Ex Post Facto: Why Do New Jersey and Virginia Have Those Off-Off Year Elections Anyway?

It turns out that in both cases, it was a function of the fact that both had constitutional conventions to draft new guidelines for governing each state. That, in turn, disrupted the timing of gubernatorial elections.

In New Jersey:

Prior to the adoption of the modern New Jersey Constitution, New Jersey governors served three year terms, with the last gubernatorial election under the old constitution occurring in 1946. In 1947, the legislature proposed a constitutional convention which was voted on as a referendum and approved by a majority of voters. The new constitution was ratified in 1947, and among many other changes, extended the governor’s term to four years. This extension, however, did not apply to the current governor’s (Alfred Driscoll) term, who had been elected under the old constitution. So, Driscoll’s first term, which had begun in 1947, ended in 1950. When Driscoll ran for reelection, the term limits of the new constitution applied, so Driscoll’s second term lasted for four years. The election to replace Driscoll occurred in November of 1953, and thanks to the new four year terms, every New Jersey gubernatorial election from then on naturally fell on an off-off year.

And in Virginia:

In March 1851, while the constitutional convention was meeting, the Virginia General Assembly elected a new governor, as it had for the past 75 years for a three-year term. The newly elected governor Joseph Johnson was to take office on January 1, 1852, but in the ensuing months Virginia voters approved the new constitution which among other things expanded suffrage to all white male citizens 21 years or older who had been residents for at least two year and required the governor to be popularly elected to a four-year term. The constitution also prohibited the governor from serving successive terms, a prohibition that is still in place today.

Soon after the new constitution was adopted Democrats met in convention in Staunton and nominated Johnson to run for governor. The first popular election for governor was held on December 8, 1851, but the results of the election were not certified until January 15, 1852. Not wanting to leave the Commonwealth without a chief executive, Johnson assumed the governor’s office on January 1, 1852 by rights of his having been elected by the General Assembly the previous March. On January 15, after the results of the election were certified, he was declared the winner of the first popular election for governor in the Commonwealth’s history and assumed the office on that basis on January 16. A series of unelected military governors during Reconstruction shifted the election cycle from one-year before presidential elections on the odd year to one-year after presidential elections on the odd year, and that pattern has remained ever since.

This is interesting material from a new blog from the Society for Election Law at William & Mary. They just opened up shop on Monday, but this promises to be a site worth checking in the future. Click on the state links above to read the full entries on both New Jersey and Virginia. There's much more to the Virginia post.


Recent Posts:
GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting Today

Obama v. Palin in 2012? One Forecast is Already In

St. Cloud St. Poll: Obama leads Pawlenty in 2012 Horserace in MN

GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee Meeting Today

Either the Republican Party is quieter about their efforts at tinkering with their presidential nomination rules for 2012 or FHQ just doesn't have the right connections. We do have one that is consistently good, however. According to former Michigan Republican Party chair and TDSC member, Saul Anuzis, the group is meeting today in Washington. The group last met at the end of September. Very little information has emerged from any of the meetings thus far. Iowa and New Hampshire are safe in their first-in-the-nation status and there has been at least some discussion of regional primaries, and separately, a potential instant runoff system.

FHQ will update as news of the meeting surfaces. In the meantime, both Anuzi's Twitter account and blog are good places to check if you're impatient (...like FHQ).


Recent Posts:
Obama v. Palin in 2012? One Forecast is Already In

St. Cloud St. Poll: Obama leads Pawlenty in 2012 Horserace in MN

Twenty Ten or Two Thousand Ten?

Obama v. Palin in 2012? One Forecast is Already In

A month and a half ago, FHQ posted a link to and discussed a presidential election forecasting model built on candidate biographical information. The benefit of this model -- and it performs quite well stacked up against other forecasting models -- is that the biographical data exists now. In other words, you don't have to wait until the second quarter economic numbers are released or to wait on polling data from a particular period of time in the election year to put an accurate forecast together. [But hey, if you want to continue to come here and watch FHQ wade through the quadrennial polling data on the presidential race, we won't fault you. We here at FHQ may go so far as to encourage it.] I left off in that post urging folks to start scouring the biographical data on the prospective 2012 Republicans.

