Jeb Bush, Puerto Rico and Backdoor Winner-Take-All Delegate Allocation

It is not some mistake that Jeb Bush is in Puerto Rico this week for a fundraiser and town hall meeting.

According to law in the territory, there is to be a primary election next March; on the third Sunday in March unless that date conflicts with Easter or Palm Sunday.¹ In 2016, it does. Instead of being on March 20, then, the Puerto Rico primary will fall on Sunday, March 13; just at the tail end of the proportionality window.

But why would a candidate make the effort to venture into Puerto Rico in April in the year before a presidential nomination race at the prospect of gaining some proportional share of the territory's 23 delegates? The answer is twofold. First, and Lesley Clark at McClatchy raises this, is that there are potential primary and general election ramifications in Florida's Puerto Rican community to making an appearance in and talking about issues important to folks on the island and in the continental United States.

That is true, but there are broader strategic implications at play here as well that piggyback on that Florida-Puerto Rico connection. The Florida primary is scheduled for Tuesday, March 15. Florida Republicans are also talking about a winner-take-all delegate allocation plan. However, it is unclear if those plans include a truly winner-take-all allocation method or the more-often-used (sans national party penalty) winner-take-most allocation. Let's assume here that it is the former (and FHQ thinks it will be).

The Puerto Rico primary is situated just a couple of days earlier, just inside the proportionality window on March 13. If the party utilizes the same type of allocation plan it used in 2012, then it has the potential to be a backdoor winner-take-all contest. There are no congressional districts in Puerto Rico, so there cannot be any differentiation between congressional district delegates and at-large delegates. All 23 are at-large delegates. That has the practical implication of making the Puerto Rico Republican delegate allocation either truly proportional or truly winner-take-all. Given, the date of the primary, it cannot be the latter.

Recall, however, that a party can include certain thresholds in its delegate allocation plan to guide the process (and still meet the proportionality requirements). In 2012, Puerto Rico Republicans required candidates to received at least 15% of the vote to be allocated any delegates, but if one candidate wins a majority of the vote, then that candidate is awarded all 23 delegates. The latter threshold was cleared by Mitt Romney in 2012 when the former Massachusetts governor won nearly 90% of the vote.

That backdoor winner-take-all scenario in Puerto Rico plus a win in winner-take-all Florida (outside the proportionality window) is a significant one-two punch (over 120 delegates). If a candidate can pull that off in what appears to be a protracted race (at that point), that is important. The key here is that there is less difference between a winner-take-most contest and a proportional contest than there is between a winner-take-all primary or caucuses and everything else. Not all states after March 14 are rushing to be winner-take-all. But some are, and if this race keeps going, targeting those winner-take-all states -- as John McCain did in 2008 -- is a big part of the puzzle in the race to 1235.

Jeb Bush is making that play.


--
¹ Here is the text of that primary law:

Those primaries to be held pursuant to the provisions of this subtitle shall be held on the third Sunday of March of the year in which the general election is to be held, except if said Sunday is Palm Sunday or Easter Sunday, in which case, the primaries shall be held on the second Sunday of March of the same year. Primaries shall be held on the first Sunday of March if the aforementioned holidays fall on the second and third Sunday. 

In the case of national primaries, these may be held on any date after the first Tuesday of March of the year in which the general election is to be held, up to June fifteenth (15th) of that same year, as determined by the local body of the national party.

The Republican Party in Puerto Rico used the second part of the law as its motivation for setting the date of its 2012 primary, but ended up scheduling it on the date called for in the first part -- the third Sunday in March (March 18, 2012).

