Minnesota Parties Jointly Agree on Compliant March 1 Caucuses

With just two weeks left before a rather important deadline, the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and the Minnesota Republican Party agreed to conduct caucuses on March 1, 2016.

Minnesota represents one of the few instances where there are both presidential caucuses and some state law guidance on the conduct of those elections.¹ According to to the Minnesota statutes, the state parties must jointly agree on a date for the presidential-year caucuses on or before March 1 in the year prior to the presidential election. In the event that there is no agreement between the parties, the law automatically sets the date of the precinct caucuses for the first Tuesday in February.

That's a problem. No agreement means a February caucuses date out of compliance with the national parties' rules on delegate selection, and thus penalties from the national parties.

This very outcome is what transpired in 2011. February 28 came and went with no agreement between the DFL and Minnesota Republicans. That pushed the 2012 Minnesota caucuses up to February 7. Of course, the DFL devised a plan to hold the caucuses on February 7, but not reveal the results until March 6. That was enough of an action to get the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to grant the DFL a waiver, avoiding penalties from the national party. It also helped the waiver process for the Minnesota DFL that the Democratic Party was renominating President Obama and that he faced nothing more than token opposition in the primaries and caucuses.² In other words, that reality made the granting of a waiver much easier for the Rules and Bylaws Committee.

Republicans in Minnesota held non-binding caucuses which helped them skirt RNC sanctions barring nominating contests before the first Tuesday in March during the 2012 cycle. That did not stop candidates from campaigning there or the media from misinterpreting the results. It did, however, contribute to the RNC rules changes cutting off that non-binding loophole for 2016.

Needless to say, the dynamics changed for both parties in different ways, but that has prompted action among the parties in Minnesota where it was lacking four years ago. And there was no evidence of friction between the parties on this in 2011. None of the reporting indicated anything of that nature. Instead, it just appears to be an oversight on both sides that stemmed from the law change in 2010 that set the March 1 deadline in the first place.

Whereas clarity was lacking in 2011, it is not in 2015. The Minnesota caucuses are locked into March 1 for the 2016 cycle.³ And that removes Minnesota from the potential rogue state list.


Thanks to Mike Taphorn for sending news of this along to FHQ.

--
¹ In most cases, caucuses and the rules governing them are the domain of the state parties. Their bylaws and other actions are the only things that affect the parameters of a given caucuses/convention process.

² There was no opposition to the president in the 2012 Minnesota caucuses.

³ Well, the parties are locked in to that date so long as the state legislature does not create a presidential primary election that the parties opt into. That appears unlikely, though, the possibility has been discussed in the past.


Recent Posts:
New Mexico Republicans Chasing More Attention with Earlier Primary Attempt

Vermont Primary Bill Sponsor After a "Shot in the Arm"

Bernie Sanders and Vermont's Attempt at Challenging the New Hampshire Primary

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

New Mexico Republicans Chasing More Attention with Earlier Primary Attempt

Republicans in the Land of Enchantment seem to have grown tired of being at the end of the presidential primary calendar. The recent legislation introduced in the New Mexico state legislature appears to be motivated by a desire to get a piece of the early primary state pie.

Deborah Baker at the Albuquerque Journal reports that this sentiment stretches beyond Republicans in the state legislature to the state's representatives on the Republican National Committee.

New Mexico Republican National Committeeman, Pat Rogers, said,

"If New Mexico maintains a June primary, we’re going to be completely irrelevant. We not only won’t receive any visits; we may never hear the words ‘New Mexico’ during the campaign season.”

The bill's sponsor in the New Mexico, Representative Nate Gentry (R-30th, Bernalillo) -- the House Majority leader in the state House -- echoed that but added the economic benefits an earlier primary would bring:

“They’d [the candidates would] be staying in our hotels, eating in our restaurants … so it would really be a boost to the tourism industry.”

