Is the Florida Republican Presidential Primary Winner-Take-All?

UPDATE (5/16/15): The answer seems to be yes, but we're still waiting on the language of the rules change from the Republican Party of Florida.

That all depends.

By all accounts, there is momentum in Florida to facilitate the conditions under which a winner-take-all presidential primary can take place in 2016. The Republican Party of Florida chair likes the idea of a winner-take-all method of delegate allocation. The Republican-controlled state legislature in the Sunshine state is moving to create some long-absent certainty with the primary date. That -- setting the primary date specifically for March 15 -- would allow Florida Republicans to allocate the 99 delegates apportioned them in a winner-take-all fashion under the Republican National Committee rules governing the 2016 presidential nomination process.

But will Florida Republicans allocate all 99 delegates to the winner of the 2016 presidential primary?

That remains to be seen. And it would actually require a rules change on the state party level in order to make that happen. The delegate allocation plans used in both 2008 and 2012 were only truly winner-take-all in the event that the Republican Party of Florida was penalized by the RNC.¹ The non-compliant January primary triggered that state party provision in 2008 and history repeated itself four years later in 2012 when Florida again defied the RNC rules and held a January primary.²

Under the rules used in 2012, Florida Republicans would not allocate all of their delegates to the winner of the presidential primary. Instead the allocation would be a bit more complicated.

To fully explain this, we need to look at how delegates are apportioned to the each of the states from the Republican National Committee.³ The formula used by the RNC gives three (3) delegates for each congressional district in a state and ten (10) at-large delegates.⁴ Additionally, states receive bonus delegates for a recent history of voting with the Republican Party. This provides a greater voice to loyally Republican states at least as compared to states that are either more competitive between the two major parties or are more Democratic. A good illustration of this is that in 2012 a more populous yet more competitive state like Ohio had fewer total delegates than a slightly less populous yet more Republican state like Georgia. Those bonus delegates are tacked onto the at-large total.

The important factor to note here is that there is a distinction between at-large and congressional district delegates.

Of the states that have delegate allocation plans somewhere on the spectrum between truly winner-take-all rules and truly proportional rules, a number tend to allocate the three congressional district delegates to the winner of the congressional district and then allocate the at-large delegates either proportionally or winner-take-all based on the statewide vote.⁵ Those states, then, draw that distinction between congressional district and at-large delegates in their allocation plans as derived from the RNC apportionment.

Importantly, Florida has not followed that pattern in the last two presidential election cycles. And that would have been true with or without the sanctions from the RNC. With the penalties, the Florida delegate selection rules called for a winner-take-all allocation of the full delegation to the winner of the statewide primary. All of those delegates were considered at-large.

But let's assume for a moment for the sake of this exercise that Florida was not penalized in 2008 or 2012. The truly winner-take-all provision would not have been triggered and the Florida delegate allocation would have looked different. Neither McCain nor Romney would have won the full (yet reduced due to penalty) delegation. Yet, the allocation in Florida would not have resembled RNC apportionment-derived type of allocation described above.

Instead, Florida would have used a different formula. Assuming no penalties from the RNC, Florida Republicans would have considered one-third of its total allotment of delegates to have been at-large. The remaining two-thirds would have been deemed congressional district delegates.

That is all different from the RNC apportionment-derived method used in most other states. To illustrate, consider this: Florida will have 99 delegates for the 2016 cycle. If Florida was like other states, Republicans there would be apportioned 81 congressional district delegates (3 delegates per each of 27 congressional districts) by the RNC and the remaining 18 would be at-large delegates. Most states using a winner-take-all by congressional district method would treat the congressional district-apportioned delegates as congressional district delegates. In other words, if a candidate wins the district, then the the winning candidate is awarded three delegates.

Florida Republicans do not sync their congressional district-apportioned delegates with the allocation of what they call congressional district delegates.

Under the one-third/two-thirds method Florida Republicans would have used in the even they were not sanctioned in 2008 or 2012, the ratio of congressional district delegates to at-large delegates would be different. As an example, let's use the same 99 delegate total from above.

• One third of that total comprises the at-large pool of delegates. 33 at-large delegates.
• The remaining two-thirds are congressional district delegates. 66 congressional district delegates.
• However, 66 congressional district delegates are not able to be evenly distributed across 27 congressional districts. The rounding down mentioned above matter less in the aggregate total than it does at this point in the calculation. 66/27 = 2.44 delegates per congressional district. That number is rounded down and the remainder is added to the at-large pool of delegates. 
• So, that essentially equates to two (2) delegates per each of the 27 congressional district in Florida. (2.44-0.44)*27 = 54 congressional district delegates.
• That remainder is then added to the at-large pool. 33 original at-large delegates + (0.44 rounded/fractional delegates*27 congressional districts) = 45 at-large delegates.
• That means Florida ends up not with a 2:1 congressional district to at-large delegates ratio, but a 6:5 ratio. 

