More on the RNC Rules and Presidential Primary Debates

RNC Chair Reince Priebus was on with Hugh Hewitt yesterday and the rules of the presidential primary process were among the topics of discussion. The biggest news out of the interview is that the RNC Growth and Opportunity Project -- the five person group charged with examining the whys and hows of the GOP's 2012 electoral fortunes -- is set to roll out some of its findings and some recommendations on March 18.

Part of those recommendations clearly seems to be how the RNC will deal with presidential primary debates in the 2016 cycle. FHQ has already weighed in on this to some extent. But that was more a discussion of the party attempting to regulate the competition among state parties for and resultant number of debates. What Priebus and Hewitt talk about in their interview is something altogether different.  Hewitt even goes as far as framing the process as "mold[ing] the debates".

That is a much different proposition.

That is almost scripting debates, and truth be told, that is an even tougher goal to manufacture and regulate. The presidential election process already has scripted debates during the general election. No, those debates are not expressly scripted, but the candidates usually have a pretty good idea about what's coming in terms of the questions and have prepared for them. And still "accidents" happen. Ask Obama about Denver or McCain about his "that one" comment in 2008 or go on down the line about debate gaffes in the television era.

But the thing is, those moments really don't seem to drive the outcome of presidential elections.

And now the RNC appears to be proffering a series of hypotheses along these lines:

H₁: Presidential primary debates create/drive up intra-party divisiveness.
H₂: The media amplifies intra-party divisiveness.
H₃: Intra-party divisiveness negatively affects that party's candidate in the general election.

All of these are reasonable hypotheses. They certainly merit some exploration. [And, mind you, the Democratic Party will also have to consider this very same issue in some way.] But they strike FHQ as incomplete if not ill-formed. All of this seems to hinge on the notion that these primary debates are creating an atmosphere that is not helpful to the national party's goal of nominating a candidate who can  in turn win the general election. Perhaps they are not helpful in that regard. Again, that is reasonable. But that also seems to gloss over several additional points or questions that are hugely important in all of this:

Q₁: What if the intra-party divisiveness already exists?
Q₂: What if it is not or has not been dormant or latent, but present all along?
Q₃: Further, what if the very nature of the entire presidential primary process -- the battle to win contests, delegates and media attention -- is going to bring that divisiveness out with or without presidential primary debates? 

FHQ gets the intent of the media amplification hypotheses. But it seems to me that those things are going to come out (the media is going to amplify) anyway if they exist. Ron Paul supporters would have raised hell over the perception that a number of caucuses were handled unfairly, not to mention the treatment of their delegates in Tampa with or without debates. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich would have attacked Mitt Romney the very same way with or without those occasional national television platforms. And the media following along and reporting on the process would continue to have had the incentive to talk about those same divisions in the party -- divisions that also exist in the Republican caucuses on the Hill -- to the extent they were represented by voices (candidates) involved in the race. And they were represented. There were establishment/Tea Party/libertarian fault lines in the Republican Party before there were debates and there were always candidates who represented those constituencies.

The nomination process is a tough nut to crack for the national parties. There are a lot of moving parts involved (Debates are just one.), and the parties are constantly trying to define and regulate the best possible conditions ahead of time. Never an easy task. As I said above, the Democrats will likely examine this debates issue as well. I am hard-pressed to envision a scenario where it does not come up in the Rules and Bylaws Committee discussions. But the debates a factor that, while there is some hope for control (from the parties' perspectives), may not actually yield all that much benefit if the party is already divided.

FHQ is not saying that the RNC should not look into this issue; only that the benefits are not exactly clear. That said, the best way to test this is to change the rules and see how the process is impacted. But if the Obama presidency follows any kind of downward trajectory and/or the economy takes a turn for the worse over the next two to three years, the number and scope of Republican (or Democratic) primary debates won't matter a whole lot in 2016. That may even be true if the current conditions remain static in the interim.

Hat tip to David Drucker at Roll Call for passing this along.


Recent Posts:
Arizona + Nevada = 2016 Primary Calendar Uproar

Florida Makes First 2016 Presidential Primary Move

Nevada Bill Would Create January Presidential Primary

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

Arizona + Nevada = 2016 Primary Calendar Uproar

Disclaimer: This is a thought exercise; nothing more, nothing less.

FHQ is not of the opinion that anyone should light the distress signals in regard to the 2016 presidential primary calendar yet. Yes, there have been a couple of provocative bills introduced in state legislatures out west. That adds to the intrigue that wild cards like Florida and Georgia represent. But folks, it is simply too early. Something may come of this legislation in Arizona and/or Nevada this session, but it is unlikely. Historically, state legislatures do not act on this particular issue until the year before a presidential election. There is more "urgency" then. But that is not to suggest that it cannot or will not happen in 2013.

[I'm not bullish on either bill passing for a host of reasons as I've alluded to in the past.]

Now, having said that, FHQ has given some thought to the combination of these primary-related bills in both Arizona and Nevada since news of the Nevada bill broke the other day. It really could be something of a nightmare scenario for the national parties and perhaps the nomination process in its current form. Let's game this out as if this is late 2015 and both bills are passed and signed into law in their current forms (presumably in 2013).