But why do that? Well, if you're patient, you'll be pleasantly surprised by an email from the authors of the original research. And lo and behold, one of those co-authors, Andreas Graefe (the other is J. Scott Armstrong), emailed me this morning to inform me that -- yes, that's right -- they've already looked at the Obama v. Palin numbers. How does Palin fare against the President?

[Click to Enlarge and here for the full description of the 2012 update at PollyVote.]

That nine point difference between the two candidates' biographical indicators translates to Obama carrying a 59.6% share of the two-party vote in 2012 if this was the match up (For some context, Obama received 52.9% of the vote in 2008 or 53.4% of the two-party vote). That's Reagan-Mondale territory and would likely make for quite the electoral college sweep for Obama.

But didn't you say that this model wasn't particularly adept at picking elections involving incumbents? (Ah, you followed the link and read the previous post, didn't you? Thanks.) That's right. Three incumbents with biographical score advantages lost re-election bids (to: Truman '48, Carter '76, Clinton '92). It has been done, then, but let's look a little more closely at those three elections. Carter and Truman had deficits of 5 points on the biographical index while Clinton trailed Bush by just three points. Palin's disadvantage against Obama is over twice the average deficit across those three incorrectly predicted elections, though.

That's a real hole to be in even before you start considering running for president. But back to my question from the last post: Who among the 2012ers does the best?

A special thanks to Andreas Graefe for drawing our attention to the updated 2012 outlook.


Recent Posts:
St. Cloud St. Poll: Obama leads Pawlenty in 2012 Horserace in MN

Twenty Ten or Two Thousand Ten?

A Follow Up on Palin and Winner-Take-All Presidential Primaries

St. Cloud St. Poll: Obama leads Pawlenty in 2012 Horserace in MN

Back in July Public Policy Polling conducted a survey in Minnesota and threw in a 2012 trial heat question pitting President Obama against both Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin. The result? Obama led both, but Pawlenty did the better of the two Republicans in his home state. Obama led the current Minnesota governor 51-40 then.

Well, St. Cloud St. University today released the results of a similar trial heat poll (No, Palin wasn't included. I know, and her book was released today, too!). Did Pawlenty make any headway following his ascension to the Vice Chair position within the Republican Governors Association and the formation of his Freedom First PAC; two events associated with his being on the lips of the punditocracy in relation to the 2012 presidential race? Actually, it doesn't seem to have made all that much difference at all.

Obama: 49.0%
Pawlenty: 39.7%
Undecided: 5.6%

Margin of Error: +/- 5%
Sample: 550 adults (Minnesotans)
Conducted: October 26 - November 4, 2009

Across two different polling firms' polls, then, Obama dropped some while Pawlenty held steady around the 40% mark. Looking at the margin, this poll isn't any different than the 54-44 edge Obama had over McCain last November in the Land of 10,000 Lakes.

In the cross-tabs, there are some interesting nuggets. Obama leads among every age group save the 35-44 group, where Pawlenty leads by 21 points (55-34). Obama also leads among women (59-31) while trailing among men (49-40). Both candidates(???) have consolidated their bases; each has over 84% among their own partisans. Obama leads among independents (27-17) -- or "those not close to either party."

This certainly isn't a trend so much as a flatline, but still, as always, it is nicer to have the data than not. But the bottom line out of this one echoes what FHQ discussed over the weekend: Pawlenty isn't there yet, but he needs to be active to catch up with those potential 2012ers that have more name recognition nationally than he does.

Hat tip to GOP12 for the link.


Recent Posts:
Twenty Ten or Two Thousand Ten?

A Follow Up on Palin and Winner-Take-All Presidential Primaries

How Palin Could Win the 2012 GOP Nomination. Well, it'll take more than just winner-take-all primaries.

Twenty Ten or Two Thousand Ten?

This one stuck in FHQ's craw for some reason.

As I drove home yesterday and listened to the "How Do You Say 2010?" story on All Things Considered, I became aware of the fact that I was planted rather angrily in one of the camps. Why does this matter? Oh, it doesn't in the grand scheme of things, but since FHQ is in the habit of typing (and saying while I type -- Yes, I'm one of those people.) 2012 quiet a lot and will only see ramped up use of 2010 in the coming month, it is relevant.

