Maine Legislature Exploring Presidential Primary Option for 2016

In mid-March LD 1882 was introduced in both the Maine state House and Senate on behalf of Secretary of State Joseph Carleton. At the time of introduction the legislation was intended to create an optional presidential primary system for primary voters in the Pine Tree state. In other words, the goal was to provide one or more of the parties active in the state a state-funded option for selecting and allocating national convention delegates for the purposes of nominating a presidential candidate.

Under the provisions of the original bill, the state party central committees would have the ability to opt into the state-funded primary -- as opposed to the caucus system that has been in place for much of the post-reform era. And even if just one party did so -- whether in scenarios where both major parties have competitive nomination races or just one did -- the state would have been on the hook for the expenses behind the primary election. As long as the date was not before January 1 of the election year, the state party would be free to set the date of the contest on a date of its choosing. If both parties were to have competitive nominations, the two parties would have to agree on a date. In the event that the parties could not come to an agreement on the date or if one or both simply failed to certify a date with the secretary of state, the primary would be set for one week after the New Hampshire primary (whenever it was -- presumably if it was not prior to January 1).

[Speaking of New Hampshire, if any party opted into the primary as outlined above their delegate allocation process would be guided by a proportional method of allocation for any candidate receiving 10% or more of the vote in the primary. ...just like in New Hampshire.]

But that is the original bill.

It has subsequently been amended to allow for further consideration of the state's options. The amended bill charges the Joint Committee on Veteran and Legal Affairs to explore the options available for the presidential nomination process in Maine (sometime in the July 1-October 15, 2012 window) and produce legislation to be introduced and considered during the first session of the 126th Maine legislature. The amended bill easily passed the state Senate (31-4) but found more resistance in the state House. The 85-57 vote to pass the bill had a more Democratic and Republican ayes than nays but there were more Republicans (34) voting against than Democrats (23) and more Democrats (45) voting for than Republicans (40). Both parties were split over the legislation in the House.

[The bill's fiscal report indicates that a 2006 study found a presidential primary election would cost the state $1 million. That figure and some additional administrative costs is being used as the price tag in this legislation.]

Maine has abandoned the caucus before. The state had a primary option codified and in place for the 1996-2000 presidential nomination cycles before returning to the caucus system in 2004.

Thanks to Jim Fossell for passing along news of this bill to FHQ.


Recent Posts:
More on Santorum Delegate Math and Some Thoughts on Texas as Winner-Take-All

Race to 1144: MD, DC & WI Primaries

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Maryland

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

More on Santorum Delegate Math and Some Thoughts on Texas as Winner-Take-All

FHQ won't belabor the point on the Santorum delegate math. We're late to this anyway, as the Santorum campaign put out their memo, "The Media's Delegate Math is Wrong" last Thursday. There are degrees to delegate counting. As much as the AP projection is rosy for Romney (It is actually not that bad for Santorum, while we're on the subject.), the Santorum count is equally -- well, way more so in truth -- Santorum-friendly.

The truth lies somewhere in between; closer to the AP projection, but in the between nonetheless. At least with the AP's math, we know that there is a proportional projection of the delegates across most of the group of non-binding caucus states. That can be accounted for, and in fact, FHQ attempts to do just that by backing out those delegates until they are actually allocated at congressional district and/or state conventions. Those delegates are unbound. To take one example, the AP initially -- based on the March 6 caucus straw poll results -- awarded Rick Santorum 11 delegates in North Dakota, Ron Paul eight, Mitt Romney seven and Newt Gingrich two delegates. [Yes, that proportionally allocates the three automatic delegates also.] The reality following the late March state convention in the Peace Garden state was that the slate of delegates selected favored Romney. Once the dust settled the AP was able to report that of that elected slate of delegates, 12 supported Romney, eight Santorum, two Paul and one delegate came out for Gingrich.¹ Two others remained uncommitted and that rounded out the 25 non-automatic delegates. Of those three automatic delegates, one, the national committeewoman Sandy Boehler endorsed Romney while the other two stayed on the sidelines.

Is the media's count wrong?

Yes, their projection was. Reality versus projection shows an eight seven delegate swing in Romney's direction.

The advantage to that is that we have the ability to pinpoint mistakes; or at least perceived mistakes. Such a benefit is not afforded us in the Santorum count. This is what prompted me to say -- via tweet -- that it was put up or shut up time for the Santorum campaign. Either demonstrate -- state-by-state -- what the count is or stop pretending.² FHQ is absolutely fine with the Arizona or Florida argument. It is wrong to reallocate those delegates strictly proportionally, but that is an area I'm willing to play along with the Santorum folks. But if they want anyone to believe that the campaign is having any success in this, well, Paul-like caucus strategy, then it is time to show who the delegates are and it would help to share a line of endorsement from those delegates as well. The Santorum campaign needs fewer North Dakotas and much fewer "You'll just have to trust us, but we have almost 200 more delegates than anyone is giving us credit for" press releases. The proof is in the pudding and I don't think the Santorum folks have gotten us to that point in the meal yet. [Heck, I don't think we're seated at the table yet.]