First, let's look at what that entails:

1. Nevada would have a primary (and not a caucus) on the next to last Tuesday of January (January 19 in 2016) unless another western state schedules a contest prior to that point on the calendar. 
2. Arizona would hold its primary on the same date as the Iowa caucuses as long as Iowa Democrats and Republicans are timely enough in their date selection in order to give Arizona elections administrators sufficient lead time (90 days) to prepare for the primary. Absent that buffer period, Arizona would hold it primary on the earliest possible Tuesday available to it after Iowa and with a 90 day window.

The easiest way of looking at this is that Arizona's date is dependent on Iowa's decision and Nevada's date hinges on whether Arizona ends up earlier than than the Silver state on the calendar.

Starting with Iowa, there is some need on the part of the state parties in the Hawkeye state to leave some caucus preparation time as well. However, unfortunately for those in Arizona, that window has not been as wide as 90 days during the last two cycles of calendar chaos.

In 2011, Iowa Republicans first signaled on October 7 that the 2012 caucuses would be on January 3. Ninety days from October 7 is January 5 (a Thursday in 2012). Had the Arizona bill been the law of the land in 2011-2012, Arizona would have held its primary not concurrent with Iowa, but on the same day -- January 10 -- as New Hampshire. [No, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner would not have chosen January 10 if Arizona already occupied that date.]

Four years earlier in 2007, Iowa Republicans waited even longer and Iowa Democrats longer still. The Republican Party of Iowa selected a Thursday, January 3 caucus date on October 16. Meanwhile, Iowa Democrats did not schedule the same January 3 caucus date until a week and a half later on October 28. Again, if the current Arizona bill was the law in 2007-2008, that 90 day clock could not have started until both Iowa parties had made decisions.¹ If Arizona waited for Iowa Democrats' decision, the 90 day requirement would have pushed the Arizona primary to January 29; the next earliest Tuesday and the same date as the 2008 Florida primary.²

Now Nevada:
In the 2012 scenario above, Arizona would have preceded the date called for in the Nevada bill (next to last Tuesday in January). That would allow the Nevada secretary of state the ability -- actually, it would be his or her duty by law -- to shift the Silver state primary to a date before Arizona (as earlier as January 2 as long as it is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday). Since January 1, 2012 was on a Sunday, January 2 was a legal holiday in 2012. That would have provided the Nevada secretary of state with a range of dates between Tuesday, January 3 and Monday, January 9; all of which would have preceded a January 10 Arizona primary.

The 2008 scenario is less dramatic when Nevada is added to the mix. If Arizona had held a January 29 primary, then Nevada's next to last Tuesday date (January 22, 2008) would not have been affected. In fact, that actually would have been a later date than when the Nevada caucuses were held in 2008 (Saturday, January 19).

The impact, then, would have been minimal in 2008. Michigan was positioned as the next earliest non-carve-out state on January 15. Iowa and New Hampshire would still have likely ended up on January 3 and January 8, respectively (assuming that the dominoes fell in roughly the same order that they ultimately did in 2007). The only change is that Arizona would have been docked half of its delegates for having held a delegate selection event prior to the first Tuesday in February. The Grand Canyon state would have joined the others with that distinction in 2008: Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina and Florida. All were sanctioned on the Republican side and only Florida and Michigan  were affected in the Democratic race (Arizona would have been along for the ride.).

In 2012, however, with Arizona and Nevada pushing into the first ten days of January, Iowa and New Hampshire would have been forced into 2011. That's monumental enough and serves a rough guide for 2016.

--
What about the implications these bills may collectively have on the 2016 primary calendar?

We can reverse engineer this:
At its simplest,³ the practical implication of the Nevada bill as law for 2016 (excluding Arizona for the time being) is that it pushes Iowa up to Monday, January 4. [See the footnote in the Nevada post from Monday.] If Iowa decides on that date later than October 6 (90 days prior to January 4), then Arizona could not have its primary on the same day as the Iowa caucuses. An Arizona decision can only be made once the date of the Iowa caucuses has been identified. And then it has to be 90 days from that point in time.⁴

The decision regarding the Florida primary has to be made by October 1 in the year before a presidential election according to election law in the Sunshine state. Everything else, then, would have to fall in place with the other states between that point and October 6 for Iowa Democrats and Republicans to settle on an official date by then. If 2012 is any barometer, then that is not likely to happen.

The state parties in Iowa are going to know to wait it out to avoid the Arizona threat. They, along with New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, will know that 1) Florida is in place by October 1 and 2) Arizona becomes less and less a statutory problem the longer they wait. That serves not only the interests of Iowa and New Hampshire, but of all four carve-outs. However, with Nevada stationed on the next to last Tuesday in January, the 2016 calendar still starts in early January for the third cycle running.

