Revisiting Rule 40

This past Thursday night my Twitter feed began filling up with links to Alexandra Jaffe's story on the impact of Rule 40(b) on John Kasich's chances at the Republican nomination in a contested convention. The heart of story is a three paragraph section:

But top RNC strategists confirmed to reporters Thursday at the committee's Spring Meeting that the 40b requirement amounts to little more than a technciality. Having your name put into nomination affords candidates a number of advantages, like space in the convention hall and a nominating speech. But it's not required to ultimately win the nomination. 

Under the current rules, even those candidates who don't meet the 8-state threshold can continue to amass delegate votes. And if they're able to cobble together the support of a majority of delegates — the magic 1237 number — they win, even if it's spread across all 50 states. 

Typical interpretations of Rule 40 assumed Kasich's campaign would somehow have to rewrite the convention rules to get the governor into contention for the nomination. That's a tall order for the campaign, as they'd have to pack the committee finalizing the convention rules with supporters, and both Cruz and Trump already have an advantage in that effort. Still, Rule 40b isn't final — the Convention Rules Committee will meet the week before the convention to finalize changes to the rules.

FHQ does not really see the news in this, and I certainly don't get the bit about the "typical interpretations of Rule 40".¹

The truth of the matter is that the RNC has all along viewed the process as a resetting after every vote at the convention (should it progress beyond a first ballot vote). That would theoretically give candidates the chance to 1) qualify anew, 2) qualify for the first time or 3) even fail to qualify under the provisions of Rule 40(b) on subsequent ballots. Candidates like Kasich -- likely to fall short of the majority of delegates from at least eight states threshold on the first ballot -- have that opportunity because the number of unbound delegates increases as the number of ballots increase.²

Those free agent delegates, bound on the first or second or third ballot, can move away from the candidate to whom they were bound for a candidate such a delegate 1) preferred in going through the delegate selection process to become a national convention delegate (a sincere delegate), 2) supports for strategic reasons to prevent another candidate from claiming the nomination or 3) prefers because one candidate is viewed as more electable in the general election.

Combining those two factors -- a nomination reset and a growing number of unbound delegates over time -- means that Rule 40(b) was always less prohibitive than many have cast it. Unbound delegates can shift to candidates -- white knights, John Kasichs or otherwise -- and help them to form coalitions that not only qualify them under (a current or altered) Rule 40, but ideally surpass the 1237 threshold.

Kasich does not need rules changes. His campaign needs time at the convention; time measured in terms of the number of ballots cast. He will not qualify under the current Rule 40(b) and will not have 1237 delegates behind him.

Not on the first ballot anyway.

Rule 40(b) being in place or not does not change that reality. If Donald Trump gets to 1237, then there is little Kasich or anyone else can do on that first ballot. Should Trump fall short of that mark on the first ballot, then Ted Cruz seems well positioned to increase his number of delegates on a second vote and Kasich could potentially qualify (if enough unbound delegates come his way). Things moving down that path then puts a premium on the delegate selection process going on now. Those efforts affect how a second or third vote or beyond goes. When the bond disappears, those delegates are free to fit into the three categories described above (or others). The decision-making calculus changes for them.

But the bottom line here is Kasich's roadblock is not Rule 40(b). His roadblocks are the delegates he is not being allocated now and the selection process in which the Cruz campaign has jumped out to a lead. But if, as delegates become unbound at a hypothetical contested convention, Kasich amasses 1237 delegates, then yes, he, too, can become the Republican nominee.

That is a pretty steep climb though.


--
Previous Post:
The Real Import of Rule 40 in 2016


--
¹ And this idea that someone can have the support of 1237 delegates distributed 50 states and not qualify under Rule 40(b). That seems quite far-fetched. Mathematically, it is possible, but it is not at all probable.

² That RNC interpretation of Rule 40 is not shared by all. There are those who say the rule is silent to the matter of renomination (or second/second chance nominations) and others who take a harder line that the rule would limit the voting to just those who qualified under the provisions of Rule 40 before the first vote.

Recent Posts:
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: MARYLAND

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: DELAWARE

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: CONNECTICUT

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

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: MARYLAND

This is part forty-one of a series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation rules by state. The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2016 -- especially relative to 2012 -- in order to gauge the potential impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. For this cycle the RNC recalibrated its rules, cutting the proportionality window in half (March 1-14), but tightening its definition of proportionality as well. While those alterations will trigger subtle changes in reaction at the state level, other rules changes -- particularly the new binding requirement placed on state parties -- will be more noticeable. 

MARYLAND

Election type: primary
Date: April 26 
Number of delegates: 38 [11 at-large, 24 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: winner-take-most/winner-take-all by congressional district
Threshold to qualify for delegates: n/a
2012: winner-take-most primary

--
Changes since 2012
The basic structure of how Maryland Republicans will select and allocate delegates to the national convention in 2016 is similar to 2012. How many delegates Maryland was apportioned by the Republican National Committee changed as did when the allocation will occur.

First of all, since 2012, Maryland voters elected a Republican governor. That increased the size of the Maryland Republican delegation from 37 in 2012 to 38 in 2016 under the apportionment formula the Republican National Committee utilizes.

Additionally, unlike four years ago, the Maryland primary is scheduled for the fourth Tuesday in April, a delay of three weeks as compared to 2012. The original motivation behind the move was to avoid an overlap between early voting ahead of a then-April 5 primary and Easter weekend. However, the originally called for one week delay would have created a conflict between the final certification of the primary vote two weeks later and the end of Passover. That forced a move of the primary back even further to the fourth Tuesday in April (which technically would fall during Passover week but would not delay the certification process). 

That new date had the added benefit of clustering the Maryland primary with a number of other mid-Atlantic and northeastern contests on the same day. While that in part shifted the Maryland primary from one smaller subregional cluster with Washington, DC in 2012 to another with more contests in 2016, Maryland will have been the most (bound) delegate-rich in each cluster.¹

The result is that there are some changes in Maryland for 2016, but not with respect to the method of allocation (relative to 2012). It has more to do with the whens and how manys instead.


Thresholds
The Maryland Republican Party splits the allocation of its 38 delegates between the results both statewide and in the eight congressional districts. And since the plurality winner statewide and in the individual districts is allocated all of the delegates in that unit, there is no threshold to qualify for delegates.


Delegate allocation (at-large and automatic delegates)
Maryland is like Wisconsin and South Carolina in using the winner-take-most method of delegate allocation. That maintains a winner-take-all element to the allocation but requires a broader level of support statewide (across each of the congressional districts). Though the rules are the same the Badger and Palmetto states are a study in contrasts for how these rules tend to work. Trump enjoyed plurality support to varying degrees across South Carolina and parlayed that into a sweep of the delegates there. Cruz, on the other hand, won a plurality statewide, but found most of his support in and around Milwaukee. But he did not sweep the state as Trump overtook him in the 3rd and 7th districts to claim six delegates. In both cases, the statewide winner won the vast majority of delegates, but no winner under a winner-take-all by congressional district plan is not necessarily guaranteed all of them.

