FHQ has been sitting on this one for a while, but with all the stirrings among Michigan Republicans concerning the date of their 2016 primary and the rules by which they will allocate delegates to the national convention, this becomes slightly more relevant.
To review, the Michigan Republican Party has pinpointed March 15 as the preferred landing point for its presidential primary in 2016. And while that is a preference, it is not binding. The date decision rests not with the state parties, but with the state government.1 In other words, if Michigan Republicans want that March 15 primary date, they will need some help from the state legislature for a start.
It has been relatively quiet on that front in Lansing (and elsewhere) during 2014. Midterm years are not typically when the majority of states consider presidential primary moves. The tendency is for state legislatures to act in the year prior to the presidential election, after the midterm elections that elect a fair number of those legislatures, but also, more importantly, after the national parties have settled on the rules that will govern the delegate selection process in the upcoming election year.
Still, there has been some legislative activity in Michigan that would potentially have some impact on the scheduling of the state's presidential primary.2 Back in May, Rep. Lisa Lyons (R-86th, Kent) introduced HB 5584 to pare back some of the primary date options available to the state. Importantly, the bill calls for eliminating the February primary date that the presidential primary was paired with in 2012. However, it does not eliminate the presidential primary. The bill doesn't even mention it.
Eliminating the February option is significant, though, in that the date was used as a rationale for keeping the presidential primary in February 2012 (and in future cycles). It was argued then that changing the date of the presidential primary from February would be difficult because it was a date on which other (school) elections were held. There was, then, a potential financial burden associated with moving the Michigan presidential primary away from what was (and would be in 2016) a non-compliant position on the calendar. Eliminating the February option -- for those other elections -- would be detrimental to any attempt at using the cost-savings argument again. With no other elections, the presidential primary would be a stand-alone contest, offering no savings to the state.
In reality, then, the bill would do little to alter the date of the presidential nomination contest. It would remove the February date that is often used for school elections, but without also changing the code that refers to the February presidential primary. This is the sort of loophole that is closed at the committee stage of a bill's consideration. Of course, HB 5584 has been bottled up in committee since it was introduced. It may ultimately die there, but it could also prove to be a vehicle for a presidential primary change during the post-election session of the legislature during December.
...or those in Lansing may wait until the new legislature is sworn in and introduce a bill specific to the presidential primary date then.
--
1 This is functionally true. State parties have the final say on the date of a primary, but rarely opt out of the state-funded option. That has the effect of passing the date decision off to the state government. State parties do not often find it in their interest to hold a party-funded primary (or caucuses) if a state-funded option is available. It happens (see Idaho Democrats), but only occasionally.
2 The Michigan legislature has a year-round session. July/August and October/November are slow times, but the legislature has regular meetings during September and then again in December.
Recent Posts:
Michigan Republicans Green Light March15, but...
Arizona Should Replace Iowa at the Front of the Presidential Primary Queue?
Michigan Republicans Take First Step Toward 2016 Presidential Primary Date Change
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
.png){kind=link}
Monday, September 22, 2014
Michigan Republicans Green Light March15, but...
The Michigan Republican Party State Central Committee met this past Saturday and voted to move the Great Lakes State presidential primary to March 15, 2016 and to make a small change to the way in which the party allocates delegates to candidates.
Moving forward, the biggest thing where Michigan's position on the 2016 presidential primary calendar is concerned is what the state legislature does. What the Michigan Republican Party voted on on Saturday was a measure that is completely dependent upon action from the state legislature. It -- March 15 -- is not binding unless the state party opts to fund the election itself. Otherwise, the state legislature will have to change the date of the primary from the last Tuesday in February (where it is currently scheduled). Any change there may also later prove to be a function of the party or parties that control the state legislature and governor's mansion after the elections in November.
More meaningfully, the change to the allocation rules is something that the party has autonomy over. That takes effect immediately, but only represents a minor change. The allocation will be conditionally winner-take-all, meaning that if a candidate cross the 50% threshold, that candidate will receive the entire allotment of Michigan delegates.1 Should no candidate clear that barrier, it appears the plan will be just as it was in 2012. The winner of each congressional district would receive three delegates and the statewide winner would receive a number of delegates proportional to his or her share of the vote.
That was the intent of the plan in 2012. And that will likely be how the plan is implemented in 2016 unless the field of Republican candidates has been winnowed down to a couple of candidates. Depending on how the overall calendar shapes up, March 15 will still be ahead of the point on the calendar at which 50% of the delegates will have been allocated. It will still likely be early enough, in other words, for that number to be higher than two.
--
1 This differs slightly from the description FHQ provided last week. I said at the time that only the statewide, at-large delegates would be winner-take-all, rather than the full allotment.
