Just before the holidays, the Washington, DC District Council voted unanimously to shift the presidential primary in the District from April to June.
As FHQ noted at the time, the 2013 bill then moved on to lame duck Mayor Vincent Gray for his consideration. However, given that the bill was passed unanimously there was no utility in issuing a veto on a bill that would be overridden by the council. Regardless, B20-0265 -- the primary bill -- was never signed into law. But the DC system does not require a signature anyway. The mayor has three options when confronted with a bill from the council: sign the bill, do nothing or veto the bill. In the case of the first two actions, the bill becomes law.
Council Period 20 (2013-2015) came to a close at the end of 2014 and there is no evidence that a mayoral veto was issued on the June primary legislation. It thus becomes law, moving the DC presidential primary from the first Tuesday in April to the first Tuesday in June. That moves DC from a point on the calendar just beyond the 50% delegates allocate threshold to the very last week of the calendar. The move also breaks up any lasting remnants of the 2008 Potomac primary (DC, Virginia and Maryland). Washington, DC and Maryland were concurrent again in 2012, but that coalition will not survive to 2016.
The bill does have to go before Congress for review -- as all DC legislation does -- but if there is no review or no disapproval from the House of Representatives within a 30 day window, the bill becomes an act and is law.
FHQ will keep the Washington, DC primary on the first Tuesday in April for now, but that will change to June when and if this becomes an act.
Recent Posts:
Bill Introduced to Merge Democratic and Republican Presidential Primaries in South Carolina
California: Damned if you do, Damned of you don't [Move] in Presidential Primary Politics
2016 Texas Republican Delegate Allocation Rules: A New Caveat to Consider
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Showing posts with label 2014 state legislative session. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2014 state legislative session. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Saturday, January 3, 2015
Close of Michigan Session Kills Presidential Primary Bill
The Michigan state legislature gaveled to a close on Tuesday, December 30. This was more a formal adjournment than anything else as no votes were taken. The real meat of the legislative day was the transmission of messages between the two chambers and between each and the executive branch.
Some of that dealt with late bills that were passed and to then be sent on to the governor. Other messages, however, were delivered informing the houses that the other had failed to act on a piece of legislation passed in the other originating chamber. The latter was the fate met by SB 1159. After the lame duck Senate passed the bill to move the Michigan presidential primary back into compliance with the national party rules -- from the fourth Tuesday in February to the third Tuesday in March -- the state House did not or was not able to act on it.
On December 30, the House informed the Senate of as much. When the chambers both adjourned sine die, then, the presidential primary bill died with it. However, the effort to shift the presidential primary in Michigan to a later date likely will not die as well. Again, this is a move endorsed by the Michigan Republican Party and driven in the legislature by the Senate majority leader. Republicans control both chambers of the Michigan legislature and the governor's mansion in the state. That does not mean that a shift in the Michigan primary calendar position is a sure thing, but it does mean that action to that end is likely forthcoming in the early part of the 2015 legislative session.
Recent Posts:
Why is Florida on March 1 and Not March 15?
Happy New Year
Will a Calendar Bump Up Mean More Candidate Visits in SEC Primary States?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Some of that dealt with late bills that were passed and to then be sent on to the governor. Other messages, however, were delivered informing the houses that the other had failed to act on a piece of legislation passed in the other originating chamber. The latter was the fate met by SB 1159. After the lame duck Senate passed the bill to move the Michigan presidential primary back into compliance with the national party rules -- from the fourth Tuesday in February to the third Tuesday in March -- the state House did not or was not able to act on it.
On December 30, the House informed the Senate of as much. When the chambers both adjourned sine die, then, the presidential primary bill died with it. However, the effort to shift the presidential primary in Michigan to a later date likely will not die as well. Again, this is a move endorsed by the Michigan Republican Party and driven in the legislature by the Senate majority leader. Republicans control both chambers of the Michigan legislature and the governor's mansion in the state. That does not mean that a shift in the Michigan primary calendar position is a sure thing, but it does mean that action to that end is likely forthcoming in the early part of the 2015 legislative session.
Recent Posts:
Why is Florida on March 1 and Not March 15?
Happy New Year
Will a Calendar Bump Up Mean More Candidate Visits in SEC Primary States?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Friday, December 19, 2014
Michigan Presidential Primary Move Bottled Up in State House Until After Christmas
The Michigan legislature stretched what was to be its last day of the 2014 session working well into Friday morning on an 11 bill package with a sales tax increase to fund road repairs.
What the state House did not get to was the Senate-passed legislation that would move the presidential primary in the Wolverine state to March. What that means for SB 1159 is somewhat unclear. Both the Michigan House and Senate have adjourned (for the time being), but the 2014 session may not have been gaveled closed yet. As of this writing, the Michigan Legislature web site is showing that the state House is adjourned until Tuesday, December 30 at 11:30am.1 That may provide a window in which the presidential primary could be passed. Otherwise, it may simply be a casualty of a countdown clock that reached all zeroes.
Regardless, the presidential primary move to March is an idea endorsed by the state Republican Party and got broad bi-partisan support in the state Senate. SB 1159 may die somewhere in the committee-to-floor transition for 2014, but the presidential primary shift is something that will very likely be revived in 2015.
For now, though, the 2016 Michigan presidential primary remains in February, non-compliant with national party delegate selection rules.
--
1 The Senate has already acted on this, so as long as the House passes the bill in its Senate-passed form, it will be enrolled by/in the Senate. That would, of course, require the Senate to be in session in late December as well. Michigan Senate offices are closed December 22-January 4.
What the state House did not get to was the Senate-passed legislation that would move the presidential primary in the Wolverine state to March. What that means for SB 1159 is somewhat unclear. Both the Michigan House and Senate have adjourned (for the time being), but the 2014 session may not have been gaveled closed yet. As of this writing, the Michigan Legislature web site is showing that the state House is adjourned until Tuesday, December 30 at 11:30am.1 That may provide a window in which the presidential primary could be passed. Otherwise, it may simply be a casualty of a countdown clock that reached all zeroes.
Regardless, the presidential primary move to March is an idea endorsed by the state Republican Party and got broad bi-partisan support in the state Senate. SB 1159 may die somewhere in the committee-to-floor transition for 2014, but the presidential primary shift is something that will very likely be revived in 2015.
For now, though, the 2016 Michigan presidential primary remains in February, non-compliant with national party delegate selection rules.
--
1 The Senate has already acted on this, so as long as the House passes the bill in its Senate-passed form, it will be enrolled by/in the Senate. That would, of course, require the Senate to be in session in late December as well. Michigan Senate offices are closed December 22-January 4.
Recent Posts:
DC on Cusp of a June 2016 Presidential Primary
Michigan Presidential Primary on the Move?
About That Michigan Electoral College Allocation Proposal
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
DC on Cusp of a June 2016 Presidential Primary
Michigan Presidential Primary on the Move?
About That Michigan Electoral College Allocation Proposal
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
DC on Cusp of a June 2016 Presidential Primary
In late November the Council of the District of Columbia -- the lawmaking body for the nation's capital -- resurrected a bill from 2013 that would shift the presidential primary in the district from the first Tuesday in April to the first Tuesday in June.
Throughout December the legislation -- B20-0265 -- received more scrutiny from the Council and was opened to the amendment process. However, that yielded little in the way of substantive change for the presidential primary.1 The original legislation introduced in May 2013 would have shifted the presidential primary back to the second Tuesday in June. But that date has been bumped up a week to the first Tuesday in June in the version that got a final unanimous thumbs up from the Council on December 17.
The bill will now be transmitted to Mayor Vincent Grey for his consideration. A signature would move the presidential primary in DC to a date in June on the 2016 presidential primary calendar that coincides with California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota; a departure from the subregional primaries the District has been a part of the last two cycles.
Hat tip to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for bringing the bill's revival to FHQ's attention.
--
UPDATE (2/6/15): Bill signed, cleared for congressional review
--
1 The introduced legislation consolidated the presidential primary and those for other offices in the District on that June date, but that was altered in the final amended version. The primaries will remain concurrent in 2016, but the non-presidential primaries will be moved to September starting in 2018. Read more about the move here.
Throughout December the legislation -- B20-0265 -- received more scrutiny from the Council and was opened to the amendment process. However, that yielded little in the way of substantive change for the presidential primary.1 The original legislation introduced in May 2013 would have shifted the presidential primary back to the second Tuesday in June. But that date has been bumped up a week to the first Tuesday in June in the version that got a final unanimous thumbs up from the Council on December 17.
The bill will now be transmitted to Mayor Vincent Grey for his consideration. A signature would move the presidential primary in DC to a date in June on the 2016 presidential primary calendar that coincides with California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota; a departure from the subregional primaries the District has been a part of the last two cycles.
Hat tip to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for bringing the bill's revival to FHQ's attention.
--
UPDATE (2/6/15): Bill signed, cleared for congressional review
--
1 The introduced legislation consolidated the presidential primary and those for other offices in the District on that June date, but that was altered in the final amended version. The primaries will remain concurrent in 2016, but the non-presidential primaries will be moved to September starting in 2018. Read more about the move here.
Recent Posts:
Michigan Presidential Primary on the Move?
