The Idaho Republican Party State Central Committee voted in favor of a resolution over the weekend to shift back to a state-funded presidential primary as its means of allocating national convention delegates in 2016. This happens after a one cycle hiatus. The party switched to a caucuses/convention system in order to have an earlier contest in 2012.1
However, the vote did come with a catch. The reversal -- Republicans returning to the primary -- is contingent upon the state legislature passing legislation providing for an earlier primary. The Gem state has traditionally held consolidated presidential and other primaries in May throughout the post-reform era. But legislation drafted last week would create a separate presidential primary that would be held on the second Tuesday in March.
The Idaho situation now mirrors in some respects the situation in Michigan. The state Republican Party endorses a move, and it is up to a Republican-controlled state government to make that happen. That partisan convergence does not necessarily mean the measures will pass in either state, but it does seemingly make passage easier on the surface.
--
UPDATE (2/12/15): Second, similar primary bill proposed in Senate
UPDATE (2/25/15): Second, similar primary bill passes Senate committee
UPDATE (3/3/15): Second, similar primary bill passes Senate
--
1 That move by Gem state Republicans prompted the repeal of the presidential primary by the state legislature. Democrats in the state have utilized caucuses for years.
Recent Posts:
DC Presidential Primary Continues Slow Crawl to June
Evidence of a Big Ten Presidential Primary?
New Mexico Attempt to Join Would-Be Western Regional Presidential Primary is In
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Monday, February 9, 2015
DC Presidential Primary Continues Slow Crawl to June
The Washington, DC presidential primary move to June has seemed inevitable since December. However, procedurally, it has taken some time to get to that end.
When FHQ last updated the situation, the 2013 bill to move the District's 2016 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in April to the second Tuesday in June had unanimously passed the Council vote and the time for mayoral review had seemingly passed. Yet, the bill carried over into the new legislative period, giving newly inaugurated mayor, Muriel Bowser, the opportunity to register an opinion on the move. The Washington mayor does not have to act for legislation to become an act of the Council. In this instance, though, Mayor Bowser gave the June primary a thumbs up last week on February 6.
That initiates a window in which Congress will have the chance -- if it chooses to exercise that option -- to review the move. Such a review is more a formality than anything else.
In a cycle when the only states that are moving to later primary dates are the straggling rogues from 2012, Washington, DC represents a state/territory with an already late date moving even later on the calendar. In fact, the second Tuesday in April would be the last possible date for the primary to be held without sanction under the national parties' delegate selection rules.
Recent Posts:
Evidence of a Big Ten Presidential Primary?
New Mexico Attempt to Join Would-Be Western Regional Presidential Primary is In
Connecticut Republicans Strategize About Opening Primaries, Moving Presidential Primary Up
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
When FHQ last updated the situation, the 2013 bill to move the District's 2016 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in April to the second Tuesday in June had unanimously passed the Council vote and the time for mayoral review had seemingly passed. Yet, the bill carried over into the new legislative period, giving newly inaugurated mayor, Muriel Bowser, the opportunity to register an opinion on the move. The Washington mayor does not have to act for legislation to become an act of the Council. In this instance, though, Mayor Bowser gave the June primary a thumbs up last week on February 6.
That initiates a window in which Congress will have the chance -- if it chooses to exercise that option -- to review the move. Such a review is more a formality than anything else.
In a cycle when the only states that are moving to later primary dates are the straggling rogues from 2012, Washington, DC represents a state/territory with an already late date moving even later on the calendar. In fact, the second Tuesday in April would be the last possible date for the primary to be held without sanction under the national parties' delegate selection rules.
Recent Posts:
Evidence of a Big Ten Presidential Primary?
New Mexico Attempt to Join Would-Be Western Regional Presidential Primary is In
Connecticut Republicans Strategize About Opening Primaries, Moving Presidential Primary Up
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Evidence of a Big Ten Presidential Primary?
There may not be any new evidence, but there is definitely talk of a midwestern regional primary in Michigan.
