The Kansas state Senate unanimously passed SB 239 on Wednesday, March 25. By a vote of 39-0 the members of the Senate opted to repeal the presidential primary law in lieu of canceling the election for the sixth consecutive cycle in the Sunflower state.
The measure now moves on to the state House where the a similar bill is already being considered. Should either bill pass and be signed into law, it would permanently end the possibility of a state-funded presidential primary option in Kansas (unless a future legislature reverses course). In the absence of a primary election since 1992, Kansas state parties have selected and allocated delegates to the national conventions through a state party-run and funded caucuses/convention process.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Amended Kansas Senate Bill Would Now Eliminate Presidential Primary Altogether
Last week both efforts to cancel at least the 2016 presidential primary in Kansas pushed forward. However, a divergence between the two chambers' respective bills emerged in the process. The House version was amended in committee to not just eliminate the 2016 primary, but to repeal the presidential primary portion of the Kansas statutes, killing the primary altogether. On the Senate side, the committee passed the original version of its bill, which stuck to the quadrennial protocol that has defined the presidential primary election in the Sunflower state over the last two plus decades. Basically, that has entailed canceling the primary every four years, kicking the can down the road and leaving the door open to the possibility of the state funding a primary option and the state parties utilizing it.
That door now appears to be closing. The Senate, in considering SB 239 on Tuesday, March 24, amended its version, syncing it with the House version. This would alter the standard operating procedure described above. It would cancel the primary for good barring another subsequent act of the legislature to reverse course and reestablish a presidential primary election.
The Senate Committee on the Whole -- the floor consideration of the bill -- recommended that the bill pass the chamber as amended. That clears the way for a final vote that, at this stage, seems nothing more than a formality.
That door now appears to be closing. The Senate, in considering SB 239 on Tuesday, March 24, amended its version, syncing it with the House version. This would alter the standard operating procedure described above. It would cancel the primary for good barring another subsequent act of the legislature to reverse course and reestablish a presidential primary election.
The Senate Committee on the Whole -- the floor consideration of the bill -- recommended that the bill pass the chamber as amended. That clears the way for a final vote that, at this stage, seems nothing more than a formality.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Nevada Won't Have a January Presidential Primary in 2016
However, AB 302 will live on in a different form.
The Nevada Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections convened on Tuesday, March 24 to conduct a hearing a handful of bills. Among them was AB 302, the legislation introduced by Assembly Speaker John Hambrick (R-2nd, Clark) to revamp the nominations process in the Silver state. That bill called for, among other things, the creation of a presidential primary option in Nevada and the coupling of it with the primaries for other offices in January of a presidential election year.
Suffice it to say, those provisions alone held some fairly significant ramifications for not only Nevada but the general order of the national presidential nomination process as well.
Most of the problem areas appear to have been shed or are about to be shed from the bill.
January primary? Out.
Coupling of the two sets of primary elections (in January)? Out.
Creation of a presidential primary? Still in.
And that -- the possible creation of a presidential primary -- was the crux of the hearing.
Daniel Stewart from Speaker Hambrick's office provided a rough sketch of the details that would be in the bill after he described to the committee what was going to be amended out. But first he mentioned that the original bill was nothing more than a placeholder, introduced to beat the March 16 deadline for individual legislators to introduce legislation for the 2015 session. The intention, then, was never to attempt to create a Nevada presidential primary and move it into January.
The bill now seems -- and it is still "seems" because the amended version of the bill was not available to the committee during the hearing and is not online at this point -- to create a presidential primary option for a single date in February for the state parties in Nevada to opt into at their choosing. In other words, the state parties could opt for either party-run caucuses or a hypothetical state-run primary. There was no discussion about how a date would be chosen. Jointly by the two major parties? By, say, the secretary of state? That is a matter that will have to be ironed out in the amended version of the bill.
In reaction to the proposed changes, the members of the committee fell into to two basic camps: 1) receptive if not supportive of a switch from caucuses to a primary and 2) those concerned such a switch would endanger Nevada's first in the West status protection in the national parties' delegate selection rules.
Committee chairman, Lynn Stewart (R-22nd, Clark) and Assemblywoman Victoria Seaman (R-34th, Clark) both liked that a prospective primary would likely have the effect of increasing participation in the presidential nomination process and that a primary would have the potential impact of tamping down on some of the confusion that plagued the Nevada caucuses process on the Republican side (particularly in 2008 and 2012).
However, Democrats, Assemblyman Elliot Anderson (D-15th, Clark) and Assemblyman James Ohrenschall (D-12th, Clark) worried aloud that trading in the caucuses for a primary, specifically when the Democratic National Committee rules protect the Nevada caucuses, might negatively affect the privileged position Nevadans have enjoyed since the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee added Nevada as a carve-out state in 2006.1
The subsequent testimony from interested parties for, against and neutral offered more of the same in terms of reactions. The exception was the commentary from Nevada Republican Party Vice Chair Jim DeGraffenreid, who came out against both the original bill and the amended version more fully discussed in the hearing. He rejected the primary idea outright, saying that the state party could and would make the decision on its own and that the taxpayer expenditure for a presidential primary was not necessary. [This is an issue that has come up in other states as well.] And in response to the question of whether the Nevada Republican Party was against the bill, he said that was the party position.
--
The hearing on AB 302 basically posed more new questions than answered any. It opens up the conflict that is not foreign to other states: more participation in a state-funded, state-run primary or a party's right to freely associate with voters of its choosing in a process of its choosing. This bill may or may not move in its amended form -- the devil's in the details -- but even if it does, one party in the state (Republican) seems intent on sticking with caucuses and the other one (Democrats) may too due to the conflict a primary option may pose in the face of DNC delegate selection rules. The parties will likely have input on this and that likely produces a spectrum of outcomes ranging from a Utah-like system where state parties have an opt-in but a primary depends on (possibly uncertain) state funding to the bill getting bottled up in committee because neither party intends to participate.
