The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/28/09)

For the most up-to-date version of this calendar see the left sidebar under the 2012 electoral college projection or click here.

Since FHQ has added some states to our examination of state legislative frontloading action this week, a 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar update is in order. Here again are the rules (updated too) from the last update:

1. Caucus states are italicized while primary states are not.
2. States that have changed dates appear twice (or more) on the calendar; once by the old date and once by the new date. The old date will be struck through while the new date will be color-coded with the amount of movement (in days) in parentheses. States in green are states that have moved to earlier dates on the calendar and states in red are those that have moved to later dates. Arkansas, for example, has moved its 2012 primary and moved it back 104 days.
   
3. You'll also see that some of the states on the calendar are live links. These are links to active legislation that would shift the date on which that state's presidential primary would be held in 2012. That allows us to track the status of the legislation more easily.
4. You'll also see that the live link has been removed from Illinois. This reflects the fact that the legislation before the legislature there applies only to the date of the primary for state and local offices. For the sake of tracking relevant legislation dealing with presidential primaries generally, but not dates directly, FHQ will include links in parentheses next to such states.
   

New Additions: New Hampshire, New Jersey and Oregon

2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Monday, January 16, 2012: Iowa caucuses*

Tuesday, January 24: New Hampshire*

Saturday, January 28: Nevada caucuses*, South Carolina*

A note on the placement of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

Tuesday, January 31: Florida

Tuesday, February 7 (Super Tuesday): Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois (H / S), Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma (H), Tennessee and Utah

Saturday, February 11: Louisiana

Tuesday, February 14: Maryland, Virginia

Tuesday, February 21: Wisconsin

Tuesday, February 28: Arizona**, Michigan***

Tuesday, March 6: Massachusetts***, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont

Tuesday, March 13: Mississippi

Tuesday, March 20: Colorado caucuses****

Tuesday, April 24: Pennsylvania

Tuesday, May 8: Indiana (S), North Carolina and West Virginia

Tuesday, May 15: Nebraska, Oregon

Tuesday, May 22: Arkansas (-104), Idaho, Kentucky

Tuesday, June 5: Montana, New Mexico***** and South Dakota

*New Hampshire law calls for the Granite state to hold a primary on the second Tuesday of March or seven days prior to any other similar election, whichever is earlier. Florida is first now, so New Hampshire would be a week earlier at the latest. Traditionally, Iowa has gone on the Monday a week prior to New Hampshire. For the time being we'll wedge Nevada and South Carolina in on the Saturday between New Hampshire and Florida, but these are just guesses at the moment. Any rogue states could cause a shift.

**In Arizona the governor can use his or her proclamation powers to move the state's primary to a date on which the event would have an impact on the nomination. In 2004 and 2008 the primary was moved to the first Tuesday in February.

***Massachusetts and Michigan are the only states that passed a frontloading bill prior to 2008 that was not permanent. The Bay state reverts to its first Tuesday in March date in 2012 while Michigan will fall back to the fourth Tuesday in February.

****The Colorado Democratic and Republican parties have the option to move their caucuses from the third Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February.

*****The law in New Mexico allows the parties to decide when to hold their nominating contests. The Democrats have gone in early February in the last two cycles, but the GOP has held steady in June. They have the option of moving however.

A note on the Minnesota caucuses.

Notes:
Illinois: The House bill proposes moving the state's primaries for state and local offices back to the traditional third Tuesday in March date while leaving the presidential primary on the first Tuesday in February. Senate action has a similar intent, but the non-presidential primaries would move to June.

Indiana: The Senate Concurrent Resolution would form a committee to examine the wisdom of a potential frontloading move.

Minnesota: Companion bills in the House and Senate would change the state's mode of delegate selection from a caucus to a primary on the presidential level.

Oklahoma: A House bill would shift the financial burden of the presidential primary from the state to the parties with nominations at stake.

Remember that a less messy version of the calendar is always present in the left hand side bar.


