Local Officials Object to Prospect of New York Losing Bonus Delegates Due to April 19 Presidential Primary

John Spina and Jennifer Fermino have the story at The New York Daily News:

Some irate local officials are warning New York will lose dozens of delegates to the 2016 Democratic convention following a successful push by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver to move the party’s primary from Passover week.

Moving the primary from April 26 to April 19 would deprive New York of bonus delegates, which the Democratic National Committee doles out to states that cluster their primaries on one day.

FHQ addressed the potential loss of bonus delegates in our post covering the Assembly passage of the April 19 presidential primary bill earlier this week. This is a classic example of political trade-offs. On the one hand, New York Democrats would have received a double bonus for holding an April 26 primary; a 10% bump for an April primary and a 15% boost for clustering with up to five other neighboring (or contiguous) states. The price of that bonus -- due to the scheduling on April 26 -- was the Passover holiday conflict. Jewish voters would have been forced to vote during the holiday, vote absentee or not vote at all.

But with the presidential primary a Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) signature away from an April 19 date, the Passover conflict is averted, but the 15% clustering bonus is gone. No cluster, no bonus.

Former Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver (D), who pushed for the earlier date is, according to Spina and Fermino, "trying to convince the DNC to still award New York the bonus delegates." Unless Connecticut and Rhode Island bring up legislation in special sessions, that is probably unlikely. The DNC has no rules-based discretion to award bonus delegates to states that do not meet the criteria. [The focus is on the two New England states because the Pennsylvania legislature is currently considering whether to move its April 26 primary to March 15. If that move occurs, New York would be dependent on its two eastern neighbors to achieve the clustering bonus anyway.]

Recent Posts:
April 19 Presidential Primary Bill Passes New York Assembly

Kansas Republican to Caucus on March 5

2008 Republican Delegate Allocation Rules by State

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

April 19 Presidential Primary Bill Passes New York Assembly

The New York Assembly on Wednesday, June 24 passed S5958, moving one step closer to scheduling the presidential primary in the Empire state for April 19.

The Assembly version (A8310) of the April 19 bill was taken up after being moved from the Election Law Committee to Rules and added to the calendar. On the Assembly floor, A8310 was replaced by the state Senate-passed version and then passed by the Assembly.

All this after former Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, announced yesterday that the April 19 date had been agreed to to avert a conflict with the Passover holiday a week later (on April 26). If signed into law by Governor Cuomo, S5958 would move the New York presidential primary to a spot on the calendar where the contest would stand alone.

This would cost the New York Democratic delegation a 15% delegate bonus for clustering contests with Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. By moving, New York would cost Connecticut and Rhode Island their chance at the same clustering bonus. Under the rules set forth in the Democratic Call to the Convention, three neighboring states are required for a state to qualify for the bonus. While Connecticut and Rhode Island lose out due to the potential New York shift, Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania continue to qualify so long as Pennsylvania maintains its position. Legislation in the Keystone state would move the Pennsylvania primary to March 15.

Despite that loss, New York Democrats would still receive a 10% delegate bonus for holding an April primary.

The Republican National Committee does not include any delegate bonuses in its rules.

Recent Posts:
Kansas Republican to Caucus on March 5

2008 Republican Delegate Allocation Rules by State

Ted Cruz, Texas Primary Polls and Delegate Allocation in the Lone Star State

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Kansas Republican to Caucus on March 5

The Kansas Republican Party has settled on March 5, 2016 as the date of the party's presidential caucuses.

Coming off the state convention in late January, Kansas Republicans announced that they had tentatively set the date of the 2016 caucuses for March 5. In the time since, what the party described then as "will probably" changed to "will" be on March 5 by the time Kansas Republican Party Chairman Kelly Arnold testified in favor of legislation canceling the 2016 presidential primary in the Sunflower state. The date has subsequently been added to the party's calendar of upcoming events.