This one is unsettled but for one thing: There will not be a January presidential primary in Nevada next year.
--
UPDATE 3/29/15: Senate version of January bill introduced
UPDATE 4/2/15: Hearing for Senate bill strips out January primary provision
UPDATE 4/9/15: Third Tuesday in February primary bill passed Senate committee
UPDATE 4/10/15: Amended Assembly bill for February primary option clears committee
--
1 That decision had the effect of forcing on national Republicans an early Nevada caucus that they did not necessarily want, but that they, nonetheless, reluctantly added to the mix in 2008.
The Nevada Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections convened on Tuesday, March 24 to conduct a hearing a handful of bills. Among them was AB 302, the legislation introduced by Assembly Speaker John Hambrick (R-2nd, Clark) to revamp the nominations process in the Silver state. That bill called for, among other things, the creation of a presidential primary option in Nevada and the coupling of it with the primaries for other offices in January of a presidential election year.
Suffice it to say, those provisions alone held some fairly significant ramifications for not only Nevada but the general order of the national presidential nomination process as well.
Most of the problem areas appear to have been shed or are about to be shed from the bill.
January primary? Out.
Coupling of the two sets of primary elections (in January)? Out.
Creation of a presidential primary? Still in.
And that -- the possible creation of a presidential primary -- was the crux of the hearing.
Daniel Stewart from Speaker Hambrick's office provided a rough sketch of the details that would be in the bill after he described to the committee what was going to be amended out. But first he mentioned that the original bill was nothing more than a placeholder, introduced to beat the March 16 deadline for individual legislators to introduce legislation for the 2015 session. The intention, then, was never to attempt to create a Nevada presidential primary and move it into January.
The bill now seems -- and it is still "seems" because the amended version of the bill was not available to the committee during the hearing and is not online at this point -- to create a presidential primary option for a single date in February for the state parties in Nevada to opt into at their choosing. In other words, the state parties could opt for either party-run caucuses or a hypothetical state-run primary. There was no discussion about how a date would be chosen. Jointly by the two major parties? By, say, the secretary of state? That is a matter that will have to be ironed out in the amended version of the bill.
In reaction to the proposed changes, the members of the committee fell into to two basic camps: 1) receptive if not supportive of a switch from caucuses to a primary and 2) those concerned such a switch would endanger Nevada's first in the West status protection in the national parties' delegate selection rules.
Committee chairman, Lynn Stewart (R-22nd, Clark) and Assemblywoman Victoria Seaman (R-34th, Clark) both liked that a prospective primary would likely have the effect of increasing participation in the presidential nomination process and that a primary would have the potential impact of tamping down on some of the confusion that plagued the Nevada caucuses process on the Republican side (particularly in 2008 and 2012).
However, Democrats, Assemblyman Elliot Anderson (D-15th, Clark) and Assemblyman James Ohrenschall (D-12th, Clark) worried aloud that trading in the caucuses for a primary, specifically when the Democratic National Committee rules protect the Nevada caucuses, might negatively affect the privileged position Nevadans have enjoyed since the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee added Nevada as a carve-out state in 2006.1
The subsequent testimony from interested parties for, against and neutral offered more of the same in terms of reactions. The exception was the commentary from Nevada Republican Party Vice Chair Jim DeGraffenreid, who came out against both the original bill and the amended version more fully discussed in the hearing. He rejected the primary idea outright, saying that the state party could and would make the decision on its own and that the taxpayer expenditure for a presidential primary was not necessary. [This is an issue that has come up in other states as well.] And in response to the question of whether the Nevada Republican Party was against the bill, he said that was the party position.
--
The hearing on AB 302 basically posed more new questions than answered any. It opens up the conflict that is not foreign to other states: more participation in a state-funded, state-run primary or a party's right to freely associate with voters of its choosing in a process of its choosing. This bill may or may not move in its amended form -- the devil's in the details -- but even if it does, one party in the state (Republican) seems intent on sticking with caucuses and the other one (Democrats) may too due to the conflict a primary option may pose in the face of DNC delegate selection rules. The parties will likely have input on this and that likely produces a spectrum of outcomes ranging from a Utah-like system where state parties have an opt-in but a primary depends on (possibly uncertain) state funding to the bill getting bottled up in committee because neither party intends to participate.
This one is unsettled but for one thing: There will not be a January presidential primary in Nevada next year.
--
UPDATE 3/29/15: Senate version of January bill introduced
UPDATE 4/2/15: Hearing for Senate bill strips out January primary provision
UPDATE 4/9/15: Third Tuesday in February primary bill passed Senate committee
UPDATE 4/10/15: Amended Assembly bill for February primary option clears committee
--
1 That decision had the effect of forcing on national Republicans an early Nevada caucus that they did not necessarily want, but that they, nonetheless, reluctantly added to the mix in 2008.
Utah Democrats Appear Headed for March 22 Caucuses in 2016 ...and online voting?
With a presidential primary option now off the table in Utah in 2016, Democrats are eyeing March 22 as the date of their precinct caucuses according to the executive director of the Utah Democratic Party. State party delegate selection plans are not due to the Democratic National Committee until May, but Lauren Littlefield provided a bit of a sneak peek at one aspect of it in comments on the 2016 process to Utah Policy.
March 22 caucuses would align Utah Democrats with the primary in southern neighbor, Arizona. That is also the date the Utah presidential primary would have occurred under the provisions of the bill that failed to pass the legislature during the now-adjourned 2015 legislative session.
