Showing posts with label Nevada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nevada. Show all posts

Thursday, June 1, 2023

Republican Sound and Fury in Nevada Over 2024 Presidential Primary, Signifying Little

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...
  • Folks are starting to look more at the 2024 primary calendar and while there is uncertainty as to its final state, it can be narrowed down to a limited number of questions in a handful of states. An update on the calendar at FHQ Plus.
If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.


In Invisible Primary: Visible today...
...
FHQ had a number of interesting conversations on the periphery of the news about the lawsuit filed last week by Nevada Republicans to seek relief from (future) enforcement of the new presidential primary law in the Silver state. One can read the brief FHQ take on the matter at the link above, but we would also recommend the piece by Derek Muller at Election Law Blog and the Nevada Independent rundown of things from the Silver state perspective.

It is a strange lawsuit. 

It is strange because, according to the NV Indy report, the Nevada secretary of state's office interprets the code created by the 2021 bill to allow for a party to conduct caucuses in lieu of the newly created state-run presidential primary. Furthermore, legislation also considered and passed during the same legislative session in 2021 unentangled the state from the business of the state parties organizing themselves, something that conflicted with an amendment to that section of the code in the presidential primary bill. But the repeal of those sections overrode the one amendment included in that primary bill.

So why all of the fuss from Nevada Republicans?

Well, for starters, the party is fundraising off of the lawsuit. [That is a screengrab of the splash page when one navigates to the Nevada Republican Party web page as of this writing.] But that is perhaps an unconventional (but increasingly conventional) way to raise funds, via lawsuit.

But also there is a potential national party angle here as well. No, the Republican National Committee (RNC) is not pushing Nevada Republicans to sue, not directly anyway. However, national party rules may present something of a problem to Nevada Republicans should there be a beauty contest primary but also caucuses that would serve as the official method by which the state party would allocate and select delegates to the national convention.

The problem? Consider the situation in Michigan. 

Democrats in control of the state government in Lansing passed a bill earlier this year that was subsequently signed into law moving the presidential primary in the Great Lakes state to late February for 2024. But that is in violation of RNC rules on the timing of primaries and caucuses. That, in turn and in part, may prompt Michigan Republicans to conduct caucuses in order to avoid sanction from the national party. 

But that is a problem. Later and compliant caucuses would necessarily have to follow the noncompliant February presidential primary in Michigan. Yet, RNC rules also require that any statewide vote be used as the contest on which delegate allocation must be based. With the noncompliant statewide primary vote coming first, it would have to be used as the data from which delegate allocation is to be allocated. 

See the issue here? Nevada Republicans, even if they have the cover to conduct caucuses as the Nevada secretary of state's office suggests, would be forced to conduct those caucuses either alongside the state-run primary or before it -- constraining the party's choices -- to avoid running afoul of the RNC rules. 

Or so it would seem. 

The situations in Michigan and Nevada, however, are different. Candidate filing is different. Candidates actually file to appear on the primary ballot in Nevada. They do not in Michigan, where the secretary of state merely creates a list of recognized candidates to appear on the primary ballot. If Nevada Republicans plan to hold caucuses on, say, February 13 -- after the February 6 primary -- and allocate delegates based on that, then the candidates will file with the state party and not with the state to be on the primary ballot. If no candidates file -- or if just one files -- then there would be no Republican primary in Nevada under current law. There would be no earlier statewide vote to conflict with a later official caucus vote. There would be no RNC penalties. 

It would appear, then, that Nevada Republicans already have the answers they need and do not really need the lawsuit. Unless they are just looking to raise funds for the caucuses. But again, this is a strange lawsuit.


...
Allan Smith over at NBC News has a great deep dive on the alleged problems in Republican-aligned canvassing efforts. Look, it is likely that the "problem" is overstated in the piece -- close election losses rarely come down to just one factor -- but that does not mean canvassing on the Republican side does not fall short of what Democrats are doing. And the issue with paid volunteers is particularly important given all of the hiring that outside groups like the DeSantis-affiliated super PAC, Never Back Down, are doing in states on Super Tuesday and earlier on the calendar. 


...
Invisible Primary quick hits:
  • In the staff primary, Donald Trump hired Eric Hollander to oversee operations in Iowa and New Hampshire. Hollander's presidential campaign experience includes being a part of the Cruz operation in South Carolina in 2016 before moving on to lead the campaign in Illinois, a state with notoriously difficult delegate rules.
  • It was nice to see some actual analysis in press coverage of the steep odds a late-entry Glenn Youngkin bid for the Republican nomination would face.
  • Former Vice President Mike Pence will enter the presidential race on Wednesday, June 7 in Iowa. Pence will be a part of a busy week for candidate entry with Chris Christie set to announce Tuesday in New Hampshire and Doug Burgum launching his campaign on Wednesday as well.
  • The busy travel primary week in Iowa continues on Thursday. Donald Trump returns to the Hawkeye state in the wake of DeSantis stops there. Senator Joni Ernst's Roast and Ride is also this weekend in Iowa.

