Omnibus Elections Bill Could Move North Carolina Presidential Primary to February

North Carolina Republicans have been busy -- and in the news locally and nationwide too -- after taking unified control of the executive and legislative branches in the Tarheel state for the first time since Reconstruction following the 2012 elections. The latest from the General Assembly is legislation -- a state Senate committee substitute to HB 589 -- that would significantly alter the administration of elections and registration of those potentially participating in them. There are folks on both sides of the discussions around the alterations to elections, and that is a matter for a different forum.

FHQ is more interested in part 35 of the bill. That is the section that "conditionally" moves the North Carolina presidential primary to the Tuesday following the South Carolina primary. The clause in question?

On the Tuesday after the first Monday in May, 1992, and every four years thereafter, the voters of this State shall be given an opportunity to express their preference for the person to be the presidential candidate of their political party.party, except that if South Carolina holds its presidential primary before the 15th day of March, the North Carolina presidential preference primary shall be held on the Tuesday after the first South Carolina presidential preference primary of that year.

The struck through portion is what would be removed from the existing law. The underlined part is the addition.

Now, FHQ used quotation marks around conditionally above for one simple reason. The conditionality is hollow. The Democratic National Committee has not weighed in yet, but the Republican National Committee has already voted on 2016 presidential nomination rules that guarantee the South Carolina presidential primary will be in February; well before March 15.

It should also be noted that South Carolina has traditionally held a Saturday primary which would mean a February primary on a Saturday triggers a North Carolina primary just three days later. That would additionally mean that, depending upon where on the calendar all of this occurs, that the North Carolina Republican and Democratic Parties and voters could get hammered with the new Republican super penalty (and whatever strictures the DNC institutes next year). If that penalty had been in place in 2012, North Carolina Republicans would have lost over three-quarters of the total delegation to the national convention in Tampa.

The interesting thing now is that North Carolina legislators are either being extremely shrewd or have stumbled on the best dumb luck in presidential primary calendar politics of the last few cycles.¹ As the current Republican rules are structured, the super penalty is only levied on states with contests prior to the last Tuesday in February. In 2016, that's February 23, the same date as the Arizona and Michigan primaries. If South Carolina opts for the Saturday before that point on the calendar -- as FHQ has speculated it might here² -- that puts North Carolina on the same date as Arizona and Michigan. That scheduling has the additional byproduct of helping the Tarheel state avoid the super penalty.

There are a lot of fun possibilities here, but at this point, it is not clear that the primary portion of the bill will survive the legislative process and be signed into any resulting law. For one thing, if passed, North Carolina would have separate presidential and state and local primaries for the first time since 1988 (and only the second time in the post-reform era). That additional election will cost the state; something that has prevented a similar move numerous times in the past. This version of the bill is, after all, a committee substitute. It has to go to the floor as well.

But it is nice to see a fun primary bill come up during a slow summer when (presidential primary) things appeared to be winding down for the year on the state legislative front.

--
¹ FHQ has watched all of this primary movement closer than most over the last two cycles and we have not seen a lot of dumb luck out there. And only rarely are there shrewd moves (see Missouri).

²This assumes there is a period of relative calm in 2015 as the presidential primary calendar forms in an orderly and rules-compliant manner. That is far from a sure thing, but the national parties have a fairly decent rules regime in place to combat some of the chaos of 2008 and 2012.

Recent Posts:

New Texas Law Further Clarifies State-Level Guidance Over Presidential Delegate Selection

Update: 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar (6/13/13)

DC Bill Would Move District's Presidential Primary to June

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

New Texas Law Further Clarifies State-Level Guidance Over Presidential Delegate Selection

Late last week, Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) signed into law Senate Bill 1398. Substantively, the legislation does not fundamentally change the presidential delegate selection process across parties in the Lone Star state, but it does provide some state governmental guidance as to how the allocation process should be conducted.

At its core, the bill was intended to provide both state parties some cover -- by codifying their methods -- relative to the existing or expected national party rules governing delegate selection in 2016 and beyond. Here's the before and after:

Before:
Sec. 191.007.  ALLOCATION OF DELEGATES.  Each political party holding a presidential primary election shall adopt a rule for allocating delegates based on the results of the presidential primary election.

After (underlined portions indicate additions, strikethroughs mean subtractions):
Sec. 191.007.  ALLOCATION OF DELEGATES.
(a)  Each political party holding a presidential primary election shall adopt a rule for allocating delegates [based on the results of the presidential primary election].