So which camp do you fall in?



I'm a Twenty Ten kind of guy. All I could think of while I listened was that George Orwell's book was Nineteen Eighty-Four, not One Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty-Four. All that's happened is that these "Aught" years have broken us of that Nineteen or Twenty habit.


Recent Posts:
A Follow Up on Palin and Winner-Take-All Presidential Primaries

How Palin Could Win the 2012 GOP Nomination. Well, it'll take more than just winner-take-all primaries.

Is the Idaho GOP Still After a Closed Primary?

A Follow Up on Palin and Winner-Take-All Presidential Primaries

One caveat FHQ intended to include in yesterday's glimpse at the Palin Winner-Take-All hypothesis, but neglected to include was the fact that half of the winner-take-all states are not true winner-take-all states. [I think I may have just set the record for number of times using winner-take-all in one sentence.] Thankfully, I have a loyal group of readers/commenters (in this case MysteryPolitico) who are willing to point out these things. This is the power of the blogging platform.

Anyway, this is a significant factor in the scenario that Walter Shapiro constructed yesterday. If only 10 of the 21 winner-take-all contests are true, statewide winner-take-all primaries, then Sarah Palin's task of winning the 2012 Republican nomination in that fashion becomes all the more difficult. In most of the eleven states that are not true winner-take-all states, the delegate allocation is done at both the congressional district level and statewide level as opposed to simply taking the statewide vote. It would require, in other words, winning some contests within contests to pull off a sweep of a state that allocates delegates in this manner.

It can happen, but it is tough to pull off in a fragmented nomination race like the 2008 GOP contest. McCain, for instance, was able to win 36% of the vote in Florida and 55% of the vote in Maryland and come out with a sweep of both states' delegates.

2008 Republican Presidential Primaries (Winner-Take-All by District & Statewide)
State	Statewide Winner (2008)	% vote	% delegates
Florida	McCain	36	100
Maryland	McCain	55	100
Ohio	McCain	60	97
California	McCain	42	90
Wisconsin	McCain	55	85
Oklahoma	McCain	37	78
South Carolina	McCain	33	75
Georgia	Huckabee	34	71
Michigan	Romney	39	67
Alabama*	Huckabee	41	54
Indiana**	McCain	78	47
*Alabama is winner-take-all at the district level and proportional with the at-large delegates at the statewide level. **Indiana allocated approximately half (27 delegates) its delegates under winner-take-all rules by congressional district in its May primary. The remaining delegates were left uncommitted until a June convention where the other half (27 delegates) were allocated in addition to three unpledged, party leaders serving as delegates. Source: The Green Papers

If the 2012 nomination race winds up being as fragmented as 2008, then Palin faces a steeper climb than was even indicated yesterday. [Editorial note: FHQ is of the opinion that the race will not be as divided in terms of choice. It is incumbent upon the GOP to come to a quick decision on the party's 2012 presidential nominee or so the conventional wisdom holds. The Obama campaign might dispute that, arguing that the prolonged contest helped them in 2008 from an organizational standpoint. Perhaps, but 2012 election will feature an incumbent president with an organizational base already intact. It is much more similar to 2004 than 2008. Would John Kerry have benefited any from an extended primary battle with John Edwards? Would the additional organization have helped the Massachusetts senator against Bush in the fall? FHQ would wager that the answer would have been no.]

Let's look at this in a different way. The eleven states above accounted for 30.9% of the 2008 Republican delegates (777 delegates). Remember, those are the states that are not the true winner-take-all states. The true winner-take-all comprise a paltry 17.8% of the total number of Republican delegates in 2008 (447 delegates). Even if Palin were to sweep those 10 true winner-take-all contests, she would still be faced with likely having to clear 35% in some districts and statewide in those other winner-take-all states. And this doesn't even take into account the proportionally allocated states.

Again, if 65% of the Republican primary electorate is against Palin, her path through the Republican rules to the nomination becomes substantially more difficult, winner-take-all rules or not.


Recent Posts:
How Palin Could Win the 2012 GOP Nomination. Well, it'll take more than just winner-take-all primaries.

