Two-time South Carolina Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Vincent Sheheen (D-27th, Kershaw), has prefiled a bill in the South Carolina state Senate that would seek to consolidate the Democratic and Republican presidential primaries.
The legislation, S 204, would put some modicum of pressure on the two state parties (or any other party that received 5% of the vote in South Carolina in the previous presidential election) to mutually set and submit to the South Carolina Election Commission a single date on which the presidential primary would be conducted. If there is no agreement between the parties, then the presidential primary would be held in June with the primaries for statewide and local offices. That provision seems like a poison pill, but the bill provides an out for the parties, allowing them to select another date, so long as the party funds the election.1 State parties typically choose the state-funded option where available. But state funding of presidential primaries came late to South Carolina. There is a history in the Palmetto state of party-run primaries and caucuses. It was not until the 2008 cycle that the South Carolina legislature authorized and appropriated state money for the presidential primary.
Finally, if only one party opts to conduct a presidential primary -- most common when only one party has an active and competitive nomination race -- then that party can set a date with the State Election Commission.
--
Now, FHQ does not know if this bill will go anywhere in the legislature. Our hunch is no, but this thing is multifaceted with a number of implications. The benefits are clear. This is a potential cost-saving mechanism for the state. Instead of funding and conducting two separate presidential primary elections, this measure would exert pressure on the parties to opt into the one state-funded option. Again, state parties tend to be averse to funding their own contests once a state-funded option exists.
Let's assume for a moment that S 204 passes. What influence does that have over the state parties' decisions for 2016 and beyond? Well for one thing, Democrats and Republicans in South Carolina have not held concurrent delegate selection events ever in the post-reform era (1972-present). This legislation would change that; creating the perception of a if not an outright loss of scheduling flexibility (from the state parties' perspectives). The national parties protect South Carolina's position among the so-called carve-out states, but this legislation could -- again, from the state parties' perspectives -- negatively affect their ability to remain first in the South. That is certainly true if the state parties cannot agree on the date of a presidential primary, pushing the state-funded option back to June. [It is quite difficult to be first in the South in June.]
The problem is that there is a built-in conflict that could make agreement between the state parties a difficult enterprise. South Carolina Democrats and South Carolina Republicans have different motivations and even different restrictions from the national parties. Though it is not any sort of codified requirement, South Carolina Republicans have grown accustomed to being the third contest on the presidential primary calendar. There are exceptions, but South Carolina Republicans have more often than not been contest the candidates head off to after New Hampshire (since 2000).2
That conflicts with the restrictions placed on the South Carolina Democrats by the DNC delegate selection rules. Those rules call on South Carolina to be the fourth contest on the primary calendar behind Iowa, New Hampshire and then Nevada. If South Carolina Republicans want to be third and South Carolina Democrats have to be fourth, that makes agreement on a primary date pretty tough. And keep in mind what a moving target all of this may be later this year as the calendar movement is winding down. There is uncertainty built into all of this. The silver lining from the South Carolina perspective -- again, assuming this bill becomes law -- is that the state parties have until January 1 of the presidential election year to make the date decision.3 Consider also that Nevada Democrats and Republicans may not have a consolidated caucuses date as they did in 2008. If parties in the Silver state choose different dates that complicates matters. It may help South Carolina. It may hurt. To help the South Carolina effort, Nevada Republicans would have to opt for a later caucuses date than their Democratic counterparts.
This bill may or may not get out committee, much less pass and be signed into law, but it would offer a potentially interesting dynamic to the positioning of the carve-out states in 2016.
--
1 With or without that provision, state parties would always have the self-funding option. That is consistent with most of the body of case law on the subject of parties controlling the nomination process. More often than not, if there is a conflict between what the state party wants and what the state law calls for, the courts tend to side with the parties.
2 Michigan in 2008 is a good example of an exception. South Carolina Republicans were more concerned with staying ahead of rogue Florida that year than worrying about where the Great Lakes state was positioned on the calendar.
3 That deadline seemingly places a great deal of confidence in the calendar positioning being an orderly process for 2016 and that by extension the early states do not get pushed into January. If the parties wait that long to set a date, that leaves the state very little time to prepare for a hypothetical January primary election.
Recent Posts:
California: Damned if you do, Damned of you don't [Move] in Presidential Primary Politics
2016 Texas Republican Delegate Allocation Rules: A New Caveat to Consider
Primary Movement Starts with the State Legislatures: 2015 State Legislative Session Calendar
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
California: Damned if you do, Damned of you don't [Move] in Presidential Primary Politics
Mark Barabak of the LA Times had a nice ring in the new year presidential election style piece last week, written from the outside looking in perspective in which Californians typically have to view the presidential nomination process. He nicely captured the dilemma that faces California decision makers when it comes to the question of moving the Golden state primary:
That move changed the thinking in other states. That move meant that all of those California delegates (in both parties processes) were not an anchor at the very end of the primary calendar, shifting the point at which a candidate could or would secure the nomination all the while. Before that shift by California, most states -- state governments, particularly folks in the state legislatures -- were like the national parties, always fighting the last battle. "What moves were made last time? How should we react this time? Should we react this time?" they would ask. Again, this is just like how the national parties view their quadrennial efforts at setting their delegate selection rules for the next cycle.
In 1996, that changed for states. California forced the change, forcing states to consider reacting within a cycle instead of based on the last cycle. The issue was exacerbated four years later when legislators in the Golden state moved the presidential primary there up to the first Tuesday in March, the earliest date allowed by the Democratic Party. In concert with the 1996 shift, the move ahead of the 2000 cycle pushed the presidential nomination process into the hyper-frontloaded era. That era -- 2000-2008 -- was characterized by a significant clustering of states at the point on the calendar that was earliest and compliant with national party rules. But much of it had to do with states trying to stay ahead of or even with California after it shifted that end game point of the nomination cycle to earlier and earlier points on the calendar.
But California was also a part of spreading delegate allocation out and delaying that end game in 2012 when it shifted its presidential primary back to June.1 That shifted all of those delegates back to the very end of the process again.
Will California stay there for 2016? Barabak makes a nice argument that the presidential nomination process is sufficiently nationalized to the point that Californians should be content to leave well enough alone. That said, FHQ is not so sure. California Republicans warned in 2012 that Democrats in the state legislature would move the primary forward again in 2016 when the Democratic Party had a competitive nomination race again. And if (the origin of) traffic to this site in recent weeks is any indication, FHQ would not be surprised to see a bill introduced in California to move the primary again.
--
1 It should be noted that California did move back to June for the 2008 cycle before it moved back up to February.
Recent Posts:
2016 Texas Republican Delegate Allocation Rules: A New Caveat to Consider
Primary Movement Starts with the State Legislatures: 2015 State Legislative Session Calendar
Close of Michigan Session Kills Presidential Primary Bill
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
"For years, California tried to boost its clout by pushing its primary earlier in the nominating process. That, in turn, prompted other states to advance their elections, resulting in Iowa kicking off the last two presidential campaigns with caucuses held just three days into the New Year."There is more to it, but this pinpoints the unique mathematical position California represents in the presidential nomination process. Lawmakers in the Golden state were not alone in the decades after the passage of the McGovern-Fraser reforms transformed the manner in which Americans nominate the candidates who will vie for the White House in the general election. Frontloading, after all, did not start with California. However, California did significantly alter the frontloading phenomenon when the state moved its presidential primary into late March (from June) for the 1996 cycle.
That move changed the thinking in other states. That move meant that all of those California delegates (in both parties processes) were not an anchor at the very end of the primary calendar, shifting the point at which a candidate could or would secure the nomination all the while. Before that shift by California, most states -- state governments, particularly folks in the state legislatures -- were like the national parties, always fighting the last battle. "What moves were made last time? How should we react this time? Should we react this time?" they would ask. Again, this is just like how the national parties view their quadrennial efforts at setting their delegate selection rules for the next cycle.
In 1996, that changed for states. California forced the change, forcing states to consider reacting within a cycle instead of based on the last cycle. The issue was exacerbated four years later when legislators in the Golden state moved the presidential primary there up to the first Tuesday in March, the earliest date allowed by the Democratic Party. In concert with the 1996 shift, the move ahead of the 2000 cycle pushed the presidential nomination process into the hyper-frontloaded era. That era -- 2000-2008 -- was characterized by a significant clustering of states at the point on the calendar that was earliest and compliant with national party rules. But much of it had to do with states trying to stay ahead of or even with California after it shifted that end game point of the nomination cycle to earlier and earlier points on the calendar.
