Saturday, February 18, 2023

New Hampshire Senate Republicans Add a New Layer to Budding 2024 Delegate Fight

The year is young and yet the multi-front battle between a variety of interests in New Hampshire and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) simmers on. 

National Republicans kept the presidential primary in the Granite state in its first-in-the-nation position for 2024. Democrats did not. And while the vocal proponents of the first-in-the-nation primary on both sides of the aisle in New Hampshire have stepped forward to vigorously defend that status, the various state-level actors involved are differently constrained in a matter that highlights well the complexities of a nomination system steeped in federalism and stretched across both governments and political parties. Republicans in the Granite state, for example, feel emboldened while the New Hampshire Democratic Party is stuck between a state law -- and the status it creates for the presidential primary -- and a national party that has taken formal steps to knock the contest from its typical perch in the process. 

But that does not mean Democrats in the state are powerless. Those in the state Senate joined Republicans in unanimously advancing a resolution defending the primary. That was not a move without risks for Democrats in the state. Non-binding though that resolution may have been, the fact that state Senate Democrats supported it en masse could be viewed by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) as another datapoint -- another act of defiance -- that continues to build a case against New Hampshire Democrats. That case may ultimately lead to increased penalties on the New Hampshire Democratic delegation should the party allocate delegates based on a primary that is presumed to go rogue in 2024.

However, that symbolic gesture may be as far as New Hampshire Democrats in the state government are willing to go. None of them signed on to new legislation introduced this week and sponsored by the entire Republican Senate caucus. It is one thing for Granite state Democrats to support the first-in-the-nation status of the New Hampshire presidential primary in spirit, but Republicans have now moved on to second order issues in the process in an effort to shore up the operation of the FITN franchise. 

All 14 New Hampshire Senate Republicans this week introduced SB 271, legislation that moves to protect delegates allocated and selected using the results of the presidential primary, rogue or not.

Here is the text [additions to existing law in bold italics]:
Delegates to National Party Conventions. Amend RSA 653:5 to read as follows:

653:5 Delegates to National Party Conventions. At every presidential primary election, the voters of the state shall vote their preference for party candidates for president and thereby choose the delegates to each presidential nominating convention to which the state is entitled. The New Hampshire delegates so selected shall be seated and have complete voting rights at any national party nominating convention.
That proposed change is apparently a bridge (of defiance) too far for state Senate Democrats, at least in terms of sponsoring the legislation. [Whether support is withheld during subsequent steps of the bill's consideration throughout the legislative process has yet to be seen.] In the near term, this is a costless act for Senate Republicans to attempt to advance this bill. The primary maintains its protection under current Republican National Committee (RNC) rules, and it matters little that there may be a law requiring delegates selected through the compliant primary to be seated at the Republican National Convention. 

It is New Hampshire Democrats who would be drawn into further conflict with the Democratic National Committee if this bill is adopted and signed into law. 

But here is the thing. The catch here is that this sort of legislation, if it ever becomes law, is unlikely to withstand any sort of legal challenge. A national convention determines the rules that govern it and the delegates/delegations that participate in it. State law does not; not in a direct way or as the final say in any event. 

National parties set the rules for a nomination process and then states -- both state governments and state parties -- react to that guidance. In the vast majority of cases state laws and state party rules conform to the national party guidelines. Sometimes they do not. And when they fail to -- when a primary is too early or delegates are allocated in a prohibited manner -- there is a price to pay. National parties have contingencies if not penalties in place to deal with state parties operating in such rogue state scenarios. Moreover, national parties further frown on state parties and affiliated actors in state governments who flaunt the national rules. This is the position Senate Democrats in New Hampshire are in with this legislation. It is one thing to symbolically defend the first-in-the-nation primary, but it is another to attempt to dictate to a national party/national convention how to run part of its process. Courts usually side with the parties in these situations over state law. The parties, after all, retain the first amendment right to freedom of association and that tends to prevail in these sorts of state law versus party rules disputes.

