This one was unlikely to go anywhere from the start, but HB 1214 -- the bill to move the Texas presidential primary to the last Tuesday in January -- died in committee when the state legislature in the Lone Star state adjourned for 2015 on Monday, June 1.
With the Texas primary already scheduled for the first Tuesday in March -- tied for the fifth position on the calendar and the biggest delegate prize on that date -- a move to January never really made sense. In the committee hearing on the legislation, supporters made the case for moving Texas into a position of maximum importance on the primary calendar -- first -- without considering that the carve-out states would do exactly what they have done over the last two presidential election cycles: move their contests ahead of any states interloping on their turf. In the end Texas would have have moved up on the calendar but remained in the fifth position.
Again, it made no sense to move the primary, keep the same calendar position and lose 90% of the Texas Republican delegation in the process. That is why this was never a serious bill. Well, that and the fact that similar bills have been filed, heard and have gone nowhere during most legislative sessions over the last decade.
Showing posts with label 2015 state legislative session. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2015 state legislative session. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
Nevada Adjourns Legislative Session Without Passing Presidential Primary Bill
The effort in Nevada to trade in caucuses for a presidential primary in 2016 died in the sine die day chaos on Monday, June 1 as legislative activity ceased in the Silver state until the 2017 biennium.
What began in March as a Senate bill to reestablish a presidential primary in Nevada and consolidate that election with all other primary elections in January ended as time ran out with the bill still on the board, basically being ignored in the last minute rush. SB 421 took many twists and turns along the way; such is the legislative process. A timeline:
Governor Sandoval (R) has already signaled that there would be no special session. That means both parties in Nevada will hold caucuses in 2016 (unless some money magically appears for Republicans to hold a party-funded primary, perhaps online?).
--
Nevada's Future: What Harry Reid bringeth, Harry Reid taketh away.
There is a lot more to it, but it is fitting that Harry Reid twisted arms to get Nevada into the early Democratic primary line up in 2006 and likely will have played a role in costing the Silver state that protected status in the future.
FHQ says that because it really is not that much of a secret that both parties want to dump Nevada. Republicans were kind of forced to add the Silver state to the carve-out states once the Democrats did so for 2008 and the results so far -- in both 2008 and 2012 -- left much to be desired. Nevada Republicans very simply were not ready for primetime. Under the glare of the presidential primary spotlight, the Republican Party in Nevada has now had two flawed attempts at early caucuses.
On the Democratic side, FHQ has heard more than once -- directly and indirectly -- that they were waiting on Harry Reid to retire before making a change.
None of these changes will happen for 2016. Both national parties have written protections into their rules for Nevada and are unlikely to make any changes midstream. Democrats will caucus as usual next February and the RNC is likely to continue its involvement, collectively slapping enough of a band-aid on the Nevada Republican caucus proceedings to get through without too much damage.
But 2020? FHQ would advise selling any Nevada early state stock that you have.
And last night factors into that to some degree. It is odd to FHQ that Reid would be in opposition to legislation that basically gave both parties in Nevada what their national parties wanted: a primary for Republicans and a caucus for Democrats. The secret to New Hampshire and Iowa staying early has always been that both of the state parties are unified -- in solidarity -- as a means of protecting early state status. Those parties -- or the secretary of state in New Hampshire's case -- do whatever it takes to stay first. If you want a bipartisan issue, in Iowa and New Hampshire, it is that first in the nation status.
Nevada has kind of had that over the last two presidential election cycles. But now they don't or won't. After the defeat of the primary bill at the close of the Nevada state legislative session last night, Nevada now has a situation where the RNC is not happy with the caucuses in the state and the DNC is only marginally so (because Harry Reid still wields some influence).
That is not a unified front. By twisting arms last night, Harry Reid likely jeopardized Nevada Republican's early state status. But by breaking up the best case scenario for both parties in 2016, he likely hurt the chances of Nevada Democrats retaining their position on the calendar in the future.1
None of this is anywhere close to happening. No, this issue will not be dealt with until after the 2016 election, between early 2017 and the summer of 2018 when the national parties finalize their delegate selection rules for the 2020 cycle.
--
1 Now, granted there are short term versus long term implications here. Short term, it may have been in Nevada Democrats' interest to prevent the Republican Party in the Silver state from having a higher turnout primary election that potentially energizes more Republicans in the state. Voters who turnout to vote in a primary are much more likely to participate in a general election (in one of the likely handful of battleground states in 2016).
What began in March as a Senate bill to reestablish a presidential primary in Nevada and consolidate that election with all other primary elections in January ended as time ran out with the bill still on the board, basically being ignored in the last minute rush. SB 421 took many twists and turns along the way; such is the legislative process. A timeline:
- March 29: SB 421 introduced.
- April 9: Bill amended and passed in Senate committee. The amended version would create a consolidated primary on the third Tuesday in February.
- April 13: Bill amended and passed again in Senate committee. The amended version would create a consolidated primary on the last Tuesday in February.
- April 27: RNC signals support of Nevada move to a primary.
- May 12: Nevada Senate passes consolidated primary bill. The Senate-passed version kept the date intact, but provided an out that allowed Democrats in the state to continue holding caucuses.
- May 23: Nevada Assembly committee crafts amendment to Senate-passed bill, breaking up the consolidated primary. Under the amended version, Nevada would have a separate presidential primary on the last Tuesday in February and the other primary elections would remain in June.
- May 27: Nevada Assembly committee rejects amended version of Senate-passed bill.
- May 28: Nevada Assembly committee passes amended version of Senate-passed bill.
- May 31: Lieutenant Governor Hutchison lobbies Assembly members to pass the presidential primary bill.
- June 1: Ryan Ervin (on the Jeb Bush payroll) lobbies Assembly members to pass presidential primary bill.
- June 1: Nevada Republican Party chair tweets out support of presidential primary legislation.
- June 1: Democratic votes become key to passage.
- June 1: Harry Reid calls at least one Assembly Democrat lobbying against the presidential primary bill.
- June 1: Republican Assemblyman Hansen links his vote in favor of presidential primary bill to floor consideration of a parental consent abortion bill.
- June 1: Last minute chaos.
- June 1: Adjournment.
Governor Sandoval (R) has already signaled that there would be no special session. That means both parties in Nevada will hold caucuses in 2016 (unless some money magically appears for Republicans to hold a party-funded primary, perhaps online?).
--
Nevada's Future: What Harry Reid bringeth, Harry Reid taketh away.
There is a lot more to it, but it is fitting that Harry Reid twisted arms to get Nevada into the early Democratic primary line up in 2006 and likely will have played a role in costing the Silver state that protected status in the future.
FHQ says that because it really is not that much of a secret that both parties want to dump Nevada. Republicans were kind of forced to add the Silver state to the carve-out states once the Democrats did so for 2008 and the results so far -- in both 2008 and 2012 -- left much to be desired. Nevada Republicans very simply were not ready for primetime. Under the glare of the presidential primary spotlight, the Republican Party in Nevada has now had two flawed attempts at early caucuses.
On the Democratic side, FHQ has heard more than once -- directly and indirectly -- that they were waiting on Harry Reid to retire before making a change.
None of these changes will happen for 2016. Both national parties have written protections into their rules for Nevada and are unlikely to make any changes midstream. Democrats will caucus as usual next February and the RNC is likely to continue its involvement, collectively slapping enough of a band-aid on the Nevada Republican caucus proceedings to get through without too much damage.
