On Ignoring Laws to Schedule Primaries and Caucuses

Aaron Blake and Chris Cillizza attempt to bust the myth of the impact the rules/laws in Iowa and New Hampshire actually have on their ability to schedule their primaries or caucuses. Their bottom line is, hey, both Iowa and New Hampshire can and have in the past fudged the rules, so breaking the barrier into December is not likely as a result.

FHQ disagrees.

Past actions give the appearance that Iowa and New Hampshire can bend their own rules/laws, but that is not the case. Blake and Cillizza provide some seemingly good examples of past rules breaking, but it is a shallow dig and fails to capture the context of those cycles. Let's have a look and then I'll explain the true measure of the situation in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Blake and Cillizza write:

Second, the main reason people think things may begin in December is because New Hampshire state law requires its primary to be held seven days before any similar contest, and Iowa law requires its caucuses to be held eight days before the next contest. New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner has cited this law and said New Hampshire must be at least a week before Nevada.

Well, both of these laws have been ignored before, so who’s to say they won’t again?

In 2008, Iowa held its caucuses just five days before New Hampshire. And in 1996, 2000 and 2004, New Hampshire held its primary less than seven days before another state. Gardner, the longtime secretary of state who has sole control over setting the state’s primary date, was also in charge during those three elections.

(In 1996, even after the state strengthened its first-in-the-nation law in response to a power move by Delaware, Gardner ultimately concluded that Delaware’s primary didn’t constitute a similar election.)

In other words, laws are laws. But there’s often a way to skirt them, and they have often been skirted.

FHQ will take the New Hampshire examples first. In 2004, New Hampshire did have a contest follow less than a week after the primary in the Granite state. But it was the North Carolina Republican caucuses. Not only was that a contest that was held in a party that was re-nominating an incumbent -- George W. Bush -- but not all of the caucuses were held that day. The precinct level events could take place across the Tarheel state throughout the months of February and March. In 2000, a non-binding Delaware Democratic primary -- a beauty contest -- fell on the Saturday after the New Hampshire primary. Additionally, Hawaii Republican caucuses were held the Monday after New Hampshire -- within the seven day window specified in New Hampshire law.

The tie that binds all three of these contests -- and the reason why New Hampshire shrugged their shoulders at the scheduling of them -- is that each was largely inconsequential. The Republican nomination was not contested in 2004, Delaware was non-binding in 2000 and George W. Bush and the other candidates were not going to trek out to Hawaii in 2000 either. In other words, none of these contests was a threat to the attention the New Hampshire law is designed to protect.

Well, you left out one, FHQ. Yes, I did. Delaware in 1996 is another special case, but it differs from the rest. The 1996 Delaware primary -- as was the case four years later -- was scheduled on the Saturday after New Hampshire, wherever New Hampshire ended up on the calendar. [It was tethered to the Granite state in the way that Nevada's Republican caucus is to New Hampshire this year.] I could argue about this being the one exception to the rule and leave it at that, but the truth is, Delaware was not an exception to the rule. Why? Delaware was rendered largely meaningless in the 1996 Republican nomination race because New Hampshire Republicans had the candidates -- or offered to them the opportunity to -- sign a pledge that they would not campaign in Delaware or any other state that violated New Hampshire's law. Among the principles, Bob Dole and Pat Buchanan pledged to uphold the seven day buffer. Lamar Alexander did not, but stayed away from the First state. Steve Forbes did not. Forbes campaigned in and won Delaware. But the press was busy talking about Buchanan's narrow, surprise victory over frontrunner Dole in New Hampshire.

Again, the issue is attention. New Hampshire had assurances of or felt safe in the fact that they would garner the most attention in each of those years. That is why those contests were deemed not "similar". By its nature the term "similar contest" is ambiguous and gives the New Hampshire secretary of state some latitude in the scheduling of the primary.

Why, then, is Nevada considered a similar contest to New Hampshire? The Nevada Republican Party has changed its rules since the 2008 and the precinct caucuses are binding now when they were not in 2008. In addition to that, the Nevada contest is sanctioned by the parties. By being included in the pre-window period, Nevada is being given an attention-grabbing spot. Bill Gardner cannot, then, get the same assurances on Nevada as he and New Hampshire got in the past and because of the party-sanctioned position cannot ask the candidates to choose New Hampshire over Nevada.

