On March 23, the Wyoming Democratic Party released the initial draft of their 2016 delegate selection plan.1 While it is subject to revision -- having to go before the public for a 30 day comment period before being sent off to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee before May 4 for approval -- this does provide a rough guide to how Democrats in the Equality state will select and allocate delegates to the national convention in 2016.
Part of that plan includes the tentative date of the state party's delegate selection event. As of now, it looks like Wyoming Democrats are keying in on an April 9 date for the caucuses that will kick off a delegate selection process that will culminate with at the state convention. That calendar position is consistent with the second Saturday in April calendar spot the party used for caucuses in 2012. That is a month later than when the Wyoming Democratic caucuses were held in 2008.
NOTE: FHQ will pencil these dates in on the 2016 presidential primary calendar, but please note that the plans are not finalized and are still subject to change. With very few exceptions, though, the 2012 draft plans for caucuses states did not change.
--
1 The above link is to the plan on the Wyoming Democratic Party site. FHQ will also keep a version of the plan here.
Friday, April 3, 2015
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Nevada Presidential Primary Bill Gets Chilly Reception in Senate Committee
The Nevada Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections convened a meeting to hold the initial hearing on SB 421 on Wednesday, April 1.
The bill, like its counterpart in the state Assembly, proposes shifting the mode of national convention delegate selection in the Silver state from caucuses to a primary and consolidating that new presidential primary in January with the primaries for other offices in the state (now scheduled for June). However, also like the Assembly version, the state Senate sponsor, Sen. James Settlemeyer (R-17th, Minden) indicated in his introduction of the bill before the committee that the true intent of the bill a February date, not the January date in the original draft of the legislation.1
The targeted third Tuesday in February date -- though not included in the bill at this time -- better fits the scheduling restrictions in the national party delegate selection rules. Settlemeyer touted that as well as the potential for increased turnout in a switch from a caucuses/convention system to a presidential primary.
Yet, the changes gave committee members, elections officials and other members of the public who spoke in response to the bill pause. All seemingly liked the notion that trading in the caucuses would promote more participation in the presidential nomination process. Committee members balked at the potential move mostly based on the grounds that it is a (state) party decision as to how it selects and allocates delegates to a national convention. Furthermore, Democrats on the panel wondered about the conflict such a change would present given that the Democratic National Committee rules specify Nevada caucuses in the early calendar protections that are afforded the state.2
That is the main issue that does not bode well for this legislation: the reluctance of the state parties to actually participate in a presidential primary (if the state law is changed to provide for such an election). James Hindle, chairman of the Storey County Republican Party, spoke on behalf of the Nevada Republican Party and came out against the bill. More damaging to the bill's prospects was that Hindle indicated that the Nevada Republican Central Committee had debated the primary or caucuses issue at its spring meeting during the weekend of March 28 and settled on caucuses for 2016.
No one from the Nevada Democratic Party spoke other than the handful of Democratic members on the committee. Regardless, without state party buy-in on the primary concept, SB 421 faces a steep climb to emerge from committee in either chamber.
--
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 Settlemeyer introduced similar legislation calling for a January presidential primary during the 2013 legislative session.
2 Others who spoke out against the bill were more concerned about the provision in the bill moving the state and local primaries up to February from June and the problems that would present. Unlike bill sponsors in the hearing on the Assembly version, Settlemeyer was supportive of the cost savings associated with a consolidated primary and did not waver on moving the June primaries to February.
The bill, like its counterpart in the state Assembly, proposes shifting the mode of national convention delegate selection in the Silver state from caucuses to a primary and consolidating that new presidential primary in January with the primaries for other offices in the state (now scheduled for June). However, also like the Assembly version, the state Senate sponsor, Sen. James Settlemeyer (R-17th, Minden) indicated in his introduction of the bill before the committee that the true intent of the bill a February date, not the January date in the original draft of the legislation.1
The targeted third Tuesday in February date -- though not included in the bill at this time -- better fits the scheduling restrictions in the national party delegate selection rules. Settlemeyer touted that as well as the potential for increased turnout in a switch from a caucuses/convention system to a presidential primary.
