Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (R) will now have two presidential primary bills before him after the state House concurred on Friday, April 10 with Senate changes and passed the its bill to move the election back three weeks.
The Maryland state House passed an amended version of HB 396 that is now identical to its Senate companion, SB 204. The bills, whether one or both are signed, would shift the Maryland presidential primary from the first Tuesday in April to the fourth Tuesday in April. The original intent of the legislation in both cases was to prevent a conflict between spring holidays and the early voting window preceding the presidential primary election day. That originally meant just a one week shift to the second Tuesday in April.
However, the fourth Tuesday in April was a lure to Democrats in control of the state legislature. Neighbors Pennsylvania and Delaware are also scheduled to hold primaries on April 26. The Connecticut and Rhode Island primaries are also slated for that date.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Otter Signs Presidential Primary Bill, Idaho Date Set for March 8
Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) on Thursday, April 9 signed SB 1066 into law. The measure reestablishes a presidential primary in the Gem state, but unlike in the past, the primary will now be a stand-mostly-alone election scheduled for the second Tuesday in March -- March 8 during the 2016 cycle.1 The primary elections for other state and local offices will continue to be administered but separately now in mid-May.
Idaho Democrats have already chosen to maintain the caucuses/convention system the party has utilized since 1972. Gem state Republicans, then, will hold a March 8 primary and their Democratic counterparts will caucus two weeks later on March 22. The move makes Idaho the second state to slot into the second Tuesday in March date, joining Michigan. Mississippi and Ohio already had primaries scheduled for March 8 along with Hawaii Republicans' caucuses. Washington state is currently considering legislation to shift their primary to that date, and Alabama is looking to leave the March 8 date for the SEC primary a week earlier on March 1.
A bill to fund the primary is now also on the governor's desk having passed the now-adjourned Idaho state legislature.
--
1 School elections are also scheduled on that date throughout parts of the state.
Idaho Democrats have already chosen to maintain the caucuses/convention system the party has utilized since 1972. Gem state Republicans, then, will hold a March 8 primary and their Democratic counterparts will caucus two weeks later on March 22. The move makes Idaho the second state to slot into the second Tuesday in March date, joining Michigan. Mississippi and Ohio already had primaries scheduled for March 8 along with Hawaii Republicans' caucuses. Washington state is currently considering legislation to shift their primary to that date, and Alabama is looking to leave the March 8 date for the SEC primary a week earlier on March 1.
A bill to fund the primary is now also on the governor's desk having passed the now-adjourned Idaho state legislature.
--
1 School elections are also scheduled on that date throughout parts of the state.
Friday, April 10, 2015
Different February Presidential Primary Bill Passes Nevada Assembly Committee
FHQ discussed yesterday the Nevada bill to create a February presidential primary that made it through a state Senate committee earlier in the week. In the lower chamber yesterday, the Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections held a work session for the Assembly version of that bill. The outcome for AB 302 was much the same as its partner in the state Senate. It passed mainly with Republican committee members in support and Democrats against.
However, the two bills -- the Assembly and Senate versions -- now differ. The bill that will be considered on the state Senate floor is the original bill but with a third Tuesday in February primary date replacing the January date initially called for. The Assembly version in the words of committee counsel, Kevin Powers, gutted the original bill, creating an unspecified February presidential preference primary that the state parties can opt into but are not required to participate in. In other words, both parties would have to request that a presidential primary be held and set a date for sometime in February.
To reiterate a point from the post yesterday about the state Senate bill passing committee, this, too is somewhat surprising. That is because all of this legislative maneuvering in both chambers is moot for 2016. Both the Nevada Republican Party and the Nevada Democratic Party have opted to select and allocate delegates to the national convention -- and hold a presidential preference vote -- through a caucuses/convention system in 2016. The Assembly bill would create a presidential primary option for future cycles and that makes it a worthier pursuit than the Senate legislation. That bill would create a February presidential primary that would also include the usual June primaries for other offices in the Silver state. It would also attempt to codify a requirement for parties to allocate and bind delegates through a presidential primary system. The Senate version has the steeper climb of the two.
...but neither bill is likely to have any effect on the caucuses both Nevada parties are planning to hold next year.
