FHQ mentioned the Connecticut delegate selection situation in the earlier Rhode Island post, but it is something I've been meaning to revisit for a few weeks (and have not gotten around to yet).
At its most basic, earlier this year Republican state legislators in the Nutmeg state introduced legislation to move the late April presidential primary into the first week in March. That effort was stonewalled by majority Democrats who are differently motivated with respect to its presidential primary. A later primary in conjunction with primaries in two or more neighboring states would net the Connecticut Democratic Party two bonuses to its national convention delegation under DNC delegate selection rules. The race for the Democratic nomination is also not quite the competition the Republican nomination process appears to be. Democratic legislators, then, are not clamoring to move to earlier spots on the presidential primary calendar.
But Republicans in the state would rather have a say in the Republican nomination race rather than be stuck with a primary at a point on the calendar that is closer to where the last two Republican nominees clinched the nomination (as measured by the percentage of total delegates allocated). With no viable route to an earlier, potentially more consequential primary, Connecticut Republicans have considered shifting to a caucus/convention system that would give the state party the freedom to move around as they see fit.
Of course, state law is seemingly restrictive in terms of the leeway allowed state parties to determine whether it selects and allocates delegates to the national convention through a primary or caucuses. And it is. To just scratch the surface, the presidential primary law no longer includes a provision to allow for caucuses. That was repealed.
In reality, though, there is nothing to prevent Connecticut Republicans from conducting caucuses. The law just requires state parties to allocate delegates to the national conventions based on the results of the presidential primary. That statute does this in a couple of ways. First, the primary law lays out the guidelines for how a state party must inform the secretary of state of which delegate selection/allocation plan they will use. Secondly, the available formulas for allocating delegates are specified in the law. Taken alone this second part could open the door to Connecticut Republicans holding caucuses and a presumably later presidential primary but heading to the Cleveland convention having allocated delegates based on the results of the earlier caucuses. But that requirement of a written notification eliminates that possibility or at least complicates it.
Let's step back for a moment, though. FHQ, when discussing this possible Connecticut Republican primary/caucuses switch before, said that the party "would be on firm ground legally" if it wanted to make the switch. That may obscure a larger point here. Yes, the courts tend to defer to the parties in determining how to run their own nominations. However, tends to is not the same as a sure thing. Additionally, Connecticut Republicans would have to make a decision on the feasibility of having to 1) pay for the caucuses and 2) having to initiate and pay for a court challenge to the law. Scheduling caucuses early enough to matter -- however you want to define that -- may be deemed important, but is it important enough to shell out party money on both of the aforementioned fronts in the lead up to an election year?
That is the big question that faces Connecticut Republicans now. They feel pretty good about their chances of challenging the law and ultimately holding caucuses, but are they willing to pay for it?
Showing posts with label 2015 state legislative session. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2015 state legislative session. Show all posts
Sunday, May 17, 2015
March Presidential Primary Bill Stuck in Neutral in Rhode Island
The bill to move the Rhode Island primary up a month -- from the fourth Tuesday in April to the fourth Tuesday in March -- looks to be permanently stalled in committee. The Republican-sponsored HB 6054 was "held for further study" after a Wednesday, May 6 hearing before the Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee.
That is likely the death knell for this one. It is not unlike the situation in nearby Connecticut, where Republicans earlier this year also sponsored legislation to move the Nutmeg state presidential primary into the first week of March. Those bills similarly faced resistance from majority party Democrats in the state Senate. Connecticut Republicans are considering switching to a caucus/convention system in order to hold an earlier contest more consequential to the Republican nomination process.
In Rhode Island, though, April 26 aligned with the primaries in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania, seems most likely.
That is likely the death knell for this one. It is not unlike the situation in nearby Connecticut, where Republicans earlier this year also sponsored legislation to move the Nutmeg state presidential primary into the first week of March. Those bills similarly faced resistance from majority party Democrats in the state Senate. Connecticut Republicans are considering switching to a caucus/convention system in order to hold an earlier contest more consequential to the Republican nomination process.
In Rhode Island, though, April 26 aligned with the primaries in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania, seems most likely.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Kansas Senate Passes Bill to Permanently Cancel Presidential Primary
Earlier in the 2015 legislative session the Kansas state Senate unanimously passed legislation to eliminate the presidential primary in the Sunflower state. On Wednesday, May 13, it did so again.
At the end of March, the Kansas state Senate passed SB 239 which originally would have cancelled the presidential primary for the 2016 cycle, but was amended first to end the quadrennial exercise that has happened every cycle since 1996 to cancel the presidential primary. The state House considered similar legislation of its own as well as the Senate bill in the same timeframe. However, around that same time, an effort was initiated to merge a number of elections-related bills including the measure to eliminate the presidential primary.
That omnibus elections bill -- the conference committee report for HB 2104 -- passed the state Senate 22-13 with Democrats and conservative Republicans in opposition. The presidential primary cancelation is commonplace in Topeka after two decades, but some of the other provisions -- moving local elections to August and shifting city and school board elections to odd-numbered years -- have proven more controversial. The vote in the Senate was much tighter than the unanimous vote on the stand-alone presidential primary cancelation bill. The vote in the state House is expected to be even narrower.
Kansas Democrats have already committed to caucuses for the 2016 cycle.
At the end of March, the Kansas state Senate passed SB 239 which originally would have cancelled the presidential primary for the 2016 cycle, but was amended first to end the quadrennial exercise that has happened every cycle since 1996 to cancel the presidential primary. The state House considered similar legislation of its own as well as the Senate bill in the same timeframe. However, around that same time, an effort was initiated to merge a number of elections-related bills including the measure to eliminate the presidential primary.
That omnibus elections bill -- the conference committee report for HB 2104 -- passed the state Senate 22-13 with Democrats and conservative Republicans in opposition. The presidential primary cancelation is commonplace in Topeka after two decades, but some of the other provisions -- moving local elections to August and shifting city and school board elections to odd-numbered years -- have proven more controversial. The vote in the Senate was much tighter than the unanimous vote on the stand-alone presidential primary cancelation bill. The vote in the state House is expected to be even narrower.
Kansas Democrats have already committed to caucuses for the 2016 cycle.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Nevada Senate Passes Presidential Primary Bill With a Twist
After again amending its bill to create a consolidated primary -- presidential and other offices -- on Monday, May 11, the Nevada state Senate passed SB 421 on Tuesday afternoon on an 11-9 party line vote.
Majority party Republicans in the Senate voted in favor of the measure that would create a presidential primary and couple it with the primaries for other offices in the state. The latter, typically in June, would be moved up to the last Tuesday in February. That not only tamps down on the costs associated with the new presidential primary, but is also in line with what the Republican National Committee has been quietly pushing for while keeping the Nevada delegate selection process early on the presidential primary calendar.
And while that potential move from caucuses to a primary is of note for Republicans, perhaps more interesting is the Democratic reaction to the bill in the state Senate. Nevada Republicans have reason to want to go along with the national party on this one. They control the levers of state government in the Silver state, but the national party has sway over which states are among the privileged few at the beginning of the presidential primary line. Nevada is now among that group of four. For Nevada Democrats, however, there is some concern that trading out the caucuses/convention process for a primary will hurt the party and its protected position on the calendar with the Democratic National Committee. The DNC added the Nevada caucuses to the list of carve-out states for the 2008 cycle and has for three cycles now specified the dates of the "caucuses" in Nevada in the national party delegate selection rules. SB 421 has Nevada Democrats in a bind in switching the process to a state-run primary election.
