Identical bills have been introduced in both chambers of the Maryland legislature to shift the date of the presidential primary in the Old Line state back a week. HB 396 and SB 204 would move the Maryland presidential primary from the first Tuesday in April to the second Tuesday in April.
It appears as if the move is motivated by 1) the Baltimore city primaries being consolidated with the presidential primary (in 2012), 2) keeping the city primaries from overlapping with religious holidays (dealt with in separate legislation) and 3) as a cost saving mechanism (that the consolidation was intended to bring about).
--
UPDATE (2/24/15): Senate bill passes committee
UPDATE (3/3/15): Senate bill amended on floor
UPDATE (3/5/15): Bill passes state Senate
UPDATE (3/15/15): House bill clears committee
Recent Posts:
Snyder's Signature Sends Michigan Presidential Primary to March 8
Minnesota Republicans Seeking Waiver from New RNC Delegate-Binding Rule
North Carolina: Staying Rogue for 2016?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Snyder's Signature Sends Michigan Presidential Primary to March 8
There was no delay in Lansing in moving the Wolverine state presidential primary to March 8. Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (R) signed SB 44 on Friday, February 20 just after having the bill transmitted to his office after it passed the state Senate yesterday.
Michigan now joins Ohio, Hawaii Republicans and both Alabama and Mississippi probably temporarily on the next earliest date after March 1. Find an updated 2016 presidential primary calendar here.
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for the heads up on the Michigan news.
--
Here is the press release on the primary move from Governor Snyder's office:
Gov. Rick Snyder signs legislation moving Michigan's presidential primary to March
Also moves February elections to March in years with presidential primaries
Friday, Feb. 20, 2015
LANSING, Mich. — Gov. Rick Snyder today signed legislation setting the date of the Michigan presidential primary to March 8, 2016.
Senate Bills 44 and 45, sponsored by state Sen. David Robertson, move the statewide presidential primary from the fourth Tuesday in February to the second Tuesday in March going forward. The bills also move the regular February election to the second Tuesday in March during years when Michigan holds a statewide presidential primary.
“Presidential primaries are an important part of our democratic process,” Snyder said. “This legislation ensures Michiganders can exercise their right to vote while ensuring no extra costs are incurred to our local governments to administer presidential primaries.”
The bills put Michigan in line with the Republican National Committee’s new rules for scheduling primary elections and caucuses. If Michigan remained in violation with the new rules, the state’s number of delegates could have been reduced by 80 percent.
In the past, the Democratic Party has opted to select delegates using a caucus process.
Michigan has regularly held statewide presidential primary elections since 1972.
The bills are Public Acts 1 and 2 of 2015.
Recent Posts:
Minnesota Republicans Seeking Waiver from New RNC Delegate-Binding Rule
North Carolina: Staying Rogue for 2016?
Michigan Senate Agrees to March 8 Presidential Primary Date
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Minnesota Republicans Seeking Waiver from New RNC Delegate-Binding Rule
Fresh off having agreed with the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party on a date for the 2016 Minnesota caucuses, the Republican Party in the Land of 10,000 Lakes is surveying its compliance with other guidelines in the Republican National Committee delegate selection rules. One new addition to the national party rules that will cause the Minnesota Republican caucuses to break with tradition is the new binding requirement the RNC tacked onto the rules at its 2012 national convention in Tampa.1 And that is not going over well in Minnesota.
The hubbub now as then -- August 2012 -- was that the new rule was intended to halt the practice of non-binding precinct caucuses. The Republican National Committee had and has a vested interest in the results of primaries and caucuses relaying to the candidates, campaigns and voters some clear indication of how the presidential preference vote in the caucuses transfers to candidate delegate totals. Not knowing how that actually looked in Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota and other caucuses states led to endless misinterpretations of the real-time nature of the delegate count at any given point in time.
But that is the RNC perspective. From the states' points of view the move not only alters the standard operating procedure for some of the caucuses states, but it is evidence of the establishment within the Republican Party overreaching into an area typically the domain of the states and negatively affecting the grassroots party building that non-binding precinct caucuses (with presidential preference vote) facilitate.
It is that latter part that has apparently stuck in the craw of Minnesota Republicans. That has the Minnesota Republican Party looking to be granted a waiver by the RNC under Rule 16(f)(3) to return to business as usual with the caucuses.2 The bar for being granted such a waiver appears to be pretty high (and at least somewhat subjective). First, a state must demonstrate that it is impossible to comply with the new binding requirement. That seems tough when their are caucuses states -- even unorganized ones3 -- that can manage this. Furthermore, after the state has to jump through that hoop it must also convince the RNC that the waiver is in the best interest of the Republican Party. Now, "the best interests of the Republican Party" is not at all clear. It may also be that the RNC and a state party have different ideas about what constitutes the best interests.
None of this is to suggest that the Republican Party of Minnesota will not be successful in its efforts to gain a waiver to continue with non-binding caucuses. That may yet happen. However, Minnesota may be a test case of sorts for the RNC. If they are granted a waiver, other non-binding caucuses states will/may be interested in following suit. That may undermine the new rule, and that likely will not be judged to be in the best interests of the Republican Party.