It is not clear how that would necessarily work. HB 346, the bill to move the primary, proposes shifting the date up to the third Tuesday in March. Illinois and Missouri are already scheduled for that date -- March 15 -- and Michigan has already passed legislation through one chamber to move to that date as well. That is not that crowded, but that could change. If a Big Ten  primary forms on that date with more midwestern partners for the states already there, that would potentially harm the New Mexico effort to draw attention from the candidates. There may be greener pastures on an earlier date or legislators in New Mexico could gamble that the race will still be active later in March where some other neighboring western states are either already scheduled or are considering moving.

Recent Posts:
Vermont Primary Bill Sponsor After a "Shot in the Arm"

Bernie Sanders and Vermont's Attempt at Challenging the New Hampshire Primary

Utah Bill Would Shift February Presidential Primary Option Back to March

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

Vermont Primary Bill Sponsor After a "Shot in the Arm"

Morgan True at VTDigger has the motivation behind Sen. Anthony Pollina's (P/D-28th, North Middlesex) effort to sync the Vermont presidential primary with the first in the nation primary next-door in New Hampshire. And it is standard fare.

While Pollina downplayed any benefits Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) might gain from an early home state primary, he did say that an earlier primary would be an "economic shot in the arm" to the state. Pollina added:

"There’s a lot of money generated during primary season, and there’s no reason why Vermont shouldn’t reap some of the benefits of the early primary.”

He also indicated that the presidential nomination process would benefit from “hav[ing] more liberal and progressive voices heard”. Neither of those explanations is foreign to states that shuffle on the calendar or those that have traditionally been left behind in the process (for whatever reason).

As True notes there are already reservations from the would-be empowered secretary of state's office, the entity charged with carrying out the election under the provisions of the bill if passed. Those logistical concerns do not even directly address whether the expected financial windfall of the earlier primary would offset the costs of separating the primary from the traditional first Tuesday in March town meeting day that has more often run concurrently with the presidential primary, beauty contest or not.


Recent Posts:
Bernie Sanders and Vermont's Attempt at Challenging the New Hampshire Primary

Utah Bill Would Shift February Presidential Primary Option Back to March

Michigan Presidential Primary Bill Passes State Senate, but...

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

Bernie Sanders and Vermont's Attempt at Challenging the New Hampshire Primary

Favorite sons and their influence on state delegate selection rules are in the news these days. But it is not all Rand Paul requesting Kentucky Republicans to switch to a caucuses/convention process.

News out of Vermont that legislation had been proposed to move the Green Mountain state presidential primary to the same date as the New Hampshire primary came out of left field the other day. For starters, Vermont has never really been a big player in the presidential nomination process. The state is just not that delegate-rich, and it has always taken a backseat to its eastern neighbor on that front. In recognition of that Vermont has not been much of a primary calendar mover over the years. Since abandoning beauty contest primaries and/or caucuses after 1992 for binding primaries in 1996, Vermont has been stationed on the first Tuesday in March.¹ Not even when former Vermont Governor Howard Dean sought the Democratic nomination in 2004 did Vermont relent in holding onto that early March position.²

The record is pretty clear, then, that Vermont has not really been a factor in nomination races nor on the primary calendar. But what is different about 2016? Why is there interest in moving the presidential primary in Vermont and challenging New Hampshire's long-held first in the nation status?

One fairly convincing idea is that the move is intended to help Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who is considering a challenge to a potential Hillary Clinton campaign for the Democratic nomination. This sort of action is not foreign to the history of presidential nomination politics. There was talk of Utah moving its primary to benefit Mitt Romney in 2012. Part of the rationale behind Illinois' uncharacteristic shift out of its traditional third Tuesday in March calendar position for 2008 was to provide then-Senator Barack Obama with a counterweight to Hillary Clinton wins on Super Tuesday. President Carter's reelection campaign sent envoy Hamilton Jordan to Georgia (and Alabama) to talk to legislators there about moving their primaries to dates that serve as a counterbalance to any gains Ted Kennedy might receive from early contests in New Hampshire and Massachusetts in 1980.

