Missouri House presidential primary bills merged, deemed "do pass" in committee

Two bills -- HB 126 and HB 367 -- pertaining to the reinstatement of the presidential primary in Missouri got an initial green light in the state House Elections Committee on Tuesday, February 25. 

Functionally, the two bills have been merged. The language from Rep. Banderman's HB 367, reestablishing a presidential primary in Missouri, scheduling the contest for Super Tuesday and broadening no-excuse in-person absentee voting was presented as a committee substitute to Rep. Veit's HB 126. Veit will now be the sponsor of the vehicle as it continues to wind through the legislative process. 

In executive session on Tuesday, the House Elections Committee voted "do pass" on the newly merged bills by a 7-4 tally. All Democrats in attendance (3) supported the measure while committee Republicans were evenly split.

The committee's action removes one scheduling option from the table: the one that sought to exactly replicate the parameters around the Missouri presidential primary as it existed prior to being eliminated in 2022. Although the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March option is now gone, there remains a Senate version that would revive the presidential primary in the Show-Me state and place it on the second Tuesday in March. 

West Virginia legislator angles for February presidential primary

West Virginia state House Delegate Michael Hite (R-92nd, Berkeley) has again introduced legislation to create a separate presidential primary election in the Mountain state and schedule the contest for earlier on the primary calendar. HB 2440 would break up the consolidated May primary in West Virginia, creating a separate presidential primary to be conducted on the third Tuesday in February.

The measure is identical to legislation -- HB 5288 -- Hite put forth during the 2024 legislative session. That bill languished in committee and died without action at the conclusion of the session. 

Such a move would put both major parties in the Mountain state at odds with the rules that have existed for presidential nomination processes dating back to the 2012 cycle. A February primary would cost the state parties national convention delegate under DNC and RNC guidelines for being earlier than March.

Iowa House measure would create first-in-the-nation presidential primary option

After Iowa Democrats lost their privileged position atop the presidential primary calendar in 2024, at least one Democrat in the Hawkeye state is pushing back. Rep. David Jacoby (D-86th, Coralville) has introduced HF 484 to establish a state-run presidential primary option alongside the state's long-running first-in-the-nation caucuses. 

On the one hand, Jacoby's legislation would align Iowa with the aims of national Democrats. The DNC has made a point over the last several cycles of encouraging increased participation in the presidential nomination process by nudging state Democratic parties toward primaries (state-run if possible) over state party-run caucuses. This bill successfully navigating the legislative process in Des Moines and being signed into law would shift Iowa Democrats closer to that national party goal. 

However, that one step forward is made in conjunction with another provision that runs counter to the national party rules with respect to the presidential primary calendar. On that front, Jacoby's bill would set the date for the state-run presidential primary for "at least four days earlier than the scheduled date for any meeting, caucus, or primary which constitutes the first determining stage of the presidential nominating process in any other state, territory, or any other group which has the authority to select delegates in the presidential nomination."

Now, no final decisions have been made by the DNC about which states will comprise the early window contests on the 2028 presidential primary calendar. That will not be settled until the late summer/early fall of 2026 at the earliest. Therefore, this bill would not necessarily put Iowa Democrats in the crosshairs of the national party with regard to the timing of this proposed state-run presidential primary. But nor does the potential law provide much statutory leeway either. If HF 484 becomes law and Iowa Democrats do not secure an early slot on the calendar -- and not just early, first -- then the state party would run afoul of national party rules, incurring sanctions. 

Indeed, Iowa would not only run afoul of the DNC rules under those circumstances, but that primary would also trigger the similar state law in New Hampshire (the seven days before any similar contest provision). And that would set off a race to see which state could organize the earliest (unsanctioned) contest the fastest, all under the auspices of state law in both cases. 

Those are all concerns that are layered into this particular bill. But there are issues back home in the Hawkeye state as well. Chief among those issues is that Democrats are locked out of power from the decision-making positions in Iowa. In other words, Jacoby would have to get at least some, if not a lot of buy-in from Republicans who hold the reins of power in both the legislative and executive branches in the state. It is not clear that Iowa Republicans, in or out of the legislature, would go for this bill. After all, the Republican Party of Iowa stuck with the first-in-the-nation caucuses in 2024 -- it was consistent with Republican National Committee calendar rules -- while state Democrats abandoned them for a vote-by-mail party-run presidential primary to stay within their national party's guidelines. 

