Minnesota Legislation Would Create Presidential Primary

There has been a great deal of talk lately about end of February deadlines. Funding the Department of Homeland Security was not the only that required action by the end of the month. Just two weeks ago, the state parties in Minnesota, as called for by state law, agreed to a March 1 date for presidential caucuses in 2016. The state parties did with two weeks to spare what they neglected to do four years: set a date for the caucuses. Without that agreement, the caucuses are automatically scheduled for the first Tuesday in February, a date non-compliant with the national party delegate selection rules.

Whereas Minnesota was non-compliant in 2012, the 2015 agreement on a March 1 date for the 2016 precinct caucuses keeps the North Star state from crossing the national parties. Everything is settled then, right?

Minnesota may still hold March 1 caucuses next year, but new legislation could potentially alter those plans. A trio of Republican lawmakers has introduced a bill in the Minnesota state Senate -- SF 1205 -- to create a presidential primary in the Gopher state and consolidate it with the primaries for state and local offices (scheduled now for August) on the last Tuesday in March.¹

--
A few notes on this one:

1. This is just the most recent attempt in Minnesota to switch from a caucuses/convention system to primaries. Similar attempts failed most recently in 2008 and 2009. 
2. Creating a presidential primary for 2016 would be the first presidential primary in Minnesota since 1992. Democrats continued to use the caucuses format that year (though there was a beauty contest primary that Bill Clinton won), but Republicans used the primary for binding/allocating delegates. They were selected/chosen in the caucuses/convention process.  
3. The Minnesota legislature is currently divided. Democrats control the state Senate and Republicans hold a majority in the state House. This primary bill has been proposed by minority party Republicans in the upper chamber. Unlike past years -- see 2008 and 2009 links above -- when there have been similar bills introduced, they came in pairs; one in each chamber. This effort to create a presidential primary was filed with no companion in the state House. Again, Republicans control the House. If this was a move with broad-based support among Republican legislators, one would expect to see a House bill too. For now, there is no such bill. 
4. Democrats have been quiet on the proposal and the chair of the Minnesota Republican Party is not a fan. 
5. The last Tuesday in March -- March 29, 2016 -- is wide open now. There are no other states with nomination elections on that date. But are legislators and others in the parties in Minnesota willing to trade in March 1 caucuses for a primary four weeks later? The state parties in announcing the March 1 caucuses agreement expressed a desire to provide caucusgoers in Minnesota with a voice in the nomination process. The deeper the race gets into primary season, much less just March -- the more likely it is that some candidate will have clinched the nomination or forced the other viable competitors out of the race. 
6. It is not altogether clear that the parties would participate in the presidential primary election even if it is created. Nothing in the primary bill includes anything directly affecting the law regarding the caucuses process.

--
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for sharing this news with FHQ.


--
UPDATE (3/11/15): House companion bill (identical to Senate version) introduced


--
¹ The group that originally proposed the legislation has subsequently been joined by two other Republican senators.

Recent Posts:
Florida Bill to Clarify Presidential Primary Date Filed

Maryland Senate Committee Green Lights Minor Presidential Primary Move

Winner-Take-All Presidential Primary Has Support of Florida Republican Party Chair

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Florida Bill to Clarify Presidential Primary Date Filed

Legislation has been filed in the Florida state Senate to schedule the presidential preference primary in the Sunshine state for the date that it would be scheduled on under current law anyway.

Sure, SB 7036, is probably unnecessary, but it is good legislation. It takes a more-confusing-than-necessary statute and simplifies it. As FHQ has said recently, the combination of the national party rules and Florida state law means that the decision on where the primary is on the 2016 presidential primary calendar hinges on the delegate allocation plan on which the Republican Party of Florida (RPOF) settles. Let's look at the language of that state law and I'll explain why. Current state law regarding scheduling of the Florida presidential primary reads as follows:

The presidential preference primary shall be held in each year the number of which is a multiple of 4 on the first Tuesday that the rules of the major political parties provide for state delegations to be allocated without penalty.

The first step in this is the national party penalties. Both the RNC and DNC prohibit non-carve-out states -- states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- from conducting delegate selection events before the first Tuesday in March. The RNC knocks medium and large states down to 12 delegates for violating that rule; the so-called super penalty. The DNC levies a 50% penalty for states breaking the rules on the timing of primaries and caucuses.

That combination would seem to indicate that "first Tuesday that the rules of the major political parties provide for state delegations to be allocated without penalty" is March 1 for the 2016 cycle. However, the Republican National Committee layers in an additional penalty for states that defy the proportionality requirement affecting states with contests prior to March 15. States that fail adopt delegate allocation plans compliant with the RNC definition of proportional are docked 50% of their national convention delegates.

The second RNC penalty in essence shifts the date-setting decision to the RPOF. Given that the party has allocated its full allotment of delegates to the winners of the last two primaries and maintained a winner-take-all by congressional district allocation plan in presidential election cycles before that, it would appear that the actual "first Tuesday that the rules of the major political parties provide for state delegations to be allocated without penalty" is March 15.

In fact, the chair of the party has signaled that the RPOF intends to keep the winner-take-all plan for 2016. That really pretty much settles the matter. If the party continues its recent practice of allocating its national convention delegates in a winner-take-all fashion, then the Florida presidential primary is scheduled for March 15.

But along comes SB 7036. The legislation would eliminate the "first Tuesday that the rules of the major political parties provide for state delegations to be allocated without penalty" language and replace it with the far simpler "third Tuesday in March".

