Kasich Signature Places Ohio Presidential Primary Back on March 6

Ohio is back on Super Tuesday.

...again.

On Thursday, December 15, Governor John Kasich (R) signed HB 369 into law. The legislation passed by both chambers a day prior not only sets the new congressional district boundaries, but consolidates the once split presidential/US House primaries with the primaries for all remaining offices. The move -- the fourth shift of the year for the Ohio presidential primary -- puts the Buckeye state back in a position to potentially influence the Republican nomination race. That is a much easier proposition from March 6 than it would have been all the way back on June 12 in the next to last position on the calendar. As have mentioned previously, Ohio would be a unique state on March 6: the only Rust Belt state in a sea of southern/northeaster primaries and western caucuses.

UPDATE: One other note about this bill that is of great importance in the long journey that has been the setting of the Ohio presidential primary date is that because HB 369 was passed with an emergency clause, it took effect upon Governor Kasich's signature.

Recent Posts:

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: South Carolina

Deal to Conditionally Split April Texas Primaries Emerges in Ongoing Talks to Resolve Primary Date Dispute

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: New Hampshire

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: South Carolina

This is the third in a multipart series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation by state.¹ The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2012 -- especially relative to 2008 -- in order to gauge the impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. As FHQ has argued in the past, this has often been cast as a black and white change. That the RNC has winner-take-all rules and the Democrats have proportional rules. Beyond that, the changes have been wrongly interpreted in a great many cases as having made a 180º change from straight winner-take-all to straight proportional rules in all pre-April 1 primary and caucus states. That is not the case. 

The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).

For links to the other states' plans see the Republican Delegate Selection Plans by State section in the left sidebar under the calendar.


SOUTH CAROLINA

[NOTE: See also our additional examination of the post-sanctions delegate allocation in South Carolina.]

One note that FHQ has failed to mention to this point in the series is that there is a subsection to Rule 15 in the Rules of the Republican Party that not only carves out an early -- February, in theory -- position for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, but it also exempts those four states from the proportionality requirement to which every other state is party. That exemption means very little in Iowa and New Hampshire as FHQ has shown, but in South Carolina, the rule is of great consequence in light of state party rules on the matter of allocation (see Rule 11.b).

The South Carolina Republican Party, by rule, allocates its national convention delegates on a winner-take-all basis by congressional district and statewide. Unlike some subsequent states FHQ will examine soon, however, South Carolina -- because of that exemption -- will not have to set a minimum threshold (50% of the vote or greater) by which winner-take-all allocation is triggered. If a candidate wins the statewide vote by one vote (with, say, 20% of the vote) that candidate is entitled to all of the at-large delegates (26 delegates before the 50% penalty for hold a primary before February). The same holds true for votes on the congressional district level (3 delegates per 7 congressional districts; 21 in total before the 50% penalty). Note also that there is no minimum vote percentage floor required to win delegates. That said, it is unlikely in a slightly (to greatly) winnowed field post-Iowa/New Hampshire that a candidate will win South Carolina with less than 30% of the vote. Both John McCain and Mike Huckabee cleared that threshold in 2008 in a very narrow victory for McCain. That isn't to say such an outcome cannot happen, but it isn't, perhaps, likely.

Through the first three contests, then, there is no change in the allocation rules in 2012 versus 2008. The sequence is the same, the spacing between contests is similar -- albeit without a Michigan primary between New Hampshire and South Carolina -- and the rules are the same. The only difference -- potentially -- are the dynamics of the race.

That may or may not change with the next state on the list: Florida. Things may get quirky with the Sunshine state.

Delegate allocation score: 0 [No change from 2008.]
Cumulative allocation score: 0 [No change through three contests from 2008.]

--
¹ FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories or account for the fact that there is no public information on Republican delegate selection in some states at this point.

Recent Posts:

Deal to Conditionally Split April Texas Primaries Emerges in Ongoing Talks to Resolve Primary Date Dispute

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: New Hampshire

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Iowa

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

Deal to Conditionally Split April Texas Primaries Emerges in Ongoing Talks to Resolve Primary Date Dispute

Nolan Hicks at the San Antonio Express-News is reporting that multiple sources have confirmed that there are ongoing discussions about a deal moving a consolidated Texas primary -- including the presidential primary -- from March 6 to April 3. Furthermore, congressional, state legislative and other races awaiting new district boundaries would have primaries on that April date dependent upon whether the time between the primary and a court decision on the lines allowed enough time for implementation. Without the necessary time, those primary elections would be moved back to a late May date.

