New Mexico March Primary Bill Meets Committee Roadblock

The bill to move the New Mexico presidential (and other) primaries from June to March failed to pass its first legislative test in committee on Monday, February 23.

Deborah Baker at the Albuquerque Journal has the latest on the hang up HB 346 had in the Government, Elections and Indian Affairs Committee. By a 6-6 vote along party lines, the legislation to shift the consolidated New Mexico primary from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June to the third Tuesday in March tabled the bill for the time being pending further amendments.

Democrats voiced some support for the idea of an earlier presidential primary, but balked at all the primaries being pushed up to a point on the calendar that would have New Mexico legislators campaigning during the state legislative session:

Rep. Antonio “Moe” Maestas, D-Albuquerque, said shifting the date of the primary election from the beginning of June to mid-March would complicate many state elections, since lawmakers and other state officials are barred from raising campaign cash during legislative sessions.  

“The idea of making the New Mexico presidential primary earlier is well received, but to move all of them would be problematic,” Maestas said after today’s hearing. “The culture would change to campaign mode all the time.”

This is a conflict that often arises in other late [presidential] primary states. The best way to circumvent this impasse may be to separate the presidential primary and move that contest to March with the remaining primaries for other offices following in June. The benefit of moving all of the primaries up to March is to save money not funding a separate presidential primary election. But moving a consolidated primary may prove difficult moving forward.

The bill's sponsor has indicated he will tweak the bill in an effort to keep the idea alive.


Recent Posts:
North Carolina Republican Party Chair Calls for March 1 Presidential Primary

An August Presidential Primary in Montana?

New York Republicans Want March 1 Presidential Primary Date

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

North Carolina Republican Party Chair Calls for March 1 Presidential Primary

Last week FHQ posed several questions that would provide us with some answers about how serious legislators are in North Carolina to maintain a non-compliant presidential primary under Republican National Committee rules. None of that has really been addressed in the scant time since, but we can add to what is known about the state of a February North Carolina presidential primary. The North Carolina Republican Party chairman is against it.

Claude Pope, Jr., in an op-ed in the Charlotte Observer added one more voice -- and a bit of dual RNC and North Carolina Republican Party heft -- to the ongoing discussion over whether the Tar Heel state will become the latest rogue state to jump in the primary calendar line. This does not tell us much about the dialog in the North Carolina General Assembly, but can easily be viewed as some light early pressure to alter the date.

Pope makes the case for shifting back the North Carolina presidential primary to March 1 (also the targeted SEC primary date) thusly:

"A newly enacted law sets our presidential primary on the “first Tuesday after the South Carolina primary.” That likely puts the primary date in February of 2016. The RNC’s rules provide a “carve-out” for February primaries for only four states – Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Any state that violates this rule by conducting a February primary will forfeit all but 12 delegates. There are no exceptions, and North Carolina remains out of compliance with this rule. There is a simple fix – move our presidential primary to Tuesday, March 1. 

"Our legislature had good intentions when it established a February primary date, assuming that the world would beat a path to our door – bringing national media exposure, money, and an economic boom-let to North Carolina. But the crowded field of presidential wannabes will not step foot in our state. They will not visit the fire stations or Rotary Clubs. They won’t ride in the parades, eat barbecue, kiss babies or spend their millions fighting over just 12 delegates – it simply isn’t worth the money.  

"So, goodbye economic boom-let. Goodbye to relevance, and goodbye to any influence on the national level. Say hello to the mass of disenfranchised (and very upset) grassroots activists denied once again – by the law of unintended consequences – of finally having their say in who gets selected as our party’s nominee.

"Or not."

That 12 delegates is the super penalty that is new in 2016. And what Pope describes is exactly how that penalty was intended to work: Shrink a state's delegation size to the point that it undermines candidates coming to the state to squabble over a sliver of a sliver of delegates.

As FHQ has said, the super penalty appears to be doing its job. It has cleaned up the North Carolina issue yet, but the word is getting around.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2015/02/23/5534348/move-nc-presidential-primary-to.html#storylink=cpy

Recent Posts:
An August Presidential Primary in Montana?

New York Republicans Want March 1 Presidential Primary Date

Companion Bill in Washington House Would Move Presidential Primary to March 8

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

An August Presidential Primary in Montana?

