Showing posts with label primary movement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label primary movement. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 15, 2023

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):


--
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...






--
See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 
Posted by Josh Putnam at 9:30 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Thursday, October 26, 2023

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...


--
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.



--
See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:30 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Share |

Wednesday, October 18, 2023

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. 


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...


--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 9:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Saturday, July 22, 2023

[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. 

--

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.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Monday, June 19, 2023

South Carolina's move greatly reduces uncertainty on the 2024 presidential primary calendar

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...
  • A thorough contextualization of the decision by South Carolina Republicans to schedule the party's presidential primary for late February next year, plus another envelope-pushing Republican delegate selection plan that quietly slipped under the radar over the weekend. 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...
...

The big news out of the Palmetto state over the weekend was that the Executive Committee of the South Carolina Republican Party voted to schedule the 2024 presidential primary for February 24.

That significantly lowers the temperature on 2024 calendar “chaos” moving forward. With the South Carolina Republican primary in place toward the end of February, that gives Nevada Republicans a substantial runway to land somewhere in the first three weeks of the month. That also means one less contest to potentially compete for calendar space with Iowa and New Hampshire in January. 

There have been those outside of this site who have built up the notion of looming uncertainty with respect to the 2024 calendar, but breathless stories of rogue calendar maneuvering just has not made chaos materialize. It has not. That is not to say that there will not be drama down the stretch as the last calendar pieces fall into place, but it will be muted and all hinges on basically one question: 

On what date does the Iowa Democratic vote-by-mail presidential preference vote end? 

It could be in violation of DNC rules in February and still not affect the beginning of the Republican calendar. That preference vote could end on or after Super Tuesday and it would not change what seems likely. It is only in the event that the Iowa Democratic preference vote ends in January (and probably specifically either on in-person caucus night or merely ahead of the spot New Hampshire is eyeing) that things would turn problematic. 

In any event, there is so much more over at FHQ Plus about the South Carolina move and the early calendar options ahead.

And that triggered a giant update to FHQ's 2024 presidential primary calendar. Both are well worth checking out.


...
Seth Masket does a great job in laying out the balance national parties attempt to maintain in cycles when their incumbent president is seeking reelection. It is a nice departure into the the Democratic race over at Tusk.


...
From around the invisible primary...
Speaking of the nomination race on the incumbent president's side, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s scheduled attendance at PorcFest, a festival of the libertarian-minded New Hampshire Free State Project has drawn a response from New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley. 

Kennedy and Williamson have one play in the contest with Joe Biden: win a rogue New Hampshire presidential primary and hope for the best. But one of those two winning in the Granite state next year either outright or relative to expectations against each other (with Biden not on the ballot) is still less likely to hurt Biden than it is to affect the future of the New Hampshire primary in the Democratic Party's early calendar lineup.

It is an outcome that the New Hampshire Democratic Party does not want. So when friction pops up between Kennedy and the state Democratic Party, it is noteworthy. 



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 9:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Saturday, May 27, 2023

[From FHQ Plus] The Trump Trial and the Primary Calendar

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. 

--

The former president's hush money payment trial in Manhattan is set to start in the sweet spot of the 2024 presidential primary calendar.

Former President Donald Trump beamed into a New York courtroom via video on Tuesday, May 23 for a hearing in which, among other things, the start date of the trial stemming from the 2016 hush money payments investigation was revealed. And the March 25, 2024 date falls right into the heart of the 2024 presidential primary calendar. It is not just that the trial will begin as March winds down following the opening of the (more) winner-take-all phase of the Republican presidential nomination process. 

Yes, the calendar of contests is still evolving, but the tentative start of the trial is a big deal for at least a couple of reasons based on where it looks as if the calendar will end up settling for 2024.

Sure, March 25 will be well after Iowa and New Hampshire have officially kicked off the voting phase of the Republican presidential nomination race. It will follow Super Tuesday. And it will hit right after the time on the calendar — March 15 — when states are allowed to allocate delegates to candidates in a winner-take-all fashion. But more importantly, March 25 falls in what is likely to be the decisive zone on the presidential primary calendar next year. 

