Minnesota Republicans Seeking Waiver from New RNC Delegate-Binding Rule

Fresh off having agreed with the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party on a date for the 2016 Minnesota caucuses, the Republican Party in the Land of 10,000 Lakes is surveying its compliance with other guidelines in the Republican National Committee delegate selection rules. One new addition to the national party rules that will cause the Minnesota Republican caucuses to break with tradition is the new binding requirement the RNC tacked onto the rules at its 2012 national convention in Tampa.¹ And that is not going over well in Minnesota.

The hubbub now as then -- August 2012 -- was that the new rule was intended to halt the practice of non-binding precinct caucuses. The Republican National Committee had and has a vested interest in the results of primaries and caucuses relaying to the candidates, campaigns and voters some clear indication of how the presidential preference vote in the caucuses transfers to candidate delegate totals. Not knowing how that actually looked in Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota and other caucuses states led to endless misinterpretations of the real-time nature of the delegate count at any given point in time.

But that is the RNC perspective. From the states' points of view the move not only alters the standard operating procedure for some of the caucuses states, but it is evidence of the establishment within the Republican Party overreaching into an area typically the domain of the states and negatively affecting the grassroots party building that non-binding precinct caucuses (with presidential preference vote) facilitate.

It is that latter part that has apparently stuck in the craw of Minnesota Republicans. That has the Minnesota Republican Party looking to be granted a waiver by the RNC under Rule 16(f)(3) to return to business as usual with the caucuses.² The bar for being granted such a waiver appears to be pretty high (and at least somewhat subjective). First, a state must demonstrate that it is impossible to comply with the new binding requirement. That seems tough when their are caucuses states -- even unorganized ones³ -- that can manage this. Furthermore, after the state has to jump through that hoop it must also convince the RNC that the waiver is in the best interest of the Republican Party. Now, "the best interests of the Republican Party" is not at all clear. It may also be that the RNC and a state party have different ideas about what constitutes the best interests.

None of this is to suggest that the Republican Party of Minnesota will not be successful in its efforts to gain a waiver to continue with non-binding caucuses. That may yet happen. However, Minnesota may be a test case of sorts for the RNC. If they are granted a waiver, other non-binding caucuses states will/may be interested in following suit. That may undermine the new rule, and that likely will not be judged to be in the best interests of the Republican Party.

...at least not by the RNC.

This waiver issue is actually pretty important. It certainly bears watching. It may only affect a small sliver of states -- caucuses states -- but it could have a fairly significant impact on how we follow the evolving delegate race in 2016.⁴

--
¹ Below is the language of that RNC rule:

Rule 16(a)(1): Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in a primary, caucuses, or a state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the national convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters.

² Below is the language of that RNC rule:

Rule 16(f)(3): (3) The Republican National Committee may grant a waiver to a state Republican Party from the provisions of Rule Nos. 16(a)(1) and (2) where compliance is impossible and the Republican National Committee determines that granting such waiver is in the best interests of the Republican Party.

³ Nevada Republicans may have had logistical issues with their 2008 and 2012 caucuses, but one thing they were able to do in both cycles was bind delegates based on precinct caucuses results.

⁴ Yes, yes. I know. The invisible primary may make that pursuit of delegates moot in the grand scheme of things. Yet, these rules do affect candidate/campaign behavior during the primary phase of election year and that is worth our attention.

Recent Posts:
North Carolina: Staying Rogue for 2016?

Michigan Senate Agrees to March 8 Presidential Primary Date

New Bill Would Seek to Clarify the Date of the 2016 Florida Presidential Primary

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

North Carolina: Staying Rogue for 2016?

There has been a lot of talk about presidential primary movement in former rogue states Florida and Michigan today. Both seem to be playing nice for 2016, but talk of Florida and Michigan defiance is so 2008.

...and 2012.

