Louisiana Republican Caucuses Slated for April 28

In a press release today, the Louisiana Republican Party indicated that it would hold April 28 congressional district caucuses to begin the process of allocating its 18 congressional district delegates.¹ [The 25 at-large delegates are allocated and bound according to the whether a candidate or candidates break a 25% threshold in the March 24 presidential primary.] Four years ago the district caucuses preceded the presidential primary by a couple of weeks, occurring on January 22 in between the South Carolina Republican primary and Florida primary. The 2008 Louisiana primary did not occur until the Saturday after Super Tuesday.

There has been some on again/off again chatter that the Louisiana Republican Party would reprise that January contest in 2012, but a conflict over the number of state delegates Louisiana was apportioned by the Republican National Committee kept the scheduling of the caucuses in limbo until last week.² It was at that time that the RNC -- during the winter meeting in New Orleans last week -- halted the state party plan to hold caucuses in the seven congressional districts in existence prior to the 2010 census instead of the six in place post-census. In terms of the delegate total, Louisiana would have netted an additional three delegates, but again the RNC shot that down.

The Louisiana GOP, then, will hold a March 24 primary for the purpose of allocating at-large delegates and then a month later, hold district caucuses in the six congressional districts on April 28. The actual delegates will be selected at the June state convention, but only the at-large delegates will be bound based on the results of the March primary.

Thanks to Kevin Yeaux for passing this news along.

--
¹ Below is the "Louisiana Caucus Date" press release from LAGOP:

Dear Louisiana Republicans:

The Republican National Committee met in New Orleans on Friday and cleared the way for states like Louisiana to bind delegates to presidential candidates according to the results of presidential primaries. This ruling confirmed our ability to move forward under our current rules.

The RNC has also ruled that Louisiana must conduct delegate elections in its six new congressional districts instead of the seven current districts. This action deprived our state of three additional delegates that we feel we are entitled to. We were disappointed by this decision.

Regardless, it is now time to move forward with our delegate selection process.

The Republican Party of Louisiana will conduct congressional district caucuses on Saturday, April 28, 2012 for the purpose of electing delegates to the Louisiana Republican State Convention. Delegates to the Republican National Convention will be elected by the State Convention on June 2nd in Shreveport.

Louisiana voters affiliated with the Republican Party on or before December 15, 2011 are eligible to participate in the caucuses.

Caucus voting will be conducted between 8:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon. Any qualified voter who is in line at noon will be allowed to vote. Voters are not required to stay for a meeting in order to vote. Voters will elect 25 delegates and 12 alternates from their new congressional districts. Each person may cast votes for up to 25 candidates for delegate and up to 12 candidates for alternate.

In order to run for state convention delegate or alternate, candidates must qualify with the Republican Party of Louisiana. There will be two methods of qualifying. Those who desire to qualify online may do so on April 10-12, 2012. Online qualifying will end at 5:00 p.m. on April 12th. Names of candidates who qualify online will be listed online so that they may verify that their registrations have been received. Those who do not want to register online and those wishing to pay for one or more candidates by check may deliver registration forms and checks in person on Tuesday, April 10, 2012, between 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. at Republican Party of Louisiana Headquarters, 530 Lakeland Drive, Suite 215, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

The registration fee for a candidate for state convention delegate is $200. The fee to run for alternate is $75. Qualifying forms and caucus locations will be published in the weeks ahead. 

Voters will be assigned to one of approximately 30 voting sites across Louisiana. In most cases, entire parishes will be assigned to one site. At some sites, voters from more than one congressional district will vote. When voters sign in, they will be provided the appropriate ballot for their congressional district. Voters are required to provide a photo ID in order to obtain a ballot. Voter registration cards are not required for check in, but we encourage voters to bring one in case there is any question about their eligibility to participate.

Delegates and alternates to the Republican National Convention will be selected on June 2, 2012 at the Louisiana Republican State Convention in Shreveport by state convention delegates. It is not necessary to be a state convention delegate in order to be elected as a national convention delegate. Qualifying procedures for national delegate and alternate will be announced at a later date.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Roger F. Villere, Jr.
Chairman 

² In fact, it was during Ron Paul's post-Iowa introduction by his son -- one that mentioned moving on to a group of early state contests that included Louisiana -- that made FHQ wonder if Louisiana Republicans were once again preparing for January caucuses.