Recent Posts:
Arizona Should Replace Iowa at the Front of the Presidential Primary Queue?
Michigan Republicans Take First Step Toward 2016 Presidential Primary Date Change
New York Has Reverted to a February Presidential Primary for 2016
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Moving forward, the biggest thing where Michigan's position on the 2016 presidential primary calendar is concerned is what the state legislature does. What the Michigan Republican Party voted on on Saturday was a measure that is completely dependent upon action from the state legislature. It -- March 15 -- is not binding unless the state party opts to fund the election itself. Otherwise, the state legislature will have to change the date of the primary from the last Tuesday in February (where it is currently scheduled). Any change there may also later prove to be a function of the party or parties that control the state legislature and governor's mansion after the elections in November.
More meaningfully, the change to the allocation rules is something that the party has autonomy over. That takes effect immediately, but only represents a minor change. The allocation will be conditionally winner-take-all, meaning that if a candidate cross the 50% threshold, that candidate will receive the entire allotment of Michigan delegates.1 Should no candidate clear that barrier, it appears the plan will be just as it was in 2012. The winner of each congressional district would receive three delegates and the statewide winner would receive a number of delegates proportional to his or her share of the vote.
That was the intent of the plan in 2012. And that will likely be how the plan is implemented in 2016 unless the field of Republican candidates has been winnowed down to a couple of candidates. Depending on how the overall calendar shapes up, March 15 will still be ahead of the point on the calendar at which 50% of the delegates will have been allocated. It will still likely be early enough, in other words, for that number to be higher than two.
--
1 This differs slightly from the description FHQ provided last week. I said at the time that only the statewide, at-large delegates would be winner-take-all, rather than the full allotment.
Recent Posts:
Arizona Should Replace Iowa at the Front of the Presidential Primary Queue?
Michigan Republicans Take First Step Toward 2016 Presidential Primary Date Change
New York Has Reverted to a February Presidential Primary for 2016
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Arizona Should Replace Iowa at the Front of the Presidential Primary Queue?
That's the argument Mike Saucier and Chip Scutari make the case for writing over at Time.
The problem is that we have already played that game during the 2016 cycle. And it didn't go well for Arizona. In fact, as Saucier and Scutari note, the Arizona legislature did just the opposite, moving the Grand Canyon state's presidential primary to a later date earlier this year.
There are two major reasons why Arizona will not do this in 2016 nor in the future:
1. As long as Bruce Ash -- Arizona Republican National committeeman -- is head of the RNC Rules Committee, Arizona is very unlikely to step out of line with the national party rules on delegate selection. That isn't to suggest that the Arizona state legislature and/or governor have no ability to defy the national party, but the RNC has taken a proactive approach to what one might call primary defiance legislation since 2012. The RNC is jumping on that activity early.
2) Arizona's spot in this hypothetical primary calendar has already been taken by Nevada. This is a point that is completely lost in what Saucier and Scutari are offering in their bland, run-of-the-mill take down of the Iowa and New Hampshire duopoly atop the calendar. The national parties have already dealt with the diversity dilemma that Iowa and New Hampshire represent by adding South Carolina and Nevada to the list of privileged, carve-out states. Nevada was added for many of the same reasons Saucier and Scutari raise: proximity to the southern border, Hispanic population and western state.
Those are both prohibitive factors from the Arizona perspective. Yet, Arizona moving into the carve-out lineup is not out of the question in the future. Nevada gained its position among the first four states on the calendar because Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) lobbied hard for its inclusion when the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee had a small group of states pitch the committee during the 2008 cycle. South Carolina got the southern spot, Nevada got the western spot and the RNC got reluctantly dragged into allowing Nevada to go early in 2008 as well.1 FHQ has heard it said on more than one occasion among rules officials in both national parties that Nevada may possibly be replaced at some point,2 and that Arizona is an attractive candidate.
That isn't first, but it is in the early calendar conversation.
...and not for all the wrong reasons.
--
Additional note:
It should also be noted that Saucier and Scutari are at best ambiguous (if not wrong) about the impact an early primary would have on the sizable group of independents in Arizona. As they say:
However, the above quotation seems to mean independent primary voters. The only problem there is that Arizona has a closed primary and independents cannot vote. It is difficult to energize a bloc of voters for an election in which they are unable to participate.
--
1 On top of that, the Nevada Republican caucuses in 2008 and 2012 were not without their problems.
2 That point always has something to do with when Harry Reid leaves the Senate.
Recent Posts:
Michigan Republicans Take First Step Toward 2016 Presidential Primary Date Change
New York Has Reverted to a February Presidential Primary for 2016
State GOP parties jockey for primary calendar advantage
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The problem is that we have already played that game during the 2016 cycle. And it didn't go well for Arizona. In fact, as Saucier and Scutari note, the Arizona legislature did just the opposite, moving the Grand Canyon state's presidential primary to a later date earlier this year.