The national parties, then, are pulling the state parties in different directions on this issue. The RNC wants a Nevada primary to reduce the amount of chaos, if not mismanagement, of the caucuses process by the Nevada Republican Party. However, DNC rules call on Nevada to hold caucuses and not a primary.
This sounds like Nevada Democrats might lose their early status (in the future) only there are a couple of outs for them in all of this. One is in the legislation that just passed the state Senate and the other is in the DNC delegate selection rules.
First, layered into the newly amended SB 421 is a provision that instructs the Nevada secretary of state to conduct a presidential primary election (on the last Tuesday in February) if 1) he or she does NOT receive written word from a national party chairperson that the national party does not want to participate in the primary election and 2) if two or more (presidential) candidates file declarations of candidacy with the secretary of state. That provides Democrats in Nevada with an out to continue with the caucuses/convention system. They only need the chair of the DNC to notify the secretary of state that it does not want Nevada Democrats participating in the primary.
Now, this is a bit of an odd maneuver. The legislation cedes the power over the opt-out to the national party. [Keep in mind that because the RNC wants a Nevada primary, it can do nothing and get its preferred position.] Ultimately, the presidential nomination process is a national party process, but on matters like these the national parties have tended to defer to the state parties (unless it is something in direct violation of the national party delegate selection rules). There is some brinkmanship to this, intentional or not. This is daring the DNC to weigh in on a heretofore state party matter and basically say that it supports a lower turnout election in an early state that just so happens to be a swing state in the general election. That is pretty speculative though.
If that provision is in there, then why did Nevada state Senate Democrats vote against the measure? That can get a bit complicated. If the DNC does not take the bait in the trap described above, then Nevada Democrats are forced into a primary election that "violates" national party rules.1 But Nevada Democrats could apply for a waiver from any penalty under Rule 20 of the DNC rules. All a state party has to do is prove that Democratic legislators acted to prevent the legislation from moving forward. As Democrats are in the legislative minority in Nevada, those state Senate Democrats did everything they could to prevent the change in unanimously opposing the move.
That possibility is a long way off in all of this. But there is never a dull moment in Nevada presidential nomination politics.
--
1 FHQ uses the quotation marks here because technically Nevada and the other carve-out states have violated the timing rules in each of the last two cycles. The dates on which Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina were to hold their contests were clearly laid out in the DNC delegate selection rules. Yet, there was no penalty levied against the early four states.
Majority party Republicans in the Senate voted in favor of the measure that would create a presidential primary and couple it with the primaries for other offices in the state. The latter, typically in June, would be moved up to the last Tuesday in February. That not only tamps down on the costs associated with the new presidential primary, but is also in line with what the Republican National Committee has been quietly pushing for while keeping the Nevada delegate selection process early on the presidential primary calendar.
And while that potential move from caucuses to a primary is of note for Republicans, perhaps more interesting is the Democratic reaction to the bill in the state Senate. Nevada Republicans have reason to want to go along with the national party on this one. They control the levers of state government in the Silver state, but the national party has sway over which states are among the privileged few at the beginning of the presidential primary line. Nevada is now among that group of four. For Nevada Democrats, however, there is some concern that trading out the caucuses/convention process for a primary will hurt the party and its protected position on the calendar with the Democratic National Committee. The DNC added the Nevada caucuses to the list of carve-out states for the 2008 cycle and has for three cycles now specified the dates of the "caucuses" in Nevada in the national party delegate selection rules. SB 421 has Nevada Democrats in a bind in switching the process to a state-run primary election.
The national parties, then, are pulling the state parties in different directions on this issue. The RNC wants a Nevada primary to reduce the amount of chaos, if not mismanagement, of the caucuses process by the Nevada Republican Party. However, DNC rules call on Nevada to hold caucuses and not a primary.
This sounds like Nevada Democrats might lose their early status (in the future) only there are a couple of outs for them in all of this. One is in the legislation that just passed the state Senate and the other is in the DNC delegate selection rules.
First, layered into the newly amended SB 421 is a provision that instructs the Nevada secretary of state to conduct a presidential primary election (on the last Tuesday in February) if 1) he or she does NOT receive written word from a national party chairperson that the national party does not want to participate in the primary election and 2) if two or more (presidential) candidates file declarations of candidacy with the secretary of state. That provides Democrats in Nevada with an out to continue with the caucuses/convention system. They only need the chair of the DNC to notify the secretary of state that it does not want Nevada Democrats participating in the primary.
Now, this is a bit of an odd maneuver. The legislation cedes the power over the opt-out to the national party. [Keep in mind that because the RNC wants a Nevada primary, it can do nothing and get its preferred position.] Ultimately, the presidential nomination process is a national party process, but on matters like these the national parties have tended to defer to the state parties (unless it is something in direct violation of the national party delegate selection rules). There is some brinkmanship to this, intentional or not. This is daring the DNC to weigh in on a heretofore state party matter and basically say that it supports a lower turnout election in an early state that just so happens to be a swing state in the general election. That is pretty speculative though.
If that provision is in there, then why did Nevada state Senate Democrats vote against the measure? That can get a bit complicated. If the DNC does not take the bait in the trap described above, then Nevada Democrats are forced into a primary election that "violates" national party rules.1 But Nevada Democrats could apply for a waiver from any penalty under Rule 20 of the DNC rules. All a state party has to do is prove that Democratic legislators acted to prevent the legislation from moving forward. As Democrats are in the legislative minority in Nevada, those state Senate Democrats did everything they could to prevent the change in unanimously opposing the move.
That possibility is a long way off in all of this. But there is never a dull moment in Nevada presidential nomination politics.
--
1 FHQ uses the quotation marks here because technically Nevada and the other carve-out states have violated the timing rules in each of the last two cycles. The dates on which Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina were to hold their contests were clearly laid out in the DNC delegate selection rules. Yet, there was no penalty levied against the early four states.
Arkansas Special Session May Include Measure to Move Presidential Primary to March
Though the official call has yet to go out, it appears as if the Arkansas state legislature will convene a special session starting on May 26.
As is the case in some other states (see Missouri), it is the governor's responsibility in Arkansas to not only call the special session of the legislature but also to define the issues/bills with which the session will deal. Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) on Monday, May 11 said that constitutional amendments and bonds issues dealing with the so-called "super project" industrial area would be on the agenda. But the timing of the 2016 presidential primary in the Natural state has also been discussed as a possible agenda item after failing to pass during the regular session.
It looks as if legislators may have the same options they had during the regular session also: Create and schedule a separate presidential primary (as Arkansas has done twice before -- 1988 and 2008) or move all of the primaries from May to March. Bills covering both possibilities were filed in the Arkansas state Senate by Senator Gary Stubblefield (R-6th, Branch) earlier this year. However, only the bill to create a separate presidential primary in March passed the Senate before getting bottled up in the state House.
Part of the reason that bill died was because of the $1.6 million price tag for the separate election. That issue may be resolved by moving a consolidated election from May to March, but that move would affect the renominations of state legislators themselves; a factor that has made legislators in Arkansas (and elsewhere) hesitant to support such measures.
The official call for the special session is due later this month according to the governor's office.
As is the case in some other states (see Missouri), it is the governor's responsibility in Arkansas to not only call the special session of the legislature but also to define the issues/bills with which the session will deal. Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) on Monday, May 11 said that constitutional amendments and bonds issues dealing with the so-called "super project" industrial area would be on the agenda. But the timing of the 2016 presidential primary in the Natural state has also been discussed as a possible agenda item after failing to pass during the regular session.