Recent Posts:
South Carolina Republicans Eyeing February 20 Presidential Primary Date

Both Utah Democrats and Republicans Appear Headed for March 22 Caucuses

Proposed Massachusetts House Budget Includes Money for 2016 Presidential Primary

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

South Carolina Republicans Eyeing February 20 Presidential Primary Date

South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Matt Moore has said the party is likely to hold its 2016 presidential primary on February 20 according to Andrew Shain at The State. Moore went on to provide a tentative timeline for the carve-out states in the Republican presidential nomination process:

Feb. 1: Iowa 

Feb. 9: New Hampshire 

Feb. 20: South Carolina 

Feb. 23: Nevada 

March 1: Texas, North Carolina, Tennessee

The DNC rules call for more specific dates for the first four states, and while the Republican National Committee rules provide no guidance on that question other than the fact that the carve-out states can hold their primaries and caucuses as early as a month before the next earliest contest, there has been some behind the scenes calendar coordination between the RNC and the Republican state parties in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article19816635.html#storylink=cpy

Documents circulated among Nevada Republican Party State Central Committee members prior to their spring meeting this past March included a summary of the work the leadership was and had been doing to prepare for votes on the particulars of the party's 2016 delegate selection process.¹ That summary revealed a similar timeline (see page 6):

Determined to avoid a repeat of 2012, the RNC decided to set a firm schedule early for 2016, and at the end of last summer, the Chairman of the RNC Rules Committee, Bruce Ash from Arizona, reached out to the early states thru [sic] a series of conference calls where the early dates were determined. The goal was to fit all four states within the month of February, with enough time in between each contest to allow the candidates to travel from state to state and campaign.

By tradition, Iowa holds the first caucus in the nation, and New Hampshire holds the first primary. Iowa selected a caucus date of February 2nd for Republicans (Feb 1st for Democrats) and New Hampshire selected February 9th for their primary. South Carolina preferred February 20th for their primary, and Nevada picked the 23rd . Saturday the 27th was not good for anybody because eight states, including Texas and Virginia, planned to hold their contests on “Super Tuesday”, March 1, and nobody wanted to be within four days of eight competing primary elections. Alternative dates available to Nevada were Saturday the 13th or Tuesday the 16th . These days fall on or immediately after the long President’s Day weekend, which also includes Valentine’s Day, so it was felt that turnout could be depressed if we used those dates. When all factors are taken into account, the 23rd made the most sense in terms of getting candidates to Nevada, being able to host events and get them in front of voters.

The only difference between the two is that the earlier Nevada-based timeline had Iowa Republicans holding caucuses just a week before the New Hampshire primary and on a date a day after the Iowa Democratic caucuses. The parties in Iowa tend to conduct their caucuses on the same date, but are not bound to by state law or party bylaw.

This alignment between those two timelines is evidence that the RNC has worked to tamp down on the calendar chaos from 2011. Additionally, the fact that SCGOP Chair Moore revealed that the party's primary "schedule will be formalized in about two weeks" and that he placed North Carolina on March 1 seems to suggest that South Carolina Republicans do not perceive a real threat from its neighbor to the north. In fact, given that South Carolina Democrats are settling in on a February 27 primary, the current North Carolina law -- which does not account for Democratic and Republican primaries in South Carolina on different days -- may turn out to be compliant with the national party rules (a possibility FHQ raised here).

At least one of the bills in the Nevada legislature -- SB 421 -- now calls for the proposed presidential primary in the Silver state to be on the last Tuesday in February. That matches the February 23 date in both timelines.

Overall, the coordinated timeline points toward the potential Colorado and New York problems on February 2 being non-issues or that their movement into compliance is likely in the eyes of the RNC and Republicans in the carve-out states. The gears are already moving in that direction in Colorado.

--
The proposed Democratic schedule in February looks like this:

Feb. 1: Iowa 

Feb. 9: New Hampshire 

Feb. 20: Nevada 

Feb. 27: South Carolina

That would have the Nevada Democratic caucuses and the South Carolina Republican primary overlapping on February 20.

--
¹ The Nevada Republican Party was preparing to vote on the mode of delegate selection (primary or caucuses) and on the binding rules that would govern the delegate allocation process in 2016.