This is important when considering the at-large and automatic delegates allocated based on the statewide results. That group of delegates -- 14 in the case of Maryland -- basically serves as a (plurality) winner's bonus, one that gets tacked onto the delegate total amassed in the various congressional district races. And in a state with an even number of districts, that bonus can serve as a tiebreaker in the delegate count.


Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
As is the case statewide, the plurality winner in each of the congressional districts wins all three delegates in that district.


Binding
The Maryland Republican Party rules bind delegates to the statewide and/or congressional district winner(s) until:

1. the candidate who has won those delegates releases them; 
2. the candidate who has won those delegates receives less than 35% of the vote in the nomination vote at the national convention;
3. or through two ballots at the national convention. 

One factor that makes Maryland different from South Carolina and Wisconsin is that the selection process is different. All three share a method of allocation, but in Maryland, the congressional district delegates and alternates are directly elected on the primary ballot (like in Illinois). Those delegate candidates have the option of filing as affiliated with a particular candidate (and to have the presidential candidate's name adjacent to the delegate candidate's name on the ballot), but that does not affect the binding in the Old Line state. Congressional district delegates, regardless of that affiliation, will be bound to the plurality winner of the congressional district unless or until one of the three conditions above is met.

At-large delegates contrarily are not directly elected. Rather, those 11 delegates are elected by the Maryland Republican Party state convention. Whereas the campaigns can directly facilitate the filing of congressional district delegates aligned with the campaign, those same campaigns do not necessarily have the same direct input or influence over the selection of the at-large delegates in Maryland.


--
State allocation rules are archived here.


--
¹ Pennsylvania has nearly twice as many delegates as Maryland, but more than three-quarters of them are unbound.

--

Recent Posts:
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: DELAWARE

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: CONNECTICUT

Following LePage Signature, Maine Now Has a Presidential Primary

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

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: DELAWARE

This is part forty of a series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation rules by state. The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2016 -- especially relative to 2012 -- in order to gauge the potential impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. For this cycle the RNC recalibrated its rules, cutting the proportionality window in half (March 1-14), but tightening its definition of proportionality as well. While those alterations will trigger subtle changes in reaction at the state level, other rules changes -- particularly the new binding requirement placed on state parties -- will be more noticeable. 

DELAWARE

Election type: primary
Date: April 26 
Number of delegates: 16 [10 at-large, 3 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: winner-take-all
Threshold to qualify for delegates: n/a
2012: winner-take-all primary

--
Changes since 2012
The aim often in states with small delegations is to maximize the impact of a contest by using winner-take-all rules (rather than proportionally dividing up a small number of delegates). That had traditionally been the case during competitive Republican cycles with the primaries in Washington, DC as well as in Delaware. Republicans in the First state were able to continue that tradition in 2012 when Democrats in control of the state government moved the primary from early February to late April. The late April date fell outside of the proportionality window and allowed Delaware Republicans to allocate the full allotment of delegates to the winner.

That has been the way of things in Delaware stretching back to 1996 when the Delaware primary was created. It was winner-take-all in 2012 and will be again in 2016. That is a long way of saying that nothing has changed in Delaware for the 2016 cycle.

Well, one thing has changed. Rather than allocating 17 delegates as was the case four years ago, First state Republicans will only allocate 16 delegates to the winner of the April 26 primary.


Thresholds
As Delaware is a winner-take-all contest -- the fourth on the calendar and first since Arizona -- there are no thresholds to qualify for delegates.


Delegate allocation (at-large, congressional district and automatic delegates)
This, too, is easy enough to interpret. At a minimum, the plurality winner of the Delaware primary will be allocated all 16 of the national convention delegates apportioned to the state by the RNC.


Binding
According to Article XI, Section 3 of the the Delaware Republican Party bylaws:

"On the first ballot for the National Party's presidential candidate at the Republican National Convention, each delegate or alternate entitled to vote shall vote for the candidate who wins a plurality of the votes cast in the presidential primary..."

The only exception to that is in the event that the winning candidate in Delaware withdraws from the race prior to the convention and/or releases his or her delegates. In that case, the rules unbind the delegates, allowing them to vote for a candidate of their preference. However, given that the Delaware primary is on the back half of the calendar and the field of candidates has winnowed, it is less likely that the winner will relinquish his delegates prior to the first ballot vote.

A slate of 16 delegates is selected by the Delaware Republican Party Executive Committee, presented to and voted on by the state convention. Importantly, Article XI, Section 4 of the state party bylaws states that, "Presidential candidates shall not nominate or propose any delegates or alternate delegates."

As such, Delaware is another example of a state where the candidates and their campaigns have no direct influence over the delegate selection process. In fact, in Delaware, the candidates are at the mercy of the state party with respect to the selection process.


--
State allocation rules are archived here.


--

Recent Posts:
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: CONNECTICUT

Following LePage Signature, Maine Now Has a Presidential Primary

On Democratic Party Rules Changes for 2020

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

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: CONNECTICUT

This is part thirty-nine of a series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation rules by state. The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2016 -- especially relative to 2012 -- in order to gauge the potential impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. For this cycle the RNC recalibrated its rules, cutting the proportionality window in half (March 1-14), but tightening its definition of proportionality as well. While those alterations will trigger subtle changes in reaction at the state level, other rules changes -- particularly the new binding requirement placed on state parties -- will be more noticeable. 

CONNECTICUT

Election type: primary
Date: April 26 
Number of delegates: 28 [10 at-large, 15 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: at-large/automatic delegates: proportional
    congressional district delegates: winner-take-most/winner-take-all by congressional district
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 20% (statewide, for at-large/automatic delegates)
2012: winner-take-most primary

--
Changes since 2012
Compared the changes made to the Connecticut Republican Party delegate allocation method from 2008-12, the alterations made for the 2016 cycle are minor bordering on non-existent.

Despite seeing Democrats in the Nutmeg state government in 2011 move the presidential primary back from early February 2008 to late April 2012, Connecticut Republicans pushed forward with a plan to shift from a truly winner-take-all allocation plan to a more proportional method. That is "despite" since the primary moved to a later date, after the proportionality window had closed. In other words, the change was not necessary to comply with Republican National Committee rules for 2012. That plan called for both a winner-take-all element on the congressional district level and a proportional component statewide (if no candidate received a majority of the vote).

But that was 2012, and those were substantial changes. For 2016, the Connecticut Republican Party has only slightly tinkered with its rules.

