Ohio Governor John Kasich (R) signed HB 153 into law according to a Wednesday, June 10 press release.1 The measure shifts back the date of the Ohio primary election -- presidential primary included -- from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March to the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March.
That slight change means the Ohio presidential primary will move from March 8 to March 15 for the 2016 cycle. The move pushes the Ohio Republican presidential primary out of the RNC proportionality window, allowing Republicans in the Buckeye state to allocate delegates in a winner-take-all fashion. The party has signaled that it would make that rules change as well. However, that alteration was not brought about by Kasich's signature on the bill. The signing did facilitate such a change, but the state party will have to act on that.
--
1 Press release:
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
March 1 a Go for Colorado Democratic Caucuses in 2016
A few weeks ago, the Colorado Democratic Party released a draft of its 2016 delegate selection plan.1 Following the failed attempt at the close of the 2015 state legislative session to switch from a caucus/convention system to a more open primary system, both parties were essentially locked into caucuses and Colorado Democrats have selected March 1 for the date on which to hold their "first determining step" caucuses.
Parties in Colorado have two possible dates on which they can conduct precinct caucuses (with a presidential preference vote): the first Tuesday in February or the first Tuesday in March. The former is an option added for the 2008 cycle to allow the state parties the latitude to opt into a date that would be early enough to at the very least keep the Colorado caucuses in line with the logjam of states holding contests on February 5, Super Tuesday in 2008. As 2012 approached, the February option remained in state law, but the March option was pushed up a couple of weeks from the third to first Tuesday in March.
That meant that the second, later option was in line with the earliest date allowed on the informally coordinated calendar structure the national parties had devised for the 2012 cycle; the first Tuesday in March. It also meant that the caucuses date choice allowed by Colorado law was basically an optionless option. The national party delegate selection rules in 2012 prohibited February contests (with some loopholes and nose-thumbing states). Colorado Democrats settled on the March option in 2011 and have done so again in 2015 for the 2016 presidential election cycle.
Though non-binding caucuses technically allowed Colorado Republicans to hold February 7 caucuses in 2012 without penalty from the Republican National Committee, the new 2016 rules requiring the binding of delegates (based on the earliest, statewide vote) limits Republicans in the Centennial state in a way they were not in 2011. It also means that Colorado Republicans would be vulnerable to the more severe penalties the RNC introduced for 2016. Still, the option exists, but it is a decision for another time.
For now, Colorado Democrats are headed for March 1 caucuses. That places Colorado caucusgoers behind only Nevadans on the calendar in western state voting.
--
1 The above link is to the plan from the Colorado Democratic Party site. FHQ will also keep a version of the plan here.
Parties in Colorado have two possible dates on which they can conduct precinct caucuses (with a presidential preference vote): the first Tuesday in February or the first Tuesday in March. The former is an option added for the 2008 cycle to allow the state parties the latitude to opt into a date that would be early enough to at the very least keep the Colorado caucuses in line with the logjam of states holding contests on February 5, Super Tuesday in 2008. As 2012 approached, the February option remained in state law, but the March option was pushed up a couple of weeks from the third to first Tuesday in March.
That meant that the second, later option was in line with the earliest date allowed on the informally coordinated calendar structure the national parties had devised for the 2012 cycle; the first Tuesday in March. It also meant that the caucuses date choice allowed by Colorado law was basically an optionless option. The national party delegate selection rules in 2012 prohibited February contests (with some loopholes and nose-thumbing states). Colorado Democrats settled on the March option in 2011 and have done so again in 2015 for the 2016 presidential election cycle.
Though non-binding caucuses technically allowed Colorado Republicans to hold February 7 caucuses in 2012 without penalty from the Republican National Committee, the new 2016 rules requiring the binding of delegates (based on the earliest, statewide vote) limits Republicans in the Centennial state in a way they were not in 2011. It also means that Colorado Republicans would be vulnerable to the more severe penalties the RNC introduced for 2016. Still, the option exists, but it is a decision for another time.
For now, Colorado Democrats are headed for March 1 caucuses. That places Colorado caucusgoers behind only Nevadans on the calendar in western state voting.
--
1 The above link is to the plan from the Colorado Democratic Party site. FHQ will also keep a version of the plan here.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Alabama to March 1, Joins SEC Primary
On Thursday, May 21, the Alabama House passed legislation moving the presidential primary (and those for other offices) up a week to the first Tuesday in March. The measure, SB 240, had already passed the state Senate earlier in the 2015 session.
