As promised, state Senator Tim Carpenter (D-3rd, Milwaukee) has introduced legislation to move the Wisconsin presidential primary to February.
SB 63, introduced in the state Senate last week, would move the presidential primary in the Badger state from the first Tuesday in April up to the third Tuesday in February. The April date coincides with what Wisconsin state law refers to as the "spring election" while the February date is the "spring primary". The presidential primary has mostly fallen on the spring election date during the post-reform era (1972-present), but did toggle to the spring primary date for the 2004 and 2008 cycles before moving back to April for 2012. Sen. Carpenter's legislation seeks to repeat that switch for 2016.
But in a Republican-controlled legislature, with a Republican governor who seems to be seeking the Republican presidential nomination and with a former Wisconsin Republican Party chair as chairman of the RNC, there will likely be little appetite to move the primary out of compliance with the national party rules, minimizing Wisconsin voters' voices in the nomination process. In fact, there already seems to be resistance to the proposed shift.
Monday, March 9, 2015
Republican Party of Virginia Chair Favors Conventions Over Primaries
FHQ touched on this convention or primary debate within the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) last week. The complaint then was that there was nothing in the reporting from the side of those in support of the convention format for determining presidential preference (and selecting/allocating delegates to the national convention). That has not really changed all that much in a week.
But there is some internal nuance that can be added to the picture now. Newly elected RPV chairman, John C. Whitbeck, hovered above the convention or primary fray in Saturday's Richmond Times-Dispatch story from Markus Schmidt, but offered his own personal preferences:
Now, that last bit is not an uncommon refrain from state Republican Party organizations across the country over the last few years (or the national party for that matter). Part of it rightly or wrongly gets lumped into the establishment versus tea party narrative. Yet, with Democratic voters perceived to be on the sidelines without a competitive presidential nomination race for a second consecutive cycle in 2016, there is concern -- real or imagined -- that Democrats are out to affect the Republican nomination race. That, in turn impacts tactical decisions like the mode of delegate selection on the state level. And that is something that can transcend the establishment versus tea party divide.
One way we can look at this is to see whether there is a growth or potential increase in Republican caucuses states for the 2016 cycle. At this point -- and it is early yet -- the changes from primaries to caucuses or caucuses to primaries relative to the mode used in 2012 is a wash.
Utah Republicans have already opted to switch from a primary in 2012 to a caucuses/convention system in 2016.
Kentucky Republicans look to be headed in the same direction.
The change is apparently still an open question among Republicans in Virginia.
But for every Utah, Kentucky and Virginia there is an Idaho or Missouri or Washington.
Idaho Republicans, after a cycle with a caucuses system, seem to be on their way toward switching back to a primary; a hard-fought, court-won closed primary. [The party's 2012 switch to caucuses was more about having an earlier date for a delegate selection event.]
Missouri Republicans will also have access to a state-funded primary in 2016 whereas all the party had in 2012 was a non-compliant primary, forcing them into caucuses.
And in Washington state, legislative Republicans are pushing a bill to move the primary up in order to allocate at least a portion of their national convention delegates based on the results. The state canceled the primary in 2012. Interestingly, it is Washington Democrats who prefer the caucuses format in the Evergreen state.
The more one looks at it, the more it becomes clear that it is idiosyncrasies and not necessarily ideological purism that is driving these moves whether to or from a caucuses/convention system. That may play a role, but it has not been the deciding factor.
...at least not in the way that it is being discussed in this Virginia case.
--
Hat tip to the New York Times' Jonathan Martin for the link to the Times-Dispatch story.
But there is some internal nuance that can be added to the picture now. Newly elected RPV chairman, John C. Whitbeck, hovered above the convention or primary fray in Saturday's Richmond Times-Dispatch story from Markus Schmidt, but offered his own personal preferences:
The state party has not yet landed on a format — the deadline for making a decision is October — and Whitbeck said he won’t rule out either process but made clear that he leans toward a convention.
“I generally don’t favor state-run primaries,” he said.