Yet, the changes gave committee members, elections officials and other members of the public who spoke in response to the bill pause. All seemingly liked the notion that trading in the caucuses would promote more participation in the presidential nomination process. Committee members balked at the potential move mostly based on the grounds that it is a (state) party decision as to how it selects and allocates delegates to a national convention. Furthermore, Democrats on the panel wondered about the conflict such a change would present given that the Democratic National Committee rules specify Nevada caucuses in the early calendar protections that are afforded the state.2
That is the main issue that does not bode well for this legislation: the reluctance of the state parties to actually participate in a presidential primary (if the state law is changed to provide for such an election). James Hindle, chairman of the Storey County Republican Party, spoke on behalf of the Nevada Republican Party and came out against the bill. More damaging to the bill's prospects was that Hindle indicated that the Nevada Republican Central Committee had debated the primary or caucuses issue at its spring meeting during the weekend of March 28 and settled on caucuses for 2016.
No one from the Nevada Democratic Party spoke other than the handful of Democratic members on the committee. Regardless, without state party buy-in on the primary concept, SB 421 faces a steep climb to emerge from committee in either chamber.
--
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 Settlemeyer introduced similar legislation calling for a January presidential primary during the 2013 legislative session.
2 Others who spoke out against the bill were more concerned about the provision in the bill moving the state and local primaries up to February from June and the problems that would present. Unlike bill sponsors in the hearing on the Assembly version, Settlemeyer was supportive of the cost savings associated with a consolidated primary and did not waver on moving the June primaries to February.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Alabama SEC Primary Bill Favorably Reported from Committee
The Alabama state Senate Constitution, Ethics and Elections Committee on Wednesday, April 1 briefly considered SB 240. The legislation would bump the Alabama presidential primary (and those for other offices) up a week to the first Tuesday in March. That would align the Alabama primary with those of other southern states aiming for a proposed SEC primary on that date.
Bill sponsor, Sen. Quinton Ross (D-26th, Montgomery) in introducing the measure called it an "economic stimulus" bill and one that both the Democratic and Republican parties in the state agree on. The plan to move the primary up in order to gain candidate attention (if not visits and campaign dollars being spent in the state) was greeted without dissent from the members of the committee and favorably reported for consideration on the floor of the upper chamber.
--
Neighboring Mississippi attempted to move a similar one week presidential primary shift through its legislature during the 2015 legislative session and saw that effort die earlier this week. It, too started off quickly with great support. The situation is slightly different in Alabama though. The Mississippi presidential primary has been rooted to its second Tuesday in March date since the 1988 cycle. Alabama only just arrived at that point for 2012 after having spent much of the same time period -- since 1988 -- in a June position on the calendar. A one week move could break less with the traditional rhythms of elections in Alabama than in Mississippi.
Time will tell.
Bill sponsor, Sen. Quinton Ross (D-26th, Montgomery) in introducing the measure called it an "economic stimulus" bill and one that both the Democratic and Republican parties in the state agree on. The plan to move the primary up in order to gain candidate attention (if not visits and campaign dollars being spent in the state) was greeted without dissent from the members of the committee and favorably reported for consideration on the floor of the upper chamber.
--
Neighboring Mississippi attempted to move a similar one week presidential primary shift through its legislature during the 2015 legislative session and saw that effort die earlier this week. It, too started off quickly with great support. The situation is slightly different in Alabama though. The Mississippi presidential primary has been rooted to its second Tuesday in March date since the 1988 cycle. Alabama only just arrived at that point for 2012 after having spent much of the same time period -- since 1988 -- in a June position on the calendar. A one week move could break less with the traditional rhythms of elections in Alabama than in Mississippi.
Time will tell.
North Carolina Bill to Untether Presidential Primary from South Carolina's Introduced
North Carolina state Rep. David Lewis (R-53rd, Harnett) and two other House Republicans on Wednesday, April 1 filed H 457 in the North Carolina General Assembly. The bill would in some ways reverse the changes made to the scheduling of the North Carolina presidential primary in an omnibus elections bill in 2013.
As it stands now, the law anchors the North Carolina presidential primary to the presidential primary in neighboring South Carolina. The primary, according to the law, would fall on the Tuesday after the South Carolina primary. Enacting that law was a problematic maneuver from the start. South Carolina has had its first in the South status codified at the national party level over the last couple of presidential election cycles and prefers to have both a Saturday primary and one that is at least seven days earlier than the next earliest southern state presidential primary. The North Carolina law conflicts with all of that. Not only would a primary on the Tuesday after South Carolina fall within that seven day buffer South Carolina prefers, but the position of the South Carolina primary would likely draw the North Carolina primary to a point on the calendar -- in February -- that would violate the new, stricter Republican National Committee rule prohibiting primaries and caucuses (other than the four carve-out state) before March 1.