In the last three competitive Republican presidential nomination cycles, the candidate who has held the delegate lead when 50 percent of the total number of delegates have been allocated has gone on to clinch the nomination around the point on the calendar when 75 percent of the delegates have been allocated. And in 2024, the 50 percent mark will likely fall somewhere between Super Tuesday on March 5 and the first round of winner-take-all-eligible primaries on March 19. Just two weeks later, on April 2, the 75 percent mark will likely be crossed with an anticipated subregional primary in the northeast and mid-Atlantic (with Wisconsin along for the ride).

March 25 is right in that window. 

But look at the 50-75 rule in the context of the last few competitive Republican cycles. 

  • In 2008, John McCain came out of Super Tuesday on February 5 with a sizable delegate lead that he did not relinquish down the stretch. Super Tuesday was the point on the calendar when the 50 percent mark was passed and McCain had wrapped up the nomination by early March when the 75 percent point came and went. 

  • Four years later, the calendar was different. Yes, Florida again pushed the earliest contests into January, but California was no longer in early February. The primary in Texas was no longer in early March. Instead, both delegate-rich states were toward the end of the calendar and that influenced where the 50-75 rule was activated in 2012. 50 percent of the Republican delegates had not been allocated that cycle until after 75 percent of them had been allocated in 2008. The 75 percent mark did not come in 2012 until the Texas primary at the end of May. That is a significant difference, but Mitt Romney was the delegate leader in late March and secured the requisite number of delegates to clinch the nomination in the Lone Star state in late May. 

  • In 2016, the calendar changed again, but the 50-75 rule remained fairly predictive. Donald Trump was the delegate leader when the 50 percent mark was crossed on March 15 and had a nearly insurmountable advantage after wins in the northeast and mid-Atlantic in late April, when the process pushed past the 75 percent point on the calendar. No, Trump did not clinch that day, but his last challengers withdrew a week later. 

The 2024 calendar is not shaping up to be like any of those examples exactly. 50 percent of the delegates will have been allocated around the same point on the calendar in 2024 as 2016, but the 75 percent mark will come in much quicker succession thereafter. Again, it comes just two weeks later. That is a rapid delegate distribution. It is not 2008 fast, but it is fast. And March 25 is right there, late enough in process, but right in that calendar sweet spot where nomination decisions tend to be made in the Republican process.

The Emerging April Gap

Fast forward to March 25, 2024. The 50 percent mark has been surpassed in terms of delegates allocated and a candidate has a clear advantage in the delegate count. That candidate is almost always the frontrunner heading into primary season. Not always, but often enough. At this point in time, seven months out from Iowa starting the voting phase, that frontrunner is Donald Trump. He may not be in seven or nine months time. 

Regardless, this big external event is plopped down right in the middle of primary season. And it will not be over and done with on March 25. That trial will last a little bit and draw a lot of attention in the process. It will additionally likely overlap with the April 2 round of primaries. 

Now, the calendar is not set yet. But April 2 is poised to grow its footprint on the 2024 process in the coming days and weeks. Officially, Wisconsin is the only contest on that date as of now. However, bills have been proposed to move the Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island primaries to that date. There are signals that legislation is forthcoming from New York to move the presidential primary in the Empire state to April 2 as well. And talk is ramping up that Pennsylvania’s primary may land there also. 

Yet, in moving, those states are pulling up tent posts in late April and shifting them to the beginning of the month. That is going to hollow out the rest of April on the Republican calendar after April 2. There will potentially be no contests scheduled for the rest of the month.

There will potentially be no primaries or caucuses again until the Indiana primary on May 7. 

That is a five week gap with no contests. That is a five week gap that will exert a tremendous amount of pressure on the candidates trailing in the delegate count to close up shop and call it a day. That is a five week gap into which a trial that starts on March 25 will potentially creep and suck up even more attention (potentially away from those trailing candidates who need it most). 

However, that trial, while possibly drawing attention away from the campaign trail, will also create uncertainty; uncertainty as to the viability of the potential frontrunner and delegate leader. And despite feeling pressure to drop out, that may have the effect of, as Julia Azari and Seth Masket recently pointed out, keeping candidates who may otherwise have dropped out in past cycles in this race longer. 

