Earlier this week, the Washington, DC Council reconvened following a lengthy recess. Among the first items the body considered on the consent agenda on Tuesday, September 17 was the effort to shift the presidential primary (and those for other offices) from the third Tuesday in June to the first Tuesday in June, B23-0212.
Previously the council had passed both emergency and temporary legislation to ease along the legislative process but neither has a window of implementation that stretches far enough into 2020 to include the June 2 date the body is targeting. Permanent legislation, then, is needed, and that is what the above bill is intended to accomplish.
In the meeting earlier this week, the council adopted the consent agenda -- including B23-0212 -- on a unanimous 13-0 vote with no discussion. That represents passage on a first reading. The bill will require one more final reading and vote before passage.
The DC council next meets on October 8.
The move, should it be approved, signed and passed off on by congressional review, would align the DC primary with presidential primaries in Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota on what would be the next to last date on the 2020 presidential primary calendar with a contest.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
West Virginia Republicans Adopt Winner-Take-All Allocation Scheme, Alter Delegate Selection Process for 2020
West Virginia Republicans at a recent Executive Committee meeting made changes to the way in which the party will select and allocate delegates to the 2020 Republican National Convention in Charlotte. Gone is the loophole primary the state party has traditionally used, where voters would not only vote on presidential preference, but directly elect both at-large and congressional district delegates on the primary ballot.
Such a system puts the onus on campaigns to gain ballot access for their candidate but to also round up and file for delegate candidates supportive of the candidate. The former is easier than the latter as is evidenced by Rick Santorum's troubles in the Mountain state in 2012.
That system has been scrapped by the WVGOP for 2020 in favor of a more streamlined process. By a 92-12 vote, the West Virginia Republican Party executive committee opted to share the delegate selection process with the Trump campaign and shift to a winner-take-all method of allocation.
Under the new plan, Republican primary voters in West Virginia will only have one presidential choice before them, the presidential preference vote. Whichever candidate wins that vote would be awarded all of the delegates at stake in the West Virginia primary on May 12. On the selection side, delegate candidates would no longer be included on the primary ballot. Instead, prospective delegate candidates would apply and interview with the WVGOP executive committee and the Trump for President Committee to determine what that individual has done for the party/Trump and how loyal they are. Obviously, that would give much more discretion to the state party and the Trump campaign to identify and select delegates than under the loophole system.
This option was one of three being considered by the executive committee. The other two were 1) to keep the loophole (direct election of delegates) system the same or 2) to adopt a convention system similar to what the West Virginia Republican Party used in 2008. The latter was quickly dismissed and the alternative winner-take-all system was deemed preferable by the executive committee in its vote in late August.
One important coda to this maneuvering is that the change will sunset after 2020, reverting to the old loophole system for subsequent cycles (unless there is state party action to make other changes).
--
Yes, this change clearly gives the Trump campaign a great deal of discretion over the delegates chosen for the national convention from West Virginia. But bear in mind that Democratic National Committee rules allow candidates to reject delegates selected to fill delegate slots allocated them and then represent them at the convention. However, that right of refusal happens after the delegate selection process. The West Virginia Republican Party plan cedes a great deal of control to the Trump reelection effort before and/or during primary season, likely ahead of the West Virginia primary in May. That is an important distinction between how Democrats conduct the process and how West Virginia Republicans are handling theirs.
This also adds another data point to the growing list of states making a variety of changes to their delegate selection rules to help insulate the president from intra-party challenges and hypothetically keep divisiveness down within the party-in-the-electorate before the transition into the general election phase.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Such a system puts the onus on campaigns to gain ballot access for their candidate but to also round up and file for delegate candidates supportive of the candidate. The former is easier than the latter as is evidenced by Rick Santorum's troubles in the Mountain state in 2012.
That system has been scrapped by the WVGOP for 2020 in favor of a more streamlined process. By a 92-12 vote, the West Virginia Republican Party executive committee opted to share the delegate selection process with the Trump campaign and shift to a winner-take-all method of allocation.
Under the new plan, Republican primary voters in West Virginia will only have one presidential choice before them, the presidential preference vote. Whichever candidate wins that vote would be awarded all of the delegates at stake in the West Virginia primary on May 12. On the selection side, delegate candidates would no longer be included on the primary ballot. Instead, prospective delegate candidates would apply and interview with the WVGOP executive committee and the Trump for President Committee to determine what that individual has done for the party/Trump and how loyal they are. Obviously, that would give much more discretion to the state party and the Trump campaign to identify and select delegates than under the loophole system.
This option was one of three being considered by the executive committee. The other two were 1) to keep the loophole (direct election of delegates) system the same or 2) to adopt a convention system similar to what the West Virginia Republican Party used in 2008. The latter was quickly dismissed and the alternative winner-take-all system was deemed preferable by the executive committee in its vote in late August.
One important coda to this maneuvering is that the change will sunset after 2020, reverting to the old loophole system for subsequent cycles (unless there is state party action to make other changes).
--
Yes, this change clearly gives the Trump campaign a great deal of discretion over the delegates chosen for the national convention from West Virginia. But bear in mind that Democratic National Committee rules allow candidates to reject delegates selected to fill delegate slots allocated them and then represent them at the convention. However, that right of refusal happens after the delegate selection process. The West Virginia Republican Party plan cedes a great deal of control to the Trump reelection effort before and/or during primary season, likely ahead of the West Virginia primary in May. That is an important distinction between how Democrats conduct the process and how West Virginia Republicans are handling theirs.
This also adds another data point to the growing list of states making a variety of changes to their delegate selection rules to help insulate the president from intra-party challenges and hypothetically keep divisiveness down within the party-in-the-electorate before the transition into the general election phase.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Virginia Republicans Will Hold 2020 Presidential Preference Vote at State Convention
Much ink has been spilled of late about the number of Republican state parties considering or deciding to forgo primaries or caucuses during the 2020 presidential nomination cycle. There was a rash of these decisions during the first weekend of September when Republican parties in Arizona, Kansas, Nevada and South Carolina opted out of their respective delegate selection events for next year.
