Monday, March 7, 2011

Bill to Tie Presidential Primary to Parties' Use Passes Washington State House

The Washington state bill to link the existence and use of a presidential primary in a given cycle to the parties utilizing the contest to allocate all of their delegates to the national conventions passed the state House on Saturday (March 5). HB 1860 would require the Democratic and Republican state parties to break from the tradition of using just a caucus or the caucus in combination with a primary, respectively, as the means of allocating delegates in the presidential nomination races. This bill would eliminate the presidential primary in years in which the parties do not abandon the caucus for the primary.

Bills to temporarily eliminate the primary for the 2012 cycle have been proposed in both chambers of the Washington legislature, but have recently stalled while HB 1860 has gained momentum and passed the House. By a largely party-line vote, the House passed the bill 53-44 with most of the Democratic majority in support of the measure and most of the Republican minority against. The legislation now heads to the state Senate.


Louisiana Republican Sees Need to Move Presidential Primary Back

Louisiana does not convene its 2011 state legislative session until next month, but already some within the state parties are raising the issue of the Pelican state's 2012 presidential primary date. Scheduled for the second Saturday in February next year, the Louisiana primary is one of nineteen that conflict with both national parties' rules on the timing of delegate selection events. Louisiana, along with any other contests penciled in for any time before March 6, 2012, faces losing at least half their delegates to the national conventions without a change. That problem has prompted one member of the Republican State Central Committee, Mike Bayham, to file a resolution -- within the party -- to call on the legislature to shift the primary back to the first Saturday after the first Tuesday of March. That would be the Saturday after the would-be Super Tuesday if the DNC and RNC have their way.

Of course there is no consensus behind the idea between the two parties in the state much less the within the legislature. Louisiana Republican Party chair, Roger Villere, favors moving the primary back past the first of April to preserve the state's ability to allocate its delegates in a winner-take-all manner. The RNC gives states the option of choosing how to allocated their delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa after that April threshold, but has instituted a new proportionality requirement for all states prior to that point on the calendar. Democrats in the state have to this point remained tight lipped about moving the primary, but under the Democrats' rules, legislators in the state have to make some effort to move the primary back or run the risk of losing more than 50% of the delegation to the Democrats' Charlotte convention (Rule 20.C.7). What remains to be seen, regardless of how the state parties feel about the matter, is how a narrowly divided legislature deals with the issue. Democrats control the state Senate by just two seats while Republicans have a four seat advantage in the state House.

Resolutions for the state parties or not, it will be next month before anything is known about what will happen with the 2012 presidential primary in Louisiana.



Friday, March 4, 2011

Bill to Hand Power to Set Primary Date Over to Secretary of State Filed in Georgia

A bipartisan coalition of six Georgia representatives has come up with by far the most interesting approach to 2012 presidential primary timing. Rep. Mark Hamilton (R-23rd, Cumming), Rep. John Meadows (R-5th, Calhoun), Majority Whip Edward Lindsey (R-54th, Atlanta), Rep. Mary Oliver (D-83rd, Decatur), Rep. Tyrone Brooks (D-63rd, Atlanta) and Rep. Alisha Morgan (D-39th, Austell) prefiled HB 454 on March 3 and has several wrinkles to it.

First of all, the bill shifts the presidential primary date-setting authority from the state legislature to the secretary of state. The effect is that this frees a state of the potential for partisan conflict that often hampers the movement of a primary. Such a move would also remove the issue of a state legislature having to be in session to move the date of a presidential primary around. This is how New Hampshire has been able to move with such ease in protecting its first-in-the-nation status since 1976. There is no partisan conflict and in New Hampshire's case, Secretary of State Bill Gardner can wait until a very late date -- after all the other states have selected dates -- to choose when New Hampshire will go. It would appear that this is the intent in Georgia as well.

The short term impact of this is that Georgia will remain an unknown for a while if this bill is passed and signed into law. There are, however, a few additional guidelines that add to the intrigue of this. The secretary of state wouldn't have unlimited discretion here. He or she would have to make a decision on the date "not later than 60 days preceding the date on which the presidential primary is to be held". Candidates have to have time to file and local elections administrators have to have time to prepare for the primary.