But the point here is that this emerging April gap in the calendar is at the very point in the process when this trial is set to be going on. And there will be no contests or results to divert attention after April 2. Trump could have the nomination close to wrapped up by that point, but other trailing candidates could still be hanging around even as there are no primaries and caucuses for weeks. 

Look, this is already a weird dynamic. But throwing a trial into this rapid succession of delegate allocation followed by a gap in the action right as someone potentially gets close to clinching would create a strange matrix of incentives for all players involved. And that has implications for how the Republican nomination process winds down and transitions into the convention phase typically set aside to bring the party together for a general election run. 




--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Saturday, May 20, 2023

[From FHQ Plus] The Quirks of Scheduling a South Carolina Presidential Primary

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 unlock the full site and support our work. 

--

Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger recently made the curious decision to schedule the presidential primary in the Peach state for March 12, a week after Super Tuesday. And the move not only ended the hopes of Georgia Democrats holding a primary in the pre-window on the 2024 presidential primary calendar, but it also highlighted why South Carolina got the nod from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to take over the lead off slot. 

The Raffensperger obstacle in Georgia, whether viewed through the lens of partisanship or not, is something with which decision makers in the Palmetto state do not have to contend. After all, like Georgia, the state of South Carolina foots the bill for the election. However, unlike Georgia, the it is the state parties in South Carolina that set the date of the contest. It is a unique power that grants the state’s primaries more scheduling mobility than the vast majority of the states and allows South Carolina to remain first-in-the-South (if not first-in-the-nation).

But that freedom in South Carolina is not without some fetters. 

Caitlin Byrd and Alexander Thompson had a nice “yes, South Carolina Democrats are actually having the first primary in 2024” story over the weekend. And complications with rogue New Hampshire (and the very likely resulting penalties from the DNC) aside, they are. South Carolina Democrats will have a February 3 primary next year. 

But as the piece notes, it is not all smooth sailing in the Palmetto state. 

But not everyone is convinced that a 2024 presidential primary would be a major financial or organizing boost. Former party chair Dick Harpootlian questioned the value of holding a potentially costly event for a predictable outcome.  

“The question is, do we have one if it’s the president versus nobody, because it costs a tremendous amount of money to do that,” he said.

Two Democrats so far have announced challenging Biden for the 2024 presidential nomination: Marianne Williamson and Robert Kennedy Jr., both widely viewed as long shots. 

Pressed if he would want a primary with the current field, Harpootlian replied, “I wouldn’t have it.”

Again, South Carolina Democrats are going to have that February 3 primary. But Harpootlian hints at some of the historical quirks in South Carolina, quirks that have taken new shape under state and national party changes. Yes, the parties have the freedom to set the date of the contest for anywhere on the calendar they wish, so long as it follows party rules. And in years past when incumbent presidents have run for reelection, those same state parties have had the freedom to cancel the contest and select delegates through a caucus/convention process. It is not some sinister plot to foil the plans of also-ran candidates. Instead, it is a nod to reality. If the president is going to be renominated, then why, in recent years since the state began funding the primaries, spend taxpayer money (or party money before that) to fund a beauty contest election? The answer is that those state parties have not. There was no big, first-in-the-South primary when Bill Clinton ran for reelection in 1996, or for George W. Bush in 2004, or Barack Obama in 2012 or Donald Trump in 2020. Caucuses and/or conventions were held instead. 

But South Carolina Democrats do not have that freedom for 2024. And no one seems to be lamenting that loss. Everyone is too busy celebrating the elevation of the primary to the first spot on the calendar instead. Well, perhaps not Dick Harpootlian. But he is not wrong, per se, nor is South Carolina alone. The primary is alone at the top, of course, but even other states or state parties that might otherwise go small in 2024 with a Democratic president running again have to go through the motions of a primary because of the Rule 2 encouragements layered into DNC rules for the 2020 cycle, the encouragements to hold the most open and accessible nominating contests as is feasible.

To be sure, folks at the DNC would push back against the notion that any state or state party is “going through the motions.” The argument from the national party would most certainly be that the party is creating the most open, inclusive and accessible process for Democratic primary voters. However, the trade-off, if one wants to call it that, is that the party loses out on the incumbent-cycle streamlining of the process. 