Recent Posts:

A Follow Up on South Carolina Republican Delegate Allocation

Race to 1144: New Hampshire Primary

#spsa2012

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

A Follow Up on South Carolina Republican Delegate Allocation

Iowa...New Hampshire...on to South Carolina.

FHQ has fielded several questions over the last several days on how exactly the South Carolina Republican Party will allocate its apportioned delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa following the sanctions that cut the Palmetto state delegation in half. We have already covered what the South Carolina Republican Party rules have to say on the matter -- exempt from the new proportionality requirement and winner-take-all statewide and by congressional district -- but that does not give us any clear indication of how the process would work once the penalty has been levied against the state delegation.

FHQ exchanged emails with South Carolina Republican Party Executive Director Matt Moore earlier this week, and he confirmed that the party would use the same rules it used in 2008 under similar circumstances. Instead of having 50 total delegates with 26 at-large delegates allocated winner-take-all based on the statewide vote and an additional 21 delegates (3 delegates per each congressional district) allocated winner-take-all according to the vote on the congressional district level, the formula will reduce by nearly half the those totals while remaining winner-take-all.

Here's how it works:

• The three national delegates -- to which the SCGOP rules do not refer -- are eliminated in any state violating the RNC rules on presidential primary timing. The SCGOP chair and both the Republican National committeeman and committeewoman will still go to the convention but will not have voting powers on the floor.
• Instead of apportioning 3 delegates per congressional district, under the penalties, the South Carolina Republican Party will allot each district two delegates. That reduces the number of congressional district delegates from 21 to 14 -- a reduction of only one-third.
• The statewide at-large delegate total will bear the brunt of the penalty; decreasing from 26 delegates to just 11. That is a penalty of more than half of the original total of at-large delegates. The winner of the statewide vote -- whether by plurality or majority -- will be allocated all 11 delegates.

Again, this was the same method of delegate allocation that the SCGOP used following the penalties imposed when the state party moved the Palmetto state presidential primary into January in 2008. The result was that John McCain won 18 of the available 24 delegates -- 12 for the statewide win while splitting evenly the six congressional district votes with Mike Huckabee for the remaining 6 delegates. A narrow win (~4%) in 2008 netted McCain a 3:1 advantage in the delegate count coming out of the state. The statewide at-large delegates make the difference.

Recent Posts:

Race to 1144: New Hampshire Primary

#spsa2012

Do the Republicans Have a New Hampshire Problem?

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

Race to 1144: New Hampshire Primary

See also: Iowa Results


--

Automatic Delegate Count Source: Democratic Convention Watch
Note: Contest delegate total based on results in New Hampshire primary

Recent Posts:

#spsa2012

Do the Republicans Have a New Hampshire Problem?

Past Performance in Presidential Primaries as a Benchmark in Future Contests

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

#spsa2012

Let's take a break from New Hampshire for a moment to talk about the Southern Political Science Association meeting in New Orleans starting on Thursday. I'll be heading down to participate in a roundtable discussion -- No, I'm not actually presenting. -- called The Role of the States in the 2012 Presidential Primaries and General Election Campaigns on Thursday afternoon. [I have no idea what I'll talk about, but a discussion that includes Paul Gurian, John Aldrich, Jim Campbell and Tom Holbrook -- not to mention that FHQ guy -- can't be all that bad.]

But I'll be roaming the halls of the Hotel Intercontinental taking in the most recent in (primarily) campaigns and elections research and hopefully -- time permitting -- blogging some about it as well. With that in mind, I have a request. For all you political science types and other gluttons for punishment are there any other panels about which you would like to hear more? Here's the preliminary program. Have a glance around and let me know if anything piques your interest. I'll try and fit in what I can.

Also, I have already had one request to record the aforementioned discussion. If that happens, I'll post that here.

