Pennsylvania Presidential Primary on the Move?

The redistricting process may claim another victim on the presidential primary calendar.

The ongoing battle to set congressional district boundaries in Pennsylvania -- now in the courts -- may push the April 24 presidential primary in the Keystone state back on the calendar. From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Saturday:

Also, without knowing how long it would take a new plan to become final, Mr. Pileggi said lawmakers will need to consider whether they should delay the primary contest. 

"Without control over that length of time, it's hard to come to a final conclusion," [Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader] Mr. Pileggi said in a teleconference with reporters. "But certainly the April 24th date is in jeopardy." 

Democrats said that moving the primary is unnecessary because the Supreme Court has said the decade-old map remains in effect until a new one is approved. 

"A new plan should not be rammed through the process without due consideration for what the court has said about redistricting," said Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa, D-Forest Hills.

There is a hearing today on the Republican-led request to delay the primary from happening. 

--

What does that mean for Pennsylvania within the context of the presidential primary calendar? 

First of all, any time a primary is shifted or is forced to shift back the date on which its primary is held, it runs the risk of losing influence over the process. The discussion around this Republican nomination race has refocused lately on the delegate count, but even before the contests started, that April 24 regional primary date -- where Pennsylvania is currently scheduled -- was seen as a possibility for where (presumably) Mitt Romney might push past the 1144 delegates necessary to lock up the nomination. At the very least, that cluster of contests would conceivably push the former Massachusetts  governor to a delegate lead that may be too steep for his opponents to overcome. To move back beyond that date, then, would mean Pennsylvania would potentially be pushed out of the window of decisiveness in this race. 

But there is a caveat to that. Texas may also -- for similar reasons -- be forced to hold a later presidential primary. And Texas, along with potentially Pennsylvania moving back, shifts a lot of delegates -- 227 total delegates -- further back in the process. That may affect the delegate counting calculus at that point. Of course, the March contests will go a long way toward determining how detrimental a move back for Pennsylvania would be.

...or if it is consequential to the the process determining a presumptive nominee by that point.

A tip of the cap to Tim McNulty at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette for passing this news along.

Recent Posts:

Race to 1144: Florida Primary

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Nevada

Florida May End Up "Proportional" But It Won't Be Proportional

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

Race to 1144: Florida Primary

The numbers keep changing daily with the vote tabulation in Florida -- see, it has already changed¹ -- but FHQ will go ahead and post this today in the interest of making a few points about the overall delegate count. However, the vote total will be changed -- and folks, it is only changing slightly and will in no way affect the outcome -- when and if the Division of Elections within the Florida Secretary of State's office adds, or in some cases, subtracts votes from a candidate's total.

Now, about those delegate counts...

--

Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)

FHQ wants to get out ahead of as much of this delegate count talk as possible because most of it is very, very wrong. In fact, an NPR story this morning -- one FHQ was quoted in -- incorrectly stated that Ron Paul is fourth in the delegate count. That statement followed a clip of Paul correctly stating that he was in third. He is according to the RNC.

As such, FHQ will call its delegate count the RNC+ delegate count. The Republican National Committee stated this week that it had the delegate count at Romney: 59, Gingrich: 23, Paul: 3, Santorum: 0 and there are 30 unbound delegates. Let's dig into that.

• Romney: 59 (50 Florida delegates, 7 New Hampshire delegates, 2 South Carolina delegates)
• Gingrich: 23 (23 South Carolina delegates)
• Paul: 3 (3 New Hampshire delegates)

Yes, that's right. Santorum has 0 delegates according to the RNC.

But we do have additional information. We also have automatic delegates, technically unbound, who have stated preferences for one candidate or another. That adds fifteen delegates to Romney's total, two to Gingrich's total and pushes Santorum's count from zero to one.

