Showing posts with label Idaho. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Idaho. Show all posts

Thursday, August 11, 2016

The Electoral College Map (8/11/16)

Latest Update



New State Polls (8/11/16)
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Clinton
Trump
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
Alabama
6/19
+/- 2.0%
4100 adults
33
57
--
+24
+24.00
Florida
8/10
+/- 4.0%
622 likely voters
45
44
3
+1
+2.19
Georgia
8/4-8/8
+/- 2.5%
1604 likely voters
39
43
--
+4
+0.60
Idaho
5/18-6/4
+/- 3.99%
603 adults
32
49
18
+17
+19.36
Iowa
8/8-8/10
+/- 4.4%
500 likely voters
36
37
18
+1
+2.04
Maine
8/4-8/8
+/- 2.2%
2046 likely voters
43
33
--
+10
+8.69
New Hampshire
8/7-8/8
+/- 3.4%
820 registered voters
41
31
13
+10
+4.60
New York
8/4-8/8
+/- 2.4%
1717 likely voters
48
34
--
+14
+19.17
South Carolina
8/9-8/10
+/- 2.7%
1290 likely voters
39
41
13
+2
+2.00


Polling Quick Hits:
There was a flood of new polling from old and new battleground states alike and a couple of backlogged polls freshly added to the FHQ dataset. Here is a quick tour.


Alabama:
One of the older polls comes out Dixie. There is quite a bit of support not going to the two major party candidates, but Trump led Clinton by 24 points. Both are underperforming where their 2012 predecessors were in the Yellowhammer state, but the margin is in line with the spread in November 2012. Even if there is a blue wave that surges into the most Republican columns below on the Electoral College Spectrum, Alabama figures to be one the hold outs on the Republican side of the partisan line.


Florida:
One has to wonder if the volatility in the polling in Florida is dying down some after the narrow margins of the last two days of survey releases. That said, Quinnipiac -- yesterday's entrant -- has leaned more Republican this cycle. It could be that there is a tighter new normal in the Sunshine state, or that could be a function of the firms that have released polls in the last two days. It will just take some more data to answer that question.


Georgia:
In the Peach state, there is yet more evidence that Georgia is more competitive in 2016. The head-to-head in the new Gravis poll has Trump clinging to a one point advantage, but the multicandidate results show a larger gap with most of the support for the third party candidates being siphoned off of Clinton's. Either way one goes -- and FHQ uses the multicandidate numbers in these situations -- Trump is just a hair ahead of Clinton in the FHQ averages. Georgia is essentially tied along with Arizona and Nevada.


Idaho:
Dan Jones and Associates polled Idaho just before the end of primary season. As was the story in the firm's July survey of the Gem state, Trump was ahead by a comfortable margin, but running behind recent GOP nominees in the state. Like Alabama above, Idaho will likely be red in the fall, insulated from any Clinton advances. It is only August, but these are data from before the conventions.


Iowa:
Like Florida, another day brought another close poll in the Hawkeye state. The slight Trump edge nudged the FHQ average down enough that Florida and Iowa switched places with each other on the Spectrum, and both are now fairly tightly knotted in a group with Ohio in terms of their average margins. What is perhaps more interesting about Iowa is that no candidate has garnered anything more than 44% in any poll this year (with the exception of the very first survey back in early January). And now both candidates in the last two days of polling have dipped into the 30s. Iowa is close, but there is a deep reservoir of undecideds there. That should taper off as election day approaches, but could swing Iowa depending on how that segment breaks.


Maine:
There has not been a lot of survey work done in Maine yet. Thus far in 2016, there has been but one poll, and it showed Clinton ahead, though in the lean range. Another poll -- this one from Gravis -- has the race in the Pine Tree state in a similar position, but with a slightly larger Clinton lead. That was enough to bump the FHQ average in the state up, but keep Maine in the Lean Clinton category.


New Hampshire:
If Florida and Iowa have had a series of closer post-convention polls, New Hampshire can be said to be moving in the opposite direction. Rather than a second close poll, there is now a second double digit lead for Clinton in the Granite state in the wake of the two national conventions. One the weight of those polls, New Hampshire enters the Watch List -- on the verge of shifting into a Lean Clinton state -- and pushes past Virginia on the Electoral College Spectrum, breaking the electoral college "tie" scenario that occurs when Pennsylvania and Virginia are on the Democratic side of New Hampshire. [Tie is in quotation marks above because the partisan line pushes well beyond where those three states are in the alignment of states. It is not at all a likely scenario at this point in time.]