The prospective date -- FHQ will call it that until March 22 is confirmed in the forthcoming delegate selection plan -- was not the only bit of news from Littlefield. She also indicated that the party would also work toward facilitating online voting in the 2016 caucuses. Online voting is in vogue in Utah at the proposal stage anyway. It was a component of the 2014 legislation that would have moved Utah to the first position on the presidential primary calendar. In the most recent legislative session, it was a part of the bill to change the February primary option to March. Utah Republicans are also considering adding online voting as an element of their caucuses process in 2016.
And online voting is not expressly forbidden in the DNC delegate selection rules. The catch is that a state party having an online element to their delegate selection process must meet certain conditions first. Where Utah Democrats run afoul of Rule 2.G is in the fact that online voting is limited to state party-run primaries. Utah Democrats appear ready to select and allocate delegates to the national convention in Philadelphia through a caucuses/convention system. The DNC rules are also limiting in that the online vote can only apply to a presidential preference vote and not the other business that would typically occur at precinct caucuses. That conflict also seems relevant in the context of the walk up and mail-in options that are required alongside the online vote. None of that -- other party business at caucuses, providing for online/mail-in votes -- mesh all that well with the caucuses process. That is why absentee and military voting problems continue to be raised in any discussion of the shortcomings of the caucuses/convention process generally.
Utah Democrats could try to pin all of this on state Republicans who control the state government and who scuttled the primary option for 2016. That may open the door being successfully granted a waiver from the DNC to hold online voting. However, the waiver process does not really apply to or address online voting. It is meant to provide relief to state Democratic parties forced to conduct a delegate selection process that in some way breaks the rules (that have penalties for violation). That parenthetical is important. It should be noted that there is no specified penalty for conducting some form of online vote as part of the delegate selection process. Things may get messy certifying those delegates, but that is why it is important to get the blessing of the DNC first.
One other alternative may be for the party to conduct a firehouse primary in conjunction with those March precinct meetings. That is what the Utah Democratic Party did in 2004. And that would better meet the requirements in the DNC rules calling for 1) a primary and 2) a walk up option to be paired with online/mail-in opportunities.
NOTE: FHQ should add that we followed up with Bryan Schott at Utah Policy about his source for the March 22 caucuses date and he confirmed that it came up in the course of his interview with Lauren Littlefield from the Utah Democratic Party.
March 22 caucuses would align Utah Democrats with the primary in southern neighbor, Arizona. That is also the date the Utah presidential primary would have occurred under the provisions of the bill that failed to pass the legislature during the now-adjourned 2015 legislative session.
The prospective date -- FHQ will call it that until March 22 is confirmed in the forthcoming delegate selection plan -- was not the only bit of news from Littlefield. She also indicated that the party would also work toward facilitating online voting in the 2016 caucuses. Online voting is in vogue in Utah at the proposal stage anyway. It was a component of the 2014 legislation that would have moved Utah to the first position on the presidential primary calendar. In the most recent legislative session, it was a part of the bill to change the February primary option to March. Utah Republicans are also considering adding online voting as an element of their caucuses process in 2016.
And online voting is not expressly forbidden in the DNC delegate selection rules. The catch is that a state party having an online element to their delegate selection process must meet certain conditions first. Where Utah Democrats run afoul of Rule 2.G is in the fact that online voting is limited to state party-run primaries. Utah Democrats appear ready to select and allocate delegates to the national convention in Philadelphia through a caucuses/convention system. The DNC rules are also limiting in that the online vote can only apply to a presidential preference vote and not the other business that would typically occur at precinct caucuses. That conflict also seems relevant in the context of the walk up and mail-in options that are required alongside the online vote. None of that -- other party business at caucuses, providing for online/mail-in votes -- mesh all that well with the caucuses process. That is why absentee and military voting problems continue to be raised in any discussion of the shortcomings of the caucuses/convention process generally.
Utah Democrats could try to pin all of this on state Republicans who control the state government and who scuttled the primary option for 2016. That may open the door being successfully granted a waiver from the DNC to hold online voting. However, the waiver process does not really apply to or address online voting. It is meant to provide relief to state Democratic parties forced to conduct a delegate selection process that in some way breaks the rules (that have penalties for violation). That parenthetical is important. It should be noted that there is no specified penalty for conducting some form of online vote as part of the delegate selection process. Things may get messy certifying those delegates, but that is why it is important to get the blessing of the DNC first.
One other alternative may be for the party to conduct a firehouse primary in conjunction with those March precinct meetings. That is what the Utah Democratic Party did in 2004. And that would better meet the requirements in the DNC rules calling for 1) a primary and 2) a walk up option to be paired with online/mail-in opportunities.
NOTE: FHQ should add that we followed up with Bryan Schott at Utah Policy about his source for the March 22 caucuses date and he confirmed that it came up in the course of his interview with Lauren Littlefield from the Utah Democratic Party.
Presidential Primary Bill Gets the Thumbs Up in Idaho Committee
The Senate-passed bill to reestablish a presidential primary in Idaho and schedule it as a stand-alone election in March was favorably reported out of committee on the House side on the morning or Tuesday, March 24. The Idaho state House State Affairs Committee passed SB 1066 on to the floor for consideration with only minimal opposition. There were at least five dissenting -- one Republican joined the four Democrats on the committee -- votes recorded out of the 17 member committee.