--
There are a couple of other things to bear in mind here:

1. FHQ has not really mentioned party sanctions. Recall that the RNC rules would knock any non-carve-out holding a contest prior to the last Tuesday in February down to nine delegates plus the three RNC member delegates from the state. We won't know until 2015 whether this has proven to be an effective deterrent to would-be rogue states. Bills like the one in Arizona do give us some indication, but only if they are successful in the face of very likely having the penalties brought to their attention in some way by the national parties. 
2. Also, Iowa and New Hampshire waiting it out as a means of protecting their status only works to a point. The decision-makers in Florida (members of the Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee who will be named in 2015) will most likely -- one would expect -- be aware of the above possibilities. And they have the authority to schedule the Florida primary for as early as the first Tuesday in January (January 5 in 2016). They just have to do that before October 1, 2015. ...but under the realization that they will be hammered by the RNC delegate reduction in the process. 

Yes, this is all still about waiting on Florida no matter where these bills in Arizona and Nevada end up. Without knowledge of the Florida piece of the puzzle, there is still uncertainty about whether 2016 primary season kicks off in 2015. But we'll have to wait until the end of September 2015 for that answer.

Hurry up and wait.

--
¹ An interesting question following on all of this what Arizona would do in the event that Iowa Democrats and Republicans held caucuses on different dates. There is no contingency in the Arizona bill to account for this possibility. And there is nothing in Iowa law that requires the two state parties to hold concurrent caucuses. It is in the two parties best interest to share the same date as a means of protecting the first in the nation caucuses, but it is not a requirement.

² If the Arizona secretary of state had assumed in late 2007 that Iowa Democrats would choose January 3 after the Iowa GOP has selected that date, then the earliest possible Tuesday following a 90 day buffer would have been January 15. That was the date of the 2008 Michigan primary.

³ This assumes other states -- namely, Florida -- do not also enter the fray, thus affecting where South Carolina might end up on the calendar.

⁴ It strikes FHQ that it would -- not surprisingly -- behoove the carve-outs to wait as long as possible to decide on their respective dates to effectively deal with the Arizona (not to mention Florida) threat. Waiting, for instance, to the end October to decide would virtually eliminate the possibility of a January primary for Arizona.


Recent Posts:
Florida Makes First 2016 Presidential Primary Move

Nevada Bill Would Create January Presidential Primary

Massachusetts Bill Would Shift Presidential Primary to June

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

Florida Makes First 2016 Presidential Primary Move

The Florida General Assembly only just convened for the 2013 session today, and already there is some legislative action regarding the 2016 presidential primary in the Sunshine state.

Representative Kevin Rader (D-81st, Boca Raton) has introduced legislation (HB 1349) to revise the mission of the Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee (PPPDSC) and to return the primary election to the second Tuesday in March position the Florida primary occupied on every primary calendar from 1976-2004. By calling for a specific date on which the primary is to be held, the PPPDSC is superfluous. The committee was formed based on changes to Florida election law during the 2011 state legislative session to give the state more flexibility than the constraints of the state legislative calendar afforded. By ceding the decision on when the primary would be, the state legislature empowered the PPPDSC with the ability to make the date selection decision as late as October 1 in any year immediately preceding a presidential election. That allowed Florida to wait until most other states had decided on when their primaries would be. That had not historically been the case in Florida. To that point, the state was forced to handle this decision through the state legislature when it was in session (March-May); before many states had acted to shift the dates on which their contests would be held.

HB 1349 takes that power away from the PPPDSC and alters its name, membership and mission. With a primary date set in stone (in the legislation), the PPPDSC becomes the Presidential Candidate Selection Committee (PCSC). Instead of the governor, speaker of the state house and president of the state senate choosing three members to the committee, the committee will be comprised of the speaker, the president, the minority leaders of both state legislative chambers and the chairs of any party utilizing the primary as a means of presidential nomination. The PCSC would then be charged with the task of deciding which candidates appear on the presidential preference primary ballot for their respective parties. [Democrats on the committee would not have influence over the Republican candidates appearing on the ballot and vice versa.]

--
The bottom line on this is that the date of the Florida presidential primary in 2016 would become more certain under the provisions of this bill and thus less of a potential headache for the national parties and other states (both carve-out states and other would-be rogue states).

But there is one caveat to this. Democrats in both the Florida House and Senate have filed and introduced bills to move the primary back to March in state legislative sessions in 2009 (House version, Senate companion) and 2011 (House version, Senate companion). Representative Rader, the author of the 2013 bill, was the primary sponsor of the 2009 House version. As was the case in 2009 and 2011, both chambers of the 2013 Florida legislature are controlled by Republicans; Republicans who were not collectively interested in any of the previous legislation.

That does not bode well for the 2013 legislation, but it does give Florida Democrats some cover in possibly applying for a waiver from the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to hold a primary on a non-compliant date should the primary be non-compliant after 2015.

As of now, there is no state senate companion bill.

[These changes are included on an updated 2016 presidential primary calendar here.]

Recent Posts:
Nevada Bill Would Create January Presidential Primary

Massachusetts Bill Would Shift Presidential Primary to June

2016 Rules: Penalizing Candidates for Participating in Unsanctioned Debates?

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

Nevada Bill Would Create January Presidential Primary

Word emerged late this afternoon (on the east coast) that a bill had been introduced in the Nevada legislature to create a new presidential primary in the Silver state and to hold it concurrently with the statewide primaries for state and local offices in January.

There is a lot to SB 212, so let's have a look at that and the implications (assuming the bill actually passes).