The only catch is that the only state actively targeting a March 15 primary date for 2016 is Michigan. In other legislatures in the region, it is all quiet on the midwestern front. Nearby Illinois and Missouri are already on that date.
Recent Posts:
New Mexico Attempt to Join Would-Be Western Regional Presidential Primary is In
Connecticut Republicans Strategize About Opening Primaries, Moving Presidential Primary Up
Idaho Bill Reestablishing Presidential Primary Introduced
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The only catch is that the only state actively targeting a March 15 primary date for 2016 is Michigan. In other legislatures in the region, it is all quiet on the midwestern front. Nearby Illinois and Missouri are already on that date.
Recent Posts:
New Mexico Attempt to Join Would-Be Western Regional Presidential Primary is In
Connecticut Republicans Strategize About Opening Primaries, Moving Presidential Primary Up
Idaho Bill Reestablishing Presidential Primary Introduced
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
New Mexico Attempt to Move Presidential Primary to March is In
Last week -- Thursday, February 5 -- legislation was introduced in the New Mexico state House to shift the date of the presidential primary in the Land of Enchantment ahead of the 2016 elections.
House Majority Leader, Representative Nate Gentry (R-30th, Bernalillo) filed HB 346 which would shift the date of the presidential primary in New Mexico from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June to the third Tuesday in March. That would fall on March 15 in 2016; the first date on which states can hold winner-take-all contests under the Republican rules. It is also a date currently occupied by Illinois and Missouri.
The motivations behind the bill seems at least somewhat clear here. First, the legislation would move New Mexico up from the tail end of the calendar into a hypothetically more influential spot in March. Second, as a means of maximizing that potential influence, there is some attempt at creating a regional -- in this case, western -- cluster of nomination contests.
Unlike other western neighbors like Arizona and Utah (or even Idaho), New Mexico does not have unified Republican control of the state government. That the Land of Enchantment does not have Republican-controlled government is probably less meaningful than it not having unified government (regardless of its partisan tilt). In any event, New Mexico Democrats maintained control of the upper chamber after the 2014 midterm elections, while the Republican Party in the state picked up the lower chamber. Governor Susana Martinez (R) was also easily reelected in 2014. In other words, Democrats in the New Mexico state Senate have a veto point that minority party Democrats do not have in some of New Mexico's nearest neighbors.
Does that mean that the plan to move the New Mexico primary up is sunk?
No, Democrats may very well go along with the legislation that has been brought forth. Unlike Idaho, where the government would have to entice both parties back into a primary system (as opposed to the caucuses both used in 2012) and require $2 million to fund a new and separate presidential primary election, the legislation introduced by Rep. Gentry would shift the consolidated primary (including the presidential primary and the primaries for state and local offices) up from June to March. Both New Mexico parties utilized the June primary for delegate allocation in 2012. And though there are still costs associated with getting the word out on a primary date change of this nature, it is far less than creating and conducting a separate election. That -- the costs -- is one less thing New Mexico Democrats in the legislature could balk at while this bill is being considered.
--
UPDATE (2/23/15): Bill stalls in committee
Recent Posts:
Connecticut Republicans Strategize About Opening Primaries, Moving Presidential Primary Up
Idaho Bill Reestablishing Presidential Primary Introduced
Uncertainty surrounds NC primary
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
House Majority Leader, Representative Nate Gentry (R-30th, Bernalillo) filed HB 346 which would shift the date of the presidential primary in New Mexico from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June to the third Tuesday in March. That would fall on March 15 in 2016; the first date on which states can hold winner-take-all contests under the Republican rules. It is also a date currently occupied by Illinois and Missouri.
The motivations behind the bill seems at least somewhat clear here. First, the legislation would move New Mexico up from the tail end of the calendar into a hypothetically more influential spot in March. Second, as a means of maximizing that potential influence, there is some attempt at creating a regional -- in this case, western -- cluster of nomination contests.