This is good legislation for a couple of reasons. First, it simplifies an overly and unnecessarily complex passage in the presidential preference primary statute. The intent in the 2013 law change was to make the Florida primary a bit more mobile. It made the primary scheduling contingent upon the national parties' rules/penalties. That was meant to account for whatever changes the RNC and DNC made to their rules and penalties in 2014, and keep the Florida primary at as early a calendar spot as possible. The national party rules were finalized in the summer of 2014 and the RPOF seems to be leaning toward a return to winner-take-all rules. Again, that seems to settle the primary scheduling matter. Why, then, is a change necessary?

Well, that brings us to the second reason this is good legislating out of the Sunshine state. Even though the national and state party rules are set and the Florida primary is seemingly set for March 15, there is still the matter of the October 1 deadline the RNC has for finalizing state delegate allocation plans. The RPOF could still change the method of allocation.¹ This bill, if passed and signed into law, removes all doubt. That new law would add the sort of certainty to the scheduling of the Florida primary that has been lacking since the 2004 cycle (or at least since the 2007 date change).

Think about that for a bit. The Florida presidential primary has been a scheduling roller coaster for two consecutive cycles now. That isn't news, but state legislative changes to the primary law fueled an air of uncertainty around Florida in both 2008 and 2012. When the legislature in 2007 moved the Florida primary to the last Tuesday in January for 2008, it set in motion a messy chain of events. First, the DNC stripped Florida of all of its delegates to the national convention. That was followed by a Republican-controlled state government in Tallahassee not budging from its position; unfazed neither by increased DNC penalties that matter little to Republicans nor the 50% penalty the RNC levied. But all the while there were questions about whether the Florida primary would move or if the state parties would be forced to hold caucuses instead. Those questions remained until the January 29 Florida primary and even lingered afterwards.

During the 2012 cycle, things were different. The Florida legislature again changed the primary law, but did not set a date. Instead, the legislature ceded the date-setting decision to a committee made up of members chosen by the governor and the leadership in the state legislature. No, the primary was no longer set for the last Tuesday in January, but the formation of the committee had the effect of dragging out the decision on when the Florida primary would be until the fall of 2011. The benefits were clear. The committee was better able to get a lay of the primary calendar land in September than the state legislature would have been in a legislative session that would have ended in May. Florida gained flexibility in that move, but the overall process and formation of the 2012 presidential primary calendar -- the front end of it especially -- again had uncertainty hovering over it. The committee ultimately chose the date that the statute had called for before the law creating the date-setting committee was created, the last Tuesday in January.

Removing the now-unnecessary language from the current law and replacing it was a specific date removes all uncertainty from the equation. There would be no "wait on Florida Republicans to officially set their rules to determine the primary date" questions dogging the process from now until summer.

So, yeah. This legislation is as unnecessary as the creation of the Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee turned out to be in 2011. But it has the opposite effect. It creates certainty rather than fueling a summer of uncertainty about what damage Florida might do to the intended primary calendar.²

NOTE: There is apparently similar legislation on the House side that will be considered next week.

--
UPDATE (3/2/15): House committee proposal passes committee
UPDATE (3/3/15): Senate bill passes committee

--
¹ The Republican Party of Florida does not seem inclined to make a change to its delegate allocation plan.

² The current law would pose no Florida danger since the it prevents the Florida primary from being scheduled on a date that would incur a penalty.

Recent Posts:
Maryland Senate Committee Green Lights Minor Presidential Primary Move

Winner-Take-All Presidential Primary Has Support of Florida Republican Party Chair

Idaho Presidential Primary Bill Pushes Through Split Committee

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Maryland Senate Committee Green Lights Minor Presidential Primary Move

The Maryland state Senate Committee on Education, Health and Environmental Affairs on Tuesday, February 24 passed the bill to shift the presidential primary in the Old Line state back a week on the 2016 presidential primary calendar.

SB 204 would move the Maryland primary from the first Tuesday in April to the second Tuesday in April. The bill was unanimously and favorably passed by the committee. The rationale behind the move, as confirmed in the committee hearing on the bill, was to prevent conflicts between early voting in the presidential primary and the Easter holiday in 2016.

One week moves of this sort are fairly rare. Idaho moved its primary up a week for 2012 before it eliminated the contest. A couple of states, Maryland and Georgia, took advantage of a change in Democratic National Committee rules during the 1992 cycle. The DNC moved the earliest date states were allowed to hold primaries and caucuses up a week from the second Tuesday in March in 1988 to the first Tuesday in March in 1992.

But again, this tends to be the exception rather than the rule to primary movement.

--
UPDATE (3/3/15): Senate bill amended on floor
UPDATE (3/5/15): Bill passes state Senate
UPDATE (3/15/15): House bill clears committee

Recent Posts:
Winner-Take-All Presidential Primary Has Support of Florida Republican Party Chair

Idaho Presidential Primary Bill Pushes Through Split Committee

Kansas Committee Divided Over Whether to Cancel 2016 Presidential Primary

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Winner-Take-All Presidential Primary Has Support of Florida Republican Party Chair

Patricia Mazzei at the Miami Herald's Naked Politics blog:

State Rep. Blaise Ingoglia, the new chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, paid a visit this week to the Miami Young Republicans to rally their support and answer their questions about the party's future.  

One of them was whether the GOP would support legislation filed in Tallahassee setting next year's presidential primary for March 15, the earliest possible date in which all of the state's nominating delegates would be awarded to a single candidate, rather than distributed proportionally.

--
Perhaps only the Rubio and Rubio-align folks that pushed the 2013 legislation in the Florida state legislature understood what the bill was doing to the scheduling of the 2016 presidential primary in the Sunshine state. It does not seem as if others in the state get it.

The way the current Florida law reads regarding the presidential primary scheduling is that the Florida primary will be scheduled for the earliest date that does not mean penalties on Florida from either/both national parties. Since the RNC has a proportionality requirement for all states with contests prior to March 15 and a 50% delegate reduction for states that violate that rule that puts the decision-making power on the date of the primary squarely on the Florida Republican Party.