March 5 caucuses for Kansas Republicans means that both parties in the state will share the same delegate selection date for the first since Kansas last held a presidential primary in 1992. The first Saturday in March date is also the same date Kansas Republicans used four years ago. This time the party will be competing with more than just distant US territories. As of now, the Louisiana primary also shares that date (on the Republican primary calendar) with Kansas.

Recent Posts:
2008 Republican Delegate Allocation Rules by State

Ted Cruz, Texas Primary Polls and Delegate Allocation in the Lone Star State

Still Unresolved, New York Senate Passes Bill Scheduling an April 19 Presidential Primary

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

2008 Republican Delegate Allocation Rules by State

--
NOTES:
1. FHQ will not dive too far into all of this now. This is, along with the 2012 post, should serve as a baseline to which the 2016 rules as they come more into focus can be compared.

2. The Republican delegate allocation in 2008 may be a better prism through which to view the aggregate patchwork of rules that will govern the 2016 Republican presidential nomination process at the state level. FHQ says that because the expectation is that there will be a handful (to a great deal) more winner-take-all states in 2016. The addition of the proportionality window in 2012 had something to do with the 11 winner-take-all states in 2008 dropping to just 6 in 2012. Two of those five states (Connecticut and New York) voluntarily adopted more proportional rules even with later primary dates outside of the proportionality window. Missouri switched a caucus with no formal rules in 2012. Only Vermont and Virginia had primaries scheduled in the 2012 proportionality window, forcing a change to a more proportional method of allocation from a truly winner-take-all plan.

3. In the aggregate, it appears that most of those winner-take-all (2008) turned more proportional (2012) states went from the truly winner-take-all category in 2008 to the truly proportional category in 2012. When we push the examination down to the individual (state) level, the shuffling is more complex (see previous paragraph).

4. Again, FHQ should note that those states in the hybrid category tend to be more like proportional states than truly winner-take-all states in terms of the underlying allocation. Together, hybrid and proportional states comprised two-thirds of the total delegates available in the 2008 Republican presidential nomination process. Importantly, 10 of the 11 winner-take-all states were on or before February 12, 2008 (the week after Super Tuesday). John McCain won all of those early truly winner-take-all states except Utah. That provided a significant delegate cushion for the Arizona senator over his challengers.

Recent Posts:
Ted Cruz, Texas Primary Polls and Delegate Allocation in the Lone Star State

Still Unresolved, New York Senate Passes Bill Scheduling an April 19 Presidential Primary

March 19 a Possibility for Virginia Republican Presidential Nominating Convention

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Ted Cruz, Texas Primary Polls and Delegate Allocation in the Lone Star State

There is a new University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll out this morning showing Ted Cruz leading in the 2016 presidential primary race in the Lone Star state. That Cruz leads and is ahead of another Texan -- former Governor Rick Perry who is in second -- is already being treated as the main headline number from the survey results.

FHQ doesn't know about that take away.

First of all, lest I be accused of not heeding the previous warnings, let me echo the call to "Ignore those polls!" Yes, with each passing day the race gets a little closer to votes actually being cast. Still, one should approach Iowa and New Hampshire poll numbers with caution at this point. And polls in states that will follow them -- and subsequently draw heavily on those earlier contests' results -- should be accompanied with an even larger grain of salt.

Secondly, warnings aside, the Tribune poll does give us an opportunity to map out delegate allocation in Texas, assuming the poll numbers are the election results. Again, it is super early in this process, but this particular poll makes for an interesting simulated delegate allocation run.

Texas Republicans  do have a new delegate allocation plan in place for the 2016 cycle. For the first time, Republicans in the Lone Star state will split the allocation of their national convention delegates across both a primary election and a caucus/convention system. Three-quarters of the 152 delegates will be allocated based on the results of the primary election on March 1, while the remaining quarter will be allocated at the June state convention.¹ That convention fraction of the delegation -- 38 delegates -- is taken from the at-large pool of delegates. Texas has 44 at-large delegates for 2016. That leaves just six at-large delegates to be allocated based on the statewide results in the Texas presidential primary (and also 108 delegates to be allocated based on the primary results in each of Texas' 36 congressional districts -- three delegates in each district).