The specter of that super penalty looms large over the North Carolina presidential primary situation. That reality likely contributed to Lewis -- the Republican National Committeeman from North Carolina -- to introduce this legislation. And again, it somewhat reverses the changes made in 2013. H 457 would pull the North Carolina presidential primary back to a solid position on March 8, but would maintain the May date for the other primaries. Throughout much of the post-reform era, North Carolina has conducted its presidential primaries in concert with those for state and local offices on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May. The 2013 law split off the presidential primary part and tethered that election to the date of the primary in South Carolina. The remaining primaries were left on the May date.
The proposed change would move just the presidential primary to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March; March 8 during the 2016 cycle. That would not coincide with the SEC primary -- a collection of other southern state presidential primaries -- on March 1. Instead, it would have North Carolina sharing a date with contests across the country in Michigan, Mississippi and Ohio and likely Idaho as well. Such a shift would also put North Carolina Republicans in the heart of the proportionality window. North Carolina law requires a proportional allocation of delegates, but RNC rules supersede those requirements when in conflict. For North Carolina, though, the RNC would require some form of proportional allocation before March 15.
Other notes:
As it stands now, the law anchors the North Carolina presidential primary to the presidential primary in neighboring South Carolina. The primary, according to the law, would fall on the Tuesday after the South Carolina primary. Enacting that law was a problematic maneuver from the start. South Carolina has had its first in the South status codified at the national party level over the last couple of presidential election cycles and prefers to have both a Saturday primary and one that is at least seven days earlier than the next earliest southern state presidential primary. The North Carolina law conflicts with all of that. Not only would a primary on the Tuesday after South Carolina fall within that seven day buffer South Carolina prefers, but the position of the South Carolina primary would likely draw the North Carolina primary to a point on the calendar -- in February -- that would violate the new, stricter Republican National Committee rule prohibiting primaries and caucuses (other than the four carve-out state) before March 1.
The specter of that super penalty looms large over the North Carolina presidential primary situation. That reality likely contributed to Lewis -- the Republican National Committeeman from North Carolina -- to introduce this legislation. And again, it somewhat reverses the changes made in 2013. H 457 would pull the North Carolina presidential primary back to a solid position on March 8, but would maintain the May date for the other primaries. Throughout much of the post-reform era, North Carolina has conducted its presidential primaries in concert with those for state and local offices on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May. The 2013 law split off the presidential primary part and tethered that election to the date of the primary in South Carolina. The remaining primaries were left on the May date.
The proposed change would move just the presidential primary to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March; March 8 during the 2016 cycle. That would not coincide with the SEC primary -- a collection of other southern state presidential primaries -- on March 1. Instead, it would have North Carolina sharing a date with contests across the country in Michigan, Mississippi and Ohio and likely Idaho as well. Such a shift would also put North Carolina Republicans in the heart of the proportionality window. North Carolina law requires a proportional allocation of delegates, but RNC rules supersede those requirements when in conflict. For North Carolina, though, the RNC would require some form of proportional allocation before March 15.
Other notes:
- This proposed shift is consistent with the resolution that has made the rounds at Republican County Conventions and other organization meetings recently. That resolution called on a later primary date that would not affect (the numbers in) the North Carolina Republican delegation to the national convention. It furthermore urged the North Carolina General Assembly to consider consolidating all the primaries in North Carolina on that later date (as has been the past practice in the Old North state, albeit in May). However, that resolution has opened the door to discussions across the state about whether it might be better for North Carolina Republicans to maximize the voice of the voters through a winner-take-all contests. The resolution does not call for a March 15 or later date, but that idea is out there. A March 8 primary would not allow such an allocation plan.
- The bigger thing here is that this move has been expected for a while now. The shoe has finally dropped in the state House as expected. There is legislation to move the North Carolina primary to a firmer and permanent date, but as has been detailed in this space, a move of this sort is not something with which the state Senate seems to be onboard. The chambers have been at odds on this issue to some degree since the state Senate added, passed and forced on the state House an amendment affecting the presidential primary date on the last day of a special legislative session with the clock ticking. Overcoming two chambers at odds with each other over the scheduling of the presidential primary is still a significant roadblock to the North Carolina primary coming back into compliance with the national party delegate selection rules.