But let's look at this in the context of 2012. Secretary of State Brian Kemp, if given this authority, could wait all the way up to December 1, and like New Hampshire, see where all the other states are going to be positioned on the calendar. Now, 60 days from December 1 is January 30. That is just enough time to see not where New Hampshire is positioned, but where Florida ends up. Oddly -- or not so oddly enough -- Florida is currently positioned on January 31. Kemp can wait it out, see if Florida budges, how the RNC reacts and set the date of the Georgia primary accordingly. If the RNC caves to Florida's insistence on being on January 31, then Kemp could move Georgia up to coincide with its neighbor to the south on January 31. But if the RNC comes down hard on Florida, Kemp could move Georgia's primary back into compliance with national party rules (on March 6, for instance).

What this bill would do is keep Georgia's options open and allow it the most leeway to select an advantageous date that would not necessarily threaten New Hampshire or Iowa or South Carolina, but would potentially help the Peach state to align with Florida in a sub-regional act of defiance.

File this one away.



The Links (3/4/11) -- Calendar Edition

I must admit that in getting back in the swing of things with posting in 2011, I've gotten quite bogged down in the minutiae of the 2012 calendar at the expense of other and equally as relevant things (...at least relative to the 2012 presidential election). One of those is a series of posts I used to put out on a semi-regular basis that simply pointed FHQ readers to other matters that, while important, FHQ just didn't have the time to comment on in any great detail if at all. Part of the reason for this is that I do a lot of that linking through retweets on Twitter. But believe it or not, not everything gets tweeted in the first place. So let's resurrect "The Links".

No, today's edition doesn't stray too far from the calendar topic, but each link provides a different perspective on both the rules of delegate selection and the "craziness" of the evolution of the calendar itself. Incidentally enough (Modesty Alert!), each link also either mentions FHQ or quotes me. But as I said, there are some interesting talking points from some of the players on the ground nationally and in a series of states relevant to the calendar and that's something that should be shared. [Look, if you're coming here regularly, you probably get enough of me as it is.]





A Note on FHQ's 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar(s)

We are entering a phase in the formation of the 2012 presidential primary calendar that is much more difficult to track efficiently. Some states are moving dates, others are proposing legislation to the move dates of their presidential primaries and still others are to this point doing nothing. With all of this going on it, the potential exists for there to be a number of iterations of the calendar out there to account for all of the minor details that are changing. Our effort is to get as much information out there as possible about this process, but if we continue to produce calendar after calendar every time something changes, we run the risk of confusing visitors who enter the site on a past calendar page and are unable to get the most recent update. Links to the most recent calendar posts are always added when the calendar is updated, but those have proven ineffective.

As such, FHQ has made the proactive decision to automatically redirect visitors coming into those past 2012 calendars to a static page that has been created to house the most current update. This will first and foremost get visitors the most up-to-date information on where the calendar stands. That is the primary objective.

But what does that mean for you old hands who drop by on a regular basis to check on the calendar. Well, for folks who come into FHQ from our RSS, Twitter or Facebook feeds, not much. It is still business as usual. When a change to the calendar takes place, a new update will be posted. You will get that notification through the channels listed above once that update posts and can choose to follow that link to the post or to go to the static page for the calendar. They will both be updated (nearly) simultaneously. One of the advantages of a page (and link) devoted to the latest update is that it gives FHQ the ability to add links to new legislation from states to that calendar without having to put out an all-new calendar for that one minor change. Again, we don't want to flood the market with seemingly conflicting calendars. Updates, then, will be reserved for when the calendar actually changes -- like when Idaho moved or once Minnesota's first Tuesday in February date was triggered. For those just interested in a quick glance at where the calendar stands, but not necessarily how it got to that point, it is probably a good idea to bookmark the new page, and check in for the latest update at your own leisure.

Everyone has their own way of checking these things and we don't want to mess with that, but FHQ has to balance being completely open and making sure that people are getting an updated and informative look at where the calendar stands at the moment they enter the site. Once the calendar is set in stone, the redirects will be removed and people can once again go through the archive of updates. A post linking to all those updates will probably be useful at that point.

--
Thanks.
Josh


Thursday, March 3, 2011

The 2012 Candidates: Newt's In (?)


But it is a website announcing his intention to explore the option of exploring the exploration of the formation of an exploratory committee for the office of president of the United States. In a time when all that is out there officially are Herman Cain and Buddy Roemer candidacies, Newt Gingrich exploring anything remotely related to the presidency or a White House run is noteworthy (...especially for someone who has been lumped in with the first tier of candidates -- from a polling perspective). It may not be what the former Speaker wanted today to be about, but it'll be something to take to Iowa next week.

