Tuesday, December 13, 2022

Iowa and New Hampshire Are No Strangers to Threats: The case of 1984 and what it may mean for 2024

For those who closely follow presidential nominations, there are handful of things that everyone knows about them. Among them are that Iowa and New Hampshire always go first, both states jealously guard those respective positions, and, for some time in the Democratic Party process, both have become decreasing demographically aligned with the party's overall primary electorate. That last one is a new(-ish) element and is part of what has Iowa on the outside looking in, and New Hampshire likely to follow it, in the new calendar outline proposed by President Biden and recently adopted by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC).

But guarding first-in-the-nation status is a reality that constantly keeps Iowa and New Hampshire under threat whether by ever-changing national party rules or by other states encroaching on their turf (or both!) in a given cycle. The 2024 cycle, then, is not the first time that those in Iowa and New Hampshire have had to stare down a long and difficult journey back to the top before voting starts. Some, in the wake of the newly rolled-out Democratic calendar outline, have been quick to raise 2008 as a case when the traditional first pair overcame the odds and ended up back at the front of the queue. Yes, in 2007 state governments -- legislators and governors -- in both Florida and Michigan pushed primaries in each state into January. Legislators in Florida first slotted the primary there into a January 29 position, and later in the year, the Michigan primary was scheduled for January 15. 

Those moves had the effect of disrupting the DNC plans to hold an expanded early window of four contests (instead of just two), none of which could be held before their respective dates below:
Monday, January 14: Iowa caucuses
Saturday, January 19: Nevada caucuses
Tuesday, January 22: New Hampshire primary
Tuesday, January 29: South Carolina Democratic primary

But the Florida and Michigan primary shifts had the effect of nudging Iowa and New Hampshire closer to the beginning of the year while Nevada held the line on January 19. South Carolina Democrats, to stay ahead of Florida as the first contest in the South, bumped their contest up to Saturday, January 26. But again, all four states were protected. Unlike Democrats in Florida and Michigan, those in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina had spots codified in DNC rules that each attempted to protect once the interloping states had crossed into the pre-window period (which at that point, meant contests earlier the first Tuesday in February).

And that is a good example of a threat to Iowa and New Hampshire. But it is not exactly the best historical example of a cycle that found the typical leadoff states pitted against the Democratic National Committee and its rules for delegate selection. To find such an example one has to go all the way back to the 1984 cycle, one that partially laid the predicate for some of the actions taken in 2008. 

The 1984 environment
Rules changes
After the Democratic Party fundamentally reshaped the way in which candidates were nominated for president after 1968, the party spent the 1970s tinkering with the rules by which those candidates were nominated. The 1984 cycle, the fourth since reform, was no different. This was the cycle after all that added superdelegates to the equation. 

But there were also changes to the rules regarding the timing of delegate selection events. The rule for 1972 and 1976 was that all primaries and caucuses were to be held within the calendar year of the presidential election. For 1980, the party added the so-called "window" rule. All contests were to occur in a thirteen week period between the second Tuesday in March and the second Tuesday in June. Exceptions were made then for any states that held contests in 1976 before that earliest point in the window. That not only exempted Iowa and New Hampshire in 1980, but a host of other caucus states. 

Coming off a loss in the 1980 general election, however, the DNC altered the parameters of that rule for 1984 even further. It specified for the first time the states that could hold contests prior to the second Tuesday in March, granting the New Hampshire primary a slot seven days before the opening of the window and the Iowa caucuses one 15 days before it. Furthermore, Charles Manatt, the DNC chair, signaled that the party would crack down on window violations in the 1984 cycle, warning that refusal to seat delegates from violating states was on the table. 

New Hampshire conflict
Of course, a problem arose. [They nearly always do.]

Granted, the rule change was mostly effective in ridding the early window of would-be rogue contests in 1984. Importantly, it cleared the Massachusetts primary and Minnesota caucuses from the pre-window. But a quirky legacy system in Vermont remained and proved problematic. Town meetings have always been scheduled for the first Tuesday in March. They still are. During that era, however, Vermont Democrats added a non-binding presidential preference vote to the proceedings as well. It was a straw poll that had no bearing on delegate allocation in the state. Allocation did not occur until the state convention in April. 

New Hampshire maneuvered around the straw poll in both 1976 and 1980, going one week earlier each time. But in each of those cycles, the secretary of state, acted not only in accordance with the 1975 law granting his office the ability to set the date of the primary (and keep it first), but consistent with the DNC rules for those cycles as well. 

Yet, the DNC rules were different for 1984. The beauty contest "primary" in Vermont was scheduled for the week before the second Tuesday in March opening to the Democrats' recognized window. And New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner viewed Vermont's presence on the date set aside for the New Hampshire primary by the DNC as a problem for him with respect to implementing the date-setting provision of the presidential primary law in the Granite state. 

This was already inflaming tensions between Democrats in the neighboring northeastern states and at the national party as early as January 1983, more than a year the voting began. Vermont's state chair said at the time, "If there is a problem, it is New Hampshire's."

But it was a problem for Democrats in more than just New Hampshire. Gardner's signal that the New Hampshire primary would fall on February 28 -- out of compliance with the DNC timing rules -- roiled Democrats in Iowa. If Vermont pushed the New Hampshire contest up a week from their DNC-designated position, then that primary would be held just a day after the slot set aside by the DNC for the Iowa caucuses. Legislators in the Hawkeye state responded in kind in the spring of 1983, changing state law and creating a New Hampshire-like buffer for the caucuses. Under state laws after that point, the New Hampshire primary would be scheduled by the secretary of state there for a week before any other similar event and Iowa's caucuses would end up eight days earlier than any other similar contest. 

All of this occurred before June 1983 when the DNC's Compliance Committee, the precursor to Rules and Bylaws, met to consider delegate selection plans from the state Democratic parties for the 1984 cycle. With the backing of DNC Chair Manatt -- who again, was adamant that the rules would be enforced in 1984 -- rejected all state plans that broke with the timetable for contests, including both Iowa's and New Hampshire's.

And those threats from the national party meant enough at that time that Iowa Democrats had second thoughts as the impasse with the national party stretched deep into the fall of 1983, barely three months out from the commencement of voting. A compromise emerged from a November 1983 state central committee meeting that set December 10 as a deadline for the Iowa Democratic Party's state central committee. If New Hampshire had not shifted its primary into compliance with DNC rules by that point, then the caucuses in Iowa would proceed on February 20 (instead of the rules-based February 27 date). The rationale was that if the DNC eventually let New Hampshire slide, then Iowa would be in the clear as well. 

The courts get involved
December 10 came and went with no changes from New Hampshire, and that seemed to lock both states into the non-compliant dates for 1984. But the fear that Iowa's delegation would not be seated at the national convention had extended from some quarters of the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) to the campaigns themselves. Charles Gifford, a member of the IDP state central committee and two state co-chairs of former Vice President Walter Mondale's campaign brought suit against the state party to prevent it from conducting a non-compliant contest on February 20 and reinstate the February 27 date.