But there is a state law already protecting the primary in New Hampshire that conflicts with national party rules on the Democratic side now too.1 That, too, would seemingly invite a potential court challenge now. Perhaps, but the timing of these things -- the different parts of New Hampshire state law overlapping with the national party rules -- is different. A rogue primary is one thing. There are penalties in place to deal with that and those issues are typically dealt with prior to the commencement of a national convention. See, for example, the Florida and Michigan situation from 2008. 

Dictating in state law whether particular delegates shall be seated at a national convention run by a national party is another thing altogether. While the action of allocating and selecting the delegates happens well in advance of a national convention, the seating part obviously happens at said convention. The window for action is much smaller. And obviously -- and perhaps most importantly -- there are enforcement issues involved. Who under this proposed law is going to make the Democratic National Convention seat those delegates? Well, in the short window of time between any credentials fight over a rogue New Hampshire delegation, potentially at the convention in question, and a presidential candidate being nominated, the courts may be asked to step in. But again, those courts are likely to defer to the national party on the matter. 

And the last thing New Hampshire Republicans likely want to do is invite scrutiny of any law in the Granite state that defines nomination processes in conflict with national party rules. That sets a precedent that possibly undermines New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation status even more in future cycles. 

SB 271 may or may not ultimately go anywhere. It is Republican-sponsored legislation in a Republican-controlled state government. But at the outset, it is another symbolic measure that puts state Democrats even more on the defensive. In other words, it is good politics locally, but is unlikely to carry weight outside the borders of the Granite state or in the long term if implemented. 


--
1 The first-in-the-nation primary law that has been in place since 1975 in New Hampshire has not directly come into conflict with national party rules since 1984 and has been directly protect in DNC rules in every cycle since. ...until 2024.

Posted by Josh Putnam at 1:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Friday, February 17, 2023

Legislation Would Make the California Presidential Primary Date Unspecified

Here is an interesting one from California. 

Legislation introduced back in December  would strike out the phrase "first Tuesday after the first Monday in March" and replace it with "____" in the portion of the California electoral code that schedules the Golden state's consolidated primary in years evenly divisible by four.

One could wrangle over the implications, but in truth, SB 24, sponsored by Senator Thomas Umberg (D-34th, Santa Ana), is likely a temporary placeholder for a substantive change to the date of the presidential primary. It is either a change the senator would like to make/explore or an idea around which he would like to build consensus over the course of the 2023 legislative session.

There was a variation on this maneuver in California during the 2012 cycle. That bill went nowhere, but the separate California presidential primary was eventually eliminated and consolidated once again with the primaries for other offices in June. The 2017 change that pushed the presidential primary in the Golden state to Super Tuesday for 2020 moved the whole consolidated primary to March rather than separating the two elections. That is where the California presidential primary is currently scheduled.

--
As an aside, FHQ would argue that removing the date altogether from California electoral code would not be all that functionally different from the way that New York handles the scheduling of its presidential primary every four years. The protocol in the Empire state has been to set the parameters around which the presidential primary will be conducted and delegates allocated and then sunset the change after the presidential election year concludes. The date reverts to February and the state revisits the date every four years. Theoretically, it is the national party rules that force the reexamination of the primary's timing in New York. A February date is noncompliant and actors on the state level are at least somewhat compelled to make a change. Those New York legislators do not necessarily have to do that every four years -- the change does not have to sunset -- but that has been the standard operating procedure there dating back to the 2012 cycle. 

Functionally, a California law that would hypothetically leave a blank for the presidential primary date -- well, the consolidated primary in years evenly divisible by four -- would force the same sort of quadrennial reflection. However, that would be an atypical move. The New York method is already unique, but it at least has some justification. There is permanent guidance in the statute on where the primary should be scheduled. It just has to be changed from the February date every four years. 

It would be unusual for a state, California in this case, to provide no guidance for the timing of not just a presidential primary, but a primary for a host of other offices as well in presidential election years. 