He added: “I don’t think the party of fiscal responsibility should be costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands or potentially millions of dollars. And until we have party registration, we can’t prevent Democrats from causing trouble in our primaries.”--
Now, that last bit is not an uncommon refrain from state Republican Party organizations across the country over the last few years (or the national party for that matter). Part of it rightly or wrongly gets lumped into the establishment versus tea party narrative. Yet, with Democratic voters perceived to be on the sidelines without a competitive presidential nomination race for a second consecutive cycle in 2016, there is concern -- real or imagined -- that Democrats are out to affect the Republican nomination race. That, in turn impacts tactical decisions like the mode of delegate selection on the state level. And that is something that can transcend the establishment versus tea party divide.
One way we can look at this is to see whether there is a growth or potential increase in Republican caucuses states for the 2016 cycle. At this point -- and it is early yet -- the changes from primaries to caucuses or caucuses to primaries relative to the mode used in 2012 is a wash.
Utah Republicans have already opted to switch from a primary in 2012 to a caucuses/convention system in 2016.
Kentucky Republicans look to be headed in the same direction.
The change is apparently still an open question among Republicans in Virginia.
But for every Utah, Kentucky and Virginia there is an Idaho or Missouri or Washington.
Idaho Republicans, after a cycle with a caucuses system, seem to be on their way toward switching back to a primary; a hard-fought, court-won closed primary. [The party's 2012 switch to caucuses was more about having an earlier date for a delegate selection event.]
Missouri Republicans will also have access to a state-funded primary in 2016 whereas all the party had in 2012 was a non-compliant primary, forcing them into caucuses.
And in Washington state, legislative Republicans are pushing a bill to move the primary up in order to allocate at least a portion of their national convention delegates based on the results. The state canceled the primary in 2012. Interestingly, it is Washington Democrats who prefer the caucuses format in the Evergreen state.
The more one looks at it, the more it becomes clear that it is idiosyncrasies and not necessarily ideological purism that is driving these moves whether to or from a caucuses/convention system. That may play a role, but it has not been the deciding factor.
...at least not in the way that it is being discussed in this Virginia case.
--
Hat tip to the New York Times' Jonathan Martin for the link to the Times-Dispatch story.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
New Mexico March Presidential Primary Bill Derailed on Second Failed Committee Vote
Via Milan Simonich at the Santa Fe New Mexican:
--
FHQ often talks about how difficult it can be for late states on the presidential primary calendar with consolidated primaries to move. The decision-making calculus is different. This New Mexico example illustrates one half of the dilemma. Arkansas fits the other part. For late states with consolidated primaries the question is always "Do we 1) move everything up to an earlier date, 2) create and fund a separate, earlier presidential primary election, or 3) leave well enough alone.
Often indecision between the first two options leads to a default selection of the third option.
Arkansas is looking to create a separate presidential primary election for the third time with little assurance that Natural state voters and taxpayers will get any increased bang for their buck this time around in 2016. The obstacle in New Mexico was partly partisan but also partly logistical. The decision to go with the "move everything" option meant that state legislators reelection/renominations would be affected but also that the move would push municipal elections to a later date. There are costs involved with each of the options to move, but one is financial while the other tends not to be. Both can gum up the works though. And that is a portion of what happened in New Mexico.
"A Republican initiative to move up New Mexico’s primary election from June to March failed again Saturday on another tie vote. The sponsor, House Majority Leader Nate Gentry, R-Albuquerque, said the bill is dead for this session and for the 2016 presidential election. Gentry’s bill stalled for the second time in the House Government, Elections and Indian Affairs Committee. All six Democrats on the panel opposed the measure, and the six Republicans supported it." [Emphasis FHQ's]A vote on HB 346, for the second time, ended in a stalemate in committee. After the bill to move the consolidated New Mexico primaries from June to the third Tuesday in March initially failed two weeks ago, there was some discussion about the legislation being tweaked. Whether those changes happened is not clear, but the outcome before the state House Government, Elections and Indian Affairs Committee was the exact same: Republicans for the move to March, Democrats unified against it.
--
FHQ often talks about how difficult it can be for late states on the presidential primary calendar with consolidated primaries to move. The decision-making calculus is different. This New Mexico example illustrates one half of the dilemma. Arkansas fits the other part. For late states with consolidated primaries the question is always "Do we 1) move everything up to an earlier date, 2) create and fund a separate, earlier presidential primary election, or 3) leave well enough alone.
