Although some of the details came to light a couple of weeks ago, Nevada Democrats on Wednesday, March 20 released their draft delegate selection plan for the 2020 cycle, providing a fuller accounting of how the party will select and allocate delegates. The devil is always in the details:
The process
Before digging in, let's go over some basics. First of all, the is a draft. All Democratic state parties are tasked with devising a draft delegate selection plan that it then releases publicly and opens to public comment for at least 30 days. On or before May 3, those state parties then submit both the draft plans and any comments collected from the public to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) for review. The RBC then approves the plan or more often requests some changes that state parties typically work on over the summer.
What Nevada Democrats released today, then, is not a finished product. It may or may not -- in whole or in part -- pass muster with the RBC.
The delegate toplines
The draft plan confirms that Nevada Democrats will have a total of 48 delegates apportioned to the state for 2020. That is five delegates more than the 43 total delegates the party had in 2016. As in 2016, there will be 36 pledged delegates in 2020 in the Nevada delegation. That includes eight at-large delegates, 23 congressional district delegates and five party leader and elected official (PLEO) delegates. Most of that is just the same as it was for 2016. The only difference comes from the addition of one at-large delegate. That means that the remaining gain in total delegates cycle over cycle came entirely from the superdelegates (one governor, one senator and two additional Democratic members of the US House).
Just as in 2016, there is only one congressional district in Nevada with an odd number of delegates for 2020. This is a marginal consideration, especially in a winnowing contest (as opposed to those later contests where the game changes to counting delegates), but it can present an opportunity to the district winners in the rounding to determine the allocation of whole, rather than fractional, delegates. [There is some additional insight on this here in the table footnotes.]
The changes that will grab attention
...and affect strategy
The easiest thing to do here is to use previously released draft delegate selection plans from other caucus states as touch points. As FHQ mentioned recently in discussing the North Dakota draft plan, there is a range of responses to the new DNC rules regarding expectations for caucus states with respect to increasing participation. This scale runs from basically a party-run primary (North Dakota) to more traditional caucuses with alternate means of participating (Iowa). As was hypothesized then, the earlier carve-out state caucuses are in a position of having to dance around state law in New Hampshire because both Iowa and Nevada bookend the primary in the Granite state and have some interest in maintaining the delicate balance with regard to calendar scheduling. Later caucus state, then, may feel more empowered -- if they have the resources -- to move in the direction of so-called "firehouse caucuses" than the two earlier caucus states that must in some way tiptoe around the "similar contest"distinction that the New Hampshire secretary of state is charged with assessing.
Nevada, we would then expect, is closer to Iowa than North Dakota. And it is.
Like Iowa, Nevada will add virtual caucuses in its attempt at expanding participation in the overarching caucus process. In the draft plan, Nevada Democrats will add a couple of no excuse online fora for Democrats to vote on either Sunday, February 16 or Monday, February 17.
Unlike Iowa, Nevada Democrats plan on allowing a window for early voting at locations yet to be determined as well. The four day early voting window stretches from Saturday, February 15 through Tuesday, February 18 and will provide an additional outlet for participation.
Another important difference between the Iowa and Nevada draft plans is that Nevada Democrats are not capping the input that the virtual caucuses or early voting will have on the process. Recall that draft plan in Iowa limits the impact of the virtual caucuses in the Hawkeye state by capping the number of delegates moving on to the next step in the Iowa process to just 10 percent. That may or may not hold up to RBC scrutiny and remains something of an unknown moving forward. But comparatively, whereas the Iowa draft plan makes some attempt at preserving the traditional caucuses (through the virtual caucuses cap), the Nevada Democratic Party does not.
Nevada Democrats, then, are theoretically opening up the floodgates on participation. This has implications for how candidates and their campaigns will approach both states. In Iowa, the onus is on the campaigns to identify those caucusgoers who would be best suited for that format. Attempting to run up the score in the virtual caucuses will not yield a good return on investment because of that cap. Candidates, then, still have incentives to play the traditional caucus game in Iowa. The system is engineered toward that end.