Recent Posts:
Both Utah Democrats and Republicans Appear Headed for March 22 Caucuses

Proposed Massachusetts House Budget Includes Money for 2016 Presidential Primary

Nevada Switch to a Presidential Primary Has 'Quiet' Support from the RNC

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Both Utah Democrats and Republicans Appear Headed for March 22 Caucuses

Though the date(s) probably have not changed (internally with the state parties), the mode of delegate selection and the timing of those events in Utah seems close to set for 2016. Beehive state Democrats have come to the conclusion that the party will not be able to fund an online presidential primary next year. Utah Republicans are set to make a run at an online option for nomination process but as part of a caucuses/convention process.

With the online presidential primary out, Utah Democrats will now caucus in 2016, and according to Lisa Riley Roche at Deseret News, it looks like both Democrats and Republicans will be caucusing on March 22. That would line both parties' delegate selection events up with the presidential primary in neighboring Arizona. That gives the date a bit of a western flavor on the presidential primary calendar.

But that regional clustering is only one of the draws for the state parties. Republicans in Utah can partner with Arizona, but also be able to continue their tradition of allocating national convention delegates in a truly winner-take-all fashion. Arizona Republicans also have that tradition. Much can and will happen between now and March 22, 2016, but both states together amount to nearly 100 total delegates. If one Republican candidate can win both contests on March 22, that cache of delegates would have some strategic implications. [They would even if there were separate winners of the Arizona and Utah contests.]

On the Democratic side, Utah along with Arizona and Idaho would qualify for a (sub)regional clustering bonus for their respective delegations. March 22 is the earliest date on which at least three regional partnering states would be eligible for that 15% delegate boost.

Both Utah parties, then, have some motivation to schedule their caucuses for March 22.

Recent Posts:
Proposed Massachusetts House Budget Includes Money for 2016 Presidential Primary

Nevada Switch to a Presidential Primary Has 'Quiet' Support from the RNC

Maryland Presidential Primary Bills Not on Governor's Docket This Week

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Proposed Massachusetts House Budget Includes Money for 2016 Presidential Primary

FHQ is late to this, but after Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker's (R) budget seemed to threaten the 2016 presidential primary in the commonwealth (or at least place it closer to the chopping block), the state House set aside more money for the Elections Division in its version of the budget for fiscal year 2016:

[House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Brian] Dempsey said the House plan would increase spending on elections after state Secretary William Galvin warned Massachusetts would not be able to hold a presidential primary next year under Baker’s budget.

This is not all that surprising. Secretary Galvin made similar ominous projections about the money in the budget for the 2012 presidential primary in 2011. That primary went off without a hitch on the first Tuesday in March as planned.

Recent Posts:
Nevada Switch to a Presidential Primary Has 'Quiet' Support from the RNC

Maryland Presidential Primary Bills Not on Governor's Docket This Week

Ohio Conservative Group Against Potential Move Away from Proportional Allocation Rules in 2016

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Nevada Switch to a Presidential Primary Has 'Quiet' Support from the RNC

Both bills to reestablish a presidential primary in Nevada missed deadlines last week to have passed their originating chamber. The idea of trading out the often-used caucuses in the Silver state for a presidential primary is not dead though. Neither are the bills really. As was the case in Washington, because both presidential primary bills have budgetary ramifications, they may be revived (once amended).

Now, Jon Ralston is reporting that there is support for the presidential primary idea at the RNC:

I'm also reliably told that Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who was in Las Vegas this weekend at Sheldonfest, is quietly supporting the primary and has made calls. Why quietly? Because Priebus knows how nuts the state party is, I'd guess, and wants this as far away from those folks as possible, but knows he may have to work with them.

Mostly, this is based on the rocky road the Nevada Republican Party presidential caucuses (and all the way through to the state conventions) have traveled since they were indirectly thrust into the carve-out state spotlight prior to the 2008 presidential primary season.¹ That is something FHQ cited yesterday.