Unlike other western neighbors like Arizona and Utah (or even Idaho), New Mexico does not have unified Republican control of the state government. That the Land of Enchantment does not have Republican-controlled government is probably less meaningful than it not having unified government (regardless of its partisan tilt). In any event, New Mexico Democrats maintained control of the upper chamber after the 2014 midterm elections, while the Republican Party in the state picked up the lower chamber. Governor Susana Martinez (R) was also easily reelected in 2014. In other words, Democrats in the New Mexico state Senate have a veto point that minority party Democrats do not have in some of New Mexico's nearest neighbors.
Does that mean that the plan to move the New Mexico primary up is sunk?
No, Democrats may very well go along with the legislation that has been brought forth. Unlike Idaho, where the government would have to entice both parties back into a primary system (as opposed to the caucuses both used in 2012) and require $2 million to fund a new and separate presidential primary election, the legislation introduced by Rep. Gentry would shift the consolidated primary (including the presidential primary and the primaries for state and local offices) up from June to March. Both New Mexico parties utilized the June primary for delegate allocation in 2012. And though there are still costs associated with getting the word out on a primary date change of this nature, it is far less than creating and conducting a separate election. That -- the costs -- is one less thing New Mexico Democrats in the legislature could balk at while this bill is being considered.
--
UPDATE (2/23/15): Bill stalls in committee
Recent Posts:
Connecticut Republicans Strategize About Opening Primaries, Moving Presidential Primary Up
Idaho Bill Reestablishing Presidential Primary Introduced
Uncertainty surrounds NC primary
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Connecticut Republicans Strategize About Opening Primaries, Moving Presidential Primary Up
Neil Vigdor has the story at the Connecticut Post about Nutmeg state Republicans' short-term (move the presidential primary)/long-term (open primaries to independents/unaffiliateds) plans.
In Democratic-controlled Connecticut, the state GOP will need some help from across the aisle in the state legislature to make either happen.
--
A couple of quickie clarifications on this one:
Recent Posts:
Idaho Bill Reestablishing Presidential Primary Introduced
Uncertainty surrounds NC primary
Michigan Inches Toward March Presidential Primary Move
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
In Democratic-controlled Connecticut, the state GOP will need some help from across the aisle in the state legislature to make either happen.
--
A couple of quickie clarifications on this one:
- "Until 2008, both parties in Connecticut held their primaries on Super Tuesday, which fell in early February and drew visits from then-U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and future first lady Michelle Obama."
- "In 2011, looking to create a regional primary with New York, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Delaware, the General Assembly ended the tie-in with Super Tuesday. But the inability of the states to get on the same page for setting a date for the proceedings relegated the regional primary to April 24. By that point in 2012, Mitt Romney had all but wrapped up the GOP's nomination."
- Connecticut did not join Super Tuesday -- typically the earliest date the national parties allow contests to be held -- until 1996. And then, the primary was on the first Tuesday in March. It stayed there until the 2008 cycle, when the primary was moved to the first Tuesday in February. 2004 was a bit quirky too. Democrats caught up with an RNC that was already allowing February contests, but few states actually moved for 2004. Connecticut, like many states, waited until 2008 to react to that change.
- This sequence is strange. New York, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Delaware created a regional primary on April 24 for the 2012 cycle, but could not get on the "same page" to do it? FHQ would argue that four Democratic-controlled states opted to join perpetually-April Pennsylvania on that late April date, and they did it on purpose. Democratic states that were non-compliant under the new 2012 rules moved back much further on the calendar than Republican-controlled states. There may or may not have been ulterior motives involved.
Recent Posts:
Idaho Bill Reestablishing Presidential Primary Introduced
Uncertainty surrounds NC primary
Michigan Inches Toward March Presidential Primary Move
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Friday, February 6, 2015
Idaho Bill Reestablishing Presidential Primary Introduced
Legislation was introduced in Idaho on Friday, February 6 to reestablish the presidential primary repealed in 2012.
S 1049 would bring back the presidential primary for 2016, but under a different set up than it has existed in the Gem state before. Typically, Idaho has held consolidated primaries with the presidential primary tied to the primaries for state and local offices. During the post-reform era, the Idaho primary has fallen in May more often than not. That late date, among other factors, led Idaho Democrats to abandon the primary to conduct delegate selection/allocation via a caucuses/convention system, but on an earlier date. Republicans in the state followed suit for the 2012 cycle.