Well, what about Iowa? Both Iowa Democrats and Iowa Republicans violated the state law calling for the parties' caucuses to be eight days prior to any other contests. The catch here is that the mechanism is different in Iowa than it is in New Hampshire. I don't want to get too far down in the weeds on this one, but basically the New Hampshire primary is a state-funded contest that the parties there opt into. [They would be foolish not to. Why not save the money?] The Iowa caucuses like any other caucus is not state-funded. The parties pick up the tab and by virtue are not really bound by that state law -- not in the way that parties in New Hampshire are anyway. The Iowa parties can schedule their caucuses for any date they choose and can and do furthermore lean up against that state law when it comes to defending the first-in-the-nation status, but it carries far less legal weight than the New Hampshire law. Now, the parties could opt out of the primary in New Hampshire if it broke with national party rules, but again, they are not going to do that because of the financial considerations. These nomination contests -- whether primary or caucus -- are party business. State law only affects that function insofar as the state parties agree or disagree with the state laws. If they agree with the laws everything is fine. If they disagree the parties typically win out -- at least according to the courts they do. Those disputes rarely come up over primary dates, though. In the event there is a conflict, state parties usually opt out and hold caucuses. [More often than not we see court challenges pitting parties against state law over who can participate in the contests -- opened versus closed primaries.]

FHQ agrees with Blake and Cillizza that we may not see December primaries and/or caucuses, but it won't be because New Hampshire or Iowa -- but mostly New Hampshire -- can fudge the rules. The ads expenses and more importantly, as FHQ has warned, the future implications for first-in-the-nation status are clearer explanations against the notion of December contests. Iowa obviously cares about that. Bill Gardner does not -- at least not to the same level. His main interest is in abiding by the law of the state of New Hampshire.

Recent Posts:

"I'm not sure at this point that I do know where everybody else is."

North Carolina Bill to Move Presidential Primary is Only Mostly Dead

Nevada Republican Caucuses Set for January 14

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

"I'm not sure at this point that I do know where everybody else is."

That's New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner on the overall presidential primary calendar date-setting landscape, post-Nevada (via CNN).

But from where are the threats supposedly coming? Those "everybody else(s)"?

Institutionally speaking, most state legislatures are no longer in session, and if they are, they are either in periodic sessions associated with a year-round schedule or in special session with very specific items on the agenda. There are not, then, many primary states with the ability to move. North Carolina could. Missouri could. Massachusetts could. But logistically North Carolina is unable to threaten New Hampshire. Missouri cannot move it presidential primary forward either. Even if legislators in the Show Me state could agree on anything across Republican-controlled chambers these days, Governor Jay Nixon (D) would veto the bill, keeping a meaningless, non-binding primary on February 7. In neighboring Massachusetts, legislation to move the Bay state presidential primary back to June has been stuck in committee since May. The willingness and/or ability is lacking in all of these states.

How about caucus states?

All of the Republican caucus states are locked in. Yes, state parties -- particularly the Republican Parties -- could technically change the date in any one of those states, but it isn't likely. Planning is underway in each for caucuses next year, and while those sorts of changes have happened in the past, they are rare.¹

So where is the conflict? Where is the threat to New Hampshire?

Iowa.

Above, FHQ noted that all the Republican caucus states are locked in to dates. All the caucus states but one, that is. Iowa has yet to set a date and now may be competing with New Hampshire to see which gets the last remaining spot in January; the last spot that would keep either one out of December. That is a new element to all of this. With limited space -- space enough for one, but perhaps not two states' contests given the conflict New Hampshire state law represents -- Iowa and New Hampshire are potentially playing a game of hot potato to see who doesn't end up in December. No one wants to be the one state to push the start point of presidential primary season in 2011. But Bill Gardner cannot follow New Hampshire law and stay in January if Iowa nabs the last spot in January -- presumably January 3.

That would force the Granite state to December 27 or December 20 or December 13. It is that last option that FHQ penciled in for New Hampshire way back in May when it became possible for Florida to move up to as early as January 3. Now it is Iowa that may take that date or some other one during that first week in January. [January 5 is often mentioned.]

Again, Secretary Gardner is bound by state law. He has no ability to set the New Hampshire primary for January 10. Nevada Republican caucuses just four days later violates that law. And if Iowa selects a date during the first week in January, that gives Gardner no recourse but to go before Iowa -- in December. There would be no other option in January that would both keep New Hampshire as the first in the nation primary and give it the seven day buffer after the contest mandated by law.

What options are left to Iowa and New Hampshire?

1. New Hampshire on January 10 and Iowa on January 3 or 5 is not on the table. New Hampshire cannot do that. 
2. Iowa on January 5 and New Hampshire on December 13 is a distinct possibility. It keeps Iowa out of December. The blame would not be on the Hawkeye state for slipping into December 2011. That would all rest with New Hampshire; a victim of its own law. [How's that for a strange twist of fate?] Conversely, New Hampshire could take the January 3 date and force Iowa into December.
3. But if Iowa is willing to let New Hampshire go first in December, would it not -- and I'm speaking hypothetically here Iowans -- make sense for Iowa to go on January 10 and cede New Hampshire the January 3 date? That entails Iowa doing New Hampshire a solid -- one of epic and selfless proportion rarely seen in presidential primary calendar politics. [More on this in a moment.]
4. The final option is the Thelma and Louise doomsday scenario described last night. That's the "if we're going down, let's go down together" option.