The final version of the bill sounds like it will have to merge components of both the Assembly version and the Senate version (at least according to the wish list of those Ralston spoke with). The former has the opt-in provision that will allow Democrats the leeway to continue caucusing², and the latter has the consolidated February primaries provision that will save the expense of two primaries (a presidential primary in February and a primary for non-presidential offices in June).

All that entails some more legislative wrangling before the first of June.


--
¹ The DNC first gave Nevada along with South Carolina a privileged status alongside (well, behind) Iowa and New Hampshire in 2006 to diversify the early primary electorate. The Republican National Committee allowed Nevada Republicans to join the fun at the beginning of the primary calendar queue after that.

² Nevada Democrats have expressed some concern that losing the caucuses option might affect the party's privileged status from the DNC. Rule 11 of the 2016 Democratic Party delegate selection rules directly specify the "Nevada first-tier caucuses" when providing guidelines for how the carve-out state contests should be scheduled.

Recent Posts:
Maryland Presidential Primary Bills Not on Governor's Docket This Week

Ohio Conservative Group Against Potential Move Away from Proportional Allocation Rules in 2016

Nevada Republican Party Chairman Signals Support for Presidential Primary Over Caucuses in 2016

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Maryland Presidential Primary Bills Not on Governor's Docket This Week

The two Maryland bill to move the presidential primary in the Old Line state back to the end of April are not on the list of bills to be signed later this week by Governor Larry Hogan (R).

SB 204 and HB 396 passed both Maryland state legislative chambers with nearly unanimous support. These are not, then, seemingly controversial bills. There is divided government in Maryland between the Democratic-controlled legislature and the Republican-controlled governor's office, but the proposed primary move does not appear to be a partisan issue.

The impetus for the change was the fact that the early voting associated with the presidential primary would conflict with religious holidays in the spring of 2016. That originally gave rise to a proposal to shift the primary back one week to the second Tuesday in April. That was later amended -- and passed by both chambers (twice) -- to push the primary back to the fourth Tuesday in April. That would align the Maryland primary with presidential primaries in neighboring Pennsylvania and Delaware as well as Connecticut and Rhode Island.

Recent Posts:
Ohio Conservative Group Against Potential Move Away from Proportional Allocation Rules in 2016

Nevada Republican Party Chairman Signals Support for Presidential Primary Over Caucuses in 2016

Time Ran Out on Washington Presidential Primary Bill

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Ohio Conservative Group Against Potential Move Away from Proportional Allocation Rules in 2016

Jo Ingles at WKSU in Ohio had a nice story up last week about Buckeye state conservatives' reactions to the legislation moving through the state legislature to shift the Ohio presidential primary back a week to March 15. The Republican-controlled state government is motivated to make the change in order to get the currently March 8 primary out of the proportionality window; away from that RNC mandate.

But as Ingles points out, not all Republicans in the state are on board with that idea:

Tom Zawistowski with the conservative group, Ohio Citizens PAC, says he wants proportional voting because it gives more conservative candidates an opportunity to win.

--
Now, FHQ raises this not to stir the pot. There was only minimal opposition to the move in the Ohio House among Republican legislators. It would be surprising if the Senate consideration of HB 153 was any different. The more important issue here is that this move and any dissension among the Republican rank-and-file in the state to that move highlights the importance of what is really at stake here.

FHQ mentioned in part three of our look at the Republican National Committee's proportionality rules changes for 2016 that there is entirely too much effort placed on the allocation rules of states within the proportionality window instead of outside of it. Furthermore, there is a problem in how we all tend to talk about those differences. The tendency has been to draw a line between proportional and not proportional when it might be better to think about this in terms of truly winner-take-all rules and everything else.

This Ohio situation is the perfect example of that.

As FHQ has pointed out, Ohio Republicans have a history with winner-take-most allocation plans. In the past the state party has given a fraction of its delegates -- the at-large delegates -- to the statewide winner of the presidential primary and the remainder out to the winners of the various congressional districts. If a candidate wins district #1, then that candidate wins all three delegates apportioned to that district by the national party. In the past, FHQ has called this winner-take-all by congressional district. Some just call it winner-take-all.

