FHQ has been sitting on this one for a while, but with all the stirrings among Michigan Republicans concerning the date of their 2016 primary and the rules by which they will allocate delegates to the national convention, this becomes slightly more relevant.
To review, the Michigan Republican Party has pinpointed March 15 as the preferred landing point for its presidential primary in 2016. And while that is a preference, it is not binding. The date decision rests not with the state parties, but with the state government.1 In other words, if Michigan Republicans want that March 15 primary date, they will need some help from the state legislature for a start.
It has been relatively quiet on that front in Lansing (and elsewhere) during 2014. Midterm years are not typically when the majority of states consider presidential primary moves. The tendency is for state legislatures to act in the year prior to the presidential election, after the midterm elections that elect a fair number of those legislatures, but also, more importantly, after the national parties have settled on the rules that will govern the delegate selection process in the upcoming election year.
Still, there has been some legislative activity in Michigan that would potentially have some impact on the scheduling of the state's presidential primary.2 Back in May, Rep. Lisa Lyons (R-86th, Kent) introduced HB 5584 to pare back some of the primary date options available to the state. Importantly, the bill calls for eliminating the February primary date that the presidential primary was paired with in 2012. However, it does not eliminate the presidential primary. The bill doesn't even mention it.
Eliminating the February option is significant, though, in that the date was used as a rationale for keeping the presidential primary in February 2012 (and in future cycles). It was argued then that changing the date of the presidential primary from February would be difficult because it was a date on which other (school) elections were held. There was, then, a potential financial burden associated with moving the Michigan presidential primary away from what was (and would be in 2016) a non-compliant position on the calendar. Eliminating the February option -- for those other elections -- would be detrimental to any attempt at using the cost-savings argument again. With no other elections, the presidential primary would be a stand-alone contest, offering no savings to the state.
In reality, then, the bill would do little to alter the date of the presidential nomination contest. It would remove the February date that is often used for school elections, but without also changing the code that refers to the February presidential primary. This is the sort of loophole that is closed at the committee stage of a bill's consideration. Of course, HB 5584 has been bottled up in committee since it was introduced. It may ultimately die there, but it could also prove to be a vehicle for a presidential primary change during the post-election session of the legislature during December.
...or those in Lansing may wait until the new legislature is sworn in and introduce a bill specific to the presidential primary date then.
--
1 This is functionally true. State parties have the final say on the date of a primary, but rarely opt out of the state-funded option. That has the effect of passing the date decision off to the state government. State parties do not often find it in their interest to hold a party-funded primary (or caucuses) if a state-funded option is available. It happens (see Idaho Democrats), but only occasionally.
2 The Michigan legislature has a year-round session. July/August and October/November are slow times, but the legislature has regular meetings during September and then again in December.
Recent Posts:
Michigan Republicans Green Light March15, but...
Arizona Should Replace Iowa at the Front of the Presidential Primary Queue?
Michigan Republicans Take First Step Toward 2016 Presidential Primary Date Change
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
.png){kind=link}
Monday, September 22, 2014
Michigan Republicans Green Light March15, but...
The Michigan Republican Party State Central Committee met this past Saturday and voted to move the Great Lakes State presidential primary to March 15, 2016 and to make a small change to the way in which the party allocates delegates to candidates.
Moving forward, the biggest thing where Michigan's position on the 2016 presidential primary calendar is concerned is what the state legislature does. What the Michigan Republican Party voted on on Saturday was a measure that is completely dependent upon action from the state legislature. It -- March 15 -- is not binding unless the state party opts to fund the election itself. Otherwise, the state legislature will have to change the date of the primary from the last Tuesday in February (where it is currently scheduled). Any change there may also later prove to be a function of the party or parties that control the state legislature and governor's mansion after the elections in November.
More meaningfully, the change to the allocation rules is something that the party has autonomy over. That takes effect immediately, but only represents a minor change. The allocation will be conditionally winner-take-all, meaning that if a candidate cross the 50% threshold, that candidate will receive the entire allotment of Michigan delegates.1 Should no candidate clear that barrier, it appears the plan will be just as it was in 2012. The winner of each congressional district would receive three delegates and the statewide winner would receive a number of delegates proportional to his or her share of the vote.
That was the intent of the plan in 2012. And that will likely be how the plan is implemented in 2016 unless the field of Republican candidates has been winnowed down to a couple of candidates. Depending on how the overall calendar shapes up, March 15 will still be ahead of the point on the calendar at which 50% of the delegates will have been allocated. It will still likely be early enough, in other words, for that number to be higher than two.
--
1 This differs slightly from the description FHQ provided last week. I said at the time that only the statewide, at-large delegates would be winner-take-all, rather than the full allotment.
Recent Posts:
Arizona Should Replace Iowa at the Front of the Presidential Primary Queue?
Michigan Republicans Take First Step Toward 2016 Presidential Primary Date Change
New York Has Reverted to a February Presidential Primary for 2016
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Moving forward, the biggest thing where Michigan's position on the 2016 presidential primary calendar is concerned is what the state legislature does. What the Michigan Republican Party voted on on Saturday was a measure that is completely dependent upon action from the state legislature. It -- March 15 -- is not binding unless the state party opts to fund the election itself. Otherwise, the state legislature will have to change the date of the primary from the last Tuesday in February (where it is currently scheduled). Any change there may also later prove to be a function of the party or parties that control the state legislature and governor's mansion after the elections in November.
More meaningfully, the change to the allocation rules is something that the party has autonomy over. That takes effect immediately, but only represents a minor change. The allocation will be conditionally winner-take-all, meaning that if a candidate cross the 50% threshold, that candidate will receive the entire allotment of Michigan delegates.1 Should no candidate clear that barrier, it appears the plan will be just as it was in 2012. The winner of each congressional district would receive three delegates and the statewide winner would receive a number of delegates proportional to his or her share of the vote.
That was the intent of the plan in 2012. And that will likely be how the plan is implemented in 2016 unless the field of Republican candidates has been winnowed down to a couple of candidates. Depending on how the overall calendar shapes up, March 15 will still be ahead of the point on the calendar at which 50% of the delegates will have been allocated. It will still likely be early enough, in other words, for that number to be higher than two.
--
1 This differs slightly from the description FHQ provided last week. I said at the time that only the statewide, at-large delegates would be winner-take-all, rather than the full allotment.
Recent Posts:
Arizona Should Replace Iowa at the Front of the Presidential Primary Queue?
Michigan Republicans Take First Step Toward 2016 Presidential Primary Date Change
New York Has Reverted to a February Presidential Primary for 2016
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Arizona Should Replace Iowa at the Front of the Presidential Primary Queue?
That's the argument Mike Saucier and Chip Scutari make the case for writing over at Time.
The problem is that we have already played that game during the 2016 cycle. And it didn't go well for Arizona. In fact, as Saucier and Scutari note, the Arizona legislature did just the opposite, moving the Grand Canyon state's presidential primary to a later date earlier this year.
There are two major reasons why Arizona will not do this in 2016 nor in the future:
1. As long as Bruce Ash -- Arizona Republican National committeeman -- is head of the RNC Rules Committee, Arizona is very unlikely to step out of line with the national party rules on delegate selection. That isn't to suggest that the Arizona state legislature and/or governor have no ability to defy the national party, but the RNC has taken a proactive approach to what one might call primary defiance legislation since 2012. The RNC is jumping on that activity early.
2) Arizona's spot in this hypothetical primary calendar has already been taken by Nevada. This is a point that is completely lost in what Saucier and Scutari are offering in their bland, run-of-the-mill take down of the Iowa and New Hampshire duopoly atop the calendar. The national parties have already dealt with the diversity dilemma that Iowa and New Hampshire represent by adding South Carolina and Nevada to the list of privileged, carve-out states. Nevada was added for many of the same reasons Saucier and Scutari raise: proximity to the southern border, Hispanic population and western state.
Those are both prohibitive factors from the Arizona perspective. Yet, Arizona moving into the carve-out lineup is not out of the question in the future. Nevada gained its position among the first four states on the calendar because Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) lobbied hard for its inclusion when the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee had a small group of states pitch the committee during the 2008 cycle. South Carolina got the southern spot, Nevada got the western spot and the RNC got reluctantly dragged into allowing Nevada to go early in 2008 as well.1 FHQ has heard it said on more than one occasion among rules officials in both national parties that Nevada may possibly be replaced at some point,2 and that Arizona is an attractive candidate.
That isn't first, but it is in the early calendar conversation.
...and not for all the wrong reasons.
--
Additional note:
It should also be noted that Saucier and Scutari are at best ambiguous (if not wrong) about the impact an early primary would have on the sizable group of independents in Arizona. As they say:
However, the above quotation seems to mean independent primary voters. The only problem there is that Arizona has a closed primary and independents cannot vote. It is difficult to energize a bloc of voters for an election in which they are unable to participate.
