Read the rest at FHQ Plus.
--
This legislation has been added to FHQ's updated 2024 presidential primary calendar.
--
Related:
--
Recent posts:
Wednesday, February 15, 2023
Ohio Senate Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to May
Companion House Bill Would Create February West Virginia Presidential Primary
--
This legislation has been added to FHQ's updated 2024 presidential primary calendar.
--
Recent posts:
Tuesday, February 14, 2023
Idaho Bill Aims to Consolidate Presidential Primary with Others in May
Read the rest at FHQ Plus.
--
This legislation has been added to FHQ's updated 2024 presidential primary calendar.
--
Recent posts:
Rules Tweak Alters How Republican Delegates Will Be Bound in 2024
Veterans of the primary wars will recall how Florida and Michigan jumped the queue and held unsanctioned presidential primaries outside of the national party rules during the 2008 cycle. Following that incursion into the early window, both national parties sought to change their respective rules in an attempt to rein in would-be rogue states in future cycles.
But it didn't take. ...not immediately, anyway.
Despite an informal agreement between the national parties to dial back the beginning of primary season for 2012, it happened again. Florida and Michigan once more held contests before Super Tuesday and were joined by Arizona as well. The start point for all of the states except the earliest four was moved back a month from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March, but the penalties -- especially on the Republican side -- remained the same in 2012 as they were in 2008.
It was not until the 2016 cycle when the Republican National Committee (RNC) bifurcated its penalty structure, creating a super penalty for timing violations and a separate 50 percent penalty for those states that broke the allocation rules, that the previously rogue states were finally kept in check.
That offers a cautionary tale for national parties crafting rules to elicit corrective behavior from actors on the state level. Often it can take more than one round -- one cycle -- to get right.
And so it is in another problem area in the Republican delegate selection process. After all, it was not just Arizona, Florida and Michigan that caused the RNC headaches during the 2012 cycle. There were also a series of states that held non-binding preference votes at precinct caucuses, most of them early in the sequence, that sent roughly 15 percent of the total number of Republican delegates at stake to the 2012 convention in Tampa. But the early timing of most of those "beauty contests" was rather minor. The problem was that preference votes were taken, but had no bearing on the ultimate delegate allocation and selection.
There could, for example, be a battle between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum about who won the 2012 Iowa caucuses on the night of the contest, but that had little influence on a delegate selection process that saw Ron Paul out-organize both in subsequent rounds of the caucus-convention process and take more (Paul-aligned but technically unbound) delegates to the convention.
Two problems emerged from that 2012 experience for Republicans. The first was that states could skirt the timing rules by holding events -- caucuses or conventions -- early. States could gain candidate and media attention and potentially influence the sequential nomination process with nothing, or comparatively little, on the line. That was not against the rules, but it was counter to the spirit of the rules.
Second, it left any delegates that came out of such processes on the state level technically unbound heading into the national convention; free agents of a sort. This left the door open to a factional candidate possibly outflanking a frontrunner, or even a presumptive nominee, in the delegate selection process and gobbling up, again, technically unbound, delegate slots to the national convention. Done properly, such a candidate could have his or her name placed in nomination and have aligned delegates in positions to fight for rules changes and/or platform additions.
Ron Paul test drove this tactic in 2008, honed it in 2012 and left lingering whether it would be of consequence for his son in a wide open 2016 Republican nomination race. That, too, may not have been against the rules, but it was still, perhaps, counter to the spirit of the rules.
Of course, one of the controversial rules changes that came out of the rules fights at the 2012 Republican National Convention was one adding new language directly dealing with binding and allocation. It was an attempt at closing the unbound delegate selection event loophole; one intended to solve both problems above. And just as was the case in the transition from 2008 to 2012, when the calendar start point was dialed back, it worked to push most states in line. Notably, Iowa, for example switched from a non-binding caucus in 2012 to one that proportionally allocated delegates based on the statewide results to the precinct caucuses in 2016.
But just like Arizona, Florida and Michigan and those timing rules of 2012, there were some states that once again sought to circumvent the new national party rules on binding for 2016 and stick with their more traditional unbound formulas. It was a smaller pool of potential delegates -- down to just under 5 percent total in 2016 from 15 percent in 2012 -- but it was still a pool of delegates allocated and selected in a manner that did not completely square with the intent of the rules changes.