But those states are not alone, nor were they the first to opt for a more closed system of selecting and allocating delegates to the 2020 Republican National Convention in Charlotte.
In fact, during their late June state central committee meeting, Virginia Republicans entertained a motion to hold a presidential preference vote at the party's state convention and the Republican Senate nomination vote in a (June) primary. That motion was split into two questions and dealt with separately. While the state central committee voted in a narrow 40-35 roll call vote to conduct a Senate primary in June 2020, the party opted via an uncontroversial voice vote to skip the presidential primary in favor of a presidential preference vote at the party's state convention next year.
Like many of the states above, Virginia Republicans also have a history of selecting and allocating delegates through means other than a primary. Actually Virginia's use of a primary is more of a 21st century phenomenon. Other than 1988, both parties conducted delegate selection through caucus/convention systems or held firehouse primaries (Democratic state party-run contests) through the early years of the post-reform era. That included 1992, the only time in that late 20th century window when a Republican incumbent (George H.W. Bush) was up for renomination.
This was also the case in 2004 when George W. Bush was again seeking the Republican nomination. Virginia Republicans skipped the primary then as well.
Now, history will repeat itself in 2020 as Virginia Republicans will handle the preference vote, national convention delegate selection and delegate allocation at the state convention. Like in the other states, this is likely to benefit President Trump in his effort win, if not all of the delegates from Virginia, then certainly the lion share of them.
While this often gets described as maneuvering to insulate the president from a challenge, it has a history in a number of states -- particularly on the Republican side -- over time. Virginia is yet another data point for that in the 2020 cycle.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
But those states are not alone, nor were they the first to opt for a more closed system of selecting and allocating delegates to the 2020 Republican National Convention in Charlotte.
In fact, during their late June state central committee meeting, Virginia Republicans entertained a motion to hold a presidential preference vote at the party's state convention and the Republican Senate nomination vote in a (June) primary. That motion was split into two questions and dealt with separately. While the state central committee voted in a narrow 40-35 roll call vote to conduct a Senate primary in June 2020, the party opted via an uncontroversial voice vote to skip the presidential primary in favor of a presidential preference vote at the party's state convention next year.
Like many of the states above, Virginia Republicans also have a history of selecting and allocating delegates through means other than a primary. Actually Virginia's use of a primary is more of a 21st century phenomenon. Other than 1988, both parties conducted delegate selection through caucus/convention systems or held firehouse primaries (Democratic state party-run contests) through the early years of the post-reform era. That included 1992, the only time in that late 20th century window when a Republican incumbent (George H.W. Bush) was up for renomination.
This was also the case in 2004 when George W. Bush was again seeking the Republican nomination. Virginia Republicans skipped the primary then as well.
Now, history will repeat itself in 2020 as Virginia Republicans will handle the preference vote, national convention delegate selection and delegate allocation at the state convention. Like in the other states, this is likely to benefit President Trump in his effort win, if not all of the delegates from Virginia, then certainly the lion share of them.
While this often gets described as maneuvering to insulate the president from a challenge, it has a history in a number of states -- particularly on the Republican side -- over time. Virginia is yet another data point for that in the 2020 cycle.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Michigan Republicans Make Small Change to 2020 Delegate Allocation Rules
Over the weekend it was reported that the Michigan Republican Party had made some changes to their delegate selection rules for the 2020 cycle.
But this is a story that unsurprisingly, since it deals with rules changes, deserves some context. There are a number of changes that are happening on the Republican side this cycle. Primaries and caucuses are being cancelled in states like Arizona, Kansas, Nevada and South Carolina. And delegate allocation rules are being altered in still other states, among them Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Carolina and Ohio.1
All of those are examples of changes that can be viewed as either Trump- or incumbent-friendly. And the Michigan change can be too as has been widely reported. However, as compared to the formula Michigan Republicans used in 2016, this recent alteration of the rules in the Great Lakes state is far more modest when compared to rules the changes in other states thus far.
Massachusetts is a good point of comparison. Republicans in the Bay state made the decision to increase their delegate qualification threshold from 5 percent in 2016 to 20 percent for 2020. Candidates have to receive, in other words, 20 percent of the vote to be allocated a proportional share of any delegates Additionally, the Massachusetts GOP added a winner-take-all threshold. Should a candidate win a majority or more of the vote, then that candidate is eligible for all of the delegates.
Those are both significant changes: a 15 point increase in the qualification threshold and the addition of a winner-take-all threshold. Bill Weld surpassing five percent may or may not be likely, but the former Massachusetts governor getting up to 20 percent in that primary seems a stretch. That is certainly true of Trump not clearing 50 percent in that primary as well.
The Massachusetts change, then, is clearly Trump- or incumbent-friendly.
But Michigan?
Again, the changes the Michigan Republican Party has instituted for the 2020 cycle are much more modest. In 2016, Michigan Republicans employed the same proportional allocation formula with triggers they will in 2020. The party also had a winner-take-all threshold in place last cycle. Both carry over to 2020.
The change?
What the party altered was the qualification threshold, raising it from 15 percent to 20 percent. Just how Trump- or incumbent-friendly that change is depends on just how likely one perceives Bill Weld's or Mark Sanford's or Joe Walsh's chances of clearing 15 percent of the vote in Michigan, much less the new 20 percent threshold (the maximum allowed under RNC rules). What is most likely at this point in time is that Trump, embattled though he may or may not be, clears the majority threshold and claims all of the delegates from Michigan.