--
1 On top of that, the Nevada Republican caucuses in 2008 and 2012 were not without their problems.
2 That point always has something to do with when Harry Reid leaves the Senate.
Recent Posts:
Michigan Republicans Take First Step Toward 2016 Presidential Primary Date Change
New York Has Reverted to a February Presidential Primary for 2016
State GOP parties jockey for primary calendar advantage
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The problem is that we have already played that game during the 2016 cycle. And it didn't go well for Arizona. In fact, as Saucier and Scutari note, the Arizona legislature did just the opposite, moving the Grand Canyon state's presidential primary to a later date earlier this year.
There are two major reasons why Arizona will not do this in 2016 nor in the future:
1. As long as Bruce Ash -- Arizona Republican National committeeman -- is head of the RNC Rules Committee, Arizona is very unlikely to step out of line with the national party rules on delegate selection. That isn't to suggest that the Arizona state legislature and/or governor have no ability to defy the national party, but the RNC has taken a proactive approach to what one might call primary defiance legislation since 2012. The RNC is jumping on that activity early.
2) Arizona's spot in this hypothetical primary calendar has already been taken by Nevada. This is a point that is completely lost in what Saucier and Scutari are offering in their bland, run-of-the-mill take down of the Iowa and New Hampshire duopoly atop the calendar. The national parties have already dealt with the diversity dilemma that Iowa and New Hampshire represent by adding South Carolina and Nevada to the list of privileged, carve-out states. Nevada was added for many of the same reasons Saucier and Scutari raise: proximity to the southern border, Hispanic population and western state.
Those are both prohibitive factors from the Arizona perspective. Yet, Arizona moving into the carve-out lineup is not out of the question in the future. Nevada gained its position among the first four states on the calendar because Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) lobbied hard for its inclusion when the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee had a small group of states pitch the committee during the 2008 cycle. South Carolina got the southern spot, Nevada got the western spot and the RNC got reluctantly dragged into allowing Nevada to go early in 2008 as well.1 FHQ has heard it said on more than one occasion among rules officials in both national parties that Nevada may possibly be replaced at some point,2 and that Arizona is an attractive candidate.
That isn't first, but it is in the early calendar conversation.
...and not for all the wrong reasons.
--
Additional note:
It should also be noted that Saucier and Scutari are at best ambiguous (if not wrong) about the impact an early primary would have on the sizable group of independents in Arizona. As they say:
At a time when both parties talk about expanding their bases—both courting Latinos—it makes more strategic sense to put our presidential wannabes right in front of those same constituencies. What better atmosphere for presidential candidates to walk into than an energized core of Independents?If one gives them the benefit of the doubt, an early primary might help because it means the state will see competition and perhaps energize independents for the general election. Those voters would be exposed to the same campaigning everyone else in the state is exposed to.
However, the above quotation seems to mean independent primary voters. The only problem there is that Arizona has a closed primary and independents cannot vote. It is difficult to energize a bloc of voters for an election in which they are unable to participate.
--
1 On top of that, the Nevada Republican caucuses in 2008 and 2012 were not without their problems.
2 That point always has something to do with when Harry Reid leaves the Senate.
Recent Posts:
Michigan Republicans Take First Step Toward 2016 Presidential Primary Date Change
New York Has Reverted to a February Presidential Primary for 2016
State GOP parties jockey for primary calendar advantage
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Michigan Republicans Take First Step Toward 2016 Presidential Primary Date Change
WKZO in Michigan reports:
Here's what we know:
1. The Policy Committee of the Michigan Republican Party approved the date change from the last Tuesday in February to March 15. That would have the effect of shifting the Michigan presidential primary back three weeks in 2016.
2. The committee also recommended a change to the method of delegate allocation. The change is not all that significant, but Mr. Koss indicated that it was the result of a compromise among the committee membership. Some wanted a winner-take-all allocation while others preferred a more proportional method of awarding delegates to presidential candidates. In the end, the Michigan Republican delegate allocation would look similar to the party's 2012 delegate selection plan (pre-penalty). Basically the recommendation calls for the allocation to be winner-take-all by congressional district with the statewide, at-large delegates being allocated proportionally. That is exactly the same as it was in 2012. The added wrinkle is that if one candidate receives over 50% of the vote statewide, then that candidate wins all of the at-large delegates.
3. This is the first step in the process. The Policy Committee has only recommended changes that the State Central Committee will now consider. Mr. Koss signaled that there was support for both changes -- date and delegate allocation -- on the SCC.
4. However, only part of the changes would be binding. The state party controls the ability to alter the method of delegate allocation, can only signal its preference for a primary date (unless it opts to fund the primary election itself and hold it on March 15, 2016). If SCC votes positively on the recommended allocation change, then that would be changed in the state party rules.
The primary, however, is state funded and thus the legislature must initiate legislation to move the date of the contest back on the calendar. FHQ will have more on the developments on that front soon, but for the time being, without action from the state government, the actions by the SCC will be little more than a non-binding preference/recommendation. Much of that recommendation -- where the Michigan presidential primary ends up on the calendar -- depends on how the midterm elections affect the partisan control of both the state legislature and the governor's mansion.
Again, this is the first step and gives us some idea about the thinking in Michigan on the Republican side.
--
NOTES:
The WKZO report indicates that March 15 is the "is the earliest a primary can be held without losing delegates to the Republican National Convention." Well, sort of. In reality, that is the earliest a primary can be held without any penalty. But a March 15 Michigan primary would suffer no losses to its delegation to the Republican National Convention. The primary would have to be before March 1 for the party to lose delegates. The March 15 threshold is one that refers to the method of allocation. The RNC rules require that contests prior to March 15 maintain some element of proportional allocation in their plan. Both the Michigan allocation plan of 2012 and the recommended changes for 2016 would be compliant there. March 15 then is not about avoiding a delegate penalty.
In fact, on March 15, Michigan would not even need to avoid a true winner-take-all allocation. That would be compliant then. But again, the allocation recommendation from the MIGOP Policy Committee was function of compromise, not avoiding penalty.
The question that emerges is why March 15? That was the less "controversial" of the two recommendations. The consensus on March 15 in Michigan may lend some credence to the talk of a Midwestern regional primary on that date, after a March 1 Southern regional primary. Ohio is a week earlier on March 8 and Wisconsin could potentially move up and maintain a winner-take-all allocation on March 15.
All of that, though, is a matter for 2015.
Recent Posts:
New York Has Reverted to a February Presidential Primary for 2016
State GOP parties jockey for primary calendar advantage
Revisiting the 2016 Republican Delegate Selection Rules
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
March 15th, 2016 appears to be the likely date of the Michigan Republican presidential primary in the next election. The Michigan Republican Party's Policy Committee approved the date...There is a bit more to the story, but it was little more than a blurb that has not been reported elsewhere. FHQ spoke with Michigan Republican Party Member Relations Director, Brian Koss, who confirmed the report and added some background as well.
Here's what we know:
1. The Policy Committee of the Michigan Republican Party approved the date change from the last Tuesday in February to March 15. That would have the effect of shifting the Michigan presidential primary back three weeks in 2016.
2. The committee also recommended a change to the method of delegate allocation. The change is not all that significant, but Mr. Koss indicated that it was the result of a compromise among the committee membership. Some wanted a winner-take-all allocation while others preferred a more proportional method of awarding delegates to presidential candidates. In the end, the Michigan Republican delegate allocation would look similar to the party's 2012 delegate selection plan (pre-penalty). Basically the recommendation calls for the allocation to be winner-take-all by congressional district with the statewide, at-large delegates being allocated proportionally. That is exactly the same as it was in 2012. The added wrinkle is that if one candidate receives over 50% of the vote statewide, then that candidate wins all of the at-large delegates.
3. This is the first step in the process. The Policy Committee has only recommended changes that the State Central Committee will now consider. Mr. Koss signaled that there was support for both changes -- date and delegate allocation -- on the SCC.
4. However, only part of the changes would be binding. The state party controls the ability to alter the method of delegate allocation, can only signal its preference for a primary date (unless it opts to fund the primary election itself and hold it on March 15, 2016). If SCC votes positively on the recommended allocation change, then that would be changed in the state party rules.
The primary, however, is state funded and thus the legislature must initiate legislation to move the date of the contest back on the calendar. FHQ will have more on the developments on that front soon, but for the time being, without action from the state government, the actions by the SCC will be little more than a non-binding preference/recommendation. Much of that recommendation -- where the Michigan presidential primary ends up on the calendar -- depends on how the midterm elections affect the partisan control of both the state legislature and the governor's mansion.
Again, this is the first step and gives us some idea about the thinking in Michigan on the Republican side.
--
NOTES:
The WKZO report indicates that March 15 is the "is the earliest a primary can be held without losing delegates to the Republican National Convention." Well, sort of. In reality, that is the earliest a primary can be held without any penalty. But a March 15 Michigan primary would suffer no losses to its delegation to the Republican National Convention. The primary would have to be before March 1 for the party to lose delegates. The March 15 threshold is one that refers to the method of allocation. The RNC rules require that contests prior to March 15 maintain some element of proportional allocation in their plan. Both the Michigan allocation plan of 2012 and the recommended changes for 2016 would be compliant there. March 15 then is not about avoiding a delegate penalty.