Is the Idaho GOP Still After a Closed Primary?

Pawlenty: Running for 2012, But Will He Be Running in 2012?

How Palin Could Win the 2012 GOP Nomination. Well, it'll take more than just winner-take-all primaries.

[Please see a follow up to this post based on some of the comments below here.]

Walter Shapiro picked an opportune time to point out the fact that Sarah Palin could potentially exploit the Republican Party's presidential nomination rules to win the party's nomination in 2012. As I said a few weeks ago in a response to a post at A Plain Blog About Politics (Palin's Future), those approximately 20 states that have winner-take-all delegate allocation rules could prove to be a real boon to Palin's potential chances.

But there are two major caveats that apply:

1. Are these winner-take-all primaries also closed primaries?
2. When are these primaries actually scheduled?

On the first point, I think it is fair to say that, given recent polling Palin would do far better in any contest, winner-take-all or otherwise, if it is a contest closed to all but registered Republicans. She just isn't viewed as qualified among independents and Democrats. Now, yes, I'll grant you the fact that some Democrats may choose the "Operation Chaos" route and vote for the Republican with the lowest odds of beating President Obama, but I'm going to set that aside for now.

Secondly, timing plays a role here as well. Are all these winner-take-all primaries at the beginning of the process, at the end or fairly evenly distributed across the primary calendar? The earlier the better for Palin. If the winner-take-all contests bring up the rear, she likely would be winnowed before the race comes to those states. Since the parties are both re-examining how their presidential nominating calendars will look in 2012, there is a fair amount of uncertainty in this. However, based on current state laws across country, the calendar would look something like this if the parties decided to simply maintain the status quo. [The Democrats have already seemingly set into motion a plan to end all February primaries in all but the exempt states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.] If that calendar is the model, fifteen of the twenty states (plus Washington DC) with winner-take-all contests were on or before Super Tuesday. Again, early -- in this hypothesis at least -- is better for Palin than late.

2012 Primaries by Delegate Allocation Method and Timing
State	Primary Date	Closed	Open*
South Carolina	????		47**
Florida	1/31/12	114**
Alabama	2/7/12		48
California	2/7/12	173
Connecticut	2/7/12	30
Delaware	2/7/12	18
Georgia	2/7/12		72*
Missouri	2/7/12		58
New Jersey	2/7/12		52*
New York	2/7/12	101
Oklahoma	2/7/12	41
Utah	2/7/12		36*
District of Columbia	2/14/12	19
Maryland	2/14/12	37
Virginia	2/14/12		63
Wisconsin	2/21/12		40
Arizona	2/28/12	53
Michigan	2/28/12		60**
Ohio	3/6/12		88*
Vermont	3/6/12		17
Indiana	5/8/12		57
Total	48.64% of total 2008 delegates	586 delegates	638 delegates
*Included with open primaries here are primaries that allow only independents and not, in this case, Democrats to vote. **Assumes no 50% delegate reduction penalty for having gone earlier than that party-designated period for holding contests. Source: The Green Papers

Sure, technically, if Palin were to win all of the winner-take-all states, that would almost put her over the top (approximately 49% of the total number of delegates). But if she won all those, it is a safe bet that the former vice presidential nominee would receive an additional 2% of the total delegates in the proportional and loophole primary states to take the nomination. Again though, that is not how the presidential nomination process works. It is very much dependent upon timing and momentum.

...and the rules!

If you look at those closed primary states above, we're really talking about a more moderate, comparatively speaking, group of states. They are all primary states that McCain won in 2008. But in the context of that race, it was the first closed primary state (Florida) that mattered the most, and not that McCain was a more moderate candidate that appealed to moderate Republicans in closed primary states. It set the tone for the following week, Super Tuesday. And with the exception of Utah, the Arizona senator swept the winner-take-all states and stretched his delegate lead out to a nearly insurmountable margin.

Is there a scenario where Palin wins the Republican nomination? Yeah sure. If she can win Iowa and South Carolina -- eliminating Huckabee (assuming he runs) in the process -- she can attempt to turn whoever is left (especially if it is Mitt Romney and/or Tim Pawlenty) into Dede Scozzafava and the race into an ideological battle that she might be able to win. Of course, if Christian groups are attacking her abortion record, it may be difficult to see that scenario become reality.