But the incentives are different in Nevada (or will be if this plan or some variation of it is accepted by the RBC). With no cap, campaigns have every reason, if they have the resources to do so, to push as many of their supporters to participate in the virtual caucuses and early vote. On caucus day in Nevada, campaigns real motivation is to insure that grassroots activists and other diehard supporters who want to be delegates make it to the precinct to participate and move on in the selection process. Of course, campaigns can also try to squeeze out any additional leftover casual support on caucus day to the traditional caucuses. But the intent here is clear: those campaigns with the means and wherewithal will make every attempt to run up the score as much as possible through the new early outlets with the allocation process (how many delegates a candidate wins) in mind and focus more on the selection process (who fills a candidate's the allocated slots) on caucus day.
This is an important difference across the two states. But it also raises an important question.
More strategy
No, none of the results to the virtual caucuses or early voting will be released until caucus day, but what does Bill Gardner think?
The New Hampshire law empowers the secretary of state to move the Granite state primary to a position that is seven days before any other similar contest. While Nevada will caucus on Saturday, February 22 -- 11 days after New Hampshire primary voters go to the polls -- both the new virtual caucuses and early voting window in Nevada stretch into the seven day window after the New Hampshire primary. If Iowa's virtual caucuses avoid the "similar contest" designation from Gardner, then they likely will in Nevada as well. However, Nevada also has that proposed early voting window. Gardner will likely wait until the fall to set a date, but this all -- whether in Iowa or Nevada, much less early voting in other states -- will give the New Hampshire secretary of state some factors to think about before he sets the date of the primary.
Other considerations
Although it is less clear in the Nevada draft plan (than in the its Iowa counterpart), there is seemingly ranked choice voting involved in both the virtual caucuses and early voting. Caucusgoers will not only provide their top preference, but additional preferences as well. The system is described in less detail in Nevada than in Iowa. The bottom line difference between the two, however, remains the fact that if one assumes more participation in early and virtual caucuses, then viability at the caucuses on actual caucus day are likely to be determined in the earlier voting outlets. But that assumes that there is not only greater participation in those earlier fora, but much greater participation. But if that comes to pass, the earlier results may have a significant effect on the decision-making of those attending the traditional caucuses on February 22 when all the votes are rolled into one pot from precinct to precinct.
There is still a balance there. Well-resourced campaigns may have incentive to run up the score in the earlier contests, but they still have some motivation to play the game in the traditional caucuses with respect to the selection process.
The comparison between Iowa and Nevada is an interesting one, but one explained by their positions on the calendar (pending draft plans from the remaining caucus states).
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Thursday, March 21, 2019
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
On to the Governor: Super Tuesday Bill Passes Arkansas House
Although there has been some resistance to this bill from county clerks in the Natural state and from some lawmakers for a variety of reasons across both legislative chambers, the Senate-passed presidential primary bill has enjoyed widespread support. That trend continued in a 74-8 vote to pass SB 445. Ten Democrats joined the majority of Republicans in the lower chamber in favor while only three Republicans cast nay votes against.
The measure will now be enrolled and sent to Governor Hutchinson (R) for his consideration. As the bill's Senate sponsor mentioned while the legislation was being considered there, the governor backs the bill. Arkansas now joins Utah as a Super Tuesday state in waiting. Legislation is before the governor in both states to move the primaries in line with other states on March 3, 2020.
--
Hat tip to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News for passing along the news of the bill's passage to FHQ.
