Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) signed HB 7035 into law on the afternoon of Thursday, March 19, completing a fast-tracking of the bill during the two plus weeks of the Florida legislative session. The legislation clears up the language of the Florida presidential primary statute by replacing a section intended to make the primary a bit more mobile -- not to mention compliant with the national party rules -- with a permanent date.
The last two changes made to the presidential primary law in the Sunshine state either left the date up to a committee (2011) or up to the interpretation of what constitutes a penalty (2013). HB 7035 becoming law removes all doubt by specifying a permanent date in the law for the first time since the 2007 law scheduled the primary for the last Tuesday in January.
The position of the Florida presidential primary -- now on the third Tuesday in March -- is the latest that it has ever been scheduled during the post-reform era. For years -- 1972-2004 -- the Florida primary was set for the second Tuesday in March. Early in that period, the Florida primary was among the very earliest contests, but over intervening cycles, other states either joined Florida on that second Tuesday in March date or scheduled earlier contests as national party rules allowed.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Louisiana May Not Have a 2016 Presidential Primary
According to Louisiana Secretary of State Tom Schedler (R), Louisiana will not hold a presidential primary in 2016. Here's Schedler from Mark Ballard at The Advocate:
1. In this case, the governor (Bobby Jindal) and the secretary of state are of the same party, the Republican Party.
2. The Louisiana situation is such that there is no money for any elections beyond December. Any elections expense beyond that point and up to the end of the fiscal year in June cannot be funded. Louisiana does have gubernatorial and state legislative elections later this year. In Massachusetts, the presidential primary is seemingly the lowest priority election for 2016 and thus expendable. A similar priority list may be driving the secretary of state's statements today.
3. Louisiana Republicans already utilize a two-tiered delegate selection/allocation process. In 2012, there were both a primary and caucuses. The caucuses allocated just under 40% of the total Louisiana delegation. While Massachusetts Republicans also have caucuses, that process has only guided the delegate selection part of the process; identifying the people who will fill the delegate slots allocated to candidates based on the primary results. The transition to primary/caucuses to caucuses may be smoother than a transition from one to the other. Those congressional district caucuses/conventions were in April in 2012.
One final thing to consider is that Massachusetts Secretary of State Galvin made the same claims in 2011 that he made just last week. Yet, there was still a presidential primary on the first Tuesday in March 2012. There is no such history in Louisiana.
The primary may not be able to be funded or the state government might find a way to pull it off. But will legislators be motivated to go on that quest for funds if they know a caucuses/convention process is already in place?
Currently, Louisiana is slated to conduct a presidential primary on the first Saturday in March, the Saturday just after the proposed SEC primary on March 1.
UPDATE: More from Greg Hilburn at The News Star (Gannett).
“I want to have a presidential preference primary as long as you pay for it,” Schedler told the Louisiana House Appropriations Committee during the panel’s department-by-department tour of Jindal’s budget proposal for the fiscal year that begins July 1.
“He hasn’t funded elections past December,” Schedler said about Jindal. A presidential preference primary would be held in the Spring 2016 and would cost about $3.5 million.This may or may not be a situation similar to the one in Massachusetts. The battle lines, if one wants to call them that, are the same: governor (and elections budget) and secretary of state (with a bottom line amount/expense for elections). The difference in Louisiana are a threefold:
1. In this case, the governor (Bobby Jindal) and the secretary of state are of the same party, the Republican Party.
2. The Louisiana situation is such that there is no money for any elections beyond December. Any elections expense beyond that point and up to the end of the fiscal year in June cannot be funded. Louisiana does have gubernatorial and state legislative elections later this year. In Massachusetts, the presidential primary is seemingly the lowest priority election for 2016 and thus expendable. A similar priority list may be driving the secretary of state's statements today.
3. Louisiana Republicans already utilize a two-tiered delegate selection/allocation process. In 2012, there were both a primary and caucuses. The caucuses allocated just under 40% of the total Louisiana delegation. While Massachusetts Republicans also have caucuses, that process has only guided the delegate selection part of the process; identifying the people who will fill the delegate slots allocated to candidates based on the primary results. The transition to primary/caucuses to caucuses may be smoother than a transition from one to the other. Those congressional district caucuses/conventions were in April in 2012.
One final thing to consider is that Massachusetts Secretary of State Galvin made the same claims in 2011 that he made just last week. Yet, there was still a presidential primary on the first Tuesday in March 2012. There is no such history in Louisiana.