Recent Posts:
Minnesota in 2012

Illinois in 2012 Redux

New Hampshire in 2012

Minnesota in 2012

Minnesota, like Oklahoma, isn't examining a repositioning of its delegate selection event for 2012, but the state legislature (both chambers separately) is considering altering the mode of delegate selection. [No, that isn't in keeping with the week's focus on date-shifters, but it is relevant to the 2012 primary calendar discussion.] Traditionally the North Star state has used the caucus system as its means of allocating national convention delegates. In fact, the only time during the post-reform era (1972-present) that Minnesota used a primary as its means of delegate allocation was in 1992. And then it was only the GOP that opted for the primary (in a year with an incumbent Republican running virtually unopposed).

It is fairly significant, then, that the most populous remaining caucus state is considering adopting a primary system for presidential nomination delegate allocation. [Technically, Washington is the most populous caucus state, but the Evergreen state uses a hybrid system (primary/caucus) on the Republican side and a caucus with beauty contest primary on the Democratic side.] There are companion bills in both the state House and Senate that would keep the state's delegate selection event on the first Tuesday in February but change the selection mode from a caucus to a primary. This is a mostly Democrat-driven initiative (with only one Republican representative among the group of sponsors) that would address many of the problems heavy turnout in last year's presidential caucuses caused. Mainly, with state funding the process would likely have an increased number of polling places that would prove more accommodating than the jam-packed (especially Democratic) caucuses were during 2008. Now, both HF 31 and SF 157 were introduced in January and have been in committee ever since. That could either mean that both are the victims of the legislative process and/or that they have fallen victim to the current economic climate. Primaries mean increased state expenditures and those are much harder to justify given current economic circumstances. Another layer to add into the state legislature's calculus is considering whether 2008 was an anomaly in terms of turnout. If the overarching expectation among experts and, then, legislators is that future turnout will revert to previous levels then the desire to move from a caucus to a primary likely drops (and even more so given the interaction between that idea and the cost effectiveness of such a move.).

Like the other bills we have examined in other states this week, though, this legislation is worth tracking in the (now long) lead up to 2012.


Recent Posts:
Illinois in 2012 Redux

New Hampshire in 2012

Or Not: Arkansas is Staying in May for 2012

Illinois in 2012 Redux

[This is part four in a continuing series this week examining current state legislative action affecting the positioning of presidential primaries in 2012.]

There are two points about Illinois I want to deal with in this space. First of all, some of the points in our earlier discussion of the state legislative action in Land of Lincoln were incorrect. A closer reading of SB 46, the bill at the heart of that earlier post, reveals that the presidential primary is not a part of the equation. As has been discussed here more times than regular readers probably care to remember, states are constrained in their ability to frontload based on whether the state holds its presidential primary concurrently with its primaries for state and local office. States that have already severed those ties find it much easier to move that those states where a decision has to be made between moving everything or splitting those primaries and funding an all new presidential primary election.

Illinois is one of the states that has traditionally held its primaries concurrently in the post-reform era. When the state legislature opted to move the state's primary from March into February in anticipation of the 2008 election, all the primaries moved. Now, however, the state legislature is considering a couple of proposals (one more than was initially known to FHQ) to split those primaries, leaving the presidential contest in February, but moving the primaries for state and local offices back. The state senate legislation mentioned already proposes moving those contests all the way back to June. This move has been spearheaded by a long list of Republicans senators. On the House side, though, the proposal (HB 2308) is led by a handful of Democrats and the move is far less drastic; moving those state and local primaries back to the state's traditional third Tuesday in March primary date.

Yeah, but those aren't presidential primaries, are they?

No, they aren't. However, should this legislation make it through the legislature and be signed into law it will make future attempts by Illinois to frontload that much easier. In my initial examination of this "split primaries" issue, those split primaries states from 1976-1996 were over five times as likely to frontload as those states where all primaries were held concurrently. That effect has lessened over the last few cycles however. Including data through 2008, split primaries states are still well over twice as likely to move as their concurrent primaries counterparts.

Of course, both of the pieces of legislation cited above are also currently stuck in committee. While neither is in jeopardy at the moment, it isn't clear how likely either is to pass the through the whole legislature. Pat Quinn, Rod Blagojevich's replacement, signaled early on once he assumed office that he was interested in moving state and local primaries back to a later date. So there is some support for the idea there.