However, the state party along with the campaigns of John Glenn and Alan Cranston argued that changing back to the February 27 date would create "irreparable harm" for the candidates because of the investments of both time and money each campaign had made in Iowa. 

Not only was this a political conflict between representatives of three campaigns for candidates involved in the 1984 Democratic nomination race, but it indirectly raised a conflict between the state law in Iowa and the national party rules. The decision in the case conceded that the Iowa Mondale representatives were "entitled to relief" but that that was "outweighed by the irreparable harm that changing the rules of the presidential nominating process [in Iowa] at this late date may have."1

It was the timing that mattered. That the date impasse lasted nearly into 1984 and additionally that the campaigns had already invested based on a particular calendar were factors that ended up carrying the day in court. And it is that sort of timing issue that tends to catch up with national parties in this process. Enforcement of the rules -- if they rise to a delegation not being seated at a convention -- come at a point at the end of primary season when the party is shifting toward unifying with general election victory in mind. That is why the DNC conceded in May 1984, agreeing to seat both states' delegations at the convention.

That was the precedent set in 1984, and what actors in both Iowa and New Hampshire banked on in 2008. Once again for 2008, the DNC had carved out particular positions for not only Iowa and New Hampshire, but also Nevada and South Carolina. And technically, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina all broke the rules for 2008. But each did so to protect the order the DNC had laid out for the nomination to progress; an order disrupted, in part, by Democrats in Florida and Michigan. Each avoided sanction. And in the end, on the eve of the Denver convention, the Florida and Michigan delegations were reinstated in full as well.

What 1984 may mean for 2024
Clearly there are some similarities. Just like in the 1984 cycle, Iowa and New Hampshire perceive some threat in the proposed calendar changes to their privileged status as lead off states in the presidential nomination process in 2024. And timing matters too. Past actions have indicated to decision makers in both states that the national party is likely to fold in the interest of general election unity in the end anyway.

But 2024 is different. 

The proposed rules are different. Iowa is no longer protected at all. And New Hampshire has more specifically been assigned to a position that conflicts with its state law. Or rather other states have been protected -- and placed ahead of or alongside the New Hampshire primary -- in the proposed DNC rules with no regard for that state law (or with a probably futile eye toward attempting to change it). This is not a situation like Vermont in 1983. This is the national party codifying a different order, and in the process creating a different starting point for this exercise than has existed in any other cycle in the post-reform era. 

There is a certain latitude that Iowa and New Hampshire have always operated under prior to this cycle. And the rationale is simple enough. It came out in the late 1983 discussions in Iowa and was a part of the lore of both 1984 and 2008. Essentially, it comes down to "if the national party protected us as the first contests, then it will not matter if we make moves to insure the order they wanted."

Look, Iowa and New Hampshire will be first in 2024. ...in the Republican process. Iowa Republicans will schedule early (likely January) caucuses and the New Hampshire secretary of state has already promised to do likewise to protect the status of the presidential primary in the Granite state.

The question is whether the state Democratic parties break and seek alternate means of allocating delegates under the pressure of the national party penalties and candidate deterrents designed to keep candidates away and off the ballot. This, of course, will be greatly affected by whether President Biden opts to throw his hat back into the ring and seek renomination. 

Should the president run largely unopposed, then Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats are stuck; stuck between state law and national party rules. However, in Iowa that same state law that creates an eight day buffer between the caucuses and any other contest still empowers the state central committees of the parties to schedule those contests. And in both 2008 and 2012, Iowa Democrats selected dates that were fewer than eight days before the New Hampshire primary without any penalty. There is no penalty for breaking the state law. That is true in the Granite state as well. There is no penalty for breaking state law there either. But in contrast, the New Hampshire secretary of state controls the selection of the primary date and not the state party, leaving the party to find some alternative should it opt out of the primary.

Early reviews for 2024, however, from both Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats has been mostly negative and the tone struck, defiant in the face of the proposed rules changes. 

But the lesson of 1984 may not be in what has come to be an on-again-off-again struggle between the earliest states and the national party. Instead, the lesson may be in potential legal remedies if those with standing move quickly. Remember, the challenge to the earlier 1984 caucus date in Iowa played out between campaign proxies of one candidate on one side and a state party with opposing candidates as intervenors on the other. 

If Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats remain defiant into 2023 and if Biden opts to run -- relevant IFs -- then Biden proxies in Iowa and/or New Hampshire (if there are any left) could bring suit against the state parties, arguing that supporters of the president from those states run the risk of being shut out of the national convention. In other words, because of the non-compliant contests, both states gamble that their delegations will either be reduced or not seated.

Admittedly, that is quite a few steps down the line. And if Iowa and New Hampshire are serious about protecting their first-in-the-nation status -- which they are -- then neither will have official contest dates until far later in the year.  That appears to once again push this exchange between the national party (or national candidates) and those on the state level to a point that is once again close to when voting begins; a point in the timeline in 2023 when other candidates may have entered the race and already invested heavily in those two states. 

But there may not be other candidates. There may not be other candidates who are willing to expend resources in a couple of states that stray from the DNC rules. 

Even before that, however, there are processes in place. Democrats from both Iowa and New Hampshire will have to submit delegate selection plans to the DNCRBC by early May 2023. That process will document either the state parties' continued defiance or that they will stand down and follow the rules. Continued defiance -- a documented non-compliant date in a proposed delegate selection plan -- would mean that Democrats from both states would find themselves with a rejected plan likely in June. 

With the state parties on record and a plan rejected, interested Democrats in the two states -- whether for the president or not -- may move legally to compel the state parties to hold compliant contests for fear of being disenfranchised in the process without one.

They could.

But again, that is long way down the road. The DNCRBC wants to break the will of Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats. Actually, the panel and the party just want states to follow the rules. But they are unlikely to get that. Instead, they will have to lean on penalties designed to compel state cooperation. That may not work either. But if the president runs for reelection as expected and runs unopposed or largely unopposed for the nomination, then that may not mean the temperature gets turned down on this as it otherwise would in an uncompetitive environment. It may mean that the party ratchets up the tension with the state parties to set a new precedent for 2028 and beyond. 

The first step of that is in place. And unlike 1984, Iowa and New Hampshire do not have the same protections in DNC rules for 2024.

--
1 Information in The 1984 environment section leans on work in Hugh Winebrenner's essay, "Defending Iowa's First-in-the-Nation Status -- The 1984 Precinct Caucuses" from the Annals of Iowa (1986).


--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 12:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Friday, December 9, 2022

New Hampshire Secretary of State Elected by General Court

The first Wednesday of December after an election marks organization day in the New Hampshire General Court. Part of that process is the selection of a secretary of state by a joint session of the state Senate and House.

And on Wednesday that meant the General Court was to choose someone other than former Secretary of State Bill Gardner (D) for the first time in nearly half a century. Gardner stepped down from the post this past January and was succeeded by his deputy, David Scanlan (R). Consequently, this was Scanlan's first time standing before the General Court for a formal election. And he faced a challenge from Democrat Melanie Levesque.

