As was discussed here earlier in the week, the Virginia Senate bill (SB 1246) to move the commonwealth's presidential primary from February to March emerged from committee and received/passed its first -- what's called a Constitutional -- reading from the full chamber. The upcoming second reading will have the full chamber consider and debate any amendments that were added to the bill in committee. No additional reports were issued on the bill, so it is likely that no amendments were added. To the extent that a debate is necessary on this bill, one will take place this week. If the bill passes that test on the floor, it will be engrossed and subsequently given an up or down vote for full passage. Again, most of that should happen this week, shifting the focus to the House of Delegates and the similar bills that chamber has before it.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Likely Replacement Bill to Move Idaho Presidential Primary Up Introduced
The election consolidation bill that was introduced in the Idaho House (HB 14) recently now has a what looks like a replacement. Like the earlier House bill, HB 60 would shift the date on which the Gem state's primaries -- including concurrent presidential primary -- from the fourth Tuesday in May to the third Tuesday in May. The only difference is that in this second bill secretary of state, Tim Hurst, inserted a section dealing with school trustees elections. The section that pertains to the timing of the presidential primary remains unchanged.
Both bills will appear in the Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures section in the left sidebar. HB 60 will likely be the one to track however.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Update on Bill to Cancel the 2012 Kansas Presidential Primary
News broke yesterday that Kansas secretary of state, Kris Kobach, was advising the state legislature to cancel the Sunflower state's 2012 presidential primary for budgetary reasons, but the bill was not formally introduced in the state House until today. HB 2126 cancels the state's presidential primary and given all the strikethroughs cancels it for good. Now, nothing is ever gone forever, but in this instance all the references to the first Tuesday in April primary in even-numbered years have been struck though and replaced with the first Tuesday in August -- the state's traditional primary date for state and local offices. That August date is one that would fall outside -- on the back end -- of the window in which the parties allow states to hold delegate selection events. Obviously, an August date would not work simply because it would cut things quite close to the national conventions.
The odd thing is that there is only one reference in the bill to presidential preference primaries and it is in regard to the filing deadlines, not the timing of the contest. The option is still there, then, to hold a presidential primary in the future, but it will take a change in the law if this bill is passed and signed into law by Governor Brownback. [It should be noted for the sake of clarity that unlike the similar bill(s) in Washington, HB 2126 does not have a sunset provision temporarily canceling the presidential primary.] Given the facts that, one, the state rarely holds a presidential primary (see 2007 legislature's unsuccessful efforts to move it up) and, two, it saves the state as much as $2 million, this bill will likely pass. But we'll see.
This bill will be added to the Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures section in the left side bar (under the current 2012 primary calendar and the rules). The status of HB 2126 and the bills from other states can be tracked from there.
2012 Presidential Primaries: North Carolina
Earlier this week the North Carolina General Assembly convened for the first time under Republican control since the Reconstruction era. This actually has some implications for the timing of the Tarheel state's presidential primary in 2012. In the Senate at least there has been Republican support for a February presidential primary for the last three sessions. Those bills (S18 -- 2005-06, S168 -- 2007-08, S150 -- 2009-10) were all proposed by Republican senator, Andrew Brock, and supported by a group of Republicans who signed on as cosponsors. However, during each of those sessions, the bills inevitable got stuck in the Judiciary (I) Committee then controlled by Democrats.
If the past three sessions are any indication, Brock and others may once again propose legislation to try and shift the presidential primary to an earlier date. But the change in control of the General Assembly doesn't make this a done deal. Republicans do control the committees now, but that's only part of the story. First, the Senate has yet to finalize the committees and committee assignments under the new regime. Secondly, there is no indication that there will be any support for such a measure in the lower chamber.
Finally even though North Carolina has some past experience with shifting the date on which its presidential primary is held (1976 and 1988), the state has consistently held that contest concurrently with the primaries for state and local offices (as a matter of convenience). The past two experiences with frontloading have been temporary actions that created and funded a separate presidential primary that was later canceled and moved back to coincide with the other primaries on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May. There is emerging some evidence to suggest that, given budgetary constraints at the state level, states are less willing to fund a separate primary. California, New Jersey and Oklahoma already have proposed legislation on the table to pull separate presidential primaries back in line with the primaries for state and local offices or to defund the presidential primary altogether. Even with Republicans now in control of the North Carolina General Assembly, there may be some budgetary resistance to creating and funding a separate presidential primary.