...at least not by the RNC.
This waiver issue is actually pretty important. It certainly bears watching. It may only affect a small sliver of states -- caucuses states -- but it could have a fairly significant impact on how we follow the evolving delegate race in 2016.4
--
1 Below is the language of that RNC rule:
4 Yes, yes. I know. The invisible primary may make that pursuit of delegates moot in the grand scheme of things. Yet, these rules do affect candidate/campaign behavior during the primary phase of election year and that is worth our attention.
Recent Posts:
North Carolina: Staying Rogue for 2016?
Michigan Senate Agrees to March 8 Presidential Primary Date
New Bill Would Seek to Clarify the Date of the 2016 Florida Presidential Primary
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The hubbub now as then -- August 2012 -- was that the new rule was intended to halt the practice of non-binding precinct caucuses. The Republican National Committee had and has a vested interest in the results of primaries and caucuses relaying to the candidates, campaigns and voters some clear indication of how the presidential preference vote in the caucuses transfers to candidate delegate totals. Not knowing how that actually looked in Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota and other caucuses states led to endless misinterpretations of the real-time nature of the delegate count at any given point in time.
But that is the RNC perspective. From the states' points of view the move not only alters the standard operating procedure for some of the caucuses states, but it is evidence of the establishment within the Republican Party overreaching into an area typically the domain of the states and negatively affecting the grassroots party building that non-binding precinct caucuses (with presidential preference vote) facilitate.
It is that latter part that has apparently stuck in the craw of Minnesota Republicans. That has the Minnesota Republican Party looking to be granted a waiver by the RNC under Rule 16(f)(3) to return to business as usual with the caucuses.2 The bar for being granted such a waiver appears to be pretty high (and at least somewhat subjective). First, a state must demonstrate that it is impossible to comply with the new binding requirement. That seems tough when their are caucuses states -- even unorganized ones3 -- that can manage this. Furthermore, after the state has to jump through that hoop it must also convince the RNC that the waiver is in the best interest of the Republican Party. Now, "the best interests of the Republican Party" is not at all clear. It may also be that the RNC and a state party have different ideas about what constitutes the best interests.
None of this is to suggest that the Republican Party of Minnesota will not be successful in its efforts to gain a waiver to continue with non-binding caucuses. That may yet happen. However, Minnesota may be a test case of sorts for the RNC. If they are granted a waiver, other non-binding caucuses states will/may be interested in following suit. That may undermine the new rule, and that likely will not be judged to be in the best interests of the Republican Party.
...at least not by the RNC.
This waiver issue is actually pretty important. It certainly bears watching. It may only affect a small sliver of states -- caucuses states -- but it could have a fairly significant impact on how we follow the evolving delegate race in 2016.4
--
1 Below is the language of that RNC rule:
Rule 16(a)(1): Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in a primary, caucuses, or a state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the national convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters.2 Below is the language of that RNC rule:
Rule 16(f)(3): (3) The Republican National Committee may grant a waiver to a state Republican Party from the provisions of Rule Nos. 16(a)(1) and (2) where compliance is impossible and the Republican National Committee determines that granting such waiver is in the best interests of the Republican Party.3 Nevada Republicans may have had logistical issues with their 2008 and 2012 caucuses, but one thing they were able to do in both cycles was bind delegates based on precinct caucuses results.
4 Yes, yes. I know. The invisible primary may make that pursuit of delegates moot in the grand scheme of things. Yet, these rules do affect candidate/campaign behavior during the primary phase of election year and that is worth our attention.
Recent Posts:
North Carolina: Staying Rogue for 2016?
Michigan Senate Agrees to March 8 Presidential Primary Date
New Bill Would Seek to Clarify the Date of the 2016 Florida Presidential Primary
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
North Carolina: Staying Rogue for 2016?
There has been a lot of talk about presidential primary movement in former rogue states Florida and Michigan today. Both seem to be playing nice for 2016, but talk of Florida and Michigan defiance is so 2008.
...and 2012.
As FHQ has tried to point out since July 2013,1 North Carolina represents a bigger and trickier threat to the carve-out states and the orderliness of the 2016 presidential primary calendar than any other state. Others are starting to take note:
That task is left up the Republican-controlled General Assembly.2 We know there is some resistance to change in the legislature. North Carolina state Senator Andrew Brock, who tried for years to move the North Carolina presidential primary date up on the calendar, has spoken out in support of the go for broke stance the North Carolina GOP has. Yet, one of the three Republican National Committee members from the Tar Heel state --RNC committeeman David Lewis -- is a member of the North Carolina House. There is resistance to changing that date, but a natural in-road for the RNC to apply pressure if need be.
All of this leaves us with a series of questions that need answering.
Thanks to Mystery Politico for passing this news along to FHQ.
--
1 The North Carolina General Assembly passed an omnibus elections package in a special session during the summer of 2013, not last year as indicated in the CNN blurb.
2 CNN's Peter Hamby does mention that the state legislature will discuss the matter of the presidential primary during its 2015 session in the video posted along with the outtake from above.
