Howard Dean: Right on Rules, Wrong on History

Former Vermont governor, presidential candidate and DNC chair, Howard Dean has an interesting op/ed online at the Washington Post. Basically, he is making the same arguments FHQ has been making since 2009 and 2010: That the delegate selection rules and penalties put in place by the Republican National Committee for the 2012 cycle were not sufficient to prevent the type of calendar positioning used by states  in 2008.  Said Dean:

But states do not have the legal right to change the national party’s rules. If the national parties are willing to use their power to protect the integrity of the process, they can force states into compliance. The Republican Party seems unwilling to do so. Its first mistake happened months ago, when it decided that states that move their primaries would lose 50 percent, rather than 100 percent, of their delegates. Under the current system, for example, even if Florida violates the rules and loses half its 198 delegates, it would still have more than New Hampshire (23) and Iowa (28) combined. As a candidate, if you think you can win Florida, there is no reason not to encourage the state to move its date.

...

As the RNC considers its options, it should remember that while states are under no obligation to pay for the nominating contests set by the national parties, the parties are under no obligation to recognize the results from states that have violated the rules. To preserve the agreed-upon system in this cycle, the RNC must show it is prepared to enforce the rules, and to consider additional sanctions if necessary.

Dean's right. He is correct that the lack of changes to the RNC rules have led to the Arizona mess, the Florida problem and the Nevada-New Hampshire dispute. FHQ also agrees with the former governor that the best way to keep states in line is to remove the carrot that entices states into moving in the first place: candidate and media attention (and the benefits that go along with that). By crafting and enforcing tough rules and penalties on violating states and by punishing candidates who campaign in those states, a national party would be on firm footing to deal with the "rogue" problem. Again, this is something that FHQ has recently argued in favor of.


In all fairness, particularly to the RNC, though, Dean has partially revised history here. The Democratic Party did not have a rule to strip a state of 100% of its delegates for violation of the timing rules during the 2008 cycle. Rule 20.C.1.a from the delegate selection rules that bear the former party chairman's name says:

Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state partyprovides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutesthe first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held priorto or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in theevent a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or aftersuch dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced byfifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty(50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic NationalCommittee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. fromthat state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. Indetermining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state’sdelegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to thenearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to thenext nearest whole number.

Yes, the DNC rules called for the same 50% penalty for which both the RNC and DNC rules for 2012 call. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee in the late summer of 2007 decided to make an example of Florida and increase the 50% penalty to 100%. That same penalty was imposed on Michigan when it did not heed the party's warning. 

Dean also forgets how all of this played out in 2008. The same Rules and Bylaws Committee later gave Florida and Michigan both half of their delegates back in a meeting the weekend prior to the last round of primaries in early June. And then the party seated the full delegations from both states at the Denver convention later in the summer. 

Howard Dean is absolutely right about the type of penalties and enforcement necessary to correct this quadrennial issue, but he in no way does his argument any service by claiming that the Democratic Party did not do in 2008 exactly what he claims the RNC is now doing. Both parties are guilty of caving into the states and it would benefit both to work together to craft a plan and enforcement mechanism that would help the two national parties present a unified front against any would-be rogue states in the future.

Recent Posts:

"In return for forfeiting its coveted third-in-the-nation contest this year, Nevada would receive promises of stricter future sanctions to protect its early state status in the long term."

Ohio Presidential Primary Date Back Up in the Air

Timely Solidarity: Nevada Democrats Join Silver State Republicans by Moving Caucuses to January 14 Date

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

"In return for forfeiting its coveted third-in-the-nation contest this year, Nevada would receive promises of stricter future sanctions to protect its early state status in the long term."

That's Anjeanette Damon of the Las Vegas Sun on the mounting pressure being placed on the Nevada Republican Party to shift back its presidential caucus meetings to accommodate the Republican National Committee, and probably more importantly, New Hampshire. Allow FHQ to shunt to the side the fact that Nevada may move into the fifth position on the presidential primary calendar behind Florida for a moment to focus on the stick the RNC is promising the Republican Party in the Silver state it will wield in future presidential election cycles. My question is simple:

How?