New York:
There are a number of ways one could frame the current picture in New York: home state of both candidates, tighter than usual margin, etc. But it is pretty clear that Trump is hovering right around where Romney did in the Empire state in 2012. That makes New York a story of Clinton underperforming Obama in the state. Yet, even given that trend, the margin there is comfortably blue. It would be more noteworthy if Trump was actually running ahead of Romney's pace there. He isn't and that is likely to keep New York in the Democratic column.


South Carolina:
Changes (August 11)
StateBeforeAfter
South CarolinaLean TrumpToss Up Trump
Finally, the first presidential polling data of 2016 emerged from South Carolina. It might be easy to get carried away with the small two point advantage Trump has in the Palmetto state. And it is a surprising number at first glance. However, South Carolina ended up a couple of percentage points redder than Georgia in 2012. And if Georgia is tied, then South Carolina +2 to Trump is right in line with what would be a uniform shift of states. And truth be told, that is not that far off. South Carolina is still in range of its positioning on the Spectrum in November 2012. It is simply closer there in 2016 if much stock can be put in just one survey. Of course, this one does harken back to the 2008 Zogby poll of South Carolina; the one where Obama was narrowly ahead.

South Carolina shifts from Lean to Toss Up Trump with the addition of this poll, and jumps to a spot next to Georgia on the Spectrum after the Peach state switched places with Arizona.



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.


The Electoral College Spectrum1
HI-42
(7)
NJ-14
(175)
NH-4
(260)
MS-6
(155)
TN-11
(58)
MD-10
(17)
DE-3
(178)
VA-133
(273 | 278)
MO-10
(149)
LA-8
(47)
RI-4
(21)
WI-10
(188)
FL-29
(302 | 265)
AK-3
(139)
SD-3
(39)
MA-11
(32)
ME-4
(192)
IA-6
(308 | 236)
UT-6
(136)
ND-3
(36)
VT-3
(35)
NM-5
(197)
OH-18
(326 | 230)
KS-6
(130)
ID-4
(33)
CA-55
(90)
MI-16
(213)
NC-15
(341 | 212)
IN-11
(124)
NE-5
(29)
NY-29
(119)
OR-7
(220)
NV-6
(197)
TX-38
(113)
AL-9
(24)
IL-20
(139)
CT-7
(227)
AZ-11
(191)
AR-6
(75)
OK-7
(15)
MN-10
(149)
CO-9
(236)
GA-16
(180)
MT-3
(69)
WV-5
(8)
WA-12
(161)
PA-20
(256)
SC-9
(164)
KY-8
(66)
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 Virginia (all Clinton's toss up states plus Virginia), he would have 278 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 Virginia is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.



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 List1
State
Switch
Alaska
from Lean Trump
to Toss Up Trump
Arizona
from Toss Up Trump
to Toss Up Clinton
Arkansas
from Strong Trump
to Lean Trump
Georgia
from Toss Up Trump
to Toss Up Clinton
Missouri
from Toss Up Trump
to Lean Trump
Nevada
from Toss Up Trump
to Toss Up Clinton
New Hampshire
from Toss Up Clinton
to Lean Clinton
New Jersey
from Strong Clinton
to Lean Clinton
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.





Posted by Josh Putnam at 5:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Monday, January 25, 2016

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: IDAHO

Updated 3.8.16

 This is part twenty-two 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. 

IDAHO

Election type: primary
Date: March 8
Number of delegates: 32 [23 at-large, 6 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: proportional
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 20% (statewide)
2012: proportional caucus

--
Changes since 2012
The date is much the same -- it amounts to the same first Tuesday after the first Monday in March date -- but the mode of delegate allocation is different in Idaho in 2016 than was the case in 2012. Republicans in the Gem state traded in their early caucus for an earlier presidential primary (moved from the traditional mid-May point where it was consolidated with the primaries for other offices).