There are two major reasons why Arizona will not do this in 2016 nor in the future:
1. As long as Bruce Ash -- Arizona Republican National committeeman -- is head of the RNC Rules Committee, Arizona is very unlikely to step out of line with the national party rules on delegate selection. That isn't to suggest that the Arizona state legislature and/or governor have no ability to defy the national party, but the RNC has taken a proactive approach to what one might call primary defiance legislation since 2012. The RNC is jumping on that activity early.
2) Arizona's spot in this hypothetical primary calendar has already been taken by Nevada. This is a point that is completely lost in what Saucier and Scutari are offering in their bland, run-of-the-mill take down of the Iowa and New Hampshire duopoly atop the calendar. The national parties have already dealt with the diversity dilemma that Iowa and New Hampshire represent by adding South Carolina and Nevada to the list of privileged, carve-out states. Nevada was added for many of the same reasons Saucier and Scutari raise: proximity to the southern border, Hispanic population and western state.
Those are both prohibitive factors from the Arizona perspective. Yet, Arizona moving into the carve-out lineup is not out of the question in the future. Nevada gained its position among the first four states on the calendar because Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) lobbied hard for its inclusion when the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee had a small group of states pitch the committee during the 2008 cycle. South Carolina got the southern spot, Nevada got the western spot and the RNC got reluctantly dragged into allowing Nevada to go early in 2008 as well.1 FHQ has heard it said on more than one occasion among rules officials in both national parties that Nevada may possibly be replaced at some point,2 and that Arizona is an attractive candidate.
That isn't first, but it is in the early calendar conversation.
...and not for all the wrong reasons.
--
Additional note:
It should also be noted that Saucier and Scutari are at best ambiguous (if not wrong) about the impact an early primary would have on the sizable group of independents in Arizona. As they say:
At a time when both parties talk about expanding their bases—both courting Latinos—it makes more strategic sense to put our presidential wannabes right in front of those same constituencies. What better atmosphere for presidential candidates to walk into than an energized core of Independents?If one gives them the benefit of the doubt, an early primary might help because it means the state will see competition and perhaps energize independents for the general election. Those voters would be exposed to the same campaigning everyone else in the state is exposed to.
However, the above quotation seems to mean independent primary voters. The only problem there is that Arizona has a closed primary and independents cannot vote. It is difficult to energize a bloc of voters for an election in which they are unable to participate.
--
1 On top of that, the Nevada Republican caucuses in 2008 and 2012 were not without their problems.
2 That point always has something to do with when Harry Reid leaves the Senate.
Recent Posts:
Michigan Republicans Take First Step Toward 2016 Presidential Primary Date Change
New York Has Reverted to a February Presidential Primary for 2016
State GOP parties jockey for primary calendar advantage
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Michigan Republicans Take First Step Toward 2016 Presidential Primary Date Change
WKZO in Michigan reports:
Here's what we know:
1. The Policy Committee of the Michigan Republican Party approved the date change from the last Tuesday in February to March 15. That would have the effect of shifting the Michigan presidential primary back three weeks in 2016.
2. The committee also recommended a change to the method of delegate allocation. The change is not all that significant, but Mr. Koss indicated that it was the result of a compromise among the committee membership. Some wanted a winner-take-all allocation while others preferred a more proportional method of awarding delegates to presidential candidates. In the end, the Michigan Republican delegate allocation would look similar to the party's 2012 delegate selection plan (pre-penalty). Basically the recommendation calls for the allocation to be winner-take-all by congressional district with the statewide, at-large delegates being allocated proportionally. That is exactly the same as it was in 2012. The added wrinkle is that if one candidate receives over 50% of the vote statewide, then that candidate wins all of the at-large delegates.
3. This is the first step in the process. The Policy Committee has only recommended changes that the State Central Committee will now consider. Mr. Koss signaled that there was support for both changes -- date and delegate allocation -- on the SCC.
4. However, only part of the changes would be binding. The state party controls the ability to alter the method of delegate allocation, can only signal its preference for a primary date (unless it opts to fund the primary election itself and hold it on March 15, 2016). If SCC votes positively on the recommended allocation change, then that would be changed in the state party rules.
The primary, however, is state funded and thus the legislature must initiate legislation to move the date of the contest back on the calendar. FHQ will have more on the developments on that front soon, but for the time being, without action from the state government, the actions by the SCC will be little more than a non-binding preference/recommendation. Much of that recommendation -- where the Michigan presidential primary ends up on the calendar -- depends on how the midterm elections affect the partisan control of both the state legislature and the governor's mansion.
