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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

An early update on presidential primary movement in 2025

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems to have worked. 

He's not running.

New York bill introduced to move February presidential primary to April

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

Super Tuesday bill would reinstate Missouri presidential primary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE (2/12/25): 

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

Ohio Senate Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to May

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump and Titanic Tuesday 2008

Leading the day at FHQ...

Last night as FHQ was preparing for the week ahead, I looked up and saw that today was going to be February 5. Big deal, right? 

Actually, for those who follow the presidential primary calendar and its many iterations, it is a date with some significance in the post-reform era. February 5, 2008 was Super Tuesday. It was so super -- so chock full of delegates, in fact -- that some took to calling it Titanic Tuesday. Indeed, both parties allocated more than 45 percent of all of their delegates that cycle on that one day! For comparison, neither party will have allocated any more than 41 percent of the their delegates in all the contests through Super Tuesday in 2024 combined. 

In other words, when folks look up frontloading in the dictionary -- if they are lucky enough to find it -- then they will see a picture of the 2008 map. 

What is more, the allocation rules were different than they are today. Okay, they were different on the Republican side. Democrats had and continue to have the same standard proportional rules with 15 percent qualifying threshold that they have had in place going back into the 20th century. 

In 2008, the GOP rules were different.

But in a lot of ways the Republican calendar was not only frontloaded but the rules were sort of inverted. There was no prohibition on winner-take-all rules early in the calendar as there is in 2024 (and has been in some form or another since 2012). And it showed. The map was peppered with plurality winner-take-all states in the 2008 Republican process and all of them save one -- Vermont -- were in contests held in or before February that year. And many of the other states on Titanic Tuesday and throughout February 2008 that were not truly winner-take-all had winner-take-all elements. Most of those, including California, were winner-take-all by congressional district.

John McCain rode success in those early states to a gigantic delegate lead that crested above the majority mark, clinching the nomination for him, during the first week in March. 

The interesting thing to me is that for all the talk of the Trump campaign working the state-level delegate rules for 2024 -- and, ahem, Team Trump did the bulk of that work in 2019 -- they would have killed to have had that 2008 calendar with its particular patchwork of delegate rules for 2024. With that combination, we would be talking about Trump clinching today rather sometime during the first three weeks in March. 

Team Trump definitely would have traded for that if they could have. But the RNC carried over the same basic set of guidelines for 2024 that the national party had in place in 2016. Which is to say that there remained a super penalty in place to prevent most states from going earlier than March and another penalty to nix plurality winner-take-all rules in states with contests before March 15. 

Anyway, it is a fun thought experiment. Changing to 2008 rules would probably not change the outcome in 2024, but it certainly would have changed the pace of how nomination season resolved itself. Happy Titanic Tuesday Remembrance Day. 

--

Last week a bow was finally tied on the delegate allocation from the New Hampshire Republican primary during the prior week on January 23. Only it was not exactly a nice and neat bow. Instead, as the AP reported it, the New Hampshire secretary of state allocated the one remaining delegate in limbo to Donald Trump, raising his total in the Granite state to 13 delegates. 

How Secretary Scanlan arrived at that was a little, well, weird. And the method used was not consistent with how the secretary's office under previous longtime Secretary Bill Gardner handled the delegate count during the last competitive Republican presidential nomination race in 2016. 

More on that head scratcher of a move at FHQ Plus.

--

FHQ has started rolling out the state-by-state series on Democratic delegate allocation rules over at FHQ Plus. So far there have been looks at rules in...

• South Carolina 
• Nevada
• Michigan
• American Samoa
• Arkansas
• California

What's the difference between Democratic and Republican delegate selection rules? FHQ Plus has it covered.

Looking for more on delegates and delegate allocation? Continue here at the central hub for Republican delegate allocation rules on the state level at FHQ. 

--

Recent posts:

Haley's Path Forward ...and more in response to New Hampshire

2024 has been a weird cycle in New Hampshire ...and more

How many delegates do New Hampshire Democrats have anyway?

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and now find us on Threads (@fhq.plus) and Bluesky (fhq@bsky.social).

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

How many delegates do New Hampshire Democrats have anyway?

Leading the day at FHQ...

By now the story is old hat. At least around these parts it is. The Democratic National Committee altered its presidential primary calendar rules for the 2024 cycle. New Hampshire Democrats did not take kindly to the change that saw South Carolina's primary nudged into the first slot and spent 2023 openly defying the national party rules changes. 

Now, under the delegate selection rules of the Democratic Party, such a move on the part of New Hampshire Democrats carries a penalty, a 50 percent reduction in the size of the base delegation. That reduction has taken place, and New Hampshire Democrats now have 10 delegates to the national convention in Chicago later this summer. But the reporting, if one reads it closely, still seems to toggle between saying that New Hampshire Democrats will lose/have lost half of their delegates and that Granite state Democrats will lose/have lost all of their delegates.