The RNC did more or less navigate through this issue during 2016. The party interpreted the rules to include any pledges that delegate candidates made to presidential candidates when filing to run in states like Colorado and Wyoming. Only North Dakota's Republican process among the states ultimately avoided making any real changes and maintained a fully unbound delegation. None had preference votes for presidential candidates, but some delegates were bound due to those pledges (Colorado and Wyoming) while others were not (North Dakota).
However, the 2016 Republican nomination process offered one other wrinkle to this rules saga as it played out. The process pointed out that, while a candidate could be allocated delegate slots and have those slots bound to them and their potential nomination, those delegates -- the people who filled the allocated slots -- may not actually be aligned with that particular candidate. One could see Trump-allocated delegates who were actually aligned with Ted Cruz, for instance. In turn, that raised the specter that if there were enough Trump-bound, but Cruz (or whomever)-aligned delegates at the convention, then mischief could occur. Changes could be made to the rules package on which the convention would eventually vote that could swing the nomination away from the plurality (vote) winner/majority (delegates) winner from primary season, Trump.
And, indeed, this was a topic of conversation after Donald Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee after the Indiana primary in early May 2016 when all of his main competitors withdrew from the race. A contentious pre-convention meeting of the (convention) Rules Committee seemingly put the matter to rest, ending the talk of releasing 2016 delegates aligned with other candidates and clearing the path for Trump to be nominated in Cleveland.
Yet, that merely resolved the binding issue for 2016. And a rules tweak on the matter for 2020 was less than necessary with an incumbent president seeking renomination/reelection. The party simply carried over its 2016 rules to the 2020 cycle. But for Republican rules makers looking ahead to 2024, further clarifying the rule could close the loophole exploited by states and candidates from 2008-2016.
The same rules that governed both the 2016 and 2020 processes emerged from the 2020 convention in Charlotte. But under its Rule 12 powers, the RNC adopted a series of amendments to the 2024 rules in April 2022. It brought back the debates committee and adjusted the end of the primary calendar. And it also augmented its rules on binding 2024 delegates.
Here is the language of Rule 16(a)(1) that came out of the Tampa convention in 2012 and was used in 2016, carried over to 2020 and came out of the Charlotte convention in 2020:
Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in a primary, caucuses, or a state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the national convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters.And here is how the RNC tweaked it in April 2022 [changes marked in bold italics]:
Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in a primary, caucuses, or a state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the national convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner for at least one round of balloting, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters or delegates bound to a candidate that withdraws from the presidential race. States wishing to unbind delegates pursuant to this rule must specify the criteria for doing so in the filing submitted to the Republican National Committee in accordance with paragraph (f)(1) of this rule.
Much of the language is the same, but it importantly requires state parties to bind delegates for at least one round of balloting at the national convention. And it has been since the 1950s that a convention has gone beyond one roll call ballot. The rule further buttresses that mandate by requiring states to specify the process by which delegates would become unbound. In other words, the delegate selection plans state parties must submit to the RNC under Rule 16(f)(1) must lay out at what point -- after how many roll call ballots -- delegates become free agents (in the off-hand chance it goes beyond that point).
And honestly, most state parties were already doing this. Look at the third column from the right in the chart here. Most states have been doing this, but the change above forces the handful of laggards in line. Those changes tighten up the rules and leave a lot less room to maneuver toward the types of mischief that have occurred in recent cycles.
Caucus states can still go the North Dakota route in 2024, but it would be difficult to justify in light of the above rules and the fact that most states had a statewide preference vote and/or had delegate candidates pledge to particular presidential candidates in the immediately preceding cycles, competitive or otherwise.
And yes, the national convention remains the highest authority in these matters. A convention could adopt rules counter to the intent of the above, but would only do so after primary season has played out in all 56 states and territories under those rules. That is easy to say, even easier to consider, but hard to pull off in real time after voters have voted and indicated a winner (even if by plurality).
Is that binding loophole completely closed now? No, but it is a much tighter one after these changes than it was. Rules matter.
...even after seemingly small changes.
--
Recent posts:
Sunday, February 12, 2023
The Republican Rules for 2024 Present Some Calendar Opportunities
Understandably, there has been a lot of talk surrounding the changes to the Democratic Party presidential primary calendar for 2024.
