Kansas GOP Chooses March 10 for Presidential Caucuses

[Click to Enlarge]

Lost amid the hustle and bustle of the Ames Straw Poll and even the Michigan Republican Party State Committee meeting on August 13, was the meeting of the Kansas Republican Party State Committee. At that meeting the party set the date -- as well as discussing other issues -- for Sunflower state Republicans' presidential nominating caucuses for 2012. Repeating their caucus schedule of 2008, Kansas Republicans will gather on the Saturday after Super Tuesday -- in this case on March 10¹-- to begin the process of selecting delegates to attend to the Republican National Convention in Tampa.

The date corresponds with no other contests at the present time. Maine Democrats meet the following day, but will not attract attention away from Kansas Republicans. Caucus dates remain unsettled for the Republican Parties in Alaska, Maine, North Dakota, Washington and Wyoming (...for the time being and/or to the best of FHQ's knowledge).

A tip of the cap to both Bob Beatty and Martin Hawver for the information.

--

¹ From Hawver Capitol Report:

The party convention also approved today its rules for conducting the Republican presidential preference caucus next year, which the party will use as part of its process of selecting delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa FL next August. The Republican presidential preference caucus will be March 10 and—of course—photo I.D. will be required of those voting.

Recent Posts:

Call for September 6 Missouri Special Session Includes Presidential Primary

Will lightning strike NC again in presidential race?

Will Indiana play role in 2012 GOP presidential primary?

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

Call for September 6 Missouri Special Session Includes Presidential Primary

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (D) today issued a call for a special session of the state legislature to convene on September 6.¹ Republican leadership in the legislature received their preferred date for the start of the session, and the resulting session will overlap with the legislature's September 14 veto session. The proclamation calls for the date of the presidential primary to be addressed moving the nomination contest to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March (March 6, Super Tuesday).

In other words, we will likely know within that first week -- give or take a few days -- whether General Assembly Republicans will pursue the call for a "clean" bill regarding the presidential primary or move to override the governor's veto. The latter would require the help of four Democratic representatives to be successful.

Theoretically, Missouri should fall in line fairly soon after Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) makes the decision on when the presidential primary in the Grand Canyon state will be. If January 31 is the date Governor Brewer is intent on that decision will have to be made -- via proclamation -- on or before September 2.

Hat tip to the Associated Press for the story.

--

¹ Governor Nixon's proclamation:

WHEREAS, prudently designed economic development programs accelerate Missouri's economic growth through the creation of a vibrant business climate that attracts new employers to Missouri and encourages existing businesses to expand; and

WHEREAS, the Missouri Science and Innovation Reinvestment Act, Compete Missouri Initiative, data storage centers, recruitment of significant amateur sporting events and the creation of an international export hub to facilitate the expansion of Missouri exports are critical programs that capture Missouri's bold vision and competitive spirit and will spur economic expansion in all corners of this state; and

WHEREAS, economic development programs must include transparency, accountability and return on investment and be implemented in a fiscally prudent manner; and

WHEREAS, economic incentives and tax credit programs must be regularly reviewed to ensure those programs are effective in addressing their purpose and provide appropriate return on investment; and

WHEREAS, implementation of tax credit reform will inject accountability, transparency and result in taxpayer funds being spent in a fiscally effective manner; and

WHEREAS, legislation to modernize Department of Revenue collection measures and a period of tax amnesty will benefit citizens of the State of Missouri and have a positive impact on general revenue; and

WHEREAS, Conference Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 282, passed during the First Regular Session of the Ninety-Sixth General Assembly, would have moved Missouri's Presidential Primary to March, 2012; and

WHEREAS, Conference Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 282 was vetoed due to the inclusion of objectionable provisions unrelated to the moving of the date for the Presidential Primary; and

WHEREAS, a March, 2012 Presidential Primary will allow Missouri to remain a crucial state during the presidential nomination process; and

WHEREAS, the First Regular Session of the Ninety-Sixth General Assembly considered but failed to pass legislation that would have transferred supervision and control over the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department to the City of St. Louis; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 9 of the Missouri Constitution authorizes the Governor on extraordinary occasions to convene the General Assembly by proclamation, wherein he shall state specifically each matter on which action is deemed necessary; and

WHEREAS, the need for economic development legislation, tax credit reform, tax amnesty legislation, enhancement of Department of Revenue collection measures, moving the date of the 2012 Presidential Primary and transitioning the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department to local control are extraordinary occasions as envisioned by Article IV, Section 9 of the Missouri Constitution.