Idaho Republicans also switched out some funky caucus allocation rules for a set of rules that is more in the mainstream of how other states are allocating delegates in 2016. Gone is the more or less instant runoff method that netted Mitt Romney a winner-take-all allocation. That has been replaced by a proportional allocation based on the statewide results of the March 8 presidential primary in Idaho. As has been witnessed in other states, though, what constitutes proportionality varies quite widely.


Thresholds
Much of that variation in the application of proportionality is attributable to a couple of factors. First, is the delegation pooled or separated for the purposes of allocation? The former typically means that a state will end up closer to a true proportional allocation of delegates than not. The latter opens the door to the bulk of the wild delegate allocation plans out there. Secondly, however, is there a threshold that the candidates must meet to qualify for delegates? With a threshold comes limitations in terms of how many candidates end up with delegates.

But that fact is tempered by the distinction raised in the first question. States that have separated allocation -- distinctions made between the allocation of at-large and congressional district delegates -- and a threshold have been the most complex. Many of the SEC primary states fit this description. Idaho fits somewhere in between states with that type of allocation and those with a proportional allocation of pooled delegates without a threshold.

It is that kind of allocation that ends up being perhaps the least complex. For example, then, Idaho Republicans will pool all of their delegates rather than invite complexity through a separate allocation of at-large delegates and the six delegates in just two congressional districts. The rationale is similar to the that of other small states. Power comes through allocating a small bloc (or blocs) of delegates rather than a much more decentralized proportional allocation.

Gem state Republicans will accomplish this through pooling their delegates but also by layering in a couple of thresholds. First, to qualify for any of the 32 delegates, a candidate must win at least 20% of the vote (before rounding) in the Idaho presidential primary. That will have the effect of limiting the number of candidates who receive delegates to likely four or fewer. If no candidate clears the 20% threshold, then the allocation would be carried out as if there was no threshold at all.

Not expressly prohibited by the rules is a backdoor to a winner-take-all allocation. While the "if no candidates clear the threshold" contingency is described, the "if only one candidate clears that qualifying threshold" is not. What that means is that there is a backdoor winner-take-all option on the table in Idaho. And since the delegates -- all 32 of them including the automatic delegates -- are pooled Idaho is the one state before March 15 where just one candidate surpassing the qualifying threshold could net that candidate all of the delegates from that state. The others to this point on the calendar that have allowed for a backdoor winner-take-all option, but the allocation was split into statewide/at-large and congressional district delegates. That makes Idaho a potentially powerful, pre-March 15 piece in the allocation puzzle. Things would have to fall right -- a crowded field with little winnowing or separation between the candidates, for example -- but a potential +32 coming out of Idaho could be more valuable to a campaign than a split of, say, the 155 delegates in Texas.

Finally, Idaho also has a true winner-take-all trigger as well. Should one candidate win a majority of the vote statewide, that candidate would also be entitled to all of the delegates from the state. This may or may not be likely in a less crowded field. The last two winners in Idaho received more than 50% of the vote.1


Delegate allocation (at-large, congressional district and automatic delegates)
The Idaho Republican delegates will be proportionally allocated to candidates based on the outcome of the March 8 primary in the Gem state. Based on the last poll conducted on the race in Idaho (the late August 2015 Dan Jones and Associates survey2), the allocation would look something like this3:
  • Trump (28%) -- 32 delegates 
  • Carson (15%) -- 0 delegates
  • Bush (7%) -- 0 delegates
  • Cruz (7%) -- 0 delegates
  • Rubio (6%) -- 0 delegates 
  • Paul (5%) -- 0 delegates 
  • Christie (4%) -- 0 delegates 
  • Fiorina (3%) -- 0 delegates
  • Kasich (2%) -- 0 delegates
This captures the perfect storm sort of scenario for a backdoor winner-take-all allocation of the Idaho delegation. Trump would barely get half of the total necessary to win a true winner-take-all victory, but because he is the only candidate over 20% (in this simulated allocation), he would win all of the delegates from the state; a backdoor to a winner-take-all allocation.

The arrival at such an outcome is a bit unconventional in Idaho. The allocation calculation calls for the candidate's share of the vote to be divided by the total statewide vote. That would mean that Trump, in the above example, would only receive a 28% share -- or 9 -- of the total number of delegates. That is not winner-take-all by any account. However, the rules also call for the unallocated delegates -- those not allocated to Trump above -- to "be apportioned proportionally among candidates who clear the 20 percent threshold." That would award the remaining 23 delegates to Trump, giving him the full allotment of delegates.