Again, this is the first step and gives us some idea about the thinking in Michigan on the Republican side.
--
NOTES:
The WKZO report indicates that March 15 is the "is the earliest a primary can be held without losing delegates to the Republican National Convention." Well, sort of. In reality, that is the earliest a primary can be held without any penalty. But a March 15 Michigan primary would suffer no losses to its delegation to the Republican National Convention. The primary would have to be before March 1 for the party to lose delegates. The March 15 threshold is one that refers to the method of allocation. The RNC rules require that contests prior to March 15 maintain some element of proportional allocation in their plan. Both the Michigan allocation plan of 2012 and the recommended changes for 2016 would be compliant there. March 15 then is not about avoiding a delegate penalty.
In fact, on March 15, Michigan would not even need to avoid a true winner-take-all allocation. That would be compliant then. But again, the allocation recommendation from the MIGOP Policy Committee was function of compromise, not avoiding penalty.
The question that emerges is why March 15? That was the less "controversial" of the two recommendations. The consensus on March 15 in Michigan may lend some credence to the talk of a Midwestern regional primary on that date, after a March 1 Southern regional primary. Ohio is a week earlier on March 8 and Wisconsin could potentially move up and maintain a winner-take-all allocation on March 15.
All of that, though, is a matter for 2015.
Recent Posts:
New York Has Reverted to a February Presidential Primary for 2016
State GOP parties jockey for primary calendar advantage
Revisiting the 2016 Republican Delegate Selection Rules
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
March 15th, 2016 appears to be the likely date of the Michigan Republican presidential primary in the next election. The Michigan Republican Party's Policy Committee approved the date...There is a bit more to the story, but it was little more than a blurb that has not been reported elsewhere. FHQ spoke with Michigan Republican Party Member Relations Director, Brian Koss, who confirmed the report and added some background as well.
Here's what we know:
1. The Policy Committee of the Michigan Republican Party approved the date change from the last Tuesday in February to March 15. That would have the effect of shifting the Michigan presidential primary back three weeks in 2016.
2. The committee also recommended a change to the method of delegate allocation. The change is not all that significant, but Mr. Koss indicated that it was the result of a compromise among the committee membership. Some wanted a winner-take-all allocation while others preferred a more proportional method of awarding delegates to presidential candidates. In the end, the Michigan Republican delegate allocation would look similar to the party's 2012 delegate selection plan (pre-penalty). Basically the recommendation calls for the allocation to be winner-take-all by congressional district with the statewide, at-large delegates being allocated proportionally. That is exactly the same as it was in 2012. The added wrinkle is that if one candidate receives over 50% of the vote statewide, then that candidate wins all of the at-large delegates.
3. This is the first step in the process. The Policy Committee has only recommended changes that the State Central Committee will now consider. Mr. Koss signaled that there was support for both changes -- date and delegate allocation -- on the SCC.
4. However, only part of the changes would be binding. The state party controls the ability to alter the method of delegate allocation, can only signal its preference for a primary date (unless it opts to fund the primary election itself and hold it on March 15, 2016). If SCC votes positively on the recommended allocation change, then that would be changed in the state party rules.
The primary, however, is state funded and thus the legislature must initiate legislation to move the date of the contest back on the calendar. FHQ will have more on the developments on that front soon, but for the time being, without action from the state government, the actions by the SCC will be little more than a non-binding preference/recommendation. Much of that recommendation -- where the Michigan presidential primary ends up on the calendar -- depends on how the midterm elections affect the partisan control of both the state legislature and the governor's mansion.
Again, this is the first step and gives us some idea about the thinking in Michigan on the Republican side.
--
NOTES:
The WKZO report indicates that March 15 is the "is the earliest a primary can be held without losing delegates to the Republican National Convention." Well, sort of. In reality, that is the earliest a primary can be held without any penalty. But a March 15 Michigan primary would suffer no losses to its delegation to the Republican National Convention. The primary would have to be before March 1 for the party to lose delegates. The March 15 threshold is one that refers to the method of allocation. The RNC rules require that contests prior to March 15 maintain some element of proportional allocation in their plan. Both the Michigan allocation plan of 2012 and the recommended changes for 2016 would be compliant there. March 15 then is not about avoiding a delegate penalty.
In fact, on March 15, Michigan would not even need to avoid a true winner-take-all allocation. That would be compliant then. But again, the allocation recommendation from the MIGOP Policy Committee was function of compromise, not avoiding penalty.
The question that emerges is why March 15? That was the less "controversial" of the two recommendations. The consensus on March 15 in Michigan may lend some credence to the talk of a Midwestern regional primary on that date, after a March 1 Southern regional primary. Ohio is a week earlier on March 8 and Wisconsin could potentially move up and maintain a winner-take-all allocation on March 15.