In a bipartisan vote of 237-175, Scanlan was elected for a full two year term, and will now be tasked with continuing the job Gardner was most known for both at home and nationally: protecting the first-in-the-nation status of the presidential primary in the Granite state. 

Scanlan will, no doubt, follow the state law which empowers him to schedule the state's presidential primary seven days before any other similar contest just as his predecessor did. However, the newly elected secretary will face headwinds unlike those Gardner had to stare down during his 45 years at the helm. With national Democrats nudging New Hampshire back in the order, both parties are no longer aligned in viewing viewing -- and protecting -- the state's contest as first. 


--
But it probably won't be the secretary (or the primary) that pays the price in 2024. Instead, New Hampshire Democrats may bear the brunt of the fallout from a primary scheduled for a date earlier than February 6, the date on which the DNC plan places the contest. But that showdown between the DNC and the New Hampshire Democratic Party will play out in 2023-24. Before the secretary even makes a decision on the date -- likely during the latter half of 2023 -- New Hampshire Democrats... 
...must meet [conditions] to successfully gain a pre-window waiver from the DNCRBC [that] are collectively a tall order. The state party has to submit to the committee by January 5, 2023 letters from the New Hampshire governor, the New Hampshire state Senate majority leader and the New Hampshire state House majority leader -- all Republicans -- pledging to make all necessary statutory changes to 1) cement the February 6 primary date and 2) implement no excuse early voting. For a variety of reasons, none of those letters from Granite state Republican leaders is likely to be forthcoming by January 5 of next year or any time ever. And that makes the next condition even more unpalatable to New Hampshire Democrats. The new DNC regulations require that all those changes be made -- as in finalized -- by February 1, 2023. That is a recipe for New Hampshire Democrats losing their waiver. 
All of this occurs before New Hampshire Democrats have to submit a draft delegate selection plan along with all other states and territories to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) by early May 2023. Each of those points will offer Democrats in the Granite state an opportunity to work with the committee and each of those moves (or non-moves) along the way will likely factor into how the DNCRBC treats the state with respect to penalties as the 2024 cycle progresses.

Posted by Josh Putnam at 9:30 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

Thursday, December 8, 2022

Why South Carolina Got the Nod to Lead the 2024 Democratic Calendar

It has been a while since the national parties have either allowed states other than Iowa and New Hampshire to go first on the presidential primary calendar or have failed to expressly protect the traditional first pair in their rules. 

In fact, the entire post-reform era since the 1972 cycle has operated that way in both parties' processes. Now, to be clear, states have challenged Iowa and New Hampshire throughout that period, but the two have always been able to maneuver around those threats on their own -- banded together in first-in-the-nation solidarity or individually -- or in recent years, have kept their spots, protected by national party rules. 


The decision by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) late last week to adopt the proposal put forth by the president stripped Iowa of its position and effectively/indirectly did the same to New Hampshire. Instead of the usual two states at the front of the queue, South Carolina got the green light to move up from the fourth and final spot in the pre-window -- the one that the Palmetto state has held in the Democratic nomination process since the 2008 cycle -- all the way up to the top slot. 

President Biden's late input on the DNCRBC process to award waivers to four or five states to lead the 2024 calendar upset the emerging consensus that Nevada and New Hampshire were the states vying for the honor of going first. The proposition also set off a flurry of chatter that South Carolina received the prized spot because the state had rescued his primary campaign in 2020 and/or that it was meant as a favor to Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC, 6th), whose endorsement appeared instrumental in the days leading up to the late February primary in the Palmetto state. That all may be, but it is not anything that is foreign to this process. Incumbent presidents tend to support the rules -- calendar and otherwise -- that got them to the nomination, and Biden has done just that, at least in part. 

Is that intended to insulate himself against a primary challenge? Again, that would not be a foreign concept. Jimmy Carter's team nudged state legislators in several states -- notably in the South -- to shift their primaries to earlier dates during the 1980 cycle to counter expected (Ted) Kennedy wins in the northeast. And just last cycle, the Trump campaign leaned on a number of states to shift from primaries to caucuses (or to cancel contests altogether) in order to produce electorates likely to minimize or eliminate any opposition success.

The only catch in the 2024 discussion is that there is no looming (and legitimate) challenge to Biden on the horizon. Of course, there is plenty of time for that to change and besides, the president may -- although it does not appear that way at this time -- pass on a reelection bid.

Nonetheless, the South Carolina ascension has "reignited tensions" in the Democratic Party that has some crying foul. And at least some of that is based on the perceptions that some of the above historically consistent actions by incumbent presidents are now wrong in some way. Others have pointed to the Palmetto primary as a poor lead off contest because the state is a virtual lock for Republicans in the electoral college. 

That criticism is all entirely fair. 

But is also overlooks some of the very real and practical reasons that South Carolina ended up first in the proposal. 

To examine this further, let's look at the DNCRBC's own criteria for states to attain an early window waiver. Early on in the process before applications for waivers were submitted, the DNCRBC highlighted diversity, competitiveness and feasibility as markers the panel would use in considering states for potential waivers.

Diversity
South Carolina hits the mark for the most part on diversity. That African Americans comprise a majority of the primary electorate there was clearly something the committee and the president prized as a component of raising minority voices in the process. That is basically why the state was added to the early state lineup for 2008. The state is a nice mix of urban, suburban and rural as well, and is also relatively economically diverse. However, South Carolina is a right-to-work state, which is a knock on the state in a party that values unions/labor interests. Finally, South Carolina is a southern state and has been the lone representative from the South among the first four states since 2008. 

Let's pause there because South Carolina is not the only southern state from which the DNCRBC could have chosen. And, in fact, the committee also designated neighboring Georgia to also appear in the pre-window. But this factors in elsewhere.

Competitiveness
Nope, South Carolina is not a competitive general election state for Democrats. Organizing there for the primaries and not simultaneously preparing for the general election seems like something of a sunk cost (or at the very least an inefficient use of finite resources). That is why the committee had targeted competitive states. So South Carolina does not fit the bill there. 

Feasibility
If one looks at the checklist above, South Carolina has a couple of checks by racial diversity and regional diversity (across the whole lineup of early states). That is neither an exhaustive nor overwhelming list of positives in the favor of South Carolina Democrats. But recall that the primary reason driving the DNCRBC decision in July to punt on the final early calendar lineup until after the midterms was that state were still working on “answering several final but critical questions regarding election administration and feasibility in their states.”

So, to return to the question from above, why South Carolina and not some other southern state? Feasibility.

There are roadblocks in the way of the DNRBC adding another southern state other than South Carolina. Much of it has to do with partisan composition of state government. Republicans dominate most states in the region and have an interest in following RNC rules that forbid states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada from holding contests before March 1. 

Here's how that looks (based on what entity makes the decision on the date and administration of a primary election):
Alabama: unified Republican control of state government
Arkansas: unified Republican control of state government
Florida: unified Republican control of state government
Georgia*: Republican secretary of state
Kentucky: Republican legislature
Louisiana: Republican legislature
Mississippi: unified Republican control of state government
North Carolina: Republican legislature
Oklahoma: unified Republican control of state government
South Carolina*: state parties select the date for their own state government-run (and funded) primary
Tennessee: unified Republican control of state government
Texas*: unified Republican control of state government
Virginia: Republican governor
West Virginia: unified Republican control of state government

*States among the 20 states and territories that actually applied for a waiver from the DNCRBC.