You will also notice that the Huntsman column from previous "Race to 1144" posts has disappeared and been replaced with an "Unbound" column. This brings up a couple of additional points. First of all, the two delegates Huntsman won in the New Hampshire primary have not been officially released. The RNC is counting them among the unbound delegates. The remaining unbound delegates are the 28 delegates at stake in Iowa. Remember, none of those delegates has been allocated yet. That will happen at the Iowa state convention in June and even after that point, those delegates will head to Tampa unbound. That said, one of those Iowa delegates, Kay Lehman, the Iowa Republican Party national committeewoman, has come out in support of Rick Santorum. That's Santorum's lone delegate. What that means for those keeping track at home is that two of those unbound delegates are Huntman's two contest delegates from New Hampshire while the remaining 27 unbound delegates are Iowa's 25 contest delegates and the remaining two Iowa automatic delegates who have yet to endorse a candidate.

[NOTE: Due to the fact that New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida were all penalized for holding their primaries too early, they lost their 3 automatic delegates according to the RNC delegate selection rules.]


The Nevada caucuses this weekend will add no unbound delegates to the equation. All 28 delegates are bound according to the results of the precinct caucuses on Saturday. The delegate allocation in the Silver state will be completely proportional.

--
Changes to the delegate count since South Carolina:

• Romney added 50 delegates from Florida.
• Romney gained the support of Puerto Rico automatic delegate, Luis Fortuno.
• Gingrich added the support of Puerto Rico automatic delegate, Carlos Mendez.

--
¹ The vote totals seem to have stabilized on February 6. The vote totals in the graphic above reflect the numbers as they were as of then.

Recent Posts:

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Nevada

Florida May End Up "Proportional" But It Won't Be Proportional

Visual Representation of the Argument from Non-Romneys, Post-Florida

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Nevada

This is the sixth 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.


NEVADA

FHQ has been fond of saying that the rules in the January and February primary and caucus states are no different in 2012 than they were in 2008. But we always say that in the context of the winner-take-all/proportional discussion. On that front, the statement is true, but in terms of the overall delegate selection rules, there is one state with one significant rules change: Nevada. No, the Nevada caucuses are still proportional as they were in 2008. For 2012, however, the Nevada Republican Party altered the binding mechanism within the Silver state caucuses. Instead of the Nevada Republicans being allocated based on what transpires at the state convention, delegates coming out of the state will now be bound to candidates based on the results of the precinct caucuses on Saturday night (February 4). [The ultimate delegate allocation will be proportional based on the precinct caucus vote.]

The reason for the change is twofold:
1) First of all, the first step of the caucus process in Nevada is binding and not non-binding like the vast majority of other caucus states. What will happen Saturday night, then, is not simply a straw poll vote on top of electing delegates to move on to the next step of the process. That is unique among this group of January and February caucus states (and the other caucus states too). The Nevada GOP made the decision last year as a means of drawing candidates into the state; something that did not happen in 2008 when the Nevada caucuses shared the same date as the South Carolina primary.² Of course, when that change was made Nevada was supposed to have been the third contest on the calendar. Florida's move into January and the subsequent Nevada spat with New Hampshire for calendar positions pushed Nevada back to the fifth slot just four days after Florida. That's a small window of time, but the candidates are out there this week, though they are splitting time there with time in the February 7 caucus states (Colorado and Minnesota).

2) The second reason for the move is not being talked about, but is fairly obvious. The early stage binding of the delegates is a means to an end. It heads off the problems that beset the Nevada caucus process in 2008: that Ron Paul delegates essentially derailed the convention and forced the State Executive Committee to select the delegates. By binding delegates based on the results of the precinct caucuses, the party heads off at least some of that problem (...though Ron Paul delegates will still make it through to the next stage).

But of course, there are some worries about whether the Nevada GOP can improve on their 2008 performance.

What does all of this mean for Saturday night? Well, the Nevada caucuses will be more than the straw polls we have witnessed in Iowa and will witness in most other caucus states. The results are binding -- more like a primary -- and unlike, again, most other caucus states, where the delegates will go to the convention unbound, the Nevada Republican delegates will be bound. This includes not only the at-large and congressional district delegates, but the automatic delegates as well (all 28 total Nevada delegates).