But California was also a part of spreading delegate allocation out and delaying that end game in 2012 when it shifted its presidential primary back to June.1 That shifted all of those delegates back to the very end of the process again.
Will California stay there for 2016? Barabak makes a nice argument that the presidential nomination process is sufficiently nationalized to the point that Californians should be content to leave well enough alone. That said, FHQ is not so sure. California Republicans warned in 2012 that Democrats in the state legislature would move the primary forward again in 2016 when the Democratic Party had a competitive nomination race again. And if (the origin of) traffic to this site in recent weeks is any indication, FHQ would not be surprised to see a bill introduced in California to move the primary again.
--
1 It should be noted that California did move back to June for the 2008 cycle before it moved back up to February.
Recent Posts:
2016 Texas Republican Delegate Allocation Rules: A New Caveat to Consider
Primary Movement Starts with the State Legislatures: 2015 State Legislative Session Calendar
Close of Michigan Session Kills Presidential Primary Bill
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Monday, January 5, 2015
2016 Texas Republican Delegate Allocation Rules: A New Caveat to Consider
THE FULL FINAL DELEGATE ALLOCATION RULES FOR TEXAS CAN BE FOUND HERE.
Last week FHQ looked closer at some of the factors surrounding the proposed SEC primary. That process left off talking about one of the two large southern states scheduled on March 1 but not officially party of the SEC primary effort, Florida. Now let's tackle the other, Texas.
The Texas presidential primary is also slated to be held on March 1, but that position, though it is the earliest the Lone Star state primary will have been contested, is less important than how delegates to the national conventions will be allocated. Texas Democrats have their Texas two-step, and now the Republican Party of Texas has made some interesting changes to their method for allocating delegates in 2016.
--
Perhaps Ted Cruz winning the 2016 presidential straw poll and the debate over various planks of the party platform were bigger stories coming out of the Republican Party of Texas state convention back in June of last year. There was then, however, at least some forewarning to Texas convention delegates from Republican Party of Texas chair, Steve Munisteri, about the importance of the state convention to the 2016 national convention delegate selection process the state party will undertake in a little more than a year.
How important this state convention was or will be to delegate selection in 2016 remains to be seen. There were, however, changes made to the way that the Republican Party in Texas will allocate delegates to the national convention in 2016. And there is some story in that. Let's have a look at (a timeline of) the changes. [In all cases, focus on the provisions in Rule 38.]
Prior to the 2014 state convention last June, Texas Republicans had already altered the delegate allocation/selection rules as they existed for 2012. Actually, as the Republican Party of Texas was finishing up its delegate selection for 2012 -- at its 2012 state convention -- delegates were also amending the allocation process for 2016. Gone was the proportional system of allocation (see Rule 38, Section 10).1 In its place following the adjournment of the June 2012 state convention was a plan that was a variation on the delegate selection plan utilized by Georgia Republicans in 2012.
That was the initial Texas Republican delegate selection plan for 2016. In short, if a candidate were to receive a majority of the statewide or congressional district vote, said candidate would receive all of the statewide (at-large) or congressional district delegates (from each congressional district won). Otherwise, to be eligible to receive delegates in proportional to votes won, a candidate would have to clear the 20% threshold in the statewide and/or congressional district vote.2 On the congressional district level, that would mean the top votegetter would be allocated two of three congressional district delegates and the runner-up would receive the remaining one delegate.
The intent of such a plan is to allow for a majority winner to take a disproportionate share of delegates at either the statewide or congressional district level, but also layer in some element of proportionality in both units should that majority threshold not be crossed. This a kind of unit-based proportionality; not based solely on the statewide outcome. The obvious issue is that it can be difficult to proportionally allocate just three congressional district delegates.
That allocation method carried over into the revised Republican Party of Texas rules (amended by the State Republican Executive Committee in December 2013), and the bulk of that allocation plan again got the green light from 2014 state convention delegates this past weekend.
The headlining change -- differing from the plan adopted at the state convention in 2012 -- was that Texas Republicans added a concurrent caucus process to the existing primary election. In truth, those caucuses have always been a part of the Republican delegate selection process in Texas. Yet, up until 2016 they will not have been a part of the delegate allocation process. Delegates in attendance at the 2014 state convention voted to allow one quarter of the total number of delegates apportioned to Texas by the Republican National Committee -- minus the automatic delegates3 -- to be allocated based on the results of the caucus/convention process. The (draft language of the) rule (approved by the state convention) actually calls on delegates at the presidential year state convention to "caucus by secret ballot and select a presidential candidate by majority vote to receive the entitlement of a number of at-large delegates".
In other words, the full allotment of one-quarter of the delegates (39 delegates out of 155 in 2012, for example) would go to one presidential candidate. Given the timing of the Texas state conventions of both parties -- typically early June -- this will likely mean little more than the presumptive nominee receiving a cache of Texas at-large delegates.
Much of the reporting on this change has been about how the addition of the caucuses to the Republican delegate process mimics the Texas Two-Step that Texas Democrats have traditionally used (with (in)famously contradictory results in 2008). It does to an extent. For starters, Texas law now allows the parties to allocate up to 25% of their delegates to the national convention based on something other than the primary. The Republican change is more a function of revising a delegate selection plan to conform to the leeway provided Texas Republicans by Texas state law and the RNC delegate selection rules than it is about using the Democratic method.
--
Functionally, though, this is an interesting change for Texas Republicans. It has something for everyone. Let's look at the new rules through the lens of the results to the 2008 Texas Republican presidential primary.4 Texas had 140 delegates in 2008 (41 at-large/statewide, 96 congressional district and 3 automatic). Using the 2008 results and the 2016 rules, this much is clear: Only John McCain and Mike Huckabee cleared the 20% threshold statewide to receive any delegates. McCain eclipsed 50% though and would have been allocated 6 at-large/statewide delegates. The remaining 35 -- again, using the 2016 rules -- would have been allocated en masse by the state convention later in the season. The congressional district delegates would have been allocated the same way because the rules regarding them are the same in 2016 as they were in 2008. If the winner receives a majority of the vote in the district, that candidate wins all three district delegates. However, if no candidate wins a majority, the top votegetter receives two delegates while the second place finisher in the district is awarded the remaining one delegate. [McCain won that district count 79-17 over Huckabee in 2008.]
But here's the thing: What about those 35 at-large/statewide delegates to be allocated to one candidate at the state convention? That's the new layer to the 2016 rules Texas Republicans will use. That's where everyone seemingly gets something out of this change (though in the end only one candidate will receive any delegates). As FHQ mentioned above, the way this is likely to work is that by the time of the Texas Republican state convention is held in June 2016, the Republican nominee will in all likelihood have been identified and the party will have transitioned into preparing for the national convention. That would leave a Texas Republican little choice but to vote for that candidate; the presumptive nominee. This is something that the establishment of the Republican National Committee if not the establishment wing of the Republican Party of Texas would like.
This was a move that had a significant level of support from the non-establishment part of the Texas Republican delegates at the 2014 state convention. Why? Why would they support something that establishment within the party was fine with? Well, let's assume for the sake of the argument that Ted Cruz wins the March 1, 2016 Texas primary. Let's also assume that a more establishment-oriented candidate does well enough in the rest of the country, but not well enough to have clinched the nomination before the Texas state convention. Suddenly that 35 delegates -- or however many it is in 2016 -- becomes somewhat important depending on the overall delegate count. [This would be a nightmare scenario for the RNC, especially with an early/earlier national convention in the works.]
This is not likely as the basic assumptions of the above exercise run counter to what has been witnessed in terms of how nominations have been secured in the post-reform era. However, that chance is probably enough for some within the Republican Party of Texas. And it is enough to to get FHQ to look at it. The better question may be to ask whether such a plan is compliant with the new RNC rules regarding the binding of delegates based on the first statewide vote in the state. That would be the primary in this new Texas plan. The answer is that it is likely fine until it isn't, meaning that it is only a problem in that divided nightmare scenario. If those remaining convention-allocated delegates go to the presumptive nominee anyway, then, no harm, no foul.
Come primary season next year, this will be an interesting asterisk to consider.