Recent Posts:
New Hampshire in 2012

Or Not: Arkansas is Staying in May for 2012

New Jersey in 2012 Redux

New Hampshire in 2012

[This is part three in a continuing series this week examining current state legislative action affecting the positioning of presidential primaries in 2012.]

You didn't expect New Hampshire to stand idly by while other states move in anticipation of 2012, did you? Well, they're not, but what the General Court typically does in the Granite State is simply tweak the election law's language to protect the state's first-in-the-nation status. New Hampshire, after all, is unique because the legislature long ago ceded presidential primary scheduling power to the secretary of state. The advantage there is that one person can more easily make the decision on when the primary should be held. That avoids the potential for partisan wrangling (though it should be admitted that all or most of the legislators in the state support New Hampshire's status being retained) that could potentially delay the decision.

The bottom line is that when the legislature makes a change to the law concerning the presidential primary, it is typically couched in terms of 1) a change in the duties of the secretary of state on the matter and 2) to protect the state's position in the nomination process. And that's what they've done with the law below.

Here's is the New Hampshire law as it stands now:

"Presidential Primary Election. The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a date selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous. Said primary shall be held in connection with the regular March town meeting or election or, if held on any other day, at a special election called by the secretary of state for that purpose."

The real meat and potatoes here is the seven day cushion that New Hampshire requires between its primary and any other "similar election." Similar election has usually meant another primary, but the Democratic Party's rules for delegate selection initially placed the Nevada caucuses in between Iowa and New Hampshire and raised the issue of other states' caucuses challenging New Hampshire's primacy. The changes called for in HB 341 take care of that, though (Changes in Bold):

"Presidential Primary Election. The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a date selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, or holds a caucus or in the interpretation of the secretary of state holds any contest at which delegates are chosen for the national conventions, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous. Said primary shall be held in connection with the regular March town meeting or election or, if held on any other day, at a special election called by the secretary of state for that purpose. Any caucus of a state first held before 1975 shall not be affected by this provision."

Seven day cushion? Check.

Protection from interloping caucuses? Check.

Exception for Iowa? Check.

I really like that clause at the end that excludes Iowa from the secretary of state's decision calculus. But why not just say Iowa? There has to be some legal matter that precludes them from naming Iowa directly that I'm missing. I may need to email Jim Splaine -- the bill's sponsor -- and find out. Splaine is close political ally of Secretary of State William Gardner and not only usually sponsors/writes the primary protection bills, but also was among the group of Gardner allies that leaked December 11 as a potential date for the New Hampshire primary in 2008. Of course, that was December 11, 2007! [That was a wildly entertaining period of political speculation.]

HB 341 was introduced and referred to committee on January 8 and has been there ever since. It may make its way out (Splaine is a member of the Election Law Committee.), but I'd guess that the folks in New Hampshire will take a wait-and-see-approach to this; waiting on what both the national parties decide to do about their nomination rules in 2012.

Now, none of this may prove necessary, technically. With the Democratic Change Commission (DCC)having been announced and the GOP still settling on the remaining members of its own Temporary Delegate Selection Committee (TDSC), there has been some discussion of Iowa and New Hampshire in 2012 already. And sources from both sides seem to be indicating that the Granite state is safe for 2012.

New Hampshire RNC member, Sean Mahoney, has said that new RNC chair, Michael Steele has assured him that the Granite state will be represented on the TDSC. The trajectory of recent Republican efforts at reform seems to indicate New Hampshire is safe anyway. The original Delaware Plan that was debated at the 2000 Republican Convention didn't call for an Iowa/New Hampshire exception. That plan was later modified to include those exceptions, but the GOP move onto the Ohio Plan, successfully passing it at the RNC level before having the effort quashed at the convention in St. Paul. But that plan also included an Iowa New Hampshire (and Nevada, South Carolina) exception as well. [Read more about those plans here.]

