Oklahoma Presidential Primary Bill Gets the Green Light from Senate Committee

The legislation to move the Oklahoma presidential primary back three weeks in 2016 passed the state Senate Rules Committee by an 8-4 vote on Wednesday, February 11. The vote largely broke along party lines with one Republican joining the three Democrats on the committee in dissent.

SB 233 would shift the Oklahoma presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the fourth Tuesday in March. The move may be more about a return to a districted winner-take-all allocation method among Oklahoma Republicans than it is about regional calendar clustering. The Republican Party has traditionally utilized a districted winner-take-all plan, but strayed from that tradition in 2012 to maintain compliance with the new RNC proportionality requirement.

If that is the case, Oklahoma would join Arizona as the only states shifting to later dates on the 2016 presidential primary calendar to retain a winner-take-all allocation method on the Republican side.

The bill now moves to the state Senate floor for consideration.

--
UPDATE (3/3/15): Bill passes Senate


Recent Posts:
Texas Presidential Primary Bill Challenging Carve-Out States Does Not Have State Party Support

Mississippi Presidential Primary Bills Pass

Vermont Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to Same Date as New Hampshire's

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

Texas Presidential Primary Bill Challenging Carve-Out States Does Not Have State Party Support

Legislation introduced earlier this week to move the Texas presidential primary to January is not gaining plaudits from state party officials on either side of the partisan aisle. Rep. Lyle Larson (R-122, San Antonio) filed HB 1214 on Monday, February 9 with the intent of shifting the Texas presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the last Tuesday in January.

This is the same position the Florida presidential primary was set on in both 2008 and 2012. The difference is that while Florida moved into the fifth position on the calendar and lost half of its delegates during the last two presidential election cycles, Texas would move from the shared fifth position it enjoys now on March 1 -- assuming all other states comply with national party rules -- to the fifth position alone on the calendar at the end of January and have its delegation reduced to just 12 delegates (nine delegates plus the three RNC members from Texas).

On the Democratic side, the national party would penalize Texas half its delegates to start, but the rules grant the Rules and Bylaws Committee the discretion to increase that penalty if necessary.

Officials, regardless of party affiliation, within the state parties were not open to the possible change according to David Saleh Rauf of the San Antonio Express-News.

Republican Party of Texas Chairman Steve Munisteri (via Rauf):

But Texas GOP Chairman Steven Munisteri said he expects states to play by the rules this time because the consequences are much stiffer. If the Legislature passed Larson's bill, Munisteri said Texas' share of delegates would decline from 155 to nine, making the state "completely irrelevant." 

He also said Larson's bill would incur penalties from the national party that would prevent the state party from acquiring delegate guest passes, which are used to sell corporate sponsorship. Munisteri estimates the state party made about $250,000 on corporate sponsorships during the last national convention. 

"There's zero chance this is going to pass," said Munisteri, who noted that he's already sending letters to lawmakers to oppose the bill. "As soon as we explain this to anybody they say 'we don't want that.'"

Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa had this to say to Rauf:

Gilberto Hinojosa, the chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, said it would be a mistake for the Legislature to pass Larson's proposal "just so Texas can try to have a little more political weight in the national primary." 

"This is very irresponsible on the part of this legislator," Hinojosa said. "I doubt he's going to find very much support."

Despite that opposition, Rep. Larson is ready to move forward with the bill.


Recent Posts:
Mississippi Presidential Primary Bills Pass

Vermont Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to Same Date as New Hampshire's

Texas Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary to January

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

Mississippi Presidential Primary Bills Pass

The Mississippi state House unanimously passed HB 933 on Tuesday, February 10. The bill would move the Magnolia state primary up a week from the second Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in March. The latter is the date currently being targeted by a small cluster of southern states for an SEC primary.

The companion bill in the state Senate passed on Wednesday, February 11. However, the Senate version (SB 2531) emerged from committee with a small amendment that changed a bill that matched the House version. That amendment was subsequently withdrawn and another was added on the floor addressing a change in the presidential candidate filing period.

As the bills cross over to the opposite chambers, those differences between the two bills will have to be rectified.

--
Update (3/3/15): House bill dies in committee, Senate bill passes committee
UPDATE (3/11/15): Amended Senate bill passes state House


Recent Posts:
Vermont Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to Same Date as New Hampshire's

Texas Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary to January

Idaho Republican Party Votes to Return to Presidential Primary, but...

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

Vermont Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to Same Date as New Hampshire's

Legislation was introduced in the Vermont state Senate on Tuesday, February 10 to move the Green Mountain state presidential primary in line with the first in the nation primary in New Hampshire.

State Senator Anthony Pollina (PD-28th, North Middlesex)¹ introduced S 76 to not only schedule the Vermont presidential primary for the same date as the New Hampshire primary, but to also leave that date setting power to the Vermont secretary of state. This would not only tether the Vermont primary to its counterpart in neighboring New Hampshire, but it also mimics the New Hampshire presidential primary law to some degree by ceding the date-setting power to the secretary of state.

Now, FHQ says to some degree. The New Hampshire law sets the Granite state primary for the second Tuesday in March. If, however, other states opt to go earlier than that point on the calendar -- an outcome that is a given in the post-reform era -- the New Hampshire secretary of state has the ability/requirement to move the presidential primary to a spot on the calendar seven days before any other similar election. The Vermont bill does not really provide its secretary of state with such power. The bill calls for the primary date to be the same as New Hampshire's and would require the secretary of state to set that date once New Hampshire's date is settled.