Very simply, South Carolina is maximally maneuverable in the Democratic process compared to all of the other southern states, much less those that applied. 

That maneuverability also likely played a role in South Carolina getting the call over another diverse state that had high hopes of vaulting to the top slot, Nevada. Again, South Carolina Democrats, under state law, can move to a position on the calendar of their choosing with no input from Republicans who control the state government there. 

The midterms changed the calculus in Nevada. The formerly unified Democratic government in the Silver state became divided when Republican Joe Lombardo won the gubernatorial race in November. That meant that Nevada was most likely stuck with the February 6, 2024 date for its newly established presidential primary. Democrats could not move it earlier because Lombardo would not be inclined to take on possible RNC penalties. Ironically, the switch to a primary that was seen as a feather in the cap of Nevada Democrats in this waiver process came back to haunt them. Under a caucus system like the state had in 2020, Nevada Democrats would have been much better able to move around to suit any date the DNCRBC may have placed them in (...although the committee, the president and the party as a whole have largely rejected caucuses in the Democratic nomination process).

In the end, political favoritism may have played some role in the South Carolina Democratic primary rising to the top, as did diversity, but feasibility was also a major, major component in the reasoning behind the move. 

Posted by Josh Putnam at 3:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

New Ways to Get FHQ

Things are ramping up for the 2024 presidential election cycle (whether any of us are ready for it or not). 

That is certainly also true in FHQ's neck of the woods. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee's decision late last week to continue the process of altering the pre-window states on the Democratic calendar has set off a flurry of activity here and elsewhere. 

Long ago, I set up an email subscription/newletter service through Feedburner that many of you have taken advantage of over the years. And many of you may have subsequently probably forgotten you even did that it was so long ago. Feedburner, of course, has since died (and did so during a dormant period around here). As such, I have migrated the subscription service from Feedburner over to Follow.it, and email delivery of FHQ content will begin again.

If you are new to FHQ and are interested in signing up for the newsletter service, then simply enter your email address in the box in the righthand column (the one with the big black Subscribe button). [If you are on the mobile page you will have to toggle over the web version.]

Finally, with all the recent movement at Twitter, I, like many others, have explored alternatives as a backup of sorts. I have been posting for a few weeks now at both Mastodon (@fhq@mas.to) and Post (@fhq_). Please follow FHQ in those spaces if you are so inclined. 

Links to all of these and more are always also provided at the conclusion of each post.

As always, thanks so much for reading and following along.

--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: ,
Share |

Tuesday, December 6, 2022

Michigan Presidential Primary Bill Stuck in End-of-Session Rush

The countdown is on for SB 1207, the current legislation that would shift the Michigan presidential primary up to the second Tuesday in February.

But the bill may become a casualty of the legislative hustle and bustle as the 2021-22 legislation approaches its adjournment. Michigan Radio/WVPE reports that the bill may take a backseat to other priorities in the state House. Rep. Ann Bollin (R-42nd, Brighton), who chairs the House Elections and Ethics Committee, indicated that she would be more inclined to move on legislation focused on moving the August primary for other offices to June. 
“The most important date that the local clerks want changed is to move the August primary to June. That’s what I hear most about and that’s what their greatest concern is, is that we should be looking at an election that can really make a difference,” Bollin said.
But Bollin struck a positive tone on the possibility of a deal to pass the presidential primary bill in exchange for passage of the August-to-June House bill in the Senate. 

Granted, being low on the priority list and the session nearing a close are not the only roadblocks facing SB 1207. And that is doubly true now that the Democratic National Committee has taken the first step toward adding Michigan to the group of early states at the front of the 2024 presidential primary calendar. The DNC positioning of the contest for the fourth Tuesday in February (February 27, 2024) conflicts with the second Tuesday in February (February 13, 2024) date for the primary called for in the Republican-sponsored legislation in Michigan. Despite the fact the the Republican majority state Senate got all voting Democrats to side with them on SB 1207, the Republican majority in the House may not be able to similarly count on Democratic support without a change to align the date in the legislation with the DNC calendar outline.1 

And even if there is a deal across chambers to pass both primary bills without any changes, Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) may veto it to protect Michigan's newly won position in the Democratic process, opting to wait on Democratic control in the 2023-24 legislature. 

Yet, SB 1207 could still be amended to reflect the DNC date for the Michigan primary at the end of February and work its way through the legislative process. But the fact remains that at this point, it is not clear whether this bill will be the actual vehicle for changing the presidential primary date in Michigan or whether that task will be punted to Democratic legislators in the majority early next year. 

Given the hoops the Michigan Democratic Party has to jump through for the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, an amended SB 1207 could be preferable. Under the new guidelines from the DNC, the Michigan Democratic Party has to secure signed letters from the governor, the incoming state House majority leader and the incoming state Senate majority -- all Democrats -- pledging to pass legislation to enable a February 27 primary date. The party has to hand those letters off to the co-chairs of the DNCRBC by January 5, 2023. All such legislative changes are to be finalized by February 1, 2023.

That is a quick turnaround for new legislation to have been passed and signed into law, especially when the new Democratic majority will be interested in moving other items on its agenda. 

None of this is to suggest that this will not get done. It will. Michigan will have a February 27 Democratic presidential primary. The uncertainty that exists now surrounds how it all happens in the legislature: now or next year.


--
1 Republicans also have a compliance problem with the Republican National Committee rules if the primary is scheduled for any time in February. The Michigan Republican Party may support the primary move in SB 1207, but any intervention from the national party level may additionally slow things down, forcing state Republicans to focus on finding a way to split the presidential nomination process in the Great Lakes state into two partisan primaries.


--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 4:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Friday, December 2, 2022

DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Adopts Biden Calendar Proposal

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) on Friday voted in favor of rules and regulations granting waivers to five states to conduct primaries the pre-window period of the 2024 presidential primary calendar. Every member of the panel supported the proposal offered by President Biden with the exception of Scott Brennan (Iowa) and Joanne Dowdell (New Hampshire).

The calendar outline for the pre-window agreed to looks like this:
Saturday, February 3: South Carolina primary
Tuesday, February 6: Nevada primary, New Hampshire primary
Tuesday, February 13: Georgia primary
Tuesday, February 27: Michigan primary
Originally, as came out in the meeting, the plan called for the South Carolina primary to fall on February 6 which would have knocked the Nevada/New Hampshire pair of contests and the Georgia primary back a week each from their positions in the adopted outline above. Artie Blanco, a DNCRBC member from Nevada, raised the issue of the primary in the Silver state already being scheduled for the February 6, and wondered aloud whether South Carolina could be shifted to the Saturday prior. This was something that Carol Fowler, the DNCRBC member from South Carolina, not only did not object to, but she additionally pointed out that the Democratic primary in the Palmetto state has traditionally been conducted on a Saturday anyway. 