Recent Posts:

Do the Republicans Have a New Hampshire Problem?

Past Performance in Presidential Primaries as a Benchmark in Future Contests

The Psychology of the 2012 Republican Nomination Coverage

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

Do the Republicans Have a New Hampshire Problem?

I love, love, love this question from Jonathan Bernstein.

I mean, after all, if we are all going to be subjected to incessant questions about the rightward skew Iowa was supposed to have on the 2012 Republican nomination race, is it not also fair to inquire about the moderating influence New Hampshire -- with all its independents voting in the only-game-in-town Republican primary -- on the race as well? There are at least a few -- and that's probably understating it -- folks within the Republican Party and the Republican primary electorate that would and do have an interest in the process producing the most conservative nominee (or a nominee more conservative than Mitt Romney).

Now, Jon goes on to rhetorically ask about the possibility of Republicans reforming the system to that end: punishing New Hampshire for having an open contest. A few things:

1. Broadly, FHQ feels the same about New Hampshire's position on the calendar as I do about Iowa's. Neither is going anywhere. But I don't know that this was Jon's intent in posing this particular question, but I thought I'd throw it out there. ...just because. 

2. Now, on this point of punishing, things get tricky. The main question is how? How would conservatives attempt to punish New Hampshire or other similarly open states toward the beginning of the primary calendar -- where it matters most? Let me answer that but then take a step back and answer a few broader but related questions. On the how, I don't think we have to look much further than the new "proportionality" requirements handed down by the RNC for the 2012 cycle. The intent there was to marginally slow the process down, engender some competition and build from that grassroots enthusiasm a core of support for the general election campaign (see Democrats, 2008). Theoretically, then, there could be a similar rule that only allows "closed" states to occupy the spots at the front of the calendar.  

The only problem -- well, problems really -- is that that represents opening a Pandora's box of hurt that the RNC would never want to open. The simple truth of the matter is that the RNC -- or the DNC for that matter -- could turn the screws on the state parties and get them to comply with such a rule. But there would have to be a consensus within the national party that that was the right course of action; that potentially taking on state parties or state governments in court was/is wise. There is no such consensus. In fact, during the meetings of the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee during 2009 and 2010, Saul Anuzis, former chair of the Michigan Republican Party and current national committeeman from the Wolverine state, was asked via Twitter if closing the primaries was on the committee's agenda. The answer? 

"no...that is up to the states." 

Short, sweet and to the point. There is no desire among the group of people within the RNC charged with the task of examining these rules to close off primaries. And I dare say, by extension, there is no desire to punish states that are not completely closed off to only partisans registered to the Republican Party. If there is any desire, it is not present in enough of the decision-making body to push the change through. 

Now, where we could see some change potentially is from within the New Hampshire Republican Party. The rules that make the primary in the Granite state both proportional and semi-open are based on state laws -- not state party rules. That arrangement is in good stead so long as both parties -- the state and the state party in this case -- are amenable to its provisions. Traditionally, everything has been kosher. But there is nothing to stop the Granite state Republican Party from challenging that. Time and again, based on a party's first amendment right to the freedom of association, the courts have sided with the parties on the questions of rules regarding nominations (see Tashjian). As long as the underlying rule is not discriminatory, it typically passes muster with the courts under the rationale that the parties should be allowed to craft the rules that determine who represents the party in a general election. 

On that point, though, in New Hampshire, FHQ is not aware of any problem within the Republican Party there with business as usual in regard to the presidential primary. If it ain't broke -- and the primary is still first -- don't fix it. 

So, do Republicans have a New Hampshire problem? Perhaps, depending upon whom you ask. [It is a great question.] But if they do, there is really no recourse that doesn't involve a lot of pain getting there. And in a game -- nominating presidential candidates -- where consensus and consensus building is the objective, the last thing a party wants to do is negatively affect the unity of voters behind the nominee or that state parties have behind the party.