Often indecision between the first two options leads to a default selection of the third option.
Arkansas is looking to create a separate presidential primary election for the third time with little assurance that Natural state voters and taxpayers will get any increased bang for their buck this time around in 2016. The obstacle in New Mexico was partly partisan but also partly logistical. The decision to go with the "move everything" option meant that state legislators reelection/renominations would be affected but also that the move would push municipal elections to a later date. There are costs involved with each of the options to move, but one is financial while the other tends not to be. Both can gum up the works though. And that is a portion of what happened in New Mexico.
Utah Republicans Vote to Abandon Presidential Primary for Caucuses in 2016
Two and a half weeks ago, the Utah Republican Executive Committee unanimously passed a resolution calling on the party to shift from utilizing the state-funded presidential primary to instead using a caucuses/convention system as a means of selecting and allocating delegates to the 2016 Republican National Convention.1
However, resolutions tend to be non-binding and that was the case in this instance because such a switch from a primary to caucuses required a change to the Utah Republican Party Bylaws. Additionally that kind of a change can only be voted on and approved by the full Utah Republican Party State Central Committee (UTSCC). The UTSCC met on Saturday, March 7 and those changes to the bylaws concerning 2016 delegate selection were on the agenda.
There was not that much that was eye-opening about the changes.2 The initial addition appears to give the Utah Republican Party the latitude to make this trade -- in either direction -- in the future without having to alter the party bylaws:
Also left undefined: The date of the precinct caucuses that will begin the caucuses/convention process.
The February 18 resolution describes a presidential preference vote taking place concurrently with the regularly occurring neighborhood caucuses that are the common start point for the caucuses/convention process in both parties in Utah. Those neighborhood caucuses tend to occur in the early spring, but there is no guidance in the Utah Republican Party constitution or bylaws as to when on the calendar those local meetings will fall.
But there are a couple of pieces of information that may provide some hints as to where this preference vote will be on the 2016 presidential primary calendar.
First, the last two Republican neighborhood caucuses -- in 2012 and 2014 -- were on the third Thursday in March. But again, that specific date is not called for in the Utah Republican Party bylaws nor constitution. The 2010 neighborhood meetings -- the ones that derailed former Senator Bob Bennett's (R-UT) reelection campaign -- were on the third Tuesday in March.
March, then, seems a likely destination. But March is a popular potential 2016 landing spot for any number of primaries and caucuses across the country. History may not be a great guide.
Secondly, when Utah comes up in these dates discussions, some talk of involvement in a western regional primary has often not been that far behind. That was true yesterday as well. Governor Gary Herbert (R-UT) brought the idea up at the UTSCC meeting:
Utah Republicans have a bit of a decision then. Gamble on a March 22 date with some regional partners which may in turn yield increased attention, or abandon that idea based on the fact that it may be too late to matter and move up to March 15. The March 15 option would mean competing with bigger states like Florida with more delegates at stake. And that may be tougher even if Florida is not truly winner-take-all.
--
1 Below is the language of that resolution from February 18:
2 Below are the proposed changes to the Utah Republican Party bylaws concerning the primary to caucuses switch:
However, resolutions tend to be non-binding and that was the case in this instance because such a switch from a primary to caucuses required a change to the Utah Republican Party Bylaws. Additionally that kind of a change can only be voted on and approved by the full Utah Republican Party State Central Committee (UTSCC). The UTSCC met on Saturday, March 7 and those changes to the bylaws concerning 2016 delegate selection were on the agenda.
There was not that much that was eye-opening about the changes.2 The initial addition appears to give the Utah Republican Party the latitude to make this trade -- in either direction -- in the future without having to alter the party bylaws:
Prior to any deadline required by the Republican National Committee Rules, the State Central Committee shall certify a presidential primary or a presidential caucus as the Republican Presidential Preference Vote. [Emphasis FHQ's]Beyond that, all references to a presidential primary were struck and replaced by preference vote. The ambiguity of that phrase/concept enables the discretion intended in the clause discussed above. The mechanism for such a future change/decision was left undefined.
