From California, The Best Primary Bill Introduction Yet

How did California's SB 782 slip under the radar? It might have something to do with how the existing election codes are being altered. Here's the law as it reads currently:

Section 1202. The presidential primary shall be held on the first Tuesday in February in any year evenly divisible by the number four, and shall not be consolidated with the statewide direct primary held in that year.

And here is the newly proposed, amended version called for in SB 782:

Section 1202. The presidential primary shall be held on the first Tuesday in February in any year evenly divisible by the number four and shall not be consolidated with the statewide direct primary held in that year.

Notice the difference? I didn't either; not at first anyway. It's that comma before the phrase, "and shall not be consolidated with the statewide direct primary held in that year." I have no idea what difference that comma's exclusion makes. However, that the bill is sponsored by the Republican leader in the state Senate, Bob Dutton (R-31st, Rancho Cucamonga) reads like some implicit endorsement of the current schedule for primaries in the Golden state.

As a refresher, California separated its presidential primary from its state and local primaries for the 2008 cycle. Instead of all of the elections being held concurrently during the first week in March, the presidential primary was shifted to the more advantageous February position while the primaries for state and local offices were moved back to June where presidential year primaries had historically been held in the state prior to 1996. Legislation on the Assembly side (AB 80) has been introduced to re-couple those two sets of primaries, but in June 2012. Given that late date and the fact that it will likely fall after the point at which the Republican nomination will have been decided next year, it is understandable that California Republicans in the state assembly would be opposed to the measure. That may be the reality they face as the minority party, however.

Still, whether SB 782 is motivated by concerns over the timing of the presidential primary in 2012, it represents the most non-substantial of non-substantial changes to election law one can imagine.

UPDATE: It turns out that comma strikethrough was a legislative maneuver to "create" a change in the law to beat the bill introduction deadline in the California Assembly last week. Changes can be made later in committee, but a bill had to have been introduced by February 18. Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for the information.

Recent Posts:

Companion Senate Bill to Move Tennessee Presidential Primary to May Introduced

2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (Feb. 14-20)

New York GOP to Switch to Proportional Delegate Allocation in 2012?

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Companion Senate Bill to Move Tennessee Presidential Primary to May Introduced

Last week, Tennessee House Democrats proposed a bill (HB 760) that would shift the state's presidential primary back from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in May. The Democratic leadership on the state Senate side has now followed suit. Minority Leader Jim Kyle (D-28th, Memphis) introduced SB 1875 last Thursday (February 17) which would have the impact of scheduling the presidential primary concurrently with municipal elections held in May.

The intention of Democrats in a time where budget deficits are a real concern on the state level is likely to prioritize elections outlays. However, it is much easier for the minority party Democrats to do this in a cycle where the party's standard bearer is likely to receive no concerted opposition in the primaries next year. Majority party Republicans, with a contested nomination to come in 2012 are more likely to balk at this as a result. Tennessee has moved its primary the last two cycles -- from the second Tuesday in March to the second Tuesday in February in 2004 and from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in February in 2008. Legislators in the Volunteer state, then, have had a recent history of moving the state's presidential primary around to maximize the state's influence.

The reality is that legislators there have merely moved the state into a period of time before or simultaneous with a decision on the nomination having been determined. Tennessee has not proven decisive, but it has been a part of the decision. And while Tennessee Democrats may have the thought of the bonus delegates that are awarded to later primary states, they are unlikely to see those with Republicans in control of the state government and a contested nomination race on the horizon.

If one was to place bets on which set of primary bills will emerge, one would have to wager on the primary moving to March and not May based on partisanship and partisan control alone. However, this is yet further evidence of 2012 primary laws being crafted with budgetary concerns at least secondarily in mind.

Recent Posts:

2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (Feb. 14-20)

New York GOP to Switch to Proportional Delegate Allocation in 2012?