Oklahoma House Committee Defeats Bill to Move Presidential Primary Away from March 1
By a 5-2 vote, the Oklahoma House Committee on Elections and Ethics for the moment killed the bill that would have shifted the presidential primary in the Sooner state from back a month to the first Tuesday in April. SB 233 will stay in committee, but given the opposition voiced at the hearing and reflected in the vote, it will likely stay there.
The impact of the decision is that the Oklahoma presidential primary is very likely to remain where it is on the calendar, March 1. That keeps Oklahoma on what committee members and those speaking for and against the bill at the hearing called Super Tuesday. Typically, the earliest date on which the national parties have allowed states other than the four carve-out states to conduct primary and caucus elections has invited a significant amount of other states to cluster on that date. But for the 2016 cycle, a group of southern states have attempted to stake a claim to that date on the calendar and rebrand it the SEC primary. Oklahoma would stand pat with neighboring Texas on March 1 plus the SEC primary states, Tennessee definitely and likely Georgia and Alabama as well. That group and Virginia would tip the overall balance for March 1 toward the South. Massachusetts, Minnesota and Vermont are also currently slated to hold primaries on that date.
For Oklahoma Republicans, staying on March 1 would mean having to maintain some semblance of the proportional delegate allocation plan they were forced to install (based in RNC rules) for 2012. Part of the motivation for SB 233 was to allow Sooner state Republicans to return to the winner-take-all (by congressional district) plan the state party had operated under prior to 2012.
The Oklahoma Republican Party is set to meet for its state convention on April 11, where this presidential primary date-related proportional versus winner-take-all discussion may extend.
The impact of the decision is that the Oklahoma presidential primary is very likely to remain where it is on the calendar, March 1. That keeps Oklahoma on what committee members and those speaking for and against the bill at the hearing called Super Tuesday. Typically, the earliest date on which the national parties have allowed states other than the four carve-out states to conduct primary and caucus elections has invited a significant amount of other states to cluster on that date. But for the 2016 cycle, a group of southern states have attempted to stake a claim to that date on the calendar and rebrand it the SEC primary. Oklahoma would stand pat with neighboring Texas on March 1 plus the SEC primary states, Tennessee definitely and likely Georgia and Alabama as well. That group and Virginia would tip the overall balance for March 1 toward the South. Massachusetts, Minnesota and Vermont are also currently slated to hold primaries on that date.
For Oklahoma Republicans, staying on March 1 would mean having to maintain some semblance of the proportional delegate allocation plan they were forced to install (based in RNC rules) for 2012. Part of the motivation for SB 233 was to allow Sooner state Republicans to return to the winner-take-all (by congressional district) plan the state party had operated under prior to 2012.
The Oklahoma Republican Party is set to meet for its state convention on April 11, where this presidential primary date-related proportional versus winner-take-all discussion may extend.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Idaho Presidential Primary Bill Passes State House, Off to Governor Otter
The Idaho state House passed SB 1066 on Tuesday, March 31. The measure to reestablish a presidential primary and schedule it as a free-standing election on the second Tuesday in March navigated the lower chamber with only minority party Democrats and a handful of Republicans in opposition. The 50-19 vote now sends the bill off to Governor Butch Otter for his consideration.
If the governor signs the legislation that would clear the way for Idaho Republicans to switch back to a primary as its means of allocating delegates to the Republican National Convention from the caucuses/convention the party used in 2012. The Idaho Republican Party passed a resolution at its 2015 winter meeting stipulating that it would opt for a presidential primary if the state legislature passed legislation to bring the 2012-repealed primary back at an earlier date.1
An Idaho presidential primary on March 8 would align it with primaries in Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio and Republican caucuses in Hawaii. A primary on that date is also under consideration in neighboring Washington state.
--
1 The Idaho GOP did call for a consolidated primary election in that resolution. What the legislature has provided is not that, though the presidential primary may run concurrently with school elections held at that point in March. That may require additional action from the state party in order to fully switch back to a primary.