And while there may yet be a bill proposed, there is still a question of when the new primary would be scheduled. Brock's past bills have called for a February primary, which at the times the were introduced were in compliance with the national party rules. But it is yet to be seen if there is a willingness to just move up to the earliest allowed date (March 6, 2012 in this case) or to go against both national parties' sets of delegate selection rules and go in February some time (as the proposed bill in Texas would do). This is all speculative, but much would likely depend on what the 18 currently non-compliant states do and how quickly they do it relative to when the General Assembly in North Carolina wraps up its business over the summer.
North Carolina, then, potentially represents a rare case during this cycle of a state that may move forward. The focus remains on those states that have to move back to be in compliance with the DNC's and RNC's rules. That new mandate for moving back is what makes this 2012 cycle and the formation of its presidential primary calendar unique compared to the race to the front that has marked recent cycles.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Bill to be Introduced to Cancel 2012 Presidential Primary in Kansas
Here's the story from the Lawrence-Journal World:
TOPEKA — Kansas voters won't be able to participate in a presidential primary in 2012 under legislation introduced Thursday by Secretary of State Kris Kobach.
Kobach, a Republican, said he would like to have a presidential primary, but the $1.5 million to $2 million cost is too steep during the state's current budget problems. The state faces an estimated $550 million revenue shortfall.
If approved by the Legislature, it would be the fifth straight time Kansas voters have been denied a presidential preference primary. The last one held in Kansas was 1992.
Most of the primaries have been skipped because of budget concerns.
In 2008, the Republican and Democratic parties held presidential caucuses that were well-attended.
So Mitt Romney Might Skip Iowa
As FHQ tweeted a little while ago, strategically, this would be less than wise. Yet, there it is: Romney's advisers are talking (or floating a trial balloon) about skipping the Republican nomination race's first contest. First, let's look at why this is a bad idea. Then we can look at why it is, as I called it, a trial balloon.
Why skipping Iowa is a bad move
In many ways, a presidential nomination race, particularly one without a clear frontrunner, is about expectations. This point is debated in the political science literature, but this is why the caveat about the presence of a clear frontrunner is an important distinction to make. Regardless of expectations and the comparison to actual results when the inevitably come in at the beginning of primary and caucus season, a clear frontrunner from the invisible primary typically emerges as the nominee. The George W. Bush experience from 2000 is a good example. Candidates, Lamar Alexander and Liddy Dole among them, were dropping out of the race prior to even Iowa and New Hampshire and they were citing Bush's financial advantage. The expectation heading into primary season, then, was that Bush was going to run away with the Republican nomination. He did, but not before John McCain defied those expectations and crushed Bush by 19 points in the New Hampshire primary. McCain also peeled off a few additional victories, but in the end Bush's institutional support within the party was too great.
But 2012 doesn't have a clear frontrunner. If there is a frontrunner, Romney is, at least according to conventional wisdom (something that isn't necessarily trustworthy), the nominal frontrunner. So what would skipping Iowa mean? Is it a sign of weakness from the nascent Romney campaign? Is it a signal that Romney is focusing on New Hampshire? Is it a nod to the fact that Iowa is likely to support a "more conservative" candidate? FHQ is of the opinion that it is none of the above, but I'll hold off on that for a moment. Skipping Iowa is a bad idea precisely because it raises the expectations in New Hampshire. And that's something that polls and straw polls are already doing for the former Massachusetts governor. Romney, in other words, would have nowhere to go but down. That's fine if you're George W. Bush in 2000, but Mitt Romney doesn't have that sort of cushion heading into the home stretch of the invisible primary and into the actual contests next year.
It is a lose-lose situation. Romney loses Iowa by virtue of having skipped it and then is potentially likely to "lose" New Hampshire in the expectations game. That's not the kind of start you want if you are the frontrunner, no matter how nominal.
Why the skipping Iowa story is just that -- a story
As Jonathan Bernstein rightly pointed out in a response to my aforementioned tweet, this story is all about expectations, but about lowering them in Iowa not raising them in New Hampshire. The tendency here is to compare what's going on now to what happened with those candidates who ran in 2008. For Romney (and Huckabee) there had been a lot of activity to this point in 2008 in Iowa. Both were intent on doing well at the Ames Straw Poll in August 2007. Their resource allocations -- visits to the Hawkeye state and expenditures there -- reflected that. So did the eventual results. Romney edged Huckabee in the straw poll in August and the reversed positions in the January caucuses. So they should be doing what John Edwards did before 2008, right? [No, not that. I mean the actual campaigning.] Camping out in Iowa and basically putting all your eggs in that one basket. Well, that didn't work out so well for Edwards. Despite the presence there from 2004 onward, it didn't yield him anything other than second place in Iowa in 2008 (and barely at that. Clinton finished a fraction of percentage point behind the former vice presidential nominee.).