Now this turns into something akin to a prisoner's dilemma. Option 1 is not workable. Option 2 protects New Hampshire in the short term, but likely hurts it -- and the other early states -- in the long run. The status of being first and the whole system in fact would be on trial before 2016. Option 4 yields much the same results.

That leaves Option 3. Iowa takes one for the team, allows New Hampshire to eclipse it for this cycle, and all the early states can then blame Florida and/or the RNC's lack of meaningful penalties for pushing the four early states up as far as they did.²

If you are rooting for reform of the primary system, then one of the December options is probably your best bet. If, however, you would like nothing more than to see some order to the process and no contests in December, well, you probably want to call up the Iowa GOP and ask them to consider January 10.

That is the only option that keeps this out of December at this point.

[NOTE: There is also the New Hampshire on a day other than Tuesday option, but Gardner has shot that down -- at least the Saturday, January 7 option.³]

--
¹ Nevada Republicans' second caucuses scheduling in 2007 to mirror the Democratic National Committee-sanctioned move made by Nevada Democrats into the pre-window period comes to mind. But again, the examples are few and far between

² Yes, the early states could still do that if one or more states was forced into December, but as FHQ has argued that is a psychological barrier that, if crossed, would make the national parties think twice about the current set up -- including the prudence of allowing Iowa, New Hampshire and now South Carolina and Nevada to go ahead of all the other states.

³ Here's John DiStaso in his Granite Status for today:

WHY TUESDAY? Gardner said the state primary law originally called for the election to be held specifically on Tuesdays but was eventually changed to allow it to be held on any day. 

He said the change was made to cover “an extraordinary circumstance” that could put Iowa's caucus on Christmas or New Year's Day with no alternative. 

Even with the current squeeze play, “That's not coming into play this time because we're not in the position of putting Iowa on Christmas or New Year's day,” he said. 

He also said the primary would not be scheduled for a Saturday because it is the Jewish sabbath. 

“Every presidential primary has been on a Tuesday, every state primary has been on a Tuesday, and ever federal and state general election has been on a Tuesday,” Gardner said.

Recent Posts:

North Carolina Bill to Move Presidential Primary is Only Mostly Dead

Nevada Republican Caucuses Set for January 14

Connecticut Republicans Adopt a More Proportional Method of Delegate Allocation

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

North Carolina Bill to Move Presidential Primary is Only Mostly Dead1

There are very few possibilities for calendar movement outside of Iowa and New Hampshire these days. The front of the calendar -- especially post-Florida -- is where all the attention is anyway. Shuffling of states in the first Tuesday in March to second Tuesday in June window is of little consequence now. That is largely attributable to the fact that there just is not any movement on that front at the moment and there are no signs that that will change. That said, there are a few options -- not likely ones, but options nonetheless -- left.

North Carolina is one of those states. Legislation (S 440) to create a separate presidential primary and schedule it for the first Tuesday in March was introduced back in March of this year. It has had a committee hearing but has laid fallow ever since. But technically, the legislation is active and could be acted upon when the legislature reconvenes in November. The likelihood of that particular course of action seems slim at best, though (via the High Point Enterprise):

"At this point, I've not received from our members any indication that there's a groundswell to make any changes [to the primary date]," said [Senate President Pro Tem Phil] Berger, whose district includes parts of Guilford County.

...

A spokesman for House Speaker Thom Tillis, R-Mecklenburg, said to the spokesman's knowledge, there's been no talk about moving up the Republican presidential primary when the General Assembly reconvenes.

On the agenda or not, is it even possible for North Carolina legislators to move the Tarheel state presidential primary to February or January and in any way fundamentally alter the likely calendar (where it stands now minus Iowa and New Hampshire dates)? Well, for starters, and to put this into terms FHQ uses repeatedly around here and in my research, the willingness seemingly is not there and the ability may not be either. The North Carolina General Assembly will be back in session for one day on November 7. The State Elections Board has said that they need 90 days to prepare for an election. The North Carolina primary -- scheduled for the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May -- has a filing deadline of the first Tuesday in February.

If the bill passed both chambers of the legislature and was signed on November 7, the earliest North Carolina could hold a primary, given the 90 days required by state elections officials, would be the first Tuesday in February. The filing deadline would also have to be changed to a window of time about a third as small as it currently is. North Carolina, then, could hold a non-compliant primary election, but could not logistically pull off a contest that would threaten the positions of any of the early contests. But perhaps, if the willingness existed in the legislature, North Carolina could insert a primary in one of the two gaps in the calendar: February 7-28 and April 3-24.

What is much more likely, though, is that the legislature does what its leaders say it will: nothing. If the race is still competitive in May, North Carolina will be the biggest delegate prize on May 8 -- and it is a proportional contest.