Virginia House Bill to Move Presidential Primary Passes Senate

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (Feb. 14-20)

State legislative sessions are now to a point, where we are beginning to see a steady flow of actions to move, cancel or in some other way change the date on which presidential primaries will be held in 2012. Here's the week in review:

• Pass it on: Virginia and Idaho moved closer to shifting the dates on which their respective presidential primaries will be held next year. In Virginia, the two bills that had already passed one chamber and had crossed over to the other for consideration both passed last week. That clears the way for Governor Bob McDonnell to sign into law the bill(s) that would move the presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. Idaho is seeking to move in the opposite direction. The bill moving the primary (presidential and state & local primaries) up one week from the fourth Tuesday in May to the third Tuesday in May passed the Senate last week -- after having earlier passed the House -- passed the Senate and awaits Governor Butch Otter's decision on whether to sign it. Both Virginia and Idaho would become the first states to move their 2012 primaries during the 2011 state legislative session.
• Rerouted: In Oklahoma, one of the bills proposed to shift the presidential primary in the Sooner state back to the first Tuesday in March (from the first Tuesday in February) has been removed from the Rules Committee and re-referred to the General Government Committee. Of the three bills in Oklahoma to propose this move, HB 2138 is the broadest in scope, changing not only the presidential primary date but the date for statewide and local office primaries as well (from July to June). The other House bill and Senate bill are still in their respective chamber's Rules Committees.
• Introducing...: In Missouri, bills were introduced in both chambers by the Republican chairs of the relevant committees dealing with elections to move the Show-Me state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March -- in compliance with national party rules. In Tennessee, the Republican leadership in both legislative Houses introduced new bills that seemingly augment the original legislation to move the Volunteer state's presidential primary to March. The new versions addressed filing deadlines as well, but would have the same impact on the primary's timing as the legislation introduced earlier. In a twist, Democrats in Tennessee have come up with an alternative plan that would move the primary from February back to May to coincide with municipal elections. Though the cost savings may be tempting to the Republican majority, the state having at least a vote in who the Republican nominee will be -- or having an early enough primary date to warrant that -- likely trump that concern.
• Can you hear me now: In Washington state, the movement to cancel the 2012 presidential primary had public hearings before committees this past week. The Washington Republican Party had come out against the Senate version of the legislation in earlier hearings, but this time, on the House side, state Democrats voiced concern based on a potential movement by the party in the direction of utilizing the primary for delegate allocation as opposed to the caucus system the party has traditionally used in the state. That said, the party did not seem to come out in opposition to the bill; it only raised the issue of using the primary.
• As has been mentioned in this space several times, there are currently 18 states with presidential primaries scheduled for February 2012. That would put those 18 states in violation of both parties' delegate selection rules for 2012.
• Of those 18 primary states, 15 of them (California, Connecticut, Missouri, New York, Arizona, Georgia, Delaware, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia) have convened their 2011 state legislative sessions.
• Of those 15 states, 7 (California, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia) have bills that have been introduced and are active within the state legislature to move their contests' dates back. Both California and New Jersey have bills that would eliminate an early and separate presidential primaries and position those events with the other primaries for state and local offices. That would mean June presidential primaries for both states if those bills pass and are signed into law. In the remaining states, the efforts are to simply shift the states' presidential primaries from dates in violation of the two major parties' rules to the earliest allowed date (the first Tuesday in March). There is also an active bill in Washington, DC to move the districts primary back to June.
• For this next week the 15 early states in conflict with the national parties' rules will be the ones to watch. They will not be joined by any additional states this week or for that matter the rest of February. Alabama will be the next February primary state to convene its legislative session on March 1.
• How would all of this look if all these bills happened to be passed and signed into law? States with active bills to move their primaries are listed twice, once where law has them currently and once in bold and italicized for where active legislation could move them.NOTE: THIS IS NOT THE CURRENT CALENDAR, ONLY WHAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE IF CURRENT LEGISLATION IS ENACTED.

Tuesday, January 31: Florida

Tuesday, February 7 (Super Tuesday): Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Utah

Saturday, February 11: Louisiana

Tuesday, February 14: Washington, DC, Maryland, Virginia

Saturday, February 18: Nevada Republican caucuses

Tuesday, February 21: Hawaii Republican caucuses, Wisconsin

Tuesday, February 28: Arizona, Michigan

Tuesday, March 6: Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota caucuses, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia

Tuesday, March 13: Mississippi

Tuesday, March 20: Colorado caucuses, Illinois

Tuesday, April 3: Kansas, Maryland

Tuesday, April 24: Pennsylvania

Tuesday, May 1: Tennessee

Tuesday, May 8: Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia

Tuesday, May 15: Idaho, Nebraska, Oregon

Tuesday, May 22: Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky and Washington

Tuesday, June 5: California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota

Tuesday, June 12: Washington, DC

Tuesday, August 7: Kentucky

Recent Posts:

New York GOP to Switch to Proportional Delegate Allocation in 2012?