--
1 Even that proportional allocation went through some changes in the lead up to the 2012 Texas Republican primary. The Rule 38 amended in October 2011 called for a rather convoluted method of delegate selection with a simpler allocation and binding mechanism. Candidates under those October 2011 changes were eligible for delegates if they received over 20% of the statewide or congressional district vote. However, that 20% threshold seemed to have been removed following the February 2012 changes to the rules. The "entitlements" (allocation) rules detailed in Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 38 were struck and replaced by a new provision in Section 10, giving the state party chairman the power to "…in a manner directly proportional to the statewide presidential vote, as well as the presidential vote by congressional district, if possible, assign each delegate to represent a presidential candidate (or uncommitted)…". That late change may have meant something for the Texas delegate totals at the margins, but had no real impact on the 2012 Republican nomination race. With such a late contest -- May 29 -- Romney's haul from the Lone Star state would have pushed the former Massachusetts governor over the 1144 delegate threshold to clinch the nomination regardless.
2 There are other caveats to this as well. If only one candidate clears the 20% threshold on the congressional district level, that candidate would be entitled to all three congressional district delegates. The same sort of the provision is not in place on the statewide level for at-large delegates. There is no rule specified for such a scenario. Additionally, if no candidate wins more than 20% of the vote at the statewide level, then the at-large delegates are allocated to candidates in proportion to their statewide votes. If no candidate wins more than 20% in any given congressional district, then the top three votegetters receive one delegate each.
3 The automatic (state party) delegates are the state chairman, national committeeman and national committeewoman.
4 Recall that the 2012 Texas primary was on May 29. While that was the contest that put Mitt Romney over the threshold of delegates necessary to clinch the Republican nomination, most of the other candidates had withdrawn much earlier. It was not, then, much of a contest; not for the purposes of this exercise anyway.
Recent Posts:
Primary Movement Starts with the State Legislatures: 2015 State Legislative Session Calendar
Close of Michigan Session Kills Presidential Primary Bill
Why is Florida on March 1 and Not March 15?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Last week FHQ looked closer at some of the factors surrounding the proposed SEC primary. That process left off talking about one of the two large southern states scheduled on March 1 but not officially party of the SEC primary effort, Florida. Now let's tackle the other, Texas.
The Texas presidential primary is also slated to be held on March 1, but that position, though it is the earliest the Lone Star state primary will have been contested, is less important than how delegates to the national conventions will be allocated. Texas Democrats have their Texas two-step, and now the Republican Party of Texas has made some interesting changes to their method for allocating delegates in 2016.
--
Perhaps Ted Cruz winning the 2016 presidential straw poll and the debate over various planks of the party platform were bigger stories coming out of the Republican Party of Texas state convention back in June of last year. There was then, however, at least some forewarning to Texas convention delegates from Republican Party of Texas chair, Steve Munisteri, about the importance of the state convention to the 2016 national convention delegate selection process the state party will undertake in a little more than a year.
How important this state convention was or will be to delegate selection in 2016 remains to be seen. There were, however, changes made to the way that the Republican Party in Texas will allocate delegates to the national convention in 2016. And there is some story in that. Let's have a look at (a timeline of) the changes. [In all cases, focus on the provisions in Rule 38.]
Prior to the 2014 state convention last June, Texas Republicans had already altered the delegate allocation/selection rules as they existed for 2012. Actually, as the Republican Party of Texas was finishing up its delegate selection for 2012 -- at its 2012 state convention -- delegates were also amending the allocation process for 2016. Gone was the proportional system of allocation (see Rule 38, Section 10).1 In its place following the adjournment of the June 2012 state convention was a plan that was a variation on the delegate selection plan utilized by Georgia Republicans in 2012.
That was the initial Texas Republican delegate selection plan for 2016. In short, if a candidate were to receive a majority of the statewide or congressional district vote, said candidate would receive all of the statewide (at-large) or congressional district delegates (from each congressional district won). Otherwise, to be eligible to receive delegates in proportional to votes won, a candidate would have to clear the 20% threshold in the statewide and/or congressional district vote.2 On the congressional district level, that would mean the top votegetter would be allocated two of three congressional district delegates and the runner-up would receive the remaining one delegate.
The intent of such a plan is to allow for a majority winner to take a disproportionate share of delegates at either the statewide or congressional district level, but also layer in some element of proportionality in both units should that majority threshold not be crossed. This a kind of unit-based proportionality; not based solely on the statewide outcome. The obvious issue is that it can be difficult to proportionally allocate just three congressional district delegates.
That allocation method carried over into the revised Republican Party of Texas rules (amended by the State Republican Executive Committee in December 2013), and the bulk of that allocation plan again got the green light from 2014 state convention delegates this past weekend.
The headlining change -- differing from the plan adopted at the state convention in 2012 -- was that Texas Republicans added a concurrent caucus process to the existing primary election. In truth, those caucuses have always been a part of the Republican delegate selection process in Texas. Yet, up until 2016 they will not have been a part of the delegate allocation process. Delegates in attendance at the 2014 state convention voted to allow one quarter of the total number of delegates apportioned to Texas by the Republican National Committee -- minus the automatic delegates3 -- to be allocated based on the results of the caucus/convention process. The (draft language of the) rule (approved by the state convention) actually calls on delegates at the presidential year state convention to "caucus by secret ballot and select a presidential candidate by majority vote to receive the entitlement of a number of at-large delegates".
In other words, the full allotment of one-quarter of the delegates (39 delegates out of 155 in 2012, for example) would go to one presidential candidate. Given the timing of the Texas state conventions of both parties -- typically early June -- this will likely mean little more than the presumptive nominee receiving a cache of Texas at-large delegates.
Much of the reporting on this change has been about how the addition of the caucuses to the Republican delegate process mimics the Texas Two-Step that Texas Democrats have traditionally used (with (in)famously contradictory results in 2008). It does to an extent. For starters, Texas law now allows the parties to allocate up to 25% of their delegates to the national convention based on something other than the primary. The Republican change is more a function of revising a delegate selection plan to conform to the leeway provided Texas Republicans by Texas state law and the RNC delegate selection rules than it is about using the Democratic method.
--
Functionally, though, this is an interesting change for Texas Republicans. It has something for everyone. Let's look at the new rules through the lens of the results to the 2008 Texas Republican presidential primary.4 Texas had 140 delegates in 2008 (41 at-large/statewide, 96 congressional district and 3 automatic). Using the 2008 results and the 2016 rules, this much is clear: Only John McCain and Mike Huckabee cleared the 20% threshold statewide to receive any delegates. McCain eclipsed 50% though and would have been allocated 6 at-large/statewide delegates. The remaining 35 -- again, using the 2016 rules -- would have been allocated en masse by the state convention later in the season. The congressional district delegates would have been allocated the same way because the rules regarding them are the same in 2016 as they were in 2008. If the winner receives a majority of the vote in the district, that candidate wins all three district delegates. However, if no candidate wins a majority, the top votegetter receives two delegates while the second place finisher in the district is awarded the remaining one delegate. [McCain won that district count 79-17 over Huckabee in 2008.]
But here's the thing: What about those 35 at-large/statewide delegates to be allocated to one candidate at the state convention? That's the new layer to the 2016 rules Texas Republicans will use. That's where everyone seemingly gets something out of this change (though in the end only one candidate will receive any delegates). As FHQ mentioned above, the way this is likely to work is that by the time of the Texas Republican state convention is held in June 2016, the Republican nominee will in all likelihood have been identified and the party will have transitioned into preparing for the national convention. That would leave a Texas Republican little choice but to vote for that candidate; the presumptive nominee. This is something that the establishment of the Republican National Committee if not the establishment wing of the Republican Party of Texas would like.
This was a move that had a significant level of support from the non-establishment part of the Texas Republican delegates at the 2014 state convention. Why? Why would they support something that establishment within the party was fine with? Well, let's assume for the sake of the argument that Ted Cruz wins the March 1, 2016 Texas primary. Let's also assume that a more establishment-oriented candidate does well enough in the rest of the country, but not well enough to have clinched the nomination before the Texas state convention. Suddenly that 35 delegates -- or however many it is in 2016 -- becomes somewhat important depending on the overall delegate count. [This would be a nightmare scenario for the RNC, especially with an early/earlier national convention in the works.]
This is not likely as the basic assumptions of the above exercise run counter to what has been witnessed in terms of how nominations have been secured in the post-reform era. However, that chance is probably enough for some within the Republican Party of Texas. And it is enough to to get FHQ to look at it. The better question may be to ask whether such a plan is compliant with the new RNC rules regarding the binding of delegates based on the first statewide vote in the state. That would be the primary in this new Texas plan. The answer is that it is likely fine until it isn't, meaning that it is only a problem in that divided nightmare scenario. If those remaining convention-allocated delegates go to the presumptive nominee anyway, then, no harm, no foul.