About That Michigan Electoral College Allocation Proposal
Kentucky Republicans Eye 2016 Caucuses OR How Kentucky Republicans Already Have Caucuses
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Michigan Presidential Primary on the Move?
About That Michigan Electoral College Allocation Proposal
Kentucky Republicans Eye 2016 Caucuses OR How Kentucky Republicans Already Have Caucuses
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Michigan Presidential Primary on the Move?
Back in September the Michigan Republican Party formally endorsed a change of presidential primary dates. That was a non-binding move however, as it requires action on the part of the state legislature to shift the date of the presidential primary. But as the lame duck session of the Michigan state legislature winds down, it appears as if the state government is slowly catching up and aligning with that September endorsement of a March 15 primary.
During the first week after the legislature reconvened for the bulk of its post-election lame duck session, Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville (R-17th, Monroe) introduced legislation concerning the presidential primary in the Great Lakes state. SB 1159 would move the Michigan presidential primary from the fourth Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March.1 Importantly, the bill, if passed and ultimately signed into law, would move Michigan back into compliance with the national party delegate selection rules barring non-care-out state primaries and caucuses from being held prior to the first Tuesday in March. However, in its introduced form, the legislation was not in sync with the prior Michigan Republican Party-endorsed primary move.
On December 11, SB 1159 was amended, providing for alignment with the state Republican Party. The amended version -- calling for the primary to move to the third Tuesday in March -- passed the state Senate with just two dissenting votes. The bill moved immediately to the state House where it has been stuck in committee all week as the clock runs out on the 2014 legislative session.
That last day is today -- December 18 -- and all signs point toward a sine die day discharge of the bill from committee and a potential floor vote. Final days are always busy, so this bill may or may not pass today, but it looks as if Michigan will move off the list of potential problems for the 2016 presidential primary calendar, whether now or in 2015.
--
NOTE: Other legislation currently still in committee in the state House includes the bill to alter the method of allocating electoral votes in Michigan. Again, final days can be crazy, but there has been no discharge effort made on this bill.
--
1 Its companion bill, SB 1160, would also move February school elections to the same date in March during presidential election years. Those two sets of primaries were concurrent in 2012. That consolidation and its costs savings were used by Michigan Republicans as an argument against moving the presidential primary to a compliant primary date in 2012.
Recent Posts:
About That Michigan Electoral College Allocation Proposal
Kentucky Republicans Eye 2016 Caucuses OR How Kentucky Republicans Already Have Caucuses
"SEC Presidential Primary" Back on the Radar for 2016
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
During the first week after the legislature reconvened for the bulk of its post-election lame duck session, Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville (R-17th, Monroe) introduced legislation concerning the presidential primary in the Great Lakes state. SB 1159 would move the Michigan presidential primary from the fourth Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March.1 Importantly, the bill, if passed and ultimately signed into law, would move Michigan back into compliance with the national party delegate selection rules barring non-care-out state primaries and caucuses from being held prior to the first Tuesday in March. However, in its introduced form, the legislation was not in sync with the prior Michigan Republican Party-endorsed primary move.
On December 11, SB 1159 was amended, providing for alignment with the state Republican Party. The amended version -- calling for the primary to move to the third Tuesday in March -- passed the state Senate with just two dissenting votes. The bill moved immediately to the state House where it has been stuck in committee all week as the clock runs out on the 2014 legislative session.
That last day is today -- December 18 -- and all signs point toward a sine die day discharge of the bill from committee and a potential floor vote. Final days are always busy, so this bill may or may not pass today, but it looks as if Michigan will move off the list of potential problems for the 2016 presidential primary calendar, whether now or in 2015.
--
NOTE: Other legislation currently still in committee in the state House includes the bill to alter the method of allocating electoral votes in Michigan. Again, final days can be crazy, but there has been no discharge effort made on this bill.
--
1 Its companion bill, SB 1160, would also move February school elections to the same date in March during presidential election years. Those two sets of primaries were concurrent in 2012. That consolidation and its costs savings were used by Michigan Republicans as an argument against moving the presidential primary to a compliant primary date in 2012.
Recent Posts:
About That Michigan Electoral College Allocation Proposal
Kentucky Republicans Eye 2016 Caucuses OR How Kentucky Republicans Already Have Caucuses
"SEC Presidential Primary" Back on the Radar for 2016
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Monday, November 17, 2014
About That Michigan Electoral College Allocation Proposal
Reexamining electoral vote allocation is back in the news again.
The story is the same as it was two years ago when red-blue states, that is to say, Republican-controlled state governments in states that have voted reliably Democratic at the presidential level, considered altering the way in which they were allocating electoral votes. FHQ touched on this two years ago, and I thought Jonathan Bernstein nicely updated his comments from the same period at Bloomberg View.
It still strikes me as interesting that states would consider this. First of all, it creates on the state level the potential for there to be a popular loser: someone who could win fewer votes yet still win a majority of the electoral votes from a state. That argument at the national level is one of the most frequent criticisms of the electoral college system itself. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, a districted plan -- where states allocate electoral votes by congressional district -- tends to dilute the power of the states. Had a districted plan been in place in Michigan in 2012 both of those issues would have been at play. Mitt Romney would have won a 9-7 majority of the Great Lakes state's 16 electoral votes despite Barack Obama winning more votes statewide. That would have, in turn, greatly reduced the power of Michigan in the electoral college. A two electoral vote margin that is largely baked into those districts would attract the candidates to the state a lot less than the promise of a 16 electoral vote cushion/win.
To FHQ, the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes is a lot like the filibuster: You don't want to give up on it now because you might need it/benefit from it in the future.
But the new proposal in Michigan -- HB 5974, sponsored by Representative Pete Lund (R-36th, Macomb) -- is not the districted plan as it was two years ago. It is different in that it has built-in incentives addressing the above criticisms of that plan. Regardless of whether the new legislation passes in the current lame duck session of the Michigan legislature, it is an interesting tweak to some of the plans that have been deemed electoral college "rigging". This plan has some interesting implications that are worth exploring.
...or if not worth exploring, then fun to look at.
Here are the particulars:
1) The statewide winner in the vote count received half of the electors plus one. When Michigan has an even number of electoral votes as it does now (16), that means 9 electoral votes (8+1). If Michigan has an odd number of electoral votes -- as it did during the 2000s (17) -- that half (8.5) is rounded down to the nearest whole number and then the one additional electoral vote is added. That rounding is a small bonus to the second place vote-getter. But...
2) The top finisher in the statewide count receives an additional electoral vote for each increment of 1.5% the statewide winner gets above 50%. There is a nice breakdown of this over at the Bridge. Basically, if the winning candidate receives 61.5% of the statewide vote, that candidate receives all 16 electoral votes.
The first point always avoids the popular loser complaint, unlike the districted plan. The statewide winner would receive a majority of the electoral votes, but only narrowly if the vote is close. In other words, the electoral vote allocation is more proportional than districted.
The incentives the candidates and their campaigns face in dealing with this particular plan is distinct from the districted plan as well. The redistricting process, as hinted at above, bakes in the results of the electoral vote in a way that would dissuade candidates from coming to the state to fight for electoral votes. Campaigns would only expend resources to get an electoral vote or two if a near-tie in the electoral college was a near-certainty.
The newly proposed plan in Michigan circumvents that issue to some degree. Candidates would be motivated under a plan that awards "bonus" electoral votes to either try and run up the score (statewide vote percentage) in Michigan, or barring that, try to at least maintain resource expenditure parity with the other candidate. FHQ does not want to overstate this effect though. If anything, the added electoral vote for each 1.5% increment of the statewide vote over 50% adds another strategic element to the puzzle. But even if Michigan was off the board and not as competitive heading down the stretch, then that does give incentive to the favored candidate to spend some time/money there in an effort to get as close to a winner-take-all allocation as possible (if the overall national electoral college vote distribution is somewhat close). Think about a state like North Carolina in 2008. The Obama campaign put resources into the state late and the McCain campaign was unable to match it. Those 15 electoral votes were superfluous to what Obama needed to get over the 270 electoral vote barrier.
There may be conditions under which this 1.5% bonus motivates increased activity, but it is likely to only do so when a race is close either nationally or in the state. [The candidates would already be there if the state is close.]