If the Republican Party Florida sticks with its winner-take-all allocation plan, then the Florida presidential primary will be scheduled for March 15.

...automatically.

That does not require action by the state legislature.¹ But those in the legislature pushing additional legislation on the matter and apparently the Republican Party of Florida chair do not yet realize this. The signal, though, is that Florida Republicans intend to maintain a winner-take-all allocation plan for 2016.

--
¹ And contrary to the outtake from Mazzei above, there has been no legislation filed in Florida regarding the primary as of now. There was talk last week of that possibility, but nothing has been filed.

Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2015/02/florida-gop-chairman-backs-winner-take-all-primary.html#storylink=cpy

Recent Posts:
Idaho Presidential Primary Bill Pushes Through Split Committee

Kansas Committee Divided Over Whether to Cancel 2016 Presidential Primary

Why North Carolina is the Biggest Threat to the 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Idaho Presidential Primary Bill Pushes Through Split Committee

Odd battle lines formed in the Idaho state Senate State Affairs Committee during a hearing to discuss legislation to reestablish a presidential primary election in the Gem state on Thursday, February 25.

Democrats joined some Republicans against the bill supported by state Senate Republican leadership sitting on the State Affairs Committee. At issue in the hearing for SB 1066 was the cost to taxpayers to fund the reestablished and separate presidential primary that would be scheduled for the second Tuesday in March. The estimated $2 million price tag was too much for what was viewed by Democrats and Republicans on the committee against the bill as a party function. Betsy Z. Russell at the Idaho Spokesman-Review captured that sentiment from the hearing:

Sen. Michelle Stennett, D-Ketchum, said, “The discussion we had today mostly spoke about one party. And I really think that $2 million from the general fund for a political practice is inappropriate, and I won’t be supporting this bill.”

Sen. Jeff Siddoway, R-Terreton thought the money could be spent better elsewhere:

“We could get you better teachers if we had $2 million more a year to put in that budget than what we’re about to do here. Think about that.”

Yet, both the state Senate majority leader and assistant majority leader -- who both sit on the committee -- spoke in favor of the bill. Senate Majority Leader Bart Davis, R-Idaho Falls, said in favor of the bill:

“But in this moment, I want to … provide an opportunity for every party to accept the invitation to make their process, even in a closed political voting process, as open to all who are willing to live by those rules as possible. I think SB 1066 is the closest I’ve seen so far.”

Assistant Majority Leader Chuck Winder, R-Boise, is sponsoring the legislation, and despite vocal opposition to the bill on budgetary grounds, the committee found enough support to pass the bill though and recommend that it "do pass" when it is considered on the Senate floor. That is where the bill moves next.

--
March 8, the second Tuesday in March in 2016, is a date on which the Michigan and Ohio primaries are currently scheduled. Neighboring Washington state is also eyeing that as a possible landing spot for its primary as well.

--
UPDATE (3/3/15): Second, similar primary bill passes Senate

Recent Posts:
Kansas Committee Divided Over Whether to Cancel 2016 Presidential Primary

Why North Carolina is the Biggest Threat to the 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

North Carolina House and Senate at Odds Over Presidential Primary Date

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Kansas Committee Divided Over Whether to Cancel 2016 Presidential Primary

The Kansas state Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections met Wednesday, February 25. On the agenda was SB 239, the bill that would cancel the presidential primary in the Sunflower state for the sixth consecutive cycle.

The path to that regular cancellation may have found some resistance during the 2016 presidential nomination cycle. The Associated Press is reporting that while a vote was not taken on the measure in committee today, committee member and Senate president, Susan Wagle (R-30th, Wichita), voiced opposition to the move.

This sets up in Kansas what was a somewhat common dispute across the country in state capitals during the 2012 cycle: a legislature potentially split over the savings associated with not holding a presidential primary (or holding a consolidated primary including a presidential preference vote) on one hand, or attempting to draw in more candidate attention/spending and encouraging wider voter participation by holding a primary on the other.

According to the fiscal note appended to SB 239, canceling the presidential primary would save Kansas $1.8 million in 2016.

However, Kansas does have some quirks to its elections law concerning the presidential primary. The only guidance the statute provides is that the secretary of state certify with the governor and the leadership in the state legislature an election date 1) on the same date as at least five other states and 2) barring that, on a date before the first Tuesday in April.

At this point in time, the only date on the 2016 presidential primary calendar before April with five or more states conducting primaries or caucuses is March 1, the target of the SEC primary.

But here's the thing: How much attention would a Kansas primary gain on a date shared with mostly southern states? Kansas would be much more likely to get lost in the shuffle on March 1, failing to garner the attention primary proponents like Sen. Wagle are seeking.

Also odd in this case is the fact that the person who would gain the most in all of this would be the Kansas secretary of state. Secretary Kris Koback (R) would be granted similar date-setting power to that of secretaries of state in New Hampshire and Georgia. But Secretary Kobach is the one spearheading the effort to cancel the presidential primary in 2016.

If there ends up being a stalemate on canceling the Kansas presidential primary, it does not look if either side would get what it wants. The history here is pretty clear though. Five straight cancelled presidential primaries is a consistent pattern and an even clearer signal about where this all may end up.

--
UPDATE (3/5/15): Identical House bill introduced

Recent Posts:
Why North Carolina is the Biggest Threat to the 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

North Carolina House and Senate at Odds Over Presidential Primary Date

Democrats Pushing Challenge to New Hampshire Primary in Vermont House

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Why North Carolina is the Biggest Threat to the 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

FHQ runs the risk, perhaps, of over-North Carolinaing this North Carolina presidential primary situation. Yet, like Florida four years ago, it is pretty clear now, and has been for quite a while, that North Carolina was not necessarily going to play along with the established Republican National Committee delegate selection rules. Just as I harped on the fact that the RNC did not change its 50% penalty for 2012 and that Florida had already demonstrated in 2008 that that was not a sufficient penalty, North Carolina has seemingly wedged itself into a position on the calendar that may make the RNC achieving its ideal calendar more difficult.¹ 

It is kind of important, then, and warrants some discussion. 

