For Virginia Democrats, A Primary That May Not Be

One of the most interesting things to FHQ about the ballot in the Virginia primary being set late last week -- no, not the part about Newt and the chocolate factory -- was the news that the State Board of Elections may/will cancel the Democratic primary. The first inclination here at FHQ was to go back to the Virginia Democratic delegate selection plan and see when the caucuses to elect the actual delegates are to take place next year. As it turns out, however, those April 21 and 23 city and county caucuses will not serve as the back up plan for the presidential preference vote. Those meetings will continue to hold the role of beginning the delegate selection process -- identifying those who will be bound to what candidates at the national convention -- but there will be no vote on presidential preference in the process; at a primary or caucus.

Well, that doesn't seem entirely fair. Democratic voters don't get a choice with a canceled primary. Remember, though, that President Obama would have been the only choice on the ballot anyway. [Write ins are not an option.] The primary, then, would have been meaningless. As such, the plan is to continue as if the primary -- for Democrats -- was happening on March 6 simultaneous to the two man contest on the Republican side and allocate/bind the delegates accordingly. Obama would have received 100% of the vote and thus all of the Virginia Democratic delegates.

...and he will at the state convention anyway.

Thanks to Virginia DNC member, Frank Leone, for fielding my questions and filling in the gaps.

Recent Posts:

Republican Delegate Allocation Rules: 2012 vs. 2008

Don't Bet on the Iowa Caucuses Going Anywhere in 2016

Deal Would Push Consolidated Texas Primary back to April 3

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

Pending a Likely Waiver, Minnesota Democrats Will Caucus on February 7

The original plan to hold caucuses on February 7 and release the results on March 6 is back on the table for the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. According to the party, that option was never off the table despite a change in the posted delegate selection plans. That same delegate selection plan is still posted on the DFL website, but both the events calendar and the party's official call for precinct caucuses/convention indicate that Democratic caucuses -- including a presidential preference vote -- will take place on February 7. To hold a vote on February 7, however, the DFL will need a waiver from the Democratic National Committee as that date violates the national party delegate selection rules on timing.

Now, this one is complicated because Minnesota is the rare state to have a law on the books that lays out a specific date on which a caucus is to be held. Usually caucus states are states where the state party not only picks up the tab for the contest but also has the latitude to set the date. In the case of Minnesota, the state party is opting into a state-funded option. It ends up being a caucus under the typical primary set up (in terms of funding). What this means for the parties in Minnesota is that they can opt into the state-funded contest or pay for precinct-level caucuses themselves. As is the case with primary states, the lure of a state-funded option is too hard to pass up.

Truth be told, any state party has the option of pulling out of a state-funded contest, but few do. For the Minnesota DFL, though, there is a conflict between the desire to use the state-funded -- February 7 -- option and the DNC delegate selection rules that prohibit contests -- in non-exempt states -- prior to the first Tuesday in March. The stars may align for the DFL. First of all, the race for the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination is not one that is all that consequential in the grand scheme of things. Presidential Obama will be renominated and will not face a serious challenge in the process. That makes the primaries and caucuses next year largely meaningless and as such the rules, more or less, take a back seat. The DNC, in other words, would be much more willing to look the other way in 2012 than in a year in which there was a competitive nomination race.

Secondly, "looking the other way" or not, he Minnesota DFL has a fairly strong argument for a waiver in the first place. Yes, the party did not seemingly propose an alternative to the state election law-triggered first Tuesday in February date before March 1 of this year, but Democrats in the Minnesota legislature did rush at the last minute to introduce legislation moving the caucuses back to the first Tuesday in March -- a compliant date under both the DNC and RNC rules. That legislation, however, gained no traction in either Republican-controlled chamber. And that lack of partisan control at the state legislative level is a factor that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee considers when looking at a waiver submission. Democrats in the legislature, then, "took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions in these rules" (Democratic Delegate Selection Rules, 20.C.7).

Finally, the fact that the Minnesota DFL is attempting to seal the results from the February 7 caucuses for release on March 6 demonstrates a certain willingness on the state party to meet the national party halfway. The DFL cannot comply with the timing of its "first determining step", but it can attempt to hold the results until the time at which the window for non-exempt states to hold contests begins.

In an earlier critique of this plan, FHQ wondered aloud about the precedent such a waiver from the DNC might set. That, however, was written at a time when it was unclear just how much of a threat Minnesota's caucuses on both sides of the aisle would affect the earliest states. Now that Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina are set -- for dates well ahead of Minnesota -- the February 7 date represents no threat. With the damage already done, Minnesota is much more likely to get a pass in 2012 on a non-compliant February date than if this had or will happen in a year when the Democratic nomination is at stake.

Recent Posts:

With September State Primary Set, Massachusetts Presidential Primary Looks Locked in on March 6

Housekeeping: North Carolina Legislation to Move Presidential Primary to March No Longer Active

Ohio Presidential Primary Back to March? ...Again?

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

Housekeeping: Minnesota Democratic Caucuses on March 6

A while back FHQ wondered aloud about the fate of the Minnesota Democratic Farm-Labor Party's efforts to hold a February 7 caucus vote to allocate Democratic convention delegates, but to release the results on March 6. That delegate selection plan faced an uncertain future before the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee as we attempted to point out then. Obviously, any vote from a non-exempt state prior to March 6 is a violation of the 2012 Democratic delegate selection rules and would thus make any state in violation vulnerable to sanction from the national party.

FHQ brings this up now because Minnesota was among the states that gained delegate selection plan approval from the Rules and Bylaws Committee yesterday. We were, then, understandably curious to find out if the earlier plan had passed muster with the committee or if changes had been made in the interim in order to win committee approval. The answer from the Minnesota DFL appears to be the latter. A revised plan noting the incorrect nature of the February 7 caucuses has subsequently been posted on the DFL website.¹ The original post on the site has also been tagged "corrected version".

