The Electoral College Map (8/24/20)

Update for August 24.

Changes (August 24)
State	Before	After
Louisiana	Lean Trump	Strong Trump

As the Republican Party opened their national convention in Charlotte with a unanimous roll call vote in favor of President Trump, convention week part two kicked off. And with it came a handful of state-level polls that shed more light on the state of play in a pair of the most competitive states at FHQ and another survey that drew the average in Louisiana to a more normal area given how other states have swung from 2016 to now. Let's start there.


Polling Quick Hits:
Louisiana 
(Trump 54, Biden 38)
Trafalgar Group's latest was a survey that was in the field in the Pelican state the weekend before the virtual Democratic National Convention and it found a race not too far from how the picture looked on election day 2016. Biden actually hit Clinton's total in the state while President Trump ran four points behind the share he received there four years ago. But those numbers are perhaps less interesting than the fact that this survey brought the swing in Louisiana to a level on par with the average swing that has been established across all states at FHQ. Trump's share there has him about six points behind his 2016 pace while Biden is a couple of points ahead of where Hillary Clinton ended up there. That eight point swing is consistent with an average swing across all state that is now at 7.65 points in the Democrats' direction. Call Trafalgar an outlier if one must, but recognize that in this case it serves as a counterbalance to last week's survey of Louisiana that was probably an outlier in the other direction.


Ohio
(Biden 47, Trump 46)
In the Buckeye state, the closest state on the Biden side of the partisan line on the Electoral College Spectrum below, TargetSmart had a new poll in the field as July turned to August. The results did not differ too much from much of the polling over the same late July and August period, which is to say it showed a close race. But in this case, the poll found a slight advantage for the former vice president. Biden's margin there is +0.22 now which keeps the typical battleground squarely in battleground territory despite Trump's rather comfortable 2016 win there. And really, this poll is does not miss the, um, target by much. The average shares for each candidate (rounded) have them both at 46 percent.


Texas
(Biden 48, Trump 47)
Finally, in Texas, Public Policy Polling also has Biden up by a point. But that is close to the rosiest picture for the former vice president in polling that has been released from the Lone Star state since mid-July. That is one end of the range while Trump's recent leads there have ballooned to the mid-single digits. So it should come as no surprise that Biden is running ahead of his FHQ average in this survey while PPP has Trump right on his. Texas is close, but it is not as close as Ohio and probably best thought of as the North Carolina on Trump's side of the partisan line: a state that is close but has consistent favored one candidate over the other.


NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2020 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
MA-112 (14)	NJ-14 (173)	WI-10 (252)	AK-3 (125)	UT-6 (60)
HI-4 (18)	OR-7 (180)	PA-203 NE CD2-1 (273 | 286)	MO-10 (122)	IN-11 (54)
CA-55 (73)	DE-3 (183)	FL-29 (302 | 265)	SC-9 (112)	ID-4 (43)
VT-3 (76)	CO-9 (192)	NV-6 (308 | 236)	KS-6 (103)	KY-8 (39)
NY-29 (105)	NM-5 (197)	AZ-11 (319 | 230)	MT-3 NE CD1-1 (97)	AL-9 (31)
WA-12 (117)	ME-2 (199)	NC-15 (334 | 219)	MS-6 (93)	ND-3 (22)
MD-10 (127)	VA-13 (212)	ME CD2-1 OH-18 (353 | 204)	AR-6 (87)	SD-3 (19)
IL-20 (147)	MN-10 (222)	IA-6 (185)	NE-2 (81)	OK-7 (16)
ME CD1-1 RI-4 (152)	MI-16 (238)	GA-16 (179)	LA-8 (79)	WV-5 (9)
CT-7 (159)	NH-4 (242)	TX-38 (163)	TN-11 (71)	WY-3 NE CD3-1 (4)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Pennsylvania (Biden's toss up states plus the Pennsylvania), he would have 286 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Biden'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 Pennsylvania is the state where Biden crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election, the tipping point state.

Republican convention week began with a fair number of releases considering most polls would be expected to have been in the field during the weekend interregnum between conventions. That may produce some more state-level polling as the week progresses, but it likely will not be a torrent of them. And this series did little to fundamentally change things here at FHQ. Yes, Louisiana shifted back into Strong Trump territory, pushing it down a few cells deeper into the president's coalition of states and off the Watch List, but that was it. When it came to two of the closest states in the order -- Ohio and Texas -- little changed. Sure, those average margins moved, but both maintained their positions on the Spectrum close to the partisan line and Ohio continued to be among the states on the Watch List.

