The bill to move the Rhode Island primary up a month -- from the fourth Tuesday in April to the fourth Tuesday in March -- looks to be permanently stalled in committee. The Republican-sponsored HB 6054 was "held for further study" after a Wednesday, May 6 hearing before the Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee.
That is likely the death knell for this one. It is not unlike the situation in nearby Connecticut, where Republicans earlier this year also sponsored legislation to move the Nutmeg state presidential primary into the first week of March. Those bills similarly faced resistance from majority party Democrats in the state Senate. Connecticut Republicans are considering switching to a caucus/convention system in order to hold an earlier contest more consequential to the Republican nomination process.
In Rhode Island, though, April 26 aligned with the primaries in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania, seems most likely.
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Florida Republicans Go Winner-Take-All
Truly winner-take-all.
The Republican Party of Florida during a Saturday, May 16 meeting in Orlando voted to change its delegate selection rules, instituting a winner-take-all system of delegate allocation for 2016. During the previous two cycles, Florida was only a truly winner-take-all system by virtue of their early and non-compliant primaries in 2008 and 2012. By rule, Florida Republicans had a winner-take-most (modified winner-take-all by congressional district) allocation method but with one very important caveat. If the national party reduced the delegation in response to a rules violation -- like a non-compliant January primary -- the allocation automatically became truly winner-take-all.
Outside of the proportionality window for 2016 and scheduled in a compliant position on the calendar, Florida Republicans have, as expected, now dropped the trigger mechanism and will allocate all 99 national convention delegates to the statewide winner of the March 15 presidential primary. This removes a small question mark that hovered over the allocation in Florida. The party, without the trigger of the last two cycles, had traditionally split up the allocation between statewide, at-large delegates and congressional district delegates. That will not be the case in 2016:
The Republican Party of Florida during a Saturday, May 16 meeting in Orlando voted to change its delegate selection rules, instituting a winner-take-all system of delegate allocation for 2016. During the previous two cycles, Florida was only a truly winner-take-all system by virtue of their early and non-compliant primaries in 2008 and 2012. By rule, Florida Republicans had a winner-take-most (modified winner-take-all by congressional district) allocation method but with one very important caveat. If the national party reduced the delegation in response to a rules violation -- like a non-compliant January primary -- the allocation automatically became truly winner-take-all.
Outside of the proportionality window for 2016 and scheduled in a compliant position on the calendar, Florida Republicans have, as expected, now dropped the trigger mechanism and will allocate all 99 national convention delegates to the statewide winner of the March 15 presidential primary. This removes a small question mark that hovered over the allocation in Florida. The party, without the trigger of the last two cycles, had traditionally split up the allocation between statewide, at-large delegates and congressional district delegates. That will not be the case in 2016:
"With Florida's immense size and diverse population, any campaign that can mount a successful state-wide effort in Florida will be well positioned to run a truly national campaign come 2016," RPOF Chairman Blaise Ingoglia said in a statement. "Florida will now be the first winner-take-all primary in the country, this ensures that all presidential campaigns will have to spend a considerable amount of time in Florida speaking to Republicans from Pensacola to Key West and everywhere in-between."Chasing after 99 delegates may do that or candidates not named Bush or Rubio may cede the state to the two Floridians -- happy to let one of the two be eliminated if both are still around on March 15 -- in order to focus on midwestern states like Illinois and Missouri (and perhaps Ohio) instead. That will be pretty deep into the calendar by that point. If the caucus state file in ahead of Florida on the calendar, Florida could be the first winner-take-all contest, but in the 25-30 range in the order of overall contests; likely after the 50% delegates allocated point on the calendar. That may or may not allow Florida to be the type of kingmaker that it was with a January presidential primary in both 2008 and 2012.
Michigan Republicans Vote Down Proposal to Switch to a Closed Caucuses System in 2016
During the Michigan Republican State Central Committee meeting on Saturday, May 9, the big news was the election to fill the state party's national committeewoman position vacated when current Michigan Republican Party chair, Ronna Romney McDaniel, was elected in February 2015. Perhaps more interesting was an effort that had been brewing in the lead up to the meeting to have the state party reverse course, switching to a caucuses/convention process closed to only registered Republican voters.
The State Central Committee voted in support of a resolution endorsing a March 15 presidential primary last fall. The actual move required action from the Michigan state legislature, which the party got earlier this year. However, the outcome in the legislature was a March 8 date. That left Michigan Republicans with an open primary as mandated by state law in the proportionality window as set by the Republican National Committee. That combination was mostly what the Michigan Republican Party wanted. The date was early enough, but will force them to proportionally allocate national convention delegates to presidential candidates based on the results of the primary. The party had last fall settled on a hybrid, winner-take-most system of delegate allocation.
On the openness of the primary -- who can participate -- the Michigan Republican Party has tended to defer to state law. And that calls for an open primary that leaves the door ajar not only to independents participating but also potentially Democrats. It is that latter conflict that partially gave rise to the proposal to restrict participation to just Republican voters. But as there is no effort in the hopper or on the horizon in the Michigan state legislature to close off the primaries to just partisans (voting in their own primary), the only move would have been to switch from an open primary to a closed caucus.
FHQ said "partially" gave rise to the switch push because the effort was supported and advanced by Rand Paul-aligned members of the State Central Committee, notably District 8 Republican Party chair, Tom McMillin. The grassroots organizing of activists that the Ron Paul campaigns have done over the last two presidential election cycles, it has been argued, potentially gives Rand Paul a leg up in caucus states. This is not a new idea. It has been discussed in the context of the probable Kentucky Republican Party switch from a primary to caucuses (though there are other factors driving that switch as well) and the more recent quiet RNC push to trade out caucuses for a primary in carve-out state Nevada.