The primary may not be able to be funded or the state government might find a way to pull it off. But will legislators be motivated to go on that quest for funds if they know a caucuses/convention process is already in place?
Currently, Louisiana is slated to conduct a presidential primary on the first Saturday in March, the Saturday just after the proposed SEC primary on March 1.
UPDATE: More from Greg Hilburn at The News Star (Gannett).
Mississippi SEC Primary Bill Stalls After Senate Fails to Concur with House Amendments
The Mississippi state Senate did not concur with House changes to SB 2531 and invited the House to conference on the legislation. The bill move the Magnolia state presidential primary up a week to join the proposed SEC primary on March 1 next year came up on the Senate concurrence calendar on Wednesday, March 18.
The strange thing about this turn of events is that the House changes to the Senate-passed bill were minor. Even calling them minor is an understatement. Here is the one line the of the bill -- the last line -- that the House altered:
FHQ has mentioned particular line before. It was added in committee on the Senate side back in February. Go and look at that line again. Yeah, it proposes that the law would take effect on July 1, 2015 and expire on June 30, 2015; the day before the effective date. That would render the bill/law expired before it takes effect. Again, it is likely perhaps that that June date was intended to be in 2016 and that the move up to the first Tuesday in March is a one-off thing for the 2016 cycle. If that is the case, the House and Senate may be at odds on this. Both are supportive of the move to March 1, but only one chamber -- the House -- wants to make that change permanent.
That will make for an interesting conference.
The strange thing about this turn of events is that the House changes to the Senate-passed bill were minor. Even calling them minor is an understatement. Here is the one line the of the bill -- the last line -- that the House altered:
This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2015,That has absolutely nothing to do with the change to the date of the presidential primary in 2016. It has everything to do with the implementation of the bill/law if it passes and is signed.and shall stand repealed on June 30, 2015.
FHQ has mentioned particular line before. It was added in committee on the Senate side back in February. Go and look at that line again. Yeah, it proposes that the law would take effect on July 1, 2015 and expire on June 30, 2015; the day before the effective date. That would render the bill/law expired before it takes effect. Again, it is likely perhaps that that June date was intended to be in 2016 and that the move up to the first Tuesday in March is a one-off thing for the 2016 cycle. If that is the case, the House and Senate may be at odds on this. Both are supportive of the move to March 1, but only one chamber -- the House -- wants to make that change permanent.
That will make for an interesting conference.
Florida House Bill to Clarify Presidential Primary Date Unanimously Passes Senate, Moves on to Governor
The Senate version of the bill to clarify the date of the 2016 presidential primary in the Sunshine state came before the membership on the floor on the morning of Wednesday, March 18.
The bill's sponsor, Senate President Pro Tempore Garrett Richter (R-23rd, Collier, Lee), made a motion to substitute the identical House-passed versions of the bill (HB 7035) for the Senate version (SB 7036). That motion was agreed upon, the bill moved to third reading and then was voted on. The upper chamber, like the House, unanimously passed the substituted House version by a vote of 39-0.
The bill will now move to Governor Scott's desk for his consideration. Given the unanimous support in both chambers, the bill is very likely to be signed.
--
To reiterate, this legislation does not change the date of the Florida presidential primary. It merely simplifies the language of the statute and clarifies the date of the election. For more, see here and here.
The bill's sponsor, Senate President Pro Tempore Garrett Richter (R-23rd, Collier, Lee), made a motion to substitute the identical House-passed versions of the bill (HB 7035) for the Senate version (SB 7036). That motion was agreed upon, the bill moved to third reading and then was voted on. The upper chamber, like the House, unanimously passed the substituted House version by a vote of 39-0.
The bill will now move to Governor Scott's desk for his consideration. Given the unanimous support in both chambers, the bill is very likely to be signed.
--
To reiterate, this legislation does not change the date of the Florida presidential primary. It merely simplifies the language of the statute and clarifies the date of the election. For more, see here and here.
Alabama Bill Would Shift Presidential Primary into SEC Primary Position
Just a couple of weeks into the 2015 Alabama state legislative session, a bill has been introduced to move the primary up a week on the 2016 presidential primary calendar to March 1.
Senator Quinton Ross (D-26th, Montgomery) introduced SB 240 on Tuesday, March 17. The legislation would bump the Alabama presidential primary -- consolidated with primaries for other offices -- up to the first Tuesday in March from the second Tuesday in March position the state held on the 2012 calendar. 2011 legislation established the latter date for the primary election. The proposed move for 2016 is more subtle. By moving up a week, Alabama would join the proposed SEC primary.
