FHQ mentioned this one before, but it was still at the draft stage when the Vermont bill was introduced (and discussed) back in February.
However, the draft bill in Massachusetts to allow instant run-off voting for military and overseas voters has now become introduced on the House side in the General Court. H 609 would allow military personnel and overseas voters to rank their preferences in a presidential nomination race in order to avoid the problem of potential wasted votes. This is a particularly acute problem in a sequential, state-by-state presidential nomination process in which the field continually winnows. Wasted votes are more prevalent in a scenario in which overseas voters make decisions without full certainty about the candidates who are actually in the field at the point on the calendar on which a state primary is due to be conducted.
New Hampshire voters, for instance, would have a full (or fuller) set of candidates to choose from in January/February than Massachusetts voters participating in a March 1 primary. But if one is overseas and voting in advance, one does not have advance knowledge of what the field will look like on March 1 after the first few contests in the carve-out states.
Again, as is the case in the Vermont situation, this is a clever way of overcoming some of the issues attendant to overseas voting in the presidential nomination process.
--
NOTE: There are at least four other active bills in the Massachusetts House to bring rank choice voting into elections more broadly.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Saturday, March 21, 2015
Presidential Primary or Caucuses? In Washington State It Hinges on What State Democrats Decide
FHQ has had this on the back burner for a while now, but a Thursday, March 12 committee hearing in Washington made quite plain that the decision to hold a primary or select and allocate delegates through a caucuses/convention system depends on Democrats in the Evergreen state.
The hearing in the Committee on State Government in the Democratic-controlled state House concerned the effort to move up the Washington state presidential primary from May to March. The catch to all of this is that Washington Democrats have in the post-reform era traditionally used the caucuses/convention system to select and allocate delegates to the national convention. That has been true in every cycle since the Washington presidential primary was created by citizen initiative in 1989. Still, SB 5978 was designed to entice both parties into using, at least partially, the presidential primary in 2016. The legislation would create a more attractive contest by moving the primary to an earlier date (the second Tuesday in March) and providing the parties with a publicly available list of primary voters generated by the party declarations/oaths required to participate.1
Those are the carrots, but there are sticks, too. To receive the partisan data from the primary, both parties have to opt into at least partially using the primary. If only one party opts in or neither does, the primary becomes a non-binding beauty contest with a top two-type ballot.2 All candidates from both parties would appear on the ballot and all voters -- sans declaration -- could vote for whichever candidate they preferred.
The hope from the bill's sponsors and Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman (R), who requested the legislation be introduced, is that the benefits outweigh the costs and both parties opt into the process. However, the proposal is more tailored to the Republican delegate process/traditions than it is Washington Democrats'. Again, Democrats in the Evergreen state have stuck with a caucuses/convention process for selecting and allocating delegates throughout the past eleven presidential election cycles, including all of what might be called the primary era in Washington. Since 1992, Washington Republicans have utilized a two-pronged process in the years in which the Republican nomination process is competitive.3 The party splits the delegate allocation across both the presidential primary and a caucuses/convention process. The last time this happened in 2008, the the division was roughly 50/50, but twice as many delegates were allocated via the caucuses/convention as compared to the primary in 2000.
SB 5978 does not require the state parties in Washington to fully use the primary (to allocate all of its delegates). If both parties opt in, each only has to allocate some of its delegates through the primary election. That better fits the traditions and practices of the Republican Party in Washington than it does Washington Democrats. National delegate selection rules allow such a split on the Republican side, but national Democrats have almost completely eliminated the practice. Texas is the only state in the Democratic nomination process that splits its delegate allocation across both a primary and caucuses. And Texas Democrats have an exemption from the DNC to avoid breaking rules that prohibit the two-step process.
The result is that this bill makes it easier for Republicans in the Evergreen state to opt into the presidential primary than Democrats in the state. Whereas Washington Republicans can dip their toe in to whatever extent they see fit, the Washington Democratic Party is faced with an all or nothing proposition; either the primary or caucuses. And history would seem to indicate that Democrats in the state will stick with the caucuses/convention system anyway.
Still, the bill, if passed and signed into law, would require both parties to opt in in some way for the presidential primary to be binding on the allocation of delegates. So, while Republicans in the state seems supportive of the bill -- It was proposed by the Republican secretary of state and had the full support of the majority Republican caucus in the Washington state Senate. -- whether a primary is binding or a beauty contest depends on Washington Democrats opting into using a primary instead of caucuses. That decision will come later on in the spring at the April meeting of the Washington Democratic State Central Committee. If the committee votes to include a primary in the state party's draft delegate selection plan, then SB 5978 may have legs.