NOW THEREFORE, on the extraordinary occasions that exist in the state of Missouri:

I, JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, pursuant to the authority vested in me as Governor by the Constitution of the State of Missouri, do, by this Proclamation, convene the Ninety-Sixth General Assembly of the State of Missouri in the First Extra Session of the First Regular Session; and

I HEREBY call upon the Senators and Representatives of said General Assembly to meet in the State Capitol in the City of Jefferson at the hour of 12:00 p.m., Central Daylight Time, on September 6, 2011; and

I HEREBY state that the action of said General Assembly is deemed necessary concerning each matter specifically designated and limited hereinafter as follows:

• To enact legislation implementing comprehensive reforms to existing tax credit programs that produces substantial savings to the state treasury through the elimination of programs, imposition or lowering of caps, establishment of program sunsets and other reforms that create efficiencies and safeguard the taxpayers' money. This matter is restricted and nothing in this Proclamation should be construed to authorize the enactment of legislation amending the five year limitation on interest costs eligible for issuance of tax credits under section 99.1205.3, RSMo.
• To enact legislation that incentivizes the development of an international air cargo hub at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport through creation of an air export tax credit for freight forwarders not to exceed a total of sixty million dollars over eight years and a real estate development tax credit not to exceed a total of three hundred million dollars over sixteen years for eligible facilities located in "gateway zones," the qualification for which will be confirmed and verified by the Department of Economic Development, and additional accountability, oversight and participation protections.
• To enact the Missouri Science and Innovation Reinvestment Act authorizing the Missouri Technology Corporation to provide grants, loans and investments in science and innovation businesses through use of funding generated by capturing a portion of any new growth in income tax revenue generated by employees working at such new and existing science and innovation businesses in Missouri.
• To enact the Compete Missouri Initiative which streamlines and updates Missouri's training programs to reflect business and workforce needs; consolidates Missouri's business development incentives into a single program with consistent definitions and processes; provides performance-based benefits with broader accessibility for small businesses and businesses in rural areas; provides additional benefits for targeted industries identified by business leaders in Missouri's Strategic Initiative for Economic Growth; provides business retention incentives for companies retaining more than 125 jobs annually; and authorizes establishment of a closing fund for competitive recruitment and retention projects.
• To enact legislation creating incentives for the construction and development of high-tech data centers that allows a high-tech data center making a minimum capital investment of thirty-seven million dollars and creating at least thirty new jobs to be exempt from certain state and local sales taxes on utilities, machinery and equipment used in the operation of the data center and on personal property and materials used in the construction of the data center, with the overall amount of the exemption limited to the positive fiscal impact to taxpayers resulting from the project.
• To enact legislation authorizing tax credits available for sports commissions, convention and visitors bureaus, certain nonprofit organizations, counties, and municipalities to offset expenses incurred in attracting amateur sporting events to the state in an amount not to exceed three million dollars annually; and to authorize a revenue-neutral contribution tax credit for donations to local sports organizations for the purposes of attracting amateur sporting events to the state in an amount not to exceed ten million dollars annually.
• To enact legislation creating administrative efficiencies and improving the Department of Revenue's ability to collect moneys owed to the State by authorizing the Department of Revenue to: 1) collect, upon referral, debts owed to other state agencies; 2) reduce its expenses associated with providing required notices; 3) recover its collection and administrative costs by retaining one percent of the amount of any local sales or use tax collected by the Department; 4) enter into a reciprocal collection and offset of indebtedness agreement with the federal government; 5) issue orders directly to debtors' employers or other sources of income to facilitate the execution of administrative judgments; and 6) issue statements indicating that no taxes or fees, for which the Department is responsible for collecting, are due, as a prerequisite for payment of certain claims or judgments from the state legal expense fund.
• To enact legislation authorizing the Department of Revenue to grant amnesty to taxpayers from the assessment or payment of penalties, additions to tax, and interest with respect to unpaid income tax and sales tax due and owing that the taxpayer voluntarily reports and pays in full between August 1, 2012 and September 30, 2012.
• To enact legislation authorizing an orderly transition in the governance of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department from a board of police commissioners to the City of St. Louis through a process that provides for equitable employment treatment for commissioned and civilian personnel.
• To enact legislation moving Missouri's Presidential Primary to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of each presidential election year.
• To allow the Senate to consider appointments to boards, commissions, departments, and divisions that require advice and consent of the Senate.