--
Related:
2/6/19: Out of Arkansas, An Apparent Challenge to the New Hampshire Primary
2/11/19: Arkansas Lawmaker Signals a Scaling Back of Presidential Primary Legislation
2/16/19: Amendment to Arkansas Bill Eyes March for Presidential Primary Move
3/1/19: New March Presidential Primary Bill Flies Through Arkansas Senate Committee
3/9/19: Arkansas Senate Makes Quick Work of March Presidential Primary Bill
3/13/19: Arkansas House Committee Advances March Presidential Primary Bill
3/25/19: Arkansas Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Monday, March 18, 2019
Oregon Senate Bill Would Create Separate Super Tuesday Presidential Primary
In the meantime on the state Senate side of the capitol, a Republican-introduced bill would create a separate presidential primary and schedule it on the first Tuesday in March, Super Tuesday. And that bill -- SB 779 -- has had its initial public hearing where Rules Committee senators discussed some of the trade-offs involved in such a move. Obviously, creating a separate presidential primary bears some costs. Not only would the change require an extra appropriation, but it would additionally carry some costs relative to the second primary for state and local offices (still on the third Tuesday in May). There was, however, some question raised about just how much turnout would suffer given that the state of Oregon is a vote by mail state. Another point that was raised by those representing county clerks in the Beaver state was that they would be responsible for three elections in the span of about six months: the November 2019 general election, the proposed March presidential primary and the regular May primary. Filing for the March presidential would begin during the certification process attendant to the general election and continue through the holidays.
It is noteworthy that this last problem would not really be that much different for elections administrators if either of the two Democratic-introduced bills were to pass the state House. The late fall time constraints would remain, but there would not be a third election that would follow the presidential primary. Under the two House bills, the presidential primary would remain consolidated with the primaries for state and local office and everything would move into March. That said, the sponsor of one of the House bills -- HB 2107 -- Representative Brian Clem (D-21st, Salem), is the House co-sponsor of this Senate legislation as well alongside Senator Tim Knopp (R-27th, Bend).
The Senate Rules Committee did not act on SB 779, but it has cleared the public hearing hurdle whereas competing legislation in the House has yet to reach that stage despite being proposed earlier. All of the bills would pair Oregon with regional partners: California and likely Utah on March 3 or Idaho and Washington on March 10.
Related:
1/11/19: Pair of Oregon Bills Would Move Primary to March, but with a Twist
The Oregon legislation will be added to the evolving FHQ 2020 Presidential Primary Calendar.
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Saturday, March 16, 2019
Alternative Bill Would Reestablish a Presidential Primary in Maine but with Ranked Choice Voting
The bill, sponsored by state Senate president, Troy Jackson (D-1st, Aroostook) and nine other Senate Democrats, would reestablish a presidential primary option, grant state parties the discretion to opt into using the state-funded contest, and leave the scheduling of the contest up to the secretary of state. LD 1083 provides the Maine secretary of state further guidance on scheduling, limiting the officer to any day in March. Each of those provisions, however, is exactly like those in the previously introduced LD 245.
Yet, LD 1083 is neither a replica of the other bill nor the bill reestablishing a presidential primary for a set second Tuesday in March date promised by the office of the secretary of state. No, LD 1083 is different because not only does it reestablish a presidential primary, but it applies the ranked choice voting system utilized in other primary and general election contests in the Pine Tree state.
Maine is not the first legislature where ranked choice voting has been raised in the context of presidential nominations in 2019. Legislators in neighboring New Hampshire are also considering the adoption of ranked choice voting in its presidential primaries. However, unlike the New Hampshire bill, the Maine effort does not clearly detail how the ranked choice system is to operate. The New Hampshire bill is designed with delegate allocation in mind, cutting off the elimination of candidates at those below the 15 percent threshold instead of winnowing to one winner. The Maine bill does not clearly account for the differences between the presidential primary and those for other offices. That said, the ranked choice law already on the books does grant the secretary of state some discretion in determining the rules of the ranked choice system in a given election. And the state parties, under the bill, are given the ability to select and allocation delegates in "accordance with any reasonable procedures established at the state party convention."
Although this bill has nine Democratic co-sponsors, it remains to be seen whether this bill will supplant the other active bill or anything from the secretary of state as the main vehicle for reestablishing the presidential primary in Maine. There will be a committee hearing on the ranked choice bill next week.
--
Side Note: LD 1083 would also establish ranked choice voting as the means by which presidential electors are chosen -- still by congressional district -- as well. In other words, the intent is to apply ranked choice voting to both facets of the presidential election process.