Better yet, how and in what ways does the RNC propose to unilaterally impose stricter sanctions in the future? To be fair, the parties have traditionally set and imposed -- or not imposed -- delegate selection rules with varying levels of success. The trajectory over the last two cycles is toward less success. But as I argued recently, that is likely a goal that is only attainable through the coordination of not only rules but penalties between the two national parties. A party could go-it-alone, but in an era when state-level actors are becoming much shrewder in their ways in which they challenge the prime calendar positions held by Iowa and New Hampshire -- and now Nevada and South Carolina -- it is becoming a much more difficult coordination problem. The states already have the upper hand here. To put in the terminology of my academic research, some number of states already have the willingness to move at will even into non-compliant positions on the calendar, but a smaller faction of that group is also enhancing its ability to not only move at will but to effectively vie for a lead position on the calendar.

FHQ takes the RNC at is oft-repeated word that it will maintain the penalties on rogue states heading into the Tampa convention next summer. I have also taken it as a fact that the RNC would revisit its rules in the intervening years between the current election cycle and the next primary season. But I am still left wondering what the RNC can do on its own to make states comply with national party delegate selection rules. It will take more than a 50% delegate hit, the seating of a rogue state's delegates behind load-bearing columns next to Guam at the convention and hotel assignments three states over to keep willing and able rogue states in line. This is even more problematic in light of the reality that presumptive nominees are motivated to forgive states their penalties in the interest of general election campaign party unity.

FHQ is not privy to these discussions between current-RNC Chair Reince Priebus and state Republican Party officials in Nevada, but I am curious about whether the Nevada Republicans ask the very same "How?" question. Honestly, it will take at least language similar to that used in the Republican Party rules concerning the informally agreed to calendar alignment codified in its modified 2008 rules (Rule 15.b.3):

If the Democratic National Committee fails to adhere to a presidential primary schedule with the dates set forth in Rule 15(b)(1) of these Rules (February 1 and first Tuesday in March), then Rule 15(b) shall revert to the Rules as adopted by the 2008 Republican National Convention. 

Theoretically, that same sort of tit-for-tat structure could work and informally bind the parties to shared penalties. Yes, that is open to the same sort of problems attendant to the current system. The states would still be tempted to test the parties and the national parties would still be tempted to back out and forgive potentially vital general election states their delegates (if that continues to be the penalty). That said, this is still the next logical step in the rules/penalties progression. The parties are motivated to do as little as possible to the current system because it still fulfills its basic function of nominating candidates well-equipped for the general election and for fear of unintended consequences.

Of course, in the end, the RNC could just be banking on a win in 2012 so that they can pass the calendar headache on to the Democratic National Committee alone for the 2016 cycle.

--
Now let's have a look at the Nevada situation.

The RNC is pushing an incentive-ladened package on the Nevada Republican Party in the hopes that Silver state Republicans will move back into February to make enough room for New Hampshire between Iowa and South Carolina. They get...

• a protected position in the pre-window period
• a promise of stronger future sanctions
• to keep first in the West status
• to keep a full slate of delegates for holding a rules-compliant contest
• a promise of high-level party surrogates to raise money in the state (It is unclear, though, likely this is for the general election. But those funds could also be utilized to organize in order to avoid some of the party's caucus system problems in 2008.)
• a date -- presumably February 4 -- all to themselves four days after the Florida primary and three days before non-binding caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota. Maine Republicans will begin their process on February 4, but that will not end until February 11 when all of the caucuses have been completed. That Nevada has delegates at stake would hypothetically attract the candidates more than the three non-binding contests list above. [FHQ will have more on the Missouri situation later this evening. The Show-Me state is also slated to hold a non-binding primary on February 7 as of now.]
• no more headaches at the mere mention of Bill Gardner's name. 
• no more pressure from the RNC, Iowa Republicans and New Hampshire's Republican leadership, elected officials and media outlets.

Is that enough to persuade Nevada Republicans into moving and quelling the calendar "chaos" at the beginning of the calendar? It seems that way, but we won't know for sure until the Saturday, October 22 meeting of the Nevada Republican Party Central Committee.

Recent Posts:

Ohio Presidential Primary Date Back Up in the Air

Timely Solidarity: Nevada Democrats Join Silver State Republicans by Moving Caucuses to January 14 Date

Around, Around It Goes in Missouri. Where It Stops Nobody Knows

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

Ohio Presidential Primary Date Back Up in the Air

The Ohio presidential primary date is back in limbo after Ohio Democrats won the right last week in the Ohio Supreme Court to place the law establishing new congressional district lines in the Buckeye state on the November 2012 ballot as a voter referendum. This gets tricky, so let's have a look back at the progression of events.