The bottom line is that Palin would have to catch on in a major way to be able to take advantage of the winner-take-all rules. And honestly that would take quite the populist revolt against the Republican Party and its rules; something that has never happened. [And no, I don't count McCain as an exception to that rule.] As Jonathan Bernstein rightfully points out, if only 35% (as Shapiro indicates) of primary voters support Palin in the Republican primaries, it means that 65% are against her. Again, that would be an epic failure of the Republican rules that are set up to guard against that very thing: an insurgent candidate.


Recent Posts:
Is the Idaho GOP Still After a Closed Primary?

Pawlenty: Running for 2012, But Will He Be Running in 2012?

FHQ Friday Fun: You Can't Beat Louisiana Politics

Is the Idaho GOP Still After a Closed Primary?

From Ballot Access News:

Idaho is an open primary state and has never had registration by party. On primary day, any Idaho voter is free to choose any party’s primary ballot. Last year, the Idaho Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit, to force the state to give it a closed primary. But on September 4, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled that the lawsuit requires a trial to determine whether it is true that voters hostile to the Republican Party have been voting in its primary. The Republican Party then said it would soon reveal its plans on how to proceed.

However, the party has not met the informal deadlines for revealing its plans for the trial. The Judge has set a status conference for November 30 to get an updated version of the party’s plans.

This sets off a series of questions. Usually, the courts yield to the parties on free association grounds, but it really is interesting to see how much this differs from state to state. In Idaho, the state Republican Party is demanding that the state government -- also dominated by Republican elected officials -- close the state's primaries. As the party argues, open primaries, like the ones held in Idaho for nearly four decades, potentially allow voters from outside the party to influence Republican nominations which by extension negatively impacts the party's freedom of association.

Why not, indeed?

What's interesting is that the same argument has been made in courts regarding open primaries. This movement in the courts -- at least on this particular question -- began with the 1986 Tashjian case before the Supreme Court. At issue in that instance was the fact that the Republican Party of Connecticut wanted to open up its primaries -- not close them as in the Idaho case -- but was prevented from doing so because of a Connecticut law, on the books since the 1950s, that kept primaries closed.

What did the Court decide?

Well, the Court sided with the Connecticut GOP: the law violated the party's rights to free association; specifically the party's right to invite -- in this case independents -- to vote in its nominating contests.

But this is a moving target, isn't it? Some states like Idaho or California have gone in quite the opposite direction. Faced with open primaries, parties in both the Gem state and the Golden state claimed that their free association rights were being threatened by partisans (and non-partisans, for that matter) of the other party. That the parties were unable to determine who would participate in its nominations was something Antonin Scalia, in the 7-2 opinion of the Court in the California Democratic Party v. Jones case, found to be "both severe and unnecessary."

That brings up an interesting distinction -- and there are several, actually -- between the California case and the one in Idaho. In California, all the major parties sued to have the blanket primary law invalidated. In Idaho, however, it is just the dominant Republican state party that is attempting to tear down the open primary system. The Democratic Party in Idaho could almost be considered a minor party in the state. And they could care less about the law simply because no or very few Republicans are crossing over to vote in the Democratic primaries. To top it off, the Democrats have often eschewed the primary as a means allocating presidential delegates; instead opting for a closed caucus on the state party's dime.

This, however, raises the biggest problem for the Idaho Republican Party in this case: the burden of proof is one the Republican Party. Their argument is that independents and Democrats could have undue influence (read: a moderating influence) on Republican nominations in the state. Proponents of the current open primaries law have simply said, "Prove it." In other words, how have nominations been negatively impacted by the inclusion of Democrats and independents in the process?

That's where this Idaho case is currently. It's stuck with the Idaho Republican Party trying to determine the extent to which Democrats and independents have made Republican nominees any less Republican/conservative. If Idaho Republicans want a closed primary or a closed nomination process, they are either going to have to do what the Democrats have done at the presidential level (Though, truth be told, Democrats in Idaho use a caucus as a means of keeping out Republicans and limiting, through a caucus, who participates and decides how delegates are allocated. See Meinke, et al. (2006) for more.) or just deal with it.