In fact, on March 15, Michigan would not even need to avoid a true winner-take-all allocation. That would be compliant then. But again, the allocation recommendation from the MIGOP Policy Committee was function of compromise, not avoiding penalty.
The question that emerges is why March 15? That was the less "controversial" of the two recommendations. The consensus on March 15 in Michigan may lend some credence to the talk of a Midwestern regional primary on that date, after a March 1 Southern regional primary. Ohio is a week earlier on March 8 and Wisconsin could potentially move up and maintain a winner-take-all allocation on March 15.
All of that, though, is a matter for 2015.
Recent Posts:
New York Has Reverted to a February Presidential Primary for 2016
State GOP parties jockey for primary calendar advantage
Revisiting the 2016 Republican Delegate Selection Rules
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Friday, September 12, 2014
New York Has Reverted to a February Presidential Primary for 2016
FHQ has done some maintenance to our 2016 presidential primary calendar this week. Mostly that meant repairing some broken links to the primary date statutes in the various states, but also included double-checking the language of those statutes. On that latter front, we came across an unusual situation/oversight concerning the positioning of the 2016 presidential primary in New York.
The bill(s) the New York state legislature passed in 2011 called for the presidential primary in the Empire state to be moved from the first Tuesday in February to April 24, 2012. The specificity of that language -- actually naming the day and year rather than a point on the calendar -- meant that New York would at the conclusion of the 2012 cycle not have a date covered by the New York Election Code. Translation: There was no date for the primary in 2016 and beyond. That is how FHQ has been treating the New York situation in the time since.
However, in double-checking the language of the current law, FHQ was somewhat taken aback in finding out that the election code (Section 8-100) calls for the presidential primary -- or spring primary -- to be conducted on the first Tuesday in February. After looking back at the bills that went through the state Assembly and Senate, the reason was pretty simple (albeit buried at the end of the legislation). Both bills -- A8363 and S5753 -- included in the last paragraph a sunset provision that repealed all the changes the bill made. Basically then, the 2011 change from the first Tuesday in February to April 24, 2014 expired at the conclusion of 2012. In other words, New York shot back up the calendar to a position that makes the state's presidential primary a bigger threat to the ideal calendar the two national parties have attempted to create through their respective sets of delegate selection rules.
But just because New York looks like a threat to the established order of states -- or more importantly where they fall on the calendar -- it does not mean that the Empire state will actually be a threat in 2015 or 2016. That possibility exists -- which is likely more than either national party wants -- but it is probable, likely even, that the state government will do in 2015 what they did in 2011: move to a later and compliant date that suits New York.
What that means depends in part on which party (or combination of parties) controls the state legislature after the 2014 elections. The first Tuesday in February is less likely because of the national party sanctions that date would trigger, but anything between that point and March is a safe bet at this point. New York could also shift back to late April as well, a spot where several neighboring states were in 2012 and currently are for 2016. There are other niches earlier in the calendar that could be exploited as well. The bottom line is that this introduces some uncertainty where the positioning of the New York presidential primary is concerned. And given the February date called for in state law, that is a date that has to change in light of national party rules.
Recent Posts:
State GOP parties jockey for primary calendar advantage
Revisiting the 2016 Republican Delegate Selection Rules
Update: 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar (8/26/14)
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The bill(s) the New York state legislature passed in 2011 called for the presidential primary in the Empire state to be moved from the first Tuesday in February to April 24, 2012. The specificity of that language -- actually naming the day and year rather than a point on the calendar -- meant that New York would at the conclusion of the 2012 cycle not have a date covered by the New York Election Code. Translation: There was no date for the primary in 2016 and beyond. That is how FHQ has been treating the New York situation in the time since.
However, in double-checking the language of the current law, FHQ was somewhat taken aback in finding out that the election code (Section 8-100) calls for the presidential primary -- or spring primary -- to be conducted on the first Tuesday in February. After looking back at the bills that went through the state Assembly and Senate, the reason was pretty simple (albeit buried at the end of the legislation). Both bills -- A8363 and S5753 -- included in the last paragraph a sunset provision that repealed all the changes the bill made. Basically then, the 2011 change from the first Tuesday in February to April 24, 2014 expired at the conclusion of 2012. In other words, New York shot back up the calendar to a position that makes the state's presidential primary a bigger threat to the ideal calendar the two national parties have attempted to create through their respective sets of delegate selection rules.
But just because New York looks like a threat to the established order of states -- or more importantly where they fall on the calendar -- it does not mean that the Empire state will actually be a threat in 2015 or 2016. That possibility exists -- which is likely more than either national party wants -- but it is probable, likely even, that the state government will do in 2015 what they did in 2011: move to a later and compliant date that suits New York.
What that means depends in part on which party (or combination of parties) controls the state legislature after the 2014 elections. The first Tuesday in February is less likely because of the national party sanctions that date would trigger, but anything between that point and March is a safe bet at this point. New York could also shift back to late April as well, a spot where several neighboring states were in 2012 and currently are for 2016. There are other niches earlier in the calendar that could be exploited as well. The bottom line is that this introduces some uncertainty where the positioning of the New York presidential primary is concerned. And given the February date called for in state law, that is a date that has to change in light of national party rules.
Recent Posts:
State GOP parties jockey for primary calendar advantage
Revisiting the 2016 Republican Delegate Selection Rules
Update: 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar (8/26/14)
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
State GOP parties jockey for primary calendar advantage
This was the headline that greeted FHQ this morning in my inbox from the Washington Times.1 And it is absolutely true. State parties are turning their sights toward 2016 to some extent and are beginning to consider calendar positioning in light of the now-solidified national party delegate selection rules (from both parties).
The wheels kind of fell off the wagon in Ralph Hallow's piece after that. There is a lot of information in there. Unfortunately a lot of that information is wrong, partially wrong and/or misleading. So let's play fact check with this Q&A style.
Q: Are state parties jockeying for position?
A: Again, to some extent they are. Granted, that does not really provide the full picture of what is going on here. The presidential nomination process is a coordination problem. Often this problem is discussed in terms of the varying interests and voices within a party settling on a presidential nominee. But the idea applies to the rules making process and the states' reactions to them as well. [Collectively, both are are part of the invisible primary.] State parties have a role to play in the coordination of the calendar, but that role is exaggerated in the Washington Times piece.
As FHQ has said, this is a sequential process; the rules making and state-level reaction. The national parties have done their part by finalizing the delegate selection rules that will govern the process in 2016. However, it isn't the state parties that will act alone in making the decisions on calendar positioning now. State parties have the final say, but more often than not state governments -- state legislatures and governors -- will choose to move the date (if they can agree on one). State parties have the final up or down vote on the matter but rarely opt out of the date the state government has selected. Most state parties have a very difficult time turning down a state-subsidized primary election when the alternative is the state party footing the bill for a primary or more likely caucuses on a date of their choosing.
Do state parties opt out of state-funded primaries? Sure, but it is the exception rather than the rule. Idaho Republicans, for instance, opted out of the the May state-funded primary in 2012 in order to hold earlier March caucuses.
The thing about Hallow's article is that the focus early on is mostly on the supposed tension between Nevada and South Carolina for the third spot on the Republican calendar. But that sample skews the perception of who is really in charge of setting the date. Nevada Republicans hold caucuses for the purposes of selecting and allocating delegates to the presidential candidates. State parties control caucuses. Rare is the state that has a law or laws on the books that affect the date of caucuses. South Carolina has traditionally held a party-run (and funded) primary. That practice changed in 2008 though. The parties retained the date setting ability while handing off the funding to the state government.
But Nevada and South Carolina are unique as are Iowa and New Hampshire. Sure, they are all carve-out states. But that is a function of the national parties protecting the status of those four states as well as the mechanisms at the state level that allow those states adapt and react to states that might or actually threaten those protected calendar positions. In each and every case -- four of four -- the carve-outs have removed the state legislature from the primary/caucus date selection equation. That allows them to react/adapt more quickly. In states like Florida or Texas -- which are mentioned in the article -- that is not true. Neither the states nor the state parties there are jockeying for positions on the calendar simply because preexisting state law has set those dates already. Texas' spot on the first Tuesday in March has been the law since the 2008 cycle. They haven't moved at all and the state party won't be jockeying for position they already have.
Q: Is Nevada really the biggest threat to South Carolina's position on the Republican calendar?
A: Right now? No. South Carolina has enjoyed being about third on the Republican primary calendar since 1980. But Palmetto state Republicans are not always third (see 2008. Michigan was in between New Hampshire and South Carolina). Actually, being third has occasionally taken a back seat to being the first primary contest in the South. This is a good question for Matt Moore, the chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party: What is more important, being first in the South or third on the calendar? In the past, the former has seemingly been more important, but South Carolina has been lucky that in a number of years the two -- first in the South and third on the calendar -- have overlapped.