--
There is another dimension to this that has been neglected to this point, lost in all the rigging talk. It is important to look at how this plan would work historically to get a real sense as to how it would play out in reality. Let's give it a glance:
2012 (Michigan -- 16 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Obama: 54.04%
Romney: 44.58%
Electoral votes:
Obama: 11
Romney: 5
2008 (Michigan -- 17 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Obama: 57.33%
McCain: 40.89%
Electoral votes:
Obama: 13
McCain: 4
2004 (Michigan -- 17 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Kerry: 51.23%
Bush: 47.81%
Electoral votes:
Kerry: 9
Bush: 8
2000 (Michigan -- 18 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Gore: 51.28%
Bush: 46.14%
Electoral votes:
Gore: 10
Bush: 8
1996 (Michigan -- 18 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Clinton: 51.69%
Dole: 38.48%
Electoral votes:
Clinton: 11
Dole: 7
1992 (Michigan -- 18 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Clinton: 43.77%
Bush: 36.38%
Electoral votes:
Clinton: 10
Bush: 8
1988 (Michigan -- 20 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Bush: 53.57%
Dukakis: 45.67%
Electoral votes:
Bush: 13
Dukakis: 7
1984 (Michigan -- 20 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Reagan: 59.23%
Mondale: 40.24%
Electoral votes:
Reagan: 17
Mondale: 3
1980 (Michigan -- 21 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Reagan: 48.99%
Carter: 42.50%
Electoral votes:
Reagan: 11
Carter: 10
1976 (Michigan -- 21 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Ford: 51.83%
Carter: 46.44%
Electoral votes:
Ford: 12
Carter: 9
1972 (Michigan -- 21 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Nixon: 56.20%
McGovern: 41.81%
Electoral votes:
Nixon: 15
McGovern: 6
1968 (Michigan -- 21 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Humphrey: 48.18%
Nixon: 41.46%
Electoral votes:
Humphrey: 11
Nixon: 10
NOTES:
1) It probably goes without saying that if this newly proposed plan had been instituted in Michigan in the past, it would not have changed the overall outcome of the electoral college. The closest instances would have been in 2000 and 2004. In both cases, George W. Bush would have gained a handful of electoral votes to add to an already winning total. And to repeat, this plan eliminates the potential for popular losers within the state of Michigan. That also obviously didn't happen in any of these elections.
2) There are just three cases where the winning candidate cleared the 55% threshold and was able to take advantage of the bonuses in any meaningful way. That is a quarter of these 12 total elections. In the other 75% of the cases, Michigan's electoral vote power would have been reduced to something between Iowa (6 electoral votes now) and something less than Delaware/Wyoming. That really offers no guaranteed pull to candidates despite the claims of those sponsoring the legislation in Michigan.
3) Even semi-successful third party candidates really mess this up for the top vote-getter. That increases the likelihood that no candidate clears the 50% barrier and thus a near-even distribution of the electoral votes. [The 1.5% bonus is never triggered.] Humphrey won Michigan by 7.5%, gets within a stone's throw of 50% and splits the electoral votes 11-10 with Nixon (see also 1980). 1996 offers another interesting tale. Clinton barely clears 50%, gets one bonus electoral vote, but splits the total 11-7 with Dole, who received less than 40% of the vote.
Aside from eliminating the potential for a popular loser outcome -- relative to the districted plan -- this new electoral vote allocation proposal does not clearly do what its proponents argue it would: make Michigan relevant during the general election. That does not seem to be the case here. It would only have reduced Michigan's electoral vote power.
What it does do is provide us with a fun counterfactual exercise with some interesting outcomes. And that's about it.
Recent Posts:
Kentucky Republicans Eye 2016 Caucuses OR How Kentucky Republicans Already Have Caucuses
"SEC Presidential Primary" Back on the Radar for 2016
2014 Senate Forecast
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The story is the same as it was two years ago when red-blue states, that is to say, Republican-controlled state governments in states that have voted reliably Democratic at the presidential level, considered altering the way in which they were allocating electoral votes. FHQ touched on this two years ago, and I thought Jonathan Bernstein nicely updated his comments from the same period at Bloomberg View.
It still strikes me as interesting that states would consider this. First of all, it creates on the state level the potential for there to be a popular loser: someone who could win fewer votes yet still win a majority of the electoral votes from a state. That argument at the national level is one of the most frequent criticisms of the electoral college system itself. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, a districted plan -- where states allocate electoral votes by congressional district -- tends to dilute the power of the states. Had a districted plan been in place in Michigan in 2012 both of those issues would have been at play. Mitt Romney would have won a 9-7 majority of the Great Lakes state's 16 electoral votes despite Barack Obama winning more votes statewide. That would have, in turn, greatly reduced the power of Michigan in the electoral college. A two electoral vote margin that is largely baked into those districts would attract the candidates to the state a lot less than the promise of a 16 electoral vote cushion/win.
To FHQ, the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes is a lot like the filibuster: You don't want to give up on it now because you might need it/benefit from it in the future.
But the new proposal in Michigan -- HB 5974, sponsored by Representative Pete Lund (R-36th, Macomb) -- is not the districted plan as it was two years ago. It is different in that it has built-in incentives addressing the above criticisms of that plan. Regardless of whether the new legislation passes in the current lame duck session of the Michigan legislature, it is an interesting tweak to some of the plans that have been deemed electoral college "rigging". This plan has some interesting implications that are worth exploring.
...or if not worth exploring, then fun to look at.
Here are the particulars:
1) The statewide winner in the vote count received half of the electors plus one. When Michigan has an even number of electoral votes as it does now (16), that means 9 electoral votes (8+1). If Michigan has an odd number of electoral votes -- as it did during the 2000s (17) -- that half (8.5) is rounded down to the nearest whole number and then the one additional electoral vote is added. That rounding is a small bonus to the second place vote-getter. But...
2) The top finisher in the statewide count receives an additional electoral vote for each increment of 1.5% the statewide winner gets above 50%. There is a nice breakdown of this over at the Bridge. Basically, if the winning candidate receives 61.5% of the statewide vote, that candidate receives all 16 electoral votes.
The first point always avoids the popular loser complaint, unlike the districted plan. The statewide winner would receive a majority of the electoral votes, but only narrowly if the vote is close. In other words, the electoral vote allocation is more proportional than districted.
The incentives the candidates and their campaigns face in dealing with this particular plan is distinct from the districted plan as well. The redistricting process, as hinted at above, bakes in the results of the electoral vote in a way that would dissuade candidates from coming to the state to fight for electoral votes. Campaigns would only expend resources to get an electoral vote or two if a near-tie in the electoral college was a near-certainty.
The newly proposed plan in Michigan circumvents that issue to some degree. Candidates would be motivated under a plan that awards "bonus" electoral votes to either try and run up the score (statewide vote percentage) in Michigan, or barring that, try to at least maintain resource expenditure parity with the other candidate. FHQ does not want to overstate this effect though. If anything, the added electoral vote for each 1.5% increment of the statewide vote over 50% adds another strategic element to the puzzle. But even if Michigan was off the board and not as competitive heading down the stretch, then that does give incentive to the favored candidate to spend some time/money there in an effort to get as close to a winner-take-all allocation as possible (if the overall national electoral college vote distribution is somewhat close). Think about a state like North Carolina in 2008. The Obama campaign put resources into the state late and the McCain campaign was unable to match it. Those 15 electoral votes were superfluous to what Obama needed to get over the 270 electoral vote barrier.
There may be conditions under which this 1.5% bonus motivates increased activity, but it is likely to only do so when a race is close either nationally or in the state. [The candidates would already be there if the state is close.]
--
There is another dimension to this that has been neglected to this point, lost in all the rigging talk. It is important to look at how this plan would work historically to get a real sense as to how it would play out in reality. Let's give it a glance:
2012 (Michigan -- 16 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Obama: 54.04%
Romney: 44.58%
Electoral votes:
Obama: 11
Romney: 5
2008 (Michigan -- 17 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Obama: 57.33%
McCain: 40.89%
Electoral votes:
Obama: 13
McCain: 4
2004 (Michigan -- 17 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Kerry: 51.23%
Bush: 47.81%
Electoral votes:
Kerry: 9
Bush: 8
2000 (Michigan -- 18 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Gore: 51.28%
Bush: 46.14%
Electoral votes:
Gore: 10
Bush: 8
1996 (Michigan -- 18 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Clinton: 51.69%
Dole: 38.48%
Electoral votes:
Clinton: 11
Dole: 7
1992 (Michigan -- 18 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Clinton: 43.77%
Bush: 36.38%
Electoral votes:
Clinton: 10
Bush: 8
1988 (Michigan -- 20 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Bush: 53.57%
Dukakis: 45.67%
Electoral votes:
Bush: 13
Dukakis: 7
1984 (Michigan -- 20 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Reagan: 59.23%
Mondale: 40.24%
Electoral votes:
Reagan: 17
Mondale: 3
1980 (Michigan -- 21 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Reagan: 48.99%
Carter: 42.50%
Electoral votes:
Reagan: 11
Carter: 10
1976 (Michigan -- 21 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Ford: 51.83%
Carter: 46.44%
Electoral votes:
Ford: 12
Carter: 9
1972 (Michigan -- 21 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Nixon: 56.20%
McGovern: 41.81%
Electoral votes:
Nixon: 15
McGovern: 6
1968 (Michigan -- 21 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Humphrey: 48.18%
Nixon: 41.46%
Electoral votes:
Humphrey: 11
Nixon: 10
NOTES:
1) It probably goes without saying that if this newly proposed plan had been instituted in Michigan in the past, it would not have changed the overall outcome of the electoral college. The closest instances would have been in 2000 and 2004. In both cases, George W. Bush would have gained a handful of electoral votes to add to an already winning total. And to repeat, this plan eliminates the potential for popular losers within the state of Michigan. That also obviously didn't happen in any of these elections.