Legislation has been introduced in the Montana state House to push the June primary -- including the presidential primary -- back to August.

State Representative Kathleen Williams (D-61st, Bozeman) formally introduced HB 571 on Wednesday, February 18. The legislation is fairly complex, but basically boils down to the legislature providing itself the leeway to meet in even numbered years. As it stands now, the Montana legislature meets just once every two years during the odd numbered year.

For FHQ's purposes that part of the bill is neither here nor there. However, as a means of continuing to not entangle elections with legislative work, the bill additionally includes a provision to push the consolidated June primary back to the Tuesday after the second Monday in August. The intent is to prevent the even year legislative work from overlapping with elections season (and in particular state legislators running for renomination).

This is a curious one. To move a presidential primary to August is obviously counterproductive. The primary would take place after the national conventions have actually nominated a candidate to run on the November ballot. However, this is not the only instance of this that we have seen over even the last decade.

In 2009 an alternative proposal to eliminate the separate (February) presidential primary in Arkansas initially called for shifting the to-be consolidated primary -- including the presidential primary -- to August. The bill was amended pushing the primary into July and then June. That maneuvering was moot considering Governor Beebe had already signed legislation eliminating the presidential primary and tying it once again to the May preferential primary election.

Two years later, the Kentucky state Senate saw a similar proposal to move a consolidated primary from May to August that ended up in the same place as the legislation in Arkansas.¹ The bill did pass the state Senate before getting bottled up in the state House. The idea did come back a year later when another August primary bill was introduced.

Also in 2011, the District of Columbia Council introduced legislation that initially would have set the 2012 presidential primary along with those for other offices for July. That bill was amended -- moving the primary to April -- and later passed and signed into law.

Montana, then, is not alone is this behavior. It is unique, but not unheard of. Still, what is the motivation in pushing a presidential primary beyond the point that an actual nominee has already been selected and subsequently confirmed at the national convention? In DC, the original July primary bill was an effort to comply with the MOVE act (regarding the timely printing and distribution of ballots to military personnel overseas). The Arkansas bill, like the initial one in DC, was amended, so the convention conflict was recognized in that instance. Similar intent was not clear in the Kentucky case. And Montana seems to fit more into the Kentucky group than alongside the District and Arkansas.

...at least for now.

That said, the Montana House State Administration Committee held a hearing on HB 571 on Monday, February 23. The committee seemed convinced that any even year legislative work would be done in time for the regular June primary election, thus negating the need to push it back to August. The bill sponsor, Rep. Williams, had already come with amendments striking out those changes to the primary dates anyway. The committee did not take up that amendment today and furthermore did not vote on any recommendation for the bill. The group is due to meet again in the morning and may take up those matters then.

The members of the committee were concerned and asked questions about the presidential primary occurring after the conventions. Upon advisement from a representative of the Montana secretary of state's office, they even concluded that the Montana presidential primary is non-binding and would not affect delegate selection/allocation.²

These are always interesting bills to consider when they arise, but more often than not if recent history is a guide these bills either go nowhere or are amended once the conventions conflict is realized. That appears as if it will be the case with this Montana legislation.


Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for bringing news of this bill to FHQ's attention.

--
UPDATE (3/11/15): August primary bill appears to be dead in committee


--
¹ For more on the implications of August presidential primaries specific to Arkansas and Kentucky see here.

² This is false. The primary is advisory on the Republican side, but in 2012 Democrats in Montana used the June primary election as their means of allocating delegates from the Treasure state to the national convention.


Recent Posts:
New York Republicans Want March 1 Presidential Primary Date

Companion Bill in Washington House Would Move Presidential Primary to March 8

Proposed Move of Presidential Primary to February Faces Resistance in Wisconsin

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

New York Republicans Want March 1 Presidential Primary Date

Despite a misleading headline, according to the New York Daily News, state Republicans in New York are eyeing a March 1 date for the Empire state presidential primary.¹

Wanting a March 1 primary date and getting it are two different things, however. With split control of the state Senate and Democrats controlling the other levers of New York state government (state Assembly and governor's mansion), a desire for a March 1 primary date may just be that: a desire.