However, the two bills -- the Assembly and Senate versions -- now differ. The bill that will be considered on the state Senate floor is the original bill but with a third Tuesday in February primary date replacing the January date initially called for. The Assembly version in the words of committee counsel, Kevin Powers, gutted the original bill, creating an unspecified February presidential preference primary that the state parties can opt into but are not required to participate in. In other words, both parties would have to request that a presidential primary be held and set a date for sometime in February.
To reiterate a point from the post yesterday about the state Senate bill passing committee, this, too is somewhat surprising. That is because all of this legislative maneuvering in both chambers is moot for 2016. Both the Nevada Republican Party and the Nevada Democratic Party have opted to select and allocate delegates to the national convention -- and hold a presidential preference vote -- through a caucuses/convention system in 2016. The Assembly bill would create a presidential primary option for future cycles and that makes it a worthier pursuit than the Senate legislation. That bill would create a February presidential primary that would also include the usual June primaries for other offices in the Silver state. It would also attempt to codify a requirement for parties to allocate and bind delegates through a presidential primary system. The Senate version has the steeper climb of the two.
...but neither bill is likely to have any effect on the caucuses both Nevada parties are planning to hold next year.
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Maryland Senate Concurs With House Changes to Presidential Primary Bill and Sends Off to Governor
The state of Maryland today moved one step closer to moving its presidential primary to the fourth Tuesday in April. On Thursday, April 9, the Maryland state Senate concurred (47-0) with the minor changes made to SB 204 by the House just a day before, clearing the way for the bill to be enrolled and delivered to Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (R) for his consideration.
An April 26, 2016 presidential primary in Maryland -- assuming the governor signs the bill into law -- would coincide with primaries in Delaware, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Rhode Island. Though that is one potential benefit, the initial driver behind the push to move the primary back three weeks was to avoid the contest overlapping with spring religious holidays.
An April 26, 2016 presidential primary in Maryland -- assuming the governor signs the bill into law -- would coincide with primaries in Delaware, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Rhode Island. Though that is one potential benefit, the initial driver behind the push to move the primary back three weeks was to avoid the contest overlapping with spring religious holidays.
Amended February Presidential Primary Bill Advances in Nevada
On Monday, April 6, the Nevada state Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections conducted a work session covering SB 421. As introduced, that legislation would establish a presidential primary in the Silver state, schedule it for January and consolidate with that election the primaries for other offices usually scheduled in June.
However, that version of the bill was roundly criticized in its initial hearing before the committee last week. The Nevada Republican Party testified against it having already opted for caucuses at its spring state central committee meeting. Local elections officials panned the bill because of the constraints a January primary would place on the elections administrators as well as volunteers who man the polling stations. Committee Democrats raised concerns over how trading in caucuses for a primary would affect Nevada Democrats' position among the carve-out states. Minor party candidates voiced opposition based on having to convene meetings and file for races nearly a year in advance of the general election.
The only support during that initial hearing came from the bill's sponsor, Senator James Settlemeyer (R-17th, Minden). In the work session this past Monday, Settlemeyer, who sits on the committee was not alone in his support. As promised last week, Settlemeyer introduced an amendment to keep the bill mostly as is and change the January primary date to the third Tuesday in February. A competing amendment from Clark County would have removed much of the bill and given the state parties the option of holding a primary concurrent with the June primary.1 After little discussion, Settlemeyer motioned to pass the bill with a do pass recommendation and with the amended February primary date. The subsequent vote broke along party lines with majority Republicans in support and the two Democrats on the committee against.
On the one hand, this is a surprising outcome given that Republicans on the committee pushed the bill forward against the wishes of the state party. However, with the sponsor on the committee, SB 421 stood a better chance of reaching the floor. Whether it moves on from there is a matter that will be determined later. For now, though, the February primary bill has advanced.
--
UPDATE 4/10/15: Amended Assembly bill for February primary option clears committee
--
1 The June primary falls on the second Tuesday following the first Monday in June. That would put Nevada Republicans on the wrong side of the window of time in which the RNC mandates states hold contests (second Saturday in June).