However, comparatively little attention has been paid to the calendar on the Republican side. That disconnect is, perhaps, even more unusual and interesting considering that the Republican presidential nomination process is the one where most of the action will be in 2023-24. Theirs is the more competitive of the ongoing nomination battles. But much of the relative quiet on the Republican calendar front is owed to the fact that the early calendar has been locked in since the Republican National Committee (RNC) adopted its rules for 2024 in April 2022. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada will be the first states. One may not yet know where exactly on the calendar each will fall, but they can fall, by rule, "no earlier than one month before the next earliest state."
Yet, thus far in 2023, there is little evidence that primary and caucus placement for the remainder of the states is a top priority for Republicans in state legislatures across the country. There is no rush, for example, to schedule primaries for a spot that represents "the next earliest state." And there is room to maneuver for that title.
Here is how:
Beginning in the 2016 cycle, the RNC made a small change to its rules that in subsequent cycles has created a divide between the Republican and Democratic parties' presidential primary calendars. In 2012, both parties allowed all contests that were not Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina to conduct primaries and caucuses as early as the first Tuesday in March. The Democratic Party continues to use that language. That is the point at which "the window" opens for non-exempt states to conduct contests.
But on the Republican side, the language changed. Instead of the first Tuesday in March it became March 1 during the 2016 cycle and it has stayed March 1 in the rules ever since. That mattered little in 2016 because March 1 was the first Tuesday in March. However, while the Democrats' first Tuesday in March position has remained anchored in place, the March 1 of the Republican rules shifts around from cycle to cycle. That was less consequential in 2020 when there was no sustained challenge to President Trump's hold on the Republican nomination.
However, in 2024, March 1 falls on a Friday, the Friday before what at this point looks to be Super Tuesday on March 5, 2024. That is the point on the calendar where the most states' primaries and caucuses are congregated and the date that is the most delegate-rich date on the calendar (at this time). That divide between the two parties' calendars presents an opportunity for states to potentially shift into a more advantageous position without penalty.
Yet, again, there has been no effort undertaken thus far by Republican state legislators in particular to exploit that calendar divide between the parties. FHQ has raised the possibility of Democrats in Georgia and nationally offering a Saturday, March 2 spot as a compromise position to a Republican secretary of state who has to this point resisted efforts to move the Peach state primary deeper into February because of the prospect of national party penalties. Nothing, however, prevents other states from shifting into that same position or up to a day earlier to Friday, March 1.
Part of the issue here is that the RNC rules stray not just from those of national Democrats but from how primary date scheduling laws are crafted on the state level. In the vast majority of cases, presidential primaries are affixed to a day on the calendar and not a particular date. State laws call for an election to take place on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November or the first Tuesday in March and not March 1, for instance. The latter moves around from cycle to cycle and could potentially sow voter confusion when a March 1 primary would be on a Friday in 2024 and then a Wednesday in 2028.
That, however, is a thinking that hews closely to tradition, but not one that cannot be overcome. A state law that gets changed in, say, Oklahoma from the first Tuesday in March to simply March 1 uproots the contest from a typical Tuesday, but aligns the primary with RNC rules (as they exist now). And that change offers the benefit of being ahead of the first Tuesday in March where other states' contests have clustered. A modest benefit in 2024 would be a bigger bonus four years later when a March 1 primary would be nearly a week before the usual Super Tuesday.
Of course, that may benefit Republicans in Oklahoma, but would put Democrats in the Sooner state in much the same situation in which Michigan Republicans currently find themselves. That is, stuck in a noncompliant primary they are powerless to change in a state legislature controlled by the opposing party. That would create some headaches, but not for the party in power.
But this is the sort of instability that is manifest when the national parties are not on the same page. They do not have to formally broker any sort of agreed upon point on the calendar at which non-exempt states can start holding primaries and caucuses, but it is clearly in both national parties' interests to have a uniform start time to "the window." It would cut down on these sorts of cross-party scheduling snafus that present problems from time to time, an issue similar to the divide that now exists in the early calendar lineup. In the end, state actors will be attracted to opportunities that allow their state to be showcased away from the rest of the pack. And states can play that against national parties that do not present a united front in return.
--
Recent posts:
Friday, February 10, 2023
New Hampshire Senate Advances Resolution Affirming FITN Support
The New Hampshire state Senate on Thursday unanimously voted in favor of a resolution affirming the body's support of the Granite state presidential primary's first-in-the-nation status.
