Texas Primary Set for May 29

And the court said let there be a May 29 primary in Texas.

And there was a May 29 primary scheduled, and all was right with the world. Well, calendar world, anyway. So here we are two months into 2012 and we finally, just maybe, have a completed presidential primary calendar. No, not for 2016; for 2012.

Feeble attempts at humor aside, both Texas state parties have set their delegate selection rules in place -- Texas Republicans will still have a proportional allocation system. -- and the courts have given the go-ahead for a May 29 primary. That places Texas all by itself on the third to last occupied week of the primary calendar; just ahead of the California and New Jersey primaries on June 5 and four weeks ahead of the Utah primary on June 26.

This moves the Texas Republican primary and its 155 delegates -- over 10% of the 1144 needed to win the nomination -- back from the March 6 date the contest started on and back even further from the April 3 date the courts were forced to move the primary from due to the continued redistricting dispute in the state. With a tentative map and delegate selection rules set, the primary got the green light.

Follow the Texas calendar movement throughout the last few months by clicking on the Texas label.

Recent Posts:
On the Shifting/Not Shifting of Michigan Delegate Allocation Rules

Race to 1144: Arizona Primary

Idaho House Bill to Eliminate Presidential Primary Passes State Senate

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

April Primary Given the Heave Ho in Texas

And so it has come to this in Texas.

Unable to draw congressional (and state Senate and House) district boundaries in time now to pull off a primary across court-cleared districts without a hitch (Well, with minimal hitches anyway.), unable to settle matters in time to get ballots printed and off to overseas military personnel (in compliance with the mandates of the federal MOVE act), and unable to do any of the above without in some way negatively affecting local elections officials tasked with implementing any agreed upon districts/primary date in the process, the federal court in San Antonio today put to rest any enduring hope of an April 3 primary in Texas. In fact, the hour is late enough at this point that a primary at any point in April or much of May for that matter was simply unworkable for myriad reasons.

The earliest the Texas presidential primary could be held is May 29, and even that date is dependent upon the progress made on interim maps. Any delays there would push the primary into June.

What might be more interesting is how the Texas state parties will deal with the delegate selection process in light of the fact that both are sticking with state conventions in early June and would have to alter state party rules to accommodate any changes to the delegate selection because of the tight window around the primary and conventions.

...but that's a story for another day.

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Michigan


Bill Would Repeal Arizona Presidential Primary

No Conspiracy in Maine

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Pennsylvania Presidential Primary on the Move?

The redistricting process may claim another victim on the presidential primary calendar.

The ongoing battle to set congressional district boundaries in Pennsylvania -- now in the courts -- may push the April 24 presidential primary in the Keystone state back on the calendar. From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Saturday:

Also, without knowing how long it would take a new plan to become final, Mr. Pileggi said lawmakers will need to consider whether they should delay the primary contest. 

"Without control over that length of time, it's hard to come to a final conclusion," [Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader] Mr. Pileggi said in a teleconference with reporters. "But certainly the April 24th date is in jeopardy." 

Democrats said that moving the primary is unnecessary because the Supreme Court has said the decade-old map remains in effect until a new one is approved. 

"A new plan should not be rammed through the process without due consideration for what the court has said about redistricting," said Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa, D-Forest Hills.

There is a hearing today on the Republican-led request to delay the primary from happening. 

--

What does that mean for Pennsylvania within the context of the presidential primary calendar? 

First of all, any time a primary is shifted or is forced to shift back the date on which its primary is held, it runs the risk of losing influence over the process. The discussion around this Republican nomination race has refocused lately on the delegate count, but even before the contests started, that April 24 regional primary date -- where Pennsylvania is currently scheduled -- was seen as a possibility for where (presumably) Mitt Romney might push past the 1144 delegates necessary to lock up the nomination. At the very least, that cluster of contests would conceivably push the former Massachusetts  governor to a delegate lead that may be too steep for his opponents to overcome. To move back beyond that date, then, would mean Pennsylvania would potentially be pushed out of the window of decisiveness in this race. 

But there is a caveat to that. Texas may also -- for similar reasons -- be forced to hold a later presidential primary. And Texas, along with potentially Pennsylvania moving back, shifts a lot of delegates -- 227 total delegates -- further back in the process. That may affect the delegate counting calculus at that point. Of course, the March contests will go a long way toward determining how detrimental a move back for Pennsylvania would be.

...or if it is consequential to the the process determining a presumptive nominee by that point.

A tip of the cap to Tim McNulty at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette for passing this news along.

Recent Posts:

Race to 1144: Florida Primary

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Nevada

Florida May End Up "Proportional" But It Won't Be Proportional

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Deal Would Push Consolidated Texas Primary back to April 3

Add one, subtract one.

As soon as Ohio rejoined Super Tuesday on March 6 an apparent deal between the Republican Party of Texas and the Texas Democratic Party has the Lone Star state on the verge of shifting its presidential primary -- along with the primaries for other offices -- back a month from March 6 to April 3. The deal was necessary to accommodate the need for time for the federal courts to resolve the redistricting dispute in the state, redraw the lines and leave enough time for the elections to be properly administered. With Texas now shifting off the Super Tuesday line on the calendar -- pending approval from the federal district court in San Antonio¹ -- the already less Super Tuesday relative to 2008 loses 155 Texas delegates. That leaves Super Tuesday as the date on the calendar with the most delegates at stake and brings April 3 -- with the addition of Texas -- up to the date with the third highest number of delegates on the line in the Republican nomination race; just ahead of April 24 (New York, Pennsylvania, etc.) and behind only Super Tuesday and June 5 (California, New Jersey, etc.).