Let's put those 38 delegates on the back burner for a moment and focus on the 114 delegates to be allocated in the presidential primary part of the Texas Republican delegate selection rules. If we assume that the Tribune poll represents the results of the Texas presidential primary, then...

That 20% number that Cruz reaches is seemingly significant and probably more so than the fact that the Texas senator is ahead of the former governor in the Lone Star state. 20% is important because the Texas Republican delegate allocation plan requires candidates to receive at least 20% of the vote to be allocated any delegates.

So Cruz wins all 114 delegates?

Well, that seems to be the case since Cruz is the only candidate to clear the 20% barrier in this poll. And hey, that would be nice from a simplicity of delegate allocation perspective as well. However, if you have read this site for a while (and even if you have not), you will understand that simplicity and delegate allocation do not often go hand in hand. It is possible for a state to set 1) a minimum threshold of the vote that a candidate must receive to win any delegates and 2) a minimum threshold for a candidate to receive all of the delegates.

Texas is not one of those states. The sort of backdoor winner-take-all scenario that can take place even within the proportionality window (March 1-14) is far less possible in the Lone Star state.

Texas does have a 20% threshold that candidates must attain in the primary to receive any delegates and a 50% threshold for a candidate to receive all of the delegates. But the overall allocation is split across not only two tiers (a primary and the state convention), but it is also separated by statewide and congressional district results. That differentiation makes it more difficult for any one candidate to win all 114 Texas presidential primary delegates.

Let's parse that out. If we assume that the 20% Ted Cruz received statewide in this poll and the hypothetical presidential primary is evenly distributed across all 36 congressional districts, then Cruz would do quite well in the resulting delegate allocation.² If Cruz got 20% and Perry 12% in each of the 36 congressional districts, then Cruz would win the three delegates from each of those 36 districts. The senator would be the only candidate above the 20% threshold.

But it is likely a stretch to assume that Cruz would win 20% in each district. It is likely that Cruz would do much better than 20% in some districts and much worse (even losing to another candidate) in others. This is a long way of saying that even if Cruz was the only candidate over 20% statewide, he would be unlikely to win all 108 of the congressional district delegates. In 2008, John McCain won a majority of the statewide vote in Texas, but still yielded some congressional district delegates to Mike Huckabee.

That still leaves the six at-large delegates -- the remainder of those at-large delegates not allocated at the state convention -- to be allocated. It is already unlikely that Cruz would take all of the congressional district delegates assuming the poll reflects the primary results. Even under the scenario where the 20% of the vote number is evenly distributed across all 36 congressional districts, it would be impossible for Cruz to win all 114 presidential primary delegates.

That is due to the way in which those remaining six at-large delegates have to be allocated under the Texas Republican delegate selection rules. While only one candidate can clear 20% of the vote on the congressional district level and win all three delegates, that is not true at the statewide level. If only one candidate clears the 20% barrier statewide, then that candidate splits the leftover at-large delegates with the candidate with the second most votes statewide. Cruz could win all of the delegates in the 36 congressional districts, then, but Perry would still take two delegates based on the at-large delegate allocation rules.

What about those other 38 at-large delegates to be allocated at the state convention? How will they be allocated? This process is less clear and is hidden behind something of a shroud of mystery. The only guidance for how those delegates will be allocated is this:

The State Republican Executive Committee shall prescribe the process for each state convention delegate to cast their vote for their presidential preference by electronic or paper ballot. 

That could be winner-take-all or it could be proportional. The former is more likely if a presumptive nominee is known by the time of the state convention. If the nomination is unsettled at that point, it provides the SREC the latitude to set a method of delegate allocation that is most likely to attract the candidates (or most likely to decide the nomination). For now, however, there is not a clear answer as to how a quarter of the Texas Republican delegation will be allocated and bound to candidates.

--
Is it interesting that Cruz is ahead of Perry in this poll? In a world starved for data, I suppose. But again, this is a poll of a post-carve-out state. To the extent the data matter, it is more useful as an illustration of how the Texas Republican delegates may be allocated next year.