All 24 senators voted aye on SCR 1:
A RESOLUTION affirming the general court’s support for New Hampshire’s first in the nation primary.Whereas, New Hampshire first held a primary election for president in 1916, and has held the first in the nation presidential primary since 1920; andWhereas, New Hampshire’s first in the nation presidential primary is a historic and valued landmark in our state and our nation’s democratic culture; andWhereas, New Hampshire voters have consistently and proudly had one of the highest participation rates in the nation, cherishing their role in vetting presidential candidates through person-to-person, grassroots campaigning; andWhereas, the need to engage with voters across New Hampshire provides a necessary proving ground for candidates wishing to serve in the most powerful office in the world, not only testing their political skills but better preparing them for the Oval Office; andWhereas, attempts by national political organizations to alter the presidential nominating calendar and dictate election laws to the people of New Hampshire have been met with widespread, bipartisan condemnation; andWhereas, New Hampshire’s first in the nation presidential primary has grown over the past century into a vital part of our state’s identity; now, therefore be itResolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:That the general court of the state of New Hampshire hereby affirms its support for New Hampshire’s first in the nation presidential primary, and its confidence in the secretary of state to ensure that New Hampshire’s primary maintain its legal and proper status at least one week before any similar nominating contest.That the general court expects all political parties to respect the results of New Hampshire’s first in the nation presidential primary by seating the delegates selected by New Hampshire voters at their national nominating conventions.
The measure now heads to the House side of the General Court.
--
The concurrent resolution comes just days after the Democratic National Committee (DNC) adopted a set of presidential primary calendar rules that reshuffled the lineup of early states and New Hampshire's traditional place in it. Of course, this is merely a symbolic gesture on the part of the General Court, reasserting its position on the laws New Hampshire. However, the language at the end is of particular note: That the general court expects all political parties to respect the results of New Hampshire’s first in the nation presidential primary by seating the delegates selected by New Hampshire voters at their national nominating conventions.
Granted, the street in this back and forth between the Granite state and the DNC runs two ways. Given the tenor of comments recently made by DNC members in Philadelphia at the winter meeting, it is not difficult to imagine the DNC countering that New Hampshire Democrats respect the rules of the process passed by the national party.
In the end, this is a struggle that is likely to continue throughout the consideration of the New Hampshire Democratic Party's delegate selection plan in 2023. And if past is prelude, then legislative Democrats' support of this resolution will factor into not only the consideration of delegate selection plan, but in whether the DNC assesses penalties and how severe they will ultimately be. Florida Democrats, for example, urged leniency in 2007 when the DNC considered (and eventually levied) penalties against the state for planning a rogue primary for 2008. But Democrats in the Sunshine state quickly had the fact that legislative Democrats there voted in favor of moving the primary into violation of national party rules thrown in their faces before the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) voted to strip Florida Democrats of all of their delegates.
Again, this vote in New Hampshire is symbolic. It is not an apples to apples comparison to weigh it equally against the actions in Florida a decade and a half ago. The situations are different. In neither case will those legislative actions end up being (or having been) the deciding factor in any penalties decision on the part of the DNCRBC, but it would be foolish to think it will not be a part of the calculus. [And in defense of New Hampshire Democratic state senators, taking this position in favor of the presidential primary's traditional position is just good politics from a local standpoint. To vote against it would be to potentially invite future trouble at the ballot box.]
The back and forth continues.
--
Recent posts:
Wednesday, February 8, 2023
Ohio Secretary of State's Office Dismisses Need to Move Presidential Primary to May
The language of a forthcoming bill to shift the presidential primary in Ohio to May is not even public yet and there is already resistance forming to the idea.
And that is true. Ohio voters have gone to the polls for a presidential primary in March in the last seven presidential cycles dating back to 1996. And in three of those cycles -- 2000, 2004 and 2012 -- the Ohio primary was on Super Tuesday. But Republicans in control of state government nudged the primary date back in recent years in order to adopt a true winner-take-all delegate allocation system that would comply under national party rules.
And maintaining that combination -- early primary (that is more likely to put Ohio voters in a position to weigh in before the races are effective over) and those winner-take-all rules along with a competitive Republican presidential nomination battle in 2024 -- is likely to keep most Republicans in the legislature and behind the governor's desk from lining up in support of this legislation.
...despite a bipartisan group sponsoring the measure to move the primary to May and the backing of election administrators across the Buckeye state, who want a uniform primary date (in May) in all even-numbered years.
Winner-take-all allocation would be an option for Ohio Republicans in May, but the competition may (or may not) last that deep into the calendar.