But if Washington Democrats retain a caucuses/convention process in that delegate selection plan, then the Senate-passed bill is likely dead. That, in turn, means the May presidential primary -- a beauty contest without both parties on board -- called for in state law would cost the state close to $11 million. That may make the House bill to cancel the primary a more viable option.
But until Washington Democrats make their choice of delegate selection mode, that question is unanswerable and SB 5978 is in limbo. Neither the legislature nor the governor would sign off on a plan to fund a primary neither knows will be binding until after the Democrats' April meeting.
UPDATE: It should also be noted that Washington Republicans would be less likely to opt into a two-step process if the state law remains the same and the presidential primary is in May -- and not postponed until 2020. A late primary would not be an attractive option for the party, particularly if it comes after the other delegates are allocated through the caucuses/convention process and/or the Republican nomination has already been decided. In total, that would provide some incentive for Republican legislators in the state to support legislation canceling the primary if Democrats opt to stick with caucuses.
--
1 Those lists of partisans can be and/or are used by the parties to more effectively identify and target voters in the subsequent general election.
2 No, it is not really a top two ballot. The Washington presidential primary is just part of the presidential nomination process. Unlike, say, a US Senate primary in Washington, where the top two finishers in the primary would face off against each other in the fall general election, a Washington presidential primary would not be determinative of who would be on the general election ballot in the presidential race. It would play roughly a little less than 1/50th of that role. Yet, the primary ballot in this instance would mimic what a primary ballot would look like in Washington for other offices.
3 That is true with one exception. The Republican nomination was contested in 2012, but the Washington presidential primary was canceled during that cycle. In 1996, 2000 and 2008, however, the Republican Party in Washington split its delegate allocation between the primary and a caucuses/convention system.
The hearing in the Committee on State Government in the Democratic-controlled state House concerned the effort to move up the Washington state presidential primary from May to March. The catch to all of this is that Washington Democrats have in the post-reform era traditionally used the caucuses/convention system to select and allocate delegates to the national convention. That has been true in every cycle since the Washington presidential primary was created by citizen initiative in 1989. Still, SB 5978 was designed to entice both parties into using, at least partially, the presidential primary in 2016. The legislation would create a more attractive contest by moving the primary to an earlier date (the second Tuesday in March) and providing the parties with a publicly available list of primary voters generated by the party declarations/oaths required to participate.1
Those are the carrots, but there are sticks, too. To receive the partisan data from the primary, both parties have to opt into at least partially using the primary. If only one party opts in or neither does, the primary becomes a non-binding beauty contest with a top two-type ballot.2 All candidates from both parties would appear on the ballot and all voters -- sans declaration -- could vote for whichever candidate they preferred.
The hope from the bill's sponsors and Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman (R), who requested the legislation be introduced, is that the benefits outweigh the costs and both parties opt into the process. However, the proposal is more tailored to the Republican delegate process/traditions than it is Washington Democrats'. Again, Democrats in the Evergreen state have stuck with a caucuses/convention process for selecting and allocating delegates throughout the past eleven presidential election cycles, including all of what might be called the primary era in Washington. Since 1992, Washington Republicans have utilized a two-pronged process in the years in which the Republican nomination process is competitive.3 The party splits the delegate allocation across both the presidential primary and a caucuses/convention process. The last time this happened in 2008, the the division was roughly 50/50, but twice as many delegates were allocated via the caucuses/convention as compared to the primary in 2000.
SB 5978 does not require the state parties in Washington to fully use the primary (to allocate all of its delegates). If both parties opt in, each only has to allocate some of its delegates through the primary election. That better fits the traditions and practices of the Republican Party in Washington than it does Washington Democrats. National delegate selection rules allow such a split on the Republican side, but national Democrats have almost completely eliminated the practice. Texas is the only state in the Democratic nomination process that splits its delegate allocation across both a primary and caucuses. And Texas Democrats have an exemption from the DNC to avoid breaking rules that prohibit the two-step process.
The result is that this bill makes it easier for Republicans in the Evergreen state to opt into the presidential primary than Democrats in the state. Whereas Washington Republicans can dip their toe in to whatever extent they see fit, the Washington Democratic Party is faced with an all or nothing proposition; either the primary or caucuses. And history would seem to indicate that Democrats in the state will stick with the caucuses/convention system anyway.