All of that, though, is a matter for 2015.
Recent Posts:
New York Has Reverted to a February Presidential Primary for 2016
State GOP parties jockey for primary calendar advantage
Revisiting the 2016 Republican Delegate Selection Rules
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Friday, September 12, 2014
New York Has Reverted to a February Presidential Primary for 2016
FHQ has done some maintenance to our 2016 presidential primary calendar this week. Mostly that meant repairing some broken links to the primary date statutes in the various states, but also included double-checking the language of those statutes. On that latter front, we came across an unusual situation/oversight concerning the positioning of the 2016 presidential primary in New York.
The bill(s) the New York state legislature passed in 2011 called for the presidential primary in the Empire state to be moved from the first Tuesday in February to April 24, 2012. The specificity of that language -- actually naming the day and year rather than a point on the calendar -- meant that New York would at the conclusion of the 2012 cycle not have a date covered by the New York Election Code. Translation: There was no date for the primary in 2016 and beyond. That is how FHQ has been treating the New York situation in the time since.
However, in double-checking the language of the current law, FHQ was somewhat taken aback in finding out that the election code (Section 8-100) calls for the presidential primary -- or spring primary -- to be conducted on the first Tuesday in February. After looking back at the bills that went through the state Assembly and Senate, the reason was pretty simple (albeit buried at the end of the legislation). Both bills -- A8363 and S5753 -- included in the last paragraph a sunset provision that repealed all the changes the bill made. Basically then, the 2011 change from the first Tuesday in February to April 24, 2014 expired at the conclusion of 2012. In other words, New York shot back up the calendar to a position that makes the state's presidential primary a bigger threat to the ideal calendar the two national parties have attempted to create through their respective sets of delegate selection rules.
But just because New York looks like a threat to the established order of states -- or more importantly where they fall on the calendar -- it does not mean that the Empire state will actually be a threat in 2015 or 2016. That possibility exists -- which is likely more than either national party wants -- but it is probable, likely even, that the state government will do in 2015 what they did in 2011: move to a later and compliant date that suits New York.
What that means depends in part on which party (or combination of parties) controls the state legislature after the 2014 elections. The first Tuesday in February is less likely because of the national party sanctions that date would trigger, but anything between that point and March is a safe bet at this point. New York could also shift back to late April as well, a spot where several neighboring states were in 2012 and currently are for 2016. There are other niches earlier in the calendar that could be exploited as well. The bottom line is that this introduces some uncertainty where the positioning of the New York presidential primary is concerned. And given the February date called for in state law, that is a date that has to change in light of national party rules.
Recent Posts:
State GOP parties jockey for primary calendar advantage
Revisiting the 2016 Republican Delegate Selection Rules
Update: 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar (8/26/14)
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The bill(s) the New York state legislature passed in 2011 called for the presidential primary in the Empire state to be moved from the first Tuesday in February to April 24, 2012. The specificity of that language -- actually naming the day and year rather than a point on the calendar -- meant that New York would at the conclusion of the 2012 cycle not have a date covered by the New York Election Code. Translation: There was no date for the primary in 2016 and beyond. That is how FHQ has been treating the New York situation in the time since.
However, in double-checking the language of the current law, FHQ was somewhat taken aback in finding out that the election code (Section 8-100) calls for the presidential primary -- or spring primary -- to be conducted on the first Tuesday in February. After looking back at the bills that went through the state Assembly and Senate, the reason was pretty simple (albeit buried at the end of the legislation). Both bills -- A8363 and S5753 -- included in the last paragraph a sunset provision that repealed all the changes the bill made. Basically then, the 2011 change from the first Tuesday in February to April 24, 2014 expired at the conclusion of 2012. In other words, New York shot back up the calendar to a position that makes the state's presidential primary a bigger threat to the ideal calendar the two national parties have attempted to create through their respective sets of delegate selection rules.
But just because New York looks like a threat to the established order of states -- or more importantly where they fall on the calendar -- it does not mean that the Empire state will actually be a threat in 2015 or 2016. That possibility exists -- which is likely more than either national party wants -- but it is probable, likely even, that the state government will do in 2015 what they did in 2011: move to a later and compliant date that suits New York.
What that means depends in part on which party (or combination of parties) controls the state legislature after the 2014 elections. The first Tuesday in February is less likely because of the national party sanctions that date would trigger, but anything between that point and March is a safe bet at this point. New York could also shift back to late April as well, a spot where several neighboring states were in 2012 and currently are for 2016. There are other niches earlier in the calendar that could be exploited as well. The bottom line is that this introduces some uncertainty where the positioning of the New York presidential primary is concerned. And given the February date called for in state law, that is a date that has to change in light of national party rules.