There are two reasons why this Nevada threat is overblown (fun though it may be to FHQ in the dog days of summer before things move into high gear in 2015).
1. North Carolina has tethered its primary to South Carolina's. The Tarheel state primary is to follow on the Tuesday after the (presumably Saturday) South Carolina primary. In addition to the two conditions above that South Carolina prioritizes, Republicans in the state also like there to be a week in between it and the next closest southern primary. The North Carolina law violates that at the moment. [That may or may not change during the state legislative session next year.] But North Carolina is a bigger problem for South Carolina than Nevada.
2. Even if the North Carolina situation is settled and South Carolina gets its way, what is to prevent a repeat of 2008 from occurring? The Nevada caucuses of both parties and the South Carolina Republican primary were on the same date that year? South Carolina Republicans could easily gamble on Nevada Republicans having trouble pulling off flawless caucus meetings for the third cycle in a row and win the attention of the candidates and media in a head-to-head with Nevada.
How bothersome Nevada is to South Carolina is up to South Carolina. Protecting that third position as rigidly as is being implied by Hallow would be a new development in view of South Carolina Republicans' past actions.
Q: Are Texas and Florida seeking to "create a Mega-Tuesday election on the first day in March"?
A: Nope. Both are and have already been scheduled for the first Tuesday in March. They are both already there. Other states may and probably will join them, but Texas and Florida won't be moving again to a spot they already occupy.
Q: Does every state with a contest between March 1 and March 14 under the RNC rules have to "award its delegates in proportion to the percentage of the total vote each candidate received in that state"?
A: No, no, no. A thousand times no. An element of a state's allocation has to be proportional if it holds a contest prior to March 15. But proportional means a lot of things under the Republican rules. Even if a state fails to follow those guidelines, the RNC will only proportionally allocate a state's cache of at-large statewide delegates, not the full set of delegates. This is more a pet peeve of FHQ's than anything else. But the proportionality requirement is complex at the end of the day.
Q: Will the carve-out states be penalized by the RNC if they hold a primary or caucuses before February 1?
A: Not necessarily. It all depends on when the next earliest state is on the calendar; the fifth state. If that state has a non-compliant February primary, then the carve-out states can go as early as a month before that February date. February 1 is only on the radar because if the RNC and DNC rules collectively work, then the next earliest contest will be on March 1. But some states may opt to defy the national party rules and hold contests prior to March 1.
Q: Is the Republican National Convention scheduled for June 2016?
A: Not yet. It may be, but the RNC has yet to finalize the dates. Both June 28 and July 18 have been talked about.
Q: Is 1141 the magic number of delegates a Republican candidate needs to clinch the nomination (as Texas Republican Party chairman, Steve Munisteri described)?
A: 1144 was the number in 2012, but it changes every cycle depending on if a state voted for the last Republican presidential candidate, if it elected a Republican governor, how many Republican senators a state has, how many Republican representatives a state has and which party controls the chambers of a state's legislature. It changes every cycle. The snapshot of time in which those things are gauged will be in 2015. As of now, the magic number would rise from 1144 to 1209. That number is still likely to change after the 2014 elections.
--
Look, states will move around. That movement will have consequences, both intended and unintended, on the Republican (and Democratic) nomination process(es). But let's talk about states that will actually potentially move rather than states that are already seemingly locked into March 1 primary or caucuses dates.
--
1 The headline was subsequently changed.
Recent Posts:
Revisiting the 2016 Republican Delegate Selection Rules
Update: 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar (8/26/14)
So, It Turns Out Arizona Has Actually Moved Its Presidential Primary Back on the Calendar
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The wheels kind of fell off the wagon in Ralph Hallow's piece after that. There is a lot of information in there. Unfortunately a lot of that information is wrong, partially wrong and/or misleading. So let's play fact check with this Q&A style.
Q: Are state parties jockeying for position?
A: Again, to some extent they are. Granted, that does not really provide the full picture of what is going on here. The presidential nomination process is a coordination problem. Often this problem is discussed in terms of the varying interests and voices within a party settling on a presidential nominee. But the idea applies to the rules making process and the states' reactions to them as well. [Collectively, both are are part of the invisible primary.] State parties have a role to play in the coordination of the calendar, but that role is exaggerated in the Washington Times piece.
As FHQ has said, this is a sequential process; the rules making and state-level reaction. The national parties have done their part by finalizing the delegate selection rules that will govern the process in 2016. However, it isn't the state parties that will act alone in making the decisions on calendar positioning now. State parties have the final say, but more often than not state governments -- state legislatures and governors -- will choose to move the date (if they can agree on one). State parties have the final up or down vote on the matter but rarely opt out of the date the state government has selected. Most state parties have a very difficult time turning down a state-subsidized primary election when the alternative is the state party footing the bill for a primary or more likely caucuses on a date of their choosing.
Do state parties opt out of state-funded primaries? Sure, but it is the exception rather than the rule. Idaho Republicans, for instance, opted out of the the May state-funded primary in 2012 in order to hold earlier March caucuses.
The thing about Hallow's article is that the focus early on is mostly on the supposed tension between Nevada and South Carolina for the third spot on the Republican calendar. But that sample skews the perception of who is really in charge of setting the date. Nevada Republicans hold caucuses for the purposes of selecting and allocating delegates to the presidential candidates. State parties control caucuses. Rare is the state that has a law or laws on the books that affect the date of caucuses. South Carolina has traditionally held a party-run (and funded) primary. That practice changed in 2008 though. The parties retained the date setting ability while handing off the funding to the state government.
But Nevada and South Carolina are unique as are Iowa and New Hampshire. Sure, they are all carve-out states. But that is a function of the national parties protecting the status of those four states as well as the mechanisms at the state level that allow those states adapt and react to states that might or actually threaten those protected calendar positions. In each and every case -- four of four -- the carve-outs have removed the state legislature from the primary/caucus date selection equation. That allows them to react/adapt more quickly. In states like Florida or Texas -- which are mentioned in the article -- that is not true. Neither the states nor the state parties there are jockeying for positions on the calendar simply because preexisting state law has set those dates already. Texas' spot on the first Tuesday in March has been the law since the 2008 cycle. They haven't moved at all and the state party won't be jockeying for position they already have.
Q: Is Nevada really the biggest threat to South Carolina's position on the Republican calendar?
A: Right now? No. South Carolina has enjoyed being about third on the Republican primary calendar since 1980. But Palmetto state Republicans are not always third (see 2008. Michigan was in between New Hampshire and South Carolina). Actually, being third has occasionally taken a back seat to being the first primary contest in the South. This is a good question for Matt Moore, the chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party: What is more important, being first in the South or third on the calendar? In the past, the former has seemingly been more important, but South Carolina has been lucky that in a number of years the two -- first in the South and third on the calendar -- have overlapped.
There are two reasons why this Nevada threat is overblown (fun though it may be to FHQ in the dog days of summer before things move into high gear in 2015).
1. North Carolina has tethered its primary to South Carolina's. The Tarheel state primary is to follow on the Tuesday after the (presumably Saturday) South Carolina primary. In addition to the two conditions above that South Carolina prioritizes, Republicans in the state also like there to be a week in between it and the next closest southern primary. The North Carolina law violates that at the moment. [That may or may not change during the state legislative session next year.] But North Carolina is a bigger problem for South Carolina than Nevada.
2. Even if the North Carolina situation is settled and South Carolina gets its way, what is to prevent a repeat of 2008 from occurring? The Nevada caucuses of both parties and the South Carolina Republican primary were on the same date that year? South Carolina Republicans could easily gamble on Nevada Republicans having trouble pulling off flawless caucus meetings for the third cycle in a row and win the attention of the candidates and media in a head-to-head with Nevada.
How bothersome Nevada is to South Carolina is up to South Carolina. Protecting that third position as rigidly as is being implied by Hallow would be a new development in view of South Carolina Republicans' past actions.
Q: Are Texas and Florida seeking to "create a Mega-Tuesday election on the first day in March"?
A: Nope. Both are and have already been scheduled for the first Tuesday in March. They are both already there. Other states may and probably will join them, but Texas and Florida won't be moving again to a spot they already occupy.
Q: Does every state with a contest between March 1 and March 14 under the RNC rules have to "award its delegates in proportion to the percentage of the total vote each candidate received in that state"?
A: No, no, no. A thousand times no. An element of a state's allocation has to be proportional if it holds a contest prior to March 15. But proportional means a lot of things under the Republican rules. Even if a state fails to follow those guidelines, the RNC will only proportionally allocate a state's cache of at-large statewide delegates, not the full set of delegates. This is more a pet peeve of FHQ's than anything else. But the proportionality requirement is complex at the end of the day.