• Contrary to the Twitter post from the AP's Sandra Cherub, this bill does not abolish the Nevada caucuses. However, there are provisions in the bill to push the precinct meetings back to a point on the calendar later than the proposed presidential primary. This is consistent with the delegate selection process in a great many primary states. The primary dictates how the eventual delegates are bound and the caucuses actually select those delegates in a multi-stage process leading up to the state convention. 
• As FHQ mentioned above, the bill would position the new presidential primary (and concurrent primaries for other state offices) on the Tuesday before the last Tuesday in January. The last Tuesday in January has been the date of the Florida primary for the last two cycles (2008 and 2012). FHQ suspects this is a would-be attempt to pre-empt any move by the Florida Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee to jump the carve-out states at the head of the queue. 
• The Tuesday before the last Tuesday in January 2016 is January 19 (the date as it turns out of the 2008 Nevada caucuses). That provides Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina with a very small window of time in which to hold their respective contests. The Nevada shift from a caucus to a primary has the effect of switching the day of the contest from Saturday to Tuesday. That helps the other carve outs some. South Carolina could hold its primary on Saturday, January 16. New Hampshire could, in turn, conduct a Tuesday, January 5 primary, leaving Iowa with very little room in which to have its caucuses. Realistically, a Saturday, January 2 caucus would be the only workable, post-New Years date left (a possibility FHQ raised recently).¹ 
• This bill, if passed, would also be a violation of the national party rules. There are no Democratic Party rules for the 2016 cycle yet, but if the rules from the previous cycle carryover, then Nevada would lose half of its delegates. Things on the Republican side, where there are 2016 rules, would be more interesting. Nevada would be subject to the super penalty (a reduction to nine delegates plus the three RNC members from the state) in the RNC rules if it held the only January contest and (importantly) was not forced to that date by another state encroaching on the carve-out states' calendar territory. If, however, a state like Florida does flaunt the rules on timing and forces the carve-out states to an earlier date outside of the February window called for in the RNC rules, Nevada would not be subject to the penalty. The language of the rule does not address whether a carve-out state takes the initiative to move to a position before February before being provoked. 
• If a rogue state is a western state (defined as Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and/or Wyoming), then the Nevada secretary of state can move the primary to as early as January 2 on the condition that the primary not fall on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. It is worth noting that there is no required buffer between Nevada and any other state, western or otherwise. But if a western state attempts to jump ahead of Nevada, the secretary of state can push the primary up to January 2. 
• Additionally, the legislation also requires the state parties to, in electing delegates, to have that process "reasonably reflect" the results of the presidential primary. There is no definition of "reasonably reflect" in the bill. 
• All five sponsors of the bill are Republicans (three Republican senators and two Republican members of the Assembly). Democrats control both legislative chambers in Nevada. That will have an impact on how far this bill goes. 
• Nevada last held a presidential primary in 1996.

Depending on this bill's progress in the next few weeks, this will give Republicans at the RNC Spring Meeting in LA next month something to discuss when the Rules Committee convenes.

[These changes are included on an updated 2016 presidential primary calendar here.]
    
--
¹ UPDATE: It should be noted that the 2008 and 2012 Democratic Party Delegate Selection Rules placed South Carolina in the fourth position on the calendar behind Nevada. The RNC rules do not specify any particular order to the carve-out states; only that they hold contests within a one month window prior to the next earliest contest. That would mean that South Carolina (Democrats and/or Republicans) could technically squeeze into a Saturday, January 23 spot. That, in turn, could provide some relief for Iowa and New Hampshire. The Granite state could occupy Tuesday, January 12, and Hawkeye staters from both parties could claim Monday, January 4 for caucuses. Of course, that is barely any change from the January 3 starts in both 2008 and 2012.

These moves would be dependent upon Florida following the rules of both parties enough that it does not end up on the last Tuesday in January for the third consecutive cycle in 2016. South Carolina Democrats may be fine with a Saturday, January 23 primary ahead of a January 26 Florida contests, but South Carolina Republicans have insisted on at least a week between the Palmetto state primary and the Florida primary (the next southern primary). That would make the January 23 date unusable for the SCGOP and trigger the scenario described above. See more in the comments section here and here.

Recent Posts:

Massachusetts Bill Would Shift Presidential Primary to June

2016 Rules: Penalizing Candidates for Participating in Unsanctioned Debates?

Update: 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar (2/21/13)

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

Massachusetts Bill Would Shift Presidential Primary to June

Toward the end of January a pair or bills were introduced in the Massachusetts Assembly that would affect the timing of future primary elections if signed into law. The first -- H 574 -- would leave the presidential primary on the first Tuesday in March while moving the primaries for state and local offices back further away from (general) election day. The second bill -- H 575 -- would shift both the presidential primary and the primaries for state and local offices, consolidating the two on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June.

Let's consider the motivation behind the two legislative items.