So which is it? Half or all?

Actually, it is both. The actions of the New Hampshire Democratic Party -- opting into the noncompliant state-run presidential primary on January 23 -- cost the party half of its delegates. That is done. However, due to a tweak in the national party delegate selection rules for the 2024 cycle, state parties cannot allocate any delegates to any candidate who campaigns in a state like New Hampshire which has a primary scheduled in violation of the guidelines. Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson cannot even win any actual delegates by being on the ballot in the upcoming primary in the Granite state (even if they manage to qualify). 

So, New Hampshire Democrats have 10 delegates but cannot allocate them. Half and all, all rolled into one. 

The question is, what happens with those 10 delegates? Obviously the back and forth continues between the New Hampshire Democratic Party and the national party to resolve their impasse. But in the meantime, here are some thoughts at FHQ Plus on where things may go as primary season progresses. 

--

In the continuing state-by-state series on delegate allocation rules, FHQ examines changes for 2024 in...

• Utah: Republicans in the Beehive state have once again shifted to caucuses for selecting and allocating delegates. Otherwise, the same eccentricities remain under the surface in the allocation process.
• Vermont: FHQ often says that there are only so many ways to proportionally allocate three congressional district delegates under RNC rules. Well, that is true in terms of the 17 delegates Vermont Republicans have to offer as well. Nevertheless, Republicans in the Green Mountain state have built some unique features into their delegate selection plan.

Looking for more on delegates and delegate allocation? Start here at the central hub for Republican delegate allocation rules on the state level at FHQ. 

--

Recent posts:

Trump's firewall isn't the delegate rules, it's his support ...and more in response to Iowa

What if Iowa Republicans used the old Democratic caucus rules? ...and more

Colorado Republicans Eyeing a Primary Switch? ...and more

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and now find us on Threads (@fhq.plus) and Bluesky (fhq@bsky.social).

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

There is a central tension point in the New Hampshire presidential primary situation, but this still isn't it.

Updated (2:15pm, Wednesday, November 15):

New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan set the presidential primary date for January 23, 2024. 

--

Original post:

It is primary date announcement day in New Hampshire.

Later today, Secretary of State David Scanlan will follow his statutorily-defined role and officially schedule next year's presidential presidential primary in the Granite state. It will answer the question of when the contest will occur on the 2024 presidential primary calendar, but that action will do little to change what has been clear for some time: New Hampshire will have an early contest and it will conflict with Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules for this cycle. 

But again, that has been clear for a while now. Republicans control the levers of power in the state and balked at making any changes to business as usual in terms of how the primary date gets decided every four years. That left in place a law that requires Secretary Scanlan to schedule the primary at least seven days before any other similar election. And Scanlan has maintained for nearly a year now that he intended to follow state law. Unless he takes issue with something in the Iowa Republican Party plans for 2024, then the primary will most likely land on January 23. [In none of Scanlan's comments since Iowa's Republican Party scheduled the caucuses there has he indicated that there is anything problematic.]

None of what will happen today, much less much of what has happened (or not happened) in New Hampshire state government this year has much of anything to do with the DNC calendar changes for the 2024 cycle. Well, they have not had much to do with it for months anyway. 

That is not where the tension is. That is not where the tension has been. But that did not stop NPR from pointing the finger in the wrong direction in a story about the announcement today. No, instead Josh Rogers gives us New Hampshire is expected to set a primary date that will buck Biden's preference.

Just to reiterate: All of that -- New Hampshire Secretary of State Scanlan not going along with Biden and the DNC's calendar design for 2024 -- has been a known known for most of 2023. And that has not been where the tension has been in this first-in-the-nation ordeal. Instead, that tension lies where it has been: in an intra-party dispute on the Democratic side between the national party and the New Hampshire Democratic Party. 

Look, FHQ realizes that New Hampshire Democrats are not going to budge on this. They just aren't. But the decision makers in the state party have and have had the power to defuse this situation all along. All they had to do -- all they have to do -- is plan for a party-run process that complies with national party rules and not go along with a rogue primary and primary date. Yes, that far easier said than done. There are political pressures that those same decision makers face from the rank-and-file members of the state party. And that is all well and good.

However, that is where the tension is in all of this. It is not and has not been between the DNC and Scanlan or Biden and Scanlan. And stories that are inevitably going to pursue that angle in the wake of the secretary's decision today are barking up the wrong tree. They just are. Today's announcement is meaningful in that it will answer the question of when the primary will be. It is an early contest in the process and that is important. 

But disputes with the DNC? That is all about the New Hampshire Democratic Party opting into a contest that the secretary of state sets, not the secretary himself or the action he is on the verge of taking. And the NPR piece is another in a long line of them that fails to note that. 