Now, there is no record of the original plan,^{2 3} and there's no real way of knowing the sequence of this change. The revised plan is dated April 16, just a couple of days following the closing of the public comment period. Again, there is no real way of knowing whether someone brought this to the attention of the DFL and they made the change under the guise of a "corrected version" or if there were at least two plans under consideration -- one of which was the vote-now-release-results-later plan -- and the wrong one was posted at the opening of the public comment period.

In the end, it does not particularly matter. What does matter is that the Minnesota DFL will hold caucus meetings on March 6 and not the February 7 date on which their Republican counterparts will initiate their delegate selection process. That, in turn, creates a change in the 2012 presidential primary calendar.

...and map:

[Click to Enlarge]

--

¹ Here is that note from the Minnesota DFL:

The draft with a February 7, 2012 Caucus date that was posed on March 17th was an incorrect version of the MN Natonal Delegate Selection Plan. The correct version is now available by clicking the below link. This version contains a March 6th, 2012 Precinct Caucus date to comply with National Democratic Committee Delegate Selection Rules.

² I'm kicking myself in retrospect for not stripping out that language from Section III.A in the mistaken delegate selection plan and posting it verbatim in my earlier comments.

³ Fabulous person that he is, Tony Roza at The Green Papers read this post and sent FHQ a copy of the originally-posted Minnesota DFL delegate selection play. Here is the language from Section 1.B.1 & 2 :

1. Minnesota will use a proportional representation system based on the results of the presidential preference ballots cast at the precinct caucuses for apportioning delegates to the 2012 Democratic National Convention. These ballot results will be announced on March 6, 2012.

2. The “first determining step” of Minnesota‟s delegate election process will occur on February 7, 2012, with precinct caucuses.

Major hat tip to Tony.

Recent Posts:

May 8 Primary: Opposition Emerges & Quashes West Virginia Republicans' March 6 Presidential Convention Proposal

How Does Florida Respond to an Arizona Presidential Primary on January 31?

What a January 31 Arizona Primary Does to the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

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

A Follow Up on Florida Dems and 2012 Presidential Primary/Caucus Delegate Allocation

FHQ got a nice clarification email from Florida Democratic Party spokesperson, Eric Jotkoff, this morning concerning the discrepancy between how he was quoted in the Tampa Tribune and what the party's draft delegate selection plan proposes in terms of the timing of the 2012 primary or caucus. My first thought yesterday upon reading the quote about the possibility of a June caucus (in the event the Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee (PPPDSC) chooses a date that is not compliant with both national parties' sets of delegate selection rules) was that that likely referred to the state party convention. That intuition was confirmed by Mr. Jotkoff's email of clarification. As he said:

“Democrats from across Florida would be invited to attend county caucuses held in April and May, which will be used to allocate the delegates appropriately and to elect Delegates to a State Convention in June where the National Convention Delegates will be selected."

Just to clarify, then, Florida Democrats will hold county caucuses between April 14 and May 5, 2012 to begin allocating delegates to the national convention in Charlotte, a process that will be finalized at the state convention in June. And again, this assumes that the PPPDSC selects a date for the presidential primary that is in violation of the national party rules (ie: before March 6, 2012).

--

As a side note, I hate it when state parties schedule caucuses like this (though it is certainly their right to determine the manner in which the party allocates delegates). I say that from a research standpoint. When delegate selection events occur on more than one day (ie: caucuses over the period of a weekend or several weeks), it is difficult to measure when that process is taking place. FHQ's rule of thumb has always been to use the earliest date in our data as opposed to, say, the median date. If the point of movement forward/earlier on the calendar is done under the premise that it gains more candidate/press attention, then the earliest point at which any delegate allocation occurs is the marginally better way of capturing that. That said, there are a few caveats to be made. First of all, caucuses receive less attention anyway (see Gurian 1986, 1990, 1993), and stretching that process out dilutes that impact further. Secondly, we are, after all, talking about an uncontested, in-party nomination process here. It isn't terribly consequential when Florida holds its caucuses (no offense intended). Obama will be the Democratic nominee regardless. My research has always focused on contests nominations anyway. Finally, what kind of a bonus will this net Florida Democrats? I suspect the DNC will treat the Florida caucuses as if they all occurred on April 14 and give Sunshine state Democrats a 10% bonus on their delegate total as opposed to the 15% bump that comes with a May or later date.

Recent Posts:

Florida Democrats Float Conditional Presidential Primary/Caucus Schedule

Bill to Cancel 2012 Washington Primary to be Signed May 12

Missouri Senate Adopts Conference Committee Substitute, Approves March Presidential Primary

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

Florida Democrats Float Conditional Presidential Primary/Caucus Schedule

NOTE: Please see the follow up post for a clarification on the timing of the county caucuses and state convention for Florida Democrats in 2012.

The Florida Democratic Party today released its draft 2012 delegate selection plan. Given the very real possibility that Governor Rick Scott (R) will sign HB 1355 into law and that that would create the Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee to schedule a presidential primary between the first Tuesday of January and the first Tuesday in March, Florida Democrats are facing a dilemma. They could allocate delegates during the likely non-compliant earlier primary and take the penalties from the DNC for violating the party's rules; repeating the 2008 scenario.¹ The alternative would be to hold a primary or caucus at the state party's expense on a non-compliant date or dates.

Florida Democrats appear to be leaning toward the latter:

"Should the Republicans break the rules, we will not be participating in the primary," said state Democratic Party spokesman Eric Jotkoff. "Democrats from across Florida would be invited to attend county caucuses held in June which will be used to allocate the delegates appropriately."

That statement, however, differed from the press release announcing the opening of the public comment period for the delegate selection plan.

Should the Presidential Preference Primary be held on or after March 6^th, in compliance with the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee rules, the results of this election will be used to apportion Delegates similar to the process used by Florida Democrats in past Presidential Primaries.

Between April 14^th and May 5^th of 2012, each County Democratic Party will host a caucus to elect Delegates to a State Convention.

That discrepancy is likely not a big deal. First of all, the Democratic nomination is uncontested which makes the delegate allocation process less consequential -- at least in terms of determining the nominee. Second, the state party will not officially make a decision until after both the public comment period has concluded and then after the yet-to-be-approved committee schedules the presidential primary. If that date is on March 6, the Democrats will allocate delegates then. If the primary is earlier, Democrats will hold county caucuses between April 14 and June.

