Recently, in a couple of posts about the possibility of California shifting up the date of its next presidential primary, FHQ mentioned that any move in the Golden state alters the delegate allocation calculus. And that is true. Any time a state worth approximately ten percent of the total number of delegates uproots its primary and moves it to another spot on the calendar, that has implications for how candidates and campaigns approach the primary phase of the presidential nomination process.
Moreover, I went on to note that these decisions -- and especially one out of such a delegate-rich state as California -- do not happen in a vacuum. Other states, or rather political actors in them, take notice. Again, if past is a guide, then California changes cause other states to reconsider their positions on the calendar.
But past is not always prologue. And that prompted James Pindell of the Boston Globe to ask a variation of the title question in an email exchange we had last week. Is frontloading a real issue?
To start, the true response to that question is, "I don't know." I don't. When and if California does bump its primary up from June to March, states will begin testing that hypothesis. And the true test will be in 2019, the year before the next presidential election (a time when most of the decisions on presidential primary movement tend to occur).
One response to a California move is the one FHQ has laid out: a big, delegate-rich state shifts to an earlier point on the calendar and sets off a sort of chain reaction similar to what happened in both 2000 and 2008. But Pindell was right to push back against that as the only explanation. It can also be persuasively argued that some of the lessons learned from the de facto national primary experience in February 2008 included some form of, "We spent all of that money to hold an earlier presidential primary and/or got lost in the shuffle of 20 or more states."
In other words, "Maybe we should [have] save[d] some money and/or [have] be[en] more selective about where our primary ends up on the calendar." After all, that is the same retrospective, fight the last war mindset under which the national parties operate in their rules decision-making. State legislators, like those decision-makers within the national parties, can only use the data they have, and the most recent data -- the experience in the most recent cycle -- often colors the decisions made.
All of that was particularly true following 2008. A number of states, Arkansas, California and New Jersey among them, that were part of the Titanic Tuesday on February 5, 2008 opted to revert to later dates in 2012. However, one external factor forced states to revisit their calendar positions in 2012: the national parties informally coordinated a more uniform primary calendar. The practical implication was something FHQ discussed for much of 2011. States that had held February contests in 2008 had to change their dates because February was off limits to all but Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina under the national party rules in 2012.
Those that did not abandon their February dates ran the risk of taking the delegate hit that Florida, Arizona and Michigan ultimately took heading in the 2012 primary season. Yes, those three states and a number of additional non-binding caucus states broke or skirted the rules and held contests in the late January through February period. Yet, the vast majority of formerly February primary states saw the new national party delegate selection rules and sought relief from possible sanctions in the form of later primary dates.
So, rather than cast 2012 primary movement at the state level as solely a function of financial/budgetary concerns, it is more all-encompassing to frame it as, "Well, if we have to move anyway because of rules changes, why not just (re)consolidate our primaries in the traditional later positions and save some money in the process?" That was the case in states like Arkansas, California and New Jersey.
But other states had a different decision-making calculus; one dominated by partisan state government control. Among those formerly February primary states, if the state was Republican-controlled, it was more likely to shift back, but shift back to a lesser degree than Democratic-controlled states. Those Republican states tended to shift from February to March while the Democratic states pushed back even further to April or later. The impetus for that was that 1) Republicans saw significant gains at the state government level in the 2010 midterms and 2) the Republican Party was the only party with an active presidential nomination race in 2012.
The lesson of de facto national primary in 2008, then, is a bit more complicated. And, in fact, in 2016 there was some potential unraveling of it. On the one hand, the national parties crafted rules that brought repeat offenders like Florida, Arizona and Michigan in line. The parties got what they wanted there: a clear February for the four carve-out states. But those three offending states made minimal regressive pushes. All three ended up at various positions in March and were joined from the other end of the calendar by states that got lumped into the SEC primary narrative (with minimal legislative action). Alabama moved up a week from its 2012 position, the Arkansas legislature shifted a consolidated primary from late May to March, and Texas reverted to its March date in 2016 after courts mandated a May 2012 primary because of a redistricting dispute. North Carolina also took a circuitous route to a mid-March primary date in 2016.
The Florida, Arizona and Michigan shifts are one thing. Each was already early in 2012 and stayed that way in 2016 relative to most states. All three remained around the 50% delegates allocated mark on the calendar. But Texas and North Carolina played a role in where that point on the calendar ended up by clustering in March 2016.
If California ends up in March 2020, then that mark shifts up even further.
And that brings this discussion full circle back to the question that Pindell posed. Would other states move to earlier dates for 2020 because of that prospective California-enhanced clustering? While that is a question that is affected by partisan concerns (the balance of power after the 2018 midterms) and budgetary limitations (consolidating, separating and funding primary elections), part of the answer will also be based on the perceptions of 2020 within the various state houses across the country.
When these presidential primary scheduling bills come up in state legislative committee hearings or on the floor of a state House or Senate, the resulting discussions are rarely about delegate math or where the state is or would be positioned on the calendar relative to some seemingly arbitrary 50% delegates allocated mark. Most state legislators just do not have the time, energy or inclination to be that savvy about a primary date. Instead, the talk is about the economics of attention-seeking. Sure, there is some griping about Iowa and New Hampshire. What primary scheduling discussion would be complete without that? But most of them involve a serious discussion about how a move to a date clustered with regional partners or alone would grab the attention of the candidates and the media. That not only forces the candidates to address issues that are important to the state/region, but also means the candidates and media will spend money in the state as the campaigns sweep through.
Part of the state legislative decision-making calculus ahead of 2020 will be the perception of how 2020 may proceed. If the current conventional wisdom holds, then 2020 will be a year with a wide open Democratic field of candidates that forces a race that lasts the whole length of the primary calendar. Moves like the ostensible shift in California can potentially disrupt that conventional wisdom (as can the nascent national party delegate selection rules).
If that feeling holds -- that regardless of California's move, the Democratic race is destined to be competitive throughout -- then there is little urgency to move to an earlier date. There will be attention to seek wherever a state sits on the calendar. However, the motivation to frontload increases when and if the feeling changes to one where the race will end sooner rather than later. [Or if, say, a number of (newly) Democratic-controlled state governments opt for earlier dates so as not to cede influence to other states/regions. And/or alternatively, if the feeling, as ahead of 2004, is "wrap this race up and focus on a general election against an embattled incumbent".] Attention-seeking states under those conditions would be more likely to move up, if they are willing and able, to take any piece of the pie rather than hold steady on a later date and run the perceived risk of getting nothing. Something -- even if it means advertising dollars spent in local markets and not actual candidates on the ground [Visits are finite.] -- is better than nothing.
So, is frontloading an issue for 2020? The answer now is unclear, but hinges greatly on both partisan control on the state level following the 2018 midterms and the perception (in 2019) about how long the race will remain competitive. A California shift potentially affects that latter variable, feeding a possible frontloading contagion.