An all new, state-run primary would also ostensibly require state funds to implement the legislation. There is no fiscal note included in this legislation, but any price tag would likely be met with some resistance from Republican legislators, who may or may not prefer the caucuses to a primary option. However, keeping Iowa first, as this bill does, would potentially win over some support for a primary option. Yet, given the presence of the caucus option already, it would likely be minimal. 

Some Iowa Democrats have been clamoring for a presidential primary option since 2023-24, and while this bill may meet that wish, it faces an uphill climb for a host of reasons.

--

NOTE: Counter to the reporting from KAAL TV in southern Minnesota, this legislation would not "end the [presidential] caucus system" in Iowa. Rather, it would provide for a state-run primary option if a state party chair requested such an election from the state commissioner of elections. The caucuses would remain an option, the default option in fact.

An early update on presidential primary movement in 2025

There are likely much larger fish to fry at the moment, and besides, it remains very early in the 2028 presidential nomination cycle. But actors on the state level in state legislatures across the country are laying the groundwork for the next round of (state-funded) presidential primary elections now. 

But as was the case during the 2024 legislative sessions in state capitols around the nation, much of the work is predominantly of two different varieties. First, legislators in states with recently eliminated presidential primary elections have attempted to bring those elections back. Much of the 2024 activity on that front was in an effort to rescue the elections for 2024. 

As it turned out those efforts were for naught. Legislators in neither Idaho nor Missouri were successful during the early months of the presidential election year in reviving state-funded presidential preference elections. And so far, only a handful of bills in Missouri have been introduced in 2025 to reverse the elimination of the primary in the Show-Me state.

The other grouping of legislation at the state level is a series of bills that have been raised in the past and have gone nowhere. Whether that changes in 2025 is yet to be determined, but if past is prelude, then many of these measures will gather dust in committee before dying at the end of legislative sessions. Count bills in Hawaii, New York, Ohio and Oregon among this group. 

In total, this is about what one should expect of legislation to shift presidential primaries around on the calendar this far in advance of another series of nomination contests. Very simply, the urgency is just not there this far out, nor is the attention with other more pressing matters before legislators at both the national and state levels. And that is reflected in the figure above: The success rate of primary legislation in the year following a presidential election is very low. It is low anyway, regardless of year, but the activity is at its nadir in the year after and typically at its peak during the session in the year immediately prior to a presidential election year. 

--

For more on the 2028 presidential primary calendar see the bare bones up-to-date calendar here and the 2028 presidential primary calendar plus here at FHQ Plus. Last update here.

Alternate Missouri Senate bill would reestablish presidential primary and schedule for April

The fourth of four bills currently before the Missouri General Assembly in its 2025 state legislative session would also bring back the presidential primary nixed in 2022 but schedule the election for yet another -- a fourth -- distinct date on the calendar. 

SB 417, introduced by Senator Jill Carter (R-32nd, Jaspar/Newton), resurrects ideas first brought forth in discussions over similar legislation in 2023. Namely, the objective, then as now, would be to consolidate the presidential preference primary with the general election for municipal offices on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in April. Only, the 2025 version contains a twist. 

The catch to conducting concurrent presidential primaries with a general election for municipal offices is an administrative one. The consolidation would require election administrators to simultaneously print both partisan primary ballots and effectively nonpartisan general election ballots as one across all municipalities (and the offices contained therein) together. It was that issue that played at least some role in derailing the push to reinstate the presidential primary in the Show-Me state before 2024: Administrators balked at the potential complexity introduced into the process. 

However, there is a fix to that snag in Carter's SB 417. The senator would have all presidential candidates regardless of party listed on the ballot for the presidential primary/municipal general election. There would be no Democratic ballot, no Republican ballot, no ballot for those wishing to simply vote in municipal elections. Instead, everything would be on one ballot that all Missouri voters turning out in early April would receive. Results would then be delivered to state party chairs who would in turn allocate delegate slots to candidates identified with the respective parties. 