UPDATE (2:30pm):
Please also note that the Republican Party of Texas amended their party rules on March 7, 2015 (after FHQ's January post). Included in those changes is a provision in Rule 38 to eliminate the convention allocation part of the Texas delegate selection rules if the Republican National Committee does not approve of a plan with allocation split across two differently timed (on the calendar) contests.

--
¹ The full Texas delegation is comprised of 155 delegates, but three of those delegates -- the automatic delegates -- are not pledged to any candidate based on the results of either tier of the Texas Republican delegates allocation process for 2016. Those three delegates also do not count toward deriving the primary to caucus/convention ratio of delegates to be allocated.

² The poll, however, does not break the results down by congressional districts. All we are left with, then, are assumptions of how that might look.

Recent Posts:
Still Unresolved, New York Senate Passes Bill Scheduling an April 19 Presidential Primary

March 19 a Possibility for Virginia Republican Presidential Nominating Convention

Never a Dull Moment in Nevada

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Still Unresolved, New York Senate Passes Bill Scheduling an April 19 Presidential Primary

The New York state legislature is working to finish up its business for 2015. However, a number of matters that have yet to be fully addressed have pushed the expected adjournment of the body back at least into next week.¹ One of the issues that remains unresolved is the the date of the 2016 presidential primary. As of now, New York law schedules that election for the first Tuesday in February, a date non-compliant with national party rules.

The inter-chamber discussions have centered on an April 26 date, but that that date falls in the middle of Passover week in 2016 has created some friction, elevating a bill -- one of five total bills dealing with the presidential primary -- calling for an April 19 presidential primary. That bill, S5958, advanced through the state Senate on Thursday, June 18 by a 36-27 vote largely along party lines (four Democrats voted in favor of the measure).² As of Friday, June 19, now has an identical companion bill -- A8310 -- in the Assembly.

The Democratic-controlled lower chamber now has a couple of bills that would shift the presidential primary to April 19. But there are also three previously introduced bills that would move the election to April 26. The later date would align the New York presidential primary with similar elections in Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. It is also a date that has the approval of the Democratic National Committee (or was proposed by the DNC).

As FHQ has explained (and this is well explained in the Capitol New York piece by Bill Mahoney), New York Democrats are motivated to hold the primary on April 26 because of the delegate bonuses associated with the date. The 10% timing bonus would be available on April 19, but the 15% clustering bonus would not without concurrent elections in neighboring states.

That there is a companion bill in the Assembly can be taken as a good sign that April 19 is closer to a go than not, but this matter is not closed. Democrats can attain a 15% timing bonus for a contest in May (or later). How tempting that ends up being to Democrats in the Assembly remains to be seen. However, with the end of the session already having been pushed back, a quick compromise may be the path of least resistance.


--
¹ The state Senate is set to gather on Tuesday, June 23.

² The committee vote was a more narrow 13-10 to move the legislation to the full chamber. In addition to those 13 Republican yeas, 2 Democrats voted for the bill in committee but reserved the right to vote against it on the floor (which they did).

Recent Posts:
March 19 a Possibility for Virginia Republican Presidential Nominating Convention

Never a Dull Moment in Nevada

How is the DNC Involved in the New York Presidential Primary Situation?

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

March 19 a Possibility for Virginia Republican Presidential Nominating Convention

FHQ dealt with the primary or convention question in Virginia a week ago, but Adam Wollner at the National Journal has incrementally advanced Travis Fain's Daily Press story with some interesting additions. Namely this:

But [conservative activist Russ] Moulton said his allies on the state central committee are eyeing March 19 as a possible date for the convention, which he argued could actually give the state even more influence because it could award all of the delegates to the winner, instead of dividing them up among several of the top finishers.

Most of the primary states are pretty much locked into position on the presidential primary calendar at this point because the bulk of state legislatures have adjourned for the year.¹ This possible primary to convention switch in Virginia makes the Old Dominion something of a wildcard in all of that. And if Virginia Republicans 1) settle on a presidential nominating convention and 2) schedule it for March 19, then the party would have the option of reestablishing the winner-take-all allocation rules the party utilized before the 2012 cycle.