The intent in all of this is not to add mathematical confusion to the delegate allocation equation. Rather, the idea is to redistribute the impact of the vote in the Florida primary. It places more emphasis on winning the statewide vote than on the 27 elections across the congressional districts. That is a lot closer to a truly winner-take-all allocation than if each of the congressional district delegates made up 81 of 99 total delegates. But it still is not a truly winner-take-all allocation. There can be variation in the winners across each of those congressional districts. And that, in turn, means that one candidate will not necessarily win the full delegation.

--
Will Florida Republicans' allocation look like the above in 2016 or will it be a truly winner-take-all contest as it was in 2008 and 2012? To be the latter, the Republican Party of Florida will have to make a change to its delegate selection/allocation rules. Media outlet after media outlet is reporting that Florida is attempting to solidify the March 15 date for the presidential primary as a means of assuring a winner-take-all plan. A true winner-take-all plan.

But FHQ is not entirely sure that is what Florida will end up with in 2016.

If one reads the fine print in the Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement for SB 7036 -- the bill to set March 15 as the Florida presidential primary date -- one will see that Rule 10 was revised in January 2014. What that revision entails is unknown.⁶ Does it mean a truly winner-take-all allocation for Florida Republicans?

FHQ would argue no.

The current Florida statute regarding the parameters of the presidential primary also state the following:

Any party rule directing the vote of delegates at a national nominating convention shall reasonably reflect the results of the presidential preference primary, if one is held.

Yes, that is somewhat ambiguous. But "reasonably reflect the results" is being interpreted in Florida as a mandate for some form of proportionality. But perhaps it would be better to say that the mandate is against a true winner-take-all allocation method. The net result is not going to be anything approaching a proportionate allocation based on the results of the primary. What is does is open the door to multiple candidates receiving delegates from the Florida primary. But winning any delegates would be dependent upon winning the vote in a congressional district.

At this point, FHQ is skeptical that Florida will award all 99 delegates to one candidate in the 2016 Republican presidential nomination race. That skepticism is driven by 1) the entire discussion above and 2) the uncertainty with regard to the changes the Republican Party of Florida made to Rule 10 in January 2014.

Even with those changes, though, it looks as if Florida Republicans are not all the way to the winner-take-all end of the proportional to winner-take-all delegate allocation spectrum. The plan seems to be pretty close, but not truly winner-take-all. That not only breaks from the allocation in 2008 and 2012, but subtly breaks from the conventional wisdom about Florida Republican delegate allocation.

--
¹ Rule 10.M of the Republican Party of Florida, Party Rules of Procedure grants:

In the event that the Republican National Convention refuses to seat the full allotment of Florida delegates, all remaining delegates shall be Delegates at Large and shall be selected by the Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida from the original delegation.

And due to the fact that Rule 10.B calls for all at-large delegates to be allocated to the winner of the statewide vote, Florida's penalized total of delegates in 2008 and 2012 were allocated to the statewide winner of the primary.

² Interestingly, the decision by the state legislature-created Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee to schedule a January primary brought on a 50% penalty from the RNC which in turn triggered a truly winner-take-all allocation method that also broke with Republican National Committee delegate selection rules. That, too, should have cost Florida Republicans 50% of their delegates. However, the 50% penalty could only be levied once under RNC rules. Sequentially, it was primary date that first prompted the RNC penalty.

³ See Rule 14 of the Rules of the Republican Party.

⁴ Those ten base, at-large delegates are based on the number of US senators a state has. Each state has two and each senate slot receives five (5) delegates. In this way, both across congressional district  and at-large delegates, the Republican National Committee apportionment is intended to mimic representation in the US Congress.

⁵ See Maryland and Ohio for examples of this in 2012.

⁶ One of the great tragedies of studying elections is the variation in standards across states, whether state government or state party information. Some states are more willing to share than others. Some states post everything online for voters and party members to access. Others do not. The Republican Party of Florida fits in the second category. The rules of the party are nowhere to be found. ...on their web page. County party websites work occasionally, but the state party is less than forthcoming with rules information.

Recent Posts:
Virginia Republicans Considering Switching from Presidential Primary to Convention?

Minnesota Legislation Would Create Presidential Primary

Florida Bill to Clarify Presidential Primary Date Filed

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

Virginia Republicans Considering Switching from Presidential Primary to Convention?