As it is important, let me add to the piece that CNN's Peter Hamby has on the subject today. Whereas the Charlotte Observer's Jim Morrill added a North Carolina-level perspective, Hamby layered in some of the national party (RNC) point of view. Both are key. 

But allow me a moment to add to all of this the rationale for why FHQ views North Carolina as the biggest threat to go rogue in 2016. Hamby approached me for my perspective on the situation and I responded in typical "obsessive detail". Understandably, Hamby had a story to write that was bigger than just my perspective, but let me throw in a bit more nuance. Here is my email response to his query (edited for clarity):

North Carolina is the biggest threat to the calendar now because there is an uncertainty around the primary here that does not exist elsewhere. There are two groups of potential problem states: 1) Those that are currently rogue and 2) Those that are trying to be rogue.  

None of the states in the latter category -- those with bills or likely bills -- to move into pre-March calendar positions are really serious attempts. There has been pretty robust negative reaction to possible moves in Arizona, Texas and Vermont, and the likely Wisconsin attempt does not have the support of Republicans in the majority in the state legislature. At this point, none of that group appears to pose a viable threat. 

The first group is a little different. Those are states that have to make some change to move to a later date (or choose the later of the options available to them). In that group are Colorado, New York, North Carolina and Utah. I have no inside knowledge, but Colorado is likely to opt for the March date available to them (March 1) over a non-compliant February position. [EDIT: It has been quiet in Colorado on this question.]  

Utah is feeling the pinch on both ends of the calendar (non-compliant on both) and may switch to caucuses anyway. [EDIT: Both primary options currently available to Utah are non-compliant with RNC rules.] 

New York is only back in February on something of a technicality. The move to April in 2011 expired after 2012 which put the primary back in February. My guess is that the intention of the sunset provision was not to be rogue in 2016 so much as it was a function of providing the legislature with a reason to have to revisit the date [EDIT: in the future]. If April had been permanent, it likely would have been more difficult to get any change passed in the legislature there. Now, they have to make a change. The NYGOP wants a March 1 date.  

That leaves North Carolina. To avoid the super penalty, the North Carolina primary has to be moved to March 1 or later. You've [Hamby] reported that there are folks in the NCGOP who support keeping the primary where it is. I would wager there is similar sentiment in the North Carolina General Assembly. How much? I don't know. Sen. Andrew Brock (R), who brought up legislation every cycle to move the North Carolina primary up dating back to 2005 or so, has said he is supportive of the February date [EDIT: ...and possibly ceding delegates in the process]. Whether that support stops with him in the legislature or runs deeper is the question now. [I should add that none of the bills he introduced [EDIT: in the past] ever proposed going rogue. The primary would have been moved to the earliest allowed date in each of those cycles. He and others may be open to March 1.] 

So, there is some resistance to moving the primary, but we don't know how much. There is also support for a move back into compliance with the national party rules. And while symbolic -- the NCGOP chair and the RNC committeeman from North Carolina (Rep. David Lewis) -- that support is from the top. That may or may not be met with some hostility. Like the resistance to changing the date, we don't know how deep support for a compliant primary runs in either the NCGOP or the general assembly.  

Adding to this is the politics of the legislature. The Republicans control both chambers but the House and Senate have been at odds with each other on a number of controversial items over the past few years. [EDIT: This hypothesis was made early yesterday before the apparent House/Senate divide on the presidential primary scheduling became clear.] That tension could factor into moving the primary date. It may also require Republicans in the majority reaching over to get Democratic votes to get something passed. Democrats would likely be interested in a compliant date as well. [Though, it should be said that the North Carolina Democratic Party could file for a waiver to avoid sanction since they don't control state government. How open the DNC would be to granting that waiver is a question for further down the road. EDIT: see Rule 20.C of the Democratic Party delegate selection rules.] 

Long story short, there are just more unanswered questions regarding the North Carolina position on the primary calendar than there are for other rogue or potentially rogue states. 

Unanswered questions there may be, but what is different about North Carolina -- as compared to, say, Florida in 2008 or 2012 -- is that the Tar Heel state has not drawn a line in the sand. Instead, North Carolina has driven a stake into the ground next to South Carolina and will go wherever the Palmetto state goes. That is a different problem, one that likely means more pressure from the Republican National Committee and perhaps even some inventive tactics in South Carolina. 

Does South Carolina, for instance, mimic the tried and true New Hampshire process of blackballing candidates -- in the South Carolina campaign -- who campaign in North Carolina? If the super penalty from the national party does not work as intended, it may come to that. 

--

¹ And bear in mind that there is no North Carolina position on the calendar yet. Until there is a date for the South Carolina primary, there will not be a date for the North Carolina primary. All we know at this point is that South Carolina will be in February sometime and that North Carolina law call for the primary in the Tar Heel state to follow on the next Tuesday after that. 

Recent Posts:

North Carolina House and Senate at Odds Over Presidential Primary Date

Democrats Pushing Challenge to New Hampshire Primary in Vermont House

March Presidential Primary Bill Moves Forward in Washington State

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

North Carolina House and Senate at Odds Over Presidential Primary Date

An inter-chamber dispute in the General Assembly may keep the North Carolina presidential primary right where it is: out of compliance with both national parties' delegate selection rules.