Come primary season next year, this will be an interesting asterisk to consider.
--
1 Even that proportional allocation went through some changes in the lead up to the 2012 Texas Republican primary. The Rule 38 amended in October 2011 called for a rather convoluted method of delegate selection with a simpler allocation and binding mechanism. Candidates under those October 2011 changes were eligible for delegates if they received over 20% of the statewide or congressional district vote. However, that 20% threshold seemed to have been removed following the February 2012 changes to the rules. The "entitlements" (allocation) rules detailed in Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 38 were struck and replaced by a new provision in Section 10, giving the state party chairman the power to "…in a manner directly proportional to the statewide presidential vote, as well as the presidential vote by congressional district, if possible, assign each delegate to represent a presidential candidate (or uncommitted)…". That late change may have meant something for the Texas delegate totals at the margins, but had no real impact on the 2012 Republican nomination race. With such a late contest -- May 29 -- Romney's haul from the Lone Star state would have pushed the former Massachusetts governor over the 1144 delegate threshold to clinch the nomination regardless.
2 There are other caveats to this as well. If only one candidate clears the 20% threshold on the congressional district level, that candidate would be entitled to all three congressional district delegates. The same sort of the provision is not in place on the statewide level for at-large delegates. There is no rule specified for such a scenario. Additionally, if no candidate wins more than 20% of the vote at the statewide level, then the at-large delegates are allocated to candidates in proportion to their statewide votes. If no candidate wins more than 20% in any given congressional district, then the top three votegetters receive one delegate each.
3 The automatic (state party) delegates are the state chairman, national committeeman and national committeewoman.
4 Recall that the 2012 Texas primary was on May 29. While that was the contest that put Mitt Romney over the threshold of delegates necessary to clinch the Republican nomination, most of the other candidates had withdrawn much earlier. It was not, then, much of a contest; not for the purposes of this exercise anyway.
Recent Posts:
Primary Movement Starts with the State Legislatures: 2015 State Legislative Session Calendar
Close of Michigan Session Kills Presidential Primary Bill
Why is Florida on March 1 and Not March 15?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Sunday, January 4, 2015
Primary Movement Starts with the State Legislatures: 2015 State Legislative Session Calendar
The National Conference of State Legislatures has this calendar as well, but in alphabetical order. FHQ is more concerned with sequence. Which state legislatures convene first, when do their sessions end and how does this impact the scheduling of presidential primaries?
The table answers the first two of the three questions posed above. With the schedule of state legislative sessions down, though, what impact will this have on the formation of the 2016 presidential primary calendar? The biggest thing is that 2016 is not 2012. There are not nearly 20 states that have to make some form of scheduling change to comply with changes to the structure of the primary process at the national party level. In 2008 both parties allowed February contests. For 2012, both parties changed their minds and constructed a calendar structure that had the carve-outs in February and all other states in March or later.
Right off the bat, then, the 2012 cycle had a tension between where state laws had various primaries scheduled and what the national parties wanted in terms of the overall calendar. That tension has been greatly minimized. 2011 saw a significant amount of backward primary movement, and that process has continued in 2013-14. Importantly, past rogue states like Florida and Arizona have moved back from the brink and Michigan is signaling that it may follow suit. But that does not mean that there are not other rogues out there.
Here are a few things to look out for as state legislative session progress (mostly) over the first half of 2015 and into the latter half of the year.
Rogue states (2016 calendar for reference)
2015 looks a lot less like a minefield than 2011 looked from the national parties' perspectives. There are far fewer automatic problems on the calendar. New York has to move back. But the state legislature moved back in 2011, but just for 2012. Michigan and North Carolina have to move too. Michigan looks like it will move back, but North Carolina may be a different matter. Legislatures in both states convene on January 14.
The rest of the states that have any claim to a non-compliant position on the calendar at this juncture all have options that would allow them disarm in any potential fight with the rules committees in both national parties. Colorado parties can choose the March caucuses option laid out in state law. All the parties in Minnesota have to do is agree on a date they would like to conduct caucuses (by the end of February), otherwise the caucuses are automatically scheduled for the first Tuesday in February. The issues with Utah are twofold. First, and less problematic, the the Beehive state would only be on the first Tuesday in February if the legislature appropriates funds for a Western States Primary (WSP). That most likely means that there will not be an appropriation is there is no WSP. The second factor in Utah's case is perhaps more tension-ladened than the first. That has more to do with the attempt to move Utah to the first position on the calendar with online voting that popped up in 2014 and died on the final melee during the close of the legislative session after having passed one chamber. The very short session in Utah kicks off on January 26. We may begin to get some answers there then.
Regional primaries
Most of the talk thus far has been about southern primaries clustering on March 1, the earliest date on which the national parties allow non-carve-out states to hold primaries or caucuses. Florida, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia (and Oklahoma) are already scheduled for March 1 primaries. In 2014, Louisiana moved to the weekend following those contests and does not appear to be headed to an earlier point on the calendar as of now. Mississippi and Arkansas convene legislative sessions over the next couple of weeks and could join the fray with legislation to move primaries then. The state legislative session kicks off in March in Alabama. Alabama and Mississippi are easier to move (only a move up of a week) while Arkansas has some conflicts that make a move up from mid May tough but not impossible.
Regional clustering may not be done there. There was chatter about a midwestern primary in late 2013. Illinois and Missouri have already staked out a position together on March 15. Others may be interested in joining. Early in 2015, keep an eye on Ohio. The legislature in the Buckeye state opens its session on January 6. A later western primary may materialize as well (see Utah above).
Caucuses to Primaries or Primaries to Caucuses
Finally, one other factor to be mindful of is states switching from caucuses to primaries or vice versa. 2012 saw more of the primary to caucuses movement as Idaho Republicans abandoned the primary in the Gem state. Florida Democrats made a similar move but to avoid the sanctions associated with participating in a non-compliant January primary.
Fewer and less successful have been the attempts to shift from a caucuses/conventions system to primaries as a means of allocating national convention delegates. Minnesota tried it in 2009 and Maine did likewise in 2013.
There are always a few of these shifts. Typically, they do not develop in state legislatures; not the successful moves anyway. Rather, the changes in mode of delegate allocation that are witnessed tend to happen because of legislative inaction. State legislatures not moving non-compliant (too early) or very late primaries. Regardless, it is something to watch for as legislatures swing into action in the coming days, weeks and months.
Recent Posts:
Close of Michigan Session Kills Presidential Primary Bill
Why is Florida on March 1 and Not March 15?
Happy New Year
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
| 2015 State Legislative Session Calendar | |||
| Date (Convene) | States | Date (Adjourn) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| December 1, 2014 | California | September 11, 2015 | |
| December 3, 2014 | Maine1 | June 17 | |
| January 2, 2015 | Washington, DC | year-round2 | |
| January 5 | Montana Ohio Wisconsin | late April year-round2 year-round2 | |
| January 6 | Indiana Kentucky Minnesota1 Mississippi North Dakota1 Pennsylvania Rhode Island | April 29 March 24 May 18 April 5 late April year-round2 late June | |
| January 7 | Colorado1 Connecticut Massachusetts Missouri Nebraska New Hampshire New York Vermont | May 6 June 3 year-round2 May 30 early June July 1 year-round2 mid May | |
| January 12 | Arizona Arkansas Georgia Idaho1 Iowa1 Kansas1 Puerto Rico Washington | mid April March 12 early April early April May 1 late May May 12 April 26 | |
| January 13 | Delaware New Jersey South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Wyoming1 | June 30 year round2 June 4 late March late April June 1 early March | |
| January 14 | Illinois Maryland Michigan North Carolina Virginia West Virginia | May 14 April 13 year-round2 early July February 28 March 14 | |
| January 20 | Alaska1 New Mexico | April 19 March 21 | |
| January 21 | Hawaii1 | early May | |
| January 26 | Utah | March 12 | |
| February 2 | Nevada1 Oklahoma Oregon | June 1 May 29 July 11 | |
| March 3 | Alabama Florida | June 15 May 1 | |
| April 13 | Louisiana | June 11 | |
| Notes: 1 States in italics are caucus states. State parties and not state legislatures control the scheduling of those contests. 2 State legislatures with year-round sessions. | |||
The table answers the first two of the three questions posed above. With the schedule of state legislative sessions down, though, what impact will this have on the formation of the 2016 presidential primary calendar? The biggest thing is that 2016 is not 2012. There are not nearly 20 states that have to make some form of scheduling change to comply with changes to the structure of the primary process at the national party level. In 2008 both parties allowed February contests. For 2012, both parties changed their minds and constructed a calendar structure that had the carve-outs in February and all other states in March or later.