States moving primaries or caucuses around to help presidential candidates from that state is nothing new.

What helps the idea along that this is what is happening in Vermont with Bernie Sanders is that the bill came from a state legislator not in the Democratic or Republican parties but from a state senator -- Sen. Anthony Pollina (P/D-28th, North Middlesex) -- who is a member of the Progressive Party. Now, Sen. Sanders is an independent (who caucuses with Democrats) from Vermont in the United States Senate, but that does not mean he is not often associated with the Progressive Party in Vermont  or that the party does not claim him as one of their own.

Now a former Progressive Party gubernatorial candidate and current state senator has introduced legislation in the Vermont legislature to move the Green Mountain state presidential primary to the same date as the New Hampshire primary. FHQ will not advance into the strategic considerations of what a Vermont primary on the same day as New Hampshire would mean for a contest between Clinton and Sanders.³ However, it is interesting to consider how home state legislators will address such a bill. The Progressives are a small cadre of legislators in both chambers of the Vermont legislature, so they would need help moving this bill. Would some Democrats join them to help Sanders and/or promote Vermont's position? Would some Republicans get behind the effort to promote Vermont or potentially hurt Clinton (whether it actually would or not)?⁴ Could a little of both happen and get the bill close to passage or over that hurdle?

In the end, considering those questions is nothing more than a thought exercise. There are too many ifs involved at this point to even really consider passage of the bill. But even if it becomes law, Bernie Sanders might be the only one campaigning (if he chose to) in a throwback beauty contest primary in Vermont while all the attention remains further east in New Hampshire.

--
¹ Even during the beauty contest primary years, the primary fell on the first Tuesday in March (see 1976, 1980 and 1988). Actually, the fact that the Vermont primary was not binding in those years is the only reason that it escaped penalties from the national parties. The Democratic Party, for instance, did not allow non-Iowa/New Hampshire contests to be held before the second Tuesday in March. That did not change -- moving up a week to the first Tuesday in March -- until the 1992 cycle.

² The primary could have been moved as early as the first Tuesday in February in 2004. That was the year that the DNC joined the RNC in allowing non-Iowa/New Hampshire states to conduct nominating contests in February. The RNC had allowed a handful of February contests as early as 1996. It should also be pointed that the Vermont House was under Republican control at the time and the chamber may have been less amenable to a change in the primary date intended to help a Democrat, even a Vermont Democrat.

³ It really is moot. New Hampshire is more than adept at fending off these types of challenges.

⁴ There are not enough Progressives and Republicans to overcome the Democratic majorities in either chamber.

Recent Posts:
Utah Bill Would Shift February Presidential Primary Option Back to March

Michigan Presidential Primary Bill Passes State Senate, but...

Oklahoma Presidential Primary Bill Gets the Green Light from Senate Committee

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

Utah Bill Would Shift February Presidential Primary Option Back to March

Utah Representative Jon Cox (R-58th, Ephraim) last year introduced and shepherded though the Utah state House legislation to move the Beehive state presidential primary ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire. That bill failed in the state Senate, but Rep. Cox is back with a 2015 bill affecting the date of the Utah presidential primary. This time, however, it is less provocative.

Currently, both Utah presidential primary options are non-compliant with the national party rules. If the legislature appropriates funds to a separate presidential primary, it would fall in February. Absent that funding, the parties would be forced into the June primary¹, which falls on a date too late to comply with the rules. In other words, some change must be made on one end of this spectrum or the other if Utah is to hold a compliant presidential primary in 2016.

HB 329 was introduced by Rep. Cox on Thursday, February 12 and would move the earlier primary option available to Utah political parties from the first Tuesday in February to the fourth Tuesday in March.² That fourth Tuesday in March -- March 22 -- is not only compliant with the national party delegate selection rules, but also is a date on which the neighboring Arizona primary has already been scheduled. Oklahoma is also eyeing that date and both Idaho and New Mexico are considering earlier March options as well. All together, that movement -- first in the legislatures and then on the calendar -- could facilitate a western regional primary (an effort Utah has been linked to). That, however, would require some revision to the legislation being considered in Idaho and New Mexico.