1. First, recall that Ohio Democrats first balked at the voter ID requirements and reduced early voting in a bill -- then law-- that also included a provision to move the presidential primary from March to May. That provision was something supported by Democrats. 
2. However, Democrats sought to put the new law before voters in November 2012 in the form of a referendum.
3. That forced Ohio state legislative Republicans to offer a new bill with the sole intent of shifting the presidential primary from March to May. 
4. At that same time, the new congressional district boundaries were being considered by the legislature and the new clean presidential primary bill got held hostage in the negotiations between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats opposed passage and the Republican majorities could not force the bill through because the necessary emergency clause -- one that would have caused the bill to take effect upon signature -- requires a two-thirds vote; something that could not happen without Democratic votes.
5. Republicans, in the majorities in both state legislative chambers, tabled the presidential primary bill in the Senate and inserted in the redistricting bill a line to keep the presidential primary in March. With the voter ID law that included the primary move to May stuck in in the ballot initiative process, some provision to provide for a primary date for 2012 had to be included in some legislative measure.
6. Now, with the newly redistricted lines being subjected to the referendum process, the Ohio state legislature is once again faced with having to set a presidential primary date because the effort included in the redistricting bill has gone the referendum route as well. 

Of course, this also means that a new redistricting bill will have to be considered, but let's focus on the presidential primary legislation for the moment. That tabled bill (see #5 above) that proposed only moving the primary date and nothing else is now being reconsidered in the state Senate. The state House already passed the version (HB 318) moving -- or at that time keeping -- the Ohio primary to May, but the state Senate, according to reports in the Toledo Blade and by the AP, is eyeing a move to June as a possibility. That would, if passed and signed into law, give the legislature more time to hash out the particulars of the new congressional district boundaries, but it would also require the House to sign off on the changes to the legislation.

What adds pressure to the legislature in the midst of all of this is that a December 7 filing deadline for the primary is approaching and that date could come and go without the candidates knowing when the primary they were filing for would be held. This is particularly relevant for congressional candidates. They would be filing for a primary of unknown date in congressional districts with undefined lines. In theory, then, the possibility exists for the legislature to create a separate primary: one for the presidential candidates in March and one for the state, local and congressional candidates in May or June. The funding of those two contests would also likely be a topic for discussion in the consideration of any new legislation.

The Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee held a third hearing for HB 318 this morning and is scheduled to have a fourth hearing tomorrow -- if necessary -- before a floor vote on the presidential primary move tomorrow. The House is set to quickly consider and pass the Senate bill on Friday.

FHQ may have said this before, but it bears repeating: efforts like those in Missouri and Ohio to attach presidential primary provisions to broader and admittedly more controversial election law overhauls is a recipe for disaster. Both states have had the most dysfunctional processes to shift and schedule the dates of their primaries for 2012. The legislative process sometimes demands a more omnibus approach, but if the primary date is of the utmost importance within a state or state legislature, the lesson seems to be do that in a bill with a singular purpose.

Hat tip to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for the news.

Recent Posts:

Timely Solidarity: Nevada Democrats Join Silver State Republicans by Moving Caucuses to January 14 Date

Around, Around It Goes in Missouri. Where It Stops Nobody Knows

Iowa Republican Caucuses to January 3

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

Timely Solidarity: Nevada Democrats Join Silver State Republicans by Moving Caucuses to January 14 Date

In a move to bolster the place Nevada holds on the presidential primary calendar, Nevada Democrats joined their Republican counterparts in choosing Saturday, January 14 for the presidential caucuses next year. What impact this has on the Nevada Republican Party battle with New Hampshire over the timing of their respective contests is unknown for the time being, but Nevada Republican Party Chairwoman Amy Tarkanian did not give Laura Myers of the Las Vegas Review Journal a ringing endorsement of the "Nevada staying on January 14" option today.

"As of today we are on the 14th," Tarkanian said in an interview after touring the CNN debate hall. "As of today."

Regardless of whether one or both Nevada parties drops back a few days on the calendar or not, both the Democratic and Republican parties are doing now what was either not done earlier in the year or was a quietly held belief. Earlier in the year during the initial wave of panic caused by Florida's then-January 31 primary not changing (Yes, it is now scheduled for January 31, but it was scheduled for that date before it wasn't. ...before it was again.), all of the party chairs in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina were vocal about either the RNC making sure that threat did not come to fruition and/or letting the world know that each state would jump Florida if it did stay in January. Both parties in Nevada, but particularly the Republicans were quiet on the issue until Florida actually moved back to January 31 at the end of September.