If the governor signs the legislation that would clear the way for Idaho Republicans to switch back to a primary as its means of allocating delegates to the Republican National Convention from the caucuses/convention the party used in 2012. The Idaho Republican Party passed a resolution at its 2015 winter meeting stipulating that it would opt for a presidential primary if the state legislature passed legislation to bring the 2012-repealed primary back at an earlier date.1
An Idaho presidential primary on March 8 would align it with primaries in Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio and Republican caucuses in Hawaii. A primary on that date is also under consideration in neighboring Washington state.
--
1 The Idaho GOP did call for a consolidated primary election in that resolution. What the legislature has provided is not that, though the presidential primary may run concurrently with school elections held at that point in March. That may require additional action from the state party in order to fully switch back to a primary.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Mississippi SEC Primary Bill Derailed in Conference
With the end of the 2015 legislative session in sight, time was running out on the Mississippi legislation to bump the Magnolia state presidential primary up a week to March 1.
Was.
SB 2531 breezed through the state Senate last month and was later unanimously passed by the state House with what seemed like a small amendment. That amendment and the division over it between the two chambers proved to be the undoing of the bill in conference. Standing in the way of Mississippi joining the proposed SEC primary was a dispute over whether to sunset the primary move. The House preferred making the presidential primary date change -- to the first Tuesday in March -- permanent while the Senate version would have had the primary revert to the second Tuesday in March date the state has occupied on the presidential primary calendar since 1988.
That gap between the two chambers' version could not be bridged in conference on Monday, March 30. That kills the bill and Mississippi's last chance to move up a week into the proposed SEC primary position. Instead, Mississippi will presumably compete with Michigan, Ohio, Hawaii Republicans and perhaps Idaho as well for attention on March 8.
Ultimately, this is a strange end for a bill that by all indications was a slam dunk even before the legislature convened in January. Everyone was apparently not on board.
Was.
SB 2531 breezed through the state Senate last month and was later unanimously passed by the state House with what seemed like a small amendment. That amendment and the division over it between the two chambers proved to be the undoing of the bill in conference. Standing in the way of Mississippi joining the proposed SEC primary was a dispute over whether to sunset the primary move. The House preferred making the presidential primary date change -- to the first Tuesday in March -- permanent while the Senate version would have had the primary revert to the second Tuesday in March date the state has occupied on the presidential primary calendar since 1988.
That gap between the two chambers' version could not be bridged in conference on Monday, March 30. That kills the bill and Mississippi's last chance to move up a week into the proposed SEC primary position. Instead, Mississippi will presumably compete with Michigan, Ohio, Hawaii Republicans and perhaps Idaho as well for attention on March 8.
Ultimately, this is a strange end for a bill that by all indications was a slam dunk even before the legislature convened in January. Everyone was apparently not on board.
Resolution Circulating at Republican County Conventions Calling on a Later North Carolina Presidential Primary
There was a flurry of reporting on the provocative positioning of the North Carolina presidential primary both here and elsewhere at the end of February, but it has been pretty quiet on that front in the month since. Most of the reactions in February were precipitated by the op-ed North Carolina Republican Party chairman, Claude Pope, wrote urging the North Carolina General Assembly to consider legislation pushing the presidential primary in the Tar Heel state back to March 1.
A wider, national discussion of the costs and benefits of a rogue North Carolina presidential primary was not the only byproduct of that call from Chairman Pope. Local Republican parties in reaction also began considering a resolution that also urged the General Assembly to move the primary back into compliance with the national party rules.1 Those efforts, in turn, triggered a more robust discussion of the primary's position on the calendar among Republicans across the state.
The resolution (see below) has apparently garnered support in Republican organizations across the state. That is, perhaps, less important than what changes it calls on the legislature to make. Layered into this is a request that the General Assembly not only move the primary back into compliance with the national party rules, but to consider both moving the North Carolina presidential primary to a position on the calendar that allows the North Carolina Republican Party maximum latitude in choosing how to allocate its delegates to the national convention and moving the primaries for state and local offices into the same position as the presidential primary. The former means a date on or after March 15, not the March 1 date that Chairman Pope outlined. The latter means cost savings to the taxpayers of North Carolina who would not have to foot the bill for multiple primaries and runoff elections with a presidential primary separated from the remaining nomination contests.
The concurrent primaries request is a no-brainer in a state that has traditionally held all of its primaries together on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May during much of the post-reform era. But opening the door to a possible winner-take-all primary in North Carolina is of greater note. North Carolina law calls for a proportional allocation of delegates to the national convention2, but Republican National Committee rules (see Rule 16(b) here) allow state parties to create their own rules (within the parameters of the national party rules) that supersede any state law should their be a conflict. North Carolina Republicans have generally followed the state law in past presidential election cycles, so a move to a winner-take-all allocation method would break with that tradition.