--
¹ Nope. I can't help the Princess Bride reference in this instance.

Recent Posts:

Nevada Republican Caucuses Set for January 14

Connecticut Republicans Adopt a More Proportional Method of Delegate Allocation

Michigan Presidential Primary Bill Signed into Law: Primary Set for February 28

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

Nevada Republican Caucuses Set for January 14

The screw just tightened a little more and the possibility of averting a December 2011 start to the 2012 presidential primary calendar just shrunk to a very limited number of possibilities. The Nevada Republican Party tonight set the date of its caucuses for Saturday, January 14.¹ That puts the pressure on New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner to set a date for a primary in the Granite state on Saturday, January 7 at the latest.

Nevada has now carved out its spot on the calendar and has forced Gardner's hand. The choices facing New Hampshire: hold a non-Tuesday primary -- likely on January 7 -- or move to the next available Tuesday slot seven or more days before Nevada -- January 3. The former allows Iowa to slide into a January 2 or 3 date while the latter forces Iowa into December.

Here's the narrowed choice set originally put forth here:

December 26-30 or January 2 or 3: Iowa
January 3, 7: New Hampshire
January 14: Nevada

FHQ has talked a great deal about the power Bill Gardner has in New Hampshire concerning the setting of the presidential primary date. He still has that power tonight, but he also has a hugely consequential decision to make now. No, the decision doesn't necessarily affect the candidates or the campaign overall, but depending on the decision, it could threaten the favored position New Hampshire enjoys now in future cycles.

I'll throw out one more scenario. Now that we are at the threshold of 2011 primaries, why not? If New Hampshire, and more importantly its position on the calendar, is likely to face increased scrutiny because of this move,² why not go down in a blaze of glory? Why not go out Thelma and Louise style with Iowa in December? And not late, holiday season December. FHQ is talking about that always-considered-completely-ridiculous-Florida-on-January-3 scenario with Iowa on December 5 and New Hampshire eight days later on December 13.

Iowa on January 3 and New Hampshire on January 7 may be more likely, but I'm not ready to discount December scenarios -- even the doomsday scenario -- just yet.

--
¹ Here's the full press release from the Nevada Republican Party:   

Nevada Presidenti​al Caucus Moved to January 14th
Las Vegas – Nevada’s First in the West Presidential Caucus has officially been moved to January 14th, 2012, Nevada Republican Party Chairwoman Amy Tarkanian announced today. 

“I’m extremely pleased to finally have a firm date for a caucus that will greatly improve Nevada’s standing and relevance in terms of national politics,” Tarkanian said.  “By establishing this date, we maintain Nevada’s standing as one of the first four ‘carve-out’ states and as the very first in the west.”

The date of Nevada’s caucus was thrown into turmoil when Florida, in violation of agreed-upon rules, moved its primary to January, causing the four carve-out early states, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada to scramble to find new dates to maintain the agreed-upon order.

“This is absolutely in the best interest of our state,” Tarkanian said.  “We are in the process of creating a caucus that will energize Republicans throughout Nevada and the west, and allow us to play a major role in deciding who will carry the fight to unseat Barack Obama and his destructive policies.”

² Yes, there will be plenty of blame Florida talk from the early four states, but that will only go so far if the start to primary season gets pushed into December.

Recent Posts:

Connecticut Republicans Adopt a More Proportional Method of Delegate Allocation

Michigan Presidential Primary Bill Signed into Law: Primary Set for February 28

Update on Nevada: Republican Caucuses Before January 21

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

Connecticut Republicans Adopt a More Proportional Method of Delegate Allocation

File this one under things that happened BF (before Florida) last week but FHQ couldn't get to until AFSC (after Florida/South Carolina):

The Connecticut Republican Party State Central Committee recently voted to alter the parties bylaws concerning the method by which it will allocate delegates in the April 24 presidential primary. Traditionally, Nutmeg state Republicans have used a straight winner-take-all allocation rule, but has this cycle changed the formula to allow for the possibility that a portion of the party's 28 total delegates can be allocated proportionally.

Here's the breakdown in Connecticut:

• 3 automatic delegates (state party chair, national committeeman and national committeewoman)
• 15 district delegates (3 delegates X 5 congressional districts)
• 10 at-large delegates (base number of delegates each state receives; five for each US Senate seat)

[NOTE: This is the general method of RNC delegate apportionment. It is constructed in a way that mirrors representation in Congress; a set number of delegates that each state gets and then a separate set based on population. There are also bonus delegates, but Connecticut has no Republican governor, senator or control of either chamber in the legislature; the determining factors along with past presidential election vote for bonuses.]