[NOTE: Nevada's Republican caucuses are closed to only registered Republicans. The final day to register prior to the caucuses was January 20.]

--
¹ FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.

² Incidentally, that Las Vegas Review-Journal article was the link the Nevada Republican Party provided on its own website to explain the shift. That was true until just last month when all caucus-related links on the party's page got automatically sent to the new 2012 caucus site. Anyway, if it was good enough for the party before...

Recent Posts:

Florida May End Up "Proportional" But It Won't Be Proportional

Visual Representation of the Argument from Non-Romneys, Post-Florida

Newt's Challenge & Problem: Becoming Huckabee+

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

Florida May End Up "Proportional" But It Won't Be Proportional

Well, that was fast.

No, FHQ is not talking about the news that the Gingrich campaign is going to formally challenge the winner-take-all allocation of the Florida Republican delegates. Instead, I'm talking about the need to try -- try very hard, mind you -- to get out in front of those picking up and running with this story carrying the banner of false proportionality.

Look, I have no problem with the Republican National Committee delegate selection rules. It is up to the party to decide the formula it wants to use -- how much leeway it want to allow the states in determining their own rules under those guidelines. I don't even really have a problem with them calling it proportional, though it would have been a lot easier for all parties concerned if they had used different language to describe the nature of the rules change from 2008 to 2012. What I have a problem with and what FHQ has absolutely fought against is the notion that the changes to the rules mean that any primary or caucus before April 1 will be proportional like they are in the Democratic Party delegate selection rules (ie: If a candidate receives 40% of the vote in a contest, they take approximately 40% of the delegates in that state.).

The truth is, some are. New Hampshire had proportional allocation of all 12 of its delegates. The problem lies in the fact that very few have taken the time to actually acquaint themselves with the RNC's definition of proportional. Proportional can mean New Hampshire proportional, but it can also mean Michigan "proportional" or Oklahoma "proportional" or Virginia "proportional".

Let me explain. There are a number of ways that a state can get at the RNC's definition of proportional. The Michigan primary is winner-take-all by congressional district -- completely fine within the Republican Party rules before April 1 -- but the statewide at-large delegates are allocated in proportion to the statewide vote. South Carolina, which was exempt from the proportionality requirement, under the Michigan plan would have allocated the 2 delegates per congressional district (14 total) on a winner-take-all basis as it did on January 21, but the 11 at-large delegates would have been divvied up proportionally among the candidates based on the statewide vote.

...instead of all having gone to Gingrich.

The Oklahoma primary on March 6 will be a proportional contest, but only if no candidate receives 50% of the vote or more. If a candidate gains a majority in the primary, that candidate would receive all 43 of the Sooner state Republican delegates. That, too, is completely within the letter of the law in the Republican delegate selection rules.

The Virginia primary on March 6 will be like Michigan and South Carolina in that the congressional district votes will be winner-take-all, but the allocation of the at-large delegates will be proportional IF no candidate receives over 50% of the vote in a two-person (Romney and Paul) race. Otherwise, the allocation will be winner-take-all.

Now, there are several other combinations, but I think you get the point. The Gingrich campaign can challenge the Florida allocation all it wants, but there is nothing in the rules that allows the RNC to make the Florida allocation totally proportional. Nothing. However, if, on the very small chance that this challenge is either necessary later on in the year or successful, Florida won't be proportional. It will likely be "proportional".

I have no idea what that would look like, but I sure would like to see the Florida vote by congressional district last night.

--
As an aside, I played around with this a little bit the other day. FHQ has argued in the past that if a challenge was successful Florida would end up looking more like South Carolina (minus the winner-take-all allocated at-large delegates) and less like New Hampshire. After all the Republican Party of Florida rules call for the allocation to be that way if not penalized. But the math doesn't work as well for Florida as it did in South Carolina. Both lost half their delegates for holding January primaries, and instead of having 3 delegates per congressional district like all the other non-penalized states, the South Carolina Republican Party apportioned 2 delegates per district and let the remaining 11 be at-large delegates. Florida, with so many congressional districts, can't mimic that plan. Two delegates per district would mean 54 delegates and Florida only has 50 to give. One alternative that we might see, in the event of a successful challenge, is each Florida district being apportioned one delegate to be allocated winner-take-all based on the votes in each of the 27 districts. The remaining 23 delegates would be allocated proportionally based on the statewide vote. Romney would get approximately half of the at-large delegates. For the congressional district allocation, again, we would need the vote by congressional district.