Still, the bill, if passed and signed into law, would require both parties to opt in in some way for the presidential primary to be binding on the allocation of delegates. So, while Republicans in the state seems supportive of the bill -- It was proposed by the Republican secretary of state and had the full support of the majority Republican caucus in the Washington state Senate. -- whether a primary is binding or a beauty contest depends on Washington Democrats opting into using a primary instead of caucuses. That decision will come later on in the spring at the April meeting of the Washington Democratic State Central Committee. If the committee votes to include a primary in the state party's draft delegate selection plan, then SB 5978 may have legs.
But if Washington Democrats retain a caucuses/convention process in that delegate selection plan, then the Senate-passed bill is likely dead. That, in turn, means the May presidential primary -- a beauty contest without both parties on board -- called for in state law would cost the state close to $11 million. That may make the House bill to cancel the primary a more viable option.
But until Washington Democrats make their choice of delegate selection mode, that question is unanswerable and SB 5978 is in limbo. Neither the legislature nor the governor would sign off on a plan to fund a primary neither knows will be binding until after the Democrats' April meeting.
UPDATE: It should also be noted that Washington Republicans would be less likely to opt into a two-step process if the state law remains the same and the presidential primary is in May -- and not postponed until 2020. A late primary would not be an attractive option for the party, particularly if it comes after the other delegates are allocated through the caucuses/convention process and/or the Republican nomination has already been decided. In total, that would provide some incentive for Republican legislators in the state to support legislation canceling the primary if Democrats opt to stick with caucuses.
--
1 Those lists of partisans can be and/or are used by the parties to more effectively identify and target voters in the subsequent general election.
2 No, it is not really a top two ballot. The Washington presidential primary is just part of the presidential nomination process. Unlike, say, a US Senate primary in Washington, where the top two finishers in the primary would face off against each other in the fall general election, a Washington presidential primary would not be determinative of who would be on the general election ballot in the presidential race. It would play roughly a little less than 1/50th of that role. Yet, the primary ballot in this instance would mimic what a primary ballot would look like in Washington for other offices.
3 That is true with one exception. The Republican nomination was contested in 2012, but the Washington presidential primary was canceled during that cycle. In 1996, 2000 and 2008, however, the Republican Party in Washington split its delegate allocation between the primary and a caucuses/convention system.
Friday, March 20, 2015
Efforts to Cancel 2016 Presidential Primary Move Forward in Kansas
The legislation to cancel the Kansas presidential primary for the sixth consecutive cycle advanced in both state legislative chambers this week.
Despite some pushback to postponing the presidential primary another four years in a state Senate committee hearing, the Committee on Ethics and Elections favorably recommended that SB 239 pass the chamber. And on the House side of the capitol, a less contentious committee hearing (with Republican Party of Kansas support) yielded the same result. HB 2398 was also recommended for passage by the state House Committee on Elections.
This is a move that could be layered into the discussion of states facing the elimination of presidential primaries due to budgetary constraints. Unlike Louisiana and Massachusetts, however, this has become a quadrennial rite in Kansas over the last two plus decades. The standard operating procedure has been to strike out the coming election year from the statute and replace it with the next subsequent presidential election year. For example, the original legislation in Kansas in both chambers strikes 2016 and replaces it with 2020. State legislators do this every four years in the Sunflower state.
The bill that will be considered on the floor of the state Senate continues to follow that path. In the House, legislators are now taking a different approach. The bill that passed through the House Committee on Elections was amended to eliminate the presidential primary altogether in lieu of going through the motions every four years.
Kansas has been a caucus state for years, but there was still a presidential primary option available in state law (pending funding). That option just has not been funded over the last twenty years. If the House version prevails, that presidential primary option will cease to be, making Kansas a permanent caucus/convention state for presidential nominations and not a de facto caucus state.
Despite some pushback to postponing the presidential primary another four years in a state Senate committee hearing, the Committee on Ethics and Elections favorably recommended that SB 239 pass the chamber. And on the House side of the capitol, a less contentious committee hearing (with Republican Party of Kansas support) yielded the same result. HB 2398 was also recommended for passage by the state House Committee on Elections.
