rules or proposed rules changes.
Let's breakdown the proposal and attempt to assess the changes.
- First of all, the allocation of the bulk of the Illinois Republican delegates -- those apportioned to the state based on population (three delegates per each of the state's 18 congressional districts) -- is now being done proportionally. That is a fairly significant change. In other words, for 54 of the state's 69 delegates, the allocation method has changed from directly electing delegates who express a candidate preference to allocating delegates based on the percentage of the vote a candidate has received. The interesting thing is that the proposed changes constantly cite the rules put in place by the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee, but does not utilize the full measure of leeway built into those rules. Illinois Republicans could simply have changed the formula for the allocation of at-large delegates and left it at that. That the switch to proportionality extends to the congressional district delegates is indicative of a broader change; changes being spearheaded by someone in the Romney camp.
- For those 54 delegates plus 12 of the remaining 15 delegates (3 are automatic delegates -- party officials -- who are not bound by the primary results), the rules change proposals call for a couple of triggers. The trigger receiving the most discussion is the 50% threshold. If one candidate surpasses the 50% of the statewide vote barrier, that candidate receives all of the at-large delegates. Winner-take-all. That also applies to the votes within congressional districts. If a candidate clears the 50% mark in the congressional district, that candidate nets all of the delegates in that district. Again, winner-take-all.
- The second trigger is a floor trigger (as opposed to the ceiling trigger above). Candidates must clear a certain vote percentage in order to lay claim to any delegates. In the past Illinois has had no minimum threshold.1 The maximum threshold allowed by the 2012 Republican rules is 20% The draft resolutions being considered in Illinois, however, propose dropping that threshold to 10%. Candidates winning 10% or more of the vote in the March 20 Illinois primary will receive a proportional portion of the 54 congressional district delegates and also the 12 at-large delegates if no candidate wins a majority of the vote either statewide or in the congressional district.
If these rules are instituted their impact will largely depend on the dynamics of the race as it approaches March 20. If the race is down to just two candidates, the chances that one of the candidates receives 50% of the vote statewide or on the congressional district level increases. If however, someone like Ron Paul sticks around as he did in 2008, that could affect Romney's or Perry's or Bachmann's ability to reach 50% and claim all of the delegates, whether at-large or in the congressional district. Those are some pretty big ifs though. IF there are more than two active candidates in the race. More importantly, IF these rules changes are passed by the Illinois Republican Party State Central Committee. Of course, it also depends on the race hinging on delegate count instead of one candidate overwhelming the race early -- something that seems somewhat remote, at least from our September 2011 vantage point. March 2012 is still a ways off.
--
1 Please note that an earlier version of this post said that Illinois in previous years had a 20% minimum threshold. That is not the case. The state party has not had a minimum threshold prior to this -- assuming the rules change. FHQ is stuck in a "reading primary bills" mindset where strikethroughs in bills mean that is a portion of the bill that is being replaced. Again, that is not the case with this draft resolution. The 20% figure was from a previous draft of the resolution. Thanks to Steven Daglas of the Illinois Republican Party for pointing that out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)