--
Related:
1/18/19: Maine Lost its Presidential Primary
2/1/19: Maine Decision to Re-Establish a Presidential Primary Option for 2020 Hinges on Money
2/9/19: Maine Committee Hearing Highlights Familiar Divisions in Caucus to Primary Shifts
3/22/19: Maine Committee Hearing Finds Support for and Roadblocks to a Ranked Choice Presidential Primary
3/30/19: Maine Democrats Signal Caucuses in Draft Delegate Selection Plan, but...
4/23/19: New Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Introduced in Maine
5/10/19: Maine Committee Working Session Offers Little Clarity on 2020 Presidential Primary
6/3/19: Maine Senate Advances Super Tuesday Primary Bill
6/4/19:
6/19/19: Fate of a Reestablished Presidential Primary in Maine Not Clear Entering Final Legislative Day
6/20/19: Governor Mills' Signature Sets Maine Presidential Primary for Super Tuesday
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Thursday, March 14, 2019
Utah House Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill
The change would align the Utah presidential primary with contests in 11 other states and territories (at this time) on the 2020 presidential primary calendar if Governor Gary Herbert (R) signs it into law.
This would potentially be the first time since the 2008 cycle that both parties have had the option of a primary in Utah. It was also held on Super Tuesday that year on February 5. Four years later, only Republicans in Utah held a late June primary; one that would have been non-compliant under DNC rules in 2012 had the party had a competitive nomination race that cycle. Instead Utah Democrats allocated and selected delegates to the national convention in a caucus/convention system. The legislature refused to fund the primary for the 2016 cycle and did not act on legislation to move the February primary option into compliance with national party rules.
SB 242 now heads to Governor Herbert for his consideration.
Related:
2/25/19: Legislation Would Push Reestablished Utah Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday
3/7/19: Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Introduced in Utah
3/11/19 (a): Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Unanimously Passes Senate Committee Stage in Utah
3/11/19 (b): Utah Senate Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Washington Presidential Primary Shifts Up to March 10 After Inslee Adds Signature
The shift gives the governor a glimmer of something positive after Super Tuesday should he make it that far in the currently wide open race.
That said, there is some question as to whether Washington Democrats will ultimately opt for the newly timed primary or for the caucus/convention format the party has used throughout the post-reform era. While the primary law changes the date of the primary, it also alters the operation of the mail-in vote contest. Primary voters will now have to check a box on the Democratic ballot publicly affirming they are Democrats in order to have their ballots counted toward the vote that will determine delegate allocation to the national convention. That was the price Washington had to pay to bring their process (in a state with no partisan registration) in line with the national party rules.
The Washington State Democratic Party will make that primary or caucus determination at its April 7 state central committee meeting. The primary would be on March 10 and the caucuses on March 21. The month of delegate allocation is known, then, but the exact date remains on hold until April.
Washington becomes the first state to have legislation pass and be signed into law moving its primary during the 2019 state legislative session, but follows states like California and North Carolina that moved prior to this year for the 2020 cycle.
--
The Washington primary change has been added to the 2020 FHQ Presidential Primary Calendar.
Related:
Washington State Legislation Would Again Try to Move Presidential Primary to March
An Update on March Presidential Primary Bills in Washington: One Bill Through Committee
Washington Senate Passes Democratic March Presidential Primary Bill
Senate-Passed Washington Presidential Primary Bill Passes House Committee Stage on Party Line Vote
Washington State House Passes March Presidential Primary Bill
Washington Democrats Will Allocate Delegates in March, but How?
Washington Senate Passes Democratic March Presidential Primary Bill
Senate-Passed Washington Presidential Primary Bill Passes House Committee Stage on Party Line Vote
Washington State House Passes March Presidential Primary Bill
Washington Democrats Will Allocate Delegates in March, but How?