There are a host of interesting questions here, but FHQ will focus on the presidential primary aspect of this from which two main questions arise. First of all, this opening brings back to the fore the question discussed here yesterday: Would a shift  to a post-April 1 primary date cause the Republican Party of Texas to reconsider its method of delegate allocation -- switching back to a conditional winner-take-all system based on both the statewide results and the congressional district results from a proportional allocation?¹ On that point, FHQ actually got some interesting pushback from Chris Elam, the Republican Party of Texas communications director. In a series of Twitter exchanges -- best summed up here -- Mr. Elam made clear to FHQ that the current RPT delegate selection rules were submitted to the RNC before the October 1 deadline laid out in the Rules of the Republican Party, were approved and are set in stone now that that point has passed. Asked about any desire within the RPT to change back to winner-take-all rules, Mr. Elam said that it was premature to speak of such a change given that no decision has been made by the courts -- nor has a deal been cut between the two state parties -- and deferred to the unanimous vote on the rules change at the State Republican Executive Committee meeting on October 1.

There is nothing wrong with that explanation, but FHQ still detects a bit of wiggle room for the RPT on this issue. Let's look at those RNC rules a little bit more closely. Rule 15.c.12:

No delegates or alternate delegates shall be elected, selected, allocated, or bound pursuant to any Republican Party rule of a state or state law which materially changes the manner of electing, selecting, allocating, or binding delegates or alternate delegates or the date upon which such state Republican Party holds a presidential primary, caucus, convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a presidential candidate and/or electing, selecting, allocating, or binding delegates to the national convention if such changes were adopted or made effective after October 1 of the year before the year in which the national convention is to be held. Where it is not possible for a state Republican Party to certify the manner and the date upon which it holds a presidential primary, caucus, convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a presidential candidate and/or electing, selecting, allocating, or binding delegates to the national convention in effect in that state on the date and in the manner provided in paragraph (e) of this rule, the process for holding the presidential primary, caucus, convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a presidential candidate and/or electing, selecting, allocating, or binding delegates to the national convention shall be conducted in the same manner and held upon the same date as was used for the immediately preceding national convention.

There are few things there. One is that quite a few states made decisions to set primary or caucus dates after October 1. The four carve out states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- and just yesterday, Ohio, all set dates following the deadline codified in the rules. Rule 15.e goes on to describe the possibility of a waiver being granted for states whose parties cannot -- for whatever reason -- meet that deadline. That FHQ has heard, there has been no talk of any of those five states asking for or being granted a waiver on those grounds. [That doesn't mean there wasn't one.] The four carve out states may have been granted such a waiver or simply just blamed the Florida move for setting up a post-October 1 domino effect. In Ohio, the Republican Party shrewdly included a conditional provision in their RNC-sanctioned rules; adding a proportionality element to the at-large delegate allocation should the primary be scheduled before April 1. In the event that the redistricting dispute in the state left the primary date unsettled or forced it to a post-April 1 date, the rules would revert to winner-take-all statewide-congressional district as they had been in 2008.

Again, if RPT has the desire to change the delegate allocation rules, could it not argue before the RNC that the decision to shift to a post-April 1 date was triggered by court action that was out of the state party's hands to a great degree? In other words, could the argument successfully be made that the decision-making pre-October 1 would have been different had the party known it was going to have a post-April 1 presidential primary? Possibly, but it could also be that such a move is more trouble than it's worth and that Texas National Committeeman and RNC legal counsel, Bill Crocker, may not want to push too hard on that issue. [The counterargument is that Mr. Crocker would be well-positioned to help push such a change through.] Much of that depends on whether the desire is there within the RPT to make that happen. It's a big if.

...but that brings us to...


The second question has to do with how Texas Governor Rick Perry fits into all of this. It is apparent that the Perry campaign wants the primary as early as possible. It is also apparent that the Republican Party of Texas wants to follow the rules from the RNC.  But it is still perplexing to FHQ that any change was made at all to the Texas delegate selection rules. The rules utilized by the state party in 2008 would have been compliant with the new RNC rules before or after April 1. Again, the 2008 rules were winner-take-all by congressional district and statewide conditional on a candidate receiving over 50% of the vote. That is something that is completely within the letter of the law in the new RNC rules. Period.

