Why North Carolina is the Biggest Threat to the 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

FHQ runs the risk, perhaps, of over-North Carolinaing this North Carolina presidential primary situation. Yet, like Florida four years ago, it is pretty clear now, and has been for quite a while, that North Carolina was not necessarily going to play along with the established Republican National Committee delegate selection rules. Just as I harped on the fact that the RNC did not change its 50% penalty for 2012 and that Florida had already demonstrated in 2008 that that was not a sufficient penalty, North Carolina has seemingly wedged itself into a position on the calendar that may make the RNC achieving its ideal calendar more difficult.¹ 

It is kind of important, then, and warrants some discussion. 

As it is important, let me add to the piece that CNN's Peter Hamby has on the subject today. Whereas the Charlotte Observer's Jim Morrill added a North Carolina-level perspective, Hamby layered in some of the national party (RNC) point of view. Both are key. 

But allow me a moment to add to all of this the rationale for why FHQ views North Carolina as the biggest threat to go rogue in 2016. Hamby approached me for my perspective on the situation and I responded in typical "obsessive detail". Understandably, Hamby had a story to write that was bigger than just my perspective, but let me throw in a bit more nuance. Here is my email response to his query (edited for clarity):

North Carolina is the biggest threat to the calendar now because there is an uncertainty around the primary here that does not exist elsewhere. There are two groups of potential problem states: 1) Those that are currently rogue and 2) Those that are trying to be rogue.  

None of the states in the latter category -- those with bills or likely bills -- to move into pre-March calendar positions are really serious attempts. There has been pretty robust negative reaction to possible moves in Arizona, Texas and Vermont, and the likely Wisconsin attempt does not have the support of Republicans in the majority in the state legislature. At this point, none of that group appears to pose a viable threat. 

The first group is a little different. Those are states that have to make some change to move to a later date (or choose the later of the options available to them). In that group are Colorado, New York, North Carolina and Utah. I have no inside knowledge, but Colorado is likely to opt for the March date available to them (March 1) over a non-compliant February position. [EDIT: It has been quiet in Colorado on this question.]  

Utah is feeling the pinch on both ends of the calendar (non-compliant on both) and may switch to caucuses anyway. [EDIT: Both primary options currently available to Utah are non-compliant with RNC rules.] 

New York is only back in February on something of a technicality. The move to April in 2011 expired after 2012 which put the primary back in February. My guess is that the intention of the sunset provision was not to be rogue in 2016 so much as it was a function of providing the legislature with a reason to have to revisit the date [EDIT: in the future]. If April had been permanent, it likely would have been more difficult to get any change passed in the legislature there. Now, they have to make a change. The NYGOP wants a March 1 date.  

That leaves North Carolina. To avoid the super penalty, the North Carolina primary has to be moved to March 1 or later. You've [Hamby] reported that there are folks in the NCGOP who support keeping the primary where it is. I would wager there is similar sentiment in the North Carolina General Assembly. How much? I don't know. Sen. Andrew Brock (R), who brought up legislation every cycle to move the North Carolina primary up dating back to 2005 or so, has said he is supportive of the February date [EDIT: ...and possibly ceding delegates in the process]. Whether that support stops with him in the legislature or runs deeper is the question now. [I should add that none of the bills he introduced [EDIT: in the past] ever proposed going rogue. The primary would have been moved to the earliest allowed date in each of those cycles. He and others may be open to March 1.] 

So, there is some resistance to moving the primary, but we don't know how much. There is also support for a move back into compliance with the national party rules. And while symbolic -- the NCGOP chair and the RNC committeeman from North Carolina (Rep. David Lewis) -- that support is from the top. That may or may not be met with some hostility. Like the resistance to changing the date, we don't know how deep support for a compliant primary runs in either the NCGOP or the general assembly.  