But 2020? FHQ would advise selling any Nevada early state stock that you have.
And last night factors into that to some degree. It is odd to FHQ that Reid would be in opposition to legislation that basically gave both parties in Nevada what their national parties wanted: a primary for Republicans and a caucus for Democrats. The secret to New Hampshire and Iowa staying early has always been that both of the state parties are unified -- in solidarity -- as a means of protecting early state status. Those parties -- or the secretary of state in New Hampshire's case -- do whatever it takes to stay first. If you want a bipartisan issue, in Iowa and New Hampshire, it is that first in the nation status.
Nevada has kind of had that over the last two presidential election cycles. But now they don't or won't. After the defeat of the primary bill at the close of the Nevada state legislative session last night, Nevada now has a situation where the RNC is not happy with the caucuses in the state and the DNC is only marginally so (because Harry Reid still wields some influence).
That is not a unified front. By twisting arms last night, Harry Reid likely jeopardized Nevada Republican's early state status. But by breaking up the best case scenario for both parties in 2016, he likely hurt the chances of Nevada Democrats retaining their position on the calendar in the future.1
None of this is anywhere close to happening. No, this issue will not be dealt with until after the 2016 election, between early 2017 and the summer of 2018 when the national parties finalize their delegate selection rules for the 2020 cycle.
--
1 Now, granted there are short term versus long term implications here. Short term, it may have been in Nevada Democrats' interest to prevent the Republican Party in the Silver state from having a higher turnout primary election that potentially energizes more Republicans in the state. Voters who turnout to vote in a primary are much more likely to participate in a general election (in one of the likely handful of battleground states in 2016).
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Hutchinson's Signature Moves 2016 Arkansas Presidential Primary to March
Quickly on the heels of the Arkansas state legislature wrapping up the business of its special session on Thursday, Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) signed SB 8 into law on Friday, May 29. The newly changed statute would shift the consolidated May Arkansas primaries, including the presidential primary, to the first Tuesday in March.
Arkansas now joins Tennessee and Texas on the March 1 SEC primary date on the 2016 presidential primary calendar. And despite all the legislative wrangling in both the regular and special sessions, Arkansas becomes the first state to officially move into that calendar position for 2016 during the 2015 state legislative season.1 SEC primary legislation failed in Mississippi and awaits the governor's consideration in Alabama. Georgia is also very likely to wind up on March 1.
Arkansas will share that March 1 date with those states plus neighboring Oklahoma as well as Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont and Virginia. However, the primary in the Natural state will return to its May date at the end of 2016.
--
1 Tennessee changed its law during 2011 for the 2012 cycle and Texas, not a part of the original SEC primary proposal, reverted to its first Tuesday in March primary date after a redistricting dispute in 2011-12 forced a temporary change. Though Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp has coordinated the SEC primary effort (and holds the ultimate power to set the date of the presidential primary in the Peach state), he has not officially scheduled the 2016 Georgia presidential primary. However, it is pretty clear where Georgia will end up on the calendar.
--
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News sending news of the signing on to FHQ.
Arkansas now joins Tennessee and Texas on the March 1 SEC primary date on the 2016 presidential primary calendar. And despite all the legislative wrangling in both the regular and special sessions, Arkansas becomes the first state to officially move into that calendar position for 2016 during the 2015 state legislative season.1 SEC primary legislation failed in Mississippi and awaits the governor's consideration in Alabama. Georgia is also very likely to wind up on March 1.
Arkansas will share that March 1 date with those states plus neighboring Oklahoma as well as Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont and Virginia. However, the primary in the Natural state will return to its May date at the end of 2016.
--
1 Tennessee changed its law during 2011 for the 2012 cycle and Texas, not a part of the original SEC primary proposal, reverted to its first Tuesday in March primary date after a redistricting dispute in 2011-12 forced a temporary change. Though Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp has coordinated the SEC primary effort (and holds the ultimate power to set the date of the presidential primary in the Peach state), he has not officially scheduled the 2016 Georgia presidential primary. However, it is pretty clear where Georgia will end up on the calendar.
--
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News sending news of the signing on to FHQ.
Upon Further Review: Nevada Assembly Committee Passes Presidential Primary Bill
A day after rejecting the measure to create a presidential primary in Nevada, the Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Committee passed an amended SB 421 on a party line, 6-4 vote. Unlike Wednesday's less cohesive committee vote, majority Republicans on the panel voted as a bloc in favor of the change on Thursday, May 28.
The amended bill would establish a separate presidential primary scheduled for the last Tuesday in February. That differs from the Senate-passed version that would not only have created a presidential primary in the Silver state, but would have, in a cost-savings move, shifted the June primaries for other offices up to February as well. It was that latter provision that received pushback from elections administrators across the state and Democrats on the panel among others.
With time winding down on a legislative session due to adjourn on June 1, SB 421 now heads to the Assembly floor with a "Do Pass" recommendation from the Legislative Operations and Elections Committee. If the bill passes there, it could proceed along one of two paths. First, the bill could be sent back to the state Senate for another round of consideration (in its amended form). However, it could also head to a conference committee to hammer out the differences between the chambers (before being sent back for final votes in the Assembly and Senate). Either way offers potential roadblocks.
But first thing's first: The full Assembly gets a crack at voting up or down on the measure to create a presidential primary in the Silver state.
--
A tip of the cap to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for the heads up on the committee vote.
The amended bill would establish a separate presidential primary scheduled for the last Tuesday in February. That differs from the Senate-passed version that would not only have created a presidential primary in the Silver state, but would have, in a cost-savings move, shifted the June primaries for other offices up to February as well. It was that latter provision that received pushback from elections administrators across the state and Democrats on the panel among others.
With time winding down on a legislative session due to adjourn on June 1, SB 421 now heads to the Assembly floor with a "Do Pass" recommendation from the Legislative Operations and Elections Committee. If the bill passes there, it could proceed along one of two paths. First, the bill could be sent back to the state Senate for another round of consideration (in its amended form). However, it could also head to a conference committee to hammer out the differences between the chambers (before being sent back for final votes in the Assembly and Senate). Either way offers potential roadblocks.
But first thing's first: The full Assembly gets a crack at voting up or down on the measure to create a presidential primary in the Silver state.
--
A tip of the cap to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for the heads up on the committee vote.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Arkansas House Sends SEC Primary Bill Off to Governor Hutchinson
The Arkansas House on Thursday, May 28 passed SB 8 by a vote of 67-22. The amended version of the bill would shift the primaries for a number of offices -- including the presidential primary -- from the mid-May to the first Tuesday in March during the 2016 cycle. The compromise hammered out in the state Senate would expire at the end of 2016 returning the Arkansas primaries to May for subsequent cycles.
The House had already passed its version of the bill that would have permanently set the date of the consolidated primary for March. That same bill faced resistance in the state Senate though, forcing the compromise to only make the primaries date change for the 2016 cycle. The House passed the compromise version by a wider margin than the permanent change.
The bill now heads to Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) who supported the change in his call for a special session last week.
The House had already passed its version of the bill that would have permanently set the date of the consolidated primary for March. That same bill faced resistance in the state Senate though, forcing the compromise to only make the primaries date change for the 2016 cycle. The House passed the compromise version by a wider margin than the permanent change.