The resulting plan is not quite proportional and not quite winner-take-all, but is somewhere in between while still giving most to Romney. It would reduce the delegate margin, but Romney would still leave Florida with a pretty wide margin.

--
UPDATE: The RNC has punted on the Florida question in a memo released tonight. The issue won't be dealt with until a formal challenge is filed with the Committee on Contests. Rule 23(b) of the RNC rules states that a challenge must be filed no later than 22 days preceding the Republican National Convention. The rest of the rule lays out the contest procedure: a prompt hearing of the issues by the Committee, a submission of the issues and recommendations for resolution to the RNC, provide a chance for the parties involved to object to the Committee submission and then a final decision by the whole RNC.

Recent Posts:

Visual Representation of the Argument from Non-Romneys, Post-Florida

Newt's Challenge & Problem: Becoming Huckabee+

A Winner-Take-All Primary for Texas Republicans?

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

Visual Representation of the Argument from Non-Romneys, Post-Florida

1144 delegates needed to win.

Recent Posts:

Newt's Challenge & Problem: Becoming Huckabee+

A Winner-Take-All Primary for Texas Republicans?

I'll see your white knight and raise you a filing deadline. Why It's Too Late for Entry in the Republican Nomination Race

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

Newt's Challenge & Problem: Becoming Huckabee+

On the heels of the South Carolina primary, FHQ speculated that one of the main questions that emerged from the Gingrich win/Romney loss was the Southern question. Romney did not win the South Carolina primary and even if could win in Florida -- It is something of a foregone conclusion at this point that the former Massachusetts governor will win tonight in the Sunshine state. -- and use that as a springboard to wins in contests in hospitable areas in February, that Southern question remains. Romney will not have another opportunity to win in the South until March 6.

[Sidenote follow up to that Southern question:
The way that post seemed to be interpreted by those that built off it was that FHQ was saying Romney couldn't wrap things up until that point at the earliest. I suppose that is part of it, but it is deeper than that. What I meant was that Gingrich and Santorum could use that as a rallying point for voters and more importantly donors. But that has a shelf life. If Romney wins in the South -- and he's guaranteed at least one win in Virginia where only Paul is on the ballot opposite him ¹ -- then that argument disappears. Support and contributions to the campaign also likely disappear or at the very least begin to drop off at that point. And keep in mind, FHQ is discussing this without accounting for any intra-party pressure on the candidates to drop out. In the past, those three things -- waning support, lower fundraising totals and pressure from the party -- often happen nearly simultaneously. That may happen this time as well. But it isn't about Romney wrapping things up so much as the way in which the others start to drop out, or arguments to stay in begin to disappear.]

The Gingrich campaign is mindful of this Southern question. In fact, the memo the campaign circulated on Monday about how a protracted primary battle might look was very heavy on the former Speaker doing well in the upcoming March contests in the region. And therein lies the trouble for the Gingrich campaign. Their hope is that a series of wins across the South evens the delegate total heading out of the contests. That may happen, but if that is the case, the Gingrich folks are going to run full on in a stiff wind. How is that any different than the strategy Mike Huckabee had in 2008? The former Arkansas governor came close to sweeping the region in 2008 and that got him nowhere. It had him out of the race in early March when McCain won on Huckabee's turf in Texas and in the process crossed the 50% plus one delegate threshold to become the presumptive nominee.

Now sure, the Gingrich folks would counter that the calendar is vastly different in 2012 than it was in 2008. There is no mammoth Super Tuesday a week from today's Florida primary like there was four years ago. However, Gingrich is going to have to find a way to win in a Romney state to effectively brush off the Huckabee comparison. February's line up of contests does not seem to offer too many opportunities for Gingrich and if Romney sweeps them all, the pressure is going to increase on the non-Romneys in that scenario to consider bowing out (...in the face of the Southern question for Romney).