Since Louisiana came off the List, the number of states and districts represented fell to just 12. Those states and underpolled Nevada remain the ones to watch as new surveys are released in the coming days. They are the ones most likely to change categories.

--
There were no new polls from Nevada today.

Days since the last Nevada poll was in the field: 116.

--
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 Biden 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	Potential Switch
Florida	from Toss Up Biden	to Lean Biden
Georgia	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Iowa	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Maine	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
Maine CD2	from Toss Up Biden	to Toss Up Trump
Mississippi	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Missouri	from Toss Up Trump	to Lean Trump
Nebraska CD2	from Lean Biden	to Toss Up Biden
Ohio	from Toss Up Biden	to Toss Up Trump
Pennsylvania	from Lean Biden	to Toss Up Biden
South Carolina	from Lean Trump	to Toss Up Trump
Virginia	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

--
Methodological Note: In past years, FHQ has tried some different ways of dealing with states with no polls or just one poll in the early rounds of these projections. It does help that the least polled states are often the least competitive. The only shortcoming is that those states may be a little off in the order in the Spectrum. In earlier cycles, a simple average of the state's three previous cycles has been used. But in 2016, FHQ strayed from that and constructed an average swing from 2012 to 2016 that was applied to states. That method, however, did little to prevent anomalies like the Kansas poll that had Clinton ahead from biasing the averages. In 2016, the early average swing in the aggregate was  too small to make much difference anyway. For 2020, FHQ has utilized an average swing among states that were around a little polled state in the rank ordering on election day in 2016. If there is just one poll in Delaware in 2020, for example, then maybe it is reasonable to account for what the comparatively greater amount of polling tells us about the changes in Connecticut, New Jersey and New Mexico. Or perhaps the polling in Iowa, Mississippi and South Carolina so far tells us a bit about what may be happening in Alaska where no public polling has been released. That will hopefully work a bit better than the overall average that may end up a bit more muted.


--
Recent posts:
One Thing About Convention Bounces

The Electoral College Map (8/22/20)

The Electoral College Map (8/21/20)


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

The Electoral College Map (8/19/20)

Update for August 19.

Changes (August 19)
State	Before	After
Louisiana	Strong Trump	Lean Trump

With the presidential nomination roll call vote behind it, the Democratic National Convention moves into day three with its nominee having shed the presumptive tag. It will be a bit before any effects from this convention are witnessed in the polls both national and state-level, but that has not stopped the slow and steady release of surveys this week. A series of four battleground state polls from OnMessage and the first 2020 survey of Louisiana highlighted the day with the latter triggering a slight change in the Pelican state's classification.


Polling Quick Hits:
Arizona
(Trump 51, Biden 48):
The first in the wave of battleground state polls from OnMessage was in Arizona and it stands out, showing Trump in the lead. And that advantage is all about the Trump number. The president has not been at or above 50 percent in a survey of the Grand Canyon state since a late January poll and has settled in at a little above 44 percent in the FHQ averages. And while that high water mark for Trump in Arizona polling stands out, Biden's standing in the poll is right around his average share of support as FHQ measures it.


Florida
(Biden 49, Trump 49):
Further east in another sunbelt state, OnMessage found Biden and Trump tied at 49. And like the survey by the firm in Arizona, the Florida poll fell close to the FHQ average in the state for Biden while it had Trump running five points ahead of his average share of support. The president has been in the upper 40s in Sunshine state polls conducted in 2020, but those were surveys that were in the field in May and before.


Louisiana
(Trump 50, Biden 43):
ALG Research became the first pollster to drop into Louisiana and gauge opinion on the presidential race there in calendar 2020. Not surprisingly, Trump was ahead in a state Democrats last carried in 1996, but as has been the case across the board so far in 2020, the swing from 2016 to now has been in the Democrats' direction. But the 12 point shift this poll indicates relative to the 2016 results is on the high side. It is about four points higher than the average shift across other states.


Pennsylvania
(Biden 50, Trump 46):
Unlike the other OnMessage polls in this August wave, the firm found Biden ahead in Pennsylvania. And while both candidates overperform their FHQ averages in the Keystone state in this poll, this one does not find Trump in a space well beyond where he has been in recent polling there. And, of course, this does little to alter the state of the race in the commonwealth through lens of the FHQ graduated weighted average.