The question is simple: If you have more delegates when are you going to share with everyone from where those delegates are?

--
The far more interesting piece of information from the Santorum delegate memo was that Texas would be moving to a winner-take-all allocation of its delegates. FHQ has a few comments on this:

1. This has come up several times since it became apparent that Texas would not be able to hold a March 6 presidential primary. The Republican Party of Texas voted in September 2011 to shift to a proportional method of allocation to comply with RNC rules. But then, due to the dispute of congressional district lines, the March primary became unfeasible. 
2. This had RPT arguing that the [proportionality] rules were set in stone prior to October 1 (the deadline for states to have rules in place according to the RNC rules) and that was that. But that had FHQ asking in December why it was not possible to argue before the RNC that circumstances out of the control of RPT forced the switch to proportionality in the first place and that with an after-April 1 primary Texas could transition back to its former delegate allocation method.
3. Of course, arguing that RPT would have an argument before the RNC is not anything that has any basis in reality in the Republican rules. There is -- as RNC Communications Director Sean Spicer pointed out -- no waiver process. That is only something that occurs on the Democratic side. The RNC delegate selection process is, as FHQ has attempted to point out, much more decentralized. Traditionally, states have had the latitude to decide how they will allocate their apportioned delegates. In 2012, that leeway was only afforded to states with contests after April 1. But just as there is no waiver process on the Republican side, there is nothing in the RNC delegate selection rules to prevent a post-October 1 change on the state level to state-level delegate rules. There is no direct penalty for such a move. Would there be a challenge to such a change at the convention (if it mattered)? Sure, but it would still be possible. Several states finalized plans after October 1, 2011. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina all moved the dates of their contests after that point. Any penalties incurred were due to the earliness of those contests and not because they had shifted the dates of their primaries or caucuses after October 1. Who else changed dates after October 1? Texas did; twice. 
4. Can RPT change to a winner-take-all method of allocation? Yes, but there apparently is not enough willingness to do so where it counts in the Lone Star state. Back at the end of February, when the state party had to finalize plans to deal with the new court-arbitrated May 29 primary date, the [State Republican Executive Committee of the] Republican Party of Texas voted down at least three resolutions to change the proportional allocation method to something else. 
5. Now there is a movement within at least some factions of the party to revert to the rules as they were before: winner-take-all. Of course, just as many thought that all the pre-April 1 states would have strictly proportional allocation, many are of the opinion that Texas will be strictly winner-take-all. To return to the rules as they were in 2008 in Texas, though, the party would be returning to a conditional system of allocation. A majority winner, either statewide or on the congressional district level, would receive all of the at-large or the three delegates per congressional district, respectively. Otherwise, everything is proportional. This is not a statewide winner-take-all delegate system like what was witnessed in Washington, DC last week (or Florida or Arizona for that matter). What that means is that Santorum would not necessarily receive all of the delegates from Texas. 
6. ...and even if Santorum did win all of the Texas delegates would it keep Romney from 1144? It would reduce his cushion some.

--
¹ From the AP's Dale Wetzel:

"The state GOP initially said delegates would be awarded in proportion to the caucus results, though the delegates would remain free to vote their conscience. If delegates were awarded proportionally, Santorum would get 11, Paul would get eight, Romney would get seven and Gingrich would get two. 

But at the state convention, Romney supporters successfully elected the most delegates — even though the former Massachusetts governor finished third in the caucuses. In interviews with the AP, 12 delegates said they backed Romney, eight supported Santorum, two favored Paul and one preferred Gingrich. Two delegates said they had no favorite. 

Rounding out North Dakota's 28 delegates are three members of the Republican National Committee who will automatically attend the convention. Among them, Sandy Boehler supports Romney while Curly Haugland and Stan Stein, the state GOP chairman, are uncommitted. 

The delegates said they plan to meet prior to the national convention to decide how they will vote with the idea that they would divvy up votes to reflect the results of the caucuses."

² This prompted Jon Bernstein to respond that it was the campaign's job to pretend. And I totally agree. It is the Santorum campaign's right to pretend. However (and this is where so many conversations between political scientists end up), I would argue that there are degrees of pretending and the Santorum folks do themselves no favors by not presenting even one shred of evidence that they have any more delegates than the press gives them credit for. [I genuinely hope that Jon comes back at this with a reference to the Seinfeld episode where Elaine and the Eastern European author are arguing in an elevator about whether there are "just coincidences" or if there are degrees of coincidences.] If Santorum campaign wants to push back against the AP projection, it isn't had to do, but do it by producing at least one, say, Missouri congressional district delegate who is supporting Santorum or at least one more than the AP is attributing to Santorum.