As FHQ said, however, Nevada -- better late than never -- has made a strong case for keeping its spot at the beginning while also challenging New Hampshire's position to an extent that has not been matched in the post-reform era.

Recent Posts:

Around, Around It Goes in Missouri. Where It Stops Nobody Knows

Iowa Republican Caucuses to January 3

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Boycotts and the Scheduling of the Last [First] Three Contests

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

Around, Around It Goes in Missouri. Where It Stops Nobody Knows

FHQ just got done listening to a fascinating nearly-three hour floor debate in the Missouri Senate over the scheduling of the presidential primary in the Show Me state. And to say the rollercoaster ride to move the primary to March has been utterly crazy is, I think, understating the matter greatly. The debate this evening, though, served as a perfect microcosm of the whole process.

Given the option to move the primary to January, the chamber voted no.

Given the option to require the candidate appearing on the November general election ballot in Missouri be contingent upon having appeared on the primary ballot, the chamber voted no.

Given the option to move the presidential primary back to March, the chamber voted no.

Given the option to eliminate the primary altogether for 2012 only, the chamber voted no.

Again, this was a microcosm of the entire presidential primary date consideration in the Missouri General Assembly all year. Simply put, neither chamber could come to a consensus about what to do about the primary. Correction, neither chamber could come to a consensus that both chambers and the governor could agree to.

--
Let's look at each of the above votes in turn because they deserve some more in-depth attention than the fact that each got rejected. FHQ will wait on the daily journal for the session today before attempting to describe all the amendments to amendments that were offered. It got confusing after a while. In fact, after all the the measures failed one of the proponents of an earlier primary had to ask what had been voted on, not realizing that the elimination of the primary amendment had failed. FHQ, then, will simply refer to these as votes and leave it at that.

As for the January primary move, Senator Brad Lager (R-12th) proposed the amendment under the logic that if the national party was going to look down on a February date, then move the Missouri primary up to show constituents that the legislature wanted the voters' voices heard. Senator Lager was acting in the way that many in the Florida primary discussion in the state legislature there were -- to make a statement on the current system. Nevermind that the bill in its amended form -- such that the primary would have been on January 3, 2012 -- would never have passed the House and/or the governor. Of course, Lager was willing to defer to the will of the body and did once the measure was rejected by a 10-22 vote.

The March primary move was then discussed but prior to it being voted on another amendment was added to force the Missouri Republican Party to switch back to the primary from the caucus. The means by which the Senate saw as necessary to accomplish this was by requiring that a party's presidential candidate on the general election ballot in Missouri have appeared on the presidential primary ballot as well. This was seen as a stick by the members pushing this amendment -- to get the state party to request a waiver from the, in this case, RNC to move to a compliant primary after the October 1 deadline. None of the members felt they had any level of assurance that the state party would make the switch. One thing that did come up was that the Missouri Republican Party only switched a caucus system to avoid the penalties associated with a non-compliant February primary. But none of the senators felt confident in the switch back. [FHQ note: Parties that readily accept the state-funded primary are rarely incentivized to switch to a caucus the party would have to pay for when a state-funded option is on the table.] The fallout on this move was too much for the state Senate. Some were worried that a legal battle with the federal government [not to mention the national party] if by some chance a candidate was not on the primary ballot and could not then appear on the general election ballot. That, too, was defeated but by a voice vote.

Then the March primary move amendment came up for further discussion and a vote. And again, like the other amendments, it was voted down, 12-20, mainly because no one in the chamber felt comfortable with relying on the state party to move back to a primary.

The final vote came on the overarching Senate substitute to the House committee substitute to HB 3. The House-passed bill would have moved the primary to March and raised the filing fee for presidential candidates. The Senate substitute would have eliminated the presidential primary for 2012 -- bringing it back for February 2016 -- and struck the filing fee increase as well. The discussion on this one was fairly limited compared to the other discussions, but the vote ended the same: a tied 16-16 vote which prevented passage.

--
What does all of this mean? Well, aside from the reality that no consensus could ever be reached it means that Missouri will hold a meaningless presidential primary on February 7. That will cost the state up to an estimated $8 million and force the parties into holding caucuses. The Republicans had already selected a March 17 start date for its caucuses, but the Missouri Democratic Party has been awaiting a resolution to this impasse.

...one that is apparently not on the horizon.