(b)A rule adopted under this section may utilize either a proportional or winner-take-all method, based on the results of the presidential primary election, which may be based on:

(1) a direct tie to statewide popular vote totals;
(2) a direct tie to congressional or state senatorial district popular vote totals; or
(3) an alternative disproportionate method that is based on statewide, congressional district, or state senatorial district popular vote totals. 

(c) Subsection (b) does not apply to delegates allocated: (1) among party and elected officials; or (2) through an allocation based on participants registering for or attending a caucus or similar process, provided that at [At] least 75 percent of the total number of delegates who are to represent this state at the party's national presidential nominating convention, excluding delegates allocated among party and elected officials, shall be allocated in accordance with the rule adopted under this section based on the results of the presidential primary election [among one or more of the candidates whose names appear on the presidential primary election ballot and, if applicable, the uncommitted status].

In a nutshell, the new Texas statute basically allows the state parties to continue what they have been doing.

For Republicans that means some leeway on the proportionality question (should that requirement be reinstated). It would not, then, have to be an either/or proposition; either true winner-take-all or true proportional allocations. Given the current primary date called for in state law -- the first Tuesday in March -- Texas Republicans could/would have some options in terms of having a truly proportional allocation or opting into the less proportional methods allowed under the RNC definition of proportionality. [In reality, the Republican Party in Texas always had that option under the former state law.]

On the Democratic side of the equation, things are mostly the same, save one notable exception. Yes, the new law provides the state party the latitude to filter the delegate selection process through state senate district conventions/caucuses as opposed to congressional district versions of those meetings as has been the case. There is even an exception for the primary-caucus (the Texas two-step  it was called in 2008) that got so much attention during the Clinton-Obama race. What is different, though, is that there is now a required percentage of delegates that have to be allocated through the presidential primary. That will not necessarily jibe well with the Democratic delegate apportionment to Texas. The way things broke down in 2008 was that the at-large, statewide delegates were allocated based on the primary results and the congressional district delegates -- reapportioned across state senate districts -- were allocated through the caucus/convention mechanism. Roughly 65% of the delegates, then, were allocated based on the results of the primary with the remainder going the caucus route. That balance -- at-large to congressional district delegates -- will not necessarily comply with the changes to this law. That will potentially complicate the crafting of the Texas Democratic delegate selection plan in 2016.

...or it could lead to a lawsuit, that precedent (via Tashjian) seems to indicate would side with the state party over the state government law.

--
As subsection C indicates, both parties' party/superdelegates/automatic delegates are not subject to the allocation guidelines set forth in the new law.

Again, the substantive changes are relatively minute here, but there are some interesting possible implications when it comes time to implement and enforce this new law.

[Hat tip to Tony Roza at The Green Papers for bringing this legislation to my attention way back in March when it was introduced.]

Recent Posts:

Update: 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar (6/13/13)

DC Bill Would Move District's Presidential Primary to June

Under Fire Again, Will Iowa Caucuses Remain First?

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

Update: 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar (6/13/13)

As there have been a handful of changes to state election law and a number of state legislative sessions have adjourned for 2013 -- killing legislation that could have impacted the 2016 presidential primary dates -- 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.]

Changes:

• Florida has been moved to a March 1 primary date. Given the current state of the RNC rules -- no proportionality requirement; first Tuesday in March as the first unpenalized date -- and the changes to Florida's statute concerning the presidential primary in the Sunshine state -- primary held on first date in which there is no penalty -- March 1 is the date. However, should the proportionality requirement be reinstated -- something that is likely in the offing at some point -- then Florida would shift back to the first Tuesday in April according to the statute. 
• Legislation in Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nevada and Texas that would have moved or established presidential primaries died. All have been reshaded on the map below.

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 (worst case scenario) 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 2015.

The best case scenario at this point looks something like this:

• Monday, January 25: Iowa caucuses
• Tuesday, February 2: New Hampshire primary
• Saturday, February 13: Nevada caucuses
• Saturday, February 20: South Carolina primary

This assumes that Arizona and Michigan are the next earliest contests on February 23. 

--

Here is a snapshot of what things look like now (6/13/13):

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. 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.

--

Reading the calendar:

1. 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.
2. Links to discussions of 2013 state-level legislation addressing the dates of future presidential primaries have also been added (see 2013 Legislation in the calendar).
3. Markers have also been added indicating whether legislation has become law or has died at some point in the legislative process. 