H 574 is intended as a remedy to what was a messy attempt by the Massachusetts General Court to bring the Bay state's election law into compliance with the MOVE act. As you may or may not recall from some of the 2011 discussions in this space, the federal mandates laid forth in the MOVE act were put in place as a means of insuring that military and overseas personnel had timely access to ballots. The federal legislation required a 45 day window before election day for ballots to have been delivered. That meant that a primary scheduled seven weeks prior to the general election -- as was (and still is) the case in Massachusetts -- was not compliant. In order to move into compliance with the federal requirements, the Massachusetts legislature added, as a one time fix for 2012, an amendment to an appropriations bill to schedule the state primary for a Thursday just 47 days prior to the November election.¹

This bill would codify a move to the ninth Tuesday before election day in November, an additional two weeks that is MOVE act compliant. That gives the Massachusetts secretary of state's office just four days following the primary to certify the results, print the general election ballots and send them off to military and other overseas personnel. Additionally, that date continues to conflict with the tail end of a long Labor Day weekend.

In other words, there are some potential problems attendant to this particular piece of legislation.

As an alternative, Representative James Dwyer (D-30th, Middlesex) has once again introduced legislation by request (via petition) to consolidate the two sets of primary elections in June. Again, H 575 would solve the MOVE act conflict by moving the state primary from September to June and the consolidation would additionally save money that would otherwise fund two separate elections, not one. The drawback is that the bill -- one almost exactly like the bill that Dwyer introduced in 2011² -- would potentially pull the Massachusetts presidential primary out of the window in which the nomination decisions are likely to be made. In any event, it would be something of gamble for Massachusetts legislators (and the governor) to move the contest that far back on the calendar.

But that is exactly what will be considered in the Joint Committee on Election Laws; the next stop for both of these bills. No hearings for either bill are on the committee agenda at this time.

NOTE: Please see the changes triggered by these bills to the 2016 presidential primary calendar here.

--
¹ The Tuesday of that same week conflicted with both the Democratic National Convention and fell just a day after the Labor Day holiday.

² The only difference in the section of the bill referring to the presidential primary -- or rather the proposed consolidated primary -- is that the latest legislation calls for the primary to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June instead of the first Tuesday in June (as was the case in the 2011 bill).

Recent Posts:
2016 Rules: Penalizing Candidates for Participating in Unsanctioned Debates?

Update: 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar (2/21/13)

Election Law Amendments Would Clarify Funding of Utah Presidential Primary

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

2016 Rules: Penalizing Candidates for Participating in Unsanctioned Debates?

This idea has been floating around since the RNC Chairman Reince Priebus mentioned it to reporters during the RNC Winter Meetings in Charlotte in January. But now the idea of penalizing presidential candidates delegates for participating in primary debates not sanctioned by the Republican National Committee is making the rounds again in an item by Ramesh Ponnuru over at the National Review.

In my discussions with folks involved in the rules-making process in the RNC this debates/delegate penalty never came up. That is not to suggest that it has not come up or will not be pushed in some form at future RNC meetings. There is some sincere frustration over the perceived impact those primary debates had on the process within the party, but this seems more like an idea that is being floated more than a directive for change from the chairman.

That is the FHQ interpretation of it anyway. Here's why:

This is a tough [TOUGH] penalty to enforce. Again, that is not to say that it cannot be enforced, but it is something that is difficult to achieve. Functionally, it works more as a threat than an actual penalty. The Democratic Party had something similar on the books in 2008 (and 2012). The rule did not apply to debates. Rather, it was a penalty put in place to dissuade candidates from campaigning in states that violated the rules on timing. In 2008, that meant that none of the candidates could campaign in Florida and Michigan until the day after the primary in the violating state. If the candidates had campaigned in either state they would have lost any and all pledged delegates won in that primary (Rule 20.C.1.b).

But no candidate violated that rule. And that was probably fortunate for the DNC and its Rules and Bylaws Committee. Imagine if that question had been layered into the Clinton-Obama delegate fight in the waning days of primary season in 2008. [That threat also worked (or mainly worked) because Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina were in on it. Each collectively and effectively threatened the support for and to any candidates who campaigned in any states jumping the queue.]

Again, as in that 2008 case, it is easy to threaten to take away delegates from candidates, but tough to enforce without also potentially hurting the state parties, not to mention individual delegates, in the process. How does the national party identify which delegates get the axe? What is the percentage? How does the party account for the varying penalties that will occur based on different methods of delegate allocation? Furthermore, does would the RNC ultimately care? [The standing, yet unofficial, rule on the Republican side has always been to just leave it up to the states. But there has been an evolution to that since 2008. In other words, instead of "do what you want states" it is "these are the rules, do what you want/can states".]

Ultimately, this really is not a penalty on the candidates. Yes, the proposal targets them, but the reality is that this but the first step in how the RNC likely sees this playing out. As was the case with the Democrats in 2008, the likely intent is to in some way curb the incentives state parties and other groups have in scheduling these debates in the first place. If the state parties are rational, they will not want to hold/sponsor a debate if it means the party will potentially not have a full slate of candidates -- or at least the main competitors -- participate.

But what is the mechanism by which state parties or other groups acquire the RNC's blessing for holding a debate? Is there a mechanism at all or will early states (or perhaps competitive general election states) have the upper hand in planning and orchestrating such debates?

All we really have in Chairman Priebus' comments is the wisp of a plan. It is not fully fleshed out and as such is rife with unintended consequences.

