The Electoral College Map (6/27/16)

Latest Update

NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2016 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.

Polling Quick Hits:

Changes (June 27)
State	Before	After
Colorado	Lean Clinton	Toss Up Clinton
Maine	Strong Clinton	Lean Clinton
Wisconsin	Strong Clinton	Lean Clinton

Arkansas:
The Hendrix College survey out of the Natural state provides yet another poll in what has been a deep red state over the last four presidential election cycles. Anything out of reliably red states is valuable data at this point as those states are the most underpolled in 2016. Arkansas was the sixth most Republican state in 2012. There were no polls there that showed the race then any closer than 20 points. Yet, in 2016, the first survey out of the state has presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, up only 11 points. Sure, it is early and this is just one poll, but Arkansas joins Kansas, Utah and Texas as red states that are closer in the early polling of 2016 than in the past.

Colorado:
Yes, polling in gap states like Arkansas, where there has been little polling so far is valuable, but battleground polling is just as important. That is especially true in Obama-era swing state, Colorado, where polling has been severely lacking in 2016. Much of that has to do with the fact that Republicans in the Centennial state opted not to have a preference vote in their March caucuses (and thus there was less need to poll), but even given that, there has been a surprising shortage of survey work in Colorado. However, the first 2016 survey in the 2012 tipping point state shows a tight race.  Early on the overall picture on the state level has shown a slight swing (about a point and a half) toward the Democrats since 2012. However, Colorado -- and this is reflected in just one poll after all -- has drawn closer and toward the Republicans.

Florida:
YouGov also polled in Florida and essentially reaffirmed the small advantage Clinton has had in the Sunshine state in the FHQ graduated weighted average. Since May there has been a range in polling there from Trump +1 to Clinton +8 and this survey falls right in the sweet spot in between.

Maine:
The polling from UNH in New Hampshire has been widely variable over the last two presidential election cycles, so take their first foray into Maine for 2016 with something of a grain of salt. Clinton's seven point lead statewide is narrower than anything since 2000 and is actually closer to the eight point edge (Bill) Clinton had in the Pine Tree state in 1992. The common bond across those cycles was a third party candidate taking more than five percent of the vote. That share -- the one for "others" -- in this UNH poll was at 19 percent. The key will be whether that trend persists in subsequent polling. Not far behind that in importance is if Trump maintains a lead in the second congressional district (a result that would net him an electoral vote even if he loses statewide).

[*It is worth noting that the congressional district level samples in this poll consisted of fewer than 250 respondents.]

North Carolina:
Like Florida, the YouGov poll in North Carolina basically was in line with where the average has had it: tipped ever so slightly toward Clinton. The Tar Heel state is on the Clinton side of the partisan line in the Electoral College Spectrum below, but it continues to be superfluous to the Democrats' efforts to retain the White House. Keeping it out of the Trump column makes it very difficult for him to get to 270. That is even more true when the alignment of states is considered.

Texas:
On some level, one could argue that the YouGov survey in Texas echoes the closer than typical result from the recently released Leland Beatty poll. The margins are similar (in the Lean Trump range) and Trump is underperforming Romney's 2012 share of the vote in the Lone Star state. However, the Leland poll likely would have been slightly different had the nearly one-third of the respondents in the undecided category had been pushed on their preference. That may not have closed the gap between Romney and Trump, but it likely would have decreased it some. Still, the picture in Texas, for now, is one of a red state staying red in 2016 but taking on a lighter shade in the process.