...
On this date...
...in 1976, another late-season series of contests saw split results in both parties' competitive nomination races. President Gerald Ford took the Rhode Island primary while former California Governor Ronald Reagan continued his dominance out west, winning primaries in Montana (beauty contest) and South Dakota. On the Democratic side, Jimmy Carter topped the field in South Dakota, but lost to Idaho Senator Frank Church in Montana and an uncommitted slate (aligned with California Governor Jerry Brown) in Rhode Island.

...in 2004, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry won primaries in Alabama and South Dakota and President George W. Bush won primaries in the Yellowhammer state as well as in New Mexico.

...in 2008, New York Senator Hillary Clinton won the Puerto Rico Democratic primary, but still trailed Barack Obama in the delegate count late in a tight race for the Democratic nomination.

...in 2015, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) officially joined the growing field of candidates vying for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

...in 2019, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan declines to challenge President Donald Trump for the 2020 Republican presidential nomination.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Wednesday, May 31, 2023

Nevada Republicans Sue to Restore Presidential Caucuses

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.


In Invisible Primary: Visible today...
...
KSNV this morning is reporting that the Nevada Republican Party intends to sue to have presidential caucuses reinstated in the Silver state for 2024. Things have been quiet in Nevada on the primary calendar front, but the primary or caucus question there is one of the key decisions in the finalization of the 2024 presidential primary calendar. And this is the clearest signal yet as to how Nevada Republicans plan to allocate and select delegates in 2024. 

The Nevada Republican Party was not exactly glowing in its description of the new primary: Due to the inability of Nevada Democrats to execute a smooth, efficient caucus, they want to use unaccountable dark money in an attempt to force Republicans to change the way we choose our Presidential nominee, and allow out-of-state interests to interfere in the Nevada GOP nominating process.

Bluster aside, the legal argument was not provided according to the KSNV report, but it is likely to include as its foundation a political party's first amendment right to freely of associate; that the party has the right to determine its process for choosing its candidates (or in this case, its presidential preference). There is no opt-out clause in the law that in 2021 established a presidential primary in the Silver state. However, that law does prohibit caucuses from occurring before the presidential primary. The provision was included more to insure that delegates would be allocated/selected based on the results of the presidential primary, but did not properly account for the fact that a state party may not want to participate in the state-funded presidential primary. 

And Nevada Republicans likely have a leg to stand on there. This may free the party to officially go the caucus route in 2024, but it probably will not end the presidential primary. The big question is whether the prohibition on scheduling the caucuses before the primary is struck down. Nevada Republicans do not need to hold caucuses before February 6, but this move does cast some doubt on where those caucuses may end up next year.



...
This is not exactly invisible primary-related, but Elaine Kamarck and Michael Hais at Brookings have a nice look at the gender gap in the youth vote. It is worth reading with both primary season and the general election in mind.


...
Invisible Primary quick hits:

...
On this date...
...in 2002, Vermont Governor Howard Dean filed paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission establishing an exploratory committee for what would be his run for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.

...in 2008, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to partially reverse its full penalty on rogue primary states, Florida and Michigan as the party's contentious primary contest wound down. The vote restored the full delegations but granted each delegate just half a vote. In a pre-convention concession from the Obama campaign, all delegates were seated and with full voting rights in Denver. [NOTE: This reversal and subsequent concession is important for 2024. It is a precedent that is fueling New Hampshire Democrats' defiance of the DNC calendar changes for the 2024 cycle.]



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

Thursday, December 15, 2022

Nevada Holds the Key for 2024 Republican Presidential Primary Calendar

...for right now.

Much of the talk of late when it comes to the 2024 presidential primary calendar has focused on the Democratic side of the equation. It was, after all, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) that recently adopted a new calendar order that would break with the traditionally established alignment. The full DNC will not have an opportunity to vote to finalize those rules until its February meeting, but the states conditionally granted waivers have to show steps have been taken toward those dates by January 5, 2023. 

The processes will not be complete by then, but South Carolina Democrats will have a Saturday, February 3 primary. The state parties select the dates of primary in the Palmetto state. In Nevada, the presidential primary is already scheduled for the February 6 slot the DNCRBC has reserved for it (and was before the DNCRBC made its decision). And unified Democratic-controlled government in Michigan will mean that compliance in the Great Lakes state is likely forthcoming. 

Those are the known knowns. Each is locked into position (or will be) on the Democratic calendar. 

And that will have some impact on the Republican calendar as well. As will the unknown knowns. Iowa Republicans and the New Hampshire secretary of state will undoubtedly work around the fixed positions of those state contests to remain first in 2024. It just is not clear where either will end up when voting kicks off in little more than a year.