As FHQ has tried to point out since July 2013,¹ North Carolina represents a bigger and trickier threat to the carve-out states and the orderliness of the 2016 presidential primary calendar than any other state. Others are starting to take note:

North Carolina is ready to go rogueBoth parties have rules about their presidential nominating calendars, and the Republican National Committee is especially eager to assert more control over the schedule, debates and more heading into 2016. 

But CNN's Peter Hamby says North Carolina wants more impact on presidential politics -- even if it means sanctions.

Remember, as a table setter, Iowa votes first, followed by New Hampshire and then South Carolina.

"North Carolina passed a statute last year that said they are going to go the week after South Carolina, one of the first four states in the Republican nominating process," said Hamby.

"So three days after these first four states, you could have a state with a lot of big media markets and a lot of voters right square in the middle of this nominating fight. And the people I've talked to in North Carolina, in the Republican Party there, say they do not care at all if the Republican National Committee penalizes them with delegates or whatever; they want the attention, they want to be square out front."

There is not much new here other than an apparent willingness within the North Carolina Republican Party to go for broke regardless of potential penalties the party may face for holding a primary so close to the presidential primary in South Carolina and before the first Tuesday in March. Of course, it will not ultimately be up to the North Carolina Republican Party to decide to maintain or change the date of the presidential primary.

That task is left up the Republican-controlled General Assembly.² We know there is some resistance to change in the legislature. North Carolina state Senator Andrew Brock, who tried for years to move the North Carolina presidential primary date up on the calendar, has spoken out in support of the go for broke stance the North Carolina GOP has. Yet, one of the three Republican National Committee members from the Tar Heel state --RNC committeeman David Lewis -- is a member of the North Carolina House. There is resistance to changing that date, but a natural in-road for the RNC to apply pressure if need be.

All of this leaves us with a series of questions that need answering.

1. How widespread is support for the South Carolina-tethered North Carolina presidential primary in the North Carolina General Assembly?
2. What are Republican National Committeeman David Lewis' thoughts on the matter? Has he pointed out that North Carolina Republicans would face an over 80% penalty on their national convention delegation in 2016 for holding a primary before March 1?
3. What do legislators who support the early primary say about that 80% penalty? Do they even know the RNC rules changed, increasing the penalty from 50% of the delegation (in 2012)?
4. How about the RNC? Have they weighed in on this situation? Have they attempted to reach out to their members in North Carolina about the ramifications of a likely February primary? 

Basically, we already know/knew North Carolina was in a provocative calendar position. We knew that in the summer of 2013. But what can we information can we add to that to fill out this picture? Answering the above questions would go a long way toward finding out where things really stand.

Thanks to Mystery Politico for passing this news along to FHQ.

--
¹ The North Carolina General Assembly passed an omnibus elections package in a special session during the summer of 2013, not last year as indicated in the CNN blurb.

² CNN's Peter Hamby does mention that the state legislature will discuss the matter of the presidential primary during its 2015 session in the video posted along with the outtake from above.

Recent Posts:
Michigan Senate Agrees to March 8 Presidential Primary Date

New Bill Would Seek to Clarify the Date of the 2016 Florida Presidential Primary

Rand Paul's 2016 Ballot Options in Kentucky

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Michigan Senate Agrees to March 8 Presidential Primary Date

The Michigan state Senate on Thursday, February 19 voted 37-1 to concur with the state House amendment facilitating a March 8 presidential primary.

Just a day ago, the Michigan state House amended and passed SB 44. The bill initially sought to push the presidential primary in the Wolverine state back from the fourth Tuesday in February to the third Tuesday in March. The House changed that to the second Tuesday in March.¹ That is a minor change that nonetheless still brings the Michigan primary back into compliance with the national party delegate selection rules.

The bill now heads to Governor Rick Snyder (R) for consideration. Assuming a signature is likely coming, this move would bring the Michigan primary to the same date on the 2016 presidential primary calendar as southern neighbor, Ohio. That may serve as a subregional primary and/or it may be attractive to other states in the region as well for a more all-encompassing regional primary. Alabama and Mississippi are likely to vacate March 8 in favor of the March 1 SEC primary. That leaves only the Republican caucuses in Hawaii to compete with Michigan and Ohio for attention. Idaho and Washington are also eyeing March 8 for possible primary destinations.