It looks as if legislators may have the same options they had during the regular session also: Create and schedule a separate presidential primary (as Arkansas has done twice before -- 1988 and 2008) or move all of the primaries from May to March. Bills covering both possibilities were filed in the Arkansas state Senate by Senator Gary Stubblefield (R-6th, Branch) earlier this year. However, only the bill to create a separate presidential primary in March passed the Senate before getting bottled up in the state House.
Part of the reason that bill died was because of the $1.6 million price tag for the separate election. That issue may be resolved by moving a consolidated election from May to March, but that move would affect the renominations of state legislators themselves; a factor that has made legislators in Arkansas (and elsewhere) hesitant to support such measures.
The official call for the special session is due later this month according to the governor's office.
Hogan Signature Sends Maryland Presidential Primary to April 26
Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (R) is set to sign SB 204 among a host of other bills in a signing session today, May 12.
SB 204 shifts the presidential primary in Maryland from the first Tuesday in April to the fourth Tuesday in April. It was one of two identical bills that passed the legislature in the Old Line state during the 2015 legislative session. Originally, both bills sought to move the primary back just one week to the second week in April to accommodate an early vote period that would not conflict with spring religious holidays. The additional two weeks the primary will be moved back will align the Maryland presidential primary with presidential primary votes in neighboring Delaware and Pennsylvania as well. Connecticut and Rhode Island also have presidential primaries scheduled for that date on the presidential primary calendar.
--
The national party rules on delegate selection have changed for 2016 -- shrinking the Republican proportionality window to the first two weeks of March -- but Maryland Republicans, regardless of the change, will be able to maintain their traditional winner-take-most method of delegate allocation during this cycle.
SB 204 shifts the presidential primary in Maryland from the first Tuesday in April to the fourth Tuesday in April. It was one of two identical bills that passed the legislature in the Old Line state during the 2015 legislative session. Originally, both bills sought to move the primary back just one week to the second week in April to accommodate an early vote period that would not conflict with spring religious holidays. The additional two weeks the primary will be moved back will align the Maryland presidential primary with presidential primary votes in neighboring Delaware and Pennsylvania as well. Connecticut and Rhode Island also have presidential primaries scheduled for that date on the presidential primary calendar.
--
The national party rules on delegate selection have changed for 2016 -- shrinking the Republican proportionality window to the first two weeks of March -- but Maryland Republicans, regardless of the change, will be able to maintain their traditional winner-take-most method of delegate allocation during this cycle.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Colorado Presidential Primary Bill Dies in Committee
So long, Colorado presidential primary. We hardly knew ye.
The Colorado legislature is wrapping up the business of its 2015 regular session. One of the items that has popped up in these waning days has been an effort to reestablish a presidential primary in the Centennial state for the first time since 2000. The high hopes that some had for SB 15-287 crested late last week as the Senate Committee on State, Veterans and Military Affairs gave the legislation the green light, passing the measure by a 4-1 vote.
But that committee passed the baton on to a Senate Appropriations Committee that did not look favorably on the move to trade out the caucuses/convention process for a presidential primary (especially one that allowed unaffiliated voters to participate). Republicans in control of the state Senate (and thus the Appropriations Committee) killed the bill on Monday, May 4, postponing it indefinitely. Attempts to send the bill to the Committee of the Whole (the Senate floor) failed on a narrow 4-3 vote.
John Frank at the Denver Post points out that part of the reasoning behind the move was financial. The primary would have cost the state $1.7 million with additional resources coming from the county and local level. But mainly, the death of the bill is a function of two related factors. First, it is difficult to change the status quo -- in this case a caucuses/convention system -- when there is staunch support with a party for it. Second, this is the battlefield on which Republicans on the state level(s) and nationally have internally fought on over the last several years.
It is not an uncommon battle. On one side, there are interests in the party that want to win elections. Those were the folks who supported the presidential primary idea in Colorado. The thought was that the primary would engage more voters, pulling them toward the Republicans as the nomination phase gave way to the general election phase of the presidential election cycle. But on the other side, there is a group of folks also interested in winning elections but only with the right kind of candidate; in this case, a conservative one.
Again, this pragmatism versus purism divide is not unique to the Republican Party. It is a phenomenon that arises from time to time in any party. It has in Colorado and the presidential primary idea was a casualty.
...of that intra-party dispute and a maintenance of the status quo nomination system. [That latter factor is really under appreciated sometimes.]
--
Hat tip to Don Means for passing news of this along to FHQ.
The Colorado legislature is wrapping up the business of its 2015 regular session. One of the items that has popped up in these waning days has been an effort to reestablish a presidential primary in the Centennial state for the first time since 2000. The high hopes that some had for SB 15-287 crested late last week as the Senate Committee on State, Veterans and Military Affairs gave the legislation the green light, passing the measure by a 4-1 vote.
But that committee passed the baton on to a Senate Appropriations Committee that did not look favorably on the move to trade out the caucuses/convention process for a presidential primary (especially one that allowed unaffiliated voters to participate). Republicans in control of the state Senate (and thus the Appropriations Committee) killed the bill on Monday, May 4, postponing it indefinitely. Attempts to send the bill to the Committee of the Whole (the Senate floor) failed on a narrow 4-3 vote.
John Frank at the Denver Post points out that part of the reasoning behind the move was financial. The primary would have cost the state $1.7 million with additional resources coming from the county and local level. But mainly, the death of the bill is a function of two related factors. First, it is difficult to change the status quo -- in this case a caucuses/convention system -- when there is staunch support with a party for it. Second, this is the battlefield on which Republicans on the state level(s) and nationally have internally fought on over the last several years.
It is not an uncommon battle. On one side, there are interests in the party that want to win elections. Those were the folks who supported the presidential primary idea in Colorado. The thought was that the primary would engage more voters, pulling them toward the Republicans as the nomination phase gave way to the general election phase of the presidential election cycle. But on the other side, there is a group of folks also interested in winning elections but only with the right kind of candidate; in this case, a conservative one.
Again, this pragmatism versus purism divide is not unique to the Republican Party. It is a phenomenon that arises from time to time in any party. It has in Colorado and the presidential primary idea was a casualty.
...of that intra-party dispute and a maintenance of the status quo nomination system. [That latter factor is really under appreciated sometimes.]
--
Hat tip to Don Means for passing news of this along to FHQ.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Colorado Bill to Reestablish Presidential Primary Introduced
On Wednesday, April 29, SB 15-287 was introduced in the Colorado state Senate. The bill would reestablish a presidential primary in the Centennial state for the first time since 2000. The details largely match the description that was leaked last week.
As FHQ said at the time, the interesting news in this is the process being created rather than the switch from a caucuses/convention system to a primary election. Under the provisions of the bill, the Colorado governor would have the power to set the date of the primary in a fairly tight window of time. Before September 1 of the year prior to a presidential election, the governor is called on to set a date for the presidential primary election the following year between:
That a single individual would have the date-setting authority if this bill is passed and signed into law would make Colorado like Arizona was during the 2004-2012 period (when the governor could issue a proclamation to move the primary earlier), but also like New Hampshire and Georgia where the secretary of state holds the power to set the date. Colorado would have less flexibility than Georgia and much less than the carte blanche flexibility New Hampshire's secretary of state has to keep the Granite state presidential primary first.