Q: Will the carve-out states be penalized by the RNC if they hold a primary or caucuses before February 1?
A: Not necessarily. It all depends on when the next earliest state is on the calendar; the fifth state. If that state has a non-compliant February primary, then the carve-out states can go as early as a month before that February date. February 1 is only on the radar because if the RNC and DNC rules collectively work, then the next earliest contest will be on March 1. But some states may opt to defy the national party rules and hold contests prior to March 1.
Q: Is the Republican National Convention scheduled for June 2016?
A: Not yet. It may be, but the RNC has yet to finalize the dates. Both June 28 and July 18 have been talked about.
Q: Is 1141 the magic number of delegates a Republican candidate needs to clinch the nomination (as Texas Republican Party chairman, Steve Munisteri described)?
A: 1144 was the number in 2012, but it changes every cycle depending on if a state voted for the last Republican presidential candidate, if it elected a Republican governor, how many Republican senators a state has, how many Republican representatives a state has and which party controls the chambers of a state's legislature. It changes every cycle. The snapshot of time in which those things are gauged will be in 2015. As of now, the magic number would rise from 1144 to 1209. That number is still likely to change after the 2014 elections.
--
Look, states will move around. That movement will have consequences, both intended and unintended, on the Republican (and Democratic) nomination process(es). But let's talk about states that will actually potentially move rather than states that are already seemingly locked into March 1 primary or caucuses dates.
--
1 The headline was subsequently changed.
Recent Posts:
Revisiting the 2016 Republican Delegate Selection Rules
Update: 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar (8/26/14)
So, It Turns Out Arizona Has Actually Moved Its Presidential Primary Back on the Calendar
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Revisiting the 2016 Republican Delegate Selection Rules
There are a few points that FHQ left undiscussed -- or perhaps unclear -- when the RNC finalized their delegate selection rules on timing and allocation back at their winter meeting this past January. That was mostly by design, waiting for the clock to run out on when the party could actually make any further changes. We're still not there yet, but there are no meetings of the RNC scheduled between now and September 30 -- the deadline beyond which changes can no longer be made (see Rule 12).
With the rules governing the 2016 presidential nominations now in place at the national party level, FHQ can focus a bit more on the changes made to the rules relative to 2012. Since the DNC did little to alter their delegate selection rules from 2012, most of this will be directed at the Republican side.
The biggest thing here is to highlight the fact that the RNC had one set of rules coming out of the Tampa convention in 2012 and has altered them in the time since. Importantly, that meant changes to the combination of rules and penalties associated with the timing of delegate selection events and the method of allocating those delegates. The rules that emerged from the Tampa convention sought to remedy the problem with the 2012 rules: there were two possible violations (timing and allocation), but only one penalty. That meant that there was only one 50% reduction in a state delegation for rogue states like Florida and Arizona which not only went to early but also maintained winner-take-all allocation methods despite holding contests in the party-designated proportionality window. The RNC had one penalty, but no contingency in place for the possibility of a state violating both the timing and allocation rules. And the party did not have the ability to double penalize the states; assessing the 50% penalty twice.
The Tampa rules dealt with that, but inconsistently and ineffectively. The party added a super penalty to dissuade states from violating the timing rule and shifted the 50% penalty to allocation violations. The problem with the former was that the rule forbidding early contests (Rule 16) did not match the penalty for violating that rule (Rule 17). Rule 16 forbade contests other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from holding primaries or caucuses before March 1. However, Rule 17 levied a penalty against states that would hold contests prior to the last Tuesday in February. In 2016, that difference in the calendar was a week. There was, therefore, a week in which states could hold contests and not be sanctioned by the party.
That was a problem. And one the RNC recognized.
That was the state of affairs heading into 2014. The RNC had a set of flawed delegate selection rules that it had to tweak in some way to more efficiently/effectively/ideally deter timing or allocation rules violations. The party maintained the super penalty and strengthened it to address one of the remaining issues on the timing front.1 The party also synchronized the rules and penalties for timing, squaring the March 1/last Tuesday in February loophole. The rule was a bit too specifically narrow in its first iteration. It and the penalties were tailored to hit the usual rogue suspects: Arizona, Florida and Michigan.
The thinking was that there would be a tiered penalty regime. And that most states would attempt to avoid the super penalty but that states like the offending trio above could go early -- but not too early -- and incur just the 50% delegate hit they had thumbed their noses at in 2008 and/or 2012. That loophole week between the last Tuesday in February and March 1 was designed as a landing place for rogue states. Those states would avoid the super penalty there, but because they would likely maintain winner-take-all methods of allocation, those states would incur the 50% penalty associated with an allocation violation.2
This plan proved to perhaps be too clever by half. In the process of amending the timing rules and penalties, the RNC also tweaked and simplified the allocation rules and penalties at their winter meeting last January. The changes were twofold. First, the proportionality window was squeezed into a smaller period. Instead of states with contests before April 1 having to have some element of their delegate allocation plan be proportional, that only applies to states with contests before March 15. Secondly, the applicability of the penalty was changed. The RNC tightening up the super penalty meant that the 50% penalty was no long necessary as a backstop against states willing to go too early and maintain a true winner-take-all method of allocation.
All that means is that the RNC laid out two distinct penalties; one for a timing violation and one deterring winner-take-all contests prior to March 15. Closing the last Tuesday in February/March 1 loophole cleaned that up. That left a super penalty for states willing and able to go rogue and a 50% penalty for pre-March 15 states that fail to include a proportional element to their allocation plans. Additionally, under the altered plan, states that do not comply with the proportionality requirement would have their delegates allocated to candidates proportionally automatically by the RNC at the convention. States with no proportional element to their allocation plans (and with contests before March 15) would have their at-large (statewide) delegates proportionally allocated to all candidates who received at least 10% of the vote in the primary or caucus.3 This automatic proportionalization would be in addition to the 50% penalty. Together, both penalties would seemingly and more effectively deter states from utilizing a true winner-take-all plan before March 15. No, the 50% penalty has proven less than effective as a one-off penalty over the 2008 and 2012 cycles. However, there is little to gain by stubbornly sticking to a winner-take-all allocation method if the RNC is just going to add an element of proportionality at the convention anyway.
The bottom line is that the RNC has synced it rules and penalties and has from all appearances closed any remaining loopholes in the party's delegate selection rules. States that violate the timing rule are assessed the super penalty and states that break the allocation rules are assessed a 50% penalty and automatically proportionalized by the RNC.4 The DNC rules are different. The Democrats require proportionality of all states regardless of when they hold their delegate selection events and levy a 50% delegate deduction on any state that holds a contest before the first Tuesday in March (March 1 in 2016). The trump card they can play if that 50% penalty proves an ineffective deterrent is that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee can increase the penalty at their discretion.
--
1 The original super penalty treated states both differently and the same. The bigger the state, the larger the hit to the delegation. However, all states got knocked down to 12 total delegates. That meant that if a state was small enough -- or had a small enough delegation -- that the penalty ended up being less than the 50% penalty that has traditionally existed. The point of the super penalty was to be, well, super. The fix the RNC devised was to set a threshold at 30 total delegates. States with 30 or more delegates would be penalized down to 12 total delegates for a timing violation while those states with fewer than 30 delegates would have just nine left over after the penalty was assessed.
2 To reiterate, both Arizona and Florida were double violators in 2012, breaking both the timing and allocation rules. There were some issues with the Michigan allocation method that would potentially brought it under the winner-take-all regime. The RNC, then, hoped these states would be deterred by the super penalty, but not by a 50% penalty. Again, those states would have been incentivized to go early, but not too early. It would not be early enough to fundamentally disrupt the calendar.
3 One of the lessons of 2012 Republican delegate allocation rules that never seemed to sink in very well was what the true definition of "proportional" was and what that meant for allocation. Note that FHQ keeps using variations of the phrase "and element of the allocation plan has to be proportional". That is by design. States like New Hampshire can still maintain a strictly proportional allocation under the 2016 RNC rules, but that is not mandated. All states are required to do by the rules -- the bare minimum proportionality -- is to allocate their cache of at-large (statewide) delegates proportionally. That is a number of delegates that varies by state based on how loyally Republican a state has been in past votes for president, governor and overall state legislature control. The redder a state is, then, the more at-large delegates it receives. Ohio for instance is similar in (population) size but bigger than Georgia, yet the Peach state had more delegates in 2012 than did Republicans in the Buckeye state.
4 No, proportionalized is not a word. I'm making it up. Get in on the ground floor now and start using it.
Recent Posts:
Update: 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar (8/26/14)
So, It Turns Out Arizona Has Actually Moved Its Presidential Primary Back on the Calendar
DNC Set to Finalize 2016 Rules at Atlanta Meeting
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
With the rules governing the 2016 presidential nominations now in place at the national party level, FHQ can focus a bit more on the changes made to the rules relative to 2012. Since the DNC did little to alter their delegate selection rules from 2012, most of this will be directed at the Republican side.