However, the move does have consequences as FHQ alluded to in our Texas post this morning. Sure, Rick Perry is going to have to win some contests (Iowa and South Carolina???) to survive long enough for the southern contests on March 6, but now the Texas governor can no longer rely on Texas on Super Tuesday. And once this gets into March, it may take more than wins -- more like wins with attendant large delegate margins -- to survive and advance. In other words, with Texas pushed even further back on the calendar, Perry's chance of survival, much less a path to the nomination, takes a hit.

And even though FHQ got some resistance from the Republican Party of Texas -- the communications director and an Executive Committee member -- on the likelihood of RPT altering its allocation rules from proportional back to conditional winner-take-all, I can't help but wonder if the party may petition the RNC for a shift. As of now, the RPT line is that the October 1 deadline to finalize rules with the RNC has passed and the current proportional allocation is set in stone. [Sorry. These sorts of questions haunt me. It is a constant quest for a definitive answer where no wiggle room exists.] There may be no wiggle room here, but RPT could argue that their decision-making calculus would have been different had they known the courts would intervene in the redistricting fight and put the March 6 primary date in jeopardy. Now, the RPT argument is that the matter is settled and such a plea would fall on deaf ears at with the national party. That is entirely possible and signals that there may be no desire to make a change within the party. That may be true now, but this bears watching over the next [insert some definite period of time here]; whether sentiment within the state party changes on the matter of delegate allocation.  

--
¹ According to those close to the process, the courts left it up to the two state parties to hash out.

Recent Posts:

Kasich Signature Places Ohio Presidential Primary Back on March 6

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: South Carolina

Deal to Conditionally Split April Texas Primaries Emerges in Ongoing Talks to Resolve Primary Date Dispute

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Deal to Conditionally Split April Texas Primaries Emerges in Ongoing Talks to Resolve Primary Date Dispute

Nolan Hicks at the San Antonio Express-News is reporting that multiple sources have confirmed that there are ongoing discussions about a deal moving a consolidated Texas primary -- including the presidential primary -- from March 6 to April 3. Furthermore, congressional, state legislative and other races awaiting new district boundaries would have primaries on that April date dependent upon whether the time between the primary and a court decision on the lines allowed enough time for implementation. Without the necessary time, those primary elections would be moved back to a late May date.

There are a host of interesting questions here, but FHQ will focus on the presidential primary aspect of this from which two main questions arise. First of all, this opening brings back to the fore the question discussed here yesterday: Would a shift  to a post-April 1 primary date cause the Republican Party of Texas to reconsider its method of delegate allocation -- switching back to a conditional winner-take-all system based on both the statewide results and the congressional district results from a proportional allocation?¹ On that point, FHQ actually got some interesting pushback from Chris Elam, the Republican Party of Texas communications director. In a series of Twitter exchanges -- best summed up here -- Mr. Elam made clear to FHQ that the current RPT delegate selection rules were submitted to the RNC before the October 1 deadline laid out in the Rules of the Republican Party, were approved and are set in stone now that that point has passed. Asked about any desire within the RPT to change back to winner-take-all rules, Mr. Elam said that it was premature to speak of such a change given that no decision has been made by the courts -- nor has a deal been cut between the two state parties -- and deferred to the unanimous vote on the rules change at the State Republican Executive Committee meeting on October 1.

There is nothing wrong with that explanation, but FHQ still detects a bit of wiggle room for the RPT on this issue. Let's look at those RNC rules a little bit more closely. Rule 15.c.12:

No delegates or alternate delegates shall be elected, selected, allocated, or bound pursuant to any Republican Party rule of a state or state law which materially changes the manner of electing, selecting, allocating, or binding delegates or alternate delegates or the date upon which such state Republican Party holds a presidential primary, caucus, convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a presidential candidate and/or electing, selecting, allocating, or binding delegates to the national convention if such changes were adopted or made effective after October 1 of the year before the year in which the national convention is to be held. Where it is not possible for a state Republican Party to certify the manner and the date upon which it holds a presidential primary, caucus, convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a presidential candidate and/or electing, selecting, allocating, or binding delegates to the national convention in effect in that state on the date and in the manner provided in paragraph (e) of this rule, the process for holding the presidential primary, caucus, convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a presidential candidate and/or electing, selecting, allocating, or binding delegates to the national convention shall be conducted in the same manner and held upon the same date as was used for the immediately preceding national convention.

There are few things there. One is that quite a few states made decisions to set primary or caucus dates after October 1. The four carve out states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- and just yesterday, Ohio, all set dates following the deadline codified in the rules. Rule 15.e goes on to describe the possibility of a waiver being granted for states whose parties cannot -- for whatever reason -- meet that deadline. That FHQ has heard, there has been no talk of any of those five states asking for or being granted a waiver on those grounds. [That doesn't mean there wasn't one.] The four carve out states may have been granted such a waiver or simply just blamed the Florida move for setting up a post-October 1 domino effect. In Ohio, the Republican Party shrewdly included a conditional provision in their RNC-sanctioned rules; adding a proportionality element to the at-large delegate allocation should the primary be scheduled before April 1. In the event that the redistricting dispute in the state left the primary date unsettled or forced it to a post-April 1 date, the rules would revert to winner-take-all statewide-congressional district as they had been in 2008.