No, there are not any bills currently before the North Carolina state legislature, but there is external pressure being exerted on the body to make a change to the presidential primary date. And now, it appears to be more than national pressure, direct or otherwise. There looks to be a local component adding to the intricacy of the situation as well.
--
1 Below is the resolution as posted on the Greater Greensboro Republican Women's Club site:
A wider, national discussion of the costs and benefits of a rogue North Carolina presidential primary was not the only byproduct of that call from Chairman Pope. Local Republican parties in reaction also began considering a resolution that also urged the General Assembly to move the primary back into compliance with the national party rules.1 Those efforts, in turn, triggered a more robust discussion of the primary's position on the calendar among Republicans across the state.
The resolution (see below) has apparently garnered support in Republican organizations across the state. That is, perhaps, less important than what changes it calls on the legislature to make. Layered into this is a request that the General Assembly not only move the primary back into compliance with the national party rules, but to consider both moving the North Carolina presidential primary to a position on the calendar that allows the North Carolina Republican Party maximum latitude in choosing how to allocate its delegates to the national convention and moving the primaries for state and local offices into the same position as the presidential primary. The former means a date on or after March 15, not the March 1 date that Chairman Pope outlined. The latter means cost savings to the taxpayers of North Carolina who would not have to foot the bill for multiple primaries and runoff elections with a presidential primary separated from the remaining nomination contests.
The concurrent primaries request is a no-brainer in a state that has traditionally held all of its primaries together on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May during much of the post-reform era. But opening the door to a possible winner-take-all primary in North Carolina is of greater note. North Carolina law calls for a proportional allocation of delegates to the national convention2, but Republican National Committee rules (see Rule 16(b) here) allow state parties to create their own rules (within the parameters of the national party rules) that supersede any state law should their be a conflict. North Carolina Republicans have generally followed the state law in past presidential election cycles, so a move to a winner-take-all allocation method would break with that tradition.
No, there are not any bills currently before the North Carolina state legislature, but there is external pressure being exerted on the body to make a change to the presidential primary date. And now, it appears to be more than national pressure, direct or otherwise. There looks to be a local component adding to the intricacy of the situation as well.
--
1 Below is the resolution as posted on the Greater Greensboro Republican Women's Club site:
Whereas: North Carolina 2013 election law changed the date of the North Carolina Presidential Primary from mid-May to late February;2 This is a function of delegate selection/allocation rules historically mandated by the Democratic Party. To comply with the rules requiring a proportional allocation of delegates, Democrats in control of the North Carolina General Assembly created the law requiring it. That law has been in place as it is currently written since 1983.
Whereas: Republican National Committee (RNC) rule changes of January, 2014 require that only four states, Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Nevada, be allowed to hold their presidential primaries before March 1;
Whereas: RNC rules penalize any state holding its presidential primary prior to March 1 by drastically reducing that state’s number of allowable delegates to the National Republican Presidential Convention to no more than 12 delegates;
Whereas: The North Carolina Republican Party will be allowed 72 delegates to the 2016 National Republican Presidential Convention if it complies with RNC rules;
Whereas: Additionally, RNC rules dictate that states holding their presidential primary between the dates of March 1 and March 15 must allocate their delegates to the National Presidential Convention proportionally rather than having the option of proportionality versus winner-take-all allocation;
Whereas: Previous North Carolina primaries in presidential years have been inclusive of presidential, state, and local races, rather than having a separate presidential primary and a state/local primary.
Whereas: Creating separate dates for the North Carolina Presidential Primary and the North Carolina primary for state and local races increases the costs to the state and counties for the duplicate voting requirements.
Be it Resolved on this __th day of _____, 2015, that the _______________________: (1) Supports the NCGOP in selecting a presidential primary date that complies with RNC rules, and (2) Encourages the NC General Assembly to change the North Carolina presidential primary date from one in February to one that will allow maximum Republican delegate allocation to the National Republican Presidential Convention while still giving North Carolina more influence in the selection of the Republican presidential candidate, and (3) Encourages the NC General Assembly to specify that the primary for all NC national, state and local contests be the same date as the newly-selected NC presidential primary date, thereby eliminating the need for additional primary dates.