Virginia House Bill to Move Presidential Primary Passes Senate

Budget Concerns May Affect Massachusetts Presidential Primary

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

New York GOP to Switch to Proportional Delegate Allocation in 2012?

From Politico's Maggie Haberman:

New York Republican officials are seriously considering changing the state's winner-take-all primary system to one with proportionality, meaning candidates could compete for the delegates doled out by congressional district and several hopefuls could snatch bits and pieces of the Empire State's haul.

The strategic implications of this are interesting in and of themselves -- and Haberman is right to point that out -- but overall this story paints an incomplete picture of the situation. The relationship between state party decisions on presidential delegate allocation and the strategic decisions of the candidates. However, the national parties and the role they play here is noticeably absent. As the delegate selection rules set by the parties have been relatively static on this front since the 1980s -- the Democrats requiring proportional allocation and the Republicans leaving the decision up to the state parties -- this would not usually be all that much of a talking point.

But the RNC adopted the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee's recommendations for rules changes last August. That had the effect of binding the applicability of certain delegate allocation rules to the timing of a state's primary or caucus. Any state that holds a delegate selection event prior to April 1, 2012 is required by the national party to allocate its national convention delegates on a proportional basis. Those states that maintain or move to dates after that point can, as has been the case in the past, decide how they want to allocate delegates -- whether proportionally or winner-take-all.

New York is one of those states where the state Republican Party has traditionally used winner-take-all rules and now the party is apparently considering a switch to proportional allocation. Why? Well, for starters, the Empire state's presidential primary is currently scheduled for February 7, 2012, which means that the state would be required by RNC delegate selection rules to shift to proportional rules based on where the primary is timed on the calendar.

There are a couple of additional points to make here. First, the New York state legislature has been quiet in terms of proposing legislation to shift the state's primary from the February date back into a period that complies with both national parties' sets of delegate selection rules. As I said before, if that's before April 1, then the decision to shift from winner-take-all to proportional allocation is not one that is being made at the state party level; it is being mandated by the national party. [The state legislature could move the date back after that point and indirectly hand the delegate allocation decision back to the party. From the state parties' and even the legislators' perspective, that runs the risk of removing New York from the period during primary season when the voters there could prove decisive on the identity of the Republican nominee.]

Now, one could ask whether the state party could, as Florida is doing on the timing question, flaunt the national party rules. Instead of breaking the timing rules, though, New York would be breaking the delegate allocation rules (depending on when the primary is ultimately timed). This is a debatable point, but it seems that the RNC would be more insistent on this rule potentially than they, or either party for that matter, has proven to be on the enforcement of timing rules. Since all or most of the delegates are going to cast their lot with the presumptive nominee at the national convention, the only period in which allocation rules matter is early on -- during primary season. That potentially affects the course of the nomination race. The intention of the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee in proposing the institution of an early proportionality rule was to ever so slightly increase the competition as a means of organizing voters in states. Think about how the course of the Democratic nomination race affected organization efforts in both Indiana and North Carolina late in the process. Those efforts, at least at the margins, paid dividends for candidate Obama in winning two typically red states in the general election. But as I said, that only matters early on when the nomination is undetermined. After the point at which one candidate has on 50% of the delegates plus one, he or she becomes the presumptive nominee that the party, or the delegates more precisely, is likely to rally around at the convention.

But what if New York opts to flaunt those rules? [I'm not suggesting they will since the discussion is revolving around a switch to proportionality anyway.] Again, the matter comes back to enforcement. The only enforcement mechanism that is discussed in the Republican rules is that a "substantial departure from these guidelines carries significant risk that not all delegates will be seated." But it seems to me that the presidential nominee, like those in both parties in the past, would be more interested in party unity behind him or her than in sticking to those rules on principle. That doesn't serve the party's best interests, especially when the goal is to beat an incumbent president.

This may not be an issue with New York but problems with the new proportionality requirement could arise somewhere else.