However, that version of the bill was roundly criticized in its initial hearing before the committee last week. The Nevada Republican Party testified against it having already opted for caucuses at its spring state central committee meeting. Local elections officials panned the bill because of the constraints a January primary would place on the elections administrators as well as volunteers who man the polling stations. Committee Democrats raised concerns over how trading in caucuses for a primary would affect Nevada Democrats' position among the carve-out states. Minor party candidates voiced opposition based on having to convene meetings and file for races nearly a year in advance of the general election.
The only support during that initial hearing came from the bill's sponsor, Senator James Settlemeyer (R-17th, Minden). In the work session this past Monday, Settlemeyer, who sits on the committee was not alone in his support. As promised last week, Settlemeyer introduced an amendment to keep the bill mostly as is and change the January primary date to the third Tuesday in February. A competing amendment from Clark County would have removed much of the bill and given the state parties the option of holding a primary concurrent with the June primary.1 After little discussion, Settlemeyer motioned to pass the bill with a do pass recommendation and with the amended February primary date. The subsequent vote broke along party lines with majority Republicans in support and the two Democrats on the committee against.
On the one hand, this is a surprising outcome given that Republicans on the committee pushed the bill forward against the wishes of the state party. However, with the sponsor on the committee, SB 421 stood a better chance of reaching the floor. Whether it moves on from there is a matter that will be determined later. For now, though, the February primary bill has advanced.
--
UPDATE 4/10/15: Amended Assembly bill for February primary option clears committee
--
1 The June primary falls on the second Tuesday following the first Monday in June. That would put Nevada Republicans on the wrong side of the window of time in which the RNC mandates states hold contests (second Saturday in June).
Alabama SEC Primary Bill Passes State Senate
The Alabama legislation to shift the presidential primary in the state up a week to March 1 passed the state Senate on Thursday, April 9. SB 240, a bill sponsored by a Senate Democrat, passed with bipartisan support by a decisive 27-3 vote. The proposed move has been billed as an economic stimulus to the state of Alabama, coordinating the presidential primary with other southern states on March 1 in an SEC primary as a means of attracting the would-be presidential candidates (and the influx of cash and spending they bring) into the state.
The bill now heads to the state House for consideration.
The bill now heads to the state House for consideration.
The Presidential Primary Impasse Between Chambers in the North Carolina General Assembly
The looming standoff between the North Carolina state House and Senate over the scheduling of the 2016 presidential primary is not anything new. However, Adam Wollner at the National Journal does add some depth to the story. The main cog in the Senate machinery blocking any effort to more clearly define the date of the presidential primary (move it back into compliance with national party rules) in the Tar Heel state is Senator Bob Rucho (R-39th, Mecklenburg), and Wollner found no lack of people willing to come forward to voice their opinion on the Matthews Republican.
A sampling:
--
A few additional thoughts:
Rucho mentions in Wollner's piece that the RNC created an arbitrary rule -- the super penalty -- after the North Carolina primary law was changed. However arbitrary that rule may or may not be, it was in place before the North Carolina presidential primary law was altered in 2013, anchoring the contest to South Carolina's. The late Bob Bennett, former chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, devised the more severe penalty -- often called the Bennett Rule in RNC circles -- and saw it passed with the rules package for 2016 at the Tampa convention in 2012. That clearly precedes the late addition of the presidential primary amendment to the 2013 omnibus elections bill that passed through the General Assembly in the waning moments of a special session. The potential run-in with the Bennett Rule/super penalty was something that FHQ raised immediately upon hearing that the North Carolina primary could change positions in July 2013.
So, there is a stand-off between the North Carolina House and Senate. So what? We know that. If reporters nationally or in North Carolina want to advance this story in a meaningful way here are some interesting questions to ask:
...and itself.
A sampling:
"Senator Rucho is kind of a legend here for being one of the most cantankerous and hard-to-get-along-with senators," said Nathan Babcock, the political director at the North Carolina Chamber of Commerce. "He's not a 'go along to get along' type person."
"Others have told me behind the scenes, 'Hey, we're going to move it,'" one senior North Carolina Republican official said, referring to the state senators who support a February primary. "But Rucho's never cracked. He's always said we're not going to move it unless we get something out of it."Fair enough.