Showing posts with label frontloading. Show all posts
Showing posts with label frontloading. Show all posts
Thursday, May 18, 2017
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Bill Has Nebraska Mulling an Earlier Presidential Primary
...for 2020.
Earlier this week, Nebraska state Senator John Murante (49th, Gretna) introduced legislation -- LB 871 -- that would create a new presidential primary election in the Cornhusker state, separating it from the mid-May, consolidated primary.1 The proposal would move the separate presidential primary to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March.
This is not all that unusual. Yes, it is a bit more forward looking than is typically the case. Bills shifting the dates of presidential primaries pop up every year, but they most heavily populate the introduced bills lists in the year before a presidential election. Still, there are always a handful of bills that appear as the primaries themselves are ongoing; during a presidential election year. But over the course of the last three cycles -- 2004, 2008 and 2012 -- nothing has passed.2 In most cases, actors on the state level take a wait and see approach; waiting to see how the current cycle goes before making a decision on a future one.
What is more interesting, though equally forward thinking, is how legislators across the country will react to 2016 in 2017 but especially in 2019. The SEC primary may or may not have proven successful in 2016. If it is, other states and regions may scramble to the front without the southern states moving back, creating a more robust Super Tuesday that resembles a national primary (see 2008). But the SEC primary may fall flat and organically cause actors in some of those states (and others outside the region) to reconsider their positioning or consider what spot on the calendar maximizes their voters' voices in the process.
...something the Nebraska bill's sponsor mentioned as a reason for proposing the change.
--
1 The move is expected to cost the state $1.5 million if the bill is passed and signed into law.
2 Unless you count Idaho eliminating the presidential primary portion of their May consolidated primary because both parties were caucusing instead.
Earlier this week, Nebraska state Senator John Murante (49th, Gretna) introduced legislation -- LB 871 -- that would create a new presidential primary election in the Cornhusker state, separating it from the mid-May, consolidated primary.1 The proposal would move the separate presidential primary to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March.
This is not all that unusual. Yes, it is a bit more forward looking than is typically the case. Bills shifting the dates of presidential primaries pop up every year, but they most heavily populate the introduced bills lists in the year before a presidential election. Still, there are always a handful of bills that appear as the primaries themselves are ongoing; during a presidential election year. But over the course of the last three cycles -- 2004, 2008 and 2012 -- nothing has passed.2 In most cases, actors on the state level take a wait and see approach; waiting to see how the current cycle goes before making a decision on a future one.
What is more interesting, though equally forward thinking, is how legislators across the country will react to 2016 in 2017 but especially in 2019. The SEC primary may or may not have proven successful in 2016. If it is, other states and regions may scramble to the front without the southern states moving back, creating a more robust Super Tuesday that resembles a national primary (see 2008). But the SEC primary may fall flat and organically cause actors in some of those states (and others outside the region) to reconsider their positioning or consider what spot on the calendar maximizes their voters' voices in the process.
...something the Nebraska bill's sponsor mentioned as a reason for proposing the change.
--
1 The move is expected to cost the state $1.5 million if the bill is passed and signed into law.
2 Unless you count Idaho eliminating the presidential primary portion of their May consolidated primary because both parties were caucusing instead.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Arizona Taps on the Brakes on 2016 Primary Bill
Scott Conroy has a nice piece of reporting up at Real Clear Politics connecting some of the same Arizona-Nevada dots FHQ pieced together earlier in the week. The most interesting addition to the discussion is the fact that the Republican National Committee saw fit to send a delegation to Arizona to discuss the legislation to anchor the date of the Arizona primary to the date of the Iowa caucuses in a meeting with its author, Arizona Rep. Phil Lovas (R-22nd -- Peoria, Glendale). Furthermore, following the meeting, Lovas opted to back off his bill for the time being.
Now, one may ask, "So what?" The 2016 presidential nomination process is three years away. The bulk of calendar jockeying that will take place for the cycle will be in full tilt in two years time. In other words, it is still early. In 2009, there were 13 bills introduced across ten states to shift the dates of 2012 presidential primaries. Only one was successful: the Arkansas state legislature voted to move the Natural state primary back to May.
Four years later, the activity at the state legislative level is not all that different. Thus far during the 2013 sessions, eight bills have been submitted to state legislative chambers in six states. Three of those eight bills are out of Missouri; a residual of the failed attempt in the Show-Me state to move the primary back for 2012. If any of those eight bills are to pass and be signed into law, Missouri is likely at the top of the list of likely movers. The state has to move back for 2016 to come back into compliance with national party rules. The rest just are not all that likely to go anywhere; not in 2013 anyway.
That is the story or seemed like the story in Arizona. Rep. Lovas' bill was filed just after the new year began, did not garner any real attention outside of Arizona and FHQ's world,1 and more importantly did not seem to have any support outside of the bill's sponsor/author.
Yet, the RNC saw enough of a threat in the bill to warrant a sit down with the Arizona representative. Whether it was precautionary or not, this is a proactive step on the part of the RNC. One of the things that FHQ harped on during all of 2011 was the seemingly gaping hole in communications between the national parties and state legislatures. State legislators either ignored the parties' delegate selection rules or did not understand them. National party outreach has not been all that necessary in the post-reform era, but has become so since Florida and Michigan in 2008. One could argue that this is national party intervention, but it would probably be better defined as a better flow of information/communication between those involved in the process. That is a good thing: everyone understanding (or at least having the information in order to start understanding) the ins and outs of the nomination process.
Still, what plagues the national parties is the fact that no matter what the penalties are, there are still states willing to flaunt the rules and take the penalties as they have existed until now. That has changed for 2016 with a stiffer sanction on the Republican side. As the 2013 state legislative session continue -- but especially as the process moves into 2015 -- that will be the test:
Are the new sanctions enough to stop states that have exhibited a willingness to break the rules to go early in the past?
--
1 That included New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner who raised the issue of the Arizona bill with FHQ on the side of the National Association of Secretaries of State winter meeting in late January.
Recent Posts:
Maine in 2016
Amended House Bill Would Also Move Missouri Primary to March
More on the RNC Rules and Presidential Primary Debates
Now, one may ask, "So what?" The 2016 presidential nomination process is three years away. The bulk of calendar jockeying that will take place for the cycle will be in full tilt in two years time. In other words, it is still early. In 2009, there were 13 bills introduced across ten states to shift the dates of 2012 presidential primaries. Only one was successful: the Arkansas state legislature voted to move the Natural state primary back to May.
Four years later, the activity at the state legislative level is not all that different. Thus far during the 2013 sessions, eight bills have been submitted to state legislative chambers in six states. Three of those eight bills are out of Missouri; a residual of the failed attempt in the Show-Me state to move the primary back for 2012. If any of those eight bills are to pass and be signed into law, Missouri is likely at the top of the list of likely movers. The state has to move back for 2016 to come back into compliance with national party rules. The rest just are not all that likely to go anywhere; not in 2013 anyway.