Again, if RPT has the desire to change the delegate allocation rules, could it not argue before the RNC that the decision to shift to a post-April 1 date was triggered by court action that was out of the state party's hands to a great degree? In other words, could the argument successfully be made that the decision-making pre-October 1 would have been different had the party known it was going to have a post-April 1 presidential primary? Possibly, but it could also be that such a move is more trouble than it's worth and that Texas National Committeeman and RNC legal counsel, Bill Crocker, may not want to push too hard on that issue. [The counterargument is that Mr. Crocker would be well-positioned to help push such a change through.] Much of that depends on whether the desire is there within the RPT to make that happen. It's a big if.

...but that brings us to...


The second question has to do with how Texas Governor Rick Perry fits into all of this. It is apparent that the Perry campaign wants the primary as early as possible. It is also apparent that the Republican Party of Texas wants to follow the rules from the RNC.  But it is still perplexing to FHQ that any change was made at all to the Texas delegate selection rules. The rules utilized by the state party in 2008 would have been compliant with the new RNC rules before or after April 1. Again, the 2008 rules were winner-take-all by congressional district and statewide conditional on a candidate receiving over 50% of the vote. That is something that is completely within the letter of the law in the new RNC rules. Period.

So why the change? That is a very interesting question. If we assume -- as appears to be the case with the early primary date preference -- that the Perry campaign had some motivation (influence?) over the process of setting/maintaining the primary date, then was there some motivation to switch to proportional allocation as well?² The San Antonio Express-News article indicates that there is some pressure on RPT chair, Steve Munisteri, to keep the primary in March, so it is not a stretch to consider that the Perry camp put similar pressure on the party to change the rules.

But why? If the Perry folks are banking on an early Texas primary, why dilute the influence of the state by making the results proportional when that is not required? Why not leave the winner-take-all element in the plan in order to run up the score in the delegate count? It is all curious.

Now sure, the extent to which the Perry campaign was involved in all of this is an unknown and this is all quite speculative. However, it is undeniable that the Republican Party of Texas did not have to alter its delegate selection rules to comply with the RNC rules changes on proportionality. Something drove that decision and if it was even partially due to the Perry campaign, it is a counterintuitive calculation on their part with a delegate count as the backdrop.

Hat tip to Michael Li at txredistricting.org for the news of the deal.

--
¹ Yes, that would require those newly drawn congressional district boundaries, but recall that that portion of the plan -- the actual assignment of delegates based on numbers disaggregated into the new districts -- does not happen until the state convention. That isn't an issue, then.

² It is worth noting that Perry signed the bill that dealt with the primary -- SB 100 -- before he got into the race. The bill maintaining the March 6 primary date was signed in June before Perry entered the presidential race in August.

Recent Posts:

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Iowa

Ohio House and Senate Pass Bill to Consolidate Primaries on Super Tuesday

A Few Notes on the Impact a Later Presidential Primary Would Have in Texas

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

A Few Notes on the Impact a Later Presidential Primary Would Have in Texas

Now, FHQ may have fanned the flames on this a little in the last line of last night's post on the hearing over the 2012 Texas primary election schedule. But let's take a step back for a moment and look at what happens in the event that the San Antonio district court forces a unified election on a date later than March 6. For starters, it seems like all parties to this case agree that it is probably impossible to resolve the issues inherent in the redistricting case, draw maps and have a timely response to those changes from local elections officials and filing candidates. In other words, either the Republican Party of Texas gets its wish for two primaries -- with the presidential primary continuing on March 6 -- or there will be a unified primary on some later date.

And yes, as Burnt Orange Report said last night, that we're talking about a state -- much less two -- changing its date in the middle of December before the primary season starts on January 3 is news enough. But that is where FHQ parts ways with how BOR assesses the impact of a potential date change for the Texas presidential primary. Well, FHQ agrees that it is an open question as to whether a later date -- especially post-April 1 -- would trigger a change in the winner-take-all versus proportional allocation methods within the Republican Party of Texas. But we will not overstate the nature of those potential changes.

As has been the case for a majority of this cycle, the broader discussion of the RNC delegate selection rules changes is being cast in black and white terms; that in this instance, Texas would be moving from completely proportional back to completely winner-take-all. That just simply is not the reality. A rules change (More on that in a moment.) that essentially reverted the Texas delegate selection process to the 2008 method -- see sections 8 and 9 toward the bottom of this RPT rules document -- would mean that Texas would change from being proportional to winner-take-all statewide and winner-take-all by congressional district. The winner-take-all allocation -- whether the at-large delegates based on the statewide vote or the three delegates per district based on the congressional district vote -- would only be triggered if one candidate won over 50% of the vote. Otherwise, the allocation would be proportional. And yes, there are some quirky combinations in there where the statewide vote could be winner-take-all for one candidate and another candidate wins a handful of congressional districts or where the statewide vote triggers proportional allocation and two or more candidates split winner-take-all allocation in some districts while others remain proportionally allocated.¹

Again, there is a significant amount of gray area between those two -- proportional and winner-take-all -- extremes in the Republican National Committee delegate selection rules.

The more important question if the courts force a later presidential primary date on the Republican Party of Texas is IF -- or can -- the party will decide to revert to their pre-October State Republican Executive Committee meeting rules. [Here are the current rules.] Let's take the CAN first. In conversations with Texas Republicans, FHQ has always been told that RPT is like the RNC: rules changes can only be made at the state or national convention. Sure, the RNC changed that for the first time in the post-reform era during the 2008 convention, but the RPT has an out. In the case of emergencies the party can make rules changes outside of the state convention setting (see Rule 1C). A court order mandating a later presidential primary date may be such an emergency.