--
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
Arkansas House Committee Advances March Presidential Primary Bill
While the committee passed the bill on to the House floor with a do pass recommendation, there was some resistance. As with the recent floor vote passing the bill on the Senate side, opposition to the two month move came from the from the membership itself. Representative Bruce Cozart (R-24th, Hot Springs) raised the issue that farmer/legislators might face with a later (April) fiscal session pushed back by a conflicting March primary election. The Libertarian Party of Arkansas took issue with the impact of an earlier filing deadline for independent candidates. And those representing both Arkansas county clerks and school boards brought up concerns with respect to the unevenness of the elections calendar from March in presidential years to May in gubernatorial years.
Despite that opposition, the committee passed the bill behind arguments that this legislation would 1) provide Arkansas voters with a voice in the presidential nomination process and 2) actually resolve the uncertainty around primary dates. On the latter point, SB 445 would make permanent the shift of the consolidated primary election in Arkansas rather than making the move, as the legislature did in 2015, but sunsetting the change after 2016. Future legislatures could still change the dates of the primaries, of course, but they would not be forced to look again at moving the date up if it was already in March.
There are not many other states that have uneven consolidated elections calendars like this, but Alabama is one, shifting primaries from March in presidential years to June in midterm years.
SB 445 now moves to the full House for consideration. It has already passed the Senate.
--
Related:
2/6/19: Out of Arkansas, An Apparent Challenge to the New Hampshire Primary
2/11/19: Arkansas Lawmaker Signals a Scaling Back of Presidential Primary Legislation
2/16/19: Amendment to Arkansas Bill Eyes March for Presidential Primary Move
3/1/19: New March Presidential Primary Bill Flies Through Arkansas Senate Committee
3/9/19: Arkansas Senate Makes Quick Work of March Presidential Primary Bill
3/19/19: On to the Governor: Super Tuesday Bill Passes Arkansas House
3/25/19: Arkansas Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
North Dakota Democrats Plan to Hold March 10 Firehouse Caucuses
Traditionally, Democrats in the Peace Garden state have conducted caucuses as the means by which the party has allocated delegates to the national convention. But caucus states on the Democratic side face a burden in the 2020 that they have not faced in the past. The onus is on those state parties to make the case to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee that they have taken steps to maximize participation in the typically low turnout caucus/convention format. And the evidence thus far indicates that Democratic caucus states are reacting to the new encouragements in Rule 2 in different ways. Iowa Democrats, for example, have proposed new virtual caucuses. Nevada Democrats, too, have laid out plans for early voting in their caucus process.1
Now, with the release of the draft delegate selection plan, North Dakota Democrats have put their own unique spin on a more participatory caucus. Rather than a traditional moving caucus, the North Dakota Democratic-NPL will essentially conduct a party-run primary. Often this is called a firehouse primary because they have been, more often than not, held in firehouses, but North Dakota Democrats are using the term "firehouse caucus" -- verbiage that came out of the Unity Amendment that created the Unity Reform Commission and later appeared in the URC recommendations -- instead.
The terms -- firehouse caucus or firehouse primary -- are interchangeable as both are party-run primaries where typically no state-funded primary option is available. In practice, the difference rests on how many polling locations are set up. State-funded (and run) primaries offer more locations and theoretically greater participation. And while the party-run version has fewer locations, they run all day rather than the smaller and more rigid window used in the caucus format.
And that is the basic structure of the North Dakota plan. There will be 14 firehouse caucus locations set up throughout the state and polls will be open from 11am-7pm on Tuesday, March 10. [That is twelve weeks earlier than the first Tuesday in June caucuses North Dakota Democrats held in 2016.]
In addition to those changes, the party will also use a vote-by-mail process. What is clear about the vote-by-mail proposal is that it is intended to function much like the virtual caucuses in Iowa. Voters with conflicts during the hours in which the caucuses are in session have an alternative option available to them. And it is an option that is available from January 20-March 3. What is not clear is how the vote-by-mail system will operate; whether it will function on top of the state's vote-by-mail system or not. Most unclear is how ballots will be distributed to voters wanting to take advantage of the process. That is something the Rules and Bylaws Committee will train its sights on when this plan is reviewed.