Recent Posts:
Race to 1144: MD, DC & WI Primaries

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Maryland

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Washington, DC

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

Race to 1144: MD, DC & WI Primaries

Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results and rules, and RNC, Georgia Secretary of State)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)

Delegate breakdown (post-MD, DC & WI):

Changes since Louisiana (3/24/12):

• Romney: +92 delegates (Maryland: +37, Washington, DC: +16, Wisconsin: +33, North Dakota: +5, Tennessee: +1)
• Santorum: +10 delegates (Wisconsin: +9, North Dakota: +1)
• Gingrich: -1 delegate (Tennessee: -1)

Notes:
1) Mitt Romney won all of the at-large and automatic delegates in both Maryland and Wisconsin, all eight congressional districts in Maryland, five of eight districts in Wisconsin and all of the at-large delegates from DC. Rick Santorum won the remaining three congressional districts in Wisconsin.

2) Of the slate of 25 delegates selected at the North Dakota Republican state convention on March 31, five are pledged Romney supporters and one is a known Santorum advocate.

3) The Tennessee Republican Party finalized the congressional district vote count and delegate allocation this week. The effects were minimal. One delegate shifted from Newt Gingrich's total in Tennessee to Mitt Romney's column.

4) The allocation of the delegates in Georgia is based on the most recent vote returns published online by the office of the Georgia Secretary of State. The allocation here differs from the RNC allocation in Georgia. The above grants Gingrich one additional delegate (which has been taken from Romney's total). ***UPDATE*** Due to the way the Georgia Republican Party rounds fractional delegates, the FHQ count was off by one delegate (+Romney/-Gingrich). The congressional district count is unaffected (Gingrich 31, Romney, 8 and Santorum 3), but the way the at-large delegates are allocated to Gingrich and Romney -- the only candidates over 20% statewide -- is a bit quirky. Gingrich's portion of the vote would have entitled him to 14.6 delegates and Romney's 8.0. Under Georgia Republican rules, Gingrich is given 14 delegates and Romney 8. That leaves nine delegates unclaimed because the remaining candidates did not clear the 20% threshold. The candidate with the highest "remainder" is awarded the first delegate and the candidates over 20% trade turns until all of those delegates are allocated. Remember, Gingrich did not round up to 15 delegates (14.6), but that 0.6 gives him a larger "remainder" than Romney. The former speaker, then, is allocated the first of nine delegates. With an odd number of delegates leftover, Gingrich would have a fifth turn after Romney's fourth and that would end the allocation of those "extra" delegates. Gingrich would claim five to Romney's four. Of the 31 at-large delegates, Gingrich is allocated 19 and Romney 12. Please note that for winning the statewide vote, Gingrich is allocated the three automatic delegates. That makes the final allocation Gingrich 53, Romney 20 and Santorum 3.

5) The Alabama primary results by congressional district have not been released by the Alabama Republican Party. The allocation above is based on the RNC interpretation of the allocation.

6)  Iowa Republican Party Chairman Spiker was a part of the Paul campaign in Iowa and resigned his position upon taking up the post of party chair. While he has expressed his intent to side with whomever the Republican nominee will be, Spiker has not also directly signaled any neutrality in the race. The door is open for his support of Paul at a potential contested convention. While FHQ includes Spiker in Paul's delegate total, it is necessary to make note of the possible future subtraction of one delegate that would bring the Texas congressman's total to 26.

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Maryland

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Washington, DC

Americans Elect and the Electoral College

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Maryland

This is the twenty-ninth 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.


MARYLAND

Read the Wisconsin delegate allocation memo? Well, in Maryland there is an almost carbon copy of the delegate allocation rules in the Badger state. The statewide winner receives all of the at-large delegates and the winner(s) in the congressional districts are awarded three delegates for each plurality win.² Fair enough, right?

Maryland delegate breakdown:

• 37 total delegates
• 10 at-large delegates
• 24 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

At-large allocation: Win the statewide vote (majority or plurality), win the 10 at-large delegates.

Congressional district allocation: Win the district (majority or plurality), win the 3 delegates from a district.

Automatic delegate allocation: As was the case in Wisconsin the Maryland Republican Party draws a distinction between congressional district delegates and everything else. Everything else -- statewide delegates and automatic delegates -- are considered at-large delegates and are, thus, allocated to the statewide victor. [See in particular Section 3 in the memo below.]

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

² Maryland Republican Party memo on delegate selection in the Old Line state:
2012 MD Republican Delegate Selection Plan

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Washington, DC

Americans Elect and the Electoral College

Romney Turns the Tables on Santorum/Paul at North Dakota Republican Convention

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Washington, DC

This is the twenty-eighth 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.


WASHINGTON, DC

The wand that is the RNC delegate selection rules has been waved. April 1 has come and gone and the Republican nomination race is now firmly entrenched in the "states can choose to be winner-take-all" zone. Nevermind Arizona and Florida.² Those two rules-violators aside, the Republican Party in Washington, DC becomes the first "state" to officially -- and without sanction -- allocate all of their delegates to the winner by majority or plurality the the District's primary today.³

Washington, DC delegate breakdown:

• 19 total delegates
• 16 at-large delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

First of all, this completely takes the fun out of this exercise. The winner receives all of the delegates!?! That's all? C'mon. Give us some gray area, DC Republicans. FHQ's readers demand it.