--
It has been hypothesized that caucus/convention states would benefit the Rand Paul campaign in 2016 like they did his father in 2012 (and to a lesser degree 2008). That may be true. But this is dependent upon two factors. First, when is the caucuses or convention scheduled? But also, what allocation rules does the state party adopt?

If a state party opts for precinct caucuses (with a presidential preference vote) before March 15, then the resulting allocation of delegates to the national convention will have to be proportionate to the vote shares received by the candidates in that original vote. Again, the RNC has eliminated non-binding caucuses for the 2016 cycle. Delegates, then, will be bound to candidates based on the results of those early votes. In 2012, the majority of Republican caucus states held caucuses before March 15. Only Missouri held first round caucuses after that point, and only Montana and Nebraska held consequential state conventions after mid-March.

But if there is a break from that pattern in 2016 and caucus states opt for slightly later dates on the calendar, then there could be a number of winner-take-all caucus states. On the surface, that seemingly creates an alternate caucus strategy for the Paul campaign. Virginia is one of those wildcard states. Senator Paul's home state of Kentucky is another. But how many other states could fit into that post-March 14 space on the calendar is an open question. The answer to that question, though depends on state level rules and how much control Paul-aligned forces have within state Republican parties in those caucus states.

Iowa and Nevada are locked into early calendar spots, but are exempt from the proportionality requirement. Nevada Republicans have already voted to proportionally allocated their national convention delegates. Iowa is still a question mark. Next in line are Colorado and Minnesota; caucus states where state law controls the date. Both are locked into positions before March 15 at this point. That means proportional allocation.

Outside of Kentucky and Virginia, that leaves Alaska, Kansas, Maine, North Dakota, Washington, Wyoming and the territories. How well the Paul campaign can affect decision-making in those states depends on the extent to which Paul-aligned folks are involved in those state parties. Given the events of 2012, Maine is probably tops on that list.

But digging too deeply into this does ignore one rather large point: Even if all of those states are scheduled after March 14 and all are winner-take-all, they still only cumulatively comprise 228 delegates. Add Kentucky and Virginia and that's 322 delegates. Add those late conventions in Montana and Nebraska and that total rises to 376. That is still only about a quarter of the delegates necessary to clinch the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Sure, one can also add to that any delegates proportionally won in other states, but all of that is a plan built on a lot of ifs.

Still, it is fun trip into the rules weeds.


--
¹ This list includes Virginia. Wollner mentions in his National Journal piece that the Virginia presidential primary would "likely" be on March 1. If Virginia holds a presidential primary during the 2016 cycle, it will be on March 1. For the primary to fall on a date other than March 1, the law would have to be changed, and the legislature adjourned for 2015 at the end of February. There currently are no plans to convene a special session.

Recent Posts:
Never a Dull Moment in Nevada

How is the DNC Involved in the New York Presidential Primary Situation?

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation Rules by State

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Never a Dull Moment in Nevada

FHQ is going to flag this typically great story from Jon Ralston on the not-so behind the scenes maneuvering ahead of leadership elections at the county level within the Nevada Republican Party. It is a nice extension to the story of the recently failed attempt in the Silver state to switch from a caucus/convention system to a primary.

Then as now, it is a story of 2016 possibilities with 2020 implications. Which is to say, this is a political battle with both short and long term incentives for state and national interests. There in the desert, Nevada has an early spot on the presidential primary calendar, but is also a battleground state in the fall. All that creates a matrix of cross-cutting incentives.

And throw in the candidates too.

In this one case, all of those interests are pulling in different directions (or parts of them are anyway). Consider that the Rand Paul campaign and those aligned with it in Nevada are attempting to advantage the Kentucky senator in the Silver state caucuses in 2016. This is not a mystery. It is inside baseball, but it is not really happening behind the scenes. And lest FHQ be accused of pointing fingers at the Paul campaign, note that this is not the first instance in political history in which self interest has played a role. It isn't even the first example in presidential nomination politics, believe it or not. The post-reform era began after all with the recommendations of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The first nominee on the Democratic side after those reforms were instituted for the 1972 cycle was George McGovern; the same McGovern from the aforementioned commission. The Paul campaign is not doing anything that other candidates would not do.