The bill now heads to Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) who supported the change in his call for a special session last week.
Arkansas Senate Passes Compromise SEC Primary Bill
Arkansas legislators worked into the evening on day two of the current special session yesterday. After failing to gather enough votes to suspend the rules and consider SB 8 on the floor of the state Senate1, senators in support of the move to join the SEC primary on March 1 redoubled their efforts to push the measure through.
Those efforts by majority party Republicans included cutting a deal with state Senate Democrats to make the move of the consolidated primary -- including the presidential primary -- to March 1 temporary. Under the provisions of the amended bill, the Arkansas presidential primary will move into the SEC primary position on the calendar, but only for the 2016 cycle. The election would automatically revert to its current May position at the end of 2016 (for the 2020 cycle). This would either save future legislators from having to change the date back to May as they have in other instances when Arkansas has moved its presidential primary forward on the calendar (see 1988 and 2008) or force them to revisit whether to hold an early primary again in 2020 and beyond.
The amended SB 8 emerged from the Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee with a "Do Pass" recommendation and was subsequently passed by a 28-6 vote by the full Senate. The measure now heads to the House for consideration. The lower chamber passed the original (unamended/permanent) version of the SEC primary bill on Wednesday.
For more see coverage from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
--
1 The chamber was able to gain enough support to extract the bill from committee, but not enough to meet the supermajority requirement to consider the bill immediately. Without that supermajority, the bill, by rule, had to wait two calendar days before the chamber could consider it. That would have pushed the special session, originally scheduled to adjourn on Thursday, May 28, into Saturday.
Those efforts by majority party Republicans included cutting a deal with state Senate Democrats to make the move of the consolidated primary -- including the presidential primary -- to March 1 temporary. Under the provisions of the amended bill, the Arkansas presidential primary will move into the SEC primary position on the calendar, but only for the 2016 cycle. The election would automatically revert to its current May position at the end of 2016 (for the 2020 cycle). This would either save future legislators from having to change the date back to May as they have in other instances when Arkansas has moved its presidential primary forward on the calendar (see 1988 and 2008) or force them to revisit whether to hold an early primary again in 2020 and beyond.
The amended SB 8 emerged from the Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee with a "Do Pass" recommendation and was subsequently passed by a 28-6 vote by the full Senate. The measure now heads to the House for consideration. The lower chamber passed the original (unamended/permanent) version of the SEC primary bill on Wednesday.
For more see coverage from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
--
1 The chamber was able to gain enough support to extract the bill from committee, but not enough to meet the supermajority requirement to consider the bill immediately. Without that supermajority, the bill, by rule, had to wait two calendar days before the chamber could consider it. That would have pushed the special session, originally scheduled to adjourn on Thursday, May 28, into Saturday.
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Nevada Assembly Committee Rejects Senate-Passed Presidential Primary Bill
Supporters on the Nevada Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections could not muster enough votes to recommend SB 421 for passage on the floor of the full Assembly. The Senate-passed legislation would have created a separate presidential primary scheduled for the last Tuesday in February in its amended form.
However, the majority party Republicans on the committee were not on the same page (and have not been for the last week while this bill has been considered and tweaked), dooming the bill for now. Though it differs from the Senate-passed version, the Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections has voted favorably on the concept of a February presidential primary (AB 302) already. That bill, as passed by the committee, does not contain the protections Democrats in the Silver state would need to continue holding caucuses (as SB 421 does) though and is currently in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee (where it has been since late April).
With time running out -- the legislature adjourns June 1 -- this damages the chances of getting a caucuses to primary bill through the legislature to reflect what the RNC has been pushing for. But the end of legislative session can get crazy and this process in Nevada has been anything but dull on this issue during the 2015 session.
However, the majority party Republicans on the committee were not on the same page (and have not been for the last week while this bill has been considered and tweaked), dooming the bill for now. Though it differs from the Senate-passed version, the Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections has voted favorably on the concept of a February presidential primary (AB 302) already. That bill, as passed by the committee, does not contain the protections Democrats in the Silver state would need to continue holding caucuses (as SB 421 does) though and is currently in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee (where it has been since late April).
With time running out -- the legislature adjourns June 1 -- this damages the chances of getting a caucuses to primary bill through the legislature to reflect what the RNC has been pushing for. But the end of legislative session can get crazy and this process in Nevada has been anything but dull on this issue during the 2015 session.
Ohio Senate Passes March 15 Presidential Primary Bill
The Ohio state Senate on Wednesday, May 27 passed HB 153 by a vote 23-10 along party lines. The bill would push back the date of the presidential primary in the Buckeye state by one week from March 8 to March 15.
By moving back one week on the 2016 presidential primary calendar, Ohio Republicans will gain the latitude to determine the party's method of delegate allocation without restriction from the national party. In his introduction of the bill on the Senate floor, Sen. Frank LaRose (R-27th, Wayne) made it pretty clear that the Ohio Republican Party will opt to "speak with one voice" as a delegation when discussing the reasoning behind the bill. That would potentially bring another winner-take-all primary to March 15 with 66 delegates at stake. Traditionally, Ohio Republicans have utilized a winner-take-most (winner-take-all by congressional district) allocation plan.
The bill passed the state House earlier in the session in the same form that it just passed the Senate. That will now move the bill on to Governor John Kasich's (R) desk for consideration.
By moving back one week on the 2016 presidential primary calendar, Ohio Republicans will gain the latitude to determine the party's method of delegate allocation without restriction from the national party. In his introduction of the bill on the Senate floor, Sen. Frank LaRose (R-27th, Wayne) made it pretty clear that the Ohio Republican Party will opt to "speak with one voice" as a delegation when discussing the reasoning behind the bill. That would potentially bring another winner-take-all primary to March 15 with 66 delegates at stake. Traditionally, Ohio Republicans have utilized a winner-take-most (winner-take-all by congressional district) allocation plan.
The bill passed the state House earlier in the session in the same form that it just passed the Senate. That will now move the bill on to Governor John Kasich's (R) desk for consideration.
Arkansas House Passes SEC Primary Bill
The Arkansas state House on Wednesday, May 27 passed HB 1006. By a vote of 56-32, the House passed the bill that would shift all primary elections in the Natural state up to the first Tuesday in March from May. Though the legislation faced resistance before getting to committee on the first day of the Arkansas special session and witnessed a number of legislators speaking against the bill on the floor today, HB 1006 passed and will now head to the Senate side of the capitol.1
The Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee rejected an identical bill in on day one of the special session. The real test for this version of an SEC primary bill -- a movement of a consolidated primary -- will be in the upper chamber.
--
1 Those speaking against the bill mostly cited problems associated with moving all of the primaries forward. That had less to do specifically with the presidential primary and dealt more with adjustments required for the primaries for the legislators themselves.
The Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee rejected an identical bill in on day one of the special session. The real test for this version of an SEC primary bill -- a movement of a consolidated primary -- will be in the upper chamber.
--
1 Those speaking against the bill mostly cited problems associated with moving all of the primaries forward. That had less to do specifically with the presidential primary and dealt more with adjustments required for the primaries for the legislators themselves.