Both moves, neither of which garnered more than three dissenting votes along the way, cleared the way for the bill to be transmitted to Governor Robert Bentley (R) for his signature. But that signature never came. Instead the bill sat on the governor's desk as the clock ran down on the state legislature's work for 2015.
This is noteworthy because that potentially put the Alabama presidential primary move in pocket veto territory; a bill passed late in the legislative session but not signed before the legislature adjourns. A bill not signed under those circumstances is vetoed. However, the legislative session ended on Thursday, June 4, two weeks after it passed both legislative chambers and was transmitted to the governor. That is close to the end of the session, but not close enough to trigger a pocket veto.
The reason for that is based on two related rules. First, bills passed by the legislature and sent to the governor have six days (not counting Sundays) to be signed. After that a passed bill becomes law without the signature of the governor. Second, due to the six day window created in that rule, only bills passed in the last five days of the legislative session are open to a pocket veto (those passed bills that do not have a full six day window for gubernatorial consideration).
The SEC primary bill was never in any danger of being pocket vetoed, but it did become law after Thursday, May 28 without Governor Bentley's signature. Alabama joins Arkansas, Tennessee and Texas on March 1. Georgia will also be a part of the southern regional primary that can also claim Oklahoma and Virginia. Massachusetts, Minnesota and Vermont will also conduct primaries or caucuses on that date.
UPDATE (6/9/15, 7:30pm): Odd timing, but news broke (via Mike Cason at AL.com) after the posting of this piece that Governor Bentley signed SB 240 on Wednesday, May 27. That message was apparently not delivered to the Alabama state legislature as of this afternoon (screen grab):
The assignment of an act number seems to only come after a gubernatorial signature (This was the case with the 2011 bill that created a consolidated March primary.) or the expiration of the six day window mentioned above in the original text of the post.
And Secretary of State John Merrill's office press release from late this afternoon indicates that the bill will be signed tomorrow morning at 10am (screen grab):
There's a seemingly weird level of confusion on this one. Regardless, Alabama will have a March 1 presidential primary in 2016.
UPDATE (6/10/15): Ceremonial signing.
Both moves, neither of which garnered more than three dissenting votes along the way, cleared the way for the bill to be transmitted to Governor Robert Bentley (R) for his signature. But that signature never came. Instead the bill sat on the governor's desk as the clock ran down on the state legislature's work for 2015.
This is noteworthy because that potentially put the Alabama presidential primary move in pocket veto territory; a bill passed late in the legislative session but not signed before the legislature adjourns. A bill not signed under those circumstances is vetoed. However, the legislative session ended on Thursday, June 4, two weeks after it passed both legislative chambers and was transmitted to the governor. That is close to the end of the session, but not close enough to trigger a pocket veto.
The reason for that is based on two related rules. First, bills passed by the legislature and sent to the governor have six days (not counting Sundays) to be signed. After that a passed bill becomes law without the signature of the governor. Second, due to the six day window created in that rule, only bills passed in the last five days of the legislative session are open to a pocket veto (those passed bills that do not have a full six day window for gubernatorial consideration).
The SEC primary bill was never in any danger of being pocket vetoed, but it did become law after Thursday, May 28 without Governor Bentley's signature. Alabama joins Arkansas, Tennessee and Texas on March 1. Georgia will also be a part of the southern regional primary that can also claim Oklahoma and Virginia. Massachusetts, Minnesota and Vermont will also conduct primaries or caucuses on that date.
UPDATE (6/9/15, 7:30pm): Odd timing, but news broke (via Mike Cason at AL.com) after the posting of this piece that Governor Bentley signed SB 240 on Wednesday, May 27. That message was apparently not delivered to the Alabama state legislature as of this afternoon (screen grab):
The assignment of an act number seems to only come after a gubernatorial signature (This was the case with the 2011 bill that created a consolidated March primary.) or the expiration of the six day window mentioned above in the original text of the post.
And Secretary of State John Merrill's office press release from late this afternoon indicates that the bill will be signed tomorrow morning at 10am (screen grab):
There's a seemingly weird level of confusion on this one. Regardless, Alabama will have a March 1 presidential primary in 2016.
UPDATE (6/10/15): Ceremonial signing.