But that is not a new addition. That winner-take-all threshold was in place in 2016, and is the most likely benefit Trump will exploit in 2020. Overall, this Michigan change is a modest change in Trump's direction, but it is way down the scale from Trump- or incumbent-friendly changes being made elsewhere by Republican state parties ahead of primaries and caucuses next year.
--
1 The change in Ohio was to the date of the primary in order for the state Republican Party to retain a winner-take-all delegate allocation formula for 2020.
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
But this is a story that unsurprisingly, since it deals with rules changes, deserves some context. There are a number of changes that are happening on the Republican side this cycle. Primaries and caucuses are being cancelled in states like Arizona, Kansas, Nevada and South Carolina. And delegate allocation rules are being altered in still other states, among them Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Carolina and Ohio.1
All of those are examples of changes that can be viewed as either Trump- or incumbent-friendly. And the Michigan change can be too as has been widely reported. However, as compared to the formula Michigan Republicans used in 2016, this recent alteration of the rules in the Great Lakes state is far more modest when compared to rules the changes in other states thus far.
Massachusetts is a good point of comparison. Republicans in the Bay state made the decision to increase their delegate qualification threshold from 5 percent in 2016 to 20 percent for 2020. Candidates have to receive, in other words, 20 percent of the vote to be allocated a proportional share of any delegates Additionally, the Massachusetts GOP added a winner-take-all threshold. Should a candidate win a majority or more of the vote, then that candidate is eligible for all of the delegates.
Those are both significant changes: a 15 point increase in the qualification threshold and the addition of a winner-take-all threshold. Bill Weld surpassing five percent may or may not be likely, but the former Massachusetts governor getting up to 20 percent in that primary seems a stretch. That is certainly true of Trump not clearing 50 percent in that primary as well.
The Massachusetts change, then, is clearly Trump- or incumbent-friendly.
But Michigan?
Again, the changes the Michigan Republican Party has instituted for the 2020 cycle are much more modest. In 2016, Michigan Republicans employed the same proportional allocation formula with triggers they will in 2020. The party also had a winner-take-all threshold in place last cycle. Both carry over to 2020.
The change?
What the party altered was the qualification threshold, raising it from 15 percent to 20 percent. Just how Trump- or incumbent-friendly that change is depends on just how likely one perceives Bill Weld's or Mark Sanford's or Joe Walsh's chances of clearing 15 percent of the vote in Michigan, much less the new 20 percent threshold (the maximum allowed under RNC rules). What is most likely at this point in time is that Trump, embattled though he may or may not be, clears the majority threshold and claims all of the delegates from Michigan.
But that is not a new addition. That winner-take-all threshold was in place in 2016, and is the most likely benefit Trump will exploit in 2020. Overall, this Michigan change is a modest change in Trump's direction, but it is way down the scale from Trump- or incumbent-friendly changes being made elsewhere by Republican state parties ahead of primaries and caucuses next year.
--
1 The change in Ohio was to the date of the primary in order for the state Republican Party to retain a winner-take-all delegate allocation formula for 2020.
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Monday, September 16, 2019
New York Presidential Primary Shifts to April 28
The contiguous six state cluster -- the Acela Primary -- will allow New York Democrats and those in the other five states to take advantage of DNC delegate incentives. That 15 percent bonus will be added to the base New York delegation on top of the 10 percent bonus state Democrats will receive for scheduling an April primary. The additional 49 bonus delegates bring the already large New York delegation up to a total of 273 pledged delegates, second behind only California's delegation.
In his signing memo, Cuomo cited his desire for an earlier primary, something the governor flirted with temporarily in recent weeks after the bill was finally transmitted to him in early September. But after some push back from the Democratic National Committee, Cuomo later quickly rejected the idea. And the reasoning behind that is twofold. First, the legislature was not receptive to the idea, and second, under DNC rules, the state party would have gone from bonus delegates for an April primary to losing half the delegation during primary season for a non-compliant February contest.
One thing Governor Cuomo did note in the memo was that he continues to see value in a consolidated primary -- presidential primary plus those for other local and federal offices -- that would fall on April 28. However, he will not call a special session for the New York legislature to move on that. Rather, he urged the legislature to act in January when they reconvene for the 2020 session. But such a move would have an impact on those filing to run for those other offices that would fall on the same April date as the presidential primary. That, too, may be too quick a turnaround, threatening the viability of that sort of change.
But the New York presidential primary is now locked in on April 28. That change is now reflected on the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.
--
Related:
6/18/19: New York Assembly Passes April Presidential Primary Bill
6/9/19: New York April Presidential Primary Bills Outline 2020 Delegate Selection in the Empire State
4/25/19: New York Democrats Signal an April Presidential Primary
2/14/19: Small Signal Points Toward an Earlier 2020 New York Presidential Primary
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
California Republicans Face Decision on 2020 Delegate Selection
Heading into their state convention this weekend, California Republicans are staring down an October 1 deadline under RNC rules to finalize delegate selection plans for the 2020 cycle. And due to the 2017 move of the presidential primary from June to March for 2020, a change in the way delegates are allocated is necessary.
For years, California Republicans have used a winner-take-most allocation system in the presidential nomination process, doling out (at-large) delegates to the plurality winner statewide and to the plurality winner in each of the Golden state's congressional districts. But unlike past cycles when California held an early (February or March) primary, the contest now falls in the proportionality window the Republican National Committee adopted for the 2012 cycle, tweaked ahead of 2016 and kept for 2020.
That overlap -- a primary in the proportionality window and a winner-take-most allocation scheme -- means California Republicans have to make some changes or face sanction from the RNC (50 percent delegate reduction). And this coming weekend's state convention is one of the last opportunities for the party to make those changes before the RNC deadline at the end of the month.