Recent Posts:
Michigan Senate Agrees to March 8 Presidential Primary Date
New Bill Would Seek to Clarify the Date of the 2016 Florida Presidential Primary
Rand Paul's 2016 Ballot Options in Kentucky
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
...and 2012.
As FHQ has tried to point out since July 2013,1 North Carolina represents a bigger and trickier threat to the carve-out states and the orderliness of the 2016 presidential primary calendar than any other state. Others are starting to take note:
North Carolina is ready to go rogueBoth parties have rules about their presidential nominating calendars, and the Republican National Committee is especially eager to assert more control over the schedule, debates and more heading into 2016.
But CNN's Peter Hamby says North Carolina wants more impact on presidential politics -- even if it means sanctions.There is not much new here other than an apparent willingness within the North Carolina Republican Party to go for broke regardless of potential penalties the party may face for holding a primary so close to the presidential primary in South Carolina and before the first Tuesday in March. Of course, it will not ultimately be up to the North Carolina Republican Party to decide to maintain or change the date of the presidential primary.
Remember, as a table setter, Iowa votes first, followed by New Hampshire and then South Carolina.
"North Carolina passed a statute last year that said they are going to go the week after South Carolina, one of the first four states in the Republican nominating process," said Hamby.
"So three days after these first four states, you could have a state with a lot of big media markets and a lot of voters right square in the middle of this nominating fight. And the people I've talked to in North Carolina, in the Republican Party there, say they do not care at all if the Republican National Committee penalizes them with delegates or whatever; they want the attention, they want to be square out front."
That task is left up the Republican-controlled General Assembly.2 We know there is some resistance to change in the legislature. North Carolina state Senator Andrew Brock, who tried for years to move the North Carolina presidential primary date up on the calendar, has spoken out in support of the go for broke stance the North Carolina GOP has. Yet, one of the three Republican National Committee members from the Tar Heel state --RNC committeeman David Lewis -- is a member of the North Carolina House. There is resistance to changing that date, but a natural in-road for the RNC to apply pressure if need be.
All of this leaves us with a series of questions that need answering.
- How widespread is support for the South Carolina-tethered North Carolina presidential primary in the North Carolina General Assembly?
- What are Republican National Committeeman David Lewis' thoughts on the matter? Has he pointed out that North Carolina Republicans would face an over 80% penalty on their national convention delegation in 2016 for holding a primary before March 1?
- What do legislators who support the early primary say about that 80% penalty? Do they even know the RNC rules changed, increasing the penalty from 50% of the delegation (in 2012)?
- How about the RNC? Have they weighed in on this situation? Have they attempted to reach out to their members in North Carolina about the ramifications of a likely February primary?
Thanks to Mystery Politico for passing this news along to FHQ.
--
1 The North Carolina General Assembly passed an omnibus elections package in a special session during the summer of 2013, not last year as indicated in the CNN blurb.
2 CNN's Peter Hamby does mention that the state legislature will discuss the matter of the presidential primary during its 2015 session in the video posted along with the outtake from above.
Recent Posts:
Michigan Senate Agrees to March 8 Presidential Primary Date
New Bill Would Seek to Clarify the Date of the 2016 Florida Presidential Primary
Rand Paul's 2016 Ballot Options in Kentucky
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Michigan Senate Agrees to March 8 Presidential Primary Date
The Michigan state Senate on Thursday, February 19 voted 37-1 to concur with the state House amendment facilitating a March 8 presidential primary.
Just a day ago, the Michigan state House amended and passed SB 44. The bill initially sought to push the presidential primary in the Wolverine state back from the fourth Tuesday in February to the third Tuesday in March. The House changed that to the second Tuesday in March.1 That is a minor change that nonetheless still brings the Michigan primary back into compliance with the national party delegate selection rules.
The bill now heads to Governor Rick Snyder (R) for consideration. Assuming a signature is likely coming, this move would bring the Michigan primary to the same date on the 2016 presidential primary calendar as southern neighbor, Ohio. That may serve as a subregional primary and/or it may be attractive to other states in the region as well for a more all-encompassing regional primary. Alabama and Mississippi are likely to vacate March 8 in favor of the March 1 SEC primary. That leaves only the Republican caucuses in Hawaii to compete with Michigan and Ohio for attention. Idaho and Washington are also eyeing March 8 for possible primary destinations.
--
UPDATE (2/20/15): Governor signs bill (changes primary date to March 8, 2016)
--
1 The change was made to avoid a conflict with voters'/taxpayers' ability to appeal property tax assessments; something that typically takes place during the week of March 15.
Recent Posts:
New Bill Would Seek to Clarify the Date of the 2016 Florida Presidential Primary
Rand Paul's 2016 Ballot Options in Kentucky
Michigan House Passes Amended Presidential Primary Bill
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Just a day ago, the Michigan state House amended and passed SB 44. The bill initially sought to push the presidential primary in the Wolverine state back from the fourth Tuesday in February to the third Tuesday in March. The House changed that to the second Tuesday in March.1 That is a minor change that nonetheless still brings the Michigan primary back into compliance with the national party delegate selection rules.