One additional facet of this bill that should be mentioned is that the aforementioned ambiguity of the front end of the scheduling window does potentially create some uncertainty. Call this the Florida 2013 problem. Recall, that the original law change that brought the Florida presidential primary back into compliance with the national party rules had a similar "earliest point on the calendar in which a delegation won't be penalized" provision. If we were to count only the penalty that both parties levy for going too early, that earliest date a Colorado primary could be would be March 1. Yet, if Colorado Republicans opted for a winner-take-all method of allocation, it would shrink the window down to just March 15.
Fortunately, the last time Colorado Republicans had a primary -- and not non-binding caucuses -- the party allocated their national convention delegates on a proportional basis.
The final take home on this one is that it would transition Colorado from a closed caucuses system to a primary system opened to unaffiliated voters as well. As John Frank reported last week, this is a bipartisan move overall. There are 28 co-sponsors of the legislation across both chambers of the legislature. Two House Democrats join 17 majority Republicans and in the upper chamber where Democrats are in control, six Republicans combine with three Democratic sponsors. That is tilted toward the Republicans, but bipartisan nonetheless. Both parties appear ready to attempt to engage and battle over those unaffiliated voters in higher turnout election that would take place some time during the first half of March.
As FHQ said at the time, the interesting news in this is the process being created rather than the switch from a caucuses/convention system to a primary election. Under the provisions of the bill, the Colorado governor would have the power to set the date of the primary in a fairly tight window of time. Before September 1 of the year prior to a presidential election, the governor is called on to set a date for the presidential primary election the following year between:
- a time NO EARLIER THAN THE DATE THE NATIONAL RULES OF THE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES PROVIDE FOR STATE DELEGATIONS TO THE PARTY'S NATIONAL CONVENTION TO BE ALLOCATED WITHOUT PENALTY ...and...
- a point on the calendar NOT LATER THAN THE THIRD TUESDAY IN MARCH.
That a single individual would have the date-setting authority if this bill is passed and signed into law would make Colorado like Arizona was during the 2004-2012 period (when the governor could issue a proclamation to move the primary earlier), but also like New Hampshire and Georgia where the secretary of state holds the power to set the date. Colorado would have less flexibility than Georgia and much less than the carte blanche flexibility New Hampshire's secretary of state has to keep the Granite state presidential primary first.
One additional facet of this bill that should be mentioned is that the aforementioned ambiguity of the front end of the scheduling window does potentially create some uncertainty. Call this the Florida 2013 problem. Recall, that the original law change that brought the Florida presidential primary back into compliance with the national party rules had a similar "earliest point on the calendar in which a delegation won't be penalized" provision. If we were to count only the penalty that both parties levy for going too early, that earliest date a Colorado primary could be would be March 1. Yet, if Colorado Republicans opted for a winner-take-all method of allocation, it would shrink the window down to just March 15.
Fortunately, the last time Colorado Republicans had a primary -- and not non-binding caucuses -- the party allocated their national convention delegates on a proportional basis.
The final take home on this one is that it would transition Colorado from a closed caucuses system to a primary system opened to unaffiliated voters as well. As John Frank reported last week, this is a bipartisan move overall. There are 28 co-sponsors of the legislation across both chambers of the legislature. Two House Democrats join 17 majority Republicans and in the upper chamber where Democrats are in control, six Republicans combine with three Democratic sponsors. That is tilted toward the Republicans, but bipartisan nonetheless. Both parties appear ready to attempt to engage and battle over those unaffiliated voters in higher turnout election that would take place some time during the first half of March.
Alabama House Committee Favorably Reports SEC Primary Bill
The plan to shift the Alabama presidential primary up a week to March 1 has moved a step closer to reality. The state House Constitution, Campaigns and Elections Committee this week passed SB 240 on to the full body for its consideration.
The state Senate previously passed the measure with only three votes in opposition. And the odds of final passage must seem pretty good. Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill (R) is already hyping the SEC primary. Moving from March 8 up to March 1 would mean Alabama abandoning neighboring Mississippi for other regional partners like Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia as well as Massachusetts, Minnesota and Vermont.
The state Senate previously passed the measure with only three votes in opposition. And the odds of final passage must seem pretty good. Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill (R) is already hyping the SEC primary. Moving from March 8 up to March 1 would mean Alabama abandoning neighboring Mississippi for other regional partners like Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia as well as Massachusetts, Minnesota and Vermont.
Washington State Senate Opens Special Session By Sending Presidential Primary Bill Back to the House
After adjourning the regular session last Friday, the Washington state legislature was back at work on Wednesday, April 29, starting a special session mainly focused on lingering budget differences between the divided chambers.
But one other unresolved issue -- among others -- that has some potential impact on the budget for fiscal year 2016 is whether the state will conduct a presidential primary. State Democrats have already committed to a caucuses/convention system for 2016. The question now is whether (and when) Washington will hold a presidential primary in 2016 and whether it is worth the $11.5 million price tag to hold a partially meaningful primary just for Republicans.1 The Republican-controlled state Senate provided the first move on the matter on the opening day of the special session, passing SB 5978 again -- by a vote of 31-13 -- and sending it back to the Democratic-controlled House for the lower chamber's consideration.
As was the case during the original Senate passage of SB 5978, there were a handful of Democrats who voted with Senate Republicans to hold a presidential primary in 2016 and schedule it for the second Tuesday in March (March 8). But the bigger issue now before the legislature is the budget and the $11.5 million for the presidential primary may serve as a bargaining chip, albeit small in the grand scheme of the budget, as that gets sorted out.
--
1 Washington Republicans in the past have split their delegate allocation nearly evening between the primary (when there is one) and caucuses.
But one other unresolved issue -- among others -- that has some potential impact on the budget for fiscal year 2016 is whether the state will conduct a presidential primary. State Democrats have already committed to a caucuses/convention system for 2016. The question now is whether (and when) Washington will hold a presidential primary in 2016 and whether it is worth the $11.5 million price tag to hold a partially meaningful primary just for Republicans.1 The Republican-controlled state Senate provided the first move on the matter on the opening day of the special session, passing SB 5978 again -- by a vote of 31-13 -- and sending it back to the Democratic-controlled House for the lower chamber's consideration.
As was the case during the original Senate passage of SB 5978, there were a handful of Democrats who voted with Senate Republicans to hold a presidential primary in 2016 and schedule it for the second Tuesday in March (March 8). But the bigger issue now before the legislature is the budget and the $11.5 million for the presidential primary may serve as a bargaining chip, albeit small in the grand scheme of the budget, as that gets sorted out.
--
1 Washington Republicans in the past have split their delegate allocation nearly evening between the primary (when there is one) and caucuses.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Proposed Massachusetts House Budget Includes Money for 2016 Presidential Primary
FHQ is late to this, but after Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker's (R) budget seemed to threaten the 2016 presidential primary in the commonwealth (or at least place it closer to the chopping block), the state House set aside more money for the Elections Division in its version of the budget for fiscal year 2016:
[House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Brian] Dempsey said the House plan would increase spending on elections after state Secretary William Galvin warned Massachusetts would not be able to hold a presidential primary next year under Baker’s budget.This is not all that surprising. Secretary Galvin made similar ominous projections about the money in the budget for the 2012 presidential primary in 2011. That primary went off without a hitch on the first Tuesday in March as planned.
Nevada Switch to a Presidential Primary Has 'Quiet' Support from the RNC
Both bills to reestablish a presidential primary in Nevada missed deadlines last week to have passed their originating chamber. The idea of trading out the often-used caucuses in the Silver state for a presidential primary is not dead though. Neither are the bills really. As was the case in Washington, because both presidential primary bills have budgetary ramifications, they may be revived (once amended).