Recent Posts:

Iowa Republican Caucuses to January 3

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Boycotts and the Scheduling of the Last [First] Three Contests

Utah GOP Gets Presidential Line on June 26 Primary Ballot

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

Iowa Republican Caucuses to January 3

Iowa Republican Party Chair Matt Strawn just tweeted:

It's official: The Iowa Caucuses will be Tuesday, January 3, 2012, at 7pm.

--
There are several things that come out of this move.

• This obviously keeps the spotlight on the discussion between New Hampshire and Nevada. [Barbs are already being exchanged between media folks in the Granite and Silver states.] The Nevada Republican Party has set the date for caucuses for January 14 and that gives New Hampshire a small window of time in which to work. Saturday, January 7 -- one week before Nevada and just four days after the Iowa caucuses -- has already been nixed by New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner because of the conflict it has with the Jewish sabbath. That would leave Gardner with a couple of choices if the desire is to keep the primary in 2012. He could go back on his word on either the Saturday conflict or the fact that Nevada is "similar contest" or he could opt for a Friday, January 6 primary -- three days after Iowa. The alternative is a primary in December some time. 
• Romney is now feeling pressure from New Hampshire supporters to boycott Nevada. As Mark Halperin said, he needs both. That's a tough one.
• Nevada Republicans are also feeling the heat to move; something that could come up at the Nevada Republican Party State Central Committee meeting this weekend (October 22). Jon Ralston just tweeted that he didn't get a sense of "steely resolve" from NVGOP chairwoman, Amy Tarkanian regarding the current caucus date.
• This eliminates the Iowa holding out until New Hampshire decides scenario FHQ discussed this morning. But it also looks like from Chairman Strawn's statement that the Iowa Republican Party is standing alongside New Hampshire, taking the olive branch offered last week when Gardner went after Nevada because of its date and not Iowa for tentatively taking the first Tuesday in January.¹ That adds to the heat Nevada will face. 

At this point it is most likely that Nevada moves back this weekend and New Hampshire ultimately slides into the January 10 slot. As always, though, we shall see.

--
¹ The full statement from Iowa Republican Party Chairman Matt Strawn:

Iowa GOP Chair Strawn: First in the Nation Iowa Caucuses Set for January 3

by Matt Strawn on Monday, October 17, 2011 at 8:55pm

Des Moines – Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn tonight made the following statement after the Party’s State Central Committee approved a motion to hold Iowa’s First in the Nation Precinct Caucuses on Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. (Iowa time).

“On behalf of over 600,000 Iowa Republicans, I’m excited to announce the first step Iowans will have to replace Barack Obama and his failed presidency will be next January 3 at our First in the Nation Iowa Caucuses,” said Strawn. “A January 3 date provides certainty to the voters, to our presidential candidates, and to the thousands of statewide volunteers who make the Caucus process a reflection of the very best of our representative democracy.”

Iowa’s precinct caucuses, which occur at over 1,700 precinct locations across the Hawkeye state, are best-known for the presidential preference poll that occurs along with traditional party organizing activities such as the election of precinct committeemen and platform discussions.

Strawn noted that the decision to hold the precinct caucuses

on January 3 mirrored the decision made by Iowa Republican and Democrat officials during the 2008 presidential cycle when Iowa held the First in the Nation Caucuses on January 3 and New Hampshire held the First in the Nation Primary on January 8, 2008.

Strawn noted this process is best served with Iowa and New Hampshire continuing in lead-off roles as the First in the Nation Caucus and First in the Nation Primary, respectively. He said, “At a time when more and more Americans feel disconnected from our national leaders, we need places like Iowa and New Hampshire that require those who seek to lead us, actually meet us, look us in the eye and listen to our hopes and concerns for our families and our Nation.”

Strawn also expressed solidarity with his counterparts in New Hampshire, “I will do everything in my power on the RNC to hold Florida accountable for creating this mess, but the culpability for creating a compressed January calendar does not end there. The actions of early state newcomer Nevada have also exacerbated this problem and unnecessarily crowded the January calendar. Time remains for Nevada to respect the process, honor tradition and rectify the problem in a way that will restore order to the nomination calendar.


