On Friday, April 10, Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) signed SB 1178 into law. The legislation appropriates funds for the reestablished but newly separate presidential primary in the Gem state. Governor Otter signed the bill recreating the presidential primary a day earlier.
The $2 million price tag will go toward the March 8 presidential primary. Only Idaho Republicans have opted to use the primary as a means of expressing presidential preference. Democrats in the state have already chosen to maintain the caucuses/convention system the party has traditionally used. Idaho Democrats have selected March 22 as the date of the party's precinct caucuses.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Monday, April 13, 2015
Legislation Introduced to Move Ohio Presidential Primary Back a Week to March 15
Ohio Representative Mike Dovilla (R-7th, Berea) on Monday, April 13 introduced legislation to move back the presidential primary in the Buckeye state. HB 153 would shift the Ohio presidential primary from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March to the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March. For 2016, that would mean the difference between a March 8 primary under the current law and a March 15 contest if the law is altered.
This represents a small but potentially significant shift. That one week change means moving out of the proportionality window to a date that allows Ohio Republicans to allocate their national convention delegates in a more winner-take-all fashion. Early reporting on the bill indicates that this is the motivation behind the bill. Yet, FHQ would urge caution on that particular conclusion. That is not a function of the reporting being wrong. Rather, FHQ would point out that Ohio Republicans have typically utilized a winner-take-all by congressional district method of allocation in the past. 2012 was something of an exception when to comply with RNC rules, Ohio Republicans made the small sliver of statewide, at-large delegates proportional while the congressional district delegates were doled out to the winner of each congressional district. The "16 mini-contests" that Darrell Rowland at the Columbus Dispatch mentions (and implies were unique in 2012) have not been an uncommon feature of Ohio Republican delegate allocation. According to the Green Papers, Ohio has been winner-take-all by congressional district since at least 2000. 2012 was the only slight blip in that series of cycles.
But to be even winner-take-all by congressional district as has historically been the case in the Buckeye state, Ohio Republicans will have to have a later presidential primary.
...but just a week later to be compliant.
This represents a small but potentially significant shift. That one week change means moving out of the proportionality window to a date that allows Ohio Republicans to allocate their national convention delegates in a more winner-take-all fashion. Early reporting on the bill indicates that this is the motivation behind the bill. Yet, FHQ would urge caution on that particular conclusion. That is not a function of the reporting being wrong. Rather, FHQ would point out that Ohio Republicans have typically utilized a winner-take-all by congressional district method of allocation in the past. 2012 was something of an exception when to comply with RNC rules, Ohio Republicans made the small sliver of statewide, at-large delegates proportional while the congressional district delegates were doled out to the winner of each congressional district. The "16 mini-contests" that Darrell Rowland at the Columbus Dispatch mentions (and implies were unique in 2012) have not been an uncommon feature of Ohio Republican delegate allocation. According to the Green Papers, Ohio has been winner-take-all by congressional district since at least 2000. 2012 was the only slight blip in that series of cycles.
But to be even winner-take-all by congressional district as has historically been the case in the Buckeye state, Ohio Republicans will have to have a later presidential primary.
...but just a week later to be compliant.
Rhode Island Bill Would Move Presidential Primary from April to March
A bill filed on Thursday, April 9 would move the presidential primary in Rhode Island up from the fourth Tuesday in April to the fourth Tuesday in March. HB 6054 was introduced by state House minority leader, Brian C. Newberry (R-48th, New Smithfield). The move would pull Rhode Island out of the calendar position it used in 2012 with Connecticut, Delaware, New York and Pennsylvania to form a mid-Atlantic/northeastern regional primary and schedule it for 2016 alongside the Arizona primary on March 22.
This particulars behind this measure resemble in a number of ways the stalled effort by legislative Republicans in Connecticut to push an earlier primary bill through a Democratic-controlled legislature. If the regional cluster can be replicated in 2016, that means an additional number of delegates will be tacked on to an already small state's delegation to the Democratic National Convention. Republicans are hypothetically more motivated to move contests up in 2016 to participate in an active nomination race while Democrats are content to hold later contests and possibly in regional groupings that in both cases gain delegates.
Tracking...
This particulars behind this measure resemble in a number of ways the stalled effort by legislative Republicans in Connecticut to push an earlier primary bill through a Democratic-controlled legislature. If the regional cluster can be replicated in 2016, that means an additional number of delegates will be tacked on to an already small state's delegation to the Democratic National Convention. Republicans are hypothetically more motivated to move contests up in 2016 to participate in an active nomination race while Democrats are content to hold later contests and possibly in regional groupings that in both cases gain delegates.
Tracking...