The newly introduced legislation would create a separate presidential primary and schedule it on the second Tuesday in March (March 8, 2016). For such an early date, March 8 is fairly sparsely populated at the moment. Alabama, Mississippi and Ohio are the only primaries scheduled on that date1, but Alabama and Mississippi are likely to move up a week to join other southern states clustering their contests on March 1.2 Idaho, then, would move up into a position on the 2016 primary calendar that may pay some dividends in terms of attention.
It is a strategic position, then, that this bill would have the Idaho primary aiming for. However, it is not on the same date has been discussed as a potential clustering point for other neighboring interior-west states. Arizona has already moved to March 22 and Utah has been linked to that date on more than one occasion. One question that stems from that is whether this bill may be revised at some point to move the primary in that direction.
This primary move is not without potential problems. Reestablishing a presidential primary, but creating a separate election in the process comes with a price tag estimated to reach $2 million by the Idaho secretary of state. Even if the bill passed and was signed into law, there is no guarantee that Democratic and Republican Parties in the state would shift from their caucuses processes to a primary system for allocating delegates. It was not all that long ago that Idaho Republicans reaffirmed their intention to conduct caucuses in 2016.
The assistant Majority Leader in the state Senate, Senator Chuck Winder (R-20th) has indicated that the bill and the adoption of a presidential primary faces an uphill climb.
--
UPDATE (2/7/15): Idaho Republicans pass conditional resolution to return to primary
UPDATE (2/12/15): Second, similar primary bill proposed in Senate
UPDATE (2/25/15): Second, similar primary bill passes Senate committee
UPDATE (3/3/15): Second, similar primary bill passes Senate
--
1 The Hawaii Republican Party is also slated to hold caucuses on that date as well.
2 Ohio could also conceivably move back a week to join other midwestern states that have speculatively been linked to a midwestern regional primary.
Recent Posts:
Uncertainty surrounds NC primary
Michigan Inches Toward March Presidential Primary Move
2016 Utah Presidential Primary Miscellany
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
S 1049 would bring back the presidential primary for 2016, but under a different set up than it has existed in the Gem state before. Typically, Idaho has held consolidated primaries with the presidential primary tied to the primaries for state and local offices. During the post-reform era, the Idaho primary has fallen in May more often than not. That late date, among other factors, led Idaho Democrats to abandon the primary to conduct delegate selection/allocation via a caucuses/convention system, but on an earlier date. Republicans in the state followed suit for the 2012 cycle.
The newly introduced legislation would create a separate presidential primary and schedule it on the second Tuesday in March (March 8, 2016). For such an early date, March 8 is fairly sparsely populated at the moment. Alabama, Mississippi and Ohio are the only primaries scheduled on that date1, but Alabama and Mississippi are likely to move up a week to join other southern states clustering their contests on March 1.2 Idaho, then, would move up into a position on the 2016 primary calendar that may pay some dividends in terms of attention.
It is a strategic position, then, that this bill would have the Idaho primary aiming for. However, it is not on the same date has been discussed as a potential clustering point for other neighboring interior-west states. Arizona has already moved to March 22 and Utah has been linked to that date on more than one occasion. One question that stems from that is whether this bill may be revised at some point to move the primary in that direction.
This primary move is not without potential problems. Reestablishing a presidential primary, but creating a separate election in the process comes with a price tag estimated to reach $2 million by the Idaho secretary of state. Even if the bill passed and was signed into law, there is no guarantee that Democratic and Republican Parties in the state would shift from their caucuses processes to a primary system for allocating delegates. It was not all that long ago that Idaho Republicans reaffirmed their intention to conduct caucuses in 2016.
The assistant Majority Leader in the state Senate, Senator Chuck Winder (R-20th) has indicated that the bill and the adoption of a presidential primary faces an uphill climb.