The bill now heads to Governor Rick Snyder (R) for consideration. Assuming a signature is likely coming, this move would bring the Michigan primary to the same date on the 2016 presidential primary calendar as southern neighbor, Ohio. That may serve as a subregional primary and/or it may be attractive to other states in the region as well for a more all-encompassing regional primary. Alabama and Mississippi are likely to vacate March 8 in favor of the March 1 SEC primary. That leaves only the Republican caucuses in Hawaii to compete with Michigan and Ohio for attention. Idaho and Washington are also eyeing March 8 for possible primary destinations.
--
UPDATE (2/20/15): Governor signs bill (changes primary date to March 8, 2016)
--
1 The change was made to avoid a conflict with voters'/taxpayers' ability to appeal property tax assessments; something that typically takes place during the week of March 15.
Recent Posts:
New Bill Would Seek to Clarify the Date of the 2016 Florida Presidential Primary
Rand Paul's 2016 Ballot Options in Kentucky
Michigan House Passes Amended Presidential Primary Bill
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
New Bill Would Seek to Clarify the Date of the 2016 Florida Presidential Primary
Is the Florida presidential primary on the move again?
Word out of the Sunshine state this morning is that something is up with the Florida primary. The legislature will not convene in Tallahassee to officially begin its new session until the beginning of March, but legislation is being pre-filed now. Among that group of pre-filed bills is a bill by Senate President Pro Tempore Garrett Richter (R-23rd, Collier, Lee) that would pull the Florida presidential primary out of the scheduling limbo in which the election is currently stuck.
Senator Richter's bill -- or at least the description of it -- would specify a third Tuesday in March date for the Florida primary. That seems designed to push the primary beyond the point in the RNC calendar that requires states have a proportional element to their delegate allocation plans. Any contest on or after March 15 falls out of the proportionality window and can thus allocate all of its apportioned national convention delegates to the winner of the primary (if the state so chooses).
But if the Republican Party of Florida wants to maintain a winner-take-all allocation plan for 2016, that would automatically slide the Florida primary back to March 15 under the current state law anyway. Again, the law as changed in 2013 requires that the Florida presidential primary be held on the first date that is not penalized by the rules of either national party.
A March 1 primary would avoid the timing penalties in both parties (super penalty for the RNC, 50% penalty for the DNC). The Republican Party of Florida, though, holds the key to all of this. The RNC also has a 50% penalty associated with a violation of their proportionality requirement for states with contests before March 15. If Florida Republicans opt for a plan with an element of proportionality, then the primary would be scheduled for March 1. However, if the state party opts to stay the course and keep the winner-take-all delegate allocation plan it used in 2008 and 2012, then the Florida primary would be on March 15.
The date this new bill in Florida is apparently seeking to specify to protect the Florida Republican Party's ability to hold a winner-take-all contest is superfluous. It specifies a date for the primary that the primary would already be scheduled on because of the winner-take-all allocation plan.
--
EDITOR'S NOTE: The final version of the RNC delegate selection rules had in it a 50% penalty for violations of the proportionality requirement. That was something that was missing from a previous iteration of the rules FHQ had access to. That subsequently affected discussions here and here about the applicability of the proportionality penalty and its impacts. Those posts have been edited to reflect this change.
Recent Posts:
Rand Paul's 2016 Ballot Options in Kentucky
Michigan House Passes Amended Presidential Primary Bill
Kansas Bill Would Once Again Cancel Presidential Primary
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Word out of the Sunshine state this morning is that something is up with the Florida primary. The legislature will not convene in Tallahassee to officially begin its new session until the beginning of March, but legislation is being pre-filed now. Among that group of pre-filed bills is a bill by Senate President Pro Tempore Garrett Richter (R-23rd, Collier, Lee) that would pull the Florida presidential primary out of the scheduling limbo in which the election is currently stuck.
Senator Richter's bill -- or at least the description of it -- would specify a third Tuesday in March date for the Florida primary. That seems designed to push the primary beyond the point in the RNC calendar that requires states have a proportional element to their delegate allocation plans. Any contest on or after March 15 falls out of the proportionality window and can thus allocate all of its apportioned national convention delegates to the winner of the primary (if the state so chooses).
But if the Republican Party of Florida wants to maintain a winner-take-all allocation plan for 2016, that would automatically slide the Florida primary back to March 15 under the current state law anyway. Again, the law as changed in 2013 requires that the Florida presidential primary be held on the first date that is not penalized by the rules of either national party.
A March 1 primary would avoid the timing penalties in both parties (super penalty for the RNC, 50% penalty for the DNC). The Republican Party of Florida, though, holds the key to all of this. The RNC also has a 50% penalty associated with a violation of their proportionality requirement for states with contests before March 15. If Florida Republicans opt for a plan with an element of proportionality, then the primary would be scheduled for March 1. However, if the state party opts to stay the course and keep the winner-take-all delegate allocation plan it used in 2008 and 2012, then the Florida primary would be on March 15.
The date this new bill in Florida is apparently seeking to specify to protect the Florida Republican Party's ability to hold a winner-take-all contest is superfluous. It specifies a date for the primary that the primary would already be scheduled on because of the winner-take-all allocation plan.
