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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

An early update on presidential primary movement in 2025

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York bill introduced to move February presidential primary to April

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

Super Tuesday bill would reinstate Missouri presidential primary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE (2/12/25): 

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

Ohio Senate Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to May

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

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

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

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

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

It is tough to move the Pennsylvania presidential primary

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• The DNC has quietly had a pretty interesting conversation about ranked choice voting in the presidential nomination process this cycle. Not much is going to change on the surface for 2024 -- RCV will have the same basic footprint as in 2020 -- but there have been some important changes under the hood that bring the practice more in line with DNC rules. All the details at FHQ Plus.
• I included the wrong link to the DNCRBC meeting recap yesterday. You can find that deep dive here if you missed it.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

Despite a flurry of legislative activity over the last month and a half, an inter-chamber impasse played a role in derailing the effort to shift the presidential primary in the Keystone state up to an earlier and potentially more influential date. 

It is not a new story. It is not even really a partisan story. Yes, Republicans control the Pennsylvania state Senate and Democrats have the narrowest of majorities in the lower chamber. However, Democrats in the Senate largely supported the effort to move the primary from the fourth Tuesday in April to the third Tuesday in March (March 19). House Democrats countered with a bill that would have shifted the primary to April 2, in line with primaries in several other regional/neighboring states.

But part of the impetus behind the change in the first place was to fix the conflict the presidential primary had with the observance of Passover. The Senate version did that and the House version did too. However, the latter legislation would have had the primary butting up against Easter weekend. And as consideration of the primary move stretched into the fall, election administrators across Pennsylvania got antsy about their preparations for the next election cycle after the current one ends. And that does not even mention some of the other elections-related riders that made it into the House-amended version of the Senate bill when it originally came before the body earlier in October. 

Basically, the effort got mired in the legislative process. And even though the House struck the entirety of the previous version of the Senate-passed bill, replacing it with only one provision calling for the primary to shift up a week to April 16 to clear the Passover conflict (and passing it), the Senate does not seem inclined to take up the measure. 

It is too late. 

Look, there was a lot involved in this Pennsylvania process this year. There is not just one explanation for why the primary in the commonwealth will once again be scheduled for the fourth Tuesday in April. But it is worth noting that Pennsylvania has nearly always held down that position on the presidential primary calendar. Only twice has the primary strayed from that spot. And both the 1984 and 2000 primaries were only marginally earlier in April. 

Why? 

Unlike other states in the immediate aftermath of the Democratic Party rules changes that ushered in reforms to the nomination system, the reaction in Pennsylvania was more muted. Ahead of 1972, the state already had a primary well-enough in advance of a summer national convention. In other words, a presidential primary to allocate and select delegates could easily be consolidated with that spring primary. And it was. 

But in other states, especially those with late summer and early fall primaries for other offices, that was not an option. Decision makers in those states had to either uproot that primary and schedule it alongside a new presidential primary or create and fund a separate presidential primary election. Many took the latter route and normalized the expenditure in the state budget. 

Back in Pennsylvania, the consolidated primary left decision makers there in much the same dilemma as those early post-reform actors in other states anytime a push to reschedule the presidential primary in the Keystone state arose. Only, more often than not, the thinking in Pennsylvania was not to create and fund a separate election but to move everything up to an earlier date, dates that would place the filing process in the previous year and conflict with the conclusion of the previous off-year elections. 

That is why Pennsylvania barely moved the two times since 1972 that the primary date has been changed. That, in turn, has meant that a separate primary never got normalized nor did the practice of revisiting the date on a regular basis. Very simply, the concept was foreign to legislators in the state. It still is: 

[Rep. Arvind] Venkat also said moving the presidential primary on a year-by-year basis could be subject to the whim of the party in control of the legislature depending on whether it would be beneficial.

“The only pathway forward if we are going to move our primary is to change the election code on a permanent basis,” Venkat said.

So yes, many of the above stories about partisan squabbles or inter-chamber impasses or poison pill riders or election administrator pushback will get woven into the narrative on this non-move. But there is an institutional story too. The consolidated primary -- one that has nearly always been where it is -- is almost set in stone and there has not been much appetite to change that over the years. There has been some. It almost always comes up in the years before a presidential election year, but it also almost always goes nowhere. 

...and fast. The hurdles are too steep.

...

From around the invisible primary...

