With a bill to reestablish a presidential primary in Idaho already off to Governor Otter's (R) desk, the lower chamber has now also quickly passed "trailer" legislation to fund the election. Last week the Idaho state Senate passed SB 1178 and on Monday, April 6, the state House followed suit, voting to send the measure to the governor for approval by a 51-18 vote.
The previous 2015 bill, SB 1066, reversed the 2012 repeal of the presidential primary law, but created a separate presidential primary that will be held in early March as opposed to May, consolidated with the other primary elections in the Gem state. Now, that election can be carried out since funds have been appropriated via SB 1178. This bill only applies to the 2016 presidential primary cycle. Funding of future presidential primary elections will be considered by legislatures on a cycle by cycle basis.
Monday, April 6, 2015
March 26 Caucuses for Hawaii Democrats in 2016
The Democratic Party of Hawaii on Friday, April 3 released for public comment the draft of its 2016 delegate selection plan.1 As FHQ has done with several other caucuses states so far, the focus here will be on the proposed date of the Hawaii Democratic caucuses. These draft plans must first be opened to public comment before being submitted to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee for final approval or requested changes.
Like Washington state before it, Hawaii Democrats have zeroed in on Saturday, March 26 precinct meetings as the "first determining step" in its delegate selection/allocation process. The late March date is approximately three weeks later than the Wednesday, March 7 calendar position Aloha state Democrats used for its precinct meetings in 2012. Such a late March caucuses date would represent the latest date on which the Hawaii Democrats have begun their delegate selection process in the post-reform era. During that period, Hawaii Democrats have caucused no later than the second Tuesday in March.
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 dates in the 2012 draft plans for caucuses states did not change.
--
1 The above link is to the plan on the Democratic Party of Hawaii site. FHQ will also keep a version of the plan here.
Like Washington state before it, Hawaii Democrats have zeroed in on Saturday, March 26 precinct meetings as the "first determining step" in its delegate selection/allocation process. The late March date is approximately three weeks later than the Wednesday, March 7 calendar position Aloha state Democrats used for its precinct meetings in 2012. Such a late March caucuses date would represent the latest date on which the Hawaii Democrats have begun their delegate selection process in the post-reform era. During that period, Hawaii Democrats have caucused no later than the second Tuesday in March.
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 dates in the 2012 draft plans for caucuses states did not change.
--
1 The above link is to the plan on the Democratic Party of Hawaii site. FHQ will also keep a version of the plan here.
Despite a Presidential Primary Bill in the State Legislature, Washington Democrats Appear Ready to Continue Caucusing in 2016
FHQ this late winter and early spring has devoted some attention to the efforts in the Washington state legislature to move the Evergreen state presidential primary from its current May position into March. Led by Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman (R), the push is motivated not only by increasing voter participation in the nomination process and gaining additional candidate attention, but also as a means of enticing the two state parties into using a state-funded primary to allocate at least some of their national convention delegates.
The problem is that Washington Democrats have traditionally used a caucuses/convention process to allocate national convention delegates to particular candidates. Democrats in the state are also forced into an either/or situation when comes to the choice of primary or caucuses. Unlike Republican state parties, the DNC prohibits delegate allocation split across both methods (primary and caucus).1 Washington Democrats, then, have to choose one or the other. That provides the state party with even more reason to maintain the traditional delegate selection structure the party knows versus the primary process it does not.
That argument can be made in any event. And it does seem to get an assist from the recently released draft of the 2016 Washington Democratic delegate selection plan.2 As FHQ has argued, the Republican-controlled, state Senate-passed bill to move the primary up to March 8 is in a holding pattern in the Democratic-controlled state House until the Washington state Democratic Party votes on its delegate selection plan. That is set to happen at the Washington Democratic Party State Central Committee meeting later in April.
But that April meeting to decide on delegate allocation/selection rules has a draft baseline rooted in state party historical practice. In other words, it looks like Washington Democrats are leaning toward continuing the caucuses/convention process into 2016 and scheduling the first step, the precinct caucuses, for Saturday, March 26.