Wisconsin
(Biden 47, Trump 47):
The final OnMessage survey in Wisconsin fits the pattern in the Arizona and Florida polls. It was consistent on Biden's level of support in the Badger state, but found Trump well ahead of both his FHQ average in the state and where the president has tended to be in the recent rash of surveys coming out of Wisconsin. But in this case, the level to which Trump support was inflated relative to other polls was less severe than in either Arizona or Florida.



NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2020 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
MA-112 (14)	NJ-14 (173)	WI-10 (252)	AK-3 (125)	UT-6 (60)
HI-4 (18)	OR-7 (180)	PA-203 NE CD2-1 (273 | 286)	MO-10 (122)	IN-11 (54)
CA-55 (73)	DE-3 (183)	FL-29 (302 | 265)	SC-9 (112)	ID-4 (43)
VT-3 (76)	CO-9 (192)	NV-6 (308 | 236)	KS-6 (103)	KY-8 (39)
NY-29 (105)	NM-5 (197)	AZ-11 (319 | 230)	MT-3 NE CD1-1 (97)	AL-9 (31)
WA-12 (117)	ME-2 (199)	NC-15 (334 | 219)	LA-8 (93)	ND-3 (22)
MD-10 (127)	VA-13 (212)	ME CD2-1 OH-18 (353 | 204)	MS-6 (87)	SD-3 (19)
IL-20 (147)	MN-10 (222)	IA-6 (185)	AR-6 (79)	OK-7 (16)
ME CD1-1 RI-4 (152)	MI-16 (238)	GA-16 (179)	NE-2 (73)	WV-5 (9)
CT-7 (159)	NH-4 (242)	TX-38 (163)	TN-11 (71)	WY-3 NE CD3-1 (4)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Pennsylvania (Biden's toss up states plus the Pennsylvania), he would have 286 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Biden'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 Pennsylvania is the state where Biden crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election, the tipping point state.

Yes, the OnMessage polls appear to be outliers at this point, but even with that data included, the picture in those four battleground states hardly changed through the lens of FHQ's methodology. And while Arizona, Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all held steady in their positions on the Electoral College Spectrum above, it was the initial poll of Louisiana that forced the one change today. But it was a small change. Louisiana, too, stayed in the exact same spot on the Spectrum, but saw the average margin there dip just below ten points, pushing the Pelican state into the Lean Trump category. But instead of being on the Watch List just above the ten point line, Louisiana stays on it but just below that threshold. Again, it was a small change, but it changed Louisiana's shade on the map.

The same 13 states and districts that have populated the Watch List recently remained on it today. Those jurisdictions along with underpolled Nevada are still the places to watch for new polling data.

--
There were no new polls from Nevada today.

Days since the last Nevada poll was in the field: 111.

--
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 Biden 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	Potential Switch
Florida	from Toss Up Biden	to Lean Biden
Georgia	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Iowa	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Louisiana	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Maine	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
Maine CD2	from Toss Up Biden	to Toss Up Trump
Mississippi	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Missouri	from Toss Up Trump	to Lean Trump
Nebraska CD2	from Lean Biden	to Toss Up Biden
Ohio	from Toss Up Biden	to Toss Up Trump
Pennsylvania	from Lean Biden	to Toss Up Biden
South Carolina	from Lean Trump	to Toss Up Trump
Virginia	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

--
Methodological Note: In past years, FHQ has tried some different ways of dealing with states with no polls or just one poll in the early rounds of these projections. It does help that the least polled states are often the least competitive. The only shortcoming is that those states may be a little off in the order in the Spectrum. In earlier cycles, a simple average of the state's three previous cycles has been used. But in 2016, FHQ strayed from that and constructed an average swing from 2012 to 2016 that was applied to states. That method, however, did little to prevent anomalies like the Kansas poll that had Clinton ahead from biasing the averages. In 2016, the early average swing in the aggregate was  too small to make much difference anyway. For 2020, FHQ has utilized an average swing among states that were around a little polled state in the rank ordering on election day in 2016. If there is just one poll in Delaware in 2020, for example, then maybe it is reasonable to account for what the comparatively greater amount of polling tells us about the changes in Connecticut, New Jersey and New Mexico. Or perhaps the polling in Iowa, Mississippi and South Carolina so far tells us a bit about what may be happening in Alaska where no public polling has been released. That will hopefully work a bit better than the overall average that may end up a bit more muted.