The one big change?

A new section has empowered the state party chairman to fill any delegate slots awarded to the uncommitted option on the ballot (assuming "uncommitted" clears the qualifying threshold). While new, Section 17.H is more contingency planning than anything else; an insurance policy should "uncommitted" qualify.


Thresholds
Given scant changes, the ground rules are largely the same for Connecticut Republicans in 2016 as they were in 2012. The only difference is that the competitive phase of the race will stretch to late April on the calendar, unlike 2012. As the rules are the same, there is a qualifying threshold, but only under certain conditions. First, a candidate must receive at least 20 percent of the vote in order to qualify for any delegates in the Connecticut primary. But reaching that barrier only qualifies a candidate for a share of the states 13 at-large and automatic delegates. That is just a proportional share of a little less than half of the total number of delegates apportioned state Republicans by the RNC.

However, that proportional allocation of that group of delegates only holds if no one candidate wins a majority of the statewide vote. In the event that one candidate take a majority statewide, that candidate would be allocated all 13 at-large and automatic delegates.

There is, then, a qualifying threshold, but it is superseded by the winner-take-all trigger if a candidate wins more than 50 percent of the statewide vote. Additionally, there is no rule prohibiting the backdoor winner-take-all allocation of all 13 at-large and automatic delegates should only one candidate surpass the 20 percent qualifying threshold (given the equation described above and presumably assuming a large field of candidates).


Delegate allocation (at-large and automatic delegates)
The above thresholds affect just the allocation of the 13 at-large and automatic delegates. Assuming a proportional allocation of those delegates -- no one receives a majority of the vote statewide -- then the allocation equation divides each candidates share of the statewide vote by the total qualifying vote (just those over 20% rather than the total number of votes cast).

Fractional delegates from that calculation would be rounded to the nearest whole number. Those .5 and above would be round up and those below .5 would be rounded down.

Should there be an unallocated delegate due to rounding, the Connecticut Republican Party bylaws call for that slot to go to the winner of the statewide vote. Interestingly, there is no provision in the rules dealing with a rounding result that leads to an overallocation of delegates. There is no description laying out the procedure for removing the superfluous delegate from a particular candidate's total.


Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
Matters are simpler with regard to the allocation of the congressional district delegates. Like Wisconsin or South Carolina before it, Connecticut Republicans allocate all three delegates to the plurality winner of a congressional district. There are no thresholds involved. A candidate need not win 20% of the vote to qualify for those three delegates. Having 19 percent of the vote, for example, is sufficient to claim all three congressional district delegates so long as that is the highest vote share in a given district. With a later primary and a winnowed field, however, such a winning share becomes less likely.


Binding
At-large and automatic delegates are bound to the majority winner statewide or to their respective candidates under a proportional allocation through the first ballot at the national convention. It is less clear whether congressional district delegates are bound for the same duration. The only mention of how long delegates are bound is in the section of the rules detailing the allocation of the at-large delegates (and only refers to "delegate[s]"). When the rules shift into a discussion of the allocation of congressional district delegates in a subsequent section, there is no provision detailing the length of the bond.

This sounds more provocative than it is in practice. And that is due to the way that delegates are selected. Connecticut is one of the states that chooses delegates from slates submitted by the various campaigns. If a candidate has filed a full slate of delegates and there is a majority winner statewide who also sweeps the congressional districts then the mystery is gone. There really is no selection so much as all the delegate slots are filled by the winner's slate.

There is only a choice in so much as there is 1) a proportional allocation in which delegates are being pulled from multiple slates or 2) a candidate has either filed too few or no delegates with the state  party. The candidates and their campaigns choose the slates, but the state party at its May state central committee meeting selects which delegates from those slates fill the candidates' allocated slots. Unlike the majority of states where candidates have no direct influence over the delegate selection process, Connecticut Republicans allow for candidate input on the matter. Since the candidates have input in the matter, their delegates are likely to be with them on the first ballot (and beyond).



--
State allocation rules are archived here.


--

Recent Posts:
Following LePage Signature, Maine Now Has a Presidential Primary

On Democratic Party Rules Changes for 2020

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: WISCONSIN

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

Following LePage Signature, Maine Now Has a Presidential Primary

The presidential caucus may be gone in Maine for 2020.

Over the last month, presidential primary legislation with widespread support quickly moved through the Maine state legislature. Proposed on March 23, LD 1673 establishes a presidential primary in the Pine Tree state, charges the Maine secretary of state with setting the primary date for a Tuesday in March during a presidential election year, and also tasks the secretary of state with exploring the costs (to the state) of the election.

Similar legislation has been introduced in the recent past, but stalled in the legislature. In 2016, however, the move to reestablish a presidential primary in Maine for the first time since 2000 garnered significant support. 84 co-sponsors joined the bill's sponsor, Senator Justin Alfond (D-27th, Portland) significantly helped ease the primary bill through both chambers -- 128-22 in the House and unanimously in the state Senate -- this past week and onto Governor LePage's desk.

LePage signed the bill into law on Friday, April 15.

--
Implications:

• The first step in the reinstitution of the presidential primary is that the office of the Maine secretary of state will study the costs of the new primary during 2017.
• The secretary will then by November 1 of the year prior to a presidential election year set the date of the contest for some Tuesday in March. This date selection process will be done in consultation with the state parties. 
• That last part is key. The state parties obviously have the final say in all of this. Despite there being presidential primary, the state parties are not required to opt into it. Those parties could continue to use caucuses as a means of both allocating and selecting delegates. But by providing some (early calendar) flexibility and by consulting with the parties, the new law maximizes the likelihood that the two state parties opt into the primary and allocate delegates through the vote in the contest. 
• This legislation does a couple of interesting things. First, as mentioned above, the secretary of state has some carefully calibrated discretion on setting the date of the primary. The law does not set the primary for a specific date, but rather calls for it to happen on a Tuesday in March. More importantly, though, the decision on the date of the primary for 2020 and in the future rests with the secretary of state -- like in New Hampshire and Georgia -- instead of having to filter any date change through the legislative process. The discretion that the Maine secretary of state will have on this is far more restricted than in either New Hampshire or Georgia, but there is some flexibility there. That makes Maine a bit more adaptable than states with primaries scheduled for specific dates. 

--
Tip of the cap to Amy Fried for passing along information on the bill.

Recent Posts:
On Democratic Party Rules Changes for 2020

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: WISCONSIN

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: NEW YORK

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

On Democratic Party Rules Changes for 2020

UPDATE (7/25/16): The Democratic National Convention passed a rules package that included the the charter of a Unity Reform Commission to examine the rules outside of the convention before 2020.