At-large allocation: Well, the allocation of the at-large delegates is winner-take-all. Once the DC Board of Elections certifies the primary results, the slate of 16 delegates and 16 alternates submitted by the winning candidate becomes the bulk of the DC delegation to the Republican National Convention in Tampa. [Recall that Rick Santorum did not file a slate of delegates and is not even on the ballot in DC today.]

Automatic delegate allocation: And while the three automatic delegates are like the automatic delegates in most other states -- free to endorse/pledge to a candidate of their choosing at any point in the race -- there is some need for clarification as to who these folks are. If you took the time to scroll down and peruse the draft of the primary rules you will see that races for the national committeeman and national committeewoman are also on the primary ballot. That said, as Matt from Democratic Convention Watch informed FHQ via email, the newly elected RNC committee members from DC will not assume their positions until the Friday following the national convention. That means that both Anthony Parker and Betsy Werronen (pledged to Romney) will be delegates to the RNC convention. Neither is on the ballot today seeking reelection to the Republican National Committee.

Fun fact (Well, some may view it as fun.): Current DCGOP chair, Bob Kabel, is on the ballot today running for the post of Republican National Committeeman from DC.

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

² ...or Idaho and Puerto Rico. Am I right, Red White & Blue Fund?

³ DCGOP Rule II(G)(1) from a draft of the primary rules:

The Executive Director and/or Republican Board Member of the  DC Board of Elections shall certify the results of the Presidential Preference Primary to the DCRC's  Chairman. Upon such certification, the Chairman of the DCRC shall then certify to the Republican National Committee the elected slate of Delegates and Alternates pledged to the Presidential candidate who received the greatest number of votes at the Primary. [Emphasis FHQ's]

DCRC Draft 2012 Primary Plan

Recent Posts:
Americans Elect and the Electoral College

Romney Turns the Tables on Santorum/Paul at North Dakota Republican Convention

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Wisconsin

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

Americans Elect and the Electoral College

This past week the Davidson College Department of Political Science was pleased to host Americans Elect Campus Director, Nick Troiano. Mr. Troiano gave a talk on the process behind the movement to add a third line on the general election ballot  -- a platform -- for an ideologically diverse presidential ticket. FHQ won't get into the particulars of that quest or even into a discussion of the general difficulty third parties have in finding even a modicum of success in presidential elections. Suffice it to say, FHQ is skeptical of just how well Americans Elect will do this fall, but we are intrigued by what we would call the experiment the cause represents. The notion of a version 2.0 for American democracy, but one rooted in major party responsiveness to and co-opting of ideas that spur any success Americans Elect might enjoy, is a pragmatic approach that bears watching. 2012 to Americans Elect is more about establishing something -- a future position on the ballot given a 5% vote share -- than it is about winning the presidential election.

I'll leave it at that.

One new fact about Americans Elect that Mr. Troiano raised -- and FHQ was unaware of -- was the role the group or its candidate would play in the context of the electoral college. Now, this assumes a lot, and I don't want to get into that, but if the Americans Elect candidate wins electoral votes, but not enough to win the presidency. Obviously, if a third party candidate is receiving electoral votes, there is an argument to be made that it reduces the likelihood that any candidate will receive a majority of the electoral votes and thus avoid the election being thrown to the House of Representatives.¹

But Americans Elect has planned for such a contingency. Under a scenario where the Americans Elect candidate receives some electoral votes and no candidate has a majority, the election does not automatically default to the House. The election only goes to the House if, in December when the selected electors gather in state capitols across the country and transmit their votes, no candidate has a majority. The House is not a setting where an Americans Elect candidate is going to fare all that well, what with there being no Americans Elect infrastructure there. Now, the greater the share of electoral votes the group's candidate has, the more likely his or her electors are to play a large role. No, they won't make any difference in the House -- for obvious reasons -- but the provision in the group's rules triggered under this scenario calls for the online convention delegates who chose the nominee in the first place to reconvene. That convention would then decide which of the two major parties' candidates to throw their support behind.

...in the electoral college vote.

That would, first of all, prevent the outcome of the election from hinging on a delegation-by-delegation vote in the House of Representatives, but would, secondly, provide the group with some influence, some leverage, in the election itself and its aftermath.

Will the presidential election play out this way? No, it probably won't. But does this add a new wrinkle to everything to add into the electoral college tie scenario that will inevitably be discussed at some point this summer when people are bored with the state of the presidential race? Yes, yes it does. File this Americans Elect scenario away with that one.

--
¹ This assumes that the third party candidate in question is drawing some support away from both major party candidates and not just primarily from one. If the support is mainly being drawn away from just one of the major party candidates, it is likely to the benefit of the other major party candidate in the electoral vote tally.