Identical SEC Primary Bills Introduced With Mixed Reviews in Arkansas
Given the small window in which the Arkansas legislature has to act during the special session this week, things are likely to move at an expedited pace. While one anti-SEC primary bill was the first introduced on the session's first day a day ago, it was not the only bill filed. But as it turned out, HB 1002 was not the only ominous sign for the Arkansas effort to join the SEC primary on March 1 either.
The Arkansas state House and Senate also the introduction of identical bills to move all of the primaries in the Natural state from May to March. Both versions saw opposition. On the House side, HB 1006 was objected to during its introduction and second reading. However, opponents did not have the numbers to prevent the bill from being referred to the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee. That committee later in the day sent the bill along to the floor with a "Do Pass" recommendation.
The story was different in the Senate. The state Senate version of the SEC primary bill faced no pushback on its way to committee, but once it was in the Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee the effort to move SB 8 along failed. Minority party Democrats voted against the legislation, effectively bottling the bill up in the committee.1
This was one of the questions FHQ posed on the call of the the special session last week. During the regular session earlier this year, the Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee (and later the full Senate) passed an SEC primary bill, but one that would have followed the example of previous Arkansas presidential primary shifts. It would have created a separate presidential primary and left all other primary election in May. An alternate bill -- one similar to the special session bill, SB 8 -- that would have moved all Arkansas primaries to March failed in committee. Entering the special session, it was an open question whether the Senate committee would balk at similar legislation (even with the governor's backing).
It appears that question has now been answered. Though SB 8 quickly stalled in committee, the bill's sponsor, Senator Gary Stubblefield (R-6th, Branch), is contemplating discharging it from committee for consideration on the floor of the state Senate.
Overall, day one of the Arkansas special legislative session was not necessarily a positive one with respect to the SEC primary move. There was resistance in both chambers. That said, the state House will take up its version of the SEC primary bill on day two.
--
1 Democrats on the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee objected to moving all Arkansas primaries to March on the grounds that it would push up filing deadlines and force campaigning into holiday season in the year before the election:
Overall, day one of the Arkansas special legislative session was not necessarily a positive one with respect to the SEC primary move. There was resistance in both chambers. That said, the state House will take up its version of the SEC primary bill on day two.
--
1 Democrats on the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee objected to moving all Arkansas primaries to March on the grounds that it would push up filing deadlines and force campaigning into holiday season in the year before the election:
Sen. Linda Chesterfield, D-Little Rock, said it could result in an unfair advantage to incumbents.
"You're talking about campaigning over Thanksgiving and Christmas," Chesterfield said. "We're talking about campaigning in some of the most treacherous weather around."Others warned that history might repeat itself:
Sen. Joyce Elliott, D-Little Rock, also questioned whether an earlier primary date would increase Arkansas influence. With former Gov. Mike Huckabee seeking the Republican nomination and former Arkansas first-lady Hillary Rodham Clinton campaigning for the Democratic nomination, most other candidates would be reluctant to spend much time here, she suggested.Arkansas last moved its presidential primary forward for the 2008 cycle and saw both Huckabee and Clinton run then as well. That had most candidates campaigning elsewhere, yielding the state to its favorite children.
Ohio Presidential Primary Bill Advances from Senate Committee
FHQ was waiting on the Ohio legislature to update HB 153 online to reflect the state Senate State and Local Government Committee passage yesterday, but waiting on those vote totals may put off posting this update until after the full Ohio Senate takes up the bill later today (Wednesday, May 27). In any event...
On Tuesday, May 26, the Ohio state Senate State and Local Government Committee passed HB 153 by a vote of 6-3.1 The legislation would shift back the date of the presidential primary in the Buckeye state by one week to March 15 in order to help Ohio Republicans avoid having to proportionally allocated delegates to the national convention. To this point, through the House consideration and now in the state Senate, divisions on this issue have mostly developed along partisan lines with majority party Republicans in support of the move and minority party Democrats against such a modest shift.
HB 153 will be considered by the Ohio state Senate on Wednesday, May 27.
--
1 Source of vote breakdown: Introduction of HB 153 on the floor of the state Senate on Wednesday, May 27.
On Tuesday, May 26, the Ohio state Senate State and Local Government Committee passed HB 153 by a vote of 6-3.1 The legislation would shift back the date of the presidential primary in the Buckeye state by one week to March 15 in order to help Ohio Republicans avoid having to proportionally allocated delegates to the national convention. To this point, through the House consideration and now in the state Senate, divisions on this issue have mostly developed along partisan lines with majority party Republicans in support of the move and minority party Democrats against such a modest shift.
HB 153 will be considered by the Ohio state Senate on Wednesday, May 27.
--
1 Source of vote breakdown: Introduction of HB 153 on the floor of the state Senate on Wednesday, May 27.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
First Presidential Primary Bill of Arkansas Special Session Does Not Call for SEC Primary Date
In a sign of what may yet come in the short special session this week in Arkansas, the opening salvo in the effort to join the SEC primary on March 1 does not actually call for moving the presidential primary in the Natural state to March. Instead, Representative Nate Bell (R-20th, Mena), who derailed the regular session bill to create a separate presidential primary scheduled for the SEC primary date, went in a different direction.
On the opening day of the three day special session, Rep. Bell introduced HB 1002. This legislation would bump up the date of the Arkansas consolidated primary, but only to the first Tuesday in May for the 2016 cycle. Under current law, the Arkansas primary would be held on May 24, three weeks later than the proposed date from Bell. Additionally, Bell's bill would also require the state House and Senate Committees on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs to "study the effects and benefits of holding the preferential primary election and the general primary election in May" after the 2016 cycle.1
These study committees have come up from time to time and tend to lead nowhere; as in the presidential primary does not move. That was the case when Indiana in 2009 talked about but did not ultimately study the benefits of moving out of the Hoosier state's typical early May primary for something earlier.
In the Arkansas case, the study committee may be nothing more than a stall tactic. Bell chairs the House State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee and bottled up the previous, regular session bill there. That he has proposed alternative legislation may signal that he is willing to do the same with any SEC primary bill that may once again come over from the state Senate (with the governor's support). This is just a three day session, so running out the clock is very much an option that is on the table as far as the Arkansas effort to join the SEC primary.
--
1 The "general primary election" is what the runoff system is called in Arkansas. The "preferential primary election" that precedes it is what is called a primary election in the majority of states.
On the opening day of the three day special session, Rep. Bell introduced HB 1002. This legislation would bump up the date of the Arkansas consolidated primary, but only to the first Tuesday in May for the 2016 cycle. Under current law, the Arkansas primary would be held on May 24, three weeks later than the proposed date from Bell. Additionally, Bell's bill would also require the state House and Senate Committees on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs to "study the effects and benefits of holding the preferential primary election and the general primary election in May" after the 2016 cycle.1
These study committees have come up from time to time and tend to lead nowhere; as in the presidential primary does not move. That was the case when Indiana in 2009 talked about but did not ultimately study the benefits of moving out of the Hoosier state's typical early May primary for something earlier.
In the Arkansas case, the study committee may be nothing more than a stall tactic. Bell chairs the House State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee and bottled up the previous, regular session bill there. That he has proposed alternative legislation may signal that he is willing to do the same with any SEC primary bill that may once again come over from the state Senate (with the governor's support). This is just a three day session, so running out the clock is very much an option that is on the table as far as the Arkansas effort to join the SEC primary.
--
1 The "general primary election" is what the runoff system is called in Arkansas. The "preferential primary election" that precedes it is what is called a primary election in the majority of states.