The former would theoretically help Paul in his home state while the latter would hurt the junior Kentucky senator in a state where his father finished in the top three in 2008 and 2012.
The attempt in Michigan was to make a move similar to that in Kentucky. However, it was just an attempt at the State Central Committee meeting last weekend. The Michigan Republican Party Policy Committee tabled the proposal with no support but did resolve to study closing the process in future election cycles (Again, that decision is only totally in the state party's control if it switches to a caucus in the future or the state legislature changes the law regarding who can participate. Court challenges to the law by the party are also a possibility.).
Yet, that was not the end of the discussion. The issue was also brought to the floor of the State Central Committee meeting a well by McMillin. The discussion there was not all that different from the one in the Policy Committee. On the floor the proposal to close the nomination system needed a two-thirds vote of the 112 member committee, but supporters could muster only a handful of votes and saw the standing vote on the motion fail.
--
In the grand scheme of things in this 2016 Republican presidential nomination race, this maneuvering in Michigan will be little more than a footnote. That said, it is indicative of some of the behind-the-scenes efforts made by the possible and announced candidates, their campaigns and proxies on the state level. It is not unusual activity, but keeps popping up in the context of these caucuses versus primaries, pragmatism versus purism discussions within the Republican Party both nationally and in the states over the last handful of years. The extent to which the rules matter ebbs and flows, but political actors perceive them to matter and act accordingly to shape them.
The State Central Committee voted in support of a resolution endorsing a March 15 presidential primary last fall. The actual move required action from the Michigan state legislature, which the party got earlier this year. However, the outcome in the legislature was a March 8 date. That left Michigan Republicans with an open primary as mandated by state law in the proportionality window as set by the Republican National Committee. That combination was mostly what the Michigan Republican Party wanted. The date was early enough, but will force them to proportionally allocate national convention delegates to presidential candidates based on the results of the primary. The party had last fall settled on a hybrid, winner-take-most system of delegate allocation.
On the openness of the primary -- who can participate -- the Michigan Republican Party has tended to defer to state law. And that calls for an open primary that leaves the door ajar not only to independents participating but also potentially Democrats. It is that latter conflict that partially gave rise to the proposal to restrict participation to just Republican voters. But as there is no effort in the hopper or on the horizon in the Michigan state legislature to close off the primaries to just partisans (voting in their own primary), the only move would have been to switch from an open primary to a closed caucus.
FHQ said "partially" gave rise to the switch push because the effort was supported and advanced by Rand Paul-aligned members of the State Central Committee, notably District 8 Republican Party chair, Tom McMillin. The grassroots organizing of activists that the Ron Paul campaigns have done over the last two presidential election cycles, it has been argued, potentially gives Rand Paul a leg up in caucus states. This is not a new idea. It has been discussed in the context of the probable Kentucky Republican Party switch from a primary to caucuses (though there are other factors driving that switch as well) and the more recent quiet RNC push to trade out caucuses for a primary in carve-out state Nevada.
The former would theoretically help Paul in his home state while the latter would hurt the junior Kentucky senator in a state where his father finished in the top three in 2008 and 2012.
The attempt in Michigan was to make a move similar to that in Kentucky. However, it was just an attempt at the State Central Committee meeting last weekend. The Michigan Republican Party Policy Committee tabled the proposal with no support but did resolve to study closing the process in future election cycles (Again, that decision is only totally in the state party's control if it switches to a caucus in the future or the state legislature changes the law regarding who can participate. Court challenges to the law by the party are also a possibility.).
Yet, that was not the end of the discussion. The issue was also brought to the floor of the State Central Committee meeting a well by McMillin. The discussion there was not all that different from the one in the Policy Committee. On the floor the proposal to close the nomination system needed a two-thirds vote of the 112 member committee, but supporters could muster only a handful of votes and saw the standing vote on the motion fail.
--
In the grand scheme of things in this 2016 Republican presidential nomination race, this maneuvering in Michigan will be little more than a footnote. That said, it is indicative of some of the behind-the-scenes efforts made by the possible and announced candidates, their campaigns and proxies on the state level. It is not unusual activity, but keeps popping up in the context of these caucuses versus primaries, pragmatism versus purism discussions within the Republican Party both nationally and in the states over the last handful of years. The extent to which the rules matter ebbs and flows, but political actors perceive them to matter and act accordingly to shape them.
Amended Louisiana House Budget Would Fund Presidential Primary
Back in March when Governor Bobby Jindal (R) unveiled his budget proposal for the 2015-16 fiscal year, it quickly became clear that there was not enough money appropriated to fund the 2016 presidential primary in Louisiana. This led to subsequent speculative discussions about whether Louisiana caucuses would be more favorable to a potential Jindal run for the Republican nomination and whether a possible November primary (consolidated with the 2015 runoff elections).
Speculation aside, the no-primary scare may have passed. An amended version of the budget -- now in the Louisiana House -- would set aside more than $3.3 million for the presidential primary next year. HB 1, the budget bill, has been engrossed and will this next week have a third reading vote.
Louisiana is currently slated to hold a Saturday, March 5 primary pending funding in this budget passing and being signed by Governor Jindal.
Speculation aside, the no-primary scare may have passed. An amended version of the budget -- now in the Louisiana House -- would set aside more than $3.3 million for the presidential primary next year. HB 1, the budget bill, has been engrossed and will this next week have a third reading vote.
Louisiana is currently slated to hold a Saturday, March 5 primary pending funding in this budget passing and being signed by Governor Jindal.
Friday, May 15, 2015
Let's Talk About the Primary Calendar and the Republican Nomination Race, Part Two
FHQ has received some questions from a handful of reporters and emails from interested readers this week concerning the state of the 2016 presidential primary calendar. Mainly, the subject has revolved around a simple question: Why are there differences between the FHQ calendar and other calendars out there? This is particularly relevant in view of the fact that I sketched out a different tentative calendar at the Monkey Cage earlier this week.