In the past, the winner of the Connecticut Republican primary -- whether by majority or plurality -- would have won all 25 non-automatic delegates. [The automatic delegates go to the convention unpledged.] But in 2012 that will change (...under certain circumstances). If one candidate wins a majority, then all 25 non-automatic delegates are allocated to the winner; just like it was under the old rules. If, however, no candidate clears the 50% barrier, then the 10 base, at-large delegates will be allocated proportionally based on the statewide vote to all candidates who receive at least 20% of the vote. The remaining 15 district delegates will be allocated on a winner-take-all basis according to the top vote-getter in each congressional district.

Those are details, but what are the implications?

Well, first of all, the change was not entirely necessary. With the primary in the Nutmeg state falling after April 1, no change to the winner-take-all allocation rules of the past was required. Actually, this plan is one that would pass muster with the RNC in the pre-April 1 proportional window. Allocating those base, at-large delegates proportionally according to the statewide vote is the only change to the past Connecticut Republican Party rules that is mandated by the national party delegate selection rules.

It is curious, then, that Connecticut Republicans opted to make any change at all. These are rules better fit for a March 6 primary than an April 24 primary. The prime motivation seems to have been to attract the candidates to the state.

"My belief is this could make Connecticut a little more attractive to our Republican presidential candidates in terms of their attention," Jerry Labriola Jr., the state's GOP chairman, told Greenwich Time in an interview Wednesday.

Labriola also told JC Reindl of The Day...

"We certainly have a lot of [candidates] who are in Connecticut's airspace flying to New Hampshire, but it would be nice to see some of them touch down in Connecticut," Jerry Labriola Jr., chairman of the state Republican Party, said in an interview Thursday.

This seems counterintuitive. If the idea is to get candidate attention later in the race, then would not the prospect of taking away from Connecticut a net 25 delegate gain -- from the winner's perspective -- be better than a far smaller margin between the winner and those candidates clearing 20% of the vote? Why fight over less unless it is a close race? But even then, it would be the competitiveness of the race that drives the candidates to the state and not the delegate change.

Let's game this out a bit, shall we?

Let us suppose that the field has been winnowed to two by mid-April before the northeast/Mid-Atlantic regional primary (Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island) on April 24. New York is winner-take-all if a candidate wins a majority and proportional otherwise. Rhode Island is straight proportional. Delaware is straight winner-take-all. Pennsylvania is a loophole primary. The biggest delegate gain, then, is likely to come from New York on that day. Well, the candidates would be motivated to spend time and money there in the hopes of winning a majority theoretically. There is no perceived gain for Connecticut in switching.

Let's further assume that those two remaining candidates are Rick Perry and Mitt Romney and that the competition for delegates is close.  That is a tough week for Perry on the surface and rejiggers the scenario with generic, nameless candidates above. Presumably, Perry has a few options. One is to focus his efforts on North Carolina, Indiana and West Virginia -- more favorable territory on paper -- on May 8; two weeks down the road. In a close race, though, that is ceding a lot of ground to Romney. Plus, this is a date and a series of contests that is being circled on a lot of calendars as the first point at which Romney could lock up the nomination -- or force a Perry exit -- if the race has become a protracted one.  If only for those reasons, Perry would almost be forced to compete in those states.

But where would he compete? The motivation would be to keep Romney from winning a majority in New York (Romney's is the opposite strategy.). Delaware and Connecticut would be natural choices, but Romney would have the same thought. But again, in Connecticut's case the attention would be dependent upon the dynamics of the race and not the rules (Note to self: not that Connecticut Republicans particularly care about that.).

One additional layer to add to this is that Ron Paul, if he decides to stick around in the race as a spoiler, could have an impact. That impact, though would be less on the delegate race than on the vote totals each candidate manages. Even at his best in 2008, Ron Paul rarely topped 20% of the vote in any nominating contest during the Republican primaries. And the four instances in which that occurred were all in caucus states. In a state like Connecticut in 2012, not clearing 20% of the vote means not receiving any delegates. But Paul's vote total could affect the top two candidates. It could more likely keep one of them under 50% and deny Perry or Romney an outright winner-take-all win that otherwise would have gone their way if Paul had not been in the race.

[NOTE: That type of threshold will be more likely in earlier states as they change their rules to meet the proportional requirement. And that has additional implications.]

Conceivably, Paul continuing in the race could help Perry out by hurting Romney in states like New York or Connecticut, where a majority win means winner-take-all allocation. That could lead Perry to focus all of his efforts on Delaware and Pennsylvania where the rules, if not the territory, are potentially more accommodating.

Yes, this scenario analysis is putting the cart WAY before the horse, but -- and this is a big but -- if the race remains competitive into April these are the sorts of discussions that will be going on in campaign headquarters. The lesson of 2008, one that won't necessarily be repeated in 2012, is that rules matter, but that they particularly matter in hotly contested delegate battles. The rules change in Connecticut is a bit of a head-scratcher because it runs against the grain of what the RNC intended with their overall shift in the delegate selection rules: that early states be punished by losing some of their winner-take-all clout and later states be rewarded with a choice of how to allocate. Often that was discussed in the media as a reward of being able to choose winner-take-all rules, post-April 1. But that hasn't really happened overall or in Connecticut. In fact, Connecticut moved in the opposite direction.