--
EDITOR'S NOTE: The final version of the RNC delegate selection rules had in it a 50% penalty for violations of the proportionality requirement. That was something that was missing from a previous iteration of the rules FHQ had access to. That subsequently affected discussions here and here about the applicability of the proportionality penalty and its impacts. Those posts have been edited to reflect this change.
Recent Posts:
Rand Paul's 2016 Ballot Options in Kentucky
Michigan House Passes Amended Presidential Primary Bill
Kansas Bill Would Once Again Cancel Presidential Primary
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Rand Paul's 2016 Ballot Options in Kentucky
It warms FHQ's heart every time there are attempts made to find a workaround for the ballot issues Rand Paul faces in Kentucky next year. Josh Voorhees from Slate is the latest to volunteer his assistance to Paul 2016 (both for president and Senate). The thing about these pieces when they periodically pop up is that they either way over-complicate matters or miss pretty obvious alternative routes for the junior senator from Kentucky to take in running for two offices in 2016.
There are two parts to this, primary and general election. And there are different issues attendant to working around the "name can't appear more than once on a ballot" problem that are specific to each phase.
Let's look at the primary phase first.
In a perfect world -- from the Paul camp's perspective -- the Kentucky state legislature would pass legislation to create a separate presidential primary and move that election up to an earlier point on the primary calendar. That way, the senator would not appear on the consolidated primary ballot twice. However, Democrats in the Bluegrass state weathered the 2014 storm and managed to hold the Kentucky state House. Additionally, majority Democrats in the House subsequently balked at the idea of creating and funding a separate presidential primary just to benefit Senator Paul's political ambitions.
Given that partisan stalemate, what options are available to a dual Paul candidacy in 2016?1
The quickest, easiest fix is the one that Rand Paul was talking about on election night 2014. If the presidential primary cannot be separated from the other primaries, then Kentucky Republicans could simply shift the mode of delegate allocation from a primary to caucuses. That may be the best outcome for Senator Paul, but it may not be ideal to Kentucky Republicans who want to see the nomination process opened up to a broader Republican electorate.
Again, that's the easiest route, but let's assume that there are enough people against a primary-to-caucuses shift on the Kentucky Republican State Central Committee to block this move. All's lost, right? No. As Voorhees points out, Rand Paul could just sit the May Kentucky primary out and play the presidential nomination game in all the other states. He could, but that would be a rather strange, if not ridiculous, path to take. That strikes FHQ as a last, last resort, ranking after even the court challenges options.
Let's think about this for a second. It seems to FHQ that it was all the rage in late 2011, and my god, stretching into primary season in 2012, to devise some way for a Republican candidate not in the then in the race to enter, challenge the sure-to-falter/moderate Mitt Romney and win the nomination at the convention.2 But some of those lessons apply here.
One thing that FHQ has not seen discussed in the context of this Paul/ballot problem is the possibility of a write-in campaign during the primary. Its absence from the discussion may be for good reason: Kentucky law prohibits it. No candidate who is on the ballot elsewhere is eligible to be a write-in candidate.3 Voters can write the name "Rand Paul" in on the ballot in droves, but those votes would not be counted because Paul would not be eligible (having already appeared on the ballot as a senate candidate).
The other viable option -- if we're still assuming there is a consolidated May primary in Kentucky -- is to use the uncommitted option. If the race is still competitive in mid-May and Rand Paul remains one of the viable alternatives, then his campaign could urge supporters to vote the uncommitted line included on the Kentucky ballot -- the presidential preference portion of it anyway -- by law.4 This is not a foolproof fix -- there could be other uncommitted delegates not aligned with Paul -- but one would imagine that the Paul campaign could organize this and have its potential delegates file as uncommitted rather than for Paul. They would not be bound on the first ballot at the convention, but that is not likely to matter anyway (see footnote 4).
This seems far superior and more effective than sitting the Kentucky primary out. And such a move is not without precedent. The Obama campaign urged its supporters in Michigan to vote for "uncommitted" in 2008. The then-Senator Obama had his name removed from the Michigan ballot when it was clear that the Wolverine state would hold a non-compliant presidential primary in mid-January 2008.
--
As for the general election, that is a tougher nut to crack.
The write-in option is still a no-go here, there is no uncommitted option on the general election ballot, and skipping a state is not really all that workable in a fall presidential race. But game planning for the general election before the nomination is wrapped up is a bit of a double-edged sword in Rand Paul's case. To some extent it is counting your chickens before they hatch, but this ballot issue is something he would face in the primaries and the general election. There is just an easier fix in the primary phase that will not necessarily help with the general election part of the problem.
Not that these laws are enforced anyway, but Kentucky is one of the states that does not levy penalties against would-be "faithless electors". If Paul manages to get the Republican nomination there are some potential avenues opened to his campaign on that front.
If we're after a workaround for Rand Paul, though, that is much easier in the Kentucky primary. Well, it is doable in the primary. The general election is a different matter.
--
UPDATE (2/24/15): US Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell supports the effort to shift the Kentucky presidential nominating method from a May primary to March caucuses. That would seemingly add some heft to the idea ahead of the Kentucky Republican Party Central Committee meeting on March 7.