That is the story or seemed like the story in Arizona. Rep. Lovas' bill was filed just after the new year began, did not garner any real attention outside of Arizona and FHQ's world,1 and more importantly did not seem to have any support outside of the bill's sponsor/author.
Yet, the RNC saw enough of a threat in the bill to warrant a sit down with the Arizona representative. Whether it was precautionary or not, this is a proactive step on the part of the RNC. One of the things that FHQ harped on during all of 2011 was the seemingly gaping hole in communications between the national parties and state legislatures. State legislators either ignored the parties' delegate selection rules or did not understand them. National party outreach has not been all that necessary in the post-reform era, but has become so since Florida and Michigan in 2008. One could argue that this is national party intervention, but it would probably be better defined as a better flow of information/communication between those involved in the process. That is a good thing: everyone understanding (or at least having the information in order to start understanding) the ins and outs of the nomination process.
Still, what plagues the national parties is the fact that no matter what the penalties are, there are still states willing to flaunt the rules and take the penalties as they have existed until now. That has changed for 2016 with a stiffer sanction on the Republican side. As the 2013 state legislative session continue -- but especially as the process moves into 2015 -- that will be the test:
Are the new sanctions enough to stop states that have exhibited a willingness to break the rules to go early in the past?
--
1 That included New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner who raised the issue of the Arizona bill with FHQ on the side of the National Association of Secretaries of State winter meeting in late January.
Recent Posts:
Maine in 2016
Amended House Bill Would Also Move Missouri Primary to March
More on the RNC Rules and Presidential Primary Debates
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Arizona + Nevada = 2016 Primary Calendar Uproar
Disclaimer: This is a thought exercise; nothing more, nothing less.
FHQ is not of the opinion that anyone should light the distress signals in regard to the 2016 presidential primary calendar yet. Yes, there have been a couple of provocative bills introduced in state legislatures out west. That adds to the intrigue that wild cards like Florida and Georgia represent. But folks, it is simply too early. Something may come of this legislation in Arizona and/or Nevada this session, but it is unlikely. Historically, state legislatures do not act on this particular issue until the year before a presidential election. There is more "urgency" then. But that is not to suggest that it cannot or will not happen in 2013.
[I'm not bullish on either bill passing for a host of reasons as I've alluded to in the past.]
Now, having said that, FHQ has given some thought to the combination of these primary-related bills in both Arizona and Nevada since news of the Nevada bill broke the other day. It really could be something of a nightmare scenario for the national parties and perhaps the nomination process in its current form. Let's game this out as if this is late 2015 and both bills are passed and signed into law in their current forms (presumably in 2013).
First, let's look at what that entails:
Starting with Iowa, there is some need on the part of the state parties in the Hawkeye state to leave some caucus preparation time as well. However, unfortunately for those in Arizona, that window has not been as wide as 90 days during the last two cycles of calendar chaos.
In 2011, Iowa Republicans first signaled on October 7 that the 2012 caucuses would be on January 3. Ninety days from October 7 is January 5 (a Thursday in 2012). Had the Arizona bill been the law of the land in 2011-2012, Arizona would have held its primary not concurrent with Iowa, but on the same day -- January 10 -- as New Hampshire. [No, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner would not have chosen January 10 if Arizona already occupied that date.]
Four years earlier in 2007, Iowa Republicans waited even longer and Iowa Democrats longer still. The Republican Party of Iowa selected a Thursday, January 3 caucus date on October 16. Meanwhile, Iowa Democrats did not schedule the same January 3 caucus date until a week and a half later on October 28. Again, if the current Arizona bill was the law in 2007-2008, that 90 day clock could not have started until both Iowa parties had made decisions.1 If Arizona waited for Iowa Democrats' decision, the 90 day requirement would have pushed the Arizona primary to January 29; the next earliest Tuesday and the same date as the 2008 Florida primary.2
Now Nevada:
In the 2012 scenario above, Arizona would have preceded the date called for in the Nevada bill (next to last Tuesday in January). That would allow the Nevada secretary of state the ability -- actually, it would be his or her duty by law -- to shift the Silver state primary to a date before Arizona (as earlier as January 2 as long as it is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday). Since January 1, 2012 was on a Sunday, January 2 was a legal holiday in 2012. That would have provided the Nevada secretary of state with a range of dates between Tuesday, January 3 and Monday, January 9; all of which would have preceded a January 10 Arizona primary.
The 2008 scenario is less dramatic when Nevada is added to the mix. If Arizona had held a January 29 primary, then Nevada's next to last Tuesday date (January 22, 2008) would not have been affected. In fact, that actually would have been a later date than when the Nevada caucuses were held in 2008 (Saturday, January 19).
The impact, then, would have been minimal in 2008. Michigan was positioned as the next earliest non-carve-out state on January 15. Iowa and New Hampshire would still have likely ended up on January 3 and January 8, respectively (assuming that the dominoes fell in roughly the same order that they ultimately did in 2007). The only change is that Arizona would have been docked half of its delegates for having held a delegate selection event prior to the first Tuesday in February. The Grand Canyon state would have joined the others with that distinction in 2008: Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina and Florida. All were sanctioned on the Republican side and only Florida and Michigan were affected in the Democratic race (Arizona would have been along for the ride.).
In 2012, however, with Arizona and Nevada pushing into the first ten days of January, Iowa and New Hampshire would have been forced into 2011. That's monumental enough and serves a rough guide for 2016.
--
What about the implications these bills may collectively have on the 2016 primary calendar?
We can reverse engineer this:
At its simplest,3 the practical implication of the Nevada bill as law for 2016 (excluding Arizona for the time being) is that it pushes Iowa up to Monday, January 4. [See the footnote in the Nevada post from Monday.] If Iowa decides on that date later than October 6 (90 days prior to January 4), then Arizona could not have its primary on the same day as the Iowa caucuses. An Arizona decision can only be made once the date of the Iowa caucuses has been identified. And then it has to be 90 days from that point in time.4
The decision regarding the Florida primary has to be made by October 1 in the year before a presidential election according to election law in the Sunshine state. Everything else, then, would have to fall in place with the other states between that point and October 6 for Iowa Democrats and Republicans to settle on an official date by then. If 2012 is any barometer, then that is not likely to happen.
The state parties in Iowa are going to know to wait it out to avoid the Arizona threat. They, along with New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, will know that 1) Florida is in place by October 1 and 2) Arizona becomes less and less a statutory problem the longer they wait. That serves not only the interests of Iowa and New Hampshire, but of all four carve-outs. However, with Nevada stationed on the next to last Tuesday in January, the 2016 calendar still starts in early January for the third cycle running.