Think of those two versions as two opposite ends of a spectrum. FHQ will call them the ideal national party calendar (the Iowa on February 1 version) and the real time FHQ calendar (the Iowa in January version).
The latter calendar is devised under the premise that if primary season began today, knowing what we know now, where would the carve-out states fall? Given that the New York primary is still scheduled on February 2 as of today, that means that at least Iowa and New Hampshire would ease into calendar slots ahead of that. And if Colorado Democrats and/or Republicans opt into the February 2 caucus option that is available to them under Colorado law, that may bump Nevada up too. That would have a domino effect, pushing Iowa and New Hampshire up even further into early January.
FHQ would be surprised if New York did not move to a compliant primary date. The legislature in the Empire state just moves more slowly than others. With a year round session they can afford to legislate at a more leisurely pace than states with legislatures that adjourn in May. As a point of reference, New York did not begin the process of moving its primary until June 2011 for he 2012 cycle.
Similarly, FHQ does not think Colorado Republicans will opt into a February 2 caucus date in 2016 like the party did in 2011. It has not really been talked about, but Colorado got one of the nine Republican primary debates -- the October CNBC one -- and that either is or was a nice bit of leverage for the Republican National Committee to have. [A debate is what Governor Jan Brewer was angling for in 2011 when she threatened but did not move the Arizona presidential primary into January.]
Yet, New York is scheduled for February 2 and until that primary is moved via legislation, then Iowa and New Hampshire would be ahead of that point.
...if primary season began today.
That separates the FHQ calendar from the ideal national party calendar. And bear in mind that the national parties both have an interest in telling everyone that primary season will begin on February 1. The parties both want the certainty of a set schedule as soon as possible and tend to act as if everything is fine until it very obviously is not. That is what got FHQ a call from the RNC legal counsel's office in 2011. They were curious, if not upset, that I had the carve-out states penciled into calendar spots in January. That discussion ended in a stalemate: the RNC arguing that their rules said the carve-out states would be in February and FHQ countering that the 50% penalty did not seem to be deterring some states, notably Florida, from moving to non-compliant positions on the calendar. [NOTE: Not wanting to appear political science smug prevents me from pointing out who ended up being right on that one. Oops.]
The lesson? The calendar is not set until it is set. And the 2016 presidential primary calendar is not set yet. It is a heck of a lot closer to the national parties' ideal calendar in 2015 than it was in 2011 though. And the national parties have to like that.
Think of those two versions as two opposite ends of a spectrum. FHQ will call them the ideal national party calendar (the Iowa on February 1 version) and the real time FHQ calendar (the Iowa in January version).
The latter calendar is devised under the premise that if primary season began today, knowing what we know now, where would the carve-out states fall? Given that the New York primary is still scheduled on February 2 as of today, that means that at least Iowa and New Hampshire would ease into calendar slots ahead of that. And if Colorado Democrats and/or Republicans opt into the February 2 caucus option that is available to them under Colorado law, that may bump Nevada up too. That would have a domino effect, pushing Iowa and New Hampshire up even further into early January.
FHQ would be surprised if New York did not move to a compliant primary date. The legislature in the Empire state just moves more slowly than others. With a year round session they can afford to legislate at a more leisurely pace than states with legislatures that adjourn in May. As a point of reference, New York did not begin the process of moving its primary until June 2011 for he 2012 cycle.
Similarly, FHQ does not think Colorado Republicans will opt into a February 2 caucus date in 2016 like the party did in 2011. It has not really been talked about, but Colorado got one of the nine Republican primary debates -- the October CNBC one -- and that either is or was a nice bit of leverage for the Republican National Committee to have. [A debate is what Governor Jan Brewer was angling for in 2011 when she threatened but did not move the Arizona presidential primary into January.]
Yet, New York is scheduled for February 2 and until that primary is moved via legislation, then Iowa and New Hampshire would be ahead of that point.
...if primary season began today.
That separates the FHQ calendar from the ideal national party calendar. And bear in mind that the national parties both have an interest in telling everyone that primary season will begin on February 1. The parties both want the certainty of a set schedule as soon as possible and tend to act as if everything is fine until it very obviously is not. That is what got FHQ a call from the RNC legal counsel's office in 2011. They were curious, if not upset, that I had the carve-out states penciled into calendar spots in January. That discussion ended in a stalemate: the RNC arguing that their rules said the carve-out states would be in February and FHQ countering that the 50% penalty did not seem to be deterring some states, notably Florida, from moving to non-compliant positions on the calendar. [NOTE: Not wanting to appear political science smug prevents me from pointing out who ended up being right on that one. Oops.]
The lesson? The calendar is not set until it is set. And the 2016 presidential primary calendar is not set yet. It is a heck of a lot closer to the national parties' ideal calendar in 2015 than it was in 2011 though. And the national parties have to like that.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
The SEC Primary Has Nothing to Do with Georgia Being More Prominent in 2016
FHQ has found Adam Wollner's reporting at the National Journal this cycle enlightening. He and I have had a handful of conversations about the primary calendar and specific maneuverings by states, and I have cited him a time or two. But Wollner lost me yesterday right in the lede of his story on Georgia's newfound position of prominence in the race for the 2016 Republican nomination.
Basically, this is a story about candidates coming to Georgia. That is fine, but the hypotheses advanced as to why the early visits are occurring fell short in FHQ's estimation. Let's explore.
Even if we assume that Georgia conducts a primary on March 1, that is not a new position for the state on the primary calendar. It would be the same first Tuesday in March date on which the Georgia primary occurred in 2012. I'm having flashbacks to grad school here, but if you have a variable (calendar position) that does not vary, then you do not have anything that can explain the changes in the dependent variable (candidate visits).