As noted in yesterday's post, there were already going to be state-level obstacles to implementing this plan in 2023. 
  • South Carolina is maximally maneuverable. The state party merely has to indicate to state elections officials when they plan to hold the primary and the state government funds and implements the primary election from there. There is no problem meeting that goal.
  • Nevada, as mentioned, is already in position by virtue of legislation passed and signed into law in 2021. Had the original plan been passed, it would have meant that the now-divided government in the Silver state would have to pass new legislation to change the date of the primary. With a newly elected Republican governor, change was unlikely. No compromise could likely be reached between Democratic legislators attempting to follow DNC rules and a Republican governor who likely would have wanted a date even later than the February 13 date Nevada was slotted into in the initial proposal from the president. That stalemate would have led back to the status quo, something the DNCRBC acknowledged by adopting the amended outline.
  • The New Hampshire secretary of state selects the date of the presidential primary in the Granite state, and under law that is required to be at least seven days before any other similar contest. Regardless of partisan alignment, the secretary is required to follow that guidance. But the current secretary is a Republican and inclined to not only keep the New Hampshire primary first, but to keep it first as set forth in national Republican rules for the 2024 cycle. In other words, New Hampshire Democrats' hands are mostly tied on this, stuck between a secretary of state likely to follow state law and a national party threatening sanction if the state party fails to meet new guidelines that would have them break with tradition. 
  • Similarly, the Georgia secretary of state schedules the date of the presidential primary in the Peach state. And although Secretary Brad Raffensperger (R) does not face the same requirement to be first as in New Hampshire, he is, nonetheless a Republican who would be less than interested in shifting the primary up to a point on the calendar that would draw penalties from the Republican National Committee. And the proposed February 13 date conflicts with those rules. 
  • Michigan, like South Carolina, is more maneuverable under the new DNC guidance than Democrats in the state would have been without the newly won majorities in both chambers of the Michigan legislature. Holding unified government means that Democrats in control can more easily pass legislation and take advantage of the waiver offered by the national party. 
However, the DNCRBC tacked on an additional set of state-specific contingencies for each of the five states above to even qualify for the waivers in question. And the window for action on those conditions is short. All five states would have to share their base voter file with bona fide Democratic candidates for president at an expense of no more than $10,000. All five states have to meet their specific requirements or risk forfeiting the waivers now preliminarily granted. That forfeiture would mean that any state unable to comply would be required to conduct a contest in the designated window on the calendar (between the first Tuesday in March and the second Tuesday in June). The contingencies diverge from there...
  • All South Carolina Democrats have to do is have the state party chair submit a letter to the DNCRBC pledging that the party will call on the state of South Carolina to conduct a primary on February 3 regardless of what other states do. That action must be taken by January 5, 2023.
  • Nevada has basically already met its main condition. The primary is already scheduled for the date the DNCRBC settled on. But Nevada Democrats must certify that any statutory changes have been made -- none are necessary -- to align the primary law with DNC rules by January 5, 2023.
  • To reiterate, New Hampshire Democrats are stuck, and the additional conditions they must meet to successfully gain a pre-window waiver from the DNCRBC are collectively a tall order. The state party has to submit to the committee by January 5, 2023 letters from the New Hampshire governor, the New Hampshire state Senate majority leader and the New Hampshire state House majority leader -- all Republicans -- pledging to make all necessary statutory changes to 1) cement the February 6 primary date and 2) implement no excuse early voting. For a variety of reasons, none of those letters from Granite state Republican leaders is likely to be forthcoming by January 5 of next year or any time ever. And that makes the next condition even more unpalatable to New Hampshire Democrats. The new DNC regulations require that all those changes be made -- as in finalized -- by February 1, 2023. That is a recipe for New Hampshire Democrats losing their waiver.
  • Georgia is in a similar boat. Again, the secretary of state in the Peach state sets the primary date, and Georgia Democrats must submit a letter from Secretary Raffensperger to the DNCRBC by January 5, 2023 in which he pledges to schedule the contest for February 13. Since such a move would negatively impact the Republican primary and Republicans in the state, that letter is unlikely to be acquired by Georgia Democrats to pass on to the DNCRBC. And that is likely to end the waiver chances there, pushing Georgia back to Super Tuesday (March 5) or later. [NOTE: There is no similar push by the DNC to have Georgia make statutory changes as was the case in New Hampshire.]
  • Michigan appears poised to move its primary date. The only real question is whether that happens before the current Republican-controlled legislative session adjourns or after new Democratic-controlled session begins in early January. Regardless, similar letters from the Michigan governor, state Senate majority leader and state House majority leader -- all Democrats -- must be submitted to the DNCRBC by January 5, 2023 and action completed by February 1, 2023. Like South Carolina and Nevada, Michigan Democrats being able to jump through the hoops set before them by the DNCRBC seems like a formality. 
But what about Georgia, Iowa and New Hampshire?

Well, the addition of Georgia may have been a polite nod to a state that was both instrumental in the president's electoral college victory in 2020 and aligned well (as a possible fifth early state) with the criteria the DNCRBC had set forth in its process to award waivers for the 2024 pre-window. While the Georgia code setting the parameters of the presidential primary scheduling describes a singular primary election, it also indicates that a primary election will be held for each party. That seemingly provides some wiggle room to a willing secretary of state, but the custom in Georgia has never been to conduct separate presidential primaries; one for each party. The state budget also does not allocate funds for a second/separate presidential primary election. 

Iowa and New Hampshire are different. 

Both have obviously long held privileged positions in the presidential nomination processes of both parties. And both also have state laws protecting those positions (although there are no explicit penalties for violations in either). Both still have them on the Republican side for 2024 and only Iowa Democrats have had their waiver directly denied by the DNCRBC. New Hampshire Democrats appear to have been granted a reprieve but only a short one given that the marching orders handed down from the DNC are an indirect denial of a 2024 waiver. 

Theoretically, the DNC has more leverage over a state party like Iowa's than over the New Hampshire Democratic Party working -- or trying to work -- through an unaffiliated (and uninterested) secretary of state there. And typically the DNCRBC has been more lenient on states and state parties that try their best to comply with any new set of regulations handed down by the national party setting the parameters around the next nomination cycle. 

In other words, if Iowa Democrats are defiant and openly flaunt the new rules to hold a contest alongside Republican caucuses that are likely to be scheduled for some time in January 2024, the the DNCRBC is likely to drop the hammer on them. And in this case, the hammer means going beyond the 50 percent delegation penalty called for in the rules (which is discretion the DNCRBC has). It was hinted at during the DNCRBC meeting in a passing comment on rogue states that the committee may be inclined to take all of a violating state's delegates. 

There are other candidate-specific penalties as well, but the effectiveness of those deterrents hinge on there actually being an active and competitive nomination race; something that would not be on the table if President Biden opts to run for renomination. [Yes, that can change, but from all indications, the president is running and most of the big names that are thought to be possible challengers have deferred to him.] With no candidates, there is nothing for states to lure by breaking the rules to go early (other than tradition).