2) There are just three cases where the winning candidate cleared the 55% threshold and was able to take advantage of the bonuses in any meaningful way. That is a quarter of these 12 total elections. In the other 75% of the cases, Michigan's electoral vote power would have been reduced to something between Iowa (6 electoral votes now) and something less than Delaware/Wyoming. That really offers no guaranteed pull to candidates despite the claims of those sponsoring the legislation in Michigan.
3) Even semi-successful third party candidates really mess this up for the top vote-getter. That increases the likelihood that no candidate clears the 50% barrier and thus a near-even distribution of the electoral votes. [The 1.5% bonus is never triggered.] Humphrey won Michigan by 7.5%, gets within a stone's throw of 50% and splits the electoral votes 11-10 with Nixon (see also 1980). 1996 offers another interesting tale. Clinton barely clears 50%, gets one bonus electoral vote, but splits the total 11-7 with Dole, who received less than 40% of the vote.
Aside from eliminating the potential for a popular loser outcome -- relative to the districted plan -- this new electoral vote allocation proposal does not clearly do what its proponents argue it would: make Michigan relevant during the general election. That does not seem to be the case here. It would only have reduced Michigan's electoral vote power.
What it does do is provide us with a fun counterfactual exercise with some interesting outcomes. And that's about it.
Recent Posts:
Kentucky Republicans Eye 2016 Caucuses OR How Kentucky Republicans Already Have Caucuses
"SEC Presidential Primary" Back on the Radar for 2016
2014 Senate Forecast
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Monday, August 25, 2014
So, It Turns Out Arizona Has Actually Moved Its Presidential Primary Back on the Calendar
FHQ is still trying to figure out how and/or why,1 but Arizona's presidential primary calendar move slipped under our radar back in March and April when the change happened.
Here's the timeline of the move:
Implications:
--
1 Every state has a different name it seems for its presidential primary. Some call it presidential primary in the existing statute while others call it a presidential preference primary or a presidential preferential primary. Arizona is unique in calling their contest for allocating national convention delegates to presidential candidates a "presidential preference election". It seems like a minor point, but these subtle differences can make it difficult sometimes to track the comings and goings of primary calendar movement. This is one of those times.
...unfortunately.
H/T: Emily Schultheis for bringing this to my attention.
Recent Posts:
DNC Set to Finalize 2016 Rules at Atlanta Meeting
South Carolina Bill to Streamline Presidential Primary Funding Becomes Law
Jindal Signature Nudges Louisiana Presidential Primary Up Two Weeks
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Here's the timeline of the move:
- John Cavanaugh (R-23rd, Fountain Hills) introduced legislation in the state House charging the Arizona secretary of state with creating an online system for signing nomination petitions among other things. The bill was introduced in late January about two weeks into the 2014 state legislative session.
- Other than an section ordering issue within the bill, the legislation was not amended in any way in the House. It passed unanimously almost a month after its introduction on February 24.
- The bill was transmitted to the state Senate one day later.
- About a week later on March 4, the relevant amendment was added and unanimously agreed to by the Senate Committee on Elections with a "do pass as amended" distinction:
- 16-241. Presidential preference election; conduct of election: A. A presidential preference election shall be held on the fourth Tuesday in February IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING MARCH 15 of each year in which the President of the United States is elected to give qualified electors the opportunity to express their preference for the presidential candidate of the political party indicated as their preference by the record of their registration. No other election may appear on the same ballot as the presidential preference election.
- The Senate Rules Committee concurred on March 10, clearing the path for the bill to be considered on the Senate floor.
- The Senate Committee of the Whole passed the bill -- do pass as amended -- on April 8.
- That procedural vote cleared the way for the Senate to finally pass the bill -- with just two dissenting votes -- a day later on April 9.
- Governor Jan Brewer (R) signed the bill into law a week later on April 16, moving the Arizona presidential primary back.
Implications:
- Importantly, the shift brings Arizona back into compliance with the national party delegate selection rules. Any contest on or after March 1 means a state avoids sanction in 2016. Arizona was docked half its delegation in 2012 by the Republican National Committee for holding a delegate selection event prior to the first Tuesday in March.
- To drive the point home, it is worth noting that Arizona was among the limited number of rogue states that disrupted the Republican calendar in 2012. It won't be from the looks of it in 2016.
- Also, it should be said that the chairman of the RNC Rules Committee is Arizona Republican National Committeeman, Bruce Ash. That may say something about the specificity of the bill. The language in the changes to the Arizona statute go to some length in protecting the traditional Arizona delegate selection process. March 15 is the earliest date on which a state can hold a delegate selection event and allocate delegates in a winner-take-all fashion according to the amended Rules of the Republican Party. The move allows Arizona to continue allocating delegates winner-take-all.
- It is not clear to FHQ what the intended date -- based on the legislation -- of the 2016 Arizona presidential primary originally was/is to be. The statute now places the contest on the Tuesday "immediately following March 15" -- moving it from the last Tuesday in February. That is language that is less problematic in years in which March 15 is not on a Tuesday as it is in 2016. The new statute seems to indicate that the primary will be in March 22, 2016. My point is that the language eliminates March 15 as a date on which the primary can occur when a March 15 date would be compliant with the RNC restrictions on winner-take-all allocation.
- The one factor that may have motivated a March 22 date over a March date for the primary is that the former is a date currently unoccupied on the 2016 calendar. The latter, on the other hand, already has a subregional Missouri/Illinois primary scheduled and may be a landing place for a number of states wanting early dates but also winner-take-all allocation. Of course, March 22 may prove inviting to other states as well.
- Finally, the new law also alters the power given the Arizona governor to change the date of the presidential primary. In both 2004 and 2008, then Arizona governor, Janet Napolitano (D) used her proclamation power to move the presidential primary from the fourth Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in February; then compliant with national party rules governing delegate selection. In 2012, Governor Jan Brewer (R) threatened to shift the date up -- in further defiance of the national party rules -- but used that threat as leverage to get the RNC to sanction a presidential primary debate in Arizona. Governor Brewer eventually opted not to issue a proclamation, keeping the Arizona primary on the last Tuesday in February but still noncompliant with the national parties' rules. The new law strips out the governor's ability to move the contest to an earlier date. However, the governor retains the power to move the primary to a later date than the one specified (and discussed) above.
--
1 Every state has a different name it seems for its presidential primary. Some call it presidential primary in the existing statute while others call it a presidential preference primary or a presidential preferential primary. Arizona is unique in calling their contest for allocating national convention delegates to presidential candidates a "presidential preference election". It seems like a minor point, but these subtle differences can make it difficult sometimes to track the comings and goings of primary calendar movement. This is one of those times.
...unfortunately.
H/T: Emily Schultheis for bringing this to my attention.
Recent Posts:
DNC Set to Finalize 2016 Rules at Atlanta Meeting
South Carolina Bill to Streamline Presidential Primary Funding Becomes Law
Jindal Signature Nudges Louisiana Presidential Primary Up Two Weeks
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
South Carolina Bill to Streamline Presidential Primary Funding Becomes Law
Back in March the South Carolina state House took up, considered and passed HB 4732. The legislation sought to clarify the method under which the Palmetto state would fund its quadrennial presidential preference primary.
As FHQ has detailed previously, South Carolina -- up to the 2008 cycle -- had left the funding of the presidential primaries of the two major parties up to the respective state parties. The dates, delegate allocation rules and funding were all the domain of the state parties before 2008. In the lead up to that election cycle, however, the South Carolina legislature shifted the funding burden to the state government while leaving the other roles to the state parties. The 2007 change to the law allowed the South Carolina State Election Commission the ability to set the filing fee while granting the parties the power to issue an additional certification fee.
But there were problems with that change. The most direct problem was that there was a reference to the 2008 election in the law. That meant that the alteration technically had a sunset provision that was not fixed prior to the 2012 presidential election cycle. More indirectly, there was in 2011-12 some question as to the process by which funds would be disbursed to the counties for implementation. In question was whether the State Election Commission divvied those funds out to the counties ahead of the election or reimbursed the counties after they had footed the bill for conducting the presidential preference primary election. The latter had seemingly been the method by which funds were disbursed/reimbursed, but that left the counties -- some of the larger ones -- crying foul in 2011.
The bill -- HB 4732 -- rectifying the first issue was unanimously passed by the state House in March and ultimately taken up and passed by the state Senate; also by a unanimous vote (in late May). The indirect intra-governmental dispute (state versus counties) over funding/reimbursement was essentially fixed in early 2012 when the counties' claim was denied by the South Carolina Supreme Court.1
This 2014 legislation, after garnering unanimous support in both chambers of the South Carolina General Assembly, made the June signature of Governor Nikki Haley (R) nothing more than a formality. The change took effect immediately, thus clarifying the process by which South Carolina presidential primaries are funded.
--
1 The counties' petition concerned the fact that after 2008 the funding mechanism should have reverted to the state parties. However the state supreme court countered that while the law did refer only to 2008, the state budget thereafter had made allowances for funding the presidential primary.