Let's update the list to include exploratory committee timing:
Michelle Bachmann
Haley Barbour
John Bolton
Jeb Bush
Herman Cain (exploratory: 1/12/11)
Chris Christie
Mitch Daniels
Jim DeMint
Newt Gingrich (exploratory: 3/3/11)
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
Jon Huntsman
Bobby Jindal
Gary Johnson
Sarah Palin
George Pataki
Ron Paul
Tim Pawlenty
Mike Pence (1/27/11)
Rick Perry
Buddy Roemer (exploratory: 3/3/11)
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum
John Thune (2/22/11)
--
A message from Newt and Callista (from NewtExplore2012.com):
America's greatness lies in 'We the People.'

We are a nation like no other. To remain so will require the dedicated participation of every citizen, of every neighborhood, of every background. This is the responsibility of a free people.

We are excited about exploring whether there is sufficient support for my potential candidacy for President of this exceptional country.


Is There a Utah Problem for the 2012 Primary Calendar?

This is Part Three in a series of posts examining early and non-compliant 2012 primary states and why they have not acted to move their presidential primaries to be timed in accordance with national party rules on delegate selection. See Part One (Connecticut) and Part Two (Delaware) as well.

Utah
  • Current Primary Date: February 7, 2012
  • Legislature Convened: January 24, 2011
  • Deadline to Introduce Legislation: February 3, 2011
  • Crossover Deadline: March 7, 2011
  • Legislature Adjourns: March 10, 2011
Unlike Connecticut and Delaware, the situation in Utah -- in terms of moving the date on which the Beehive state's 2012 presidential primary will be held -- is seemingly much more dire. To this point in the legislative session in Utah, no bills have been advanced dealing with the timing of the presidential primary directly and only two bills (HB 264 and SB 162) even cite the section of the Utah code that deals with the "Western States Presidential Primary". Needless to say, neither alters in any way the date on which that primary is to be held -- the first Tuesday in February. The former ties board of education primaires to municipal primaries while the latter changes the date of municipal primaries from September to August. But the presidential primary remains untouched.

What further complicates the situation is that there are a couple of important legislative deadlines in the Utah legislature next week. March 7 is the date on which one chamber must have finished consideration of, passed and transmitted to the opposite chamber -- a so-called "crossover" deadline -- any bill so that it can be considered there before the legislature adjourns on March 10. That is a week from today. Given how far into the legislative session Utah is, the date for having proposed legislation has already passed as well. In other words, there will have to be an amendment added to an existing piece of legislation that is agreed to by both chambers before next Thursday if a move is going to take place.1

The logical next question is whether there is any motivation to move the primary at all. And if not, what alternatives does Utah have? With no legislation to show for it, moving the 2012 primary does not seem to be something that is high on the list of legislative priorities. That said, what does Utah stand to gain by flaunting the national party rules on primary/caucus timing? Well, Mitt Romney won the state handily in 2008 and having Utah early may be of some benefit to the former Massachusetts governor. The catch is that by ignoring the rules Utah would be hit with a couple of penalties. First the state delegation would be cut in half, but on top of that the delegation -- one the make up of which is typically determined by winner-take-all allocation rules -- would have to allocated its delegates proportionally according to the new RNC rules change. Even though Romney took all the delegates from Utah in 2008, that haul would be halved and allocated differently if Utah stands pat and he is able to repeat the 2008 win in 2012.

As far as alternatives are concerned, Utah has a history of state party-run primaries and it is conceivable that the state could move in that direction without action from the legislature. But it is unclear at this point whether the state parties actually want to pick up the tab for such a contest and if they would even be willing to schedule it later to comply with national party rules if so.

What is clear is that Utah is running out of time to alter the date of its 2012 presidential primary.

Clock is ticking rating: Very High.

1This is not unprecedented. In 2007, after a bill specifically to move the presidential primary in Georgia from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February died in committee, an amendment was added to a broader elections bill to accomplish the move.