Right off the bat, then, the 2012 cycle had a tension between where state laws had various primaries scheduled and what the national parties wanted in terms of the overall calendar. That tension has been greatly minimized. 2011 saw a significant amount of backward primary movement, and that process has continued in 2013-14. Importantly, past rogue states like Florida and Arizona have moved back from the brink and Michigan is signaling that it may follow suit. But that does not mean that there are not other rogues out there.
Here are a few things to look out for as state legislative session progress (mostly) over the first half of 2015 and into the latter half of the year.
Rogue states (2016 calendar for reference)
2015 looks a lot less like a minefield than 2011 looked from the national parties' perspectives. There are far fewer automatic problems on the calendar. New York has to move back. But the state legislature moved back in 2011, but just for 2012. Michigan and North Carolina have to move too. Michigan looks like it will move back, but North Carolina may be a different matter. Legislatures in both states convene on January 14.
The rest of the states that have any claim to a non-compliant position on the calendar at this juncture all have options that would allow them disarm in any potential fight with the rules committees in both national parties. Colorado parties can choose the March caucuses option laid out in state law. All the parties in Minnesota have to do is agree on a date they would like to conduct caucuses (by the end of February), otherwise the caucuses are automatically scheduled for the first Tuesday in February. The issues with Utah are twofold. First, and less problematic, the the Beehive state would only be on the first Tuesday in February if the legislature appropriates funds for a Western States Primary (WSP). That most likely means that there will not be an appropriation is there is no WSP. The second factor in Utah's case is perhaps more tension-ladened than the first. That has more to do with the attempt to move Utah to the first position on the calendar with online voting that popped up in 2014 and died on the final melee during the close of the legislative session after having passed one chamber. The very short session in Utah kicks off on January 26. We may begin to get some answers there then.
Regional primaries
Most of the talk thus far has been about southern primaries clustering on March 1, the earliest date on which the national parties allow non-carve-out states to hold primaries or caucuses. Florida, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia (and Oklahoma) are already scheduled for March 1 primaries. In 2014, Louisiana moved to the weekend following those contests and does not appear to be headed to an earlier point on the calendar as of now. Mississippi and Arkansas convene legislative sessions over the next couple of weeks and could join the fray with legislation to move primaries then. The state legislative session kicks off in March in Alabama. Alabama and Mississippi are easier to move (only a move up of a week) while Arkansas has some conflicts that make a move up from mid May tough but not impossible.
Regional clustering may not be done there. There was chatter about a midwestern primary in late 2013. Illinois and Missouri have already staked out a position together on March 15. Others may be interested in joining. Early in 2015, keep an eye on Ohio. The legislature in the Buckeye state opens its session on January 6. A later western primary may materialize as well (see Utah above).
Caucuses to Primaries or Primaries to Caucuses
Finally, one other factor to be mindful of is states switching from caucuses to primaries or vice versa. 2012 saw more of the primary to caucuses movement as Idaho Republicans abandoned the primary in the Gem state. Florida Democrats made a similar move but to avoid the sanctions associated with participating in a non-compliant January primary.
Fewer and less successful have been the attempts to shift from a caucuses/conventions system to primaries as a means of allocating national convention delegates. Minnesota tried it in 2009 and Maine did likewise in 2013.
There are always a few of these shifts. Typically, they do not develop in state legislatures; not the successful moves anyway. Rather, the changes in mode of delegate allocation that are witnessed tend to happen because of legislative inaction. State legislatures not moving non-compliant (too early) or very late primaries. Regardless, it is something to watch for as legislatures swing into action in the coming days, weeks and months.
Recent Posts:
Close of Michigan Session Kills Presidential Primary Bill
Why is Florida on March 1 and Not March 15?
Happy New Year
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Saturday, January 3, 2015
Close of Michigan Session Kills Presidential Primary Bill
The Michigan state legislature gaveled to a close on Tuesday, December 30. This was more a formal adjournment than anything else as no votes were taken. The real meat of the legislative day was the transmission of messages between the two chambers and between each and the executive branch.
Some of that dealt with late bills that were passed and to then be sent on to the governor. Other messages, however, were delivered informing the houses that the other had failed to act on a piece of legislation passed in the other originating chamber. The latter was the fate met by SB 1159. After the lame duck Senate passed the bill to move the Michigan presidential primary back into compliance with the national party rules -- from the fourth Tuesday in February to the third Tuesday in March -- the state House did not or was not able to act on it.
On December 30, the House informed the Senate of as much. When the chambers both adjourned sine die, then, the presidential primary bill died with it. However, the effort to shift the presidential primary in Michigan to a later date likely will not die as well. Again, this is a move endorsed by the Michigan Republican Party and driven in the legislature by the Senate majority leader. Republicans control both chambers of the Michigan legislature and the governor's mansion in the state. That does not mean that a shift in the Michigan primary calendar position is a sure thing, but it does mean that action to that end is likely forthcoming in the early part of the 2015 legislative session.
Recent Posts:
Why is Florida on March 1 and Not March 15?
Happy New Year
Will a Calendar Bump Up Mean More Candidate Visits in SEC Primary States?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Some of that dealt with late bills that were passed and to then be sent on to the governor. Other messages, however, were delivered informing the houses that the other had failed to act on a piece of legislation passed in the other originating chamber. The latter was the fate met by SB 1159. After the lame duck Senate passed the bill to move the Michigan presidential primary back into compliance with the national party rules -- from the fourth Tuesday in February to the third Tuesday in March -- the state House did not or was not able to act on it.
On December 30, the House informed the Senate of as much. When the chambers both adjourned sine die, then, the presidential primary bill died with it. However, the effort to shift the presidential primary in Michigan to a later date likely will not die as well. Again, this is a move endorsed by the Michigan Republican Party and driven in the legislature by the Senate majority leader. Republicans control both chambers of the Michigan legislature and the governor's mansion in the state. That does not mean that a shift in the Michigan primary calendar position is a sure thing, but it does mean that action to that end is likely forthcoming in the early part of the 2015 legislative session.
Recent Posts:
Why is Florida on March 1 and Not March 15?
Happy New Year
Will a Calendar Bump Up Mean More Candidate Visits in SEC Primary States?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Friday, January 2, 2015
Why is Florida on March 1 and Not March 15?
***UPDATE*** (3/3/15): Given the signal from the Republican Party of Florida, the state party will continue to utilize a form of winner-take-all delegate allocation. Under current Florida state law, that would put the 2016 Florida presidential primary on March 15.
--
Original Post:
FHQ has spent the week looking at some of the extraneous aspects of the proposed SEC primary in 2016. Outside of that state-level effort yet very much related to it is the reality that there are couple of behemoth states -- Florida and Texas -- that have already occupied the calendar real estate that the SEC states are eyeing. To this point, FHQ has set each to the side. That should not be interpreted as any sort of suggestion that there are not issues attendant to the delegate selection processes in either state. Both Florida and Texas have their quirks where 2016 is concerned.
Florida first.
The state government in the Sunshine state actually seemingly deescalated its two-cycles-running battle with the national parties in 2013. That law mimicked the law passed in 2011 in one respect by not setting a specific date for the Florida presidential primary.1 However, while there is no specific date included in the new law, the statute requires that the presidential preference primary fall on the first date on which there is no penalty from the two national parties. Here is that clause (important portion in bold):
The Democratic National Committee has the same March 1 threshold for non-carve-out states in its rules. Yet those same rules lay out only a 50% delegation reduction penalty for violating states. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee does retain the ability to increase the severity of that reduction if it deems such an action necessary.
Again, March 1 seems to be the landing spot for the Florida primary given the basic uniformity of the two parties' delegate selection rules.