But would the party be motivated to make that change in the event the primary gets pushed back beyond April 1? In defense of the winner-take-all rules and a first Tuesday in April primary date, RPT chairman Steve Munisteri in an open letter to Texas Republicans made clear that the party was concerned it would lose half of its delegates to the convention if it was forced to keep the March 6 date and not switch to proportional allocation. [At the time they were arguing that the rules could not be changed outside of the convention.] Having proven that it prefers the winner-take-all allocation -- which was fine with the new RNC rules given the 50% barrier for winner-take-all allocation -- and that it can and has the willingness to change the delegate allocation rules away from the state convention, the Republican Party of Texas would presumably move to readopt the triggered winner-take-all rules.

...and that may happen with some Republicans in coming out in favor of one unified primary.

There should be some resolution to this by the end of the week as hearings in San Antonio are scheduled for both Thursday and Friday.

--
¹ The proportional allocation of 3 congressional district delegates -- assuming no one candidate receives over 50% of the vote -- is done by allocating two delegates to the top vote getter and one to the runner-up. That allocation is in order so long as those two candidates are also over the 20% mark in the vote total within that district.

Recent Posts:

Republican Party of Texas Primary Election Schedule Defense is, uh, Interesting.

Bill Introduced in Ohio House to Create a Consolidated Primary on May 22

Is the March 6 Texas Presidential Primary Really Safe from the Court Squabble Over Redistricting?

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Republican Party of Texas Primary Election Schedule Defense is, uh, Interesting.

There was something that struck FHQ as odd in the filing the Republican Party of Texas submitted to the San Antonio Federal District court on Monday. [That filing was released today. -- via txredistricting.org]

Now, this is the same court whose decision in the Texas redistricting case was met with a stay from the US Supreme Court late last week. That decision has sent the lower court -- and the state parties in Texas -- scrambling to square the disarray the uncertainty into which the redrawn maps have thrown the 2012 primary season across Texas. The Republican Party of Texas wants to maintain the March 6 primary for the presidential nomination and a host of other statewide races and push the primaries for other offices -- those requiring the redrawn maps -- to May 29. RPT placed the greatest emphasis on the impact moving the presidential primary would have on the local party level:

Munisteri cannot emphasize enough to this court that moving the date of the Texas presidential primary, aside from placing difficulty, nay nearly impossible burdens on the administration of the Republican Party at all levels, but especially at the most basic level where it is wholly conducted by volunteers, will cause this court to likely change the result of the national Republican nomination for President of the United States. 

To be clear, the Republicans were most concerned in this filing with the possibility of the presidential primary being moved back to May 29 as well; a date that would make completing the process prior to the early June state convention difficult. The party also argued that moving the presidential primary would force local elections officials to find alternate venues for precinct conventions and pay for those from personal funds. But then came the interesting argument from the party: That abandoning the March 6 presidential primary date would affect the balance achieved by the Texas legislature in setting that date to "preserve this States' [sic] voters a voice in the nomination of the Republican and Democratic nominees for President of the United States." The party goes on to argue that it even changed from winner-take-all delegate allocation rules to proportional in light of requirements from the Republican National Committee in order to preserve that voice.

Now sure, moving the presidential primary all the way back to May 29 would more than likely push Texas out of the window of decisiveness in the Republican presidential nomination race. And that would make the shift from winner-take-all to proportional rules all for naught. But it appears as if the Texas Democratic Party was ready with a counterproposal that would keep all the primaries on one date -- the position they want. Instead of May 29 as the consolidated primary date, the Democrats are arguing for an April 3 primary date.

That date grabbed FHQ's attention. [In fact, I may be the only one.] Why? That was the date that some Republican legislators were pushing to move the primary to back in the spring during the legislature's regular session. Not only that, but that was a date that the Republican National Committeeman (and now RNC legal counsel) Bill Crocker and Republican Party of Texas Chairman Steve Munisteri argued for in a hearing on the primary date legislation before a House committee. Look at what FHQ had to say about that hearing in April 2011:

The committee substitute to HB 111 discussed in the hearing would move the presidential primary back to first Tuesday in April. That move was supported by both Republican National Committeeman from Texas, Bill Crocker, and Texas Republican Party Chairman, Steve Munisteri. Both cited the need to comply with national party rules concerning timing and stressed the potential penalties associated with violations (half or more of the delegation). That is not a concern on timing but is based on the rules regarding Republican delegate allocation in the state. As was the case for the Republican National Committee in every post-reform cycle but 2012, the Republican Party of Texas cannot change its rules except at its convention and the party would need to change its winner-take-all allocation method to comply with the RNC rules if the state maintained a March primary. In other words, the state party could not make the necessary change to its method of delegate allocation until its convention following the primary in 2012. This concerned both Republicans for the potential penalties associated with an inability to make that change. Interestingly neither Crocker nor Munisteri mentioned the potential for Texas losing significance for moving to a later date and both touted the possible advantages of not only maintaining the winner-take-all rules with an April primary, but also the additional significance that would carry if the nomination race was still being contested at that point.

Again, those matters are out the window if the court pushes a May 29 date. The RPT is absolutely right in that case. However, the court may be sympathetic to the April 3 date Texas Democrats are rallying behind. The only question is whether the court -- or the parties for that matter -- feels the redistricting plan will be in place by that point. It is already uncomfortable with the March 6 date for offices that require those lines, but is that extra month enough time?