Jim Morrill is reporting in the Charlotte Observer that there is support for moving the primary to a later date in the North Carolina House. Not surprisingly, Rep. David Lewis (R-53rd-Harnett), the House Elections Committee chair and the national committeeman from North Carolina to the Republican National Committee, has voiced a similar opinion to that of North Carolina Republican Party chairman, Claude Pope, Jr. On moving the primary back to March 1, Lewis said,

“It makes sense, I hope the General Assembly will act accordingly. I think it will maintain North Carolina’s relevancy and have the economic boost we all hope for.”

But that support of moving the presidential primary back into compliance with the national party rules seemingly ends at the chamber door. It does not stretch across the capitol building to the state Senate. Republican control of the General Assembly has been hampered at times between competing goals between the chambers and this extends to the presidential primary debate as well. Bear in mind, it was the state Senate that added the presidential primary date change to the controversial omnibus elections bill at the last minute in 2013. With time running out in the session, the House agreed to that change to get the bill -- including the voter ID provision that is now being challenged in court -- passed.

This primary date -- tethered to the South Carolina primary -- is the Senate's baby. And it shows in the comments from proponents of the likely February primary date in the upper chamber. Sen. Bob Rucho (R-39th, Mecklenburg), who is a member of the Judiciary I Committee that handles elections matter in the state Senate had this to say (again, via Morrill),

“Why should we be losing delegates? We didn’t cut in line. We haven’t made our argument to the (RNC) yet. I don’t see why March 1 is a special date. We think the people of North Carolina should have a say in regards to the presidential contest.”

That is not an atypical argument from any state legislator whether proposing to buck the rules or just move a primary to an earlier date. But this does give us some idea of what now faces the orderliness of the 2016 presidential primary calendar. A disagreement between the chambers makes passing legislation to move the North Carolina primary that much more difficult if not impossible. If that issue is not solved, then the beef will be between North and South Carolina which will pull the national parties -- more the RNC given the partisan make up of decision-makers in the Carolinas -- further into the discussion. This situation has already seen what one might call light and indirect pressure from the RNC. The remaining pressure may come in the form of the super penalty. being levied against North Carolina Republicans if the primary is not moved.

But all may work out. If South Carolina schedules its presidential primary for Tuesday, February 23, 2016, then the North Carolina primary would follow on March 1; making everyone happy. Getting there is not that simple, though. South Carolina typically holds a Saturday primary. South Carolina Republicans also like at least a week between it and the next southern state on the primary calendar. That combination eliminates the possibility of moving the South Carolina Republican primary to the Saturday, February 27.

On top of that, how is one to interpret the North Carolina law if the state parties in South Carolina hold primaries on different dates? Does North Carolina follow the earliest primary? The Republican primary? That is not clear and there is no guidance in the North Carolina law to account for an eventuality that occurs in South Carolina more often than not.

This one could get messy before it is all said and done. But North Carolina will undoubtedly lose over 80% of its delegates if it continues on the course it is on unless the stars align to force South Carolina into an uncommon Tuesday primary.


Recent Posts:
Democrats Pushing Challenge to New Hampshire Primary in Vermont House

March Presidential Primary Bill Moves Forward in Washington State

New Mexico March Primary Bill Meets Committee Roadblock

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Democrats Pushing Challenge to New Hampshire Primary in Vermont House

Identical legislation to the Vermont state Senate bill proposing to schedule the presidential primary in the Green Mountain state for the same date as the New Hampshire primary has now been introduced in the Vermont state House.

Like S76, the House version -- H 239 -- calls for the Vermont secretary of state to schedule the presidential primary for the same date as the first in the nation presidential primary in New Hampshire. What is different on the House side is who filed the legislation. Instead of being pushed by a Progressive Party legislator (a party loosely aligned with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)), the House bill was introduced and co-sponsored by four majority party Democrats. Neither the bill's sponsor Rep. Sam Young (D-121st, Orleans-Caledonia), nor the three co-sponsors (Rep. Jim Condon (D-69th, Chittenden), Jim Masland (D-82nd, Windsor-Orange) and George W. Till (D-143rd, Chittenden)) are among the Democratic leadership in the House, but all four sit on the House Ways and Means Committee. That means there is no one sponsor to directly shepherd the bill through the Government Operations Committee (to which it has been referred). However, since the House Ways and Means Committee primarily deals with revenue coming into the state, it would seem clear that the rationale behind the bill is much the same as that espoused by the Senate version's author: to provide the state with an economic shot in the arm.

Regardless of who is promoting the bill, challenging New Hampshire's status, as FHQ has pointed out, is easier said than done. All that has changed is that there is a second version attempting to pull this off.

Recent Posts:
March Presidential Primary Bill Moves Forward in Washington State

New Mexico March Primary Bill Meets Committee Roadblock

North Carolina Republican Party Chair Calls for March 1 Presidential Primary

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

March Presidential Primary Bill Moves Forward in Washington State

The effort to shift the presidential primary in Washington from May to March jumped its first hurdle in committee last week on Thursday, February 19. SB 5978 passed the Senate Committee on Government Operations and Security with a "do pass" recommendation.

The question in Washington is less about whether the presidential primary will shift from the fourth Tuesday in May to the second Tuesday in March. Instead, the larger question in the Evergreen state is whether the state parties will actually opt to use the primary -- in lieu of caucuses -- to allocate national convention delegates. Washington has been a caucuses/convention state for much of the post-reform era. The presidential primary has been in place since the 1992 cycle, but has rarely been utilized by the parties.

The presidential primary was cancelled in Washington for the 2012 cycle.

--

UPDATE (2/27/15): Bill to cancel 2016 primary introduced
UPDATE (3/3/15): Senate bill passes


Recent Posts:
New Mexico March Primary Bill Meets Committee Roadblock

North Carolina Republican Party Chair Calls for March 1 Presidential Primary

An August Presidential Primary in Montana?