--

¹ Given that Democrats in the Florida legislature proposed a remedy to the primary situation -- legislation to move the primary to March was introduced in both chambers -- the party could petition the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee for a waiver to avoid sanctions. However, it is unclear whether the committee would make an exception in this case. That rule has never been tested in the rogue state era. Recall Democrats in the Florida legislature supported the January primary move in 2007 and later paid the price for it.

Recent Posts:

Bill to Cancel 2012 Washington Primary to be Signed May 12

Missouri Senate Adopts Conference Committee Substitute, Approves March Presidential Primary

Second March Primary Bill Heads to Conference in Missouri

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

North Dakota Democrats Choose June Caucuses for 2012

Last week the North Dakota Democratic Party released for public comment the draft of their 2012 delegate selection plan. In it the party selected June 5 as date on which a caucus will serve as the first determining step of the delegate selection process in the Peace Garden state. Not only will North Dakota Democrats benefit from the bonus (20% increase in delegation) for holding a later contest, but the party will also stand to gain from the Montana-North Dakota-South Dakota cluster of contests on June 5 (additional 15% increase in delegation).

On the Democratic side at least, this leaves only Kansas as a traditional caucus state without a proposed date for 2012. The cancelation of the primary in the Sunflower state should be nothing more than a formality, but that stands out as the only reason for the Democrats' hold up there.

See the updated 2012 presidential primary calendar here.

Recent Posts:

Oklahoma Senate Passes Second House Primary Bill

Tennessee Senate Passes House Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March

Chicken Little and the Iowa Caucuses

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

On Republican "Sticks" and Democratic "Carrots"

I'm going to run the risk of heaping it on George Will, but something he said in his Sunday column begged for a response.

Any Republican delegate-selection event held before the first day of April shall be penalized: The result cannot be, as many Republicans prefer, a winner-take-all allocation of delegates. March events "shall provide for the allocation of delegates on a proportional basis." This means only that someof the delegates must be allocated proportional to the total vote.

Because Democrats are severe democrats, they have no winner-take-all events, so they do not have this stick with which to discipline disobedient states. Instead, they brandish -- they are, after all, liberals -- a carrot: States will be offered bonus delegates for moving their nominating events deeper into the nominating season, and for clustering their contests with those of neighboring states.

First, I question the level of punishment the Republican shift to proportional delegate allocation rules -- no matter how formulated -- will affect states opting to hold presidential delegate selection events before April. By FHQ's count, there are 32 states whose governments -- or state parties in the case of caucus states -- will have to move from their current positions to avoid "punishment". Our guess is that a sizable portion of those 32 states will take their "punishment" and attempt to influence the process. After all, that is the commodity states trade in during the presidential nomination process: influence. Will mentions that the national parties desire "lengthening the nomination process to reduce the likelihood that a cascade of early victories will settle the nomination contests before they have performed their proper testing-and-winnowing function". Well, national parties want that insofar as the process ends like the 2008 process did for the Democratic Party. But that will not always be the case. There has been a fair amount of talk about the Tea Party/Establishment GOP split within the Republican Party. Will proportional allocation only accentuate that division?* Some states may take their punishment in an effort help a non-establishment candidate, if one has emerged to take the mantle, stay in the delegate race for the nomination. [FHQ will have more on this issue of non-establishment goals in a post tomorrow.]

States, in the end, are self interested. They want influence over the identity of the presidential nominee. And that is a goal that is, depending on the angle, at odds with what the national parties want. In other words, the national parties end up with what they don't want: a nominee who is initially unelectable or becomes unelectable because of a divisive nomination decision. I just don't see how the states are penalized by the change to proportional delegate allocation.

One other point on the above excerpt: Will deftly employs some revisionist history in discussing the Democrats' "carrots". He fails to mention that the bonus delegate regime began across the aisle with the Republicans at their 1996 national convention in San Diego. It was there that the GOP put in place a bonus delegate system for the 2000 Republican nomination.

Will also fails to recognize the "sticks" the Democratic Party utilized in 2008 and has carried over to the 2012 cycle. Sure, states under the Democratic rules, as is the case under the Republican rules, lose half their allotment of delegates, but they also call for candidates who campaign in violating states -- those that go too early -- to lose their delegates from that state at the national convention (Rule 20.C.1.b from the 2008 and 2012 Democratic Delegate Selection Rules). In theory at least, that rule would have had more bite in 2012 if the Democrats had not flip-flopped and then flipped again twice on how to deal with Florida and Michigan. That muddled implementation of the rules may end up hurting both parties in 2012, but the Republicans more since theirs will be the only contested nomination. What I mean is that states will be more likely to test the Republican rules because of the Democrats' actions in 2008. The Republican Party still has the half delegation penalty plus the new proportionality requirement as penalties to rule-breaking states. FHQ is still skeptical as to whether that will be an effective rule in curbing state frontloading.

If a short history of presidential primaries is going to be constructed, it would at least be helpful to include a full and accurate account of the most recent events that will more greatly affect the next nomination cycle.

*Of course, that assumes that the Tea Party faction is a lasting one that faces no backlash following the 2010 midterms or before the 2012 nomination race kicks off in earnest.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

A short history of presidential primaries meets reality.

There must have been a lull of sorts reached in this midterm election cycle yesterday because it had Washington Post opinion columnist, George Will, gazing off into the future, but not without a tip of the cap to the past ["A short history of presidential primaries."]. The truth is that FHQ just didn't care too much for Will's history lesson. Well, actually the history part wasn't all that bad. The story of the intent of the Founders in creating the Electoral College is one I always like telling my Intro to American Government classes. However, the esteemed conservative columnist is guilty of not only omitting some important information from the recent past of presidential primaries but also of making a fairly large assumption in regard to the 2012 nomination process.