Regardless, that blank will either be filled in at some point during this bill's consideration in 2023 or the legislation will likely not go anywhere. And it may not get beyond the committee stage anyway. 

But California always bears watching. Although it is a Democratic state, it is still the most populous state and the most delegate-rich state in the Republican presidential nomination process. If California packs it up and moves everything back to June, then that will have some impact on the Republican calculus of acquiring delegates, likely delaying when any candidate might clinch the nomination. 


--
This legislation has been added to FHQ's updated 2024 presidential primary calendar. 


--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 2:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Inches Forward in Hawaii

The state Senate version of a bill to create a presidential primary in Hawaii and schedule the election for Super Tuesday advanced out of committee on Thursday, February 16. 

By a vote of 4-1 with the lone Republican on the panel in opposition, the Hawaii Senate Judiciary Committee recommended SB 1005 be passed with amendments. None of the amendments dealt with the scheduling of the primary, but instead mainly focused on technical corrections/additions to the introduced legislation from the Scott Nago, the chief elections officer from the Hawaii Office of Elections.1

Aside from those issues, the biggest concern that emerged in the committee hearing for the bill was about a state party's ability to opt out of the proposed state-run primary. After hearing from a representative of the Hawaii Democratic Party, Sen. Joy San Buenaventura (D-2nd, Puna) asked of there was any input from the state Republican Party on the matter and whether an opt-out was included in the legislation for any party that may choose to stick with the caucuses that have been traditionally used to select and allocate delegates to the national conventions. With no representative from the state Republican Party present and the lone Republican on the committee, Sen. Brenton Awa (R-23rd, Kāne'ohe), silent on the matter, that question was left largely unanswered. However, an amendment was inserted in the legislation to provide for a deadline of six months before the proposed presidential primary for state parties to inform the state as to their intentions to participate in the presidential primary or not. 

The Hawaii Office of Elections estimated the cost of the presidential primary election to be north of $2.7 million. That was not a roadblock in the committee consideration of the bill, but it may receive push back when the full Senate -- or Ways and Means, where SB 1005 is headed next -- takes up the legislation. Whether that potential resistance is enough to derail the whole package is an open question. Cost of the election will be weighed against any pressure the Democratic majority feels to bend toward the discouragements of the national party to avoid caucuses. Hawaii is the only state with unified Democratic control of state government as of now with no state-run presidential primary option.


Related:




--
1 Most of the amendments were geared toward firming up specific deadlines for candidate filing and about language that would have to be tweaked due to the nature of a presidential primary. Unlike other primaries, the winner of a presidential primary is not necessarily the candidate who will appear on the general election ballot, a distinction not currently included in Hawaii electoral code.

Posted by Josh Putnam at 8:30 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Thursday, February 16, 2023

May Presidential Primary Companion Goes Live in Ohio House

It has been nearly two weeks since Rep. Daniel Troy (D-23rd, Willowick) introduced legislation to shift the Ohio primary back to May in presidential election years. However, House bills only began rolling out on Wednesday, February 15.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 8:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Share |

Wednesday, February 15, 2023

Ohio Senate Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to May

There is finally text for the legislation proposing to move the March presidential primary in Ohio to May. 


Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Share |

Companion House Bill Would Create February West Virginia Presidential Primary

Outside of New Hampshire and maybe Iowa, the most provocative action to affect the 2024 presidential primary calendar in 2023 is probably the state Senate bill out of West Virginia to create a stand-alone presidential primary in the Mountain state and schedule it for the second Tuesday in February. 






Posted by Josh Putnam at 8:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Share |

Tuesday, February 14, 2023

Idaho Bill Aims to Consolidate Presidential Primary with Others in May

...but does it?


Posted by Josh Putnam at 4:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Share |

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.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:30 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

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.

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

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; and 

Whereas, New Hampshire’s first in the nation presidential primary is a historic and valued landmark in our state and our nation’s democratic culture; and 

Whereas, 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; and 

Whereas, 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; and 

Whereas, 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; and 

Whereas, 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 it 

Resolved 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.

Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)