On the Democratic side, new DCC member from New Hampshire, Ned Helms, who was a state chair for the Obama general election campaign, insists that Iowa and New Hampshire are safe. The Iowa/New Hampshire issue may come up when the 37 members of the DCC get together, but the commission's intent is not to change Iowa and New Hampshire's positions. Embedded in that link is a nice mention of the window for future contests being closed to exclude the potential for any January contests. But that move is dangerous given how many states have "first Tuesday in February" primary dates. Even on its latest possible date, the first Tuesday in February would fall on February 7 (as it does in 2012). That would mean that either Iowa and New Hampshire squeeze into the other six days, decreasing their impact, or that state legislatures -- some of them not necessarily friendly to the wants and needs of the Democratic Party -- will have to make changes to bring their states into compliance. And what happens if February 1 is the first Tuesday in February? Again, good idea from an intentions standpoint, but with MANY unintended consequences.

That would obviously violate New Hampshire state law. Maybe they should go ahead and make the changes in HB 341 law. [Or maybe I should remove that technically above.]

Up Next: A return to the Land of Lincoln


Recent Posts:
Or Not: Arkansas is Staying in May for 2012

New Jersey in 2012 Redux

On the Move Again? 2012 Arkansas Primary

Or Not: Arkansas is Staying in May for 2012

...for now.

Just yesterday a bill to move Arkansas' primaries for all offices to June (from late May) emerged from committee. That bill, though, doesn't appear to have widespread support because despite the "Do Pass" authorization SB 253 got from the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee, that bill was withdrawn today by its sponsor, Steve Faris (D-Malevern).

Now, it should be noted that Faris was not only the sponsor of the legislation but is the chair of the committee that granted the "Do Pass" distinction for SB 253. Being in that position certainly helps push a bill through committee, but county clerks also had issues with the effect a June primary may have on turnout. I suspect also that legislators in the full body were somewhat wary of making another change less than two months after repealing the separate February presidential primary. It does, however, look like the state will take the Indiana approach and form an interim study to better estimate the ramifications of a June primary.


Recent Posts:
New Jersey in 2012 Redux

On the Move Again? 2012 Arkansas Primary

Oregon in 2012

New Jersey in 2012 Redux

[This is part two in a continuing series this week examining current state legislative action affecting the positioning of presidential primaries in 2012.]

Earlier this year, in a similar series of posts, FHQ looked into the possibility of New Jersey shifting its 2012 presidential primary (currently set to take place on February 7, 2012) because of a provision in a recently passed bill allowing the lieutenant governor the power to move elections if they conflict with religious holidays. Now, that discussion centered on Republicans taking over the executive branch after the elections this fall in the Garden state and then, somewhat frivolously, using the power in the above law to move New Jersey into an advantageous position on the 2012 calendar. If Republicans were able to take over the executive branch [That just means winning the governor's race since the governor would, then, appoint a lieutenant governor], they could be motivated to put the Garden state in a position to have a real influence on the GOP nomination race.

But, again, that scenario is something of a stretch. It certainly depends on several things falling into place first. Granted, Jon Corzine is doing his best to help the GOP cause in the gubernatorial race, but we'll have to see how things go on that front.

No, there is actually legislation -- carried over from the 2008 legislative session -- that addresses the date of the state's presidential primary. New Jersey, though, isn't following North Carolina or Oregon's lead. [The state government would challenge the national party rules to frontload further as the state is already on the earliest allowable date. Moving foward further, then, would mean violating those rules, at least as they existed for the 2008 cycle. Those rules could change.] The bill (A 2413) seeks to, as was the case in Arkansas, eliminate the separate presidential primary and move it back in line with the primaries in the state for statewide and local offices. In other words, the presidential primary would move back to the end of the presidential primary queue and be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in June (June 5, 2012).

Interestingly, this legislation is being pushed by a Republican state representative. And I would assume that the move is not one proposed as a means of depriving New Jersey an impact on the GOP nomination, but more so as a way of saving money for the state. And this was the case in Arkansas as well. The issue here is that states which have recently (read: in 2008) separated their presidential primaries and primaries for state and local offices are faced with more of a quandary than states that have split primaries, but have institutionalized the separate presidential primary over a series of presidential election cycles. For example, many of the states in the northeast have August or September primaries for state and local offices which basically forces a separate presidential primary (so that it complies with the national party rules concerning the scheduling of presidential delegate selection events). With a June primary in place, New Jersey is not in that position.