Are Virginia Republicans contemplating replacing the presidential primary the state has funded since the 2000 presidential election cycle with a state convention that would select and allocate national convention delegates?

Paul Schwartzman at the Washington Post has the story.

--
FHQ is with Michael McDonald on this one. Schwartzman's piece is more about recent Virginia Republican Party infighting than about an actual change from a primary to a state convention.

The closest the story gets to the supposed switch is this:

The divide within Virginia’s GOP burst into the open in 2012, when then-Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, a conservative favored by business, fought for control of the party’s governing board with then-Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II, whose social views were a magnet for tea party loyalists. 

Cuccinelli’s allies won and changed the process for choosing nominees from a state-sponsored primary open to all registered voters including Democrats, to a convention, which invites only Republicans and typically attracts activists with more hard-line views.  

That debate probably will occur again as the state party considers whether to host a state-run Republican presidential primary or choose the candidate at a convention. A primary, strategists say, would favor an establishment candidate such as former Florida governor Jeb Bush. A convention would be advantageous to a candidate such as Paul, who has a strong following among conservative activists. [Emphasis FHQ's.]

Is this a possibility? Sure, anything is possible, but no one that supports such a move within the Virginia Republican Party was consulted for this story. That is a pretty big missing piece from the puzzle.

Recent Posts:
Minnesota Legislation Would Create Presidential Primary

Florida Bill to Clarify Presidential Primary Date Filed

Maryland Senate Committee Green Lights Minor Presidential Primary Move

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

Minnesota Legislation Would Create Presidential Primary

There has been a great deal of talk lately about end of February deadlines. Funding the Department of Homeland Security was not the only that required action by the end of the month. Just two weeks ago, the state parties in Minnesota, as called for by state law, agreed to a March 1 date for presidential caucuses in 2016. The state parties did with two weeks to spare what they neglected to do four years: set a date for the caucuses. Without that agreement, the caucuses are automatically scheduled for the first Tuesday in February, a date non-compliant with the national party delegate selection rules.

Whereas Minnesota was non-compliant in 2012, the 2015 agreement on a March 1 date for the 2016 precinct caucuses keeps the North Star state from crossing the national parties. Everything is settled then, right?

Minnesota may still hold March 1 caucuses next year, but new legislation could potentially alter those plans. A trio of Republican lawmakers has introduced a bill in the Minnesota state Senate -- SF 1205 -- to create a presidential primary in the Gopher state and consolidate it with the primaries for state and local offices (scheduled now for August) on the last Tuesday in March.¹

--
A few notes on this one:

1. This is just the most recent attempt in Minnesota to switch from a caucuses/convention system to primaries. Similar attempts failed most recently in 2008 and 2009. 
2. Creating a presidential primary for 2016 would be the first presidential primary in Minnesota since 1992. Democrats continued to use the caucuses format that year (though there was a beauty contest primary that Bill Clinton won), but Republicans used the primary for binding/allocating delegates. They were selected/chosen in the caucuses/convention process.  
3. The Minnesota legislature is currently divided. Democrats control the state Senate and Republicans hold a majority in the state House. This primary bill has been proposed by minority party Republicans in the upper chamber. Unlike past years -- see 2008 and 2009 links above -- when there have been similar bills introduced, they came in pairs; one in each chamber. This effort to create a presidential primary was filed with no companion in the state House. Again, Republicans control the House. If this was a move with broad-based support among Republican legislators, one would expect to see a House bill too. For now, there is no such bill. 
4. Democrats have been quiet on the proposal and the chair of the Minnesota Republican Party is not a fan. 
5. The last Tuesday in March -- March 29, 2016 -- is wide open now. There are no other states with nomination elections on that date. But are legislators and others in the parties in Minnesota willing to trade in March 1 caucuses for a primary four weeks later? The state parties in announcing the March 1 caucuses agreement expressed a desire to provide caucusgoers in Minnesota with a voice in the nomination process. The deeper the race gets into primary season, much less just March -- the more likely it is that some candidate will have clinched the nomination or forced the other viable competitors out of the race. 
6. It is not altogether clear that the parties would participate in the presidential primary election even if it is created. Nothing in the primary bill includes anything directly affecting the law regarding the caucuses process.

--
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for sharing this news with FHQ.


--
UPDATE (3/11/15): House companion bill (identical to Senate version) introduced


--
¹ The group that originally proposed the legislation has subsequently been joined by two other Republican senators.