Recent Posts:
Romney Turns the Tables on Santorum/Paul at North Dakota Republican Convention

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Wisconsin

These things are over sooner rather than later.

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

Romney Turns the Tables on Santorum/Paul at North Dakota Republican Convention

UPDATE: The AP is reporting the North Dakota delegate preferences as follows: Romney: 12, Santorum: 8, Paul: 2, Uncommitted: 2 and Gingrich 1. [4/6/12]

FHQ tweeted yesterday that a better indicator of where Rick Santorum stands in the Republican presidential nomination race currently may be the North Dakota Republican state convention this weekend instead of the Wisconsin primary on Tuesday.

Why?

Well, the emerging conventional wisdom is that the contest is, at best, slipping away from Santorum if it has not already completely slipped out of his campaign's grasp. Wisconsin is another one of those midwestern/Rust Belt opportunities for the former Pennsylvania senator (see Michigan, Ohio and Illinois), but North Dakota represents a state where he has already done well; winning the March 6 straw poll in the Peace Garden state. If he performs up to or overperforms the 39% of the vote he received in the straw poll in the convention delegate selection, then nothing really changes. If, however, Santorum underperforms in the delegate count compared to his straw poll vote share in North Dakota, then that is likely to be indicative of lack of organization within the Santorum campaign concerning caucus/convention states, state party establishment coalescence around Mitt Romney (or another candidate or candidates), and/or the delegates at the state convention collectively coming to a different conclusion as to which delegates represent the state at the national convention.

Recall that the 25 North Dakota delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa are technically unbound. The straw poll had no binding effect on the delegates who will ultimately be chosen. That said, it appears that the North Dakota Republican Party has made some effort to use that unbound loophole to their advantage; putting up for a vote at today's convention proceedings a group of delegates that seemingly leans heavily toward Mitt Romney. Romney placed third in the Super Tuesday straw poll in North Dakota with just under 24% of the vote.

However, news emerging from the convention this morning indicates that Romney may have the support of up to 60% of the national convention delegates placed in nomination and voted on by the state convention delegates.¹ The formula used by the North Dakota State Executive Committee that yielded that outcome was weighted toward volunteers, donors and elected officials, obviously a group aligned with the establishment in the North Dakota GOP and more likely -- it could be argued -- to support Romney.

Given that both Rick Santorum and Ron Paul finished ahead of Romney in the straw poll, their supporters on the floor of Saturday's convention meeting were not happy and quite vocal in opposition to the slate of delegates put forth by the state party for a vote by the state convention delegates. Former North Dakota Republican Party chairman and Santorum supporter, Gary Emineth, called the delegate selection process "a railroad job" and that the party establishment had "hijacked" the process.. Additionally, current chairman, Stan Stein, shouted down dissenting voices and failed to recognize others as the process fell into a back and forth of parliamentary procedure.

The party and most of the convention was willing to proceed to the other business of the day: endorsements in races down-ballot from the presidential race. Following that, the convention adjourned for today while ballots were still being counted from the national delegate vote. That will be finalized tonight sometime.

So much for those AP fantasy delegates allocated to Santorum and Paul after Super Tuesday. Unbound these delegates may be, but they have preferences that in the aggregate seem to favor Mitt Romney well above his straw poll support level.

We'll see by just how much tomorrow.

--
¹ Others in attendance at the North Dakota Republican Party state convention indicated that the NDGOP slate put forward would have given Romney 20 delegates, Santorum 6 and Paul 2. That would have been over 70% of the 28 total delegates the party will send to Tampa who would have backed Romney; about triple the level of support he received compared to the straw poll.


Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Wisconsin

These things are over sooner rather than later.

South Carolina House Moves to Safeguard Future Presidential Primary Calendar Position

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Wisconsin

This is the twenty-seventh 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.


WISCONSIN

The state or Wisconsin represents the primary process' and this series' first foray into states not subject to the new proportionality requirement. It is the first state -- along with Maryland and Washington, DC -- to hold a contest following the April 1 proportionality cutoff. Before FHQ goes any further, it is worth noting that the future primary calendar landscape is not littered with a host of strictly winner-take-all states. It is not. In fact, the post-April 1 presidential primary calendar environment mimics the environment that has traditionally stretched across the whole calendar. It isn't that states are all winner-take-all, rather it is up to the states/state parties to decide how they want to allocate delegates. It can be winner-take-all, it can be proportional or it can be some hybrid of the two.

In the Badger state, the Republican Party of Wisconsin has maintained its typical method of delegate allocation; which is to say, something in between. Wisconsin will allocate its delegates in a winner-take-all fashion both statewide and in each of the eight congressional districts. A candidate winning a plurality of the vote statewide receives all of the at-large delegates and a candidate winning a plurality of the vote in a congressional district is entitled to the district's three delegates. In this way -- like the plans in both South Carolina and Michigan -- Wisconsin is not entirely winner-take-all since it allows for candidates other than the statewide winner to pick up some delegates if they manage a win in any of the eight congressional districts.