The other obvious question here concerns the likelihood of this bill passing. Again, this bill is sponsored by a Republican in a chamber (and overall legislative body) controlled by Democrats. That doesn't mean the bill can't gain Democratic support, but the fact that it has been stuck in committee since basically this time last year (It was referred to the State Government Committee on March 3, 2008.), doesn't bode well for its chances of passage.

Still, the bill is worth tracking and is probably a much more plausible avenue for a primary date change than the alternative mentioned previously.

Up Next: New Hampshire


Recent Posts:
On the Move Again? 2012 Arkansas Primary

Oregon in 2012

I'll Admit It. CQ's Got Me on This One.

On the Move Again? 2012 Arkansas Primary

What? Already?

[Click Map to Enlarge]

Yes, already. In our earlier Arkansas discussion, FHQ described the particulars behind the second bill (SB 253) that proposed moving the primaries in the Natural State -- all the primaries -- to August. From back in early February, I had this to say:

"...the May primary for state legislative positions will occur within a couple of weeks of the end of the one of the legislative sessions. That leaves only a small window of time for incumbents to campaign for the election. On top of that, legislators have traditionally eschewed fundraising (due to a self-imposed rule) activities during sessions and for 30 days before and after them. That obviously encompasses the primaries in this case and poses a problem for state legislative incumbents."

The amendment process had the bill in and out of the Senate committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs and first changed the language to meet the changes (repealing the presidential primary and moving back in line with other primaries) signed into law before moving the proposed primary date back to the first week in June. This latter change was no doubt instituted because of the national party rules that cut the nomination phase of the presidential election off during the first couple of weeks of June. That also gets state legislators closer to their goal of having 30 days in between the end of the legislative session and a primary election. There may be a couple of days lost, but that gets incumbents closer to their self-imposed rule and within the national party guidelines for delegate selection.

And those amendment changes seem likely to be pushed through. The bill just yesterday emerged from the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee with a "Do Pass" authorization (see bill link above for a detailed look at the list of actions SB 253 has been through). Committees in both chambers granted HB 1021 (the original bill to repeal the presidential primary and move it back to May) the same authorization before it was passed and signed into law.

So buckle up folks. Arkansas may not be done backloading for 2012 and beyond yet.


Recent Posts:
Oregon in 2012

I'll Admit It. CQ's Got Me on This One.

NPR's 2012 Bracket Results (1st Round) Are Now Up

Oregon in 2012

Back in January I discussed several states where legislative action was already underway to shift presidential primary dates for the 2012 cycle. Recently though, I happened upon a great new resource -- thanks to the good folks at Election Updates -- for tracking various election reform legislation in state legislatures. As it turns out, there are several states missing from consideration. Now, Oklahoma's bill doesn't deal with the date of the primary, only where the funding is coming from and the New Jersey discussion was based not on a direct date change but on a law that allows the lieutenant governor the ability to change a primary date if it conflicts with a religious holiday. However, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois and North Carolina have actually proposed date-shifting bills and had varying levels of success in passing them (Arkansas' passed and Illinois' is still in committee.). In both cases however, the moves (or potential moves) buck the recent trends and shift their states' presidential primaries to later dates in 2012.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

But not everyone is backloading. This week, then, we'll have a few more installments in this series detailing state legislative action on this front. There is actually additional legislation in both the Illinois and New Jersey legislatures that would shift their presidential primaries in 2012 and beyond to later dates. Also, there is a bill before the New Hampshire General Court -- the Granite state's legislature -- that tweaks the language of the state's presidential primary law to further protect the its first-in-the-nation status. Finally, there is also a bill being considered in the Oregon legislature to move the Beaver state's presidential primary (and all other primaries for state and local offices) to the first week in February.

And that's where we'll start.