So why the change? That is a very interesting question. If we assume -- as appears to be the case with the early primary date preference -- that the Perry campaign had some motivation (influence?) over the process of setting/maintaining the primary date, then was there some motivation to switch to proportional allocation as well?² The San Antonio Express-News article indicates that there is some pressure on RPT chair, Steve Munisteri, to keep the primary in March, so it is not a stretch to consider that the Perry camp put similar pressure on the party to change the rules.

But why? If the Perry folks are banking on an early Texas primary, why dilute the influence of the state by making the results proportional when that is not required? Why not leave the winner-take-all element in the plan in order to run up the score in the delegate count? It is all curious.

Now sure, the extent to which the Perry campaign was involved in all of this is an unknown and this is all quite speculative. However, it is undeniable that the Republican Party of Texas did not have to alter its delegate selection rules to comply with the RNC rules changes on proportionality. Something drove that decision and if it was even partially due to the Perry campaign, it is a counterintuitive calculation on their part with a delegate count as the backdrop.

Hat tip to Michael Li at txredistricting.org for the news of the deal.

--
¹ Yes, that would require those newly drawn congressional district boundaries, but recall that that portion of the plan -- the actual assignment of delegates based on numbers disaggregated into the new districts -- does not happen until the state convention. That isn't an issue, then.

² It is worth noting that Perry signed the bill that dealt with the primary -- SB 100 -- before he got into the race. The bill maintaining the March 6 primary date was signed in June before Perry entered the presidential race in August.

Recent Posts:

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Iowa

Ohio House and Senate Pass Bill to Consolidate Primaries on Super Tuesday

A Few Notes on the Impact a Later Presidential Primary Would Have in Texas

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: New Hampshire

This is the second in a multipart series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation by state.¹ The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2012 -- especially relative to 2008 -- in order to gauge the impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. As FHQ has argued in the past, this has often been cast as a black and white change. That the RNC has winner-take-all rules and the Democrats have proportional rules. Beyond that, the changes have been wrongly interpreted in a great many cases as having made a 180º change from straight winner-take-all to straight proportional rules in all pre-April 1 primary and caucus states. That is not the case. 


The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).


For links to the other states' plans see the Republican Delegate Selection Plans by State section in the left sidebar under the calendar.


NEW HAMPSHIRE

Who thought New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner's only job was to, well, depending on who you ask, either set the date of the presidential primary in Granite state or tear a hole in the space/time continuum by ruining the calendar every four years? Obviously, any secretary of state has additional duties, but the secretary of state in New Hampshire has a role to play in the allocation of delegates to the national presidential nominating conventions as well. In some states that allocation method is set by the state parties and in others it is set by state law.

Now, FHQ doesn't want to get into a broad discussion of this, but the state party has the ultimate say in how its delegates are allocated to the candidates for the national convention. Where state law governs this process, it is usually done with the blessing of the state parties. Court challenges on this sort of political matter typically are settled in favor of the party. The nominating function is after all a party function. Most often where these conflicts arise is over the issue of who can participate in primaries (opened or closed).² Rarely have we seen this come up in the area of primary dates or delegate allocation, but that could theoretically happen as well if a state party wanted to bring a challenge to court.

Needless to say, New Hampshire is one of those states where the allocation method is codified in the New Hampshire revised statutes. The law -- RSA 659:93 -- grants the secretary of state the power to:

"...apportion delegates to the national party conventions among the candidates voted for at the presidential primary by determining the proportion of the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate to the total votes cast for all presidential candidates of the same political party, rounded to the nearest whole number."

Furthermore, the law sets a minimum percentage of the vote whereby candidates qualify for delegates (10%).

With the penalty for holding a contest prior to February, New Hampshire's total delegation will be only 12 delegates, so there won't be a whole lot to go around. Regardless, like Iowa, there have been no changes to the allocation method on the Republican side in New Hampshire. The proportional method that is in place was in place in 2008 and stretching all the way back to at least the 1984 cycle (The last revision to the law was in 1981.). The new Republican National Committee rules regarding delegate selection, then, had no effect on New Hampshire. The Granite state was proportional already.


Delegate allocation score: 0 [No change from 2008.]
Cumulative allocation score: 0 [No change through two contests from 2008.]

--
¹ FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories or account for the fact that there is no public information on Republican delegate selection in some states at this point.