But it is not winner-take-all. The potential exists for multiple candidates to win delegates if they win plurality support in just one congressional district. Depending on the level of support for the various candidates, that could look more proportional or it could move closer to the winner-take-all end of the spectrum.

It is not clear at this point that Ohio Republicans are going toward a truly winner-take-all allocation plan for 2016. It is just clear that they are attempting to avoid the proportionality window and its mandate. But if the party returns to the winner-take-most plan that it has historically used, then maybe it will not actually be all that bad for those conservative candidates and their supporters in the Buckeye state.

Recent Posts:
Nevada Republican Party Chairman Signals Support for Presidential Primary Over Caucuses in 2016

Time Ran Out on Washington Presidential Primary Bill

North Carolina Presidential Primary Bill Passes House

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Nevada Republican Party Chairman Signals Support for Presidential Primary Over Caucuses in 2016

David Drucker at The Washington Examiner:

Republican leaders in Nevada are moving to junk their presidential caucuses and re-implement a standard primary election for 2016. 

There are two bills pending in the Republican-controlled legislature, including one in the Assembly carried by Speaker John Hambrick. If passed and signed by GOP Gov. Brian Sandoval, Nevada Republicans voting in the 2016 primary would pull the lever at the polls as they do in a general election, rather than caucusing in groups similar to how the primary is conducted in Iowa. Republican insiders supportive of the legislation are expressing confidence that it will be enacted. 

"There are pros and cons to everything," Nevada GOP Chairman Michael McDonald told the Washington Examiner on Friday. But McDonald said he is pushing for a normal primary because he and many other Silver State Republicans are unhappy with how the 2012 caucuses went down.

This is interesting.

It is interesting because it represents a reversal either at the top of the Nevada Republican Party or within the Nevada Republican Party. Drucker mentions that the chairman of the Republican Party in the Silver state supports the change and obviously the speaker of the state Assembly, who sponsored the Assembly legislation cited (AB 302), supports the change. Yet, the party vice chair, Jim DeGraffenreid, is on record (on behalf of the party) in opposition to that bill at its original hearing. Yes, that written testimony was against the original version of the legislation. At the time it called for a non-compliant January presidential primary (consolidated with the primaries for state and local offices). In his spoken testimony before the Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Committee, DeGraffenreid, as FHQ described it at the time, rejected the primary idea outright, saying that the state party could and would make the decision on its own and that the taxpayer expenditure for a presidential primary was not necessary.

When the same bill was introduced in the state Senate and later heard in committee, another representative from the Nevada Republican Party -- this time James Hindle, chairman of the Storey County Republican Party and like DeGraffenreid speaking on behalf of the state party -- voiced opposition to the presidential primary idea in the bill. This time the comments were more ominous with regard to how the Nevada Republican Party viewed the idea of trading in caucuses for a primary.  Hindle indicated that the Nevada Republican Party Central Committee had voted the previous weekend to hold caucuses (after having debated the two options).

Again, the Nevada Republican Party has already voted -- and quite recently -- to hold caucuses in 2016 instead of a primary. Now, that does not mean that the party cannot change its mind. Under different leadership during the 2012 cycle, the Nevada Republican Party set its caucuses date for February 18, 2012, then January 14 and then settled on February 4 after a showdown with New Hampshire.¹

Nevada Republicans may pull the trigger on a switch, but that does raise a number of questions.