Recent Posts:
Florida Bill to Clarify Presidential Primary Date Filed

Maryland Senate Committee Green Lights Minor Presidential Primary Move

Winner-Take-All Presidential Primary Has Support of Florida Republican Party Chair

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

Florida Bill to Clarify Presidential Primary Date Filed

Legislation has been filed in the Florida state Senate to schedule the presidential preference primary in the Sunshine state for the date that it would be scheduled on under current law anyway.

Sure, SB 7036, is probably unnecessary, but it is good legislation. It takes a more-confusing-than-necessary statute and simplifies it. As FHQ has said recently, the combination of the national party rules and Florida state law means that the decision on where the primary is on the 2016 presidential primary calendar hinges on the delegate allocation plan on which the Republican Party of Florida (RPOF) settles. Let's look at the language of that state law and I'll explain why. Current state law regarding scheduling of the Florida presidential primary reads as follows:

The presidential preference primary shall be held in each year the number of which is a multiple of 4 on the first Tuesday that the rules of the major political parties provide for state delegations to be allocated without penalty.

The first step in this is the national party penalties. Both the RNC and DNC prohibit non-carve-out states -- states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- from conducting delegate selection events before the first Tuesday in March. The RNC knocks medium and large states down to 12 delegates for violating that rule; the so-called super penalty. The DNC levies a 50% penalty for states breaking the rules on the timing of primaries and caucuses.

That combination would seem to indicate that "first Tuesday that the rules of the major political parties provide for state delegations to be allocated without penalty" is March 1 for the 2016 cycle. However, the Republican National Committee layers in an additional penalty for states that defy the proportionality requirement affecting states with contests prior to March 15. States that fail adopt delegate allocation plans compliant with the RNC definition of proportional are docked 50% of their national convention delegates.

The second RNC penalty in essence shifts the date-setting decision to the RPOF. Given that the party has allocated its full allotment of delegates to the winners of the last two primaries and maintained a winner-take-all by congressional district allocation plan in presidential election cycles before that, it would appear that the actual "first Tuesday that the rules of the major political parties provide for state delegations to be allocated without penalty" is March 15.

In fact, the chair of the party has signaled that the RPOF intends to keep the winner-take-all plan for 2016. That really pretty much settles the matter. If the party continues its recent practice of allocating its national convention delegates in a winner-take-all fashion, then the Florida presidential primary is scheduled for March 15.

But along comes SB 7036. The legislation would eliminate the "first Tuesday that the rules of the major political parties provide for state delegations to be allocated without penalty" language and replace it with the far simpler "third Tuesday in March".

This is good legislation for a couple of reasons. First, it simplifies an overly and unnecessarily complex passage in the presidential preference primary statute. The intent in the 2013 law change was to make the Florida primary a bit more mobile. It made the primary scheduling contingent upon the national parties' rules/penalties. That was meant to account for whatever changes the RNC and DNC made to their rules and penalties in 2014, and keep the Florida primary at as early a calendar spot as possible. The national party rules were finalized in the summer of 2014 and the RPOF seems to be leaning toward a return to winner-take-all rules. Again, that seems to settle the primary scheduling matter. Why, then, is a change necessary?

Well, that brings us to the second reason this is good legislating out of the Sunshine state. Even though the national and state party rules are set and the Florida primary is seemingly set for March 15, there is still the matter of the October 1 deadline the RNC has for finalizing state delegate allocation plans. The RPOF could still change the method of allocation.¹ This bill, if passed and signed into law, removes all doubt. That new law would add the sort of certainty to the scheduling of the Florida primary that has been lacking since the 2004 cycle (or at least since the 2007 date change).

Think about that for a bit. The Florida presidential primary has been a scheduling roller coaster for two consecutive cycles now. That isn't news, but state legislative changes to the primary law fueled an air of uncertainty around Florida in both 2008 and 2012. When the legislature in 2007 moved the Florida primary to the last Tuesday in January for 2008, it set in motion a messy chain of events. First, the DNC stripped Florida of all of its delegates to the national convention. That was followed by a Republican-controlled state government in Tallahassee not budging from its position; unfazed neither by increased DNC penalties that matter little to Republicans nor the 50% penalty the RNC levied. But all the while there were questions about whether the Florida primary would move or if the state parties would be forced to hold caucuses instead. Those questions remained until the January 29 Florida primary and even lingered afterwards.

During the 2012 cycle, things were different. The Florida legislature again changed the primary law, but did not set a date. Instead, the legislature ceded the date-setting decision to a committee made up of members chosen by the governor and the leadership in the state legislature. No, the primary was no longer set for the last Tuesday in January, but the formation of the committee had the effect of dragging out the decision on when the Florida primary would be until the fall of 2011. The benefits were clear. The committee was better able to get a lay of the primary calendar land in September than the state legislature would have been in a legislative session that would have ended in May. Florida gained flexibility in that move, but the overall process and formation of the 2012 presidential primary calendar -- the front end of it especially -- again had uncertainty hovering over it. The committee ultimately chose the date that the statute had called for before the law creating the date-setting committee was created, the last Tuesday in January.