Recent Posts:

Michigan Presidential Primary Bill Signed into Law: Primary Set for February 28

Update on Nevada: Republican Caucuses Before January 21

Bill Gardner Discusses New Hampshire/Nevada on Face to Face

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

Michigan Presidential Primary Bill Signed into Law: Primary Set for February 28

[Click to Enlarge]

Michigan has not represented a threat to the calendar -- at least not to jump any further forward than February 28 -- since the Michigan Republican Party passed a resolution calling on the Republican-controlled state legislature to set a date between the last Tuesday in February and the first Tuesday in March. At the end, Michigan is in the calendar spot it was in since its non-compliant January 15 primary was held in 2008; the fourth Tuesday in February date called for by state law.

That was solidified when the state legislature in September passed a bill keeping the date on February 28 but also "closing" the presidential primary.¹ That bill (SB 584) -- including the presidential primary date -- was signed into law by Governor Rick Snyder (R). Michigan, then, officially became non-compliant today. With a pre-March 6 date, Wolverine state Republicans will lose half of their delegation to the Republican National Convention in Tampa.

For a history of the process to change/keep the primary date Michigan follow the Michigan post history. And find an updated 2012 presidential primary calendar here.

--
¹ The primary is not formally closed as in other states. Primary voters are required to sign a sworn statement that they are a member of the party of the ballot they are requesting.

Recent Posts:

Update on Nevada: Republican Caucuses Before January 21

Bill Gardner Discusses New Hampshire/Nevada on Face to Face

"Avoid[ing] front-loading of primaries and caucuses in the current cycle proved fruitless."

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

Update on Nevada: Republican Caucuses Before January 21

This probably does not come as stunning news, but the Nevada Republican Party has, according to Laura Myers at the Las Vegas Review Journal, decided to hold its precinct caucuses on a date prior to January 21.

GOP Chairwoman Amy Tarkanian said Nevada doesn't want to compete with South Carolina for attention from the candidates, who had to choose between the two states the last time around.

...

"We want to make sure the presidential candidates play here in Nevada," Tarkanian said Monday after South Carolina set its date. "We want to be a focus and absolutely not go the same day."

In sum, that means a few things:

1. Nevada Republicans will not hold caucuses simultaneous with the South Carolina Republican primary in 2012 as the party did in 2008. In other words, Nevada's Republicans are attempting to carve out their own distinct date within the pre-window period; one with enough distance between it and the South Carolina primary that does not require the candidates to choose between the two.
2. This eliminates Saturday, January 21 as a possibility for Nevada. 
3. And that, in turn, means that if the party sticks to its resolution to hold caucuses on the Saturday after New Hampshire, there are only two options left that are actually on the 2012 calendar: January 7 and 14. 

Again, the resolution to the conflict between the Nevada Republican resolution (setting the caucuses the Saturday after New Hampshire) and the New Hampshire state law (requiring a week between it and the next contest) will decide how many options are open to both states in addition to Iowa. Something will have to give. Either New Hampshire will seek out a non-Tuesday primary date or Nevada Republicans will abandon weekend caucuses. Absent a Nevada change, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner is likely to pull the trigger on the nuclear option: a December primary (or at least threaten it).

That yields a choice set, something like this:

December 26-30 or January 2-3: Iowa
January 3, 7 or 10: New Hampshire
January 14 or 17: Nevada

The January 17 option for Nevada is probably slightly more probable than anything else, but that depends on whether the Nevada Republican Party judges that four day period between it and South Carolina to be a long enough space of time. Nevada is, perhaps, unfairly feeling the pinch here. South Carolina got to provide itself with enough space between its primary and Florida's, and now New Hampshire is requiring Nevada to give it space. Stuck in the middle with seemingly very little say is Nevada. Well, Nevada Republicans think they have some say, but they are and will continue to find out that that isn't not the reality.

Recent Posts:

Bill Gardner Discusses New Hampshire/Nevada on Face to Face

"Avoid[ing] front-loading of primaries and caucuses in the current cycle proved fruitless."

South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary to January 21

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

Bill Gardner Discusses New Hampshire/Nevada on Face to Face

Jon Ralston tonight on Face to Face took a call from New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner to chat about the next looming conflict to determine the final 2012 presidential primary calendar.¹ At issue, as FHQ has discussed, is the discrepancy between the longstanding New Hampshire election law that requires seven days between the primary in the Granite state and the immediately subsequent primary or caucus and a newly-enacted Nevada Republican Party resolution tethering the party's caucuses to the Saturday following the New Hampshire primary. Many have tried the same thing and many have failed. As Secretary Gardner stated in the interview, several states in the 1990s attempted unsuccessfully to schedule their contests for the same date as New Hampshire. Wyoming Republicans in 2007 had a similar resolution to Nevada's on the books before rewriting it and moving the state's county meetings to January 5. Delaware scheduled a Saturday after New Hampshire primary in 2000 but it was non-binding on the Democratic delegate selection process in the First state.

