Ohio Presidential Primary to June 12

[Click to Enlarge]

The Ohio House passed and Governor John Kasich signed HB 318 on Friday. Each took action on the bill that creates a second 2012 primary election -- on June 12 -- for presidential and US House nominations a day after the Senate passed the amended version of the legislation. The move also shifts the Ohio presidential primary from a prime spot on Super Tuesday to almost the back of the line. Buckeye state voters will now go to the polls ahead of only Utah Republicans in the presidential nomination sequence.

For more on the reasoning behind the move, see FHQ's explanation from yesterday.

We'll have more on this and what it means later.

Recent Posts:

Iowa Democrats to Caucus on January 3 -- And a Postscript

Ohio Senate Passes Bill Creating Separate June Primary for Presidential and US House Candidates

New Legislation Introduced to Eliminate Missouri Presidential Primary for 2012

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

Iowa Democrats to Caucus on January 3 -- And a Postscript

Joining their state Republican Party counterparts, the Iowa Democratic Party last night voted unanimously to hold January 3 caucus meetings. The delegate selection process will begin on January 3 and continue with county conventions on March 10 and district conventions on April 28 before wrapping up at the state convention on June 16.

--

FHQ has talked a great deal about the institutional advantages that New Hampshire has in this primary calendar date-setting process. But Iowa remains up front for various and different reasons as well. What the two share is both willingness and ability to do whatever it takes to stay at the beginning of the process. New Hampshire and Iowa have shared the willingness to be up front all along, but what separates each from the other states is ability to actually go early. What has changed over the last couple of presidential nomination cycles, though, is that the gap in ability is closing. New Hampshire, as we have witnessed over the last several weeks, has delegated the authority to set the date of the Granite state primary to just one person, the secretary of state. That insulates New Hampshire from the timing of state legislative sessions (when they are actually in session and can move the date of the primary), the partisan and institutional gridlock that can take place in those legislatures over something so seemingly simple as a primary date, and the sorts of inter-party conflicts that can occur across parties in caucus states.

To that latter point, FHQ should mention that this is where Iowa has been quite good over the years. The Democratic and Republican parties -- and recall state parties are making the decisions on the dates in most caucus states -- in Iowa have traditionally presented a united front in terms of the date of the precinct caucuses. If you can't or won't be a primary state, the next best thing is to act like a primary state. To the extent that the two parties in any state can act in concert, it is to their advantage. The goal of being early is to maximize the attention paid to the state, and if Democrats and Republicans in Iowa or any other caucus state can hold caucuses on the same date, it prevents the attention from being diluted.

Look no further than the Nevada example in 2011. The Nevada Republican Party moved the caucuses up and had the Nevada Democrats join them this week only to now appear as if they [NVGOP] will move back to February to accommodate the RNC and New Hampshire. Now, the Democrats in Nevada can pull out the chicken costumes and area reporters can say the Nevada Republicans caved, but that isn't entirely fair. Sure from the perspective of Nevada Democrats, if you want to be an early state you have to act like an early state -- mimic Iowa -- but this also points out the differences between Iowa and Nevada. Iowa has institutionalized the notion of both parties going on the same date. Nevada has not. Iowa can use that against the national parties in a way that Nevada either could or would not. And it should be noted that theoretically the national party should -- all things held equal -- be able to twist arms better with a state party than with a state government or an official therein. Bill Gardner may be a Democrat, but as secretary of state, he is apolitical when it comes to protecting both New Hampshire law and the position of the primary. He is above threats from either national party.

But why did the RNC go after Nevada and not Iowa?

Mostly that happened because Iowa acted in a way to end the push toward a 2011 start to the primary season. They set a January 3 date -- still early but in 2012 -- and that shifted the discussion from the vantage point of the RNC to one of how to fit everyone else in. And because of Gardner's position, it was always going to be easier to deal with Nevada than New Hampshire. The threats and incentives matter to the Nevada GOP in a way that they won't and never will to Gardner in New Hampshire.

So no, it isn't fair to say that the Nevada Republicans caved or will cave if they opt to move back in their state central committee meeting tomorrow. They could have carried on resisting a change, but that would have meant a short term gain at the expense of the state's longer term prospects for staying at the front. But this is a lesson to both parties in Nevada: act in concert in the future if you want to most effectively retain your early position.