If that plan is approved by the state central committee, that makes it much less likely that the March primary bill will make it out of the Democratic-controlled state House. That, in turn, affects not only the presidential primary itself, but the Republican delegate selection process as well.
A May primary could be viewed by state legislators as too late to be of any consequence to the determination of a presidential nominee in either party and thus an expenditure that could be cut as was the case in 2012. But that plan could potentially run into trouble in a Republican-controlled state Senate depending on how the Washington Republican Party wants to allocate its delegates. The caucuses in both parties will most likely have occurred prior to the May primary. State Republicans could move to save some money in the state budget or attempt to pull off a reverse version of what Texas Republicans are planning for in 2016. It is more complicated than this, but Texas Republicans will have a March 1 primary that will allocate approximately 75% of the state's delegates and a parallel caucuses/convention process that will allocated the remainder of the delegates (at the June convention). The thinking among Texas Republicans is that the primary has an early impact on the Republican nomination process and if the outcome remains unsettled in late May and early June, then winner-take-all convention portion of the delegates will help determine the final outcome.
Washington Republicans could similarly gamble that the Republican nomination process will be unclear by mid-May and split their delegate allocation across early caucuses and the May primary. The party has a history with this, having split the allocation of its 2008 delegates roughly equally across a primary and caucuses. The difference between the past and the above option is that in 2008, the primary and caucuses were just ten days apart, not two months.
FHQ argued earlier that the fate of the March primary may hinge on Washington Democrats, but whether Washington has a primary at all in 2016 may depend on state Republicans. This one is an interesting back and forth between the party caucuses in the Washington state legislature, but also involving the Washington state parties themselves. It nicely highlights multifaceted interests that are involved in the delegate selection/allocation process.
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 dates in the 2012 draft plans for caucuses states did not change.
--
1 Texas is the exception to this rule. The two-step process Lone Star state Democrats utilize has been grandfathered in for the last several cycles now.
2 The above link is to the plan on the Washington Democratic Party site. FHQ will also keep a version of the plan here.
The problem is that Washington Democrats have traditionally used a caucuses/convention process to allocate national convention delegates to particular candidates. Democrats in the state are also forced into an either/or situation when comes to the choice of primary or caucuses. Unlike Republican state parties, the DNC prohibits delegate allocation split across both methods (primary and caucus).1 Washington Democrats, then, have to choose one or the other. That provides the state party with even more reason to maintain the traditional delegate selection structure the party knows versus the primary process it does not.
That argument can be made in any event. And it does seem to get an assist from the recently released draft of the 2016 Washington Democratic delegate selection plan.2 As FHQ has argued, the Republican-controlled, state Senate-passed bill to move the primary up to March 8 is in a holding pattern in the Democratic-controlled state House until the Washington state Democratic Party votes on its delegate selection plan. That is set to happen at the Washington Democratic Party State Central Committee meeting later in April.
But that April meeting to decide on delegate allocation/selection rules has a draft baseline rooted in state party historical practice. In other words, it looks like Washington Democrats are leaning toward continuing the caucuses/convention process into 2016 and scheduling the first step, the precinct caucuses, for Saturday, March 26.
If that plan is approved by the state central committee, that makes it much less likely that the March primary bill will make it out of the Democratic-controlled state House. That, in turn, affects not only the presidential primary itself, but the Republican delegate selection process as well.
A May primary could be viewed by state legislators as too late to be of any consequence to the determination of a presidential nominee in either party and thus an expenditure that could be cut as was the case in 2012. But that plan could potentially run into trouble in a Republican-controlled state Senate depending on how the Washington Republican Party wants to allocate its delegates. The caucuses in both parties will most likely have occurred prior to the May primary. State Republicans could move to save some money in the state budget or attempt to pull off a reverse version of what Texas Republicans are planning for in 2016. It is more complicated than this, but Texas Republicans will have a March 1 primary that will allocate approximately 75% of the state's delegates and a parallel caucuses/convention process that will allocated the remainder of the delegates (at the June convention). The thinking among Texas Republicans is that the primary has an early impact on the Republican nomination process and if the outcome remains unsettled in late May and early June, then winner-take-all convention portion of the delegates will help determine the final outcome.