--

UPDATE (2/20/15): Governor signs bill (changes primary date to March 8, 2016)


--
¹ The change was made to avoid a conflict with voters'/taxpayers' ability to appeal property tax assessments; something that typically takes place during the week of March 15.

Recent Posts:
New Bill Would Seek to Clarify the Date of the 2016 Florida Presidential Primary

Rand Paul's 2016 Ballot Options in Kentucky

Michigan House Passes Amended Presidential Primary Bill

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

New Bill Would Seek to Clarify the Date of the 2016 Florida Presidential Primary

Is the Florida presidential primary on the move again?

Word out of the Sunshine state this morning is that something is up with the Florida primary. The legislature will not convene in Tallahassee to officially begin its new session until the beginning of March, but legislation is being pre-filed now. Among that group of pre-filed bills is a bill by Senate President Pro Tempore Garrett Richter (R-23rd, Collier, Lee) that would pull the Florida presidential primary out of the scheduling limbo in which the election is currently stuck.

Senator Richter's bill -- or at least the description of it -- would specify a third Tuesday in March date for the Florida primary. That seems designed to push the primary beyond the point in the RNC calendar that requires states have a proportional element to their delegate allocation plans. Any contest on or after March 15 falls out of the proportionality window and can thus allocate all of its apportioned national convention delegates to the winner of the primary (if the state so chooses).

But if the Republican Party of Florida wants to maintain a winner-take-all allocation plan for 2016, that would automatically slide the Florida primary back to March 15 under the current state law anyway. Again, the law as changed in 2013 requires that the Florida presidential primary be held on the first date that is not penalized by the rules of either national party.

A March 1 primary would avoid the timing penalties in both parties (super penalty for the RNC, 50% penalty for the DNC). The Republican Party of Florida, though, holds the key to all of this. The RNC also has a 50% penalty associated with a violation of their proportionality requirement for states with contests before March 15. If Florida Republicans opt for a plan with an element of proportionality, then the primary would be scheduled for March 1. However, if the state party opts to stay the course and keep the winner-take-all delegate allocation plan it used in  2008 and 2012, then the Florida primary would be on March 15.

The date this new bill in Florida is apparently seeking to specify to protect the Florida Republican Party's ability to hold a winner-take-all contest is superfluous. It specifies a date for the primary that the primary would already be scheduled on because of the winner-take-all allocation plan.

--
EDITOR'S NOTE: The final version of the RNC delegate selection rules had in it a 50% penalty for violations of the proportionality requirement. That was something that was missing from a previous iteration of the rules FHQ had access to. That subsequently affected discussions here and here about the applicability of the proportionality penalty and its impacts. Those posts have been edited to reflect this change.


Recent Posts:
Rand Paul's 2016 Ballot Options in Kentucky

Michigan House Passes Amended Presidential Primary Bill

Kansas Bill Would Once Again Cancel Presidential Primary

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Rand Paul's 2016 Ballot Options in Kentucky

It warms FHQ's heart every time there are attempts made to find a workaround for the ballot issues Rand Paul faces in Kentucky next year. Josh Voorhees from Slate is the latest to volunteer his assistance to Paul 2016 (both for president and Senate). The thing about these pieces when they periodically pop up is that they either way over-complicate matters or miss pretty obvious alternative routes for the junior senator from Kentucky to take in running for two offices in 2016.

There are two parts to this, primary and general election. And there are different issues attendant to working around the "name can't appear more than once on a ballot" problem that are specific to each phase.

Let's look at the primary phase first.

In a perfect world -- from the Paul camp's perspective -- the Kentucky state legislature would pass legislation to create a separate presidential primary and move that election up to an earlier point on the primary calendar. That way, the senator would not appear on the consolidated primary ballot twice. However, Democrats in the Bluegrass state weathered the 2014 storm and managed to hold the Kentucky state House. Additionally, majority Democrats in the House subsequently balked at the idea of creating and funding a separate presidential primary just to benefit Senator Paul's political ambitions.