2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

February

Tuesday, February 2:

Colorado caucuses¹

Minnesota caucuses²

Missouri (2013 Legislation: March primary: House/Senate, April primary -- all Died in Committee)

Utah³ (2013 Legislation: Primary funding -- Signed into Law)

Tuesday, February 23:

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

Michigan

March

Tuesday, March 1:

Colorado caucuses¹ 

Florida⁴ (2013 Legislation: March primary -- Died in Committee; Primary on first unpenalized date -- Signed into Law)
Massachusetts (2013 legislation: June primary)

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Texas (2013 Legislation: Saturday primary, February primary -- all Died in Committee)

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 (2013 Legislation: June primary)

Wisconsin⁵

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 (2013 Legislation: May primary -- Died in Committee)

New Jersey

New Mexico

South Dakota

Primary states with no specified date:

Georgia

Kansas⁶

Maine (2013 Legislation: establish primary -- Died in Committee)
Nevada⁷ (2013 Legislation: January primary -- Died in Committee)
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 June 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 The newly signed presidential primary law would move the Florida primary to the first Tuesday in which the national parties do not penalize states. 

⁵ See definition of "Spring primary" for clause dealing with the timing of the presidential primary.
⁶ 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.
⁷ A Republican-sponsored bill during the 2013 session of the Nevada legislature would create a consolidated primary (presidential primary together with state primaries) and move the contest from June to January.

Recent Posts:

DC Bill Would Move District's Presidential Primary to June

Under Fire Again, Will Iowa Caucuses Remain First?

February Presidential Primary Outlasts Another Missouri Legislative Session

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

DC Bill Would Move District's Presidential Primary to June

A bill introduced in early May in the Council of the District of Columbia would shift back the date of the presidential primary in the nation's capital. B20-0265 proposes moving the primary from the first Tuesday in April to the second Tuesday after the first Monday in June.

This potential move in interesting in a couple of respects.

1. The introduced 2011 legislation that ultimately moved the Washington, DC primary from the second Tuesday in February, where it coincided with primaries in neighboring Maryland and Virginia -- the Potomac Primary -- in 2008, called for shifting the primary back to June. That bill started off in the same form before being amended in committee and passed/signed, moving the DC primary to April. 
2. This push back to June is not motivated by a need to consolidate the presidential primaries with those for other District-wide offices. The same 2011 legislation accomplished that as well. This was the same sort of cost-saving measure that was taken in other states across the country in 2011 including in Alabama, California and New Jersey.

It is unclear, then, what the motivation for the move is. One could speculate that the intent is to shorten the general election campaigns for local officials by two months. If this rescheduling takes place, it would position DC at the very last point on the calendar -- the second Tuesday in June¹ -- that both national parties allow.

--
UPDATE (12/17/14): Bill passes DC Council
UPDATE (2/6/15): Bill signed, cleared for congressional review


--
¹ Of course, in years in which June 1 is on a Tuesday, the second Tuesday after the first Monday in June would actually be the third Tuesday in June. Noncompliant under the parties' current rules.

Recent Posts:

Under Fire Again, Will Iowa Caucuses Remain First?

February Presidential Primary Outlasts Another Missouri Legislative Session

Maine Presidential Primary Bill Gets 'Ought not pass' from Committee

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

Under Fire Again, Will Iowa Caucuses Remain First?

That's the question that Scott Conroy poses and explores in a deep dive over at Real Clear Politics:

The main criticisms of the caucuses have remained essentially the same over the last 37 years: the process is undemocratic (the majority of voters do not participate in it); it is inequitable for otherwise strong candidates who do not benefit from the parochial advantages inherent in Iowa’s electorate; and the rules and procedures surrounding the contest are arcane to just about anyone who’s not directly involved in the cottage industry that springs up every four years in a state where a would-be commander in chief who draws 20 people to the local Pizza Ranch is deemed to have staged a successful event. 

 ...

With a contested presidential campaign cycle looming for both parties in 2016, the preeminence of Iowa is facing a series of new challenges, however -- particularly on the Republican side. 

And while there may well be changes to some aspects of the process this time around, the caucuses appear all but certain to again kick off a presidential campaign..."

This is a fantastic read, but backloads the best reason for why Iowa will retain its first in the nation status in 2016: the national party delegate selection rules. It really is that simple.

Collectively, the rules now further entrench Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- the carve-out states -- at the beginning of the queue. Mind you, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee has yet to take up the issue of the rules that will govern the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination process. However, the fact that the RBC did not commission a group -- as it usually does every four years -- to reexamine prior rules and recommend changes is telling. In other words, don't expect much of a change from the 2012 Democratic delegate selection rules. There may be some alterations, but those changes will not include any significant tweaking to rules that specifically define earlier positions for the four aforementioned states.¹ The buffer each is given between its contest and the point at which the window opens for other non-exempt state contests (first Tuesday in March, presumably) may change, then, but little else.