--
Related posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/18/20)

The Electoral College Map (8/17/20)

The Electoral College Map (8/15/20)


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

2020 Democratic Delegate Allocation: LOUISIANA

LOUISIANA

Election type: primary
Date: July 11
    [April 4 originally and then June 20]
Number of delegates: 60 [12 at-large, 7 PLEOs, 35 congressional district, 6 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the congressional district level
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: proportional primary
Delegate selection plan (pre-coronavirus)
    [Changes, post-coronavirus: March | April]


--
Changes since 2016
If one followed the 2016 series on the Republican process here at FHQ, then you may end up somewhat disappointed. The two national parties manage the presidential nomination process differently. The Republican National Committee is much less hands-on in regulating state and state party activity in the delegate selection process than the Democratic National Committee is. That leads to a lot of variation from state to state and from cycle to cycle on the Republican side. Meanwhile, the DNC is much more top down in its approach. Thresholds stay the same. It is a 15 percent barrier that candidates must cross in order to qualify for delegates. That is standard across all states. The allocation of delegates is roughly proportional. Again, that is applied to every state.

That does not mean there are no changes. The calendar has changed as have other facets of the process such as whether a state has a primary or a caucus.

2019 was a mostly quiet year for primary movement compared to some recent cycles, but Louisiana was one of the few states that shifted to a different date for 2020. The change to a later date in 2020 -- the first Saturday in April -- was less about the presidential primary and more about the timing of local elections. But it did have the added benefit to Pelican state Democrats of adding bonus delegates to their total.

However, that was all before the coronavirus. After the pandemic began to spread, Louisiana became the first state to make a change, shifting the April 4 primary back to June 20. Louisiana was the first was not the last state to move, and in Louisiana's case, move again. The mid-March decision to push the primary to June did not hold very long as the coronavirus extended its reach and peak well into April. It was then -- in mid-April when the coronavirus was at its worst in New Orleans -- that the decision came down from Governor John Bel Edwards (D), moving the primary back another three weeks to July 11.

But while the change bought election administrators some additional time to get out of the shadow of the pandemic, only a slight change was made to absentee vote-by-mail in the  Pelican state. Typically, an excuse is required in order to receive an absentee ballot and that did not change in 2020. However, several coronavirus-related excuses were added to the list gradually expanding who and how many Louisianans will qualify for a vote-by-mail ballot. That diverges from how most later primary states that have moved (and even those who have not) have reacted in the wake of the coronavirus. Most states have mailed either absentee applications or ballots to voters, but Louisiana has opted not to. But then again, most states did not move to dates as late as the July date on which the Louisiana primary settled.

All absentee ballots are due to county elections offices on or before 4:30pm on Friday, July 10 for most voters. Military and overseas officials have until 8pm on Saturday, July 11 to have their absentee ballots into county registrars.

Overall, the Democratic delegation from Louisiana changed by three delegates from 2016 to 2020. The number of district delegates rose by two and one additional at-large delegate was tacked on as well. Those increases were a direct result of the timing bonus the state party gained from the primary moving to April from early March. PLEO delegates and superdelegates remain the same in 2020 as they did in 2016.


[Please see below for more on the post-coronavirus changes specific to the delegate selection process.]


Thresholds
The standard 15 percent qualifying threshold applies both statewide and on the congressional district level.


Delegate allocation (at-large and PLEO delegates)
To win any at-large or PLEO (pledged Party Leader and Elected Officials) delegates a candidate must win 15 percent of the statewide vote. Only the votes of those candidates above the threshold will count for the purposes of the separate allocation of these two pools of delegates.

See New Hampshire synopsis for an example of how the delegate allocation math works for all categories of delegates.


Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
Louisiana's 35 congressional district delegates are split across six congressional districts and have a variation of five delegates across districts from the measure of Democratic strength Pelican state Democrats are using based on the results of the 2016 presidential and 2019 gubernatorial elections in the state. That method apportions delegates as follows...
CD1 - 4 delegates
CD2 - 9 delegates*
CD3 - 5 delegates*
CD4 - 6 delegates
CD5 - 6 delegates
CD6 - 5 delegates*

*Bear in mind that districts with odd numbers of national convention delegates are potentially important to winners (and those above the qualifying threshold) within those districts. Rounding up for an extra delegate initially requires less in those districts than in districts with even numbers of delegates.