If we are trying to game this out moving forward look for Gingrich wins in Romney states (as a signal of a protracted battle) and Romney wins in the South (as a signal that the process is winding down). As it is, Romney is playing the McCain part from 2008 and if the South is the only thing standing in the way, it won't be enough to stop a Romney nomination. The goal for Gingrich is to become Huckabee, but Huckabee plus.

--
¹ This will be an interesting test case of the Romney/not-Romney theory that has been floated around about this Republican nomination race. If there is a significant protest/anti-Romney movement within the Republican primary electorate, and the field has not winnowed anymore by that point, then that two-person Virginia primary becomes the best possible test.

Recent Posts:

A Winner-Take-All Primary for Texas Republicans?

I'll see your white knight and raise you a filing deadline. Why It's Too Late for Entry in the Republican Nomination Race

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Florida

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

A Winner-Take-All Primary for Texas Republicans?

In a run through the future stops on the presidential primary calendar late last week, Jake Tapper of ABC News wondered whether Texas Republicans -- having been forced by the courts to shift back the presidential primary past April 1 in the Lone Star state -- would entertain the idea of switching from proportional to winner-take-all allocation of their 155 delegates.

FHQ wrote about this in December when courts pushed Texas back to April and was told pretty much the same thing that Republican Party of Texas Communications Director Chris Elam told Aman Betheja of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on Friday. Basically, RPT is not changing its delegate allocation rules. In the month since I spoke with RPT about the issue, though, the argument has evolved.   In December, FHQ was -- correctly, I might add -- told that the rules were final because the RNC rules require state parties to have set delegate selection rules by October 1. I countered that Ohio had changed -- or at least allowed a trigger mechanism in their rules that switched their delegate selection method dependent upon the date the primary was held -- and was informed that the Ohio condition was part of the rules package submitted by Ohio to the RNC prior to October 1. And of course, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina all settled on their plans -- the dates in particular -- after October 1. All pointed to some wiggle room in the national party rules that may allow Texas Republicans -- under unusual circumstances -- to change back to the winner-take-all allocation method the party has traditionally used.

Again, the answer from RPT in December was that the rules were set.

But now, instead of leaning on the RNC deadline as in December, RPT has shifted to a Voting Rights Act/preclearance argument for fending off inquiries about switching back to winner-take-all rules. FHQ must confess that this one is new to me. DOJ has the final say on redistricting plans in certain states and districts under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, but that authority stretching into delegate selection rules is something I haven't encountered outside of the past use of the unit rule (which has been outlawed in both national parties). This implies that Texas Republicans should have had to have received preclearance from the Justice Department for the change back in October from winner-take-all to proportional; something FHQ never heard about if it happened. [And that isn't to suggest that it did not.] But it seems odd that DOJ would have preclear a change back to a system that has been in place on the Republican side in Texas up until this cycle; October 2011 to be exact.

But that is a minor point in the grand scheme of things. Texas Republicans won't be changing back to winner-take-all rules. And it has very little to do with Section 5. It has more to do with the the seeming lack of desire to make the change within the state party. And even if independent of the state party, a Republican in Texas challenged the allocation method in a reverse of what we are witnessing in Florida with its adherence to winner-take-all allocation in a timeframe reserved for at least partially proportional allocation, that case would stand very little chance of going anywhere. The big issue in the Florida situation -- if the system there were to be challenged -- is that the state party is breaking a national party rule; that winner-take-all allocation instead of some "proportional" allocation is illegal.