Let me address the latter first. I will be among the first in line (and was) to commend the parties for their ad hoc coordination of the two sets of rules governing presidential nominations for the 2012 cycle. [The intra-party groups -- the GOP Temporary Delegate Selection Committee and the Democratic Change Commission -- were not ad hoc, but the inter-party efforts were.] FHQ said soon after the 2008 cycle was complete that the parties working together was a necessary, if not sufficient, way of reigning in the frontloading that has "plagued" the process essentially since it was reformed during the 1968 nomination process. But the national parties merely changing their rules for presidential selection is but one piece to this puzzle. There is a whole process that will begin playing out as soon as the midterm elections are over in November. Once the newly elected state legislatures begin sessions in early 2011 by filing -- or not filing -- bills to change the election laws of states across the country, we'll begin to understand whether this will be a harmonious process or not. While the GOP may have their "sticks" and the Democrats their "carrots", eighteen states must still alter their election laws to shift their primaries to later dates and thus back into compliance with the national parties' presidential selection rules.

FHQ will not say that this is impossible.* We will, however, point out that those eighteen states represent eighteen opportunities for shirking. That shirking, in turn, poses a threat to an unraveling of the whole process. And yes, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina will sit on the sidelines and wait as other states act -- or don't act. Those "Entitled Four" will bide their time and shift the dates on which their contests occur accordingly; earlier than everyone else.

Will really need look no further than Florida and Michigan in 2008 for examples of this. Actually, it is fundamentally irresponsible for him to have omitted the two violators from the last cycle from his column. The Florida and Michigan examples hold the key to the 2012 process. States will either follow the rules as most have throughout the post-McGovern-Fraser reform era or they will treat Florida and Michigan in 2008 as a sea change; a states' rights sea change. States' rights is a loaded term in American political history, but in this case, it is appropriate if only because the states will have the option to flex their muscles, if they so choose, against the national parties' sanctions. As I have argued, the states have the incentive to balk at the rules simply because the penalties are not strong enough.

I guess we'll start finding out in January when the newly elected state legislatures convene in state capitals across the nation.

*It should be noted that Arkansas as well as Illinois and Montana Republicans have moved their contests for 2012 back already.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Final Democratic Change Commission Meeting

Frank Leone from DemRulz sends this along concerning the final meeting of the Democratic Change Commission today:

The DNC Change Commission held its final (hour-long) meeting this afternoon (by conference call). The Commission approved a draft report that recommends converting most automatic unpledged “superdelegates” to pledged delegates who will fill slots reflecting the voter preferences in their state’s primary or caucuses – thus becoming automatic, pledged, voting convention delegates. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Commission (RBC) will consider the Commission’s report and then forward proposed delegate selection rules to the DNC for action later in 2010.

Frank has more on superdelegates, but FHQ will focus on the primary timing aspect of the proceedings today.

Calendar: Under the Commission’s proposal numerous states (including Virginia) will have to move their primaries back to after March 1. It will be easier to achieve date changes in 2012 if the RNC agrees to have a similar starting date. Nevertheless, some states will be in a situation where there is a state mandated primary date which does not comply with the DNC’s schedule. The RBC will reexamine the delegate selection rules which provide for sanctions and exceptions.

No, there's nothing new there and FHQ has certainly documented the potential pitfalls in this March 1 plan if the Republican Party does not follow suit with a similar calendar.

I'll have more when Frank gets the full recommendations up.


Recent Posts:
Merry Christmas from FHQ

The 2009 Census Population Estimates are Now Public

Tis the Season

Why the Democratic Change Commission's March 1 Mandate Will Be a Tough Sell Without a Bipartisan Primary Reform Plan

One thing that was made clear at this past weekend's Democratic Change Commission meeting was that the group's final recommendation to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee would heed the call of the convention provision that created the group in the first place. Namely, in regards to the timing of presidential primaries in 2012, the DCC is committed to closing the window on February delegate selection events (with the exception of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina).

But the March 1 mandate is problematic for the very same reasons that make reforming the presidential process difficult: that the lack of a bipartisan approach hampers the entire effort at reform. And without bipartisan action to confront the reform process, there could potentially be several classes of states.

• The first distinction to be made is between states that have to move the date on which their delegate selection events are held and those that don't have to do anything to reach compliance. Well, there were a lot of February states in 2008.
• Secondly, there is a line that separates caucus states and primary states on this as well. The dates on which caucuses are held are determined by the state parties more often than not, while state governments (state legislatures and governors) set primary dates. State party compliance is easier to come by than state legislative compliance (see here for more on this point.).
• On a level that is more troublesome, however, is where the March 1 mandate intersects with state governmental action. In states where the Democratic Party is in control of the state government, there may be some difficulty getting legislation altering the date on which any state's primary is held, but it would likely be minor compared to the potential resistance faced in states where the Republican Party controls both the executive and legislative branches.
  

Again, all this assumes that the GOP does nothing to significantly alter the rules governing their delegate selection process. Yes, the party took the unprecedented step of creating a group (the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee) to look at those rules outside of the convention for the first time. Now, the party could opt to stick with the frontloaded system as a means of settling the 2012 nomination quickly in order to prepare for a long general election campaign against Obama. They could also radically alter the primary process in a way that exceeds what the Democratic Change Commission is charged with examining. In either scenario, a go-it-alone strategy by either party likely nets them both a situation where there is a partisan discrepancy in some states. In other words, some states may have no incentive to go along with one of the parties' rules.

That's how we get back to the battle lines outlined above. Let's key in on that last one for the moment because that is where this gets Florida/Michigan messy. For the moment, let's assume that there are only minor changes to the Republican rules, that the Democrats go forward with this March 1 mandate for all non-exempt states, and that the GOP continues to allow February primaries and caucuses (Keep in mind Hawaii Republicans have already staked a claim to February 21, 2012 as the date for their caucus.). How many states have or will potentially have unified Republican control of the state government and could completely ignore Democratic rules (in the way that the Florida state government did a year ago)?