--
Recent posts:
Tuesday, February 7, 2023
Senate Companion Introduced to Reestablish Missouri Presidential Primary
The effort to reestablish the Missouri presidential primary continues.
No, there has not been any movement on any of the three identical bills in the Show-Me state House to resurrect the presidential primary that was cancelled in 2022. However, now there is a Senate companion to one of those prior bills.
Related:
--
Recent posts:
Monday, February 6, 2023
Raffensperger Weighs in on Early Georgia Presidential Primary
For the first time since the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) officially elevated Georgia in the discussions of early presidential primary states in December, Peach state Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) has publicly shared his thoughts.
As the AP's Bill Barrow reports, Raffensperger likes the idea:
“Georgia would be a great early primary state in 2028. It has a good cross-section of engaged voters from both parties."
And therein lies the rub. Georgia's fate on the Democratic calendar for 2024 remains unresolved and state Democrats have until June 3, 2023 to find a fix in order receive a pre-window waiver from the national party. But the problem is that the two national parties' calendars are misaligned more than usual for 2024. The RNC voted in April 2022 on amendments to the 2024 presidential nomination rules and opted to stick with the early calendar the party has used every cycle since 2008.
That leaves Georgia on the outside looking in on that side of the equation. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada will once again be the four early states in the Republican process, and the national party now has no means of changing it. All rules changes had to be made by September 30, 2022. But once amendments were adopted by the national party last April, that was it. There is nothing the RNC can do at this point to change its calendar.
But as Raffensperger noted in his brief comments, things could be different for the Peach state when planning for 2028 commences.
However, an early position in 2024 is still not necessarily out of the question for Georgia. There is just very little wiggle room at this point. The rules are locked in. But Raffensperger's office has set the criteria for cooperation from their office on the primary scheduling matter. In reaction to the DNCRBC calendar vote in December, Jordan Fuchs, deputy secretary of state set the parameters:
"We’ve been clear: This needs to be equitable so that no one loses a single delegate and needs to take place on the same day to save taxpayer funds."
Georgia can hold a single primary for both parties as early as March 1 under RNC rules. Any earlier than that and Republicans in the Peach state would be vulnerable to the RNC super penalty for timing violations. That would knock the Georgia delegation to the Milwaukee convention down to just twelve delegates.
Democrats' efforts to push the primary up to the February 13 position prescribed in the new DNC rules are likely to be futile given those penalties. And now that Michigan has passed legislation to move into its February 27 spot -- not to mention that the DNC has now also adopted its rules -- flipping Georgia and Michigan in the order seems out of the question.
However, if the DNC is serious about nudging the Georgia primary into the pre-window and it does not mind a Michigan-and-then-Georgia pairing to close the pre-window, then perhaps the Georgia primary could fit into the space between the Michigan primary on February 27 and Super Tuesday on March 5.
Saturday, March 2 would work.
However, wedging Georgia into that spot creates a potential spacing issue with the Michigan and Georgia contests so close together on top of Super Tuesday. That spacing is less consequential on the Democratic side if President Biden seeks reelection and faces only nominal opposition.
But that still leaves the issue of how a primary on that date fits into the Republican calculus both nationally and in Georgia. Peach state Republicans, of which Raffensperger is one, may like the idea of the Georgia primary playing a role similar to what South Carolina's did in the Democratic process in 2020. From the same Saturday-before-Super-Tuesday position, the Palmetto state primary catapulted then-candidate Biden into Super Tuesday victorious. It is an outcome that has been viewed in retrospect as decisive. And that is not a bad spot in which to potentially be.
Of course, that may not be the case in the Republican process and especially with a possible Michigan primary just a few days prior to a hypothetical March 2 Georgia primary. And that Michigan Republican primary on February 27 is "possible" because the Michigan GOP faces the same issue Georgia Republicans would encounter on February 13: penalties from the national party. Michigan Republicans may yet opt out of the state-run primary and hold later caucuses that comply with RNC rules.
The RNC may also not be on board with any of this. Signaling a green light to a Georgia move -- again, within the rules -- to Saturday, March 2 may set off a race toward a Super Saturday among other states. And the national party may or may not want that complication. Granted, Raffensperger has under Georgia law until December 1 to set the date of the Georgia presidential primary. There is no rush. That may help mitigate some of the potential for a rush to March 2.