--
UPDATE (2/7/15): Idaho Republicans pass conditional resolution to return to primary
UPDATE (2/12/15): Second, similar primary bill proposed in Senate
UPDATE (2/25/15): Second, similar primary bill passes Senate committee
UPDATE (3/3/15): Second, similar primary bill passes Senate
--
1 The Hawaii Republican Party is also slated to hold caucuses on that date as well.
2 Ohio could also conceivably move back a week to join other midwestern states that have speculatively been linked to a midwestern regional primary.
Recent Posts:
Uncertainty surrounds NC primary
Michigan Inches Toward March Presidential Primary Move
2016 Utah Presidential Primary Miscellany
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Uncertainty surrounds NC primary
Phillip Stephens, Robeson County (NC) Republican Party chairman, talks about the 2016 North Carolina presidential primary.
--
Skip the speculation based on a primary calendar that is still in flux.1 The important parts here are:
1 I must admit that FHQ has grown quite tired of folks speculating with seeming certainty based on an ever-shifting calendar. But that speculation is particularly irksome when it focuses on what we might call the options states -- like Colorado, Minnesota and Utah -- that have early and non-compliant options but are not locked into them. All that is explained in footnotes on the calendar. Yes, I understand the implications of complaining about footnotes not being read in an actual footnote. You aren't reading this, are you?
Recent Posts:
Michigan Inches Toward March Presidential Primary Move
2016 Utah Presidential Primary Miscellany
North Carolina Counties Balk at New 2016 Presidential Primary
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
--
Skip the speculation based on a primary calendar that is still in flux.1 The important parts here are:
- Someone within the Republican Party leadership, even if only at the county level, recognizes that there are penalties that would be levied against North Carolina if the state were to hold a February primary. There is not enough of this in-state at the moment.
- There is a connection made between penalties and the need if not likelihood of a primary date change. That may be forthcoming, but the wheels are not in motion in Raleigh at the General Assembly yet.
1 I must admit that FHQ has grown quite tired of folks speculating with seeming certainty based on an ever-shifting calendar. But that speculation is particularly irksome when it focuses on what we might call the options states -- like Colorado, Minnesota and Utah -- that have early and non-compliant options but are not locked into them. All that is explained in footnotes on the calendar. Yes, I understand the implications of complaining about footnotes not being read in an actual footnote. You aren't reading this, are you?
Recent Posts:
Michigan Inches Toward March Presidential Primary Move
2016 Utah Presidential Primary Miscellany
North Carolina Counties Balk at New 2016 Presidential Primary
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Michigan Inches Toward March Presidential Primary Move
On Thursday, February 5, the Michigan state Senate Elections and Government Reform Committee voted favorably on SB 44. The bill would move the Great Lakes state presidential primary from the fourth Tuesday in February to the third Tuesday in March; back into compliance with national party rules.
After testimony from the Michigan Republican Party and the secretary of states office, the committee vote broke along party lines. The committee's four Republicans voted to send the bill to the floor for consideration while the lone Democrat voted against the measure. According to the Detroit News, the move by Senator Morris Hood (D-3rd, Dearborn) was less about opposition to the bill than it was about Michigan Democrats not being consulted on the change of primary dates.
Michigan Republicans control both chambers of the legislature and the governor's mansion and can make the move without Democrats in the state. That was true last December as well when a bill with the same goal passed the state Senate before dying in the state House during the lame duck session. That may have been more of a timing issue than a lack of support for that bill.
The Michigan Republican Party endorsed the move to March 15 last fall.
--
UPDATE (2/12/15): Bill passes Senate
UPDATE (2/18/15): House passes amended version
UPDATE (2/19/15): Senate concurs with House changes
UPDATE (2/20/15): Governor signs bill (changes primary date to March 8, 2016)
--
Hat tip to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for the heads up.
Recent Posts:
2016 Utah Presidential Primary Miscellany
North Carolina Counties Balk at New 2016 Presidential Primary
Mississippi Senate Bill to Bump Presidential Primary Up Moves Forward
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
After testimony from the Michigan Republican Party and the secretary of states office, the committee vote broke along party lines. The committee's four Republicans voted to send the bill to the floor for consideration while the lone Democrat voted against the measure. According to the Detroit News, the move by Senator Morris Hood (D-3rd, Dearborn) was less about opposition to the bill than it was about Michigan Democrats not being consulted on the change of primary dates.