Bill to Move Connecticut Presidential Primary to March Raised in Committee

Well, FHQ is fortunate the post on the relative lack of legislative action in Connecticut in regard to the Nutmeg state's 2012 presidential primary went up yesterday. As it turns out a substitute to a preexisting bill was not necessary. Despite the fact that the deadline to raise bills in Government Administration and Elections Committee (GAE) was on February 16, a bill to shift the Connecticut presidential primary has been raised as of today (March 3).

HB 6532 would move the state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March in 2012 and in all presidential election years thereafter. That reduces the number of states yet to act to move their presidential primaries back and into compliance with the national party rules from eight to seven. [Keep in mind Louisiana has yet to convene its legislative session and/or have any relevant bills pre-filed. The Pelican state will be added to that total once the legislature there convenes and has the ability to alter the date of its 2012 primary.] The clock is ticking on those states to act.


Wednesday, March 2, 2011

A Two-Thirds Potomac Primary? DC Might Try to Align Primary with Maryland

A public hearing today by the DC Board of Elections and Ethics brought another 2012 primary date option there to the fore. Freeman Klopott from the Washington Examiner has more:
"I've taken the temperature of other council members and there seems to be some consensus around April 3," Ward 3 Councilwoman Mary Cheh told The Washington Examiner on Wednesday before a hearing on the city's 2012 primary date. Cheh heads the council committee that has oversight over D.C. elections. "We want to have a vote which serves as a presidential primary and a primary for local candidates," she said.
The options for this one have been all over the place. Early on there was talk of a July primary for local district offices and later when a bill was proposed, the talk shifted to holding concurrent presidential and district primaries in June on the closing date of the window in which the national parties allow states and territories to hold primaries or caucuses. With there being support among the leadership of both parties in both houses in Maryland to move the Old Line state's primary to April, though, and that being the likely destination for the primary there, council members in DC are reconsidering their date again. Both Maryland and DC would benefit from holding later (after March) primaries and, with the Democratic Party, by clustering together as the two did with Virginia in 2008.


The Clock is Ticking on States to Change 2012 Primary Dates: Delaware

This is Part Two in a series of posts examining early and non-compliant 2012 primary states and why they have not acted to move their presidential primaries to be timed in accordance with national party rules on delegate selection. See Part One (Connecticut) here.

Delaware
  • Current Primary Date: February 7, 2012
  • Legislature Convened: January 11, 2011
  • Deadline to Introduce Legislation: none
  • Legislature Adjourns: June 30, 2011
The story: Fortunately the legislative process in Delaware is less convoluted than in Connecticut, and that has implications for the ease and/or speed with which the legislature in the First state can alter the date of its presidential primary. The main difference between the two northeastern/Atlantic states is that Delaware does not have in place a deadline by which legislation must be introduced. Comparatively, then, legislators in Delaware are not quite as pressured by time to file legislation as in Connecticut. And while that may be the case, action will need to be taken in a reasonably timely manner to ensure that any bill has enough time to work its way through both houses of the legislature before the session adjourns on June 30.

Delaware was among the few February primary states during the 2008 cycle that had moved to that point on the calendar in the previous cycle. Looking back at the history of that bill (SB 54), it was presumably introduced -- it isn't clear -- and referred to committee on April 1, 2003 and quickly worked its way through the state Senate before passing the House and being signed into law in June. That legislators in Delaware have not acted to move the presidential primary back into compliance with party rules in 2011 (something the bill in 2003 accomplished also1) is a reflection of the time in which they have to maneuver mostly. Legislators in 2003 had not acted at this point in the 2004 cycle either.

Clock is ticking rating: Low. Legislators in Delaware still have time to introduce and pass a bill to move the presidential primary to a later point on the calendar in 2012; time that other states like Virginia or Utah didn't have or don't have. Like Connecticut, Delaware is also a state with unified Democratic control. That may or may not have an effect on the speed with which the Democratic majority is operating, but with an uncontested nomination race on the Democratic side, the urgency is not there as it might be in Republican-controlled states. One can detect the potential for an interactive effect at work combining party control in state legislatures and length (or timing) of session. Again, Democratic legislators in Delaware as in Connecticut will eventually have to act so as to avoid the added penalties that may come from the Democratic Party for not moving into compliance when having control of the legislative means to do so (Rule 20.C.7 of the 2012 Democratic Delegate Selection Rules).

1Delaware had scheduled its 2000 presidential primary for the Saturday following New Hampshire and the 2003 bill removed that anchor and set the date for the primary as the first Tuesday in February.

Up next: Utah.