--
Primary and caucus season is just a little more than two months old (with three months to go until the national conventions), but already people are coming up with ways to "fix" the process for 2020 and beyond. The Post's Greg Sergent recently weighed in under the headline "Here's one way the Clinton-Sanders brawl could end well". The premise? The Democratic presidential nomination battle could lead to delegate selection rules changes at the national convention in Philadelphia.

Well, maybe, only that is not really how it works. Meaningful change rarely comes directly out of the national convention on the Democratic side. Unlike their Republican counterparts, there is no baseline set of rules that emerges from one convention to guide the process (with some tweaks thereafter during the last two cycles) for the next cycle.

Instead, the Democratic National Committee through its Rules and Bylaws Committee has traditionally empowered a commission to reexamine the nomination rules and recommend changes to them in the time after the presidential election of one cycle. Those recommendations are then handed off to the Rules and Bylaws Committee to vote on and pass usually during the summer of the midterm election year between cycles.¹

Nothing, then, really happens rules-wise at the Democratic National Convention.² Sure, there is a report on rules from the Rules and Bylaws Committee to the convention, and said Committee meets immediately after the convention, but any rules tinkering takes place well after the convention (or it traditionally has in the post-reform era).

Heated battle or not during primary season, the Sanders campaign may have little leverage on this issue at the convention itself. The key will be the long game: getting surrogates on the Rules and Bylaws Committee who can affect change through that channel. This is the sort of thing that latent campaigns do during the rules-making phase; something the would-be Sanders campaign and allies failed to do in 2013-14.

--
Not to pick on Sargent, but he does go on to catalog a number of changes at which the party could look. And the list is made up of the usual suspects :

• Eliminate superdelegates
• Eliminate caucuses
• Limits on the number of primaries on one day
• Eliminating closed primaries

This always operates like a quadrennial deja vu.

It is the same list. Go ahead. Give the FHQ posts from the 2009-10 proceedings of the Democratic Change Commission a glance. Or look at the DCC's recommendations: 1) reducing the number of superdelegates by shifting add-on delegates out of the category and making them the PLEOs (Party Leaders and Elected Officials) that are now a part of the process and 2) developing a set of "best practices" for how caucuses should be run. One could also look at the scant deliberations of the Rules and Bylaws Committee in 2013-14.

The problem, as always, is that the national parties have only so much control over the presidential nomination process. The system started out and has evolved into a patchwork of overlapping national party rules, state party rules and state laws. In attempting to fix the perceived problems of any given cycle, the national parties have to navigate that patchwork. And they often run the risk of crossing the  Sununu line; that parties are better served by attempting to manage rather than control the component parts of the presidential nomination process.

Why?

Well, when state parties opt into state-funded primaries, they cede the power in most cases to set the date of that primary (see clustering issue above) or to determine who can participate in that primary (open vs. closed). And state parties, more often than not, opt into those state-funded primaries to avoid having to raise and spend money on an election rather than on other party-building exercises.

Eliminating caucuses means some states with some combination of Republican-controlled state governments, no presidential primary, a closed system and no means of funding a primary election have to somehow overcome all or some of those barriers to comply. Perhaps one could take exception with what Washington Democrats do: traditionally hold caucuses despite having a Democratic state government (in most cases) and a presidential primary option. Perhaps Democrats in the Evergreen state could be convinced to change tradition.

But what about a state like Maine or Wyoming or Iowa where there is a mix of state government partisanship and no primary system in place? Can the Democratic National Committee make Wyoming Republicans in change of state government institute a primary?³ Are they willing to foot the bill for that election if not? If they are unwilling, this is an unfunded mandate that would hypothetically force Wyoming Democrats to opt for the cheapest form of election for most state parties in similar situations: a caucus.

And what about this idea of reducing clustering? The national parties have attempted for a long time now to reduce frontloading on the presidential primary calendar. Both national parties have a fairly effective mix of rules and penalties to keep states in line, but the overall process is still pretty organic within a broader set of calendar guidelines. The motivation is still there to push to front; to cluster at the beginning of the calendar. And do not lose sight of the fact that the DNC currently has a bonus delegate regime in place to motivate later, subregional clusters of contests. That has been somewhat effective in 2012 and 2016, but has not rid the process of the motivation to move earlier in some states.

This is a thorny set of issues that involves state-level traditions that stretch back more than just a cycle or two and partisan divisions between state government control and the national parties. Very simply, the national parties have managed the nomination system to varying degrees in the post-reform era by deferring to the states on a number of issues to allow states to better tailor a plan that works for them but also within an overarching set of national party guidelines.

That is an institutionalized feature of the process that seeks to overcome a multifaceted coordination problem: nominating a presidential candidate within two diverse, big tent parties.

The problem with eliminating superdelegates is a little different. There is no overlap with state party rules or state laws, but nixing those unpledged delegates is an idea that requires superdelegates -- members of the DNC -- to vote to strip themselves of that power. It is not a non-starter, but that idea is a long way from being enacted (even if Sanders supporters sit on the RBC or a commission examining the rules).

The only addition to the list of perennial grievances is the handling of the debates. This is something that is not really codified in the Democratic Party rules. The RNC added debates-curtailing rules to their rulebook, but with mixed results. But even that can get pretty close to the Sununu line.

If one is placing bets on likely rules changes or additions, look to the debates issue. The others are more difficult to manage much less control.


--
¹ That post-reform routine was disrupted after 2012. Rather than have a commission look at the rules and recommend changes, the Rules and Bylaws Committee handled that task directly.

² It is right there in the Charter of the party. None of the rules-changing activity is confined to just the national convention and by practice it has happened outside it.

³ Yes, Wyoming legislators are considering a switch, but on their own, not as part of some directive from a national party.

Recent Posts:
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: WISCONSIN

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: NEW YORK

Changing the Rules [at the Convention] Changes the Game

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

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: WISCONSIN

This is part thirty-eight of a series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation rules by state. The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2016 -- especially relative to 2012 -- in order to gauge the potential impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. For this cycle the RNC recalibrated its rules, cutting the proportionality window in half (March 1-14), but tightening its definition of proportionality as well. While those alterations will trigger subtle changes in reaction at the state level, other rules changes -- particularly the new binding requirement placed on state parties -- will be more noticeable. 

WISCONSIN

Election type: primary
Date: April 5 
Number of delegates: 42 [15 at-large, 24 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: winner-take-most/winner-take-all by congressional district
Threshold to qualify for delegates: n/a
2012: winner-take-most primary

--
Changes since 2012
After a brief, if unserious, flirtation with returning to a February presidential primary date in 2015, the Wisconsin legislature kept the 2016 primary in April. In addition, the state party carried over to 2016 virtually the same delegate allocation and selection rules it utilized in 2012.