Pennsylvania Parties Not That Open to Presidential Primary Change
The proposed shift of the Pennsylvania presidential primary from April to March raised eyebrows in both major parties in the Keystone state.
The resistance has less to do with the presidential primary than it does with moving the all of the primaries -- presidential primary included -- from the fourth Tuesday in April to the third Tuesday in March.1 As FHQ often mentions, creating a separate presidential primary has its costs -- funding an all new election -- but shifting around a consolidated primary also has costs. In that instance, however, the cost is not directly financial. Take the recent discussion in Nevada over a proposed consolidated primary scheduled for the end of February. Concerns there tended to revolve around the idea state legislators would be affected. Their renominations would be pushed to earlier points on the calendar. That would trigger even earlier campaigning and an even longer general election process. Elongating the primary and general election phases for state legislators requires raising and spending more money.
There are financial costs, then, in moving a consolidated primary, but in that case the burden is shifted from the state to the legislators. Over the years, that has tended to produce some reservations among those state legislators. In turn, that often leads to inaction and an unchanged primary date.
This may or may not affect the yet-to-be filed presidential primary bill in Pennsylvania. But, as James P. O'Toole at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette notes, this is an old dilemma in the Keystone state and a move that does not have the support of the two state party chairmen:
--
1 FHQ spoke with Rep. Greiner's spokesperson, Eric Reath, last week and he confirmed that the proposed bill would move the full consolidated primary to March and not create a separate presidential primary.
The resistance has less to do with the presidential primary than it does with moving the all of the primaries -- presidential primary included -- from the fourth Tuesday in April to the third Tuesday in March.1 As FHQ often mentions, creating a separate presidential primary has its costs -- funding an all new election -- but shifting around a consolidated primary also has costs. In that instance, however, the cost is not directly financial. Take the recent discussion in Nevada over a proposed consolidated primary scheduled for the end of February. Concerns there tended to revolve around the idea state legislators would be affected. Their renominations would be pushed to earlier points on the calendar. That would trigger even earlier campaigning and an even longer general election process. Elongating the primary and general election phases for state legislators requires raising and spending more money.
There are financial costs, then, in moving a consolidated primary, but in that case the burden is shifted from the state to the legislators. Over the years, that has tended to produce some reservations among those state legislators. In turn, that often leads to inaction and an unchanged primary date.
This may or may not affect the yet-to-be filed presidential primary bill in Pennsylvania. But, as James P. O'Toole at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette notes, this is an old dilemma in the Keystone state and a move that does not have the support of the two state party chairmen:
"I have not been supportive of changing the primary date because of the way it affects so many other people,'' said Rob Gleason, the chairman of the state Republican Party. "You'd have to change the date of for petition circulation … You'd be circulating petitions in January and February. I've always kind of resisted that.''Bill sponsor, Representative Keith Greiner (R-43rd, Lancaster) claims to have bipartisan support for the move, but shifting the [presidential] primary will likely have to overcome some resistance.
"I see no reason right now to change it, from the Democratic side,' said Jim Burn, the Democratic state chairman. "It throws everything out of whack; people are going to have to start a very complex series of events during the holidays … The costs and the complications far outweigh any benefits.
--
1 FHQ spoke with Rep. Greiner's spokesperson, Eric Reath, last week and he confirmed that the proposed bill would move the full consolidated primary to March and not create a separate presidential primary.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Assembly Amendment Would Create Separate Nevada Presidential Primary
Another day, another change in the effort to create a presidential primary for the 2016 cycle in Nevada.
On Thursday, May 21 the Nevada Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections held a working session on SB 421. That is the bill to not only establish a presidential primary, but to move up the June primary elections for other offices to the last Tuesday in February, creating a consolidated primary. Typically, these committee working session yield votes to pass or table the bill under consideration. However, that was not the case with the LegOps work session on the state Senate-passed presidential primary legislation.
Instead, yet another amendment was introduced, adding still one more bend in the wending path toward a potential presidential primary. The proposal now on the table would create a separate presidential primary scheduled for the last Tuesday in February. The primaries for other offices would stay in June.
While this addresses some of the negative feedback SB 421 received in its initial Assembly hearing earlier this week, it does have budgetary implications. The separate presidential primary obviously will cost the state of Nevada. To reduce those costs, the amendment to the Senate bill would not provide for early voting -- eliminating that potential conflict with New Hampshire -- but would allow for absentee and military voting. Those would be the only exceptions. Otherwise, all voting will take place on election day, presumably February 23, 2016 if this bill passes and is signed into law.
Of course, if the LegOps committee signs off on this change and the Assembly passes the bill in its amended form, it will have to return to the Senate. Senate sponsor, James Settlemeyer (R-17th, Minden), has shepherded this bill through committee and the full Senate and has appeared willing to make changes -- any changes -- that would facilitate a change from the caucus/convention system to a primary.
On Thursday, May 21 the Nevada Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections held a working session on SB 421. That is the bill to not only establish a presidential primary, but to move up the June primary elections for other offices to the last Tuesday in February, creating a consolidated primary. Typically, these committee working session yield votes to pass or table the bill under consideration. However, that was not the case with the LegOps work session on the state Senate-passed presidential primary legislation.
Instead, yet another amendment was introduced, adding still one more bend in the wending path toward a potential presidential primary. The proposal now on the table would create a separate presidential primary scheduled for the last Tuesday in February. The primaries for other offices would stay in June.
While this addresses some of the negative feedback SB 421 received in its initial Assembly hearing earlier this week, it does have budgetary implications. The separate presidential primary obviously will cost the state of Nevada. To reduce those costs, the amendment to the Senate bill would not provide for early voting -- eliminating that potential conflict with New Hampshire -- but would allow for absentee and military voting. Those would be the only exceptions. Otherwise, all voting will take place on election day, presumably February 23, 2016 if this bill passes and is signed into law.
Of course, if the LegOps committee signs off on this change and the Assembly passes the bill in its amended form, it will have to return to the Senate. Senate sponsor, James Settlemeyer (R-17th, Minden), has shepherded this bill through committee and the full Senate and has appeared willing to make changes -- any changes -- that would facilitate a change from the caucus/convention system to a primary.
Friday, May 22, 2015
Kansas House Passes Bill Eliminating Presidential Primary
The Kansas state House followed Senate's lead, more narrowly passing the conference committee report for HB 2104. The omnibus elections package that includes a provision to permanently cancel the presidential primary in the Sunflower state cleared the Senate last week.
This ends the standard operating procedure that has prevailed in Kansas over the last two decades: canceling the primary every four years. HB 2104 eliminates the presidential primary altogether and ends the practice of the legislature being required to revisit its postponement. While Kansas has been a caucus state for both parties since 1996, the presidential primary statute has still been on the books.
This legislation would make Kansas a caucus state permanently. The bill now heads to Governor Sam Brownback (R) for his consideration.
This ends the standard operating procedure that has prevailed in Kansas over the last two decades: canceling the primary every four years. HB 2104 eliminates the presidential primary altogether and ends the practice of the legislature being required to revisit its postponement. While Kansas has been a caucus state for both parties since 1996, the presidential primary statute has still been on the books.