Left unspecified is how the uncommitted line (or lines) on the ballot would be treated. If there is merely one uncommitted option, then it could serve as a catch-all that is difficult to parse out along partisan lines for the purposes of allocation. That problem could potentially be solved by placing an uncommitted (Democratic) line in addition to an uncommitted (Republican) option on the ballot. But it is not clear in Carter's legislation which is the prescribed protocol. 

So, one leftover administrative issue is addressed, but in so doing, a possible unintended consequence is introduced. 

On the Missouri Senate side, bill would schedule a reinstated presidential primary in March

There are two bills currently in the Missouri state House to reinstate a presidential primary in the Show-Me state, but there is also action on the matter in the upper chamber in Jefferson City. 

In fact, legislation has also been introduced in the Missouri state Senate to bring back the state-funded presidential preference election eliminated by the General Assembly in 2022. One measure, SB 670 introduced by Senator David Gregory (R-15th, St. Louis), is more in line with HB 126 which would basically reset conditions to where they were with respect to the parameters of the presidential primary prior to 2022. That is to say that the primary election would revert to a position on the presidential primary calendar following Super Tuesday. 

But the two are not identical. The House version replicates the pre-2022 language in state law. In it, the primary would fall on the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March. However, Gregory's SB 670 strips out the latter portion and simply schedules the presidential preference election for the second Tuesday in March. In most years, including 2028, there is no difference between the two: the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March is often the second Tuesday in March. 

The exception is when March begins on a Tuesday. When March 1 falls on a Tuesday, then the second Tuesday in March is March 8. But the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March is not until March 15. It is the same reason it appears as if the Missouri presidential primary moved up a week from 2016 to 2020. In the former year, March began on a Tuesday. 

In the grand scheme of things, none of this is all that consequential. Yet, it is meaningful that none of the three Missouri bills discussed in this space thus far in 2025 are aligned on what the date of any reinstated presidential primary would be. And that is part of what derailed the 2023 efforts to revive the presidential primary in the Show-Me state. 

From Missouri, a competing bill to restore the Show-Me state presidential primary

Earlier this week, FHQ raised legislation introduced in Missouri that aims to reestablish the presidential primary formally nixed in 2022. That bill envisions a Super Tuesday primary in early March. But it is not the only measure seeking to reinstate the presidential preference election in the Show-Me state. 

A similar state House bill -- HB 126 -- would also bring back the state-funded presidential primary, but the legislation from Rep. Rudy Veit (R-59th, Wardsville) would schedule the election for the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March. Veit's legislation would turn back the clock, reestablishing the parameters under which the state's presidential primary was conducted before it was eliminated. There would be no Super Tuesday and no expansion of absentee voting as is the case in the competing House bill.

Veit filed similar legislation in late 2022 ahead of the 2023 legislative session in Jefferson City. It and other bills met roadblocks along the way in the legislative process and ultimately amounted to nothing.

Sanders' trip to Iowa is not about the 2028 presidential nomination

Holly Otterbein buries the lede on Bernie Sanders' upcoming trip to the heartland:

Bernie Sanders, the two-time presidential candidate, is barnstorming Iowa and Nebraska to rally voters against what he calls “the oligarchy” — the kind of high-profile offensive that typically signals a potential run for the White House.

Yeah, only Iowa did not have in 2024 nor is likely to have in 2028 an early, much less first, contest in the Democratic presidential nomination process. And sure, Otterbein gets there, but it takes a while after she's pulled the same "catnip" clickbait move on readers.

Sanders is a keen observer — and critic — of the media, and he knows that the traditionally first-in-the-nation caucus state of Iowa is catnip for reporters, even after Democrats moved it back in their nominating calendar in 2024. Anything he does there is bound to get attention — something many Democrats are desperate for as Musk dominates the conversation on his social media site X alongside Trump.