Conroy mentions the changes to the Republican rules for 2016, but seemingly overstates the extent to which future changes between now and next summer may affect Iowa (or the other three carve-out states) in the next round of presidential nominations. As of now, the four carve-out states under the new RNC rules have a window of time a full month ahead of the next earliest delegate selection event to schedule their nominating contests. Since Missouri failed to move its presidential primary to a later date during the recently adjourned 2013 state legislative session, the Show Me state's February 2, 2016 primary is the next earliest contest. That gives the carve-out states -- including Iowa -- even more scheduling power than the 2012 rules. The previous iteration carved out February for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina without accounting for the potential for non-carve-out states to push into that window of time.

Now, Conroy does bring up the new binding mechanism that will now affect all states with no further loopholes for caucuses (like Iowa has exploited during the last two cycles) and the possibility of additional rules changes before the rules have to be finalized in the summer of 2014.² That is an important point. The binding rule will add a new layer to the Iowa process, but even if Hawkeye state Republicans do not comply, the RNC has provided itself with some cover at the convention with the new Rule 16.A.1 to record delegate votes in a way that reflects the results at the statewide level (in Iowa's case, the precinct caucuses).

As for future changes, well, removing Iowa or any of the other carve-outs from their respective perches will be very difficult task. Look no further than the deliberations over the rules at the RNC spring meeting in April. Any change has to pass with a 50% vote in the Rules Committee and 75% vote among the full RNC membership to be instituted. That is a high bar. And when there is no near consensus behind an idea like stripping the carve-out states of their positions, it becomes even higher. Yes, the Growth and Opportunity Project report seemingly threatened caucuses, but that is something much easier recommended than actually placed in the rules and implemented.

That would very likely take some help (Read: similar action) from the DNC to work. And while the discussion around the 2012 Democratic delegate selection rules did include a round where some best practices for caucuses were discussed, requiring primaries as a means of allocating delegates was never discussed.

The current and future 2016 rules will very (VERY) likely continue to protect Iowa and the other three carve-out states, and that is why they aren't going anywhere.

...regardless of (the shrinking likelihood) of a threat from a rogue state(s). The other stuff is just fodder.

--
¹ Here's is that specific passage from Rule 11.A:

Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 29 days before the first Tuesday in March; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 21 days before the first Tuesday in March; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in March; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in March.

² Of course, it should be noted that the RNC did not newly codify that new binding rule at its spring meeting in Los Angeles. The RNC reaffirmed that rule then. It was originally passed at the national convention in Tampa. There was an amendment to change Rule 16.A.1, but it did not pass the Rules Committee.

Recent Posts:

February Presidential Primary Outlasts Another Missouri Legislative Session

Maine Presidential Primary Bill Gets 'Ought not pass' from Committee

Governor Branstad is Rightish: 2016 Iowa Presidential Primary

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

February Presidential Primary Outlasts Another Missouri Legislative Session

Yesterday brought a close to the first session of the 97th Missouri General Assembly. And with it came the most recent nail in the coffin that is the effort to bring the presidential primary in the Show Me state back into compliance with national party delegate selection rules.

For those who have been following along here in this space for the last few years, recall that this has been an ongoing and surprisingly cumbersome issue for state legislature since the 2011 session. The reason for the difficulty is not partisan. Republicans have overwhelming majorities in both chambers of the general assembly. Rather, what was problematic -- and still is -- was inter-chamber disagreement between the state House and Senate.¹ The state House has continually pushed bills to shift the presidential primary from the current first Tuesday after the first Monday in February back a month to March. Now, to be fair, similar plans have been raised in the state Senate. After all, it was a Senate bill moving the primary to March that made it to Governor Jay Nixon's (D) desk in 2011. However, the state Senate has been the setting where these measures -- regardless of chamber of origin -- have found the most resistance on the floor. That resistance has taken several forms from procedural delays to seemingly poison pill amendments.

During this first session of the 97th, the tactic of choice -- or if not overt tactic, then direction pursued -- in the Senate was to simply amend the House committee substitute, removing several amendments added in committee and agreed to on the floor of the House. One of those amendments struck from the bill (HB 110) that passed the House would have shifted the Missouri presidential primary back a month to March.² That bill was taken up on the Senate floor yesterday, passed in its Senate committee substitute form and sent back to the House. The House, then, in the clamor to bring the session to a close concurred with the Senate changes rather than drag the bill deliberations out further.³

That closes the 2013 chapter on the February Missouri presidential primary. What implications does the non-move have?