California Republicans, then, are one of the few state parties that will have a less incumbent-beneficial plan in 2020 as compared to 2016. A handful of states have made subtle maneuvers in 2019 to award more delegates to majority winners (which incumbent presidents typically are) in primaries and caucuses. Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Carolina and Ohio have all either altered their delegate selection rules from 2016 or moved primaries or caucuses to retain or create more incumbent-friendly allocation rules (read: winner-take-all).
So what will California Republicans do?
There is no draft of what the California Republican Party Rules Committee will tackle during their Saturday evening meeting, but the path of least resistance -- the one that alters the status quo the least -- is a proportional allocation system set up with either or both of a maximum 20 percent qualifying threshold on statewide and district results and/or a 50 percent winner-take-all trigger applied to both statewide and district results. That would likely retain the winner-take-most elements in a contest with an intra-party popular incumbent president seeking renomination.
Time, however, will tell that tale. But a change does have to occur for California Republicans to remain in compliance with RNC rules.
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
For years, California Republicans have used a winner-take-most allocation system in the presidential nomination process, doling out (at-large) delegates to the plurality winner statewide and to the plurality winner in each of the Golden state's congressional districts. But unlike past cycles when California held an early (February or March) primary, the contest now falls in the proportionality window the Republican National Committee adopted for the 2012 cycle, tweaked ahead of 2016 and kept for 2020.
That overlap -- a primary in the proportionality window and a winner-take-most allocation scheme -- means California Republicans have to make some changes or face sanction from the RNC (50 percent delegate reduction). And this coming weekend's state convention is one of the last opportunities for the party to make those changes before the RNC deadline at the end of the month.
California Republicans, then, are one of the few state parties that will have a less incumbent-beneficial plan in 2020 as compared to 2016. A handful of states have made subtle maneuvers in 2019 to award more delegates to majority winners (which incumbent presidents typically are) in primaries and caucuses. Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Carolina and Ohio have all either altered their delegate selection rules from 2016 or moved primaries or caucuses to retain or create more incumbent-friendly allocation rules (read: winner-take-all).
So what will California Republicans do?
There is no draft of what the California Republican Party Rules Committee will tackle during their Saturday evening meeting, but the path of least resistance -- the one that alters the status quo the least -- is a proportional allocation system set up with either or both of a maximum 20 percent qualifying threshold on statewide and district results and/or a 50 percent winner-take-all trigger applied to both statewide and district results. That would likely retain the winner-take-most elements in a contest with an intra-party popular incumbent president seeking renomination.
Time, however, will tell that tale. But a change does have to occur for California Republicans to remain in compliance with RNC rules.
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Maine Ranked Choice Voting Presidential Primary Bill Revived in Special Session
The Maine legislature convened a brief special session on Monday, August 26 and raised the ranked choice voting presidential primary bill that had carried over from the earlier regular session.The bill -- LD 1083 -- had become a casualty of the final day of the legislature in June, failing to get one final enacting vote passed in the state Senate. That vote came on Monday and passed along party lines with just one majority party Democrat voting with dissenting Republicans.
Final enacting vote behind it, the bill now moves to Governor Janet Mills (D) for her consideration. She previously in the summer signed legislation into law reestablishing a presidential primary in the Pine Tree state and scheduling it for Super Tuesday.
--
Just last week, the Democratic Party Rules and Bylaws Committee raised the topic of ranked choice voting in presidential primaries during the DNC summer meeting in San Francisco. And while Maine was cited as a potential ranked choice voting state in the process, the RBC punted on issuing any guidance until any changes were final in state law and state party delegate selection plans had been revised and resubmitted.
There are some questions as to how the process would work in Maine in a presidential nomination context. Unlike in New Hampshire, where ranked choice voting in presidential primaries legislation failed earlier this year, the Maine legislation is less forthcoming about the mechanics of the process. Whereas the proposed New Hampshire system would have shifted the reallocation line to a 15 percent threshold (as opposed to reallocating until one winner is determined), the Maine system does not specifically lay out any instructions over than it should follow the same procedure as any other ranked choice system. That would mean narrowing the list down to one winner.
However, what the bill does do is leave up to the discretion of the state parties the process of delegate allocation and selection. And the standard Democratic threshold of 15 percent remains the mandate from the national party. The Maine Democratic Party delegate selection plan already received a conditional compliance grade from the RBC during its July 30 meeting. Should the ranked choice voting bill be signed into law, though, the plan would have to be revised.
--
Tip of the cap to @khfan93 for the heads up about the Press-Herald story on the bill's passage cited above.
--
Related:
1/18/19: Maine Lost its Presidential Primary
2/1/19: Maine Decision to Re-Establish a Presidential Primary Option for 2020 Hinges on Money
2/9/19: Maine Committee Hearing Highlights Familiar Divisions in Caucus to Primary Shifts
3/16/19: Alternative Bill Would Reestablish a Presidential Primary in Maine but with Ranked Choice Voting
3/22/19: Maine Committee Hearing Finds Support for and Roadblocks to a Ranked Choice Presidential Primary
3/30/19: Maine Democrats Signal Caucuses in Draft Delegate Selection Plan, but...
4/23/19: New Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Introduced in Maine
5/10/19: Maine Committee Working Session Offers Little Clarity on 2020 Presidential Primary
6/3/19: Maine Senate Advances Super Tuesday Primary Bill
6/4/19:
6/19/19: Fate of a Reestablished Presidential Primary in Maine Not Clear Entering Final Legislative Day
6/20/19: Governor Mills' Signature Sets Maine Presidential Primary for Super Tuesday
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Thursday, August 8, 2019
Kentucky Republicans Change Presidential Caucus Process
In any event, there are some tea leaves to read that point in the direction of the Republican Party of Kentucky (RPK) using the caucus/convention format again in 2020. For starters, the party adopted rules changes to the caucus section of the RPK's rules added in 2015. Back at the June 15 meeting of the RPK state central committee the rules were changed for 2020. The party not only changed the date of the contest, but altered the method of delegate allocation as well. And the former made the latter possible. First, the date of the caucuses was moved back on the calendar from the first Saturday in March. In 2020, if Republicans in the Bluegrass state hold caucuses, the event will fall on the third Saturday in March.