There are elections to be held that could change this before the 2012 delegate selection rules are adopted by both parties sometime next year. However, there are only three states that would not be in compliance with Democratic Party rules (a March 1 mandate assumed) given the current shape of the 2012 presidential primary calendar: Arizona, Florida and Georgia. Well, that's not that many. No, it isn't and that doesn't even include the caveat that Arizona's governor can use the power of proclamation to move the primary date to a more competitive date. [Traditionally, that has meant that the late February primary date that is on the books has been moved to early February. There is no language that I know of in the gubernatorial proclamation law that could allow the governor to move the primary back. That would be a test of the law. That point may be moot if Jan Brewer or another Republican is elected in Arizona next year. They wouldn't be motivated to move the date back to comply with the Democratic Party's rules for delegate selection anyway.]

Three isn't that many. Again, it isn't, but what's missing is states where there is a unified Republican legislature and a Democratic governor. The governor in those states can't make the state legislature pass a law just to comply with another party's rules. That adds three more states: Missouri, Tennessee and Oklahoma. Of course, those latter two may very well have Republican governors after the 2010 elections. Democrats in Tennessee and Oklahoma have very little depth on the bench behind either Bredesen in Tennessee or Henry in Oklahoma.

Now, we've already potentially tripled the Florida and Michigan problem from 2008. But what about early states with legislatures that have two chambers split between the two parties. One chamber (the Democratic one) may want to push a bill through that would bring the state's primary within the Democratic delegate selection rules, but the other chamber may find some better use of their legislative time. Well, that nets us two more states, Michigan and Virginia.

That would present the Democratic Party with a real dilemma. Eight states would potentially be in violation of the party's 2012 rules (specifically the March 1 mandate) through no fault of their own. Either legislative gridlock or unified Republican control of the state government could prevent compliance. How do you penalize states in that scenario? Would the state parties be forced to foot the bill for a party-run primary or caucus?

It is just this sort of exercise that the Democratic Change Commission should be considering. There have been a number of questions in both meetings thus far along the lines of "is coordination with the RNC possible?" that give a sense of detachment. Both parties are set to nail down the 2012 rules next year and yet there is no apparent effort at coordination taking place (at least not at the level of the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee or the Change Commission) despite the very real possibility that problems like those described above could take place.

Food for thought.


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/26/09)

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (10/26/09)

Wrong! Wrong! A Thousand Times Wrong! One Bit of Misinformation from the Democratic Change Commission's Meeting This Past Weekend

Wrong! Wrong! A Thousand Times Wrong! One Bit of Misinformation from the Democratic Change Commission's Meeting This Past Weekend

The one big criticism I have of what I've read about the Democratic Change Commission meeting this weekend is that there still is no viable incentive structure in place to get states who have or will in the future want to frontload their presidential primaries and caucuses to move back or stay put. That's a thorny issue, though, at the intersection of state parties, national parties and state legislative jurisdiction, so I don't blame the 37 member group for not having gotten to that point yet. [Their recommendations won't come until after the group's December 5 meeting in Washington.]

However, what I can't forgive is one bit of misinformation that made its way out of the proceedings that is bad, bad, bad. Here's the Q&A exchange with North Carolina State Senator Dan Blue fielding the questions (from DCC member, Suzi LeVine's notes):

Q: what is the situation about states having separate state & presidential primaries? Ie – California did it.

A: expensive – but sense that California being so late is problematic. Last time California went early and they still didn’t get the attention. Very unsatisfactory then. State legislature seems to like moving it up. However, remember that incumbents benefit with an early primary ‘cause challengers haven’t been able to raise money and awareness and these positions are often chosen in the primaries.

Q: How would budget deficit in California affect 2012?

A: Bifurcating the 2 primaries is expensive. Usually have to stay unhitched to address local laws. Brought up the Affect of redistricting (will happen ‘cause of census)

Q: states with federal and state primaries on the same day?

A: most are together – but will find out exact number.

WRUH-ONG! [It is difficult to make something monosyllabic, have two syllables.]

In fact, this is very wrong. By my count, the 2008 primary calendar saw just 13 states with presidential primaries and primaries for state and local offices held concurrently. The remaining states and territories had their presidential nomination contests separate from their statewide and local primaries. And I say nomination contests there because 24 of the remaining 37 states held two separate primaries while the remaining 13 held caucuses for presidential delegate selection and later primaries for the other offices.

Together at Last, or Are They? Presidential Primaries and State and Local Primaries (2008)
Concurrent Primaries	Split Primaries	Caucuses
Illinois Maryland Ohio Texas* Mississippi Pennsylvania Indiana North Carolina West Virginia Kentucky Oregon Montana South Dakota	New Hampshire Michigan South Carolina Florida Arizona Alabama Georgia Arkansas* California Connecticut Delaware Massachusetts Missouri New Jersey New Mexico New York Oklahoma Tennessee Utah Louisiana Virginia Wisconsin Rhode Island Vermont	Maine Minnesota Iowa North Dakota Nebraska Kansas Wyoming Colorado Nevada Idaho Washington Alaska Hawaii

Here's the thing: This idea -- split primaries, as I've called them -- is the number one reason why some states have moved in the time since the McGovern-Fraser reforms that were instituted in 1972 and others have not. In the 1976-1996 period, presidential primary states that already had separate primaries were over five times more likely to move their contests to an earlier date than were those with concurrent presidential and state/local primaries. Once you add the cycles of the hyper-frontloaded era (2000-2008) -- when the incentive, like in 2008, was to move or get left out -- that effect dropped to only twice as likely. And no, that doesn't even take into account the caucus states. With those split caucus states included the effect is even greater.

Why?

Well, those states that have already severed the tie between the two primary types, and have institutionalized the resulting structure over successive presidential election cycles, don't face the same problem states with concurrent primaries have. Concurrent primary states face the start-up costs associated with funding an all new presidential primary election (see constant reference to California's expensive transition in 2008 in the quoted text above). The split primary states have already dealt with and absorbed that cost. Those states, then, are much freer to move their delegate selection events where they please. And since about 1980, the motivation has been to frontload.

So, do more states hold all their primaries together? No, they do not. Two-thirds of the country, in fact, hold separate contests.