• The Post and Courier has a rundown of the two South Carolinians' third quarter fundraising. Both Haley and Scott have plenty in the coffers for the time being, but Haley saw the trajectory of her efforts increase more during the last three months as compared to Scott. 
• Trump leads the way in the money primary in Oklahoma, raising more than three times his nearest competitor in the Sooner state since the beginning of 2022.
• It is too bad this South Carolina candidate visit tracker has not been updated recently. I like those things and I'll flag this one from The Post and Courier here. 
• Vivek Ramaswamy filed for the New Hampshire primary in Concord today. 
• Florida Governor Ron DeSantis launched the Veterans for DeSantis Coalition today and will have its first formal even in Anderson, South Carolina on Thursday, October 19.

--

Recent posts:

Is confusion inevitable in the Nevada Republican Party primary/caucus situation?

In Nevada, a choice between a symbolic win and delegates

The incentives of chasing delegates in California's Republican primary

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and find us on Threads: @fhq.plus.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Sunday Series: An Update on 2024 Presidential Primary Movement

Back in March, FHQ had an initial glimpse at early legislation to move, establish or eliminate state-run presidential primary elections for the 2024 cycle. And the picture then was one of a fairly sleepy cycle for movers and shakers on the 2024 presidential primary calendar. In the two months since, things have changed, but the story has basically stayed the same. 

First of all, 2023 looks a lot like the other years immediately prior to a presidential election year during the 21st century. That is the year -- the legislative session -- in the cycle that sees the most activity. To most state legislators, there is more, or has proven to be more, urgency to establish and/or position state-run (and funded) contests at that point than at any other time. It is on their radars. 

The 2023 legislative session has not strayed from that trend, but two months further on into it, the activity has not necessarily remained sleepy. In fact, there are now more bills that have been introduced in state legislatures across the country to schedule or reschedule presidential primaries for 2024 than there were in all of 2019 ahead of the competitive Democratic presidential nomination race. Part of the reason for that is partisan. Despite Democratic gains in state legislatures in the 2018 midterm cycle, Republicans continued to control the bulk of state legislatures in 2019. Presidential primary positioning may have been on the minds of Republican majorities in state legislatures, but it was not the priority to them that it would have been to Democratic legislators. 

However, even with fewer bills introduced overall, 2019 saw a higher success rate -- primary scheduling bills signed into law -- than the 2023 session has seen to this point. Yes, more and more state legislatures are adjourning their regular sessions for the year, but 2023 is still young. Primary bills have passed and been signed into law in four states as of mid-May: Idaho, Kansas, Maryland and Michigan. But there are more in the pipeline that look poised to pass (Connecticut, Rhode Island) and others where legislation is likely to eventually move (Pennsylvania) or be introduced in the first place (New Jersey, New York).

And that particular subset of states -- those in the northeast and mid-Atlantic -- are all signaling (or potentially signaling) an alignment that will have some impact on the overall calendar. Most of those states have in recent cycles occupied spots on the calendar in late April. Yet, with Passover falling in that window in 2024, legislators in some of those states are looking at a point a little earlier in the calendar: April 2. If Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island all join Wisconsin on that first Tuesday in April, then it will likely serve as the backside bookend of the delegate sweet spot on the calendar. All at once, the winner-take-all window will open in the Republican process on March 19 and the number of delegates allocated will hit 50 percent and then 75 percent in quick succession by April 2.¹ And that would trigger the 50-75 rule that has so often been a guide to when Republican nomination races of the recent past have signaled the presumptive nominee. 

But all of that depends to some degree on what happens in that group of northeastern/mid-Atlantic states. Legislators actually have to do the hard work of legislating. And as both Idaho and Missouri have proven already in 2023, that endeavor is easier said than done. Regular sessions have ended in both states and neither has a state-run presidential primary option for 2024. Idaho eliminated their stand-alone March presidential primary and Missouri failed to reestablish their own. Yet, the door is not completely closed on either state. Revived pushes for a presidential primary option may come up in special sessions should they be called. That not only raises the possibility of primaries coming back, but also more bills to be added to the mix above both in terms of the overall number of primary bills and the success rate as well. 