Calendar positioning is not driving any increase in candidate visits then. What else?
Perhaps the strong signal that Georgia is giving about holding a March 1 primary is what is driving this (at least relative to the other states). Perhaps, but that does not really have all that much to do with the SEC primary.
FHQ is not convinced that that is the reason why more candidates are visiting Georgia though. There are at least two other better alternate explanations.
--
Before I close let's look for a moment at the lefthand side of this equation, the dependent variable. FHQ would urge a high level of caution in reading much into the number of candidate visits a state -- any state -- receives. Particularly, I would hesitate in comparing those raw numbers across cycles. It is dangerous and potentially misleading. Let's look at Georgia and the visits that have been paid to the Peach state in the time since the 2000 primaries.
But second, and perhaps more important, when both parties have active nominations that tends to mean more candidates who can provide more visits. And that is definitely true for 2016. There may only be a handful of Democrats seeking the party's nomination, but there are truckload of Republicans who are running. More candidates equals more potential visits to an early, delegate-rich state. This is a super important footnote for anyone who decides to look into candidate visits in the coming months and attempts to draw anything from the aggregated numbers.
Look at Georgia. It received about a 25% increase in visits in 2012 (versus 2008) despite only the Republicans having a competitive nomination race, a favorite son on the ballot and an uncertain calendar (that did not become certain until November 20112). Why? Georgia's primary was early-ish and was the most delegate-rich contest on its date.
--
1 No, FHQ does not have that date listed for Georgia on the 2016 presidential primary calendar and will not until there is a formal announcement. That said, I will leave what I said above stand. It is pretty clear that Georgia will end up on March 1 next year and that an announcement will, I would guess, probably happen sooner than the end of September this year. There just is not as much chaos to the formation of the 2016 calendar as there was four years ago.
2 That uncertainty matters less in the comparison of 2012 to 2008. 2008 had just as much calendar uncertainty. However, with the calendar far clearer for 2016, that allows the candidates to better map out visits to states they know will be early, but after the carve-out states.
Basically, this is a story about candidates coming to Georgia. That is fine, but the hypotheses advanced as to why the early visits are occurring fell short in FHQ's estimation. Let's explore.
Hypothesis #1: Georgia has received more visits during the 2016 cycle because of its new position on the calendar.Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp may or may not in 2015 formally declare the date of the Georgia presidential primary as he did by law in a press conference in late September 2011. He has not yet in any event. But as Secretary Kemp is spearheading the effort to form an SEC primary coalition on March 1 and has repeatedly discussed that date, we can assume that a very strong signal has been sent as to when the Georgia presidential primary will fall in 2016.1
Even if we assume that Georgia conducts a primary on March 1, that is not a new position for the state on the primary calendar. It would be the same first Tuesday in March date on which the Georgia primary occurred in 2012. I'm having flashbacks to grad school here, but if you have a variable (calendar position) that does not vary, then you do not have anything that can explain the changes in the dependent variable (candidate visits).
Calendar positioning is not driving any increase in candidate visits then. What else?
Hypothesis #2: The SEC primary that Georgia political actors have pushed has led to more candidate visits during the 2016 presidential nomination cycle.This SEC primary concept is a tough one to measure. The task is even tougher in view of the fact none of the states named in the original proposal have yet moved to March 1. Tennessee was already there by state law (changed in 2011). All signs point toward Georgia being there when the calendar dust settles. Louisiana declined to participate. In Alabama, there is bipartisan support for moving their primary up a week, but it is still in the legislative process. Arkansas and Mississippi failed to pass legislation that would have moved their primaries to March 1, but Arkansas may have a second go at it.
Perhaps the strong signal that Georgia is giving about holding a March 1 primary is what is driving this (at least relative to the other states). Perhaps, but that does not really have all that much to do with the SEC primary.
FHQ is not convinced that that is the reason why more candidates are visiting Georgia though. There are at least two other better alternate explanations.
- Other than Texas, Georgia is the most delegate-rich state likely to hold a primary or caucuses on March 1. The perception is that this is going to be a long, drawn-out Republican nomination race (FHQ is skeptical that that will be the case.). That, in turn, means the delegate count will again take on added importance. In that situation, candidates go where the delegates are or will be. Georgia is a place where there will be delegates at stake.
- Speaking of Texas, something the Lone Star state has or will have in 2016 is something that Georgia had in 2012: a favorite son running for the presidential nomination. FHQ could not believe that Newt Gingrich was only mentioned in passing in Wollner's piece. If one wants to explain why Georgia might be getting more candidate attention in 2016 than it did in 2012, then a favorite son being involved in the previous cycle might be something at which to look. It tends to have a reducing effect on the number of visits from other candidates. That is especially true in the event that said state shares a primary date with a number of other contests. This was true for Illinois in 2008. Arkansas also lost in 2008 because it shared its February 5 primary date with twenty plus other states and Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee were on the ballot.
--
Before I close let's look for a moment at the lefthand side of this equation, the dependent variable. FHQ would urge a high level of caution in reading much into the number of candidate visits a state -- any state -- receives. Particularly, I would hesitate in comparing those raw numbers across cycles. It is dangerous and potentially misleading. Let's look at Georgia and the visits that have been paid to the Peach state in the time since the 2000 primaries.
Georgia primary visits:This makes it look like Georgia has seen a rise in candidate visits over time, and that even accounts for the fact that only one party had an active nomination in both 2004 and 2012. The key questions to ask are 1) was the nomination race still competitive when Georgia held its presidential primary and 2) how many states shared that date with the Peach state? The answer to #1 is yes across the board in all of those cycles. Georgia was still worth visiting, then. As for #2, that is likely what is driving this relationship; a greater number of visits. Georgia has had to share its primary date with a varying number of states over time.