This legislation would make Kansas a caucus state permanently. The bill now heads to Governor Sam Brownback (R) for his consideration.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
SEC Primary Bill Passes Alabama House
Joining the SEC primary inched closer to reality in Alabaman this morning.
The Alabama state House on Thursday, May 21 by voice vote passed SB 240. The legislation would make only a minor tweak to the Alabama statutes, moving the consolidated primary -- including the presidential primary -- up a week to March 1. Four years ago, the Alabama legislature eliminated its separate February presidential primary and combined that election with the the June primaries for other offices. The 2011 change brought all of those elections together on the second Tuesday in March, a date that coincided with the primary in neighboring Mississippi.
Though Mississippi's bid to join the 2016 SEC primary on the first Tuesday in March failed during its regular legislative session, the Alabama shift to a week earlier on the 2016 primary calendar has now passed both chambers of the state legislature. That has Alabama poised to join Georgia*, Tennessee and Texas in the SEC primary. Tangentially regional/southern states, Oklahoma and Virginia are also scheduled to hold March 1 presidential primaries.
The Alabama state House on Thursday, May 21 by voice vote passed SB 240. The legislation would make only a minor tweak to the Alabama statutes, moving the consolidated primary -- including the presidential primary -- up a week to March 1. Four years ago, the Alabama legislature eliminated its separate February presidential primary and combined that election with the the June primaries for other offices. The 2011 change brought all of those elections together on the second Tuesday in March, a date that coincided with the primary in neighboring Mississippi.
Though Mississippi's bid to join the 2016 SEC primary on the first Tuesday in March failed during its regular legislative session, the Alabama shift to a week earlier on the 2016 primary calendar has now passed both chambers of the state legislature. That has Alabama poised to join Georgia*, Tennessee and Texas in the SEC primary. Tangentially regional/southern states, Oklahoma and Virginia are also scheduled to hold March 1 presidential primaries.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Hutchinson's Call for Special Session Includes Arkansas Presidential Primary Move
Under a proclamation from Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) a special session of the Arkansas legislature will convene on Tuesday, May 26.1
For our purposes here at FHQ the most noteworthy item on the governor's agenda for the session is "to move the full Arkansas primary elections from May to March". This is an expected move, but an interesting one. The bill (SB 389) that passed the state Senate during the regular session -- and was subsequently withdrawn after it was bottled up in committee on the House -- proposed to create and fund a separate presidential preferential primary election for the first Tuesday in March. That would have left the other primaries back in May.
That separate presidential primary would cost the state an estimated $1.6 million.
But it should be noted that a bill (SB 765) similar to the one the governor is asking the legislature to consider was also proposed during the regular session by the same legislator who introduced the separate presidential primary legislation, Sen. Gary Stubblefield (R-6th, Branch). That bill, when considered beside SB 389, was discarded in committee in the state Senate.
That raises an interesting question: If the Arkansas state House opposes a separate primary, and the state Senate opposes moving a consolidated primary up to March 1, is this special session headed for an impasse? That depends. Did the state Senate committee really oppose the consolidated bill or did it just prefer the separate presidential primary option? If it is the former, then an standoff is likely. However, if it preferred the separate presidential primary option, it may not have opposed the consolidated primary option if it was the only one available.
Either way, that leaves some questions to be answered in a very short three day special session next week.
--
UPDATE (5/21/15): The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has more details on the presidential primary proposal from Governor Hutchinson. All the primaries would be moved from May to the first Tuesday in March, but the fiscal session of the state legislature would be shifted from February to April as well. That latter move would eliminate the conflict of legislators campaigning in the midst of their work on budgetary/appropriations matters. Hypothetically, campaigning would potentially affect deliberations on those matters. This is a long-standing norm in Arkansas and other states. It is also something FHQ has discussed before in the context of an Arkansas presidential primary move.
Democrats in the state legislative minority are raising holiday and weather concerns (similar to minority party Democrats in Nevada), but Republicans are countering that the change is being made in time for everyone to adjust (via the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette):
--
1 The text of press release on the call for a special session:
Governor Asa Hutchinson Makes Official Call for Special Legislative Session
Agenda Items Focus on Economic Development and Government Efficiencies
LITTLE ROCK – Governor Asa Hutchinson has made the official call to legislators for a special session of the 90th General Assembly that will convene Tuesday, May 26, 2015. Along with the official call, the Governor has announced all items on the special session agenda below.
Governor Hutchinson issued the following statement: “This limited agenda focuses on job creation and economic development, while highlighting government efficiencies that will ultimately result in savings to all Arkansas taxpayers.”
Agenda items are as follows:
To consider an Amendment 82 “super project” at Highland Industrial Park in Calhoun County.
To consider reorganization of state agencies to provide efficiencies, better services and savings:
» Merging the Arkansas Department of Rural Services (ADRS) with the Arkansas Economic Development Commission (AEDC)
» Merging the Arkansas Science & Technology Authority (ASTA) with the Arkansas Economic Development Commission (AEDC) » Merging the Arkansas Building Authority (ABA) with the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA)
» Merging the Division of Land Survey with the Arkansas Geographic Information Office (AGIO)
To make a minor fix to DWI law to assure continuation of federal highway funds.
To ensure that state law aligns with potential changes in federal law regarding farm-equipment traffic on a new section of interstate highway.
To correct technical errors made to bills when amendments were engrossed.
To move the full Arkansas primary elections from May to March.
To move the General Assembly’s fiscal session from February to April.
To honor Johnson County Deputy Sheriff Sonny Smith.
To confirm Gubernatorial appointments.
--
For our purposes here at FHQ the most noteworthy item on the governor's agenda for the session is "to move the full Arkansas primary elections from May to March". This is an expected move, but an interesting one. The bill (SB 389) that passed the state Senate during the regular session -- and was subsequently withdrawn after it was bottled up in committee on the House -- proposed to create and fund a separate presidential preferential primary election for the first Tuesday in March. That would have left the other primaries back in May.
That separate presidential primary would cost the state an estimated $1.6 million.
But it should be noted that a bill (SB 765) similar to the one the governor is asking the legislature to consider was also proposed during the regular session by the same legislator who introduced the separate presidential primary legislation, Sen. Gary Stubblefield (R-6th, Branch). That bill, when considered beside SB 389, was discarded in committee in the state Senate.
That raises an interesting question: If the Arkansas state House opposes a separate primary, and the state Senate opposes moving a consolidated primary up to March 1, is this special session headed for an impasse? That depends. Did the state Senate committee really oppose the consolidated bill or did it just prefer the separate presidential primary option? If it is the former, then an standoff is likely. However, if it preferred the separate presidential primary option, it may not have opposed the consolidated primary option if it was the only one available.
Either way, that leaves some questions to be answered in a very short three day special session next week.
--
UPDATE (5/21/15): The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has more details on the presidential primary proposal from Governor Hutchinson. All the primaries would be moved from May to the first Tuesday in March, but the fiscal session of the state legislature would be shifted from February to April as well. That latter move would eliminate the conflict of legislators campaigning in the midst of their work on budgetary/appropriations matters. Hypothetically, campaigning would potentially affect deliberations on those matters. This is a long-standing norm in Arkansas and other states. It is also something FHQ has discussed before in the context of an Arkansas presidential primary move.