...and will the Republican Party of Texas consider shifting back to winner-take-all delegate allocation rules if so?

Recent Posts:

Bill Introduced in Ohio House to Create a Consolidated Primary on May 22

Is the March 6 Texas Presidential Primary Really Safe from the Court Squabble Over Redistricting?

Waiver Granted, Missouri Democrats Will Proceed with February 7 Primary

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Is the March 6 Texas Presidential Primary Really Safe from the Court Squabble Over Redistricting?

Over the weekend, FHQ received several requests/queries for some sort of comment about the impact the Supreme Court's Friday stay in the Texas redistricting case would have on the presidential primary in the Lone Star state. Will the decision have an impact? Yes and no.

There are two ways of thinking about this. One is from the standpoint of the delegate selection process. If the Republican Party of Texas allocates some of its delegates based on the results of the votes in the congressional districts, then how can the primary go forward in March without a new district map in place? The second is more of an administrative issue. How does the addition of another election affect the actual administration of these several elections? What are the costs? Setting aside the latter for the moment, the impact on RPT's presidential primary is minimal. Yes, there is a congressional district element to the allocation of delegates in the Texas Republican plan, but the point in the process where that intervenes decreases its impact. Let me explain.

There are a couple of elements involved here. First of all, neither the state of Texas nor the Republican Party of Texas has the luxury of leaning on past congressional districts. If this was simply a matter of divvying up the same 32 districts that existed before the Census in a way that accounted for population shifts within the state over the last decade, then that's one thing. But Texas has added four congressional seats and that affects the delegate apportionment from the national party. It is important to note that using the congressional district units in this process is something that is completely up to the state parties (on both sides). So while that element is part of the delegate selection process, it is only there so long as the Republican Party of Texas wants it there. Those sorts of decisions -- by the state parties -- is something in which the courts have continually refrained from becoming involved. They -- the courts -- just don't weigh in on those sorts of political -- intra-party -- questions. Instead they will defer to the state or national party's judgment. Now, where the courts may be sympathetic on these sorts of issues is when the administration of elections is affected. But I'll have more on that in a moment.  

The other part of this is the actual sequence of the Texas delegate allocation process. Texas represents a rare example of a state that opted to abandon completely its winner-take-all allocation rules of the past, instead adopting a proportional means of allocation in 2012. That proportional allocation is not for just a sliver of the overall total. No, Texas Republicans switched to a completely proportional allocation method for 2012.¹ I don't want to preempt a post on the Texas delegate selection rules I'm working on, but suffice it to say, the congressional district portion of the allocation will not be an issue until and unless the redistricting court dispute plays out past the state convention in early June. [With the courts already discussing a bifurcated primary process with a March primary and a May primary, the courts are of the opinion that the dispute will be resolved in time for that May primary to be held. That, of course, precedes the June state convention.]

Why?

Well, under the new rules, the candidates' portion of the vote serves as an umbrella over the entire process. Each set of delegates -- whether at-large or congressional district -- is allocated proportionate to a candidate's share of the statewide vote. Well, truth be told, it is, in fact, the total number of delegates that are allocated proportionally. The at-large and congressional district distinctions are only made as a means of identifying the actual delegates and the candidates to whom they are pledged. [I'm already pushing back against that particular statement, so I know others will. Bear with me and take my word for it for the time being. I'll have a post dedicated to the Texas plan soon.] Much of that business is taken care of at the state convention anyway, so the RPT will not need the new district boundaries in place until then for the purpose of delegate allocation. On the evening of March 6, then, we'll know the number of delegates each candidate will have from Texas. We just won't know who those delegates are. [That's not a point that most people are concerned with anyway; especially if we're in the midst of a delegate counting under a microscope at that point.]

In terms of the process (within the party), then, Friday's stay is not likely to have much of an impact on the presidential primary. However, strain is already beginning to show as far as how this will affect the actual administration of the, now, two primaries that are supposedly going to take place in the spring. We move from a party issue to one that concerns the state, county and local administration of elections. Part of the reason the Texas primary stayed in March was because there was a tremendous amount of pushback from the local level on the effects a proposed move to April would have had (see links in footnote below). I spent enough time following the primary movement discussion to know that there are enough lines drawing various boundaries for various offices across Texas to make anything other than the status quo nearly impossible for local elections officials to make work -- at least that is the argument made whenever the possibility of a change to the system arises. That was witnessed in legislative hearings back in the spring and has already come up in the context of this redistricting discussion. The question presidential primary followers need to focus on as this proceeds is how sympathetic the courts will be to that complaint/argument from local elections officials. The answer to that question will hinge on the extent to which counties can make the argument that the additional election causes financial duress.

That may or may not push the presidential primary to a different date, but the allocation of delegates will be unaffected either way.

--
¹ Texas legislators and the RPT were fearful -- unnecessarily, seemingly -- of the backlash from the RNC if it did not make changes to its delegate allocation formula from 2008. Of course, the old plan seems to have followed the guidelines of "proportionality" from the RNC as they were. Alas, changes were made.

Recent Posts:

Waiver Granted, Missouri Democrats Will Proceed with February 7 Primary

In Lieu of Non-Compliant Primary, Arizona Dems Opt for Late March Caucuses

Jeb Bush is running for president.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

The Art of Redistricting

Maximize one's gains or solidify what one already has?

There have been a couple of good pieces I've read over the last couple of weeks that encapsulate the dilemma that faces those in control of the redistricting process.

Carl Bialik dips into the political science literature and finds while redistricting has an impact, it is limited by a host of factors.