Well, for starters, despite the fact that the primary would be noncompliant with national party rules if conducted in February 2016, it is not the potential calendar killer that Florida would have been. That is because Missouri Democrats and Republicans would probably have an out. Missouri Republicans proved that they can hold caucuses as an alternative (as the state party did in 2012 to avoid national party sanction). Missouri Democrats successfully applied for a waiver from the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to hold the February primary as the means of selecting delegates. But that was 2012, not 2016. The nomination race on the Democratic side in 2012 was not competitive and Florida's primary a week earlier provided Missouri with some cover. Missouri was not the main cause of the carve-out states pushing in January. Neither will be the case in 2016 and that would likely net Missouri Democrats some pressure from the national party to find alternative means of selecting but more importantly allocating delegates (i.e.: caucuses). Translation: Show Me state Democrats would find much more resistance to a waiver application in 2015 than they did in 2011.

There were two other bills that were introduced this past session that would specifically and solely have moved the presidential primary back into compliance. Those bills are now dead, though, and cannot carry over to the second session. That means the process will have to begin again with the introduction of new bills. And that is not unprecedented, but it is rare. As FHQ has mentioned a number of times, the majority of presidential primary movement tends to occur in the year immediately preceding a presidential primary year. One even year success story -- success in a primary move bill being proposed, passed and signed into law -- actually comes from Missouri. The Show Me state presidential primary was first moved to February in 2002.

Will something similar happen in 2014? We'll have to wait and see. Regardless, the process will likely be interesting to say the least.

--
¹ This division was illustrated yesterday most clearly by Senator Brad Lager who during a sine die day filibuster claimed that the "leadership in the House is corrupt". Bear in mind, Lager was no stranger to the theatrics surrounding the primary date in 2011. He was the one who introduced the amendment that would have placed the Missouri primary on the Tuesday after the New Hampshire primary.

² That would have placed Missouri on March 8, 2016; a date shared by Alabama, Hawaii, Mississippi and Ohio on the current calendar.

³ In truth, the presidential primary amendment was not related to the original intent of the bill: to revise the method in which a vacancy to the lieutenant governor's position. A similar marriage of ideas was what led to Governor Nixon vetoing the bill in 2011. The governor did not disagree with the primary moving but with the governor's office losing appointment powers to statewide offices.

Recent Posts:

Maine Presidential Primary Bill Gets 'Ought not pass' from Committee

Governor Branstad is Rightish: 2016 Iowa Presidential Primary

Rubio says super PACs helped drive his push for moving Florida primary

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

Maine Presidential Primary Bill Gets 'Ought not pass' from Committee

The Maine bill to reestablish a presidential primary in the Pine Tree state got a vote of no confidence from the Joint Committee on Legal and Veterans Affairs on Monday.

The committee today after hearing testimony from interested and potentially affected parties last week briefly discussed the measure (LD 1422) among themselves in a working session. As it turns out, it was not the presidential primary provision that derailed the legislation. Instead, the committee was given pause by the constitutionality of a provision in the bill calling for instant runoff voting in primaries (not presidential); something that had already been dismissed in separate legislation this session.

The committee was reminded that the previous legislature had taken up similar measures dealing with the possibility of a presidential primary last session only to have that subsequently studied and rejected. On the current committee there was some support voiced for having a discussion about a presidential primary -- especially a discussion outside of the context of a presidential election year (the context of the 2012 study) -- but there was widespread agreement among the membership that this "was not the vehicle (the bill) for it".

The committee then unanimously agreed to deem the bill "ought not pass", endangering the prospects for a Maine presidential primary for the time being. To reiterate a point made here several times since the beginning of 2013, the years immediately following a presidential election are not successful times for presidential primary legislation to make its way through state legislatures. Bills are introduced and debated in those years, but not often passed. Maine is seemingly set to follow that pattern.

Recent Posts:

Governor Branstad is Rightish: 2016 Iowa Presidential Primary

Rubio says super PACs helped drive his push for moving Florida primary

A Follow Up on the 2016 Florida Presidential Primary

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

Governor Branstad is Rightish: 2016 Iowa Presidential Primary

Come for the talk about candidates coming to the Hawkeye state, but stay for the nugget deeply nestled in Mike O'Brien's First Read piece on the possibility of an Iowa primary in 2016:

The governor also dismissed any suggestion that Iowa might move away from its traditional caucus system in light of a Republican National Committee report earlier this year discouraging caucuses and conventions as nominating processes. Those formats, rather than a traditional balloted primary, sometimes gives impassioned activists more of an ability to sway the outcome.  

