This kept getting pushed further and further back on FHQ's priority list:
An August presidential primary idea in Montana always seemed untenable anyway. It is difficult to hold a successful presidential primary -- even if consolidated with primaries for other offices -- after the national conventions have occurred.
Nonetheless, that was the proposal before the Montana House State Administration Committee toward the end of February: a package to facilitate an even year meeting of the legislature combined with a June to August move for the primary elections in the Treasure state.
A couple of significant things happened in the time since FHQ last looked at this bill. First, during the committee hearing on the legislation -- HB 571 -- there was already some doubt cast on the August primary part of the bill. At that time, the committee tabled the legislation for the time being. A few days later on Friday, February 27, the deadline for bills to be passed in one chamber and transmitted to the other came and went with no action on HB 571.
Given that combination of factors -- reservations to the August primary and the bill not being transmitted to the state Senate -- it would appear that the idea of moving the Montana presidential primary has been stopped dead in its tracks. One thing to watch in Montana is what the state parties do. Democrats in the state have tended to allocate their national convention delegates through the June primary, but Montana Republicans have often used the primary in only an advisory role in their caucuses/convention process. Treasure state Republicans held binding caucuses in February 2008. That was a break from the practice of an early June advisory primary/late June binding state convention the party has used throughout much of the post-reform era.
Caucuses may or may not be on the table for the state parties in Montana. That is something worth watching in the coming weeks.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Companion Minnesota House Bill Would Also Reestablish Presidential Primary
Toward the end of February, legislation was introduced in the Minnesota state Senate to reestablish a presidential primary in the North Star state. At the time there was no companion bill to SF 1205 from the state House. That changed last week when Rep. Joe Hoppe (R-47B, Chaska) introduced HF 1567. The House version is identical to the Senate version.
That said, it seems far-fetched that either version will move through the legislature and be signed into law. Even before one considers the partisan divide in the Minnesota legislature -- Democrats control the Senate and Republicans have a majority in the House -- and the potential that has to derail a possible adoption of a primary, the bigger roadblock seems to be the state parties. The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and the Minnesota Republican Party have already agreed to a date for 2016 caucuses as called for by state law. The parties would have to opt out of the March 1 caucuses they have agreed upon and opt into the proposed March 29 primary (if it is established).
The chairman of the Minnesota Republican Party has already thrown cold water on that idea. That may or may not deter further action on either of these bills in the legislature. Democrats in the state party and the legislature have been silent on the matter and hold veto power over the bill becoming law anyway by controlling the state Senate and the governor's mansion.
Minnesota last held a presidential primary in 1992.
That said, it seems far-fetched that either version will move through the legislature and be signed into law. Even before one considers the partisan divide in the Minnesota legislature -- Democrats control the Senate and Republicans have a majority in the House -- and the potential that has to derail a possible adoption of a primary, the bigger roadblock seems to be the state parties. The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and the Minnesota Republican Party have already agreed to a date for 2016 caucuses as called for by state law. The parties would have to opt out of the March 1 caucuses they have agreed upon and opt into the proposed March 29 primary (if it is established).
The chairman of the Minnesota Republican Party has already thrown cold water on that idea. That may or may not deter further action on either of these bills in the legislature. Democrats in the state party and the legislature have been silent on the matter and hold veto power over the bill becoming law anyway by controlling the state Senate and the governor's mansion.
Minnesota last held a presidential primary in 1992.
SEC Primary Bill Unanimously Passes Mississippi House, Heads Back to Senate
The Mississippi state House passed SB 2531 by a 117-0 vote on Tuesday, March 10. The bill that originated in the state Senate now heads back there after the state House made a small and likely uncontroversial amendment to the Senate-passed version.
The amendment struck a provision calling for the changes in the legislation to expire. The change would be permanent if the bill in its newly amended form passed the state Senate and is signed into law. The first time around, SB 2531 passed the Senate 40-10.
The amendment struck a provision calling for the changes in the legislation to expire. The change would be permanent if the bill in its newly amended form passed the state Senate and is signed into law. The first time around, SB 2531 passed the Senate 40-10.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Budget Concerns May Affect Massachusetts Presidential Primary, 2016 Edition
Does Massachusetts Secretary of State, William Galvin (D) make some variation of this claim every four years?
The budget proposal from Governor Charlie Baker's (R) office is out and the cutbacks to elections administration have the Bay state's chief elections official, Galvin, doing what he did in 2011. Namely, he is arguing that smaller appropriations for elections in Massachusetts puts the first Tuesday in March presidential primary called for in state law first in line at the chopping block. Furthermore, he has suggested -- just as he did four years ago before a similar legislative hearing -- that the parties in the state consider state party-funded caucuses in lieu of a state-funded presidential primary.
Is this a boy who cried wolf situation or one where the difference in party identification of the governor now (Republican) versus then (Democratic) might matter?
UPDATE: Quotes from Secretary Galvin:
Via the Boston Globe: “This country is scheduled to elect a new president next year. Apparently the governor only wants 49 states to vote, he doesn’t want this one.”
Via WWLP: “I simply cannot run a credible election with those kind of numbers,” he said.
Galvin acknowledged there are alternatives, such as a caucus or calling for parties to pay for the primary, as some states have done.
“If this were to be the final appropriation, I would suggest to you we cannot afford to have a presidential primary next year on March 1,” Galvin said.
But as Joshua Miller at the Globe said:
Budget season is always filled with leaders of many parts of state government loudly proclaiming doom, part of a strategy to encourage lawmakers to increase their funding.
Boy who cried wolf?
The budget proposal from Governor Charlie Baker's (R) office is out and the cutbacks to elections administration have the Bay state's chief elections official, Galvin, doing what he did in 2011. Namely, he is arguing that smaller appropriations for elections in Massachusetts puts the first Tuesday in March presidential primary called for in state law first in line at the chopping block. Furthermore, he has suggested -- just as he did four years ago before a similar legislative hearing -- that the parties in the state consider state party-funded caucuses in lieu of a state-funded presidential primary.
Is this a boy who cried wolf situation or one where the difference in party identification of the governor now (Republican) versus then (Democratic) might matter?
UPDATE: Quotes from Secretary Galvin:
Via the Boston Globe: “This country is scheduled to elect a new president next year. Apparently the governor only wants 49 states to vote, he doesn’t want this one.”
Via WWLP: “I simply cannot run a credible election with those kind of numbers,” he said.
Galvin acknowledged there are alternatives, such as a caucus or calling for parties to pay for the primary, as some states have done.
“If this were to be the final appropriation, I would suggest to you we cannot afford to have a presidential primary next year on March 1,” Galvin said.
But as Joshua Miller at the Globe said:
Budget season is always filled with leaders of many parts of state government loudly proclaiming doom, part of a strategy to encourage lawmakers to increase their funding.
Boy who cried wolf?
From Arkansas: A Separate Bill to Move All May Primaries to March
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.
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.
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:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)