The biggest thing here is to highlight the fact that the RNC had one set of rules coming out of the Tampa convention in 2012 and has altered them in the time since. Importantly, that meant changes to the combination of rules and penalties associated with the timing of delegate selection events and the method of allocating those delegates. The rules that emerged from the Tampa convention sought to remedy the problem with the 2012 rules: there were two possible violations (timing and allocation), but only one penalty. That meant that there was only one 50% reduction in a state delegation for rogue states like Florida and Arizona which not only went to early but also maintained winner-take-all allocation methods despite holding contests in the party-designated proportionality window. The RNC had one penalty, but no contingency in place for the possibility of a state violating both the timing and allocation rules. And the party did not have the ability to double penalize the states; assessing the 50% penalty twice.
The Tampa rules dealt with that, but inconsistently and ineffectively. The party added a super penalty to dissuade states from violating the timing rule and shifted the 50% penalty to allocation violations. The problem with the former was that the rule forbidding early contests (Rule 16) did not match the penalty for violating that rule (Rule 17). Rule 16 forbade contests other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from holding primaries or caucuses before March 1. However, Rule 17 levied a penalty against states that would hold contests prior to the last Tuesday in February. In 2016, that difference in the calendar was a week. There was, therefore, a week in which states could hold contests and not be sanctioned by the party.
That was a problem. And one the RNC recognized.
That was the state of affairs heading into 2014. The RNC had a set of flawed delegate selection rules that it had to tweak in some way to more efficiently/effectively/ideally deter timing or allocation rules violations. The party maintained the super penalty and strengthened it to address one of the remaining issues on the timing front.1 The party also synchronized the rules and penalties for timing, squaring the March 1/last Tuesday in February loophole. The rule was a bit too specifically narrow in its first iteration. It and the penalties were tailored to hit the usual rogue suspects: Arizona, Florida and Michigan.
The thinking was that there would be a tiered penalty regime. And that most states would attempt to avoid the super penalty but that states like the offending trio above could go early -- but not too early -- and incur just the 50% delegate hit they had thumbed their noses at in 2008 and/or 2012. That loophole week between the last Tuesday in February and March 1 was designed as a landing place for rogue states. Those states would avoid the super penalty there, but because they would likely maintain winner-take-all methods of allocation, those states would incur the 50% penalty associated with an allocation violation.2
This plan proved to perhaps be too clever by half. In the process of amending the timing rules and penalties, the RNC also tweaked and simplified the allocation rules and penalties at their winter meeting last January. The changes were twofold. First, the proportionality window was squeezed into a smaller period. Instead of states with contests before April 1 having to have some element of their delegate allocation plan be proportional, that only applies to states with contests before March 15. Secondly, the applicability of the penalty was changed. The RNC tightening up the super penalty meant that the 50% penalty was no long necessary as a backstop against states willing to go too early and maintain a true winner-take-all method of allocation.
All that means is that the RNC laid out two distinct penalties; one for a timing violation and one deterring winner-take-all contests prior to March 15. Closing the last Tuesday in February/March 1 loophole cleaned that up. That left a super penalty for states willing and able to go rogue and a 50% penalty for pre-March 15 states that fail to include a proportional element to their allocation plans. Additionally, under the altered plan, states that do not comply with the proportionality requirement would have their delegates allocated to candidates proportionally automatically by the RNC at the convention. States with no proportional element to their allocation plans (and with contests before March 15) would have their at-large (statewide) delegates proportionally allocated to all candidates who received at least 10% of the vote in the primary or caucus.3 This automatic proportionalization would be in addition to the 50% penalty. Together, both penalties would seemingly and more effectively deter states from utilizing a true winner-take-all plan before March 15. No, the 50% penalty has proven less than effective as a one-off penalty over the 2008 and 2012 cycles. However, there is little to gain by stubbornly sticking to a winner-take-all allocation method if the RNC is just going to add an element of proportionality at the convention anyway.
The bottom line is that the RNC has synced it rules and penalties and has from all appearances closed any remaining loopholes in the party's delegate selection rules. States that violate the timing rule are assessed the super penalty and states that break the allocation rules are assessed a 50% penalty and automatically proportionalized by the RNC.4 The DNC rules are different. The Democrats require proportionality of all states regardless of when they hold their delegate selection events and levy a 50% delegate deduction on any state that holds a contest before the first Tuesday in March (March 1 in 2016). The trump card they can play if that 50% penalty proves an ineffective deterrent is that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee can increase the penalty at their discretion.
--
1 The original super penalty treated states both differently and the same. The bigger the state, the larger the hit to the delegation. However, all states got knocked down to 12 total delegates. That meant that if a state was small enough -- or had a small enough delegation -- that the penalty ended up being less than the 50% penalty that has traditionally existed. The point of the super penalty was to be, well, super. The fix the RNC devised was to set a threshold at 30 total delegates. States with 30 or more delegates would be penalized down to 12 total delegates for a timing violation while those states with fewer than 30 delegates would have just nine left over after the penalty was assessed.
2 To reiterate, both Arizona and Florida were double violators in 2012, breaking both the timing and allocation rules. There were some issues with the Michigan allocation method that would potentially brought it under the winner-take-all regime. The RNC, then, hoped these states would be deterred by the super penalty, but not by a 50% penalty. Again, those states would have been incentivized to go early, but not too early. It would not be early enough to fundamentally disrupt the calendar.
3 One of the lessons of 2012 Republican delegate allocation rules that never seemed to sink in very well was what the true definition of "proportional" was and what that meant for allocation. Note that FHQ keeps using variations of the phrase "and element of the allocation plan has to be proportional". That is by design. States like New Hampshire can still maintain a strictly proportional allocation under the 2016 RNC rules, but that is not mandated. All states are required to do by the rules -- the bare minimum proportionality -- is to allocate their cache of at-large (statewide) delegates proportionally. That is a number of delegates that varies by state based on how loyally Republican a state has been in past votes for president, governor and overall state legislature control. The redder a state is, then, the more at-large delegates it receives. Ohio for instance is similar in (population) size but bigger than Georgia, yet the Peach state had more delegates in 2012 than did Republicans in the Buckeye state.
4 No, proportionalized is not a word. I'm making it up. Get in on the ground floor now and start using it.
Recent Posts:
Update: 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar (8/26/14)
So, It Turns Out Arizona Has Actually Moved Its Presidential Primary Back on the Calendar
DNC Set to Finalize 2016 Rules at Atlanta Meeting
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Update: 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar (8/26/14)
With Arizona moving its presidential primary back and back into compliance with the national party rules, there is one less threat to the ideal primary calendars under which the DNC and RNC would like to operate.
FHQ spent a great deal of time in 2011 talking about a couple of factors. One was the fact that Arizona, Florida and Michigan (among others) should never have been surprises to anyone. After 2008 but before 2012 none of those states made legislative moves that changed anything about the threats they represented to the 2012 presidential primary calendar. The other was that, after 2008, there were around 20 states that had to change state laws (or party bylaws) to comply with the parties' desire for a later start (read: February) to primary season. Most of those states complied. Some even shifted to dates later than the earliest date the national parties allowed non-carve-out states to hold their delegate selection events (March 6 in 2012).
Arizona, Florida, Michigan and a handful of other states did not. That meant that there was work to do from the national parties' perspective ahead of the 2016 cycle. Florida moved back from the brink in 2013 and Arizona and Missouri have already done so in 2014, inching the calendar closer to the national parties' ideal point.
However, there is still some more inching to do as we begin the slow march toward 2015, when many of these decisions will be made (or not made) at the state legislative level. Michigan is still a problem and North Carolina became one in 2013. And who knows which state may represent the next Utah and add to the threats? It may be Utah. Now that the national parties have set their rules the baton passes to the states. It is their point in the sequential process to decided to move back and comply, stand pat in compliance or defiance or move up and defy the those national party delegate selection rules.
Things are far from clear with a lot left to be decided in 2015, but for now, at this brief moment in time, the national parties are in good shape and seemingly headed in the direction of a later start to primary season.
Of course there is a long way to go before the calendar is set for 2016. And the next move is the states, no the national parties.
--
Latest update: 8/26/14 (Arizona moved on the calendar)
The 2016 presidential primary calendar can also always be found at its permanent home here.
2016 Presidential Primary Calendar
January
February
Recent Posts:
So, It Turns Out Arizona Has Actually Moved Its Presidential Primary Back on the Calendar
DNC Set to Finalize 2016 Rules at Atlanta Meeting
South Carolina Bill to Streamline Presidential Primary Funding Becomes Law
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
FHQ spent a great deal of time in 2011 talking about a couple of factors. One was the fact that Arizona, Florida and Michigan (among others) should never have been surprises to anyone. After 2008 but before 2012 none of those states made legislative moves that changed anything about the threats they represented to the 2012 presidential primary calendar. The other was that, after 2008, there were around 20 states that had to change state laws (or party bylaws) to comply with the parties' desire for a later start (read: February) to primary season. Most of those states complied. Some even shifted to dates later than the earliest date the national parties allowed non-carve-out states to hold their delegate selection events (March 6 in 2012).