Finally, note that none of the bills discussed or hinted at thus far are in any way threatening the beginning of the calendar. That is significant. Yes, that Michigan bill that was signed into law shifted the presidential primary in the Great Lakes state into the early window in the Democratic process, but that will have limited impact on how the beginning of the 2024 presidential primary calendar shakes out during the rest of 2023. Iowa Democrats appear to have found a way out of the penalties trap and New Hampshire continues to indicate its intention to go rogue, but how far into January Iowa Republicans and New Hampshire end up depends on what Nevada Republicans opt to do (and to a lesser extent how South Carolina Republicans react to that).

Many wondered aloud whether the Democratic National Committee decision to shuffle the primary calendar would set off a rush to the beginning of the calendar like in 2008. It has not. However, that decision has increased the level of uncertainty about the early part of the calendar. But the South Carolina Democratic primary being scheduled on February 3 means that there is a pretty narrow range of possibilities for the remaining undecided early states on the Republican side of the ledger. The big thing about the early calendar to internalize at this point is that neither Iowa nor New Hampshire are scheduled for early February. They never have been and will not be from the look of things at this point in 2023.

--

¹ A reminder: Just because the Republican winner-take-all window opens on March 15 does not mean that every state after that point will use winner-take-all rules. It just means that they all will have that option. 

--

Recent posts:

[From FHQ Plus] About the California Republican Party Delegate Rules for 2024

Endorsements, Non-Endorsements, Unendorsements and Pre-Endorsements

A reminder about Iowa Republican Delegate Allocation

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

From FHQ Plus: The Blurred Lines Between State and Party on the Caucuses in Iowa

The following is a cross-posted excerpt from FHQ Plus, FHQ's new subscription service. Come check the rest out and consider a paid subscription to support our work. 

--

From Evening Digest, 4/12/23:

I dealt with part of the new bill to change the parameters of the caucus process in the Hawkeye state over at FHQ earlier today. But that bill — HSB 245 — moved past its first obstacle today and out of the Study Bill Subcommittee of the Iowa House Ways and Means Committee on a 3-2 vote, and it looks like it will face a full committee vote on Thursday. [NOTE: HSB 245 passed Ways and Means on a party line vote on Thursday, April 13.]

As some have noted the effort to require in-person participation at a caucus — to ban a proposed plan by Iowa Democrats to shift to a vote-by-mail process — is a move that would immediately be on shaky legal ground. Parties have wide latitude in setting the rules of their internal processes under Supreme Court precedent. And the caucuses are a party affair. The parties pay for them. The parties set the rules. The parties run them.

But the Iowa caucus operations have often blurred the line between state and party on the matter. The parties and the state government, regardless of partisan affiliation across either, have tended to work together to protect that first-in-the-nation status the caucuses have enjoyed over the last half century. There is a state law in Iowa, as in New Hampshire, but both 2008 and 2012 demonstrated that it is fairly toothless. The caucuses in neither case were eight days ahead of the next contest, as called for in state law, and neither party was hit with sanctions for the move.

Moreover, the state/party line has been blurred by the encroachment of same-day party registration at caucus sites in recent years. The state’s tentacles stretch into the caucuses, but that still does not change the fact that the precinct caucuses are a party affair, a party-funded and run operation. And that is kind of the ironic thing about the proposed 70 day buffer required between registration with a party and the caucuses in this bill moving through the Iowa legislature. It retracts those state tentacles to some degree, drawing a sharper line again between state and party domain.

In the end, the fate of this bill beyond the committee is uncertain. But one thing this episode demonstrates is the deterioration of the relationship between Iowa Democrats and Republicans on the one thing that has united them in the past: protecting the status of the caucuses. Republicans unilaterally introducing this measure without consulting the Democratic Party at all on the matter says a lot. And in the long run that will likely hurt Iowa’s efforts to retain its status in the future. 

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Friday Quick Hits

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Primary Creep in Iowa and "Similar Elections"

Invisible Primary: Visible -- An Iowa Acknowledgement

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

From FHQ Plus: Drama Introduced into Effort to Move Idaho Presidential Primary

The following is cross-posted from FHQ Plus, FHQ's new subscription service. Come check the rest out and consider a paid subscription to support our work. 

--

From 3/31/23:

The 2023 state legislative session drags on in Idaho. Gem state lawmakers had targeted last Friday, March 24, as the date on which the body would adjourn. But last Friday came and went and the work has continued well into this week. 