Is the prospect of no delegates enough to keep Iowa Democrats from jumping back into the pre-window? Probably not if those penalties are only in place during primary season. However, the DNC and the convention have the ability to not recognize a delegation from a state that has run a delegate selection process that runs afoul of DNC rules. If Biden is the nominee, then that may be enough to keep Iowa Democrats in line. But it is also an eventuality that the DNC would have to signal early and often was a very possible end point for a rogue state. Carrying through on that is equivalent to the DNC admitting Iowa is a red state and completely writing it off in the general election.

These same things affect New Hampshire as well, but again, Democrats in the Granite state are stuck in a different dilemma. They could completely agree with the DNCRBC changes and still not be able to do anything about it with either Republicans in control of state government or the secretary of state. Of course, so far New Hampshire Democrats have struck a stridently defiant tone in response to the proposed calendar changes, vowing to still go first. 

In the past it may have enough for New Hampshire Democrats to try their best to comply and be given the benefit of the doubt by the DNCRBC (as FHQ noted in the close of this post). But the contingencies the DNCRBC adopted made it more difficult for Democrats in the Granite state to not only "try their best" but to comply at all. The conditions added insult to injury, especially considering that it looked like New Hampshire stood a pretty good shot of retaining its position given all the chatter leading up the DNCRBC meeting, but before the Biden team released its proposal the day before the panel convened. 

New Hampshire Democrats and the DNC, then, may be in much the same position as Democrats in the Hawkeye state are with the national party: destined for a clash. Of course, while Iowa may be a red state, New Hampshire remains purple. And even if just a sliver of the New Hampshire electorate is motivated by the state being stripped of its position in the nominating process -- whether by costing Democrats all of their delegates during primary season or not seating a Democratic slate from the state at the convention -- it would not take that much to flip the state to Republicans in a presidential contest. Around 30,000 votes would have accomplished that in 2020. That is a real potential cost to national Democrats. 

The DNC may be willing to send that sort of message to Iowa, but New Hampshire is a different matter. New Hampshire Democrats have leverage that Iowa Democrats do not. But if the DNC is serious about this -- if the president is serious about making these calendar changes a part of his legacy -- then that would be the potential price the national party has to pay. 

Again, however, the national party would not only have to adopt these rules -- the DNC will at their meeting early next year -- but would have to publicly and often discuss the possible ramifications of going rogue. 

...and follow through on them. 

--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 5:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

Thursday, December 1, 2022

Biden Calls for Calendar Shake Up Ahead of Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting

President Biden released a letter to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (see below) on the eve of the panel's meeting to consider and finalize the pre-window lineup of states on the 2024 presidential primary calendar. 

The committee and the full DNC had previously adopted all other rules for the 2024 cycle and had punted on making any decisions on the calendar until after the 2022 midterm elections. It had also awaited input from the White House; input the DNCRBC now has. 

Much of the president's guidance mirrors principles the committee has already been working under: diversifying -- geography, race/ethnicity and economic -- the early states to better match the Democratic Party electorate, eliminating caucuses, and representing urban, suburban and rural interests. The president also indicated a preference for the early states to be reexamined every cycle. 


Subsequent reporting was more specific about not only the states the Biden team highlighted to be granted waivers by the DNCRBC to appear in the pre-window, but also in what order they are to go. 
South Carolina
Nevada/New Hampshire
Georgia
Michigan
FHQ had some quick reactions here:
Some have already argued that this is a move intended to ward off a serious primary challenge. But the president and his team have already seemingly done a good job of that. Most would-be candidates on the Democratic bench had already deferred to the president before this move. As such, this proposal seems aimed more at legacy building by the president and those around him; an attempt at dealing with a seemingly intractable "problem" that has been ever-present in nomination politics for the better part of the last half century. 


--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:15 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

The Calendar Pieces on the DNCRBC's Board

This post has been updated to account for President Biden's letter giving the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee further direction in finalizing the primary calendar rules. Additions will appear in brackets [ ] below.

--
As the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) convenes to determine the last piece of the puzzle that is the party's delegate selection rules for the 2024 cycle, it is helpful to remember that there are some things that the panel can do and some things that they cannot. 

Ultimately, any set of delegate selection rules -- regardless of party -- is a set of guidelines within which state governments and state parties ideally act. But sometimes the ideal is not met and a party ends up with Florida and Michigan in 2008 or Florida and some non-binding caucuses in 2012. And honestly, those are just the calendar headaches. There are a whole host of challenges that come up within state parties' processes and between state parties and the national parties every cycle that either never see the light of day in the news or are dealt with quietly before or during a convention. 

The national parties are set up to deal with these issues, but part of that, at least within the context of the presidential nomination process, is a function of the rules committees being mindful of what they have the power to affect. That is the position in which the DNCRBC finds itself on the cusp of finalizing its early window calendar for the 2024 presidential nomination cycle. They are, to bring up a line FHQ has borrowed/used often in the past, facing a decision over whether to control or manage the nomination process. 

As John Sununu said in addressing the crowd at the National Association of Secretaries of State conference that snowy day in DC, parties are better served when attempting to manage the process rather than control it. And shuffling the beginning of the primary calendar qualifies as an issue that straddles the line of that distinction. Again, if it was easy to make that change, then some one -- some party -- would have altered the beginning of the calendar in some earlier cycle. And it has not been for lack of trying that the calendar has remained largely unchanged. 

States have tried to jump in line. But New Hampshire and Iowa have proven more nimble in protecting their turf. 

The national parties have examined alternatives, but the Price Commission ended up pushing for additions to the early window rather than supplanting the two traditional lead off states. And Republicans jettisoned both the Delaware plan and the Ohio plan at their 2000 and 2008 conventions, respectively.

Against that backdrop, however, the DNCRBC stands on the cusp of maybe shaking things up as 2022 comes to a close. But this is just another step in the process. The DNC (or the RNC for that matter) can make whatever rules they like, but the states react to and within those rules. Well, the states ideally act within those rules. They have not all always done that in the past and state actors may not all follow suit in 2023 as preparation for 2024 ramps up across the board. 

Here are the pieces the DNCRBC is playing with entering their December meeting.

IOWA
By all accounts, Iowa is on the way out in this latest round of DNC rules. The Hawkeye state may be written into Rule 12.A (or its 2024 equivalent) but it is very unlikely to be granted a slot 29 days before the first Tuesday in March as it has over the last several cycles. And it may be written out of the rule and thus the early window entirely. But the question may be less about whether Iowa is in those rules in some capacity and more about how Iowa Democrats react to any changes. 

The state party could lean on state law and merely follow state Republicans to whatever position they carve out for themselves at the beginning of the Republican process. But that likely will not be an easy sell with the DNCRBC when the state Democratic Party has to submit, defend and implement a delegate selection plan. That is even more true if Democrats in the state legislature make no moves -- futile though they may ultimately be with majority Republicans in control -- to attempt to move to a presidential primary election. No, that is not going to happen at all, but if Iowa Democrats are to defend themselves against potential sanctions from the DNCRBC, then they will have to take some demonstrable steps toward making a change. Sure, holding a party-run primary -- uh, caucus(-in-name-only) -- with open access is a good start, but not if the caucuses are held against DNC rules at the head of the line. 

