This bill, if passed and signed into law, would place the burden of delegate selection event timing -- presumably caucuses -- on the shoulders of the state parties. Each state party is free to choose any date and faces the same dilemma some state legislature face, namely following the party rules and going slightly later than in previous cycles or breaking those rules and going at the same time or earlier in the past. The Washington caucuses in 2008 were both on February 9.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Bill Introduced to Cancel 2012 Presidential Primary in Washington
Last week, prior to when the Washington state legislature was to convene, FHQ discussed the proposal by Governor Gregiore -- which subsequently gained support from Secretary of State Sam Reed -- to cancel the Evergreen state's presidential primary for 2012. That proposal is now an introduced bill (SB 5119) before the Washington Senate. Senator Craig Pridemore (D), chair of the Government Operations, Tribal Relations and Elections Committee, introduced the bill that is seen as a temporary cost-saving measure. The action (the cancelation of the presidential primary) has a sunset provision built in that would expire January 1, 2013.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
A Few Additional Notes on the Proposed Virginia Primary Move
Yesterday, a couple of bills were introduced in the Virginia House to move the state's presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March for the 2012 cycle. I wanted to take a few moments to step back and look at them a bit more closely. Now, neither one is all that substantively different from the other -- other than the fact that Rep. McClellan's version proposes lowering the petition signature requirement for candidates by 50% and Rep. Cole's does not -- but their are a handful of implications that are attendant to the introduction and/or passage of either of these bills.
1. Goodbye Potomac Primary? The week following Super Tuesday in 2008, there were three Tuesday contests: Maryland, Virginia and Washington DC. This regional or subregional primary was not all that consequential in the scope of the overall race -- Obama and McCain swept all three -- but they did start a string of consecutive victories in February for Senator Obama and inched McCain closer to the Republican nomination. Collectively, however, the three, regionally clustered contests commanded all of the campaign media's attention after Super Tuesday and the idea of the candidates devoting their energies to the issues and people of a region or subregion was looked upon favorably by some within the national parties. The Democratic Change Commission actually built the notion in their rules recommendation. Yet, the legislative action in Virginia -- temporarily at least -- breaks up that grouping of contests if it passes the legislature and is signed into law by Governor McDonnell. The question isn't whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, rather is one concerning whether Maryland and Washington DC follow suit. Maryland's legislature convened on January 12 as well, but as of yet there is no bill that has been introduced to shift the date on which the Old Line state's presidential primary will be held.
2. Rules Compliance. These bills, if passed and signed into law, would bring the state into compliance with both sets of national party rules on delegate selection event timing. Any contest scheduled on or after the first Tuesday in March complies. Virginia is one of eighteen states that currently had an election law on the books that calls for a February (or earlier) primary in violation of national party rules.
3. Democrats and Republicans. FHQ discussed this previously, but significance of divided government on frontloading (and it should be noted that this bill proposes moving the bill backward not forward) should be mentioned. Not only are we more likely to see movement in states with unified control of the state government, but election years with no incumbent running for reelection are more likely to see movement as well. Virginia has neither working in its favor. The legislature is divided -- Democrats control the Senate and Republicans have a majority in the House -- and President Obama is running for reelection. That said, the fact that one of these bills was sponsored by a Democrat and the other by a Republican speaks to at least some potential for consensus on this issue. Again, it is a bill to move the primary back, not forward, so the dynamics are not necessarily the same. As we said in the earlier post, the expectation is that Democratic-controlled state governments would be more likely to move back and into compliance with the DNC delegate selection rules, while Republican-controlled state governments face the dilemma of moving back in accordance with the RNC rules but losing potential influence over the nomination in the process. With at least one Virginia Republican, following the rules trumps influence. That may not be the case in other states.
4. Democrats and Republicans, Part II. Two different bills, two different sponsors, two different parties. Which one will move forward (or will one move forward)? If one of these versions is to move forward and if partisanship plays a role, Rep. Cole's (R) version is likely to find more support among the Republican majority in the Virginia House.
As the legislative session in Virginia progresses, these are some things to keep an eye on when either of these bills are being considered.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Two Bills Introduced to Move Virginia Presidential Primary from February to March
There have been two bills introduced in the Virginia House to shift the date on which the state's presidential primary is held from the first second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. Both bills (HB 1667 and HB 1843) are exactly the same except for the fact that the former bill lowers the petition signature requirement from 10,000 to 5,000 for presidential candidates. That bill was introduced by Democrat Jennifer McClellan while HB 1843 was introduced by Republican Mark Cole. Each bill was prefiled on Monday, January 10 and was introduced today.
Both bills will be added to our left sidebar gadget, "Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures".