Aaron Blake hits on some of the same themes, but does so through a case study of the dilemma facing Republicans in Texas.

Given the GOP's run through gubernatorial and state legislative races two weeks ago, the party has a distinct advantage in a series of states where they control the redistricting process. That said, those state governmental advantages may have a limited impact due to the question posed at the outset. The temptation of the former is tough to resist for any party that has unified control of a state government, but the latter is a pragmatic option that offers a safer and longer term effect. None of this is to suggest that the Republicans won't gain seats as a result of their victories on the state level. Rather, the point is merely to highlight the fact that parties with unified control of their state governments can only carve out so many additional districts for themselves before they begin to hurt the incumbents of their own party. That goes for Republicans and Democrats.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Redistricting, State Legislative Elections and 2012

Justin Levitt, writing over at Election Law Blog, has the scoop this morning on the impact yesterday's state legislative races will impact the redistricting process over the course of the next year. The bottom line: Republicans are now in control of the redistricting apparatus states with 189 congressional districts to be drawn. And there are still 68 seats yet to be categorized because the results are not clear yet.

The focus was on the House, the Senate and the gubernatorial races last night with an occasional nod to redistricting, but that last item really is the big thing coming out of yesterday.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

The 2009 Census Population Estimates are Now Public

Here's the release from the Census Bureau:

Census Bureau: Texas Gains the Most in Population
Last State Population Estimates Before 2010 Census Counts

Texas gained more people than any other state between July 1, 2008, and July 1, 2009 (478,000), followed by California (381,000), North Carolina (134,000), Georgia (131,000) and Florida (114,000), according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates

California remained the most populous state, with a July 1, 2009, population of 37 million. Rounding out the top five states were Texas (24.8 million), New York (19.5 million), Florida (18.5 million) and Illinois (12.9 million).

"This is the final set of Census Bureau state population estimates that will be published before the official 2010 Census population counts to be released next December," said Census Bureau Director Robert Groves. "We are focused now on ensuring we get a complete and accurate count in 2010. The census counts will not only determine how many U.S. House seats each state will have but will also be used as the benchmark for future population estimates."

Wyoming showed the largest percentage growth: its population climbed 2.12 percent to 544,270 between July 1, 2008, and July 1, 2009. Utah was next largest, growing 2.10 percent to 2.8 million. Texas ranked third, as its population climbed 1.97 percent to 24.8 million, with Colorado next (1.81 percent to 5 million).

The only three states to lose population over the period were Michigan (-0.33 percent), Maine (-0.11 percent) and Rhode Island (-0.03 percent). The latter two states had small population changes.

Other highlights:

• Net domestic migration has slowed dramatically in many states in the South and West, including Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, North Carolina, South Carolina and Montana.
• Several states have negative net domestic migration, which means more people are moving out than moving in. Florida and Nevada, which earlier in the decade had net inflows, are now experiencing new outflows.
• Louisiana’s July 1, 2009 population, 4.5 million, is up 40,563, or 0.91 percent, from a year earlier.
• The nation’s population as of July 1, 2009, was 307 million, an increase of 0.86 percent since July 1, 2008.
• The estimated July 1, 2009, population for Puerto Rico was 4 million, up by 0.32 percent (12,735) from one year earlier.

The population to congressional seat gain/loss report should be up later this week sometime. I'll get an updated map for 2012 up when that information is made available.


Recent Posts:
Tis the Season

Have Things Really Gotten This Bad for Democrats?

Who's Happy with a the Parties' Tentative Outline of a Primary Calendar for 2012?

The Links (12/10/09)

1. John Thune has your gubernatorial presidential aspirations right here.

...in the Senate. The South Dakota senator is still FHQ's 2012 darkhorse of the moment. I still think 2016 is more likely, though. If Thune is anything, it's shrewd.

2. South Carolina Republicans are like Idaho Republicans: They want closed primaries in the presidential delegate selection races in the Palmetto state.

3. Local fare: Cal Cunningham's chances in North Carolina depend on DSCC investment.

...in his primary race against Elaine Marshall first (to even have a shot at Richard Burr).

4. State of Elections has another great redistricting reform post up. Read away.


Recent Posts:
PPP: 2012 Presidential Trial Heats (Dec. '09): Huckabee within 1 Point of Obama

Democrats and Republicans Unified on a March Primary Start? All Signs Point Toward Yes

Coakley, Brown Win Parties' Nods in MA Senate Specials

The Links (12/1/09)

FHQ hasn't done a "The Links" post in quite a while, but there are few interesting things floating around in my neck of the virtual woods that I thought I'd share with FHQ readers.

1. From Florida:

"Florida voters will likely have the opportunity to inject some competition back into legislative races next November. Fair Districts Florida, a nonpartisan issue committee, is sponsoring two ballot measures that will establish fair and impartial standards for redrawing state and congressional district boundaries every decade."

That's all well and good except...

2. From New Jersey:
There has been a bill introduced in the New Jersey Assembly to require the governor to fill US Senate vacancies in the state's delegation with someone of the vacating senator's party (Frank Lautenberg, New Jerseyans are looking in your direction. Alternate question: Are New Jersey Democrats a little antsy about what Governor-elect Christie would do if confronted with that situation?). This is akin to the process that unfolded in Wyoming in 2007 following Sen. Craig Thomas' (R) death. Democratic governor, Dave Freudenthal, was required to choose someone from among three selected options put forth by the Republican Party in the Equality state.