1. Which version of the presidential primary legislation will make it through the legislature? One version -- the Assembly version -- now calls for a state party to request the secretary of state to call for a presidential primary. It only takes one party. If both make that request, then the state central committees have to confer on a working day in February. Absent an agreement, the secretary of state makes the decision. The state Senate bill calls for a consolidated presidential primary (with primaries for other state and local offices) on the last Tuesday in February. The date issue is not much of a conflict, but the consolidated primary means cost savings that a separate presidential primary cannot match. However, that consolidated primary means much earlier filing deadlines and general election campaigns for all other state and local candidates. In other words, there is still much to iron out on this one.
2. If the Assembly bill cited by Drucker is the preferred option for Silver state Republicans, how receptive will Senate bill sponsor, Senator James Settlemeyer (R-17th, Minden), be to that option? He held quite a lot of sway over his bill getting out of committee.
3. Speaking of parties opting into or requesting the presidential primary, Nevada Democrats, at least those on the committees hearing these two bills, continue to say that Nevada was originally chosen as a carve-out state specifically as a caucuses state. Those Democratic committee members have also voiced opposition to the primary measures because the DNC rules specify that Nevada is a caucuses state. Changing that would jeopardize carve-out status, they argue. [FHQ thinks that concern is perhaps overblown. Those same Democratic rules have called for specific dates on which Nevada's caucuses were to occur during the last two cycles. Nevada has yet to actually conduct a delegate selection event on those dates (because of the actions of other states). That has not led to a loss of the state party's privileged position on the calendar, much less a loss of any delegates. Yet, if the Nevada Democratic Party thinks there is a problem there, it affects how they approach these bills (and ultimately how willing they are to pick a primary over the caucuses the party tends to have.).]
4. Is there disagreement in the Nevada Republican Party over the primary versus caucuses question?
5. Finally, FHQ semi-jokingly said in response to a Jon Ralston tweet about the Nevada Republican Party having difficulty raising money that Nevada Republicans might be motivated to switch to a primary so that the state would pick up the tab for the election. That would save the party the trouble of having to raise the money necessary to pull of a caucuses/convention process that has already been rocky the last two cycles. How much is the fundraising shortfall affect the decision-making here?

Nevada Republicans may "junk" their embattled caucuses, but there is a lot of nuance to this situation that may make such a switch more difficult to achieve.

Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for bringing Drucker's story to FHQ's attention.

--
¹ The typical protocol for the carve-out states has been to wait every other state out, setting the dates of their primaries and caucuses later and only after other states had chosen dates. Nevada Republicans did not follow that blueprint in 2010-11.

Recent Posts:
Time Ran Out on Washington Presidential Primary Bill

North Carolina Presidential Primary Bill Passes House

Ohio House Passes Legislation to Move Presidential Primary Back a Week

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Time Ran Out on Washington Presidential Primary Bill

As mandated by the state constitution, the Washington state legislature must wrap up the business of its 2015 regular session by April 26. However, both chambers of the legislature ended their regular session work on Friday evening, April 24.

One of the bills -- ideas really -- left in limbo as the session closed was SB 5978. Originally, that legislation was intended to entice the state parties into using the presidential primary election to allocate at least some of their national delegates. That version passed the Republican-controlled state Senate, but has stalled in the Democratic-controlled state House. And, in fact, that bill was amended to make the presidential primary contingent upon the parties using the election to allocated at least 75% of their national convention delegates. If the parties -- both parties -- fail to use the primary and at that allocation threshold, the presidential primary election is automatically cancelled.

FHQ made the case earlier this week that that maneuver was a function of the combination of the Washington Democratic Party opting for a caucuses/convention system in 2016 and a Democratic-controlled state House moving, in part, to reflect that decision. However, there were institutional reasons driving that House Appropriations Committee amendment. As FHQ commenter, jimrtex, astutely pointed out, SB 5978 and other bills faced a number of deadlines recently. Most importantly,  that includes the April 15 deadline for bills to have passed the chamber opposite the bill's originated chamber. For SB 5978, then, that means it would have to have passed the House by April 15.

It did not.

There is, however, an exception to that cutoff: bills that have some budgetary effect. SB 5978 did not originally have any budgetary impact. It called for a presidential primary election to be held as usual,  but proposed shifting the date and the delegate allocation formula. To keep the bill alive, it had to have some effect on the budget. Adding the amendment with a trigger to automatically cancel the primary, SB 5978 now has a potential $11.5 million impact. As in, it would save the state $11.5 million in the next budget if the primary is cancelled. And really that if is a when. Again, both parties have to opt into the presidential primary and allocate 75% of their delegates through the results of that election. State Democrats have already voted to hold caucuses in 2016.