Given that partisan stalemate, what options are available to a dual Paul candidacy in 2016?¹

The quickest, easiest fix is the one that Rand Paul was talking about on election night 2014. If the presidential primary cannot be separated from the other primaries, then Kentucky Republicans could simply shift the mode of delegate allocation from a primary to caucuses. That may be the best outcome for Senator Paul, but it may not be ideal to Kentucky Republicans who want to see the nomination process opened up to a broader Republican electorate.

Again, that's the easiest route, but let's assume that there are enough people against a primary-to-caucuses shift on the Kentucky Republican State Central Committee to block this move. All's lost, right? No. As Voorhees points out, Rand Paul could just sit the May Kentucky primary out and play the presidential nomination game in all the other states. He could, but that would be a rather strange, if not ridiculous, path to take. That strikes FHQ as a last, last resort, ranking after even the court challenges options.

Let's think about this for a second. It seems to FHQ that it was all the rage in late 2011, and my god, stretching into primary season in 2012, to devise some way for a Republican candidate not in the then in the race to enter, challenge the sure-to-falter/moderate Mitt Romney and win the nomination at the convention.² But some of those lessons apply here.

One thing that FHQ has not seen discussed in the context of this Paul/ballot problem is the possibility of a write-in campaign during the primary. Its absence from the discussion may be for good reason: Kentucky law prohibits it. No candidate who is on the ballot elsewhere is eligible to be a write-in candidate.³ Voters can write the name "Rand Paul" in on the ballot in droves, but those votes would not be counted because Paul would not be eligible (having already appeared on the ballot as a senate candidate).

The other viable option -- if we're still assuming there is a consolidated May primary in Kentucky -- is to use the uncommitted option. If the race is still competitive in mid-May and Rand Paul remains one of the viable alternatives, then his campaign could urge supporters to vote the uncommitted line included on the Kentucky ballot -- the presidential preference portion of it anyway -- by law.⁴ This is not a foolproof fix -- there could be other uncommitted delegates not aligned with Paul -- but one would imagine that the Paul campaign could organize this and have its potential delegates file as uncommitted rather than for Paul. They would not be bound on the first ballot at the convention, but that is not likely to matter anyway (see footnote 4).

This seems far superior and more effective than sitting the Kentucky primary out. And such a move is not without precedent. The Obama campaign urged its supporters in Michigan to vote for "uncommitted" in 2008. The then-Senator Obama had his name removed from the Michigan ballot when it was clear that the Wolverine state would hold a non-compliant presidential primary in mid-January 2008.

--
As for the general election, that is a tougher nut to crack.

The write-in option is still a no-go here, there is no uncommitted option on the general election ballot, and skipping a state is not really all that workable in a fall presidential race. But game planning for the general election before the nomination is wrapped up is a bit of a double-edged sword in Rand Paul's case. To some extent it is counting your chickens before they hatch, but this ballot issue is something he would face in the primaries and the general election. There is just an easier fix in the primary phase that will not necessarily help with the general election part of the problem.

Not that these laws are enforced anyway, but Kentucky is one of the states that does not levy penalties against would-be "faithless electors". If Paul manages to get the Republican nomination there are some potential avenues opened to his campaign on that front.

If we're after a workaround for Rand Paul, though, that is much easier in the Kentucky primary. Well, it is doable in the primary. The general election is a different matter.

--
UPDATE (2/24/15): US Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell supports the effort to shift the Kentucky presidential nominating method from a May primary to March caucuses. That would seemingly add some heft to the idea ahead of the Kentucky Republican Party Central Committee meeting on March 7.

--
¹ FHQ will only focus on the options that do not go through the courts. Due to the time it would take to adjudicate a conflict between Paul and the Kentucky secretary of state's office, that is a channel of last resort for Paul. There are other more viable options available to the senator anyway.