--
There are a couple of other things to bear in mind here:
Hurry up and wait.
--
1 An interesting question following on all of this what Arizona would do in the event that Iowa Democrats and Republicans held caucuses on different dates. There is no contingency in the Arizona bill to account for this possibility. And there is nothing in Iowa law that requires the two state parties to hold concurrent caucuses. It is in the two parties best interest to share the same date as a means of protecting the first in the nation caucuses, but it is not a requirement.
2 If the Arizona secretary of state had assumed in late 2007 that Iowa Democrats would choose January 3 after the Iowa GOP has selected that date, then the earliest possible Tuesday following a 90 day buffer would have been January 15. That was the date of the 2008 Michigan primary.
3 This assumes other states -- namely, Florida -- do not also enter the fray, thus affecting where South Carolina might end up on the calendar.
4 It strikes FHQ that it would -- not surprisingly -- behoove the carve-outs to wait as long as possible to decide on their respective dates to effectively deal with the Arizona (not to mention Florida) threat. Waiting, for instance, to the end October to decide would virtually eliminate the possibility of a January primary for Arizona.
Recent Posts:
Florida Makes First 2016 Presidential Primary Move
Nevada Bill Would Create January Presidential Primary
FHQ is not of the opinion that anyone should light the distress signals in regard to the 2016 presidential primary calendar yet. Yes, there have been a couple of provocative bills introduced in state legislatures out west. That adds to the intrigue that wild cards like Florida and Georgia represent. But folks, it is simply too early. Something may come of this legislation in Arizona and/or Nevada this session, but it is unlikely. Historically, state legislatures do not act on this particular issue until the year before a presidential election. There is more "urgency" then. But that is not to suggest that it cannot or will not happen in 2013.
[I'm not bullish on either bill passing for a host of reasons as I've alluded to in the past.]
Now, having said that, FHQ has given some thought to the combination of these primary-related bills in both Arizona and Nevada since news of the Nevada bill broke the other day. It really could be something of a nightmare scenario for the national parties and perhaps the nomination process in its current form. Let's game this out as if this is late 2015 and both bills are passed and signed into law in their current forms (presumably in 2013).
First, let's look at what that entails:
- Nevada would have a primary (and not a caucus) on the next to last Tuesday of January (January 19 in 2016) unless another western state schedules a contest prior to that point on the calendar.
- Arizona would hold its primary on the same date as the Iowa caucuses as long as Iowa Democrats and Republicans are timely enough in their date selection in order to give Arizona elections administrators sufficient lead time (90 days) to prepare for the primary. Absent that buffer period, Arizona would hold it primary on the earliest possible Tuesday available to it after Iowa and with a 90 day window.
Starting with Iowa, there is some need on the part of the state parties in the Hawkeye state to leave some caucus preparation time as well. However, unfortunately for those in Arizona, that window has not been as wide as 90 days during the last two cycles of calendar chaos.
In 2011, Iowa Republicans first signaled on October 7 that the 2012 caucuses would be on January 3. Ninety days from October 7 is January 5 (a Thursday in 2012). Had the Arizona bill been the law of the land in 2011-2012, Arizona would have held its primary not concurrent with Iowa, but on the same day -- January 10 -- as New Hampshire. [No, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner would not have chosen January 10 if Arizona already occupied that date.]
Four years earlier in 2007, Iowa Republicans waited even longer and Iowa Democrats longer still. The Republican Party of Iowa selected a Thursday, January 3 caucus date on October 16. Meanwhile, Iowa Democrats did not schedule the same January 3 caucus date until a week and a half later on October 28. Again, if the current Arizona bill was the law in 2007-2008, that 90 day clock could not have started until both Iowa parties had made decisions.1 If Arizona waited for Iowa Democrats' decision, the 90 day requirement would have pushed the Arizona primary to January 29; the next earliest Tuesday and the same date as the 2008 Florida primary.2
Now Nevada:
In the 2012 scenario above, Arizona would have preceded the date called for in the Nevada bill (next to last Tuesday in January). That would allow the Nevada secretary of state the ability -- actually, it would be his or her duty by law -- to shift the Silver state primary to a date before Arizona (as earlier as January 2 as long as it is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday). Since January 1, 2012 was on a Sunday, January 2 was a legal holiday in 2012. That would have provided the Nevada secretary of state with a range of dates between Tuesday, January 3 and Monday, January 9; all of which would have preceded a January 10 Arizona primary.
The 2008 scenario is less dramatic when Nevada is added to the mix. If Arizona had held a January 29 primary, then Nevada's next to last Tuesday date (January 22, 2008) would not have been affected. In fact, that actually would have been a later date than when the Nevada caucuses were held in 2008 (Saturday, January 19).
The impact, then, would have been minimal in 2008. Michigan was positioned as the next earliest non-carve-out state on January 15. Iowa and New Hampshire would still have likely ended up on January 3 and January 8, respectively (assuming that the dominoes fell in roughly the same order that they ultimately did in 2007). The only change is that Arizona would have been docked half of its delegates for having held a delegate selection event prior to the first Tuesday in February. The Grand Canyon state would have joined the others with that distinction in 2008: Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina and Florida. All were sanctioned on the Republican side and only Florida and Michigan were affected in the Democratic race (Arizona would have been along for the ride.).
In 2012, however, with Arizona and Nevada pushing into the first ten days of January, Iowa and New Hampshire would have been forced into 2011. That's monumental enough and serves a rough guide for 2016.
--
What about the implications these bills may collectively have on the 2016 primary calendar?
We can reverse engineer this:
At its simplest,3 the practical implication of the Nevada bill as law for 2016 (excluding Arizona for the time being) is that it pushes Iowa up to Monday, January 4. [See the footnote in the Nevada post from Monday.] If Iowa decides on that date later than October 6 (90 days prior to January 4), then Arizona could not have its primary on the same day as the Iowa caucuses. An Arizona decision can only be made once the date of the Iowa caucuses has been identified. And then it has to be 90 days from that point in time.4
The decision regarding the Florida primary has to be made by October 1 in the year before a presidential election according to election law in the Sunshine state. Everything else, then, would have to fall in place with the other states between that point and October 6 for Iowa Democrats and Republicans to settle on an official date by then. If 2012 is any barometer, then that is not likely to happen.
The state parties in Iowa are going to know to wait it out to avoid the Arizona threat. They, along with New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, will know that 1) Florida is in place by October 1 and 2) Arizona becomes less and less a statutory problem the longer they wait. That serves not only the interests of Iowa and New Hampshire, but of all four carve-outs. However, with Nevada stationed on the next to last Tuesday in January, the 2016 calendar still starts in early January for the third cycle running.