Michigan Republicans control both chambers of the legislature and the governor's mansion and can make the move without Democrats in the state. That was true last December as well when a bill with the same goal passed the state Senate before dying in the state House during the lame duck session. That may have been more of a timing issue than a lack of support for that bill.
The Michigan Republican Party endorsed the move to March 15 last fall.
--
UPDATE (2/12/15): Bill passes Senate
UPDATE (2/18/15): House passes amended version
UPDATE (2/19/15): Senate concurs with House changes
UPDATE (2/20/15): Governor signs bill (changes primary date to March 8, 2016)
--
Hat tip to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for the heads up.
Recent Posts:
2016 Utah Presidential Primary Miscellany
North Carolina Counties Balk at New 2016 Presidential Primary
Mississippi Senate Bill to Bump Presidential Primary Up Moves Forward
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
2016 Utah Presidential Primary Miscellany
There are a few things floating around related to the Utah presidential primary situation that deserve some attention, but do not really constitute stand-alone posts.
--
FHQ thought Utah state Rep. Jon Cox (R-58th, Ephraim) had a nice piece up over at Utah Policy the other day.1 Among other things he discussed:
FHQ has seen it said in a couple of places since all these Utah stories went to press that the origin of the February presidential primary in the state dates to 2013 and a bill introduced by Rep. Kraig Powell (R-54th, Heber City). That is not the case.
The Western States Presidential Primary came about because of legislation passed during the Utah legislature's 1999 session. Again, it was part of an effort spearheaded by Governor Mike Leavitt to encourage a regional primary among some of the non-coastal western states. The date at first was not in February though. Initially, the date of the Western States Presidential Primary was set for the first Friday after the first Monday in March. Yes, a Friday primary. And in 2000, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming Republicans held delegate selection events on that Friday, March 10.
After Utah Democrats held a party-run presidential primary in then-compliant February for the 2004 cycle, the Utah legislature shifted the date of the Western States Presidential Primary up to the first Tuesday in February. That legislation passed in 2006 and was in effect for the 2008 cycle. And the Western States Presidential Primary has remained in that spot ever since.
Of course, for the 2012 cycle, the Utah legislature did not appropriate funds for the February primary, meaning that there was no February election option. The state party voted to utilize the June primary for state and local offices in June 2011 and legislature later accommodated the party by passing a bill that allowed the party to do just that.
The 2013 action by Rep. Powell and the Utah state legislature was to clarify this set up; to provide a contingency that funding was necessary for the February primary to proceed, and if money was not appropriated, the June primary was an option (as called for in the 2011 change).
The February Utah presidential primary, then, dates back to 2006 legislation, not 2013.
--
1 Yes, that is the same Jon Cox who introduced the bill to move the Utah presidential primary ahead of Iowa last year.
Recent Posts:
North Carolina Counties Balk at New 2016 Presidential Primary
Mississippi Senate Bill to Bump Presidential Primary Up Moves Forward
Vermont Bill Would Add Rank Choice Voting to Presidential Primary Ballots for Military/Overseas Voters
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
--
FHQ thought Utah state Rep. Jon Cox (R-58th, Ephraim) had a nice piece up over at Utah Policy the other day.1 Among other things he discussed:
- The chair of the Republican Party in Utah did not know that the two dates/options for the 2016 presidential primary in the Beehive state were not compliant with the RNC rules. This sort of thing always amazes me until I remember not everyone is as obsessive about this stuff as I am. Still, it is noteworthy. But in reality, the June primary was compliant in 2012, and FHQ is sure the thinking/assumption in Utah was that it would be in 2016 as well. It is not.