Recent Posts:

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Boycotts and the Scheduling of the Last [First] Three Contests

Utah GOP Gets Presidential Line on June 26 Primary Ballot

Housekeeping: Wyoming Democrats Avoid Passover Conflict with Alternate Caucus Date

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

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Boycotts and the Scheduling of the Last [First] Three Contests

When the Nevada Republican Party set the date for its 2012 presidential nominating caucuses earlier this month, the action seemingly end the state's involvement in the finalization of the 2012 presidential primary calendar. Theoretically, that should have ushered in a phase in which Iowa and New Hampshire negotiated for or simply just set the dates of their respective contests during the first ten or so days of January 2012. The process did move in the direction, but not without Nevada. No, New Hampshire threatened to slide its primary into December 2011, Iowa Republicans tentatively selected January 3 as the date of their caucuses, and New Hampshire again threatened a December primary and went after Nevada and not Iowa in the immediate aftermath.

That was a curious move in and of itself. Instead of simply scheduling the primary for January 3 and forcing Iowa Republicans to swallow the bitter pill of a December contest, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner gave Iowa a pass by leaving a December New Hampshire primary on the table and going after Nevada instead. Now, as I mentioned last week, that signaled a couple of things. First, it was a move made with a nod toward Iowa and the notion that there just is not enough time at the beginning of the year -- before January 14 -- to fit both Iowa and New Hampshire contests in without violating the laws  on primary/caucus scheduling in both; in Iowa requiring eight days between its caucuses and the next contests and in New Hampshire requiring seven days between its primary and the next "similar" contest. the second thing it signaled was that Bill Gardner did not really want to hold the New Hampshire primary in December.

The first builds on the second. By not simply settling for the January 3 date -- the next earliest date that New Hampshire could have scheduled its primary without violating its seven day buffer law -- Gardner is attempting to bring Iowa into fold. In other words, if Nevada just moves back three days -- at least -- it allows Iowa and New Hampshire to fit contests into January that also abide by their state laws and uphold the traditional alignment of the calendar. Again, even if one of the first four states slips over into 2011, all four will be on trial in the time between 2012-2016. Their positions will be anyway.

It is in all four early states' best interests then to do whatever is necessary to keep this from spilling over into 2011. One will notice that there was nary a mention of Iowa in Secretary Gardner's statement last week. The attempt was to link Iowa and New Hampshire as a means of upholding the traditional alignment. The focus was on Nevada instead.

And that has reignited the standoff between New Hampshire and Nevada. It is a standoff that now includes candidate boycotts of Nevada -- something witnessed in the past. However, this time the challenge to New Hampshire is much stronger than in the past. The best way to tackle this is to look at the advantages for both.

Nevada:

• New Hampshire can deem Nevada "not similar" to circumvent the seven day buffer. [Yes, Nevada has a caucus and New Hampshire has a primary, but that is not the metric Gardner is using. The measure is one of attention and because Nevada, unlike 2008, has delegates at stake in the precinct caucuses, it is better able to woo candidates and gain media attention as well.]
• New Hampshire can schedule a non-Tuesday primary. [Gardner has already signalled that he is unwilling to go this route because of the conflict with the Jewish sabbath day. That does leave other days between January 3 and January 7 open though.]
• Most of the frontrunners are not boycotting Nevada. [Romney is playing with house money in New Hampshire and can afford to ignore the boycott if others do. That may affect him, but probably only at the margins. It will not cut into the consistently sizable leads the former Massachusetts governor has held in the polls of the Granite state. Perry, on the other hand, cannot boycott a state where he has garnered the endorsement of the Nevada governor.]
• The New Hampshire Republican Party chair called for Gardner to deem Nevada "not similar". [That didn't sit well with the Editorial Board at the Union-Leader. And from New Hampshire's perspective, the board is absolutely right.]

New Hampshire:

• New Hampshire can threaten and attempt to hold a December primary. [There are cracks in the December plan. There are potential conflicts with federal legislation to protect the voting rights of military personnel overseas, though those concerns have been overstated. There are also potential budgetary conflicts on the town and ward level with a December primary.]
• Iowa and tradition. [By not going at Iowa once Nevada had set its caucuses date, New Hampshire has kept up its alliance with the Hawkeye state. That has also kept alive the possibility that the two could work together to pressure Nevada to shift its date. This one is delicate because New Hampshire has to keep alive the threat of pushing the primary into 2011 and either leapfrog Iowa in the process or force the caucuses into 2011 as well if Iowa wishes to maintain its first in the nation status.  Gardner, then, is wielding a stick, but holding out the carrot of maintaining the "proper" order but with the requisite amount of time called for by law in both of the first two states. ...if only Iowa helps pressure Nevada. Now that may be a leap of faith, but New Hampshire is betting on the prospect of going in December forcing a reexamination of the early states' positions helping them to pressure the other early states. That is not working with Nevada. But will it with Iowa where there is more tradition behind holding the first contest? Perhaps.]