Wisconsin:
The last of the YouGov polls is currently an outlier in the context of the other polling in Wisconsin. There have been other polls in the Badger state that have shown a Lean Clinton range margin, but this is the tightest of any of the 2016 polling the state. The Trump share is in line with where it has been in other polling, but the Clinton share is at its lowest point of any survey of Wisconsin. That is enough to bring Wisconsin just below the line between Strong and Lean Clinton. However, the state remains on the Watch List below.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
HI-42 (7)	WA-12 (164)	VA-13 (249)	GA-16 (164)	LA-8 (55)
VT-3 (10)	NJ-14 (178)	PA-203 (269/289)	MS-6 (148)	SD-3 (47)
MD-10 (20)	WI-10 (188)	FL-293 (298/269)	UT-6 (142)	ND-3 (44)
RI-4 (24)	NV-6 (194)	OR-7 (305/240)	AK-3 (136)	NE-5 (41)
MA-11 (35)	MI-16 (210)	IA-6 (311/233)	IN-11 (133)	AL-9 (36)
IL-20 (55)	NM-5 (215)	AZ-11 (322/227)	TX-38 (122)	KY-8 (27)
NY-29 (84)	CT-7 (222)	OH-18 (340/216)	SC-9 (84)	WV-5 (19)
DE-3 (87)	ME-4 (226)	NC-15 (355/198)	TN-11 (75)	ID-4 (14)
CA-55 (142)	KS-6 (232)	CO-9 (364/183)	AR-6 (64)	OK-7 (10)
MN-10 (152)	NH-4 (236)	MO-10 (174)	MT-3 (58)	WY-3 (3)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Pennsylvania (all Clinton's toss up states plus Pennsylvania), he would have 289 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics. To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College. 3 Florida and Pennsylvania are collectively the states where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. If those two states are separated with Clinton winning Pennsylvania and Trump, Florida, then there would be a tie in the Electoral College.

NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.

The Watch List adds Arkansas and Colorado, and loses North Carolina from the the previous (6/23/16) update.

The Watch List1
State	Switch
Alaska	from Lean Trump	to Toss Up Trump
Arkansas	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Colorado	from Toss Up Clinton	to Toss Up Trump
Missouri	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Clinton
New Hampshire	from Lean Clinton	to Toss Up Clinton
New Jersey	from Strong Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Pennsylvania	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Tennessee	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Utah	from Toss Up Trump	to Lean Trump
Virginia	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Wisconsin	from Lean Clinton	to Strong Clinton
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Recent Posts:
On the Federal Lawsuit to Unbind Virginia Delegates

The Electoral College Map (6/23/16)

The Latest Installment of Stop Trump and the Rules

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: ARKANSAS

Updated: 3.3.16

This is part six of a series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation rules by state. The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2016 -- especially relative to 2012 -- in order to gauge the potential impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. For this cycle the RNC recalibrated its rules, cutting the proportionality window in half (March 1-14), but tightening its definition of proportionality as well. While those alterations will trigger subtle changes in reaction at the state level, other rules changes -- particularly the new binding requirement placed on state parties -- will be more noticeable. 

ARKANSAS

Election type: primary
Date: March 1 
Number of delegates: 40 [25 at-large, 12 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: proportional
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2012: proportional primary

--
Arkansas is a quirky one. That was true in 2012 and is true in 2016 as well.

Though the Republican Party in the Natural state arrives at proportionality differently than almost any state -- in or out of the proportionality window -- that method has not really changed in the four years since 2012. What has changed most noticeably is that the Arkansas primary is much earlier in 2016 than it was in 2012. The state legislature uprooted the usual May primaries -- presidential and those for statewide and congressional offices -- and moved them to March to coincide with a number of other states in the SEC primary coalition.

And the the Republicans in the state brought their unique delegate allocation formula with them.

As the Arkansas primary fits firmly within the March 1-14 proportionality window on the Republican presidential primary calendar, the method has to be proportional. Again, it is in 2016 as was the case in 2012 (despite not being in the proportionality window four years ago). But how the Arkansas GOP arrives at proportionality is different.

The first consideration in the Arkansas allocation is what it takes to qualify for delegates. And, depending on the level -- statewide or congressional district -- the threshold is different.

At-large/automatic delegates
To receive any of the 28 statewide, at-large and automatic delegates a candidate must clear the 15% threshold. There is no rounding up from, say, 14.5%. A candidate must have a minimum of 15% of the statewide vote be allocated any delegates. However, the resultant allocation of those delegates to candidates is not strictly proportional.