2000: 2
2004: 32
2008: 38
2012: 47
Number of states to share primary date with Georgia:Those numbers do not really make that point clear. There seem to be more concurrent contests when both parties have active nominations. That means a couple of things. First, Georgia is not always the top dog, uh, dawg, in terms of delegate-richness when it shares its presidential primary date with a large number of states (typically, though not always, on the earliest date allowed by the national party delegate selection rules). Often among those states are the likes of California, New York and Ohio; all more attractive, delegate-rich states. Georgia was the most delegate-rich state on March 6 four years ago.
2000: 16
2004: 9
2008: 23
2012: 10
But second, and perhaps more important, when both parties have active nominations that tends to mean more candidates who can provide more visits. And that is definitely true for 2016. There may only be a handful of Democrats seeking the party's nomination, but there are truckload of Republicans who are running. More candidates equals more potential visits to an early, delegate-rich state. This is a super important footnote for anyone who decides to look into candidate visits in the coming months and attempts to draw anything from the aggregated numbers.
Look at Georgia. It received about a 25% increase in visits in 2012 (versus 2008) despite only the Republicans having a competitive nomination race, a favorite son on the ballot and an uncertain calendar (that did not become certain until November 20112). Why? Georgia's primary was early-ish and was the most delegate-rich contest on its date.
--
1 No, FHQ does not have that date listed for Georgia on the 2016 presidential primary calendar and will not until there is a formal announcement. That said, I will leave what I said above stand. It is pretty clear that Georgia will end up on March 1 next year and that an announcement will, I would guess, probably happen sooner than the end of September this year. There just is not as much chaos to the formation of the 2016 calendar as there was four years ago.
2 That uncertainty matters less in the comparison of 2012 to 2008. 2008 had just as much calendar uncertainty. However, with the calendar far clearer for 2016, that allows the candidates to better map out visits to states they know will be early, but after the carve-out states.
Nevada Democrats and a Presidential Primary in the Silver State
Democrats in Nevada have expressed some concern over the potential switch from a caucuses/convention system to a presidential primary in the Silver state. During hearings on both the Assembly and Senate versions of bills to shift to a primary, Democrats have voiced variations of the same fear: Switching from a caucus system after the DNC specifically added Nevada as a carve-out caucus state in 2006 would jeopardize the state's protected status.
Fair enough.
FHQ has played along with that line of reasoning thus far. However, it ignores the history of the 2006 landscape when Nevada and South Carolina were added by the DNC as protected early states alongside Iowa and New Hampshire. The reason Nevada was added as a caucus state -- that the DNC wanted a western caucus state -- was that the original plan was to wedge that contest in between Iowa and New Hampshire. Actually, the recommendation from the Herman-Price Commission was to add up to two caucus states in between the first in the nation caucuses in Iowa and the first in the nation primary in New Hampshire.
Any contest wedged into that calendar space between Iowa and New Hampshire had to be a caucus so as not to cross the state law in New Hampshire.
Since the 2008 cycle, however, the Democratic National Committee has slotted Nevada third in the queue, behind Iowa and New Hampshire. What that means is that Nevada Democrats really do not have much to fear from a switch to a presidential primary. It (mostly) would not conflict with New Hampshire law.
This idea, then, that such a trade -- caucuses for a primary -- would cost Nevada Democrats their place at the carve-out table rings somewhat hollow. What it really indicates is that status may already be on thin ice1, and the state party does not want to do anything (or support anything) that might give the DNC an opportunity -- an excuse -- to dump Nevada from the early state lineup in future cycles.
But here's the thing: Nevada Democrats control the caucuses. They do not currently control the primary process because Republicans control the state government. If that continues -- something Nevada Democrats are working to prevent, I'm sure -- then Nevada Democrats would have some insulation against a national party that wants to dump the Silver state from the list of non-exempt states at the beginning of the presidential primary calendar.
Silver state Democrats could -- could -- opt into the primary in 2016 and argue in 2018-20 if Republicans still control the levers of power in Carson City that they had no choice but to go along with the decision. They could petition for a waiver from the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) arguing that Nevada has to stay early because they have no control over the primary process. But the likely response would be, "Hold caucuses instead. You have a history with caucuses." This is what RBC members have said about Florida, post-2012. Florida Democrats argued in 2008 with the threat of losing all their delegates hanging over them that they could not hold caucuses as an alternative to an early, non-compliant primary. Then the party turned around and without prompting held caucuses in 2012 (demonstrating that the party could, in fact, conduct caucuses).
The simple truth of the matter is that if the DNC wants to replace Nevada at the front of the calendar it can. Nevada Democrats could argue that they cannot move the presidential primary, but the Rules and Bylaws Committee would throw that back in their faces rather quickly and penalize the party if they do not comply (by switching back to compliant, later caucuses). Ultimately, this is a good example of the competing interests in presidential primary calendar politics. State parties that do not have control of the state government and perhaps do not have the backing of the national party (in terms of future early state status) are the odd players out in that game. They have very little leverage.
This is less a question for 2016 than it is for 2018 and the beginning stages of the 2020 cycle. Still, if Nevada makes the switch from caucuses to a primary, then that has implications for that process.
--
1 FHQ is sure Nevada Democrats have heard the same whispers we have: With Harry Reid out of the way, the national parties are free to make a carve-out trade. The Senate minority leader was instrumental in gaining early state status for Nevada in 2006. I've heard that from folks in the DNC and the folks in the RNC were seemingly more than happy to go along with that after having Nevada kind of forced on them in the 2008 cycle (and then seeing things not go all that well with the Republican caucuses in Nevada in either 2008 or 2012).
Fair enough.