Such additional and other matters as may be recommended by the Governor by special message to the General Assembly after it shall have been convened.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the Great Seal of the State of Missouri, in the City of Jefferson, on this 22nd day of August, 2011.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon
Governor

ATTEST:

Robin Carnahan
Secretary of State

Recent Posts:

Will lightning strike NC again in presidential race?

Will Indiana play role in 2012 GOP presidential primary?

Confusion reigns over Texas' 2012 election calendar

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

Will lightning strike NC again in presidential race?

Paul Johnson wonders about the likelihood of North Carolina playing a role in the Republican nomination race and the general election in 2012 in the High Point Enterprise.

--

This weekend is apparently the time for local media in May 8 presidential primary states to consider the what it will take for the Republican nomination race to stretch to that point in the calendar (see Indiana). [Add to that the fact that Ohio's May 8 date isn't necessarily set in stone. West Virginia, care to weigh in?] For the record, FHQ is in agreement with Martin Kifer and John Dinan -- two political scientists we know and whose opinions we value. That is, we all take the cautious approach. Look, it is just too early and we don't have enough information on the field of candidates, much less the calendar, to be able to definitively say one way or the other that North Carolina or Indiana will matter in the 2012 Republican nomination. One can either put on the 2008 glasses and see that cycle as a seachange in the fundamentals of presidential nomination politics or look back on the history of post-reform nomination races -- particularly the evolution of the process over that period -- and come to completely different conclusions.

The answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. FHQ is of the opinion that the Republican race is more likely to extend longer than usual -- perhaps not to May 8 -- because of the way in which primaries and caucuses are spread out over the calendar in 2012 compared to the past. If one were to take the current field of Republican candidates and plop them down in an environment that included the 2008 calendar, I suspect that the outcome would be largely similar: a nominee would likely emerge by the first week in March, give or take a week or two. But 2012 is different. Fewer states are clustered up against the opening of the window in which the national parties allow contests to occur. That is a function of several (Democratic) states moving further back to comply with the new national party rules and a handful of other states challenging the position the early four contests hold.

The race may, then, lengthen, but not necessarily to May. We just can't say one way or the other at this point. That answer will take not only a known field, but also a few actual contests being held, thus forcing the field to winnow further.

As for the general election, North Carolina seems more likely to be on the campaigns' big boards next fall than Indiana.¹ But John is absolutely right: We'll have to wait -- probably until after this time next year (post-convention) -- to see which states "make the cut".

--

¹ North Carolina has repeatedly behaved as a swing state in public opinion polling that has been conducted on the general election race. It has both mirrored the national atmosphere and moved in tandem with other swing states.

Recent Posts:

Will Indiana play role in 2012 GOP presidential primary?

Confusion reigns over Texas' 2012 election calendar

Alabama Republican Party Posts 2012 Presidential Primary Delegate Allocation Guidelines

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

Will Indiana play role in 2012 GOP presidential primary?

Eric Bradner at the Evansville Courier-Press has the answer.

--

May 8 is a long time in political/electoral time from the Iowa caucuses and even further from August 2011. Compared to past years -- pre-2008 -- Indiana at least has a light at the end of this tunnel. With a more dispersed calendar of primaries and caucuses and the dynamics of a two or three candidate race taking shape (again, in August 2011), the Hoosier state can think big while at the same time realizing that a repeat of 2008 leans toward being a pie in the sky notion. That is different from past years when Indiana Democrats and Republicans could write off the possibility of casting consequential votes in a nomination race outright.

Still, a lot can change between now and then.

Recent Posts:

Confusion reigns over Texas' 2012 election calendar

Alabama Republican Party Posts 2012 Presidential Primary Delegate Allocation Guidelines

Are Ohio Democrats Threatening the Buckeye State's New May Presidential Primary?