It should likely be the expectation that other caucus states will fall in line with some variation of this plan rather than what Iowa has done and Nevada plans to do. Later caucus states will not have the same restrictions -- working around New Hampshire -- with their delegate selection plans like the other carve-out caucus states do.
The date of the North Dakota Democratic firehouse caucus will be added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.
--
1 There are a great many things left unsaid about details of how the Nevada Democrats are going to accommodate early voting in the caucuses. FHQ will have more on that in a separate post.
--
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Washington Democrats Will Allocate Delegates in March, but How?
And bear in mind that while those comments are not binding on the decision of the state central committee, they are submitted along with the draft delegate selection plan of choice to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee as part of the plan approval process. Under the hypothetical scenario, then, that the party chooses to continue with the caucus/convention system as the means by which delegates from the state will be allocated and selected even in the face of public support for the primary, the party would have some explaining to do before the RBC. And that is doubly true considering 1) the Democratic primary bill that has made its way through the Washington state legislature is more likely than not to be signed into law and 2) the RBC will be operating under the guidance of Rule 2.K in which "[state] parties are encouraged to use government-run primaries."
In that situation, the Washington State Democratic Party would have to make a very persuasive case to the RBC for why the party chose caucuses over the primary pushed through and passed by a Democratic-controlled state government. And the Democratic bill got the green light -- that it would be consistent with DNC rules -- from RBC member and WSDP parliamentarian, David McDonald during the committee hearings in each legislative chamber.
That is a tough sell.
It seems, then, that the best case to be made for retaining the caucuses is one in which there is a groundswell of support for it in this public comment stage followed by a state central committee vote in favor of the caucuses.
But assuming Governor Inslee (D) signs SB 5273, then it is quite likely the party opts for the primary.
--
Regardless of which option is chosen on April 7 in Washington, the two plans do clearly indicate a couple of important timing points. First, the date listed for the primary in the primary plan is March 10. It is clear then that the state party is assuming the primary bill heading to Inslee's desk -- the one moving the primary from May to March -- will be signed into law. Additionally, the alternate caucuses plan includes a Saturday, March 21 date for precinct caucuses should that plan be adopted and approved by the RBC. Should the party move in that direction, it would constitute a caucus/convention process that begins on the third Saturday in March rather than the fourth Saturday in March on which the precinct caucuses were held in 2016.
Related:
Washington State Legislation Would Again Try to Move Presidential Primary to March
An Update on March Presidential Primary Bills in Washington: One Bill Through Committee
Washington Senate Passes Democratic March Presidential Primary Bill
Senate-Passed Washington Presidential Primary Bill Passes House Committee Stage on Party Line Vote
Washington State House Passes March Presidential Primary Bill
Washington Senate Passes Democratic March Presidential Primary Bill
Senate-Passed Washington Presidential Primary Bill Passes House Committee Stage on Party Line Vote
Washington State House Passes March Presidential Primary Bill
--
Monday, March 11, 2019
Utah Senate Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill
That included the first substitute to SB 242, the bill to reestablish a presidential primary in the Beehive state and schedule it for March 3. State Senator Curtis Bramble (R-16th, Utah/Wasatch) quickly introduced the bill on the floor and got an immediate thumbs up on the caucus-to-primary transition from Democratic Senate caucus manager, Senator Derek Kitchen (D-2nd, Salt Lake), who cited the last two cycles with troublesome caucuses on the Democratic side in Utah. The only question Bramble received on the bill concerned its fiscal impact. The $3 million price tag cited in response to Senator Lyle Hillyard's (R-25th, Cache) query was enough to push him into the nay column when the bill came up for a vote.
But Hillyard was only joined by one other member in opposition to the measure, and the bill passed 25-2 (with two additional members absent). SB 242 now moves over to the House side. The session comes to a close on Thursday, March 14.
Related:
2/25/19: Legislation Would Push Reestablished Utah Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday
3/7/19: Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Introduced in Utah
3/11/19 (a): Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Unanimously Passes Senate Committee Stage in Utah
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)