Oregon has done this before. In 1996, the Beaver state shifted its presidential primary into March (from May) and ended up aligned with the remnants of the 1988 Southern Super Tuesday and more importantly two weeks ahead California (which had also already moved that cycle). That did not prove a good mood since most of the GOP candidates' attention was focused on the nearly contiguous group of southern states. In 2000, then, Oregon opted to save money (I'll have to track down the data I have on this from the Oregon Secretary of State's office. Off the top of my head the state saved $3 million by backloading in 2000.). What's curious is that the state's voters approved the statewide mail-in ballot system in 1998, so it could have been done more cheaply in 2000 as a result.

Oregon also unsuccessfully attempted to jump on the 2008 Super Tuesday bandwagon in 2007. Here's what I wrote in the late summer of 2007:

Oregon:
Since Oregon's legislature adjourned for the year on June 28 and no action was taken since April on the one bill (HB 2084) which would have moved Oregon's 2008 presidential primary to February 5, the state appears destined to hold it primary toward the end of the process (on May 20).

In 2007 the bill was introduced in the House at the request of Democratic Secretary of State Bill Bradbury. In 2009, though, the action has originated in the State Senate from the Republican minority. This isn't a surprise since typically changes of this type take place within the party outside of the White House. Again, the bill (SB 412) would shift the Oregon primaries for all offices to the first Tuesday in February in any presidential election year. And thus far Oregon is the only state other than North Carolina to propose moving ahead (Indiana doesn't count here, yet.). On top of that, the Beaver state is moving all the other primary elections forward.

That is the other, law-based layer to the frontloading calculus: move just the presidential primary or move everything (States like California, Maryland and Texas have insisted on this in the past: having every primary at once.). In 2008, then, to take two examples from this current crop of states looking to move for 2012, Arkansas split its primaries and moved the new presidential primary forward, whereas Illinois opted to move everything up to February 5. Arkansas has since repealed the presidential primary, moving the contest back to May in 2012. Illinois, where winter weather-related drags on turnout in February are problematic, has also discussed moving back with a caveat. [I'll revisit Illinois in another post.] Oregon, then, is taking the Illinois approach in 2008 approach. [North Carolina, for instance, is proposing the Arkansas approach in reverse.]

Well, the proposed approach is like Illinois' in 2008. The bill was introduced during the first week in February and was immediately referred to the Senate Rules Committee where it has been couped up since that time. Again, the proposal is a Republican one in a Democratic-controlled legislature (and a Democratic governor to boot). The likelihood of this getting out of committee, then, is lower because of the partisan implications involved. The legislature will adjourn until 2011 (barring a special session next year) no later than June 30. So there is a time constraint here as well.

Next: Back to New Jersey


Recent Posts:
I'll Admit It. CQ's Got Me on This One.

NPR's 2012 Bracket Results (1st Round) Are Now Up

2012 Primaries: Democratic Change Commission Named

I'll Admit It. CQ's Got Me on This One.

...to some extent.

[Click Map Enlarge and HERE for a link to CQ's Interactive Map]

No, they don't have a layer that shows the split presidential and House districts, but this interactive map that CQ put together to accompany the data they've put out over the last couple of weeks is pretty snazzy. And the clarity of the district lines is great.

Click on the link under the map to go play around with it.


Recent Posts:
NPR's 2012 Bracket Results (1st Round) Are Now Up

2012 Primaries: Democratic Change Commission Named

Let's Try This 2012 GOP Bracket Again

NPR's 2012 Bracket Results (1st Round) Are Now Up

[Click Bracket to Enlarge and HERE to Vote in the Second Round]

Sure, the bracket pairings don't match up the way they're supposed to, but the second round is set in NPR's Political March Madness. Click on the link above (directly under the bracket) to vote in round two. Those results will be posted on Monday (March 30).

Spoiler Alert: There was only one upset. (12) Brownback over (5) Daniels. I was looking at the vote totals yesterday and briefly considered doing a quick and dirty investigation of the correlation between the number of votes cast in a particular match up and the seeding/name recognition. The "no name" pairings, on the surface, had far fewer votes cast than pairings like Palin-Steele. And I think Brownback over Daniels fits that category to some extent.


Recent Posts:
2012 Primaries: Democratic Change Commission Named

Let's Try This 2012 GOP Bracket Again

Obama's Special Olympics Gaffe: An Interesting Counterfactual