Now, Jon Ralston is reporting that there is support for the presidential primary idea at the RNC:
The final version of the bill sounds like it will have to merge components of both the Assembly version and the Senate version (at least according to the wish list of those Ralston spoke with). The former has the opt-in provision that will allow Democrats the leeway to continue caucusing2, and the latter has the consolidated February primaries provision that will save the expense of two primaries (a presidential primary in February and a primary for non-presidential offices in June).
All that entails some more legislative wrangling before the first of June.
--
1 The DNC first gave Nevada along with South Carolina a privileged status alongside (well, behind) Iowa and New Hampshire in 2006 to diversify the early primary electorate. The Republican National Committee allowed Nevada Republicans to join the fun at the beginning of the primary calendar queue after that.
2 Nevada Democrats have expressed some concern that losing the caucuses option might affect the party's privileged status from the DNC. Rule 11 of the 2016 Democratic Party delegate selection rules directly specify the "Nevada first-tier caucuses" when providing guidelines for how the carve-out state contests should be scheduled.
Now, Jon Ralston is reporting that there is support for the presidential primary idea at the RNC:
I'm also reliably told that Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who was in Las Vegas this weekend at Sheldonfest, is quietly supporting the primary and has made calls. Why quietly? Because Priebus knows how nuts the state party is, I'd guess, and wants this as far away from those folks as possible, but knows he may have to work with them.Mostly, this is based on the rocky road the Nevada Republican Party presidential caucuses (and all the way through to the state conventions) have traveled since they were indirectly thrust into the carve-out state spotlight prior to the 2008 presidential primary season.1 That is something FHQ cited yesterday.
The final version of the bill sounds like it will have to merge components of both the Assembly version and the Senate version (at least according to the wish list of those Ralston spoke with). The former has the opt-in provision that will allow Democrats the leeway to continue caucusing2, and the latter has the consolidated February primaries provision that will save the expense of two primaries (a presidential primary in February and a primary for non-presidential offices in June).
All that entails some more legislative wrangling before the first of June.
--
1 The DNC first gave Nevada along with South Carolina a privileged status alongside (well, behind) Iowa and New Hampshire in 2006 to diversify the early primary electorate. The Republican National Committee allowed Nevada Republicans to join the fun at the beginning of the primary calendar queue after that.
2 Nevada Democrats have expressed some concern that losing the caucuses option might affect the party's privileged status from the DNC. Rule 11 of the 2016 Democratic Party delegate selection rules directly specify the "Nevada first-tier caucuses" when providing guidelines for how the carve-out state contests should be scheduled.
Maryland Presidential Primary Bills Not on Governor's Docket This Week
The two Maryland bill to move the presidential primary in the Old Line state back to the end of April are not on the list of bills to be signed later this week by Governor Larry Hogan (R).
SB 204 and HB 396 passed both Maryland state legislative chambers with nearly unanimous support. These are not, then, seemingly controversial bills. There is divided government in Maryland between the Democratic-controlled legislature and the Republican-controlled governor's office, but the proposed primary move does not appear to be a partisan issue.
The impetus for the change was the fact that the early voting associated with the presidential primary would conflict with religious holidays in the spring of 2016. That originally gave rise to a proposal to shift the primary back one week to the second Tuesday in April. That was later amended -- and passed by both chambers (twice) -- to push the primary back to the fourth Tuesday in April. That would align the Maryland primary with presidential primaries in neighboring Pennsylvania and Delaware as well as Connecticut and Rhode Island.
SB 204 and HB 396 passed both Maryland state legislative chambers with nearly unanimous support. These are not, then, seemingly controversial bills. There is divided government in Maryland between the Democratic-controlled legislature and the Republican-controlled governor's office, but the proposed primary move does not appear to be a partisan issue.
The impetus for the change was the fact that the early voting associated with the presidential primary would conflict with religious holidays in the spring of 2016. That originally gave rise to a proposal to shift the primary back one week to the second Tuesday in April. That was later amended -- and passed by both chambers (twice) -- to push the primary back to the fourth Tuesday in April. That would align the Maryland primary with presidential primaries in neighboring Pennsylvania and Delaware as well as Connecticut and Rhode Island.
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Nevada Republican Party Chairman Signals Support for Presidential Primary Over Caucuses in 2016
David Drucker at The Washington Examiner:
It is interesting because it represents a reversal either at the top of the Nevada Republican Party or within the Nevada Republican Party. Drucker mentions that the chairman of the Republican Party in the Silver state supports the change and obviously the speaker of the state Assembly, who sponsored the Assembly legislation cited (AB 302), supports the change. Yet, the party vice chair, Jim DeGraffenreid, is on record (on behalf of the party) in opposition to that bill at its original hearing. Yes, that written testimony was against the original version of the legislation. At the time it called for a non-compliant January presidential primary (consolidated with the primaries for state and local offices). In his spoken testimony before the Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Committee, DeGraffenreid, as FHQ described it at the time, rejected the primary idea outright, saying that the state party could and would make the decision on its own and that the taxpayer expenditure for a presidential primary was not necessary.
When the same bill was introduced in the state Senate and later heard in committee, another representative from the Nevada Republican Party -- this time James Hindle, chairman of the Storey County Republican Party and like DeGraffenreid speaking on behalf of the state party -- voiced opposition to the presidential primary idea in the bill. This time the comments were more ominous with regard to how the Nevada Republican Party viewed the idea of trading in caucuses for a primary. Hindle indicated that the Nevada Republican Party Central Committee had voted the previous weekend to hold caucuses (after having debated the two options).
Again, the Nevada Republican Party has already voted -- and quite recently -- to hold caucuses in 2016 instead of a primary. Now, that does not mean that the party cannot change its mind. Under different leadership during the 2012 cycle, the Nevada Republican Party set its caucuses date for February 18, 2012, then January 14 and then settled on February 4 after a showdown with New Hampshire.1
Nevada Republicans may pull the trigger on a switch, but that does raise a number of questions.
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for bringing Drucker's story to FHQ's attention.
--
1 The typical protocol for the carve-out states has been to wait every other state out, setting the dates of their primaries and caucuses later and only after other states had chosen dates. Nevada Republicans did not follow that blueprint in 2010-11.
Republican leaders in Nevada are moving to junk their presidential caucuses and re-implement a standard primary election for 2016.
There are two bills pending in the Republican-controlled legislature, including one in the Assembly carried by Speaker John Hambrick. If passed and signed by GOP Gov. Brian Sandoval, Nevada Republicans voting in the 2016 primary would pull the lever at the polls as they do in a general election, rather than caucusing in groups similar to how the primary is conducted in Iowa. Republican insiders supportive of the legislation are expressing confidence that it will be enacted.
"There are pros and cons to everything," Nevada GOP Chairman Michael McDonald told the Washington Examiner on Friday. But McDonald said he is pushing for a normal primary because he and many other Silver State Republicans are unhappy with how the 2012 caucuses went down.This is interesting.
It is interesting because it represents a reversal either at the top of the Nevada Republican Party or within the Nevada Republican Party. Drucker mentions that the chairman of the Republican Party in the Silver state supports the change and obviously the speaker of the state Assembly, who sponsored the Assembly legislation cited (AB 302), supports the change. Yet, the party vice chair, Jim DeGraffenreid, is on record (on behalf of the party) in opposition to that bill at its original hearing. Yes, that written testimony was against the original version of the legislation. At the time it called for a non-compliant January presidential primary (consolidated with the primaries for state and local offices). In his spoken testimony before the Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Committee, DeGraffenreid, as FHQ described it at the time, rejected the primary idea outright, saying that the state party could and would make the decision on its own and that the taxpayer expenditure for a presidential primary was not necessary.