The point is, Bill Gardner has seen a great number of states challenge New Hampshire's first in the nation status, but none has succeeded. The man is undefeated in keeping New Hampshire first since he -- the only secretary of state in New Hampshire during the time -- was given the authority to set the date in 1976 (based on the 1975 law cited in the segment below). If only for that reason alone, it might be worth taking Gardner at his word that New Hampshire will get what it wants: a seven day buffer between it and any subsequent contest.

But why?

Part of it, as I have mentioned, is that there is a collective desire on the part of the early, exempt states to avoid pushing this into December. To cross that barrier means to put the privileged positions the early states enjoy even further under microscope when the next round of delegate selection rules is crafted starting during the conventions next year, but in earnest during 2014. None wants to be the one to push the calendar into December, but I take Gardner at his word that he will do that if that is the only way to preserve New Hampshire's status. I would contend that it is a bluff, but we have never and probably will never know because when these sorts of conflicts arise, New Hampshire is not the one to blink.

Again, why?

New Hampshire is good at what it does. No, not necessarily in terms of picking nominees or presidents, but in quickly and flawlessly staging early presidential primaries. There is likely not another state that can more quickly get the infrastructure in place to hold a presidential primary. That ability coupled with the flexibility of the date decision resting in the hands of just one actor has made New Hampshire an unparalleled force at the front of the presidential nomination process throughout the post-reform era and stretching back further still.

New Hampshire can play chicken, then, like no other. They can wait and wait and wait, all the time knowing that they can put a primary together quicker than their competition and run it more smoothly. That places a great deal of pressure on other states. Not only is the clock running down on them to decide, but they too have to get a presidential nomination contest planned, prepped and ready to go.

And in this particular instance, Gardner and New Hampshire have a trump card. They know full well that every second is going to count for the Nevada Republican Party based on the party's mismanaged caucus convention system four years ago. South Carolina was on the same date and even with the candidates' attention on the Palmetto state, Nevada had problems in its trial run as an early state contest. Those problems persisted throughout the process. Ron Paul, who finished second at the precinct level, had enough delegates make it through to completely disrupt the 2008 state convention. It was cancelled and the state party's central committee chose the delegates to attend the convention in St. Paul. And as of a month and a half ago, the planning was still underway for 2012.

Not wanting to repeat that and not knowing when the caucuses will ultimately be held will weigh heavily on the Nevada Republican Party between now and their October 22 central committee meeting. And Bill Gardner will still be talking about going in December then. That would give Nevada Republicans less than two months to prepare for their caucuses if they are to go on the Saturday following New Hampshire. That won't be ideal for them.

...and Bill Gardner knows it.

--
¹ Below is the Face to Face show from October 3. The segment in which Bill Gardner appears is right after the opening and some other news.

Recent Posts:

"Avoid[ing] front-loading of primaries and caucuses in the current cycle proved fruitless."

South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary to January 21

South Carolina GOP to Weigh in on Presidential Primary Date Monday at 11am

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

"Avoid[ing] front-loading of primaries and caucuses in the current cycle proved fruitless."

That's John DiStaso of the Manchester Union-Leader post-South Carolina earlier today.

Man, I couldn't disagree more. This has been one of the most frustrating things about the conversation around the primary calendar in 2012. This cycle has been unlike any other for primary movement in general. After over a generation of states gradually pushing their primaries and caucuses forward -- closer and closer to the beginning of the process -- that take away is understandable. But it is wrong. In the sense that states have set non-compliant dates in 2011 and pushed the early four states up to the beginning of the calendar year, 2012 is a repeat of 2008 and seemingly a continuation of the past.

But folks, that isn't frontloading. That's "front". The "loading" part has been completely absent. What marked the 1972-2008 period was that not only were states moving their nominating contests to earlier dates, but they were clustering more and more around each other on the earliest allowed date. This was most pronounced in the hyper-frontloaded 2000 and 2008 calendars. 2004 was an exception to the rule because in that cycle Democrats opened the window in which contests could be held to include February. Some states took advantage of the opportunity and moved up to February, decreasing the volume of states on the first Tuesday in March -- still Super Tuesday that year. But with both parties nominations at stake in 2008 a great many states were motivated to move into February and most moved to the earliest allowed date: the first Tuesday in February.