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

Confusion reigns over Texas' 2012 election calendar

Aman Batheja of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram has the story.

--

This situation was a mess for Texas from the time the MOVE act passed Congress in 2009. The thing that came out in the committee hearings for the relevant bills that made their way through the Texas state legislature was that there were so many competing interests that someone was going to get hurt in the process. Local elections officials and voters may be those people. The presidential primary and relevance in that process seem to have been on the other side of the spectrum. So far as FHQ can tell -- and we followed the process closely -- eliminating the runoff system was never a serious option, though it would have cut in half the problems for the state legislature, elections officials and voters.

Recent Posts:

Alabama Republican Party Posts 2012 Presidential Primary Delegate Allocation Guidelines

Are Ohio Democrats Threatening the Buckeye State's New May Presidential Primary?

Delayed Call for Missouri Special Session Keeps Presidential Primary Date in Limbo

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

Alabama Republican Party Posts 2012 Presidential Primary Delegate Allocation Guidelines

The Alabama Republican Party on Friday posted a resolution outlining the rules regarding the allocation of its delegates to the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa. Given that the Alabama presidential primary is now scheduled for the second Tuesday in March -- March 13 -- that puts the contest outside of the window in which the newly established RNC rules allow straight winner-take-all delegate allocation. That said, as FHQ pointed out earlier this week, state Republican parties have rarely looked on the delegate allocation as a binary choice between proportional or winner-take-all rules. Some choose proportional rules while other states choose winner-take-all. Still others choose some hybrid version that include certain vote thresholds by which candidates can be allocated all of a state's or congressional district's delegates.¹ Since the 2004 cycle, Alabama has fit into this middle, hybrid category. And in 2012, the state not only fits that category again, but also reprises its 2008 method of delegate allocation.

Alabama is one of those states that has had some winner-take-all provisions in the past, but those are provisions that are untouched by the 2012 RNC delegate selection rules. That is why the 2012 allocation mimics the 2008 allocation formula. Let's have a look:

Alabama Republicans: 50 delegates [26 at-large (10 base, 16 bonus), 21 district (3 per each of the 7 congressional districts), 3 automatic]²

At-large allocation: If a candidate receives a majority of the statewide vote, that candidate is allocated all of the 26 at-large delegates. Should no candidate clear the 50% barrier, those 26 delegates would be allocated proportionally provided said candidate has received at least 20% of the statewide vote.

Congressional district allocation: If a candidate receives a majority of the district vote, that candidate is allocated the full three delegates from the district. Should no candidate clear the 50% barrier, the top vote-getter in the district is allocated two delegates and the second highest vote-getter receives one. That is conditional upon both top candidates receiving at least 20% of the district vote. Should only one of the top two candidates cross the 20% vote threshold, the top candidate shall receive the full three district delegates.

Automatic delegate allocation: The Alabama Republican Party chair, the Alabama national committeeman and the Alabama national committeewoman are free to pledge themselves to or endorse whomever they choose. They may also choose to go to the convention uncommitted.

Notes: Seemingly missing from the above provisions is an equivalent to the 20% rule on congressional district delegate allocation for at-large delegates. Let me explain. Both do have that barrier if no candidate receives a majority of the vote. However, only the congressional district allocation accounts for the contingency where only one candidate clears the 20% barrier. That remains absent in the at-large allocation. That said, it is unlikely, given Alabama's position on the calendar, that the field will have not winnowed itself down to three viable candidates by that point. The fewer viable candidates there are, the less probable it is that only one candidate clears the 20% vote threshold.

This is all laid out in Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Alabama Republican Party resolution on the rules of the presidential preference primary:

2012.al.gop.pres.primary.rules

Postscript: FHQ concedes that this is not ground-breaking news. However, it does underline the point made earlier in the week that the 2012 Republican delegate selection rules are not going to fundamentally rewrite the method -- winner-take-all or proportional -- by which delegates are actually allocated. Where the RNC rules will have the most impact is on scheduling. The direct effect on allocation is there, but that in turn, indirectly affects the accumulation of delegates by the candidates.

--
¹ The RNC rules apportion three delegates for each congressional district. That is the method by which the party accounts for population differences from state to state.

² For more see the 2008 Rules of the Republican Party (revised August, 6, 2010) Rule 12(a).