Nevada Senate Committee Again Tweaks February Presidential Primary Bill
On Friday, April 10, the Nevada state Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections rescinded its earlier recommendation to the chamber to pass SB 421. Instead, the committee made a technical correction -- changing the date of the proposed primary from the third Tuesday to the last Tuesday in February -- and sent it back out with a "do pass" recommendation.
There are a few reminders about the dynamics around this bill that should be mentioned. First, the bill's sponsor, Senator James Settlemeyer (R-17th, Minden), sits on the committee and helped usher it through despite testimony from the Nevada Republican Party in opposition to the measure. What Settlemeyer may be able to overcome in committee is different than the obstacles he and his bill may face on the floor of the Senate. Secondly, this bill differs meaningfully from the version now active in the Assembly. While the Assembly bill creates a separate presidential primary it makes participation by the state parties optional. If the parties opt in, then a primary date in February is agreed upon and a primary election is conducted. However, if the parties opt instead to select delegates and express presidential preference through a caucuses/convention system, then there is no primary election. The Senate bill makes the primary a requirement, or at least attempts to add some legal muscle to the primary mode of delegate selection in the Silver state.
The Assembly bill is, perhaps, more forward looking: attempting to add the option for the future. The Senate bill, on the other hand, is intended, according to the sponsor, affect the 2016 process in Nevada.
The Assembly version seems the more feasible of the two. That is particularly true since both state parties have already expressed their intention to hold caucuses in 2016.
There are a few reminders about the dynamics around this bill that should be mentioned. First, the bill's sponsor, Senator James Settlemeyer (R-17th, Minden), sits on the committee and helped usher it through despite testimony from the Nevada Republican Party in opposition to the measure. What Settlemeyer may be able to overcome in committee is different than the obstacles he and his bill may face on the floor of the Senate. Secondly, this bill differs meaningfully from the version now active in the Assembly. While the Assembly bill creates a separate presidential primary it makes participation by the state parties optional. If the parties opt in, then a primary date in February is agreed upon and a primary election is conducted. However, if the parties opt instead to select delegates and express presidential preference through a caucuses/convention system, then there is no primary election. The Senate bill makes the primary a requirement, or at least attempts to add some legal muscle to the primary mode of delegate selection in the Silver state.
The Assembly bill is, perhaps, more forward looking: attempting to add the option for the future. The Senate bill, on the other hand, is intended, according to the sponsor, affect the 2016 process in Nevada.
The Assembly version seems the more feasible of the two. That is particularly true since both state parties have already expressed their intention to hold caucuses in 2016.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
On Rand Paul, the Republican Presidential Nomination and Delegate Selection Rules
Jim Rutenberg has a look in today's New York Times Magazine at one advantage the Rand Paul campaign may have in a protracted race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination: its knowledge of and ability to strategize about the Republican National Committee's intricate delegate selection rules. As Rutenberg describes it in one segment:
To make sure that the binds created during the primary or first step caucuses phase stick, the RNC also altered the process voting on the nomination at the convention. These are the other two ways in which the national party tightened its rules for 2016. First, even if a delegate bound to, say, Mitt Romney preferred Ron Paul, said delegate could not vote for Ron Paul at the convention in 2016. Rule 16(a)(2) directs the secretary of the (national) convention to "faithfully announce and record each delegate's vote in accordance with the delegate's obligation under these rules, state law or state party rules." If a candidate is bound, then, the secretary of the convention will recognize the binding rather than the delegate's preference if there is a conflict. What happens in those precinct caucuses is the guide.
That rules change is further buttressed by the increased threshold a candidate must meet to have his or her name placed in nomination. According to Rule 40, a candidate must in 2016 control delegations from eight states rather than the five that were required in 2012 to be formally nominated.
Together, those three changes makes any "wrangling" less meaningful when it comes to the nomination part of the national convention. Delegates can also affect planks on the platform and other party business, but the nomination is the big ticket item for the convention. And the RNC has closed a number of loopholes.
--
FHQ spoke with Rutenberg about this story, and we raised and discussed the change that closed off the non-binding caucuses loophole. One other factor we also chatted about that did not make the article was what would happens when candidates who have won some delegates withdraw from the race. What happens to those delegates? Would they become a set of free agent delegates possibly circumventing the prohibition on non-binding caucuses through a side door? The quick answer is yes in theory. However, there is a bit of nuance to this. Here is where that "mostly" from before reenters the discussion.
The interesting thing is that states and Republican state parties have in some cases been reading that change to the binding rules quite literally. That is why Iowa Republicans were concerned about the Ames Straw Poll. There was some worry that that would qualify as the first, statewide vote and thus delegates would have to be bound based on its results. Other comments from people within state parties have seemingly indicated that the thinking is delegates are bound based on the results of the primary or caucuses period. That there are no exceptions even for the delegates bound to candidates no longer in the race in April, much less at the July convention. In other words, if Carly Fiorina were to win delegates in Iowa but withdrew after the SEC primary on March 1, those Iowa delegates would still be bound to her at the national convention. FHQ does not read the RNC rules that way, and I'm willing to bet that Rand Paul and his campaign are not either. That is particularly true if Fiorina in this example were to release her Iowa delegates. They would become free agent delegate slots.