Recent Posts:
State GOP parties jockey for primary calendar advantage
Revisiting the 2016 Republican Delegate Selection Rules
Update: 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar (8/26/14)
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
State GOP parties jockey for primary calendar advantage
This was the headline that greeted FHQ this morning in my inbox from the Washington Times.1 And it is absolutely true. State parties are turning their sights toward 2016 to some extent and are beginning to consider calendar positioning in light of the now-solidified national party delegate selection rules (from both parties).
The wheels kind of fell off the wagon in Ralph Hallow's piece after that. There is a lot of information in there. Unfortunately a lot of that information is wrong, partially wrong and/or misleading. So let's play fact check with this Q&A style.
Q: Are state parties jockeying for position?
A: Again, to some extent they are. Granted, that does not really provide the full picture of what is going on here. The presidential nomination process is a coordination problem. Often this problem is discussed in terms of the varying interests and voices within a party settling on a presidential nominee. But the idea applies to the rules making process and the states' reactions to them as well. [Collectively, both are are part of the invisible primary.] State parties have a role to play in the coordination of the calendar, but that role is exaggerated in the Washington Times piece.
As FHQ has said, this is a sequential process; the rules making and state-level reaction. The national parties have done their part by finalizing the delegate selection rules that will govern the process in 2016. However, it isn't the state parties that will act alone in making the decisions on calendar positioning now. State parties have the final say, but more often than not state governments -- state legislatures and governors -- will choose to move the date (if they can agree on one). State parties have the final up or down vote on the matter but rarely opt out of the date the state government has selected. Most state parties have a very difficult time turning down a state-subsidized primary election when the alternative is the state party footing the bill for a primary or more likely caucuses on a date of their choosing.
Do state parties opt out of state-funded primaries? Sure, but it is the exception rather than the rule. Idaho Republicans, for instance, opted out of the the May state-funded primary in 2012 in order to hold earlier March caucuses.
The thing about Hallow's article is that the focus early on is mostly on the supposed tension between Nevada and South Carolina for the third spot on the Republican calendar. But that sample skews the perception of who is really in charge of setting the date. Nevada Republicans hold caucuses for the purposes of selecting and allocating delegates to the presidential candidates. State parties control caucuses. Rare is the state that has a law or laws on the books that affect the date of caucuses. South Carolina has traditionally held a party-run (and funded) primary. That practice changed in 2008 though. The parties retained the date setting ability while handing off the funding to the state government.
But Nevada and South Carolina are unique as are Iowa and New Hampshire. Sure, they are all carve-out states. But that is a function of the national parties protecting the status of those four states as well as the mechanisms at the state level that allow those states adapt and react to states that might or actually threaten those protected calendar positions. In each and every case -- four of four -- the carve-outs have removed the state legislature from the primary/caucus date selection equation. That allows them to react/adapt more quickly. In states like Florida or Texas -- which are mentioned in the article -- that is not true. Neither the states nor the state parties there are jockeying for positions on the calendar simply because preexisting state law has set those dates already. Texas' spot on the first Tuesday in March has been the law since the 2008 cycle. They haven't moved at all and the state party won't be jockeying for position they already have.
Q: Is Nevada really the biggest threat to South Carolina's position on the Republican calendar?
A: Right now? No. South Carolina has enjoyed being about third on the Republican primary calendar since 1980. But Palmetto state Republicans are not always third (see 2008. Michigan was in between New Hampshire and South Carolina). Actually, being third has occasionally taken a back seat to being the first primary contest in the South. This is a good question for Matt Moore, the chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party: What is more important, being first in the South or third on the calendar? In the past, the former has seemingly been more important, but South Carolina has been lucky that in a number of years the two -- first in the South and third on the calendar -- have overlapped.
There are two reasons why this Nevada threat is overblown (fun though it may be to FHQ in the dog days of summer before things move into high gear in 2015).
1. North Carolina has tethered its primary to South Carolina's. The Tarheel state primary is to follow on the Tuesday after the (presumably Saturday) South Carolina primary. In addition to the two conditions above that South Carolina prioritizes, Republicans in the state also like there to be a week in between it and the next closest southern primary. The North Carolina law violates that at the moment. [That may or may not change during the state legislative session next year.] But North Carolina is a bigger problem for South Carolina than Nevada.
2. Even if the North Carolina situation is settled and South Carolina gets its way, what is to prevent a repeat of 2008 from occurring? The Nevada caucuses of both parties and the South Carolina Republican primary were on the same date that year? South Carolina Republicans could easily gamble on Nevada Republicans having trouble pulling off flawless caucus meetings for the third cycle in a row and win the attention of the candidates and media in a head-to-head with Nevada.