Bills have already been introduced in Arkansas and Mississippi to schedule those states' presidential primaries for March 1. Texas and Tennessee are already positioned there.
Senator Quinton Ross (D-26th, Montgomery) introduced SB 240 on Tuesday, March 17. The legislation would bump the Alabama presidential primary -- consolidated with primaries for other offices -- up to the first Tuesday in March from the second Tuesday in March position the state held on the 2012 calendar. 2011 legislation established the latter date for the primary election. The proposed move for 2016 is more subtle. By moving up a week, Alabama would join the proposed SEC primary.
Bills have already been introduced in Arkansas and Mississippi to schedule those states' presidential primaries for March 1. Texas and Tennessee are already positioned there.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Maryland Bill to Move to Late April Presidential Primary Passess House
The Maryland state House on Tuesday, March 17 passed an amended version of HB 396. By a vote of 138-1, the House gave the green light to the plan to move the presidential primary back three weeks from the first Tuesday in April to the fourth Tuesday in April.
The move now would align the Maryland presidential primary on the primary calendar with contests in Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, but the change was initially proposed to prevent a conflict between religious holidays and early voting tied to the primary election.
An identical bill has also passed the state Senate and has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee that amended and favorably passed the House version.
The move now would align the Maryland presidential primary on the primary calendar with contests in Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, but the change was initially proposed to prevent a conflict between religious holidays and early voting tied to the primary election.
An identical bill has also passed the state Senate and has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee that amended and favorably passed the House version.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Maryland House Bill Amended, Ready for Final Floor Vote to Move Presidential Primary to Late April
This past week, the Maryland state House Ways and Means Committee amended and passed its version of the legislation to shift back the presidential primary in the Old Line state to accommodate early voting and religious holidays.
Now, like the Senate-passed version, HB 396 would move the Maryland presidential primary from the first Tuesday in April to the fourth Tuesday in April. The Ways and Means Committee passed the move 21-1 on Wednesday, March 11. The bill survived its first floor consideration and second reading there with no further amendments.
Initially, both the state Senate and House versions pushed the Maryland primary back just a week, but the identical bills would now bump that back even further, bringing the election in line with similar contests in neighboring Delaware and Pennsylvania as well as Connecticut and Rhode Island at the end of April.
Now, like the Senate-passed version, HB 396 would move the Maryland presidential primary from the first Tuesday in April to the fourth Tuesday in April. The Ways and Means Committee passed the move 21-1 on Wednesday, March 11. The bill survived its first floor consideration and second reading there with no further amendments.
Initially, both the state Senate and House versions pushed the Maryland primary back just a week, but the identical bills would now bump that back even further, bringing the election in line with similar contests in neighboring Delaware and Pennsylvania as well as Connecticut and Rhode Island at the end of April.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Nevada Bill Would Create Presidential Primary, Schedule for January
To close the work week, the Nevada state legislature went out with a bit of a bang (...at least in the presidential primary universe).
On Friday, March 13, Assemblymen John Hambrick (R-2nd, Clark) and Stephen Silberkraus (R-29th, Clark) introduced AB 302. The legislation, seemingly a replica of the state Senate bill filed two years ago, would move the June primaries for state and local offices from June to January and consolidate with them a newly established presidential primary. Those concurrent primaries would together fall on the Tuesday prior to the final Tuesday in January according to the bill.
Since a similar version of this bill died in committee back in 2013, let's look back at some of FHQ's comments from then that are still relevant in light of this 2015 legislation [Note: These comments have been edited due to what has changed with the calendar since March 2013.]:
If South Carolina Republicans join the fray, the calendar may look something like:
Saturday, January 2: Iowa caucuses
Tuesday, January 5: New Hampshire primary
Saturday, January 16: South Carolina Republican primary
Tuesday, January 19: Nevada primary, North Carolina primary (???)
If South Carolina Republicans let Nevada jump ahead (which has not happened since both were added as carve-outs for the 2008 cycle), things may look like this:
Monday, January 4: Iowa caucuses
Tuesday, January 12: New Hampshire primary
Tuesday, January 19: Nevada primary
Super speculative, yes. Premature, sure. Yet, this is what the scenarios look like if this bill successfully navigates the legislature and is signed into law by the governor. Consider for a moment a primary calendar that again commences right after the new year begins, progresses through contests in three or four carve-out states, and then yields a solid six weeks of potentially no primaries or caucuses before the proposed SEC primary on March 1.
But why would Nevada -- already with a privileged position in the nomination process -- set off such a chain of events?