And that streamlining, scaling down from a primary to a caucus, is something that some, if not all of the folks, at the DNC would say is no real loss. While that may be in the eye of the beholder, it is also true that there are and have been limited opportunities to streamline anyway. State parties with party-run nominating events may downgrade — hold caucuses over a party-run primary or a convention over caucuses. And some state parties do opt out of state-run primaries in incumbent cycles. Arizona and South Carolina did on the Republican side in 2020. Democrats in Florida and Michigan did in 2012 to avoid non-compliant primaries that were scheduled too early. And Washington Democrats in the legislature canceled the primary there that cycle, a primary the party never used until 2020 (after the legislature brought it back). And there ends up being a handful of states each cycle that automatically cancel a primary if only one candidate is on the ballot. 

So, there are a few instances each cycle where contests are canceled, but South Carolina is unique among state-funded primary states in that Democrats and Republicans can choose, and have chosen, separate dates throughout the post-reform era. And since the state got into the primary funding business for 2008, just two of the four cycles have seen primary cancelations. But 2024 will be the first one where an incumbent is running and a primary is not canceled. It will be the first time the state of South Carolina has had to pay for a largely uncompetitive presidential primary involving an incumbent president.

Again, this is not the custom elsewhere. In all other primary states, there is one primary. A state party with an incumbent president may opt out, but on the whole primaries are held and delegates are allocated, typically based on lopsided results that hand the president the overwhelming majority if not all of the delegates. But the cost constraint in South Carolina represents a unique obstacle with the state parties holding primaries on separate dates. That is two separate elections to fund. 

And that brings this back to 2024. There will be two primaries. But this will be the first time the state has funded primaries when the incumbent president’s party is not opting out. No one is complaining. The legislature is not threatening the funding. It is spent in service of keeping South Carolina first-in-the-South. But as Byrd and Thompson noted in their article, Palmetto state Republicans used the costs as a justification for opting out in 2020. Democrats in the state are not doing that for 2024. 

The question is whether that action will be the only first in South Carolina for 2024. Separate Democratic and Republican primaries have been the norm. But they do not have to be on different dates. South Carolina Republicans could join Democrats on February 3, save the state the second expenditure and provide a little more room for Iowa and New Hampshire to maneuver in January. 

But that may be a bridge too far in a state with a number of quirks.

 

--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Sunday, May 14, 2023

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. 


--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Saturday, May 6, 2023

[From FHQ Plus] A Curious Decision on the Georgia Presidential Primary

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 unlock the full site and support our work. 

--

As mentioned earlier over at FHQ, it was reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution today that Raffensperger had made his decision and that March 12 was the choice for the date on which to schedule the Georgia presidential primary for 2024. That instantly makes the Peach state the biggest draw on a day that includes primaries in Mississippi and Washington and Republican caucuses in Hawaii.

But it is a curious selection. Most outlets are treating the news as a denial of the proposed elevation of Georgia in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) calendar rules for next year. And it is, but that misses the point. First of all, the proposed February 13 date for the Georgia primary was never workable without either breaking the Republican National Committee (RNC) timing rules or splitting up the Democratic and Republican primaries and holding them on different dates.

That was clear last December when the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) first adopted the calendar rules. And it was even clearer when the full DNC followed suit this past February and when Raffensperger’s office drew a red line because of the aforementioned conflicts.
But what makes this curious and also is being missed is that there was a middle ground in this case that was never really considered. And it is not clear why. As FHQ has noted in February, the secretary could have scheduled the Georgia primary for March 1 or 2 and the move would have met the criteria set by his office. The contest would shift into the early window on the Democratic calendar, albeit later than February 13, would not violate RNC rules and would keep the two parties’ primaries together.

The only catch was that the Georgia Republican Party may have wanted to retain its winner-take-all by congressional district method of delegate allocation. That would potentially have kept the primary in the second half of March. But by selecting March 12, Raffensperger took that discretion away from Georgia Republicans. The party will be stuck with some version of proportional rules for the 2024 cycle.