When the same bill was introduced in the state Senate and later heard in committee, another representative from the Nevada Republican Party -- this time James Hindle, chairman of the Storey County Republican Party and like DeGraffenreid speaking on behalf of the state party -- voiced opposition to the presidential primary idea in the bill. This time the comments were more ominous with regard to how the Nevada Republican Party viewed the idea of trading in caucuses for a primary. Hindle indicated that the Nevada Republican Party Central Committee had voted the previous weekend to hold caucuses (after having debated the two options).
Again, the Nevada Republican Party has already voted -- and quite recently -- to hold caucuses in 2016 instead of a primary. Now, that does not mean that the party cannot change its mind. Under different leadership during the 2012 cycle, the Nevada Republican Party set its caucuses date for February 18, 2012, then January 14 and then settled on February 4 after a showdown with New Hampshire.1
Nevada Republicans may pull the trigger on a switch, but that does raise a number of questions.
- Which version of the presidential primary legislation will make it through the legislature? One version -- the Assembly version -- now calls for a state party to request the secretary of state to call for a presidential primary. It only takes one party. If both make that request, then the state central committees have to confer on a working day in February. Absent an agreement, the secretary of state makes the decision. The state Senate bill calls for a consolidated presidential primary (with primaries for other state and local offices) on the last Tuesday in February. The date issue is not much of a conflict, but the consolidated primary means cost savings that a separate presidential primary cannot match. However, that consolidated primary means much earlier filing deadlines and general election campaigns for all other state and local candidates. In other words, there is still much to iron out on this one.
- If the Assembly bill cited by Drucker is the preferred option for Silver state Republicans, how receptive will Senate bill sponsor, Senator James Settlemeyer (R-17th, Minden), be to that option? He held quite a lot of sway over his bill getting out of committee.
- Speaking of parties opting into or requesting the presidential primary, Nevada Democrats, at least those on the committees hearing these two bills, continue to say that Nevada was originally chosen as a carve-out state specifically as a caucuses state. Those Democratic committee members have also voiced opposition to the primary measures because the DNC rules specify that Nevada is a caucuses state. Changing that would jeopardize carve-out status, they argue. [FHQ thinks that concern is perhaps overblown. Those same Democratic rules have called for specific dates on which Nevada's caucuses were to occur during the last two cycles. Nevada has yet to actually conduct a delegate selection event on those dates (because of the actions of other states). That has not led to a loss of the state party's privileged position on the calendar, much less a loss of any delegates. Yet, if the Nevada Democratic Party thinks there is a problem there, it affects how they approach these bills (and ultimately how willing they are to pick a primary over the caucuses the party tends to have.).]
- Is there disagreement in the Nevada Republican Party over the primary versus caucuses question?
- Finally, FHQ semi-jokingly said in response to a Jon Ralston tweet about the Nevada Republican Party having difficulty raising money that Nevada Republicans might be motivated to switch to a primary so that the state would pick up the tab for the election. That would save the party the trouble of having to raise the money necessary to pull of a caucuses/convention process that has already been rocky the last two cycles. How much is the fundraising shortfall affect the decision-making here?
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for bringing Drucker's story to FHQ's attention.
--
1 The typical protocol for the carve-out states has been to wait every other state out, setting the dates of their primaries and caucuses later and only after other states had chosen dates. Nevada Republicans did not follow that blueprint in 2010-11.
Saturday, April 25, 2015
Time Ran Out on Washington Presidential Primary Bill
As mandated by the state constitution, the Washington state legislature must wrap up the business of its 2015 regular session by April 26. However, both chambers of the legislature ended their regular session work on Friday evening, April 24.
One of the bills -- ideas really -- left in limbo as the session closed was SB 5978. Originally, that legislation was intended to entice the state parties into using the presidential primary election to allocate at least some of their national delegates. That version passed the Republican-controlled state Senate, but has stalled in the Democratic-controlled state House. And, in fact, that bill was amended to make the presidential primary contingent upon the parties using the election to allocated at least 75% of their national convention delegates. If the parties -- both parties -- fail to use the primary and at that allocation threshold, the presidential primary election is automatically cancelled.
FHQ made the case earlier this week that that maneuver was a function of the combination of the Washington Democratic Party opting for a caucuses/convention system in 2016 and a Democratic-controlled state House moving, in part, to reflect that decision. However, there were institutional reasons driving that House Appropriations Committee amendment. As FHQ commenter, jimrtex, astutely pointed out, SB 5978 and other bills faced a number of deadlines recently. Most importantly, that includes the April 15 deadline for bills to have passed the chamber opposite the bill's originated chamber. For SB 5978, then, that means it would have to have passed the House by April 15.
It did not.
There is, however, an exception to that cutoff: bills that have some budgetary effect. SB 5978 did not originally have any budgetary impact. It called for a presidential primary election to be held as usual, but proposed shifting the date and the delegate allocation formula. To keep the bill alive, it had to have some effect on the budget. Adding the amendment with a trigger to automatically cancel the primary, SB 5978 now has a potential $11.5 million impact. As in, it would save the state $11.5 million in the next budget if the primary is cancelled. And really that if is a when. Again, both parties have to opt into the presidential primary and allocate 75% of their delegates through the results of that election. State Democrats have already voted to hold caucuses in 2016.
That fact -- that both parties are likely headed for caucuses -- and the fact that SB 5978 died in the House as the regular session closed means that Washington essentially has a meaningless $11.5 million expenditure in the state budget for the next two years. But that projected budget and its different versions across the two legislative chambers were not reconciled prior to the close of the session. That work will continue in a special session to convene next week.
There might be an $11.5 million presidential primary appropriation that may become part of that discussion.
--
EDITORIAL NOTE: The original version of this post was written Friday morning, April 24 and scheduled to run Saturday morning, April 25 to fill a travel-related gap in FHQ's postings. That post ran as scheduled, but the Washington legislature adjourned on Friday evening after the original post was in the can. The post has been edited to reflect the earlier adjournment and the upcoming special session in the Evergreen state.
One of the bills -- ideas really -- left in limbo as the session closed was SB 5978. Originally, that legislation was intended to entice the state parties into using the presidential primary election to allocate at least some of their national delegates. That version passed the Republican-controlled state Senate, but has stalled in the Democratic-controlled state House. And, in fact, that bill was amended to make the presidential primary contingent upon the parties using the election to allocated at least 75% of their national convention delegates. If the parties -- both parties -- fail to use the primary and at that allocation threshold, the presidential primary election is automatically cancelled.
FHQ made the case earlier this week that that maneuver was a function of the combination of the Washington Democratic Party opting for a caucuses/convention system in 2016 and a Democratic-controlled state House moving, in part, to reflect that decision. However, there were institutional reasons driving that House Appropriations Committee amendment. As FHQ commenter, jimrtex, astutely pointed out, SB 5978 and other bills faced a number of deadlines recently. Most importantly, that includes the April 15 deadline for bills to have passed the chamber opposite the bill's originated chamber. For SB 5978, then, that means it would have to have passed the House by April 15.
It did not.