Removing the now-unnecessary language from the current law and replacing it was a specific date removes all uncertainty from the equation. There would be no "wait on Florida Republicans to officially set their rules to determine the primary date" questions dogging the process from now until summer.

So, yeah. This legislation is as unnecessary as the creation of the Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee turned out to be in 2011. But it has the opposite effect. It creates certainty rather than fueling a summer of uncertainty about what damage Florida might do to the intended primary calendar.²

NOTE: There is apparently similar legislation on the House side that will be considered next week.

--
UPDATE (3/2/15): House committee proposal passes committee
UPDATE (3/3/15): Senate bill passes committee

--
¹ The Republican Party of Florida does not seem inclined to make a change to its delegate allocation plan.

² The current law would pose no Florida danger since the it prevents the Florida primary from being scheduled on a date that would incur a penalty.

Recent Posts:
Maryland Senate Committee Green Lights Minor Presidential Primary Move

Winner-Take-All Presidential Primary Has Support of Florida Republican Party Chair

Idaho Presidential Primary Bill Pushes Through Split Committee

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

Maryland Senate Committee Green Lights Minor Presidential Primary Move

The Maryland state Senate Committee on Education, Health and Environmental Affairs on Tuesday, February 24 passed the bill to shift the presidential primary in the Old Line state back a week on the 2016 presidential primary calendar.

SB 204 would move the Maryland primary from the first Tuesday in April to the second Tuesday in April. The bill was unanimously and favorably passed by the committee. The rationale behind the move, as confirmed in the committee hearing on the bill, was to prevent conflicts between early voting in the presidential primary and the Easter holiday in 2016.

One week moves of this sort are fairly rare. Idaho moved its primary up a week for 2012 before it eliminated the contest. A couple of states, Maryland and Georgia, took advantage of a change in Democratic National Committee rules during the 1992 cycle. The DNC moved the earliest date states were allowed to hold primaries and caucuses up a week from the second Tuesday in March in 1988 to the first Tuesday in March in 1992.

But again, this tends to be the exception rather than the rule to primary movement.

--
UPDATE (3/3/15): Senate bill amended on floor
UPDATE (3/5/15): Bill passes state Senate
UPDATE (3/15/15): House bill clears committee

Recent Posts:
Winner-Take-All Presidential Primary Has Support of Florida Republican Party Chair

Idaho Presidential Primary Bill Pushes Through Split Committee

Kansas Committee Divided Over Whether to Cancel 2016 Presidential Primary

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

Winner-Take-All Presidential Primary Has Support of Florida Republican Party Chair

Patricia Mazzei at the Miami Herald's Naked Politics blog:

State Rep. Blaise Ingoglia, the new chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, paid a visit this week to the Miami Young Republicans to rally their support and answer their questions about the party's future.  

One of them was whether the GOP would support legislation filed in Tallahassee setting next year's presidential primary for March 15, the earliest possible date in which all of the state's nominating delegates would be awarded to a single candidate, rather than distributed proportionally.

--
Perhaps only the Rubio and Rubio-align folks that pushed the 2013 legislation in the Florida state legislature understood what the bill was doing to the scheduling of the 2016 presidential primary in the Sunshine state. It does not seem as if others in the state get it.

The way the current Florida law reads regarding the presidential primary scheduling is that the Florida primary will be scheduled for the earliest date that does not mean penalties on Florida from either/both national parties. Since the RNC has a proportionality requirement for all states with contests prior to March 15 and a 50% delegate reduction for states that violate that rule that puts the decision-making power on the date of the primary squarely on the Florida Republican Party.

If the Republican Party Florida sticks with its winner-take-all allocation plan, then the Florida presidential primary will be scheduled for March 15.

...automatically.

That does not require action by the state legislature.¹ But those in the legislature pushing additional legislation on the matter and apparently the Republican Party of Florida chair do not yet realize this. The signal, though, is that Florida Republicans intend to maintain a winner-take-all allocation plan for 2016.

--
¹ And contrary to the outtake from Mazzei above, there has been no legislation filed in Florida regarding the primary as of now. There was talk last week of that possibility, but nothing has been filed.

Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2015/02/florida-gop-chairman-backs-winner-take-all-primary.html#storylink=cpy

Recent Posts:
Idaho Presidential Primary Bill Pushes Through Split Committee

Kansas Committee Divided Over Whether to Cancel 2016 Presidential Primary

Why North Carolina is the Biggest Threat to the 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

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

Idaho Presidential Primary Bill Pushes Through Split Committee

Odd battle lines formed in the Idaho state Senate State Affairs Committee during a hearing to discuss legislation to reestablish a presidential primary election in the Gem state on Thursday, February 25.

Democrats joined some Republicans against the bill supported by state Senate Republican leadership sitting on the State Affairs Committee. At issue in the hearing for SB 1066 was the cost to taxpayers to fund the reestablished and separate presidential primary that would be scheduled for the second Tuesday in March. The estimated $2 million price tag was too much for what was viewed by Democrats and Republicans on the committee against the bill as a party function. Betsy Z. Russell at the Idaho Spokesman-Review captured that sentiment from the hearing:

Sen. Michelle Stennett, D-Ketchum, said, “The discussion we had today mostly spoke about one party. And I really think that $2 million from the general fund for a political practice is inappropriate, and I won’t be supporting this bill.”

Sen. Jeff Siddoway, R-Terreton thought the money could be spent better elsewhere:

“We could get you better teachers if we had $2 million more a year to put in that budget than what we’re about to do here. Think about that.”

Yet, both the state Senate majority leader and assistant majority leader -- who both sit on the committee -- spoke in favor of the bill. Senate Majority Leader Bart Davis, R-Idaho Falls, said in favor of the bill:

“But in this moment, I want to … provide an opportunity for every party to accept the invitation to make their process, even in a closed political voting process, as open to all who are willing to live by those rules as possible. I think SB 1066 is the closest I’ve seen so far.”

Assistant Majority Leader Chuck Winder, R-Boise, is sponsoring the legislation, and despite vocal opposition to the bill on budgetary grounds, the committee found enough support to pass the bill though and recommend that it "do pass" when it is considered on the Senate floor. That is where the bill moves next.

--
March 8, the second Tuesday in March in 2016, is a date on which the Michigan and Ohio primaries are currently scheduled. Neighboring Washington state is also eyeing that as a possible landing spot for its primary as well.

--
UPDATE (3/3/15): Second, similar primary bill passes Senate

Recent Posts:
Kansas Committee Divided Over Whether to Cancel 2016 Presidential Primary

Why North Carolina is the Biggest Threat to the 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

North Carolina House and Senate at Odds Over Presidential Primary Date

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

Kansas Committee Divided Over Whether to Cancel 2016 Presidential Primary

The Kansas state Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections met Wednesday, February 25. On the agenda was SB 239, the bill that would cancel the presidential primary in the Sunflower state for the sixth consecutive cycle.

The path to that regular cancellation may have found some resistance during the 2016 presidential nomination cycle. The Associated Press is reporting that while a vote was not taken on the measure in committee today, committee member and Senate president, Susan Wagle (R-30th, Wichita), voiced opposition to the move.

This sets up in Kansas what was a somewhat common dispute across the country in state capitals during the 2012 cycle: a legislature potentially split over the savings associated with not holding a presidential primary (or holding a consolidated primary including a presidential preference vote) on one hand, or attempting to draw in more candidate attention/spending and encouraging wider voter participation by holding a primary on the other.

According to the fiscal note appended to SB 239, canceling the presidential primary would save Kansas $1.8 million in 2016.

However, Kansas does have some quirks to its elections law concerning the presidential primary. The only guidance the statute provides is that the secretary of state certify with the governor and the leadership in the state legislature an election date 1) on the same date as at least five other states and 2) barring that, on a date before the first Tuesday in April.

At this point in time, the only date on the 2016 presidential primary calendar before April with five or more states conducting primaries or caucuses is March 1, the target of the SEC primary.

But here's the thing: How much attention would a Kansas primary gain on a date shared with mostly southern states? Kansas would be much more likely to get lost in the shuffle on March 1, failing to garner the attention primary proponents like Sen. Wagle are seeking.

Also odd in this case is the fact that the person who would gain the most in all of this would be the Kansas secretary of state. Secretary Kris Koback (R) would be granted similar date-setting power to that of secretaries of state in New Hampshire and Georgia. But Secretary Kobach is the one spearheading the effort to cancel the presidential primary in 2016.

If there ends up being a stalemate on canceling the Kansas presidential primary, it does not look if either side would get what it wants. The history here is pretty clear though. Five straight cancelled presidential primaries is a consistent pattern and an even clearer signal about where this all may end up.