From the perspective of image, New Hampshire is losing this fight. Nevada seemingly has too many "yeah, buts" to throw at New Hampshire and Gardner to this point has simply balked at them while simultaneously threatening to move to December. Nevada, then, is mounting the best challenge to not New Hampshire's position per se, but to the infrastructure and means Secretary Gardner has utilized over the years to keep the Granite state up front. The candidate boycott is incomplete this time. There are cracks in the plan to hold a December primary. The only thing to save New Hampshire at this point from blowing up the current system -- at least the first four states' positions at the beginning of it -- is Iowa banding together with New Hampshire to avoid December contests to protect not only the status of the first two states, but the first four states as well.

Nevada has called that bluff. Will Iowa?

That is the question today as the Iowa Republican State Central Committee meets to presumably set the date of the caucuses for January 3. The day could go one of three ways:

1. Iowa selects January 3. That signals that they are confident that New Hampshire will work something out with Nevada and that they will help New Hampshire pressure Nevada to protect the calendar and the current system.
2. Iowa selects January 3. In this version, Iowa is telling New Hampshire that it is on its own; to go in December if it wants. Of course, that is something that Iowa would want to avoid because of what that may do to the national parties' ideas about which states should start the process.
3. Iowa holds off on setting a date until the New Hampshire/Nevada impasse is resolved. Such a move would do more than anything else to validate the New Hampshire threat to hold a December primary. That could, in turn, apply some pressure to Nevada to push back a few days to protect their position in future cycles. 

This calendar will have to resolve itself sooner rather than later. Today marks the opening of the period in which candidates can file to run in New Hampshire and with that we enter a point of no return to some extent. Nevada has one ace up its sleeve in all of this: time. The party can continue to make preparations for a January 14 caucus knowing that time is slipping away for New Hampshire and Iowa to jump into 2011 and have prepared properly for that. Pressure from Iowa and New Hampshire or not, that is a powerful tool. Again, Nevada has called New Hampshire's bluff. Will Iowa follow suit or will Iowa join New Hampshire in threatening their own future self interest and Nevada's by keeping the 2011 contests on the table?

We shall see.

Recent Posts:

Utah GOP Gets Presidential Line on June 26 Primary Ballot

Housekeeping: Wyoming Democrats Avoid Passover Conflict with Alternate Caucus Date

Gardner's Bluffing but It Has Nothing to Do with the MOVE Act

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

Utah GOP Gets Presidential Line on June 26 Primary Ballot

[Click to Enlarge]

Back in June the Utah Republican Party made the decision to allocate delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa using a primary in lieu of caucus meetings. The only problem at the time was that legally there was no place for the presidential primary on the June 26 primary ballot that typically only has contests for state and local offices. That changed over the past couple of weeks when the state legislature proposed and passed legislation in special session adding the presidential vote to the June primary. The bill -- SB 3004¹ -- was signed by Governor Gary Herbert on Thursday. That option will now be available to both parties in the future when funding is not appropriated by the legislature for the (still, by statute, scheduled in February) Western States Presidential Primary.

This seems like a ho-hum sort of move. It is.

...for 2012.

The move brings Utah in line with a great many other states that hold presidential primaries concurrently with primaries for state and local offices. What will make Utah different from those states in the future is that the state parties will have the ability -- should the legislature put it in the budget -- to opt into an earlier primary already codified into law. Assuming the economic ship has been righted to some extent by 2015 and that the national parties have done little to change the rules behind the formation of the presidential primary calendar, Utah could challenge the calendar by opting into the February primary. Now, for that scenario to work, you would probably have to assume that President Obama is reelected next year. Otherwise, Republican-controlled Utah is not going to be motivated to appropriate funds for what those in power view as an unnecessary contest. The tricky party, at least from the Utah perspective, is that Utah Democrats would have no options. The presidential line being included on the June primary ballot is contingent upon funds not being allocated for the separate February primary. Utah Democrats would have to choose between a more than likely non-compliant primary and holding caucuses as they are doing in 2012.