In other words, just going with the flow (of tradition, not to mention Iowa Republicans) and thumbing their noses at the DNC is not a winning pitch. It would give the DNCRBC good reason to test out its new sanctions cutting off incentives for candidates to go anywhere near Iowa. Democrats in the state may hold caucuses, but it will be a largely meaningless, candidate-less sort of Ames Straw Poll on the Democratic side. Look, Iowa's results are already discounted in the current Democratic process. Going-first-at-all-costs is not going to make that better. 

The DNCRBC, then, seems to be on pretty firm ground with respect to dealing with most Iowa problems that may arise after the early calendar is set.

[Biden's letter more or less confirmed Iowa's caucuses were headed for the exits in the Democratic process. No, that correspondence did not call Iowa by name, but seemed to be the death knell for caucuses overall on the Democratic side. Reporting alongside the letter revelations confirmed the Biden team had nixed the Hawkeye state from its preferred early state targets.]


NEVADA
Making a strong push to replace Iowa as the first-in-the-nation contest is Nevada. The Silver state, based on the criteria created by the DNCRBC for this process, makes a strong case. There is diversity in the electorate. There is a small-ish media market in a smaller state that lends itself to the sorts of retail politics that both parties continue to value. There is (general election) competitiveness statewide. And an early Nevada contest is, most importantly, entirely feasible. Nevada has been in the early window since the 2008 cycle, has shifted to a primary (over the old caucuses that are out of vogue in the Democratic process) and it is already scheduled for an early date. The first Tuesday in February is just one day behind where Iowa has held its caucuses in the last two cycles. 

But the question is not really whether Nevada Democrats can fill the Iowa void and check all of the DNCRBC's boxes in the process. They can. Instead, the question is what other states do once Nevada is there. That and how the DNCRBC acts in response to those moves. 

It is possible, likely even, that Nevada Democrats leave this upcoming DNCRBC meeting having secured the top spot on the 2024 primary calendar in the rules. But that is a different matter than suggesting that Nevada will be the first contest once 2024 rolls around. 

Let's put a pin in that for a moment. 

[The reporting on the Biden team's thinking has suggested that Nevada and New Hampshire may be paired  (in the rules) if not on the same date on the calendar behind South Carolina, then during the same week. Nevada, of course, will now have a Republican governor who may be more concerned with the date relative to the Republican process. Nevada's current law sets the date of the newly established presidential primary for the first Tuesday in February, a date that is not compliant with RNC rules. Something will have to give if there is to remain just one consolidated presidential primary for both parties. That may mean one side opting into a compliant caucus, a compromise that funds to separate primary elections (one for each party) or a stalemate that preserves the status quo date and set up and leaves the state parties to figure out how to comply with national party rules.]


MICHIGAN
Yes, legislation to move the Michigan presidential primary to the second Tuesday in February -- a week after the current Nevada primary date -- recently glided through the state Senate. Yes, the midterms were good to the Great Lakes state in this context in that Democrats will now harness all the levers of power behind the setting of the presidential primary date. And yes, Michigan is seen as a suitable, more competitive, more diverse Midwestern state in Iowa. 

But Michigan has one mark against it that Minnesota Democrats, vying for a similar spot, have raised in recent days: it is too big, and too delegate-rich and too media market expensive as a result. That means that while Michigan may be in a good position to snag an early window spot -- replacing Iowa -- it may not be in line to claim the first spot on the calendar that Iowa has held for half a century. 

Sentiment still exists on the DNCRBC to ease into primary season with smaller states, giving all candidates a chance to compete and succeed. Take long time South Carolina DNC member, Carol Fowler:
“We have always put in the pre-window calendar smaller states, and we’ve done that for good reasons,” said Carol Fowler, a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee from South Carolina. “If Michigan had been in an early state, I’m not sure President Carter would have ever been president. I think Barack Obama benefited from having small states up front. I think it’s so helpful for a good strong candidate who is not well-funded yet.”
Or Ken Martin, the Minnesota DFL chair and DNCRBC member: 
In particular, Martin noted the number of delegates Michigan has, which correlates to the state’s population and Democratic vote share. The Minnesota party chair called it “too large for inclusion in the early state process,” noting that Michigan’s 139 delegates to the 2024 convention would be nearly as many delegates as the combined total from all three other current early states: New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. 
“With so many delegates being awarded to Michigan, it is easy to see future candidates skipping the rest of the early states altogether — to focus on a prize that delivers nearly as many delegates as all other early states combined,” Martin wrote. “This result would negate the expressed purpose [sic] of our early state strategy.”
Now, Martin is representing Minnesota here (and the overall process, too), but he is also fighting for the same spot Michigan is. But he is right and the tell about Michigan's place in the pecking order is in the description of candidates skipping states to focus on delegate-rich Michigan. Sure, strategically speaking, candidates may be wowed by the delegates at stake in Michigan, but there is no guarantee that any one candidate will net a big advantage coming out of the state. Nevertheless, that traditional sentiment exists which means that Michigan may make it into the early window, but that it would be toward the end before Super Tuesday. 

[Michigan got the nod from the Biden team to be the Iowa replacement. No, it will not be the first contest, but the Great Lakes state appears poised to be added to the back half of the early window]


MINNESOTA 
Minnesota is in the conversation mainly because of the above, but the following hovers over even that:
“It does change the calculus,” a Democrat with knowledge of the discussions among national party leaders who requested anonymity to speak freely said after Michigan Democrats claimed a trifecta in the governor’s office and the two legislative chambers. “Michigan jumps over Minnesota, it’s just that simple. Minnesota was the fallback. Michigan is a key state.”
Unless the last-ditch "Michigan is too big" effort succeeds, then Minnesota is on the outside looking in on the Great Lakes state in this one. But perhaps it works and Minnesota replaces Iowa up front and the two bookend a five state early window. It is possible, but not probable.

[Minnesota was, in fact, the fallback option as the Midwestern replacement for Iowa.]


SOUTH CAROLINA
South Carolina Democrats have seemingly been in "don't rock the boat" mode for much of this process. Sure, there are more competitive southern states with large African American communities, but Georgia, while occasionally mentioned as a possible early state, did not mimic Michigan in the midterms. In the Peach state, it is the secretary of state who sets the date of the presidential primary. And Brad Raffensperger (R) won reelection in November. Plus, if Iowa gets the axe, tossing another state enshrined in the Republican process may be biting off more than the DNCRBC can chew. It would invite too much chaos between the two parties' processes. 

South Carolina already has two quiet factors in its favor. Jamie Harrison, the DNC chair, once chaired the Democratic Party in the Palmetto state for starters. And if Rep. Jim Clyburn (D) has any remaining chits to cash in with the president after his valuable pre-primary endorsement of Biden in 2020, then his voice may carry weight in this process as well.
But House Majority Whip Clyburn, the dean of South Carolina Democrats and a close ally of Biden, said he would not oppose Michigan’s bid to enter the pre-window as long as it does not overshadow South Carolina and other Southern states that vote on Super Tuesday. 
“If it’s Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Michigan, that’s almost ideal to me,” he said, though he cautioned that New Hampshire’s law could hinder efforts to put it behind Nevada. He said he was also open to New Hampshire and Nevada going on the same day.
Clyburn is mindful of the impact the South Carolina results have had on southern-tinged Super Tuesdays of the past. The majority African American constituency in South Carolina has signaled other similar states in the region in a number of past cycles. 