--
UPDATE: FHQ dropped in on the committee hearing right before the vote on SB 1066 was held, so we missed much of the discussion on the bill. But it appears that the opposition to Idaho moving back to a presidential primary -- well, creating a separate, state-funded presidential primary in March -- is mainly coming from the minority party Democrats. What Republican opposition exists centers on the cost to taxpayers (via Betsy Russell):
UPDATE II: The price tag may be an issue, but as Nathan Brown added:
--
UPDATE: FHQ dropped in on the committee hearing right before the vote on SB 1066 was held, so we missed much of the discussion on the bill. But it appears that the opposition to Idaho moving back to a presidential primary -- well, creating a separate, state-funded presidential primary in March -- is mainly coming from the minority party Democrats. What Republican opposition exists centers on the cost to taxpayers (via Betsy Russell):
“I am torn on this bill for a couple of reasons,” [Rep. Linda] Luker (R) said, after several people testified that they felt excluded from the presidential primary election process because they weren’t able to attend GOP caucuses in the last election. “I understand the need to be inclusive in terms of having everyone have an opportunity to vote.” But, he said, “It’s public funds. … I just can’t support the public expenditure part of this.”By all accounts, though, it seems likely that moving to an earlier format that will increase participation in the nomination process will win out over that position when the bill hits the floor of the Idaho state House. That would have Idaho joining Michigan on March 8 on the presidential primary calendar.
UPDATE II: The price tag may be an issue, but as Nathan Brown added:
Supporters contend that is a highball estimate and the real cost would be about half that figure since many counties have school elections on that March date anyway.This is an issue that has come up in the past but FHQ has not really highlighted. The would-be March 8 presidential primary would be conducted concurrent with school elections that fall on the same spot on the calendar.
Monday, March 23, 2015
On 'Has the Republican Presidential Nominating System Changed Since 2008?'
Seth Masket, I thought, had an entirely reasonable reaction to Jim Rutenberg's New York Times Magazine piece on Ben Carson.
In a nutshell, Rutenberg argued that the emergence of the Tea Party in combination with the rise of social media, Citizen United's impact on campaign fundraising and changes in delegate selection rules have disrupted the normal rhythms of the Republican presidential nomination process since 2008. But as Seth points out, if we test that hypothesis on the one election cycle in the dataset since 2008, the evidence is not all that convincing.
It isn't. Despite all of that, well, noise between 2008 and 2012, Mitt Romney, the former governor and previous presidential aspirant, still emerged as the Republican presidential nominee in 2012. The signals that political scientists look at -- roughly poll position, fundraising, endorsements and to some lesser extent staff hires -- all basically pointed in the same direction heading into primary season in 2012.
But the rules part of this story does still stick out to me. Seth nailed the macro part of this, but FHQ feels compelled to add some of the micro side as well.
FHQ talked with Jim Rutenberg about the rules changes for his story, and he approached us from a particular angle: the rules changes for 2016, not 2012 (at least initially). He raised the concerns that some in the grassroots/Paul faction of the party raised at the Tampa convention in August 2012. Mainly, that the establishment within the Republican National Committee was attempting to cut off the spigot on them, eliminating the proportionality window installed for the 2012 cycle, prohibiting future non-binding caucuses and raising the bar on the number of states won/delegations controlled required to place a candidate's name on the nomination ballot.1
In other words, the Paul folks saw loopholes in the rules they able to successfully exploit in 2012 being closed and did not really like it.
If we look at those three rules changes specifically, though, their origins are a mixed bag. The proportionality requirement added by the (former RNC chair) Michael Steele-led Temporary Delegate Selection Committee added the change as a means of slowing the nomination process down some to build the sort of energy, enthusiasm and grassroots support that the drawn out Democratic nomination race had produced in 2008. Unintended consequence alert: That is kind of what the RNC got, just not in the way intended. The energy, enthusiasm and grassroots support were there, but instead of buoying the party, it threatened to tear it apart to some degree.
The non-binding caucuses have been a tradition in the Republican process, another factor left up to the discretion of the states. It was something that Christian conservatives aligned with Pat Robertson's candidacy in 1988 were able to work to their advantage in 1988 to some extent. But that effort was not carried through to the level that the Paul folks were able to push things in 2012.
Finally, the Rule 40 changes -- increasing the number of states a candidate must control at the convention from five to eight -- added insult to injury for the Paul/liberty contingent at the convention. It had been an afterthought of a rule before -- at least as far as convention proceedings go -- but was the final piece to the puzzle of preventing 2012 shenanigans in future Republican nomination races.
All three were the openings that Ron Paul supporters saw in 2012 and the RNC sought to curtail for the future. But only the proportionality requirement was something created for the 2012 cycle. And that is where Rutenberg's picture of rules changes for 2012 is lacking. It misses the nuance, the part where the rules changes did not really undermine the 2012 Republican nomination process. There were rules changes for 2012, but they did not have the intended effect.
Actually, it was probably a failure to change the baseline 2008 rules that in some ways doomed the 2012 process. In retrospect, not upping the penalties on rules breakers really came back to haunt the RNC. It allowed Florida, Arizona, Michigan and the trio of non-binding, early February states to elongate the primary calendar. That had the effect of stretching out the nomination race in ways beyond what was intended in the new proportionality requirement.2 The primaries and caucuses were so scatter across the 2012 primary calendar that Mitt Romney did not reach the requisite number of delegates to clinch the nomination until the Texas primary at the end of May. And that was nearly two months after everyone but Ron Paul had either withdrawn from the race or suspended their campaign.
The rules changes for 2012, then, did not really undermine the Republican nomination process three years ago. Rather, the rules were exploited, or in a less negative connotation, exercised in a if not new way, then in a manner that they had not in quite a while. That had an impact on the course of the Republican nomination race.
...but not its ultimate outcome.
Seth is absolutely right about that. The rules, however, did shape the way that Romney became the nominee. That, in turn, created the perceived need for rules changes for 2016 to manage the Ben Carson problem or the Rand Paul problem or the Ted Cruz problem or whomever outside of the establishment comes along. Those candidates will not have those former avenues to exploit in 2016.
--
Has the Republican nominating system changed since 2008?
In a macro sense, no. But the rules have changed and had some impact.
But, then, the rules tend to change every cycle...