² Of course, no one else entered the Republican nomination race and Romney won the nomination.

³ This is relevant to the general election as well.

⁴ Those are big ifs. FHQ realizes talk of a brokered deadlocked convention is quite popular with such a wide open Republican race, but the invisible primary will winnow the field and with more than 30 primaries and caucuses potentially slated for the month of March, the 2016 Republican nomination race is likely to be over sooner rather than later. That more than likely means the nomination race will come to its conclusion before a May Kentucky primary.


Recent Posts:
Michigan House Passes Amended Presidential Primary Bill

Kansas Bill Would Once Again Cancel Presidential Primary

Arkansas Bid to Join SEC Primary Is In

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Michigan House Passes Amended Presidential Primary Bill

The Michigan state House on Wednesday, February 18 amended and passed the state Senate bill to reschedule the Wolverine state presidential primary.

By a 72-38 margin, the Michigan state House passed an amended version SB 44. The Senate passed the bill calling for a third Tuesday in March presidential primary date last week, but the House moved that date up a week to the second Tuesday in March. It is a minor change, but perhaps one that  is indicative of a compromise of sorts between the Michigan Senate and House. Both versions of the bill -- both dates (March 8 and March 15) -- are compliant with both national parties' delegate selection rules and the March 8 date does not conflict with voters/taxpayers ability to appeal property tax assessments; something that typically takes place during the week of March 15.

The March 8 date also allows Michigan to go as early as possible without potentially being overshadowed by the southern regional primary that appears to be forming the week before on March 1. And while a possible Big Ten primary would not occur with Illinois and Missouri on March 15, the idea is not dead as Ohio is currently scheduled to conduct its presidential primary on March 8.¹

Also, as FHQ mentioned when this bill passed the state Senate, the current Michigan Republican Party delegate allocation plan is compliant under the Republican National Committee rules on either March 8 or March 15. The contest would be conditionally winner-take-all if a candidate were to receive a majority of the primary vote. Absent that outcome, though, the allocation would be winner-take-all by congressional district with the statewide, at-large delegates allocated proportionally. This meets the RNC requirements for the pre-March 15 proportionality window (when states are required to have an element of proportional allocation in their plans).

March 8 might be a compromise between the two Michigan legislative chambers, but time will tell the tale there. The bill now heads back to the Senate in its amended form for further consideration.

--
UPDATE (2/19/15): Senate concurs with House changes
UPDATE (2/20/15): Governor signs bill (changes primary date to March 8, 2016)

--
¹ March 8 is a date that Alabama and Mississippi are currently slated to hold presidential primaries but have been linked to the SEC primary proposed for the week before March 8.


Recent Posts:
Kansas Bill Would Once Again Cancel Presidential Primary

Arkansas Bid to Join SEC Primary Is In

Return to a February Wisconsin Presidential Primary?

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Kansas Bill Would Once Again Cancel Presidential Primary

Legislation introduced on Tuesday, February 17 in the Kansas state Senate would cancel the presidential primary in the Sunflower state for the sixth consecutive cycle.

Kansas held a presidential primary last in 1992, but the state government has not appropriated funds for the election in any of the election years since. The practice, if the 2011 action by the state legislature is a guide, is to revise the presidential primary filing deadline and election date back four years on the calendar. That is true in the case of SB 239 as well.

The change is obviously a cost-savings move, but it is also reflective of an extension of what has become a customary practice in Kansas.

--
UPDATE (2/25/15): Committee hearing on bill
UPDATE (3/5/15): Identical House bill introduced


Recent Posts:
Arkansas Bid to Join SEC Primary Is In

Return to a February Wisconsin Presidential Primary?

More on Minnesota March 1 Caucuses Move

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Arkansas Bid to Join SEC Primary Is In

Legislation was filed in the Arkansas state Senate on Tuesday, February 17 to create a separate presidential primary election and schedule it for the first Tuesday in March.