All of this does seem to open the door to some wild possibilities. On the one hand, non-binding caucuses are out, but on the other 2016 offers this supposedly wide open race for the Republican nomination. That means all those candidates could win some delegates and that even if some of those candidates withdraw, their delegates could be meaningful in helping to champion a candidate who does not hold the delegate lead based on the delegates he or she won alone. To make this clearer, Rand Paul, for instance, could wrangle to control those released delegate slots in the same district and state conventions his father's campaign exploited in 2012 to overcome a 2016 deficit in the delegate count to hypothetical leader, Jeb Bush. I mean, come on. This sounds like a dream come true for the three of us rules nerds out there wandering the wilderness, fingers crossed, hoping for just such a scenario.
Yet, here comes FHQ to throw some cold water on that notion. All this does is raise the importance of the delegate rules at both the state and national level. And it is those very rules that are very likely to limit the number of delegates who are free agents in the first place. The total number of delegate slots allocated to one candidate but filled after released in the selection process by a delegate aligned with another candidate is likely to be small. Just how small depends on a couple of factors.
First, it bears repeating that the earliest states -- carve-outs excluded -- have to allocate their delegates to candidates in a proportional manner. That said, part of the proportionality rules allow state parties to set a minimum threshold of the vote that a candidate must receive in order to be allocated any delegates at the congressional district or statewide level. That threshold can be set as high as 20% (Rule 16(c)(3)(i)). 20% is a high bar in a multi-candidate race. That means that losing candidates -- already more likely to withdraw -- are even less likely to win any delegate slots that can be exploited by other surviving candidates down the road in the process.
Secondly, the field is going to winnow the deeper the nomination process gets into the calendar. Those candidates most likely to drop out are the candidates who may be shut out of delegates within the proportionality window (March 1-14; again, the carve-outs are excluded). That means that a significantly winnowed field (two or maybe three viable candidates if history is our guide) and the end of the proportionality window are going to hit nearly simultaneously. And that translates to there likely being many fewer released delegate slots to sweep up from the beginning stages of the race.
There may be some free agent delegates in the 2016 Republican nomination process, but they are likely to be more like John Edwards' delegates in the 2008 Democratic nomination race: free to choose from among the remaining candidates but very unlikely to be decisive. Chaos could happen, but history (with an admittedly small N) and the rules suggest otherwise.
And if chaos does occur, I hope those 2012 Santorum folks now on Rand Paul's 2016 team don't count delegates like this.
--
1 Minnesota Republicans are in pursuit of a waiver from the Republican National Committee to continue the caucuses/convention practice as they have in the past.
The process by which presidential candidates are nominated is, at its most basic level, a race toward a magic number of party delegates — in the Republican Party’s case, 1,235 required to win — amassed state by state and, in some cases, congressional district by congressional district. Getting them depends not only on the speechifying, door-to-door vote-hunting and million-dollar ad buys we associate with campaigning, but also on a bewildering array of procedural minutia: obscure national bylaws that overlay a mind-bending patchwork of local rules that can vary drastically from state to state, some of which award delegates not based on votes received in primary elections but on back-room wrangling at local party conventions and meetings that take place weeks or even months after votes are cast.FHQ has a few thoughts on this and Rand Paul campaign strategizing in general. First, as Rutenberg points out later in the article, the RNC has tightened its rules since 2012. The objective was to cut down in 2016 on some of (what the national party viewed as) the shenanigans the Ron Paul campaign and its supporters pulled in the last campaign. This affects three areas of the nomination process for the 2016 cycle. First, there are no more non-binding caucuses. Any statewide presidential preference vote -- like a vote at precinct caucuses -- now has to guide the delegate allocation in states like Iowa or Minnesota or Maine (among others).1 That means that even if there is "back-room wrangling at local party conventions and meetings" later in the course of the caucuses/convention sequence, it will only affect who a delegate is, not to whom that delegate is bound. The preferences expressed in the first, statewide step -- the precinct caucuses -- is the one that guides subsequent steps. While the selection of delegates is still open in district conventions and at the state convention, the allocation part is mostly done after that first step. [FHQ will revisit that "mostly" momentarily.]