But in a similar Texas situation there would be no similar rules-breaking. The RNC rules prohibit straight winner-take-all allocation of all of a states delegates before April 1, but that doesn't mean that it is against the rules if state parties after that point opt for a proportional plan, a winner-take-all plan or something in between. No, the RNC leaves it up to the states after March to decide on their own method of allocation in the way the RNC used to do for all states throughout the whole calendar. That would not be a winning argument. The state, acting in accordance with the RNC rules, should be made to change its method of delegate allocation because someone within the state (of Texas in this scenario) challenges it. The RNC has already seemingly indicated that challenges -- even in Florida's case -- were likely to go nowhere. And if a challenge to get a state to actually follow the rules is stuck in neutral, then a plan to force a state in full compliance with the rules to alter its delegate selection plan is going to go in reverse.

Texas Republicans will have proportional allocation whether the primary is on April 3 or some other later date.

UPDATE: Richard Winger of Ballot Access News sent along news that the courts (Larouche v. Fowler, 1999) have ruled in the past that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is not applicable in cases of party rules changes for delegate allocation.

Recent Posts:

I'll see your white knight and raise you a filing deadline. Why It's Too Late for Entry in the Republican Nomination Race

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Florida

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Maine

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

I'll see your white knight and raise you a filing deadline. Why It's Too Late for Entry in the Republican Nomination Race

Way back in the summer (of 2011), FHQ began fielding calls and emails from a number of media outlets asking about the filing deadlines for primaries and caucuses in the various states. It really picked up in late September and into October as some folks in the press continued to, well, press the notion of a late Palin candidacy. From that point onward, the Palin speculation may have dropped off to some extent, but a cottage industry has popped up in the wake of it and proliferated throughout the Republican presidential primary landscape around the notion of late entry. Candidates go up, candidates come down, Romney stays the same and the overall field is weak are among the various catalysts for continued speculation. And when Newt Gingrich won South Carolina (the third winner in three contests), casting some doubt on the ability of Republican primary voters to come to a consensus on any one of the declared candidates, the whirling dervish of late entry speculation spun even faster.

Sure, the naysayers would say, "Well, it is too late. Deadlines have passed. No one else can get in." But that never really stopped the drum beat of late entry. FHQ has been in this latter group, but has been as guilty as others from not having fully dug into the matter. Let's throw some data at the issue. What follows will either put things to rest once and for all that it is too late or embolden those champing at the bit for another round or future rounds of late entry talk. [Yeah, Bill Kristol, I'm looking at you.]

So, is it possible for another candidate to get in?

Below are the filing deadlines in the remaining states. And hey, because FHQ is feeling generous let us also consider whether those states also allow uncommitteed/no preference slots on the primary ballot -- Voters have the option to vote for uncommitted or no preference on the ballot. -- and/or allow write-in votes. Let's open this door as wide as it will open and look at the delegates at stake in those states. The filing deadlines have passed in the February states, and the list below is of states with March or later contests -- with the exception of Michigan which allows voters to choose "uncommitted". If a state does not appear, all options are closed off to any potential late entrants. [Georgia, for instance, had a deadline 60 prior to the March 6 primary in which the candidate list was set, prohibits the uncommitted line on the ballot and does not allow write-in votes.] Finally, there are also a number of states where none of this information is known. Those states are included in the table only because it isn't known whether those three options have been closed off.