This is a story -- the Sanders trip to Iowa and Nebraska -- that is more about the Vermont senator rallying Democrats and others in swing (congressional) territory and using Iowa's past glory in the presidential nomination process, on the Democratic side of the equation anyway, to grab some attention. 

It seems to have worked. 

He's not running.

New York bill introduced to move February presidential primary to April

Last week new legislation was filed in the New York Assembly to shift the presidential primary in the Empire state from February to April. A 4421 would not only move the presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the fourth Tuesday in April, but would also push the late June congressional primary to August. 

But the bill from Assemblymember Andrew Molitor (R-150th, Westfield) requires some further unpacking.

First, this is not a new idea. Versions of this same legislation were put forth in each of the last two legislative sessions. And in neither case did the bills go anywhere. This is all despite the fact that the New York presidential primary ended up scheduled for sometime in April in each of the last four cycles. [Note: Covid did ultimately push the April 2020 presidential primary to June.]

The past inaction says something about those previous bills: They break (and have broken) with the post-2008 protocol that has been established in the Empire state for dealing with the scheduling of the presidential primary election. No legislation since 2007 has sought to permanently change the date of the election. Instead, when late spring rolls around in the year before the presidential election, the New York state legislature introduces legislation crafted in consultation with the state parties to not only set the date of the presidential primary in the state but to define the terms of delegate allocation and selection to be used by each of the major parties. That legislation then sunsets after the general election, reverting the primary to the date set for the 2008 primary in 2007: the (noncompliant) first Tuesday in February. 

There is no indication that there is any momentum behind this latest effort to change that protocol. While the current method does technically put New York parties in noncompliance with national party rules, that reality at the very least forces legislators to revisit both the timing and method of delegate selection every four years. And theoretically at least that provides them an opportunity to carve out an advantageous position on the calendar (even if the default has been to place the election in April sometime).

--

There is alternate legislation this session to permanently shift the primary to June as well.

Super Tuesday bill would reinstate Missouri presidential primary

Efforts have once again been revived in Missouri to rescue the Show-Me state's presidential primary after it was eliminated during the 2022 General Assembly session. Neither legislation filed in 2023 nor 2024 was successful in reinstating the state-funded option for the 2024 cycle. 

But work has started early in Jefferson City with 2028 in mind. One such bill, HB 367 from Rep. Brad Banderman (R-119th, St. Clair), would not only bring the presidential primary election back as a standalone contest, but would schedule the election for the first Tuesday in March, Super Tuesday. Unlike the other bills put forth, Banderman's legislation would also expand the window for early in-person absentee voting from two to six weeks. 

Under new legislation the Oregon presidential primary would shift up to March

A new bill filed in the Oregon state Senate would move the consolidated primary in the Beaver state, including the presidential primary, from the third Tuesday in May to the first Tuesday in March (Super Tuesday).

SB 392 was introduced last month by Senator Fred Girod (R-9th, Stayton) and would change the primary date to March in presidential years alone. In all other years, the primary would continue to fall on the third Tuesday in May. Similar legislation that has been raised in past cycles has gone nowhere, left to languish in committee.

Legislation introduced in New York would shift presidential primary to noncompliant date

Senator James Skoufis (D-42nd) has introduced a bill in the New York State Senate to consolidate the presidential primary in the Empire state with the primaries for state and local offices. 

S 1687, like the similar bills that have been filed in the three previous legislative sessions in Albany, would combine the presidential preference vote with other primaries on the fourth Tuesday in June. The intent is simple enough: to reduce the burden on both the state and its voters by forgoing the expense of administering a separate presidential primary election. 

But there is a catch. Noble though the goals of this legislation may or may not be, a late June presidential primary would run afoul of both national parties' delegate selection rules. The contest would fall too late in the cycle and would thus incur penalties for any New York state party that did not opt out of the primary and hold a party-funded and run contest on an earlier and compliant date. 

UPDATE (2/12/25): 

A companion bill, identical to the Senate version, has also been filed in the New York Assembly. A 5058, introduced by Assemblymember Jonathan Jacobson (D-104th, Newburgh), would also change the presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the fourth Tuesday in June (from one noncompliant date to another).