--
1 FHQ will only focus on the options that do not go through the courts. Due to the time it would take to adjudicate a conflict between Paul and the Kentucky secretary of state's office, that is a channel of last resort for Paul. There are other more viable options available to the senator anyway.
2 Of course, no one else entered the Republican nomination race and Romney won the nomination.
3 This is relevant to the general election as well.
4 Those are big ifs. FHQ realizes talk of abrokered deadlocked convention is quite popular with such a wide open Republican race, but the invisible primary will winnow the field and with more than 30 primaries and caucuses potentially slated for the month of March, the 2016 Republican nomination race is likely to be over sooner rather than later. That more than likely means the nomination race will come to its conclusion before a May Kentucky primary.
Recent Posts:
Michigan House Passes Amended Presidential Primary Bill
Kansas Bill Would Once Again Cancel Presidential Primary
Arkansas Bid to Join SEC Primary Is In
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
There are two parts to this, primary and general election. And there are different issues attendant to working around the "name can't appear more than once on a ballot" problem that are specific to each phase.
Let's look at the primary phase first.
In a perfect world -- from the Paul camp's perspective -- the Kentucky state legislature would pass legislation to create a separate presidential primary and move that election up to an earlier point on the primary calendar. That way, the senator would not appear on the consolidated primary ballot twice. However, Democrats in the Bluegrass state weathered the 2014 storm and managed to hold the Kentucky state House. Additionally, majority Democrats in the House subsequently balked at the idea of creating and funding a separate presidential primary just to benefit Senator Paul's political ambitions.
Given that partisan stalemate, what options are available to a dual Paul candidacy in 2016?1
The quickest, easiest fix is the one that Rand Paul was talking about on election night 2014. If the presidential primary cannot be separated from the other primaries, then Kentucky Republicans could simply shift the mode of delegate allocation from a primary to caucuses. That may be the best outcome for Senator Paul, but it may not be ideal to Kentucky Republicans who want to see the nomination process opened up to a broader Republican electorate.
Again, that's the easiest route, but let's assume that there are enough people against a primary-to-caucuses shift on the Kentucky Republican State Central Committee to block this move. All's lost, right? No. As Voorhees points out, Rand Paul could just sit the May Kentucky primary out and play the presidential nomination game in all the other states. He could, but that would be a rather strange, if not ridiculous, path to take. That strikes FHQ as a last, last resort, ranking after even the court challenges options.
Let's think about this for a second. It seems to FHQ that it was all the rage in late 2011, and my god, stretching into primary season in 2012, to devise some way for a Republican candidate not in the then in the race to enter, challenge the sure-to-falter/moderate Mitt Romney and win the nomination at the convention.2 But some of those lessons apply here.
One thing that FHQ has not seen discussed in the context of this Paul/ballot problem is the possibility of a write-in campaign during the primary. Its absence from the discussion may be for good reason: Kentucky law prohibits it. No candidate who is on the ballot elsewhere is eligible to be a write-in candidate.3 Voters can write the name "Rand Paul" in on the ballot in droves, but those votes would not be counted because Paul would not be eligible (having already appeared on the ballot as a senate candidate).
The other viable option -- if we're still assuming there is a consolidated May primary in Kentucky -- is to use the uncommitted option. If the race is still competitive in mid-May and Rand Paul remains one of the viable alternatives, then his campaign could urge supporters to vote the uncommitted line included on the Kentucky ballot -- the presidential preference portion of it anyway -- by law.4 This is not a foolproof fix -- there could be other uncommitted delegates not aligned with Paul -- but one would imagine that the Paul campaign could organize this and have its potential delegates file as uncommitted rather than for Paul. They would not be bound on the first ballot at the convention, but that is not likely to matter anyway (see footnote 4).
This seems far superior and more effective than sitting the Kentucky primary out. And such a move is not without precedent. The Obama campaign urged its supporters in Michigan to vote for "uncommitted" in 2008. The then-Senator Obama had his name removed from the Michigan ballot when it was clear that the Wolverine state would hold a non-compliant presidential primary in mid-January 2008.
--
As for the general election, that is a tougher nut to crack.
The write-in option is still a no-go here, there is no uncommitted option on the general election ballot, and skipping a state is not really all that workable in a fall presidential race. But game planning for the general election before the nomination is wrapped up is a bit of a double-edged sword in Rand Paul's case. To some extent it is counting your chickens before they hatch, but this ballot issue is something he would face in the primaries and the general election. There is just an easier fix in the primary phase that will not necessarily help with the general election part of the problem.
Not that these laws are enforced anyway, but Kentucky is one of the states that does not levy penalties against would-be "faithless electors". If Paul manages to get the Republican nomination there are some potential avenues opened to his campaign on that front.
If we're after a workaround for Rand Paul, though, that is much easier in the Kentucky primary. Well, it is doable in the primary. The general election is a different matter.
--
UPDATE (2/24/15): US Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell supports the effort to shift the Kentucky presidential nominating method from a May primary to March caucuses. That would seemingly add some heft to the idea ahead of the Kentucky Republican Party Central Committee meeting on March 7.
--
1 FHQ will only focus on the options that do not go through the courts. Due to the time it would take to adjudicate a conflict between Paul and the Kentucky secretary of state's office, that is a channel of last resort for Paul. There are other more viable options available to the senator anyway.