Delegate allocation (automatic delegates/superdelegates)
Superdelegates are free to align with a candidate of their choice at a time of their choosing. While their support may be a signal to voters in their state (if an endorsement is made before voting in that state), superdelegates will only vote on the first ballot at the national convention if half of the total number of delegates -- pledged plus superdelegates -- have been pledged to one candidate. Otherwise, superdelegates are locked out of the voting unless 1) the convention adopts rules that allow them to vote or 2) the voting process extends to a second ballot. But then all delegates, not just superdelegates will be free to vote for any candidate.

[NOTE: All Democratic delegates are pledged and not bound to their candidates. They are to vote in good conscience for the candidate to whom they have been pledged, but technically do not have to. But they tend to because the candidates and their campaigns are involved in vetting and selecting their delegates through the various selection processes on the state level. Well, the good campaigns are anyway.]


Selection
Under the originally approved Louisiana Democratic Party delegate selection plan, the 35 district delegates were to have been selected in a vote-by-mail system throughout April open to all registered Democrats who wanted to apply with the party. That system was unique among states before the coronavirus, but is less so after it. That system remains and was pushed back, but will now be a pre-primary exercise to slate district delegate candidates to be chosen from to fill delegate slots allocated in the July 11 primary. District delegate ballots were mailed out by the state party on April 29 and due back, postmarked by May 18.

Statewide delegates were to have been selected by the State Central Committee at a May 9 meeting, but that, too, became a casualty of the coronavirus. Louisiana Democrats opted to lean on a vote-by-mail system for selecting PLEO and then at-large delegates will continue to be chosen by the State Central Committee, but members will do so via a vote-by-mail system in which ballots were sent out on May 22 and will be due to the party, postmarked by June 8. Again, as with the district delegate selection process, the selection of statewide delegates will take place before the primary, slating delegate candidates to be chosen from after the primary.


Importantly, if a candidate drops out of the race before the selection of statewide delegates, then any statewide delegates allocated to that candidate will be reallocated to the remaining candidates. Under a deal struck between the Biden and Sanders camps, Biden will be allocated (or reallocated) all of the statewide delegates in a given state. However, during the selection process, the state party will select Sanders-aligned delegate candidates in proportion to the share of the qualified statewide vote. Louisiana Democrats will select slates of delegate candidates in pre-primary votes-by-mail. Delegates slots allocated to the candidates will be filled from those slates once the results are in from the July 11 primary, negating much of the normal reallocation rules.

On the Move Again: Louisiana Shifts Presidential Primary to July 11

Once, it seems, was not enough in the Pelican state.

At the request of Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin (R), Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards (D) on Tuesday, April 14, again issued a proclamation to move the presidential primary in the state back another three weeks. This follows the nearly three month delay the pair agreed to in mid-March as the coronavirus began to spread.

Unlike the majority of other states that have moved primaries and caucuses in the wake of the outbreak, Louisiana appears to be attempting to get enough out of the shadow of the pandemic to hold a primary election as close to usual as possible. The proclamation pushes back the early voting window to June 26-July 4, the deadline to request absentee ballots for most voters to July 7 and the deadline for those ballots to be submitted to July 10 (at 4:30pm). In-person voting remains in a state that requires an excuse (from a list of several reasons) in order to vote absentee. In other words, there is no clear effort to send all Louisiana voters an absentee application much less a primary ballot as has been the case in most of other states that have shifted to later dates during primary season.

That may or may not change in the future as the public health situation develops.

What can be said more definitively is that both the first and second new dates violate the national parties' rules on the timing of delegate selection events. The first fell late and the second even later and even closer to the (admittedly now-delayed Democratic) national conventions. Regardless of the later timing of the Democratic National Convention, Louisiana Democrats will still have to take this change before the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee for the panel's approval. Whether the later convention will help accommodate the later primary in the Pelican state will largely depend on how the state Democratic Party tweaks its delegate selection plan to meet the new later date.

The governor's proclamation is archived here.

--
UPDATE (4/28/20): The Louisiana state legislature passed legislation to provide for a series of coronavirus-related excuses in order to request an absentee ballot. The bill did not, however, remove the need for an excuse. Prospective absentee voters applying for ballot must choose from a list of excuses that includes having a preexisting condition that may put the voter at increased risk of contracting covid-19, being in quarantine, being advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine, experiencing symptoms of the coronavirus, or caring for someone who has the disease. How rigorous the county elections officials will be in processing and accepting those excuses remains to be seen. But the move does provide marginally more relief to voters seeking a safer alternative to vote (even if Republicans in the state legislature scuttled the governor and secretary of state's plans to be more accommodating with vote-by-mail options).

The covid-related absentee application is archived here.


--
The Louisiana primary date has been changed on the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.