Recent Posts:

Past Performance in Presidential Primaries as a Benchmark in Future Contests

The Psychology of the 2012 Republican Nomination Coverage

Housekeeping: Flip Flop

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

Past Performance in Presidential Primaries as a Benchmark in Future Contests

Fair or not (and FHQ leans to the latter), Mitt Romney's vote total/percentage last week in Iowa being so close to the former Massachusetts governor's total/percentage from the caucuses in 2008 has set off at least some expectations-setting chatter about the now-versus-then in other states. FHQ has followed the presidential primary process for a long time and I don't know that I have ever seen this particular metric pop up in the past. The reality is that we just simply don't have that many viable but ultimately failing candidates from one cycle coming back to be viable candidates in the immediately subsequent cycle (emphasis on viable and immediately).

The best corollaries we have in the post-reform era on the Republican side are Ronald Reagan (1976 and 1980), George H. W. Bush (1980 and 1988), Bob Dole (1988 and 1996) and John McCain (2000 and 2008).¹  And right off the bat, one gets into all the "yeah, buts". In Reagan's case, the race was a two person battle between the would-be 40th president and the sitting, but unelected president, Gerald Ford. That two person contest is tough to equate with the multi-candidate race in 1980. For the remaining examples, there is a lag that encompasses three total presidential election cycles instead of two back-to-back. In other words, the comparisons are being made with eight years, not four, in between the two points of observation.

To FHQ, these sorts of benchmarks are very tricky because of how many caveats can be involved. Are they more trouble than they are worth? Let's have a look at the early states with similar positions on the calendar from one comparison point to another for Republican candidates, 1976-2012:

Past Primary Performance by State (Early) in Republican Races (1976-2012)
Candidate/ Year/ State	% of vote (point #1)	% of vote (point #2)	Won State (point #1)	Won State (point #2)	Mulit-candidate? (point #1)	Mulit-candidate? (point #2)	Dem. Race? (point #1)	Dem. Race? (point #2)	Open Primary?
Reagan  (1976/1980)
Iowa	43	30	--	--	--	√	√	√	√
New Hampshire	48	50	--	√	--	√	√	√	√
Massachusetts	34	29	--	--	--	√	√	√	√
Florida	47	56	--	√	--	√	√	√	--
Bush  (1980/1988)
Iowa	32	19	√	--	√	√	√	√	√
New Hampshire	23	38	--	√	√	√	√	√	√
South Carolina	15	49	--	√	√	√	√	√	√
Dole  (1988/1996)
Iowa	37	26	√	√	√	√	√	--	√
New Hampshire	29	26	--	--	√	√	√	--	√
South Dakota	55	45	√	√	√	√	√	--	--
South Carolina	21	45	--	√	√	√	√	--	√
McCain (2000/2008)
Iowa	5	13	--	--	√	√	√	√	√
New Hampshire	48	37	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
South Carolina	42	33	--	√	√	√	√	√	√
Romney  (2008/2012)
Iowa	25	25	--	√	√	√	√	--	√
New Hampshire	32	??			√	√	√	--	√
South Carolina	15	??			√	√	√	--	√
Florida	31	??			√	√	√	--	--

Now, everyone will probably get the most out of the first few columns with the vote percentages and win rates. But I'm hard-pressed not to include other relevant considerations here like whether or not the race was a multi-candidate race, which party had nomination races and whether or not the state had an open/semi-open/semi-closed primary allowing particularly independents to vote. Again, if there are multiple candidates, then there are more candidates vying for a piece of the pie. The result is typically, but not always, a smaller share of the vote for the winner (and other participants). That Reagan's percentage of the vote in New Hampshire went up between 1976 and 1980 despite the race having gone from two candidates in the former to multiple candidates in the latter is noteworthy, for example. That the former president went down in Iowa under similar circumstances is more understandable.

Additionally, the combination of if the Democratic Party simultaneously held a contested nomination race and if any given state allowed independents to vote in the primary matters. If, in one cycle Democrats were involved and peeled votes away from the Republican contest in an open state, but were not in the next contest of comparison, it could have an impact across races/cycles. There are not all that many examples of this occurring as the Democratic Party has had so many contested nomination races in an otherwise Republican era of presidencies. 1996 offers our best hope, and Dole's   numbers went up in South Carolina from a Democratic-contested year like 1988 to one where the Republicans were the only game in town in 1996. FHQ is skeptical just how much of an impact the presence of Democrats in 1988 and their absence in 1996 had on that. [Overall, this is a factor that is likely to play a larger role -- hypothetically -- in New Hampshire if it was to play a role at all. There's no evidence of that above.]