FHQ has played along with that line of reasoning thus far. However, it ignores the history of the 2006 landscape when Nevada and South Carolina were added by the DNC as protected early states alongside Iowa and New Hampshire. The reason Nevada was added as a caucus state -- that the DNC wanted a western caucus state -- was that the original plan was to wedge that contest in between Iowa and New Hampshire. Actually, the recommendation from the Herman-Price Commission was to add up to two caucus states in between the first in the nation caucuses in Iowa and the first in the nation primary in New Hampshire.
Any contest wedged into that calendar space between Iowa and New Hampshire had to be a caucus so as not to cross the state law in New Hampshire.
Since the 2008 cycle, however, the Democratic National Committee has slotted Nevada third in the queue, behind Iowa and New Hampshire. What that means is that Nevada Democrats really do not have much to fear from a switch to a presidential primary. It (mostly) would not conflict with New Hampshire law.
This idea, then, that such a trade -- caucuses for a primary -- would cost Nevada Democrats their place at the carve-out table rings somewhat hollow. What it really indicates is that status may already be on thin ice1, and the state party does not want to do anything (or support anything) that might give the DNC an opportunity -- an excuse -- to dump Nevada from the early state lineup in future cycles.
But here's the thing: Nevada Democrats control the caucuses. They do not currently control the primary process because Republicans control the state government. If that continues -- something Nevada Democrats are working to prevent, I'm sure -- then Nevada Democrats would have some insulation against a national party that wants to dump the Silver state from the list of non-exempt states at the beginning of the presidential primary calendar.
Silver state Democrats could -- could -- opt into the primary in 2016 and argue in 2018-20 if Republicans still control the levers of power in Carson City that they had no choice but to go along with the decision. They could petition for a waiver from the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) arguing that Nevada has to stay early because they have no control over the primary process. But the likely response would be, "Hold caucuses instead. You have a history with caucuses." This is what RBC members have said about Florida, post-2012. Florida Democrats argued in 2008 with the threat of losing all their delegates hanging over them that they could not hold caucuses as an alternative to an early, non-compliant primary. Then the party turned around and without prompting held caucuses in 2012 (demonstrating that the party could, in fact, conduct caucuses).
The simple truth of the matter is that if the DNC wants to replace Nevada at the front of the calendar it can. Nevada Democrats could argue that they cannot move the presidential primary, but the Rules and Bylaws Committee would throw that back in their faces rather quickly and penalize the party if they do not comply (by switching back to compliant, later caucuses). Ultimately, this is a good example of the competing interests in presidential primary calendar politics. State parties that do not have control of the state government and perhaps do not have the backing of the national party (in terms of future early state status) are the odd players out in that game. They have very little leverage.
This is less a question for 2016 than it is for 2018 and the beginning stages of the 2020 cycle. Still, if Nevada makes the switch from caucuses to a primary, then that has implications for that process.
--
1 FHQ is sure Nevada Democrats have heard the same whispers we have: With Harry Reid out of the way, the national parties are free to make a carve-out trade. The Senate minority leader was instrumental in gaining early state status for Nevada in 2006. I've heard that from folks in the DNC and the folks in the RNC were seemingly more than happy to go along with that after having Nevada kind of forced on them in the 2008 cycle (and then seeing things not go all that well with the Republican caucuses in Nevada in either 2008 or 2012).
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Kansas Senate Passes Bill to Permanently Cancel Presidential Primary
Earlier in the 2015 legislative session the Kansas state Senate unanimously passed legislation to eliminate the presidential primary in the Sunflower state. On Wednesday, May 13, it did so again.
At the end of March, the Kansas state Senate passed SB 239 which originally would have cancelled the presidential primary for the 2016 cycle, but was amended first to end the quadrennial exercise that has happened every cycle since 1996 to cancel the presidential primary. The state House considered similar legislation of its own as well as the Senate bill in the same timeframe. However, around that same time, an effort was initiated to merge a number of elections-related bills including the measure to eliminate the presidential primary.
That omnibus elections bill -- the conference committee report for HB 2104 -- passed the state Senate 22-13 with Democrats and conservative Republicans in opposition. The presidential primary cancelation is commonplace in Topeka after two decades, but some of the other provisions -- moving local elections to August and shifting city and school board elections to odd-numbered years -- have proven more controversial. The vote in the Senate was much tighter than the unanimous vote on the stand-alone presidential primary cancelation bill. The vote in the state House is expected to be even narrower.
Kansas Democrats have already committed to caucuses for the 2016 cycle.
At the end of March, the Kansas state Senate passed SB 239 which originally would have cancelled the presidential primary for the 2016 cycle, but was amended first to end the quadrennial exercise that has happened every cycle since 1996 to cancel the presidential primary. The state House considered similar legislation of its own as well as the Senate bill in the same timeframe. However, around that same time, an effort was initiated to merge a number of elections-related bills including the measure to eliminate the presidential primary.
That omnibus elections bill -- the conference committee report for HB 2104 -- passed the state Senate 22-13 with Democrats and conservative Republicans in opposition. The presidential primary cancelation is commonplace in Topeka after two decades, but some of the other provisions -- moving local elections to August and shifting city and school board elections to odd-numbered years -- have proven more controversial. The vote in the Senate was much tighter than the unanimous vote on the stand-alone presidential primary cancelation bill. The vote in the state House is expected to be even narrower.
Kansas Democrats have already committed to caucuses for the 2016 cycle.
The Unintended Consequences of Fighting the Last Battle
FHQ often talks about the unintended consequences of presidential primary rules changes at the national party level. We also frequently invoke the notion of those same national parties fighting the last battle in setting those rules. It is not often that we tie the two together. But this week, as the Republican National Committee gathers for its spring meeting in Scottsdale, there is a great example playing out of how fighting the last battle is yielding unintended consequences for the RNC as 2016 approaches.