Also left undefined: The date of the precinct caucuses that will begin the caucuses/convention process.
The February 18 resolution describes a presidential preference vote taking place concurrently with the regularly occurring neighborhood caucuses that are the common start point for the caucuses/convention process in both parties in Utah. Those neighborhood caucuses tend to occur in the early spring, but there is no guidance in the Utah Republican Party constitution or bylaws as to when on the calendar those local meetings will fall.
But there are a couple of pieces of information that may provide some hints as to where this preference vote will be on the 2016 presidential primary calendar.
First, the last two Republican neighborhood caucuses -- in 2012 and 2014 -- were on the third Thursday in March. But again, that specific date is not called for in the Utah Republican Party bylaws nor constitution. The 2010 neighborhood meetings -- the ones that derailed former Senator Bob Bennett's (R-UT) reelection campaign -- were on the third Tuesday in March.
March, then, seems a likely destination. But March is a popular potential 2016 landing spot for any number of primaries and caucuses across the country. History may not be a great guide.
Secondly, when Utah comes up in these dates discussions, some talk of involvement in a western regional primary has often not been that far behind. That was true yesterday as well. Governor Gary Herbert (R-UT) brought the idea up at the UTSCC meeting:
"We ought to do everything we can to get those who are going to lead our nation to stop by Utah," Herbert said, including holding the election the same day as other Western states to ensure focus on issues important to the region.
“We ought to work toward a regional primary” to have a stronger voice in the Intermountain West, he said.If that idea is resonant with the Utah Republican Party, the options are somewhat limited at this point. Northern neighbor Idaho as well as Washington state are eyeing March 8 primaries. Utah's southern neighbor, Arizona, is scheduled to have a primary on March 22. That actually falls quite close to the third week in March during which the neighborhood caucuses have taken place in Utah in the recent past. March 22 is also the date identified in the now-moot legislation -- at least for Utah Republicans -- concerning a move of the Utah presidential primary. Most importantly, Utah is one of the handful of truly winner-take-all states on the Republican side. Under Republican National Committee rules, states with such a delegate allocation plan cannot be scheduled for a date any earlier than March 15. That seemingly eliminates March 8 as a possibility.
Utah Republicans have a bit of a decision then. Gamble on a March 22 date with some regional partners which may in turn yield increased attention, or abandon that idea based on the fact that it may be too late to matter and move up to March 15. The March 15 option would mean competing with bigger states like Florida with more delegates at stake. And that may be tougher even if Florida is not truly winner-take-all.
--
1 Below is the language of that resolution from February 18:
2 Below are the proposed changes to the Utah Republican Party bylaws concerning the primary to caucuses switch:
Saturday, March 7, 2015
Kentucky Republicans Support Move to 2016 Presidential Caucuses
On Saturday, March 7 the Republican Party of Kentucky Executive Committee met and voted unanimously in favor of switching from a presidential primary to a caucuses/convention system in 2016.
The shift was requested by US Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to accommodate his potential simultaneous runs for renomination to the Senate seat he now holds and for the Republican presidential nomination. Kentucky law prevents a candidate from appearing on a ballot more than once. Trading the May presidential primary for separate caucuses was the easiest path to circumventing that law, allowing the concurrent runs for both offices. Sen. Paul now avoids having to go through the courts to challenge the law or attempting to exploit more intricate possibilities.
The exact date of the caucuses is not known at this point. The Kentucky Republican Party Executive Committee was voting on just the switch in delegate selection mode and not the rules that will govern the caucuses. That change will come later at the August meeting of the full Kentucky Republican Party Central Committee following a 13 member caucus-planning panel.
That said, the Republican Party of Kentucky holds precinct caucuses during the month of March in presidential election years as a part of the party's state convention process. See Rule 5.03:
UPDATE: More on the vote from the AP's Adam Beam.