--
Footnote:
FHQ should also mention one of the other talking points circulating in response to this already: That this is a rules change that seemingly advantages the supposed establishment candidate; something those in the grassroots and/or among the Tea Party would not necessarily be favorable toward. That response is apt, but focuses too heavily on the candidate-specific penalties instead of the state angle proffered above. Functionally, I think candidate angle is correct. A frontrunning establishment candidate is motivated to participate in as small a number of debates as possible. This just provides some institutional national party-based cover for that candidate or candidates. That, in turn, affects the calculus of those planning these debates in the first place. But again, that is the goal of this particular rule should it ever come to fruition.

Recent Posts:
Update: 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar (2/21/13)

Election Law Amendments Would Clarify Funding of Utah Presidential Primary

Alternate Senate Bill Would Move Missouri Presidential Primary to March

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

Update: 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar (2/21/13)

Since there have been a handful of bills introduced in a few state legislatures that could have an impact on 2016 presidential primary dates, and owing to the fact that there was a need to revise some of footnotes from when FHQ put together the initial calendar in January 2012, an update to the calendar is in order.

[Find the calendar's permanent home here. There is a link to the 2016 calendar in the upper left corner of the page as well.]

Plus, there was at least some need to add a map.

Changes:

• There is now a map indicating the month in which state-level elections statutes are to be held (...if there is a date specified). FHQ should also note that if you click on the state name in the calendar below, the link will take you to the relevant section of the state's law or party's bylaws covering the date of the primary or caucus.
• Links to discussions of 2013 state-level legislation addressing the dates of future presidential primaries have also been added. 
• The number of footnotes substantially decreased from January 2012. That is largely attributable to the fact that at that point a number of states had yet to update their online statutes to reflect changes made during their respective 2011 sessions. 

Notes:

You will note that none of the so-called carve-out states are included on the calendar. During the 2012 cycle, FHQ added those states to calendar as a means of reflecting the reality of the typical formation of the calendar. Namely, that those states will position their contests relative to and earlier than the date of the next earliest contest. Missouri is the next earliest contest, non-compliant though that contest may be. If that holds, then Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina (if not other states) will push once again into January. That is likely to look something like this:

• Saturday, January 2: Iowa caucuses
• Tuesday, January 5: New Hampshire primary
• Saturday, January 16: Nevada caucuses
• Saturday, January 23: South Carolina primary

There are a couple of other factors to note in the calculus that each of the above states will/could undergo.

1. State law requires a seven day window after the New Hampshire primary. That eliminates January 12 as a possibility if Nevada falls on January 16.
2. None of this prevents a scenario like the one that played out in late 2011 from happening again if the carve-out states are pushed up against the cusp of the new year. In other words, Iowa's parties could nab Monday, January 4 as the date of its caucuses and then force another stand-off between New Hampshire and Nevada. That could push Nevada to a later date and allow Secretary of State Bill Gardner the chance to claim January 12 for New Hampshire. The difference in 2016 is that the secretary will have to contend with both the Nevada Democratic and Republican parties; not just the Republicans. Of course, historically, Gardner remains undefeated in the game of keeping New Hampshire first. 
3. There is a long wait for any of this to occur. None of this will go down until October 2015 at the earliest. 

Reading the Map:

As was the case with the maps from past cycles, the earlier a contest is scheduled in 2012, the darker the color in which the state is shaded. Arizona, for instance, is a much deeper shade of blue in February than California is in June. There are, however, some differences between the earlier maps and the one that appears above.

1. Several caucus states have yet to select a date for the first step of their delegate selection processes in 2016. Until a decision is made by state parties in those states, they will appear in gray on the map.
2. The states where legislation to move the presidential primary is active are two-toned (or three-toned -- see Missouri). One color indicates the timing of the primary according to the current law whereas the second color is meant to highlight the month to which the primary could be moved. 
3. States that are bisected vertically are states where the state parties have different dates for their caucuses and/or primaries. The left hand section is shaded to reflect the state Democratic Party's scheduling while the right is for the state Republican Party's decision on the timing of its delegate selection event (see Nebraska). This holds true for states -- typically caucus states -- with a history of different dates across parties but which also have not yet chosen a contest date.

2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

February

Tuesday, February 2:

Colorado caucuses¹

Minnesota caucuses²

Missouri (2013 Legislation: March primary, April primary)

Utah³ (2013 Legislation: Primary funding)

Tuesday, February 23:

Arizona (2013 Legislation: Fix primary date to date of Iowa caucuses)

Michigan

March

Tuesday, March 1:

Colorado caucuses¹ 

Massachusetts

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Texas (2013 Legislation: February primary)

Vermont

Virginia

Tuesday, March 8:

Alabama

Hawaii Republican caucuses

Mississippi

Ohio

Tuesday, March 15:

Illinois

Saturday, March 19:

Louisiana

April

Tuesday, April 5:

Maryland

Washington, DC

Wisconsin⁴

Tuesday, April 26:

Connecticut

Delaware

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

May

Tuesday, May 3:

Indiana

North Carolina

Tuesday, May 10:

Nebraska

West Virginia

Tuesday, May 17:

Kentucky

Oregon

Tuesday, May 24:

Arkansas

June

Tuesday, June 7:

California

Montana

New Jersey

New Mexico

South Dakota

Primary states with no specified date:

Florida

Georgia

Kansas⁵

New Hampshire

New York

South Carolina

Without dwelling on something that is WELL before its time, FHQ should note that those February states are only problematic in 2016 if the two parties' delegates selection rules mirror the rules from the 2012 cycle. They may or may not. The real problem children, if you will, are the primary states without specified dates for 2016. As of February 2013 they remain the free agents for the 2016 primary calendar and the ones that may bear the most intense watching between now and mid-2015. That said, first things first: The first step is a set of rules from the DNC and RNC. We have a ways to go before the parties settle on/finalize something on that front (summer 2014). The Republican Party is further along in its process than are the Democrats.

--

¹ The state parties have the option of choosing either the first Tuesday in March date called for in the statute or moving up to the first Tuesday in February.

² The state parties must agree on a date on which to hold caucuses by March 1 in the year prior to a presidential election. If no agreement is reached, the caucuses are set for the first Tuesday in February.

³ The Western States Presidential Primary in Utah is scheduled for the first Tuesday in February, but the contest will only be held on that date if the state legislature decides to allocate funds for the primary.

⁴ See definition of "Spring primary" for clause dealing with the timing of the presidential primary.

⁵ Kansas has not held a presidential primary since 1992. Funds have not been appropriated by the legislature for the primary since that time. That said, there are laws in place providing for a presidential preference primary. Assuming funding, the Kansas secretary of state has the option of choosing a date -- on or before November 1 in the year preceding the presidential election -- that either coincides with at least 5 other states' delegate selection events or is on the first Tuesday in April or before.

--

Recent Posts:
Election Law Amendments Would Clarify Funding of Utah Presidential Primary

Alternate Senate Bill Would Move Missouri Presidential Primary to March

Texas Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to February

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

Election Law Amendments Would Clarify Funding of Utah Presidential Primary

A bill that has made its way through both houses of the Utah legislature would amend the Beehive state election laws with some interesting implications for the presidential primary there in 2016 and beyond. HB 53, introduced by Representative Kraig Powell (R-54th, Heber City), adds a rather simple clause to the segment of the Utah Elections Code concerning the Western States Presidential Primary:¹

20A-1-201.5. Primary election dates.
(3) [The] If the Legislature makes an appropriation for a Western States Presidential Primary election, the Western States Presidential Primary election shall be held throughout the state on the first Tuesday in February in the year in which a presidential election will be held.²

Now, ordinarily FHQ would leave this alone, but as I said this does have some impact on the potential 2016 Utah presidential primary. And it also happens that FHQ received some probably-deserved flak from the Utah press in 2011 for raising the specter of Utah crashing the 2012 presidential primary calendar. The conflict then was over the fact that while the statute called for what would have been a non-compliant February primary, the state legislature also had to appropriate money for the primary to be conducted. The legislature did not appropriate those funds for a 2012 primary during its consideration of that year's budget during the 2011 session.

But it appears that Utah legislators felt at least some need to clarify that funding mechanism in the elections law of the state. The February primary date is now clearly dependent upon the legislature appropriating funds for that purpose.

--
That brings us back around to 2016. What is interesting is that given the current Utah Elections Code and given the current RNC and DNC rules for delegate selection in 2016, Utah may have a tough time holding a compliant primary.

Why?

The RNC rules do and the DNC rules likely will prohibit February primaries or caucuses in states other than the four carve-out states. That would likely affect the willingness of Utah legislators to fund a would-be, non-compliant primary. Such an action would reduce the state's Republican delegation to 12 delegates and likely decrease the Democratic delegation by half. The catch is that even Utah's fallback -- using the fourth Tuesday in June primary for state and local offices for the presidential primary as well -- would also be non-compliant. The DNC has since relatively early on in the post-reform era -- 1980 cycle -- required that all delegate selection events be completed by the second Tuesday in June. The RNC has until 2016 not had any similar mandate. That will be different in 2016 unless the RNC changes its rules. There will now be a back end to the window of time in which states can hold the first step of their Republican delegate selection processes: the second Saturday in June.

Utah's fourth Tuesday in June primary would not be compliant for the purposes of selecting delegates to the national convention.

Granted, all of this is premature to a great degree. It is still 2013 after all. But something will have to change at the state-level if Utah is to hold a presidential primary in 2016. Absent such a change(s), both state parties could lean on the caucus/convention system that typically begins with neighborhood meetings in March of presidential election years.

--
¹ The moniker "Western States Presidential Primary" was borne out of an unofficial compact that several smaller western and/or mountain states informally agreed to pursue as early as the 2000 cycle. The effort was not unlike the attempt by the Democratic Party to incentivize regional or subregional primary or caucuses clusters in 2012. The idea was that collectively a group of western or mountain states could influence the nomination process more so than if each state struck out on its own. The initial efforts in the 2000 cycle were disrupted by California moving its primary up to the first Tuesday in March; a shift that affected where each of the eight potential participating states would end up on the primary calendar that year (Busch 2000, p. 69). You can read more about the attempts to coordinate the western primary ahead of the 2008 cycle here.