Washington Republicans could similarly gamble that the Republican nomination process will be unclear by mid-May and split their delegate allocation across early caucuses and the May primary. The party has a history with this, having split the allocation of its 2008 delegates roughly equally across a primary and caucuses. The difference between the past and the above option is that in 2008, the primary and caucuses were just ten days apart, not two months.
FHQ argued earlier that the fate of the March primary may hinge on Washington Democrats, but whether Washington has a primary at all in 2016 may depend on state Republicans. This one is an interesting back and forth between the party caucuses in the Washington state legislature, but also involving the Washington state parties themselves. It nicely highlights multifaceted interests that are involved in the delegate selection/allocation process.
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 dates in the 2012 draft plans for caucuses states did not change.
--
1 Texas is the exception to this rule. The two-step process Lone Star state Democrats utilize has been grandfathered in for the last several cycles now.
2 The above link is to the plan on the Washington Democratic Party site. FHQ will also keep a version of the plan here.
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Looks Like June 7 Caucuses for North Dakota Democrats
On Friday, March 27, the North Dakota Democratic Party made available for comment a draft of its 2016 delegate selection plan.1 The plan calls for the delegate selection process in the Peace Garden state to kick off with June 7 caucuses. The first Tuesday in June date is the same the party used for its 2012 caucuses as well. As was the case during the last cycle, the early June caucuses would align the Democratic process in North Dakota with the primaries in neighboring Montana and South Dakota.
Should all three end up on June 7, that would net each a 15% (regional cluster) boost to their base delegation according to the Democratic Call for the Convention.
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 dates in the 2012 draft plans for caucuses states did not change.
--
1 The above link is to the plan on the North Dakota Democratic Party site. FHQ will also keep a version of the plan here.
Should all three end up on June 7, that would net each a 15% (regional cluster) boost to their base delegation according to the Democratic Call for the Convention.
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 dates in the 2012 draft plans for caucuses states did not change.
--
1 The above link is to the plan on the North Dakota Democratic Party site. FHQ will also keep a version of the plan here.
Nebraska Democrats Plan March 5 Caucuses for 2016
Back in December the Nebraska Democratic Party voted to once again select delegates to the national convention through a caucuses/convention system in 2016. Now that the party released its draft delegate selection plan for public comment on March 31, it is clearer when that process will commence next year.1 At this point, the party plans to initiate its delegate selection process with March 5 caucuses in 2016.
The Nebraska Democratic Party broke with the tradition of filtering its presidential nomination process through the Cornhusker state's May primary after the 2004 cycle. The party traded in that late primary in 2004 for earlier caucuses in 2008 as a means of falling at a point on the calendar where the nomination was unlikely to have been decided. Like 2008, the 2016 Nebraska Democratic caucuses would fall the weekend following the earliest date the parties allow non-carve-out states to conduct primary or caucus elections. The difference is that, in 2016, that would be month later on the primary calendar than was the case in 2008. Whereas the national parties allowed February contests in the 2008 cycle, that practice is now taboo for states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
That national party prohibition on February contests began during the 2012 cycle. With a Democratic incumbent seeking reelection, and thus a noncompetitive nomination race, Nebraska Democrats opted to maintain the caucuses system but to begin the process in April. An open seat Democratic nomination race in 2016 has Nebraska Democrats eyeing an earlier position for its caucuses. After a one cycle hiatus, then, the party has returned to a date for its caucuses on the heels of Super Tuesday/SEC primary on March 1.
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 dates in the 2012 draft plans for caucuses states did not change.