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

New Mexico March Primary Bill Meets Committee Roadblock

The bill to move the New Mexico presidential (and other) primaries from June to March failed to pass its first legislative test in committee on Monday, February 23.

Deborah Baker at the Albuquerque Journal has the latest on the hang up HB 346 had in the Government, Elections and Indian Affairs Committee. By a 6-6 vote along party lines, the legislation to shift the consolidated New Mexico primary from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June to the third Tuesday in March tabled the bill for the time being pending further amendments.

Democrats voiced some support for the idea of an earlier presidential primary, but balked at all the primaries being pushed up to a point on the calendar that would have New Mexico legislators campaigning during the state legislative session:

Rep. Antonio “Moe” Maestas, D-Albuquerque, said shifting the date of the primary election from the beginning of June to mid-March would complicate many state elections, since lawmakers and other state officials are barred from raising campaign cash during legislative sessions.  

“The idea of making the New Mexico presidential primary earlier is well received, but to move all of them would be problematic,” Maestas said after today’s hearing. “The culture would change to campaign mode all the time.”

This is a conflict that often arises in other late [presidential] primary states. The best way to circumvent this impasse may be to separate the presidential primary and move that contest to March with the remaining primaries for other offices following in June. The benefit of moving all of the primaries up to March is to save money not funding a separate presidential primary election. But moving a consolidated primary may prove difficult moving forward.

The bill's sponsor has indicated he will tweak the bill in an effort to keep the idea alive.


Recent Posts:
North Carolina Republican Party Chair Calls for March 1 Presidential Primary

An August Presidential Primary in Montana?

New York Republicans Want March 1 Presidential Primary Date

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

North Carolina Republican Party Chair Calls for March 1 Presidential Primary

Last week FHQ posed several questions that would provide us with some answers about how serious legislators are in North Carolina to maintain a non-compliant presidential primary under Republican National Committee rules. None of that has really been addressed in the scant time since, but we can add to what is known about the state of a February North Carolina presidential primary. The North Carolina Republican Party chairman is against it.

Claude Pope, Jr., in an op-ed in the Charlotte Observer added one more voice -- and a bit of dual RNC and North Carolina Republican Party heft -- to the ongoing discussion over whether the Tar Heel state will become the latest rogue state to jump in the primary calendar line. This does not tell us much about the dialog in the North Carolina General Assembly, but can easily be viewed as some light early pressure to alter the date.

Pope makes the case for shifting back the North Carolina presidential primary to March 1 (also the targeted SEC primary date) thusly:

"A newly enacted law sets our presidential primary on the “first Tuesday after the South Carolina primary.” That likely puts the primary date in February of 2016. The RNC’s rules provide a “carve-out” for February primaries for only four states – Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Any state that violates this rule by conducting a February primary will forfeit all but 12 delegates. There are no exceptions, and North Carolina remains out of compliance with this rule. There is a simple fix – move our presidential primary to Tuesday, March 1. 

"Our legislature had good intentions when it established a February primary date, assuming that the world would beat a path to our door – bringing national media exposure, money, and an economic boom-let to North Carolina. But the crowded field of presidential wannabes will not step foot in our state. They will not visit the fire stations or Rotary Clubs. They won’t ride in the parades, eat barbecue, kiss babies or spend their millions fighting over just 12 delegates – it simply isn’t worth the money.  

"So, goodbye economic boom-let. Goodbye to relevance, and goodbye to any influence on the national level. Say hello to the mass of disenfranchised (and very upset) grassroots activists denied once again – by the law of unintended consequences – of finally having their say in who gets selected as our party’s nominee.

"Or not."

That 12 delegates is the super penalty that is new in 2016. And what Pope describes is exactly how that penalty was intended to work: Shrink a state's delegation size to the point that it undermines candidates coming to the state to squabble over a sliver of a sliver of delegates.

As FHQ has said, the super penalty appears to be doing its job. It has cleaned up the North Carolina issue yet, but the word is getting around.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2015/02/23/5534348/move-nc-presidential-primary-to.html#storylink=cpy

Recent Posts:
An August Presidential Primary in Montana?

New York Republicans Want March 1 Presidential Primary Date

Companion Bill in Washington House Would Move Presidential Primary to March 8

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

An August Presidential Primary in Montana?

Legislation has been introduced in the Montana state House to push the June primary -- including the presidential primary -- back to August.

State Representative Kathleen Williams (D-61st, Bozeman) formally introduced HB 571 on Wednesday, February 18. The legislation is fairly complex, but basically boils down to the legislature providing itself the leeway to meet in even numbered years. As it stands now, the Montana legislature meets just once every two years during the odd numbered year.

For FHQ's purposes that part of the bill is neither here nor there. However, as a means of continuing to not entangle elections with legislative work, the bill additionally includes a provision to push the consolidated June primary back to the Tuesday after the second Monday in August. The intent is to prevent the even year legislative work from overlapping with elections season (and in particular state legislators running for renomination).

This is a curious one. To move a presidential primary to August is obviously counterproductive. The primary would take place after the national conventions have actually nominated a candidate to run on the November ballot. However, this is not the only instance of this that we have seen over even the last decade.

In 2009 an alternative proposal to eliminate the separate (February) presidential primary in Arkansas initially called for shifting the to-be consolidated primary -- including the presidential primary -- to August. The bill was amended pushing the primary into July and then June. That maneuvering was moot considering Governor Beebe had already signed legislation eliminating the presidential primary and tying it once again to the May preferential primary election.

Two years later, the Kentucky state Senate saw a similar proposal to move a consolidated primary from May to August that ended up in the same place as the legislation in Arkansas.¹ The bill did pass the state Senate before getting bottled up in the state House. The idea did come back a year later when another August primary bill was introduced.