NOTE: Please make note of the strikethrough above. Virginia state law places the state's presidential primary on the SECOND Tuesday in February, not the first as was initially stated. Thanks to reader, MysteryPolitico, for catching that.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
More on the California Bill to Move Presidential Primary Back to June
After the introduction of AB 80 last week -- the bill that would move California's presidential primary back to June -- FHQ contacted Assemblymember Fong's (the bill's sponsor) office to inquire about the motivation behind the effort. I had assumed that it was a cost-saving measure and that the national party rules proposing sanctions on all February states would be part of the equation. It turns out they were (see summary and background below the break), but I was surprised to see the "not enough bang for our buck" argument.
Let me explain. Arkansas moved its presidential primary early in 2005 to the first Tuesday in February for the 2008 cycle. Then Hillary Clinton decided to run for the Democratic nomination. Then Mike Huckabee decided to run for the Republican nomination. All the while a bevy of states -- California included -- opted to hold their delegate selection events on the same early February date. As February 5, 2008 approached the candidates on both sides ceded the Natural state to its favorite son and daughter and Arkansas was lost among candidate visits and news coverage of contests in other February 5 states. Now, Arkansas had a reasonable gripe. Why spend all that money on a separate presidential primary and get essentially nothing out of it?
Why indeed? That's why legislators in Arkansas moved the state's presidential primary back to its traditional May position during the 2009 legislative session.
But does that same argument work in California? No, California, like Arkansas, didn't have the stage all to itself on February 5, but as long as most states follow the national party rules and subsequently cluster around the earliest allowable date, no state is going to have that luxury. Unlike Arkansas, however, the Golden state did receive many more candidate visits than the other February 5 states. In fact, the total number of visits to California only trailed four other states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida).
The question remains, though. Were those 155 total candidate visits enough bang for the cost the state incurred for holding for the first time a separate presidential primary from its primaries for state and local offices? FHQ has asked the staff of the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee for an estimate of the savings they would expect if AB 80 passed and became law. Once they have heard back from the secretary of state's office later in the session, they will have that figure. My guess is that is still not going to look like it is worth it compared to the attention Iowa and New Hampshire get. That said, no state is going to get that kind of attention unless the government there decides to break the national party rules to a degree never witnessed in the post-reform era.
--
AB 80 (Fong): Presidential Primary
SUMMARY
This bill saves the state and local governments millions of dollars by eliminating California's stand-alone presidential primary election in February and instead consolidating it with primary elections for other offices in June.
BACKGROUND
In 2007, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, Senate Bill 113 (Calderon), Chapter 2, Statutes of 2007, to move the State's presidential primary from June to the first Tuesday in February. At the time, the intent behind moving up the primary was to encourage presidential candidates to campaign in California, and to debate and discuss issues and policies important to the people of this state, while also to encourage voter registration, voter interest, and voter participation in the 2008 election.
Consequently, in 2008 California held its presidential primary on February 5th. However, by the time California voters cast their ballots 33 other states had also moved up their presidential primaries. Fifteen states held their presidential primary on the same day as California, limiting California's influence on the selection of presidential candidates.
In August of 2010, the Republican and Democratic National Committees adopted policies that prohibit any type of selection process for presidential candidates, via election or caucus from occurring prior to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March, with the exception of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada who are permitted to begin their processes at any time on or after February 1.
These policies are intended to discourage the trend of early primary elections because the earlier the primary, the longer the period of time between the primary and general elections, which could result in lower voter turnouts and increased costs of campaigning by lengthening the campaign season.
While a state is free to schedule its presidential primary election or caucus whenever it wants, it may face sanctions at the national convention if its election or caucus is held at a time or in a manner that violates the national party rules.
In addition, current law requires the 2012 presidential primary to occur on the first Tuesday in February and prohibits it from being consolidated with the statewide direct primary to be held in that year - meaning, California would be required to hold 3 separate statewide elections in 2012, imposing a huge cost on the state and local governments at a time when our state's fiscal situation is in crisis.
AB 80 will eliminate the state's stand-alone presidential primary election and consolidate it with other primary elections, saving the state and local governments tens of millions of dollars on avoided election costs, as well as conform California law to national party rules.
AB 80
AB 80 does the following:
Requires the presidential primary to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June of each year evenly divisible by the number four.
Requires the presidential primary election to be consolidated with the statewide direct primary that is held in that year.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Everyone I know has a big but...
With all due respect to Pee Wee Herman...
That said, there has been enough talk about Florida changing the date of its presidential primary and for various reasons (because the delegate selection rules should be followed, because the national convention is in Tampa).
...but...