2012 Presidential Primary Filing Deadlines
State1	Contest Date	Filing Deadline	Uncommitted/ No Preference	Write-In	Delegates
Michigan	2/28	12/9	Uncommitted	--	30
Alaska	3/6	2/4	No preference	--	27
Idaho	3/6	2/4	Uncommitted	--	32
Massachusetts	3/6	1/6	No preference	√	41
North Dakota	3/6	Ballot set 2/12	n/a	n/a	28
Tennessee	3/6	12/6	Uncommitted3	√	58
Vermont	3/6	1/9	--	√	17
Virginia	3/6	12/22	Bill to allow uncommitted	--	49
Wyoming	3/6	n/a4	n/a	n/a	29
Kansas	3/10	12/31	Uncommitted	--	40
Virgin Islands	3/10	2/10	Uncommitted	--	9
Alabama	3/13	1/13	Uncommitted	√	50
American Samoa	3/13	n/a	n/a	n/a	9
Hawaii	3/13	2/285	Uncommitted6	√7	20
Mississippi	3/13	1/14	--	√8	40
Missouri	3/17	n/a	n/a	n/a	52
Puerto Rico	3/18	1/18	n/a	n/a	23
Illinois	3/20	1/6	Uncommitted9	--	69
Louisiana	3/24	12/9	Uncommitted10	--	46
Maryland	4/3	1/11	Uncommitted11	√12	37
Texas	4/3	2/113	Uncommitted	√	155
Washington, DC	4/3	1/4	Uncommitted	--	19
Wisconsin	4/3	1/28 1/31	Uninstructed	√	42
Connecticut	4/24	3/2	Uncommitted	√14	28
Delaware	4/24	2/24	--	√	17
New York	4/24	2/9	Uncommitted15	√	95
Pennsylvania	4/24	2/14	Uncommitted16	√	72
Rhode Island	4/24	1/21	Uncommitted	--	19
Indiana	5/8	2/1017	--	--	46
North Carolina	5/8	3/618	Uncommitted	--	55
West Virginia	5/8	1/28	Uncommitted19	√	31
Nebraska	5/1520	3/7	Uncommitted	--	35
Oregon	5/15	3/6	--	√	28
Arkansas	5/22	3/1	Uncommitted21	--22	36
Kentucky	5/22	1/31	Uncommitted	--23	45
California	6/5	3/23	Uncommitted	√24	172
Montana	6/5	3/1225	Uncommitted	√	26
New Jersey	6/5	4/2	--	√	50
New Mexico	6/5	3/16	--	--	23
South Dakota	6/5	3/27	Uncommitted26	--	28
Utah	6/26	3/15	--	--	40
Source: FEC, state election law, state party rules 1 States included above are those where there is still an option for a candidate not currently declared in the 2012 Republican presidential nomination (ie: filing deadline has not passed, there is an uncommitted or no preference line on the ballot or where write-in is a possibility). 2 Candidates placed on ballot according to who is an announced candidate by February 1.  3 See Tennessee Code (Title 2, Chapter 13, Part 3). 4 Precinct caucuses begin 2/9.  5 Candidates who enter race after 2/1 can be given an extension. 6 It is not clear whether there is an "uncommitted" line on the Hawaii caucus ballot. The evidence seems to suggest that only votes for actual declared candidates count. That said, delegates do not not have to commit to any candidate, but if they do that delegate is committed to that candidate -- if still in the race -- through the first ballot at the Republican National Convention. The delegates can go to the convention uncommitted, but it is a different process than is being talked about in the other cases where voters are marking a ballot for "uncommitted". 7 Write-in votes are only counted if they are cast for candidates registered with the FEC. 8 See Mississippi Code (Title 23, Chapter 15, Article 13B). 9 Delegates (or slates of delegates) file at the same time as candidates, but those delegates can file as "uncommitted" and is listed as such on the ballot. However, there is no "uncommitted" list on the presidential preference portion of the ballot. 10 There is no uncommitted line on the Louisiana primary ballot, but delegates may be uncommitted if no candidate receives over 25% of the primary vote. Those delegates would go to the national convention uncommitted. The congressional district delegates automatically go to the national convention unpledged.  11 Maryland delegates can run as "uncommitted" and be marked that way on the primary ballot if the party requests such of the State Board of Elections. [Maryland Code Title 8, Subtitle 5, 8-501] There is no evidence that the Maryland GOP has made such a request in 2012. The Maryland Secretary of State's office confirmed to FHQ on February 2, 2012 that only the Democratic presidential primary ballot will include an uncommitted line. The Republican primary ballot will not. 12 Write-ins are allowed if a candidate files a certificate of candidacy to run as a write-in candidate. The deadline for that is the earlier of either within a week of filing with the FEC or the Wednesday before the election. [Maryland Code Title 5, Subtitle 3, 5-303] 13 February 1 is the end of the filing period established by the courts in the Texas redistricting case, but any changes to those districts may ultimately affect both the date of the primary and the close of the filing period. On January 27, the February 1 filing deadline was suspended until further order by the San Antonio court.  14 Write-in votes are allowed so long as the candidate has registered his or her candidacy with the Connecticut secretary of state. 15 The "uncommitted" line is allowed on the presidential primary ballot in New York so long as the procedures to file -- as if a candidate -- are followed. 16 Delegates (or slates of delegates) file as the presidential candidate and indicate whether they are committed or uncommitted which is in turn listed on the ballot. As is the case on the Illinois ballot, there is no line for "uncommitted" on the presidential preference portion of the ballot. 17 Petitions to file for candidacy in Indiana are due to the secretary of state by January 31. 18 The North Carolina State Board of Elections meets to set the ballot based on a list of candidates provided by the state parties and those candidates having filed by petition by the Monday (3/5/12) preceding the Board meeting. 19 The delegates listed on the West Virginia ballot have their presidential preference (or "uncommitted") listed next to their names on the primary ballot, but their is no "uncommitted" line among the presidential preference portion of the ballot. 20 The Nebraska primary is non-binding. All delegates will be allocated at the July state convention. 21 See Arkansas Code (Title 7, Chapter 8, Section 201). 22 See Arkansas Code (Title 7, Chapter 5, Section 525). 23 Write-ins are not expressly forbidden according to Kentucky code, but the allowance and declaration of intent for are only associated with general elections. Recent past presidential primary elections have also had no write-in votes cast.  24 Voters can write in anyone on a ballot, but those ballots will only be counted if the candidate voted for has filed as a write-in candidate with the state. 25 Montana has an advisory/non-binding primary on the Republican side. All delegates are selected at the mid-June state convention.  26 The uncommitted provision in the state law is dependent upon the state parties not having delegate selection rules prohibiting such a designation on the ballot. The South Dakota Republican Party allows uncommitted slates to appear on the ballot.