This is a fact that will become more and more prominent in the context of the Democratic calendar standoff as it will now move into the consideration of penalties phase. And the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee has already given strong indications about where that is headed. 

--

Over at FHQ Plus...

Some additional clarity on Republican delegate allocation rules at the state level

Gavin Newsom is running for president

Revisiting effective winnowing

Actually, Dean Phillips has broken any DNC rules. ...yet.

--

Recent posts:

Which couple of states?

Why DeSantis Attacks Haley

There is no path to the Democratic nomination that goes through New Hampshire

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and now find us on Threads: (@fhq.plus) and Bluesky (fhq@bsky.social).

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

Which couple of states?

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 Biden campaign officially informing Democrats in New Hampshire that he would not file to appear on the presidential primary ballot brought out all usual points in the stories about the national party's standoff with decision makers in the Granite state. ...and all the usual omissions. All the details at FHQ Plus.

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...

Leave it to FHQ to locate and respond to something buried deep in a piece on Biden and New Hampshire. Well, in truth, that is where the primary calendar stuff usually gets tucked away. And Steven Porter's recent article at The Boston Globe saved the intrigue for the final line of a story about New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan's reaction to Biden skipping out on the primary there: 

"Scanlan said he’s not quite ready to announce the date of the 2024 primary. He’s still keeping an eye on a couple of states to make sure they don’t try to jump ahead."

But which "couple of states?"

There are not a lot of states with legislatures currently in session. And fewer are actually looking at moving presidential primaries around. None of those efforts are particularly active at this late date. So it is unlikely that Scanlan is eyeing any state with a state-run process, a primary that would definitively conflict with the oft-discussed first-in-the-nation presidential primary law in New Hampshire. 

All that leaves are some question marks in states that project to have party-run processes in 2024, party-run processes that will not necessarily trigger any action from Scanlan in Concord. What is missing on that front are answers to where contests in Alaska, Wyoming and four of the five territories will end up in the order. [Ahem.] Let's go ahead and scratch the territories from the list. Call them what one will. Primary or caucus. It really does not matter. Those contests will be party-run and in locales far away from both New Hampshire and where the candidates are likely to be next January. And there just are not a lot of delegates at stake.¹ 

It would appear, then, that Scanlan is referring to the uncertainty surrounding the dates of the Republican delegate selection events in Alaska and Wyoming. But a caucus, which is how Republicans in those states have typically chosen to select and allocate delegates, is not a primary. 

Now, it used to be that the distinction from the New Hampshire perspective as to defining a "similar election" was not primary or caucus -- even if that became the shorthand -- but rather, whether the threatening contest allocated delegates or not. That was the line that former New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner drew. Iowa's caucuses were always in the clear because neither Democratic nor Republican caucuses in the Hawkeye state allocated (bound) delegates to the national convention. 

Even that line got blurred in recent years. Wyoming Republicans jumped the New Hampshire primary in 2008 and stayed there on January 5, three days before the primary in the Granite state. And those caucuses allocated some but not all of Wyoming's Republican delegates that cycle. Actions in Iowa in recent cycles also helped to further muddle things. In 2016, Republicans in Iowa bound delegates to candidates for the first time in response to changes in Republican National Committee rules, and a cycle later Hawkeye state Democrats reported more than just state delegate equivalents on caucus night which more clearly bound delegates to particular candidates. In neither case did Bill Gardner opt to leapfrog Iowa. 

So what Scanlan is waiting on is probably not that. The hold up with Alaska and Wyoming Republicans is twofold. Yes, it is the when. When will the contest occur. But it is also the how. How will those parties conduct their processes. That may have something to do with what the parties in Alaska and Wyoming call their delegate selection events -- primary or caucus -- but it may have more to do with whether they include a mail-in option or something else that makes the processes more "primary-like" in Scanlan's eye.

But if past cycles are any indication, then Alaska Republicans will likely land on Super Tuesday and Wyoming Republicans will claim a spot some time in March. And it would not be a total surprise if both end up on March 2, the weekend before Super Tuesday. 

All of this is to say that it still looks very much like New Hampshire will be scheduled for January 23. Scanlan may not officially make that decision, but it is pretty safe to continue to assume that that is the date. The secretary has some time anyway before settling on a date. And it is always better safe than sorry in the Granite state. 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• Silver travel: Both Trump and DeSantis have rare events scheduled in Nevada this weekend. And there is some intrigue to who the Florida governor may be hanging out with at the confab he is attending in Las Vegas.
• Moving on?: Another big money backer may now be leaning toward Nikki Haley in the Republican nomination race. Ken Griffin, who earlier in the cycle was behind DeSantis and then backed off, may now be inching toward Haley. 
• MASSive money: Losing Griffin is less a problem when DeSantis can raise half a million dollars in events in Massachusetts. 
• It doesn't hurt: Endorsements from former members of Congress may be discounted, but it is better to have them than not. Haley reeled in the support of former New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg. 
• FLip: Florida state Rep. Randy Fine has withdrawn his endorsement of Governor Ron DeSantis and lined up behind Trump.
• Crunch time: Michigan Democrats in the state legislature are acting like they are going to adjourn the session early. ...which will mean the new presidential primary law can take effect in time to facilitate a February 27 primary.