Executive session over. Former RNC chair Mike Duncan makes a motion to approve a caucus
— Sam Youngman (@samyoungman) March 7, 2015
Caucus approved unanimously by voice vote. Meeting and discussion beforehand took about two hours
— Sam Youngman (@samyoungman) March 7, 2015
The shift was requested by US Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to accommodate his potential simultaneous runs for renomination to the Senate seat he now holds and for the Republican presidential nomination. Kentucky law prevents a candidate from appearing on a ballot more than once. Trading the May presidential primary for separate caucuses was the easiest path to circumventing that law, allowing the concurrent runs for both offices. Sen. Paul now avoids having to go through the courts to challenge the law or attempting to exploit more intricate possibilities.
The exact date of the caucuses is not known at this point. The Kentucky Republican Party Executive Committee was voting on just the switch in delegate selection mode and not the rules that will govern the caucuses. That change will come later at the August meeting of the full Kentucky Republican Party Central Committee following a 13 member caucus-planning panel.
That said, the Republican Party of Kentucky holds precinct caucuses during the month of March in presidential election years as a part of the party's state convention process. See Rule 5.03:
5.03. Precinct Committee Elections: The Precinct shall be the basic organizational unit of the Republican Party of Kentucky.Whether there will be a uniform date for precinct caucuses or if the rules will be altered to affect such a change remains to be seen. This does mark the first time since the 2000 presidential election cycle that Kentucky Republicans have opted for a caucuses/convention system in lieu of the May primary. Kentucky Democrats made a similar move in 1984.
(a) Timing of Elections: In the year in which the President of the United States shall be elected, all precincts shall hold elections for Party office not earlier than March 1 and not later than March 31. Each County Committee shall provide written notice to State Republican Headquarters on or before the second Friday in January of the date, time and location of such elections. Any County Committee that fails to submit said notice by the deadline established in this rule shall hold said elections on the third Saturday in March beginning at 10 AM local time at a location approved by the County Committee and submitted to the State Republican Headquarters on or before January 31. Failure to submit written notice as provided in this rule mandates that the Executive Committee of the RSCC implement a mechanism for Precinct Committee elections. [Emphasis FHQ's]
UPDATE: More on the vote from the AP's Adam Beam.
Friday, March 6, 2015
Ohio to Move to a Later Spot on the 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar?
The compromise to move the Michigan presidential primary to March 8 may end up leaving the Great Lakes state lonely on the calendar on that date. Alabama and Mississippi may vacate for the SEC primary a week earlier (on March 1) and now there are whispers in Ohio that legislators in the Buckeye state may not keep the presidential primary on March 8.1
From Henry J. Gomez at the Northeast Ohio Media Group:
Ohio may change that some.
But allow FHQ a couple of addenda to the rumors in Ohio:
--
1 Hawaii Republicans have caucuses planned for March 8 as of now, but even if the party keeps its delegate selection event in that spot, it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which Hawaii will actually compete with mainland Michigan for candidate attention. Idaho and Washington are also eyeing March 8 as a possible destination for their primaries.
From Henry J. Gomez at the Northeast Ohio Media Group:
Per sources in Columbus, something to watch in the coming weeks - whether March 8 holds as the date for Ohio's 2016 presidential primary. Under Republican National Committee rules, any state that holds its primary before March 15 could be penalized if they don't award delegates proportionally. But states that hold primaries March 15 or later could award delegates under a winner-take-all format.Other than the maneuvering in Florida (and Arizona), there has not been any widespread movement by states to move to protect winner-take-all rules. Neither has there been any evidence of Republican Parties in states currently scheduled after March 15 (and showing no signs of changing dates) to adopt winner-take-all rules to replace their rules from 2012. [That may change as 2015 progresses, but that is a pattern -- no or little rules changes -- that is consistent with what was witnessed during a comparable period in 2011.]
Ohio may change that some.
But allow FHQ a couple of addenda to the rumors in Ohio:
- Unresolved redistricting issues had Ohio all over the calendar in 2011. Coming into the 2011 legislative session, Ohio was scheduled to hold a presidential primary on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. The ongoing dispute over district boundaries had legislators first push the primary to May. Then the law the primary move was housed was challenged in court and the date reverted to March. But the districts issue remained, so the legislature created a separate presidential and US House primary in June. Then, in mid-December 2011 -- just more than two weeks before the Iowa caucuses -- a legislative agreement on the district boundaries facilitated a move back to March. There is no redistricting conflict in 2015, but there is still a legislative process that any change to the primary date in Ohio would have to navigate first.