That's 1768 delegates where either the filing deadlines have not passed, uncommitted lines are on or can be added to the ballot or write-in votes are allowed. If the states where not enough information is known (American Samoa, Missouri, Puerto Rico and Wyoming) and those where a deadline has passed and legislation to add an uncommitted line to ballot is under consideration in the state legislature (Virginia) are subtracted from the total, that leaves us with 1606 delegates. However, if we add back in the delegates from the early caucuses where delegates will eventually go to the Tampa convention unbound (Iowa, Maine, Colorado and maybe Minnesota -- see the delegate allocation by state) that adds back up to 128 delegates for 1734 delegates. If the list is constrained more simply to the states where filing deadlines have not passed, the total delegates open to a late entrant drops to 1157. After Tuesday, when Kentucky's (and Indiana's petition -- see footnote 17 above) deadlines pass that total will drop below 1144 to 1066.

No matter how you look at it, then, there are or would be enough delegates for a late entrant to possibly get to 1144, or in the more chaotic, yet more likely late entry (if it were to happen), scenario after Tuesday, earn enough support to keep another candidate from getting there, sending the decision to the convention; a brokered, uh, deadlocked convention.

But here's the thing: Who is that candidate? Let me rephrase that. Who is the candidate who can not only successfully enter the race late, but who can also marshal the organization necessary to cobble together enough delegates to take the nomination or throw enough of a monkeywrench into the process and still maintain support in the party to win the nomination at the convention? Let's think about this for a moment. There are people in this race now actively seeking the nomination (and who have been running for president for quite some time) who cannot get on the ballots in some states. And we are expecting someone to come in and immediately be able to beat these deadlines, organize write-in efforts and uncommitted slates of delegates to get within shouting distance of 1144 or a lower total held by the frontrunner.

I apologize, folks. But I just don't see it. There is no silver bullet. There is no white knight.

...unless someone else's name -- someone other than Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul -- is put forth at a brokered, uh, deadlocked convention.

Is that possible?

Sure.

Is that probable?

There is nothing that has happened in the post-reform era (1972-present) that would lead anyone to the conclusion that it is.

Recent Posts:

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Florida

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Maine

One More Last Ditch Effort to Cancel the 2012 Missouri Presidential Primary

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