--
1 The careful reader will note that the proportionality requirement is a part of the 2016 Republican delegate selection rules. That was a product of the may/shall switch in Tampa that was edited by the Republican Rules Committee and approved by the full RNC in 2014. Its return was in a truncated form: a two week window at the beginning of March with a tighter definition of proportionality.
2 If one looks at the state party responses to the addition of the proportionality requirement, the changes are very subtle. That is a function of a couple of factors. First, state parties tend to choose the path of least resistance. If the parties cannot continue with the delegate allocation rules they have used in past, then they usually opt for the smallest change possible. Second, the RNC gave the states significant latitude in achieving proportionality. The definition provided a number of avenues for states to meet the requirement. Together, those made for very small changes to 2012 allocation plans as compared to 2008.
In a nutshell, Rutenberg argued that the emergence of the Tea Party in combination with the rise of social media, Citizen United's impact on campaign fundraising and changes in delegate selection rules have disrupted the normal rhythms of the Republican presidential nomination process since 2008. But as Seth points out, if we test that hypothesis on the one election cycle in the dataset since 2008, the evidence is not all that convincing.
It isn't. Despite all of that, well, noise between 2008 and 2012, Mitt Romney, the former governor and previous presidential aspirant, still emerged as the Republican presidential nominee in 2012. The signals that political scientists look at -- roughly poll position, fundraising, endorsements and to some lesser extent staff hires -- all basically pointed in the same direction heading into primary season in 2012.
But the rules part of this story does still stick out to me. Seth nailed the macro part of this, but FHQ feels compelled to add some of the micro side as well.
FHQ talked with Jim Rutenberg about the rules changes for his story, and he approached us from a particular angle: the rules changes for 2016, not 2012 (at least initially). He raised the concerns that some in the grassroots/Paul faction of the party raised at the Tampa convention in August 2012. Mainly, that the establishment within the Republican National Committee was attempting to cut off the spigot on them, eliminating the proportionality window installed for the 2012 cycle, prohibiting future non-binding caucuses and raising the bar on the number of states won/delegations controlled required to place a candidate's name on the nomination ballot.1
In other words, the Paul folks saw loopholes in the rules they able to successfully exploit in 2012 being closed and did not really like it.
If we look at those three rules changes specifically, though, their origins are a mixed bag. The proportionality requirement added by the (former RNC chair) Michael Steele-led Temporary Delegate Selection Committee added the change as a means of slowing the nomination process down some to build the sort of energy, enthusiasm and grassroots support that the drawn out Democratic nomination race had produced in 2008. Unintended consequence alert: That is kind of what the RNC got, just not in the way intended. The energy, enthusiasm and grassroots support were there, but instead of buoying the party, it threatened to tear it apart to some degree.
The non-binding caucuses have been a tradition in the Republican process, another factor left up to the discretion of the states. It was something that Christian conservatives aligned with Pat Robertson's candidacy in 1988 were able to work to their advantage in 1988 to some extent. But that effort was not carried through to the level that the Paul folks were able to push things in 2012.
Finally, the Rule 40 changes -- increasing the number of states a candidate must control at the convention from five to eight -- added insult to injury for the Paul/liberty contingent at the convention. It had been an afterthought of a rule before -- at least as far as convention proceedings go -- but was the final piece to the puzzle of preventing 2012 shenanigans in future Republican nomination races.
All three were the openings that Ron Paul supporters saw in 2012 and the RNC sought to curtail for the future. But only the proportionality requirement was something created for the 2012 cycle. And that is where Rutenberg's picture of rules changes for 2012 is lacking. It misses the nuance, the part where the rules changes did not really undermine the 2012 Republican nomination process. There were rules changes for 2012, but they did not have the intended effect.
Actually, it was probably a failure to change the baseline 2008 rules that in some ways doomed the 2012 process. In retrospect, not upping the penalties on rules breakers really came back to haunt the RNC. It allowed Florida, Arizona, Michigan and the trio of non-binding, early February states to elongate the primary calendar. That had the effect of stretching out the nomination race in ways beyond what was intended in the new proportionality requirement.2 The primaries and caucuses were so scatter across the 2012 primary calendar that Mitt Romney did not reach the requisite number of delegates to clinch the nomination until the Texas primary at the end of May. And that was nearly two months after everyone but Ron Paul had either withdrawn from the race or suspended their campaign.
The rules changes for 2012, then, did not really undermine the Republican nomination process three years ago. Rather, the rules were exploited, or in a less negative connotation, exercised in a if not new way, then in a manner that they had not in quite a while. That had an impact on the course of the Republican nomination race.
...but not its ultimate outcome.
Seth is absolutely right about that. The rules, however, did shape the way that Romney became the nominee. That, in turn, created the perceived need for rules changes for 2016 to manage the Ben Carson problem or the Rand Paul problem or the Ted Cruz problem or whomever outside of the establishment comes along. Those candidates will not have those former avenues to exploit in 2016.
--
Has the Republican nominating system changed since 2008?
In a macro sense, no. But the rules have changed and had some impact.
But, then, the rules tend to change every cycle...
--
1 The careful reader will note that the proportionality requirement is a part of the 2016 Republican delegate selection rules. That was a product of the may/shall switch in Tampa that was edited by the Republican Rules Committee and approved by the full RNC in 2014. Its return was in a truncated form: a two week window at the beginning of March with a tighter definition of proportionality.
2 If one looks at the state party responses to the addition of the proportionality requirement, the changes are very subtle. That is a function of a couple of factors. First, state parties tend to choose the path of least resistance. If the parties cannot continue with the delegate allocation rules they have used in past, then they usually opt for the smallest change possible. Second, the RNC gave the states significant latitude in achieving proportionality. The definition provided a number of avenues for states to meet the requirement. Together, those made for very small changes to 2012 allocation plans as compared to 2008.
Bush Involved in Recent Florida Presidential Primary Legislation?