That fact -- that both parties are likely headed for caucuses -- and the fact that SB 5978 died in the House as the regular session closed means that Washington essentially has a meaningless $11.5 million expenditure in the state budget for the next two years. But that projected budget and its different versions across the two legislative chambers were not reconciled prior to the close of the session. That work will continue in a special session to convene next week.

There might be an $11.5 million presidential primary appropriation that may become part of that discussion.

--
EDITORIAL NOTE: The original version of this post was written Friday morning, April 24 and scheduled to run Saturday morning, April 25 to fill a travel-related gap in FHQ's postings. That post ran as scheduled, but the Washington legislature adjourned on Friday evening after the original post was in the can. The post has been edited to reflect the earlier adjournment and the upcoming special session in the Evergreen state. 

Recent Posts:
North Carolina Presidential Primary Bill Passes House

Ohio House Passes Legislation to Move Presidential Primary Back a Week

Bill to Move North Carolina Presidential Primary Back into Compliance Advances Out of Committee

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

North Carolina Presidential Primary Bill Passes House

With crossover day looming over the proceedings at the North Carolina Capitol in Raleigh, the state House moved quickly on presidential primary legislation that got the green light in committee earlier in the day.

H 457, the bill to move the presidential primary in the Tar Heel state to March 8, was favorably reported from the House Elections Committee on the morning of April 22 and was later in the evening passed by a voice vote on the House floor. The change to the primary date would bring the North Carolina presidential primary back into compliance with the national parties' delegate selection rules. As the law is currently constructed, the North Carolina presidential primary would fall on the Tuesday after the South Carolina primary. Though neither South Carolina party has officially set a primary date for the 2016 cycle, the primary in the Palmetto state is protected as a February primary by the rules of both national parties.

That would pull the North Carolina primary into February and out of compliance with those same national party rules.¹ In turn, that means that both parties in North Carolina would face potential delegate reduction penalties. It is the threat of those penalties -- 50% from the DNC and over 80% from the RNC -- that has prompted the North Carolina General Assembly to consider partially reversing course on its 2013 decision to separate the North Carolina presidential primary and move it from May to February. H 457 would not shift the primary back to it traditional position in May, but would instead keep the North Carolina primary early on the presidential primary calendar while nudging it out of the pre-March 1 danger zone.

It has never been a formality that this legislation would pass the lower chamber, but it has a sponsor, Rep. David Lewis (R-53rd, Harnett), who not only chairs the House Elections Committee, but is also the North Carolina national committeeman to the RNC. With the backing of the House speaker, Lewis is a well-positioned advocate for the proposed primary date change. The expected roadblock to changing the primary date has never been in the House. It was the state Senate that added at the last minute the amendment to the omnibus elections bill changing the primary date in 2013. And it is the state Senate where vocal opposition to changing the date exists now. This bill now moves to the Senate side of the capitol building, and it is there that it will perhaps face a sterner test.

...though, there is reason to suggest that the climb will not be as steep as once thought. Senator Bob Rucho (R-39th, Mecklenburg), through whom everything elections-related goes through in the upper chamber, has moderated to some extent his previous stance backing the February date. He said Wednesday, “We’re evaluating and looking at what’s in the best interest of our state.” That is a far cry from his "we're not going to move it unless we get something out of it" position.

--
¹ Under those rules, no state other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina can hold a primary or caucuses before the first Tuesday in March (March 1 for the 2016 cycle).

Recent Posts:
Ohio House Passes Legislation to Move Presidential Primary Back a Week

Bill to Move North Carolina Presidential Primary Back into Compliance Advances Out of Committee

A November 2015 Presidential Primary in Louisiana?

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.