One bill that was a part of that unfinished business was S 1186, the trailer bill to legislation that now sits on the desk of Governor Brad Little (R), having already passed both chambers of the legislature. Together, H 138 and S 1186 were intended to eliminate the separate presidential primary in March and consolidate the election with the primaries for other offices in May. Actually, the House bill was intended to do all of that on its own. But despite the stated intent, all H 138 ever did was strike the presidential primary language from state code. It never built back the statutory infrastructure to add the presidential line to the May primary ballot. S 1186 was the patch for those omissions.

Only, that patch ran into trouble in committee on the House side on Thursday, March 30. Again, H138 is on the governor’s desk. It overwhelmingly passed both chambers with bipartisan support, and S 1186 had cleared the state Senate as well. All that seemingly stood in the way of the intended elimination and consolidation was a quick committee hearing and another presumably lopsided vote in favor of the trailer bill. 

But then came Thursday’s House State Affairs Committee consideration of the measure. The hearing itself covered familiar ground. Sponsors (and the secretary of state) touted the more than $2 million savings consolidating the elections would have while those tightly associated with the state Republican Party cried foul for not being consulted about the potential change ahead of time (before its winter meeting earlier this year).

And it was during that Republican Party backlash to the legislation that the hearing got interesting. Idaho Republican Party Chair Dorothy Moon spoke in opposition to the bill, saying that, if anything, the state party would prefer to move the primary up even further on the calendar than the second Tuesday in March rather than back to May. She went on to say that she and the party would like to have been given the chance to work with the Republican National Committee to move the primary to February; to make Idaho the “Iowa of the West.”

Put a pin in that for a second. That is a storyline in and of itself, but there was another twist. 

All the witnesses who lined up to testify spoke, and it then looked as if the committee was going to move quickly to vote on S 1186 and presumably push it to the floor. Again, the three floor votes that each of these two bills had faced ended with bipartisan passage. The assumption, then, was that State Affairs was going to move this to the House floor for final consideration. Instead, this happened:

State Affairs Committee Chair Brent Crane (R-13th, Nampa): “Senate bill 1186 is properly before the committee."

Silence. [Crane glances around with a slight, knowing grin on his face.]

Chair Crane: “Senate bill 1186 dies for lack of a motion.”

From the Democratic side of the dais: “Uh.”

Chair Crane: “Already made my decision.”

So, with that S 1186 died in committee. 

Now, that could mean a lot of things moving forward. But what it means in the near term is that Governor Little has a decision to make about H 138. If he signs the measure into law, then the March presidential primary is eliminated, but has no home alongside the May primary. If, however, he vetos the House bill, then everything with the presidential primary stays the same as it has been in Idaho for the last two cycles. 

Maintaining the status quo on the March primary may hinge on how much the governor values the cost savings of eliminating the stand-alone presidential primary. If he prioritizes that roughly $2 million savings, then Little may very well sign the bill or allow it to become law without his signature. 

But that means there would be no Idaho presidential primary in 2024, at least not without further action in a special legislative session. It could be that consideration in that setting may occur after enough time that the state Republican Party has had a chance to consult with the RNC about their February primary idea. Granted, that proposal would be dead on arrival with the national party. The RNC set the early calendar in the rules it adopted in April 2022, and Idaho was not among the states given a carve-out to hold February or earlier primaries or caucuses. Additionally, Idaho Republicans would face the national party’s stiff super penalty if it opted to thumb its nose at the rules and conduct a February contest.

That may or may not be enough to deter the Idaho state legislature from going along with an unsanctioned (by the RNC), state-funded presidential primary in February or even raising the presidential primary issue again in a special session. But the Idaho Republican Party may forge ahead without the primary, whether a state-funded option is available or not. 

Gem state Republicans may choose to hold caucuses instead. And, like West Virginia, Idaho fits into this sort of sweet spot with respect to the RNC super penalty. Yes, the penalty would eliminate all but 12 delegates if Idaho broke the timing rules. But there are only 30 Idaho delegates to begin with. Yes, that is a penalty and one that is greater than the old 50 percent reduction that the RNC employed in the 2012 cycle. Yet, it may not be enough to keep Idaho Republicans from forcing the issue and attempting to become the “Iowa of the West.”