Republicans in New York as in the rest of the country face a different decision-making calculus than do Democrats. While Republicans in New York and nationwide are motivated by a wide open nomination race with a number of viable candidates, Democrats do not. With a clear frontrunner in Hillary Clinton and little more than token opposition to her run at this point, state-level Democrats are encountering less urgency to shift primaries to earlier dates to ensure that the state and Democratic voters therein have a say in determining the nominee.

Absent that, Democrats in New York and elsewhere are motivated by other factors like consolidating the presidential primary with those primaries for state, congressional and local offices. That is apparently the case in New York. Democrats in the Empire state may be spurred to created a later consolidated date for the primaries as a function saving costs.

New York Republicans, however, want to move to March 1 which is the earliest date on which non-carve-out states can hold primaries and caucuses based on national party delegate selection rules.² That is also the date that a number of southern states are targeting for their proposed SEC primary. New York would find regional company on that date. Massachusetts and Vermont are also scheduled for March 1 on the 2016 presidential primary calendar.

But since the two parties are pushed and pulled by different factors, a compromise position will have to be hammered out in the legislature. That may mean a March 1 date, but it may also mean a later calendar position.

--
¹ Yes, New York had an April presidential primary in 2012, but the law passed and signed into law there in 2011 that created that positioning sunset after 2012 at which time the primary reverted to its previous February position. While the New York primary would move up as compared to its position on the 2012 primary calendar, it would move back as compared to where state law now calls for the primary to be.

² This is an atypical position for New York on the primary calendar in the post-reform era. The presidential primary in the Empire state has only been on the earliest date allowed by both parties twice, 2000 and 2008. Other than those two instances, New York has tended to occupy later March or April spots on the calendar.


Recent Posts:
Companion Bill in Washington House Would Move Presidential Primary to March 8

Proposed Move of Presidential Primary to February Faces Resistance in Wisconsin

Twin Bills Would Move Maryland Presidential Primary Back a Week

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

Companion Bill in Washington House Would Move Presidential Primary to March 8

This last week, the Washington state House introduced an identical companion bill to the state Senate bill to move the Evergreen state presidential primary from mid-May to early March. Like the Senate legislation, the House version was also introduced at the request of Washington secretary of state, Kim Wyman (R). Like the Senate version, the House bill also counts important members in the chamber leadership among its list of sponsors and co-sponsors.

Unlike the Senate, the House is controlled by the Democratic Party. Nonetheless, HB 2139 has the support/sponsorship of the chair of the committee (Rep. Sam Hunt (D-22nd, Olympia), State Government Committee) to which the bill has been referred and the deputy minority leader in the House (Rep. Joel Kretz (R-7th, Wauconda)).

The big issue with this bill as with the Senate version is not whether it will pass either or both chambers or be signed into law. Rather, the bigger matter is whether the state parties will utilize the primary election for allocate delegates. Neither state party has always used the primary when available in the past. Both have tended to prefer a caucuses/convention system for both selecting and allocating delegates to the national convention.

--
UPDATE (2/19/15): Senate bill passes committee
UPDATE (2/27/15): Bill to cancel 2016 primary introduced
UPDATE (3/3/15): Senate bill passes


Recent Posts:
Proposed Move of Presidential Primary to February Faces Resistance in Wisconsin

Twin Bills Would Move Maryland Presidential Primary Back a Week

Snyder's Signature Sends Michigan Presidential Primary to March 8

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

Proposed Move of Presidential Primary to February Faces Resistance in Wisconsin

Earlier this week, FHQ briefly examined the proposal from Wisconsin state Senator Tim Carpenter (D-3rd, Milwaukee) to shift the Wisconsin presidential primary back to February. The presidential primary in the Badger state is currently scheduled for the first Tuesday in April, the spring election date in the state. Carpenter's proposal would move the primary back to the third Tuesday in February spring primary date where the election spent the 2004 and 2008 cycles.

The proposed change has not yet been introduced as legislation before the Wisconsin state legislature, yet Carpenter's vision of a (general election) swing state drawing candidates into the state to campaign in an early primary is already facing resistance.

Republicans have unified control of the state legislature (and the state government) and the speaker of the lower chamber of the legislature has voiced support for the current date according to a spokesperson:

But Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, opposes the idea. “He is fine with the current date,” spokeswoman Kit Beyer said.