To make sure that the binds created during the primary or first step caucuses phase stick, the RNC also altered the process voting on the nomination at the convention. These are the other two ways in which the national party tightened its rules for 2016. First, even if a delegate bound to, say, Mitt Romney preferred Ron Paul, said delegate could not vote for Ron Paul at the convention in 2016. Rule 16(a)(2) directs the secretary of the (national) convention to "faithfully announce and record each delegate's vote in accordance with the delegate's obligation under these rules, state law or state party rules." If a candidate is bound, then, the secretary of the convention will recognize the binding rather than the delegate's preference if there is a conflict. What happens in those precinct caucuses is the guide.
That rules change is further buttressed by the increased threshold a candidate must meet to have his or her name placed in nomination. According to Rule 40, a candidate must in 2016 control delegations from eight states rather than the five that were required in 2012 to be formally nominated.
Together, those three changes makes any "wrangling" less meaningful when it comes to the nomination part of the national convention. Delegates can also affect planks on the platform and other party business, but the nomination is the big ticket item for the convention. And the RNC has closed a number of loopholes.
--
FHQ spoke with Rutenberg about this story, and we raised and discussed the change that closed off the non-binding caucuses loophole. One other factor we also chatted about that did not make the article was what would happens when candidates who have won some delegates withdraw from the race. What happens to those delegates? Would they become a set of free agent delegates possibly circumventing the prohibition on non-binding caucuses through a side door? The quick answer is yes in theory. However, there is a bit of nuance to this. Here is where that "mostly" from before reenters the discussion.
The interesting thing is that states and Republican state parties have in some cases been reading that change to the binding rules quite literally. That is why Iowa Republicans were concerned about the Ames Straw Poll. There was some worry that that would qualify as the first, statewide vote and thus delegates would have to be bound based on its results. Other comments from people within state parties have seemingly indicated that the thinking is delegates are bound based on the results of the primary or caucuses period. That there are no exceptions even for the delegates bound to candidates no longer in the race in April, much less at the July convention. In other words, if Carly Fiorina were to win delegates in Iowa but withdrew after the SEC primary on March 1, those Iowa delegates would still be bound to her at the national convention. FHQ does not read the RNC rules that way, and I'm willing to bet that Rand Paul and his campaign are not either. That is particularly true if Fiorina in this example were to release her Iowa delegates. They would become free agent delegate slots.
All of this does seem to open the door to some wild possibilities. On the one hand, non-binding caucuses are out, but on the other 2016 offers this supposedly wide open race for the Republican nomination. That means all those candidates could win some delegates and that even if some of those candidates withdraw, their delegates could be meaningful in helping to champion a candidate who does not hold the delegate lead based on the delegates he or she won alone. To make this clearer, Rand Paul, for instance, could wrangle to control those released delegate slots in the same district and state conventions his father's campaign exploited in 2012 to overcome a 2016 deficit in the delegate count to hypothetical leader, Jeb Bush. I mean, come on. This sounds like a dream come true for the three of us rules nerds out there wandering the wilderness, fingers crossed, hoping for just such a scenario.
Yet, here comes FHQ to throw some cold water on that notion. All this does is raise the importance of the delegate rules at both the state and national level. And it is those very rules that are very likely to limit the number of delegates who are free agents in the first place. The total number of delegate slots allocated to one candidate but filled after released in the selection process by a delegate aligned with another candidate is likely to be small. Just how small depends on a couple of factors.
First, it bears repeating that the earliest states -- carve-outs excluded -- have to allocate their delegates to candidates in a proportional manner. That said, part of the proportionality rules allow state parties to set a minimum threshold of the vote that a candidate must receive in order to be allocated any delegates at the congressional district or statewide level. That threshold can be set as high as 20% (Rule 16(c)(3)(i)). 20% is a high bar in a multi-candidate race. That means that losing candidates -- already more likely to withdraw -- are even less likely to win any delegate slots that can be exploited by other surviving candidates down the road in the process.
Secondly, the field is going to winnow the deeper the nomination process gets into the calendar. Those candidates most likely to drop out are the candidates who may be shut out of delegates within the proportionality window (March 1-14; again, the carve-outs are excluded). That means that a significantly winnowed field (two or maybe three viable candidates if history is our guide) and the end of the proportionality window are going to hit nearly simultaneously. And that translates to there likely being many fewer released delegate slots to sweep up from the beginning stages of the race.
There may be some free agent delegates in the 2016 Republican nomination process, but they are likely to be more like John Edwards' delegates in the 2008 Democratic nomination race: free to choose from among the remaining candidates but very unlikely to be decisive. Chaos could happen, but history (with an admittedly small N) and the rules suggest otherwise.
And if chaos does occur, I hope those 2012 Santorum folks now on Rand Paul's 2016 team don't count delegates like this.
--
1 Minnesota Republicans are in pursuit of a waiver from the Republican National Committee to continue the caucuses/convention practice as they have in the past.
Maryland House Agrees to Senate Changes, Passes Late April Presidential Primary Bill
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.
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.
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)