How bothersome Nevada is to South Carolina is up to South Carolina. Protecting that third position as rigidly as is being implied by Hallow would be a new development in view of South Carolina Republicans' past actions.
Q: Are Texas and Florida seeking to "create a Mega-Tuesday election on the first day in March"?
A: Nope. Both are and have already been scheduled for the first Tuesday in March. They are both already there. Other states may and probably will join them, but Texas and Florida won't be moving again to a spot they already occupy.
Q: Does every state with a contest between March 1 and March 14 under the RNC rules have to "award its delegates in proportion to the percentage of the total vote each candidate received in that state"?
A: No, no, no. A thousand times no. An element of a state's allocation has to be proportional if it holds a contest prior to March 15. But proportional means a lot of things under the Republican rules. Even if a state fails to follow those guidelines, the RNC will only proportionally allocate a state's cache of at-large statewide delegates, not the full set of delegates. This is more a pet peeve of FHQ's than anything else. But the proportionality requirement is complex at the end of the day.
Q: Will the carve-out states be penalized by the RNC if they hold a primary or caucuses before February 1?
A: Not necessarily. It all depends on when the next earliest state is on the calendar; the fifth state. If that state has a non-compliant February primary, then the carve-out states can go as early as a month before that February date. February 1 is only on the radar because if the RNC and DNC rules collectively work, then the next earliest contest will be on March 1. But some states may opt to defy the national party rules and hold contests prior to March 1.
Q: Is the Republican National Convention scheduled for June 2016?
A: Not yet. It may be, but the RNC has yet to finalize the dates. Both June 28 and July 18 have been talked about.
Q: Is 1141 the magic number of delegates a Republican candidate needs to clinch the nomination (as Texas Republican Party chairman, Steve Munisteri described)?
A: 1144 was the number in 2012, but it changes every cycle depending on if a state voted for the last Republican presidential candidate, if it elected a Republican governor, how many Republican senators a state has, how many Republican representatives a state has and which party controls the chambers of a state's legislature. It changes every cycle. The snapshot of time in which those things are gauged will be in 2015. As of now, the magic number would rise from 1144 to 1209. That number is still likely to change after the 2014 elections.
--
Look, states will move around. That movement will have consequences, both intended and unintended, on the Republican (and Democratic) nomination process(es). But let's talk about states that will actually potentially move rather than states that are already seemingly locked into March 1 primary or caucuses dates.
--
1 The headline was subsequently changed.
Recent Posts:
Revisiting the 2016 Republican Delegate Selection Rules
Update: 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar (8/26/14)
So, It Turns Out Arizona Has Actually Moved Its Presidential Primary Back on the Calendar
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The wheels kind of fell off the wagon in Ralph Hallow's piece after that. There is a lot of information in there. Unfortunately a lot of that information is wrong, partially wrong and/or misleading. So let's play fact check with this Q&A style.
Q: Are state parties jockeying for position?
A: Again, to some extent they are. Granted, that does not really provide the full picture of what is going on here. The presidential nomination process is a coordination problem. Often this problem is discussed in terms of the varying interests and voices within a party settling on a presidential nominee. But the idea applies to the rules making process and the states' reactions to them as well. [Collectively, both are are part of the invisible primary.] State parties have a role to play in the coordination of the calendar, but that role is exaggerated in the Washington Times piece.
As FHQ has said, this is a sequential process; the rules making and state-level reaction. The national parties have done their part by finalizing the delegate selection rules that will govern the process in 2016. However, it isn't the state parties that will act alone in making the decisions on calendar positioning now. State parties have the final say, but more often than not state governments -- state legislatures and governors -- will choose to move the date (if they can agree on one). State parties have the final up or down vote on the matter but rarely opt out of the date the state government has selected. Most state parties have a very difficult time turning down a state-subsidized primary election when the alternative is the state party footing the bill for a primary or more likely caucuses on a date of their choosing.
Do state parties opt out of state-funded primaries? Sure, but it is the exception rather than the rule. Idaho Republicans, for instance, opted out of the the May state-funded primary in 2012 in order to hold earlier March caucuses.
The thing about Hallow's article is that the focus early on is mostly on the supposed tension between Nevada and South Carolina for the third spot on the Republican calendar. But that sample skews the perception of who is really in charge of setting the date. Nevada Republicans hold caucuses for the purposes of selecting and allocating delegates to the presidential candidates. State parties control caucuses. Rare is the state that has a law or laws on the books that affect the date of caucuses. South Carolina has traditionally held a party-run (and funded) primary. That practice changed in 2008 though. The parties retained the date setting ability while handing off the funding to the state government.