This is a move that could be layered into the discussion of states facing the elimination of presidential primaries due to budgetary constraints. Unlike Louisiana and Massachusetts, however, this has become a quadrennial rite in Kansas over the last two plus decades. The standard operating procedure has been to strike out the coming election year from the statute and replace it with the next subsequent presidential election year. For example, the original legislation in Kansas in both chambers strikes 2016 and replaces it with 2020. State legislators do this every four years in the Sunflower state.
The bill that will be considered on the floor of the state Senate continues to follow that path. In the House, legislators are now taking a different approach. The bill that passed through the House Committee on Elections was amended to eliminate the presidential primary altogether in lieu of going through the motions every four years.
Kansas has been a caucus state for years, but there was still a presidential primary option available in state law (pending funding). That option just has not been funded over the last twenty years. If the House version prevails, that presidential primary option will cease to be, making Kansas a permanent caucus/convention state for presidential nominations and not a de facto caucus state.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Scott's Signature Sets Florida Presidential Primary for March 15
Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) signed HB 7035 into law on the afternoon of Thursday, March 19, completing a fast-tracking of the bill during the two plus weeks of the Florida legislative session. The legislation clears up the language of the Florida presidential primary statute by replacing a section intended to make the primary a bit more mobile -- not to mention compliant with the national party rules -- with a permanent date.
The last two changes made to the presidential primary law in the Sunshine state either left the date up to a committee (2011) or up to the interpretation of what constitutes a penalty (2013). HB 7035 becoming law removes all doubt by specifying a permanent date in the law for the first time since the 2007 law scheduled the primary for the last Tuesday in January.
The position of the Florida presidential primary -- now on the third Tuesday in March -- is the latest that it has ever been scheduled during the post-reform era. For years -- 1972-2004 -- the Florida primary was set for the second Tuesday in March. Early in that period, the Florida primary was among the very earliest contests, but over intervening cycles, other states either joined Florida on that second Tuesday in March date or scheduled earlier contests as national party rules allowed.
The last two changes made to the presidential primary law in the Sunshine state either left the date up to a committee (2011) or up to the interpretation of what constitutes a penalty (2013). HB 7035 becoming law removes all doubt by specifying a permanent date in the law for the first time since the 2007 law scheduled the primary for the last Tuesday in January.
The position of the Florida presidential primary -- now on the third Tuesday in March -- is the latest that it has ever been scheduled during the post-reform era. For years -- 1972-2004 -- the Florida primary was set for the second Tuesday in March. Early in that period, the Florida primary was among the very earliest contests, but over intervening cycles, other states either joined Florida on that second Tuesday in March date or scheduled earlier contests as national party rules allowed.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Louisiana May Not Have a 2016 Presidential Primary
According to Louisiana Secretary of State Tom Schedler (R), Louisiana will not hold a presidential primary in 2016. Here's Schedler from Mark Ballard at The Advocate:
1. In this case, the governor (Bobby Jindal) and the secretary of state are of the same party, the Republican Party.
2. The Louisiana situation is such that there is no money for any elections beyond December. Any elections expense beyond that point and up to the end of the fiscal year in June cannot be funded. Louisiana does have gubernatorial and state legislative elections later this year. In Massachusetts, the presidential primary is seemingly the lowest priority election for 2016 and thus expendable. A similar priority list may be driving the secretary of state's statements today.
3. Louisiana Republicans already utilize a two-tiered delegate selection/allocation process. In 2012, there were both a primary and caucuses. The caucuses allocated just under 40% of the total Louisiana delegation. While Massachusetts Republicans also have caucuses, that process has only guided the delegate selection part of the process; identifying the people who will fill the delegate slots allocated to candidates based on the primary results. The transition to primary/caucuses to caucuses may be smoother than a transition from one to the other. Those congressional district caucuses/conventions were in April in 2012.
One final thing to consider is that Massachusetts Secretary of State Galvin made the same claims in 2011 that he made just last week. Yet, there was still a presidential primary on the first Tuesday in March 2012. There is no such history in Louisiana.
The primary may not be able to be funded or the state government might find a way to pull it off. But will legislators be motivated to go on that quest for funds if they know a caucuses/convention process is already in place?
Currently, Louisiana is slated to conduct a presidential primary on the first Saturday in March, the Saturday just after the proposed SEC primary on March 1.
UPDATE: More from Greg Hilburn at The News Star (Gannett).
“I want to have a presidential preference primary as long as you pay for it,” Schedler told the Louisiana House Appropriations Committee during the panel’s department-by-department tour of Jindal’s budget proposal for the fiscal year that begins July 1.