There is, however [as always?], a catch to all of this. The RNC has another penalty that may affect the Sunshine state presidential primary calendar position. Florida not only conducted a presidential primary in 2012 on a non-compliant date but also allocated all of its convention delegates to the winner of the primary, Mitt Romney. That move by the state Republican Party was also in violation of the then-new proportionality requirement the RNC rolled out in 2012. For the 2016 cycle, any state with a contest before March 15 will have to include in its delegate allocation an element of proportionality. That is something the past plans of the Republican Party of Florida have lacked (at least since 2008).
Does that move Florida back to March 15? The quick answer is yes, but only if the Republican Party of Florida opts to maintain a winner-take-all allocation of national convention delegates. That has not always been the case. Prior to 2008, Florida Republicans utilized a winner-take-all by congressional district method of allocation. That changed for the 2008 cycle when a change in the RNC rules gave states a bit more leeway in choosing a winner-take-all plan. The rules change gave precedence to state party decisions over state law and opened the door to a greater use of true winner-take-all allocation plans. That national party rule stands, but Florida Republicans hold the key to when the presidential primary in the Sunshine state will be scheduled.
A true winner-take-all allocation means a March 15 primary.
A plan with some element of proportionality would put the primary on March 1.
--
1 In the 2011 law, the state legislature ceded the power to set the date of the presidential preference primary to a nine member committee set by the governor, the president of the state Senate and the speaker of the state House. While that group opted to defy the national parties' delegate selection rules on timing, that was not something mandated by the law. That was a departure from the 2007 law that set the date for the final Tuesday in January, in direct violation of the national party rules.
Recent Posts:
Happy New Year
Will a Calendar Bump Up Mean More Candidate Visits in SEC Primary States?
Why Getting Arkansas into an SEC Primary is More Difficult
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
--
Original Post:
FHQ has spent the week looking at some of the extraneous aspects of the proposed SEC primary in 2016. Outside of that state-level effort yet very much related to it is the reality that there are couple of behemoth states -- Florida and Texas -- that have already occupied the calendar real estate that the SEC states are eyeing. To this point, FHQ has set each to the side. That should not be interpreted as any sort of suggestion that there are not issues attendant to the delegate selection processes in either state. Both Florida and Texas have their quirks where 2016 is concerned.
Florida first.
The state government in the Sunshine state actually seemingly deescalated its two-cycles-running battle with the national parties in 2013. That law mimicked the law passed in 2011 in one respect by not setting a specific date for the Florida presidential primary.1 However, while there is no specific date included in the new law, the statute requires that the presidential preference primary fall on the first date on which there is no penalty from the two national parties. Here is that clause (important portion in bold):
Each political party other than a minor political party shall, at the presidential preference primary, elect one person to be the party's candidate for nomination for President of the United States or select delegates to the party's national nominating convention, as provided by party rule. The presidential preference primary shall be held in each year the number of which is a multiple of 4 on the first Tuesday that the rules of the major political parties provide for state delegations to be allocated without penalty. Any party rule directing the vote of delegates at a national nominating convention shall reasonably reflect the results of the presidential preference primary, if one is held.That would seem to indicate March 1. The Republican National Committee has said no states other than the four carve-out state can hold a contest prior to the first Tuesday in March (March 1). Those states that choose to defy the rules in 2016 will face a significant reduction to their national convention delegation depending on the original size of that delegation. Most states would be knocked down to just 12 total delegates, but states with delegations smaller than 30 delegates will have their delegations shrunk to just nine delegates.
The Democratic National Committee has the same March 1 threshold for non-carve-out states in its rules. Yet those same rules lay out only a 50% delegation reduction penalty for violating states. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee does retain the ability to increase the severity of that reduction if it deems such an action necessary.
Again, March 1 seems to be the landing spot for the Florida primary given the basic uniformity of the two parties' delegate selection rules.
There is, however [as always?], a catch to all of this. The RNC has another penalty that may affect the Sunshine state presidential primary calendar position. Florida not only conducted a presidential primary in 2012 on a non-compliant date but also allocated all of its convention delegates to the winner of the primary, Mitt Romney. That move by the state Republican Party was also in violation of the then-new proportionality requirement the RNC rolled out in 2012. For the 2016 cycle, any state with a contest before March 15 will have to include in its delegate allocation an element of proportionality. That is something the past plans of the Republican Party of Florida have lacked (at least since 2008).
Does that move Florida back to March 15? The quick answer is yes, but only if the Republican Party of Florida opts to maintain a winner-take-all allocation of national convention delegates. That has not always been the case. Prior to 2008, Florida Republicans utilized a winner-take-all by congressional district method of allocation. That changed for the 2008 cycle when a change in the RNC rules gave states a bit more leeway in choosing a winner-take-all plan. The rules change gave precedence to state party decisions over state law and opened the door to a greater use of true winner-take-all allocation plans. That national party rule stands, but Florida Republicans hold the key to when the presidential primary in the Sunshine state will be scheduled.
A true winner-take-all allocation means a March 15 primary.
A plan with some element of proportionality would put the primary on March 1.
--
1 In the 2011 law, the state legislature ceded the power to set the date of the presidential preference primary to a nine member committee set by the governor, the president of the state Senate and the speaker of the state House. While that group opted to defy the national parties' delegate selection rules on timing, that was not something mandated by the law. That was a departure from the 2007 law that set the date for the final Tuesday in January, in direct violation of the national party rules.
Recent Posts:
Happy New Year
Will a Calendar Bump Up Mean More Candidate Visits in SEC Primary States?
Why Getting Arkansas into an SEC Primary is More Difficult
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
Happy New Year
FHQ wants to wish everyone a happy 2015. States reacting throughout the coming year to the national party delegate selection rules finalized last year should give us all plenty to mull over as 2016 approaches.
Recent Posts:
Will a Calendar Bump Up Mean More Candidate Visits in SEC Primary States?
Why Getting Arkansas into an SEC Primary is More Difficult
But Southern States Will Have to Be Proportional
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Recent Posts:
Will a Calendar Bump Up Mean More Candidate Visits in SEC Primary States?
Why Getting Arkansas into an SEC Primary is More Difficult
But Southern States Will Have to Be Proportional
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Will a Calendar Bump Up Mean More Candidate Visits in SEC Primary States?
Just this morning Alabama Secretary of State-elect, John Merrill (R) clearly added his voice to the chorus of SEC presidential primary supporters in an op-ed at Yellowhammer News. He repeated a variation of the refrain that has become one of the go-to lines during the frontloading wave of the post-McGovern-Fraser reforms era:
If the focus shifts to a micro-examination of just those states looking to move to March 1 to be a part of the so-called SEC primary the advantages -- as measured by candidate visits -- are not all that clear.
Clearly earlier is better (see Ridout and Rottinghaus 2008; Mayer and Busch 2003). Alabama and Arkansas were lodged in June and late May primaries respectively in 2000 and 2004 while Georgia and Mississippi were in March in those years. Georgia benefited. Mississippi did not. Georgia has consistently been scheduled on the earliest date allowed by the national parties during this period (save 2004) and was delegate-rich enough to draw attention from the candidates despite being on dates shared by a large number of states.
In 2008, all of the above states were scheduled on the first Tuesday in February with the exception of Mississippi which as a month later on the second Tuesday in March. All gained over the previous couple of cycles.1 Mississippi was later on the calendar but took advantage of the fact that it was the lone contest on its date in the midst of a tightly contested two-candidate race for the Democratic nomination.
As we look toward 2016, however, 2012 may be not only a decent guide but a cautionary tale for this. Arkansas was both late and after the point at which most of the Republican candidates had dropped out of the Republican nomination race.2 The Natural state got one lone visit from Herman Cain. The other states potentially moving to a March 1 SEC primary for 2016 were earlier on the 2012 calendar. Georgia incrementally gained over 2008 despite just one party having a contested nomination race and sharing the most crowded date on the calendar with 11 other states; the earliest date allowed by the national party delegate selection rules.
Alabama and Mississippi were together a week later. The Deep South duo's power in 2012 may have been their sub-regional contiguity and that together the two dominated a day that also included caucuses in Hawaii and the American Samoa (neither large draws).
That raises questions if not red flags for a move for 2016 for those latter couple of states. Does a move away from a date that still finds Alabama and Mississippi dominant and to a date shared by a number of larger southern states (Florida, Georgia and Texas among them) net more or fewer visits in 2016 over 2012? If Ohio vacates March 8 to join a later March midwestern primary, would it not be more beneficial to stick with a date you dominate versus a date shared with others? Is a visit to Texas -- a regional visit -- the same as a candidate visit in Alabama or Mississippi?