Were the backdoor winner-take-all allocation trigger not tripped multiple candidates crossed the 20% barrier -- or none did -- the Idaho Republican Party rules are not clear on how the rounding would be handled (though the allocation would be proportional without any threshold). The only reference to rounding is that a candidate must have 20% of the vote to qualify. 19.9%, for instance, would not round up to 20% and qualify any such candidate for delegates.

It is not clear, then, if the rounding is always up to the next whole number or simply to the nearest whole number. Additionally, there is no outline for a sequence to the rounding procedure or a contingency for unallocated or over-allocated delegates. That contingency coming into play is a function of how many candidates clear the threshold. Anything more than two candidates raises the likelihood that there will be an under- or over-allocated delegate.

If, however, the threshold is lowered to 15% to include Ben Carson in the allocation, then Trump would round up to 9 delegates, Carson would round up to 5 and the remaining 18 delegates would be uncommitted. That is due to the allocation equation laid out in the Idaho Republican Party rules. Only candidates over the threshold qualify for delegates, but a candidate claims delegates based on their share of the statewide vote divided by the total statewide vote for all candidates, not just the qualifying candidates. If the threshold is lowered to 7% to pull in Bush and Cruz, then Trump and Carson would be allocated the same 9 and 5 delegates respectively and Bush and Cruz would both round down to 2 delegates each. 14 delegates would be unallocated and would remain uncommitted. While the rounding in Idaho retains some operational question marks, the combination of simple rounding rules -- rounding up above .5 and down below it -- and not allocating delegates for those under the 20% threshold simplifies things to some degree.


Binding
Though the party rules use pledged rather than bound, the intent is the same with regard to how the Idaho delegates act at the national convention. Delegates are bound to the candidate who "proposed them on their list" or were pledged to by the Idaho Republican Party Nominating Committee on the first ballot of the roll call voting at the national convention. Like Hawaii, the candidates have some say in who their Idaho delegates will be. Candidates submit a list delegate candidates  -- a slate essentially -- equal to 80% of the total delegation (26 delegates). Should a candidate win all of the delegates and/or fail to submit a list (or the requisite fee), then the Nominating Committee would select and pledge delegates to that candidate. In the event of a winner-take-all scenario, that would mean the remaining 20% of delegate slots not covered by the 80% slate. In the case of a candidate not filing a slate, that would mean how ever many delegates allocated to that candidate. In a straight proportional allocation of the delegates, the 80% slate is likely to contain enough delegates to cover the candidate. Again, that is 26 of the 32 delegates.

It is a little quirky, but it does highlight that the candidates would mostly retain some power over who their delegates are. That has implications for the national convention should it go beyond just one vote. Most of those delegates would be more loyal to the candidate than delegates selected and bound to a particular candidate but who prefer another.

Additionally, a candidate's withdrawal from the race or suspension of their campaign makes their delegates uncommitted. This is clear if the withdrawal/suspension occurs after the selection but before the convention. In that case, the Idaho Republican Party rules clearly release the delegates. However, if the withdrawal occurs before the selection process described above, then the Nominating Committee may fill those slots with as many uncommitted delegates as the withdrawing candidate was entitled to.


--
State allocation rules are archived here.


--
1 Granted, McCain had already wrapped up the nomination by the time Idaho voted in May 2008 and Romney benefitted from the aforementioned, quirky caucus allocation rules in 2012.

2 Though the 17% of respondents who fell into the "Don't Know"/undecided category in the Dan Jones poll would also not have qualified for delegates, distributing that fraction to other candidates in a primary could have pushed others over the 20% qualifying threshold.

3 This polling data is being used as an example of how delegates could be allocated under these rules in Idaho and not as a forecast of the outcome in the Gem state primary.



Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 3:30 PM 1 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Idaho Presidential Primary Funding Bill Signed into Law

On Friday, April 10, Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) signed SB 1178 into law. The legislation appropriates funds for the reestablished but newly separate presidential primary in the Gem state. Governor Otter signed the bill recreating the presidential primary a day earlier.