The one under-the-radar change that may have an impact in Wisconsin is a subtle alteration the Wisconsin Republican Party made with respect to the selection process for congressional district delegates. In 2012, a district party chairman would consult with the District Executive Committee and representatives from the winning candidates campaign to select a group of delegate candidate from which three delegates and three alternates would be chosen. This process, under the 2012 rules, would occur after the primary results were in.¹

However, that is not how the process will operate for 2016. Before the 2016 primary, the Wisconsin rules call for the district party chair and the District Executive Committee to choose a list of possible delegate and alternate candidates. That happens without consultation with the candidates or their campaigns.

It is only after the primary -- once there is a district winner -- that the winning candidate has any input in the selection process. But those winning campaign's preferences are affected by the pool of delegate and alternate candidates put before them. In 2012, that pool would have included at least some delegate/alternate candidates the candidate/campaign had selected. But there is no such guarantee for 2016. The winning candidate and his or her campaign may only have a choice of delegate/alternate candidates that are aligned with another candidate.

What is clear is that the candidates have lost some of the past influence they held in the selection process in Wisconsin before. Still, it should be noted that the candidates do have a right of final approval over the at-large delegates that are bound to them. Additionally, all Wisconsin delegates regardless of distinction have to file an affidavit with the state party that among things requires them to abide by the rules (most importantly that they are bound to a candidate). That and the instruction given to the secretary of the national convention in the current national party rules to record roll call votes as bound prevent any potential rogue delegate activity. Of course, that only holds so long as the Wisconsin Republican rules bind those delegates. [More on that below.]

What the campaigns have lost in Wisconsin from 2012 to 2016 is early influence/approval over the delegate selection process that might mean unbound, later-ballot delegates, but ones who might still be sympathetic or pledged to a candidate. Without that step, there may be delegates who would abandon that candidate on later ballots.


Thresholds
Given the winner-take-most rules the Republican Party of Wisconsin operates under, there are no thresholds to qualify for national convention delegates. Winning a with a plurality statewide or at the congressional district level is sufficient to win all of the at-large/automatic or congressional delegates.

There is no winner-take-all threshold statewide to qualify for the allocation of the full delegation.


Delegate allocation (at-large, congressional district and automatic delegates)
Echoing the Thresholds section, the plurality winner of the statewide vote is entitled to all 18 at-large and automatic delegates. Furthermore, the plurality winner of a congressional district is allocated the three delegates from that district.

In the past two cycles, no more than three of the eight congressional districts have gone to any candidate other than the statewide winner. Santorum won three congressional districts in 2012 and Huckabee took two four years earlier. But because of the "bonus" the statewide winner receives -- the at-large cache of delegates -- the allocations end up lopsided. Bear in mind that the statewide margin was around 7 percent in 2012 and nearly 18 percent in 2008. A closer result, then, may yield a slightly tighter delegate count in the state (as compared to four and eight years ago). The Missouri allocation in 2016 is, perhaps, a good example of this.²


Binding
District delegates are selected in the manner described above. The at-larges delegates are selected by a committee representing the winning candidate of the statewide vote and ratified by the state executive committee. The candidate then has final approval over those delegates and alternates.

Those delegates -- whether at-large, automatic or district -- are bound to the statewide and/or district winner(s) until released by the candidate or until the candidate to whom they are bound receives less than one-third of the vote in any roll call nomination vote at the national convention. There is no fixed number of ballots through which the delegates are bound. Nor is there a specified procedure for the release of any delegates (whether suspension is sufficient or a more formal withdrawal is required, for example).


--
State allocation rules are archived here.


--
¹ What is interesting about the 2012 Wisconsin delegate selection process is the reference to a March 9 deadline for the winning candidate's to have selected their three delegate and three alternate preferences from the list created in consultation with members of the district party. That would have preceded the April 3 primary in 2012. It is either a typo where March was intended to be May or this section of the rules was leftover from the 2008 process when the presidential primary was in February (and thus March 9 would have succeeded it). It could be either.

What is certain is that the web page that held the Republican Party of Wisconsin constitution (which contains the delegate rules) in 2012 when FHQ pulled them (and later posted them here) first made its appearance in May 2011. That is a date consistent with the revision schedule the party uses. Changes for 2016 were made in May 2015, for example. That indicates that the rules were current, but that the March reference may have been missed when those changes for 2012 were being made.

² Missouri raided its at-large pool of delegates to increased the delegates won in each congressional district, though. That cut down on the "bonus" the statewide winner got.


--

Recent Posts:
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: NEW YORK

Changing the Rules [at the Convention] Changes the Game

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: UTAH

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

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: NEW YORK

This is part thirty-seven of a series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation rules by state. The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2016 -- especially relative to 2012 -- in order to gauge the potential impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. For this cycle the RNC recalibrated its rules, cutting the proportionality window in half (March 1-14), but tightening its definition of proportionality as well. While those alterations will trigger subtle changes in reaction at the state level, other rules changes -- particularly the new binding requirement placed on state parties -- will be more noticeable. 

NEW YORK

Election type: primary
Date: April 19 
Number of delegates: 95 [11 at-large, 81 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: proportional (but with majority winner-take-all trigger statewide and at the congressional district level)
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 20%
2012: proportional primary

--
Changes since 2012
There are three main differences between the delegate allocation/selection plan the New York Republican Party used in 2012 and how the process will operate in 2016. Two of those are more visible changes than the third alteration.

The easiest of the 2016 changes to spot is the positioning of the New York primary on the 2016 presidential primary calendar. As compared to 2012, the primary for 2016 in the Empire state is one week earlier. But the route to that one week change took a winding path. First, the 2011 law setting the primary for April 24 expired at the end of 2012. That caused the election law to reset and the primary date to revert to the first Tuesday in February, a date not compliant with national party rules. By summer 2015, it looked as if the New York primary would once again end up among a group of contiguous mid-Atlantic and northeastern states at the end of April. But that April 26 date fell right in the middle of Passover week and forced the state legislature to consider a date one week earlier, April 19. That bill ultimately passed the legislature and was signed into law by Governor Cuomo.

While the primary date was changed in that legislation, so too, was the method of delegate allocation and selection. As was the case with Arizona, New York is a state where the line is somewhat blurred between which entity -- state government or state party -- determines the method of delegate allocation and selection. In the grand scheme of things, the state party tends have the final say in the matter. If state law called for one thing and the state party wanted another, then the RNC rules (not to mention the courts when these sort of conflicts arise and end up in that arena) give precedence to the state party rule.

But there is no conflict between state law and state party rules in New York. In fact, the changes the New York Republican Party made to its rules for allocation and selection made their way into the aforementioned legislation moving the primary date and became law when the bill was signed.