--
UPDATE 3/24/15: January primary provision to be amended out
UPDATE 3/29/15: Senate version of January bill introduced
UPDATE 4/2/15: Hearing for Senate bill strips out January primary provision
UPDATE 4/9/15: Third Tuesday in February primary bill passed Senate committee
UPDATE 4/10/15: Amended Assembly bill for February primary option clears committee
On Friday, March 13, Assemblymen John Hambrick (R-2nd, Clark) and Stephen Silberkraus (R-29th, Clark) introduced AB 302. The legislation, seemingly a replica of the state Senate bill filed two years ago, would move the June primaries for state and local offices from June to January and consolidate with them a newly established presidential primary. Those concurrent primaries would together fall on the Tuesday prior to the final Tuesday in January according to the bill.
Since a similar version of this bill died in committee back in 2013, let's look back at some of FHQ's comments from then that are still relevant in light of this 2015 legislation [Note: These comments have been edited due to what has changed with the calendar since March 2013.]:
- The Tuesday before the last Tuesday in January 2016 is January 19 (the date as it turns out of the 2008 Nevada caucuses).
- This bill, if passed, would violate the national party delegate selection rules. Under the DNC rules, Nevada would initially lose half of its delegates, but would also be open to a stiffer punishment from the Rules and Bylaws Committee if the committee deemed such a move appropriate. The Nevada caucuses are protected in the DNC rules, not a primary. Those caucuses are slotted into a position no earlier than ten days before March 1 (in 2016). That raises two interesting conflicts with the Democratic rules: 1) the switch to a primary when the caucuses are protected and 2) a January primary date is much earlier than February 20, the date 10 days prior to March 1. Nevada Democrats did caucus in January 2012 with no penalty and with similar language in the DNC rules as exist for the 2016 cycle. But many states got a pass from the DNC on bending the rules in 2012 with President Obama running unopposed for renomination. 2016 may or may not be a different story.
- On the Republican side, matters would be perhaps more interesting, but definitely clearer. Nevada would be subject to the super penalty -- a reduction to six delegates plus the three RNC members from the state -- in the RNC rules if it jumped into January unprovoked. If any state other than the carve-out states schedules a primary or caucuses before March 1, then the four carve-out states have a month prior to that contest in which to schedule their respective delegate selection events. Should New York, for instance, fail to shift its primary -- currently scheduled for February 2, 2016 -- back into compliance with the national party rules, then Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina could schedule their contest as early as January 2 under the RNC rules. In that scenario, none of the carve-out states would be subject to penalty as long as none were scheduled prior to January 2.
- Republicans, continued: If, however, Nevada moves into January unprovoked, then Silver state Republicans would be subject to the super penalty. The language of the RNC rule does not address the scenario under which a carve-out state takes the initiative to move to a position before February, pushing the other carve-out states forward into January. Would Nevada be subject to the penalties and not the other three? Or does Nevada take the other three down with them.
- If a rogue state is a western state (defined as Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and/or Wyoming), then the Nevada secretary of state can move the primary (with the approval of the Legislative Commission) to as early as January 2 on the condition that the primary not fall on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. It is worth noting that there is no required buffer between Nevada and any other state, western or otherwise. But if a western state attempts to jump ahead of Nevada, the secretary of state can push the primary up to January 2. This far into the active 2015 state legislative sessions, the only western state that comes anywhere close to threatening Nevada is Colorado. Based on existing state law in the Centennial state, the Colorado parties can opt to hold either first Tuesday in February or first Tuesday in March caucuses. Even if one of the Colorado parties chooses the earlier of the two dates, the January date called for in the Nevada bill would be safe. None of the other western states have or are looking at anything earlier than March 8.
- Additionally, the legislation also requires the state parties to, in electing delegates, to have that process "reasonably reflect" the results of the presidential primary. There is no definition of "reasonably reflect" in the bill. But more importantly, this provision in the bill (and proposed law) would bind national convention delegates to candidates based on the presidential primary vote. That provision would potentially open up a fight between the state government and the state parties over which entity has the ability to dictate the rules of delegate selection in the state. A court battle is likely not the intention of this legislation. However, if the state parties want to retain a caucuses/convention system and have control over their delegate selection processes, they would have a leg to stand on in court. Such freedom of association disputes between state governments and state parties seldom favor governments. This part is going to be a non-starter with the parties in Nevada.
- Both sponsors of the bill are Republicans. Republicans control both legislative chambers in Nevada and the governor's mansion. That may have an impact on how far this bill goes. It may also trigger infighting among majority Republicans to the extent there is sizable support for the legislation.