The states probably don't need any more help in the process of the presidential primary calendar date setting. They are doing just fine, thanks. But this either/or strategy is an interesting one that other states may consider in the future.  The contingency factor layered into the Utah law would have to be removed, but a law that allows parties to opt into a primary that is early/non-compliant in the process and a fallback option that piggybacked on a preexisting primary for state and local offices could be a workable plan in some states. I say some states because states with primaries for state and local office that fall after the second week in June would conflict with national party rules on the backend of the calendar. Those states with late August and early September primaries would have less flexibility than other states on this.

A tip of the cap to Tony Roza at The Green Papers for the news.

--
¹ Text of SB 3004 can be found here.

Recent Posts:

Housekeeping: Wyoming Democrats Avoid Passover Conflict with Alternate Caucus Date

Gardner's Bluffing but It Has Nothing to Do with the MOVE Act

On Defining "Similar Contest" and Candidate Boycott Pledges

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

Housekeeping: Wyoming Democrats Avoid Passover Conflict with Alternate Caucus Date

[Click to Enlarge]

FHQ readers with a watchful eye may have read our post concerning the changed date for the Hawaii Democratic caucuses and had the same thought FHQ did. Hawaii Democrats had a conflict between their original April 7 caucuses date and the Passover/Easter holidays, does Wyoming, whose Democrats had also called for April 7 caucuses in their original delegate selection plan, have the same issue?

Yes.

Earlier in the week FHQ spoke with Kyle DeBeer, the interim executive director of the Wyoming Democratic Party, and he confirmed to us that the party had opted -- in an April 30, 2011 state central committee meeting -- to shift the date of the caucuses back a week on the calendar to April 14. That date continues to be about a month later than when the party began its delegate selection process in 2008. Wyoming Republicans will have precinct meetings and a straw poll between February 9-29 before some of the delegates are actually allocated in March 6-10 county convention meetings.

Below is the amended 2012 Wyoming Democratic Party Delegate Selection Plan:

2012 Wyoming Democratic Party Delegate Selection Plan

Find an update to the 2012 presidential primary calendar here.

Recent Posts:

Gardner's Bluffing but It Has Nothing to Do with the MOVE Act

On Defining "Similar Contest" and Candidate Boycott Pledges

What Bill Gardner's Statement Really Means

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

Gardner's Bluffing but It Has Nothing to Do with the MOVE Act

What is it with Friday and shallow hypotheses?

FHQ will not begrudge Hotline's Reid Wilson for pushing the conflict between the ever-earlier scheduling of presidential primaries and caucuses -- particularly New Hampshire and a December primary in this case -- and the mandates called for in the federal MOVE act. Here's Wilson:

That law, the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, significantly expanded a 1986 law known as the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. The MOVE Act requires state elections officials to send absentee ballots to qualified voters at least 45 days before an election; the goal is to ensure military personnel serving overseas and on Navy ships receive ballots with enough time to vote. 

So if Gardner prints ballots on October 31, he wouldn't be able to hold an election for at least 45 days, which is December 14. 

Hypothetically, if Gardner had an amazingly fast printer and a staff dedicated to getting every absentee ballot stamped and out the door in the hours between the end of the filing period and midnight, he could start the 45-day clock on October 28; the clock would then expire on December 12, so Gardner could hold the primary on December 13. But realistically, that's not going to happen.

That is an interesting argument, but as was the case with the early states fudging their rules/laws to schedule their primaries or caucuses, this one is guilty of not providing the proper context. Fine, let's say a voter does sue Gardner over a December primary MOVE/UOCAVA violation. How do those challenges work? What happened with past challenges to the new restrictions in the law?

As FHQ pointed out to a commenter who brought up this very same point the other day, this is an issue New Hampshire can most likely work around given the precedents set during the trial run waiver process the MOVE act triggered in 2010. Look particularly closely at the Hawaii and Wisconsin examples. Both Hawaii and Wisconsin held MOVE non-compliant primaries in September 2010. Both violated the 45 day buffer mandated by the law. And both struck different deals with the Department of Justice to ensure voters' rights were protected. In Hawaii that meant express mailing the ballots out to overseas voters. In Wisconsin the remedy was allow more time on the backend of the process to receive and count votes from those overseas. If that is all that is standing in the way of New Hampshire and a December primary, then the state can work around that.

FHQ is of the opinion that Gardner is bluffing too, but he is bluffing with little worry of the MOVE act.  As the one overseeing elections in the Granite state, the secretary is aware of the conflict and its implications.

Recent Posts:

On Defining "Similar Contest" and Candidate Boycott Pledges

What Bill Gardner's Statement Really Means

On Compression and Presidential Primary Calendars

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