² The struck through portion of the legislation is the part being removed while the underlined portion is what would be new and different in the law assuming passage and a signature by the governor.

Recent Posts:
Alternate Senate Bill Would Move Missouri Presidential Primary to March

Texas Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to February

Thoughts on Where the 2016 Presidential Primary Rules Stand, Part One

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

Alternate Senate Bill Would Move Missouri Presidential Primary to March

Last month FHQ described the state House-based effort to shift the date of the Missouri presidential primary back into compliance with national party rules. Now there is an alternative bill in the state Senate. The two are not companion bills.

The aforementioned HB 127 would move the primary from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in April. However, the bill (SB 177) introduced by state Senator Eric Schmitt (R-15th, St. Louis) would push the primary back only a month to March. That makes the legislation most like the majority of legislation addressing the primary date during the 2011 legislative session.

A couple of notes:
1) Again, the Missouri presidential primary is currently scheduled for February. That will not be compliant with either national party's ultimate delegate selection rules. The Show-Me state, then, is the rare state that has to make some change in its date to comply with those rules. The other potential early February states have other options. Presumably Missouri would too (at least on the Republican side). The Missouri Republican Party opted for a March caucus to avert sanctions from the RNC and Show-Me state Democrats were granted a waiver because the date of the primary was determined by the Republicans in the majority in both chambers of the General Assembly. The decision on the part of the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee was made easier by virtue of the fact that President Obama was running unopposed for the Democratic nomination. That condition will not exist in 2016. In other words, if the primary is not moved back, the Democratic Party in the state would have a tougher case to make before the RBC.

2) Traditionally, Missouri Republicans have allocated their delegates in a winner-take-all fashion since the primary format was reintroduced for the 2004 cycle. Only the House bill would allow for that practice to continue. An April primary date -- as called for in the House version of the bill -- would place the Missouri presidential primary out of the March (and earlier) proportional window called for in the RNC delegate selection rules and allow the state GOP to maintain the winner-take-all allocation. Alternatively, if the March Senate bill passes both chambers and is signed into law, the state party would have to alter its delegate selection plan in some way. This is only a concern among Republicans in the state since the DNC mandates a proportional allocation of delegates. But this may be some cause for conflict between the chambers of a Missouri General Assembly controlled by Republicans.

...and if you followed the state legislative effort/inability to move the Missouri primary in 2011, this is potentially some cause for concern.

Recent Posts:
Texas Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to February

Thoughts on Where the 2016 Presidential Primary Rules Stand, Part One

Is it really that 'tricky' to rig the electoral college in advance?

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

Texas Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to February

The slow crawl toward 2016 continued last week in the Texas legislature.

Though the bulk of legislation regarding any future dates of presidential primaries is most successful in the year immediately prior to the presidential election year, that does not preclude state legislators from introducing legislation at other points in a given presidential election cycle. No, it does not prevent the introduction of such legislation, but the timing does have an impact on whether said legislation is successfully signed into law. During the 2012 cycle, only Arkansas (2009) and Illinois (2010) shifted via legislation the dates on which their respective presidential primaries would be held. The rest of the primary movement witnessed happened during the 2011 terms of most state legislatures.

It is with that caveat that FHQ raises the legislation filed in the Texas Senate last week. SB 452, sponsored by Senator Dan Patrick (R-7th, Houston), would shift the presidential primary as well as the concurrent primaries for other offices from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. Now, under the current rules or likely rules of both parties, such a move a would make the Texas presidential primary non-compliant. [Editor's Note: FHQ does not foresee changes to either party's rules that would change that.] And though the conditions have changed from 2012, it is unlikely that this legislation will make it through both chambers of the legislature and onto Governor Rick Perry's desk during this session.¹

The best evidence of this is the fact that a nearly identical bill prefiled in 2010 ahead of the 2011 Texas legislative session never made it out of the House committee to which it was referred. The only difference between the bill Representative Roberto Alonzo (D-104th, Dallas) filed in 2010 (HB 318) and the current legislation is that section 1.b now refers to the later runoff election date that came out of the redistricting battle. That date is shifted up a month as well. The rest of the bill is exactly -- verbatim -- the same. And incidentally, a House bill exactly like the 2011 bill was proposed and went nowhere in 2007. Perhaps the fact that a Republican has introduced the legislation in the state Senate will make some difference in the ultimate success of the bill. If, however, the previous House bills are any indication, then that is not likely.

--
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for passing the news of the introduction of this bill to FHQ.

--
¹ For one, complications with the redistricting process kept the date of the 2012 Texas primary in a constant state of flux from December 2011-March 2012. as the review of the new lines were challenged in the courts. Secondly, the Republican Party of Texas had no desire to break the RNC rules concerning timing or the new proportionality requirement. Part of this was driven by the fact that the RNC legal counsel at the time was the Texas national committeeman. That is no longer the case.

Recent Posts:
Thoughts on Where the 2016 Presidential Primary Rules Stand, Part One

Is it really that 'tricky' to rig the electoral college in advance?

In Missouri, Legislation to Remove a Major Roadblock to the 2016 Primary Calendar

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