From an allocation angle, the changes are minimal. New York was "2012 proportional" four years ago despite the fact that its presidential primary fell outside of the proportionality window. All that entailed was a proportional allocation of the statewide/at-large delegates coupled with a winner-take-all component at the congressional district level. That was "proportional" under the 2012 RNC delegate rules.

Yet, in 2016, despite again being outside of the early March proportionality window, New York Republicans have opted for a "2016 proportional" plan. The same rules apply to the at-large delegates awarded based on the statewide results, but now the congressional district delegates are not allocated in a strictly winner-take-all manner. Instead, under certain conditions, the allocation of the three delegates in each congressional district are allocated proportionally and under others, winner-take-all. [More on that below.] For now, it is sufficient to say that the New York congressional district delegates are more likely to be divvied up between candidates in 2016 than was true in 2012.

On the subject of congressional district delegates, one related item that has changed since 2012, is that New York Republicans will be operating under a more standard procedure than was the case four years ago. During the last cycle, New York was apportioned delegates by the RNC as if it had 27 congressional districts. However, due to redistricting-triggered uncertainty over the map of those districts, New York Republicans were forced to use the old, pre-census 29 district map. This resulted in a two delegate per district apportionment under the old map rather than a three delegate per district plan under a new 27 district map. That, in turn, had the effect of shifting more delegates into the at-large pool to be allocated based on the statewide results.

Absent the 2012 redistricting issues, New York is back to the standard alignment between the delegates apportioned the state by the RNC and how those delegates are allocated.

While all those changes are clear, the one change operating under the surface concerns the delegate selection process. In previous cycles, New York Republicans had candidates file slates of delegates and then based on the results of the primary, fill allocated slots from those slates. That is not the case in 2016 (based on an intra-party dispute over the 2012 delegate selection process). The state party will have a greater say in this than the candidates and their campaigns. Instead of having the campaigns file slates of delegate candidates, the New York Republican Party state committee will select delegates. The full state committee will elect the at-large delegates and just state committee members from a congressional district will elect delegates to fill the three slots from each respective district.


Thresholds
There are several layers to this, but keeping it simple, the New York Republican process has a couple of main thresholds that apply both statewide and at the congressional district level.

On the one hand, there is a qualifying threshold. If a candidate wins more than 20 percent of the vote, then that candidate becomes eligible for either statewide or congressional district delegates. That is a more manageable proposition at the statewide level with 14 (at-large and automatic) delegates than at the congressional district level with just three. As FHQ has said numerous times, there are only so many ways three delegates can be proportionally allocated. [More on this below in the allocation sections.]

On the other, there are winner-take-all thresholds at play in New York as well. If a candidate wins a majority of the vote either statewide or in a congressional district, then all the delegates either statewide (at-large and automatic) or in a district are allocated to the majority winner. That winner-take-all trigger, if tripped, renders the 20% qualifying threshold unnecessary.


Delegate allocation (at-large and automatic delegates)
Should some candidate win a majority, this process becomes a lot easier. Anyone over 50 percent is allocated all 14 at-large and automatic delegates.

However, the delegates end up being split in most scenarios where no one wins a majority of the vote statewide. Assuming that two more more candidates finish above the 20 percent qualifying threshold, the allocation becomes proportional. A candidate's share of the vote would be divided by the total number of votes of just those candidates over the 20 percent threshold. Any remaining fractional delegates are rounded to the nearest whole number. If that results in an under-allocation, then any under-allocated delegate is given to the top votegetter statewide. In the event that rounding leads to an overallocation, any superfluous delegate(s) is/are removed from the total of the qualifying candidate with the least statewide votes.

Note that there is a split of the delegates in only most scenarios in which a candidate fails to reach 50 percent statewide. There is no provision in the law either permitting or prohibiting a backdoor winner-take-all scenario; one in which only one candidate is above the statewide qualifying threshold.  Yet, since only candidates over 20 percent of the statewide vote can qualify for at-large and automatic delegates, then in the situation in which only one candidate clears 20 percent, said candidate would be allocated a pro-rata portion of the available delegates. That share would be 100 percent of the total qualifying vote and thus translate to an allocation of all of the at-large and automatic delegates.


Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
There are a number of contingencies to account for with respect to the allocation of the congressional district delegates.

In a situation where a candidate wins a majority of the vote, then under the New York rules, all three congressional district delegates are awarded to the winner.

If two or more candidates clear the 20 percent hurdle in a congressional district, then the top finisher would receive two delegates and the runner up one. But in the scenario where only one candidate is above 20 percent in a congressional district, then that one candidate is awarded all three delegates.

Additionally, if no candidate receives more than 20 percent of the vote, then the "delegate positions from such district shall be deemed vacant and filled pursuant to the rules of the national Republican party". This is an interesting provision. The RNC rules defer to the states on these sorts of matters. With the state law/state party rules giving deference to the national party rules, this would seemingly provide the state party with the ability to allocate and fill those slots in a manner that it deems appropriate. And that could be anything: all delegates going to the top votegetter or two going to the top votegetter and one to the runner up (regardless of the threshold), etc.

The party would appear to get to decide on that; to fill in the blanks. Of course, that decision could also be challenged at the national convention by any aggrieved candidate. Given the winnowed field of candidates likely to be around for a mid-April contest, it seems less likely that no candidate will get to 20 percent.


Binding
In the past, when delegates were chosen from slates filed with the state party by the candidates, the New York Republican Party rules kept those delegates bound through the first ballot at the national convention. However, for the 2016 cycle, the slate filing has been removed and replaced by the New York Republican Party state committee selecting those delegates. The full committee will elect the at-large delegates and the members of the subset of state committee members from each district will elect the congressional district delegates. This has the effect of tipping the selection of delegates away from the campaigns and toward the state party. The choices that each may make may not necessarily be in concert with each other. When and if they do not, the campaigns have lost some measure of control over the process and thus who their delegates are.

New York delegates to the Republican National Convention will be bound to candidates based on the results in the April 19 primary. That bond holds until a delegate is released by the candidate or through the first roll call ballot.


--
State allocation rules are archived here.



--

Recent Posts:
Changing the Rules [at the Convention] Changes the Game

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: UTAH

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: ARIZONA

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

Changing the Rules [at the Convention] Changes the Game

For a placeholder rule, Rule 40 in the Rules of the Republican Party has gotten entirely too much attention during the 2016 presidential election cycle.