Still, that is a lot of moving parts, not to mention the number of interested decision makers, to pull something like that off in such a narrow window. But at this point, if Georgia is to be a part of the pre-window on the Democratic side, then it may be March 2 or bust.
Honestly, it always has been.
--
Recent posts:
Sunday, February 5, 2023
OK. The DNC Has a New and Different Calendar for 2024. Now What?
But as noted in this space a day ago, the adoption of those rules merely ends one chapter in the sequence and ushers in a new one. The national parties have now finalized their rules for the 2024 cycle, and now the ball in the court of the states, both state governments and state parties.1 And they will react. They already are. State legislators have been filing legislation to change the dates of presidential primaries. Democratic state parties have, no doubt, been crafting draft delegate selection plans that will be released as winter transitions to spring 2023. And even on the Republican side, state party officer elections are and will be occurring and (delegation allocation) rules tweaks will be considered.
Much of this is and will be routine.
Some of it will not be. Again, as noted a day ago on the heels of the DNC adoption of the new calendar rules package, the national party has followed a divergent path in the 2024 cycle to this point. And it is more than breaking with tradition and shunting Iowa and New Hampshire to later spots (in the rules) on the primary calendar than either has typically occupied. But that is where the focus will be in the coming weeks and months. And understandably so. As the Republican invisible primary heats up and candidates enter the race, there projects be a dearth of stories on the Democratic side. If Biden jumps back in, as expected, and receives only token opposition, then the only game in town will be the continuing calendar drama over Iowa and New Hampshire (and to a lesser degree, Georgia). News of the Biden campaign build out will certainly break, but the calendar drama will contrast with the picture of a party ostensibly united behind the president.
But one need not peer into the fog of a crystal ball to attempt to discern where this calendar kerfuffle is going. It has become clear that both sides -- the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the state Democratic parties in Iowa and/or New Hampshire -- are going to dig in for a protracted battle. But that does not mean that news content creators and consumers need to fall into the trap of repeatedly checking the pulse of a predictable drama.
Look, Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats will both have to submit draft delegate selection plans to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) by May 3, 2023. The Iowa Democratic Party will definitely have the ability to specify a particular date on which their caucuses will occur in 2024. Whether the party actually does specify a date by that time or dodges and leaves that blank -- waiting, as has been the standard early state protocol, for the certainty of where other states may fall on the calendar -- remains to be seen. But two of the three possible outcomes point toward defiance. Leaving the date blank or planning for January caucuses (in order to stay ahead of other states) in the plan rather than falling in line under the new rules are not provable, positive steps toward compliance.
There is going to be defiance of the national party rules on the part of the Democratic parties in Iowa and/or New Hampshire or there will not be. And there will be a response from the DNCRBC. If defiance is the chosen path, then that reaction will not only be to strip both states of half their allotment of national convention delegates, but to remove the entire apportionment.
This is pretty clear. ...right now.
It will not really be revelatory then in May (for Iowa) and June (when New Hampshire's waiver review concludes). It will not really be news. Yet, there are ways that the narrative can be pushed further that can benefit those following along with this story. Here are some questions that both news content creators and consumers can ask in the coming days, weeks and months of both entrenched interests in this seemingly inevitable back and forth.
Questions to ask now that there is an official outline for the 2024 presidential primary calendar
For both Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats:What is the penalty for not following state law?For New Hampshire Democrats:Why can't the state party use a party-run option that complies with the DNC rules for 2024?
Both of these questions get to the heart of the typical defense in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Both parties use state law as a shield in their efforts to protect their respective first-in-the-nation statuses. Yes, there is a state law in Iowa that compels state parties to hold their precinct caucuses eight days before any other contest. And in New Hampshire the law calls for the state-run primary to be scheduled by the secretary of state for a time a week before any other similar contest.
But what happens if either state party breaks those laws?
The answer is clear in Iowa. Not much. No, it is less than that: nothing. There is clarity on that because both state parties have already broken that state law twice in the last four cycles. The caucuses were just five days before the New Hampshire primary in 2008.2 And they were just seven days before them four years later. And never mind the fact that Louisiana held an early primary in 1996 that was before both Iowa and New Hampshire that year and also allocated a sizable chunk of their delegates.
What price did Iowa political parties pay in those years? None. In all cases, there was no state sanction, and the state parties were able to continue drawing most of the candidate attention and reap the usual benefits of being first. In Iowa's case, the state law is only as strong as the unified state parties standing behind it. If either or both fold, then the law is meaningless (with no penalties).