As for whether a candidate improved or declined from cycle to the next in the early states, it is a coin flip in the 14 state cases above. In seven cases, the candidate improved and in the remaining seven cases the candidate lost ground from one cycle to the next. And not even a tiebreaker works if one wants to throw Romney's Iowa performances into the mix. Romney essentially tied his vote percentage from 2008 last week in Iowa. Five of the cases saw an improvement from one cycle to the next lead to a victory for a candidate. But in four other cases, candidates lost ground and either won or still won across the sequential comparison points.

But the question remains: Is this a good metric for setting expectations much less examining performance for a repeat candidate across cycles? The record is mixed, but if ever there was a candidate/cycle combination where it would work, it would be Romney in 2012. But FHQ just isn't sold on whether even that would be effective. So, while we will hear at least some discussion about Mitt Romney's share of the vote -- particularly in New Hampshire tomorrow -- in 2008 (32%) as a means of setting the expectations for the former Massachusetts governor in 2012, it may be flawed simply because independents will flock to the Republican contest while the Democratic primary remains idle.

Fair or not, when you are the frontrunner and basically playing a home game all comparison points will be examined.

...and FHQ is fine with that so long as caveats are added.

--
¹ Incidentally, along with Romney (2008 and 2012) that is all of the competitive Republican nomination races in the time since the McGovern-Fraser reforms.

Recent Posts:

The Psychology of the 2012 Republican Nomination Coverage

Housekeeping: Flip Flop

[2012 Presidential Primary Calendar in Review] Part 3: Where We Go From Here -- The 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

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

The Psychology of the 2012 Republican Nomination Coverage

Last night Nate Silver tweeted:

Starting to think that "25% is a ceiling for Romney" is the most overrated/incorrect meme of the cycle.

To which FHQ responded:

The 25% ceiling combined with the "proportional" rules changes has built a powerful myth in this race.

I'm sure that the 140 characters or less captured my thoughts parsimoniously enough, but let FHQ expand upon that statement because it has an overarching bearing on the psychology of the coverage of this race. Look, FHQ has railed against the myth of Republican proportionality since February of last year. That many have ignored the rules changes and more importantly their potential impact relative to the rules in past cycles has propped up this illusion that the Republican presidential nomination process just has to extend longer than in the past. It might but that notion is no more inevitable than a Mitt Romney nomination at this point. Well, in actuality, it is less likely as the two are mutually exclusive.

But there it is in the backs of the minds of a great many folks. That perception that the race is likely to continue -- and it stretches into the campaigns themselves. In combination with the all-too falsely concocted idea that Romney has a ceiling in this race, the proportionality/protracted campaign myth creates the perception that not only will the race go on, but that there is a significant faction of Republican primary voters opposed to Romney. Now, that perceived divisiveness on top of a lengthy nomination fight is the stuff that sells papers and magazines and gets people to click on any given link, but it doesn't really capture the true nature of the race currently. It just doesn't.

I don't know that it is the ceiling so much as the talking point surrounding the converse -- that 75% of the electorate is in opposition to Romney -- is the crux of the problem. Truth be told, up to 75% of the Republican primary may be in opposition, but the number is likely much lower. Many voters are still shopping around and as the field continues to winnow and when and if Romney continues to win contests, most are going to move over to the former Massachusetts governor. They just are. Most Republicans will line up behind the presumptive, near-inevitable, last one standing -- whatever you want to call it -- nominee.

To be sure, there are simultaneously stories out there discussing Romney's inevitability alongside those mentioning a protracted fight and that sets up the two sides of a media coverage spectrum. The needle is moving more and more toward inevitability now despite the myths that have propped up Romney's limited reach among Republicans and a rules-induced lengthy battle for the nomination.