"I don't think that we could go to a primary without being in a conflict situation with New Hampshire," Branstad said. "And we've always had a wonderful understanding and agreement with New Hampshire that we would have the first caucus, and they would have the first primary. I think that system has worked well, and I'd like to see us keep it."

"Understanding and agreement" aside, Branstad is correct in pointing out the potential conflict that an Iowa shift from caucuses to a primary would have with the the law on the books in the Granite state:

Presidential Primary Election. The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a date selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, or holds a caucus or in the interpretation of the secretary of state holds any contest at which delegates are chosen for the national conventions, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous. Said primary shall be held in connection with the regular March town meeting or election or, if held on any other day, at a special election called by the secretary of state for that purpose. Any caucus of a state first held before 1975 shall not be affected by this provision.

There are a couple of noteworthy items here.
1) As it stands now, Iowa adopting a primary as the mode of delegate selection would seemingly violate the New Hampshire law. A primary would a) not be a caucus and b) could be deemed by New Hampshire Secretary (of state) Gardner a "contest at which delegates are chosen for the national convention". Though, it should be noted that that interpretation provides the secretary wide latitude. Technically delegates are not chosen for the national convention in a primary unless either a) the delegates are on the primary ballot and elected directly on the day of the primary or b) there is a simultaneous caucus/state convention occurring alongside the primary.

In the typical scenario, the primary would only bind delegates (to be chosen later through a caucus/convention system) to particular candidates. Secretary Gardner could then justify allowing an Iowa primary before New Hampshire. However, that would run the risk of applying a different rationale to Iowa than any other similar primary state. Why Iowa, then, and not some other primary state? Of course, the national parties will or would have already singled Iowa out relative to other primary states. The rules of both parties -- as one can best envision them at this point in 2013 -- exempt Iowa but not other states. That is significant. The national party rules, then, make Iowa dissimilar to other states, but would an Iowa primary be too similar to New Hampshire under the law there. There is probably enough wiggle room in the current law to allow it if, you know, Iowa actually decided to adopt a primary as a means of allocating national convention delegates.

Ideally, that last line in the law -- first added to the New Hampshire presidential primary law before 2012 -- would or could be altered to directly identify Iowa or by accounting for the national party exemption.

2) Another interesting twist -- question, really -- is what the new Republican rules do to the Iowa-New Hampshire relationship. Recall that the RNC members at the 2013 spring meeting in Los Angeles reaffirmed the new rule handed down from the Tampa convention that statewide contests be binding. In other words, if statewide precinct-level contests are binding, then potentially an Iowa caucus or primary violates the "or in the interpretation of the secretary of state holds any contest at which delegates are chosen for the national conventions" portion of the law. Granted, that is an or provision and not an and provision. Iowa would only have to meet one of those requirements to comply with the New Hampshire law (or perhaps more appropriately to not trigger the New Hampshire-side reaction -- earlier primary -- in law).

But let's assume (just for fun) that Iowa -- caucus or primary -- had to meet that specific part of the law. Would the Hawkeye state with a binding Republican contest run afoul of Secretary Gardner in New Hampshire? No, again, the language is important: delegates chosen. Unless either of the primary exceptions above are built in, then Iowa would be fine. Keep in mind that the Iowa Democratic caucuses have been binding according to the DNC delegate selection rules for quite a number of cycles now. And that has never served as a point of contention in New Hampshire.

Neither would a binding Republican contest; primary or caucus.

--
There were some issues with the 2012 Iowa Republican caucuses, but those were never problems that were not solvable by a means other than switching to a primary as the mode of delegate allocation. FHQ would be surprised if a switch is made and even if it was, it would not necessarily conflict with the law.

That said, if you're New Hampshire, it is awfully difficult to the hold the nation's first primary second. That's where Branstad's reference to understanding and agreement is key.

Recent Posts:

Rubio says super PACs helped drive his push for moving Florida primary

A Follow Up on the 2016 Florida Presidential Primary

2016 Florida Presidential Primary: Out of January, But Confined to March?

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

Rubio says super PACs helped drive his push for moving Florida primary

So sayeth the headline from the Tampa Bay Times.

Here's what Rubio had to say:

"All I did was let them know what the party wants," Rubio told the Buzz. "They are pretty clear they are going to continue to penalize states," that move up their primary, resulting in fewer delegates and distant hotels for the nominating convention.  