One of the least understood parts of the Republican presidential nomination process is that the delegates -- two from each of the 56 states and territories on the Convention Rules Committee -- write the rules that will govern them at the national convention. Under normal circumstances in a more typical cycle, this process is little more than a formality. Of the three basic types of rules in the Republican Party rulebook -- party organization rules (Rules 1-12), nomination process rules (Rules 13-25) and convention rules (Rules 26-42) -- the first and third types tend to be carried over from cycle to cycle with little more than some tweaking here and there. The changes to the second type, the nomination process rules, set the baseline of rules that will govern the nomination process in the next cycle, but only a baseline.¹

Rule 40 obviously sits among the rules in the convention rules section. The delegates to the 2012 convention changed the provisions in that rule, upping the requirement for a candidate to have his or her name placed in nomination at the convention to a majority of delegates from at least 8 states. It is a small change but with a large potential impact. But that rule applied in 2012 and was designed to keep Ron Paul off of the presidential nomination roll call ballot. At the 2008 convention, Rule 40 called for a candidate to have only a plurality of delegates from just five states; a far lower bar (but one that Paul was flirting with heading into the national convention).

That flirting was enough to trigger the action that raised the threshold for having a candidate's name placed in nomination. And to be clear, that rules change was a one written by and for the delegates at the 2012 convention; a normal part of the sequence of events under the Republican rules. Just as the 2012 delegates on the 2012 Convention Rules Committee looked over the landscape of the 2012 process and opted to up the requirements to qualify for nomination, the 2016 delegates on the 2016 version of that committee may choose to lower or alter those thresholds and consider other rules changes.

It is that context that made Georgia Republican National Committeeman Randy Evans' comments at a local county caucus -- a part of the delegate selection process in the Peach state -- over the weekend so interesting. Rather than some of the more chaotic scenarios that have risen to the top in some recent media accounts of the possibility of convention rules changes, Evans provided a calmer look forward to rules and rules changes to be considered before (but not adopted until at) the national convention.²

Evans basically pointed toward three rules changes likely to be considered (at the RNC spring meeting and later in the lead up to the convention):

1. Unbinding the delegates. This change would diminish the importance of winning primaries and caucuses during primary season and render the delegate allocation process going on now largely moot. While doing that, unbinding the delegates would simultaneously raise the importance of the delegate selection process; the parallel fight to fill allocated slots with party and/or campaign loyalists. Needless to say, this one would be rather contentious. Unbinding the delegates so that they may vote sincerely carries the potential of overturning the outcome of primary season in a way similar to the way superdelegates are viewed in the context of the Democratic Party process.³ Since this one is laced with toxic outcomes no matter the choice, the status quo is likely to be maintained. 
2. Some change to Rule 40. Georgia's Evans mentioned that perhaps the eight state threshold could revert to the five state required before 2012. That is consistent with conversations FHQ has had with others in the RNC. That level has not always been at five. At one time, there was no such threshold and then it became a three state threshold before being upped again. Thresholds of both three and five have been mentioned, but there was also a discussion at the RNC winter meeting in Charleston about lowering the qualifying threshold to have a candidate's name placed in nomination at just one delegate. That's one delegate, not one state. The majority/plurality control threshold is another area that could potentially see some change in Rule 40. It seems like something may have to give with the way Rule 40 is currently constructed. The 2012 working rule does not seem to fit well into the 2016 process. It seems likely that Rule 40 will change, but there is a lack of consensus at this time about what may replace it. 
3. Pledging delegates. This one is pretty fascinating. The idea is that a rule would be written -- again by and for the 2016 delegates at the 2016 convention to fit 2016 conditions -- that would allow candidates to pledge bound delegates to other candidates. On the one hand, the intent is to facilitate an easier and perhaps more orderly resolution to a contested convention. However, on the other hand, as Evans points out, individual delegates would lose discretion under such provisions. That may bear some support in the party, but in other areas would be strongly opposed. 

To be sure, this is not a laundry list of proposed rules changes. And there will be others that will likely come along at the national convention. Most of those proposed changes are likely to occur in an effort toward setting the rules baseline for the 2020 cycle, however. While that is and will be important, more eyes will be on the shorter list of changes made to the convention rules that will govern the 2016 convention.


--
¹ If Rule 12 survives the 2016 convention, then the party will once again be able to alter the nomination process rules outside of the convention (as it did following 2012 when Rule 12 was created). Even given that power, the party only slightly changed the process rules between 2012 and 2014.

² It should be noted that it is consistent with expectations that members of the Republican National Committee would in the vast majority of cases urge caution and to let the rules play out rather than give into the chaos angle.

³ There are risks involved whether there is a clear presumptive nominee with more than 1237 delegates bound to him heading into the convention or if there is a candidate with a plurality of delegates.

Recent Posts:
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: UTAH

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: ARIZONA

The Reallocation of Rubio's Five Alaska Delegates

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

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: UTAH

This is part thirty-six of a series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation rules by state. The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2016 -- especially relative to 2012 -- in order to gauge the potential impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. For this cycle the RNC recalibrated its rules, cutting the proportionality window in half (March 1-14), but tightening its definition of proportionality as well. While those alterations will trigger subtle changes in reaction at the state level, other rules changes -- particularly the new binding requirement placed on state parties -- will be more noticeable. 

UTAH

Election type: caucus
Date: March 22 
Number of delegates: 40 [25 at-large, 12 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: proportional (but with statewide winner-take-all trigger)
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2012: winner-take-all primary

--
Changes since 2012
The presidential nomination process has been all over the map in Utah for the last five years. State law called for a February presidential primary back in 2011 but only if the state funded that election. The legislature did not fund that (would-have-been non-compliant) election for 2012, but did have to alter the law to add a presidential line to the June primary ballot for state and local offices. Even then, there were discussions about moving the primary to March (which never came to fruition).

Yes, all of this happened before 2012, but that same type of pattern carried over to the 2016 cycle as well. The same February option was there for state legislators in the Beehive state, but funding of that election was never considered after 2012. However, a 2014 bill to move the Utah primary into a first in the nation slot on the calendar ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire passed the state House before getting lost in the shuffle of last-day negotiations on the state Senate side.

Once that fizzled, actors within both state parties as well as the legislature were left with a late June presidential primary that failed to comply with either national parties' delegate selection rules. It was too late on the calendar; too close to the conventions.

After a failed attempt in 2015 to move the non-compliant June primary to March, both Utah state parties were forced to shift to caucuses, and both opted for March 22 dates that aligned with the primary in neighboring Arizona.

But for Utah Republicans the switch to caucuses (and an earlier contest) was not the only change for 2016. Despite settling on a date that was outside of the proportionality window, the Utah Republican Party chose to adopt a more proportional allocation plan in lieu of the party's traditional winner-take-all formula.


Thresholds
The Utah Republican Party version of proportional requires that a candidate win 15 percent of the statewide vote in order to qualify for a share of the 40 delegates. All 40 delegates, regardless of at-large, congressional district or automatic status, are pooled and allocated based on the statewide vote in the caucuses.