Recent Posts:

Virginia House Bill to Move Presidential Primary Passes Senate

Budget Concerns May Affect Massachusetts Presidential Primary

Companion Senate Bill to Move Missouri Presidential Primary to March Introduced

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Virginia House Bill to Move Presidential Primary Passes Senate

And the icing on the cake.

Not that HB 1843 is necessary to move Virginia's presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March, but it becomes the second bill -- following the House passage of SB 1246 earlier in the week -- to pass both chambers and move on to the governor. Only one is needed to move the commonwealth's 2012 presidential nominating contest back on the calendar. And all indications point to Governor McDonnell signing legislation that saw overwhelming bipartisan support in both houses of the General Assembly. Virginia would become the first state to move back for 2012 in 2011, the third primary state and the fourth overall.

HB 1843 passed the Senate with 39 yes votes to just one dissenting vote.

Recent Posts:

Budget Concerns May Affect Massachusetts Presidential Primary

Companion Senate Bill to Move Missouri Presidential Primary to March Introduced

If they were deciding today, where would they choose to go? A Note about the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Budget Concerns May Affect Massachusetts Presidential Primary

UPDATE (2/27/11): Legislation is now in committee in Massachusetts to move both the presidential primary (from March) and the primaries for state and local offices (from September) to June.

One issue that continues to be raised as the 2012 presidential primary calendar evolves is one of budgetary constraints at the state level. This has manifest itself in a few ways and has become problematic in more and more states across the country as state governments wrestle over budget outlays for the coming year(s).

In Kansas and Washington, the talks have revolved around eliminating the presidential primary and shifting the cost of nominating candidates to the state parties; state parties that would, in turn, typically opt for caucuses as a means of nominating candidates over primaries. Still other states are looking at the possibility moving their separate presidential primaries to dates that coincide with later primaries for state and local offices. Some states are better able than others to pull this cost saving maneuver off. California and New Jersey, for instance, can eliminate their separate presidential primaries and move them back to the June dates on which their state and local primaries are held because the June date fits within the window of time in which the national parties allow states to hold presidential delegate selection events. California and New Jersey -- and Arkansas before them -- can do that. Florida, Massachusetts and other states with July, August and September primaries cannot. In other words, California and New Jersey have a way of cutting costs in the elections section of the budget that states like Florida and Massachusetts do not.

That fact, of course, does not in any way financially relieve that latter group of states. They still face the same budget crunch as the other states, but don't have that same cost-saving option. Florida doesn't seem to mind. Legislators there are more concerned with the state playing a role in selecting the, in 2012 at least, Republican presidential nominee. But elsewhere states are grappling with the costs of holding elections and what to do given that pressure.

The latest state to publicly deal with this is Massachusetts. There, the presidential primary is on the chopping block. In the eyes of Secretary of State Bill Galvin it is at least unless the Elections Division can convince the state legislature to add $3.5 million to its budget. Said Galvin:

“The number that was submitted by the governor despite the fact that he suggested, or his administration suggested, that it would be a 2 percent cut, in fact is a far more drastic cut. My budget will go down anyways for the coming fiscal year in the elections area because we have one fewer election in the upcoming fiscal year than we did in the last, but nevertheless, it’s a problem to run this March 6, 2012 event based upon the numbers they’ve submitted.”

As far as alternatives, Galvin suggested shifting to a state party-funded caucus system.

“I asked the legislature during my testimony yesterday on the budget to increase the line item, which I know it was a difficult thing given the circumstances of the year, or I suggested to them they could of course cancel the primary, and we could go to a caucus system.”

That is one option. But because Massachusetts has such a late date for its state and local primaries, it is subject to the MOVE act that passed Congress in 2009. The September 18, 2012 primary is just 49 days before the November 6 general election. That gives the state just four days to finalize general election nominees, print ballots and distribute them to military and overseas personnel to comply with that law. That is likely an inadequate window of time in which to complete those tasks. In other words, Massachusetts faces having to move the date on which its state and local primaries are held. The temptation, as was the case in the District of Columbia, may be to simultaneously move both the presidential primary and the primaries for state and local offices to a date that complies with both national party rules governing presidential delegate selection and the mandates required by the MOVE act.