Without that hitch — without Peach state Republicans insisting on winner-take-most allocation methods — there was no difference between March 1 and March 12. The winner-take-all prohibition treats both dates, and all dates before March 15, the same. But those dates, March 1 or 2 and March 12, are separated by miles in terms of potential impact. A solitary primary before Super Tuesday stands to carry a lot more weight than a primary, especially a proportional primary on the same date as other contests, a week after Super Tuesday. The former is a guaranteed impact, an influence on the Super Tuesday contests. The latter is influenced by Super Tuesday and may — MAY (It would be a gamble.) — put a candidate over the top in the delegate count or be enough to winnow the remaining viable challengers.

That point, however, is moot now. The Georgia presidential primary will fall on March 12. But that does not make it any less strange a decision.


--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Thursday, May 4, 2023

Raffensperger Zeros in on Date for Georgia's Presidential Primary

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

First, over at FHQ Plus...
  • More on the delegate selection plan from Iowa Democrats (and an update on that caucus bill working its way through the state legislature there as the session winds down), a final update on Hawaii's presidential primary and Iowa's was not the only delegate selection plan to go live on Wednesday. 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...
...
Georgia to March 12? Greg Bluestein and Mark Niesse at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution are reporting this morning that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) is set to schedule the presidential primary in the Peach state on Thursday, May 4. And the choice is an interesting one. 
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger plans to announce the decision on Thursday to establish Georgia’s primary date for March 12, according to several people with direct knowledge of the decision who aren’t authorized to speak publicly ahead of a press conference.
Georgia added some flexibility to the timing of its presidential primary back in the lead up to the 2012 nomination cycle. Instead of the state legislature handling those scheduling duties, the body ceded that authority to the secretary of state and empowered the office with rather broad latitude on the matter. Despite that discretion, the presidential primary in the Peach still ended up on Super Tuesday in both 2012 and 2016, consistent with where the primary had been stationed in every cycle dating back to 1992.

But Raffensperger broke with that pattern for the 2020 cycle, initially setting the date for the fourth Tuesday in March, three weeks later than had become usual. And the move was something of a nod to Georgia Republicans. The state Republican Party took the opportunity of the later date to increase the delegate prize for anyone victorious in the Republican presidential primary. Delegate allocation shifted from a more proportional method to one that was winner-take-all by congressional district. Georgia was another piece in the bigger puzzle that was President Trump's renomination race. As in other states across the country, Georgia's 2020 plan made it harder for other candidates to win any delegates and easier for Trump to win, if not all, then most of the delegates in the state. 

All of that is important context for the decision Secretary Raffensperger is apparently set to make. Moving to March 12 would not only impact the ill-fated plans of national and Georgia Democrats to move the primary to a pre-Super Tuesday position, but it would affect the delegate allocation scheme Georgia Republicans would be able to use. Any plan like the one used in 2020 would not comply with Republican National Committee rules. Winner-take-most methods like the one used by Georgia Republicans in the last cycle are prohibited by RNC rules before March 15. 

That means that Georgia Republicans will have to return to a more proportional method similar to the ones utilized by the party in either 2012 or 2016. It may take some folks a bit of time to get there on this, but some will likely eventually argue that this move by Raffensperger hurts Trump because it dilutes any potential net delegate advantage the former president may take out of the Peach state next March. But honestly, that conclusion is not exactly clear at this point in time. The difference between a winner-take-all by congressional district method and a proportional one that has a winner-take-all trigger (as Georgia's did in 2016) can be negligible. If Trump is in the position he is in now in polls when votes are cast next year in primaries and caucuses, then it is likely that he would take fairly significant net delegate gains from Georgia regardless of the methods mentioned above. 

That, however, hinges on what Georgia Republicans decide about delegate allocation rules in the coming months. It seems unlikely, but the state party could opt for a strictly proportional method that really could hurt Trump or at the very least potentially stunt any significant delegate gain from the Peach state. 

All this just triggers the usual mantra used around these parts: The rules matter. And this calendar decision of Raffensperger's moves the needle there. 

...
Iowa Leftovers. I still do not feel like many folks have spent much time reading the Iowa Democratic Party draft delegate selection plan. Some of the reporting has been bad and some of the reactions have been worse.

From New Hampshire, Michael Graham at The New Hampshire Journal had this lede:
The Democratic National Committee may have killed the Iowa caucuses, but Hawkeye State Democrats aren’t going down without a fight. Their problem is that, even if they can somehow battle their way past the DNC, they’ve still got to contend with New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan.
This is just wrong. 