The $2 million price tag will go toward the March 8 presidential primary. Only Idaho Republicans have opted to use the primary as a means of expressing presidential preference. Democrats in the state have already chosen to maintain the caucuses/convention system the party has traditionally used. Idaho Democrats have selected March 22 as the date of the party's precinct caucuses.


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 4:15 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Otter Signs Presidential Primary Bill, Idaho Date Set for March 8

Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) on Thursday, April 9 signed SB 1066 into law. The measure reestablishes a presidential primary in the Gem state, but unlike in the past, the primary will now be a stand-mostly-alone election scheduled for the second Tuesday in March -- March 8 during the 2016 cycle.1 The primary elections for other state and local offices will continue to be administered but separately now in mid-May.

Idaho Democrats have already chosen to maintain the caucuses/convention system the party has utilized since 1972. Gem state Republicans, then, will hold a March 8 primary and their Democratic counterparts will caucus two weeks later on March 22. The move makes Idaho the second state to slot into the second Tuesday in March date, joining Michigan. Mississippi and Ohio already had primaries scheduled for March 8 along with Hawaii Republicans' caucuses. Washington state is currently considering legislation to shift their primary to that date, and Alabama is looking to leave the March 8 date for the SEC primary a week earlier on March 1.

A bill to fund the primary is now also on the governor's desk having passed the now-adjourned Idaho state legislature.

--
1 School elections are also scheduled on that date throughout parts of the state.


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 9:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

For 2016, Idaho Democrats Opt for March 22 Caucuses

Like Washington, the state legislature in Idaho has been considering the merits of a stand-alone presidential primary during the 2016 cycle. But whereas Washington has a divided legislature, Idaho Republicans control both the legislative and executive branches. To this point in the 2015 state legislative session, that difference has affected how smoothly presidential primary legislation has moved though those bodies. Idaho is now a gubernatorial signature away from a March 8 primary. In Washington state, the state Democratic Party (and Democrats in the legislature) have held up legislation to also move into a March 8 position on the primary calendar. That is mostly due to the fact that, throughout the post-reform era, Washington Democrats have maintained a caucuses/convention system for allocating and selecting delegates to the national convention (even once a primary was established through the state initiative process in 1989).

Idaho Democrats have had a similar tradition over much of that same period. Even with a primary option available to them, Democrats in the Gem state have caucused as a means of indicating their presidential preference. Now that the Idaho Democratic Party has released the draft of their 2016 delegate selection plan, it appears -- just as is the case further west with Washington state Democrats -- as if that tradition will continue.1 The plan outlines the details of a delegate selection process that begins with Tuesday, March 22 county caucuses.

Of note is that the primary election legislation in both Idaho and Washington would align those states' primaries on the same March 8 date. However, Democrats in both states have opted for caucuses in lieu of the (potentially) available primary options. Republicans in Washington and Idaho are attempting to coordinate a regional primary, and Democrats may be trying the same thing with caucuses. But those caucuses will not fall on the same date and will happen with different partners. Whereas Washington Democrats have assembled a March 26 regional caucus with Democrats in Alaska and Hawaii, Idaho Democrats are opting into a potential subregional clustering of contests with Arizona and Utah on March 22.2

That would make for a week of Western primaries and caucuses on the Democratic primary calendar. All would fall into an area on the calendar -- on or after the fourth Tuesday in March -- where the delegations from those states would receive a 15% bonus for putting together regional clusters of primaries or caucuses.


NOTE: FHQ will pencil these dates in on the 2016 presidential primary calendar, but please note that the plans are not finalized and are still subject to change. With very few exceptions, though, the dates in the 2012 draft plans for caucuses states did not change.

--
1 The above link is to the plan on the Idaho Democratic Party site. FHQ will also keep a version of the plan here.

2 That depends on Arizona Democrats opting into the March 22 state-funded primary and Utah Democrats ironing out the details of their caucuses proposed for the same date.


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 1:30 PM 2 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Monday, April 6, 2015

House Passage Clears Way for Idaho Presidential Primary Funding Bill to Head to Governor

With a bill to reestablish a presidential primary in Idaho already off to Governor Otter's (R) desk, the lower chamber has now also quickly passed "trailer" legislation to fund the election. Last week the Idaho state Senate passed SB 1178 and on Monday, April 6, the state House followed suit, voting to send the measure to the governor for approval by a 51-18 vote.