² The precedent for this is the Tashjian case in which Connecticut state law restricted primary participation to partisans only. The Connecticut Republican Party challenged that law, wanting to add independents to the mix and won based on a parties right to freedom of association under the first amendment.

Recent Posts:

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Iowa

Ohio House and Senate Pass Bill to Consolidate Primaries on Super Tuesday

A Few Notes on the Impact a Later Presidential Primary Would Have in Texas

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Iowa

This is the first in a multipart series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation by state.¹ The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2012 -- especially relative to 2008 -- in order to gauge the impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. As FHQ has argued in the past, this has often been cast as a black and white change. That the RNC has winner-take-all rules and the Democrats have proportional rules. Beyond that, the changes have been wrongly interpreted in a great many cases as having made a 180º change from straight winner-take-all to straight proportional rules in all pre-April 1 primary and caucus states. That is not the case. 


The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).

IOWA

The rules for Republican delegate selection in the Hawkeye state are no different than they were in 2008. FHQ could leave it at that, but let's dig into this a bit because the process in Iowa merits some discussion.

First of all, no one will know anything about exactly how the 28 Republican delegates from Iowa to the Republican National Convention in Tampa will be allocated until after the state convention. As of this writing, no date has been set for that convention. It was held in mid-July in 2008. That is a point after which the Republican presidential nomination is likely to have been decided -- unless you buy into all this terribly premature and very [Let me emphasize that more: VERY] unlikely brokered convention talk. This is notable because, according to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Republican Party of Iowa, "no delegate shall be bound by any pre-convention caucus and each county shall cast its vote by polling its delegation at the [state] convention."²

In other words, Iowa's non-binding precinct caucuses on January 3 will have very little to do with the ultimate allocation of delegates in the state. Now, as I've mentioned, it is naive to assume that there is no transference of presidential preference from one step of the caucus/convention process to the next -- that a Paul supporter can't make it through the process to the state convention, for instance -- but the fact that the state convention will take place after the nomination is wrapped up makes the point moot. Those 28 delegates will likely go to Tampa lined up behind the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party.

Binding or not, those caucus results on the night of January 3 will continue to winnow the Republican field. And that will be the point at which that winnowing begins in earnest.

Delegate allocation score: 0 [No change from 2008.]

--
¹ FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories or account for the fact that there is no public information on Republican delegate selection in some states at this point.

Recent Posts:

Ohio House and Senate Pass Bill to Consolidate Primaries on Super Tuesday

A Few Notes on the Impact a Later Presidential Primary Would Have in Texas

Republican Party of Texas Primary Election Schedule Defense is, uh, Interesting.

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

Ohio House and Senate Pass Bill to Consolidate Primaries on Super Tuesday

The Ohio House this afternoon passed HB 369 (77-17), a bill initially introduced a month ago solidify the newly drawn/altered congressional districts as well as set the date of the state primary -- including the presidential primary -- for March 6. The Republican majority in the House, however, faced Democratic resistance to the those altered districts, and without the promise of a handful of Democratic votes to trigger an immediate "effective by" date, was forced to abandon the legislation in the hopes of a future compromise. That process was made even more complicated by the fact that the originally passed redistricting bill was the subject of a referendum petition drive to add it to the November 2012 ballot.

With that as a backdrop, a bill to set a consolidated primary date on May 22 was introduced a day ago. Yet, today a deal was struck between the Republican majority and minority party Democrats on a slightly altered map of redrawn congressional districts and to once again move a consolidated primary back to March 6.

For those tracking this at home the Ohio presidential primary moved from March 6 to May 8 to March 6 to June 12 and finally now back to March 6. That's four changes to the primary date since May:

1. ...moved the primaries from March to May (HB 194)
2. ...returned them to March from May (HB 319)
3. ...moved the presidential and US House primaries from March to June  (HB 318)
4. ...proposed moving those two sets of primaries back to March (HB 369)
5. ...proposed consolidating those two sets of primaries on May 22 (HB 391)
6. ...consolidated the primaries on March 6 (HB 369)

HB 369 was just passed by the Ohio Senate by a vote of 27-6 as well. The only thing separating the new districts and primary from taking effect is Governor John Kasich's (R) signature. The move shifts Ohio's 66 Republican delegates -- and yes, this changes the method of allocation ever so slightly -- from the next to last position on the primary calendar all the way back up to Super Tuesday. With or without the Texas primary March 6 will remain the date on the calendar with the most delegates at stake. With a handful of western caucuses, northeastern primaries and southern primaries, Ohio will be unique as a midwestern, Rust Belt primary and could be quite the battleground on that particular date.