Recent Posts:
Jindal Signature Nudges Louisiana Presidential Primary Up Two Weeks
Missouri Presidential Primary Shifts Back to March Following Nixon Signature
Louisiana House Concurs on 2016 Presidential Primary Move to Early March
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
As FHQ has detailed previously, South Carolina -- up to the 2008 cycle -- had left the funding of the presidential primaries of the two major parties up to the respective state parties. The dates, delegate allocation rules and funding were all the domain of the state parties before 2008. In the lead up to that election cycle, however, the South Carolina legislature shifted the funding burden to the state government while leaving the other roles to the state parties. The 2007 change to the law allowed the South Carolina State Election Commission the ability to set the filing fee while granting the parties the power to issue an additional certification fee.
But there were problems with that change. The most direct problem was that there was a reference to the 2008 election in the law. That meant that the alteration technically had a sunset provision that was not fixed prior to the 2012 presidential election cycle. More indirectly, there was in 2011-12 some question as to the process by which funds would be disbursed to the counties for implementation. In question was whether the State Election Commission divvied those funds out to the counties ahead of the election or reimbursed the counties after they had footed the bill for conducting the presidential preference primary election. The latter had seemingly been the method by which funds were disbursed/reimbursed, but that left the counties -- some of the larger ones -- crying foul in 2011.
The bill -- HB 4732 -- rectifying the first issue was unanimously passed by the state House in March and ultimately taken up and passed by the state Senate; also by a unanimous vote (in late May). The indirect intra-governmental dispute (state versus counties) over funding/reimbursement was essentially fixed in early 2012 when the counties' claim was denied by the South Carolina Supreme Court.1
This 2014 legislation, after garnering unanimous support in both chambers of the South Carolina General Assembly, made the June signature of Governor Nikki Haley (R) nothing more than a formality. The change took effect immediately, thus clarifying the process by which South Carolina presidential primaries are funded.
--
1 The counties' petition concerned the fact that after 2008 the funding mechanism should have reverted to the state parties. However the state supreme court countered that while the law did refer only to 2008, the state budget thereafter had made allowances for funding the presidential primary.
Recent Posts:
Jindal Signature Nudges Louisiana Presidential Primary Up Two Weeks
Missouri Presidential Primary Shifts Back to March Following Nixon Signature
Louisiana House Concurs on 2016 Presidential Primary Move to Early March
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Monday, July 7, 2014
Jindal Signature Nudges Louisiana Presidential Primary Up Two Weeks
FHQ is late to this, but...
On Thursday, June 19, Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) signed HB 431 into law. Originally, the bill was intended to address campaign finance issues, but had an amendment added to it on the Senate side pushing the presidential primary up two weeks. The House later concurred with the change, sending the bill to the governor's desk.
Jindal's action now moves the Louisiana presidential primary from the third Saturday after the first Tuesday in March to the first Saturday in March. That will position the presidential primary in the Pelican state on March 5 for the 2016 presidential nomination cycle; just a few days after what is likely to be Super Tuesday on March 1.
--
Find an updated 2016 presidential primary calendar here.
Recent Posts:
Missouri Presidential Primary Shifts Back to March Following Nixon Signature
Louisiana House Concurs on 2016 Presidential Primary Move to Early March
Amended Bill Would Bump 2016 Louisiana Presidential Primary Up Two Weeks
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
On Thursday, June 19, Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) signed HB 431 into law. Originally, the bill was intended to address campaign finance issues, but had an amendment added to it on the Senate side pushing the presidential primary up two weeks. The House later concurred with the change, sending the bill to the governor's desk.
Jindal's action now moves the Louisiana presidential primary from the third Saturday after the first Tuesday in March to the first Saturday in March. That will position the presidential primary in the Pelican state on March 5 for the 2016 presidential nomination cycle; just a few days after what is likely to be Super Tuesday on March 1.
--
Find an updated 2016 presidential primary calendar here.
Recent Posts:
Missouri Presidential Primary Shifts Back to March Following Nixon Signature
Louisiana House Concurs on 2016 Presidential Primary Move to Early March
Amended Bill Would Bump 2016 Louisiana Presidential Primary Up Two Weeks
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Missouri Presidential Primary Shifts Back to March Following Nixon Signature
On Wednesday, Governor Jay Nixon (D-MO) signed SB 892 into law. The new law moves the Show Me state presidential primary from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March. More importantly -- to a host of actors involved in the presidential nomination process both in Missouri and on the national stage -- the change means Missouri will be compliant with the national parties' delegate selection rules for the 2016 cycle.
Unlike the 2012 cycle, when the Missouri legislature could not make the change in 2011 or eliminate the beauty contest primary in the early days of the 2012 session, Missouri will not have to revert to compliant caucuses or apply for waivers to avoid sanction.
NOTES:
Recent Posts:
Louisiana House Concurs on 2016 Presidential Primary Move to Early March
Amended Bill Would Bump 2016 Louisiana Presidential Primary Up Two Weeks
RNC Creates New Rule Dealing with Presidential Primary Debates
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Unlike the 2012 cycle, when the Missouri legislature could not make the change in 2011 or eliminate the beauty contest primary in the early days of the 2012 session, Missouri will not have to revert to compliant caucuses or apply for waivers to avoid sanction.
NOTES:
- Missouri has now pulled off the rare midterm year presidential primary move for the second time. The General Assembly first moved the presidential primary to the February position during the 2002 legislative session. It now moves back to March twelve years later, during another midterm year.
- The North Carolina presidential primary -- anchored to South Carolina's -- is now the next biggest obstacle to the national parties getting the preferred primary calendar outlined in the delegate selection rules for 2016. Missouri was an earlier contest than what North Carolina's will likely be (under the North Carolina primary law), but in 2012 at least demonstrated how willing the state parties in the Show Me state were to move into compliance with the national party rules. Still, the Missouri move is a win for the state parties hoping to send a full delegation to the conventions, the national parties hoping for limited queue jumping on the calendar and Missouri voters.
- Missouri becomes the third state to move on the 2016 presidential primary calendar this cycle, joining Florida and North Carolina. Both Florida and Missouri pulled back from more provocative calendar positions while North Carolina last year moved into one.
- This bill passed the state House on May 5, but was not transmitted to the governor until last Friday, May 30. There was a quick turnaround on the signature once the legislation made it to Governor Nixon's desk.
Recent Posts:
Louisiana House Concurs on 2016 Presidential Primary Move to Early March
Amended Bill Would Bump 2016 Louisiana Presidential Primary Up Two Weeks
RNC Creates New Rule Dealing with Presidential Primary Debates
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Sunday, June 1, 2014
Louisiana House Concurs on 2016 Presidential Primary Move to Early March
The Louisiana state House today unanimously concurred (96-0) with Senate amendments added to a campaign finance bill. The Senate changes would shift the Pelican state presidential primary in 2016 up two weeks to March 5. The language would move the primary from the first Saturday after the third Monday in March to the first Saturday in March.
House bill author, Tim Burns (R-89th), had no objections to the Senate changes in his brief comments describing said changes on the chamber floor. The measure now heads to Governor Bobby Jindal (R) for his consideration. The move is noncontroversial as it is within the delegate selection rules of both national parties and would move the Louisiana primary up and into a window in which a number of other southern states are currently set to hold contests in 2016.
Recent Posts:
RNC Creates New Rule Dealing with Presidential Primary Debates
Missouri Poised to Move Presidential Primary Back into Compliance with National Party Rules
Dems Do Little to Alter 2016 Delegate Selection Rules
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
House bill author, Tim Burns (R-89th), had no objections to the Senate changes in his brief comments describing said changes on the chamber floor. The measure now heads to Governor Bobby Jindal (R) for his consideration. The move is noncontroversial as it is within the delegate selection rules of both national parties and would move the Louisiana primary up and into a window in which a number of other southern states are currently set to hold contests in 2016.
Recent Posts:
RNC Creates New Rule Dealing with Presidential Primary Debates
Missouri Poised to Move Presidential Primary Back into Compliance with National Party Rules
Dems Do Little to Alter 2016 Delegate Selection Rules
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Amended Bill Would Bump 2016 Louisiana Presidential Primary Up Two Weeks
The Louisiana Senate added an amendment yesterday to a state House bill on campaign finance that would move the presidential primary in the Pelican state. The floor amendment was inserted into HB 431, among other changes, all of which were subsequently unanimously passed by the state Senate (38-0). The regular session of the Louisiana legislature is due to adjourn on Monday, June 2. This change, then, was a late addition. The bill now heads back to the state House where concurrence with the state Senate changes will be considered when the chamber convenes on Sunday afternoon.
The change to the presidential primary date for 2016 and beyond is rather minor. It would shift the Louisiana presidential primary up to the first Saturday of March; the Saturday following what is likely to be Super Tuesday on Tuesday, March 1. That would move the Pelican state primary up two weeks from its position on the the third Saturday after the first Tuesday in March. More simply, this would move the primary from March 19 to March 5.
There are more potential calendar changes to come in 2015, but if Louisiana were to move to March 5, that would place the primary in an eight day period with a decidedly southern flavor. Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee and Virginia are already scheduled for March 1 -- the earliest date allowed by the national parties for non-carve-out states to conduct contests -- and Alabama and Mississippi are due to hold primaries a week later on March 8. Louisiana would fall right in the middle of that period on the calendar.
But first, the state House will have its say in the matter tomorrow.