The RNC rules on delegate selection have been set for nine months now, but the particulars of one rules change -- a new addition for the 2016 cycle -- remain somewhat unsettled. The new rule in question is the measure put in place to regulate the presidential primary debates process in the context of the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Those rules are an example of a classic reaction to a perceived problem from the previous cycle. Though the number of debates were down slightly in 2012 relative to 2008, they were not counter-programed by Democratic debates, leaving the Republican candidates in the spotlight attempting to in some ways out-conservative one another.
This was viewed by the RNC and some pundits as injurious to the party and its nominee, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, in the general election phase of the campaign.1 Perceived problems and a loss in November often lead to a perceived need for nominations rules changes and then actual rules changes in the years immediately following the loss. That was the case in 2013 when the RNC began moving toward rules that would limit the number of debates in the 2016 presidential nomination cycle.
But that was a set of changes tailor-made for 2012. 2016 is a different animal. Rules changes in 2013-14 have led to a need for more rules in 2015. Limiting the number of debates is one thing, but determining who can participate from among a crowded field of candidates and potential candidates is another altogether. FHQ mentioned in reaction to the debates proposal nearly two years ago that the RNC risked moving from managing a process (the debates) to trying to control it. Attempting to control a process with competing interests -- the national party's, the state parties', the candidates', the media outlets' -- is attempting to control an uncontrollable process. That is even more true when an initial wave of regulations on debates requires a second wave of rules to govern who can participate.
That is something the RNC is struggling with now. Where does the party draw the line on who can participate? What determines that line? Poll position (in a period of the process where name recognition is driving things)? Fundraising (with or without super PAC data)? Staffing and organization in early states?
Perhaps all the RNC has done is open Pandora's box. But keep in mind that just because this is unique to the Republican Party now does not mean that this is not something that can affect Democrats too. That may not come in 2016, but could in the future. The problems (potentially) are the same across both parties. It may be useful to coordinate, evenly if only loosely, a set of best practices for primary debates regulation like the national parties did on the calendar rules these last two cycles.
--
1 Of course, despite all of that, the 2012 election still ended up about where one would expect given that an incumbent president was seeking reelection with both decent but not great approval ratings and a growing but not greatly economy.
The RNC rules on delegate selection have been set for nine months now, but the particulars of one rules change -- a new addition for the 2016 cycle -- remain somewhat unsettled. The new rule in question is the measure put in place to regulate the presidential primary debates process in the context of the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Those rules are an example of a classic reaction to a perceived problem from the previous cycle. Though the number of debates were down slightly in 2012 relative to 2008, they were not counter-programed by Democratic debates, leaving the Republican candidates in the spotlight attempting to in some ways out-conservative one another.
This was viewed by the RNC and some pundits as injurious to the party and its nominee, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, in the general election phase of the campaign.1 Perceived problems and a loss in November often lead to a perceived need for nominations rules changes and then actual rules changes in the years immediately following the loss. That was the case in 2013 when the RNC began moving toward rules that would limit the number of debates in the 2016 presidential nomination cycle.
But that was a set of changes tailor-made for 2012. 2016 is a different animal. Rules changes in 2013-14 have led to a need for more rules in 2015. Limiting the number of debates is one thing, but determining who can participate from among a crowded field of candidates and potential candidates is another altogether. FHQ mentioned in reaction to the debates proposal nearly two years ago that the RNC risked moving from managing a process (the debates) to trying to control it. Attempting to control a process with competing interests -- the national party's, the state parties', the candidates', the media outlets' -- is attempting to control an uncontrollable process. That is even more true when an initial wave of regulations on debates requires a second wave of rules to govern who can participate.
That is something the RNC is struggling with now. Where does the party draw the line on who can participate? What determines that line? Poll position (in a period of the process where name recognition is driving things)? Fundraising (with or without super PAC data)? Staffing and organization in early states?
Perhaps all the RNC has done is open Pandora's box. But keep in mind that just because this is unique to the Republican Party now does not mean that this is not something that can affect Democrats too. That may not come in 2016, but could in the future. The problems (potentially) are the same across both parties. It may be useful to coordinate, evenly if only loosely, a set of best practices for primary debates regulation like the national parties did on the calendar rules these last two cycles.
--
1 Of course, despite all of that, the 2012 election still ended up about where one would expect given that an incumbent president was seeking reelection with both decent but not great approval ratings and a growing but not greatly economy.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Nevada Senate Passes Presidential Primary Bill With a Twist
After again amending its bill to create a consolidated primary -- presidential and other offices -- on Monday, May 11, the Nevada state Senate passed SB 421 on Tuesday afternoon on an 11-9 party line vote.
Majority party Republicans in the Senate voted in favor of the measure that would create a presidential primary and couple it with the primaries for other offices in the state. The latter, typically in June, would be moved up to the last Tuesday in February. That not only tamps down on the costs associated with the new presidential primary, but is also in line with what the Republican National Committee has been quietly pushing for while keeping the Nevada delegate selection process early on the presidential primary calendar.
And while that potential move from caucuses to a primary is of note for Republicans, perhaps more interesting is the Democratic reaction to the bill in the state Senate. Nevada Republicans have reason to want to go along with the national party on this one. They control the levers of state government in the Silver state, but the national party has sway over which states are among the privileged few at the beginning of the presidential primary line. Nevada is now among that group of four. For Nevada Democrats, however, there is some concern that trading out the caucuses/convention process for a primary will hurt the party and its protected position on the calendar with the Democratic National Committee. The DNC added the Nevada caucuses to the list of carve-out states for the 2008 cycle and has for three cycles now specified the dates of the "caucuses" in Nevada in the national party delegate selection rules. SB 421 has Nevada Democrats in a bind in switching the process to a state-run primary election.