3. Finally, FHQ is always tickled pink at how campaigns respond to new media, both for the entertaining pitfalls and masterful successes. This CQ piece on political ads on Hulu is fascinating, particularly for a campaign's ability to target particular audiences. That evolution has been something to take in.


Recent Posts:
Washington Post Poll: 2012 GOP Primary Race

Rasmussen 2012 Trial Heats (Nov. '09): Another Tie for Romney Against Obama

Happy Thanksgiving from FHQ

Do Even "Fairly" Drawn Congressional Districts Favor Republicans?

I had a very interesting paper make its way into my inbox today from the Political Methodology section of the American Political Science Association. Jowei Chen and Jonathan Rodden examine the inherent bias against urban -- in this case Democratic -- parties in the redistricting process. As they describe it [pdf]:

"Our central claim is that a substantial, systematic bias against the urban party does not require any intentional manipulation of maps by its opponents. On the contrary, our contention is that under political geography conditions that are quite common in industrialized societies, virtually any districting scheme that privileges compactness and contiguity will produce a bias against the urban party."

In other words, if you were to take an evenly divided state with some number of urban centers and randomly divide the state into congressional or state legislative districts -- while adhering to the court mandated principles of compactness and contiguity -- the party most representative of the urban areas would garner substantially fewer than 50% of the seats in the congressional delegation or in either state legislative chamber. If, for example, you were to take, say, Florida and its basically tied election in 2000 and just randomly draw some districts (Well, not randomly. You'd have to keep the population in each district proportionate to the other districts.), the urban party wouldn't receive 50% of the seats (to approximate 50% of the statewide vote). That party would be more likely to get between 39-42% of the seats.

And in fact, that is what Chen and Rodden have done. They took the Florida 2000 election data and simulated thousands of redistricting plans. The result? Democrats, not through any nefarious plot to pack their partisans into as small a number of districts as possible, were disadvantaged. The bias results from the fact that those higher density population centers so homogeneously Democratic, it takes more less heavily Republican districts spread out in suburban/exurban and rural areas to round out the representation. As such, a state can end up with a tie in terms of the statewide, two-party vote, but end up with the non-urban party taking a significantly higher percentage of the congressional and state legislative seats.

And yes, this assumes there wasn't an overtly partisan redistricting plan put into place in the first place. Stated differently, there wouldn't be any of Elbridge Gerry's salamanders on the map.

This one is well worth your time with a new redistricting cycle on the horizon. Read away. I'll be revisiting some of the issues discussed in this piece in future posts. It really is rich with very pertinent information.


Recent Posts:
If it's a vote on the internet, Ron Paul wins.

Gallup Poll (Nov. '09): Huckabee Continues to Garner the Most Support

40 Passes, 39 Used: What's Wrong with This Again?

Got 2010 Redistricting on the Brain?

Well, you might now after looking at this. FHQ has found just the site to help you while away the time until the census is complete next year: RedistricingTheNation.com.

It is one thing to say you are from the 5th district of North Carolina, but quite another to see your district on the map and how it stacks up on the various measures of compactness compared to other districts. (Remember the rules of redistricting: compactness, contiguity, etc.) For instance, NC-5 borders the infamous NC-12 that, before the courts got a hold of it, stretched all the way from Gaston County (FHQ's home turf), just west of Charlotte, to Durham. And for those who haven't memorized a North Carolina map, that's from the western end of the state all the way to the eastern end. At one point (Again, before the state was forced to redraw the lines.), the district traveled up I-85 and was only as wide as the interstate itself (mind you, where there weren't any houses) in several spots. Even the redrawn district that survives to this day is among the top ten in terms of least compact districts (by all four different measures).

How does your district stack up? NC-5 is a middle of the road district for compactness.

Oh, and if that isn't enough, you can look at state legislative districts and local ones as well. And you can even see who is tasked with drawing the new lines. My classes on redistricting won't be the same.

Hat tip to Joshua Tucker at The Monkey Cage for the link.

A link to this site will be added to the right sidebar section called Data and Other Resources.


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/20/09)

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (10/20/09)

New (Well, Old) Rasmussen 2012 GOP Primary Poll: Huckabee's Tops

FHQ Reading Room (9/10/09): Redistricting

Before we can even consider the electoral college landscape in 2012, we have to clear the redistricting hurdle first. And the chatter on the subject has ramped up as of late.

In Indiana, they're thinking about a less partisan gerrymandered map.

In Texas, two new seats are taking shape for the gains the Lone Star state is likely to enjoy following next year's census. And according to Texas Democratic Party chair, Boyd Ritchie, the DNC may get involved financially in state legislative races next year with redistricting (and the 2003 Republican redraw) in mind.

Two opposite ends of the spectrum there.


Recent Posts:
It's Never too Early for a 2012 (Value Voters) Straw Poll

New Members on the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/5/09)

A Closer Look at the Aftermath of the 2010 Census

[Click to Enlarge]

Late last week I was contacted by Stephanie Simon at the Wall Street Journal inquiring about the 2010 census and its implications. [And I didn't make the cut in her article today. Ouch! Ha!] Ms. Simon had run across FHQ's projected 2012 electoral college map and that served as her jumping off point, but as I was preparing some notes for our call, it occurred to me that the map and its projection create an incomplete picture of the process. Sure, we end up with the final product (the number of electoral votes (congressional seats) a projected number of states will gain or lose), but all the while, we are deprived of the background process. For instance, it is fine to speculate that Texas will gain up to four congressional seats/electoral votes. What, though, will the powers that be in the Lone Star state do with those new seats? That's the piece that's missing. Well, I suppose it isn't so much about what will be done in the gaining and losing states as much as it is about the likelihood of certain changes on the state level. That's what I want to look at a little more today. What outcomes are we likely to see on the state level and what factors affect those outcomes in the first place? The bottom line is that this whole process isn't necessarily as simple as saying, "Texas is a red state, so Texas will see significant Republican gains in Congress and in the electoral college."