Despite the fact that the dynamics are different between 2008 and 2012, that tendency still remains: What did Romney do in 2008 in Iowa and what is he doing now for 2012? Romney learned a lesson from Iowa in 2008: Don't spend so much. Well, he really doesn't have to. He is a known quantity now and wasn't before 2008. All in all, then, this is an effort to lowball the Iowa effort in 2012. If the expectation is that Romney won't be a presence there, then any visit he makes or money his campaign spends there is seen as a net positive.
After all it still remains quite possible that social conservative caucus-goers in the state will split their vote if they cannot coalesce behind one candidate. And Mitt Romney, who still has something of a leftover campaign structure in the state, can emerge, if not with a victory, then a solid showing that will help him heading into subsequent contests.
UPDATE: Jonathan Bernstein adds his two cents as well. [I may be quicker than you, JB, but David beat me to it.]
Tom Jensen at Public Policy Polling has more but from a polling perspective.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Primary Bills Move Forward in Virginia & Washington
The state Senate bills to cancel the presidential primary (in Washington -- SB 5119) and to move the Virginia presidential primary from February back to March (SB 1246) have both passed their first tests and have emerged from their respective committees. A majority of both committees voted in favor of the resolutions -- giving a "Do Pass" designation in Washington and by a 14-1 margin in Virginia.
The Washington bill now goes to the Senate Ways and Means Committee and the Virginia bill's destination is unknown at the moment. It may be ready to head to the floor. If the relatively rapid movement of these two bills and committee support are any indication then both are likely to pass in these chambers.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
State Parties in Florida and Ohio Add Their Two Cents on the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar
State parties always have their say on the date that is ultimately chosen (or maintained) for any given state's presidential primary, but their influence varies depending on the circumstances. On the Democratic side state parties have to submit a delegate selection plan to the DNC for approval. [It should be noted that the DNC checks that each of the states is complying with the entire list of delegate selection rules, not just those concerning timing.] That same type of approval is not required on the Republican side, but that translates into one less formal hurdle in a decision-making calculus that is largely the same across parties. There may be an added step on the Democratic side, but states always opt to operate within the existing framework of rules (...at least initially*).
Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
What do I mean by "existing framework of rules"?
Well, state parties always face a decision on timing their delegate selection events. They can opt to go-it-alone and foot the bill for a primary or caucus (most likely) of their own or they can choose to utilize the state-funded primary system that is already in place. The first option allows the parties the freedom to hold a primary or caucus whenever they desire while the second option cedes the date-setting power to the state government (or some alternate, state government-sanctioned entity). The convenience of the latter option usually trumps the price tag of the former.
Such is the case in both Florida and Ohio, where lately the two state parties' chairs have been in the news over the timing of the presidential primaries in the Sunshine and Buckeye states. There has been no shortage of talk here at FHQ about the position Florida currently occupies on the 2012 primary calendar and the ramifications a move (or no move) would have on the calendar overall. That said, Florida's is a state government under unified Republican control. And that puts the state's Democratic Party in a tough position. They are nearly powerless in terms of influencing the date-setting decision as the minority party in both chambers of the state legislature. In other words, the Republicans in control of the state may decide to keep the Sunshine state's presidential primary in January and take their punishment (a 50% penalty in terms of the number of delegates in the state's 2012 convention delegate) in exchange for a more direct influence over the identity the eventual Republican nominee. That decision, though, affects the Democrats in the state as well. Through no fault of their own, Florida's Democratic primary would be in violation of the Democratic National Committee's delegate selection rules.
That's problematic (at least in the eyes of Florida Democrats). And that is probably why state party chair, Rod Smith, reached out to newly elected state Republican Party chair (full letter below), David Bitner, last week, urging his Republican counterpart to use his position to speak out in favor of a rules-compliant March date for the state's presidential primary (and against the January primary). It was a nice gesture on Smith's part, but he and the Democratic Party of Florida know this one is out of their hands. The Republicans in the state government may opt to move back, but regardless of the decision, it likely won't be affected much by the Florida Democratic Party's desires or the DNC's delegate selection rules. At the end of the day, they will decide to move (or not move) based upon whether they judge the delegate penalty to be steep enough to warrant a shift in the date of the presidential primary.