Ohio Senate Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to May

Legislation has once again been introduced by Ohio state Senator William DeMora (D-25th, Franklin) to move the presidential year primaries in the Buckeye state to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May. Currently, Ohio statute calls for the consolidated primary, including the presidential preference vote, to be conducted on the third Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

SB 37 is similar to legislation that Sen. DeMora proposed and was unsuccessful in moving during the 2023 legislative session. The aim is to eliminate the presidential year exception to the timing of primaries in the Buckeye state, making the scheduling uniform across all years. 

Hawaii bill seeks to establish state-run presidential primary for 2028

Sen. Karl Rhoads (D-13th, Dowsett Highlands) introduced SB 114 to establish a state-run and funded presidential primary in the Aloha state. The election would be scheduled for the first Tuesday after the first Monday in April. 

That would fall on April 4, 2028 (the same day on which the Connecticut and Wisconsin primaries are currently scheduled).

The First-in-the-Nation defense commences in New Hampshire

The election of a new national party chair did not trigger 2028 calendar reactions in South Carolina alone. 

No, Ken Martin's election as chair of the Democratic National Committee -- the formal kickoff to the process for crafting nomination rules for the next cycle -- has set off the typical responses in all the usual places. That list now includes New Hampshire where Paul Steinhauser at the Concord Monitor has a recap of 2024...

While the Republican National Committee (RNC) didn’t make any changes to its 2024 calendar and kept the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary as their first two contests, the DNC upended its calendar. The party overwhelmingly supported a proposal by former President Joe Biden to put South Carolina first, with New Hampshire and Nevada coming a week later. 

Adhering to a nearly half-century-old law that mandates the Granite State hold the first presidential primary a week ahead of any similar contest, New Hampshire Secretary of State Dave Scanlan scheduled the contest for Jan. 23, 2024, with the Democratic presidential primary ending up being an unsanctioned election. 

Biden didn’t set foot in the state and kept his name off the primary ballot. But, to avoid an embarrassing setback for the then-president, a write-in effort by Democratic Party leaders in New Hampshire boosted Biden to an easy primary victory as he cruised to renomination. Seven months later, following a disastrous debate performance against President Trump, Biden ended his re-election campaign and was replaced by former Vice President Kamala Harris at the top of the Democrats’ 2024 national ticket.

...and the latest from the Granite state...

Veteran New Hampshire Democratic Party chair Ray Buckley, who backed Martin in the DNC chair race, told the Monitor he believes the new chair will keep his word that every state will have a “fair shot.” 

“We don’t need any special favors, but we don’t need somebody putting their thumb on the scale against us, either,” Buckley said. “We think we have a powerful message on why we should retain the first-in-the-nation primary.”

--

Steinhauser hits most of the New Hampshire-centric points, but fails to lay out the "battle" lines in the 2028 calendar fight other than to merely summarize the dispute between the DNC and Granite state Democrats ahead of (and into) 2024. So let's more clearly discuss the terms of the "battle" ahead.

First, 2024 does not appear to have been an aberration for the Democratic Party. Implicit in all of the chatter from Chair Martin and Chair Buckley (NH) about "fair shots" is that there will be for 2028 another process where state Democratic parties will apply/make the case for privileged spots on the early calendar And that will once again be followed by the national party, through the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC), reviewing those submissions and selecting a handful of state contests to start the presidential nomination process in early 2028.

In other words, the 2028 process will not revert to the method often used prior to 2024 when the starting point was Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina having had those positions codified in the previous cycle's rules. Iowa and New Hampshire, then, are not assumed to be the first two contests. That is no longer the baseline.

The acknowledgment of that fact is no small thing coming from either the DNC chair or his counterpart in the New Hampshire Democratic Party. 

And actually that is the big take home lesson from Martin's election: 2028's process will look more like 2024's rather than previous cycles. So mark that off of the list.

However, there are some second order questions to consider at the outset of the 2028 rules process. 