There is, however, an exception to that cutoff: bills that have some budgetary effect. SB 5978 did not originally have any budgetary impact. It called for a presidential primary election to be held as usual, but proposed shifting the date and the delegate allocation formula. To keep the bill alive, it had to have some effect on the budget. Adding the amendment with a trigger to automatically cancel the primary, SB 5978 now has a potential $11.5 million impact. As in, it would save the state $11.5 million in the next budget if the primary is cancelled. And really that if is a when. Again, both parties have to opt into the presidential primary and allocate 75% of their delegates through the results of that election. State Democrats have already voted to hold caucuses in 2016.
That fact -- that both parties are likely headed for caucuses -- and the fact that SB 5978 died in the House as the regular session closed means that Washington essentially has a meaningless $11.5 million expenditure in the state budget for the next two years. But that projected budget and its different versions across the two legislative chambers were not reconciled prior to the close of the session. That work will continue in a special session to convene next week.
There might be an $11.5 million presidential primary appropriation that may become part of that discussion.
--
EDITORIAL NOTE: The original version of this post was written Friday morning, April 24 and scheduled to run Saturday morning, April 25 to fill a travel-related gap in FHQ's postings. That post ran as scheduled, but the Washington legislature adjourned on Friday evening after the original post was in the can. The post has been edited to reflect the earlier adjournment and the upcoming special session in the Evergreen state.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
North Carolina Presidential Primary Bill Passes House
With crossover day looming over the proceedings at the North Carolina Capitol in Raleigh, the state House moved quickly on presidential primary legislation that got the green light in committee earlier in the day.
H 457, the bill to move the presidential primary in the Tar Heel state to March 8, was favorably reported from the House Elections Committee on the morning of April 22 and was later in the evening passed by a voice vote on the House floor. The change to the primary date would bring the North Carolina presidential primary back into compliance with the national parties' delegate selection rules. As the law is currently constructed, the North Carolina presidential primary would fall on the Tuesday after the South Carolina primary. Though neither South Carolina party has officially set a primary date for the 2016 cycle, the primary in the Palmetto state is protected as a February primary by the rules of both national parties.
That would pull the North Carolina primary into February and out of compliance with those same national party rules.1 In turn, that means that both parties in North Carolina would face potential delegate reduction penalties. It is the threat of those penalties -- 50% from the DNC and over 80% from the RNC -- that has prompted the North Carolina General Assembly to consider partially reversing course on its 2013 decision to separate the North Carolina presidential primary and move it from May to February. H 457 would not shift the primary back to it traditional position in May, but would instead keep the North Carolina primary early on the presidential primary calendar while nudging it out of the pre-March 1 danger zone.
It has never been a formality that this legislation would pass the lower chamber, but it has a sponsor, Rep. David Lewis (R-53rd, Harnett), who not only chairs the House Elections Committee, but is also the North Carolina national committeeman to the RNC. With the backing of the House speaker, Lewis is a well-positioned advocate for the proposed primary date change. The expected roadblock to changing the primary date has never been in the House. It was the state Senate that added at the last minute the amendment to the omnibus elections bill changing the primary date in 2013. And it is the state Senate where vocal opposition to changing the date exists now. This bill now moves to the Senate side of the capitol building, and it is there that it will perhaps face a sterner test.
...though, there is reason to suggest that the climb will not be as steep as once thought. Senator Bob Rucho (R-39th, Mecklenburg), through whom everything elections-related goes through in the upper chamber, has moderated to some extent his previous stance backing the February date. He said Wednesday, “We’re evaluating and looking at what’s in the best interest of our state.” That is a far cry from his "we're not going to move it unless we get something out of it" position.
--
1 Under those rules, no state other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina can hold a primary or caucuses before the first Tuesday in March (March 1 for the 2016 cycle).
H 457, the bill to move the presidential primary in the Tar Heel state to March 8, was favorably reported from the House Elections Committee on the morning of April 22 and was later in the evening passed by a voice vote on the House floor. The change to the primary date would bring the North Carolina presidential primary back into compliance with the national parties' delegate selection rules. As the law is currently constructed, the North Carolina presidential primary would fall on the Tuesday after the South Carolina primary. Though neither South Carolina party has officially set a primary date for the 2016 cycle, the primary in the Palmetto state is protected as a February primary by the rules of both national parties.
That would pull the North Carolina primary into February and out of compliance with those same national party rules.1 In turn, that means that both parties in North Carolina would face potential delegate reduction penalties. It is the threat of those penalties -- 50% from the DNC and over 80% from the RNC -- that has prompted the North Carolina General Assembly to consider partially reversing course on its 2013 decision to separate the North Carolina presidential primary and move it from May to February. H 457 would not shift the primary back to it traditional position in May, but would instead keep the North Carolina primary early on the presidential primary calendar while nudging it out of the pre-March 1 danger zone.
It has never been a formality that this legislation would pass the lower chamber, but it has a sponsor, Rep. David Lewis (R-53rd, Harnett), who not only chairs the House Elections Committee, but is also the North Carolina national committeeman to the RNC. With the backing of the House speaker, Lewis is a well-positioned advocate for the proposed primary date change. The expected roadblock to changing the primary date has never been in the House. It was the state Senate that added at the last minute the amendment to the omnibus elections bill changing the primary date in 2013. And it is the state Senate where vocal opposition to changing the date exists now. This bill now moves to the Senate side of the capitol building, and it is there that it will perhaps face a sterner test.
...though, there is reason to suggest that the climb will not be as steep as once thought. Senator Bob Rucho (R-39th, Mecklenburg), through whom everything elections-related goes through in the upper chamber, has moderated to some extent his previous stance backing the February date. He said Wednesday, “We’re evaluating and looking at what’s in the best interest of our state.” That is a far cry from his "we're not going to move it unless we get something out of it" position.
--
1 Under those rules, no state other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina can hold a primary or caucuses before the first Tuesday in March (March 1 for the 2016 cycle).
Legislation in the Works to Reestablish a Presidential Primary in Colorado
John Frank at the Denver Post is reporting that legislation is in the works to bring back a presidential primary in Colorado for the first time since the 2000 presidential election cycle. The parties in the Centennial state have operated under a caucuses/convention system in the three cycles since.
Some of the details have yet to be fully ironed out but the rough plan at this point is to reestablish the presidential primary, but leave the date up to the discretion of the governor. This is similar in some ways to how Arizona handled the setting of its presidential primary date from 2004-2012.1 Unlike Arizona, however, the proposed gubernatorial date-setting authority would be constrained. The governor would not be able to position the proposed presidential primary on a date out of compliance with the national party rules.2 In 2016, the primary could not be scheduled for a date any earlier than March 1.
The switch from caucuses to a primary would also mean that unaffiliated voters could participate; a change from the current system. Even with that provision, both parties are seemingly onboard with the switch. Via Frank:
But first thing's first: the legislative process.
--
1 The Arizona statute at the time set the presidential primary on the last Tuesday in February, but gave the governor the ability to move the date to an earlier position on the primary calendar. That power was utilized in both 2004 and 2008 and was used as a threat in 2012.
2 This is similar to the old Florida presidential primary law passed in 2013 and altered in 2015.
Some of the details have yet to be fully ironed out but the rough plan at this point is to reestablish the presidential primary, but leave the date up to the discretion of the governor. This is similar in some ways to how Arizona handled the setting of its presidential primary date from 2004-2012.1 Unlike Arizona, however, the proposed gubernatorial date-setting authority would be constrained. The governor would not be able to position the proposed presidential primary on a date out of compliance with the national party rules.2 In 2016, the primary could not be scheduled for a date any earlier than March 1.