That new position on the calendar allowed the party to then trade out the proportional allocation method used in 2016 for a winner-take-all method in the current cycle. Under Republican National Committee rules, no contest before March 15 can allocated delegates in a winner-take-all fashion without having a winner-take-all threshold (no less than 50 percent of the vote) in place. RPK skipped that, opting for a later date -- March 21 -- and a true winner-take-all plan with no trigger.
Those would be inconsequential rules changes if the RPK ultimately decided to use the May state-run presidential primary for allocating delegates instead. Why go to the trouble? That does not confirm that Republicans in Kentucky will use the caucuses again, but it certainly points in that direction.
It should additionally be noted that in 2015 when the party added the caucuses language to the party rules, that August state central committee meeting was the setting in which the decision to use the caucuses for delegate allocation in 2016 was made as well. Now, whether that same protocol was utilized at the June 2019 meeting is unclear. But if the pattern in 2015 was the same in 2019, then the party will be using a winner-take-all caucus on March 21 of next year.
Kentucky, then, potentially fits the pattern of state parties making rules changes that might benefit the president's renomination outlook.
FHQ will add the new date of the Kentucky Republican caucuses to the 2020 presidential primary calendar, but with an asterisk until the move is confirmed with the party.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe for daily updates via Email.
Wednesday, August 7, 2019
An Early and Tentative Look at Democratic Bonus Delegates for 2020
NOTE: Click here for the final breakdown of delegates by category for each state.
Now that the 2020 Democratic presidential primary calendar is all but complete, one can begin to assess which states are definitively eligible for bonus delegates. Under the rules of the Democratic nomination process, there are two ways in which a state party can be awarded delegates in addition to those apportioned it by the DNC formula. One is based on timing and the other on the clustering of contiguous primaries and/or caucuses.
Timing bonus
The timing bonus stems from the manner in which the Democratic National Committee partitions the primary calendar. Stage I encompasses the February carve-out contests plus those scheduled in the month of March. None of the states that fall into this earliest calendar category are eligible for any additional delegates.
However, the next two (of three) stages are. Any contest scheduled during the month of April falls into Stage II and is awarded an extra 10 percent bonus. That 10 percent is calculated using the base delegation, the output of the DNC apportionment formula before the 15 percent "add-on" delegates or PLEOs (party leader and elected officials) are tacked on to the pledged delegate total.1 That is really just a longer way of saying that any bonus is calculated as a percentage of a state's district and at-large delegates combined.
Finally, the last section of the calendar -- Stage III -- includes any contest that falls in either May or the earliest part of June. Those state parties see a 20 percent bonus added to their base delegations.
Clustering bonus
The other bonus added in 2010 for the 2012 cycle gives incentive to states that form regional or subregional primaries later in the calendar. Any state with a contest clustered with contests in at least two other neighboring states are eligible for a 15 percent bonus added to their base delegations. But only states with regional or subregional clusters on or later than the fourth Tuesday in March can be awarded that bonus. There is, then, a timing element to this bonus as well. And what that ultimately means is that unless a cluster wedges into a spot in the last week or so of March, then all other clustering states are eligible for more than one bonus. An April cluster would mean a 15 percent bump plus a 10 percent timing increase. And any cluster in May or later would qualify for a 20 percent timing bonus plus the 15 percent clustering increase that totals to a 35 percent increase to a state's base delegation.
Early and Tentative 2020 bonus delegates
Again, with the 2020 primary calendar near completion, one can map out how many bonus delegates there will be and in which states that will end up. Yes, the dates of the primaries in New York and Washington, DC are unsettled at this time, but are very likely to end up on April 28 and June 2, respectively. If one assumes both end up on those dates then each would be among the 24 states and territories in the 2020 cycle to qualify for bonus delegates. That total is down from 28 bonus-qualifying states in 2016. Arizona2, California, Idaho, North Dakota, Puerto Rico and Utah all lost bonuses by moving up and/or opting into (earlier) primaries rather than (later) caucuses. And Louisiana and Kansas both gained bonuses by shifting their contests to later and bonus-eligible dates for 2020.
What appears below is a detailed table of how many delegates have been apportioned by the DNC to each of the 57 states and territories with contests. The pledged delegates, broken into their various categories, appear in Duke blue, the automatic delegates (superdelegates) are shaded in Carolina blue. And a tentative tally of bonus delegates also appears (where applicable) in shades of green. The darker the shade of green, the greater the bonus calculated from and tacked onto the base delegation total.
Now, again, this is apt to change some based on any further but unforeseen changes to the calendar. However, given the current (likely) calendar, there would be 211 bonus delegates awarded across the 24 eligible states. Nearly a quarter of them are apportioned to New York alone, a beneficiary of not only a timing bonus should the primary in the Empire state wind up on April 28, but a clustering bonus as well. Pennsylvania also benefits from that double bonus. Together, Pennsylvania and New York represent nearly 40 percent of the total bonus delegates apportioned. In fact, the entire six state Acela primary cluster on April 28 accounts for over half of all of the likely bonus delegates, all benefiting from a double bonus (25 percent in total).
Practically speaking, the addition of any bonus delegates adds to the total number of pledged delegates and total delegates. And that, in turn, means that the number of delegates needed for any candidate to win the nomination increases as well. The pledged total would rise to 3979 delegates, meaning that a candidate would need 1990 pledged delegates to win the nomination on a first ballot vote conducted without superdelegates.