Recent Posts:
RNC Creates New Rule Dealing with Presidential Primary Debates
Missouri Poised to Move Presidential Primary Back into Compliance with National Party Rules
Dems Do Little to Alter 2016 Delegate Selection Rules
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The change to the presidential primary date for 2016 and beyond is rather minor. It would shift the Louisiana presidential primary up to the first Saturday of March; the Saturday following what is likely to be Super Tuesday on Tuesday, March 1. That would move the Pelican state primary up two weeks from its position on the the third Saturday after the first Tuesday in March. More simply, this would move the primary from March 19 to March 5.
There are more potential calendar changes to come in 2015, but if Louisiana were to move to March 5, that would place the primary in an eight day period with a decidedly southern flavor. Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee and Virginia are already scheduled for March 1 -- the earliest date allowed by the national parties for non-carve-out states to conduct contests -- and Alabama and Mississippi are due to hold primaries a week later on March 8. Louisiana would fall right in the middle of that period on the calendar.
But first, the state House will have its say in the matter tomorrow.
Recent Posts:
RNC Creates New Rule Dealing with Presidential Primary Debates
Missouri Poised to Move Presidential Primary Back into Compliance with National Party Rules
Dems Do Little to Alter 2016 Delegate Selection Rules
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Missouri Poised to Move Presidential Primary Back into Compliance with National Party Rules
The Missouri House on May 5 passed SB 892 on a largely party line vote. The legislation would shift the date of the presidential primary in the Show Me state from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to the first Tuesday after the second Tuesday in March.
Monday was a busy day for SB 892. The bill first received the "Do Pass" clearance from the state House Fiscal Review Committee and subsequently passed both a procedural vote that saw no amendments added and then a final vote.1 The latter saw a near-unified Republican majority in the chamber vote in favor of the move while all but two in the House Democratic caucus voted against the measure. Just three Republicans voted down the move in a 101-47 final tally. The bill then moved back to its chamber of origin -- the state Senate -- where it was ordered enrolled.
The next stop for SB 892 is the governor's desk.
Unlike 2011, when similar legislation was passed and vetoed, this is a clean bill that only shifts the date of the presidential primary. The reason Governor Nixon vetoed the 2011 legislation was that it also included provisions that would have curbed gubernatorial power in the area of appointments to fill vacancies to statewide offices. Without that, Nixon is very likely to sign something -- moving the primary into compliance with national party rules -- that he supported in 2011. His support for moving the primary back was the reason he included it in his call for a special session that year. That special session devolved into several inter-chamber disputes one of which derailed the effort to shift the presidential primary back.
Should Governor Nixon sign SB 892, it would be a big win for the national parties. It would clear a major obstacle to the calendars for which both parties appear to be aiming.
--
1 Much of this was a formality. The House had previously passed its own version of this bill with the exact same language (HB 1902). It was virtually a given, then, that the Senate version would sail through the House. It did with no problems.
Recent Posts:
Dems Do Little to Alter 2016 Delegate Selection Rules
Missouri Senate Bill on Presidential Primary Passes Committee Stage in State House
Utah Presidential Primary in 2016, Prologue or Epilogue
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Monday was a busy day for SB 892. The bill first received the "Do Pass" clearance from the state House Fiscal Review Committee and subsequently passed both a procedural vote that saw no amendments added and then a final vote.1 The latter saw a near-unified Republican majority in the chamber vote in favor of the move while all but two in the House Democratic caucus voted against the measure. Just three Republicans voted down the move in a 101-47 final tally. The bill then moved back to its chamber of origin -- the state Senate -- where it was ordered enrolled.
The next stop for SB 892 is the governor's desk.
Unlike 2011, when similar legislation was passed and vetoed, this is a clean bill that only shifts the date of the presidential primary. The reason Governor Nixon vetoed the 2011 legislation was that it also included provisions that would have curbed gubernatorial power in the area of appointments to fill vacancies to statewide offices. Without that, Nixon is very likely to sign something -- moving the primary into compliance with national party rules -- that he supported in 2011. His support for moving the primary back was the reason he included it in his call for a special session that year. That special session devolved into several inter-chamber disputes one of which derailed the effort to shift the presidential primary back.
Should Governor Nixon sign SB 892, it would be a big win for the national parties. It would clear a major obstacle to the calendars for which both parties appear to be aiming.
--
1 Much of this was a formality. The House had previously passed its own version of this bill with the exact same language (HB 1902). It was virtually a given, then, that the Senate version would sail through the House. It did with no problems.
Recent Posts:
Dems Do Little to Alter 2016 Delegate Selection Rules
Missouri Senate Bill on Presidential Primary Passes Committee Stage in State House
Utah Presidential Primary in 2016, Prologue or Epilogue
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Missouri Senate Bill on Presidential Primary Passes Committee Stage in State House
The Missouri Senate bill that would move the Show Me state presidential primary from February to March has gotten the thumbs up from both the House Committee on Elections and the House Rules Committee.
A bill with the exact same language has already passed the House and is currently being considered in the state Senate. SB 892 passed the Senate with only a handful of dissenting votes earlier this month. This clears the way for the bill to be considered on the floor of the state House, first through an amendment process and through a final vote.
The legislation would shift Missouri back into compliance with the national party rules on delegate selection. This follows a cycle when Missouri Republicans had to allocate delegates via a later [March] caucus/convention process while the February -- state-funded -- primary was a mere beauty contest. Missouri Democrats received a waiver from the DNC to continue with (an uncompetitive) presidential primary on the February date.
The Missouri General Assembly will be in session until May 16.
Recent Posts:
Utah Presidential Primary in 2016, Prologue or Epilogue
Missouri Senate Passes Bill Moving Presidential Primary to March
Nebraska Bill on Binding Delegates Based on Primary or Caucus Results Signed into Law
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
A bill with the exact same language has already passed the House and is currently being considered in the state Senate. SB 892 passed the Senate with only a handful of dissenting votes earlier this month. This clears the way for the bill to be considered on the floor of the state House, first through an amendment process and through a final vote.
The legislation would shift Missouri back into compliance with the national party rules on delegate selection. This follows a cycle when Missouri Republicans had to allocate delegates via a later [March] caucus/convention process while the February -- state-funded -- primary was a mere beauty contest. Missouri Democrats received a waiver from the DNC to continue with (an uncompetitive) presidential primary on the February date.
The Missouri General Assembly will be in session until May 16.
Recent Posts:
Utah Presidential Primary in 2016, Prologue or Epilogue
Missouri Senate Passes Bill Moving Presidential Primary to March
Nebraska Bill on Binding Delegates Based on Primary or Caucus Results Signed into Law
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Missouri Senate Passes Bill Moving Presidential Primary to March
Earlier, the Missouri Senate voted 25-7 to pass SB 892. This is the bill that would shift the Show Me state presidential primary from February to March and into compliance with national party delegate selection rules.1
The Senate bill now moves to the House where an identical bill has already been passed. Each chamber is dealing with the other's (exact same) version of the legislation. Having already passed, each should move smoothly through the respective chambers.
--
Additional background:
The description of the bill on the Senate floor for a procedural vote on April 9 by its sponsor, Senator Will Kraus (R-8th) describes the reasoning behind the proposed March position on the calendar. A June date was considered but rejected as too late.2 And the original April proposal faced opposition from elections administrators because of logistical issues (e.g.: combining partisan and non-partisan races on one ballot, requiring two different machines). Not mentioned was the fact that this particular date in March will preserve the winner-take-all delegate allocation method Missouri Republicans have traditionally used. New RNC rules prohibit winner-take-all allocation of delegates before that point on the calendar.
--
UPDATE:
The 25-7 vote split largely on party lines. Seven of the nine Democrats in the Senate opposed the measure. The majority Republicans were unified in support of moving the primary from February to March.
--
1 The specific move is from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to the first Tuesday after the second Monday in March. That would be a move from February 6 to March 15 for the 2016 cycle.
2 Presumably a June presidential primary would have been consolidated with primaries for state and local office as well. Separate legislation is seeking to shift the current August primary for state and local offices up to June.
Recent Posts:
Nebraska Bill on Binding Delegates Based on Primary or Caucus Results Signed into Law
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The Senate bill now moves to the House where an identical bill has already been passed. Each chamber is dealing with the other's (exact same) version of the legislation. Having already passed, each should move smoothly through the respective chambers.
--
Additional background:
The description of the bill on the Senate floor for a procedural vote on April 9 by its sponsor, Senator Will Kraus (R-8th) describes the reasoning behind the proposed March position on the calendar. A June date was considered but rejected as too late.2 And the original April proposal faced opposition from elections administrators because of logistical issues (e.g.: combining partisan and non-partisan races on one ballot, requiring two different machines). Not mentioned was the fact that this particular date in March will preserve the winner-take-all delegate allocation method Missouri Republicans have traditionally used. New RNC rules prohibit winner-take-all allocation of delegates before that point on the calendar.
--
UPDATE:
The 25-7 vote split largely on party lines. Seven of the nine Democrats in the Senate opposed the measure. The majority Republicans were unified in support of moving the primary from February to March.
--
1 The specific move is from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to the first Tuesday after the second Monday in March. That would be a move from February 6 to March 15 for the 2016 cycle.