First, each candidate over 15% is awarded one delegate. If one candidate receives a majority of the vote statewide, then that candidate is allocated the remaining at-large/automatic delegates. So, if four candidates clear the 15% barrier and one of those won more than 50% of the vote, then candidates 2-4 each receive one delegate and the top finisher statewide receives the other 25 at-large delegates (1 delegate for clearing 15% and 24 additional delegates for winning a majority statewide). That the other three candidates get any delegates out of this makes the majority trigger here a winner-take-most rather than winner-take-all trigger.

If, however, none of the four candidates in the above scenario wins a statewide majority, then the allocation is more proportional. More proportional, but not strictly proportional. The first step, allocating one delegate to those over 15%, would still have happened. All four candidates would have one delegate. The remaining 21 at-large delegates would be proportionally allocated by rule to the top three finishers statewide. In other words, the candidate finishing fourth statewide -- over 15% in this scenario -- would be stuck on the one delegate and frozen out of any additional delegates.

Let's assume the statewide vote looks something like this¹:
Trump -- 30.1%
Carson -- 18.9%
Rubio -- 15.3%
Cruz -- 15.0%

Again, each candidate would receive one delegate to start for clearing the 15% threshold. The remaining 24 at-large/automatic delegates would be proportionally allocated among the top three. Those top three -- Trump, Carson and Rubio -- would have the following, what FHQ will call "real allocation percentages"²:
Trump -- 46.8%
Carson -- 29.4%
Rubio -- 23.8%

That translates to an allocation of those 24 delegates that looks like this:
Trump -- 11.232
Carson -- 7.056
Rubio -- 5.712

***
It is at this point that the language of the allocation rules gets a bit murky:

The remaining at-large delegates and alternates shall be allocated among the three candidates receiving the greatest vote statewide in proportion to their votes with any fractional proportion of a delegate/alternate being rounded up for the candidate receiving the greater number of votes statewide.

Now, if that said greatest rather than greater, then Trump would be the beneficiary of any and all fractional delegates. Rubio would receive 5 delegates and Carson 7. That would bump Trump up to 12 delegates  plus the one for having cleared 15%. But saying greater instead makes that less clear. At most, though, it means the transference of one delegate. In a true "round any fraction above .5 up" scenario, Rubio would have 6 delegates. However, if all the fractional delegates go to the top votergetter, then Rubio would have 5 delegates with that sizable fraction (.712) heading to Trump.

Regardless, the statewide allocation would end up approximating something like the following:
Trump -- 13
Carson -- 8
Rubio -- 6
Cruz -- 1

What we can take away from this is that the Arkansas rules are designed to benefit those at the top. First, anyone over 15%, but then the top three and then seemingly the winner when it comes to the method of rounding. This is even clearer when one considers that fewer scenarios are laid out in the Arkansas plan than is true in some other delegate allocation plans out there. What FHQ means by that is that there are no specific rules put forth describing the allocation if only one candidate clears the 15% threshold statewide. Should just one candidate receive more than 15% statewide, then that candidate would, absent any rules describing alternatives, receive all 28 at-large and automatic delegates. Like Alabama, the Arkansas plan potentially takes a chaotic primary process -- one with a lot of candidates -- and translates that into a less chaotic allocation of the delegates.
***
UPDATE:
Between July when the above rules were given the green light by the Arkansas Republican Party State Committee and September when they were approved by the Executive Committee, the discrepancy above -- the greater/greatest rounding rule -- was cleaned up and removed. Simpler language replaced it calling for the rounding of fractional at-large to the nearest whole number.

FHQ pulled and posted the July rules that were still posted on the Arkansas Republican Party website in mid-November. The September update was not posted there until after that point.

Congressional district delegates
The rules for allocating the delegates in each of Arkansas' four congressional districts (12 total) are less complex. There is only one threshold; a ceiling threshold. If a candidate wins a majority in a district, then that candidate would be allocated all three delegates from that district. That is a winner-take-all trigger. However, if no candidate wins a majority then the top two candidates split the three delegates in the district. The winner receives two delegates and the runner-up the other remaining delegate. This qualifies as proportional under the Republican National Committee rules, if only by default. At the end of the day, there are only so many ways to proportionally allocate three delegates.