--
A few additional thoughts:
Rucho mentions in Wollner's piece that the RNC created an arbitrary rule -- the super penalty -- after the North Carolina primary law was changed. However arbitrary that rule may or may not be, it was in place before the North Carolina presidential primary law was altered in 2013, anchoring the contest to South Carolina's. The late Bob Bennett, former chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, devised the more severe penalty -- often called the Bennett Rule in RNC circles -- and saw it passed with the rules package for 2016 at the Tampa convention in 2012. That clearly precedes the late addition of the presidential primary amendment to the 2013 omnibus elections bill that passed through the General Assembly in the waning moments of a special session. The potential run-in with the Bennett Rule/super penalty was something that FHQ raised immediately upon hearing that the North Carolina primary could change positions in July 2013.
So, there is a stand-off between the North Carolina House and Senate. So what? We know that. If reporters nationally or in North Carolina want to advance this story in a meaningful way here are some interesting questions to ask:
- The North Carolina law does not account for the fact that South Carolina Republicans and Democrats do not always or even often hold presidential primaries on the same date. In the event that there are separate dates for those primaries in the Palmetto state, to which primary is the North Carolina contest tethered? The North Carolina law provides no guidance. If the interpretation is that it has to follow the likely February 20 Republican primary in South Carolina, it is much more problematic than if it were to follow the February 27 Souther Carolina Democratic primary. The former would force the North Carolina primary into a non-compliant February 23 primary, triggering the super penalty. But the latter would mean the North Carolina presidential primary would fall on March 1, in compliance with the national party rules. If Rucho wants to maintain the status quo, this is probably the best argument to make: that there is nothing to worry about.
- But let's assume this story continues down the same road, straight into a roadblock. Furthermore, let's assume the North Carolina General Assembly is unable to pass legislation -- either in the regular 2015 session or a special session later this year -- and the primary is non-compliant. Well, how willing is the North Carolina Republican Party to stand idly by and just take the super penalty? Would they like Missouri Republicans before them in 2011 be open to switching to caucuses within the permitted timeframe in order to avoid the penalty?
...and itself.
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Maryland Senate Bill to Push Presidential Primary to the End of April Passes House with Amendment
Yesterday, the Maryland state Senate unanimously passed the House version of legislation to move the presidential primary in the Old Line state back to the fourth Tuesday in April. Today, the Maryland state House returned the favor. The lower chamber passed by a 138-1 vote a slightly amended version of the the Senate-passed bill -- SB 204 -- that mostly lines up with the amendment added in the Senate on Tuesday.
Circularity of all of this aside, both bills to move the 2016 Maryland presidential primary back to April 26 have overwhelmingly passed both chambers now. Yes, there are small differences across the two versions, but those could be solved either in conference or by again bringing the bills into sync with each other in the originating chamber. Given how the bills have passed -- with just one lone dissenting vote in the House on both bills -- this is not a situation similar to Mississippi where a small difference between chambers killed the effort to move the presidential primary in the Magnolia state into the SEC primary position.
This legislation would schedule the Maryland primary for the same date as the contests in neighbors, Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Circularity of all of this aside, both bills to move the 2016 Maryland presidential primary back to April 26 have overwhelmingly passed both chambers now. Yes, there are small differences across the two versions, but those could be solved either in conference or by again bringing the bills into sync with each other in the originating chamber. Given how the bills have passed -- with just one lone dissenting vote in the House on both bills -- this is not a situation similar to Mississippi where a small difference between chambers killed the effort to move the presidential primary in the Magnolia state into the SEC primary position.
This legislation would schedule the Maryland primary for the same date as the contests in neighbors, Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Maine Democrats Plan for Sunday, March 6 Caucuses in 2016
The Maine Democratic Party at the end of March made available to the public its draft 2016 delegate selection plan.1 This further clarifies where the caucuses states will fall on the 2016 Democratic presidential primary calendar. Though the method of delegate allocation remains unsettled in the plan, the Sunday, March 6 date for municipal caucuses seems firmer.
Actually, the March 6 is the same date as the state party's "first determining step" (county caucuses) in 2012. The party held municipal caucuses primarily on February 26, but there was no binding presidential preference vote that took place. It would have been out of compliance with national party rules. Though it was the second step in the caucuses/convention process, the March 6 county caucuses were the stage where the presidential preference vote took place.
Sunday caucuses are not unusual for Maine Democrats. The party last caucused on Sunday during the 2008 cycle.
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 Idaho Democratic Party site. FHQ will also keep a version of the plan here.