Arizona, Florida, Michigan and a handful of other states did not. That meant that there was work to do from the national parties' perspective ahead of the 2016 cycle. Florida moved back from the brink in 2013 and Arizona and Missouri have already done so in 2014, inching the calendar closer to the national parties' ideal point.
However, there is still some more inching to do as we begin the slow march toward 2015, when many of these decisions will be made (or not made) at the state legislative level. Michigan is still a problem and North Carolina became one in 2013. And who knows which state may represent the next Utah and add to the threats? It may be Utah. Now that the national parties have set their rules the baton passes to the states. It is their point in the sequential process to decided to move back and comply, stand pat in compliance or defiance or move up and defy the those national party delegate selection rules.
Things are far from clear with a lot left to be decided in 2015, but for now, at this brief moment in time, the national parties are in good shape and seemingly headed in the direction of a later start to primary season.
Of course there is a long way to go before the calendar is set for 2016. And the next move is the states, no the national parties.
--
Latest update: 8/26/14 (Arizona moved on the calendar)
The 2016 presidential primary calendar can also always be found at its permanent home here.
Reading the Map:
As was the case with the maps from past cycles, the earlier a contest is scheduled in 2012, the darker the color in which the state is shaded. Michigan, for instance, is a much deeper shade of blue in February than California is in June. There are, however, some differences between the earlier maps and the one that appears above.
- Several caucus states have yet to select a date for the first step of their delegate selection processes in 2016. Until a decision is made by state parties in those states, they will appear in gray on the map.
- The states where legislation to move the presidential primary is active are two-toned with wide, diagonal stripes. One color indicates the timing of the primary according to the current law whereas the second color is meant to highlight the month to which the primary could be moved. For example, a bill currently being considered in Massachusetts would move the presidential primary from its current position in March to a new spot on the calendar in June.
- Other states -- the carve-out states and states with state laws providing guidance for setting a primary or caucuses date but no specific date or multiple specified dates -- are also two-toned with narrow, horizontal stripes. In this case, one color (gray) represents the uncertainty of the primary or caucuses date now while the other color (or colors) highlight the options available to states or the most likely date for a contest in that state given the information we currently have. So, in Iowa, for instance, we know that the state parties in the Hawkeye state will want to protect the first in the nation status they have enjoyed in the past. To maintain that position alone, Iowa could now conduct its precinct caucuses as late as January 18, 2016. In a state like Utah, the primary itself is dependent on the state legislature allocating funds for that purpose. Should legislators in the Beehive state follow through on that action for 2016, the primary would be in early February. That explains the color in both instances.
- States that are bisected vertically are states where the state parties have different dates for their caucuses and/or primaries. The left hand section is shaded to reflect the state Democratic Party's scheduling while the right is for the state Republican Party's decision on the timing of its delegate selection event (see Nebraska). This holds true for states -- typically caucus states -- with a history of different dates across parties but which also have not yet chosen a contest date.
--
Reading the calendar:
- Note that if you click on the state name in the calendar below, the link will take you to the relevant section of the state's law or party's bylaws covering the date of the primary or caucus.
- Links to discussions of 2013 or 2014 state-level legislation addressing the dates of future presidential primaries have also been added (see 2013/2014 Legislation in the calendar).
- Markers have also been added indicating whether legislation has become law or has died at some point in the legislative process.
2016 Presidential Primary Calendar
January
Monday, January 18:
Iowa caucuses1 (***tentative given current information***)
Tuesday, January 26:
New Hampshire (***tentative given current information***)
Tuesday, February 2:
Utah4
(2013 Legislation: Primary funding -- Signed into Law)
(2014 Legislation: Primary before Iowa/New Hampshire -- Died in state Senate)
(2013 Legislation: Primary funding -- Signed into Law)
(2014 Legislation: Primary before Iowa/New Hampshire -- Died in state Senate)
Saturday, February 6:
Nevada caucuses (***tentative given current information***)
Saturday, February 13:
South Carolina (***tentative given current information***)
Tuesday, February 16:
North Carolina (***tentative given current information***)
Tuesday, February 23:
Nevada caucuses (***tentative given current information***)
Saturday, February 13:
South Carolina (***tentative given current information***)
Tuesday, February 16:
North Carolina (***tentative given current information***)
Tuesday, February 23:
March
Tuesday, March 1:
Florida5
(2013 Legislation: March primary -- Died in Committee; Primary on first unpenalized date --
Signed into Law)
Massachusetts
(2013 legislation: June primary)
(2013 Legislation: March primary -- Died in Committee; Primary on first unpenalized date --
Signed into Law)
Massachusetts
(2013 legislation: June primary)
Tuesday, March 8:
Tuesday, March 15:
Missouri
(2013 Legislation: March primary: House/Senate, April primary -- all Died in Committee)
(2014 Legislation: March primary: House/Senate -- Senate committee substitute Signed into
Law)
[-42]
Tuesday, March 22:
Arizona
(2013 Legislation: Fix primary date to date of Iowa caucuses)
(2014 Legislation: move the primary to the Tuesday after March 15 -- Signed into Law)
[-28]
(2013 Legislation: March primary: House/Senate, April primary -- all Died in Committee)
(2014 Legislation: March primary: House/Senate -- Senate committee substitute Signed into
Law)
[-42]
Tuesday, March 22:
Arizona
(2013 Legislation: Fix primary date to date of Iowa caucuses)
(2014 Legislation: move the primary to the Tuesday after March 15 -- Signed into Law)
[-28]
April
Tuesday, April 5:
Tuesday, April 26:
May
Tuesday, May 3:
Tuesday, May 10:
Tuesday, May 17:
Tuesday, May 24:
June
Tuesday, June 7:
Primary states with no specified date:
Maine
(2013 Legislation: establish primary -- Died in Committee)
Nevada8
(2013 Legislation: January primary -- Died in Committee)
New Hampshire
(2013 Legislation: establish primary -- Died in Committee)
Nevada8
(2013 Legislation: January primary -- Died in Committee)
New Hampshire
New York
North Carolina9
(2013 Legislation: Move primary to Tuesday after South Carolina primary if South Carolina
is before March 15 -- Signed into Law)
North Carolina9
(2013 Legislation: Move primary to Tuesday after South Carolina primary if South Carolina
is before March 15 -- Signed into Law)
South Carolina
--
1 This date does conflict with the Martin Luther King Day holiday in 2016. As John Deeth points out in the comments section that is an issue that was a source of some discontent among Iowa Democrats when the caucuses and holiday overlapped in 2004. If that is an issue again in 2016, it may affect the date of the caucuses above. Moving it up further would perhaps push the envelope a bit too much, but the state parties may opt to hold the caucuses on a Tuesday -- a week before New Hampshire on January 19 -- as they did in 2012.
1 This date does conflict with the Martin Luther King Day holiday in 2016. As John Deeth points out in the comments section that is an issue that was a source of some discontent among Iowa Democrats when the caucuses and holiday overlapped in 2004. If that is an issue again in 2016, it may affect the date of the caucuses above. Moving it up further would perhaps push the envelope a bit too much, but the state parties may opt to hold the caucuses on a Tuesday -- a week before New Hampshire on January 19 -- as they did in 2012.
2 The state parties have the option of choosing either the first Tuesday in March date called for in the statute or moving up to the first Tuesday in February.
3 The state parties must agree on a date on which to hold caucuses by March 1 in the year prior to a presidential election. If no agreement is reached, the caucuses are set for the first Tuesday in February.
4 The Western States Presidential Primary in Utah is scheduled for the first Tuesday in February, but the contest will only be held on that date if the state legislature decides to allocate funds for the primary. If (and only if) there is no Western States Presidential Primary (i.e.: the legislature does not fund the February contest) will the fourth Tuesday in June primary for other offices be an option available to the Utah parties according to the state law.
5 Democratic-sponsored legislation would establish a specific date for the Florida presidential primary; the second Tuesday in March.
6 See definition of "Spring primary" for clause dealing with the timing of the presidential primary.
7 Kansas has not held a presidential primary since 1992. Funds have not been appropriated by the legislature for the primary since that time. That said, there are laws in place providing for a presidential preference primary. Assuming funding, the Kansas secretary of state has the option of choosing a date -- on or before November 1 in the year preceding the presidential election -- that either coincides with at least 5 other states' delegate selection events or is on the first Tuesday in April or before.
8 A Republican-sponsored bill during the 2013 session of the Nevada legislature would create a consolidated primary (presidential primary together with state primaries) and move the contest from June to January.