Additionally, there is a provision in the Utah Republican Party rules prohibiting a backdoor winner-take-all allocation scenario. If fewer than three candidates surpass the 15 percent threshold then the threshold is dropped and the allocation becomes truly proportional.

With caucuses planned as late as the Utah Republican caucuses are -- after the point on the calendar where 50 percent of the delegates will have been allocated -- the field of candidates is likely to have winnowed. That opens the door to a couple of possibilities. First, as the field of candidates shrinks, the chances that the winner-take-all trigger will be tripped rises. Any candidate who wins a majority of the statewide vote qualifies to be allocated all 40 Utah delegates.

But the odds of winner-take-all trigger being activated only increase to a certain point. Given the backdoor winner-take-all prevention provision described above, the field shrinking also means that the odds that the 15 percent threshold will be removed are still high under certain circumstances. For example, in a three person race -- one in which one candidate is approaching (but still under) the 50 percent winner-take-all trigger, another is hovering around the 15 percent qualifying threshold and another is clearly above the 15 percent barrier -- the 15 percent threshold disappears and the allocation becomes truly proportional. [More on this in the next section.]


Delegate allocation (at-large, congressional district and automatic delegates)
Utah Republicans will use an allocation equation that divides the qualifying candidate's share of the statewide vote by the total number of qualifying votes (only the votes of those candidates above the 15 percent threshold). That equation is coupled with a rounding method that favors candidates at the top end of the order. Fractional delegates are all rounded up and in a sequence from the top votegetter to the last qualifying candidate. Operationally, the top votegetters statewide will have their delegates rounded up and the final qualifier will be left with whatever scraps there are.

In a large field with numerous qualifying candidates that rounding method may keep a final qualifier out of the delegates altogether. However, a smaller field may net the last qualifier some delegates, but a larger delegate deficit relative to the winner depending on the winner's share of the vote. That is more likely to be the case in a multi-qualifier field of three than in a two qualifier scenario.

Yet, if only two candidates qualify and no one receives a majority, the allocation method changes. Under the provisions described above, if only two candidates clear the 15 percent threshold, then the allocation shifts to a truly proportional method with no threshold. That alters the allocation equation; switching out the total qualifying vote as the denominator for the total overall vote (for all candidates appearing on the ballot). That would not only bring the third candidate in the scenario above (see Thresholds section) back into the delegates but others as well.

To proportionally allocate all of the delegates as called for in the Utah Republican rules, all of the candidates on the ballot become much more likely to receive delegates. Again, the rounding is always up, so fractional delegates become whole delegates. And the process is sequential. The allocation will go on down the line until all of the delegates are allocated.

For example, in the current race in Utah, Cruz appears to be approaching the majority mark in some polls. But if the Texas senator does not get there and Katich's presence in Utah hurts both Cruz and Trump, then Donald Trump may fail to get to 15 percent. In that instance the allocation becomes truly proportional. Furthermore, it means that suspended candidates like Bush and Rubio or Paul and Huckabee could also round up to a full delegate with only very few votes. That is the only the way the allocation can work in full under the rules.

But that brings this to how the binding works.


Binding
The above method of rounding greatly simplifies matters by eliminating the prospect of over- and under-allocated delegates. Utah Republicans have also similarly simplified the binding of delegates compared to other states. All 40 delegates are or will be bound throughout the Republican nomination process. The only question is who those delegates are bound to. That can change.

How?

Utah, like Alaska, reallocates the delegates of candidates who have dropped out of the race to any still-active candidates. Unlike the process in Alaska, Utah Republicans do this throughout the process until there is a Republican nominee. If, for example there are three candidates -- Candidate A, Candidate B and Candidate C -- all of whom qualify for and win delegates in the Utah caucuses, then those delegates are bound to those candidates as long as the candidates are still in the race.

If Candidate C drops out at any point, his or her delegates are proportionally reallocated to Candidate A and Candidate B based on the statewide results in the March 22 caucuses. Those delegates would be bound to those two candidates, again, until there is a nominee.

If Candidate B were to drop out thereafter, then Candidate B's delegates would be reallocated to the remaining still-active candidates. In this hypothetical situation, only Candidate A is left. Candidate B's delegates -- which include at least some of Candidate C's delegates -- would be reallocated to Candidate A, who would have all 40 of the Utah delegates bound to him or her at that point.¹

Unlike other states, Utah does not have a procedure for release. Delegates are reallocated instead. This prevents the bound-but-not-sympathetic delegate conflict entirely, but also tamps down on the potential for chaos in a contested convention environment by binding the delegates throughout. That the delegates are all bound throughout the process minimizes to some degree the importance of the delegate selection process in Utah.

Still, in the scenario where suspended candidates have been allocated delegates (described above in the Allocation section), those delegates are not reallocated until the national convention. Not being involved in the race "at the national convention" is the line drawn in the language of the Utah Republican rules to trigger a reallocation. That means that that only happens once -- at the convention -- rather than multiple times throughout primary season as candidates drop out.²


--
State allocation rules are archived here.



--
¹ The one quirky loophole in the reallocation process is that there is nothing -- no language in the rules -- covering the possibility that a non-qualifying candidate becomes the presumptive nominee. In other words, how are the Utah delegates reallocated in the event that a candidate who did not qualify for Utah delegates -- a prerequisite for being reallocated delegates under the rules as the reallocation is done "in accordance to the rules of this section [Section 7.0 B on delegate allocation]" -- emerges as the last candidate standing at the national convention. This would apply to two types of candidates: 1) Candidate D, who ran but failed to qualify for delegates in the Utah primary or 2) Candidate E, who after multiple ballots at the convention is inserted as a consensus candidate but who did not compete for votes in Utah or any other states during the primary phase.

Simplifying, assume that Candidate D is someone like Donald Trump. The New York real estate tycoon is not expected to do well in the Utah caucuses. He could even fall short of the qualifying threshold to receive any delegates. Yet, he has enough delegates from other states so far to be a factor if not the ultimate nominee at the national convention. It isn't clear in the Utah rules as written that the delegates could be reallocated to him.

The same is true if Candidate E is someone like Mitt Romney, who could hypothetically be put forth after a number of inconclusive roll call votes at the convention as a, again, hypothetical consensus candidate. Like Trump above, Romney did not qualify for delegates in the caucuses and theoretically could not be reallocated those delegates.

There is no clear release procedure, and there is an additional lack of clarity over whether the Utah delegates would become unbound in that case or bound to a presumptive nominee.

² Yes, that runs counter to how the example was described above, but that type of description was necessary in order to lay the groundwork for the description of the full impact of the reallocation rules in the first footnote above.


--

Recent Posts:
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: ARIZONA

The Reallocation of Rubio's Five Alaska Delegates

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: OHIO

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