2 Presumably a June presidential primary would have been consolidated with primaries for state and local office as well. Separate legislation is seeking to shift the current August primary for state and local offices up to June.
Recent Posts:
Nebraska Bill on Binding Delegates Based on Primary or Caucus Results Signed into Law
Nebraska Bill on Binding Delegates Based on Primary or Caucus Results Signed into Law
When FHQ discussed Nebraska bill LB 1048 back in February, talk was that an amendment would be added to the legislation. That amendment would have had the effect of shifting the presidential primary in the Cornhusker state out of May and to an earlier point on the presidential primary calendar. Yet, that particular amendment never came.
However, LB 1048 unanimously passed the Nebraska Unicam late last week and was signed into law by Governor Dave Heinemann (R) on Wednesday, April 9.
From February, here's the impact of the bill for the presidential nomination process in Nebraska in 2016:
The above changes to the law will be more consequential to Republican Conrnhuskers. The primary has always been used as an advisory beauty contest and the beginning stages of the caucus process had no direct bearing on the selection of delegates. A certain number of delegates for a particular candidate did not have to be elected in a precinct based on the percentage of the vote that candidate received there. The only restrictions were 1) that potential delegates to the national convention had to file with the state and party (with a candidate preference) just after the primary and 2) only credentialed delegates to the state convention were eligible.
There was, however, no binding mechanism. Now there is. And it was consistent with the DNC delegate selection rules and with the new binding requirement that the RNC has added to its rules for 2016.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
However, LB 1048 unanimously passed the Nebraska Unicam late last week and was signed into law by Governor Dave Heinemann (R) on Wednesday, April 9.
From February, here's the impact of the bill for the presidential nomination process in Nebraska in 2016:
- State parties have to submit delegate selection plans to the Nebraska Secretary of State by December 1 in the year prior to the presidential election.
- Those plans should allocate at least 80% of the total number of delegates to candidates based on the results of a primary or caucuses.
- The plans must also specify how or if those delegates would be bound to particular candidates.
- Finally, those plans must also set a minimum threshold of 15% in the primary for a candidate to eligible for any delegates whether allocated proportionally or in a winner-take-all manner.
The above changes to the law will be more consequential to Republican Conrnhuskers. The primary has always been used as an advisory beauty contest and the beginning stages of the caucus process had no direct bearing on the selection of delegates. A certain number of delegates for a particular candidate did not have to be elected in a precinct based on the percentage of the vote that candidate received there. The only restrictions were 1) that potential delegates to the national convention had to file with the state and party (with a candidate preference) just after the primary and 2) only credentialed delegates to the state convention were eligible.
There was, however, no binding mechanism. Now there is. And it was consistent with the DNC delegate selection rules and with the new binding requirement that the RNC has added to its rules for 2016.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Missouri Presidential Primary Bill Clears Procedural Hurdle in Senate
The Missouri state Senate voted on April 8 to finalize -- perfect -- its version of a bill to move the Show Me state presidential primary from February to March. The bill that is identical to a previously passed House bill will now be considered one final time on the floor of the Senate before a recorded vote on passage.
The House version is currently being considered in the state Senate. Both bills would shift the Missouri presidential primary into March and into compliance with the RNC rules (and likely DNC rules) on delegate selection for the 2016 cycle.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The House version is currently being considered in the state Senate. Both bills would shift the Missouri presidential primary into March and into compliance with the RNC rules (and likely DNC rules) on delegate selection for the 2016 cycle.
Friday, March 28, 2014
A Step Closer to a March Presidential Primary in Missouri
The Missouri state Senate Financial and Governmental Organizations and Elections Committee on March 26 gave the green light to a substitute version of a bill that would shift the Show Me state presidential primary out of February, into compliance with national party rules. More importantly, the timing discrepancy that existed between the House version of the bill (HB1902) and the Senate version (SB 892) was reconciled by the committee amendments to the Senate bill.
Now, both the Senate and House bills call for moving the primary from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to the first Tuesday after the second Tuesday in March. That would place the Missouri presidential primary on March 15, 2016. The move would not only bring the state back into compliance with the timing rules put in place by both national parties, but would also allow Missouri Republicans to protect their traditional winner-take-all allocation of delegates. March 15 is the first date in 2016 on which Republican state parties can allocate delegates in a winner-take-all fashion according to the RNC delegate selection rules.
The Senate bill now heads to the floor for consideration next week while the House version (...has passed the House and...) has been referred to and will be considered by the same Senate committee that just granted the exact same language -- in the Senate version -- a "Do Pass" designation.
While this is a positive move in terms of moving the primary into compliance with the national party rules, it should be noted that legislation has reached this stage before and failed in the Missouri General Assembly. Floor debates and inter-chamber divides have derailed similar legislation several times since 2011.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Now, both the Senate and House bills call for moving the primary from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to the first Tuesday after the second Tuesday in March. That would place the Missouri presidential primary on March 15, 2016. The move would not only bring the state back into compliance with the timing rules put in place by both national parties, but would also allow Missouri Republicans to protect their traditional winner-take-all allocation of delegates. March 15 is the first date in 2016 on which Republican state parties can allocate delegates in a winner-take-all fashion according to the RNC delegate selection rules.
The Senate bill now heads to the floor for consideration next week while the House version (...has passed the House and...) has been referred to and will be considered by the same Senate committee that just granted the exact same language -- in the Senate version -- a "Do Pass" designation.
While this is a positive move in terms of moving the primary into compliance with the national party rules, it should be noted that legislation has reached this stage before and failed in the Missouri General Assembly. Floor debates and inter-chamber divides have derailed similar legislation several times since 2011.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Bill to Clarify Funding of South Carolina Presidential Primary Passes State House
The South Carolina state House on March 26 unanimously passed HB 4732. The record will show that the legislation does little more than remove references to the 2008 presidential election cycle in the current statute, but the story is slightly more complicated than that.
It was for that cycle -- 2008 -- that South Carolina opted to change its to-that-point traditional practice of state parties directly funding their own delegate selection events and settling the rules (including the scheduling of the primary itself) for conducting the contests. The rules-making function remained with the state parties, but legislation ahead of the 2008 nomination process shifted the funding from the state parties to the South Carolina State Elections Commission (and the counties).1 When 2012 rolled around, the clause in the statute pertaining to the funding of the presidential primary -- specifically the 2008 and only the 2008 primary -- left questions about which governmental entity would fund the election. A disconnect developed between the State Elections Commission and the counties.
This 2014 legislation seeks to clarify that issue. Technically, the state parties collect the filing fees from the candidates and transmit the funds to the State Elections Commission to conduct the election. Any surplus (filing fees minus election expenditure) stays with the state to be used for similar purposes in future elections.
This bill still has to be considered and passed by the South Carolina state Senate and signed by the governor. There seems to be broad support, however. In any event, this discrepancy did not affect South Carolina's ability to conduct the first in the South primary in 2012 and would not in 2016 even if this legislation dies at some point in the legislative process.
--
1 Though state parties have the final say on (the conditions for) how they will select delegates to the national convention, when the funding mechanism moves from the state parties to the state government, the state government typically takes on the date-setting function as well. State parties can opt out of that set up and fund their own separate primary or caucuses, but few give up what amounts to "free money". South Carolina is an exception to that rule. When the funding crossed over to state governmental hands, the date-setting role stayed with the parties. That was a very obvious nod to the position the Palmetto state plays in the presidential nomination process; preserving its first in the South status.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
It was for that cycle -- 2008 -- that South Carolina opted to change its to-that-point traditional practice of state parties directly funding their own delegate selection events and settling the rules (including the scheduling of the primary itself) for conducting the contests. The rules-making function remained with the state parties, but legislation ahead of the 2008 nomination process shifted the funding from the state parties to the South Carolina State Elections Commission (and the counties).1 When 2012 rolled around, the clause in the statute pertaining to the funding of the presidential primary -- specifically the 2008 and only the 2008 primary -- left questions about which governmental entity would fund the election. A disconnect developed between the State Elections Commission and the counties.
This 2014 legislation seeks to clarify that issue. Technically, the state parties collect the filing fees from the candidates and transmit the funds to the State Elections Commission to conduct the election. Any surplus (filing fees minus election expenditure) stays with the state to be used for similar purposes in future elections.
This bill still has to be considered and passed by the South Carolina state Senate and signed by the governor. There seems to be broad support, however. In any event, this discrepancy did not affect South Carolina's ability to conduct the first in the South primary in 2012 and would not in 2016 even if this legislation dies at some point in the legislative process.
--
1 Though state parties have the final say on (the conditions for) how they will select delegates to the national convention, when the funding mechanism moves from the state parties to the state government, the state government typically takes on the date-setting function as well. State parties can opt out of that set up and fund their own separate primary or caucuses, but few give up what amounts to "free money". South Carolina is an exception to that rule. When the funding crossed over to state governmental hands, the date-setting role stayed with the parties. That was a very obvious nod to the position the Palmetto state plays in the presidential nomination process; preserving its first in the South status.