And this is the thing: the temptation is there for the Republican-controlled state government in Florida to thumb their noses at the Republican National Committee's 2012 delegate selection rules. The move to the final Tuesday in January in 2007 was a permanent move. It was not a "let's try this out for one cycle and see how it goes" plan. It was a "let's stake a claim as an additional early state in the presidential primary process" plan. That will be the subject of the debate that will surround what promises to be a sure thing proposal before the Florida House and Senate. There will be a bill to move the presidential primary back to March or later, but chances are there is going to be one side that says, "let's move" while the other nods but responds by saying something like what Marco Rubio said this week:
"It's right for Florida for a lot of reasons. What's the point of Florida voters having a primary later in the year that won't mean anything? ... I think Florida is the ideal test. There isn't an issue confronting America that they won't have to address in a state like Florida. And as a Republican, I think it behooves us to have an early Republican primary in Florida. Because if a Republican can't win Florida, they can't win the presidency. So we better make sure whoever we nominate is someone who can be palatable to Floridians."
That's a tough argument to counter effectively. No, Rubio isn't currently a member of either house of the state legislature, but the junior senator from the Sunshine state perfectly encapsulates the argument against moving the primary.
So, it will be a roller coaster of speculation between now and when the Florida legislature convenes on March 8, but keep your distance and know that while the rules give Florida but one move, the legislators will be tempted to maintain the status quo even if it means ceding half its delegates to the Republican national convention.
We shall see...
Saturday, January 8, 2011
How many double-takes can one do in a split second?
I think I broke the record.
Presidential Primary Process ReorganizedKansas City StarInstead of the traditional Iowa-New Hampshire-Super Tuesday trifecta, the 2012 cycle will be the first to use a rotating system among four region: ...
WHAT!?! How did I miss this? How was it not being more widely reported than in the Kansas City Star (No offense Star employees.)?
At that point my posts were forced to take a backseat to this new and necessary investigation. I switched to the computer, found the relevant Alert message in my email queue and clicked on it. Rapidly, I scanned the article for the headline I had seen on my phone. I located it and this is what I read:
Presidential Primary Process Reorganized
WASHINGTON | The two major political parties have announced the implementation of a regional primary system for presidential nominations. Instead of the traditional Iowa-New Hampshire-Super Tuesday trifecta, the 2012 cycle will be the first to use a rotating system among four regions: Northeast, Southeast, Northwest and Southwest. The first region to hold primaries next year will be the Northeast, which will go last in 2016.
This plan is the culmination of efforts from disparate advocates, including the National Association of Secretaries of States and former Florida Gov. Bob Graham. The intention is to increase diverse participation by ensuring that all areas of the country get an early say in the nomination process.
Again, what!?! First of all, how had a near impossibility -- the fact that both major parties had quietly altered their 2012 delegate selection rules after having settled on them already -- been left unreported to this point? Secondly, why was this only in the Kansas City Star?
It was then that I looked up at the true headline (and just a section heading masquerading as one on a smartphone):
Oh, well that explains it. Perhaps this should be amended to read "Headlines that America deserves to see in 2014". That will be the next time we will see any sort of headline on a definitive change in primary organization. And maybe you've seen over the years, I'm not entirely bullish on that happening then or any other time. But 2014 would be the earliest possible time that we would see that.
Friday, January 7, 2011
South Carolina Has State Funded Presidential Primaries
Richard Winger over at Ballot Access News today -- in describing the introduction of a bill in Oklahoma to have the state parties pay for presidential primaries* -- mentioned that South Carolina remained the only state where the state parties still picked up the tab for presidential primary elections. That did used to be the case. However, in 2007 the South Carolina legislature passed S 99 (text and history of the bill below) which gave the funding power to the state while keeping the date-setting control in the hands of the state party committees. The bill passed and was later vetoed by Governor Mark Sanford. But that veto was overridden by the legislature. At no point during the remainder of that 2007-2008 session nor during the subsequent 2009-2010 session did the legislature act to reverse what it had accomplished in S 99.
Should Oklahoma pass HB 1057, it would become the only state where the parties pay for their own presidential primaries.
...just like South Carolina used to.