That is not the same as the New Hampshire law. But that is not the key point here. The important thing is that we have witnessed all of this before. New Hampshire and Secretary of State Bill Gardner in particular has been adept at playing this waiting game; not setting a date for New Hampshire until the dust has either completely settled or has all but reached that state (see 2011 for examples here, here and here). Adept is an apt description, but seasoned would be accurate as well. Gardner and New Hampshire have been through this before. His office has the ability to wait other states out and in turn the state's election administration apparatus has to be able to respond quickly and hold an essentially snap election just weeks later (a less than two month turnaround in 2008 and 2012).

But this potential Vermont challenge is slightly different than the normal threat to New Hampshire's first in the nation status. This is similar to the North Carolina threat to South Carolina. This is not a situation where a state has drawn a specific line in the sand (see Texas) that only requires New Hampshire to jump to an earlier date. Rather, Vermont -- like North Carolina -- has tethered the date of its contest to that of another state. In other words, there is no escaping the challenging state.

Nevertheless, this tethering is not unusual territory for New Hampshire and Secretary Gardner. Delaware coupled its primary to New Hampshire's in 1996 and 2000; the Saturday after New Hampshire. Wyoming Republicans in 2007 initially scheduled their caucuses for the same date as New Hampshire for 2008 before opting to go before the Granite state. In both instances, New Hampshire escaped. In the Delaware case, the candidates were basically blackballed by the parties in New Hampshire if they campaigned in Delaware. That rendered the contest in the First state virtually meaningless. The candidates and press were in New Hampshire. Wyoming is a tough draw for the candidates and media in the best of times, but in January neither group was likely to provide caucuses with much attention. [See also Nevada in 2011]

If the party rules do not dissuade Vermont, then look for the parties in New Hampshire to put pressure on the candidates to steer clear of the Green Mountain state. That is how it has worked in New Hampshire in the post-reform era.

UPDATE: Is this bill meant to help Senator Bernie Sanders?
UPDATE (2/18/15): Identical legislation introduced in state House

--
¹ Senator Pollina is a member of the Progressive Party in Vermont.

Recent Posts:
Texas Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary to January

Idaho Republican Party Votes to Return to Presidential Primary, but...

DC Presidential Primary Continues Slow Crawl to June

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

Texas Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary to January

Legislation was introduced on Monday, February 9 to move the presidential primary in Texas from March to January.

Provocative though that may seem, HB 1214, would appear on the surface to be a "boy who cried wolf" primary bill. The proposal from Representative Lyle Larson (R-122, San Antonio) would shift the date of the presidential primary -- and those for other offices as well -- from the first Tuesday in March to the fourth Tuesday in January. That would move the primary from March 1 to January 26 on the 2016 presidential primary calendar.

Sure, that would fundamentally disrupt any plans either of the two major parties had for an orderly calendar for 2016. Yet, similar bills have come and gone in Texas over the last few years with little serious consideration, much less actual passage.

In 2007, legislation actually passed the Texas state House to move the primary up a month from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. February primaries were allowed during the 2008 cycle. The bill subsequently got bottled up in the state Senate and the Texas primary stayed in March.¹

The same thing happened in 2009. Legislation to move the primary up to February was introduced in the state House, but it died in committee.

Then in 2010, legislative Democrats prefiled legislation for the 2011 session to again attempt to move the Texas primary to the first Tuesday in February. The rules were different in 2012 and that February date would not have been compliant with the national parties' regulations. As in 2009, though, the bill died in committee, keeping the Texas primary in February.

Starting to see the pattern here?

In the last legislative session in 2013, history repeated itself again, but this time with a twist. Instead of Democrats leading the charge to alter the Texas primary date, Republicans took up the banner. Legislation was introduced in the state Senate that would have pushed the presidential primary up into February and out of compliance with national party rules. It, too, died in committee.

The 2015 entry takes things back to the Texas state House and ramps up the provocation by settling on a date a week earlier than all the other previous bills: the last week in January.

The only thing that has moved the Texas primary since legislation moved it up a week from the second to first week in March has been redistricting. And that 2003 bill was delayed from taking effect until 2008. The only thing that chased Texas out of March in recent history was the fallout from congressional redistricting that forced the primary into late May for the 2012 cycle.

Would it be interesting, if not fun, to see the chaos a move such as this would trigger? Absolutely. But recent history suggests that this is nothing more than a bill that will not go anywhere in the Texas legislature.

FHQ finds it interesting that this legislation would place the Texas primary on the same date as the tentative New Hampshire primary date here. Someone ask Rep. Larson if he was looking at that calendar while visions of tweaking New Hampshire's position on the calendar were on his mind.

--
¹ There were three other bills that session that proposed the same primary change and met the same fate.

--
Hat tip to FHQ reader, Joe Wenzinger, for the heads up on the legislation out of Texas.

Recent Posts:
Idaho Republican Party Votes to Return to Presidential Primary, but...

DC Presidential Primary Continues Slow Crawl to June

Evidence of a Big Ten Presidential Primary?

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

Idaho Republican Party Votes to Return to Presidential Primary, but...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

1. "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."


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.


2. "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."


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.