Recent Posts:

Are Ohio Democrats Threatening the Buckeye State's New May Presidential Primary?

Delayed Call for Missouri Special Session Keeps Presidential Primary Date in Limbo

Myth #2: Budgetary Constraints Have Driven 2012 Presidential Primary Movement

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

Are Ohio Democrats Threatening the Buckeye State's New May Presidential Primary?

Alan Johnson at The Columbus Dispatch in updating Ohio Democrats' efforts to repeal parts of the recently-passed elections bill seems to also hint at the possibility of it tearing down the new May presidential primary as well. The crux of the matter:

[Ohio Attorney General Mike] DeWine rejected the initial language submitted by the group, finding that it contained inaccurate and misleading statements and cited wrong sections of law. As a result, Fair Elections Ohio had to restart the process. This time, the coalition opted to repeal the entire law instead of parts of it, as the opponents initially proposed.

The Fair Elections Ohio referendum proposal as well as DeWine's and Secretary of State John Husted's acceptance of the revised language appear to be (inadvertently???) potentially affecting the scheduling of the Buckeye state presidential primary. Granted, DeWine and Husted required a fairly high bar in terms of the petition signatures needed to get the item on the ballot for the November 2012 general election. The bar is high at 231,147 signatures and the window of time in which to gather them is relatively short at about six weeks (before September 29).

If Fair Elections Ohio gathers the required number of valid petition signatures in time, the new elections law would be suspended until Ohio voters can arbitrate the matter in November 2012. That suspension of the law would move the presidential primary back to the first Tuesday in March, and also put a great deal of pressure on local Ohio elections officials to be prepared in time for the primary after redistricting takes place later this summer and fall.

That's makes one more item to add to FHQ's primer on when the remaining states may decide on the timing of their primaries and caucuses.

--

Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for passing along the link to the Columbus Dispatch article.

Recent Posts:

Delayed Call for Missouri Special Session Keeps Presidential Primary Date in Limbo

Myth #2: Budgetary Constraints Have Driven 2012 Presidential Primary Movement

Clarification Needed: Article Seemingly Muddies the Michigan Presidential Primary Picture

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

Delayed Call for Missouri Special Session Keeps Presidential Primary Date in Limbo

Over the weekend, FHQ cobbled together several bits of news concerning the situation surrounding the scheduling of the presidential primary in Missouri. Basically, there are two options for altering the date: a veto override of the previously passed presidential primary bill or a "clean" presidential primary bill to be introduced a special legislative session. We made the point then that the special session offered the path of least resistance.

That is still the case. However, Jessica Machetta of Missournet reported yesterday that Governor Jay Nixon (D) is taking his time in making the call for the special session:

Nixon spokesman Sam Murphy says the Governor’s office is finalizing the language of the call and working directly with members in both the House and the Senate with policy expertise to ensure that we have a crisp and focused special session to pass legislation to create jobs, finance disaster recovery and ensure that taxpayer dollars are invested responsibly.

Governor Nixon said a few weeks ago that he would call the legislature back into special session to take up a jobs bill, a change in the date for Missouri’s presidential primary and other possible key issues.

The Republican majorities in the General Assembly hope that session will be in early September:

Republican legislative leaders said they had hoped for a Sept. 6 start date, stated in their letter to Nixon that “the legislature has the hard task to pass (in a limited time) the most sweeping jobs and fiscal accountability legislation ever attempted.

Missouri Republicans leaders in the legislature also wonder about the short "official" notice of the session's details:

Senate Leader Rob Mayer of Dexter and House Speaker Stephen Tilley of Perryville have written Nixon a letter urging him to set a date, saying the citizen members of the Missouri legislature need advance time to plan with their families and employers.

Now, FHQ's intent here is not to cast doubt on the likelihood of either a special session or the passage of a "clean" presidential primary bill. Those are still, in our opinion, likely outcomes. That said, the back and forth between the legislative and executive branches continues to keep the scheduling of the presidential primary in an uncertain area for the time being.

NOTE: The Missouri General Assembly has a veto session scheduled for September 14.