These are tough questions to answer for state actors who have a limited state legislative session window in which to act in the spring of the year before the primary. And these folks tend to be risk-averse. Alabama and Mississippi would only gain by sticking with a later date is the nomination races are ongoing once they get to the second Tuesday in March. The field may be winnowed too much by then dropping the number of visits to either.
This is the mindset that has dominated the frontloading era. Move up or get left behind. But it isn't clear in this instance that states in the South will receive the attention they crave. In the meantime, decision makers in both Alabama and Mississippi seem to have forgotten what they gained in 2012 with their sub-regional coalition. Surely "cheesy grits" would have proven more memorable to elected officials in the Deep South.
--
1 Some of that has to do with how and when the visits data was gathered, but some of that also has a great deal to do with how many parties had contested/competitive campaigns and how many candidates were involved in the race at the time of the primaries in these states.
2 Romney had not clinched enough delegates to assume the mantle of presumptive nominee, but was approaching that mark with only Ron Paul actively running in the later primary states.
Recent Posts:
Why Getting Arkansas into an SEC Primary is More Difficult
But Southern States Will Have to Be Proportional
Louisiana not inclined to join 'SEC' presidential primary day in 2016
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
"The main goal of this effort is to create an environment that forces candidates to appeal to the an even larger and more complete constituency than they currently do. Southerners, and more specifically Alabamians, represent a largely conservative, working class group of voters, but because of the timing of our primary elections, our calls for more conservative candidates have gone unheard."
...This echoes what Merrill's counterpart in neighboring Mississippi, Delbert Hosemann, has said:
"As your Secretary of State and Chief Elections Official, I will do all that I can to help position the South — and more specifically Alabama — as a place that all Presidential candidates will make an effort to visit and meet our remarkable people." [Emphasis is FHQ's.]
"With Georgia, and Tennessee and Arkansas and Louisiana we are putting together a group where we would have a super SEC Tuesday where basically the candidates would have to come through Mississippi before they got elected president of the United States. Both Democrats and Republicans." [Again, emphasis is FHQ's.]But would moves by Alabama or Mississippi or Arkansas to earlier dates on the 2016 presidential primary calendar do anything to really improve the lot of southern states in terms of attention paid them by the various presidential candidates in 2016? That remains to be seen. Such moves have not been a cure-all for states in the South or elsewhere in the past. Both Merrill and Hosemann seem to be talking about this as an increase in visits/attention. That may be the case, but it could also be that these states are merely splitting up a finite number of visits -- or visits within a rather finite window of time -- and aren't necessarily gaining attention to issues of, say, the Deep South. Is a visit to Texas or Tennessee a proxy visit to Alabama or Mississippi, for example?
If the focus shifts to a micro-examination of just those states looking to move to March 1 to be a part of the so-called SEC primary the advantages -- as measured by candidate visits -- are not all that clear.
| Total Presidential Candidate Visits by SEC Primary States (2000-2012) | ||||
| State | 20001 | 20041 | 20082 | 20123 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 0 | 5 | 13 | 27 |
| Arkansas | 0 | 10 | 16 | 1 |
| Georgia | 2 | 32 | 38 | 47 |
| Mississippi | 0 | 1 | 13 | 20 |
1 Data from Ridout and Rottinghaus (2008). The 2000 data are via the Washington Post; gathered from October 1, 1999-primary season 2000. Hotline provided the 2004 data; gathered from June 1, 2003-primary season 2004.
2 Data from Frontloading HQ via Slate.com Map the Candidates visits tracker.
3 Data from the Washington Post Campaign 2012 Republican Primary Tracker; gathered from June 2011-primary season 2012.
* For the calendar dates of the contests in these from 2000-2012 click on the year. | ||||
Clearly earlier is better (see Ridout and Rottinghaus 2008; Mayer and Busch 2003). Alabama and Arkansas were lodged in June and late May primaries respectively in 2000 and 2004 while Georgia and Mississippi were in March in those years. Georgia benefited. Mississippi did not. Georgia has consistently been scheduled on the earliest date allowed by the national parties during this period (save 2004) and was delegate-rich enough to draw attention from the candidates despite being on dates shared by a large number of states.
In 2008, all of the above states were scheduled on the first Tuesday in February with the exception of Mississippi which as a month later on the second Tuesday in March. All gained over the previous couple of cycles.1 Mississippi was later on the calendar but took advantage of the fact that it was the lone contest on its date in the midst of a tightly contested two-candidate race for the Democratic nomination.
As we look toward 2016, however, 2012 may be not only a decent guide but a cautionary tale for this. Arkansas was both late and after the point at which most of the Republican candidates had dropped out of the Republican nomination race.2 The Natural state got one lone visit from Herman Cain. The other states potentially moving to a March 1 SEC primary for 2016 were earlier on the 2012 calendar. Georgia incrementally gained over 2008 despite just one party having a contested nomination race and sharing the most crowded date on the calendar with 11 other states; the earliest date allowed by the national party delegate selection rules.
Alabama and Mississippi were together a week later. The Deep South duo's power in 2012 may have been their sub-regional contiguity and that together the two dominated a day that also included caucuses in Hawaii and the American Samoa (neither large draws).
That raises questions if not red flags for a move for 2016 for those latter couple of states. Does a move away from a date that still finds Alabama and Mississippi dominant and to a date shared by a number of larger southern states (Florida, Georgia and Texas among them) net more or fewer visits in 2016 over 2012? If Ohio vacates March 8 to join a later March midwestern primary, would it not be more beneficial to stick with a date you dominate versus a date shared with others? Is a visit to Texas -- a regional visit -- the same as a candidate visit in Alabama or Mississippi?
These are tough questions to answer for state actors who have a limited state legislative session window in which to act in the spring of the year before the primary. And these folks tend to be risk-averse. Alabama and Mississippi would only gain by sticking with a later date is the nomination races are ongoing once they get to the second Tuesday in March. The field may be winnowed too much by then dropping the number of visits to either.
This is the mindset that has dominated the frontloading era. Move up or get left behind. But it isn't clear in this instance that states in the South will receive the attention they crave. In the meantime, decision makers in both Alabama and Mississippi seem to have forgotten what they gained in 2012 with their sub-regional coalition. Surely "cheesy grits" would have proven more memorable to elected officials in the Deep South.
--
1 Some of that has to do with how and when the visits data was gathered, but some of that also has a great deal to do with how many parties had contested/competitive campaigns and how many candidates were involved in the race at the time of the primaries in these states.
2 Romney had not clinched enough delegates to assume the mantle of presumptive nominee, but was approaching that mark with only Ron Paul actively running in the later primary states.
Recent Posts:
Why Getting Arkansas into an SEC Primary is More Difficult
But Southern States Will Have to Be Proportional
Louisiana not inclined to join 'SEC' presidential primary day in 2016
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Why Getting Arkansas into an SEC Primary is More Difficult
As the 2015 state legislative sessions draw nearer, primary movement for the 2016 cycle is back on the radar. Lately, much of that discussion has centered on the possibility of a southern regional primary forming on the first date allowed by the national parties, March 1. As FHQ has mentioned previously, this effort is being spearheaded by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp (R). Secretary Kemp has reached out to his counterparts in a number of other SEC states to gauge their interest in their states -- Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi -- joining Georgia (and a number of other southern and border states) on March 1.
Louisiana has already bumped their primary up in 2014 and is not necessarily eager to shift -- even if only slightly -- again.
Alabama and Mississippi coordinated their primary dates on the second Tuesday in March for 2012. Neither state would seemingly face too much resistance to moving up another week for 2016.
In Georgia, the power to set the presidential primary date lies with the secretary of state and Kemp seems more than inclined to keep Georgia on the first Tuesday in March for a second straight cycle.
There is also some interest in Arkansas, but the decision-making calculus on moving the presidential primary is different in the Natural state than it is in the other states. That is true for a few reasons:
When the Arkansas presidential primary was shifted up for the 1988 and 2008 cycles, the decision was made to create an all new and separate presidential primary election at an earlier point on the calendar. Traditionally, the majority of Arkansas primary elections have been consolidated in mid- to late May. In 1988 and 2008, everything but the presidential primary stayed in May while a presidential primary was created and moved into March and February, respectively.