- Ohio Republicans utilized a delegate selection plan in 2012 that has them right smack in the middle of truly winner-take-all and truly proportional. The small sliver of Ohio delegates that are at-large (allocated based on the statewide results) were allocated proportionate to a candidate's share of the statewide vote. The bigger cache of congressional district delegates were allocated winner-take-all based on the vote outcome in the congressional district. Ohio Republicans would have to change things regardless of a move. To comply with the 2016 RNC rules, Ohio Republicans would have to proportionalize the allocation of those congressional district delegates. And if they move to a later date -- post-March 15 -- there would likely be a change to at least the proportional allocation of the at-large delegates (to winner-take-all). If the move occurs that is the most likely outcome: at-large delegates allocated winner-take-all to the statewide winner and the three congressional district delegates in each district allocated to the winner of that district. That is the traditional way -- a winner-take-all by congressional district or winner-take-most plan -- that Ohio Republicans have allocated delegates in the past. Granting all the delegates to the statewide winner would be a departure for the party.
--
1 Hawaii Republicans have caucuses planned for March 8 as of now, but even if the party keeps its delegate selection event in that spot, it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which Hawaii will actually compete with mainland Michigan for candidate attention. Idaho and Washington are also eyeing March 8 as a possible destination for their primaries.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Maryland Senate Unanimously Passes Presidential Primary Move to Late April
The Maryland state Senate on Thursday, March 5 unanimously passed SB 204.1 The measure, amended from its original form, would move the presidential primary in the Old Line state from the first Tuesday in April back to the fourth Tuesday in April.
This move is being made to avoid the administration of the election overlapping with religious holidays during the month of April. By moving back three weeks on the calendar -- instead of the originally proposed one week move -- the bill would schedule the presidential primary on the same date as primaries in neighboring Delaware and Pennsylvania as well as Connecticut and Rhode Island.
Maryland has been a part of subregional primaries in each of the last two presidential election cycles.
The bill now moves to the state House for consideration. Legislation identical to the original Senate bill has already been filed in the House.
--
UPDATE (3/15/15): House bill clears committee
--
1 The bill passed on a 47-0 vote.
This move is being made to avoid the administration of the election overlapping with religious holidays during the month of April. By moving back three weeks on the calendar -- instead of the originally proposed one week move -- the bill would schedule the presidential primary on the same date as primaries in neighboring Delaware and Pennsylvania as well as Connecticut and Rhode Island.
Maryland has been a part of subregional primaries in each of the last two presidential election cycles.
The bill now moves to the state House for consideration. Legislation identical to the original Senate bill has already been filed in the House.
--
UPDATE (3/15/15): House bill clears committee
--
1 The bill passed on a 47-0 vote.
March Presidential Primary Bill Out of Utah Clears Committee Stage
The bill to shift the date of the Western States Presidential Primary from the first Tuesday in February to the fourth Tuesday in March passed the Utah state House Government Operations Committee on Thursday, March 5.
HB 329 passed the committee favorably on a 7-1 vote but was amended in the process. That amendment did not have any affect on the date change for the primary. The move would bring the Utah presidential primary back into compliance with the national party rules, but that change may matter far less in light of the fact that the Utah Republican Party is on course to switch from the use of a primary to a caucuses/convention system in 2016.
HB 329 passed the committee favorably on a 7-1 vote but was amended in the process. That amendment did not have any affect on the date change for the primary. The move would bring the Utah presidential primary back into compliance with the national party rules, but that change may matter far less in light of the fact that the Utah Republican Party is on course to switch from the use of a primary to a caucuses/convention system in 2016.
Utah Republican Party Moving Closer to 2016 Caucuses
This flew under FHQ's radar in the recent flurry of legislative action on presidential primary laws across the nation.
The Utah Republican Party voted unanimously in an emergency meeting on Wednesday, February 18 in favor of a resolution to hold caucuses next year in the presidential nomination race in lieu of continuing with the state-funded primary. The move is yet more fallout from the continued flap over the nomination process for most offices in Utah that has pitted the Utah Republican Party against the state legislature/government.