Recent Posts:

Myth #2: Budgetary Constraints Have Driven 2012 Presidential Primary Movement

Clarification Needed: Article Seemingly Muddies the Michigan Presidential Primary Picture

Nevada GOP hasn’t kicked into caucus mode — yet

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

Myth #2: Budgetary Constraints Have Driven 2012 Presidential Primary Movement

Following up on FHQ's takedown of the misinterpretation of the altered Republican National Committee rules on 2012 delegate selection, we wanted to address one other aspect of the primary calendar that has been repeatedly exaggerated in the news throughout 2011. Much has been made of how much states are struggling economically, and this has in some cases extended to discussions of the scheduling of presidential primaries for next year.

This came up early in 2011 when the Massachusetts Secretary of State Bill Galvin raised the specter of the Bay state not having enough money for its Elections Division to conduct elections -- presidential primary elections included -- in 2012. A bill was later introduced to consolidate the March presidential primary and the September primaries for state and local office in June in order to save money and comply with the federal MOVE act. That perfect storm, as FHQ called it, of factors could potentially have tempted states with early presidential primaries and and non-compliant -- with the MOVE act -- fall primaries for state and local offices to consolidate them. The only problem was that the Massachusetts bill got stuck in committee and no other late fall, and thus non-compliant, primary states made any effort toward moves similar to that in the Bay state.

Meanwhile, other state legislatures began seeing the introduction of bills to consolidate separate and early presidential primaries with later but MOVE act-compliant compliant state and local primaries. States like California and New Jersey with newly created separate presidential primaries for 2008 opted to hold their presidential delegate selection concurrent with June state and local primaires.¹ The Alabama legislature opted to move its separate presidential primary from February to March and shifted its June state and local primaries up to that point as well. Those bills had clear budgetary components.

And though they had budgetary implications, the efforts to cancel primaries in Kansas, Washington and Utah were less about that than about funding a little-used or less traditional primary election in the first place. Kansas has not held a presidential primary since 1992, so there are other factors involved in the Sunflower state. In Washington, the caucus system has been the preferred mode of delegate allocation in presidential nomination races over the years. The Washington Republican Party used the primary as a means of allocating 49% of its delegates in 2008, but the Democrats used the caucuses completely with a meaningless, beauty contest primary. Similarly, in Utah the tradition has been to use the caucus system. The state legislature instituted a Western States Presidential Primary for the 2004 cycle; something that only lasted, like the separate presidential primaries in California and New Jersey, for a brief period.

There are stories in each state, but the fact of the matter is that the above six states are the only ones where budgetary constraints played any direct role in the scheduling of the states' delegate selection events for the 2012 cycle. However, there have been primary/caucus moves in 27 states plus the District of Columbia thus far in 2011. Only six of those 28 states representing 21% of the moves thus far can be explained by state-level budgets.

Good or bad? Well, let's look at this from another angle. If we divide states into those that stayed ahead of the April 1 winner-take-all barrier constructed under the RNC delegate selection rules we end up with two groups of state moves:²

[Click to Enlarge]

The states in red are states that moved into slots in March or before while the blue states are those that shifted to new dates after March for 2012 relative to the 2008 date. It is no coincidence that the states are color coded as they are. States that moved back from non-compliant February or earlier dates in 2008 to dates in March in 2012 were states motivated to have an impact on the Republican nomination in 2012 with a primary scheduled on or around the earliest date allowed by the national party rules. In other words, the expectation is that these states would be mostly Republican or Republican-controlled states. With the exceptions of the Minnesota, Maine and Utah Democratic Parties' decisions to hold March caucuses, the remaining March states are all Republican-controlled.³ Seven of the ten March contests were dictated by Republicans.

What about the blue states? Are they actually Democratic blue or as Democratic blue as the red states were Republican red? This can be misleading because the Democratic caucus states -- with the exception of Utah above -- opted for contests in April or later. That is a list that includes Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Michigan. Of the remaining ten primary states -- including DC -- only Ohio is under unified Republican control. The party also controls the New Jersey governor's mansion and the New York Senate, but the state governments are otherwise controlled by the Democrats. Even if New Jersey and New York are not added to the tally, seven of the ten states are Democratic-controlled and thus less bound by the rules as usual.⁴

Moving to the front of the primary calendar is less urgent for a party without a contested nomination race. Typically is has been unusual for a party outside of the White House to tweak its rules and delegate selection at the national or state level (Klinkner 1994). However, with both national parties agreeing on a basic framework for the calendar -- that all non-exempt states begin holding primaries and caucuses on or after the first Tuesday in March -- February primary states both Republican and Democratic were faced with having to change the dates of their contests. Democratic states, since they were required to move anyway, opted to move to later dates that would yield them additional delegates to the convention.