Brownback Signs Legislation Permanently Eliminating Presidential Primary in Kansas
On Monday, June 8, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback (R) signed into law the conference committee report on HB 2104. The omnibus elections package tweaks a number of provisions in the Kansas statutes, but importantly strikes mention of a presidential primary from state election code.
The custom in the Sunflower state for the last two decades has been to cancel the primary one cycle at a time, leaving the April election on the books as an option for future cycles. The new law signed on Monday breaks with that pattern. Neither party in Kansas has utilized the presidential primary election as a means of selecting or allocating delegates to the national convention since 1992. That is five straight presidential election cycles that a presidential primary has existed in the state and been canceled. Kansas parties have opted into a caucus/convention process, but now will not have that option.
Kansas is now locked in as a caucus state (for 2016 and likely beyond barring future action by the legislature). Democrats have already made plans to hold Saturday, March 5 caucuses in 2016. If Kansas Republicans stay true to the form established over the last two cycles, they, too, will conduct caucuses on March 5, the Saturday after Super Tuesday.
The custom in the Sunflower state for the last two decades has been to cancel the primary one cycle at a time, leaving the April election on the books as an option for future cycles. The new law signed on Monday breaks with that pattern. Neither party in Kansas has utilized the presidential primary election as a means of selecting or allocating delegates to the national convention since 1992. That is five straight presidential election cycles that a presidential primary has existed in the state and been canceled. Kansas parties have opted into a caucus/convention process, but now will not have that option.
Kansas is now locked in as a caucus state (for 2016 and likely beyond barring future action by the legislature). Democrats have already made plans to hold Saturday, March 5 caucuses in 2016. If Kansas Republicans stay true to the form established over the last two cycles, they, too, will conduct caucuses on March 5, the Saturday after Super Tuesday.
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Makings of a Deal Emerge in North Carolina Presidential Primary Impasse
The showdown between the North Carolina House and Senate over the positioning of the Tar Heel state presidential primary in 2016 may be in its waning days. According to North Carolina Republican Party Chair Claude Pope (via Jones and Blount), a deal has been reached between the state party and leaders in the General Assembly to move the North Carolina presidential primary back into compliance with national party delegate selection rules.
The details of the deal were not immediately made clear -- specifically the date of the contest -- but news that defenders of the tethered position in the Senate are open to a change is significant. It was on the Republican-controlled Senate side that the amended version of an omnibus elections bill added the presidential primary date change in 2013. With the end of the 2013 session bearing down on them, and with it pressure to get the elections bill through before that adjournment, the Republican-controlled House went along with the date change.
But that decision has put the North Carolina Republican Party in a vulnerable position ever since. A North Carolina presidential primary scheduled on the Tuesday after a February South Carolina primary would put Tar Heel state Republicans in violation of the Republican National Committee rules; most importantly the so-called super penalty that would reduce the size of a state delegation (with 30 or more delegates) to just 12 delegates. In the case of the North Carolina Republican delegation to the 2016 Republican convention in Cleveland that would mean a more than 80% reduction.
That super penalty has been effective during the 2013-15 period in bringing formerly rogue states like Arizona, Florida and Michigan back into compliance with the national party rules. North Carolina, however, has held out to this point.
That looks to be changing though. The House has already passed legislation to shift the North Carolina presidential primary to March 8. In the lead up to that bill's introduction, there was a push, led by Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest (R), to move the primary back to March 22 to facilitate a winner-take-all primary. Whether that latter option is still on the table remains to be determined. Given that state Senate proponents have valued the earliness of the tethered primary, it would seem that March 8 would likely be the latest date on which they would schedule the primary. But joining the SEC primary on March 1 -- the earliest, compliant date under the rules -- may still be an option as well.
The prognosis for any deal passing the General Assembly would have to be tentatively rated as pretty good. The House bill passed nearly unanimously and as long as the deal sets the primary date on or after March 1, it will likely have the votes of Democrats. The current law has them out of compliance with the Democratic National Committee which places some urgency behind action on their parts as well. Democrats may be in the minority in the North Carolina General Assembly and have options limited to those proposed by Republicans, but they still also have to act to bring about a change.
--
Thanks to Jonathan Kappler for the heads up on the Jones and Blount story.