Are Early States Losing Clout?
The usually sensible and always thorough Steve Peoples with the Associated Press missed the mark, FHQ thinks, in his weekend dispatch from New Hampshire.
The premise: Early states may be losing clout in the 2016 Republican presidential nomination process because of the rise of super PACs (and their money) and changes to the Republican calendar/rules.
I don't know that FHQ can quite accept that. I can see the point. It makes sense, but I don't know that it is true. But the social scientist in me has a problem with the basic premise. The social scientist in me sees a research question and understandably asks for what data there is. What can we observe?
First the premise. The whole argument here is that 2016 will feature a compressed calendar (with a lot of primaries and caucuses in March) and a new avenue through which campaigns and their allies can receive and spend money that was not fully available four years ago at this time (super PACs). That apparently equals candidates, their campaigns and their allies looking beyond the very earliest states to spend their time and money.
Maybe.
But if we're talking about an influx of new resources through new channels, it seems that we would also be talking about a bigger pie. Does a bigger pie -- a larger pot of resources -- mean that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina are losing something, clout or otherwise?1 It could also mean that other states are gaining something due to the new conditions in the 2016 cycle. If we're talking about an increase in the pot relative to 2012, then it is not really the same zero-sum game anymore. Just because March contest states are gaining doesn't mean that the carve-out states are losing. The two are not mutually exclusive in a changed environment.
Yet, I get it. A lot of Peoples' story is futurecasting. It is speculating on what will or may happen in 2016. But that is not a testable premise really. Sure, we can guess. We can speculate. But if we look at candidate behavior now or what they have been up to since January 1 through now, it still looks an awful lot like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina followed by everyone else when we look at candidate visits. The carve-outs lead the pack among the prospective (or announced) Republicans. Behind them are the other typical haunts for Republican presidential candidates: California, Texas, Florida, New York and Washington, DC. No, not all of those are red states or early states, but they are all stops that frequently pop up on the itinerary of anyone on the fundraising circuit.
One more thing and I'll let this one rest. It should not come as a surprise that campaign aides and veteran political operatives are cautioning us of the impending chaotic slugfest to come in the battle for the Republican presidential nomination. Those are precisely the folks who stand to gain the most from the race stretching out well into March if not beyond. And even if that does not happen, they can at least bide their time nurturing the illusion that this will go on and on and on...
As FHQ mentioned late in the 2012 Republican race, these things are over sooner rather than later. There is a point when even individuals who can afford to keep a candidate afloat decide that the effort is futile, that pouring more money into a cause that cannot win but might breed more chaos heading into a national convention is just not worth it.
Will we hit that point during or after Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina? I don't know. But I do know that, despite how things look now, those contests will winnow the field of Republicans vying for the party's presidential nomination. That's what the carve-outs are: winnowing contests. They will still be that in 2016 when all this talk of lost clout will be just that.
Talk.
[NOTE: Peoples' story also mentions that June 3 is the last date on which primaries and caucuses can be held in the Republican presidential nomination process. I don't know the origin of that information, but the RNC rules -- Rule 16(c)(1) -- specify that that cutoff is the second Saturday in June. That would be Saturday, June 11, 2016.]
--
1 Poor Nevada is just a redheaded stepchild in all of this from the looks of it. There are, I guess, consequences on the Republican side for reluctantly adding the Silver state caucuses (because the DNC already had), and then the state Republican Party having issues in their first two attempts at caucuses in the spotlight in 2008 and 2012.
The premise: Early states may be losing clout in the 2016 Republican presidential nomination process because of the rise of super PACs (and their money) and changes to the Republican calendar/rules.
I don't know that FHQ can quite accept that. I can see the point. It makes sense, but I don't know that it is true. But the social scientist in me has a problem with the basic premise. The social scientist in me sees a research question and understandably asks for what data there is. What can we observe?
First the premise. The whole argument here is that 2016 will feature a compressed calendar (with a lot of primaries and caucuses in March) and a new avenue through which campaigns and their allies can receive and spend money that was not fully available four years ago at this time (super PACs). That apparently equals candidates, their campaigns and their allies looking beyond the very earliest states to spend their time and money.
Maybe.