In the event that the nomination process goes beyond the first ballot, a candidate would need a higher total number of delegates, including the superdelegates, to win the nomination. The overall total, including bonus delegates, would increase to 4745 delegates.3 As a result the magic number to clinch the Democratic nomination on a second or subsequent ballot would increase to 2373 delegates. A candidate can also enter the convention with that number of or more delegates and win the nomination on a first ballot vote that includes superdelegates.
How might these bonus delegate totals change in the coming months?
Unless the calendar undergoes a late and unforeseen change, then the above is likely what the final bonus delegate and pledged delegate totals will look like. Should the New York bill moving the primary there to April not be signed into law, for example, then New York Democrats would lose their 49 bonus delegates and the overall bonus delegate total would decrease.4 That would alter not only the bonus total but the overall total.
Barring those sorts of late cycle moves, however, the bonus delegate total is as close to locked at it can be. By extension, that means that the pledged total is unlikely to change as well, and thus the 1990 delegate magic number is fairly close to accurate.
Where things remain in flux is within the superdelegate total. The secretary of the DNC does not have to confirm that total (for each state) to state parties until March 6, 2020. Most of likely changes on this front will take place during the fall 2019 gubernatorial elections and any special elections to Congress, and then, the changes are only likely to be pretty minimal.
[MORE: How the magic number may be more fluid in 2020 than it has in past years.]
How are bonus delegates apportioned to eligible states?
Here it may be useful to refer back to the table above. At the bottom is a tab called "Bonus Distribution". If one clicks on that, then one can see where the bonus delegates are distributed in a state's total. Alaska, for example, would gain one bonus delegate, and that extra delegate ends up filtering into the district delegate total.
Why?
Here, things get a bit more complicated. First, a state's base delegation is made up of district and at-large delegates. By rule, 75 percent of that base delegation should be district delegates with the remaining 25 percent reserved for at-large delegates.
Adding bonus delegates to the base delegation total potentially alters that balance. Bonus delegates cannot all, then, be added to the at-large delegate pool (the allocation of which is determined by statewide results). The method the DNC uses is not to lump at-large, district and bonus delegates into a pool and recalculate a new 75/25 district-to-at-large balance. Rather, the DNC leaves the originally calculated at-large and district pools alone and calculates a 75/25 split of any bonus delegates for which a state may be eligible. The 75 percent portion is then added to the existing district delegate total and the remaining part to the at-large total.
The only places where this process breaks down to some degree are, first, when the resulting apportionment of bonus delegates to each of the two pools ends with a remainder of .5. Both sides of the calculation cannot round up, otherwise an additional delegate is added to a state's total. In those cases, the district bonus segment is rounded up and the at-large bonus segment rounds down.
Small delegations and bonuses are also potentially problematic. In the case of delegations so small as to only warrant one bonus delegate, that delegate would always mathematically end up in the district total. However, in cases like Alaska and Wyoming -- where just one bonus delegate is apportioned -- that one bonus delegate filters into the at-large pool.
The resulting bonus delegate distribution for 2020 is weighted slightly more toward the at-large side. 26.5 percent of the bonus delegates are collectively apportioned to at-large pool, more than the 25 percent goal. Of course, that is based on the aggregated totals (155 district bonus delegates and 56 at-large bonus delegates). The distribution relative to the balance called for in the rules differs from state to state and is also closer to 75/25 when considering the overall pools of district and at-large delegates (with bonus delegates added).
In the end, all this really means is that a marginal number of delegates winds up in that overall at-large pool that is allocated based on statewide results.
--
1 PLEOs are distinct from superdelegates. Before 2012, both were in the same unplugged category. But upon the recommendation of the Democratic Change Commission to reduce the number of superdelegates, the DNC adopted rules changes in 2010 for the 2012 cycle. That change shifted those add-on/PLEO delegates from unpledged into the pledged category.
2 There was no purposeful move of the Arizona primary for the 2020 cycle. However, the language describing where the primary falls on the calendar, while advantageous in 2016, is not for 2020. The primary is scheduled for the Tuesday immediately after March 15. In 2016, that date was the fourth Tuesday in March and qualified Arizona Democrats for a clustering bonus (along with Idaho and Utah). That Tuesday in 2020 is on March 17, too early to be eligible for a clustering bonus (even if Arizona had not lost its 2016 partners for 2020).
3 The DNC total for superdelegates does not seemingly include the Democratic governor of the Virgin Islands. That addition is reflected in the superdelegate and overall totals in the table above.
4 That would also mean that New York would have a February primary and, by rule, lose half their delegates. Typically, a penalty like that is meted out during primary season but restored for the convention. But it is an open question as to whether the DNC through the Rules and Bylaws Committee would restore any penalized delegates in a scenario where there is no presumptive nominee heading into the convention. All state-level delegate selection processes are to be completed no later than June 20, 2020. After that point, the secretary of the DNC would confirm the total number of delegates of all of the candidates, determining the likely parameters of the first ballot vote: with or without superdelegates. But things would have to be pretty close for a penalized total of 112 delegates from New York to make the difference.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe for daily updates via Email.
Now that the 2020 Democratic presidential primary calendar is all but complete, one can begin to assess which states are definitively eligible for bonus delegates. Under the rules of the Democratic nomination process, there are two ways in which a state party can be awarded delegates in addition to those apportioned it by the DNC formula. One is based on timing and the other on the clustering of contiguous primaries and/or caucuses.
Timing bonus
The timing bonus stems from the manner in which the Democratic National Committee partitions the primary calendar. Stage I encompasses the February carve-out contests plus those scheduled in the month of March. None of the states that fall into this earliest calendar category are eligible for any additional delegates.