“He hasn’t funded elections past December,” Schedler said about Jindal. A presidential preference primary would be held in the Spring 2016 and would cost about $3.5 million.This may or may not be a situation similar to the one in Massachusetts. The battle lines, if one wants to call them that, are the same: governor (and elections budget) and secretary of state (with a bottom line amount/expense for elections). The difference in Louisiana are a threefold:
1. In this case, the governor (Bobby Jindal) and the secretary of state are of the same party, the Republican Party.
2. The Louisiana situation is such that there is no money for any elections beyond December. Any elections expense beyond that point and up to the end of the fiscal year in June cannot be funded. Louisiana does have gubernatorial and state legislative elections later this year. In Massachusetts, the presidential primary is seemingly the lowest priority election for 2016 and thus expendable. A similar priority list may be driving the secretary of state's statements today.
3. Louisiana Republicans already utilize a two-tiered delegate selection/allocation process. In 2012, there were both a primary and caucuses. The caucuses allocated just under 40% of the total Louisiana delegation. While Massachusetts Republicans also have caucuses, that process has only guided the delegate selection part of the process; identifying the people who will fill the delegate slots allocated to candidates based on the primary results. The transition to primary/caucuses to caucuses may be smoother than a transition from one to the other. Those congressional district caucuses/conventions were in April in 2012.
One final thing to consider is that Massachusetts Secretary of State Galvin made the same claims in 2011 that he made just last week. Yet, there was still a presidential primary on the first Tuesday in March 2012. There is no such history in Louisiana.
The primary may not be able to be funded or the state government might find a way to pull it off. But will legislators be motivated to go on that quest for funds if they know a caucuses/convention process is already in place?
Currently, Louisiana is slated to conduct a presidential primary on the first Saturday in March, the Saturday just after the proposed SEC primary on March 1.
UPDATE: More from Greg Hilburn at The News Star (Gannett).
Mississippi SEC Primary Bill Stalls After Senate Fails to Concur with House Amendments
The Mississippi state Senate did not concur with House changes to SB 2531 and invited the House to conference on the legislation. The bill move the Magnolia state presidential primary up a week to join the proposed SEC primary on March 1 next year came up on the Senate concurrence calendar on Wednesday, March 18.
The strange thing about this turn of events is that the House changes to the Senate-passed bill were minor. Even calling them minor is an understatement. Here is the one line the of the bill -- the last line -- that the House altered:
FHQ has mentioned particular line before. It was added in committee on the Senate side back in February. Go and look at that line again. Yeah, it proposes that the law would take effect on July 1, 2015 and expire on June 30, 2015; the day before the effective date. That would render the bill/law expired before it takes effect. Again, it is likely perhaps that that June date was intended to be in 2016 and that the move up to the first Tuesday in March is a one-off thing for the 2016 cycle. If that is the case, the House and Senate may be at odds on this. Both are supportive of the move to March 1, but only one chamber -- the House -- wants to make that change permanent.
That will make for an interesting conference.
The strange thing about this turn of events is that the House changes to the Senate-passed bill were minor. Even calling them minor is an understatement. Here is the one line the of the bill -- the last line -- that the House altered:
This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2015,That has absolutely nothing to do with the change to the date of the presidential primary in 2016. It has everything to do with the implementation of the bill/law if it passes and is signed.and shall stand repealed on June 30, 2015.
FHQ has mentioned particular line before. It was added in committee on the Senate side back in February. Go and look at that line again. Yeah, it proposes that the law would take effect on July 1, 2015 and expire on June 30, 2015; the day before the effective date. That would render the bill/law expired before it takes effect. Again, it is likely perhaps that that June date was intended to be in 2016 and that the move up to the first Tuesday in March is a one-off thing for the 2016 cycle. If that is the case, the House and Senate may be at odds on this. Both are supportive of the move to March 1, but only one chamber -- the House -- wants to make that change permanent.
That will make for an interesting conference.
Florida House Bill to Clarify Presidential Primary Date Unanimously Passes Senate, Moves on to Governor
The Senate version of the bill to clarify the date of the 2016 presidential primary in the Sunshine state came before the membership on the floor on the morning of Wednesday, March 18.
The bill's sponsor, Senate President Pro Tempore Garrett Richter (R-23rd, Collier, Lee), made a motion to substitute the identical House-passed versions of the bill (HB 7035) for the Senate version (SB 7036). That motion was agreed upon, the bill moved to third reading and then was voted on. The upper chamber, like the House, unanimously passed the substituted House version by a vote of 39-0.