To see more on the long and winding road that was the process of setting this primary date, scroll on through the Ohio history.

Update: HB 369 also shifted the filing deadline back to December 30. That will allow all remaining candidates the opportunity to file. Only Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich made the December 7 deadline.

Recent Posts:

A Few Notes on the Impact a Later Presidential Primary Would Have in Texas

Republican Party of Texas Primary Election Schedule Defense is, uh, Interesting.

Bill Introduced in Ohio House to Create a Consolidated Primary on May 22

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

A Few Notes on the Impact a Later Presidential Primary Would Have in Texas

Now, FHQ may have fanned the flames on this a little in the last line of last night's post on the hearing over the 2012 Texas primary election schedule. But let's take a step back for a moment and look at what happens in the event that the San Antonio district court forces a unified election on a date later than March 6. For starters, it seems like all parties to this case agree that it is probably impossible to resolve the issues inherent in the redistricting case, draw maps and have a timely response to those changes from local elections officials and filing candidates. In other words, either the Republican Party of Texas gets its wish for two primaries -- with the presidential primary continuing on March 6 -- or there will be a unified primary on some later date.

And yes, as Burnt Orange Report said last night, that we're talking about a state -- much less two -- changing its date in the middle of December before the primary season starts on January 3 is news enough. But that is where FHQ parts ways with how BOR assesses the impact of a potential date change for the Texas presidential primary. Well, FHQ agrees that it is an open question as to whether a later date -- especially post-April 1 -- would trigger a change in the winner-take-all versus proportional allocation methods within the Republican Party of Texas. But we will not overstate the nature of those potential changes.

As has been the case for a majority of this cycle, the broader discussion of the RNC delegate selection rules changes is being cast in black and white terms; that in this instance, Texas would be moving from completely proportional back to completely winner-take-all. That just simply is not the reality. A rules change (More on that in a moment.) that essentially reverted the Texas delegate selection process to the 2008 method -- see sections 8 and 9 toward the bottom of this RPT rules document -- would mean that Texas would change from being proportional to winner-take-all statewide and winner-take-all by congressional district. The winner-take-all allocation -- whether the at-large delegates based on the statewide vote or the three delegates per district based on the congressional district vote -- would only be triggered if one candidate won over 50% of the vote. Otherwise, the allocation would be proportional. And yes, there are some quirky combinations in there where the statewide vote could be winner-take-all for one candidate and another candidate wins a handful of congressional districts or where the statewide vote triggers proportional allocation and two or more candidates split winner-take-all allocation in some districts while others remain proportionally allocated.¹

Again, there is a significant amount of gray area between those two -- proportional and winner-take-all -- extremes in the Republican National Committee delegate selection rules.

The more important question if the courts force a later presidential primary date on the Republican Party of Texas is IF -- or can -- the party will decide to revert to their pre-October State Republican Executive Committee meeting rules. [Here are the current rules.] Let's take the CAN first. In conversations with Texas Republicans, FHQ has always been told that RPT is like the RNC: rules changes can only be made at the state or national convention. Sure, the RNC changed that for the first time in the post-reform era during the 2008 convention, but the RPT has an out. In the case of emergencies the party can make rules changes outside of the state convention setting (see Rule 1C). A court order mandating a later presidential primary date may be such an emergency.

But would the party be motivated to make that change in the event the primary gets pushed back beyond April 1? In defense of the winner-take-all rules and a first Tuesday in April primary date, RPT chairman Steve Munisteri in an open letter to Texas Republicans made clear that the party was concerned it would lose half of its delegates to the convention if it was forced to keep the March 6 date and not switch to proportional allocation. [At the time they were arguing that the rules could not be changed outside of the convention.] Having proven that it prefers the winner-take-all allocation -- which was fine with the new RNC rules given the 50% barrier for winner-take-all allocation -- and that it can and has the willingness to change the delegate allocation rules away from the state convention, the Republican Party of Texas would presumably move to readopt the triggered winner-take-all rules.

...and that may happen with some Republicans in coming out in favor of one unified primary.

There should be some resolution to this by the end of the week as hearings in San Antonio are scheduled for both Thursday and Friday.