But if we're talking about an influx of new resources through new channels, it seems that we would also be talking about a bigger pie. Does a bigger pie -- a larger pot of resources -- mean that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina are losing something, clout or otherwise?1 It could also mean that other states are gaining something due to the new conditions in the 2016 cycle. If we're talking about an increase in the pot relative to 2012, then it is not really the same zero-sum game anymore. Just because March contest states are gaining doesn't mean that the carve-out states are losing. The two are not mutually exclusive in a changed environment.
Yet, I get it. A lot of Peoples' story is futurecasting. It is speculating on what will or may happen in 2016. But that is not a testable premise really. Sure, we can guess. We can speculate. But if we look at candidate behavior now or what they have been up to since January 1 through now, it still looks an awful lot like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina followed by everyone else when we look at candidate visits. The carve-outs lead the pack among the prospective (or announced) Republicans. Behind them are the other typical haunts for Republican presidential candidates: California, Texas, Florida, New York and Washington, DC. No, not all of those are red states or early states, but they are all stops that frequently pop up on the itinerary of anyone on the fundraising circuit.
One more thing and I'll let this one rest. It should not come as a surprise that campaign aides and veteran political operatives are cautioning us of the impending chaotic slugfest to come in the battle for the Republican presidential nomination. Those are precisely the folks who stand to gain the most from the race stretching out well into March if not beyond. And even if that does not happen, they can at least bide their time nurturing the illusion that this will go on and on and on...
As FHQ mentioned late in the 2012 Republican race, these things are over sooner rather than later. There is a point when even individuals who can afford to keep a candidate afloat decide that the effort is futile, that pouring more money into a cause that cannot win but might breed more chaos heading into a national convention is just not worth it.
Will we hit that point during or after Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina? I don't know. But I do know that, despite how things look now, those contests will winnow the field of Republicans vying for the party's presidential nomination. That's what the carve-outs are: winnowing contests. They will still be that in 2016 when all this talk of lost clout will be just that.
Talk.
[NOTE: Peoples' story also mentions that June 3 is the last date on which primaries and caucuses can be held in the Republican presidential nomination process. I don't know the origin of that information, but the RNC rules -- Rule 16(c)(1) -- specify that that cutoff is the second Saturday in June. That would be Saturday, June 11, 2016.]
--
1 Poor Nevada is just a redheaded stepchild in all of this from the looks of it. There are, I guess, consequences on the Republican side for reluctantly adding the Silver state caucuses (because the DNC already had), and then the state Republican Party having issues in their first two attempts at caucuses in the spotlight in 2008 and 2012.
Vermont Tries a Different Tack in Challenging New Hampshire's First in the Nation Status
With legislation to move the Vermont presidential primary up to coincide with the New Hampshire primary stuck in neutral, a couple of Democratic legislators in the Green Mountain state are taking an alternate approach. Last week, Rep. David Deen (D-136th, Putney) and Rep. Michael Mrowicki (D-138th, Putney) introduced Joint (House) Resolution 11. The measure is a scaled back version of the previously filed bills in the state House and Senate. Instead of giving the power to set the date of the primary to the Vermont secretary of state, the proposed resolution would request that the office of the secretary of state study the feasibility of shifting into an earlier New Hampshire-aligned presidential primary election.
If the resolution is passed, the secretary of state's office would, again, be requested to complete the study before December 15, 2015. If the study takes that long -- completion in mid-December -- that would give the state a very small window in which to prepare for an earlier than usual primary for the 2016 cycle. And that depends on the Secretary of State Jim Condos actually going along with the plan. He was skeptical of the move to encroach on New Hampshire's first in the nation turf after the state Senate bill became public and said as much in the original committee hearing for the bill back in February.
The resolution/study route is not a unique one when it comes to presidential primary positioning. Indiana attempted to do something similar with its later (May) primary during its 2009 legislative session.
If the resolution is passed, the secretary of state's office would, again, be requested to complete the study before December 15, 2015. If the study takes that long -- completion in mid-December -- that would give the state a very small window in which to prepare for an earlier than usual primary for the 2016 cycle. And that depends on the Secretary of State Jim Condos actually going along with the plan. He was skeptical of the move to encroach on New Hampshire's first in the nation turf after the state Senate bill became public and said as much in the original committee hearing for the bill back in February.
The resolution/study route is not a unique one when it comes to presidential primary positioning. Indiana attempted to do something similar with its later (May) primary during its 2009 legislative session.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)