--
Text of S 99:
AN ACT TO AMEND SECTIONS 7-11-20 AND 7-13-15, BOTH AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PARTY CONVENTIONS AND PARTY PRIMARY ELECTIONS CONDUCTED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION CONDUCT PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARIES, THAT THE STATE COMMITTEE OF THE PARTY SET THE DATE, FILING REQUIREMENTS AND CERTIFICATION FEE FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARIES, TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR VERIFICATION OF THE QUALIFICATION OF CANDIDATES, TO CLARIFY CERTAIN EXISTING PROVISIONS CONCERNING PRIMARIES, AND TO SPECIFY WHICH PRIMARIES MUST BE CONDUCTED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION; TO DESIGNATE SECTION 14 OF ACT 253 OF 1992 AS SECTION 7-11-25, RELATING TO POLITICAL PARTIES NOT PROHIBITED FROM CONDUCTING PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE OR ADVISORY PRIMARIES, SO AS TO DELETE THE REFERENCES TO PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARIES; AND BY ADDING SECTION 7-9-110 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A POLITICAL PARTY OR STATE ELECTION COMMISSION TO CONDUCT A PRIMARY OR ELECTION, WITHOUT CHARGE, IN A FACILITY THAT RECEIVES STATE FUNDS FOR SUPPORT OR OPERATION.
*Note that this is a similar bill to the one introduced in Oklahoma two years ago that would have done the same thing. HB 1340 got bottled up and died in committee when the legislature adjourned for the year in 2009. The spirit of that bill lives on in HB 1057.
Washington Primary: Moving Up, Back or Packin' It Up?
The answer, it seems, is "Both A and C", but it depends on which primary you're talking about. That Washington Governor Christine Gregiore called for the elimination of the Evergreen state's presidential primary is old news -- she did that back in December -- but the idea appears to be gaining momentum with Secretary of State Sam Reed now endorsing the idea as well. As was the speculated to be the case in California, with the proposed shift of the primary there, this effort in Washington is a cost saving measure. Of course, it makes more sense in Washington.
Why?
Well, the Washington presidential primary has been next to meaningless throughout much of its history. Both parties still use caucuses as a means of allocation national presidential delegates as well. In 2008, the Washington Republican Party allocated 49% of its delegates through the February 19 primary, but had already begun the process of allocating the other 51% during the first round of local caucuses on February 9. Likewise, the Democrats utilized both systems, but the primary was only advisory -- a beauty contest -- while the caucus carried all of the weight in terms of determining the allocation of delegates. If the best the state funded primary can do is allocate 49% of the delegates in but one party's primary, then it may probably be best for the state to save the money and let the two parties foot the bill for their own nominating contests. The Washington state parties have always seemingly valued having more control over the process through the years. [Mike Huckabee didn't think too highly of the caucus process in Washington in 2008.]
California, on the other hand, uses the primary as the, pardon the pun, primary means of allocation and while the move back to June, in conjunction with the other primaries, would save the state some money, it would come at the price of losing a significant say in who the parties' nominees would be. [Nothing, of course, precludes the state from changing its mind in the future when economic forecasts are potentially rosier.]
--
Washington Secretary of State Reed also made a request that the state legislature move on legislation that would shift the state's primaries for state and local offices up two weeks on the calendar to early August. This would pull the state into compliance with a federal law that passed in 2009 and sought to protect the voting rights of military personnel overseas. FHQ previously mentioned that amendment to a defense authorization bill here, here and here. We don't often talk about the movement of state and local primaries around here, though it is a void in the political science literature I'd like to at some point examine more closely, but this is one of the few instances of movement that has been triggered by this federal legislation. Early on in the new legislative sessions is when we are likely to see more of this sort of action take place.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
The Impact of 2010 State Governmental Elections on Frontloading: Part Two
Yesterday's post on the prevalence of unified government in state governments following the 2010 elections set the stage for a further examination of the influence that will have on the likelihood of proposed bills that may shift the dates on which presidential primaries and caucuses will be held. Now, there are a fair number of factors that come into play in the frontloading decision-making calculus of any state legislature (or ultimately the state government). For the time being, FHQ will focus on a handful of them.
[Click to Enlarge]
You can begin to see the possible impact here as highlighted by the map above (especially when combined with the partisan maps from part one). The unified state governments would hypothetically be more likely to see some action if they were under Democratic control than if they were under Republican control (seeking greater influence over the nomination) or in the midst of divided control (unable to move into compliance with either national party's delegate selection rules). In other words, there is not only a line between unified and divided state governments, but between states with unified Democratic control and unified Republican control. States like California are more likely to move back, but are unified Republican states like Florida or Georgia more or less likely to move back than states like New York or Missouri with divided government? That will be something for those of us watching to keep our eye on.
The point to take home is that while there may be some states that stick it out with primary dates in violation of the national party rules, there will also be far less movement forward than in the past. There will be movement backward, but much of that will likely depend on the presence of unified government in the state and which party is in control.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
First, presidential incumbency matters. I found as much in my research [pdf]. Over the 1976-2008 period, those cycles without an incumbent president on the ballot were three times less likely to witness widespread primary movement than in those cycles where both parties had contested nominations. 2012 will be one of those cycles with an incumbent president on the ballot.