But Nevada and South Carolina are unique as are Iowa and New Hampshire. Sure, they are all carve-out states. But that is a function of the national parties protecting the status of those four states as well as the mechanisms at the state level that allow those states adapt and react to states that might or actually threaten those protected calendar positions. In each and every case -- four of four -- the carve-outs have removed the state legislature from the primary/caucus date selection equation. That allows them to react/adapt more quickly. In states like Florida or Texas -- which are mentioned in the article -- that is not true. Neither the states nor the state parties there are jockeying for positions on the calendar simply because preexisting state law has set those dates already. Texas' spot on the first Tuesday in March has been the law since the 2008 cycle. They haven't moved at all and the state party won't be jockeying for position they already have.
Q: Is Nevada really the biggest threat to South Carolina's position on the Republican calendar?
A: Right now? No. South Carolina has enjoyed being about third on the Republican primary calendar since 1980. But Palmetto state Republicans are not always third (see 2008. Michigan was in between New Hampshire and South Carolina). Actually, being third has occasionally taken a back seat to being the first primary contest in the South. This is a good question for Matt Moore, the chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party: What is more important, being first in the South or third on the calendar? In the past, the former has seemingly been more important, but South Carolina has been lucky that in a number of years the two -- first in the South and third on the calendar -- have overlapped.
There are two reasons why this Nevada threat is overblown (fun though it may be to FHQ in the dog days of summer before things move into high gear in 2015).
1. North Carolina has tethered its primary to South Carolina's. The Tarheel state primary is to follow on the Tuesday after the (presumably Saturday) South Carolina primary. In addition to the two conditions above that South Carolina prioritizes, Republicans in the state also like there to be a week in between it and the next closest southern primary. The North Carolina law violates that at the moment. [That may or may not change during the state legislative session next year.] But North Carolina is a bigger problem for South Carolina than Nevada.
2. Even if the North Carolina situation is settled and South Carolina gets its way, what is to prevent a repeat of 2008 from occurring? The Nevada caucuses of both parties and the South Carolina Republican primary were on the same date that year? South Carolina Republicans could easily gamble on Nevada Republicans having trouble pulling off flawless caucus meetings for the third cycle in a row and win the attention of the candidates and media in a head-to-head with Nevada.
How bothersome Nevada is to South Carolina is up to South Carolina. Protecting that third position as rigidly as is being implied by Hallow would be a new development in view of South Carolina Republicans' past actions.
Q: Are Texas and Florida seeking to "create a Mega-Tuesday election on the first day in March"?
A: Nope. Both are and have already been scheduled for the first Tuesday in March. They are both already there. Other states may and probably will join them, but Texas and Florida won't be moving again to a spot they already occupy.
Q: Does every state with a contest between March 1 and March 14 under the RNC rules have to "award its delegates in proportion to the percentage of the total vote each candidate received in that state"?
A: No, no, no. A thousand times no. An element of a state's allocation has to be proportional if it holds a contest prior to March 15. But proportional means a lot of things under the Republican rules. Even if a state fails to follow those guidelines, the RNC will only proportionally allocate a state's cache of at-large statewide delegates, not the full set of delegates. This is more a pet peeve of FHQ's than anything else. But the proportionality requirement is complex at the end of the day.
Q: Will the carve-out states be penalized by the RNC if they hold a primary or caucuses before February 1?
A: Not necessarily. It all depends on when the next earliest state is on the calendar; the fifth state. If that state has a non-compliant February primary, then the carve-out states can go as early as a month before that February date. February 1 is only on the radar because if the RNC and DNC rules collectively work, then the next earliest contest will be on March 1. But some states may opt to defy the national party rules and hold contests prior to March 1.
Q: Is the Republican National Convention scheduled for June 2016?
A: Not yet. It may be, but the RNC has yet to finalize the dates. Both June 28 and July 18 have been talked about.
Q: Is 1141 the magic number of delegates a Republican candidate needs to clinch the nomination (as Texas Republican Party chairman, Steve Munisteri described)?
A: 1144 was the number in 2012, but it changes every cycle depending on if a state voted for the last Republican presidential candidate, if it elected a Republican governor, how many Republican senators a state has, how many Republican representatives a state has and which party controls the chambers of a state's legislature. It changes every cycle. The snapshot of time in which those things are gauged will be in 2015. As of now, the magic number would rise from 1144 to 1209. That number is still likely to change after the 2014 elections.
--
Look, states will move around. That movement will have consequences, both intended and unintended, on the Republican (and Democratic) nomination process(es). But let's talk about states that will actually potentially move rather than states that are already seemingly locked into March 1 primary or caucuses dates.
--
1 The headline was subsequently changed.
Recent Posts:
Revisiting the 2016 Republican Delegate Selection Rules
Update: 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar (8/26/14)
So, It Turns Out Arizona Has Actually Moved Its Presidential Primary Back on the Calendar
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)