This is interesting. From Lee Fang at The Intercept:
First, given the RNC penalty structure, the date of the Florida primary under the 2013 law was a bit unclear. That was not a new issue in 2015.
Secondly, Rep. Gaetz did not actually sponsor the legislation that came out of the Florida House and was subsequently signed into law. That plus the fact that the action the state legislator calls for in the email did not match with what some in Florida interpreted as the move in the recently passed legislation.1
In any event, Florida Republicans have historically had some form or fashion of winner-take-all or winner-take-most delegate allocation rules. Neither that, nor the fact that Florida Republicans wanted to extend that tradition should come as a surprise. It would likely have been true with or without Bush or Rubio eyeing runs at the White House.
But the thing is Rubio was involved in the 2013 law change that initially brought Florida back under compliance with the Republican National Committee rules. That was clearer than this exchange.
--
1 Some interpreted the presidential primary law change as affecting a two week change from March 1 to March 15.
State Representative Matt Gaetz wrote to Bush on January 2nd that he is “concerned that Florida’s current primary date will lead to proportional allocation of delegates” and that a “winner take all” system would be preferable.
“Unless you ask me otherwise, I’ll file legislation to move our primary date back a week,” Gaetz told Bush, who responded to say that his political advisor Sally Bradshaw would give Gaetz a call. “10 4,” Gaetz shot back. [Emphasis FHQ's]Fang couches this exchange as coordination between Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature. Maybe, but there are a few things that cast some doubt on that assertion.
First, given the RNC penalty structure, the date of the Florida primary under the 2013 law was a bit unclear. That was not a new issue in 2015.
Secondly, Rep. Gaetz did not actually sponsor the legislation that came out of the Florida House and was subsequently signed into law. That plus the fact that the action the state legislator calls for in the email did not match with what some in Florida interpreted as the move in the recently passed legislation.1
In any event, Florida Republicans have historically had some form or fashion of winner-take-all or winner-take-most delegate allocation rules. Neither that, nor the fact that Florida Republicans wanted to extend that tradition should come as a surprise. It would likely have been true with or without Bush or Rubio eyeing runs at the White House.
But the thing is Rubio was involved in the 2013 law change that initially brought Florida back under compliance with the Republican National Committee rules. That was clearer than this exchange.
--
1 Some interpreted the presidential primary law change as affecting a two week change from March 1 to March 15.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Massachusetts Bill Would Add Rank Choice Voting to Presidential Primary Ballots for Military/Overseas Voters
FHQ mentioned this one before, but it was still at the draft stage when the Vermont bill was introduced (and discussed) back in February.
However, the draft bill in Massachusetts to allow instant run-off voting for military and overseas voters has now become introduced on the House side in the General Court. H 609 would allow military personnel and overseas voters to rank their preferences in a presidential nomination race in order to avoid the problem of potential wasted votes. This is a particularly acute problem in a sequential, state-by-state presidential nomination process in which the field continually winnows. Wasted votes are more prevalent in a scenario in which overseas voters make decisions without full certainty about the candidates who are actually in the field at the point on the calendar on which a state primary is due to be conducted.
New Hampshire voters, for instance, would have a full (or fuller) set of candidates to choose from in January/February than Massachusetts voters participating in a March 1 primary. But if one is overseas and voting in advance, one does not have advance knowledge of what the field will look like on March 1 after the first few contests in the carve-out states.
Again, as is the case in the Vermont situation, this is a clever way of overcoming some of the issues attendant to overseas voting in the presidential nomination process.
--
NOTE: There are at least four other active bills in the Massachusetts House to bring rank choice voting into elections more broadly.
However, the draft bill in Massachusetts to allow instant run-off voting for military and overseas voters has now become introduced on the House side in the General Court. H 609 would allow military personnel and overseas voters to rank their preferences in a presidential nomination race in order to avoid the problem of potential wasted votes. This is a particularly acute problem in a sequential, state-by-state presidential nomination process in which the field continually winnows. Wasted votes are more prevalent in a scenario in which overseas voters make decisions without full certainty about the candidates who are actually in the field at the point on the calendar on which a state primary is due to be conducted.
New Hampshire voters, for instance, would have a full (or fuller) set of candidates to choose from in January/February than Massachusetts voters participating in a March 1 primary. But if one is overseas and voting in advance, one does not have advance knowledge of what the field will look like on March 1 after the first few contests in the carve-out states.
Again, as is the case in the Vermont situation, this is a clever way of overcoming some of the issues attendant to overseas voting in the presidential nomination process.
--
NOTE: There are at least four other active bills in the Massachusetts House to bring rank choice voting into elections more broadly.
Saturday, March 21, 2015
Presidential Primary or Caucuses? In Washington State It Hinges on What State Democrats Decide
FHQ has had this on the back burner for a while now, but a Thursday, March 12 committee hearing in Washington made quite plain that the decision to hold a primary or select and allocate delegates through a caucuses/convention system depends on Democrats in the Evergreen state.
The hearing in the Committee on State Government in the Democratic-controlled state House concerned the effort to move up the Washington state presidential primary from May to March. The catch to all of this is that Washington Democrats have in the post-reform era traditionally used the caucuses/convention system to select and allocate delegates to the national convention. That has been true in every cycle since the Washington presidential primary was created by citizen initiative in 1989. Still, SB 5978 was designed to entice both parties into using, at least partially, the presidential primary in 2016. The legislation would create a more attractive contest by moving the primary to an earlier date (the second Tuesday in March) and providing the parties with a publicly available list of primary voters generated by the party declarations/oaths required to participate.1
Those are the carrots, but there are sticks, too. To receive the partisan data from the primary, both parties have to opt into at least partially using the primary. If only one party opts in or neither does, the primary becomes a non-binding beauty contest with a top two-type ballot.2 All candidates from both parties would appear on the ballot and all voters -- sans declaration -- could vote for whichever candidate they preferred.