--
Related post:
Louisiana Shifts Presidential Primary Back to June 20 Amid Rising Coronavirus Concerns

Louisiana Shifts Presidential Primary Back to June 20 Amid Rising Coronavirus Concerns

Louisiana Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin (R) on Friday moved the planned presidential primary in the Pelican state from April 4 to June 20 as the reach of the coronavirus stretches beyond sports and culture into election administration. Ardoin made the change citing "emergency suspension or delays and rescheduling" of elections because of the possibility of an emergency or disaster.

While it is not unusual for plans to be finalized by state parties (in coordination with the national parties) for delegate selection processes in the year of a presidential nomination, it is unusual for state governments to make these types of changes. But then again, Covid-19 has, to understate things, made things unusual in 2020.

The biggest things here are that, first of all, the June 20 date falls outside of the window the DNC has established for state parties to conduct primaries or caucuses. That window closes on June 9, the second Tuesday in June. That deadline is why the District of Columbia Council changed the date of their third Tuesday in June primary in 2019; to comply with the DNC rules.

But secondly, the change also runs up against the logistics of delegate selection ahead of the convention. June 20 is the last date on which any states are selecting any delegates -- filling slots allocated to candidates through primaries and caucuses -- for the national convention on the Democratic side. It is one thing for the selection process to reach its conclusion just 23 days before the conventions gavels in. But it is another for the the state party in Louisiana to take results that may not be finalized on the day of the primary and then choose delegates based on those results. That would likely occur within three weeks of the convention.

That is late.

The Republican National Committee by comparison requires the delegate selection process to be completed by 45 days before the national convention. But the Republican National Convention does not begin until August 24, 65 days after the new June 20 Louisiana primary. The change in Pelican state does not defy that rule, but it does violate the Republican window that closes to contests on June 13, the second Saturday in June.

But again, this virus has thrust the world into uncharted territory and that now includes primary elections administration. The question now is whether Louisiana is the last or just the first state to make a change to their primary date as this situation evolves.


--
The Louisiana primary date will be changed on the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.

Louisiana Presidential Primary Moves to April on Edwards' Signature

Governor John Bel Edwards (D) on Thursday, June 20 signed into law the omnibus elections code bill -- HB 563 -- that has been working its way through the Louisiana legislature this spring.

Among other things, the legislation pushes back the presidential primary from the first Saturday in March to the first Saturday in April. And that change has less to do with the presidential primary than the municipal and ward elections that are consolidated with it. The calendar of holidays dictated a change of the municipal primaries in order not to conflict with those holidays in spring 2020.

Louisiana now joins Democratic contests in Alaska and Hawaii on the same April 4 date, a position on the calendar more sparsely populated than the slot just after Super Tuesday and just before the second most delegate-rich date on the calendar on March 10.


The Louisiana presidential primary date change has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


--
Related:
6/5/19: April Presidential Primary Bill Has Passed the Legislative Stage in Louisiana


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

April Presidential Primary Bill Has Passed the Legislative Stage in Louisiana

Last week the Louisiana Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee passed an amendment to HB 563, a bill focused on revising some technical aspects of the Louisiana Elections Code. The newly adopted amendment proposes shifting the presidential primary in the Pelican state from the first Saturday in March to the first Saturday in April.

On the surface, this may look like a maneuver on the part of Louisiana Republicans in the legislature to shift back to a later date and move to a more winner-take-all formula for allocating delegates. But it is more complicated than that.

The Louisiana presidential preference primary is tethered to municipal and ward primary elections as well. While the presidential preference primary is a one-off election on the first Saturday in March, those municipal and ward primaries are typical of primaries in the Pelican state. They are often precursors to runoff (general) elections five weeks later. Five weeks later than the first Saturday in March is the second Saturday in April. And in 2020, the second Saturday in April falls within three days of one of the enumerated holidays -- Good Friday, in this case -- in Louisiana code. Elections under the same statutes cannot fall within three days of one of those holidays.

The legislative solution to this holiday-triggered scheduling conundrum initially was to move everything up a week earlier, placing the presidential preference primary (and the other primaries as well) on the last Saturday in February.

Well, to regular readers of FHQ, that should send up red flags. Any presidential primary or caucus held before the first Tuesday in March in either party makes the violating state party vulnerable to a reduction of national convention delegates.