FHQ has touched on this divide some already, but Robert Gehrke at the Salt Lake Tribune sums up the battle lines quite nicely here:
The impending Saturday meeting has prompted reaction from Mitt Romney, the Republican standard bearer in the 2012 presidential election. In a letter to party and government officials, Romney made the case for a primary over a caucuses/convention system, urging the letter's audience to get behind legislation currently before the state legislature to move the primary election back into compliance with the national party delegate selection rules. Of course, regardless of how the state government moves on that March primary bill, the state party will have the final say in how its delegates to the national convention are chosen. Right now, it appears that the Utah Republican Party is moving toward caucuses, but the big guns have been brought out to urge the party to reconsider.
--
NOTE: Saturday may be an interesting day for the primary calendar. Utah Republicans will not be alone in looking to switch from a primary to caucuses. Kentucky Republicans will be considering a similar change at a meeting of their own on March 7.
The Utah Republican Party voted unanimously in an emergency meeting on Wednesday, February 18 in favor of a resolution to hold caucuses next year in the presidential nomination race in lieu of continuing with the state-funded primary. The move is yet more fallout from the continued flap over the nomination process for most offices in Utah that has pitted the Utah Republican Party against the state legislature/government.
FHQ has touched on this divide some already, but Robert Gehrke at the Salt Lake Tribune sums up the battle lines quite nicely here:
Under the SB54 compromise struck last session, candidates can go through a party's convention and try to win the nomination by gaining support from delegates chosen at neighborhood caucuses. Alternatively, they can gather a requisite number of signatures from eligible voters to secure a spot on the primary ballot.It is that latter option that the Utah Republican Party has objected to and has ultimately dragged the party's 2016 delegate selection process for president into the fray. The Executive Committee of the party passed the resolution to make the switch from primary to caucuses at the February meeting, but the Utah Republican Party Central Committee has to actually make the changes to the state party bylaws bring the switch to fruition. The group is set to meet on Saturday, March 7 to address the matter.
The impending Saturday meeting has prompted reaction from Mitt Romney, the Republican standard bearer in the 2012 presidential election. In a letter to party and government officials, Romney made the case for a primary over a caucuses/convention system, urging the letter's audience to get behind legislation currently before the state legislature to move the primary election back into compliance with the national party delegate selection rules. Of course, regardless of how the state government moves on that March primary bill, the state party will have the final say in how its delegates to the national convention are chosen. Right now, it appears that the Utah Republican Party is moving toward caucuses, but the big guns have been brought out to urge the party to reconsider.
--
NOTE: Saturday may be an interesting day for the primary calendar. Utah Republicans will not be alone in looking to switch from a primary to caucuses. Kentucky Republicans will be considering a similar change at a meeting of their own on March 7.
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
March Presidential Primary Bill Divides Democrats But Passes Washington State Senate
Half of the 24 member Democratic caucus in the Washington state Senate joined unified majority Republicans in the upper chamber to pass SB 5978 on Tuesday, March 3. The bill would move the presidential primary in the Evergreen state from May to the second Tuesday in March.
The AP has an account of the vote here. FHQ would counter AP reporter Derrick Nunnally's assessment that the bill is intended to strengthen the presidential primary. The better way of describing the rationale behind the Washington secretary of state-backed move is one of enticement.
The reason Democrats in the state Senate were divided over SB 5978 was that the state Democratic Party has traditionally had little to do with the presidential primary election since its first run in the 1992 presidential election cycle. In fact, Washington Democrats have had less than little to do with the primary. They have used a caucuses/convention system to select and allocate delegates in each of the six cycles that the Washington presidential primary has existed.
Secretary of State Kim Wyman (R) and legislative Republicans appear to be unified in support of the earlier primary, but are trying to coax Democrats -- or enough Democrats -- to go along with them.
Part of the package of enticements is the earlier primary. A second Tuesday in March primary would hypothetically be early enough to provide voters in the state of Washington with a voice in the presidential nomination process. But the last primary in 2008 was in the middle of February. Both parties held caucuses a week and a half before that primary. Both national parties allowed February contests in 2008, but a February primary that year did not prove to be enough to bring Democrats into the process.