For now, though, it doesn't look like this particular case is going anywhere.

Read more about the Idaho case here and here.


Recent Posts:
Pawlenty: Running for 2012, But Will He Be Running in 2012?

FHQ Friday Fun: You Can't Beat Louisiana Politics

A Late Start for New Hampshire 2012: Pawlenty will be the First

Pawlenty: Running for 2012, But Will He Be Running in 2012?

[UPDATE: Ah, here are the Rasmussen numbers on Pawlenty in 2012.]

If the Minnesota governor follows these numbers (or if they stay the same as 2012 approaches), the answer to that will perhaps be no.

PPP's tweeting about them, Pollster is reporting them, but Rasmussen isn't sharing them. Apparently, somewhere behind the pay wall, Rasmussen is showing in its latest survey of Minnesota that Governor Tim Pawlenty would only have the votes of 42% of Minnesotans if he were to run for president and win the Republican nomination in 2012. 46% would not vote for him. No, that's not necessarily a vote for Obama because the president's name was not used in the question, but it does provide a sense of just how blue Minnesota is.

Here's the question:

Suppose Governor Tim Pawlenty runs for President in 2012 and wins the Republican nomination. If Pawlenty was the Republican Presidential candidate, would you vote for him?
Yes 42%
No 46%

This isn't a true trial heat, but it would have been interesting to have seen how the answers to the two questions (the one above and a head-to-head with Obama) would have differed. My hunch is that the difference would have been similar to the difference between polling an incumbent (for any office) against both an actual named opponent or a generic, unnamed one. Look, for instance, at Sen. Burr's numbers in the latest Public Policy Polling survey of the 2010 race for Senate in North Carolina. Burr performs better against named opposition than against Generic Democrat X and I would assume that Pawlenty's numbers above would decrease if we were talking about a ballot question pitting the Minnesota governor against President Obama.

That said, these numbers aren't all that bad. Sure, Tim Pawlenty has the name recognition in his home state that he lacks elsewhere, but in a state where Obama is still garnering higher approval than disapproval numbers -- though that margin has shrunk -- I wouldn't rank this as an awful showing for the governor.

What we're really missing here is a time trend. Rasmussen keeps asking different questions about Pawlenty in regards to the 2012 presidential race in these Minnesota polls. In March, we got this:

Should Tim Pawlenty run for President in 2012?

22% Yes
61% No
17% Not sure

And in May, Rasmussen asked something slightly different:

How likely is it that Governor Pawlenty will run for President?

17% Very likely
42% Somewhat likely
24% Not very likely
5% Not at all likely
11% Not sure

Fine, how likely is it that Governor Pawlenty will win the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012?

7% Very likely
30% Somewhat likely
39% Not very likely
16% Not at all likely
8% Not sure

No, those aren't flattering numbers for someone in their own state, but this is exactly the reason Pawlenty is making the moves he is in relation to 2012 (starting a PAC, traveling the nation, raising money, etc.). Put simply, he is at a disadvantage relative to the other prospective Republican candidates (Huckabee, Palin and Romney).


Recent Posts:
FHQ Friday Fun: You Can't Beat Louisiana Politics

A Late Start for New Hampshire 2012: Pawlenty will be the First

Do Even "Fairly" Drawn Congressional Districts Favor Republicans?

FHQ Friday Fun: You Can't Beat Louisiana Politics

There are so many double entendres in this interview that college students could start a drinking game.* Stormy Daniels could make this an uncomfortable race for David Vitter. No, she won't win, but she'll make a mark whether she enters or not.

And I'm still laughing uncontrollably at that Kim Jong-Il line for whatever reason.

*Not that FHQ would condone such a thing. For shame. But for a laugh, I recommend reading the rules of the Brent Musberger Drinking Game. FHQ dares college football fans not to laugh heartily.


Recent Posts:
A Late Start for New Hampshire 2012: Pawlenty will be the First

Do Even "Fairly" Drawn Congressional Districts Favor Republicans?

If it's a vote on the internet, Ron Paul wins.