What that tells us is that there is potentially a partisan element to all of this. As Philip Klinkner (1994) found in his book on out party committee activity, those parties currently out of the White House are more likely to tinker with their rules -- as a means of shuffling the deck and potentially increasing their likelihood of success -- than those that occupy the White House. In other words, in this cycle we would expect to see the Republicans being less content with the status quo and thus more likely to alter their rules in some fashion. While the Republican Party did allow rules changes (or the exploration of that possibility) outside of the national convention for the first -- a process that led to the adoption of rules requiring states to proportionally allocate delegates in the event a contest is held prior to April -- that effort is not really the point for our purposes here. Instead, we are looking at the secondary actors here: the state governments. To what level are the states willing to, within those rules, make changes to their election laws to impact their influence over the nomination process? When it comes to frontloading, that is the important question to ask. All things equal, the expectation would be that Republican-controlled governments would be more likely frontload than Democratic-controlled state governments.
2012 is a weird cycle, though. After having allowed February primaries, both national parties are now seeking to scale things back in 2012 and are mandating March or later primary and caucus dates for non-exempt states. For the first time, then, the parties are attempting to force states to backload as opposed to allowing them to frontload to a certain point in the past.
That leaves those 18 states currently in violation (see map below) of the national parties' delegate selection rules firmly within the crosshairs. Each has to move back to a later, compliant date or they face the delegation-reducing sanctions both parties are employing. [For the time being, I'll shunt my thoughts on the effectiveness of those sanctions to the side.]
[Click to Enlarge]
Those 18 states are either the states most likely to move into compliance or the most likely to thumb their noses at the national party rules in an attempt to influence the nominations. And that brings us full circle. Democratic-controlled state governments (of those 18 states) would tend to fall into the former group while Republican-controlled state governments would be more likely to tempt fate and stick it out despite the looming spectre of sanctions. Two Democratic-controlled states (Arkansas and Illinois) in the last legislative session moved to later dates and a third, California (a newly unified Democratic state government), has a proposal to move its primary back to a later date on the 2012 presidential primary calendar.
That leaves those 18 states currently in violation (see map below) of the national parties' delegate selection rules firmly within the crosshairs. Each has to move back to a later, compliant date or they face the delegation-reducing sanctions both parties are employing. [For the time being, I'll shunt my thoughts on the effectiveness of those sanctions to the side.]
[Click to Enlarge]Those 18 states are either the states most likely to move into compliance or the most likely to thumb their noses at the national party rules in an attempt to influence the nominations. And that brings us full circle. Democratic-controlled state governments (of those 18 states) would tend to fall into the former group while Republican-controlled state governments would be more likely to tempt fate and stick it out despite the looming spectre of sanctions. Two Democratic-controlled states (Arkansas and Illinois) in the last legislative session moved to later dates and a third, California (a newly unified Democratic state government), has a proposal to move its primary back to a later date on the 2012 presidential primary calendar.
[Click to Enlarge]You can begin to see the possible impact here as highlighted by the map above (especially when combined with the partisan maps from part one). The unified state governments would hypothetically be more likely to see some action if they were under Democratic control than if they were under Republican control (seeking greater influence over the nomination) or in the midst of divided control (unable to move into compliance with either national party's delegate selection rules). In other words, there is not only a line between unified and divided state governments, but between states with unified Democratic control and unified Republican control. States like California are more likely to move back, but are unified Republican states like Florida or Georgia more or less likely to move back than states like New York or Missouri with divided government? That will be something for those of us watching to keep our eye on.
The problem with focusing on the states in violation of the national party rules is that it completely disregards states -- particularly unified states -- that are currently compliant but may move to an earlier date valuing influence over the potential costs to their national delegations. Here's where that Texas bill comes into the picture.
[Click to Enlarge]
There are obviously states with unified control that may opt to move into violation of the national parties as well. But those states are much more likely to be Republican-controlled than otherwise. Pennsylvania, a state long divided between the parties and incidentally enough unable to move out of April during the post-reform period, may be worth watching along with Texas since both are Republican-controlled.
[Click to Enlarge]Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures
Now that California has joined Texas among the ranks of states with primary-shifting bills before its state legislature, FHQ is going to add a gadget in the left sidebar (directly under primary calendar) that will allow you to track the status of those bills.
Just as a refresher:
1) The California bill would move the presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June.
2) The Texas bill is a true frontloading bill. The proposal there calls for the Lone Star state's primary to be moved from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February.
Stay tuned on the front page for updates and to the sidebar for the status of the bills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)