*The data for the years prior to 2000 were gather from various sources by the author, but from 2000 onward were thankfully publicly available on The Green Papers.
**Texas could also fall into the caucus category simply because of its hybrid prima-caucus system.
***Arkansas was split for 2008, but has already passed legislation that will eliminate the separate primary in 2012.


Recent Posts:
New 2012 Presidential General Election Trendlines. Now Time Adjusted!

More Notes on Yesterday's Democratic Change Commission Meeting

Democratic Change Commission Meeting #2: Timing

More Notes on Yesterday's Democratic Change Commission Meeting

Commission member, Suzi LeVine, once again has provided us all with what she called in an email to me her "copious notes" on the events that transpired at the two part meeting a day ago.

Copious indeed. Still the best firsthand account of what is going on in these meetings. Check it out and I'll be back later with some broader comments on what transpired.


Recent Posts:
Democratic Change Commission Meeting #2: Timing

Gender Gap or Gender Deficit in 2012?

FHQ Friday Fun: One from the Left/One from the Right

Democratic Change Commission Meeting #2: Timing

Frank Leone over at DemRulz is on the scene in Washington and has a rundown of the morning half of the Change Commission's meeting. The group picked up with what they were to have addressed during their August meeting (postponed due to Ted Kennedy's funeral): public comments on the issues the group is charged with examining.

Let's look at what was discussed on the issue of timing (Would you expect anything less from Frontloading HQ?). From DemRulz:

"Curtis Gans, Director of the Study of the American Electorate at American University made a presentation. He criticized the 1988 Super Tuesday Southern primary for starting the race to early primaries; this resulted in a process based on “state selfishness.” It is more important to select the best person to be president than for a state to get more attention. He recommended a bipartisan, durable system with less frontloading and less moving around. He recommended starting with smaller, diverse, individual primaries, and a spread-out process – not regional primaries. Regional primaries may result in different candidates representing different regions and split the party. He opposes a rotation where it all changes every four years. He favors a long process which worked this year, allowing candidates flexibility to skip certain states, 20-day filing deadlines to allow new candidates to file. Spread out individual primaries will encourage grassroots and discourage negative campaigning – if you have 20 primaries on one day, you need to rely on negative TV. He would prefer to start the whole process in March, but is okay with IA, NH, SC, and NV going early — it worked well in 2008. In response to a question from Jeff Berman, he stated that there is an opportunity for cooperation with RNC in setting calendar and the GOP is likely to agree on starting date."

...and also...

"Hon. Dan Blue (Comm. Member, NC State Senator) – late primaries can be good. In 2008, NC linked the presidential primary with state office primaries, the late primary got a lot of attention, and Obama and Democratic candidates won in November. Grouping of 29 states on the same day is crazy – you need to break it up, spread out process."

Gans is right to blame 1988, but the idea of a Southern primary movement had its origins in the mid-1970s and was actually begun when Georgia and Alabama moved to coincide with Florida in 1980 (at the Carter administration’s behest). At the time, New Hampshire and Massachusetts were early and gave Kennedy a potential leg up in the race. So, it didn’t actually start off as state selfishness so much as the administration’s need to regain the 1980 nomination. By 1988, when the other Southern states moved, that had morphed into state (or regional really) selfishness.

The proposals are nice to see and it is great to idealize what happened a year ago, but I still don’t see any incentive structure to get any of the bloc of early states to move back in the process. The bonus delegate regime has not been effective and the winner-take-all proposal for later states is flawed. Bipartisanship would help, but both parties have to stand unified behind any plan they construct together.

Leone then adds his thoughts:

"My thoughts: The most important point re timing is that the DNC (even with the RNC) does not have the power to set a single primary date and is not writing on a blank slate. State legislatures set primary schedules and proposed changes need to account for political realities – like IA and NH are going to go first. Thus I believe that a rotating process, consisting of changing dates in every state every four years is a non-starter. Super regional primaries, that don’t change, do run the risk of favoring candidates from certain regions (although famously this was not the case in the 1988 Super Tuesday Southern primary). Mini-regional primaries, like last year’s Potomac Primary (VA, DC, MD), allow campaigns to focus their resources and states should consider such groupings. As to the basic schedule – a long term process, starting in March for most states (with the now traditional early states of IA, NH, SC, and NV going after Feb. 1) makes sense. Spreading out primaries, using bonus delegates, as was the case with NC and other states this year also allows for a full vetting of candidates and should result in a better choice."

Exactly right. Regional primaries are simply just a no-go from a state legislative standpoint. It is inherently unfair because both parties don't always have contested nomination races every year. As a result, some segment of the primary electorate on one or both sides of the partisan aisle may miss out on having an impact on their party's nomination when their state gets to go early. That alone will pit Democratic-controlled state legislatures against Republican-controlled ones.

Again though, to think of and idealize the North Carolinas and Pennsylvanias and Indianas just because they lucked out and happened to have a protracted battle fall into their laps, doesn't mean that it is possible to make states go later (or at the very best to incentivize them doing so). That assumes that the Clinton-Obama nomination race is the new normal. It could be, but I doubt it.

There's a lot of talk about the bonus delegate system and how North Carolina benefited from it in 2008. Yes, they gained, but only because they had a higher barrier to frontloading than other states had. If the Tarheel state did not hold its primaries for state and local offices on the same date as their presidential primary, they likely would have moved as well. But moving from the North Carolina General Assembly meant more than just moving to an earlier date; it meant funding an all new election (for the presidential primary) or moving everything else up. The latter is seen as a negative because that would affect turnout in down-ballot primaries in which the legislators themselves are involved (see Atkeson and Maestas).

On further on that point, Leone adds:

"Note – It was claimed that most states have presidential and state primaries on the same day, but it’s not clear that this is true and certainly hasn’t been true in Virginia."

Most states DO NOT have their state and local primaries in conjunction with their presidential primaries. That is the main reason that most of the states that have moved over the years have been able to do so.