The regional primary considerations are secondary at this point in Utah. The bigger hang up in the Beehive state may be that a presidential primary option is being pushed within the state government while the state Republican Party is leaning toward adopting caucuses. That would render this move moot should the legislation be passed and signed into law. Yet, a regional primary may provide some measure of enticement to state party Republicans weighing their delegate selection options. But the decision-making within the Utah Republican Party could affect deliberations on this bill first. If the party chooses to move to a caucuses/convention system for 2016, movement on this bill may stop completely.

--
UPDATE (3/5/15): Amended bill passes House committee.


--
¹ They could also opt to hold caucuses as a means of selecting and allocating delegates, but at the parties' expense.

² That creates/appropriates funds to a separate presidential primary and leaves the primaries for state and local offices in late June.


Recent Posts:
Michigan Presidential Primary Bill Passes State Senate, but...

Oklahoma Presidential Primary Bill Gets the Green Light from Senate Committee

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

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

Michigan Presidential Primary Bill Passes State Senate, but...

The Michigan state Senate on Thursday, February 12 unanimously passed (38-0) SB 44.¹ The legislation would shift the presidential primary in the Great Lakes state back three weeks on the 2016 presidential primary calendar and importantly back into compliance with the Republican National Committee delegate selection rules.

Similar legislation, however, followed a similar path late in 2014. During the lame duck legislative session last December, a bill passed the state Senate that would have made the same change: move the presidential primary from the fourth Tuesday in February to the third Tuesday in March. That legislation met roadblocks in the state House before quickly thereafter dying in committee when the session adjourned.

It does not appear as if the 2015 effort is out of the House-side woods yet. Elections Committee Chairwoman Lisa Posthumus Lyons (R-86th) has signaled some resistance on logistics grounds to the March 15 primary date called for in the Senate-passed bill. The chairwoman did concede that the primary must be "sometime in March" according to David Eggert at the Washington Times², but that is hardly a ringing endorsement of the mid-March date.

One noteworthy consideration moving forward is that the delegate allocation plan the Michigan Republican Party adopted last fall is not winner-take-all and thus does not have to fall on or after March 15 to avoid penalties from the RNC. The Michigan plan is conditionally winner-take-all which passes muster under RNC proportionality requirement dating back to 2011. That would work on March 1 or March 8 as well. There has been some talk about a Midwestern/Big 10 primary. That could work on March 15 or March 8. The Ohio primary is already scheduled for March 8 while the Illinois and Missouri primaries are slated for March 15. The new Michigan Republican plan works in any March scenario. That may provide legislators with some leeway if not bargaining power in finalizing the primary date (if a compromise can be reached).

Tip of the cap to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for the heads up about the passage of the Michigan bill.

--
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)


--
¹ Despite Democratic opposition to the bill in committee and a failed attempt at amending the legislation on the Senate floor, Michigan Democrats in the state Senate lined up behind the effort to move the primary to March and back into compliance with Democratic National Committee rules.

² Nitpicky point: Eggert mentions that the current February date of the Michigan primary dates to a 2012 law. This is false. The presidential primary law was amended in 2011 for the 2012 cycle, but the fourth Tuesday in February date of the primary was left unchanged in that bill. That bill merely solidified that date for 2012, since the state Republicans considered changing it to a March date. The February presidential primary pre-dates the 2008 cycle because the law was temporarily changed in 2007 -- moving the primary into January. That change had a sunset provision that saw the primary date revert to February thereafter. There were changes made to that law in both 1999 and 2003, but the Michigan presidential primary was on the fourth Tuesday in February in 2000. That seems to trace the origin of the February date back to the 1999 change. The date was not established or changed in 2012 though.


Recent Posts:
Oklahoma Presidential Primary Bill Gets the Green Light from Senate Committee

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

Mississippi Presidential Primary Bills Pass

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

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.