2 Of course, no one else entered the Republican nomination race and Romney won the nomination.
3 This is relevant to the general election as well.
4 Those are big ifs. FHQ realizes talk of a
Recent Posts:
Michigan House Passes Amended Presidential Primary Bill
Kansas Bill Would Once Again Cancel Presidential Primary
Arkansas Bid to Join SEC Primary Is In
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Michigan House Passes Amended Presidential Primary Bill
The Michigan state House on Wednesday, February 18 amended and passed the state Senate bill to reschedule the Wolverine state presidential primary.
By a 72-38 margin, the Michigan state House passed an amended version SB 44. The Senate passed the bill calling for a third Tuesday in March presidential primary date last week, but the House moved that date up a week to the second Tuesday in March. It is a minor change, but perhaps one that is indicative of a compromise of sorts between the Michigan Senate and House. Both versions of the bill -- both dates (March 8 and March 15) -- are compliant with both national parties' delegate selection rules and the March 8 date does not conflict with voters/taxpayers ability to appeal property tax assessments; something that typically takes place during the week of March 15.
The March 8 date also allows Michigan to go as early as possible without potentially being overshadowed by the southern regional primary that appears to be forming the week before on March 1. And while a possible Big Ten primary would not occur with Illinois and Missouri on March 15, the idea is not dead as Ohio is currently scheduled to conduct its presidential primary on March 8.1
Also, as FHQ mentioned when this bill passed the state Senate, the current Michigan Republican Party delegate allocation plan is compliant under the Republican National Committee rules on either March 8 or March 15. The contest would be conditionally winner-take-all if a candidate were to receive a majority of the primary vote. Absent that outcome, though, the allocation would be winner-take-all by congressional district with the statewide, at-large delegates allocated proportionally. This meets the RNC requirements for the pre-March 15 proportionality window (when states are required to have an element of proportional allocation in their plans).
March 8 might be a compromise between the two Michigan legislative chambers, but time will tell the tale there. The bill now heads back to the Senate in its amended form for further consideration.
--
UPDATE (2/19/15): Senate concurs with House changes
UPDATE (2/20/15): Governor signs bill (changes primary date to March 8, 2016)
--
1 March 8 is a date that Alabama and Mississippi are currently slated to hold presidential primaries but have been linked to the SEC primary proposed for the week before March 8.
Recent Posts:
Kansas Bill Would Once Again Cancel Presidential Primary
Arkansas Bid to Join SEC Primary Is In
Return to a February Wisconsin Presidential Primary?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
By a 72-38 margin, the Michigan state House passed an amended version SB 44. The Senate passed the bill calling for a third Tuesday in March presidential primary date last week, but the House moved that date up a week to the second Tuesday in March. It is a minor change, but perhaps one that is indicative of a compromise of sorts between the Michigan Senate and House. Both versions of the bill -- both dates (March 8 and March 15) -- are compliant with both national parties' delegate selection rules and the March 8 date does not conflict with voters/taxpayers ability to appeal property tax assessments; something that typically takes place during the week of March 15.
The March 8 date also allows Michigan to go as early as possible without potentially being overshadowed by the southern regional primary that appears to be forming the week before on March 1. And while a possible Big Ten primary would not occur with Illinois and Missouri on March 15, the idea is not dead as Ohio is currently scheduled to conduct its presidential primary on March 8.1
Also, as FHQ mentioned when this bill passed the state Senate, the current Michigan Republican Party delegate allocation plan is compliant under the Republican National Committee rules on either March 8 or March 15. The contest would be conditionally winner-take-all if a candidate were to receive a majority of the primary vote. Absent that outcome, though, the allocation would be winner-take-all by congressional district with the statewide, at-large delegates allocated proportionally. This meets the RNC requirements for the pre-March 15 proportionality window (when states are required to have an element of proportional allocation in their plans).
March 8 might be a compromise between the two Michigan legislative chambers, but time will tell the tale there. The bill now heads back to the Senate in its amended form for further consideration.
--
UPDATE (2/19/15): Senate concurs with House changes
UPDATE (2/20/15): Governor signs bill (changes primary date to March 8, 2016)
--
1 March 8 is a date that Alabama and Mississippi are currently slated to hold presidential primaries but have been linked to the SEC primary proposed for the week before March 8.
Recent Posts:
Kansas Bill Would Once Again Cancel Presidential Primary
Arkansas Bid to Join SEC Primary Is In
Return to a February Wisconsin Presidential Primary?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Kansas Bill Would Once Again Cancel Presidential Primary
Legislation introduced on Tuesday, February 17 in the Kansas state Senate would cancel the presidential primary in the Sunflower state for the sixth consecutive cycle.
Kansas held a presidential primary last in 1992, but the state government has not appropriated funds for the election in any of the election years since. The practice, if the 2011 action by the state legislature is a guide, is to revise the presidential primary filing deadline and election date back four years on the calendar. That is true in the case of SB 239 as well.
The change is obviously a cost-savings move, but it is also reflective of an extension of what has become a customary practice in Kansas.