- Rep. Cox does not speak for the Utah state legislature nor the Utah state government, but it really is fascinating when there are intra-party divisions that occur with a state government on one side and the state party on the other. In the Utah case, both sides are Republican. It was Republican division in Idaho a few years ago as well. There is some element of support for maintaining a primary system within the state government, but the state party backs the caucuses/convention system. That speaks to some divergence between elected officials in the state legislature and those in charge within the state party. It is not exactly the same of situation as that hypothesized about in the Meinke et al. research, but there are parallels. In Meinke, the hypothesis was that states where the the powers that be within the state party are ideologically different from the rank-and-file voters of their party would be more likely to see the state party attempt to close off the delegate selection process (i.e.: moving to caucuses). When the space between the party and voters was great, the likelihood of a closed process or caucuses was much greater. The party wants to exert more control over the nomination process. In Utah, though, it is the state government and not the voters at odds with the state party. But the state party backs a closed caucuses/convention process.
FHQ has seen it said in a couple of places since all these Utah stories went to press that the origin of the February presidential primary in the state dates to 2013 and a bill introduced by Rep. Kraig Powell (R-54th, Heber City). That is not the case.
The Western States Presidential Primary came about because of legislation passed during the Utah legislature's 1999 session. Again, it was part of an effort spearheaded by Governor Mike Leavitt to encourage a regional primary among some of the non-coastal western states. The date at first was not in February though. Initially, the date of the Western States Presidential Primary was set for the first Friday after the first Monday in March. Yes, a Friday primary. And in 2000, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming Republicans held delegate selection events on that Friday, March 10.
After Utah Democrats held a party-run presidential primary in then-compliant February for the 2004 cycle, the Utah legislature shifted the date of the Western States Presidential Primary up to the first Tuesday in February. That legislation passed in 2006 and was in effect for the 2008 cycle. And the Western States Presidential Primary has remained in that spot ever since.
Of course, for the 2012 cycle, the Utah legislature did not appropriate funds for the February primary, meaning that there was no February election option. The state party voted to utilize the June primary for state and local offices in June 2011 and legislature later accommodated the party by passing a bill that allowed the party to do just that.
The 2013 action by Rep. Powell and the Utah state legislature was to clarify this set up; to provide a contingency that funding was necessary for the February primary to proceed, and if money was not appropriated, the June primary was an option (as called for in the 2011 change).
The February Utah presidential primary, then, dates back to 2006 legislation, not 2013.
--
1 Yes, that is the same Jon Cox who introduced the bill to move the Utah presidential primary ahead of Iowa last year.
Recent Posts:
North Carolina Counties Balk at New 2016 Presidential Primary
Mississippi Senate Bill to Bump Presidential Primary Up Moves Forward
Vermont Bill Would Add Rank Choice Voting to Presidential Primary Ballots for Military/Overseas Voters
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
North Carolina Counties Balk at New 2016 Presidential Primary
The county Boards of Elections in Burke County and Scotland County in North Carolina have raised some concerns about the administration of the Tarheel state's new presidential primary in 2016.
Dell Parker, the Scotland County Board of Elections director, has indicated that the budget for elections in 2015-2016 only accounts for two elections, not three or four (if there is a separate presidential primary and runoff in addition to the May primary and general elections). That is something that will have to be changed/augmented at the county level.1
Further west in Burke County, the $67000 price tag for conducting the separate presidential primary and the logistics of preparing for an early primary on the heels of municipal elections in November 2015 has given Board of Elections members there pause.
--
None of this is particularly revelatory. In fact, it is a typical reaction from the county units of Boards of Elections on the front lines actually conducting elections. It also does not mean that the North Carolina primary has to move or that this will exert any pressure on state legislators who would make that decision.
However, this is all part of what has separated states from each other in the post-reform era. In terms the Economist used four years ago, there are thrusters and laggards. The latter group tends to include states like North Carolina that have traditionally held consolidated primaries that are usually at the end of the presidential primary calendar. There may be a willingness in states like that to move to earlier dates, but there are transaction costs associated with such a move. Those costs are clearer in states that opt to separate the presidential primary, freeing that election up to be more mobile in the future. That sort of future freedom requires states and lower political units to fund that separate election; a high hurdle given the example of how some counties in North Carolina are reacting as 2016 approaches.