State Senator Gary Stubblefield (R-6th, Branch) introduced SB 389 which would for a third time establish a separate presidential primary in the Natural state. For most of the post-reform era, Arkansas has held its regular primary -- which included a vote for presidential preference -- on the next to last Tuesday in May. However, before the 1988 cycle and the 2008 cycle, legislators in Arkansas created and funded a separate presidential primary in order to have an earlier election in the state to decide the allocation of delegates to the national conventions. In both cases, Arkansas was either overshadowed by larger neighbors (1988) or ignored because candidates with Arkansas ties (Clinton and Huckabee) were seeking the presidential nominations of their respective parties (2008). And in both cases, legislators quickly reversed course and consolidated the presidential primary with the May primaries for other offices.

Now, as in the lead up to 1988, Arkansas is once again attempting to join forces with its southern neighbors to affect the next (2016) presidential nominations process and hoping the third time is the charm. But getting there may not be as easy as it is in other southern states seeking to join the SEC primary on March 1. Unlike Alabama (that reestablished a consolidated primary but broke from tradition by placing it in March and not June in 2011) or Mississippi (which established and maintained consolidated primaries in March years ago), Arkansas has to justify the creation and funding of a separate presidential primary election in March. That fact is not necessarily prohibitive, but it adds a layer of complexity to the Arkansas decision-making calculus that does not exist in other states across the South.

There is no price tag specified in the bill, but the state will pick up the tab through the State Board of Elections. As of now the Board appropriations legislation does not include a substantial increase for fiscal years 2015-2016 than it did two years ago for 2013-2014. The separate presidential primary was estimated to have cost Arkansas $1.7 million in 2008.

The one thing that is different now as compared to the past in Arkansas is that the Republican Party is in unified control of the state government. The possibility of a competitive if not wide open Republican nomination race may make that partisan control more relevant in this case.

Recent Posts:
Return to a February Wisconsin Presidential Primary?

More on Minnesota March 1 Caucuses Move

Second Bill to Reestablish Presidential Primary Emerges in Idaho

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Return to a February Wisconsin Presidential Primary?

Wisconsin state Senator Tim Carpenter (D-3rd, Milwaukee) put out a press release today announcing his intention to introduce legislation to move the presidential primary in Badger state into February.¹

FHQ has felt like some legislation out of Wisconsin was inevitable, but this was not really what was expected. The Republican-controlled legislature moved the Wisconsin primary from the third Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in April in 2011. That move was made to bring Wisconsin into compliance with the 2012 national party delegate selection rules, but also to allow the Wisconsin Republican Party to maintain its traditional winner-take-all method of allocation. Under the slightly tweaked 2016 rules, a state can hold a primary or caucuses with winner-take-all rules as early as the third Tuesday in March (March 15 during the 2016 cycle). March 15 also happens to be a date that Michigan is eyeing and on which Illinois and Missouri are already scheduled. In other words, March 15 would be an attractive landing spot for Wisconsin (Republicans) because of the winner-take-all element and the fact that some regional neighbors may end up there as well.

But that is not what Sen. Carpenter is proposing in his to-be-introduced legislation. Basically, Carpenter's bill would reverse the change made to the primary date in 2011. It would move the presidential primary from the "spring election" date on the first Tuesday in April to the "spring primary" date on the third Tuesday in February.² Such a shift, however, would put Wisconsin out of compliance with the national party rules and cost both parties a significant portion of their national convention delegations.

The penalties aspect of this potential move was not mentioned in the press release from the senator's office. That would very likely affect candidate/campaign behavior toward Wisconsin, negatively affecting the ability of the contest to influence the process. Also not discussed was the fact that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is quite likely to seek the Republican nomination and that former Secretary Hillary Clinton is unlikely to see more than token opposition for the Democratic nomination. A favorite son running for the Republican nomination is likely to tamp down on the amount of attention the other candidates would pay the state as would an uncompetitive Democratic race. And lest we forget, former Wisconsin Republican Party chair and current Republican National Committee chair, Reince Priebus, is not likely going to be supportive of such a move. The Republican-controlled legislature may alter the date of the Wisconsin presidential primary, but it is not likely to push a bill from a Democratic state legislator that would only draw the ire, if not pressure, from the Republican National Committee.