The hope from the bill's sponsors and Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman (R), who requested the legislation be introduced, is that the benefits outweigh the costs and both parties opt into the process. However, the proposal is more tailored to the Republican delegate process/traditions than it is Washington Democrats'. Again, Democrats in the Evergreen state have stuck with a caucuses/convention process for selecting and allocating delegates throughout the past eleven presidential election cycles, including all of what might be called the primary era in Washington. Since 1992, Washington Republicans have utilized a two-pronged process in the years in which the Republican nomination process is competitive.3 The party splits the delegate allocation across both the presidential primary and a caucuses/convention process. The last time this happened in 2008, the the division was roughly 50/50, but twice as many delegates were allocated via the caucuses/convention as compared to the primary in 2000.
SB 5978 does not require the state parties in Washington to fully use the primary (to allocate all of its delegates). If both parties opt in, each only has to allocate some of its delegates through the primary election. That better fits the traditions and practices of the Republican Party in Washington than it does Washington Democrats. National delegate selection rules allow such a split on the Republican side, but national Democrats have almost completely eliminated the practice. Texas is the only state in the Democratic nomination process that splits its delegate allocation across both a primary and caucuses. And Texas Democrats have an exemption from the DNC to avoid breaking rules that prohibit the two-step process.
The result is that this bill makes it easier for Republicans in the Evergreen state to opt into the presidential primary than Democrats in the state. Whereas Washington Republicans can dip their toe in to whatever extent they see fit, the Washington Democratic Party is faced with an all or nothing proposition; either the primary or caucuses. And history would seem to indicate that Democrats in the state will stick with the caucuses/convention system anyway.
Still, the bill, if passed and signed into law, would require both parties to opt in in some way for the presidential primary to be binding on the allocation of delegates. So, while Republicans in the state seems supportive of the bill -- It was proposed by the Republican secretary of state and had the full support of the majority Republican caucus in the Washington state Senate. -- whether a primary is binding or a beauty contest depends on Washington Democrats opting into using a primary instead of caucuses. That decision will come later on in the spring at the April meeting of the Washington Democratic State Central Committee. If the committee votes to include a primary in the state party's draft delegate selection plan, then SB 5978 may have legs.
But if Washington Democrats retain a caucuses/convention process in that delegate selection plan, then the Senate-passed bill is likely dead. That, in turn, means the May presidential primary -- a beauty contest without both parties on board -- called for in state law would cost the state close to $11 million. That may make the House bill to cancel the primary a more viable option.
But until Washington Democrats make their choice of delegate selection mode, that question is unanswerable and SB 5978 is in limbo. Neither the legislature nor the governor would sign off on a plan to fund a primary neither knows will be binding until after the Democrats' April meeting.
UPDATE: It should also be noted that Washington Republicans would be less likely to opt into a two-step process if the state law remains the same and the presidential primary is in May -- and not postponed until 2020. A late primary would not be an attractive option for the party, particularly if it comes after the other delegates are allocated through the caucuses/convention process and/or the Republican nomination has already been decided. In total, that would provide some incentive for Republican legislators in the state to support legislation canceling the primary if Democrats opt to stick with caucuses.
--
1 Those lists of partisans can be and/or are used by the parties to more effectively identify and target voters in the subsequent general election.
2 No, it is not really a top two ballot. The Washington presidential primary is just part of the presidential nomination process. Unlike, say, a US Senate primary in Washington, where the top two finishers in the primary would face off against each other in the fall general election, a Washington presidential primary would not be determinative of who would be on the general election ballot in the presidential race. It would play roughly a little less than 1/50th of that role. Yet, the primary ballot in this instance would mimic what a primary ballot would look like in Washington for other offices.
3 That is true with one exception. The Republican nomination was contested in 2012, but the Washington presidential primary was canceled during that cycle. In 1996, 2000 and 2008, however, the Republican Party in Washington split its delegate allocation between the primary and a caucuses/convention system.
The hearing in the Committee on State Government in the Democratic-controlled state House concerned the effort to move up the Washington state presidential primary from May to March. The catch to all of this is that Washington Democrats have in the post-reform era traditionally used the caucuses/convention system to select and allocate delegates to the national convention. That has been true in every cycle since the Washington presidential primary was created by citizen initiative in 1989. Still, SB 5978 was designed to entice both parties into using, at least partially, the presidential primary in 2016. The legislation would create a more attractive contest by moving the primary to an earlier date (the second Tuesday in March) and providing the parties with a publicly available list of primary voters generated by the party declarations/oaths required to participate.1
Those are the carrots, but there are sticks, too. To receive the partisan data from the primary, both parties have to opt into at least partially using the primary. If only one party opts in or neither does, the primary becomes a non-binding beauty contest with a top two-type ballot.2 All candidates from both parties would appear on the ballot and all voters -- sans declaration -- could vote for whichever candidate they preferred.
The hope from the bill's sponsors and Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman (R), who requested the legislation be introduced, is that the benefits outweigh the costs and both parties opt into the process. However, the proposal is more tailored to the Republican delegate process/traditions than it is Washington Democrats'. Again, Democrats in the Evergreen state have stuck with a caucuses/convention process for selecting and allocating delegates throughout the past eleven presidential election cycles, including all of what might be called the primary era in Washington. Since 1992, Washington Republicans have utilized a two-pronged process in the years in which the Republican nomination process is competitive.3 The party splits the delegate allocation across both the presidential primary and a caucuses/convention process. The last time this happened in 2008, the the division was roughly 50/50, but twice as many delegates were allocated via the caucuses/convention as compared to the primary in 2000.