--
UPDATE (3/5/15): Identical House bill introduced

Recent Posts:
Why North Carolina is the Biggest Threat to the 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

North Carolina House and Senate at Odds Over Presidential Primary Date

Democrats Pushing Challenge to New Hampshire Primary in Vermont House

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

Why North Carolina is the Biggest Threat to the 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

FHQ runs the risk, perhaps, of over-North Carolinaing this North Carolina presidential primary situation. Yet, like Florida four years ago, it is pretty clear now, and has been for quite a while, that North Carolina was not necessarily going to play along with the established Republican National Committee delegate selection rules. Just as I harped on the fact that the RNC did not change its 50% penalty for 2012 and that Florida had already demonstrated in 2008 that that was not a sufficient penalty, North Carolina has seemingly wedged itself into a position on the calendar that may make the RNC achieving its ideal calendar more difficult.¹ 

It is kind of important, then, and warrants some discussion. 

As it is important, let me add to the piece that CNN's Peter Hamby has on the subject today. Whereas the Charlotte Observer's Jim Morrill added a North Carolina-level perspective, Hamby layered in some of the national party (RNC) point of view. Both are key. 

But allow me a moment to add to all of this the rationale for why FHQ views North Carolina as the biggest threat to go rogue in 2016. Hamby approached me for my perspective on the situation and I responded in typical "obsessive detail". Understandably, Hamby had a story to write that was bigger than just my perspective, but let me throw in a bit more nuance. Here is my email response to his query (edited for clarity):

North Carolina is the biggest threat to the calendar now because there is an uncertainty around the primary here that does not exist elsewhere. There are two groups of potential problem states: 1) Those that are currently rogue and 2) Those that are trying to be rogue.  

None of the states in the latter category -- those with bills or likely bills -- to move into pre-March calendar positions are really serious attempts. There has been pretty robust negative reaction to possible moves in Arizona, Texas and Vermont, and the likely Wisconsin attempt does not have the support of Republicans in the majority in the state legislature. At this point, none of that group appears to pose a viable threat. 

The first group is a little different. Those are states that have to make some change to move to a later date (or choose the later of the options available to them). In that group are Colorado, New York, North Carolina and Utah. I have no inside knowledge, but Colorado is likely to opt for the March date available to them (March 1) over a non-compliant February position. [EDIT: It has been quiet in Colorado on this question.]  

Utah is feeling the pinch on both ends of the calendar (non-compliant on both) and may switch to caucuses anyway. [EDIT: Both primary options currently available to Utah are non-compliant with RNC rules.] 

New York is only back in February on something of a technicality. The move to April in 2011 expired after 2012 which put the primary back in February. My guess is that the intention of the sunset provision was not to be rogue in 2016 so much as it was a function of providing the legislature with a reason to have to revisit the date [EDIT: in the future]. If April had been permanent, it likely would have been more difficult to get any change passed in the legislature there. Now, they have to make a change. The NYGOP wants a March 1 date.  

That leaves North Carolina. To avoid the super penalty, the North Carolina primary has to be moved to March 1 or later. You've [Hamby] reported that there are folks in the NCGOP who support keeping the primary where it is. I would wager there is similar sentiment in the North Carolina General Assembly. How much? I don't know. Sen. Andrew Brock (R), who brought up legislation every cycle to move the North Carolina primary up dating back to 2005 or so, has said he is supportive of the February date [EDIT: ...and possibly ceding delegates in the process]. Whether that support stops with him in the legislature or runs deeper is the question now. [I should add that none of the bills he introduced [EDIT: in the past] ever proposed going rogue. The primary would have been moved to the earliest allowed date in each of those cycles. He and others may be open to March 1.] 

So, there is some resistance to moving the primary, but we don't know how much. There is also support for a move back into compliance with the national party rules. And while symbolic -- the NCGOP chair and the RNC committeeman from North Carolina (Rep. David Lewis) -- that support is from the top. That may or may not be met with some hostility. Like the resistance to changing the date, we don't know how deep support for a compliant primary runs in either the NCGOP or the general assembly.  

Adding to this is the politics of the legislature. The Republicans control both chambers but the House and Senate have been at odds with each other on a number of controversial items over the past few years. [EDIT: This hypothesis was made early yesterday before the apparent House/Senate divide on the presidential primary scheduling became clear.] That tension could factor into moving the primary date. It may also require Republicans in the majority reaching over to get Democratic votes to get something passed. Democrats would likely be interested in a compliant date as well. [Though, it should be said that the North Carolina Democratic Party could file for a waiver to avoid sanction since they don't control state government. How open the DNC would be to granting that waiver is a question for further down the road. EDIT: see Rule 20.C of the Democratic Party delegate selection rules.] 

Long story short, there are just more unanswered questions regarding the North Carolina position on the primary calendar than there are for other rogue or potentially rogue states. 