...and do so before the last few months in the calendar-setting process.

Recent Posts:

Ohio Senate Passes Bill Creating Separate June Primary for Presidential and US House Candidates

New Legislation Introduced to Eliminate Missouri Presidential Primary for 2012

Howard Dean: Right on Rules, Wrong on History

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

Ohio Senate Passes Bill Creating Separate June Primary for Presidential and US House Candidates

The Ohio Senate today passed by a vote of 20-10 an amended version of HB 318. The bill, originally introduced and passed by the House with the intent of moving all of the primary elections in the Buckeye state from March to May, will now leave the state, local and US Senate primaries in March, but create an all-new and separate primary election in June for the presidential and US House nominations. Separate presidential primaries are nothing new. That some states have had separate presidential primaries while others have had those contests consolidated with primaries for state and local offices is one of the primary explanations for why some states are better able to move the dates of their presidential primaries than others.

The proposed separation in Ohio, however, is unique. To take the presidential and US House primaries and move them to a later date, separate from the other primaries, is a set up unlike anything FHQ has ever seen. And it is purely a function of the circumstances in Ohio in 2012. On its face, the move of the presidential primary seems less necessary than the shift of the US House primaries. The latter have a great many more question marks at the moment with unresolved congressional district boundaries.

Why, then, is a move of the presidential primary being proposed?

Rules. The Ohio Republican Party rules for allocating delegates [more on this in a later post] include an element that uses the congressional district vote to allocate the three delegates apportioned to each congressional district by the Republican National Committee. To uphold those newly-tweaked rules, the Ohio Republican Party needs the same sort of concession being afforded the congressional nomination (House) races for its presidential delegate selection. Both sets of races depend on the defined congressional districts that continue to be unresolved.

This potential change does have consequences. The presidential primary moves from being a Super Tuesday presidential primary battleground -- one with no clear link to any candidate¹ -- to being at the tail end of the process. If passed, this legislation would potentially shift Ohio out of the window of decisiveness and that could have negative implications for the RNC and its presumptive nominee organizing in the state. It is not guaranteed, but the nomination will likely be decided by the time the process reaches Ohio on June 12. That means that the Buckeye state primary will not be competitive and an organizational opportunity could be missed. Could be because that competitiveness is always a double-edged sword. It can yield organization (Clinton-Obama) or divisiveness (Carter-Kennedy). Organization can always occur -- late or not -- but the effects of divisiveness sometimes cannot always be fixed in time for a general election.

Ohio will likely be a prime battleground in the fall general election campaign anyway. So, no harm, no foul.

If this bill does become law, it would move Ohio back to June alongside California and New Jersey; a significant cache of delegates that has not been so backloaded together since 1992 and before. HB 318 now moves onto the House for concurrence consideration in the lower chamber.

[NOTE: Creating the separate June primary will cost Ohio taxpayers $15 million.]

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

--
¹ Texas, for example, and perhaps the other southern contests on the same day could favor Rick Perry while the northeastern primary and western caucuses could favor Romney.

Recent Posts:

New Legislation Introduced to Eliminate Missouri Presidential Primary for 2012

Howard Dean: Right on Rules, Wrong on History

"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."

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

New Legislation Introduced to Eliminate Missouri Presidential Primary for 2012

Missouri has had more second chances to set the date of its presidential primary or eliminate it than Stephen Garcia had stay on as Steve Spurrier's quarterback at South Carolina.  And yet, neither has happened yet.

The latest, following Monday's Senate rejections of all possible remedies to the situation left an $8 million state expenditure for a non-binding primary, is probably the last last-ditch effort Missouri will get before the Show Me state special session comes to a close. House Speaker Pro Tem Shane Schoeller (R-139th, Willard) today introduced legislation (HB 10) in the House to eliminate the presidential primary for the 2012 cycle. Depending on the national party delegate selection rules for 2016, that would leave Missouri at the front of the pack -- according to the various state election laws -- on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to start the 2016 calendar shuffling.

So, we have that to potentially look forward to.

For now, however, this bill, if passed, would save the state from seemingly wasting money in a tight budgetary context on a presidential primary timed at a point that would cost the Republican delegation to the 2012 Tampa convention half its members.

Recent Posts:

Howard Dean: Right on Rules, Wrong on History

"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

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

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.