--
There are a couple of other things to bear in mind here:
- FHQ has not really mentioned party sanctions. Recall that the RNC rules would knock any non-carve-out holding a contest prior to the last Tuesday in February down to nine delegates plus the three RNC member delegates from the state. We won't know until 2015 whether this has proven to be an effective deterrent to would-be rogue states. Bills like the one in Arizona do give us some indication, but only if they are successful in the face of very likely having the penalties brought to their attention in some way by the national parties.
- Also, Iowa and New Hampshire waiting it out as a means of protecting their status only works to a point. The decision-makers in Florida (members of the Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee who will be named in 2015) will most likely -- one would expect -- be aware of the above possibilities. And they have the authority to schedule the Florida primary for as early as the first Tuesday in January (January 5 in 2016). They just have to do that before October 1, 2015. ...but under the realization that they will be hammered by the RNC delegate reduction in the process.
Hurry up and wait.
--
1 An interesting question following on all of this what Arizona would do in the event that Iowa Democrats and Republicans held caucuses on different dates. There is no contingency in the Arizona bill to account for this possibility. And there is nothing in Iowa law that requires the two state parties to hold concurrent caucuses. It is in the two parties best interest to share the same date as a means of protecting the first in the nation caucuses, but it is not a requirement.
2 If the Arizona secretary of state had assumed in late 2007 that Iowa Democrats would choose January 3 after the Iowa GOP has selected that date, then the earliest possible Tuesday following a 90 day buffer would have been January 15. That was the date of the 2008 Michigan primary.
3 This assumes other states -- namely, Florida -- do not also enter the fray, thus affecting where South Carolina might end up on the calendar.
4 It strikes FHQ that it would -- not surprisingly -- behoove the carve-outs to wait as long as possible to decide on their respective dates to effectively deal with the Arizona (not to mention Florida) threat. Waiting, for instance, to the end October to decide would virtually eliminate the possibility of a January primary for Arizona.
Recent Posts:
Florida Makes First 2016 Presidential Primary Move
Nevada Bill Would Create January Presidential Primary
Monday, October 3, 2011
"Avoid[ing] front-loading of primaries and caucuses in the current cycle proved fruitless."
That's John DiStaso of the Manchester Union-Leader post-South Carolina earlier today.
Man, I couldn't disagree more. This has been one of the most frustrating things about the conversation around the primary calendar in 2012. This cycle has been unlike any other for primary movement in general. After over a generation of states gradually pushing their primaries and caucuses forward -- closer and closer to the beginning of the process -- that take away is understandable. But it is wrong. In the sense that states have set non-compliant dates in 2011 and pushed the early four states up to the beginning of the calendar year, 2012 is a repeat of 2008 and seemingly a continuation of the past.
But folks, that isn't frontloading. That's "front". The "loading" part has been completely absent. What marked the 1972-2008 period was that not only were states moving their nominating contests to earlier dates, but they were clustering more and more around each other on the earliest allowed date. This was most pronounced in the hyper-frontloaded 2000 and 2008 calendars. 2004 was an exception to the rule because in that cycle Democrats opened the window in which contests could be held to include February. Some states took advantage of the opportunity and moved up to February, decreasing the volume of states on the first Tuesday in March -- still Super Tuesday that year. But with both parties nominations at stake in 2008 a great many states were motivated to move into February and most moved to the earliest allowed date: the first Tuesday in February.
Go and look at that 2008 calendar again. Now go look at 2012. The first Tuesday in March 2012 -- the earliest allowed date -- is still the date on which the most contests are being held, but only marginally so. That isn't Tsunami Tuesday. Heck, that is a Super Tuesday a month later than in 2008. There is no similar compression there [in 2012] to either 2008 or 2000. Better yet, go and look at the first 2012 calendar FHQ put together in -- yeah, I'll admit to it -- December 2008. There are twenty primary states scheduled in January or February based on state law at that time. That was before the informal coordination of the rules between the RNC and DNC in 2009 and 2010 -- rules that put in place the early four states in February, everyone else in March or later rules regime. Following the establishment of the rules, fifteen of those primary states moved back in in order to comply. Two -- Arkansas and Illinois -- had already moved back by the time the rules were crafted, leaving Florida, Michigan and Arizona as the only states that stayed in either January or February. And if that wasn't enough, none of the three have moved up. Hardly even the "front" mentioned above. But I'll gloss over that.
Was the effort to combat frontloading fruitless? No, it wasn't. A .850 winning percentage is not the record of a loser. It speaks otherwise. FHQ should also add that we don't buy the RNC's goalpost-moving reaction to Florida last week either.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Man, I couldn't disagree more. This has been one of the most frustrating things about the conversation around the primary calendar in 2012. This cycle has been unlike any other for primary movement in general. After over a generation of states gradually pushing their primaries and caucuses forward -- closer and closer to the beginning of the process -- that take away is understandable. But it is wrong. In the sense that states have set non-compliant dates in 2011 and pushed the early four states up to the beginning of the calendar year, 2012 is a repeat of 2008 and seemingly a continuation of the past.
But folks, that isn't frontloading. That's "front". The "loading" part has been completely absent. What marked the 1972-2008 period was that not only were states moving their nominating contests to earlier dates, but they were clustering more and more around each other on the earliest allowed date. This was most pronounced in the hyper-frontloaded 2000 and 2008 calendars. 2004 was an exception to the rule because in that cycle Democrats opened the window in which contests could be held to include February. Some states took advantage of the opportunity and moved up to February, decreasing the volume of states on the first Tuesday in March -- still Super Tuesday that year. But with both parties nominations at stake in 2008 a great many states were motivated to move into February and most moved to the earliest allowed date: the first Tuesday in February.
Go and look at that 2008 calendar again. Now go look at 2012. The first Tuesday in March 2012 -- the earliest allowed date -- is still the date on which the most contests are being held, but only marginally so. That isn't Tsunami Tuesday. Heck, that is a Super Tuesday a month later than in 2008. There is no similar compression there [in 2012] to either 2008 or 2000. Better yet, go and look at the first 2012 calendar FHQ put together in -- yeah, I'll admit to it -- December 2008. There are twenty primary states scheduled in January or February based on state law at that time. That was before the informal coordination of the rules between the RNC and DNC in 2009 and 2010 -- rules that put in place the early four states in February, everyone else in March or later rules regime. Following the establishment of the rules, fifteen of those primary states moved back in in order to comply. Two -- Arkansas and Illinois -- had already moved back by the time the rules were crafted, leaving Florida, Michigan and Arizona as the only states that stayed in either January or February. And if that wasn't enough, none of the three have moved up. Hardly even the "front" mentioned above. But I'll gloss over that.
Was the effort to combat frontloading fruitless? No, it wasn't. A .850 winning percentage is not the record of a loser. It speaks otherwise. FHQ should also add that we don't buy the RNC's goalpost-moving reaction to Florida last week either.