The switch from caucuses to a primary would also mean that unaffiliated voters could participate; a change from the current system. Even with that provision, both parties are seemingly onboard with the switch. Via Frank:
“It provides more Coloradans the opportunity to have their voices heard in the process,” said Rick Palacio, the Democratic chairman.
“Giving voters a choice of who represents them in the general election through a presidential primary will be good for Colorado across the board,” said GOP Chairman Steve House in a statement. “It will give this critical swing state more attention during the primaries, and it will make it easier for voters to get involved in the nomination process.”Having everyone "onboard" now does not, however, mean that this bill will advance (see Mississippi). But it does not mean that it will not either. Colorado could end up on the earliest allowed date, March 1, where the (presidential) caucuses likely would have been set for 2016, but there are regional partners with contests on March 8 (Idaho) and March 22 (Arizona) that could prove to be inviting calendar positions to maximize the significance of the Colorado primary.
But first thing's first: the legislative process.
--
1 The Arizona statute at the time set the presidential primary on the last Tuesday in February, but gave the governor the ability to move the date to an earlier position on the primary calendar. That power was utilized in both 2004 and 2008 and was used as a threat in 2012.
2 This is similar to the old Florida presidential primary law passed in 2013 and altered in 2015.
Ohio House Passes Legislation to Move Presidential Primary Back a Week
The Ohio state House passed HB 153 this afternoon, April 22. The bill would shift back by one week the date of the presidential primary in the Buckeye state from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March to the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March. In 2016, that would mean a move from March 8 to March 15.
The proposed shift is not without significance. In fact, the intent of the legislation is to allow the Ohio Republican Party to conduct a presidential primary outside of the proportionality window the Republican National Committee has created on the 2016 primary calendar from March 1-14. A March 15 primary date would give Ohio Republicans the ability to allocate their national convention delegates in the presidential nomination process in a manner of its choosing. The March 8 date as currently called for in state law would require the party to allocate those delegates proportionate to the primary results (statewide and in the state's 16 congressional districts).
While House Republicans favored the change, Democrats in the lower chamber preferred an even later date -- May 3 -- that would have increased its total number of delegates in the Democratic presidential nomination process. As they did a day ago in committee, Democrats on the House floor offered an amendment to the bill to move the primary to May 3. But just as was the case a day ago, majority Republicans forced the tabling of that amendment and then moved to vote on the bill as originally introduced.
HB 153 passed on a 56-41 vote and now moves on to the state Senate for consideration.
The proposed shift is not without significance. In fact, the intent of the legislation is to allow the Ohio Republican Party to conduct a presidential primary outside of the proportionality window the Republican National Committee has created on the 2016 primary calendar from March 1-14. A March 15 primary date would give Ohio Republicans the ability to allocate their national convention delegates in the presidential nomination process in a manner of its choosing. The March 8 date as currently called for in state law would require the party to allocate those delegates proportionate to the primary results (statewide and in the state's 16 congressional districts).
While House Republicans favored the change, Democrats in the lower chamber preferred an even later date -- May 3 -- that would have increased its total number of delegates in the Democratic presidential nomination process. As they did a day ago in committee, Democrats on the House floor offered an amendment to the bill to move the primary to May 3. But just as was the case a day ago, majority Republicans forced the tabling of that amendment and then moved to vote on the bill as originally introduced.
HB 153 passed on a 56-41 vote and now moves on to the state Senate for consideration.
Bill to Move North Carolina Presidential Primary Back into Compliance Advances Out of Committee
In a short meeting this morning, April 22, the North Carolina state House Elections Committee considered and passed H 457. The legislation would simplify the current North Carolina presidential primary law, untethering it from the South Carolina primary and scheduling the election for the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. That would fall on March 8 during the 2016 presidential election cycle, a week after the proposed SEC primary.
Again, the meeting was brief and the committee only consider this one bill. However, the proceedings were seemingly not all that controversial. The idea of moving the primary back to March was met favorably by the committee. The membership only followed up with one question about the costs. The separate presidential primary would cost the state $5 million. That is still the case under the provisions of this bill. It would simply reposition the newly separated consolidate presidential primary. The other primaries for state and local offices continue to fall in May date.1 Members also questioned why not just leave everything in May as has been the custom in North Carolina for the majority of the post-reform era (1972-present). The response from the bill's sponsors was the obvious: the later a primary is, the more likely it is to be insignificant in deciding the nomination.
The only other comment from any of the Elections Committee members was that a presidential primary before March 1 would negatively affect Democrats as well as Republicans. Both state parties would lose delegates -- 50% from the DNC and over 80% from the RNC -- if the primary election was conducted outside of the window prescribed by the national parties (on or after March 1).
The bill was then passed -- seemingly unanimously2 -- with a favorable report and now will head to the House floor for consideration.
Yet, none of this came as unexpected news. The House Elections Committee is chaired by Rep. David Lewis (R-53rd, Harnett), who not only co-sponsored the measure, but is all the Republican national committeeman from North Carolina to the RNC. Shepherding the bill through the committee stage, then, is an afterthought. How well it does on the House floor -- how controversial it is there -- remains to be seen. However, the North Carolina state House has never really been the point of obstruction for any primary move. The real impasse is between the state House and Senate. The latter is where the proponents of the tethered, February presidential primary are.
In other words, this has not heated up much yet.
--
1 The current law calls for the non-presidential primaries to be conducted in May as usual. The presidential primary would be separate on the Tuesday after South Carolina. All the bill would do is shift the presidential primary back into compliance with the national party rules.
2 The chair of the committee called the vote for the ayes over any nay votes there may have been. To FHQ's ear, there were no votes in opposition. That reflects the general, non-controversial discussion of the bill.
Again, the meeting was brief and the committee only consider this one bill. However, the proceedings were seemingly not all that controversial. The idea of moving the primary back to March was met favorably by the committee. The membership only followed up with one question about the costs. The separate presidential primary would cost the state $5 million. That is still the case under the provisions of this bill. It would simply reposition the newly separated consolidate presidential primary. The other primaries for state and local offices continue to fall in May date.1 Members also questioned why not just leave everything in May as has been the custom in North Carolina for the majority of the post-reform era (1972-present). The response from the bill's sponsors was the obvious: the later a primary is, the more likely it is to be insignificant in deciding the nomination.
The only other comment from any of the Elections Committee members was that a presidential primary before March 1 would negatively affect Democrats as well as Republicans. Both state parties would lose delegates -- 50% from the DNC and over 80% from the RNC -- if the primary election was conducted outside of the window prescribed by the national parties (on or after March 1).
The bill was then passed -- seemingly unanimously2 -- with a favorable report and now will head to the House floor for consideration.
Yet, none of this came as unexpected news. The House Elections Committee is chaired by Rep. David Lewis (R-53rd, Harnett), who not only co-sponsored the measure, but is all the Republican national committeeman from North Carolina to the RNC. Shepherding the bill through the committee stage, then, is an afterthought. How well it does on the House floor -- how controversial it is there -- remains to be seen. However, the North Carolina state House has never really been the point of obstruction for any primary move. The real impasse is between the state House and Senate. The latter is where the proponents of the tethered, February presidential primary are.
In other words, this has not heated up much yet.
--
1 The current law calls for the non-presidential primaries to be conducted in May as usual. The presidential primary would be separate on the Tuesday after South Carolina. All the bill would do is shift the presidential primary back into compliance with the national party rules.
2 The chair of the committee called the vote for the ayes over any nay votes there may have been. To FHQ's ear, there were no votes in opposition. That reflects the general, non-controversial discussion of the bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)