Democrats in the state legislative minority are raising holiday and weather concerns (similar to minority party Democrats in Nevada), but Republicans are countering that the change is being made in time for everyone to adjust (via the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette):
[State Senate Democratic Leader Keith] Ingram said that moving all the state's primaries from May to March will create problems, lead to campaigning during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays and devastate state and local primary races if an ice storm occurs on primary day.
But [Speaker of the House, Republican Jeremy] Gillam said that "we are doing it early enough that everybody will have plenty of time to adjust the calendars, whether it be just on making a decision to run for office or how to conduct the elections.
--
1 The text of press release on the call for a special session:
Governor Asa Hutchinson Makes Official Call for Special Legislative Session
Agenda Items Focus on Economic Development and Government Efficiencies
LITTLE ROCK – Governor Asa Hutchinson has made the official call to legislators for a special session of the 90th General Assembly that will convene Tuesday, May 26, 2015. Along with the official call, the Governor has announced all items on the special session agenda below.
Governor Hutchinson issued the following statement: “This limited agenda focuses on job creation and economic development, while highlighting government efficiencies that will ultimately result in savings to all Arkansas taxpayers.”
Agenda items are as follows:
To consider an Amendment 82 “super project” at Highland Industrial Park in Calhoun County.
To consider reorganization of state agencies to provide efficiencies, better services and savings:
» Merging the Arkansas Department of Rural Services (ADRS) with the Arkansas Economic Development Commission (AEDC)
» Merging the Arkansas Science & Technology Authority (ASTA) with the Arkansas Economic Development Commission (AEDC) » Merging the Arkansas Building Authority (ABA) with the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA)
» Merging the Division of Land Survey with the Arkansas Geographic Information Office (AGIO)
To make a minor fix to DWI law to assure continuation of federal highway funds.
To ensure that state law aligns with potential changes in federal law regarding farm-equipment traffic on a new section of interstate highway.
To correct technical errors made to bills when amendments were engrossed.
To move the full Arkansas primary elections from May to March.
To move the General Assembly’s fiscal session from February to April.
To honor Johnson County Deputy Sheriff Sonny Smith.
To confirm Gubernatorial appointments.
--
Path to Nevada Presidential Primary May Be Steep in Assembly
The Nevada Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections convened on Tuesday, May 19. On its agenda was the recently-passed bill to move a consolidated primary -- including a new presidential primary -- to the last Tuesday in February.
This is now the sixth time this session that a committee on either side of the Nevada capitol has heard testimony on the issue of trading in caucuses in the Silver state and replacing them with a presidential primary election. However, it is the first time that the switch has been discussed in the Assembly since it became clear that the Republican National Committee is pushing for a primary in the state for 2016. The RNC got a party line passage vote in the Nevada Senate a week ago that sent the matter over to the Assembly side.
That RNC involvement is really the only thing that has changed along with changes to the bills in both chambers the longer this legislative session has progressed. Well, the RNC has brought some more coverage, but the talking points have remained the same in these committee hearings and work sessions. And the people speaking for and against the primary and its timing have basically been the same core of folks through the previous five committee meetings.
The big story at this point is that minds really have not changed. Elections administrators, given the extra practice through repeated committee hearings, have refined their arguments but still balk at the possibility of a February primary (for all offices). Democrats are still against the move, but are satisfied enough with the out the bill gives them (to keep conducting caucuses) that they are not as concerned about upsetting the Democratic National Committee and losing the state's protected status at the beginning of the primary calendar. [There is little the state party can do on that anyway.] And the minor party representatives are still crying foul.
If none of that has changed, then why have proponents of the primary switch not adapted to counter those complaints? Arguing that turnout will be higher in a primary is a potentially great point, but repeatedly only pulling that out of the bag of tricks is not convincing enough to some on the LegOps committee in the Assembly. For instance, proponents could counter elections administrators complaints that it is tough train volunteers for the primary over the holidays or the arguments from some Democrats on the committee against campaigning over the holidays with an example. How did Illinois manage all of this with a consolidated primary on the first Tuesday in February 2008? Maybe that is a bad example. Illinois legislators liked that enough that they reverted to a mid-March primary for 2012.
But there are others. Texas will hold a consolidated primary on March 1, 2016. There may be complaints from elections officials in the Lone Star state, but FHQ has not heard them. They did not like the idea of moving the Texas primary to January, but they did not mind the March 1 date; only a week after the proposed primary date in Nevada. What is Texas doing to confront these same issues? Now, sure, there is a great deal of variation in election administration across states, but this might be something for proponents of the Nevada primary -- or perhaps the RNC -- to look into.
Time is running short. The regular legislative session is slated to end in Nevada on June 1 and there are Republicans on the LegOps committee who are not on board with the change. Tick, tick, tick...
This is now the sixth time this session that a committee on either side of the Nevada capitol has heard testimony on the issue of trading in caucuses in the Silver state and replacing them with a presidential primary election. However, it is the first time that the switch has been discussed in the Assembly since it became clear that the Republican National Committee is pushing for a primary in the state for 2016. The RNC got a party line passage vote in the Nevada Senate a week ago that sent the matter over to the Assembly side.
That RNC involvement is really the only thing that has changed along with changes to the bills in both chambers the longer this legislative session has progressed. Well, the RNC has brought some more coverage, but the talking points have remained the same in these committee hearings and work sessions. And the people speaking for and against the primary and its timing have basically been the same core of folks through the previous five committee meetings.
The big story at this point is that minds really have not changed. Elections administrators, given the extra practice through repeated committee hearings, have refined their arguments but still balk at the possibility of a February primary (for all offices). Democrats are still against the move, but are satisfied enough with the out the bill gives them (to keep conducting caucuses) that they are not as concerned about upsetting the Democratic National Committee and losing the state's protected status at the beginning of the primary calendar. [There is little the state party can do on that anyway.] And the minor party representatives are still crying foul.
If none of that has changed, then why have proponents of the primary switch not adapted to counter those complaints? Arguing that turnout will be higher in a primary is a potentially great point, but repeatedly only pulling that out of the bag of tricks is not convincing enough to some on the LegOps committee in the Assembly. For instance, proponents could counter elections administrators complaints that it is tough train volunteers for the primary over the holidays or the arguments from some Democrats on the committee against campaigning over the holidays with an example. How did Illinois manage all of this with a consolidated primary on the first Tuesday in February 2008? Maybe that is a bad example. Illinois legislators liked that enough that they reverted to a mid-March primary for 2012.
But there are others. Texas will hold a consolidated primary on March 1, 2016. There may be complaints from elections officials in the Lone Star state, but FHQ has not heard them. They did not like the idea of moving the Texas primary to January, but they did not mind the March 1 date; only a week after the proposed primary date in Nevada. What is Texas doing to confront these same issues? Now, sure, there is a great deal of variation in election administration across states, but this might be something for proponents of the Nevada primary -- or perhaps the RNC -- to look into.
Time is running short. The regular legislative session is slated to end in Nevada on June 1 and there are Republicans on the LegOps committee who are not on board with the change. Tick, tick, tick...
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Arkansas Governor Promises SEC Presidential Primary Will Be on Special Session Agenda
Arkansas is a week away from convening a supposed special session of the state legislature, but there has been no official call nor a list of agenda items from Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) yet. That appears to be coming on Wednesday, May 20.