There may be a minor shuffle of sorts for South Carolina, but the Palmetto state looks to be secure in their first-in-the-South status for 2024.

[For the state that changed the trajectory of Biden's push for the 2020 nomination, the proposed changes represent both a minor shuffle and a major change. South Carolina's proposed shift from the fourth slot to the top is minor on the surface. But it would be a major frontloading of an African American constituency that has been the bedrock of the Democratic coalition for longer than Iowa has been the first state in the party's primary order. That is no small thing. 

As for the logistics of such a move, South Carolina is in the fortunate position of having long ago normalized separate presidential primaries for both parties. There are no start-up financial costs to this. Unlike, say, Nevada above, South Carolina Democrats have an ease of movement that nearly every other state does not. As such, a South Carolina Democratic primary in the first slot does not threaten Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire in the same way that any other primary state would. This was a part of the calculus when South Carolina was added to the early state roster for the 2008 cycle. And that has been a major part of why the Palmetto state is third in the Republican order and has been fourth on the Democratic side. It is also, in retrospect, a component of why the Biden team settled on South Carolina for the top slot. With divided government in Nevada after the 2022 elections, changing the rules in the Silver state to accommodate both Democratic and Republican processes got more difficult. And oddly enough, the shift from caucuses to a primary -- which the DNC prefers -- may have cost Nevada Democrats some ease of movement in this context.]


[GEORGIA
The Peach state has been mentioned as a possible addition to the early window in various reporting on the. DNCRBC's calendar deliberations over the course of the last year or so. But it always seemed like that chatter was on the fringe. Perhaps those were Biden insiders who kept bring Georgia up. That would make some sense.

Nevertheless, shifting Georgia into an early window position on the calendar is easier said than done as referenced in the South Carolina section above. Yes, Secretary Raffensperger (R), under law, has a fairly significant amount of latitude in setting the date of the Georgia presidential primary. There is a wide window from early January to mid-June in which he can schedule the contest. But Raffensperger has two major problems in aiding national Democrats in their wishes for an early window Georgia primary. First, there are RNC rules that would strip the Peach state Republican delegation of around 85 percent of its members -- a significant deterrent -- if the primary is before March 1. Additionally, the law does not allow the secretary to schedule two separate contests to accommodate both Democratic and Republican calendars. Perhaps, Georgia Democrats could lobby Raffensperger to exploit the loophole in RNC rules and move the primary to the Saturday before Super Tuesday on March 5. That would place Georgia just inside the backend of the early window in the Democratic process and still be compliant with Republican rules. With unified Democratic control, Michigan will not have to utilize that loophole. There is a freedom of movement there that Georgia does not have (although it would put Michigan Republicans in jeopardy with the RNC.]


NEW HAMPSHIRE
Okay. Let's return to that pin from Nevada. 

If Michigan is likely to be slotted into a later early window spot and not the state most likely to threaten Nevada's ascent to the top of the calendar, then New Hampshire probably is. And New Hampshire may not pose any threat to Nevada at or coming out of this next DNCRBC meeting.

Again, Nevada Democrats may leave this meeting having secured the top slot under the new DNC rules. But the state may not end up first on the primary calendar when the votes start getting cast in 2024. The DNCRBC theoretically has a leg to stand on in dealing with Iowa. If the state party there crosses the DNC rules without having made some effort at remedying the situation (e.g.: proposing at a minimum legislation to shift the Hawkeye state to a primary), then they are unlikely to be able to avert national party sanctions. 

That, in turn, neuters Iowa, leaving Nevada and New Hampshire to spar for the first position. 

First of all, as the laws in both states stand now, New Hampshire is better able to move at a moment's notice. There is no official date until the secretary of state in the Granite state sets one. And that decision has been made as late as the week of Thanksgiving (in 2007 ahead of an early January primary). On the other hand, Nevada's date is set: the first Tuesday in February. The legislature there can change that date, but it tends to adjourn for the year in June. There could be a special session, but that seems unlikely. Governor-elect Lombardo (R) is not likely to call any such session for that purpose and the legislature does not have supermajority Democratic control (in the state Senate) to call such a session themselves. That avenue, then, is a dead end. 

Alternatively, the legislature during its 2023 session could cede the authority to set the date of the presidential primary. But mimicking New Hampshire and testing the limits of that move for the first time in a manner that is acceptable to election officials in the state with decreasing time and who will also be implementing a presidential primary for the first time is not exactly a recipe for success. It could happen, but the climb is steep. 

But what about the DNCRBC? If they can penalize Iowa, then they can penalize New Hampshire too. Maybe, but the conditions are different in the two states despite the fact that they have been lumped together in this process for 50 years. 

New Hampshire has been able to pull off consecutive, non-controversial primaries for several cycles now. Iowa cannot make that claim.

New Hampshire Democrats really have their hands tied on this matter. They are (happily) along for the ride. There is little the state Democratic Party can do if the secretary of state sets the date of the primary for some time that is earlier than and not compliant with DNC rules. Yes, there is a Republican in that position now, but that could change next week when the legislature selects the secretary of state. There is a Democratic challenger, but the legislature remains in Republican control.

New Hampshire could perhaps show demonstrable steps taken to remedy the situation by shifting to a caucus or party-run primary and scheduling it for later. But while that may fix the scheduling conflict, it runs against where the DNC is subtly pushing states: toward government-run primaries. And that may create new problems with implementing a new party-run process. Potentially making it harder for Democrats to vote in New Hampshire is also a dangerous path considering how competitive the state is and how valuable it is to Democrats' electoral college calculus. 

Together, those factors bode well for New Hampshire Democrats winning a later waiver from the DNCRBC than the exemptions to be written into the delegate selection rules now. Again, New Hampshire Democrats hands will have been tied and all routes to remedies cut off. Those are the conditions under which waivers are granted (by rule).

[Even after the Biden letter and the updated New Hampshire positioning underlying it, the Granite state outlook remains unchanged. It is unique in all of this because of the actors involved. Democrats there will be stuck with whatever date the secretary of state selects. And that will likely be before all the states but Iowa in the Republican order.]

--
Regardless of how this DNCRBC meeting comes out in DC, New Hampshire may once again rise to the top of the heap. The DNCRBC may win some points now for placing Nevada, for example, first, but it may take flak later if New Hampshire ends up in first again anyway without it being penalized. But in the end, the DNCRBC has to follow DNC rules. [Again, with South Carolina and not Nevada proposed in that first slot, there is still some jockeying to be done. But unlike Nevada, South Carolina's primaries split between parties provides a bit more wiggle room.]

And that is the trick in managing a presidential nomination system and not trying to control it. 


--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 4:15 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)