The February date never appeared in the bill, but was something worked on outside of the legislature by both major state parties and the governor before the conflict (possible rules violation) was raised. That prompted coordination by the same parties on an alternative date. And the one initial date that allowed for a five week window -- from primary to general election for those municipal offices -- was the first Saturday in April.

That amendment was adopted by the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee on Wednesday, May 29. The state Senate passed the amended version 37-1 on Sunday June 2 and the state House concurred with the changes 96-2 on Monday, June 3. The near-unanimity speaks to the coordination across parties in and out of the legislature on the date change.

HB 563 now heads to Governor John Bel Edwards (D) for his consideration. And since he was involved in the prior discussions, the expectation should be that he will sign the bill.

The move would align the Louisiana presidential primary with the party-run Democratic primaries in Alaska and Hawaii on the same date, Saturday, April 4. As 2020 calendar spots go, it is not a bad spot. Yes, it follows the March rush of contests. But it falls at a point on the calendar where there is not a whole lot of competition -- the Wisconsin primary is the following Tuesday -- and any remaining candidates would have incentive to trek down and pop in on Pelican state primary voters. The drawback is that Louisiana would be the last of the southern states to hold a contest. But the benefit, on the Democratic side in any event, is that Louisiana's primary electorate is predominantly African American. That could come into play in a significant way potentially regardless of who remains in the race for the Democratic nomination at that juncture.


--
The Louisiana bill has been added to the FHQ 2020 Presidential primary calendar.

--
Hat tip to Andrew Tuozzolo for passing news of the Louisiana shift to FHQ.



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

The Electoral College Map (11/2/16)

New State Polls (11/2/16)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Clinton	Trump	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Arizona	Emerson	10/29-10/31	+/-3.6%	700 likely voters	43	47	5	+4	--
Arizona	CNN/ORC	10/27-11/1	+/-3.5%	769 likely voters	44	49	0	+5	--
Arizona	Lucid/Times-Picayune	10/28-11/1	--	1113 likely voters	41	42	6	+1	+1.42
Colorado	Emerson	10/28-10/31	+/-3.5%	750 likely voters	44	41	3	+3	--
Colorado	University of Denver	10/29-10/31	+/-4.2%	550 likely voters	39	39	9	+/-0	--
Colorado	Lucid/Times-Picayune	10/28-11/1	--	972 likely voters	44	37	8	+7	+3.94
Florida	TargetSmart	10/25-10/30	--	718 likely voters	48	40	0	+8	--
Florida	Trafalgar	10/27-10/31	+/-2.89%	1150 likely voters	45	49	3	+4	--
Florida	CNN/ORC	10/27-11/1	+/-3.5%	773 likely voters	49	47	0	+2	--
Florida	Quinnipiac	10/27-11/1	+/-3.9%	626 likely voters	46	45	4	+1	+2.06
Georgia	Emerson	10/29-10/31	+/-3.8%	650 likely voters	42	51	2	+9	+3.13
Kansas	Survey USA	10/26-10/30	+/-4.0%	624 likely voters	38	49	6	+11	+11.64
Louisiana	Lucid/Times-Picayune	10/15-10/21	--	614 likely voters	40	43	7	+3	+12.72
Michigan	MSU State of the State	9/1-10/31	+/-3.6%	746 likely voters	47	28	8	+19	--
Michigan	Mitchell	11/1	+/-3.29%	887 likely voters	47	44	3	+3	+7.20
Missouri	Emerson	10/28-10/31	+/-3.8%	650 likely voters	37	52	4	+15	--
Missouri	DFM Research	10/27-11/1	+/-4.4%	508 likely voters	38	47	11	+9	+7.92
Nevada	CNN/ORC	10/27-11/1	+/-3.5%	790 likely voters	43	49	1	+6	--
Nevada	JMC Analytics	10/28-11/1	+/-4.0%	600 likely voters	45	45	4	+/-0	--
Nevada	Lucid/Times-Picayune	10/28-11/1	--	892 likely voters	45	38	7	+7	+0.77
New Mexico	Lucid/Times-Picayune	10/28-11/1	--	567 likely voters	39	31	7	+8	+7.85
North Carolina	Quinnipiac	10/27-11/1	+/-4.0%	602 likely voters	47	44	5	+3	+1.58
Ohio	Trafalgar	10/24-10/26	+/-2.89%	1150 likely voters	44	49	5	+5	--
Ohio	Quinnipiac	10/27-11/1	+/-4.0%	589 likely voters	41	46	5	+5	+0.25
Oregon	DHM Research	10/25-10/29	+/-4.4%	504 likely voters	41	34	11	+7	+9.43
Pennsylvania	CNN/ORC	10/27-11/1	+/-3.5%	799 likely voters	48	44	0	+4	--
Pennsylvania	Quinnipiac	10/27-11/1	+/-4.0%	612 likely voters	48	43	2	+5	--
Pennsylvania	Monmouth	10/29-11/1	+/-4.9%	403 likely voters	48	44	3	+4	--
Pennsylvania	Susquehanna	10/31-11/1	+/-3.76%	681 likely voters	45	43	6	+2	+5.38
Virginia	Winthrop	10/23-10/30	+/-3.6%	712 likely voters	44	39	7	+5	--
Virginia	Hampton	10/26-10/30	+/-4.37%	802 likely voters	41	44	15	+3	+6.37
Wisconsin	Marquette	10/26-10/31	+/-3.5%	1255 likely voters	46	40	4	+6	+6.42