Adding to this is the politics of the legislature. The Republicans control both chambers but the House and Senate have been at odds with each other on a number of controversial items over the past few years. [EDIT: This hypothesis was made early yesterday before the apparent House/Senate divide on the presidential primary scheduling became clear.] That tension could factor into moving the primary date. It may also require Republicans in the majority reaching over to get Democratic votes to get something passed. Democrats would likely be interested in a compliant date as well. [Though, it should be said that the North Carolina Democratic Party could file for a waiver to avoid sanction since they don't control state government. How open the DNC would be to granting that waiver is a question for further down the road. EDIT: see Rule 20.C of the Democratic Party delegate selection rules.] 

Long story short, there are just more unanswered questions regarding the North Carolina position on the primary calendar than there are for other rogue or potentially rogue states. 

Unanswered questions there may be, but what is different about North Carolina -- as compared to, say, Florida in 2008 or 2012 -- is that the Tar Heel state has not drawn a line in the sand. Instead, North Carolina has driven a stake into the ground next to South Carolina and will go wherever the Palmetto state goes. That is a different problem, one that likely means more pressure from the Republican National Committee and perhaps even some inventive tactics in South Carolina. 

Does South Carolina, for instance, mimic the tried and true New Hampshire process of blackballing candidates -- in the South Carolina campaign -- who campaign in North Carolina? If the super penalty from the national party does not work as intended, it may come to that. 

--

¹ And bear in mind that there is no North Carolina position on the calendar yet. Until there is a date for the South Carolina primary, there will not be a date for the North Carolina primary. All we know at this point is that South Carolina will be in February sometime and that North Carolina law call for the primary in the Tar Heel state to follow on the next Tuesday after that. 

Recent Posts:

North Carolina House and Senate at Odds Over Presidential Primary Date

Democrats Pushing Challenge to New Hampshire Primary in Vermont House

March Presidential Primary Bill Moves Forward in Washington State

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

North Carolina House and Senate at Odds Over Presidential Primary Date

An inter-chamber dispute in the General Assembly may keep the North Carolina presidential primary right where it is: out of compliance with both national parties' delegate selection rules.

Jim Morrill is reporting in the Charlotte Observer that there is support for moving the primary to a later date in the North Carolina House. Not surprisingly, Rep. David Lewis (R-53rd-Harnett), the House Elections Committee chair and the national committeeman from North Carolina to the Republican National Committee, has voiced a similar opinion to that of North Carolina Republican Party chairman, Claude Pope, Jr. On moving the primary back to March 1, Lewis said,

“It makes sense, I hope the General Assembly will act accordingly. I think it will maintain North Carolina’s relevancy and have the economic boost we all hope for.”

But that support of moving the presidential primary back into compliance with the national party rules seemingly ends at the chamber door. It does not stretch across the capitol building to the state Senate. Republican control of the General Assembly has been hampered at times between competing goals between the chambers and this extends to the presidential primary debate as well. Bear in mind, it was the state Senate that added the presidential primary date change to the controversial omnibus elections bill at the last minute in 2013. With time running out in the session, the House agreed to that change to get the bill -- including the voter ID provision that is now being challenged in court -- passed.

This primary date -- tethered to the South Carolina primary -- is the Senate's baby. And it shows in the comments from proponents of the likely February primary date in the upper chamber. Sen. Bob Rucho (R-39th, Mecklenburg), who is a member of the Judiciary I Committee that handles elections matter in the state Senate had this to say (again, via Morrill),

“Why should we be losing delegates? We didn’t cut in line. We haven’t made our argument to the (RNC) yet. I don’t see why March 1 is a special date. We think the people of North Carolina should have a say in regards to the presidential contest.”

That is not an atypical argument from any state legislator whether proposing to buck the rules or just move a primary to an earlier date. But this does give us some idea of what now faces the orderliness of the 2016 presidential primary calendar. A disagreement between the chambers makes passing legislation to move the North Carolina primary that much more difficult if not impossible. If that issue is not solved, then the beef will be between North and South Carolina which will pull the national parties -- more the RNC given the partisan make up of decision-makers in the Carolinas -- further into the discussion. This situation has already seen what one might call light and indirect pressure from the RNC. The remaining pressure may come in the form of the super penalty. being levied against North Carolina Republicans if the primary is not moved.