The details of the deal were not immediately made clear -- specifically the date of the contest -- but news that defenders of the tethered position in the Senate are open to a change is significant. It was on the Republican-controlled Senate side that the amended version of an omnibus elections bill added the presidential primary date change in 2013. With the end of the 2013 session bearing down on them, and with it pressure to get the elections bill through before that adjournment, the Republican-controlled House went along with the date change.
But that decision has put the North Carolina Republican Party in a vulnerable position ever since. A North Carolina presidential primary scheduled on the Tuesday after a February South Carolina primary would put Tar Heel state Republicans in violation of the Republican National Committee rules; most importantly the so-called super penalty that would reduce the size of a state delegation (with 30 or more delegates) to just 12 delegates. In the case of the North Carolina Republican delegation to the 2016 Republican convention in Cleveland that would mean a more than 80% reduction.
That super penalty has been effective during the 2013-15 period in bringing formerly rogue states like Arizona, Florida and Michigan back into compliance with the national party rules. North Carolina, however, has held out to this point.
That looks to be changing though. The House has already passed legislation to shift the North Carolina presidential primary to March 8. In the lead up to that bill's introduction, there was a push, led by Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest (R), to move the primary back to March 22 to facilitate a winner-take-all primary. Whether that latter option is still on the table remains to be determined. Given that state Senate proponents have valued the earliness of the tethered primary, it would seem that March 8 would likely be the latest date on which they would schedule the primary. But joining the SEC primary on March 1 -- the earliest, compliant date under the rules -- may still be an option as well.
The prognosis for any deal passing the General Assembly would have to be tentatively rated as pretty good. The House bill passed nearly unanimously and as long as the deal sets the primary date on or after March 1, it will likely have the votes of Democrats. The current law has them out of compliance with the Democratic National Committee which places some urgency behind action on their parts as well. Democrats may be in the minority in the North Carolina General Assembly and have options limited to those proposed by Republicans, but they still also have to act to bring about a change.
--
Thanks to Jonathan Kappler for the heads up on the Jones and Blount story.
March Presidential Primary Effort Ends at Close of Connecticut Legislative Session
Back in January, Connecticut Republicans had visions of a potentially more open primary process and an earlier presidential primary. And while Democrats in control of the state legislature and Connecticut Secretary of State Denise Merrill (D) closed the door on an earlier primary (eliminating the possibility of a more open primary in the process), the end of the Connecticut General Assembly session on Wednesday, June 3, served as the final official death knell for such a change through legislative channels.
Still undecided is how hard the Connecticut Republican Party is going to push to hold caucuses at an earlier date than the late April presidential primary. The state law does not seemingly provide the party with the latitude to make the switch, but whether they want to go through the time and expense of a court challenge has yet to be fully determined.
Connecticut Democrats are locked into that April 26 primary date, but Republicans in the Nutmeg state are hoping they will not be.
Again, the two parties are differently motivated. Republicans, with a wide open presidential primary field of candidates are motivated to hold earlier contests. Democrats, on the other hand, have a far less competitive nomination battle ahead of them. Absent that perceived need to influence the nomination process, Democratic-controlled states have incentive to hold later contests, and where possible, to do so with neighboring states (see mid-Atlantic primary in 2012). That means more delegates from the state will attend the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Connecticut already has the later primary date and one regional partner in Rhode Island. The clustering bonus will depend on what compromise is hammered out in New York in the coming weeks.
Still undecided is how hard the Connecticut Republican Party is going to push to hold caucuses at an earlier date than the late April presidential primary. The state law does not seemingly provide the party with the latitude to make the switch, but whether they want to go through the time and expense of a court challenge has yet to be fully determined.
Connecticut Democrats are locked into that April 26 primary date, but Republicans in the Nutmeg state are hoping they will not be.
Again, the two parties are differently motivated. Republicans, with a wide open presidential primary field of candidates are motivated to hold earlier contests. Democrats, on the other hand, have a far less competitive nomination battle ahead of them. Absent that perceived need to influence the nomination process, Democratic-controlled states have incentive to hold later contests, and where possible, to do so with neighboring states (see mid-Atlantic primary in 2012). That means more delegates from the state will attend the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Connecticut already has the later primary date and one regional partner in Rhode Island. The clustering bonus will depend on what compromise is hammered out in New York in the coming weeks.