In Ohio, the issue is not one of rules violations. Instead, it concerns a new rift between the state party chair where there was once an apparent agreement. Earlier in the month, FHQ posted a link to a story about the new Ohio secretary of state's warning that a prolonged redistricting process in Ohio could delay the state's 2012 primaries. Those contests are slated for the first Tuesday in March currently, but they could be moved back to May when the state holds primary elections in other, non-presidential years. Prior to this warning, however, there had been some discussion and agreement about when the primary should be held among the two state party chairs. Both Democratic chair, Chris Redfern, and Republican chair, Kevin DeWine, had discussed a May primary as the best option. Now, however, DeWine is in favor of keeping the Buckeye state's primary in March because of the impact the state's voters could have on the nomination process and because of what that might do for drumming up support in the state (with an eye toward the general election). Like Florida, Ohio is now under unified Republican control. And even though DeWine might speak for the state party, he may not necessarily speak for Republican state legislators or Governor John Kasich.
State parties and their chairs have some platform for discussing these matters, but in primary states like Florida and Ohio, their influence is limited to the extent to which their wishes and desires overlap with those of the various decision makers within the state government.
*The delegate selection plans and any amendments to them are usually due to the party around Labor Day of the year preceding the presidential election. In the 2008 cycle there was a fair amount of positioning and repositioning after that point. That is expected to some extent from the exempt states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina), but 2008 saw several non-exempt states move after this point (Michigan and Massachusetts among them).
--
January 21, 2011
Chairman David Bitner
Republican Party of Florida
420 E. Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Dear Chairman Bitner,
Congratulations on your election as Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida.
On behalf of the Florida Democratic Party, I write today asking for your support to change the date of Florida’s 2012 presidential preference primary. This move is critically important to ensure full representation of our state at our respective national conventions since Florida law currently sets the date of the presidential primary as the last Tuesday in January, which is out of compliance with the rules of both parties.
As you may know, for the first time ever the Republican National Committee has adopted the same timing rules as the Democratic National Committee, which came about through bi-partisan cooperation between the two parties.
It is my sincere hope that we, in the same spirit of cooperation, can work together on selecting a date that complies with the rules set by both national parties. While changing the date of the primary would require action by the Republican Legislature and Governor, I am confident that we can make this happen.
I look forward to working with you on this issue.
Sincerely,
Rod Smith
Chairman, Florida Democratic Party
Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Monday, January 24, 2011
One More February to March Primary Bill in Oklahoma
In addition to the Oklahoma bills detailed earlier today, there is a more all-encompassing election law bill (HB 2138) that shifts the date of the Sooner state's primaries for state and local offices from July to June, changes filing deadline and also alters the presidential primary date, moving the election from the first Tuesday in February (where the state's presidential primary has been since the 2004 cycle) to the first Tuesday in March. From 1988-2000 Oklahoma held its presidential primary on the second Tuesday in March. The Democratic Party in the state used the same date for its 1984 caucuses.
The bill is sponsored by Republican Rep. Kris Steele and is the third bill that has been introduced including a provision to move the presidential primary back to March.
Hat tip to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for the news.
Pair of Pre-filed Bills Propose Moving Oklahoma Presidential Primary Back to March
The Oklahoma legislature does not convene until next month, but there are already several bills that have been pre-filed which would affect the date on which the Sooner state holds its presidential primary in 2012. Republican lawmakers in both the state House (Gary Banz) and Senate (David Holt) have pre-filed bills in their respective chambers to be introduced on the opening day of the session to move the state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. The bills (HB 1614 and SB 808) also cede control over setting the date of the presidential primary to the State Board of Elections in the event that one or more states bordering Oklahoma have moved the dates of their presidential primaries in an effort to set up a regional primary.
Oklahoma is the first unified Republican-controlled state government to have a bill(s) pre-filed or introduced that would pull a primary currently in violation of national party rules back in to compliance (on the issue of timing). This is significant because, as we've speculated around here, Republican-controlled governments would be more likely to consider staying put if early and in violation of the rules and just taking the party penalties instead of moving back. It is still early to tell if there is anything to that hypothesis.
A third bill (HB 1057) would shift the financial burden of funding the presidential primary from the state to the state parties. Control of the date setting of the contest would also change hands from the state government to the state parties as well. There is no definite change proposed, then, but the parties could opt to move the date if they so chose.
[I apologize in advance for all the RTF links for these bills. There is no good way of linking to the status of bills in the Oklahoma legislature and this is the only way of accessing the bill text.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)