"While the primaries will now start earlier than planned, the overarching goal of the current rules was to allow more states and voters to have a role in choosing the next Republican nominee for president. This goal will be met," said RNC spokesperson Kirsten Kukowski.In a scenario where all it takes is one state to overturn the applecart, though, all it took was Florida to jump into January to destroy the best laid plans at the RNC. And another RNC official alluded to as much later:
"One state changed the dynamic," said an RNC official, speaking of the calendar goal.In other words, there is such a small margin for error that it is almost impossible to claim victory from a rules perspective in any cycle. Again, where the problem lies is with the penalties, not the rules. But that is a story for another time. The bottom line is that this calendar, even in the most pessimistic of views, is not a frontloaded calendar. No states moved forward and there isn't nearly as much compression at the front as there was four years ago. Look closely at what follows Florida in February -- not much. This is an early calendar, but it is not a frontloaded one. Frontloading takes moving forward and clustering, neither of which we've gotten.
Friday, July 29, 2011
California Presidential Primary to June 5
[Click to Enlarge]
California Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed into law AB 80 this afternoon. The legislation passed unanimously in the state Assembly and with only three dissenting votes in the state Senate, eliminates the separate presidential primary created prior to the 2008 presidential election cycle and re-couples the contest with the primaries for state and local offices. There will now be concurrent presidential and state/local primaries on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June (June 5, 2012) that will save the state upwards of $100 million.
For reasons FHQ mentioned earlier today, this is a significant shift. California, the most populous, most delegate-rich state, moves it presidential primary from the earliest allowed date in 2008 to nearly the last possible date on the primary calendar in 2012. A shift of nearly 10% of the available delegates -- in both parties -- from February to June fundamentally affects the delegate calculations being made within the various presidential campaigns. It also very likely, moves California outside of the window in which the nominee will be determined.
The bill has also been the longest active presidential primary bill this state legislative cycle. Introduced long before most other bills to move presidential primaries in other states, the bill was in the midst of the legislative process from early January all the way to late July. That is partially a function of a year-round legislative session -- something not all states have -- but it was active for quite a while nonetheless.
Hat tip to Anthony York at PolitiCal for the news.
Recent Posts:
Was California's Early Primary the "Bust" or Were There Other Factors Limiting Its Impact?
FHQ has expected all along that California governor, Jerry Brown would sign AB 80 and eliminate the separate, February presidential primary and consolidate the contest with the primaries for state and local offices in June. Again, that isn't surprising.
What strikes me is some of the reactions to the June move in the article FHQ just linked to in the Sacramento Bee. Specifically, I take issue with some of the doom and gloom statements about the largest state in the union being an also-ran -- no matter what, seemingly -- in presidential nomination politics.
"We've learned that shifting a date doesn't matter," said Jaime Regalado, executive director of the Pat Brown Institute of Public Affairs at California State University,Los Angeles. "Only if we had a more competitive balance between the two parties, then I think we would play a larger role ... Then they simply wouldn't drop in, parachute in to get money and leave."
...and...
"The idea of the early primary was a huge bust," said Tony Quinn, a political analyst and former Republican legislative aide. "We're just out of luck when it comes to affecting presidential politics."
FHQ disagrees strongly with both of these points. The problem isn't that "shifting a date doesn't matter" or that the move was a "bust". Both completely miss the point. The issue is that California has not been proactive in moving the date on which its presidential primary is held. Legislators in California have typically played follow the leader as opposed to being a leader in terms of setting a primary date.
Let's look back at California's primary moves in the post-reform era:
The 1996 move was one where the outcome was mixed. Non-exempt states could hold contests as early as the first Tuesday in March. Yet, California opted to move not to the front, but instead merely to the upper half of the calendar. In fact, on the Democratic side, that was a point on the calendar before which just over 60% of the delegates had been allocated.1 The reason the reviews were mixed on the impact of the move was that it didn't affect California as much as it affected other states and future calendar positioning. The 1996 California move saw the most delegate-rich state pick up and move from the very end of the calendar to the middle. That had the potential of fundamentally reformulating the calculations for candidates as their campaigns looked at the calendar. Most importantly, it helped to shift the point at which, in this case, approximately 75% of the delegates in both party were allocated.
The 1996 move coupled with the 2000 move to the earliest allowed date -- first Tuesday in March -- ushered in what FHQ calls the hyper-frontloaded era; an era of primary movement marked by states reacting to each others' moves within one cycle as opposed to reacting from one cycle to the next. And California's two moves of 1996 and 2000 were at the root of that. All those delegates at stake in the Golden state shifted the overall point at which 50% of the delegates had been allocated to an earlier point than it had ever been. The importance of that 50% number is that it is the earliest point at which some candidate can clinch the nomination.2 For the purposes of positioning primaries and caucuses on the primary calendar, this had a tremendous effect. To say that states -- those that had a desire to -- were scrambling to get to as early a point as possible, may be overstating matters, but if a state was moving after 1996, it was moving to the earliest allowed, first Tuesday in March date (or earlier for some Republican contests, as RNC rules allowed February contests).
If state governments and state parties wanted their voters to have an impact on the nomination races, it behooved them to schedule primaries or caucuses in the window of time in which the races were most likely to still be competitive. First of all, that's ahead of the 50% delegates allocated mark. And secondly, that more often than not left states with only one option: the first Tuesday in March.
In many respects, none of that is California's fault. Actors in the state responsible for setting the date of the primary were only acting in accordance with national party rules. And despite its size and delegate-richness, the Golden state was still just one among many states on crowded Super Tuesdays in both 2000 and 2008.
A couple of things. 1) FHQ is not suggesting that California should have gone rogue like Florida, though that certainly could have been one of their options. 2) Like many states, California missed out on a prime opportunity in 2004 (noticeably absent from the crowded Super Tuesdays listed above).
2004 saw the DNC change the party's delegate selection rules, allowing, like the Republican Party, non-exempt states to hold primaries and caucuses as early as the first Tuesday in February. Some states took advantage of the new rules and shifted into February, but the bulk of the early states remained back on a slightly diminished Super Tuesday. It was only slightly diminished in 2004 because there were still delegate-rich states like California and New York scheduled for that date.
FHQ made the argument in 2009 around a speculative Indiana move for 2012, that the Hoosier state, too, had missed its chance in 2004. The underlying theme in that three part analysis was that Indiana could have moved up to February in 2004 and maximized its impact -- attention gained -- among a less-packed collection of states (at least relative to its traditional first Tuesday after the first Monday in May primary date). Less crowded and early is a good combination for gaining candidate/media attention.
...or it has been.
In the recent past, as I described above, states have had little choice but to hold contests alongside of a bunch of other states if they wanted to go early. That formula has begun to change, though. First of all, a limited group of states is now willing to sacrifice delegates in order to go early and hopefully (from their perspective) alone on a date that is non-compliant with national party rules. That is one way. But the other way is something we have witnessed post-2008; states moving back to comply with national party rules, but moving back beyond the earliest allowed date. And in some cases states have been motivated to do that and to coordinate contests with other neighboring states similar to the Potomac Primary in 2008. In other words, if you can't be alone with the spotlight only on your state, why not at least go with other, similar neighboring states?