The previous 2015 bill, SB 1066, reversed the 2012 repeal of the presidential primary law, but created a separate presidential primary that will be held in early March as opposed to May, consolidated with the other primary elections in the Gem state. Now, that election can be carried out since funds have been appropriated via SB 1178. This bill only applies to the 2016 presidential primary cycle. Funding of future presidential primary elections will be considered by legislatures on a cycle by cycle basis.


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 5:45 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

Friday, April 3, 2015

Bill to Fund Presidential Primary Moving Quickly Through Idaho Legislature

Now that both chambers of the Idaho legislature have passed SB 1066, the measure to establish a stand-alone presidential primary in March -- the body needs to move on legislation to actually appropriate funds in order to conduct the election. To that end, the state Senate earlier this week quickly proposed and passed legislation to allot $2 million to the secretary of state budget for the purpose of funding the new presidential primary election (assuming Governor Otter signs the SB 1066).

SB 1178 was introduced on Monday, March 30, made a quick stop in the Senate State Affairs Committee (garnering a do pass recommendation) on Tuesday and had passed the chamber by a 21-11 vote by Wednesday. The legislation has been transmitted to the House where, if the Senate vote is any indication, it will move quickly next week and the vote will largely resemble the original vote in the chamber(s) on SB 1066, the bill .


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 3:45 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Idaho Presidential Primary Bill Passes State House, Off to Governor Otter

The Idaho state House passed SB 1066 on Tuesday, March 31. The measure to reestablish a presidential primary and schedule it as a free-standing election on the second Tuesday in March navigated the lower chamber with only minority party Democrats and a handful of Republicans in opposition. The 50-19 vote now sends the bill off to Governor Butch Otter for his consideration.

If the governor signs the legislation that would clear the way for Idaho Republicans to switch back to a primary as its means of allocating delegates to the Republican National Convention from the caucuses/convention the party used in 2012. The Idaho Republican Party passed a resolution at its 2015 winter meeting stipulating that it would opt for a presidential primary if the state legislature passed legislation to bring the 2012-repealed primary back at an earlier date.1

An Idaho presidential primary on March 8 would align it with primaries in Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio and Republican caucuses in Hawaii. A primary on that date is also under consideration in neighboring Washington state.

--
1 The Idaho GOP did call for a consolidated primary election in that resolution. What the legislature has provided is not that, though the presidential primary may run concurrently with school elections held at that point in March. That may require additional action from the state party in order to fully switch back to a primary.


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 8:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Presidential Primary Bill Gets the Thumbs Up in Idaho Committee

The Senate-passed bill to reestablish a presidential primary in Idaho and schedule it as a stand-alone election in March was favorably reported out of committee on the House side on the morning or Tuesday, March 24. The Idaho state House State Affairs Committee passed SB 1066 on to the floor for consideration with only minimal opposition. There were at least five dissenting -- one Republican joined the four Democrats on the committee -- votes recorded out of the 17 member committee.

--
UPDATE: FHQ dropped in on the committee hearing right before the vote on SB 1066 was held, so we missed much of the discussion on the bill. But it appears that the opposition to Idaho moving back to a presidential primary -- well, creating a separate, state-funded presidential primary in March -- is mainly coming from the minority party Democrats. What Republican opposition exists centers on the cost to taxpayers (via Betsy Russell):
“I am torn on this bill for a couple of reasons,” [Rep. Linda] Luker (R) said, after several people testified that they felt excluded from the presidential primary election process because they weren’t able to attend GOP caucuses in the last election. “I understand the need to be inclusive in terms of having everyone have an opportunity to vote.” But, he said, “It’s public funds. … I just can’t support the public expenditure part of this.”
By all accounts, though, it seems likely that moving to an earlier format that will increase participation in the nomination process will win out over that position when the bill hits the floor of the Idaho state House. That would have Idaho joining Michigan on March 8 on the presidential primary calendar.

UPDATE II: The price tag may be an issue, but as Nathan Brown added:
Supporters contend that is a highball estimate and the real cost would be about half that figure since many counties have school elections on that March date anyway.
This is an issue that has come up in the past but FHQ has not really highlighted. The would-be March 8 presidential primary would be conducted concurrent with school elections that fall on the same spot on the calendar.