Also in 2011, the District of Columbia Council introduced legislation that initially would have set the 2012 presidential primary along with those for other offices for July. That bill was amended -- moving the primary to April -- and later passed and signed into law.

Montana, then, is not alone is this behavior. It is unique, but not unheard of. Still, what is the motivation in pushing a presidential primary beyond the point that an actual nominee has already been selected and subsequently confirmed at the national convention? In DC, the original July primary bill was an effort to comply with the MOVE act (regarding the timely printing and distribution of ballots to military personnel overseas). The Arkansas bill, like the initial one in DC, was amended, so the convention conflict was recognized in that instance. Similar intent was not clear in the Kentucky case. And Montana seems to fit more into the Kentucky group than alongside the District and Arkansas.

...at least for now.

That said, the Montana House State Administration Committee held a hearing on HB 571 on Monday, February 23. The committee seemed convinced that any even year legislative work would be done in time for the regular June primary election, thus negating the need to push it back to August. The bill sponsor, Rep. Williams, had already come with amendments striking out those changes to the primary dates anyway. The committee did not take up that amendment today and furthermore did not vote on any recommendation for the bill. The group is due to meet again in the morning and may take up those matters then.

The members of the committee were concerned and asked questions about the presidential primary occurring after the conventions. Upon advisement from a representative of the Montana secretary of state's office, they even concluded that the Montana presidential primary is non-binding and would not affect delegate selection/allocation.²

These are always interesting bills to consider when they arise, but more often than not if recent history is a guide these bills either go nowhere or are amended once the conventions conflict is realized. That appears as if it will be the case with this Montana legislation.


Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for bringing news of this bill to FHQ's attention.

--
UPDATE (3/11/15): August primary bill appears to be dead in committee


--
¹ For more on the implications of August presidential primaries specific to Arkansas and Kentucky see here.

² This is false. The primary is advisory on the Republican side, but in 2012 Democrats in Montana used the June primary election as their means of allocating delegates from the Treasure state to the national convention.


Recent Posts:
New York Republicans Want March 1 Presidential Primary Date

Companion Bill in Washington House Would Move Presidential Primary to March 8

Proposed Move of Presidential Primary to February Faces Resistance in Wisconsin

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

New York Republicans Want March 1 Presidential Primary Date

Despite a misleading headline, according to the New York Daily News, state Republicans in New York are eyeing a March 1 date for the Empire state presidential primary.¹

Wanting a March 1 primary date and getting it are two different things, however. With split control of the state Senate and Democrats controlling the other levers of New York state government (state Assembly and governor's mansion), a desire for a March 1 primary date may just be that: a desire.

Republicans in New York as in the rest of the country face a different decision-making calculus than do Democrats. While Republicans in New York and nationwide are motivated by a wide open nomination race with a number of viable candidates, Democrats do not. With a clear frontrunner in Hillary Clinton and little more than token opposition to her run at this point, state-level Democrats are encountering less urgency to shift primaries to earlier dates to ensure that the state and Democratic voters therein have a say in determining the nominee.

Absent that, Democrats in New York and elsewhere are motivated by other factors like consolidating the presidential primary with those primaries for state, congressional and local offices. That is apparently the case in New York. Democrats in the Empire state may be spurred to created a later consolidated date for the primaries as a function saving costs.

New York Republicans, however, want to move to March 1 which is the earliest date on which non-carve-out states can hold primaries and caucuses based on national party delegate selection rules.² That is also the date that a number of southern states are targeting for their proposed SEC primary. New York would find regional company on that date. Massachusetts and Vermont are also scheduled for March 1 on the 2016 presidential primary calendar.

But since the two parties are pushed and pulled by different factors, a compromise position will have to be hammered out in the legislature. That may mean a March 1 date, but it may also mean a later calendar position.

--
¹ Yes, New York had an April presidential primary in 2012, but the law passed and signed into law there in 2011 that created that positioning sunset after 2012 at which time the primary reverted to its previous February position. While the New York primary would move up as compared to its position on the 2012 primary calendar, it would move back as compared to where state law now calls for the primary to be.

² This is an atypical position for New York on the primary calendar in the post-reform era. The presidential primary in the Empire state has only been on the earliest date allowed by both parties twice, 2000 and 2008. Other than those two instances, New York has tended to occupy later March or April spots on the calendar.


Recent Posts:
Companion Bill in Washington House Would Move Presidential Primary to March 8

Proposed Move of Presidential Primary to February Faces Resistance in Wisconsin

Twin Bills Would Move Maryland Presidential Primary Back a Week

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Companion Bill in Washington House Would Move Presidential Primary to March 8

This last week, the Washington state House introduced an identical companion bill to the state Senate bill to move the Evergreen state presidential primary from mid-May to early March. Like the Senate legislation, the House version was also introduced at the request of Washington secretary of state, Kim Wyman (R). Like the Senate version, the House bill also counts important members in the chamber leadership among its list of sponsors and co-sponsors.

Unlike the Senate, the House is controlled by the Democratic Party. Nonetheless, HB 2139 has the support/sponsorship of the chair of the committee (Rep. Sam Hunt (D-22nd, Olympia), State Government Committee) to which the bill has been referred and the deputy minority leader in the House (Rep. Joel Kretz (R-7th, Wauconda)).

The big issue with this bill as with the Senate version is not whether it will pass either or both chambers or be signed into law. Rather, the bigger matter is whether the state parties will utilize the primary election for allocate delegates. Neither state party has always used the primary when available in the past. Both have tended to prefer a caucuses/convention system for both selecting and allocating delegates to the national convention.