Those costs, however, have separated the states like North Carolina from the traditionally more mobile states -- early adopters of separate primaries -- like Florida, Georgia and a number of northeastern states.2 This is a substantively and statistically significant variable in much of the research FHQ has done on the matter.
Again, counties crying foul about this sort of thing is not new. Furthermore, it is unlikely to exert any real pressure in Raleigh to change the date of the North Carolina primary. And even if it does, those concerns are likely to take a backseat to pressure from the Republican National Committee to change the date of the primary.
--
1 Scotland County Board of Elections chair, Hal Culberson, states in that article:
North Carolina held separate presidential primaries in both 1976 -- when they held a March presidential primary and August primary for other offices -- and 1988 -- when there was a March presidential primary and a May primary for state and local offices.
2 Those states tended to have fall primaries for state and local offices that were valued, but not suited for a presidential nomination process that wrapped up with a summer convention. In other words, those states wanted to keep their fall primaries, and had to create an alternative election to play the presidential nomination game.
Recent Posts:
Mississippi Senate Bill to Bump Presidential Primary Up Moves Forward
Vermont Bill Would Add Rank Choice Voting to Presidential Primary Ballots for Military/Overseas Voters
North Carolina: 2016's Rogue State?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Dell Parker, the Scotland County Board of Elections director, has indicated that the budget for elections in 2015-2016 only accounts for two elections, not three or four (if there is a separate presidential primary and runoff in addition to the May primary and general elections). That is something that will have to be changed/augmented at the county level.1
Further west in Burke County, the $67000 price tag for conducting the separate presidential primary and the logistics of preparing for an early primary on the heels of municipal elections in November 2015 has given Board of Elections members there pause.
--
None of this is particularly revelatory. In fact, it is a typical reaction from the county units of Boards of Elections on the front lines actually conducting elections. It also does not mean that the North Carolina primary has to move or that this will exert any pressure on state legislators who would make that decision.
However, this is all part of what has separated states from each other in the post-reform era. In terms the Economist used four years ago, there are thrusters and laggards. The latter group tends to include states like North Carolina that have traditionally held consolidated primaries that are usually at the end of the presidential primary calendar. There may be a willingness in states like that to move to earlier dates, but there are transaction costs associated with such a move. Those costs are clearer in states that opt to separate the presidential primary, freeing that election up to be more mobile in the future. That sort of future freedom requires states and lower political units to fund that separate election; a high hurdle given the example of how some counties in North Carolina are reacting as 2016 approaches.
Those costs, however, have separated the states like North Carolina from the traditionally more mobile states -- early adopters of separate primaries -- like Florida, Georgia and a number of northeastern states.2 This is a substantively and statistically significant variable in much of the research FHQ has done on the matter.
Again, counties crying foul about this sort of thing is not new. Furthermore, it is unlikely to exert any real pressure in Raleigh to change the date of the North Carolina primary. And even if it does, those concerns are likely to take a backseat to pressure from the Republican National Committee to change the date of the primary.
--
1 Scotland County Board of Elections chair, Hal Culberson, states in that article:
"It will be the first time ever we’ve had a presidential-only primary,’’ said Hal Culberson, the elections board chairman, at the board’s Monday meeting. “We’ve never had an election primary just for the U.S. presidential election."False.
North Carolina held separate presidential primaries in both 1976 -- when they held a March presidential primary and August primary for other offices -- and 1988 -- when there was a March presidential primary and a May primary for state and local offices.
2 Those states tended to have fall primaries for state and local offices that were valued, but not suited for a presidential nomination process that wrapped up with a summer convention. In other words, those states wanted to keep their fall primaries, and had to create an alternative election to play the presidential nomination game.
Recent Posts:
Mississippi Senate Bill to Bump Presidential Primary Up Moves Forward
Vermont Bill Would Add Rank Choice Voting to Presidential Primary Ballots for Military/Overseas Voters
North Carolina: 2016's Rogue State?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)