--
Changes (11/2/16)
6 days left.

There is lots to look at today. 32 polls from 16 states were released, offering quite a bit of data in a number of battleground states. Additionally, there were a few other surveys from several Lean Clinton states where Trump has peel off at least one in addition to sweeping the toss ups to get to 270.

All of that data was noisy, but the underlying picture is one of stability. Yes, part of that is the methodology behind the FHQ graduated weighted averages. But the race, not to mention the map, has been in stasis at 340-198 since the beginning of October. That remains true even with the addition of these polls. Ohio continues to close in on a tie here at FHQ, moving toward Trump. Any more results resembling today's polls of the Buckeye state will likely push it over the partisan line. Of course, Ohio has been on the Watch List for a while now. It was joined again by Nevada which slipped under the Clinton +1 mark on the weight of three new surveys.

The order of states on the Electoral College Spectrum also held mostly steady. Virginia and Wisconsin swapped spots in the Lean Clinton area, and Missouri pushed past South Carolina in the Lean Trump area. Other than that, everything held steady.

Late add:
The University of Denver poll of Colorado pulls the Centennial state off the Watch List. It is now firmly within the Toss Up Clinton area (in addition to being the tipping point state below on the Spectrum).

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
MD-102 (13)	RI-4 (162)	PA-20 (263)	TX-38 (161)	TN-11 (61)
HI-4 (17)	NJ-14 (176)	CO-94 (272 | 275)	SC-9 (123)	AR-6 (50)
VT-3 (20)	OR-7 (183)	FL-29 (301 | 266)	MO-10 (114)	ND-3 (44)
MA-11 (31)	NM-5 (188)	NC-15 (316 | 237)	UT-6 (104)	NE-53 (41)
CA-55 (86)	MN-10 (198)	NV-6 (322 | 222)	IN-11 (98)	KY-8 (36)
NY-29 (115)	MI-16 (214)	OH-18 (340 | 216)	MS-6 (87)	AL-9 (28)
IL-20+13 (136)	ME-23 (216)	IA-6 (198)	KS-6 (81)	ID-4 (19)
DE-3 (139)	WI-10 (226)	AZ-11 (192)	SD-3 (75)	WV-5 (15)
WA-12 (151)	VA-13 (239)	GA-16+13 (181)	LA-8 (72)	OK-7 (10)
CT-7 (158)	NH-4 (243)	AK-3 (164)	MT-3 (64)	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 Colorado (all Clinton's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 275 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 Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral college votes to candidates in a more proportional manner. The statewide winner receives the two electoral votes apportioned to the state based on the two US Senate seats each state has. Additionally, the winner within a congressional district is awarded one electoral vote. Given current polling, all five Nebraska electoral votes would be allocated to Trump. In Maine, a split seems more likely. Trump leads in Maine's second congressional district while Clinton is ahead statewide and in the first district. She would receive three of the four Maine electoral votes and Trump the remaining electoral vote. Those congressional district votes are added approximately where they would fall in the Spectrum above. 4 Colorado 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. Currently, Colorado is in the Toss Up Clinton category.

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
Indiana	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Iowa	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Clinton
Mississippi	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Nevada	from Toss Up Clinton	to Toss Up Trump
New Hampshire	from Lean Clinton	to Toss Up Clinton
Ohio	from Toss Up Clinton	to Toss Up Trump
Oregon	from Lean Clinton	to Strong Clinton
Pennsylvania	from Lean Clinton	to Toss Up Clinton
Utah	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (11/1/16)

Happy Halloween, 2016

The Electoral College Map (10/31/16)

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