The bill will now move to Governor Scott's desk for his consideration. Given the unanimous support in both chambers, the bill is very likely to be signed.
--
To reiterate, this legislation does not change the date of the Florida presidential primary. It merely simplifies the language of the statute and clarifies the date of the election. For more, see here and here.
The bill's sponsor, Senate President Pro Tempore Garrett Richter (R-23rd, Collier, Lee), made a motion to substitute the identical House-passed versions of the bill (HB 7035) for the Senate version (SB 7036). That motion was agreed upon, the bill moved to third reading and then was voted on. The upper chamber, like the House, unanimously passed the substituted House version by a vote of 39-0.
The bill will now move to Governor Scott's desk for his consideration. Given the unanimous support in both chambers, the bill is very likely to be signed.
--
To reiterate, this legislation does not change the date of the Florida presidential primary. It merely simplifies the language of the statute and clarifies the date of the election. For more, see here and here.
Alabama Bill Would Shift Presidential Primary into SEC Primary Position
Just a couple of weeks into the 2015 Alabama state legislative session, a bill has been introduced to move the primary up a week on the 2016 presidential primary calendar to March 1.
Senator Quinton Ross (D-26th, Montgomery) introduced SB 240 on Tuesday, March 17. The legislation would bump the Alabama presidential primary -- consolidated with primaries for other offices -- up to the first Tuesday in March from the second Tuesday in March position the state held on the 2012 calendar. 2011 legislation established the latter date for the primary election. The proposed move for 2016 is more subtle. By moving up a week, Alabama would join the proposed SEC primary.
Bills have already been introduced in Arkansas and Mississippi to schedule those states' presidential primaries for March 1. Texas and Tennessee are already positioned there.
Senator Quinton Ross (D-26th, Montgomery) introduced SB 240 on Tuesday, March 17. The legislation would bump the Alabama presidential primary -- consolidated with primaries for other offices -- up to the first Tuesday in March from the second Tuesday in March position the state held on the 2012 calendar. 2011 legislation established the latter date for the primary election. The proposed move for 2016 is more subtle. By moving up a week, Alabama would join the proposed SEC primary.
Bills have already been introduced in Arkansas and Mississippi to schedule those states' presidential primaries for March 1. Texas and Tennessee are already positioned there.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Maryland Bill to Move to Late April Presidential Primary Passess House
The Maryland state House on Tuesday, March 17 passed an amended version of HB 396. By a vote of 138-1, the House gave the green light to the plan to move the presidential primary back three weeks from the first Tuesday in April to the fourth Tuesday in April.
The move now would align the Maryland presidential primary on the primary calendar with contests in Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, but the change was initially proposed to prevent a conflict between religious holidays and early voting tied to the primary election.
An identical bill has also passed the state Senate and has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee that amended and favorably passed the House version.
The move now would align the Maryland presidential primary on the primary calendar with contests in Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, but the change was initially proposed to prevent a conflict between religious holidays and early voting tied to the primary election.
An identical bill has also passed the state Senate and has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee that amended and favorably passed the House version.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Maryland House Bill Amended, Ready for Final Floor Vote to Move Presidential Primary to Late April
This past week, the Maryland state House Ways and Means Committee amended and passed its version of the legislation to shift back the presidential primary in the Old Line state to accommodate early voting and religious holidays.
Now, like the Senate-passed version, HB 396 would move the Maryland presidential primary from the first Tuesday in April to the fourth Tuesday in April. The Ways and Means Committee passed the move 21-1 on Wednesday, March 11. The bill survived its first floor consideration and second reading there with no further amendments.
Initially, both the state Senate and House versions pushed the Maryland primary back just a week, but the identical bills would now bump that back even further, bringing the election in line with similar contests in neighboring Delaware and Pennsylvania as well as Connecticut and Rhode Island at the end of April.
Now, like the Senate-passed version, HB 396 would move the Maryland presidential primary from the first Tuesday in April to the fourth Tuesday in April. The Ways and Means Committee passed the move 21-1 on Wednesday, March 11. The bill survived its first floor consideration and second reading there with no further amendments.
Initially, both the state Senate and House versions pushed the Maryland primary back just a week, but the identical bills would now bump that back even further, bringing the election in line with similar contests in neighboring Delaware and Pennsylvania as well as Connecticut and Rhode Island at the end of April.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)