However, they are doing it in Nevada. And the last thing that Nevada needs -- if it wants to protect that early calendar position in the future -- is more uncertainty, more chaos or more dissension in the Nevada Republican delegation. Think about this for a moment. The national parties are either indifferent to or like having Iowa and New Hampshire first because after having occupied the first two spots on the primary calendar for nearly half a century, the national parties know what they have in those states more or less.

They have a reasonable idea about how Iowa and New Hampshire will affect the process. That isn't the case in Nevada. Well, actually it is, but for all the wrong reasons. The only certainty in the Nevada (Republican) caucuses is uncertainty. After two cycles in the spotlight of the early calendar, Nevada is batting 1.000 in creating headaches for the Republican National Committee. And since the RNC-backed effort to switch to a presidential primary in the Silver state fell through and the Paul campaign is already working to help Paul out in the state, that intra-party rift and those headaches may return for round three in 2016. Again, if the only certainty is a headache, then it makes it likely that the headache symptoms will be dealt with in the future.

Of course, Democrats nationally and in Nevada do not mind seeing any of this. But it may only be Nevada Democrats that end up paying a price. One factor that bolsters the protected statuses of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina is that political actors of either partisan stripe are of one mind when it comes to first in the nation/South privilege: Keep it at all costs (even if it means agreeing with the other party). Nevada Democrats should enjoy the ride now. By maintaining the caucuses for 2016, it makes it less likely Nevada will be continue to be first in the West in 2020. Another flawed Republican caucus there makes it much more likely that the RNC dumps the Silver state. Not having an early Nevada Republican caucus undercuts Nevada Democrats' case for keeping theirs (not completely, mind you, but it would make Nevada unique among the carve-out states). The national parties want certainty and if Republicans tap another western states, national Democrats will want to cede any potential organizational advantage in that state.

It is all about certainty and the Nevada experiment has provided all the wrong kind.

Recent Posts:
How is the DNC Involved in the New York Presidential Primary Situation?

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation Rules by State

New York Assembly Bill Introduced to Set Presidential Primary for April 26

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

How is the DNC Involved in the New York Presidential Primary Situation?

Legislation is currently active in New York to bring the presidential primary back into compliance with the national party delegate selection rules. However, the effort to move the election from the first Tuesday in February to April 26 is facing a backlash from a group of 71 Democratic legislators. And the sticking point is not pushing the presidential primary out of February; a position that while non-compliant would keep the Empire state very early on the calendar. Instead, Democratic legislators in New York are upset that the proposed calendar position for the presidential primary election is in the middle of Passover week.

Now, that is a story in and of itself. The state legislature in New York is winding down its work for the session and not resolving the issues surrounding the scheduling of the presidential primary next year would have New York on the wrong side of national party rules (with a February primary). Any delay -- any impasse -- means that a date change is in some jeopardy. Things get prioritized differently when that legislative countdown clock is ticking toward zero hour.

But what is odd is to whom Democratic lawmakers in New York have chosen to air their grievances. The letter the group of 71 sent was sent to the Democratic National Committee.

Why?

To FHQ that is the real story in all of this. Why would legislators choose to reach out to the DNC? There are national party rules prohibiting February presidential primaries and significant penalties that come along with that. Beyond that, however, there is nothing in the Democratic delegate selection rules for 2016 that explicitly schedule the New York presidential primary for April 26. There may be some pressure from the DNC to do that, but there is absolutely nothing preventing New York legislators of any partisan stripe from agreeing on a primary date anywhere on the calendar between March 1 and sometime in early to mid-June.

Nothing.