"When we changed the primary when I was in the House, it made sense because at that time these elections were still being decided in three or four early states. In the advent of super PACs, where someone will give you $1 million and you can survive for months at a time, it's changed. If these races are going to go on until April or June, then it behooves Florida to have its full comple­ment of delegates."

The bit about the penalties is consistent with what Rubio's state director in Florida has already said. And honestly, that should probably have been the extent of the senator's comments. However, he raised the specter of super PACs as well. Look, did super PACs play a role in the 2012 Republican nomination race? Sure. Were Foster Friess and Sheldon Adelson the reason that the race went "until April or June"? No. No, they weren't.

The main reason for the length of the primary campaign in 2012 was a spread out calendar. The combination of Florida repositioning itself at the end of January, thus pushing up the majority of carve-out states, and a number of other states moving contests into April, May and June was what drove the calendar dynamics. And those state-level actions were a direct response to -- We're going to go full circle here. -- the national party rules and especially the penalties. The spread out calendar meant that it was going to take -- even in a marginally competitive nomination race -- until late March before anyone could reach the requisite number of delegates to wrap up the nomination. As it stood, it was all but impossible for Santorum, much less Gingrich, to catch Mitt Romney in the delegate count. That is a fact that became clearer between Super Tuesday and when Santorum suspended his campaign in early April.

That was 2012.

2016 may be a bit different in terms of the calendar. If there are no Florida-type moves, a la 2008 and 2012, from other states, then the primary calendar may kick off in late January and feature a February full of contests in the lead up to what would presumably be Super Tuesday on the first Tuesday in March (March 1). Depending on where Florida ends up -- It could be as late as April based on the likely-to-be-signed elections bill. -- the point at which 50% of the delegates plus one have been allocated (the earliest point at which a candidate could win the nomination) will likely not happen until April anyway.

...without even considering super PACs.

Recent Posts:

A Follow Up on the 2016 Florida Presidential Primary

2016 Florida Presidential Primary: Out of January, But Confined to March?

Maine Bill Would (Re-)Establish Presidential Primary, Bind to New Hampshire Under Certain Conditions

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

A Follow Up on the 2016 Florida Presidential Primary

If you haven't read FHQ's take on the implications on the Florida presidential primary of the broad elections reform bill passed on the final day of the legislature was in session last week, start here.

There are a couple of additional points FHQ wants to add to the original discussion of the destination for the 2016 Florida presidential primary.

A) I tweeted this on Sunday, but it does bear repeating in this space. It really is striking the the 180º turn that political actors in Florida have made over the last six years regarding the Sunshine state presidential primary. We have gone from an initial bipartisan adoption of legislation endorsing the idea that Florida has just as much right to be early as Iowa and New Hampshire in 2008 to a partisan Republican stance (among state legislative leaders and state party elites) that Florida deserves to be early and no later than the fifth state to hold a contest in 2012.

Contrast that with what was said about the backdrop for the last-minute amendment to the elections bill affecting the presidential primary. Rubio Florida state director, Todd Reid, reached out to FHQ over the weekend (...offering to share the language of the bill with me following my late-night tweet Friday).¹ Reid has become a point man of sorts for discussions of the presidential primary rider on the elections bill passed last week and was kind enough to exchange emails with me on the matter. Again, contrast 2008 and 2012 above to Reid's reasoning for a move:

1. The RNC superpenalty is too harsh.
2. The grassroots (especially the actual delegates to the convention in Tampa) were unhappy with and vocal about the hotel and convention floor seating assignments situation.
3. The grassroots was always hit or miss about the utility of the early primary. [Again, as FHQ stated above, it was a move pushed by state legislative and state party leaders; not the grassroots.]
4. The Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee "was a newly created entity and no one was really wedded to it." [The parameters guiding the PPPDSC left up to chance to some extent that the Florida could end up violating the superpenalty.]
5. There was some desire -- and this is the 180 -- to reduce uncertainty for rulesmakers and schedulers by having a decision on the date of the Florida primary before October 2015.

Embedded in the reasoning are two things: 1) the new penalty is having the desired effect (directly or not) and 2) Florida, contra 2008 and 2012, is signaling that it will play by the rules in 2016. Again, that is a striking reversal. And yes, that's the sort of thing that typically stokes the "He has to be running" chorus concerning Rubio in 2016. It is a move that is made with the most political of political moves serving as the backdrop.