--
1 The above link is to the plan on the Nebraska Democratic Party site. FHQ will also keep a version of the plan here.
The Nebraska Democratic Party broke with the tradition of filtering its presidential nomination process through the Cornhusker state's May primary after the 2004 cycle. The party traded in that late primary in 2004 for earlier caucuses in 2008 as a means of falling at a point on the calendar where the nomination was unlikely to have been decided. Like 2008, the 2016 Nebraska Democratic caucuses would fall the weekend following the earliest date the parties allow non-carve-out states to conduct primary or caucus elections. The difference is that, in 2016, that would be month later on the primary calendar than was the case in 2008. Whereas the national parties allowed February contests in the 2008 cycle, that practice is now taboo for states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
That national party prohibition on February contests began during the 2012 cycle. With a Democratic incumbent seeking reelection, and thus a noncompetitive nomination race, Nebraska Democrats opted to maintain the caucuses system but to begin the process in April. An open seat Democratic nomination race in 2016 has Nebraska Democrats eyeing an earlier position for its caucuses. After a one cycle hiatus, then, the party has returned to a date for its caucuses on the heels of Super Tuesday/SEC primary on March 1.
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 dates in the 2012 draft plans for caucuses states did not change.
--
1 The above link is to the plan on the Nebraska Democratic Party site. FHQ will also keep a version of the plan here.
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Arizona Presidential Primary Challenge to Iowa Dies as 2015 Session Closes
The Arizona state legislature finished up the business of the 2015 legislative session in the early morning hours of Friday, April 3. Adjourning the session sine die killed all the remaining bills that had not moved through the legislature and on to the governor. Among the group of bills that did not survive was HB 2015, the bill that would have pushed the Arizona presidential primary in front of the Iowa caucuses (or any other contest that ended up first on the primary calendar).
The bill dying at the end of the session does not come as all that much of a surprise. Similar legislation met the same fate two years ago following some RNC pressure. Additionally, the legislature repositioned the Arizona presidential primary during the 2014 session. That move did not preclude the 2015 legislature from considering and passing another move, but states shifting primary calendar positions more than once in a presidential election cycle remains a rare occurrence. Furthermore, part of the change in 2014 was about bringing the presidential primary in the Grand Canyon state back into compliance with the national party rules (with regard to the timing of delegate selection events). Passing HB 2015 would have meant crossing back over that barrier, making Arizona delegations from both parties vulnerable to national party penalties.
Arizona does not allow legislation proposed in one session to carry over to the next session. That means this bill is dead and Arizona is more than likely locked into a March 22 primary in 2016.
Friday, April 3, 2015
Bill to Fund Presidential Primary Moving Quickly Through Idaho Legislature
Now that both chambers of the Idaho legislature have passed SB 1066, the measure to establish a stand-alone presidential primary in March -- the body needs to move on legislation to actually appropriate funds in order to conduct the election. To that end, the state Senate earlier this week quickly proposed and passed legislation to allot $2 million to the secretary of state budget for the purpose of funding the new presidential primary election (assuming Governor Otter signs the SB 1066).
SB 1178 was introduced on Monday, March 30, made a quick stop in the Senate State Affairs Committee (garnering a do pass recommendation) on Tuesday and had passed the chamber by a 21-11 vote by Wednesday. The legislation has been transmitted to the House where, if the Senate vote is any indication, it will move quickly next week and the vote will largely resemble the original vote in the chamber(s) on SB 1066, the bill .
SB 1178 was introduced on Monday, March 30, made a quick stop in the Senate State Affairs Committee (garnering a do pass recommendation) on Tuesday and had passed the chamber by a 21-11 vote by Wednesday. The legislation has been transmitted to the House where, if the Senate vote is any indication, it will move quickly next week and the vote will largely resemble the original vote in the chamber(s) on SB 1066, the bill .
For 2016, Wyoming Democrats Eye April 9 Caucuses
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)