Well, Texas may not be the best example.

First, let me note that I'll be focused here on the states projected to gain or lose congressional seats/electoral votes. Technically, all states have the option of redrawing their lines,* win, lose or draw, but I want to look specifically at those states that are forced to redraw their congressional district lines.

Now, let's tackle the redistricting process. No, I'm not going to get into the laws in each state other than to draw a distinction between those states where congressional redistricting takes place in the state legislature and those where the process it filtered through an independent commission. Of those in the latter category, only two are projected to gain (Arizona) or lose (New Jersey) seats. From the latest projection via the Census Bureau (minus Arizona and New Jersey), then, we are left with six states likely to gain and ten states likely to lose seats following next year's canvass. Let's look at the situation on the ground in those states, how that may or may not change in the 2010 elections, and what implications that might have for how news lines in those states are drawn.

State Government Control (in states likely to gain or lose congressional seats following the 2010 Census)
State	+/- seats	Governor's Party	State House Control*	State Senate Control*	2010 Elections**
Arizona	+2	Districts drawn by commission
Florida	+2	R	R	R	governor, house
Georgia	+1	R	R	R	governor, house, senate
Illinois	-1	D	D	D	governor, house
Iowa	-1	D	D	D	governor, house
Louisiana	-1	R	D	D	***
Massachusetts	-1	D	D	D	governor, house, senate
Michigan	-1	D	D	R	governor, house, senate
Minnesota	-1	R	D	D	governor, house, senate
Missouri	-1	D	R	R	house
Nevada	+1	R	D	D	governor, house
New Jersey	-1	Districts drawn by commission
New York	-1	D	D	D	governor, house, senate
Ohio	-2	D	D	R	governor, house
Pennsylvania	-1	D	D	R	governor, house
South Carolina	+1	R	R	R	governor, house
Texas	+4	R	R	R	governor, house
Utah	+1	R	R	R	governor, house
*Source: National Conference of State Legislatures **Source: National Conference of State Legislatures ***Next round of state level elections: 2011

What we see in the table above is the extent to which there is divided government (both interchamber and interbranch) across the sixteen states most likely to gain or lose seats. And though it is something of a minor point, given the general lack of partisan division throughout the majority of these states (especially the gaining states), we also see what offices are up for grabs in the 2010 midterm elections. For example, all six states projected to gain seats will have gubernatorial elections in 2010, but five of those six have only state House elections and not the entire legislature facing reelection next year. On the flip side, among states most likely to lose seats in Congress, eight of the ten have 2010 gubernatorial elections while half will see the entire legislature up for reelection (with the other half having only state House elections).

Well, what does any of this mean? For starters, it makes the claim that red states are gaining seats and blue states are losing them more then simply facially valid. That is true. But in these cases, the underlying political make up on the state level backs that up as well. Of the gaining states, all but Nevada have unified Republican control. The result? Well, I suspect those state governments are going to draw those new districts in a way that is going to maximize the number of Republican seats in the state's congressional delegation. But that's just a hunch.

The story is different in the states where population has increased the least (or decreased) over the course of the last decade. In only four states (and New York depending on how the Senate situation in the Empire state is progressing), is there unified Democratic government. With only two exceptions (Louisiana and Missouri), all of these states have Democratic governors, but there are varying levels of division between the executive and legislative branches or within the legislature.

The net effect across both types of states is that the gaining states will have a relatively easier time coming up with redistricting plans that are beneficial to the clear majority party in the states (the Republicans). In the losing states, however, there will be more of a discussion (if not all-out, partisan fight) over to how to go about drawing the new districts. After all, some current member of Congress is going to get squeezed out. Who that is, or more importantly what party they are from, will be the result of that "discussion."

Hypothetically, a unified government environment translates into a partisan gerrymander (benefiting the party in control) whereas a state where divided government prevails means that an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" mentality pervades the state legislature. The latter case is more often than not a simple incumbent gerrymander where incumbents are protected over party label. Still, this creates quite a conundrum in those states whose congressional delegations will be trimmed. Which party loses a seat? The state legislative elections in 2010 and the extent to which Democrats remain in control of those chambers will have a large say in the alignment of the post-census electoral college in 2012 (much less the balance of power in the House.)

*If we really want to get technical, all/most states have the option of redrawing their districts whenever they want, whether immediately after the decennial census or not. It wasn't until the 20th century that midstream redistricting (those like Texas' 2003 redistricting plan after Republicans won full control of the state legislature) began to be frowned upon, or at least went out of vogue. It was quite common in the 19th century to see state legislative control change hands and quickly be followed by the implementation of a complete redistricting. For more on this see Carson, et al. (2006).

Edit: Please note that the table heading has been changed to accurately reflect the data contained therein. You have to love taking shortcuts that involve reusing the template from a previous table only to find yourself forgetting to change the original heading. I apologize for any confusion.


Recent Posts:
New Jersey and Virginia: A Diagnostic Comparison of the State of the Race(s)

Don't Forget Your Change Commission Reform Suggestions: Deadline Today

2012 Presidential Race: August PPP Trial Heats In-Depth