9 The North Carolina primary is now scheduled for the Tuesday following the South Carolina primary if the South Carolina contest is prior to March 15. Given the protected status South Carolina enjoys with the national parties, a primary prior to March 15 is a certainty for both parties in the Palmetto state. The link to the North Carolina statute does not yet reflect the change made to the presidential primary law. Language laying out the parameters for the primary can be found in the bill (HB 589) signed into law last summer.
--
7 Kansas has not held a presidential primary since 1992. Funds have not been appropriated by the legislature for the primary since that time. That said, there are laws in place providing for a presidential preference primary. Assuming funding, the Kansas secretary of state has the option of choosing a date -- on or before November 1 in the year preceding the presidential election -- that either coincides with at least 5 other states' delegate selection events or is on the first Tuesday in April or before.
8 A Republican-sponsored bill during the 2013 session of the Nevada legislature would create a consolidated primary (presidential primary together with state primaries) and move the contest from June to January.
9 The North Carolina primary is now scheduled for the Tuesday following the South Carolina primary if the South Carolina contest is prior to March 15. Given the protected status South Carolina enjoys with the national parties, a primary prior to March 15 is a certainty for both parties in the Palmetto state. The link to the North Carolina statute does not yet reflect the change made to the presidential primary law. Language laying out the parameters for the primary can be found in the bill (HB 589) signed into law last summer.
--
Recent Posts:
So, It Turns Out Arizona Has Actually Moved Its Presidential Primary Back on the Calendar
DNC Set to Finalize 2016 Rules at Atlanta Meeting
South Carolina Bill to Streamline Presidential Primary Funding Becomes Law
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Monday, August 25, 2014
So, It Turns Out Arizona Has Actually Moved Its Presidential Primary Back on the Calendar
FHQ is still trying to figure out how and/or why,1 but Arizona's presidential primary calendar move slipped under our radar back in March and April when the change happened.
Here's the timeline of the move:
Implications:
--
1 Every state has a different name it seems for its presidential primary. Some call it presidential primary in the existing statute while others call it a presidential preference primary or a presidential preferential primary. Arizona is unique in calling their contest for allocating national convention delegates to presidential candidates a "presidential preference election". It seems like a minor point, but these subtle differences can make it difficult sometimes to track the comings and goings of primary calendar movement. This is one of those times.
...unfortunately.
H/T: Emily Schultheis for bringing this to my attention.
Recent Posts:
DNC Set to Finalize 2016 Rules at Atlanta Meeting
South Carolina Bill to Streamline Presidential Primary Funding Becomes Law
Jindal Signature Nudges Louisiana Presidential Primary Up Two Weeks
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Here's the timeline of the move:
- John Cavanaugh (R-23rd, Fountain Hills) introduced legislation in the state House charging the Arizona secretary of state with creating an online system for signing nomination petitions among other things. The bill was introduced in late January about two weeks into the 2014 state legislative session.
- Other than an section ordering issue within the bill, the legislation was not amended in any way in the House. It passed unanimously almost a month after its introduction on February 24.
- The bill was transmitted to the state Senate one day later.
- About a week later on March 4, the relevant amendment was added and unanimously agreed to by the Senate Committee on Elections with a "do pass as amended" distinction:
- 16-241. Presidential preference election; conduct of election: A. A presidential preference election shall be held on the fourth Tuesday in February IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING MARCH 15 of each year in which the President of the United States is elected to give qualified electors the opportunity to express their preference for the presidential candidate of the political party indicated as their preference by the record of their registration. No other election may appear on the same ballot as the presidential preference election.
- The Senate Rules Committee concurred on March 10, clearing the path for the bill to be considered on the Senate floor.
- The Senate Committee of the Whole passed the bill -- do pass as amended -- on April 8.
- That procedural vote cleared the way for the Senate to finally pass the bill -- with just two dissenting votes -- a day later on April 9.
- Governor Jan Brewer (R) signed the bill into law a week later on April 16, moving the Arizona presidential primary back.
Implications:
- Importantly, the shift brings Arizona back into compliance with the national party delegate selection rules. Any contest on or after March 1 means a state avoids sanction in 2016. Arizona was docked half its delegation in 2012 by the Republican National Committee for holding a delegate selection event prior to the first Tuesday in March.
- To drive the point home, it is worth noting that Arizona was among the limited number of rogue states that disrupted the Republican calendar in 2012. It won't be from the looks of it in 2016.
- Also, it should be said that the chairman of the RNC Rules Committee is Arizona Republican National Committeeman, Bruce Ash. That may say something about the specificity of the bill. The language in the changes to the Arizona statute go to some length in protecting the traditional Arizona delegate selection process. March 15 is the earliest date on which a state can hold a delegate selection event and allocate delegates in a winner-take-all fashion according to the amended Rules of the Republican Party. The move allows Arizona to continue allocating delegates winner-take-all.
- It is not clear to FHQ what the intended date -- based on the legislation -- of the 2016 Arizona presidential primary originally was/is to be. The statute now places the contest on the Tuesday "immediately following March 15" -- moving it from the last Tuesday in February. That is language that is less problematic in years in which March 15 is not on a Tuesday as it is in 2016. The new statute seems to indicate that the primary will be in March 22, 2016. My point is that the language eliminates March 15 as a date on which the primary can occur when a March 15 date would be compliant with the RNC restrictions on winner-take-all allocation.
- The one factor that may have motivated a March 22 date over a March date for the primary is that the former is a date currently unoccupied on the 2016 calendar. The latter, on the other hand, already has a subregional Missouri/Illinois primary scheduled and may be a landing place for a number of states wanting early dates but also winner-take-all allocation. Of course, March 22 may prove inviting to other states as well.
- Finally, the new law also alters the power given the Arizona governor to change the date of the presidential primary. In both 2004 and 2008, then Arizona governor, Janet Napolitano (D) used her proclamation power to move the presidential primary from the fourth Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in February; then compliant with national party rules governing delegate selection. In 2012, Governor Jan Brewer (R) threatened to shift the date up -- in further defiance of the national party rules -- but used that threat as leverage to get the RNC to sanction a presidential primary debate in Arizona. Governor Brewer eventually opted not to issue a proclamation, keeping the Arizona primary on the last Tuesday in February but still noncompliant with the national parties' rules. The new law strips out the governor's ability to move the contest to an earlier date. However, the governor retains the power to move the primary to a later date than the one specified (and discussed) above.
--
1 Every state has a different name it seems for its presidential primary. Some call it presidential primary in the existing statute while others call it a presidential preference primary or a presidential preferential primary. Arizona is unique in calling their contest for allocating national convention delegates to presidential candidates a "presidential preference election". It seems like a minor point, but these subtle differences can make it difficult sometimes to track the comings and goings of primary calendar movement. This is one of those times.
...unfortunately.
H/T: Emily Schultheis for bringing this to my attention.
Recent Posts:
DNC Set to Finalize 2016 Rules at Atlanta Meeting
South Carolina Bill to Streamline Presidential Primary Funding Becomes Law
Jindal Signature Nudges Louisiana Presidential Primary Up Two Weeks
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Friday, August 22, 2014
DNC Set to Finalize 2016 Rules at Atlanta Meeting
The Democratic National Committee has kicked off its summer meeting in Atlanta. The party will meet over the weekend to hear and vote on the draft proposal for its 2016 delegate selection rules from the Rules and Bylaws Committee.
As FHQ mentioned following the spring meeting when changes to the rules were discussed, there is little in the way of substantive change to 2016 (as compared to the 2012 rules). That continues to be the big take home along with the fact that the proposed (ideal) calendar of primaries and caucuses is largely in line with that of the RNC. The underlying rules are slightly different across parties, but the intent is the same: keep contests out of January, make February about Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, and let every other state opt for a position thereafter.
The DNC vote will close the door on national party rules tinkering for the 2016 cycle. The RNC is not set to meet again before its deadline -- for finalizing its rules -- at the end of September. That will clear the way for states to react and adapt to the changes during 2015.
Recent Posts:
South Carolina Bill to Streamline Presidential Primary Funding Becomes Law
Jindal Signature Nudges Louisiana Presidential Primary Up Two Weeks
Missouri Presidential Primary Shifts Back to March Following Nixon Signature
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
As FHQ mentioned following the spring meeting when changes to the rules were discussed, there is little in the way of substantive change to 2016 (as compared to the 2012 rules). That continues to be the big take home along with the fact that the proposed (ideal) calendar of primaries and caucuses is largely in line with that of the RNC. The underlying rules are slightly different across parties, but the intent is the same: keep contests out of January, make February about Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, and let every other state opt for a position thereafter.
The DNC vote will close the door on national party rules tinkering for the 2016 cycle. The RNC is not set to meet again before its deadline -- for finalizing its rules -- at the end of September. That will clear the way for states to react and adapt to the changes during 2015.
Recent Posts:
South Carolina Bill to Streamline Presidential Primary Funding Becomes Law
Jindal Signature Nudges Louisiana Presidential Primary Up Two Weeks
Missouri Presidential Primary Shifts Back to March Following Nixon Signature
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)