--
UPDATE (2/25/15): Committee hearing on bill
UPDATE (3/5/15): Identical House bill introduced
Recent Posts:
Arkansas Bid to Join SEC Primary Is In
Return to a February Wisconsin Presidential Primary?
More on Minnesota March 1 Caucuses Move
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Kansas held a presidential primary last in 1992, but the state government has not appropriated funds for the election in any of the election years since. The practice, if the 2011 action by the state legislature is a guide, is to revise the presidential primary filing deadline and election date back four years on the calendar. That is true in the case of SB 239 as well.
The change is obviously a cost-savings move, but it is also reflective of an extension of what has become a customary practice in Kansas.
--
UPDATE (2/25/15): Committee hearing on bill
UPDATE (3/5/15): Identical House bill introduced
Recent Posts:
Arkansas Bid to Join SEC Primary Is In
Return to a February Wisconsin Presidential Primary?
More on Minnesota March 1 Caucuses Move
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Arkansas Bid to Join SEC Primary Is In
Legislation was filed in the Arkansas state Senate on Tuesday, February 17 to create a separate presidential primary election and schedule it for the first Tuesday in March.
State Senator Gary Stubblefield (R-6th, Branch) introduced SB 389 which would for a third time establish a separate presidential primary in the Natural state. For most of the post-reform era, Arkansas has held its regular primary -- which included a vote for presidential preference -- on the next to last Tuesday in May. However, before the 1988 cycle and the 2008 cycle, legislators in Arkansas created and funded a separate presidential primary in order to have an earlier election in the state to decide the allocation of delegates to the national conventions. In both cases, Arkansas was either overshadowed by larger neighbors (1988) or ignored because candidates with Arkansas ties (Clinton and Huckabee) were seeking the presidential nominations of their respective parties (2008). And in both cases, legislators quickly reversed course and consolidated the presidential primary with the May primaries for other offices.
Now, as in the lead up to 1988, Arkansas is once again attempting to join forces with its southern neighbors to affect the next (2016) presidential nominations process and hoping the third time is the charm. But getting there may not be as easy as it is in other southern states seeking to join the SEC primary on March 1. Unlike Alabama (that reestablished a consolidated primary but broke from tradition by placing it in March and not June in 2011) or Mississippi (which established and maintained consolidated primaries in March years ago), Arkansas has to justify the creation and funding of a separate presidential primary election in March. That fact is not necessarily prohibitive, but it adds a layer of complexity to the Arkansas decision-making calculus that does not exist in other states across the South.
There is no price tag specified in the bill, but the state will pick up the tab through the State Board of Elections. As of now the Board appropriations legislation does not include a substantial increase for fiscal years 2015-2016 than it did two years ago for 2013-2014. The separate presidential primary was estimated to have cost Arkansas $1.7 million in 2008.
The one thing that is different now as compared to the past in Arkansas is that the Republican Party is in unified control of the state government. The possibility of a competitive if not wide open Republican nomination race may make that partisan control more relevant in this case.
Recent Posts:
Return to a February Wisconsin Presidential Primary?
More on Minnesota March 1 Caucuses Move
Second Bill to Reestablish Presidential Primary Emerges in Idaho
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
State Senator Gary Stubblefield (R-6th, Branch) introduced SB 389 which would for a third time establish a separate presidential primary in the Natural state. For most of the post-reform era, Arkansas has held its regular primary -- which included a vote for presidential preference -- on the next to last Tuesday in May. However, before the 1988 cycle and the 2008 cycle, legislators in Arkansas created and funded a separate presidential primary in order to have an earlier election in the state to decide the allocation of delegates to the national conventions. In both cases, Arkansas was either overshadowed by larger neighbors (1988) or ignored because candidates with Arkansas ties (Clinton and Huckabee) were seeking the presidential nominations of their respective parties (2008). And in both cases, legislators quickly reversed course and consolidated the presidential primary with the May primaries for other offices.
Now, as in the lead up to 1988, Arkansas is once again attempting to join forces with its southern neighbors to affect the next (2016) presidential nominations process and hoping the third time is the charm. But getting there may not be as easy as it is in other southern states seeking to join the SEC primary on March 1. Unlike Alabama (that reestablished a consolidated primary but broke from tradition by placing it in March and not June in 2011) or Mississippi (which established and maintained consolidated primaries in March years ago), Arkansas has to justify the creation and funding of a separate presidential primary election in March. That fact is not necessarily prohibitive, but it adds a layer of complexity to the Arkansas decision-making calculus that does not exist in other states across the South.
There is no price tag specified in the bill, but the state will pick up the tab through the State Board of Elections. As of now the Board appropriations legislation does not include a substantial increase for fiscal years 2015-2016 than it did two years ago for 2013-2014. The separate presidential primary was estimated to have cost Arkansas $1.7 million in 2008.
The one thing that is different now as compared to the past in Arkansas is that the Republican Party is in unified control of the state government. The possibility of a competitive if not wide open Republican nomination race may make that partisan control more relevant in this case.
Recent Posts:
Return to a February Wisconsin Presidential Primary?
More on Minnesota March 1 Caucuses Move
Second Bill to Reestablish Presidential Primary Emerges in Idaho
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)