The landscape of the calendar is changing from what the system had built toward in time since reform up to 2008. California was always behind in its efforts to have as big an impact on a presidential nomination race as the state government and state parties, given their size, might otherwise have wanted. By consolidating their presidential primary with those for state and local offices in June in 2012, California may be, once again, missing out on an opportunity to schedule a stand-alone contest on, say, the last Tuesday in March or in mid-April.
While there were factors that ran counter to what California was hoping for in an earlier primary, there were things that were in the decision-makers' control over the years that were ignored or not understood. Was an early primary a bust in California? Yes, probably, but that could have been avoided with something other than a follow-the-leader approach to primary schheduling.
...you know, with hindsight being what it is.
--
1 No, the Democratic Party did not have an active nomination race in 1996, but that figure in the link is worth showing fairly closely approximates the delegates allocated on the Republican side. According to Hagen and Mayer (2000) about 65% of the delegates at stake had been allocated in the 1996 Republican race by the time it reached California (see In Pursuit of the White House 2000, Figure 1.10, p. 38).
2 Now due to the rules of both parties -- complete proportional allocation of delegates on the Democratic side and at least some proportional allocation by the Republicans -- it is virtually impossible for one candidate to have amassed all of those delegates at stake. However, in recent cycles, there was enough of a compression of contests on Super Tuesday to give a frontrunning candidate a technically insurmountable edge in the delegate count (see Norrander 2000 for more).
Recent Posts:
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Dogpile on Iowa and New Hampshire ...Again.
Is it that time again?
The time for everyone to pile on Iowa and New Hampshire for being the unrepresentative states at the front of the presidential primary and caucus line.
It seems that way. But now, instead of it being about the racial unrepresentativeness,1 it's about the urban-rural discrepancy and the resulting economic policy. The policy bit has been covered. Andrew Taylor showed -- without the quips about the position Iowa and New Hampshire occupy on the calendar -- that the earlier a state is the more it gains in promises from candidates and the more it gains in terms of candidates-turned-presidents' concessions once they are in the White House.
Now, a normative argument could be made for allowing other states to have a turn at the front to enjoy the fruits of being there. But that completely misses the point. So too, does Leonhardt's emphasis on the notion of one person-one vote in his New York Times take down of Iowa and New Hampshire on both urban-rural and policy concessions grounds. FHQ should go on record as saying that it is an advocate of one person-one vote, but primaries and caucuses or nominations for any office are not necessarily the domain of one person-one vote. Nominations, whether for president or dog catcher, are the business of the parties that conduct them. General elections, on the other hand, are about electing someone from one party or another to fill a particular office. The latter is democratic. The former isn't necessarily.
The idea of a general election is to let whomever wants to register to vote vote and have as equal a voice as possible. But nominating contests are not about that. Nominations are about the parties nominating someone to run in that general election. And the parties can choose whatever rules for govern that process that they want. It's their business.
Want to set the rules to produce the best candidate for the general election? Go for it.
Want to set the rules to produce the candidate who is the best ideological fit regardless of their chances in the general election? Again, go for it.
Want to set the rules to produce only balding, white males with yellow eyes -- so help me God, yellow eyes? Hey, more power to ya.
The point is that parties set the rules governing their nomination races. And no, they don't necessarily have to be democratic or fair. It just has to appear that way or appear enough that way. The courts have continually found in favor of the parties on this front (see the Tashjian case from the Supreme Court docket in 1986). The parties want to stick around for the long haul, and ideally to achieve that end they will have to be pragmatic and find enough electable candidates and minimize the Christine O'Donnells while still allowing for those sorts of results to occur.
But at the end of the day, it is up to the party to decide on the rules. And if that means Iowa and New Hampshire go first in the presidential primary process, then tough. When and if Iowa and New Hampshire produce a nominee that is unpalatable enough in the eyes of the party -- whichever party -- that a change at the front of the queue becomes necessary or even unavoidable, the party or parties will alter the rules. And honestly, I can't remember the last time someone argued that it was Iowa's and/or New Hampshire's fault that a certain candidate won a nomination and cost a party the chance at the White House. [It is usually the candidate that is thrown under the bus, not the voters who chose them eight or nine months prior.] Sure, that argument could be made, but it hasn't (or hasn't been effectively).
The bottom line is that Iowa and New Hampshire, despite their warts, do what they're suppose to do -- or at least do well enough at what they're supposed to do -- to keep their positions. If they didn't the parties would change it. And we may be approaching that point. All the talk about Iowa this time around has been about how the potential is there, due to the rightward "lurch" of the Iowa Republican caucusgoers, for an extreme candidate to win the caucuses and threaten Iowa's position as the first contest. FHQ cannot speak for the Republican deliberations that have taken place, but the Iowa/New Hampshire question was raised last summer at the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee meetings to set the 2012 delegate selection rules for the party. That idea was tabled, though, because the party's objective was and continues to be to reelect the president. The members of the committee did not want to rock the boat in 2012 by attempting to shake up the nomination system.
And until Iowa and New Hampshire drop the ball in some fundamental way, the parties are not going to want to rock the boat in any future cycle.
Is FHQ nothing but a shill for Iowa and New Hampshire? No, but we do know that the overlapping interests of state and national parties, not to mention those of state and national governments, make changing the presidential nominating process extremely difficult. Does that mean no effort should be made? Not necessarily, but please know that the parties hold a veto on any changes that are proposed (and that Congress, while technically able to intervene and effectively in the eyes of the courts has been very hesitant to do so).
There are bigger fish to fry.
--
The interesting thing is that primaries/caucuses/nominations got confused with the ideals we hold dear in terms of general elections. That confusion is attributable, FHQ would argue, to presidential primary reform. In their effort to comply with the new Democratic Party rules for presidential nominations, states opted for the convenience of state-funded primary elections as opposed to funding separate, party-funded contests. The fact that most of these presidential nominating contests are taxpayer funded blurs the line on this. That opens up a whole different can of worms, though.
--
1 The DNC opened the pre-window period up to both Nevada and South Carolina in 2008 in an effort to allow Hispanic and African American voters respectively have a larger say in the early presidential nomination process.
Recent Posts:
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (5/10/11)
Tennessee is on the move and so is the presidential primary calendar.
[Click to Enlarge]
Reading the Map:
As was the case with the maps from past cycles, the earlier a contest is scheduled in 2012, the darker the color in which the state is shaded. Florida, for instance, is a much deeper shade of blue in January than South Dakota is in June. There are, however, some differences between the earlier maps and the one that appears above.