Recent Posts:

Housekeeping: Flip Flop

[2012 Presidential Primary Calendar in Review] Part 3: Where We Go From Here -- The 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

Minnesota Democrats Set for February 7 Caucuses

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

Housekeeping: Flip Flop

[Fun experiment: Who thought this was going to about Mitt Romney? It isn't.]

This change was inevitable, but since primary season has kicked off and since more and more people are/have become interested in what the dates of the other primaries are, FHQ is going to switch the links to the "clean" and marked up versions of our 2012 presidential primary calendar. The rationale is that we don't want to completely overwhelm/confuse people with information when their intent is to simply find out when the Virginia primary is or when Maine Republicans will caucus.

Rest assured, a link to the marked up version will continue to be embedded in the main link into which most will enter the site.

You can find those links here:

• Marked up
• Clean

--
Josh

Recent Posts:

[2012 Presidential Primary Calendar in Review] Part 3: Where We Go From Here -- The 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

Minnesota Democrats Set for February 7 Caucuses

[2012 Presidential Primary Calendar in Review] Part 2: How We Got Here -- The Motivation

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

[2012 Presidential Primary Calendar in Review] Part 3: Where We Go From Here -- The 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

This is the third part of a three part series on the development of the 2012 presidential primary calendar and its implications. Part one provided the legislation that was introduced within state legislatures during the 2011 sessions to shift the dates on which the various states hold their presidential primaries. Part two examined the motivating factors behind the movement. Part three will look forward to the next cycle.

What look back at what the presidential primary movement for 2012 hath wrought would be complete without a look at what the law changes made in 2009-11 portend for 2016? Here is what the 2016 presidential primary calendar would look like given the state of election law in the various states as of today. The links should take you to the relevant passages in each state's election law covering the primary date. [NOTE: There are a few that default to Lexis Nexis results that may or may not work for everyone. Please just let me know where that is the case and I'll provide the text in a footnote later.]

The 2016 calendar will have a permanent home here.

2016 Presidential Primary Calendar


February

Tuesday, February 2:
Colorado caucuses¹
Minnesota caucuses²
Missouri
Utah³

Tuesday, February 23:
Arizona
Michigan

March

Tuesday, March 1:
Colorado caucuses¹ 
Massachusetts
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia

Tuesday, March 8:
Alabama⁴
Hawaii Republican caucuses
Mississippi

Tuesday, March 15:
Illinois

Saturday, March 19:
Louisiana

April

Tuesday, April 5:
Maryland
Washington, DC
Wisconsin⁵

Tuesday, April 26:
Connecticut⁶
Delaware
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island⁷

May

Tuesday, May 3:
Indiana
North Carolina

Tuesday, May 10:
Nebraska
West Virginia

Tuesday, May 17:
Kentucky
Oregon

Tuesday, May 24:
Arkansas

June

Tuesday, June 7:
California⁸
Montana
New Jersey⁹
New Mexico
South Dakota

Primary states with no specified date:
Florida
Georgia
Kansas¹²
New Hampshire
New York
Ohio¹³
South Carolina

Without dwelling on something that is WELL before its time, FHQ should note that those February states are only problematic in 2016 if the two parties' delegates selection rules mirror the rules from the 2012 cycle. They may or may not. The real problem children, if you will, are the primary states without specified dates for 2016. As of January 2012 they are the free agents for the 2016 primary calendar and the ones that may bear the most intense watching between now and mid-2015. That said, first things first: The first step is a set of rules from the DNC and RNC. We have a ways to go before the parties settle on/finalized something on that front (2014).