Actually, the March 6 is the same date as the state party's "first determining step" (county caucuses) in 2012. The party held municipal caucuses primarily on February 26, but there was no binding presidential preference vote that took place. It would have been out of compliance with national party rules. Though it was the second step in the caucuses/convention process, the March 6 county caucuses were the stage where the presidential preference vote took place.
Sunday caucuses are not unusual for Maine Democrats. The party last caucused on Sunday during the 2008 cycle.
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 Idaho Democratic Party site. FHQ will also keep a version of the plan here.
Connecticut Republicans Looking Toward 2016 Caucuses with Presidential Primary Seemingly Anchored in Late April?
Two Republican-sponsored bills to move the Connecticut presidential primary to the first week in March have been bottled up in committee within the Democratic-controlled state legislature since being introduced in late January. Republicans in the Nutmeg state, however, are apparently not content to conduct the party's delegate selection process in a primary on the last Tuesday in April. The impasse has the Connecticut Republican Party considering a switch to caucuses at an earlier point on the 2016 presidential primary calendar.
Neil Vigdor from Hearst Connecticut Media:
Democrats in the Nutmeg state would/could continue with the primary. That would allow Connecticut Democrats to align their nomination contest with the primary in neighboring Rhode Island. If New York moves back into April that would connect Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York with contests in Pennsylvania, Delaware and likely Maryland.
Republicans, assuming the state party moves to a date in March, could caucus on March 1 which would group them with other primaries in the region in Massachusetts and Vermont.
Though there would appear to be an appeal to going earlier, even among Democrats, that is balanced by the fact that Connecticut Democrats stand to gain delegates for having an April primary and, if New York joins the discussion, for clustering its contest with two or more regional partners. [This was something that Joe Lenski and FHQ discussed in a Twitter back and forth back when the aforementioned Connecticut bill were introduced.] The Democratic nomination race is also shaping up to be far less competitive than the Republican race, decreasing the urgency to move up to an earlier calendar position among state Democrats.
--
FHQ really wishes Mr. Vigdor had not recycled some of the problematic material from his article two months ago on the two bills to move the Connecticut primary. We dispensed with that already.
Neil Vigdor from Hearst Connecticut Media:
A task force created by the Connecticut GOP is seeking legal opinions on whether Republicans could bypass the Legislature to adopt the caucus model, an alternative that the group's chairman, Bridgeport's Michael Garrett, said is intriguing to party.
"They're open-minded," said Garrett, a Republican State Central Committee member.
Based on preliminary discussions, a GOP caucus would be held in each of the state's 36 state senatorial districts, with the state party printing out standard ballots and local Republican Town Committees shouldering election administration costs, according to Garrett. If a change in the law is required, Garrett acknowledged that the plan doesn't stand much of a chance.Connecticut Republicans would be on firm ground legally if the state party voted to switch to a caucuses/convention system. That is a matter -- the rules behind the nomination of a party's candidate or in this case reflecting presidential preference in the state for that purpose -- that is left up to party discretion. Republican candidates would still appear on the April primary ballot, but the primary would be a beauty contest for Connecticut Republicans, falling after the proposed earlier caucuses that would have initiated the delegate selection/allocation process.
Democrats in the Nutmeg state would/could continue with the primary. That would allow Connecticut Democrats to align their nomination contest with the primary in neighboring Rhode Island. If New York moves back into April that would connect Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York with contests in Pennsylvania, Delaware and likely Maryland.
Republicans, assuming the state party moves to a date in March, could caucus on March 1 which would group them with other primaries in the region in Massachusetts and Vermont.
Though there would appear to be an appeal to going earlier, even among Democrats, that is balanced by the fact that Connecticut Democrats stand to gain delegates for having an April primary and, if New York joins the discussion, for clustering its contest with two or more regional partners. [This was something that Joe Lenski and FHQ discussed in a Twitter back and forth back when the aforementioned Connecticut bill were introduced.] The Democratic nomination race is also shaping up to be far less competitive than the Republican race, decreasing the urgency to move up to an earlier calendar position among state Democrats.
--
FHQ really wishes Mr. Vigdor had not recycled some of the problematic material from his article two months ago on the two bills to move the Connecticut primary. We dispensed with that already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)