And honestly, that may be a good thing for the overall Republican primary calendar for 2024. The Democratic calendar — with South Carolina at the top on February 3 — is likely to push the early Republican states into January, leaving a barren expanse with no contests for all or much of February until Super Tuesday on March 5. A February Idaho caucus and/or a Michigan primary (with waiver) may help fill in that gap.

However, all of that remains to play out. First thing’s first: Governor Little has a decision to make on H 138. And it is a bigger decision than one might expect for a seemingly simple presidential primary bill.

--

NOTE: It was reported this past week upon the Idaho legislature adjourning sine die that Governor Little signed H 138 into law. That eliminates the stand-alone March presidential primary in the Gem state, but bigger questions remain about where the Idaho delegate selection events for both parties end up on the 2024 presidential primary calendar.

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- The Long-Haul Strategy of Team DeSantis

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Biden Gets Another Challenger

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Doug Burgum Ducks Presidential Questions Back Home

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

California Bill to Change Primary Date Amended

Earlier this week, significant changes were made to a California Senate bill that, upon its introduction, appeared to affect the date of the consolidated primary, including the presidential primary, in the Golden state.

In fact, the original version of that bill -- SB 24 -- struck the entire section of the California code dealing with various aspects of the primary, leaving the date unspecified. In brief, the introduced bill described the legislation like this:

This bill would change the date of the presidential primary and consolidated statewide direct primary described above to an unspecified date.

As it turns out, however, that was a change meant to serve as a placeholder while the particulars of the intended bill were worked out. The newly amended version of SB 24 was released on Monday, March 20 and revealed that the date of the presidential primary would remain unaffected moving forward. In its place, grander language to put a public financing (of elections) system before the voters of California was inserted. 

California, it seems for now, will remain one of the anchors of Super Tuesday alongside the primary in Texas. 

Related:

2/17/23: Legislation Would Make the California Presidential Primary Date Unspecified

--

Recent posts:

Bill Eliminating Idaho Presidential Primary Ready for Governor

Kansas Committee OKs Amended Presidential Primary Bill

Invisible Primary: Visible -- National Scrutiny has Arrived for DeSantis

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Bill Eliminating Idaho Presidential Primary Ready for Governor

The leadership of the Idaho legislature had targeted Friday, March 24 as the last day of the 2023 regular session. 

But that did not happen. 

Instead, the state Senate dragged through another legislative day at a glacial pace as the state House stood by, finished with its work and awaiting further action from the upper chamber. 

One matter the Senate was able to dispense with was defining the parameters around which the presidential primary will operate for the 2024 cycle. Those bills -- one to eliminate the stand-alone March presidential primary (H 138) and one to consolidate that election with the mid-May primaries for other offices (S 1186) -- were passed on Thursday, March 23. And since the former bill had earlier passed the state House in it current form, the bill was signed by the requisite parties in both chambers and enrolled, ready to be transmitted to the governor for consideration.

But again, that bill merely ends the separate March presidential primary. It does not build the necessary infrastructure into state code to add a presidential line to the May primary for other offices. That amending action is contained in the trailer bill, S 1186. If the amending bill does not also get a thumbs up from the House, then there would simply be no presidential primary in Idaho for 2024. However, that was not the intent of the original bill, incomplete though it may have been. And that likely is not the intent of legislators in the lower chamber either. 

Nonetheless, S 1186 is not yet on the House calendar for when it is due to reconvene on Tuesday, March 28. New to the chamber, the bill would first have to go through committee, and although it has been referred to House State Affairs, S 1186 is not yet on the panel's docket. FHQ is not suggesting that the trailer bill will not be dealt with. It likely will be. The delay is only a function of the end-of-session logjam. 

But what is interesting is that the state Republican Party opposes the primary's shift to May, and it retains the ability to opt for earlier caucuses as a means of assessing presidential preference among Republicans in the state in 2024. Should the governor sign H 138, then proponents of the bill will have gotten at least part of what they wanted out of the 2023 regular session: they will have eliminated the separate presidential primary and saved the state more than $2 million. But the second part of this -- adding the presidential line to the May primary ballot -- becomes superfluous if the state Republican Party ultimately opts to caucus instead of using the later primary. 

The legislative delay at the end of this session, then, may provide legislators (if not the Idaho Republican Party) some time to consider those options in a way that may affect further progress on S 1186. In other words, that action could be saved for a special session (should one be called) after the Republican state central committee makes any decisions on its 2024 delegate selection process. The party may not want to conduct caucuses, but it also does not want such a late presidential primary. It would appear to be a bit of a lose-lose proposition for state Republicans at the moment. 