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Utah Republicans Are Preparing for March 22 Presidential Caucuses
The Utah Republican Party this past weekend completed a meeting in which the framework for the 2016 election cycle was set. One tweet of note that caught FHQ's eye coming out of the meeting was from Utah state Senator Todd Weiler (R-23rd, Davis, Salt Lake):
Both the start point for the online voting on March 15 and the final, in-person voting opportunity during the March 22 caucuses will fall outside of the Republican National Committee proportionality window. That allows Utah Republicans to continue with a truly winner-take-all allocation of delegates to the winner of the combined preference vote. Asked whether there were any plans to change course on that allocation method, Babbitt referred to section 7.0B of the state party bylaws -- the description of the winner-take-all method -- and offered that there was no effort underway to alter anything with the allocation of national convention delegates.
Utah Republicans can now be slotted into the March 22 slot on the 2016 presidential primary calendar but with a caveat. We also know that Utah will be another truly winner-take-all primary in mid-March to join Florida.
— Todd Weiler (@gopTODD) May 30, 2015
Utah Republican Party Executive Director, Julian Babbitt confirmed that the party will in fact caucus during March 22 neighborhood meetings across Utah (like Beehive state Democrats), but that the online voting portion of that process will begin a week earlier on March 15, giving voters ample opportunity to cast presidential preference ballots.Both the start point for the online voting on March 15 and the final, in-person voting opportunity during the March 22 caucuses will fall outside of the Republican National Committee proportionality window. That allows Utah Republicans to continue with a truly winner-take-all allocation of delegates to the winner of the combined preference vote. Asked whether there were any plans to change course on that allocation method, Babbitt referred to section 7.0B of the state party bylaws -- the description of the winner-take-all method -- and offered that there was no effort underway to alter anything with the allocation of national convention delegates.
Utah Republicans can now be slotted into the March 22 slot on the 2016 presidential primary calendar but with a caveat. We also know that Utah will be another truly winner-take-all primary in mid-March to join Florida.
End of Legislative Session Kills January Presidential Primary Bill in Texas
This one was unlikely to go anywhere from the start, but HB 1214 -- the bill to move the Texas presidential primary to the last Tuesday in January -- died in committee when the state legislature in the Lone Star state adjourned for 2015 on Monday, June 1.
With the Texas primary already scheduled for the first Tuesday in March -- tied for the fifth position on the calendar and the biggest delegate prize on that date -- a move to January never really made sense. In the committee hearing on the legislation, supporters made the case for moving Texas into a position of maximum importance on the primary calendar -- first -- without considering that the carve-out states would do exactly what they have done over the last two presidential election cycles: move their contests ahead of any states interloping on their turf. In the end Texas would have have moved up on the calendar but remained in the fifth position.
Again, it made no sense to move the primary, keep the same calendar position and lose 90% of the Texas Republican delegation in the process. That is why this was never a serious bill. Well, that and the fact that similar bills have been filed, heard and have gone nowhere during most legislative sessions over the last decade.
With the Texas primary already scheduled for the first Tuesday in March -- tied for the fifth position on the calendar and the biggest delegate prize on that date -- a move to January never really made sense. In the committee hearing on the legislation, supporters made the case for moving Texas into a position of maximum importance on the primary calendar -- first -- without considering that the carve-out states would do exactly what they have done over the last two presidential election cycles: move their contests ahead of any states interloping on their turf. In the end Texas would have have moved up on the calendar but remained in the fifth position.
Again, it made no sense to move the primary, keep the same calendar position and lose 90% of the Texas Republican delegation in the process. That is why this was never a serious bill. Well, that and the fact that similar bills have been filed, heard and have gone nowhere during most legislative sessions over the last decade.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
Nevada Adjourns Legislative Session Without Passing Presidential Primary Bill
The effort in Nevada to trade in caucuses for a presidential primary in 2016 died in the sine die day chaos on Monday, June 1 as legislative activity ceased in the Silver state until the 2017 biennium.
What began in March as a Senate bill to reestablish a presidential primary in Nevada and consolidate that election with all other primary elections in January ended as time ran out with the bill still on the board, basically being ignored in the last minute rush. SB 421 took many twists and turns along the way; such is the legislative process. A timeline:
Governor Sandoval (R) has already signaled that there would be no special session. That means both parties in Nevada will hold caucuses in 2016 (unless some money magically appears for Republicans to hold a party-funded primary, perhaps online?).
--
Nevada's Future: What Harry Reid bringeth, Harry Reid taketh away.