--
¹ The state parties have the option of choosing either the first Tuesday in March date called for in the statute or moving up to the first Tuesday in February.
² The state parties must agree on a date on which to hold caucuses by March 1 in the year prior to a presidential election. If no agreement is reached, the caucuses are set for the first Tuesday in February.
³ The Western States Presidential Primary in Utah is scheduled for the first Tuesday in February, but the contest will only be held on that date if the state legislature decides to allocate funds for the primary.
⁴ The online version of the newly changed statute regarding the presidential primary election date in Alabama has not been updated at the time of writing. The legislation changing the primary date (HB 425) was to have taken effect upon signing according to the enrolled version of the bill.
⁵ See definition of "Spring primary" for clause dealing with the timing of the presidential primary.
⁶ The online version of the newly changed statute regarding the presidential primary election date in Connecticut has not been updated at the time of writing. The legislation changing the primary date (HB 6532) was to have taken effect as of July 1, 2011 according to the enrolled version of the bill.
⁷ The online version of the newly changed statute regarding the presidential primary election date in Rhode Island has not been updated at the time of writing. The legislation changing the primary date (H 5653, S 399) was to have taken effect upon signing according to the enrolled version of the bill.
⁸ The online version of the newly changed statute regarding the presidential primary election date in California has not been updated at the time of writing. The legislation changing the primary date (AB 80) will take effect on January 1, 2012 according to the a list of bills enacted in 2011.
⁹ Legislation passed (A 3777) during the 2011 session removed references to the separate presidential primary from the law. The primary referenced in the statute references all primaries in New Jersey.
¹² Kansas has not held a presidential primary since 1992. Funds have not been appropriated by the legislature for the primary since that time. That said, there are laws in place providing for a presidential preference primary. Assuming funding, the Kansas secretary of state has the option of choosing a date -- on or before November 1 in the year preceding the presidential election -- that either coincides with at least 5 other states' delegate selection events or is on the first Tuesday in April or before.
¹³ Depending on the outcome of the ballot initiative in November, Ohio will have either a first Tuesday after the first Monday in March or first Tuesday after the first Monday in May primary date. If the law created by HB 194 is upheld, the primary will move to May. If not, the primary law should revert to the previous March date called for. None of this precludes the Ohio legislature from revisiting all of this prior to the 2016 election.

Recent Posts:

Minnesota Democrats Set for February 7 Caucuses

[2012 Presidential Primary Calendar in Review] Part 2: How We Got Here -- The Motivation

2012 Call for the Republican National Convention

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

Minnesota Democrats Set for February 7 Caucuses

The revised and presumably final delegate selection plan for the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor has been posted on the party website.¹ The party will use the February 7 precinct caucuses called for by state law in the Land of 10,000 Lakes; a change from the March 6 caucus date previous plans had proposed. The presidential preference vote taken on February 7, according to the plan, will be affirmed at the Organizing Unit Conventions on March 6.

As FHQ discussed when the original Minnesota delegate selection plan was released back in the spring of 2011, this is a work-around to allow the vote to take place on the caucus date specified by law, but for  the results to be revealed once the vote is affirmed/finalized on March 6.

Now, some may say that this is a potential slippery slope for the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (for the RBC to have approved this plan). Perhaps, but FHQ is willing to wager that any state that might try this in the future -- particularly in a future competitive race where the method of allocation may matter -- is likely to be met with resistance from the RBC. First of all, the argument can be made by the committee that with Obama being the only (viable?) candidate on the ballot, that he will receive all of the votes anyway. But I doubt the RBC would have to resort to that argument anyway. FHQ doesn't have access to the waiver request submitted by the Minnesota DFL, but I suspect the argument there had little if anything to do with the competitiveness of the Democratic presidential nomination race than it dealt with the fact that a Republican-controlled legislature blocked last-minute efforts to change the provision in the presidential caucus law triggering the first Tuesday in February date. That point is key. That is the out that the DNC delegate selection rules provide: If efforts were made by Democrats in the state to schedule a compliant contest, but the decision was out of their hands, then a waiver can be granted (Rule 20.C.7).

A tip of the cap to Tony Roza over at The Green Papers for passing this news along.

--
¹ Below is the revised Minnesota DFL delegate selection plan:
2012 National Delegate Selection Plan Revised for DNC 2012-01-04

Recent Posts:

[2012 Presidential Primary Calendar in Review] Part 2: How We Got Here -- The Motivation

2012 Call for the Republican National Convention

Race to 1144: Iowa Caucuses

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