Things are slightly different in New Hampshire where the contest -- the presidential primary -- is a state-funded and run process. Unlike in Iowa, that ties the hands of the state parties in ways that one currently sees. New Hampshire Democrats are powerless to change the state law to alter either the primary date/scheduling mechanism or add no-excuse absentee voting. Republicans control the levers of power in the Granite state.
But what is keeping New Hampshire Democrats from opting out of the presidential primary and turning to a party-run process that complies with the new national party rules? Again, as is the case in the Iowa example above, it is not clear that there is any significant roadblock to that sort of change. Well, there is an obstacle. In this case, it is the defense mechanism that is triggered in New Hampshire every time the primary's first-in-the-nation status is threatened. Very simply -- and clearly -- few in New Hampshire want to let that go.
So, just as is the case in Iowa, the New Hampshire law is only as strong as the parties willing to band together and stand behind it. Any deviation in Granite state by either or both parties undermines the law for future cycles.
Of course, it is worth noting that while New Hampshire Democrats could opt to hold a party-run contest of some sort, it is not clear that taking such a route would allow them to keep their pre-window waiver. Recall that the conditions to be granted that waiver require New Hampshire Democrats to change state laws they cannot possibly alter from the minority.
And that is another question to pose to New Hampshire Democrats: What would the party do if it did hold majorities in the General Court and the governor's mansion as well? That is a hypothetical that Democrats in the Granite state are saved from having to directly answer in this cycle due to the partisan realities in the state at the moment. But that answer would be enlightening.
That said, there was a hint of an answer in the comments Donna Soucy, Democratic leader in the New Hampshire state Senate and DNC member, made in defense of the first-in-the-nation primary before the full DNC on Saturday. While she noted the futility of Democratic actions in the legislature, she did say that legislation addressing no-excuse absentee voting had been advanced in the last legislative session only to be vetoed by Governor Sununu (R). She went on to say that legislation was in the works or already out there to do the same in this current session. That is a good faith effort on the part of New Hampshire Democrats. That is a provable, positive step toward one of the changes they are being asked by the DNCRBC to make. The effort may be doomed, but it is evidence of Democrats in the state at least working toward the change called for in order to be granted a pre-window waiver.
But if Democrats in the New Hampshire General Court can make those efforts on no-excuse absentee voting, then why not on changing the date and scheduling mechanism for the presidential primary? Soucy did not go there in her comments to the DNC. And that is a tell. There is no intention to make those changes. To do so is to undermine the current law which would weaken New Hampshire in these fights in the future. And honestly, it would be bad politics locally. No Democrat in the Granite state is going to hand that -- trying to change the first-in-the-nation law -- to Republicans on a silver platter. They just are not. They cannot. It would be a political loser for them.
In the end and in the context of the back and forth between New Hampshire and the DNC, that is not going to matter. All the DNCRBC is going to look at are the rules and whether New Hampshire Democrats have made good faith efforts at provable, positive steps toward the changes required to be granted a pre-window waiver. All of this -- for both Iowa and New Hampshire -- circles back to the fact that neither has a specific guaranteed waiver for the first time since 1980. That is a key difference in how the DNC will deal with both moving forward.
Speaking of the DNC, there are questions that the national party could be asked that can advance this story beyond a simple he said/she said drama as well.
For the DNC:How is the party going to enforce this in the end if either or both states go rogue?How does the party do that in a way that preserves the new system -- the rotation -- for future cycles?
These are more difficult questions to answer because they imagine a situation further on down the line once Iowa and New Hampshire have acted (or not acted). However, if one assumes defiance on the part of Democrats in both traditional kick-off states, then the answers become a little less murky.
If Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats fail to demonstrate that provable, positive steps are being taken to comply with the national party rules, then as was mentioned above, it is likely that the DNCRBC follows its 2008 blueprint and strips Iowa and/or New Hampshire of all of their delegates. Those signals are already out there. The panel is already communicating that to state parties.
The conundrum, of course, is that while it may be comparatively easy for the DNCRBC to levy a full delegation penalty on both Iowa and New Hampshire during primary season, it is a different matter entirely to enforce that in a way that preserves the effectiveness of the penalties for future cycles. To do that -- to penalize the states in a way that lasts beyond 2024 -- the convention would likely have to opt not to seat delegations from either or both states.