There is a lot more to it, but it is fitting that Harry Reid twisted arms to get Nevada into the early Democratic primary line up in 2006 and likely will have played a role in costing the Silver state that protected status in the future.
FHQ says that because it really is not that much of a secret that both parties want to dump Nevada. Republicans were kind of forced to add the Silver state to the carve-out states once the Democrats did so for 2008 and the results so far -- in both 2008 and 2012 -- left much to be desired. Nevada Republicans very simply were not ready for primetime. Under the glare of the presidential primary spotlight, the Republican Party in Nevada has now had two flawed attempts at early caucuses.
On the Democratic side, FHQ has heard more than once -- directly and indirectly -- that they were waiting on Harry Reid to retire before making a change.
None of these changes will happen for 2016. Both national parties have written protections into their rules for Nevada and are unlikely to make any changes midstream. Democrats will caucus as usual next February and the RNC is likely to continue its involvement, collectively slapping enough of a band-aid on the Nevada Republican caucus proceedings to get through without too much damage.
But 2020? FHQ would advise selling any Nevada early state stock that you have.
And last night factors into that to some degree. It is odd to FHQ that Reid would be in opposition to legislation that basically gave both parties in Nevada what their national parties wanted: a primary for Republicans and a caucus for Democrats. The secret to New Hampshire and Iowa staying early has always been that both of the state parties are unified -- in solidarity -- as a means of protecting early state status. Those parties -- or the secretary of state in New Hampshire's case -- do whatever it takes to stay first. If you want a bipartisan issue, in Iowa and New Hampshire, it is that first in the nation status.
Nevada has kind of had that over the last two presidential election cycles. But now they don't or won't. After the defeat of the primary bill at the close of the Nevada state legislative session last night, Nevada now has a situation where the RNC is not happy with the caucuses in the state and the DNC is only marginally so (because Harry Reid still wields some influence).
That is not a unified front. By twisting arms last night, Harry Reid likely jeopardized Nevada Republican's early state status. But by breaking up the best case scenario for both parties in 2016, he likely hurt the chances of Nevada Democrats retaining their position on the calendar in the future.1
None of this is anywhere close to happening. No, this issue will not be dealt with until after the 2016 election, between early 2017 and the summer of 2018 when the national parties finalize their delegate selection rules for the 2020 cycle.
--
1 Now, granted there are short term versus long term implications here. Short term, it may have been in Nevada Democrats' interest to prevent the Republican Party in the Silver state from having a higher turnout primary election that potentially energizes more Republicans in the state. Voters who turnout to vote in a primary are much more likely to participate in a general election (in one of the likely handful of battleground states in 2016).
What began in March as a Senate bill to reestablish a presidential primary in Nevada and consolidate that election with all other primary elections in January ended as time ran out with the bill still on the board, basically being ignored in the last minute rush. SB 421 took many twists and turns along the way; such is the legislative process. A timeline:
- March 29: SB 421 introduced.
- April 9: Bill amended and passed in Senate committee. The amended version would create a consolidated primary on the third Tuesday in February.
- April 13: Bill amended and passed again in Senate committee. The amended version would create a consolidated primary on the last Tuesday in February.
- April 27: RNC signals support of Nevada move to a primary.
- May 12: Nevada Senate passes consolidated primary bill. The Senate-passed version kept the date intact, but provided an out that allowed Democrats in the state to continue holding caucuses.
- May 23: Nevada Assembly committee crafts amendment to Senate-passed bill, breaking up the consolidated primary. Under the amended version, Nevada would have a separate presidential primary on the last Tuesday in February and the other primary elections would remain in June.
- May 27: Nevada Assembly committee rejects amended version of Senate-passed bill.
- May 28: Nevada Assembly committee passes amended version of Senate-passed bill.
- May 31: Lieutenant Governor Hutchison lobbies Assembly members to pass the presidential primary bill.
- June 1: Ryan Ervin (on the Jeb Bush payroll) lobbies Assembly members to pass presidential primary bill.
- June 1: Nevada Republican Party chair tweets out support of presidential primary legislation.
- June 1: Democratic votes become key to passage.
- June 1: Harry Reid calls at least one Assembly Democrat lobbying against the presidential primary bill.
- June 1: Republican Assemblyman Hansen links his vote in favor of presidential primary bill to floor consideration of a parental consent abortion bill.