Budgets may have had an impact on the scheduling of 2012 primaries and caucuses, something that has rarely been a factor driving frontloading in the past. Yet, it appears that the better explanatory factor driving primary movement in 2012 is more partisan than budgetary in nature. Did budgets play a role? Yes, but it was far less a role than other factors. Primarily, this has been a partisan phenomenon.

--

¹ New Jersey has yet to enact its primary consolidation bill into law. It has passed the legislature but awaits Governor Chris Christie's signature. For this exercise, FHQ will count New Jersey as having moved.

² FHQ put this map together for a talk I gave at the University of Georgia at the end of July.

³ The Virginia Senate is narrowly controlled by state Democrats, but the bills that passed the legislature were Republican-sponsored and supported by the Democrats.

⁴ With those two included, 90% of the states with new post-March dates are Democratic or mostly Democratic-controlled. And with the nine Democratic caucus states included the numbers are even more tilted.

Recent Posts:

Clarification Needed: Article Seemingly Muddies the Michigan Presidential Primary Picture

Nevada GOP hasn’t kicked into caucus mode — yet

The Myth of Republican Presidential Primary Proportionality

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

Clarification Needed: Article Seemingly Muddies the Michigan Presidential Primary Picture

Laura Weber at Interlochen Public Radio penned an interesting piece yesterday that really confuses -- in FHQ's eyes anyway -- the outlook on the Michigan presidential primary. After the Michigan Republican Party State Committee voted this past weekend in favor of a resolution to schedule its primary within a February 28-March 6 window, the decision seemingly went off to the state legislature. Now there, the decision yields three possible options:

1. Do nothing and keep the presidential primary on February 28 where current state law schedules the primary.
2. Move the primary somewhere in the range cited above.
3. Ignore the party's request and move the primary into a position -- regardless of the national party penalties -- that would maximize Wolverine state Republicans' influence.

As FHQ mentioned previously, the first option -- the path of least resistance -- seemed the most likely choice. Yet, the IPR article casts some doubt on that -- or just flubs the story altogether. The premise of the story at the outset is that Republican leaders in the Republican-controlled Michigan Senate support a February 28 primary date. Again, that demonstrates that path of least resistance even though it would potentially mean sanctions from the national party.

Fair enough. Further down in the article, though, Weber then writes/quotes:

"I think there's going to be a real relevance - Michigan is going to be really relevant in the decision making process because of this date," says Republican state Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville, who plans to sponsor legislation that would allow the state to hold the Republican primary earlier than most states.

Michigan Senate leaders, then, support the status quo option, yet their leader is set to sponsor legislation to move it. That apparent contradiction can mean three things:

1. The article is wrong regarding either the legislation or state Senate Republicans' support of the February 28 primary date. Keeping the primary on that date requires no additional legislation.
2. The legislation cited proposes moving the primary to a non-Tuesday primary date within the state party-designated February 28-March 6 window; a date "earlier than most states," but not on February 28. Thus a change in the law becomes necessary. Given that there are other elections on the same date in Michigan, this option would seem highly unlikely.
3. The legislation cited proposes moving the primary to a date earlier than the the party-designated window; something similar to the legislation that was introduced in the state House back in April (January 31 primary date).

FHQ won't even hazard a guess in this instance. There just isn't enough information. All we know is that there is legislation that may be introduced in the state Senate that may affect the presidential primary. Whether the legislation impacts the date is unknown though moving the date is implied in the aforementioned quoted portion from the IRP article. The Senate is next in session for one day on August 24, but resumes in full, like the House, on September 7-28. We won't know about any legislation officially until then. Hopefully, however, some clarification will surface prior to that point next week.

Tracking...

Recent Posts:

Nevada GOP hasn’t kicked into caucus mode — yet

The Myth of Republican Presidential Primary Proportionality

Has the New Jersey Primary Already Moved to June 5 or Is It Now Locked in on February 7?

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