--
UPDATE (2/19/15): Senate bill passes committee
UPDATE (2/27/15): Bill to cancel 2016 primary introduced
UPDATE (3/3/15): Senate bill passes


Recent Posts:
Proposed Move of Presidential Primary to February Faces Resistance in Wisconsin

Twin Bills Would Move Maryland Presidential Primary Back a Week

Snyder's Signature Sends Michigan Presidential Primary to March 8

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Proposed Move of Presidential Primary to February Faces Resistance in Wisconsin

Earlier this week, FHQ briefly examined the proposal from Wisconsin state Senator Tim Carpenter (D-3rd, Milwaukee) to shift the Wisconsin presidential primary back to February. The presidential primary in the Badger state is currently scheduled for the first Tuesday in April, the spring election date in the state. Carpenter's proposal would move the primary back to the third Tuesday in February spring primary date where the election spent the 2004 and 2008 cycles.

The proposed change has not yet been introduced as legislation before the Wisconsin state legislature, yet Carpenter's vision of a (general election) swing state drawing candidates into the state to campaign in an early primary is already facing resistance.

Republicans have unified control of the state legislature (and the state government) and the speaker of the lower chamber of the legislature has voiced support for the current date according to a spokesperson:

But Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, opposes the idea. “He is fine with the current date,” spokeswoman Kit Beyer said.

The Democratic state senator also got a pushback reminder from the Democratic National Committee:

A DNC official said the proposed date “violates our rules and would result in an automatic deduction in half of Wisconsin’s delegates with the possibility of an increased deduction at the discretion of the Rules Committee.”

--
Pushing all that aside for the time being, even the history of Wisconsin presidential primary movement seems to bolster the idea that the Badger state is particularly rooted on one date. For much of the post-McGovern-Fraser reform era of presidential nominations (1972-present), Wisconsin has held its presidential primary on the first Tuesday in April; what has been referred to in state law as the April or now spring election date. The only exceptions to that were in 2004 and 2008 when the primary was pushed to the third Tuesday in February spring primary date. Both the first Tuesday in April date and third Tuesday in February date have been in the Wisconsin statutes and have been viable options on which to consolidate the presidential primary with other primary elections (or other elections).

The only deviation from that was the 1996 Wisconsin primary. That is the only time in the post-reform era that the Wisconsin presidential primary did not toggle back and forth between the February and April election dates. In 1995, the Wisconsin legislature passed legislation moving the spring primary and spring election dates up two weeks. The spring primary was shifted to the first Tuesday in February and the spring election date was moved to the third Tuesday in March. The presidential primary was scheduled for the latter date -- still the later spring election date -- which coincided with presidential primaries in Illinois, Michigan and Ohio.¹ This 1995 law expired on May 15, 1996. That was after the spring primary and spring election in 1996. That had the effect of automatically resetting those elections to their pre-1996 positions: the third Tuesday in February for the spring primary and the first Tuesday in April for the spring election.

That history says something about the present Wisconsin primary date or the future date of the 2016 primary anyway.

Will the legislature move the primary to the February spring primary date as Senator Carpenter is calling for? It does not look like Republicans in the majority will go for that.

Will the legislature move the primary at all? History seems to indicate that it will not. There is only one case where the presidential primary in the Badger state did not fall on the February spring primary date or the April spring election date. That is once in eleven post-reform cycles thus far (not including 2016). There is a chance, then, but a small one. As FHQ has noted, Wisconsin Republicans have tended to use a winner-take-all method of delegate allocation in the past. The current Republican National Committee delegate selection rules allow states to allocate delegates in a winner-take-all fashion in contests scheduled as early as March 15. Neighboring Illinois and Missouri are already slated for primaries on that date. Other neighbors, Michigan and Ohio are on the calendar for March 8 primaries. The regional primary concept was enough to move Wisconsin for the 1996 cycle and there is one option available with regional partners that also allows Republicans to maintain their preferred(?) winner-take-all allocation, March 15.

Will that combination be enough to prompt Badger state legislators to move Wisconsin up three weeks on the calendar? We shall see.

--
¹ The article from the Wisconsin State Journal mentions that this was called "Big Ten Tuesday", but FHQ has never seen that moniker for that series of contests. We have seen it called a Great Lakes (regional) primary (see Busch 2000), but not "Big Ten Tuesday". The conference affiliation naming of regional and sub-regional contests is a phenomenon that is unique to the so-called SEC primary and its proposed midwestern offshoot Big Ten primary for the 2016 cycle. Google News searches for "Big Ten Tuesday", "Big Ten Primary" and "Big Ten Regional Primary" all back this up. There are no results for any of those searches constrained to the relevant period (1/1/1995-6/30/1996).

Recent Posts:
Twin Bills Would Move Maryland Presidential Primary Back a Week

Snyder's Signature Sends Michigan Presidential Primary to March 8

Minnesota Republicans Seeking Waiver from New RNC Delegate-Binding Rule

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Twin Bills Would Move Maryland Presidential Primary Back a Week

Identical bills have been introduced in both chambers of the Maryland legislature to shift the date of the presidential primary in the Old Line state back a week. HB 396 and SB 204 would move the Maryland presidential primary from the first Tuesday in April to the second Tuesday in April.

It appears as if the move is motivated by 1) the Baltimore city primaries being consolidated with the presidential primary (in 2012), 2) keeping the city primaries from overlapping with religious holidays (dealt with in separate legislation) and 3) as a cost saving mechanism (that the consolidation was intended to bring about).

--
UPDATE (2/24/15): Senate bill passes committee
UPDATE (3/3/15): Senate bill amended on floor
UPDATE (3/5/15): Bill passes state Senate
UPDATE (3/15/15): House bill clears committee


Recent Posts:
Snyder's Signature Sends Michigan Presidential Primary to March 8

Minnesota Republicans Seeking Waiver from New RNC Delegate-Binding Rule

North Carolina: Staying Rogue for 2016?

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.