FHQ has held up Arkansas during this presidential election cycle as an example of a state facing a classic primary calendar dilemma. Arkansas has traditionally held a consolidated primary election in May. That includes a presidential primary and a congressional primary among others. The motivations for scheduling those elections are slightly different depending on the office. States, on the whole, tend to want earlier rather than later presidential primaries, but often also desire later rather than earlier primaries for the other offices. There is a competition among (some) states to position presidential primaries on the presidential primary calendar that does not exist for the primaries for other offices. Arkansas in not competing with New Hampshire to hold the first US senate primary, for instance.
Throughout the post-reform era, states have dealt with this issue differently. Some states -- mostly those with late primaries for other offices -- created separate and earlier presidential primaries right off the bat in 1972. They had to. A state like Florida could not hold a consolidated primary, including a presidential primary, in September because the state could not use the presidential primary to effectively allocated delegates to a national convention that would have already occurred during the summer months. To sequence it properly, then, Florida either had to abandon the late primary altogether and move the primary up to accommodate the presidential nomination process or create a separate presidential primary that could be scheduled earlier. Florida chose the latter. It incurred the start up costs for the separate presidential primary early and institutionalized the practice. In the process, Florida created a much more mobile presidential primary, one that could be moved around in an almost unfettered manner.
But contrast that scenario with that in a state like Arkansas. Following the reforms the Democratic National Committee instituted for the 1972 presidential election cycle, state government officials in Arkansas did not face the same issues that those in Florida did. Arkansas had a May primary for state and local offices. It was much easier to slap a presidential nomination line on the May primary ballot and have the presidential portion fit the sequence of the newly reformed presidential nomination process. The May primary preceded the national conventions.
Arkansas basically acted out of convenience and expediency. The Arkansas presidential primary and those in states like California and North Carolina that reacted to the reforms similarly became less adaptable in the process, however. Whereas a state like Florida ripped the band-aid right off at the outset, states like Arkansas deferred on that decision. When the frontloading trend emerged, it was the group of states like Florida that initially drove it. The primaries in those states were more easily moved to different, earlier positions on the calendar.
States like Arkansas faced and still face in 2016 a different calculus. Decision makers in Arkansas have to decide whether to create and fund a separate and earlier presidential primary or to move everything up to an earlier date. Both have their own sets off costs that have more often than not deterred these late presidential primary states from budging from their May and June positions on the calendar. The separate election is expensive. But moving everything up creates longer general election campaigns for everyone from US Senate candidates to the state legislators --the ones actually making the decision to move -- themselves.
In the other two instances in which Arkansas has moved up -- 1988 and 2008 -- the decision was made to bite the bullet and fund a separate and earlier presidential primary election. And in both cases, the decision was made almost immediately after those elections to eliminate the separate presidential primary, thus moving it back to May.
And so it seems that Arkansas will attempt to repeat the first part of that practice for 2016. That is why FHQ the other day used Sen. Gary Stubblefield's SB 389 as a foil to the failed attempt in New Mexico to shift all of the primaries in the Land of Enchantment from June to March. Whereas New Mexico was making some effort to shift a consolidated primary up to March, Arkansas is attempting again to create a separate and earlier presidential primary.
However, it now looks as if the other option -- move a consolidated primary to March -- is now also on the table in the Arkansas state Senate. The same sponsor as the separate presidential primary bill, Sen. Gary Stubblefield (R-6th, Branch), has now also introduced legislation to move all of the May primaries in Arkansas to the first Tuesday in March. It is unclear whether the bill -- SB 765 -- makes the initial legislation moot, but there are both House and Senate co-sponsors signed onto this new bill. The initial separate presidential primary bill still lists only Stubblefield and continues to be deferred in the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee.
There may be a preference among legislators about how the move takes place (which bill to pass), but the end goal is the same: move the Arkansas primary up to join with the other SEC primary states. And Arkansas continues to be a great illustration of the different decision-making calculus that actors in late and consolidated presidential primary states have as compared to other states.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Monday, March 9, 2015
Kansas House Bill Would Cancel 2016 Presidential Primary
On Thursday, March 5, the Kansas House Committee on Federal and State Affairs introduced legislation in the lower chamber to cancel the 2016 presidential primary in the Sunflower state.
HB 2398 is identical to the bill currently at the committee stage of consideration in the state Senate. SB 239, introduced last month, faced some resistance in a committee hearing from the Senate president, but the nearly $2 million price tag makes it likely that Kansas will again postpone the presidential primary for another cycle. Whether the Senate or House bill (or both) is the vehicle through which that change again occurs remains to be determined.
The state last held a presidential primary in 1992.
HB 2398 is identical to the bill currently at the committee stage of consideration in the state Senate. SB 239, introduced last month, faced some resistance in a committee hearing from the Senate president, but the nearly $2 million price tag makes it likely that Kansas will again postpone the presidential primary for another cycle. Whether the Senate or House bill (or both) is the vehicle through which that change again occurs remains to be determined.
The state last held a presidential primary in 1992.
February Presidential Primary Bill Introduced in Wisconsin
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)