--
¹ Here is the press release from Sen. Carpenter's office:

“Moving up the primary election date will give our state greater influence in selecting our presidential nominees.”Madison – Today State Senator Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee) announced that he will be introducing a bill to move up the date of Wisconsin’s presidential primary election to the third Tuesday of February.  

“In the last presidential election, Wisconsin’s increasing influence in the general election as a ‘swing state’ was evidenced by the many visits to our state by the candidates and national figures. I believe that our state should also have proportionate influence in the primary nominating process,” said Carpenter.

The current presidential primary date is the first Tuesday in April, by which time it is likely that the presidential nominees may have already been decided.

“The earlier the primary is held, the more influence it has on nominating the candidate. As there is not an incumbent president running in 2016, I believe that now is the time to implement this change in this election date,” said Carpenter.

The election date under this bill in 2016 would be Tuesday, February 16, 2016. This is after the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary, but before South Carolina’s primary on February 27, 2016.

Wisconsin has previously held its presidential primary elections in February in both 2004 and 2008.

² Wisconsin election law refers to both a spring primary and a spring election and defines them as taking place on the dates described above.

Recent Posts:
More on Minnesota March 1 Caucuses Move

Second Bill to Reestablish Presidential Primary Emerges in Idaho

Washington Legislation Would Move Presidential Primary to March

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

More on Minnesota March 1 Caucuses Move

As FHQ detailed this past Sunday, the two parties in Minnesota jointly agreed last week to hold precinct caucuses -- starting the delegate selection process -- on March 1, 2016.

One thing that becomes clear in the letter from the two party chairmen -- Keith Downey (R) and Ken Martin (DFL) -- and their subsequent comments on the move is that the national party rules and their attendant penalties were a part of the decision-making calculus.

Minnesota Precinct Caucuses Move (March 1)

The letter specifies that the agreement was reached "to meet the requirements for the 2016 Presidential nominating process set forth by both the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee."

Minnesota Republican Party chair, Keith Downey, added in interviews later:

"This new date respects the traditional early-primary states’ status, and positions Minnesota’s caucuses to be part of a potential newly emerging March 1st group of states. We hope it will increase Minnesota’s stature in the Presidential nominating process for both our parties next year, which all-around is good for Minnesota voters."

...and...

"The March 1st date allows us to meet the respective presidential nominating calendars of each party, and we believe it will make Minnesota more relevant in the process."

All told, compliance with the national party rules was a meaningful layer added to the decision, but that was balanced with a desire to make the caucuses relevant (on an early enough date). The problem is that if March 1 maintains and enhances its current southern flavor, then Minnesota could be hard-pressed to find any attention from candidates otherwise drawn to a geographically concentrated grouping of contests. But notice that Chairman Downey said "relevance" and did not mention that Minnesota was chasing the attention or financial benefits motivating potential moves in states like Vermont or New Mexico.

This is a balancing act being witness elsewhere across the country as well. The Michigan Senate has passed a bill that would move the primary in the Wolverine state back to March 15, but on the House side, some are wondering whether that will be too late for the Michigan primary to matter. That speaks to the fact that decisions are being made at the state-level on the dates of these nominating contests, but that that process takes place in an environment of uncertainty. One state does not know what another state or group of states will do necessarily. Michigan might gamble that March 15 will be a competitive date on the calendar (and not after the point at which one candidate has developed a healthy lead) that will bring candidates into the state, but Minnesota seems to be making the "safer" move. They may not get the attention of other March 1 contests, but that date is more likely to keep Minnesota caucusgoers in a position to vote while the nomination is or appears to be undecided.


Recent Posts:
Second Bill to Reestablish Presidential Primary Emerges in Idaho

Washington Legislation Would Move Presidential Primary to March

Minnesota Parties Jointly Agree on Compliant March 1 Caucuses

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.