On the DNC side, the big question is whether the hassle of dealing with a potentially rogue New Hampshire is even worth it if the party opts to traverse a road similar to the one it took during the 2024 cycle. It is not clear that the standoff with New Hampshire Democrats in the lead up to and during the 2024 primary process was ultimately injurious to the party or the nominee. Yes, there was a feeble attempt at a protest vote in the unsanctioned beauty contest primary in New Hampshire on January 23. But the Palestinian strain of that protest did not really reach a fevered pitch in the Granite state. Instead, the uncommitted movement found its footing later on as the Michigan primary approached in February.

Still, the back and forth between the national party and the state party in New Hampshire was a distraction to President Biden, his campaign and the reelection effort. And whether following a similar path as in 2024 with respect to the scheduling of the presidential primary in the Granite state for the upcoming cycle continues to be viewed that way remains to be seen. It is another political question the RBC will have to tackle at some point before fall 2026. 

Yet, there is a New Hampshire side to this as well and that, too, will influence the RBC's thinking moving forward. 

While the New Hampshire state party did defy the national party rules in 2024, opting into the rogue state-run primary, Granite state Democrats did ultimately cave to the DNC. It will be meaningful to the decision makers on the national party panel that New Hampshire Democrats devised a post hoc state party-run process to select and allocate delegates to the national convention. This is one place where a 2028 bid by New Hampshire Democrats for an early calendar position will face some questions from the members of the RBC.

If New Hampshire Democrats could quickly slap together a state party-run process after the rogue primary in January 2024, then why can Democrats in the Granite state not lay the groundwork for a similar process well in advance of 2028 if the state government proves to be an obstacle to changing the state law regarding the state-run primary? 

That is a much tougher question for New Hampshire Democrats to answer post-2024. The state party will no longer have the luxury -- not in the judgment of the RBC in any event -- of dragging its feet on having a back up option ready for 2028. 

Those are the questions. And the answers to them will define the battle over New Hampshire's stake on the first-in-the-nation primary in the 2028 Democratic nomination process. 

What does a new DNC chair mean for South Carolina's position on the 2028 presidential primary calendar?

The Democratic National Committee's election of Ken Martin (MN state party chair, DNC member and president of the Association of State Democratic Committees) as chairman was the first shoe to drop in the process of the party devising the rules that will govern the 2028 presidential nomination. In the near term that means Martin appointing members to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. Further down the road, that panel will lay the groundwork for the early window of the presidential primary calendar. 

And that has stakeholders in the states with early contests in past presidential nomination cycles attempting to assess the playing field, measuring the chances of retaining an early slot on the calendar in three years' time. Joseph Bustos from The State (Columbia, SC) read the tea leaves from the perspective of the Palmetto state on Martin's comments on the 2028 calendar prior to the his election as chair:

"It’s not up to the next DNC chair to put their thumb on the scale in any way, shape or form. It’s not one person’s decision. It is the party’s decision,” Martin said. “Any state that wants to have their voice heard and make a bid for this will be heard. Second, the calendar we put forward has to be rigorous, it has to be efficient and it has to be fair," Martin said. “It has to battle test our nominees so we win and it has to honor the great diversity of this party, and it has to honor the great traditions of this party.”

Martin's criteria closely align with the review process the party utilized in selecting the early primaries for the 2024 cycle. That is a bigger signal -- that something akin to the 2024 application/review/selection process will carryover -- at this point than which states will ultimately make up the three to five states in the early window on the calendar prior to Super Tuesday in early March. 

Logistically, however, of the three states that made up the list of officially sanctioned contests on the Democratic primary calendar in 2024, two -- Michigan and Nevada -- have their calendar positions codified in state law. In South Carolina, the state parties set the dates of the presidential primaries. While Michigan and Nevada may have partisan obstacles to changing the dates of their primaries, the same is not true (at this time) in the Palmetto state. The DNC may find its hands tied with respect to Michigan and Nevada but could exert some pressure on the South Carolina Democratic Party to comply with any calendar position (or position change) for 2028. 

But that is a political question the Rules and Bylaws Committee will weigh in the coming months before the rules for 2028 are formally adopted in the late summer/early fall of 2026.