--
While the plan described above paints a picture of a process that takes chaos and converts it to order via the allocation of delegates to a limited number of competitors, there is a more chaotic caveat to also consider. The delegate slots are only reserved for a candidate to a certain extent. Candidates will only hold those delegate slots as long as there are delegate candidates in the district and state meetings where they are elected to fill them. If a candidate does not have enough delegate candidates to fill his or her available spots, then the unfilled positions go to the candidate with the highest number of votes -- either in the district or statewide -- and available delegate candidates to fill the void.

There are two things to consider when looking at this. The first is that such a process provides for the orderly transference of delegate slots from a candidate who is going to or has dropped out of the race. Presumably, a low finishing candidate drops out and those delegate slots get transferred to the winning candidate.

Yet, one would surely want to think about the variation in organization across the campaigns in this scenario as well. It is a system that seemingly rewards the winners, but could also reward organization too. In the event, then, that none of the top finishers drops out there is still a scenario where delegate positions could move around depending on organization. And this would not necessarily always benefit the winner either statewide or in the congressional districts.

Take our example from above; the one where Trump, Carson, Rubio and Cruz win some statewide delegates. Trump did pretty well in the vote and won 12 hypothetical delegates. But assume for a moment that Trump does not have 13 Trump-aligned delegate candidates ready to roll. Let's say he only has 8 to run for those 13 slots. In that case, there would be five slots that would move on to another candidate. If Carson had not only 8 delegate candidates to run for the statewide slots he won, but 20 (or even just 12), then those four unfilled Trump slots would move to him. If Carson did not have any extras or not enough extra delegate candidates, then those slots would be transferred to the next highest votegetter with a surplus of delegate candidates.

Winning or getting into the top five or six in Arkansas is one thing, then, but there is a premium placed on organizing enough delegate candidates -- an unofficial slate of them really -- to actually fill the delegate slots allocated based on the primary results.

--
After all of that is settled, the Arkansas delegates are bound to their particular candidates for the first ballot at the national convention (or if the candidate to whom they are bound drops out after the selection process).


--
State allocation rules are archived here.



--
¹ These numbers are taken from the Huffington Post Pollster national averages (set to "less smoothing") on November 14, 2015. To stay true to the four candidate scenario described above, we will add 2.7 percentage points to Ted Cruz's total to get the Texas senator to 15%. The numbers other than having four candidates over 15% are inconsequential. The intent is to simulate the allocation in Arkansas.

² That is the proportion of the vote each candidate received, but calculating the percentage as if only those three candidates (and the votes they received) were involved in the primary.

Recent Posts:
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: ALASKA

The Extent of Jeb Bush's Alabama "Problem"

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: ALABAMA

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

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.

Recent Posts:
Upon Further Review: Nevada Assembly Committee Passes Presidential Primary Bill

Arkansas House Sends SEC Primary Bill Off to Governor Hutchinson

Arkansas Senate Passes Compromise SEC Primary Bill

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

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.

Recent Posts:
Arkansas Senate Passes Compromise SEC Primary Bill

Nevada Assembly Committee Rejects Senate-Passed Presidential Primary Bill

Ohio Senate Passes March 15 Presidential Primary Bill

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

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.

Recent Posts:
Nevada Assembly Committee Rejects Senate-Passed Presidential Primary Bill

Ohio Senate Passes March 15 Presidential Primary Bill

Arkansas House Passes SEC Primary Bill

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

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.

Recent Posts:
Identical SEC Primary Bills Introduced With Mixed Reviews in Arkansas

Ohio Presidential Primary Bill Advances from Senate Committee

Request Denied, Minnesota Republicans Will Bind Delegates Based on Precinct Caucuses

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

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:

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.

Recent Posts:
Ohio Presidential Primary Bill Advances from Senate Committee

Request Denied, Minnesota Republicans Will Bind Delegates Based on Precinct Caucuses

First Presidential Primary Bill of Arkansas Special Session Does Not Call for SEC Primary Date

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

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.