- Nevada last held a presidential primary in 1996.
If South Carolina Republicans join the fray, the calendar may look something like:
Saturday, January 2: Iowa caucuses
Tuesday, January 5: New Hampshire primary
Saturday, January 16: South Carolina Republican primary
Tuesday, January 19: Nevada primary, North Carolina primary (???)
If South Carolina Republicans let Nevada jump ahead (which has not happened since both were added as carve-outs for the 2008 cycle), things may look like this:
Monday, January 4: Iowa caucuses
Tuesday, January 12: New Hampshire primary
Tuesday, January 19: Nevada primary
Super speculative, yes. Premature, sure. Yet, this is what the scenarios look like if this bill successfully navigates the legislature and is signed into law by the governor. Consider for a moment a primary calendar that again commences right after the new year begins, progresses through contests in three or four carve-out states, and then yields a solid six weeks of potentially no primaries or caucuses before the proposed SEC primary on March 1.
But why would Nevada -- already with a privileged position in the nomination process -- set off such a chain of events?
--
UPDATE 3/24/15: January primary provision to be amended out
UPDATE 3/29/15: Senate version of January bill introduced
UPDATE 4/2/15: Hearing for Senate bill strips out January primary provision
UPDATE 4/9/15: Third Tuesday in February primary bill passed Senate committee
UPDATE 4/10/15: Amended Assembly bill for February primary option clears committee
Friday, March 13, 2015
Close of Utah Legislative Session Kills Effort to Move Back February Presidential Primary Option
It is pretty standard for there to be a flurry of activity on the last day of any state legislative session. Utah was not an exception to that rule as the legislature in the Beehive state adjourned on Thursday, March 12. One item not on the list of 2015 legislative accomplishments, though, was moving the February presidential primary option back into compliance with national party rules. HB 329 died in committee when the regular legislative session expired.
In response, it might be easy to suggest that passing legislation to move the February presidential primary option to March was moot anyway. For starters, the Utah Republican Party has already voted to switch from the primary to a state-party funded caucuses/convention system for 2016. Secondly, no appropriations proposals ever made it into any of the budget bills this session. No funding, no February primary. At best, then, passing HB 329 would have been a move aimed at the 2020 presidential election cycle. 2020 is a long way off, and Utah legislators will have other opportunities to revisit this after the caucuses experiment in 2016.
This development is not without significance, though. The February option is now off the table in Utah. And while Republicans are seemingly locked into likely March caucuses, the Utah Democratic Party process is still a bit up in the air. A bit. Democrats would have the option of using the late June primary as called for by Utah state law. However, that date is too late to comply with the Democratic National Committee rules on delegate selection.1
That means that Utah Democrats will have to use the caucuses/convention system the party utilized in 2012 again in 2016 to comply with the delegate selection rules of the national party. Like Utah Republicans, Democrats in the Beehive state are very likely to hold a presidential preference vote in conjunction with March neighborhood caucus meetings. This is what Utah Democrats did in 2012.
--
1 Rule 11 sets a window of time in which non-carve out states can conduct delegate selection events. That window opens on the first Tuesday March and closes the second Tuesday in June. The regular Utah primary falls on the fourth Tuesday in June.
In response, it might be easy to suggest that passing legislation to move the February presidential primary option to March was moot anyway. For starters, the Utah Republican Party has already voted to switch from the primary to a state-party funded caucuses/convention system for 2016. Secondly, no appropriations proposals ever made it into any of the budget bills this session. No funding, no February primary. At best, then, passing HB 329 would have been a move aimed at the 2020 presidential election cycle. 2020 is a long way off, and Utah legislators will have other opportunities to revisit this after the caucuses experiment in 2016.
This development is not without significance, though. The February option is now off the table in Utah. And while Republicans are seemingly locked into likely March caucuses, the Utah Democratic Party process is still a bit up in the air. A bit. Democrats would have the option of using the late June primary as called for by Utah state law. However, that date is too late to comply with the Democratic National Committee rules on delegate selection.1
That means that Utah Democrats will have to use the caucuses/convention system the party utilized in 2012 again in 2016 to comply with the delegate selection rules of the national party. Like Utah Republicans, Democrats in the Beehive state are very likely to hold a presidential preference vote in conjunction with March neighborhood caucus meetings. This is what Utah Democrats did in 2012.