Wisconsin delegate breakdown:

• 42 total delegates
• 15 at-large delegates
• 24 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

Again, this is all fairly straightforward. Win a district and win that district's three delegates. That is how those 24 congressional district delegates are allocated. The rest of this is also simple enough with one exception: the automatic delegates. According to Article X, Section 2 of the Republican Party of Wisconsin constitution, there are three delegates apportioned to each congressional district and the remaining delegates are all at-large.² The question that arises from that is whether that applies to the automatic delegates as well. It would appear so according to the section cited above. However, automatic delegates are discussed in Section 6, but that language is copied almost verbatim from Rule 15(c)(11) of the RNC delegate selection rules. Of course, neither the Wisconsin rules nor the RNC rules indicate the way in which the automatic delegates are to be allocated. The RNC rule (15(c)(11)) refers to Rule 13(a)(2) which defines automatic delegates, but again, does not specify how they are to be allocated. That, it would seem, is a matter left up to the state parties, which in Wisconsin's case, brings it all full circle back to Section 2.

What that means is that all 42 delegates will be at stake in Tuesday's Wisconsin primary. That differs from the description of Wisconsin's delegate selection plan in the December 2011 memo on delegate selection from the RNC legal counsel office. That memo left the three automatic delegates unbound, but that does not jibe well with FHQ's reading of the Republican Party of Wisconsin's constitution.

...the section on delegate selection anyway.

--
NOTE: The statewide winner in Wisconsin will start off with at least an 18 delegate advantage and will  not improve on that margin only under the circumstances that another candidate wins more than four congressional districts. That would appear unlikely.

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

² Below is Article X (the section pertaining to national delegate selection) of the Republican Party of Wisconsin's constitution:

Article X - Selection of National Convention Delegates and Alternates 

The Executive Committee is empowered to regulate the rules in this Article but not alter them unless they fail to be in compliance with the Rules of the National Republican Party. 

SECTION 1. The total number of delegates and equal number of alternate delegates shall be those numbers fixed by the formulas set forth in the rules of each National Convention. 

SECTION 2. Of the total number fixed by Rule No. 1, three (3) district delegates and three (3) district alternate delegates shall be designated from the district of each Representative in the United States House of Representatives and the remainder shall be designated ―at large. 

SECTION 3. A candidate receiving a plurality of the votes in the Presidential Primary in any Congressional District is entitled to control the three (3) delegates and the three (3) alternate delegates from that district in all votes for nomination for President of the United States and Vice- President of the United States, unless the delegates and alternate delegates are released by the candidate or the candidate fails to receive at least one-third (1/3) of the total votes cast in any vote for nomination. 

SECTION 4. A candidate receiving a plurality of the statewide votes in the Presidential Primary is entitled to control all the delegates and alternate delegates designated ―At Large on all votes for nomination for President of the United States and Vice-President of the United States, unless the delegates and alternate delegates designated ―At Large are released by the candidate or the candidate fails to receive at least one-third (1/3) of the total votes cast in any vote for nomination. 

SECTION 5. After receiving the results of the Presidential Primary, each District Chairman, in consultation with his or her District Executive Committee and in consultation with the committee of the winning presidential candidate in that district, shall submit a list of no more than 20 or no less than 12 names to be considered by the candidate committee for the selection of their District delegates and alternate delegates. By March 9th, the candidate committee shall notify the respective District Chairmen which three from the list they wish to designate as delegates and which three from the list they wish to designate as alternate delegates. Giving due consideration to the candidate committee’s designations, the District Caucus shall elect three District delegates and three alternate District delegates from the originally submitted list. At-Large delegates and At-Large alternate delegates shall be selected by the committee of the candidate receiving a plurality of the statewide votes in the Presidential Primary, and a list of said delegates and alternate delegates shall be ratified by the State Executive Committee. It shall be understood that the candidate’s committee shall have final approval of the list of At-Large delegates and alternate delegates. All District and At-Large delegates and alternate delegates must conform to Section 7. The delegate selection process shall be completed no later than the second Saturday in May of the Presidential election year. 

SECTION 6. There shall be no automatic delegates nor alternate delegates to a National Convention who serve by virtue of party position or elective office, unless stipulated by RNC rules. 

SECTION 7. Both district and At-Large delegates and alternates must file an affidavit with the Republican Party of Wisconsin stating that they will abide by these rules and that they are qualified to represent the Republican Party of the State of Wisconsin by being a qualified voter and member in good standing of the Republican Party of their county since at least the date of their county’s caucus held in the Presidential election year. All affidavits must be received in the state party headquarters no later than 45 days prior to the opening day of the Republican National Convention or the office will be considered vacant and a replacement delegate or alternate will be selected per Section 8. 

SECTION 8. The Chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin shall fill any vacancies for District delegates and District alternate delegates in consultation with the District Chairman in whose district the considered replacement resides, and the appropriate presidential candidate committee. The Chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin shall fill any vacancies for At-Large delegates and At-Large alternate delegates in consultation with the committee of the candidate winning the statewide primary. The replacement of District or At-Large delegates or alternate must file an affidavit per Section 7 immediately upon accepting the office. 