The Iowa plan in no way signaled that Iowa is fighting anything. In fact, it indicated just the opposite. If anything, the Iowa plan was a deescalation in its back and forth with the Democratic National Committee. Yes, it laid out a delegate selection process that will start with the likely January precinct caucuses. But the allocation process, the important one based on the vote-by-mail preference vote, will not kick in until that preference vote is completed. The Iowa plan went to some lengths to separate those two processes so as not to run afoul of the DNC rules for the 2024 cycle. It stands to reason, then, that the preference vote will not be complete until some time that is compliant with DNC rules. 

Now, those mail ballots may be sent out to Iowa Democrats at some point in January, but that is no different from absentee ballots being mailed to voters or early voting starting before early contests like New Hampshire's primary conclude. Hey, Californians started voting as early as February 3 in 2020, the same day as Iowa's caucus (and before the New Hampshire primary!). But results were not reported until Super Tuesday, well after the early contests in 2020. And guess what! New Hampshire's primary law was not "triggered."

Sure, there is a new secretary of state in New Hampshire this cycle, but the dynamic is no different. New Hampshire's results will very likely be in and part of the fabric of the 2024 presidential nomination races before Iowa Democrats begin to report on the preference vote there. 

Graham really should have led with Secretary Scanlan's last line from the New Hampshire Journal story: “We’re just going to have to watch and see what they do.” Indeed. If the Iowa Democratic preference vote ultimately is scheduled to conclude before New Hampshire, then there may be a fight, but all this "fight" talk is wholly premature in light of the plan Iowa Democrats shared on Wednesday.

--
And from Iowa, FHQ hates to disagree with our friend Tim Hagle, but I do disagree with elements of his reaction to the Iowa Democratic delegate selection plan here:
“It’s polite to say it’s in flux.” He [Hagle] added, “Nobody knows what’s going on at this point. ... The plan that the Democrats are putting through with a mail-in caucus, there won’t be that sort of that intensity where you’ve got to get people ready by caucus night. And so we’re probably not going to see a lot of candidates. It’s basically a disservice to Iowa voters.”
It is fact to say that the draft delegate selection plan is in flux. Plans from all 57 states and territories are at this point. But Iowa's plan made things a lot clearer about the path forward there. The disservice that the Iowa Democratic Party is doing is continuing to call the entire process a caucus. Yes, there is a brand there. But the plan offered by the party is no longer a caucus. The delegate selection process is through a caucus, but the allocation part of this -- the part that matters to everyone watching -- is going to be routed through a separate vote-by-mail preference vote. Folks, Iowa now has a party-run primary if some version of this basic plan is approved. That is what this is. Continuing to call it a caucus just confuses that reality. 


...
Polls may be flashing warning signs at President Biden, but just as troubling, if not more so, is the fact that a major union, the United Autoworkers, is holding off on endorsing the president. That is a biggish story about the potential Democratic coalition in 2024. Granted, the polling and the UAW not endorsing at this time may just fit into a broader narrative that is in vogue at this juncture of the invisible primary: embattled Biden. It is something of a theme this week, what with there being a story about Biden's possible troubles with African American voters recently as well. 

Of course, all of this comes before the reelection campaign has kicked into full gear for the president, the sorts of activities meant to woo valuable constituencies back into the Democratic fold for the general election in 2024. Voters are just not engaged yet. As Karl Rove noted over at the Wall Street Journal just this morning, Barack Obama was not in the best of positions at this point in 2011 either. Let's get into (or at least closer to) 2024 and see what the fundamentals look like and then we can talk about warning signs. They may be there now, but odds are high that the UAW will endorse Biden in the end and African Americans will solidly back the president (Yes, the margins matter.).


...
On this date...
...in 1972, Alabama Governor George Wallace (D) won the first Tennessee presidential primary.

...in 1976, both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan swept primaries in Alabama, Georgia and Indiana. Reagan's Indiana victory was his first primary win outside of the South. 

...in 2004, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) won the Indiana primary on his way to the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.


...in 2016, Ohio Governor John Kasich bowed out of the contest for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)