--
¹ The proportional allocation of 3 congressional district delegates -- assuming no one candidate receives over 50% of the vote -- is done by allocating two delegates to the top vote getter and one to the runner-up. That allocation is in order so long as those two candidates are also over the 20% mark in the vote total within that district.

Recent Posts:

Republican Party of Texas Primary Election Schedule Defense is, uh, Interesting.

Bill Introduced in Ohio House to Create a Consolidated Primary on May 22

Is the March 6 Texas Presidential Primary Really Safe from the Court Squabble Over Redistricting?

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

Republican Party of Texas Primary Election Schedule Defense is, uh, Interesting.

There was something that struck FHQ as odd in the filing the Republican Party of Texas submitted to the San Antonio Federal District court on Monday. [That filing was released today. -- via txredistricting.org]

Now, this is the same court whose decision in the Texas redistricting case was met with a stay from the US Supreme Court late last week. That decision has sent the lower court -- and the state parties in Texas -- scrambling to square the disarray the uncertainty into which the redrawn maps have thrown the 2012 primary season across Texas. The Republican Party of Texas wants to maintain the March 6 primary for the presidential nomination and a host of other statewide races and push the primaries for other offices -- those requiring the redrawn maps -- to May 29. RPT placed the greatest emphasis on the impact moving the presidential primary would have on the local party level:

Munisteri cannot emphasize enough to this court that moving the date of the Texas presidential primary, aside from placing difficulty, nay nearly impossible burdens on the administration of the Republican Party at all levels, but especially at the most basic level where it is wholly conducted by volunteers, will cause this court to likely change the result of the national Republican nomination for President of the United States. 

To be clear, the Republicans were most concerned in this filing with the possibility of the presidential primary being moved back to May 29 as well; a date that would make completing the process prior to the early June state convention difficult. The party also argued that moving the presidential primary would force local elections officials to find alternate venues for precinct conventions and pay for those from personal funds. But then came the interesting argument from the party: That abandoning the March 6 presidential primary date would affect the balance achieved by the Texas legislature in setting that date to "preserve this States' [sic] voters a voice in the nomination of the Republican and Democratic nominees for President of the United States." The party goes on to argue that it even changed from winner-take-all delegate allocation rules to proportional in light of requirements from the Republican National Committee in order to preserve that voice.

Now sure, moving the presidential primary all the way back to May 29 would more than likely push Texas out of the window of decisiveness in the Republican presidential nomination race. And that would make the shift from winner-take-all to proportional rules all for naught. But it appears as if the Texas Democratic Party was ready with a counterproposal that would keep all the primaries on one date -- the position they want. Instead of May 29 as the consolidated primary date, the Democrats are arguing for an April 3 primary date.

That date grabbed FHQ's attention. [In fact, I may be the only one.] Why? That was the date that some Republican legislators were pushing to move the primary to back in the spring during the legislature's regular session. Not only that, but that was a date that the Republican National Committeeman (and now RNC legal counsel) Bill Crocker and Republican Party of Texas Chairman Steve Munisteri argued for in a hearing on the primary date legislation before a House committee. Look at what FHQ had to say about that hearing in April 2011:

The committee substitute to HB 111 discussed in the hearing would move the presidential primary back to first Tuesday in April. That move was supported by both Republican National Committeeman from Texas, Bill Crocker, and Texas Republican Party Chairman, Steve Munisteri. Both cited the need to comply with national party rules concerning timing and stressed the potential penalties associated with violations (half or more of the delegation). That is not a concern on timing but is based on the rules regarding Republican delegate allocation in the state. As was the case for the Republican National Committee in every post-reform cycle but 2012, the Republican Party of Texas cannot change its rules except at its convention and the party would need to change its winner-take-all allocation method to comply with the RNC rules if the state maintained a March primary. In other words, the state party could not make the necessary change to its method of delegate allocation until its convention following the primary in 2012. This concerned both Republicans for the potential penalties associated with an inability to make that change. Interestingly neither Crocker nor Munisteri mentioned the potential for Texas losing significance for moving to a later date and both touted the possible advantages of not only maintaining the winner-take-all rules with an April primary, but also the additional significance that would carry if the nomination race was still being contested at that point.

Again, those matters are out the window if the court pushes a May 29 date. The RPT is absolutely right in that case. However, the court may be sympathetic to the April 3 date Texas Democrats are rallying behind. The only question is whether the court -- or the parties for that matter -- feels the redistricting plan will be in place by that point. It is already uncomfortable with the March 6 date for offices that require those lines, but is that extra month enough time?