Go and look at that 2008 calendar again. Now go look at 2012. The first Tuesday in March 2012 -- the earliest allowed date -- is still the date on which the most contests are being held, but only marginally so. That isn't Tsunami Tuesday. Heck, that is a Super Tuesday a month later than in 2008. There is no similar compression there [in 2012] to either 2008 or 2000. Better yet, go and look at the first 2012 calendar FHQ put together in -- yeah, I'll admit to it -- December 2008. There are twenty primary states scheduled in January or February based on state law at that time. That was before the informal coordination of the rules between the RNC and DNC in 2009 and 2010 -- rules that put in place the early four states in February, everyone else in March or later rules regime. Following the establishment of the rules, fifteen of those primary states moved back in in order to comply.  Two -- Arkansas and Illinois -- had already moved back by the time the rules were crafted, leaving Florida, Michigan and Arizona as the only states that stayed in either January or February.  And if that wasn't enough, none of the three have moved up. Hardly even the "front" mentioned above. But I'll gloss over that.

Was the effort to combat frontloading fruitless? No, it wasn't. A .850 winning percentage is not the record of a loser. It speaks otherwise. FHQ should also add that we don't buy the RNC's goalpost-moving reaction to Florida last week either.

"While the primaries will now start earlier than planned, the overarching goal of the current rules was to allow more states and voters to have a role in choosing the next Republican nominee for president. This goal will be met," said RNC spokesperson Kirsten Kukowski.

In a scenario where all it takes is one state to overturn the applecart, though, all it took was Florida to jump into January to destroy the best laid plans at the RNC. And another RNC official alluded to as much later:

"One state changed the dynamic," said an RNC official, speaking of the calendar goal.

In other words, there is such a small margin for error that it is almost impossible to claim victory from a rules perspective in any cycle. Again, where the problem lies is with the penalties, not the rules. But that is a story for another time. The bottom line is that this calendar, even in the most pessimistic of views, is not a frontloaded calendar. No states moved forward and there isn't nearly as much compression at the front as there was four years ago. Look closely at what follows Florida in February -- not much. This is an early calendar, but it is not a frontloaded one.  Frontloading takes moving forward and clustering, neither of which we've gotten.

Recent Posts:

South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary to January 21

South Carolina GOP to Weigh in on Presidential Primary Date Monday at 11am

Nevada to Move Caucuses to January, Date Remains Unsettled

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

South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary to January 21

[Click to Enlarge]

CNN is reporting that the South Carolina Republican Party will choose a January 21 date for its presidential primary.¹ The date puts South Carolina ten days before the recently-scheduled Florida primary; just as it was in 2008. The move also places a great deal of pressure on the remaining three early states -- Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada -- to fit their contests into a 17 day window from January 1-17. Realistically, the three will be shoehorned into an even smaller window based on the holidays.

As FHQ mentioned last night, any date earlier than January 24 for the South Carolina primary risks pushing the process into December. This brings into starker contrast the proposed four day window between Nevada and New Hampshire, a Nevada Republican Party rule that violates New Hampshire law. According to New Hampshire law, no similar contest can can be held within a week after New Hampshire's primary. More accurately, the New Hampshire primary cannot be scheduled for a date that is within a week after the primary in the Granite state.

Again, how that difference is resolved with determine the final calendar. And the task just got harder. It can still be done, but the Nevada Republican Party will have to change its rule that places its caucuses on the Saturday after New Hampshire.

That would look something like this:

Monday, January 2: Iowa
Tuesday, January 10: New Hampshire
Tuesday, January 17: Nevada
Saturday, January 21: South Carolina
Tuesday, January 31: Florida

I don't know what the feeling in Nevada is about Tuesday caucus meetings, but the Nevada GOP may have to warm to the idea. The alternative is that New Hampshire either opts to push the button and hold a primary in December or New Hampshire pushes its primary up to a point that forces Iowa to slip into late December.

But as I said yesterday, get ready for an increased level of December threats coming from New Hampshire.

--
¹ Here is the release from the South Carolina Republican Party:

SCGOP Chairman Connelly announces 2012 Presidential Primary dateFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN PARTY
Columbia, S.C. – SCGOP Chairman Chad Connelly today announced South Carolina’s 2012 Republican Presidential Primary date. Chairman Connelly commented: 

“Last Friday, a nine person committee brought chaos to the 2012 calendar. Today, South Carolina is making things right. 

“South Carolina Republicans have a thirty year track record of picking the eventual Republican Presidential nominee. We will continue that historic tradition on January 21, 2012. 

“It will undoubtedly be a spirited campaign to make Barack Obama just the worst ONE term President in American history. We are united in this mission, and any candidate who ignores South Carolina does so at great peril.” 

Additional Note: In conjunction with Fox News, the South Carolina Republican Party will also host a “First in the South” Republican Debate in the days leading up to the primary.

Recent Posts:

South Carolina GOP to Weigh in on Presidential Primary Date Monday at 11am

Nevada to Move Caucuses to January, Date Remains Unsettled

The Nevada GOP Blinks Presidential Primary Calendar Scenario

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