The national parties, then, are pulling the state parties in different directions on this issue. The RNC wants a Nevada primary to reduce the amount of chaos, if not mismanagement, of the caucuses process by the Nevada Republican Party. However, DNC rules call on Nevada to hold caucuses and not a primary.
This sounds like Nevada Democrats might lose their early status (in the future) only there are a couple of outs for them in all of this. One is in the legislation that just passed the state Senate and the other is in the DNC delegate selection rules.
First, layered into the newly amended SB 421 is a provision that instructs the Nevada secretary of state to conduct a presidential primary election (on the last Tuesday in February) if 1) he or she does NOT receive written word from a national party chairperson that the national party does not want to participate in the primary election and 2) if two or more (presidential) candidates file declarations of candidacy with the secretary of state. That provides Democrats in Nevada with an out to continue with the caucuses/convention system. They only need the chair of the DNC to notify the secretary of state that it does not want Nevada Democrats participating in the primary.
Now, this is a bit of an odd maneuver. The legislation cedes the power over the opt-out to the national party. [Keep in mind that because the RNC wants a Nevada primary, it can do nothing and get its preferred position.] Ultimately, the presidential nomination process is a national party process, but on matters like these the national parties have tended to defer to the state parties (unless it is something in direct violation of the national party delegate selection rules). There is some brinkmanship to this, intentional or not. This is daring the DNC to weigh in on a heretofore state party matter and basically say that it supports a lower turnout election in an early state that just so happens to be a swing state in the general election. That is pretty speculative though.
If that provision is in there, then why did Nevada state Senate Democrats vote against the measure? That can get a bit complicated. If the DNC does not take the bait in the trap described above, then Nevada Democrats are forced into a primary election that "violates" national party rules.1 But Nevada Democrats could apply for a waiver from any penalty under Rule 20 of the DNC rules. All a state party has to do is prove that Democratic legislators acted to prevent the legislation from moving forward. As Democrats are in the legislative minority in Nevada, those state Senate Democrats did everything they could to prevent the change in unanimously opposing the move.
That possibility is a long way off in all of this. But there is never a dull moment in Nevada presidential nomination politics.
--
1 FHQ uses the quotation marks here because technically Nevada and the other carve-out states have violated the timing rules in each of the last two cycles. The dates on which Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina were to hold their contests were clearly laid out in the DNC delegate selection rules. Yet, there was no penalty levied against the early four states.
Majority party Republicans in the Senate voted in favor of the measure that would create a presidential primary and couple it with the primaries for other offices in the state. The latter, typically in June, would be moved up to the last Tuesday in February. That not only tamps down on the costs associated with the new presidential primary, but is also in line with what the Republican National Committee has been quietly pushing for while keeping the Nevada delegate selection process early on the presidential primary calendar.
And while that potential move from caucuses to a primary is of note for Republicans, perhaps more interesting is the Democratic reaction to the bill in the state Senate. Nevada Republicans have reason to want to go along with the national party on this one. They control the levers of state government in the Silver state, but the national party has sway over which states are among the privileged few at the beginning of the presidential primary line. Nevada is now among that group of four. For Nevada Democrats, however, there is some concern that trading out the caucuses/convention process for a primary will hurt the party and its protected position on the calendar with the Democratic National Committee. The DNC added the Nevada caucuses to the list of carve-out states for the 2008 cycle and has for three cycles now specified the dates of the "caucuses" in Nevada in the national party delegate selection rules. SB 421 has Nevada Democrats in a bind in switching the process to a state-run primary election.
The national parties, then, are pulling the state parties in different directions on this issue. The RNC wants a Nevada primary to reduce the amount of chaos, if not mismanagement, of the caucuses process by the Nevada Republican Party. However, DNC rules call on Nevada to hold caucuses and not a primary.
This sounds like Nevada Democrats might lose their early status (in the future) only there are a couple of outs for them in all of this. One is in the legislation that just passed the state Senate and the other is in the DNC delegate selection rules.
First, layered into the newly amended SB 421 is a provision that instructs the Nevada secretary of state to conduct a presidential primary election (on the last Tuesday in February) if 1) he or she does NOT receive written word from a national party chairperson that the national party does not want to participate in the primary election and 2) if two or more (presidential) candidates file declarations of candidacy with the secretary of state. That provides Democrats in Nevada with an out to continue with the caucuses/convention system. They only need the chair of the DNC to notify the secretary of state that it does not want Nevada Democrats participating in the primary.
Now, this is a bit of an odd maneuver. The legislation cedes the power over the opt-out to the national party. [Keep in mind that because the RNC wants a Nevada primary, it can do nothing and get its preferred position.] Ultimately, the presidential nomination process is a national party process, but on matters like these the national parties have tended to defer to the state parties (unless it is something in direct violation of the national party delegate selection rules). There is some brinkmanship to this, intentional or not. This is daring the DNC to weigh in on a heretofore state party matter and basically say that it supports a lower turnout election in an early state that just so happens to be a swing state in the general election. That is pretty speculative though.
If that provision is in there, then why did Nevada state Senate Democrats vote against the measure? That can get a bit complicated. If the DNC does not take the bait in the trap described above, then Nevada Democrats are forced into a primary election that "violates" national party rules.1 But Nevada Democrats could apply for a waiver from any penalty under Rule 20 of the DNC rules. All a state party has to do is prove that Democratic legislators acted to prevent the legislation from moving forward. As Democrats are in the legislative minority in Nevada, those state Senate Democrats did everything they could to prevent the change in unanimously opposing the move.
That possibility is a long way off in all of this. But there is never a dull moment in Nevada presidential nomination politics.
--
1 FHQ uses the quotation marks here because technically Nevada and the other carve-out states have violated the timing rules in each of the last two cycles. The dates on which Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina were to hold their contests were clearly laid out in the DNC delegate selection rules. Yet, there was no penalty levied against the early four states.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)