...and will the Republican Party of Texas consider shifting back to winner-take-all delegate allocation rules if so?

Recent Posts:

Bill Introduced in Ohio House to Create a Consolidated Primary on May 22

Is the March 6 Texas Presidential Primary Really Safe from the Court Squabble Over Redistricting?

Waiver Granted, Missouri Democrats Will Proceed with February 7 Primary

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

Bill Introduced in Ohio House to Create a Consolidated Primary on May 22

UPDATE: Strike the below update. That applies to candidates for any office other than president or US House. The new deadline -- altered in this law for 2012 but reverting to 90 days prior to an election in all subsequent cycles -- will be 75 days prior to the proposed May 22 primary. That would be March 8, 2012. Of course that still leaves the emergency clause problem, but reduces the window of time between the filing deadline and the enactment of the law (assuming no emergency clause).

UPDATE: HB 391 retains the original December 7 filing deadline. That means that the only recourse available to Bachmann, Huntsman, Paul and Santorum -- if this bill becomes law -- is to file as a write-in candidate. That deadline is set as 72 days prior to the original March 6 primary date. That date is December 26, 2011.

--
Original post:

The Ohio House this morning introduced HB 391 to repeal the code to be enacted from the passage of HB 318. The latter legislation created a separate presidential (and US House) primary to be held on June 12, over three months after the primaries for all other offices on March 6. In addition to that reversal, the bill would also consolidate all primary elections on May 22. That would save the state the estimated $15 million it would have taken to administer the extra election.

Now, FHQ has been over this story many times already -- so I'll spare you the gory details -- but the basic storyline is that the prior attempts to set the date were layered in with other, more controversial elections provisions (changes in voter access and redistricting) that led to efforts to put those then bills -- now laws -- before the voters of Ohio on the November 2012 ballot. The progression has looked something like this:

1. ...moved the primaries from March to May (HB 194)
2. ...returned them to March from May (HB 319)
3. ...moved the presidential and US House primaries from March to June  (HB 318)
4. ...proposed moving those two sets of primaries back to March (HB 369)
5. *NEW*...proposed consolidating those two sets of primaries on May 22 (HB 391)

FHQ has not seen the bill, but there should be some caution about this proposed May 22 primary date. First of all, for the legislation to take effect immediately upon gubernatorial signature, it will require an emergency clause. Such a clause requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers of the legislature and that means that the bill would require Democratic support. But does the emergency clause matter in this case?

Yes.

Without Democratic support, the legislation -- if passed and signed into law -- would take effect on March 12 (90 days) if it was passed and signed today. The filing deadline for a May 22 primary would be on February 22; 90 days prior to the primary and a month before the law laid forth in HB 391 is to take effect. Of course, as was the case last week when much was made about Newt Gingrich missing the Ohio filing deadline, this would mostly be a technicality. The June 12 primary takes effect on January 20 and would put in place a March 14 filing deadline. Yeah, that deadline would be fictitious, too since it would only be in place until the provisions in HB 391 took effect. That would be two days prior to March 14 on March 12. [Confused yet?] At that point the real -- February 22 -- filing deadline will have passed. In other words, for those candidates not named Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry -- those already on the ballot in Ohio -- go ahead and submit your paperwork now. Save yourself and your campaign staff the confusion.¹

I haven't watched it yet this season, but the Ohio primary date situation reminds me of what the magician in Frosty the Snowman says: "Messy, messy, messy." That's the Ohio situation in a nutshell.

--
¹ Granted, the Ohio legislature could change the filing deadline to sometime other than 90 days prior to the primary election for 2012.

Recent Posts:

Is the March 6 Texas Presidential Primary Really Safe from the Court Squabble Over Redistricting?

Waiver Granted, Missouri Democrats Will Proceed with February 7 Primary

In Lieu of Non-Compliant Primary, Arizona Dems Opt for Late March Caucuses

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

Is the March 6 Texas Presidential Primary Really Safe from the Court Squabble Over Redistricting?

Over the weekend, FHQ received several requests/queries for some sort of comment about the impact the Supreme Court's Friday stay in the Texas redistricting case would have on the presidential primary in the Lone Star state. Will the decision have an impact? Yes and no.