However, the next two (of three) stages are. Any contest scheduled during the month of April falls into Stage II and is awarded an extra 10 percent bonus. That 10 percent is calculated using the base delegation, the output of the DNC apportionment formula before the 15 percent "add-on" delegates or PLEOs (party leader and elected officials) are tacked on to the pledged delegate total.1 That is really just a longer way of saying that any bonus is calculated as a percentage of a state's district and at-large delegates combined.
Finally, the last section of the calendar -- Stage III -- includes any contest that falls in either May or the earliest part of June. Those state parties see a 20 percent bonus added to their base delegations.
Clustering bonus
The other bonus added in 2010 for the 2012 cycle gives incentive to states that form regional or subregional primaries later in the calendar. Any state with a contest clustered with contests in at least two other neighboring states are eligible for a 15 percent bonus added to their base delegations. But only states with regional or subregional clusters on or later than the fourth Tuesday in March can be awarded that bonus. There is, then, a timing element to this bonus as well. And what that ultimately means is that unless a cluster wedges into a spot in the last week or so of March, then all other clustering states are eligible for more than one bonus. An April cluster would mean a 15 percent bump plus a 10 percent timing increase. And any cluster in May or later would qualify for a 20 percent timing bonus plus the 15 percent clustering increase that totals to a 35 percent increase to a state's base delegation.
Early and Tentative 2020 bonus delegates
Again, with the 2020 primary calendar near completion, one can map out how many bonus delegates there will be and in which states that will end up. Yes, the dates of the primaries in New York and Washington, DC are unsettled at this time, but are very likely to end up on April 28 and June 2, respectively. If one assumes both end up on those dates then each would be among the 24 states and territories in the 2020 cycle to qualify for bonus delegates. That total is down from 28 bonus-qualifying states in 2016. Arizona2, California, Idaho, North Dakota, Puerto Rico and Utah all lost bonuses by moving up and/or opting into (earlier) primaries rather than (later) caucuses. And Louisiana and Kansas both gained bonuses by shifting their contests to later and bonus-eligible dates for 2020.
What appears below is a detailed table of how many delegates have been apportioned by the DNC to each of the 57 states and territories with contests. The pledged delegates, broken into their various categories, appear in Duke blue, the automatic delegates (superdelegates) are shaded in Carolina blue. And a tentative tally of bonus delegates also appears (where applicable) in shades of green. The darker the shade of green, the greater the bonus calculated from and tacked onto the base delegation total.
Now, again, this is apt to change some based on any further but unforeseen changes to the calendar. However, given the current (likely) calendar, there would be 211 bonus delegates awarded across the 24 eligible states. Nearly a quarter of them are apportioned to New York alone, a beneficiary of not only a timing bonus should the primary in the Empire state wind up on April 28, but a clustering bonus as well. Pennsylvania also benefits from that double bonus. Together, Pennsylvania and New York represent nearly 40 percent of the total bonus delegates apportioned. In fact, the entire six state Acela primary cluster on April 28 accounts for over half of all of the likely bonus delegates, all benefiting from a double bonus (25 percent in total).
Practically speaking, the addition of any bonus delegates adds to the total number of pledged delegates and total delegates. And that, in turn, means that the number of delegates needed for any candidate to win the nomination increases as well. The pledged total would rise to 3979 delegates, meaning that a candidate would need 1990 pledged delegates to win the nomination on a first ballot vote conducted without superdelegates.
In the event that the nomination process goes beyond the first ballot, a candidate would need a higher total number of delegates, including the superdelegates, to win the nomination. The overall total, including bonus delegates, would increase to 4745 delegates.3 As a result the magic number to clinch the Democratic nomination on a second or subsequent ballot would increase to 2373 delegates. A candidate can also enter the convention with that number of or more delegates and win the nomination on a first ballot vote that includes superdelegates.
How might these bonus delegate totals change in the coming months?
Unless the calendar undergoes a late and unforeseen change, then the above is likely what the final bonus delegate and pledged delegate totals will look like. Should the New York bill moving the primary there to April not be signed into law, for example, then New York Democrats would lose their 49 bonus delegates and the overall bonus delegate total would decrease.4 That would alter not only the bonus total but the overall total.
Barring those sorts of late cycle moves, however, the bonus delegate total is as close to locked at it can be. By extension, that means that the pledged total is unlikely to change as well, and thus the 1990 delegate magic number is fairly close to accurate.
Where things remain in flux is within the superdelegate total. The secretary of the DNC does not have to confirm that total (for each state) to state parties until March 6, 2020. Most of likely changes on this front will take place during the fall 2019 gubernatorial elections and any special elections to Congress, and then, the changes are only likely to be pretty minimal.
[MORE: How the magic number may be more fluid in 2020 than it has in past years.]
How are bonus delegates apportioned to eligible states?
Here it may be useful to refer back to the table above. At the bottom is a tab called "Bonus Distribution". If one clicks on that, then one can see where the bonus delegates are distributed in a state's total. Alaska, for example, would gain one bonus delegate, and that extra delegate ends up filtering into the district delegate total.
Why?
Here, things get a bit more complicated. First, a state's base delegation is made up of district and at-large delegates. By rule, 75 percent of that base delegation should be district delegates with the remaining 25 percent reserved for at-large delegates.
Adding bonus delegates to the base delegation total potentially alters that balance. Bonus delegates cannot all, then, be added to the at-large delegate pool (the allocation of which is determined by statewide results). The method the DNC uses is not to lump at-large, district and bonus delegates into a pool and recalculate a new 75/25 district-to-at-large balance. Rather, the DNC leaves the originally calculated at-large and district pools alone and calculates a 75/25 split of any bonus delegates for which a state may be eligible. The 75 percent portion is then added to the existing district delegate total and the remaining part to the at-large total.
The only places where this process breaks down to some degree are, first, when the resulting apportionment of bonus delegates to each of the two pools ends with a remainder of .5. Both sides of the calculation cannot round up, otherwise an additional delegate is added to a state's total. In those cases, the district bonus segment is rounded up and the at-large bonus segment rounds down.