However, the governor has made assurances to the sponsor of the two regular session SEC primary bills that the presidential primary date would be on the agenda for one of the likely two planned special sessions; one to deal with economic development next week and another to deal with Medicare in the future. Though the separate presidential primary bill was the one that moved (before stalling) during the regular session, Hutchinson has hinted that a new version of the bill to move all of the Arkansas primaries, including the presidential primary, from May to the first Tuesday in March may be the preferred option for the special session.
Such a bill would have the effect of lengthening the general election campaigns of state legislators among other officeholders in the Natural state. That has its costs but is different than creating and funding a separate presidential primary election.
For now, there is an answer to the question of whether the primary will make it onto the special session docket. It will, but it is not clear the session in which it will be brought up. Time will tell.
However, the governor has made assurances to the sponsor of the two regular session SEC primary bills that the presidential primary date would be on the agenda for one of the likely two planned special sessions; one to deal with economic development next week and another to deal with Medicare in the future. Though the separate presidential primary bill was the one that moved (before stalling) during the regular session, Hutchinson has hinted that a new version of the bill to move all of the Arkansas primaries, including the presidential primary, from May to the first Tuesday in March may be the preferred option for the special session.
Such a bill would have the effect of lengthening the general election campaigns of state legislators among other officeholders in the Natural state. That has its costs but is different than creating and funding a separate presidential primary election.
For now, there is an answer to the question of whether the primary will make it onto the special session docket. It will, but it is not clear the session in which it will be brought up. Time will tell.
Monday, May 18, 2015
Legislation on Cusp of Introduction Would Shift Pennsylvania Presidential Primary to March 15
Representative Keith Greiner (R-43rd, Lancaster) on Monday, May 18 announced his intention to introduce legislation to shift the Pennsylvania presidential primary from April up to March:
Without the language of the bill available, there are a great many questions left unanswered here. The largest of them is whether the bill calls for moving the entire consolidated set of primaries including the presidential primary up to March or if a separate presidential primary will be created and scheduled for March 15. That the primaries have all remained concurrent has been one of the major deterrents to Pennsylvania moving in the part (as it has been for a number of states that tend to be toward the end of the calendar). A separate presidential primary in a large state like Pennsylvania would be costly, but so too would increasing the length of the general election for all others seeking other offices under the alternative move.
This move would potentially pull Pennsylvania away from an small mid-Atlantic regional primary with Maryland and Delaware and align them with Florida, Illinois, Missouri and possibly Ohio on March 15. That is a significant line up of states.
However, it should be noted that Republicans are differently motivated this cycle than Democrats are. That is true in the commonwealth as well. Pennsylvania Republicans may value that earlier primary date, but Democrats in the state may value the coalition with Maryland and Delaware in April more. It means bonus delegates for clustering and for holding a later primary. That calculation could play a role in this as Governor Tom Wolf (D) may disagree with a Republican controlled legislature if it passes this upcoming bill.
FHQ will hold further comment until the bill is available.
However, there are some factual inaccuracies in Rep. Greiner's memorandum above and other talking points circulated to the press.
First, Pennsylvania would not retain any winner-take-all allocation. The DNC mandates proportionality in every state. Both parties, following state law, have directly elected delegates in presidential primary elections in the past. Those delegate candidates are listed on the ballot with no indication of the presidential candidate with whom they are aligned and in a section of the ballot separate from the presidential preference vote. That presidential preference vote is largely meaningless. It has no bearing on the allocation of delegates. That is determined by the direct election of the delegates. That makes Pennsylvania a loophole primary. If this bill is passed and signed into law, Pennsylvania would end up on the same date as another loophole primary in Illinois.
Second, FHQ would argue that Rep. Greiner underestimated just how many states are or will be ahead of Pennsylvania on the 2016 presidential primary calendar. Bear in mind that most of the caucus states will likely fall some time in March in order to complete the full caucuses/convention process in time for the national conventions. The better way to assess where Pennsylvania is in the order is to count the number of states behind them, the vast majority of whom are locked into their current calendar positions. By that measure, Pennsylvania is somewhere in the upper 30s in the order. And Washington, DC is behind them, all the way at the end.
Legislation for an Earlier Presidential Primary Date in Pennsylvania
In the near future I intend to introduce legislation that will change the date of Pennsylvania’s presidential primary from the fourth Tuesday of April to the third Tuesday of March.
The lateness of Pennsylvania’s presidential primary diminishes its significance for voters of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Pennsylvania’s presidential primary should have a significant impact on the process of selecting presidential candidates, to reflect our standing as “The Keystone State.”
Achieving this goal is accomplished simply by changing the date of Pennsylvania’s presidential primary.
By moving the primary to the third Tuesday in March, there is no loss of delegates for either party and our primaries will remain "winner-take-all" for both parties’ primary elections, as they have been historically been in the Commonwealth.
I hope you will join me in supporting this important legislation.Throughout the post-reform era, the Pennsylvania primary has been locked on the fourth Tuesday in April. The one exception is the 2000 cycle when the primaries in the Keystone state and Wisconsin coincided on the first Tuesday in April. Moving into March, then, would be new territory for Pennsylvania.
Without the language of the bill available, there are a great many questions left unanswered here. The largest of them is whether the bill calls for moving the entire consolidated set of primaries including the presidential primary up to March or if a separate presidential primary will be created and scheduled for March 15. That the primaries have all remained concurrent has been one of the major deterrents to Pennsylvania moving in the part (as it has been for a number of states that tend to be toward the end of the calendar). A separate presidential primary in a large state like Pennsylvania would be costly, but so too would increasing the length of the general election for all others seeking other offices under the alternative move.
This move would potentially pull Pennsylvania away from an small mid-Atlantic regional primary with Maryland and Delaware and align them with Florida, Illinois, Missouri and possibly Ohio on March 15. That is a significant line up of states.
However, it should be noted that Republicans are differently motivated this cycle than Democrats are. That is true in the commonwealth as well. Pennsylvania Republicans may value that earlier primary date, but Democrats in the state may value the coalition with Maryland and Delaware in April more. It means bonus delegates for clustering and for holding a later primary. That calculation could play a role in this as Governor Tom Wolf (D) may disagree with a Republican controlled legislature if it passes this upcoming bill.
FHQ will hold further comment until the bill is available.
However, there are some factual inaccuracies in Rep. Greiner's memorandum above and other talking points circulated to the press.
First, Pennsylvania would not retain any winner-take-all allocation. The DNC mandates proportionality in every state. Both parties, following state law, have directly elected delegates in presidential primary elections in the past. Those delegate candidates are listed on the ballot with no indication of the presidential candidate with whom they are aligned and in a section of the ballot separate from the presidential preference vote. That presidential preference vote is largely meaningless. It has no bearing on the allocation of delegates. That is determined by the direct election of the delegates. That makes Pennsylvania a loophole primary. If this bill is passed and signed into law, Pennsylvania would end up on the same date as another loophole primary in Illinois.
Second, FHQ would argue that Rep. Greiner underestimated just how many states are or will be ahead of Pennsylvania on the 2016 presidential primary calendar. Bear in mind that most of the caucus states will likely fall some time in March in order to complete the full caucuses/convention process in time for the national conventions. The better way to assess where Pennsylvania is in the order is to count the number of states behind them, the vast majority of whom are locked into their current calendar positions. By that measure, Pennsylvania is somewhere in the upper 30s in the order. And Washington, DC is behind them, all the way at the end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)