This trend merits watching as state legislatures settle in to deal with the budgets in their respective states. It has the potential to affect the development of the presidential primary calendar and could ultimately suit the national parties' interests quite well. The more states that have to consider moving a presidential primary back to coincide with a traditional or newly timed set of primaries for state and local offices, the more likely it is that there will be fewer rogue states breaking the delegate selection rules. And the states that have been best able to move to those increasingly earlier presidential primary dates are the very same states that have very late primaries for state and local offices. Again, it merits watching.

--

Can Massachusetts Afford 2012 Presidential Primaries?

(via WBZ Boston)

BOSTON (CBS) – There’s a possibility that Massachusetts won’t be able to participate fully in the next presidential election.

Secretary of State Bill Galvin says there’s not enough money to run a primary in March 2012, according to Gov. Deval Patrick’s budget for the next fiscal year.

“The number that was submitted by the governor despite the fact that he suggested, or his administration suggested, that it would be a 2 percent cut, in fact is a far more drastic cut. My budget will go down anyways for the coming fiscal year in the elections area because we have one fewer election in the upcoming fiscal year than we did in the last, but nevertheless, it’s a problem to run this March 6, 2012 event based upon the numbers they’ve submitted,” Galvin told WBZ.

Galvin said he offered up suggestions for alternatives to the 2012 primary elections.

“I asked the legislature during my testimony yesterday on the budget to increase the line item, which I know it was a difficult thing given the circumstances of the year, or I suggested to them they could of course cancel the primary, and we could go to a caucus system,” Galvin said.

The combination of the upcoming presidential primaries and the necessary political reorganization of the state after the 2010 Census unfortunately happened during an economic crunch.

“If I were to spend all of the money on the primary, I then wouldn’t have any money for the rest of the election department’s activities: the local elections where we supervise, but also preparing for the regular state elections and the presidential election in 2012. So, all of that has to be done,” said Galvin.

He said he hopes the elections can still go on as scheduled.

“It’s my earnest hope that the legislature will find the money to help us continue the tradition of having a voter participatory primary,” said Sec. Galvin.

Galvin said his office needs an extra $3.5 million in the budget.

Recent Posts:

Companion Senate Bill to Move Missouri Presidential Primary to March Introduced

If they were deciding today, where would they choose to go? A Note about the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Idaho House Bill to Move Presidential Primary Up Passes Senate

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Companion Senate Bill to Move Missouri Presidential Primary to March Introduced

On February 16, Missouri state senator, Kevin Engler (R-3, Farmington), introduced SB 282 which would shift the date on which the Show-Me state's presidential primary is held from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. The bill is exactly like the House bill (HB 503) in content and sponsorship. The senate version is also sponsored by the chairman of the Financial and Governmental Organizations and Elections Committee, giving it a similar level of institutional support from within the Republican majority. Republicans hold a three to one advantage over Democrats in the legislature's upper chamber, so the bill could proceed without bipartisan support like the House bill as well.

Recent Posts:

If they were deciding today, where would they choose to go? A Note about the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Idaho House Bill to Move Presidential Primary Up Passes Senate

Three New Presidential Primary Bills Emerge in Tennessee

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

If they were deciding today, where would they choose to go? A Note about the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

It has become apparent since FHQ's cameo appearance on The Fix earlier this week that the content here has been opened up to a broader political insider audience than before. It has been truer in this instance than in some of the other more general pieces in which I have had quotes on the primary calendar appear. That fact has been driven home by some push back I have gotten on the 2012 presidential primary calendar that we update when primary dates are changed. At issue seems to be where we have Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and until the state Republican Party changed the date in December, Nevada.

Nevada has preemptively moved to the mid-February date -- February 18 -- that the national parties have reserved for it. Well, the DNC specified that date while the Republicans allow more leeway, allowing the four exempt states a window of February 1 through the first Tuesday in March to hold a delegate selection event. In other words, the choice is up to the states. Nonetheless, Nevada Republicans opted for that date. That said, the Silver state Republicans have selected a date.

The other three have not. Each is waiting, as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina typically do, for the other states settle in on dates before deciding on their own earlier dates. This is not news. And while that is not news, it doesn't change the fact that those states and possibly even Nevada will look at which non-exempt state is earliest and make the decision as to the timing of their primaries or caucuses based on that information.