But all may work out. If South Carolina schedules its presidential primary for Tuesday, February 23, 2016, then the North Carolina primary would follow on March 1; making everyone happy. Getting there is not that simple, though. South Carolina typically holds a Saturday primary. South Carolina Republicans also like at least a week between it and the next southern state on the primary calendar. That combination eliminates the possibility of moving the South Carolina Republican primary to the Saturday, February 27.

On top of that, how is one to interpret the North Carolina law if the state parties in South Carolina hold primaries on different dates? Does North Carolina follow the earliest primary? The Republican primary? That is not clear and there is no guidance in the North Carolina law to account for an eventuality that occurs in South Carolina more often than not.

This one could get messy before it is all said and done. But North Carolina will undoubtedly lose over 80% of its delegates if it continues on the course it is on unless the stars align to force South Carolina into an uncommon Tuesday primary.


Recent Posts:
Democrats Pushing Challenge to New Hampshire Primary in Vermont House

March Presidential Primary Bill Moves Forward in Washington State

New Mexico March Primary Bill Meets Committee Roadblock

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

Democrats Pushing Challenge to New Hampshire Primary in Vermont House

Identical legislation to the Vermont state Senate bill proposing to schedule the presidential primary in the Green Mountain state for the same date as the New Hampshire primary has now been introduced in the Vermont state House.

Like S76, the House version -- H 239 -- calls for the Vermont secretary of state to schedule the presidential primary for the same date as the first in the nation presidential primary in New Hampshire. What is different on the House side is who filed the legislation. Instead of being pushed by a Progressive Party legislator (a party loosely aligned with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)), the House bill was introduced and co-sponsored by four majority party Democrats. Neither the bill's sponsor Rep. Sam Young (D-121st, Orleans-Caledonia), nor the three co-sponsors (Rep. Jim Condon (D-69th, Chittenden), Jim Masland (D-82nd, Windsor-Orange) and George W. Till (D-143rd, Chittenden)) are among the Democratic leadership in the House, but all four sit on the House Ways and Means Committee. That means there is no one sponsor to directly shepherd the bill through the Government Operations Committee (to which it has been referred). However, since the House Ways and Means Committee primarily deals with revenue coming into the state, it would seem clear that the rationale behind the bill is much the same as that espoused by the Senate version's author: to provide the state with an economic shot in the arm.

Regardless of who is promoting the bill, challenging New Hampshire's status, as FHQ has pointed out, is easier said than done. All that has changed is that there is a second version attempting to pull this off.

Recent Posts:
March Presidential Primary Bill Moves Forward in Washington State

New Mexico March Primary Bill Meets Committee Roadblock

North Carolina Republican Party Chair Calls for March 1 Presidential Primary

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

March Presidential Primary Bill Moves Forward in Washington State

The effort to shift the presidential primary in Washington from May to March jumped its first hurdle in committee last week on Thursday, February 19. SB 5978 passed the Senate Committee on Government Operations and Security with a "do pass" recommendation.

The question in Washington is less about whether the presidential primary will shift from the fourth Tuesday in May to the second Tuesday in March. Instead, the larger question in the Evergreen state is whether the state parties will actually opt to use the primary -- in lieu of caucuses -- to allocate national convention delegates. Washington has been a caucuses/convention state for much of the post-reform era. The presidential primary has been in place since the 1992 cycle, but has rarely been utilized by the parties.

The presidential primary was cancelled in Washington for the 2012 cycle.

--

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


Recent Posts:
New Mexico March Primary Bill Meets Committee Roadblock

North Carolina Republican Party Chair Calls for March 1 Presidential Primary

An August Presidential Primary in Montana?

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

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.