B) FHQ made the point in the original post that there is some ambiguity to the new measure that could complicate its legal application in 2015-16. Then, I made the point that a discontinuity between national party rules could lead to the triggering of an earlier (February 23) primary under certain circumstances. [One could call this a discontinuity between the Florida law and RNC rules.] As FHQ stated at the time, all of that was dependent upon the maneuvering of the Republican Party of Florida. Drop the true winner-take-all allocation of delegates and that could open the door.

There are a couple of follow ups to this:

1. Delegate allocation decisions by the Republican Party of Florida could push the primary forward a week further, but it could also push the primary back into April as well. There is no proportionality requirement in the RNC rules at the moment. But if that may/shall discrepancy is "fixed" then the RPOF could make the argument that the first Tuesday that the rules of the major political parties provide for state delegations to be allocated without penalty is the first Tuesday after April 1. But that brings us back to the original point... 
2. On the clarity side, there would still be a potential argument with Democrats in Florida over the "true" date called for in the new statute. RPOF could make the case that the primary should be in April, but Democrats in Florida may desire a March primary instead. Call this the either/both issue proposed in the first post. Without the sort of guidance that the inclusion of either or both would entail in the statute, it is difficult to arbitrate the decision on when the primary should be held. And it goes without saying that the statute as currently constructed does not provide for an arbiter on the decision of when the date of the primary should be. 

• Court could be one route, but depending on when this potential dispute arises, it could push up against when the primary season is to start (or more importantly when the filing deadlines hit for the candidates). 
• It is also true that some states have proposed laws requiring prior agreement among state parties to a primary date. Otherwise, the secretary of state decides or a fixed date is invoked. This is the law regarding the scheduling of the Minnesota caucuses that was problematic in 2011. The new bill in Maine mimics this set up with reference to a proposed primary in the Pine Tree state. On the other end, the recently proposed Nevada legislation would give the secretary of state in the Silver state the date selection decision, not if the parties were in disagreement, but if another western state jumped ahead of the date for the primary called for in the statute (if the bill became law). 

As FHQ alluded to in response to the proposed change in Florida, the intent of the legislation is of real benefit to the national parties and carve-out states. However, the flexibility added to the statute may actually serve as ambiguity; shifting problems between the state and the national parties to a potential showdown between the two state parties.

...with no one to solve them.

As well-intentioned as the change is, the legislature will likely need to revisit this at some point. That is why it was good this was added now, rather than in, say, 2015 when it may have been more difficult to fix.

Stay tuned...

--
¹ I want to point out the fact that I did not press (much less ask) Reid on the Rubio/2016/Florida primary shift point. FHQ will leave that to others to explore. The one thing I will add is that such maneuvering -- if there was a connection -- is not unprecedented in home states or elsewhere.

Jimmy Carter's nascent campaign in the lead up to 1976 was involved in arguing (in Florida) that the Florida presidential primary should remain early (then in March). During the invisible primary of the 1980 cycle, President Carter's team again was instrumental in urging both Georgia and Alabama to join forces with Florida at an early point on the calendar. The Ted Kennedy threat was apparent in the move as the southern subregional primary was seen as potential counter to any advantage Kennedy might gain in the two states after Iowa that year: New Hampshire and Kennedy's home state of Massachusetts. [As it turned out, Carter won Iowa, New Hampshire and the three southern states and encountered more trouble from Kennedy later in the calendar when the nomination was mostly wrapped up.]

Bill Clinton's campaign -- or Clinton himself -- used the Arkansas governor's connections from his time as head of the National Governors Association as an in with Georgia governor, Zell Miller. Miller helped guide through the Georgia General Assembly a bill to shift up the date of the Peach state primary by a week in 1992 (to the first Tuesday in March). This move was intended to give Clinton a southern boost after New Hampshire. [NOTE: The bill was proposed, passed and signed into law before Clinton had announced his candidacy.]

More recently and less obviously, the 2008 cycle saw Arkansas and Illinois move to earlier and seemingly more advantageous dates on the presidential primary calendar (for favorite sons/daughters candidates). There were Arkansans seeking the nominations in both major parties (Huckabee signed the Arkansas move into law in 2005.) and among the stated reasons for the move of the Illinois primary in 2007 was to help then-Senator Obama in the Democratic primary race.

So again, it has happened before. Whether that is the case with Rubio and Florida for 2016 is an open question.

Recent Posts:

2016 Florida Presidential Primary: Out of January, But Confined to March?

Maine Bill Would (Re-)Establish Presidential Primary, Bind to New Hampshire Under Certain Conditions

2016 RNC Rules: A Loophole and Another Layer for Would-Be Rogue States to Consider

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