Relatedly, to do that again, Arkansas state legislators would have to consider whether to incur the costs associated with a separate presidential primary as has been the case in the past. In 2008, that meant an extra $1.7 million to conduct that additional election. The alternative is to do what Alabama and Mississippi have done: consolidate all primary elections on the earlier presidential primary date. Mississippi has been doing this for years, but Alabama shifted both its presidential primary from February to March and its other primaries from June to March in 2008.
Arkansas could follow suit. But there is one catch that was raised in 2009 when Arkansas legislators were considering (and ultimately deciding on) eliminating the presidential primary and consolidating it with the other 2012 primaries. A constitutional amendment was passed by Arkansas voters in 2008 that moved the state legislatures sessions from biennially to annually. Annual sessions meant that the possibility existed for campaigning and fundraising to take place (for state legislators) during the state legislative session, violating a self-imposed rule (for those activities not to overlap). A March 1 [consolidated] primary would fall in the midst of the 2016 state legislative session.
So, in Arkansas it is a decision between the financial costs of creating and scheduling an earlier presidential primary or breaking the norm of state legislators campaigning/fundraising during their legislative session. The former has been the (less cost-effective) precedent in Arkansas in the past while the latter will potentially serve as a deterrent to moving up. Every additional roadblock makes moving a presidential primary forward and joining the proposed SEC primary that much more difficult, and Arkansas has a list of obstacles that other southern states involved do not have. That does not mean the presidential primary in the Natural state will not end up on March 1. Rather, it does indicate a more difficult path to that end.
Recent Posts:
But Southern States Will Have to Be Proportional
Louisiana not inclined to join 'SEC' presidential primary day in 2016
A Couple of Reasons the 2016 Texas Presidential Primary Isn't Going Anywhere
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Louisiana has already bumped their primary up in 2014 and is not necessarily eager to shift -- even if only slightly -- again.
Alabama and Mississippi coordinated their primary dates on the second Tuesday in March for 2012. Neither state would seemingly face too much resistance to moving up another week for 2016.
In Georgia, the power to set the presidential primary date lies with the secretary of state and Kemp seems more than inclined to keep Georgia on the first Tuesday in March for a second straight cycle.
There is also some interest in Arkansas, but the decision-making calculus on moving the presidential primary is different in the Natural state than it is in the other states. That is true for a few reasons:
When the Arkansas presidential primary was shifted up for the 1988 and 2008 cycles, the decision was made to create an all new and separate presidential primary election at an earlier point on the calendar. Traditionally, the majority of Arkansas primary elections have been consolidated in mid- to late May. In 1988 and 2008, everything but the presidential primary stayed in May while a presidential primary was created and moved into March and February, respectively.
Relatedly, to do that again, Arkansas state legislators would have to consider whether to incur the costs associated with a separate presidential primary as has been the case in the past. In 2008, that meant an extra $1.7 million to conduct that additional election. The alternative is to do what Alabama and Mississippi have done: consolidate all primary elections on the earlier presidential primary date. Mississippi has been doing this for years, but Alabama shifted both its presidential primary from February to March and its other primaries from June to March in 2008.
Arkansas could follow suit. But there is one catch that was raised in 2009 when Arkansas legislators were considering (and ultimately deciding on) eliminating the presidential primary and consolidating it with the other 2012 primaries. A constitutional amendment was passed by Arkansas voters in 2008 that moved the state legislatures sessions from biennially to annually. Annual sessions meant that the possibility existed for campaigning and fundraising to take place (for state legislators) during the state legislative session, violating a self-imposed rule (for those activities not to overlap). A March 1 [consolidated] primary would fall in the midst of the 2016 state legislative session.
So, in Arkansas it is a decision between the financial costs of creating and scheduling an earlier presidential primary or breaking the norm of state legislators campaigning/fundraising during their legislative session. The former has been the (less cost-effective) precedent in Arkansas in the past while the latter will potentially serve as a deterrent to moving up. Every additional roadblock makes moving a presidential primary forward and joining the proposed SEC primary that much more difficult, and Arkansas has a list of obstacles that other southern states involved do not have. That does not mean the presidential primary in the Natural state will not end up on March 1. Rather, it does indicate a more difficult path to that end.
Recent Posts:
But Southern States Will Have to Be Proportional
Louisiana not inclined to join 'SEC' presidential primary day in 2016
A Couple of Reasons the 2016 Texas Presidential Primary Isn't Going Anywhere
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Monday, December 29, 2014
But Southern States Will Have to Be Proportional
Throughout 2014 the idea of a southern regional primary has gathered some steam. Thanks to the efforts of Georgia Secretary of State, Brian Kemp (R), that has taken hold among a handful of secretaries of state across the Deep South and gotten some scrutiny in the media as well. Most of that examination tends to focus on the Republican side of the looming 2016 presidential nomination contest. The partisan focus in combination with the likely March 1 date for the proposed SEC presidential primary comes with the typical caveats about the Republican National Committee requirement for a proportional allocation of delegates for any contest held before March 15.
In other words, southern states are going to potentially cluster their contests on the earliest date allowed by the major parties, but with the implication that they will have to dilute the significance of the primaries by allocating delegates in a proportional manner; not winner-take-all.
But here's the thing (actually two things, but bear with me): 2012 showed that that dilution was not all that strong in the first place. That has something to do with the dispersion of primaries and caucuses across the calendar, but also is a function of the RNC definition of "proportional". Proportional does not mean proportional in the mathematical sense. Rather, it means that one candidate cannot receive all of a state's bound delegates (unless that candidate receives a majority of the statewide vote in a given primary, for example). Proportional simply means not winner-take-all.
For southern states considering a shift up to March 1 to be a part of this SEC primary, though, there is another important layer to add: They were all "proportional" in 2012. With the exception of Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas, every southern state had a primary or caucuses before April 1.1 And regardless of timing, all southern states either already had or transitioned an allocation plan with the necessary proportional element for 2012. Alabama was proportional. Georgia was proportional. Mississippi was proportional. Arkansas was funky, but it was proportional too (...even in late May).
There may be some revisions to those plans by state Republican parties in 2015, but across the states that are a part of this proposed SEC primary, the allocation plans are already proportional.
Will that dilute the power of the South on March 1, 2016? Perhaps, but recall that Democratic contests during the 1988 Southern Super Tuesday were proportional also. That fact did not hurt the southern states then as much as the diversity of winners of contests on that second Tuesday in March in 1988.
--
1 April 1 was the threshold before which states had to allocate delegates proportionally in 2012. That was shifted up to March 15 by the RNC for 2016.
Recent Posts:
Louisiana not inclined to join 'SEC' presidential primary day in 2016
A Couple of Reasons the 2016 Texas Presidential Primary Isn't Going Anywhere
Nebraska Democrats Commit to Caucuses for 2016
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
In other words, southern states are going to potentially cluster their contests on the earliest date allowed by the major parties, but with the implication that they will have to dilute the significance of the primaries by allocating delegates in a proportional manner; not winner-take-all.
But here's the thing (actually two things, but bear with me): 2012 showed that that dilution was not all that strong in the first place. That has something to do with the dispersion of primaries and caucuses across the calendar, but also is a function of the RNC definition of "proportional". Proportional does not mean proportional in the mathematical sense. Rather, it means that one candidate cannot receive all of a state's bound delegates (unless that candidate receives a majority of the statewide vote in a given primary, for example). Proportional simply means not winner-take-all.
For southern states considering a shift up to March 1 to be a part of this SEC primary, though, there is another important layer to add: They were all "proportional" in 2012. With the exception of Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas, every southern state had a primary or caucuses before April 1.1 And regardless of timing, all southern states either already had or transitioned an allocation plan with the necessary proportional element for 2012. Alabama was proportional. Georgia was proportional. Mississippi was proportional. Arkansas was funky, but it was proportional too (...even in late May).
There may be some revisions to those plans by state Republican parties in 2015, but across the states that are a part of this proposed SEC primary, the allocation plans are already proportional.
Will that dilute the power of the South on March 1, 2016? Perhaps, but recall that Democratic contests during the 1988 Southern Super Tuesday were proportional also. That fact did not hurt the southern states then as much as the diversity of winners of contests on that second Tuesday in March in 1988.
--
1 April 1 was the threshold before which states had to allocate delegates proportionally in 2012. That was shifted up to March 15 by the RNC for 2016.
Recent Posts:
Louisiana not inclined to join 'SEC' presidential primary day in 2016
A Couple of Reasons the 2016 Texas Presidential Primary Isn't Going Anywhere
Nebraska Democrats Commit to Caucuses for 2016
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)