Yet, that is all speculative. The state legislature will answer some if not all of these questions as it presumably wraps up its regular session work in the week ahead. 

Related:

3/23/23: Idaho Presidential Primary Bills Pass Senate

3/22/23: Idaho Presidential Primary Inching Toward Move to May

3/18/23: The Fix is in for the Idaho Presidential Primary Bill

3/7/23: May Presidential Primary Bill Continues Its Quick Pass Through Idaho Legislature, but...

2/26/23: Idaho House Passes May Presidential Primary Bill

2/23/23: Idaho Committee Advances May Primary Bill

2/14/23: Idaho Bill Aims to Consolidate Presidential Primary with Others in May

--

Recent posts:

Kansas Committee OKs Amended Presidential Primary Bill

Invisible Primary: Visible -- National Scrutiny has Arrived for DeSantis

Idaho Presidential Primary Bills Pass Senate

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Kansas Committee OKs Amended Presidential Primary Bill

During a working session Friday morning, March 24, the state Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee (FSA) convened to markup SB 321, the bill to create a one-off presidential primary election for the 2024 cycle in Kansas. 

Read the rest at FHQ Plus. 

Related:

3/23/23: Kansas Presidential Primary Push Faces Friday Deadline

3/22/23: Alternate Kansas Bill Would Reestablish a Presidential Primary in March

3/4/23: Kansas Bill Would Reestablish Presidential Primary in the Sunflower State

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- National Scrutiny has Arrived for DeSantis

Idaho Presidential Primary Bills Pass Senate

Kansas Presidential Primary Push Faces Friday Deadline

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Invisible Primary: Visible -- National Scrutiny has Arrived for DeSantis

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

There have been hints of this nestled in all the changing tides stories about Donald Trump's fortunes in the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race, but it has come into clearer focus of late. Governor Ron DeSantis is "trending downward." After riding high as the clearest and best-positioned alternative to the  former president, DeSantis was due for an inevitable down cycle in coverage. 

And those types of stories are starting to trickle out as indictment watch whips itself into a froth. 

Again, all of this was inevitable. Recall that, until now, there was a steady stream of caveats to DeSantis' top challenger status. And they all collectively warned that the Florida governor had not been tested on the national stage. He had not been scrutinized. Well, that was going to come and this may be the first clear wave of it. The crux of it all is that it was going to happen, but how DeSantis responds -- or probably more accurately weathers -- this and subsequent waves of scrutiny and/or the slumping news cycle or two will likely define whether he is able to maintain his perceived positioning as the invisible primary marches on. 

What is difficult for DeSantis and others vying for the Republican nomination is that the indictment circus is likely to take up a lot of the oxygen in the near term, keeping the focus on Trump and less on those seeking to challenge him. It is tougher to counter flagging coverage when most eyes are elsewhere.

...

Actions not words in New Hampshire. Focus less on the repetition of the same tired lines from the Granite state governor and more to what the New Hampshire Democratic Party is now doing as 2024 -- and a likely rogue New Hampshire primary -- approaches. 

...

It has been one of those mid-session weeks in state capitals across the country. Legislation, generally, is moving, but presidential primary legislation is moving in particular. Hawaii, Idaho and Kansas have been active this week in shifting or establishing presidential primaries. 

...

On this date...

...in 1992, Jerry Brown narrowly beat Bill Clinton in the Connecticut primary, starting a short streak of small state victories to end March and start April (the last of his wins that cycle). President George H.W. Bush coasted to victory on the Republican side.

...in 2012, Rick Santorum scored the last of his victories before dropping out in early April with a win in the Louisiana primary. The delegate allocation Pelican state Republicans used that cycle was (and is) a good reminder of the variation that can and does exist across states in the Republican allocation rules. 

...in 2020, it was to have been the date of the Georgia primary, a departure from what had become a string of Super Tuesday primaries. But the coronavirus pushed the election in the Peach state back to June 2020. This was also the date on which the Delaware presidential primary was delayed due to the pandemic.

--

Recent posts:

Idaho Presidential Primary Bills Pass Senate

Kansas Presidential Primary Push Faces Friday Deadline

Hawaii Committee Shakes Up Presidential Primary Bill

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.