SECTION 9. No preference shall be given in the delegate or alternate delegate selection process as to whether the delegate is a man or a woman.

Recent Posts:
These things are over sooner rather than later.

South Carolina House Moves to Safeguard Future Presidential Primary Calendar Position

Santorum Super PAC Doubles Down on Ludicrous Delegate Count Claim

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

These things are over sooner rather than later.

The history of the presidential primary process -- the trajectory of it throughout the post-reform era anyway -- has shown that some candidate clinches the nomination sooner rather than later. The logic of this has been thrown on its head to some extent over the last two cycles with... 1) Democratic voters in 2008 having an either/or proposition in the choice between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton while remaining with some exceptions high on both options and 2) 2012 Republican voters being torn between yielding to a plurality candidate who doesn't necessarily have the backing of the full party or opting to vote (for the best, viable candidate) in protest.

It is on that latter scenario that I would like to focus, though. We know where later is on the sooner--later spectrum: the convention. But we are in the process of determining where sooner is. The 2012 Republican presidential nomination race is at a point where Mitt Romney is in control and his nomination is a when not if proposition. But that is not necessarily readily apparent.

...at least not where it counts: with the main opposition campaign (Santorum).

If the Romney nomination is a when not if proposition, then the race is in a position of negotiating Santorum's withdrawal. Now, FHQ doesn't mean that as either the RNC and/or Romney campaign incentivizing in some way Santorum's exit.¹ Against the backdrop of a likely steady stream of endorsements for, not to mention primary victories by, Romney throughout April will be a decision-making calculus within Santorum campaign as to the utility of continuing in the race.

...of the campaign coming to the realization that either Santorum cannot become the nominee (at the convention²) or he cannot keep Romney from reaching the 1144 delegates necessary to wrap up the nomination. Another angle to consider is that the Santorum camp comes to the realization that continuing on is in no way helpful to their/the party's cause. For the Santorum campaign, they have to concern themselves with the optics of persisting in a cause that will be hard to keep together during April (see above). The longer they keep at it, the worse the outlook is for getting a VP or cabinet nod from a presumptive Romney-as-nominee. And no, that may not be the goal here. Alternatively, it also hurts Santorum's efforts with the very people that would help him in any future run at the nomination: the establishment of the party. If the perception is -- among that group -- that Santorum has, is or does hurt(ing) Romney in terms of the former Massachusetts governor's chances against Obama in the fall. If that is the conventional wisdom, then the party establishment is much less likely to rally around Santorum in the future. That is an iffy proposition anyway. That assumes that there is not a "better" candidate out there four or eight years from now that occupies a similar ideological space among the field of candidates. [After all, the 2012 field is viewed as relatively weak.] If that is the conclusion that is reached within the Santorum campaign -- that there are no incentives forthcoming from the Romney camp and/or the future outlook is bleak -- then they have nothing to lose by continuing in the race.

...at least until the money dries up and the sort of retrenchment witnessed in the Gingrich campaign this week hits the Santorum camp.

That is the self-interested side of this. But there are also party-centered, altruistic notions at play here. We can call those "taking one for the team" notions; that stepping aside is for the good of the party's fortunes in the general election campaign. Even this comes back to the self-interested angle above. If the feeling is that they/the campaign has nothing to lose by continuing on, then this is likely to play out in a rather slow, but obvious manner. In that scenario, if we follow history in the post-reform era as a guide, the Santorum campaign will likely die a slow death during primary season. But that has yet to play out.

...so, we know where later is, but we're still trying to determine where, or more appropriately when, sooner is.

--
¹ This is a dynamic process, but the RNC and Romney campaigns, independent of each other, seem to be taking more of a hands-off instead of hands-on approach to this. If an argument can be made for either one intervening, it would be for the RNC (...as measured by the steady stream of endorsements coming in for Romney). And even that argument is tenuous at best. It is more a matter of a collective will -- independent of national party coordination -- that folks like Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush or George HW Bush are coming out in favor of Mitt Romney or endorsing the idea that the process should come to a close.

² I think that, barring a significant shake up to the current dynamics of this race as they currently exist, we can all agree that Santorum cannot get to 1144 or surpass Romney in the delegate count during primary season. It is his campaigns only play to keep Romney under 1144 heading into the convention and rolling the dice there.


Recent Posts:
South Carolina House Moves to Safeguard Future Presidential Primary Calendar Position
Santorum Super PAC Doubles Down on Ludicrous Delegate Count Claim

There's a reason the Santorum campaign didn't mention West Virginia in its delegate conference call last week

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

South Carolina House Moves to Safeguard Future Presidential Primary Calendar Position

Yesterday a bill was introduced in the South Carolina state House to protect the Palmetto state's "First in the South" status on future presidential primary calendars. Now, FHQ has seen H 5081 described as "modeled after the New Hampshire bill" and that is partially true.¹ First, the bill defines "South" -- or in other words, the states South Carolina perceives as threats to its quadrennially preeminent status on the presidential primary calendar. And outside of attempting to legally codify the position of the South Carolina primary on the calendar, that is where the similarities end.