I have shown that in my own research (Shameless, FHQ, shameless.). Prior to 1996, states with split primaries (presidential and state/local) were about 7 times more likely to make a move forward. After 1996, that dropped to only 2 times more likely. But still states with concurrent primary structures (still the minority) are less likely to move forward. That claim, then, is false. Where it is partially true is when you look at ONLY primary states. Once caucus states are considered (and most of them are held apart from the nominating contests for other offices), it is not the case. That is why caucus states have a much easier time of moving. [Dare I cite myself again? Oh, what the heck.]

I catch a lot of flack for being a negative nellie and shooting down all these ideas. That really isn't the case. I've made a career of looking at the unintended consequences of rules changes to the presidential primary process. My main argument has always been that if you are going to make reforms you absolutely have to take into consideration all of the potential unintended consequences. Otherwise, there is a risk that the reform measures just make things worse. Besides, from a Democratic perspective, the system did just work rather effectively. Obama is in the White House. [Well, some may have preferred having a Clinton in the White House.] Granted, it has worked well from a GOP perspective in the past as well.

I think the proposals to spread the calendar out are the right way to go, but there just has not been an effective incentive structure proposed that would offset the state-level desire to move forward on the calendar. The first step in getting to that point, in my opinion, is have both parties work together to create a unified reform. Without that, states will continue to have the ability to pit the two parties' rule structures against each other as a means of maintaining the status quo.


Recent Posts:
Gender Gap or Gender Deficit in 2012?

FHQ Friday Fun: One from the Left/One from the Right

Reminder: Democratic Change Commission Meets Tomorrow in Washington

Reminder: Democratic Change Commission Meets Tomorrow in Washington

The Democratic Change Commission, which is reviewing the Democratic Party presidential nomination process will meet on Saturday, October 24, 2009, at 9:30 (tentative) at the Capital Hilton, 1001 16th Street, NW, Washington DC. The Commission will continue to focus on state nomination process calender, superdelegates, and caucuses.

FHQ will be scouring the web for updates and news and posting them here. Here are a few links I'll be keeping an eye on:

DCC Member Twitter feeds:
Claire McCaskill
Suzi LeVine (Oh, and here is her blog where she posted some great material following the first meeting. She's already alerted folks following her Twitter feed that she'll be posting updates on her site. Now, whether that happens tomorrow or later is yet to be determined, but this remains a great place for firsthand accounts from inside the process.)
Rebecca Prozan
Joan Garry

DemRulz (Frank Leone had a great live blog from the first meeting in Washington. He has already said he will reprise that role tomorrow. Here, too, is his Twitter feed.)

DemConWatch (I don't know what Matt's plans are, but we had a nice discussion going between our respective blogs during the weekend of the first meeting back in late June.)


Recent Posts:
PPP's 2012 Presidential General Election Trial Heats In-Depth

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/22/09)

PPP 2012 Presidential Trial Heats: Huckabee's Still Tops

New Members on the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee

It is too bad that this story appeared over at The Hill on Saturday. It is something that got lost amid the distractions of a long holiday weekend.

To the victor goes the spoils.

DNC Chairman Tim Kaine last week appointed several new members to the Rules and Bylaws Committee (Remember them?) of the Democratic Party. To me, though, the interesting thing is not the inevitability that Clinton supporters in positions on the committee were replaced by Obama supporters (or New Hampshire's representation on the R&B), but the fact that there are at least three members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee that are simultaneously serving on the Democratic Change Commission. Jeff Berman, Minyon Moore and Randi Weingarten are all pulling double duty.

Why is this noteworthy?

Well, as things are set up for 2012 (presidential nomination) rules making, the Democratic Change Commission debates, formulates and recommends a plan to tweak and ultimately govern delegate selection for the 2012 nomination. That recommendation, though, is passed off to the Rules and Bylaws Committee for approval. The Change Commission is due to make said recommendation by January 1, 2010, and if history (the 2008 cycle) is any indication, the R&B will formalize those rules some time during the late summer of next year.

Still, what does the fact that several members are pulling the double matter? It means that the Rules and Bylaws Committee has representation (at least 3 of the 37 Democratic Change Commission members) on the Change Commission. Does that mean they can push through or prevent reform to some degree? Not really (with so many total members), but it does provide the committee with something of a symbolic footprint on the meetings this fall of the DCC. It also further bolsters the notion that real change to this process will be shunted off to be dealt with in the future and that the president (as so many presidential nominees of both parties before him) is attached to the status quo; the process though which he won the nomination.

In a summer of discontent this likely won't sit well with those on the left looking for change. And though, I'll admit that the Change Commission (at least some among its ranks) foresee the need to make some significant changes to the nomination system, that has always run against the notion that presidents stick with what got them there. Does that mean that the latter will outweigh the former in this instance. It does not, but it would be wise to consider both as the 2012 rules are being considered, crafted and certified.


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/5/09)

The 2012 Presidential Candidates on Twitter (Aug. 2009)

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/2/09)

Ted Kennedy's 2008 Endorsement of Barack Obama

In the comments to Democratic Change Commission post I put up yesterday, Rob pointed out something about the late Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama's presidential candidacy last year that was running through my mind yesterday.

Rob writes:
"I know that I am slightly off topic here, but one of the tributes to Ted Kennedy is that his endorsement of the Obama candidacy was a key factor in Obama's nomination. As I recall, many commentators at the time suggested that the endorsement was a big blow to the Clinton campaign. I thought, though, in the aftermath it became a consensus opinion that none of the endorsements in that campaign meant much, even EMKs. Am I imagining something or is this point just part of the glow of appreciation of man who has just passed away?"

The underlying question is, "Did Kennedy's endorsement have an impact and if so, to what degree?" There's no doubt that it had an impact. But measuring the endorsement's influence is difficult. For starters, we know that the endorsements game is one of zero sums. If Barack Obama gets the endorsement, then Hillary Clinton cannot. [Well, I suppose flip-flopping superdelegates are an exception to that rule. John Lewis, I'm looking in your direction.] Beyond that, we also know that in a presidential primary election environment, where contests follow one another (or groups of contests follow other groups of contests), the easiest way to measure the impact is to see how elections results are affected following the endorsement. Now from a hypothetical standpoint, this impact would be the greatest within the political boundaries and among the constituency the endorser represents.