Mostly that was because the primary, though early, was essentially open to voters outside of the Democratic Party (because there is no party registration in Washington). And the Washington Democratic Party has preferred closed caucuses in which only Democrats were affecting the selection and allocation of delegates. To deal with that issue, SB 5978 also includes a provision that -- provided both state parties opt into the primary and decide to allocate at least some of their national convention delegates based on the results -- would require voters to declare which party's primary in which they intend to vote.
Is that enough to get Democrats in the legislature on board with the idea? Half of the Democratic caucus in the state Senate was open to the idea, but the state party seems to be leaning toward maintaining the caucuses system. The now-Senate-passed SB 5978 now moves to the Democratic-controlled state House for consideration. There is an identical bill already in the committee stage in the lower chamber, but there is now also a bill there to cancel the 2016 presidential primary altogether. The 2012 Washington primary was also canceled.
All this sets up an interesting possible impasse. If the Republican Senate prefers the March primary legislation and the Democratic House ends up pushing the primary cancelation, the default is the May primary that is already in the statutes. The state legislature may be unwilling to expend the $11.5 million on a May primary likely to be after the point at which both national parties have settled on nominees in 2016. The end game would appear to be that that eventuality -- the above hypothetical impasse -- would push the parties toward earlier caucuses dates, making the multimillion dollar expenditure much less likely.
All eyes will now be on the state House now. The early primary proposals and the possible cancelation of the primary are all on their doorstep now.
The AP has an account of the vote here. FHQ would counter AP reporter Derrick Nunnally's assessment that the bill is intended to strengthen the presidential primary. The better way of describing the rationale behind the Washington secretary of state-backed move is one of enticement.
The reason Democrats in the state Senate were divided over SB 5978 was that the state Democratic Party has traditionally had little to do with the presidential primary election since its first run in the 1992 presidential election cycle. In fact, Washington Democrats have had less than little to do with the primary. They have used a caucuses/convention system to select and allocate delegates in each of the six cycles that the Washington presidential primary has existed.
Secretary of State Kim Wyman (R) and legislative Republicans appear to be unified in support of the earlier primary, but are trying to coax Democrats -- or enough Democrats -- to go along with them.
Part of the package of enticements is the earlier primary. A second Tuesday in March primary would hypothetically be early enough to provide voters in the state of Washington with a voice in the presidential nomination process. But the last primary in 2008 was in the middle of February. Both parties held caucuses a week and a half before that primary. Both national parties allowed February contests in 2008, but a February primary that year did not prove to be enough to bring Democrats into the process.
Mostly that was because the primary, though early, was essentially open to voters outside of the Democratic Party (because there is no party registration in Washington). And the Washington Democratic Party has preferred closed caucuses in which only Democrats were affecting the selection and allocation of delegates. To deal with that issue, SB 5978 also includes a provision that -- provided both state parties opt into the primary and decide to allocate at least some of their national convention delegates based on the results -- would require voters to declare which party's primary in which they intend to vote.
Is that enough to get Democrats in the legislature on board with the idea? Half of the Democratic caucus in the state Senate was open to the idea, but the state party seems to be leaning toward maintaining the caucuses system. The now-Senate-passed SB 5978 now moves to the Democratic-controlled state House for consideration. There is an identical bill already in the committee stage in the lower chamber, but there is now also a bill there to cancel the 2016 presidential primary altogether. The 2012 Washington primary was also canceled.
All this sets up an interesting possible impasse. If the Republican Senate prefers the March primary legislation and the Democratic House ends up pushing the primary cancelation, the default is the May primary that is already in the statutes. The state legislature may be unwilling to expend the $11.5 million on a May primary likely to be after the point at which both national parties have settled on nominees in 2016. The end game would appear to be that that eventuality -- the above hypothetical impasse -- would push the parties toward earlier caucuses dates, making the multimillion dollar expenditure much less likely.
All eyes will now be on the state House now. The early primary proposals and the possible cancelation of the primary are all on their doorstep now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)