- June 1: Last minute chaos.
- June 1: Adjournment.
Governor Sandoval (R) has already signaled that there would be no special session. That means both parties in Nevada will hold caucuses in 2016 (unless some money magically appears for Republicans to hold a party-funded primary, perhaps online?).
--
Nevada's Future: What Harry Reid bringeth, Harry Reid taketh away.
There is a lot more to it, but it is fitting that Harry Reid twisted arms to get Nevada into the early Democratic primary line up in 2006 and likely will have played a role in costing the Silver state that protected status in the future.
FHQ says that because it really is not that much of a secret that both parties want to dump Nevada. Republicans were kind of forced to add the Silver state to the carve-out states once the Democrats did so for 2008 and the results so far -- in both 2008 and 2012 -- left much to be desired. Nevada Republicans very simply were not ready for primetime. Under the glare of the presidential primary spotlight, the Republican Party in Nevada has now had two flawed attempts at early caucuses.
On the Democratic side, FHQ has heard more than once -- directly and indirectly -- that they were waiting on Harry Reid to retire before making a change.
None of these changes will happen for 2016. Both national parties have written protections into their rules for Nevada and are unlikely to make any changes midstream. Democrats will caucus as usual next February and the RNC is likely to continue its involvement, collectively slapping enough of a band-aid on the Nevada Republican caucus proceedings to get through without too much damage.
But 2020? FHQ would advise selling any Nevada early state stock that you have.
And last night factors into that to some degree. It is odd to FHQ that Reid would be in opposition to legislation that basically gave both parties in Nevada what their national parties wanted: a primary for Republicans and a caucus for Democrats. The secret to New Hampshire and Iowa staying early has always been that both of the state parties are unified -- in solidarity -- as a means of protecting early state status. Those parties -- or the secretary of state in New Hampshire's case -- do whatever it takes to stay first. If you want a bipartisan issue, in Iowa and New Hampshire, it is that first in the nation status.
Nevada has kind of had that over the last two presidential election cycles. But now they don't or won't. After the defeat of the primary bill at the close of the Nevada state legislative session last night, Nevada now has a situation where the RNC is not happy with the caucuses in the state and the DNC is only marginally so (because Harry Reid still wields some influence).
That is not a unified front. By twisting arms last night, Harry Reid likely jeopardized Nevada Republican's early state status. But by breaking up the best case scenario for both parties in 2016, he likely hurt the chances of Nevada Democrats retaining their position on the calendar in the future.1
None of this is anywhere close to happening. No, this issue will not be dealt with until after the 2016 election, between early 2017 and the summer of 2018 when the national parties finalize their delegate selection rules for the 2020 cycle.
--
1 Now, granted there are short term versus long term implications here. Short term, it may have been in Nevada Democrats' interest to prevent the Republican Party in the Silver state from having a higher turnout primary election that potentially energizes more Republicans in the state. Voters who turnout to vote in a primary are much more likely to participate in a general election (in one of the likely handful of battleground states in 2016).
Monday, June 1, 2015
Update on the 2016 New York Presidential Primary
Jimmy Vielkind at Capital New York has a really cool piece up today digging into the delegate selection rules arcana in the Empire state.
Here's the Cliff's Notes version:
On the potential date of the New York presidential primary:
On delegate allocation rules:
New York now has just 27 congressional districts and under the delegate selection proposal the Republican Party will vote on on Tuesday (June 2), each district will be apportioned three delegates. Unless a candidate receives a majority of the vote in a district, the delegates will be allocated in a manner similar to how Georgia Republicans allocated their district delegates in 2012. It is not specified, but one could assume that the at-large delegates will be similarly allocated as compared to 2012: if there is a majority winner statewide would be awarded all of those at-large delegates (if not trigger a truly winner-take-all allocation of all of the delegates, both at-large and congressional district). Such a plan would be compliant with RNC rules in March or April and within or outside of the proportionality window.
On other delegate selection rules:
--
Overall, we now have a bit more information on the 2016 Republican delegate selection process in New York. Sure, the primary is scheduled for February now, but that has never really been a threat to the stability of the national parties' calendar plans. However, June is upon us and the negotiations between New York Democrats and Republicans does not appear to have started. We also now have a some clarity on how delegates will be allocated in New York and how much direct control over the selection process the candidates/campaigns will have.