Perhaps it is enough for the party to send the same signal it did with Florida and Michigan in 2008. A intra-primary season penalty, though, may only serve to delay an inevitable clash until a time in which it is more difficult to deal: a competitive nomination cycle. The stakes are relatively low in 2024 with an incumbent president seemingly on the cusp of entering a race (that does not appear to be much of a race).
If the national party and the president are serious about uprooting Iowa and New Hampshire and changing the way that the pre-window lineup is set every cycle, then it will have to grapple with how seriously they want to sanction both states for potential rules violations. To make the change -- to move to a quadrennial possibility of a rotation of states in the pre-window -- then it will likely require the convention to not seat delegations from offending states. And the convention is a distinct set of decision makers. It is not exactly the same as the DNC. There is some overlap, but not complete overlap between the two. But a presumptive nominee, and an incumbent president at that, does have some say in orchestrating any convention that nominates him or her. Biden would theoretically have some say in the matter if push comes to shove with Iowa and/or New Hampshire in the summer of 2024.
But will he? Would Biden and those around him ultimately go as far as to not seat entire delegations elected/selected to those positions by contests that violated national party rules? That is the part that has proven difficult in the past and part of what Iowa and/or New Hampshire are banking on in the 2024 cycle. The president will not need either state to win the nomination at the convention, but a unified convention is what nominees and parties aim for if they can get it to kick off a general election run. That is what the early states would try to exploit.
The question then becomes whether there is some middle ground that can deliver a punishment, the effects of which can be carried over to future cycles to preserve the new system the DNC is attempting to establish. Is there something less than not seating a rogue delegation that would also be effective? Seating those delegations, but stripping them of their voting rights on roll call? On other matters like the platform or convention rules? None are necessarily good looks for a party that bills itself as a defender of voting rights (even if the party is following the rules codified for the 2024 cycle). There is no easy fix that makes enforcement foolproof to a degree that likely fully delivers a message to would-be rogue states in future cycles. It is tough given the timing of things and the incentives at various points along the timeline.
Finally, there is one more question that could be asked of the DNC but likely applies more generally:
Do any of the interested parties involved in this turn to the courts?
It is not clear that the DNC or the Biden reelection campaign would directly turn to the courts to seek a remedy to this. It is, after all, an internal party matter. But if done early enough, the courts could offer a path to compliance. Remember the 1984 experience.
Mondale campaign operatives in Iowa took Iowa Democrats to court, fearful that Mondale supporters in the Hawkeye state would be materially harmed at the convention if the caucuses in 1984 were too early in violation of the DNC rules that cycle. Threats to not seat the delegation would have meant Iowa voices would have been left unrepresented at the convention. The problem for those who brought the suit was not that the claim lack merit of that the claimants lacked standing. Rather, the case came so late -- in late 1983 -- that other candidates/other campaigns had already built infrastructure as if Iowa's caucuses would be in the (technically) noncompliant position.
But if a case came earlier in the year -- like after Iowa or New Hampshire submitted rogue delegate selection plans signaling their intent -- and if the case was brought in a year in which an incumbent president were running for reelection against token opposition (with little demonstrable campaign infrastructure in place), what then? Could the courts force on Iowa and/or New Hampshire Democratic parties remedial actions including party-run processes that comply with national party rules.
The catch is finding anyone in Iowa or New Hampshire who is still a Biden supporter and who is legitimately concerned about themselves or their state's voice being fully heard at the Democratic National Convention. After yesterday's DNC vote on the calendar package, there may not be too many folks left who fit that category.
Nonetheless, it is a questions worth asking. One that, when combined with the others above, advances what is likely to be a messy back and forth between the state parties and the DNC. There will be he said/she said drama to that mess, but it would be helpful to push beyond the temptation to regurgitate that story every painful step of the way. The questions posed here get at factors beyond that sort of superficial account.
--
1 In truth, there is some overlap between these two phases. It does not neatly transition from one chapter to another. While most state governments wait until after the national party rules are set, some act before that point in the cycle. It is just that there is more legislative urgency on the issue of presidential primary scheduling, for example, in the lead up to the next presidential primary -- typically after a midterm election and before the presidential primaries commence -- than at other times.
2 Technically, the Iowa Republican caucuses were just two days before the caucuses that allocated two-thirds of national convention delegates in Wyoming that same year.
--
Recent posts:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)