Mainly, that is due to a couple of related factors. First, there is one decision-maker in the New Hampshire presidential primary scheduling process: Secretary of State Bill Gardner. He -- or any other person elected to the position in the future -- is the only actor within the presidential primary positioning calculus for the concurrent presidential primaries in the Granite state. Typically, when FHQ discusses concurrent primaries it is in reference to a state that holds both its presidential primary and the primaries for state and local offices on the same date. In this instance, however, "concurrent" refers to both the Democratic and Republican Parties holding primaries on the same date. Neither New Hampshire political party has any latitude on this. If they opt into the primary as a means of allocating delegates -- as opposed to say a party-funded primary or caucus -- then they are stuck with the date Secretary Gardner selects.²

But this is different from the set up in South Carolina. There you have not one but two primary scheduling decision-makers: the two state party chairpersons. That is to say that the potential exists for there to be two different primary dates; something that is foreign to New Hampshirites. In fact, it is traditional for South Carolina to hold two separate presidential primaries: one for the Democrats and one for the Republicans. That is attributable to several factors. The state is largely in Republican control and as a result the Republican primary is the one most associated with the "First in the South" phenomenon. If we're being honest here, the first "First in the South" South Carolina primary was not until 2000. We hear so much about South Carolina being the barometer of who the ultimate Republican nominee will be, and while that may be true, South Carolina didn't stake its claim to "First in the South" to bolster the "barometer" credentials until 2000.³

South Carolina Democrats have had a different experience historically. The minority party in the state, South Carolina Democrats have had on-again-off-again presidential primaries. That they have held primaries instead of caucuses is a rather new development. And the party has not necessarily staked a claim to "First in the South"; not directly anyway. South Carolina Democrats have a privileged position within the context the Democratic National Committee's delegate selection rules not necessarily for regional reasons, but for reasons of racial diversity as well. South Carolina's addition to the list of "carve out" states in the 2008 cycle was a function of the party adding racial -- and secondarily, regional -- balance to the list of early primary and caucus states.

All this is to say that this bill affects the two South Carolina parties differently (...at least potentially). That makes this legislation different than -- in both form and function -- the law in New Hampshire.  That there is the potential for and very great likelihood of there being two separate presidential primaries in South Carolina is a budget nightmare for South Carolina; a problem the law in New Hampshire does not yield.

One other notable provision in this legislation that is similar to the way in which the New Hampshire law has and will continue to implement its law is that both require a certain buffer between its presidential primary and another similar contest; seven days.  While the New Hampshire law uses the "similar contest" language, the South Carolina proposal pinpoints "similar presidential preference primar[ies]." This may provide the Nevada caucuses some leeway in the South Carolina decision-making calculus.

Presumably Florida would be the biggest threat to South Carolina's position -- and yes, Florida is on the list of southern states in the bill -- and because the Florida primary is typically on Tuesday and South Carolina's on Saturday, the potential window actually grows to ten days (as it has the both of the last two cycles). One additional complicating factor here is that the two political parties hold separate primaries more often than they do not; making the codification of such a buffer in South Carolina law potentially more difficult. The buffer would potentially be different for the two parties if there is a continued insistence in holding a separate Democratic primary and a separate Republican primary. To specify a buffer would mean that even more space would have to be created to fit all of the early states into a seemingly increasingly small window (...if the process continues to push up against the first of the calendar year). This would seemingly cause the two state parties to work together to come to a common date, but that is not required by the legislation. However, the legislation would give state parties chairs some wiggle room to break with the seven day buffer under "extraordinary circumstances".

Is this legislation attempting to legally carve out an early position for South Carolina as the law in New Hampshire has done for a generation? Yes. But is the implementation different?

You betcha.

NOTE: Please see that Rep. Joshua Putnam is a co-sponsor of this legislation. No, that isn't FHQ though we share the same name.

--
¹ The text of H 5081: South Carolina House Bill 5081 (2011-12 session)

² This is horrible, right? "Stuck with" is hardly the proper way of phrasing this as the New Hampshire parties give up very little -- half their delegates in the past two cycles on the Republican side -- in exchange for the first primary position on the calendar.

³ It should be noted that there have been very few competitive Republican nomination races since 1980 when the South Carolina primary came into existence. In that year, the South Carolina primary was preceded by the Republican caucuses in Arkansas. In 1988, the South Carolina primary was the weekend before the Southern Super Tuesday. Also, Louisiana actually held caucuses before South Carolina in 1996.


Recent Posts:
Santorum Super PAC Doubles Down on Ludicrous Delegate Count Claim

There's a reason the Santorum campaign didn't mention West Virginia in its delegate conference call last week

Race to 1144: Louisiana Primary

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