--
1 Even if the Pennsylvania presidential primary were to move to mid-March, New York would still be eligible for those bonuses in a partnership with Connecticut or Rhode Island. The clustering bonus requires a coalition of at least three contiguous states.
Here's the Cliff's Notes version:
On the potential date of the New York presidential primary:
It's too early to say whether the G.O.P. field will have coalesced by the time of the primary, which [adviser to the New York Republican Party state committee, Tony] Casale said would be in either March or April of next year. Democrats and Republicans must agree on a date, and pass a bill through the Legislature. In 2012, New York's presidential primary was held on April 24.Currently scheduled for the first Tuesday in February, the New York primary will have to be moved back to comply with the national party rules on delegate selection. Republicans in the state expressed a preference for a March 1 primary earlier this year, but as FHQ mentioned then, such a decision would require some buy-in from Democrats in the state legislature. Another late April primary would make New York a bridge between mid-Atlantic primaries in Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania and New England primaries in Connecticut and Rhode Island. As was the case during the 2012 presidential election cycle, New York Democrats would be eligible for bonus delegates for both holding a later primary and clustering primaries with regional partners.1 Republicans may want an earlier primary, but Democrats in the state are differently motivated.
On delegate allocation rules:
The state's delegates will not be awarded on a winner-take-all basis, but rather according to whichever candidate does best in each of New York's 27 congressional districts. A candidate could capture three delegates if they win an outright majority; otherwise, the leading candidate will win two delegates and the runner-up one.To be quite clear, New York Republicans abandoned their truly winner-take-all delegate allocation plan in 2011. In 2012, the party moved to and utilized an interesting hybrid allocation. Since the redistricting process had yet to be completed, New York Republicans apportioned two delegates to each of the 29 districts drawn for the 2002-2012 census cycle. Those delegates were awarded in a winner-take-all fashion to the winner of each congressional district. The remaining 34 delegates were at-large and were proportionally allocated to candidates based on the statewide results in the April primary.
New York now has just 27 congressional districts and under the delegate selection proposal the Republican Party will vote on on Tuesday (June 2), each district will be apportioned three delegates. Unless a candidate receives a majority of the vote in a district, the delegates will be allocated in a manner similar to how Georgia Republicans allocated their district delegates in 2012. It is not specified, but one could assume that the at-large delegates will be similarly allocated as compared to 2012: if there is a majority winner statewide would be awarded all of those at-large delegates (if not trigger a truly winner-take-all allocation of all of the delegates, both at-large and congressional district). Such a plan would be compliant with RNC rules in March or April and within or outside of the proportionality window.
On other delegate selection rules:
Casale said that candidates' names—not delegates—will appear on the ballot, and in a break from 2012, the various campaigns will not have to file lists of people backing their effort with the state Board of Elections. Instead, “local Republican leaders and party faithful will pick the delegates—not the candidates themselves.”Read Vielkind's story for the background on this change stretching back to 2012. This "Rob Cole rule" is an interesting one though. The change it brings about speaks pretty directly to a post FHQ wrote a few weeks ago about how much control candidates -- particularly Republican candidates -- have over the delegate selection process. New York has in the past been a state that has candidates file slates of delegates to be elected directly on the primary ballot. However, the Republican Party in New York will break with that tradition in 2016 (if the rules change is passed on Tuesday). The planned change would relieve campaigns the added task of filing delegates, but in exchange the candidates would give up control over the selection to state and local party officials. That eliminates some of the types of issues that both New York and Massachusetts delegate selection processes had in 2012. Again, Republican candidates do not technically have the right to review delegates bound to them before the national convention.
The delegates will be pledged to the winning candidate on the first ballot, but will be free to select whomever they choose in the unlikely event of a second convention ballot.
--
Overall, we now have a bit more information on the 2016 Republican delegate selection process in New York. Sure, the primary is scheduled for February now, but that has never really been a threat to the stability of the national parties' calendar plans. However, June is upon us and the negotiations between New York Democrats and Republicans does not appear to have started. We also now have a some clarity on how delegates will be allocated in New York and how much direct control over the selection process the candidates/campaigns will have.
--
1 Even if the Pennsylvania presidential primary were to move to mid-March, New York would still be eligible for those bonuses in a partnership with Connecticut or Rhode Island. The clustering bonus requires a coalition of at least three contiguous states.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)