Unanswered questions there may be, but what is different about North Carolina -- as compared to, say, Florida in 2008 or 2012 -- is that the Tar Heel state has not drawn a line in the sand. Instead, North Carolina has driven a stake into the ground next to South Carolina and will go wherever the Palmetto state goes. That is a different problem, one that likely means more pressure from the Republican National Committee and perhaps even some inventive tactics in South Carolina. 

Does South Carolina, for instance, mimic the tried and true New Hampshire process of blackballing candidates -- in the South Carolina campaign -- who campaign in North Carolina? If the super penalty from the national party does not work as intended, it may come to that. 

--

¹ And bear in mind that there is no North Carolina position on the calendar yet. Until there is a date for the South Carolina primary, there will not be a date for the North Carolina primary. All we know at this point is that South Carolina will be in February sometime and that North Carolina law call for the primary in the Tar Heel state to follow on the next Tuesday after that. 

Recent Posts:

North Carolina House and Senate at Odds Over Presidential Primary Date

Democrats Pushing Challenge to New Hampshire Primary in Vermont House

March Presidential Primary Bill Moves Forward in Washington State

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

North Carolina House and Senate at Odds Over Presidential Primary Date

An inter-chamber dispute in the General Assembly may keep the North Carolina presidential primary right where it is: out of compliance with both national parties' delegate selection rules.

Jim Morrill is reporting in the Charlotte Observer that there is support for moving the primary to a later date in the North Carolina House. Not surprisingly, Rep. David Lewis (R-53rd-Harnett), the House Elections Committee chair and the national committeeman from North Carolina to the Republican National Committee, has voiced a similar opinion to that of North Carolina Republican Party chairman, Claude Pope, Jr. On moving the primary back to March 1, Lewis said,

“It makes sense, I hope the General Assembly will act accordingly. I think it will maintain North Carolina’s relevancy and have the economic boost we all hope for.”

But that support of moving the presidential primary back into compliance with the national party rules seemingly ends at the chamber door. It does not stretch across the capitol building to the state Senate. Republican control of the General Assembly has been hampered at times between competing goals between the chambers and this extends to the presidential primary debate as well. Bear in mind, it was the state Senate that added the presidential primary date change to the controversial omnibus elections bill at the last minute in 2013. With time running out in the session, the House agreed to that change to get the bill -- including the voter ID provision that is now being challenged in court -- passed.

This primary date -- tethered to the South Carolina primary -- is the Senate's baby. And it shows in the comments from proponents of the likely February primary date in the upper chamber. Sen. Bob Rucho (R-39th, Mecklenburg), who is a member of the Judiciary I Committee that handles elections matter in the state Senate had this to say (again, via Morrill),

“Why should we be losing delegates? We didn’t cut in line. We haven’t made our argument to the (RNC) yet. I don’t see why March 1 is a special date. We think the people of North Carolina should have a say in regards to the presidential contest.”

That is not an atypical argument from any state legislator whether proposing to buck the rules or just move a primary to an earlier date. But this does give us some idea of what now faces the orderliness of the 2016 presidential primary calendar. A disagreement between the chambers makes passing legislation to move the North Carolina primary that much more difficult if not impossible. If that issue is not solved, then the beef will be between North and South Carolina which will pull the national parties -- more the RNC given the partisan make up of decision-makers in the Carolinas -- further into the discussion. This situation has already seen what one might call light and indirect pressure from the RNC. The remaining pressure may come in the form of the super penalty. being levied against North Carolina Republicans if the primary is not moved.

But all may work out. If South Carolina schedules its presidential primary for Tuesday, February 23, 2016, then the North Carolina primary would follow on March 1; making everyone happy. Getting there is not that simple, though. South Carolina typically holds a Saturday primary. South Carolina Republicans also like at least a week between it and the next southern state on the primary calendar. That combination eliminates the possibility of moving the South Carolina Republican primary to the Saturday, February 27.

On top of that, how is one to interpret the North Carolina law if the state parties in South Carolina hold primaries on different dates? Does North Carolina follow the earliest primary? The Republican primary? That is not clear and there is no guidance in the North Carolina law to account for an eventuality that occurs in South Carolina more often than not.

This one could get messy before it is all said and done. But North Carolina will undoubtedly lose over 80% of its delegates if it continues on the course it is on unless the stars align to force South Carolina into an uncommon Tuesday primary.


Recent Posts:
Democrats Pushing Challenge to New Hampshire Primary in Vermont House

March Presidential Primary Bill Moves Forward in Washington State

New Mexico March Primary Bill Meets Committee Roadblock

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