SB 5978 does not require the state parties in Washington to fully use the primary (to allocate all of its delegates). If both parties opt in, each only has to allocate some of its delegates through the primary election. That better fits the traditions and practices of the Republican Party in Washington than it does Washington Democrats. National delegate selection rules allow such a split on the Republican side, but national Democrats have almost completely eliminated the practice. Texas is the only state in the Democratic nomination process that splits its delegate allocation across both a primary and caucuses. And Texas Democrats have an exemption from the DNC to avoid breaking rules that prohibit the two-step process.
The result is that this bill makes it easier for Republicans in the Evergreen state to opt into the presidential primary than Democrats in the state. Whereas Washington Republicans can dip their toe in to whatever extent they see fit, the Washington Democratic Party is faced with an all or nothing proposition; either the primary or caucuses. And history would seem to indicate that Democrats in the state will stick with the caucuses/convention system anyway.
Still, the bill, if passed and signed into law, would require both parties to opt in in some way for the presidential primary to be binding on the allocation of delegates. So, while Republicans in the state seems supportive of the bill -- It was proposed by the Republican secretary of state and had the full support of the majority Republican caucus in the Washington state Senate. -- whether a primary is binding or a beauty contest depends on Washington Democrats opting into using a primary instead of caucuses. That decision will come later on in the spring at the April meeting of the Washington Democratic State Central Committee. If the committee votes to include a primary in the state party's draft delegate selection plan, then SB 5978 may have legs.
But if Washington Democrats retain a caucuses/convention process in that delegate selection plan, then the Senate-passed bill is likely dead. That, in turn, means the May presidential primary -- a beauty contest without both parties on board -- called for in state law would cost the state close to $11 million. That may make the House bill to cancel the primary a more viable option.
But until Washington Democrats make their choice of delegate selection mode, that question is unanswerable and SB 5978 is in limbo. Neither the legislature nor the governor would sign off on a plan to fund a primary neither knows will be binding until after the Democrats' April meeting.
UPDATE: It should also be noted that Washington Republicans would be less likely to opt into a two-step process if the state law remains the same and the presidential primary is in May -- and not postponed until 2020. A late primary would not be an attractive option for the party, particularly if it comes after the other delegates are allocated through the caucuses/convention process and/or the Republican nomination has already been decided. In total, that would provide some incentive for Republican legislators in the state to support legislation canceling the primary if Democrats opt to stick with caucuses.
--
1 Those lists of partisans can be and/or are used by the parties to more effectively identify and target voters in the subsequent general election.
2 No, it is not really a top two ballot. The Washington presidential primary is just part of the presidential nomination process. Unlike, say, a US Senate primary in Washington, where the top two finishers in the primary would face off against each other in the fall general election, a Washington presidential primary would not be determinative of who would be on the general election ballot in the presidential race. It would play roughly a little less than 1/50th of that role. Yet, the primary ballot in this instance would mimic what a primary ballot would look like in Washington for other offices.
3 That is true with one exception. The Republican nomination was contested in 2012, but the Washington presidential primary was canceled during that cycle. In 1996, 2000 and 2008, however, the Republican Party in Washington split its delegate allocation between the primary and a caucuses/convention system.
Friday, March 20, 2015
Efforts to Cancel 2016 Presidential Primary Move Forward in Kansas
The legislation to cancel the Kansas presidential primary for the sixth consecutive cycle advanced in both state legislative chambers this week.
Despite some pushback to postponing the presidential primary another four years in a state Senate committee hearing, the Committee on Ethics and Elections favorably recommended that SB 239 pass the chamber. And on the House side of the capitol, a less contentious committee hearing (with Republican Party of Kansas support) yielded the same result. HB 2398 was also recommended for passage by the state House Committee on Elections.
This is a move that could be layered into the discussion of states facing the elimination of presidential primaries due to budgetary constraints. Unlike Louisiana and Massachusetts, however, this has become a quadrennial rite in Kansas over the last two plus decades. The standard operating procedure has been to strike out the coming election year from the statute and replace it with the next subsequent presidential election year. For example, the original legislation in Kansas in both chambers strikes 2016 and replaces it with 2020. State legislators do this every four years in the Sunflower state.
The bill that will be considered on the floor of the state Senate continues to follow that path. In the House, legislators are now taking a different approach. The bill that passed through the House Committee on Elections was amended to eliminate the presidential primary altogether in lieu of going through the motions every four years.
Kansas has been a caucus state for years, but there was still a presidential primary option available in state law (pending funding). That option just has not been funded over the last twenty years. If the House version prevails, that presidential primary option will cease to be, making Kansas a permanent caucus/convention state for presidential nominations and not a de facto caucus state.
Despite some pushback to postponing the presidential primary another four years in a state Senate committee hearing, the Committee on Ethics and Elections favorably recommended that SB 239 pass the chamber. And on the House side of the capitol, a less contentious committee hearing (with Republican Party of Kansas support) yielded the same result. HB 2398 was also recommended for passage by the state House Committee on Elections.
This is a move that could be layered into the discussion of states facing the elimination of presidential primaries due to budgetary constraints. Unlike Louisiana and Massachusetts, however, this has become a quadrennial rite in Kansas over the last two plus decades. The standard operating procedure has been to strike out the coming election year from the statute and replace it with the next subsequent presidential election year. For example, the original legislation in Kansas in both chambers strikes 2016 and replaces it with 2020. State legislators do this every four years in the Sunflower state.
The bill that will be considered on the floor of the state Senate continues to follow that path. In the House, legislators are now taking a different approach. The bill that passed through the House Committee on Elections was amended to eliminate the presidential primary altogether in lieu of going through the motions every four years.
Kansas has been a caucus state for years, but there was still a presidential primary option available in state law (pending funding). That option just has not been funded over the last twenty years. If the House version prevails, that presidential primary option will cease to be, making Kansas a permanent caucus/convention state for presidential nominations and not a de facto caucus state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)