Recent Posts:
Pennsylvania Parties Not That Open to Presidential Primary Change

Assembly Amendment Would Create Separate Nevada Presidential Primary

Kansas House Passes Bill Eliminating Presidential Primary

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

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):

[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.

--

Recent Posts:
The SEC Primary, Seriously Y'all

Path to Nevada Presidential Primary May Be Steep in Assembly

Candidates Don't Always Choose the Delegates

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

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.

Recent Posts:
Legislation on Cusp of Introduction Would Shift Pennsylvania Presidential Primary to March 15

FHQ at 8 and the Future

An Update on Connecticut Republicans and 2016 Caucuses

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

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.

Recent Posts:
Hogan Signature Sends Maryland Presidential Primary to April 26

Hawaii Republicans Confirm March 8 Presidential Caucuses for 2016

Kansas Democrats Set for March 5 Caucuses in 2016

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

SEC Primary Bill Halted in Arkansas

Resistance in the Arkansas state House to the creation of a separate presidential primary election has killed for now the effort in the Natural state to join the SEC primary. Michael R. Wickline at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette walks through the particulars:

Stubblefield said he withdrew his SB389 from further consideration in the House State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee in the waning days of this year's legislative session after it cleared the Senate on March 27. 

He said the House committee chairman Rep. Nate Bell, R-Mena, told him that he would kill the bill in the committee. 

Bell could not be reached for comment by telephone Monday afternoon or Tuesday. 

After Stubblefield introduced SB389 on Feb. 17, Bell tweeted "I oppose split primary" and "Will it be listed as donation to Huck?" -- an apparent reference to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who ran for the GOP nomination for president in 2008 and is considering doing so again in 2016.

There were two bills to shift the date on which the presidential primary in Arkansas will be conducted in 2016 that Senator Gary Stubblefield (R-6th, Branch) introduced during the 2015 state legislative session. One sought to create a separate presidential primary while the other would have moved all of the May primaries (presidential primary included) to the first Tuesday in March. The former passed the Senate but was blocked in the state House by Representative Nate Bell (R-20th, Mena), the chairman of the committee to which SB 389 had been referred for consideration in the lower chamber.

Rather than see the bill die a slow death as the session concluded (due to end next week), Stubblefield, the legislation's sponsor, withdrew the bill.

But perhaps the state Senate advanced the wrong bill. Bell is opposed to the separate primaries, but there was an option to move them all up from May to March. This gets at the heart of the problem for states in the position Arkansas is in. Do you create a separate primary which carries with it a price tag (and a negative impact on turnout in a later primary for other offices) or do you move everything to an earlier date that would have state legislators campaigning for renomination during the state legislative session (and would lengthen their general election campaign)? FHQ raised this predicament with Arkansas in mind back in December. It was always going to be a steeper climb for Arkansas because the decision-making calculus is different there than it is in Alabama or Mississippi. That difference proved problematic.

However, the SEC primary idea is not dead in Arkansas. It is dead for the 2015 regular session of the Arkansas General Assembly, but the idea could be resurrected in a special legislative session. Arkansas, like we saw with Missouri in 2011, grants the governor the power to not only call a special session of the legislature, but to determine on what the session will be focused. Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson (R), according to Wickline, has already signaled that a special session could be called to deal with the recommendations of a legislative task force on the state's Medicaid expansion.

Hutchinson could also add the SEC primary idea to the agenda. And he favors the earlier primary:

"Though the governor is supportive of moving the presidential primary, he has no intention of calling a special session for this issue," Hutchinson spokesman Kane Webb said. 

"As to the money to pay for a separate presidential election, it's his understanding that the funds are in the budget for this," Webb said.

That roadblock still exists on the House side.

Recent Posts:
Republican Proportionality Rules Changes for 2016, Part One

Idaho Presidential Primary Funding Bill Signed into Law

Legislation Introduced to Move Ohio Presidential Primary Back a Week to March 15

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.