Ideally from the national parties perspective that will be no earlier than the first Tuesday in March 2012. But that conflicts with the reality of the situation from the states' perspective. Election laws already on the books specify when presidential primary elections are to be held and it will take state legislative action to alter that. But unless or until that reality changes we have to operate -- we do around here anyway -- under the aforementioned assumption. Florida election law currently has the Sunshine state's presidential primary scheduled for January 31. That is currently the earliest non-exempt delegate selection event and if Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina were to have to choose today on which date each would go next year, the decision makers in those states would choose based on that information. The latest possible dates for those states to go with Florida and others -- those other states scheduled to hold contests throughout February -- standing in the way of national party delegate selection rules is right where FHQ has them.

Monday, January 16: Iowa

Tuesday, January 24: New Hampshire

Saturday, January 28: South Carolina (and perhaps Nevada)

And even that is questionable because New Hampshire law requires a week long cushion on both sides of its primary. That proposed South Carolina date falls just four days after the primary in the Granite state and if Bill Gardner, the New Hampshire secretary of state who has the date-setting power there, wants to be a stickler, he could inch the state's primary up an additional week to January 17 and push Iowa to January 9. That, however, has yet to play out.

So no, the dates for those three states are not official -- something that has been noted in the sidebar calendar and in posts since I first posted them in December 2008 and is highlighted even more clearly now -- but until the information changes (read: Florida moves back), the dates FHQ lists for Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina are the latest possible dates on which their contests will fall in 2012.

NOTE: A link to this post will be added to all archived and future updates to the calendar that appears here.

Recent Posts:

Idaho House Bill to Move Presidential Primary Up Passes Senate

Three New Presidential Primary Bills Emerge in Tennessee

"Rubio favors early presidential primary for Florida in 2012"

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Idaho House Bill to Move Presidential Primary Up Passes Senate

Idaho is a Butch Otter signature away from shifting its presidential primary up a week after the state Senate passed an elections consolidation bill today. Among a host of other elections law changes requested by Secretary of State Tim Hurst, HB 60 calls for the Gem state's presidential primary to be moved up to the third Tuesday in May from the fourth Tuesday in May.

The House bill passed unanimously there on February 3 and passed by a vote of 35-0 in the Senate today. Should Governor Otter sign the bill, Idaho will become the first primary state to move forward in a primary calendar year when most states will be moving to later dates.

Recent Posts:

Three New Presidential Primary Bills Emerge in Tennessee

"Rubio favors early presidential primary for Florida in 2012"

Midweek Update on Presidential Primary Movement

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Three New Presidential Primary Bills Emerge in Tennessee

Late last week, bills were introduced by the Republican leadership in both chambers of the Tennessee General Assembly to move the Volunteer state's 2012 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. Since that time, there have been three additional bills introduced that would affect the timing of the state's presidential primary. Two are revisions of the bills filed last week -- yet in the form of an all-new bill -- that would maintain the same shift described in the previous legislation, but would augment that with a change in the filing deadlines as well. As such, HB 793 and SB 929, also sponsored by Rep. Gerald McCormick (R-26, Chattanooga) and Sen. Mark Norris (R-32, Collierville) respectively, seemingly replace HB 612 and SB 599. Again, these bills, as was the case with their predecessors have the backing of the Republican (majority party) leadership and that stands to help the bill through the General Assembly.

In contrast, HB 760, introduced by Democratic House leader, Craig Fitzhugh (D-82, Ripley), while it does have the support of the minority party leader, will potentially face more institutional, not to mention partisan, barriers to passing. Complicating matters further -- from a partisan perspective -- is the fact that this bill calls for the presidential primary to be moved to first Tuesday in May to coincide with the municipal primaries in the state. This not only saves money, but it also moves the primary out of the window of time in which the Republican nomination is likely to be decided. The cost savings are attractive, but it is questionable how open Republican legislators are going to be toward moving the primary out of contention on the calendar. Democrats obviously have a bit more leeway on this front given that the party is very unlikely to have a contested nomination race next year.

These bills will be added to the Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures section in the left sidebar.

Recent Posts:

"Rubio favors early presidential primary for Florida in 2012"

Midweek Update on Presidential Primary Movement

Are we done writing the eulogy for the Iowa Caucuses?

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.