Small delegations and bonuses are also potentially problematic. In the case of delegations so small as to only warrant one bonus delegate, that delegate would always mathematically end up in the district total. However, in cases like Alaska and Wyoming -- where just one bonus delegate is apportioned -- that one bonus delegate filters into the at-large pool.
The resulting bonus delegate distribution for 2020 is weighted slightly more toward the at-large side. 26.5 percent of the bonus delegates are collectively apportioned to at-large pool, more than the 25 percent goal. Of course, that is based on the aggregated totals (155 district bonus delegates and 56 at-large bonus delegates). The distribution relative to the balance called for in the rules differs from state to state and is also closer to 75/25 when considering the overall pools of district and at-large delegates (with bonus delegates added).
In the end, all this really means is that a marginal number of delegates winds up in that overall at-large pool that is allocated based on statewide results.
--
1 PLEOs are distinct from superdelegates. Before 2012, both were in the same unplugged category. But upon the recommendation of the Democratic Change Commission to reduce the number of superdelegates, the DNC adopted rules changes in 2010 for the 2012 cycle. That change shifted those add-on/PLEO delegates from unpledged into the pledged category.
2 There was no purposeful move of the Arizona primary for the 2020 cycle. However, the language describing where the primary falls on the calendar, while advantageous in 2016, is not for 2020. The primary is scheduled for the Tuesday immediately after March 15. In 2016, that date was the fourth Tuesday in March and qualified Arizona Democrats for a clustering bonus (along with Idaho and Utah). That Tuesday in 2020 is on March 17, too early to be eligible for a clustering bonus (even if Arizona had not lost its 2016 partners for 2020).
3 The DNC total for superdelegates does not seemingly include the Democratic governor of the Virgin Islands. That addition is reflected in the superdelegate and overall totals in the table above.
4 That would also mean that New York would have a February primary and, by rule, lose half their delegates. Typically, a penalty like that is meted out during primary season but restored for the convention. But it is an open question as to whether the DNC through the Rules and Bylaws Committee would restore any penalized delegates in a scenario where there is no presumptive nominee heading into the convention. All state-level delegate selection processes are to be completed no later than June 20, 2020. After that point, the secretary of the DNC would confirm the total number of delegates of all of the candidates, determining the likely parameters of the first ballot vote: with or without superdelegates. But things would have to be pretty close for a penalized total of 112 delegates from New York to make the difference.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe for daily updates via Email.
Sunday, August 4, 2019
Puerto Rico Democratic Primary Shifts to March 29
Rosselló said in a press release:
“This legislative measure provides the opportunity to put Puerto Rico on the radar of potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party. The candidates will not only pay attention to Puerto Rico but will have to clearly stipulate their positions regarding the issues that affect the island. In changing the date to the month of March, we can engage candidates directly on the political and economic inequality that Puerto Rico goes through."While the change may increase the odds that more attention is paid to the Puerto Rico primary (and the issues important to island residents), that is not a guarantee on a date that late in March, after Super Tuesday and after more than two-thirds of the Democratic delegates will have been allocated. And any attention gained comes at a cost of the nine bonus delegates the party would have been eligible for in the June position, bonus delegates the party has had over the last several cycles.
--
Notes on that NBC report on the primary date change linked above:
1) It states that Puerto Rico joins California and Texas on Super Tuesday. It does not. The Puerto Rico Democratic primary will fall nearly a month later on the calendar.
2) Let's talk briefly about the date of the Republican presidential primary in Puerto Rico for 2020. The NBC article suggests that the primary for Republicans on the island will occur on March 8. It may. But that is not exactly what the Compulsory Presidential Primary Act that S 1323 just altered for the Democratic Party indicates. It explicitly schedules the Republican presidential primary for the last Sunday in February unless that date conflicts with the New Hampshire primary. The last Sunday in February in 2020 is February 23, a date nearly two weeks after the New Hampshire primary. There is no conflict, not with New Hampshire anyway.
Now, there is a conflict between that last Sunday in February date and Republican National Committee rules prohibiting February primaries and caucuses other than in the four carve-out states. But that particular conflict (and any resulting contingency) is not laid out in the Puerto Rico statute and thus the primary would not be shifted back to the first Sunday in March (which technically would be March 1 and still non-compliant).
The catch in this whole discussion is that it is moot. While there are instructions on when to schedule the Republican presidential primary in the aforementioned statute, the Republican Party in Puerto Rico ignores that in favor of another section of the election code and cited it in their Rule 16(f) filing with the RNC in 2015. That section -- Chapter 407, Section 4119 -- reads:
In the case of primaries for candidates who seek nomination in their political party for election to the office of President of the United States of America, the same may be held on any date after the first Tuesday of February of the General Election year, and up to June fifteenth (15th) of that same year, as determined by the local body of the party, as appropriate.In other words, the statute gives the Republican Party in the territory wide latitude in setting the date of the primary, wide enough to include all of February and the first few days of March that are not compliant under the national party rules. But anything from the first Tuesday in March through June 15 is available to Puerto Rico Republicans. The party may yet settle on March 8 as the article indicates. Alternatively, Republicans on the island could opt to hold their contest on March 29, aligned with the Democratic contest in an effort to cut down on the expenditures for two primary elections. But the point is that it is an open question at this time as to when the Puerto Rico Republican presidential primary will fall in 2020. An answer to that question will become clearer as the October 1 deadline for state parties to submit their delegate selection plans to the RNC.
3) Finally, the California primary was not moved in December of 2018 as mentioned in the NBC piece. The bill moving the primary in the Golden state from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March was signed into law in September 2017, well before the end of 2018.
The Puerto Rico Democratic Party primary date change has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe for daily updates via Email.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)