In 2008, Ted Kennedy's endorsement could have been hypothesized to have bolstered Obama's chances ahead of the Massachusetts primary. The timeline went like this:

January 27: Caroline Kennedy's op-ed endorsing Obama appears in the New York Times.
January 28: Ted Kennedy endorses Obama.
February 5: Clinton bests Obama in the Bay state by a count of 56% to 41%.

The immediate, back of the napkin reaction in our (UGA) discussion group, as I recall, was that the endorsement didn't seem to have had that much of an effect. Some of the reasons cited were that the endorsement was made too close to the actual voting in the contest (just a week prior), and that Massachusetts was one among MANY other states holding contests on February 5. Indeed, to that second point, the Obama campaign was focused on grassroots efforts particularly in the caucus states on February 5 and beyond. That excluded Massachusetts.

But that brings up an important distinction: short-term versus long-term influence of endorsements. Prior to and after February 5, it was becoming apparent that the Democratic nomination race would be one focused on the delegate count. That differed from past years where momentum quickly carried most eventual nominees to their party's nomination and delegate counts were an afterthought. But in 2008, everyone was focused on that counting to the detriment of everything else. Unlike other years, then, when a Kennedy-type endorsement, if it even came before the nomination was wrapped up, would have been rolled into the narrative of "Candidate X had the momentum and won the nomination," 2008 gave us a different angle. The race as it played out afforded us the opportunity to attempt to separate the long-term and short-term goals instead of having them overlap almost completely.

Again, in the immediate aftermath of Super Tuesday, the Kennedy endorsement seemed to have backfired. But as Obama ran up the score throughout his February streak of victories and finally won the nomination in the late spring, the Kennedy decision looked better and better.

If we step back and look long-term, the impact of the endorsement seems to have been that it helped Obama gain a foothold within the Washington establishment; a wing of the party that more often than not leaned toward Clinton. In that zero sum environment, then, Kennedy's endorsement did hurt Clinton's campaign, but only because it helped Obama's instead. But there's a spectrum there, right? Did it help Obama more or less than it hurt Clinton? Personally, I think it helped Obama more. Clinton was already doing pretty well among the Washington establishment. If you look at some of the posts over at DemConWatch just before Super Tuesday, you get sense of this. Upon Edwards dropping out just after the Florida primary on January 29, Clinton had a two to one (approximately) advantage in superdelegates over, but as Matt (DemConWatch contributor) pointed on the final day of the month, an interesting pattern was emerging among superdelegates. Obama was picking up momentum among the supers just before February 5; especially big name supers. The then-Illinois senator was outpacing Clinton and in fact gaining on her in that count.

Kennedy's endorsement was just a part of that gradual movement toward Obama and maybe even slightly ahead of the curve.

Note: I should mention that the view from the political science literature on the impact of endorsements is mixed. In many ways it is lacking mainly because of the issues I cited above. What is being influenced, in other words? Electoral outcomes are one possibility as are polling numbers in specific states whether measuring vote intention of overall approval. The problem with those measures is that there are obviously many other factors affecting their variation. Does that mean we pack it up and head home? No, but what that ultimately means is that we end up with mixed results ranging from an endorsement had no impact to an endorsement had a big impact.

UPDATE: Here are a few reactions to the Kennedy endorsement at the time:
ABCNews Political Radar
New York Times The Caucus
Here are a couple from The Fix (Washington Post): one and two

Recent Posts:
All Quiet on the Democratic Change Commission Front

About that New Jersey Governor's Poll

A Closer Look at the Aftermath of the 2010 Census

Revisiting Democratic Delegate Allocation (1976-2008)

A few weeks ago when the Democratic Change Commission was holding its first meeting, FHQ posted a series of graphs the DNC produced to show the frontloading of delegate allocation over time. As I said then, "That, folks, is the impact of frontloading in a nutshell." To see the shift from 1976 to 2008 is somewhat staggering.

...well, if only the graphs were a little better. I wanted to see what those figures would look like if a line was added to account for the cumulative percentage of delegates throughout any given year's primary calendar. Ideally, you'd see a nearly even distribution of contests across primary season and a relatively straight line from 0 to 100% delegates allocated.

And that is essentially what is demonstrated in the recreation of the 1976 figure from the DNC (see below). There is some undulation, but basically there is a fairly even (linear) growth to that cumulative line. The same is true of the 1980 figure (not shown). The blue area, then is the weekly percentage of delegates allocated, while the red area is all the weeks to a given point stacked on top of each other.

[Click to Enlarge]

But in 1984, what starts is what I'll call the "volcano with a wind out of the west" phenomenon. [That's a long way of saying frontloading.] What popped up in 1984 was a burst of delegate allocation activity toward the beginning of the process. And over time that "volcano" has grown from a small hill to the towering mountain of Super Tuesday in 2008 (seen below).

[Click to Enlarge]

These are handy visuals that would fit right in (with a GOP version as well) on the monthly frontloading maps that adorn the left sidebar. Assembled, they basically tell the tale of frontloading since the McGovern-Fraser reforms took effect.

*I mentioned the 1984 figure, and should add that I'll be putting the entire series up at some point (probably in individual posts as time allows). In saying that I should also say that there is a problem with the 1988 and 1992 figures. If you look closely at the originals in the link at this post's outset, you'll see that those two years' patterns (and underlying data) mirror each other exactly. If however, you look at the calendars from 1988 and 1992, you can clearly see that they are similar, but not the same, calendars. At some point I'll have to fix that (I suspect the 1988 figure is the one that is off. Pay close attention to the hump on the left side of the Super Tuesday peak. That's Georgia and Massachusetts and the other states that jumped to the first week in March when the Democratic window expanded to include that week in 1992. There was no similar group of contests -- not in terms of numbers of delegates -- in 1988. Most of those southern contests were on the second Tuesday in March.)


Recent Posts:
On the Polling Horizon: Louisiana 2012?

State of the Race: Virginia (7/15/09)

North Carolina in 2012: Obama - 49, Palin - 42