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 12:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Idaho Senate Passes March Presidential Primary Bill

Idaho got one step closer to bringing back a presidential primary on Tuesday, March 3. By a 23-11 vote, the Idaho state Senate passed SB 1066.1 The measure would reestablish a presidential primary election in the Gem state, but schedule it to coincide with second Tuesday in March school elections instead the May position it has been consolidated on with other primaries for state and local offices.

Democrats in Idaho have traditionally selected and allocated delegates to the national convention through a caucuses/convention system, but when Idaho Republicans followed suit -- abandoning the May primary for March caucuses for the 2012 cycle -- the Republican-controlled legislature eliminated the May presidential primary.

The bill to revive the presidential primary now moves to the state House, where at least one representative and member of the Idaho Republican State Central Committee, Ronald Nate (R-34th, Rexburg), has already spoken out against the move.2 How widespread that opposition is in the House remains to be seen. The Idaho Republican Party recently passed a resolution to support a shift back to the primary from caucuses if the legislature is able to pass a bill.

--
1 Five Republicans joined all six minority party Democrats in opposition to the bill.

 2 Rep. Nate had the following to say on SB 1066 in the Senate hearing (via Betsy Z. Russell at the Idaho Spokesman-Review):
Rep. Ron Nate, R-Rexburg, said he was speaking not as a state representative but as a Republican Party official, a current Idaho GOP central committee member and the past rules committee chairman. “Nominating presidential candidates is a party function,” Nate told the Senate State Affairs Committee. “The Idaho taxpayer should not be forced to pay for Democratic, Republican or other party’s nominations. … With current budget priorities like education and transportation in question in Idaho, we should not be spending another nickel and certainly not another $2 million to help political parties do their work.” 
Nate said the Idaho GOP in January approved an absentee voting process for its presidential selection caucuses that he said would address concerns about some members, from military members to the elderly, not being able to participate.
Similar arguments were made on the floor of the state Senate when the bill was being debated.

Rep. Nate was also the chair of the 2012 Idaho Republican Caucuses and helped draft the rules that governed them.


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:30 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Idaho Presidential Primary Bill Pushes Through Split Committee

Odd battle lines formed in the Idaho state Senate State Affairs Committee during a hearing to discuss legislation to reestablish a presidential primary election in the Gem state on Thursday, February 25.

Democrats joined some Republicans against the bill supported by state Senate Republican leadership sitting on the State Affairs Committee. At issue in the hearing for SB 1066 was the cost to taxpayers to fund the reestablished and separate presidential primary that would be scheduled for the second Tuesday in March. The estimated $2 million price tag was too much for what was viewed by Democrats and Republicans on the committee against the bill as a party function. Betsy Z. Russell at the Idaho Spokesman-Review captured that sentiment from the hearing:
Sen. Michelle Stennett, D-Ketchum, said, “The discussion we had today mostly spoke about one party. And I really think that $2 million from the general fund for a political practice is inappropriate, and I won’t be supporting this bill.”
Sen. Jeff Siddoway, R-Terreton thought the money could be spent better elsewhere:
“We could get you better teachers if we had $2 million more a year to put in that budget than what we’re about to do here. Think about that.”
Yet, both the state Senate majority leader and assistant majority leader -- who both sit on the committee -- spoke in favor of the bill. Senate Majority Leader Bart Davis, R-Idaho Falls, said in favor of the bill:
“But in this moment, I want to … provide an opportunity for every party to accept the invitation to make their process, even in a closed political voting process, as open to all who are willing to live by those rules as possible. I think SB 1066 is the closest I’ve seen so far.”
Assistant Majority Leader Chuck Winder, R-Boise, is sponsoring the legislation, and despite vocal opposition to the bill on budgetary grounds, the committee found enough support to pass the bill though and recommend that it "do pass" when it is considered on the Senate floor. That is where the bill moves next.

--
March 8, the second Tuesday in March in 2016, is a date on which the Michigan and Ohio primaries are currently scheduled. Neighboring Washington state is also eyeing that as a possible landing spot for its primary as well.

--
UPDATE (3/3/15): Second, similar primary bill passes Senate



Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 9:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)