--

¹ Now, Puerto Rico does offer more delegates than New Hampshire, but Republicans there would cede all but nine of them to penalties in order to challenge the Granite state on the calendar. There are also some quirks that do make the Puerto Rico Republican process a bit of a wild card, but it is not that wild. There is uncertainty as to what the date of the contest there may be, but it very likely will not fall on any date before March.

--

Recent posts:

Why DeSantis Attacks Haley

There is no path to the Democratic nomination that goes through New Hampshire

It is tough to move the Pennsylvania presidential primary

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and now find us on Threads: (@fhq.plus) and Bluesky (fhq@bsky.social).

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

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. 

[From FHQ Plus] A second state-run primary option in New Hampshire?

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

--

From A second state-run primary option in New Hampshire?:

Talk about burying the lede. This came in over the wires from NBC News this morning...

New Hampshire Republicans would prefer to keep their primary in late January, after Iowa, rather than see [New Hampshire Secretary of State David] Scanlan have to leapfrog Iowa because of Democrats’ maneuvering. Republican state Rep. Ross Berry, who chairs the House Election Law Committee, said he is considering “contingencies” that might prevent that.

Berry said he is considering introducing legislation that would allow Scanlan to set two different primary dates, one for each party. He called it a “last resort option” that would give Scanlan a new tool if he makes the determination that Iowa’s Democratic caucus is functionally the same as a primary.

“We don’t want to get caught flat-footed on it,” Berry said. “If the secretary of state says, ‘You know what, I’m cool with Iowa mailing in their stuff,’ we have no problem, I see no reason to change things,” he continued.

The rest of the piece is standard fare for stories covering the back and forth over the calendar between Iowa Democrats and the New Hampshire secretary of state. It builds up the tension that seemingly exists without getting too far down into the weeds to explain that there probably is not much tension there at all. As the piece notes, it is not unusual for New Hampshire to string this decision out. Long-time and former Secretary Gardner pulled the trigger on a choice for 2008 the day before Thanksgiving in 2007 and waited into November again in 2011. In both cases, a decision was made roughly two months before January primaries in both cycles. Regardless of the timing of a decision from Scanlan, the choice boils down to answering one simple question. And Iowa Democrats are not showing their cards at the moment (even if the state party's actions seem to tip their hand).

But still, even if the early state calendar tension is on a low simmer (at most), the notion that there is a proposal for an emergency legislative fix in the Granite state is newsworthy. Well, it is newsworthy on the surface anyway.

Digging in a bit, creating an option for the secretary of state to schedule a second presidential primary would bail out Democrats currently at odds with the national party over the DNC’s new calendar rules for the 2024 cycle. That New Hampshire Republicans would even consider that is enough to raise eyebrows. And that is without considering the costs associated with a second state-run presidential primary election. The state footing the bill for that is one thing that is almost unbelievable, but creating a carve-out for (what some perceive as) Democrats’ collective own-goal in a battleground state would seem to be a bridge to far for Republicans in control of the levers of power in the state.

But it also goes to show just how far at least one Republican is willing to go to preserve the first-in-the-nation tradition in the Granite state.

Of course, none of this appears necessary at the moment. There are questions surrounding the scheduling of the all-mail Iowa Democratic presidential preference vote. [The Democratic caucuses will be on January 15.] But why would Iowa Democrats go to the trouble of devising this bifurcated caucus/preference vote process in an incumbent cycle if they were just going to break the rules. The system is one that allows Iowa Democrats to have their cake and hopefully (from their perspective) eat it too. The caucuses will remain first (the same night as Iowa Republicans), but the delegate allocation (through the preference vote) can conclude later than that at a time that is either in the Democrats’ early window (with a waiver from the DNC) or on or after March 5. It is a system designed to preserve tradition and comply with DNC rules. It is also a system that allows Iowa Democrats to stay out of the way of business as usual in the New Hampshire secretary of state’s office.

So maybe NBC News did not bury the lede here. Maybe they just got an interesting quote from a legislator in New Hampshire with a proposal for a novel rip cord the state could pull in case of emergency. The only thing is that there does not appear to be an emergency in the near term or on the horizon.

All there actually is is an inability in the press to dig in on this story and describe what is happening between Iowa and New Hampshire. Less than meets the eye.

--

Recent posts:

Another way to look at current support for the First-in-the-Nation primary in New Hampshire

A twist in the 2024 Republican endorsement primary

New Hampshire blinders in the Democratic nomination race

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.