Friday, March 14, 2014
Utah's Stake on the First in the Nation Presidential Primary a Casualty on Final Legislative Day
Memories will fade [quickly] and all that most will remember is that the efforts in Utah these past few weeks to challenge New Hampshire and Iowa at the head of the presidential primary calendar died on the last day of the 2014 legislative session. The record, however, indicates a richer story.
Again, as FHQ described earlier, the idea in Utah was novel. The state would not only have granted the lieutenant governor the authority to set the date of the primary -- assuming legislative funding -- but it would have required them to set the primary before Iowa, New Hampshire or any other state. The first part isn't unique. New Hampshire's secretary of state has had that ability since 1976, the Georgia General Assembly granted similar power to its secretary of state in 2011 and Arizona gives the governor the ability to set the primary for a date earlier than called for by state law. The intent in each is to empower an individual with the task rather than a partisan body susceptible to gridlock, and thus, slow to react. Only New Hampshire state law requires that individual -- the secretary of state -- with ensuring that the contest is first in the nation. But the Utah bill mimicked that provision, requiring also that the lieutenant governor set the presidential primary in the Beehive state first on the calendar.
The Utah bill, then, addressed the pace of response problem that most states face (and New Hampshire does not). Additionally however, the legislation also struck at the other advantage New Hampshire has in the process: the pace of implementation. The rationale of the secretary of state office in the Granite state -- or part of it anyway -- has always been that other states may challenge or vie for first in the nation status, but we can wait them out with an ability to deploy the election administrative troops in a shorter period of time than anyone else.
Utah's innovation? By shifting the voting online, there would be no concern about New Hampshire waiting the state out. Utah could logistically respond/adapt accordingly and quickly.1
That vision passed the Utah House on Monday and was expedited along with a raft of other legislation in the state Senate on Wednesday. But the Thursday final session day did not see the bill that would threaten the carve-out states, not to mention defy the national party rules, simply die as the clock ran out.
No, instead, the Senate floor sponsor, Senator Curtis Bramble (R-16th, Utah, Wasatch), provided yet another rather forward-thinking twist. In this case, forward thinking meant anticipatory maneuver with the thought of future showdowns with New Hampshire (a la Nevada Republicans in 2011) or the national committee of either party. The proposed, Senate-amended bill sought to provide Utah in that scenario with some additional leverage. It called for the same actions -- giving date-setting authority to the lieutenant governor and shifting to online voting -- but added an "unless" rider. In other words, Utah would be first unless certain conditions were met. Those conditions were that Utah would be or would challenge for first unless at least two other western states joined Utah in the type of Western States Presidential Primary called for in state law (but which has never fully come to fruition as intended).
How is that leverage?
Assuming such a bill had passed and was signed into law, Utah first could threaten to or maybe even actually set a date in, say, 2015 in order to force New Hampshire's and the national parties' hands. The threat likely would have been enough to get the national parties involved in if not pressuring other western states, then at least inquiring about their openness to moving their contests to a [less problematic/early or compliant] date concurrent with the Utah primary.
The bottom line intent there is simple: Utah wants to be first to gain attention. If we can't be first, then we can still get attention so long as there is at least subregional primary of neighboring western states along with Arizona, Colorado and/or Nevada, for instance. One of the unintended consequences of these types of attempted negotiations is that, legislatively, states rarely provide themselves with the options necessary to get even some of what they want if the first option -- going first on the calendar in this case -- falls through. Often, states are forced to go the all-or-nothing route and can end up worse off (especially if a legislature is still required to set the date but is not in session).
--
This was, then, a new wrinkle to the proceedings. As the day went on yesterday, though, and time ran out on a Utah state legislature with a full agenda, the typical sine die day negotiations to get a number of things passed (including the primary bill) commenced. This horse trading produced a last ditch Senate proposal that included concessions of the most controversial portion of bill; the requirement that Utah be first in the nation. Left in the bill were the provisions shifting the date-setting authority from the legislature to the lieutenant governor and for online voting. Also gone was the "unless" rider to coax a real Western State Presidential Primary out of the process. While the language was less provocative, the lieutenant governor still would have had the ability to threaten the front of the calendar. The office just would not have had the requirement to do so under state law.
Yet, in the end, even that did not pass muster in the behind the scenes wrangling in the state Senate. The bill never came up for a vote, time ran out and it was returned to the House; dead.
--
There a few notes that should be made here before closing.
--
1 Now, the question still remains whether candidates and campaigns would throw the known of New Hampshire by the wayside for an unknown process with unknown consequences in Utah. FHQ has its doubts.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Again, as FHQ described earlier, the idea in Utah was novel. The state would not only have granted the lieutenant governor the authority to set the date of the primary -- assuming legislative funding -- but it would have required them to set the primary before Iowa, New Hampshire or any other state. The first part isn't unique. New Hampshire's secretary of state has had that ability since 1976, the Georgia General Assembly granted similar power to its secretary of state in 2011 and Arizona gives the governor the ability to set the primary for a date earlier than called for by state law. The intent in each is to empower an individual with the task rather than a partisan body susceptible to gridlock, and thus, slow to react. Only New Hampshire state law requires that individual -- the secretary of state -- with ensuring that the contest is first in the nation. But the Utah bill mimicked that provision, requiring also that the lieutenant governor set the presidential primary in the Beehive state first on the calendar.
The Utah bill, then, addressed the pace of response problem that most states face (and New Hampshire does not). Additionally however, the legislation also struck at the other advantage New Hampshire has in the process: the pace of implementation. The rationale of the secretary of state office in the Granite state -- or part of it anyway -- has always been that other states may challenge or vie for first in the nation status, but we can wait them out with an ability to deploy the election administrative troops in a shorter period of time than anyone else.
Utah's innovation? By shifting the voting online, there would be no concern about New Hampshire waiting the state out. Utah could logistically respond/adapt accordingly and quickly.1
That vision passed the Utah House on Monday and was expedited along with a raft of other legislation in the state Senate on Wednesday. But the Thursday final session day did not see the bill that would threaten the carve-out states, not to mention defy the national party rules, simply die as the clock ran out.
No, instead, the Senate floor sponsor, Senator Curtis Bramble (R-16th, Utah, Wasatch), provided yet another rather forward-thinking twist. In this case, forward thinking meant anticipatory maneuver with the thought of future showdowns with New Hampshire (a la Nevada Republicans in 2011) or the national committee of either party. The proposed, Senate-amended bill sought to provide Utah in that scenario with some additional leverage. It called for the same actions -- giving date-setting authority to the lieutenant governor and shifting to online voting -- but added an "unless" rider. In other words, Utah would be first unless certain conditions were met. Those conditions were that Utah would be or would challenge for first unless at least two other western states joined Utah in the type of Western States Presidential Primary called for in state law (but which has never fully come to fruition as intended).
How is that leverage?
Assuming such a bill had passed and was signed into law, Utah first could threaten to or maybe even actually set a date in, say, 2015 in order to force New Hampshire's and the national parties' hands. The threat likely would have been enough to get the national parties involved in if not pressuring other western states, then at least inquiring about their openness to moving their contests to a [less problematic/early or compliant] date concurrent with the Utah primary.
The bottom line intent there is simple: Utah wants to be first to gain attention. If we can't be first, then we can still get attention so long as there is at least subregional primary of neighboring western states along with Arizona, Colorado and/or Nevada, for instance. One of the unintended consequences of these types of attempted negotiations is that, legislatively, states rarely provide themselves with the options necessary to get even some of what they want if the first option -- going first on the calendar in this case -- falls through. Often, states are forced to go the all-or-nothing route and can end up worse off (especially if a legislature is still required to set the date but is not in session).
--
This was, then, a new wrinkle to the proceedings. As the day went on yesterday, though, and time ran out on a Utah state legislature with a full agenda, the typical sine die day negotiations to get a number of things passed (including the primary bill) commenced. This horse trading produced a last ditch Senate proposal that included concessions of the most controversial portion of bill; the requirement that Utah be first in the nation. Left in the bill were the provisions shifting the date-setting authority from the legislature to the lieutenant governor and for online voting. Also gone was the "unless" rider to coax a real Western State Presidential Primary out of the process. While the language was less provocative, the lieutenant governor still would have had the ability to threaten the front of the calendar. The office just would not have had the requirement to do so under state law.
Yet, in the end, even that did not pass muster in the behind the scenes wrangling in the state Senate. The bill never came up for a vote, time ran out and it was returned to the House; dead.
--
There a few notes that should be made here before closing.
- Just because this issue is dead in 2014 does not mean that we will not see this return in Utah during the 2015 state legislative session.
- Relatedly, these sorts of (provocative) ideas are now out on the open market. Other states may consider them and strategically augment them in 2015.
- This notion of consideration and strategic negotiation sounds a lot like the sort of bartering that Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ) did with the Arizona primary in 2011. Now, she did not ultimately threaten Iowa and New Hampshire, but she did win a Republican presidential debate out of it. ...all while still maintaining a non-compliant primary. Whether this sort of action will become the norm for aspiring rogue states remains to be seen. But Utah is evidence that the idea is spreading, even if on a limited basis for now.
--
1 Now, the question still remains whether candidates and campaigns would throw the known of New Hampshire by the wayside for an unknown process with unknown consequences in Utah. FHQ has its doubts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)