That is a lot of dates from which to choose. And as FHQ has mentioned there is incentive for New York Democrats to want that April 26 date, Passover conflict aside. It means bonus delegates tacked onto the New York delegation to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia next July; extra delegates for a later primary scheduled concurrently with similar contests in potentially five other states. Yet, if New York Democrats want to take advantage of those bonuses, they would have to be on April 26.

There may also be pressure that is being exerted on the New York Democratic Party and/or legislators   by the DNC to keep a partially Democratic-controlled state (or group of states) later on the calendar. These sorts of rumors emerged in 2011; that Democrats were attempting to schedule contests in states the party controlled later in the process as a means of influencing the Republican nomination. The hope then as presumably now would be to produce a more conservative nominee chosen by a frontloaded group of more conservative states.

Again, however, that is potential pressure folks in New York are getting from the DNC. That is a lot different than rules violations that give the national party some reason to penalize a state. There is something missing in the reporting on this story. It does not make any sense that New York Democrats would point the finger at the national party. The way this process -- the scheduling of presidential nominating contests -- works should mean that those legislators should be pointing their fingers at each other.

--
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for sharing news of the Passover conflict with FHQ.

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation Rules by State

New York Assembly Bill Introduced to Set Presidential Primary for April 26

Louisiana Legislature Passes Budget on to Jindal, Presidential Primary Funding Included

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation Rules by State

--
NOTES:
1. FHQ will not dive too far into all of this now. This is, more or less, a baseline to which the 2016 rules as they come more into focus can be compared.

2. This nicely highlights what FHQ said throughout the 2012 cycle: There just were not that many truly winner-take-contests. Though Idaho and Puerto Rico ended up allocating all of their delegates to the winner (in this case, Mitt Romney), those two were the only early (proportionality window) states that had conditional winner-take-all provisions that were triggered. The six truly winner-take-all states comprised only 9% of the total 2286 Republican delegates.

3. There could have been many more categories added to this, but FHQ erred on the side of simplicity. That "hybrid" group includes loophole primary states like Illinois where delegates are elected directly, winner-take-most (winner-take-all by congressional district) states like South Carolina and a host of other conditionally winner-take-all states. As FHQ mentioned in the rundown of 2016 proportionality rules changes, even if you reallocate delegates in states that fall in this category, the changes are not very much different than a proportional allocation. Again, this is a catch-all group of sorts, but with a tighter definition of proportionality for 2016, some of these states -- those in the proportionality window -- will likely drift over into the proportional category. Others with contests that fall on or after March 15 may end up in the winner-take-all category (see possibly Ohio).

4. While that "hybrid" group is still something of a mystery, the wild card in 2016 will be what happens with the bulk of the caucuses states; those with no formal rules binding delegates to candidates. Given the changes to the national party rules -- There is now a requirement that delegates be bound based on the results of the primaries or caucuses (with some caveats). -- the previously non-binding caucus states will have to devise rules for allocating delegates. As most have to start and complete the caucus/convention process between March and early June, most of the first steps in the process will be early. Whether those states fall in the proportionality window remains undetermined. But that does have an impact on the types of delegate allocation rules those states will be able to adopt. But in 2012, there were more delegates available in the "no formal rules" states than there were in truly winner-take-all states.

--
Links to state-level delegate allocation rules (click to see details of each state's plan):

2012 vs. 2008

Iowa

New Hampshire

South Carolina

Florida

Nevada

Colorado

Minnesota

Maine

Arizona

Michigan

Wyoming

Washington

Alaska

Georgia

Idaho

Massachusetts

North Dakota

Ohio

Kansas

Alabama

Hawaii

Mississippi

Missouri

Puerto Rico

Illinois

Louisiana

Maryland

Washington, DC

Wisconsin

Connecticut

Delaware

New York

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Indiana

North Carolina

West Virginia

Nebraska

Oregon

Kentucky

Texas

Recent Posts:
New York Assembly Bill Introduced to Set Presidential Primary for April 26

Louisiana Legislature Passes Budget on to Jindal, Presidential Primary Funding Included

Presidential Primary or Convention Question Still Looms Over Virginia Republicans for 2016

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.