- Several caucus states have yet to select a date for the first step of their delegate selection processes in 2012. Until a decision is made by state parties in those states, they will appear in gray on the map.
- The states where legislation to move the presidential primary is active are two-toned. One color indicates the timing of the primary according to the current law whereas the second color is meant to highlight the most likely month to which the primary could be moved. [With the exception of Texas, the proposed movement is backward.] This is clear in most states, but in others -- Maryland and Tennessee -- where multiple timing options are being considered, the most likely date is used. Here that is defined as a bill -- or date change -- with the most institutional support. In both cases, the majority party leadership is sponsoring one change over another (February to March in Tennessee and February to April in Maryland). That option is given more weight on the map.
- Kentucky is unique because the legislation there calls for shifting the primary from May to August. As August is not included in the color coding, white designates that potential move with the May shade of blue. Georgia, too, is unique. The state legislature is considering a bill to shift primary date-setting power from the legislature to the secretary of state. The effect is that the Peach state has a dark blue stripe for its current February primary date and a gray stripe to reflect the fact that a change from that based on the bill in question would put the future 2012 primary date in limbo until December 1 at the latest.
- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina are shaded on the map according to the latest possible date these states would have if Florida opts not to move their primary into compliance with the national party rules. Iowa Republicans and Nevada Republicans and Democrats have decided to accept the party-designated dates, but FHQ operates under the assumption that both will move to a point ahead of the earliest exempt state should one or more move or maintain a February or earlier date.
- States that are bisected vertically are states where the state parties have different dates for their caucuses and/or primaries. The left hand section is shaded to reflect the state Democratic Party's scheduling while the right is for the state Republican Party's decision on the timing of its delegate selection event.
Reading the Calendar:
- Caucus states are italicized while primary states are not. Several caucus states are missing from the list because they have not formalized the date on which their contests will be held in 2012. Colorado appears because the caucuses dates there are set by the state, whereas a state like Alaska has caucuses run by the state parties and as such do not have their dates codified in state law.
- States that have changed dates appear twice (or more) on the calendar; once by the old date and once by the new date. The old date will be struck through while the new date will be color-coded with the amount of movement (in days) in parentheses. States in green are states that have moved to earlier dates on the calendar and states in red are those that have moved to later dates. Arkansas, for example, has moved its 2012 primary and moved it back 104 days from its 2008 position.
- The date of any primary or caucus moves that have taken place -- whether through gubernatorial signature or state party move -- also appear in parentheses following the state's/party's new entry on the calendar.
- States with active legislation have links to those bills included with their entries on the calendar. If there are multiple bills they are divided by chamber and/or numbered accordingly.
- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina appear twice. The earlier entry corresponds with the latest possible date these states would have if Florida opts not to move their primary into compliance with the national party rules. The second, later entry for each of the non-exempt states reflects the position the national parties would prefer the earliest states to hold their delegate selection events.
2012 Presidential Primary Calendar
January 2012
Monday, January 16:
Iowa caucuses1
Tuesday, January 24:
New Hampshire1
Saturday, January 28:
Nevada caucuses1
South Carolina1
A note on the placement of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
Tuesday, January 31:
February 2012
Monday, February 6:
Iowa caucuses (moved: 2/8/11) (based on national party rules)
Tuesday, February 7 (Super Tuesday):
Arkansas
California (bills: Assembly)
Connecticut (bills: House)
Delaware
Georgia (bills: House)
Illinois
Montana Republican caucuses
New York
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Utah
Saturday, February 11:
New Hampshire (based on national party rules)
Virginia
Washington, DC
Saturday, February 18:
Nevada Republican caucuses (-28) (moved: 12/16/10) (based on national party rules)
Nevada Democratic caucuses2 (-28) (moved: 2/24/11) (based on national party rules)
Tuesday, February 21:
Hawaii Republican caucuses (+87) (moved: 5/16/09)
Wisconsin
Tuesday, February 28:
Arizona3
Michigan4 (bills: House)
South Carolina (based on national party rules)
March 2012
Tuesday, March 6:
Massachusetts4 (bills: House)
Vermont
Virginia (-21) (bills: House 1, 2/Senate) (moved: 3/25/11)
Sunday, March 11:
Maine Democratic caucuses (-28) (moved: 3/27/11)
Tuesday, March 13:
Colorado caucuses5 (bills: House)
Illinois (-42) (bills: Senate) (signed: 3/17/10)
April 2012
Tuesday, April 3:
Kansas (bills: House/Senate -- cancel primary)
Washington, DC (-49) (bills: Council) (moved: 4/27/11)
Saturday, April 7:
Hawaii Democratic caucuses (-46) (moved: 3/18/11)
Wyoming Democratic caucuses (-28) (moved: 3/16/11)
Saturday, April 14:
Nebraska Democratic caucuses (-60) (moved: 3/5/11)
Sunday, April 15:
Alaska Democratic caucuses (-70) (moved: 4/4/11)
Washington Democratic caucuses (-64) (moved: 4/30/11)
Tuesday, April 24:
Pennsylvania
Indiana
North Carolina (bills: Senate)
West Virginia
Tuesday, May 15:
Idaho (+7) (bills: House) (signed: 2/23/11)
Nebraska
Arkansas (-107) (bills: House) (signed: 2/4/09)
Idaho
Kentucky (bills: House) (died: legislature adjourned)
June 2012
Tuesday, June 5:
Montana (GOP -121) (moved: 6/18/10)
New Mexico6 (bills: Senate) (died: legislature adjourned)
North Dakota Democratic caucuses (-121) (moved: 4/21/11)
South Dakota
1 New Hampshire law calls for the Granite state to hold a primary on the second Tuesday of March or seven days prior to any other similar election, whichever is earlier. Florida is first now, so New Hampshire would be a week earlier at the latest. Traditionally, Iowa has gone on the Monday a week prior to New Hampshire. For the time being we'll wedge South Carolina in on the Saturday between New Hampshire and Florida, but these are just guesses at the moment. Any rogue states could cause a shift.
2 The Nevada Democratic caucuses date is based on both DNC rules and the state party's draft delegate selection plan as of February 24, 2011.
3 In Arizona the governor can use his or her proclamation powers to move the state's primary to a date on which the event would have an impact on the nomination. In 2004 and 2008 the primary was moved to the first Tuesday in February.
4 Massachusetts and Michigan are the only states that passed a frontloading bill prior to 2008 that was not permanent. The Bay state reverts to its first Tuesday in March date in 2012 while Michigan will fall back to the fourth Tuesday in February.
5 The Colorado Democratic and Republican parties have the option to move their caucuses from the third Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February.
6 The law in New Mexico allows the parties to decide when to hold their nominating contests. The Democrats have gone in early February in the last two cycles, but the GOP has held steady in June. They have the option of moving however.
--
Recent Posts:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)