The Democratic state senator also got a pushback reminder from the Democratic National Committee:

A DNC official said the proposed date “violates our rules and would result in an automatic deduction in half of Wisconsin’s delegates with the possibility of an increased deduction at the discretion of the Rules Committee.”

--
Pushing all that aside for the time being, even the history of Wisconsin presidential primary movement seems to bolster the idea that the Badger state is particularly rooted on one date. For much of the post-McGovern-Fraser reform era of presidential nominations (1972-present), Wisconsin has held its presidential primary on the first Tuesday in April; what has been referred to in state law as the April or now spring election date. The only exceptions to that were in 2004 and 2008 when the primary was pushed to the third Tuesday in February spring primary date. Both the first Tuesday in April date and third Tuesday in February date have been in the Wisconsin statutes and have been viable options on which to consolidate the presidential primary with other primary elections (or other elections).

The only deviation from that was the 1996 Wisconsin primary. That is the only time in the post-reform era that the Wisconsin presidential primary did not toggle back and forth between the February and April election dates. In 1995, the Wisconsin legislature passed legislation moving the spring primary and spring election dates up two weeks. The spring primary was shifted to the first Tuesday in February and the spring election date was moved to the third Tuesday in March. The presidential primary was scheduled for the latter date -- still the later spring election date -- which coincided with presidential primaries in Illinois, Michigan and Ohio.¹ This 1995 law expired on May 15, 1996. That was after the spring primary and spring election in 1996. That had the effect of automatically resetting those elections to their pre-1996 positions: the third Tuesday in February for the spring primary and the first Tuesday in April for the spring election.

That history says something about the present Wisconsin primary date or the future date of the 2016 primary anyway.

Will the legislature move the primary to the February spring primary date as Senator Carpenter is calling for? It does not look like Republicans in the majority will go for that.

Will the legislature move the primary at all? History seems to indicate that it will not. There is only one case where the presidential primary in the Badger state did not fall on the February spring primary date or the April spring election date. That is once in eleven post-reform cycles thus far (not including 2016). There is a chance, then, but a small one. As FHQ has noted, Wisconsin Republicans have tended to use a winner-take-all method of delegate allocation in the past. The current Republican National Committee delegate selection rules allow states to allocate delegates in a winner-take-all fashion in contests scheduled as early as March 15. Neighboring Illinois and Missouri are already slated for primaries on that date. Other neighbors, Michigan and Ohio are on the calendar for March 8 primaries. The regional primary concept was enough to move Wisconsin for the 1996 cycle and there is one option available with regional partners that also allows Republicans to maintain their preferred(?) winner-take-all allocation, March 15.

Will that combination be enough to prompt Badger state legislators to move Wisconsin up three weeks on the calendar? We shall see.

--
¹ The article from the Wisconsin State Journal mentions that this was called "Big Ten Tuesday", but FHQ has never seen that moniker for that series of contests. We have seen it called a Great Lakes (regional) primary (see Busch 2000), but not "Big Ten Tuesday". The conference affiliation naming of regional and sub-regional contests is a phenomenon that is unique to the so-called SEC primary and its proposed midwestern offshoot Big Ten primary for the 2016 cycle. Google News searches for "Big Ten Tuesday", "Big Ten Primary" and "Big Ten Regional Primary" all back this up. There are no results for any of those searches constrained to the relevant period (1/1/1995-6/30/1996).

Recent Posts:
Twin Bills Would Move Maryland Presidential Primary Back a Week

Snyder's Signature Sends Michigan Presidential Primary to March 8

Minnesota Republicans Seeking Waiver from New RNC Delegate-Binding Rule

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

Twin Bills Would Move Maryland Presidential Primary Back a Week

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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."

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.

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.

1. How widespread is support for the South Carolina-tethered North Carolina presidential primary in the North Carolina General Assembly?
2. 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?
3. 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)?
4. 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? 

Basically, we already know/knew North Carolina was in a provocative calendar position. We knew that in the summer of 2013. But what can we information can we add to that to fill out this picture? Answering the above questions would go a long way toward finding out where things really stand.

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.