--
1 Rule 11 sets a window of time in which non-carve out states can conduct delegate selection events. That window opens on the first Tuesday March and closes the second Tuesday in June. The regular Utah primary falls on the fourth Tuesday in June.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Florida Senate Presidential Primary Bill Unanimously Clears Another Committee Hurdle
With the Florida House version of a presidential primary date clarifying bill now headed to the state Senate, the upper chamber version waved through a second committee. By a vote of 12-0, SB 7036 passed the state Senate Rules Committee and will now head to the Senate floor for consideration before the full body.
--
FHQ does not really mean to harp on this, but again, this bill, like the House version, only simplifies and clarifies the date of the presidential preference primary in Florida. The date does not change. If the Republican Party of Florida maintains a variation of the winner-take-all allocation plan, the primary date would be on March 15 under the current law. If these bills now navigating the legislative process are passed and signed into law, the presidential primary would be on March 15. Same date.
Let's have a look at post-Rules Committee analysis of the bill for a moment. Here are two important sections that point out the problem.
There is nothing in that Florida statute that prevents Florida Republicans from utilizing a winner-take-all method. There is no specification as to the type of penalty that Florida cannot incur (i.e.: a timing/scheduling violation or an allocation violation). The current law simply calls for the Florida primary to occur on the earliest date that is not penalized.
The bill analysis even later on mentions the 50% penalty that would be levied against a state for holding anything other than a proportional primary or caucus before March 15.
...with a penalty. A 50% penalty.
The Florida presidential primary cannot be on March 1 because Florida Republicans have a winner-take-all allocation plan in their bylaws. That type of allocation would incur a penalty before March 15. Thus the earliest date on which the presidential primary can occur -- in order to follow Florida law -- is March 15.
The date is the same, but the proposed change in language in the law would clarify and simplify the date of the primary.
--
FHQ does not really mean to harp on this, but again, this bill, like the House version, only simplifies and clarifies the date of the presidential preference primary in Florida. The date does not change. If the Republican Party of Florida maintains a variation of the winner-take-all allocation plan, the primary date would be on March 15 under the current law. If these bills now navigating the legislative process are passed and signed into law, the presidential primary would be on March 15. Same date.
Let's have a look at post-Rules Committee analysis of the bill for a moment. Here are two important sections that point out the problem.
Florida law, adopted in 2013, provides that the Presidential Preference Primary (“PPP”) for the major political parties takes place in a presidential election year on the earliest Tuesday that complies with the parties’ rules for delegate selection without incurring a penalty. Pursuant to this statutory formula, the 2016 Florida PPP is currently scheduled for March 1, 2016. [Emphasis FHQ's]The earliest date "that complies with the [national] parties' rules for delegate selection without incurring a penalty" is not March 1 in Florida's case. It would be, but the RPOF seems intent on using some form of winner-take-all allocation in 2016. That means that a winner-take-all primary would "incur a penalty" before March 15.
There is nothing in that Florida statute that prevents Florida Republicans from utilizing a winner-take-all method. There is no specification as to the type of penalty that Florida cannot incur (i.e.: a timing/scheduling violation or an allocation violation). The current law simply calls for the Florida primary to occur on the earliest date that is not penalized.
The bill analysis even later on mentions the 50% penalty that would be levied against a state for holding anything other than a proportional primary or caucus before March 15.
Other rules governing delegate selection are set out by the national parties. For the 2016 cycle, the rules provide that only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina may hold a primary or caucus March 1; other states may begin holding their contests on March 1, but if they go prior to March 15 the delegates must be apportioned proportionally. The first date for a “winner-take-all” primary under the current RNC rules is March 15, 2016. States (other than the four granted specific exemptions) conducting a “winner-take-all” primary between March 1 and March 14 will lose 50% of their delegates. [Emphasis FHQ's]The intention in 2013 when the current law came on the books may not have been to cede the date-setting authority to the Republican Party of Florida, but that is essentially what has happened here. The law basically prevents Florida from being penalized by the national parties by shifting the date to whichever date is both earliest and not penalized. It just so happens that while the RNC allows variation in the method of delegate selection across states, it also has attempted to deter states from allocating those delegates in a winner-take-all fashion before March 15.
...with a penalty. A 50% penalty.
The Florida presidential primary cannot be on March 1 because Florida Republicans have a winner-take-all allocation plan in their bylaws. That type of allocation would incur a penalty before March 15. Thus the earliest date on which the presidential primary can occur -- in order to follow Florida law -- is March 15.
The date is the same, but the proposed change in language in the law would clarify and simplify the date of the primary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)