There are two ways of thinking about this. One is from the standpoint of the delegate selection process. If the Republican Party of Texas allocates some of its delegates based on the results of the votes in the congressional districts, then how can the primary go forward in March without a new district map in place? The second is more of an administrative issue. How does the addition of another election affect the actual administration of these several elections? What are the costs? Setting aside the latter for the moment, the impact on RPT's presidential primary is minimal. Yes, there is a congressional district element to the allocation of delegates in the Texas Republican plan, but the point in the process where that intervenes decreases its impact. Let me explain.

There are a couple of elements involved here. First of all, neither the state of Texas nor the Republican Party of Texas has the luxury of leaning on past congressional districts. If this was simply a matter of divvying up the same 32 districts that existed before the Census in a way that accounted for population shifts within the state over the last decade, then that's one thing. But Texas has added four congressional seats and that affects the delegate apportionment from the national party. It is important to note that using the congressional district units in this process is something that is completely up to the state parties (on both sides). So while that element is part of the delegate selection process, it is only there so long as the Republican Party of Texas wants it there. Those sorts of decisions -- by the state parties -- is something in which the courts have continually refrained from becoming involved. They -- the courts -- just don't weigh in on those sorts of political -- intra-party -- questions. Instead they will defer to the state or national party's judgment. Now, where the courts may be sympathetic on these sorts of issues is when the administration of elections is affected. But I'll have more on that in a moment.  

The other part of this is the actual sequence of the Texas delegate allocation process. Texas represents a rare example of a state that opted to abandon completely its winner-take-all allocation rules of the past, instead adopting a proportional means of allocation in 2012. That proportional allocation is not for just a sliver of the overall total. No, Texas Republicans switched to a completely proportional allocation method for 2012.¹ I don't want to preempt a post on the Texas delegate selection rules I'm working on, but suffice it to say, the congressional district portion of the allocation will not be an issue until and unless the redistricting court dispute plays out past the state convention in early June. [With the courts already discussing a bifurcated primary process with a March primary and a May primary, the courts are of the opinion that the dispute will be resolved in time for that May primary to be held. That, of course, precedes the June state convention.]

Why?

Well, under the new rules, the candidates' portion of the vote serves as an umbrella over the entire process. Each set of delegates -- whether at-large or congressional district -- is allocated proportionate to a candidate's share of the statewide vote. Well, truth be told, it is, in fact, the total number of delegates that are allocated proportionally. The at-large and congressional district distinctions are only made as a means of identifying the actual delegates and the candidates to whom they are pledged. [I'm already pushing back against that particular statement, so I know others will. Bear with me and take my word for it for the time being. I'll have a post dedicated to the Texas plan soon.] Much of that business is taken care of at the state convention anyway, so the RPT will not need the new district boundaries in place until then for the purpose of delegate allocation. On the evening of March 6, then, we'll know the number of delegates each candidate will have from Texas. We just won't know who those delegates are. [That's not a point that most people are concerned with anyway; especially if we're in the midst of a delegate counting under a microscope at that point.]

In terms of the process (within the party), then, Friday's stay is not likely to have much of an impact on the presidential primary. However, strain is already beginning to show as far as how this will affect the actual administration of the, now, two primaries that are supposedly going to take place in the spring. We move from a party issue to one that concerns the state, county and local administration of elections. Part of the reason the Texas primary stayed in March was because there was a tremendous amount of pushback from the local level on the effects a proposed move to April would have had (see links in footnote below). I spent enough time following the primary movement discussion to know that there are enough lines drawing various boundaries for various offices across Texas to make anything other than the status quo nearly impossible for local elections officials to make work -- at least that is the argument made whenever the possibility of a change to the system arises. That was witnessed in legislative hearings back in the spring and has already come up in the context of this redistricting discussion. The question presidential primary followers need to focus on as this proceeds is how sympathetic the courts will be to that complaint/argument from local elections officials. The answer to that question will hinge on the extent to which counties can make the argument that the additional election causes financial duress.

That may or may not push the presidential primary to a different date, but the allocation of delegates will be unaffected either way.

--
¹ Texas legislators and the RPT were fearful -- unnecessarily, seemingly -- of the backlash from the RNC if it did not make changes to its delegate allocation formula from 2008. Of course, the old plan seems to have followed the guidelines of "proportionality" from the RNC as they were. Alas, changes were made.

Recent Posts:

Waiver Granted, Missouri Democrats Will Proceed with February 7 Primary

In Lieu of Non-Compliant Primary, Arizona Dems Opt for Late March Caucuses

Jeb Bush is running for president.

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