Part of answering that question, however, will be determined by the other two states in the Republican Party early state lineup: Nevada and South Carolina. It does not have to work sequentially, but if an Iowa to New Hampshire to South Carolina to Nevada order is to be preserved in the upcoming cycle on the Republican side, then Nevada will have the most decisive move with respect to where the remaining contests are scheduled on the calendar. 

Well, Nevada Republicans will anyway. The state party there in the Silver state has a decision before it. The path of least resistance -- not to mention the cheapest route for the state party -- would be to utilize the newly established state government-run (and funded) presidential primary. That would lock Nevada Republicans into the same February 6 calendar position as state Democrats and start a chain reaction in the remaining three states that would likely look something like this:
  • Monday, January 8: Iowa Republican caucuses
  • Tuesday, January 16: New Hampshire primary
  • Saturday, January 27: South Carolina Republican primary
  • Tuesday, February 6: Nevada primary
[South Carolina Republicans could opt to hold a primary that coincides with Democrats in the state, but that has not been the custom in the post-reform era, nor in the period starting in 2008 when the DNC officially added South Carolina to the pre-window. The same could be said of a Tuesday, January 23 date. That could happen, but again, the custom in the Palmetto state has been to conduct Saturday contests.]

Again, that is the cost-effective route for Nevada Republicans. But "cheap" may not be the only consideration. Recall that Republicans in the Nevada legislature were not onboard with the Democratic-led charge to establish a presidential primary in 2021. And the state Republican Party may eschew the contest and shift to caucuses as a result. That is, the likely electorate is another factor that may take precedence with decision makers within the state party. Or rather, the way that particular electorates may be perceived to affect the outcome in advance of the contest may weigh on decision makers (or be made to weigh on them).  

While the state party may (or may not) be indifferent to the caucuses versus primary matter, it could also be that the candidates (or some faction of them) prefer one to the other. Trump won the Nevada Republican caucuses in 2016 and may, for example, strategically prefer a smaller, more ideologically energized electorate in his efforts to not only win the contest, but take more delegates out of the Silver state. Trump, or candidates and their campaigns that are similarly inclined, may lobby the state party to move in one direction or the other. 

Regardless, going the caucus route would give the Nevada Republican Party some scheduling flexibility that does not currently exist with the state government-run primary. The caucuses would not have to be on February 6 or even before it. In fact, the party would have nearly the whole of February to work with in setting the date of the caucuses, from the Saturday after the primary, for instance, to the Saturday before Super Tuesday.1 [And it would not have to be a Saturday, of course. Candidates and their campaigns may have strategic considerations in a Tuesday contest relative to a Saturday one. The Nevada Republican Party may too!]

The later the date Nevada Republicans choose for the (hypothetical) caucuses, the more wiggle room South Carolina Republicans would have as a result. Republicans in the Silver state could settle on something in the Saturday, February 17 to Tuesday, February 20 range and stay far enough ahead of the Michigan (Democratic) primary on the 27th. That would also allow South Carolina Republicans to schedule their primary for a spot after Palmetto state Democrats on Saturday, February 10. That would yield a calendar that looks something like this:
  • Monday, January 15: Iowa Republican caucuses
  • Tuesday, January 23: New Hampshire primary
  • Saturday, February 10: South Carolina Republican primary
  • Saturday, February 17 or Tuesday, February 20: Nevada Republican caucuses
None of the movement behind or up to the South Carolina Democratic primary on February 3 matters. It is immaterial to decision makers in New Hampshire. The secretary of state in the Granite state will select a Tuesday date at least seven days ahead of the next earliest similar contest. And that will be the South Carolina Democratic primary unless Republicans in the Palmetto state choose to hold their primary before Democrats there. And Iowa Republicans will choose a date eight days earlier than New Hampshire.

Nevada Republicans may hold the key to what happens next in the early calendar on the Republican side, but because of the way the Democratic calendar looks to start, there is not much of a range in where Iowa (Republicans) and New Hampshire will end up. ...unless Nevada Republicans opt to hold caucuses some time in January (which is not necessary).

The unknown unknowns at this point, before state legislatures have convened for their 2023 sessions, is what other states may do. As of now, there is no threat of calendar crashing on the horizon and the national parties have severe penalties in place to deal with states that may consider breaking into the area of the calendar before Super Tuesday on March 5.

--
1 Having the bulk of February with which to work depends on Georgia. While the Peach state was part of the group of five states that made it into President Biden's early calendar proposal, it does not appear likely that state Republicans (in the secretary of state's office) will be cooperative. 

Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Tuesday, March 9, 2021

The Nevada State Democratic Party Shake Up and 2024

The political landscape in Nevada shifted over the weekend. 

Judith Whitmer was elected state party chair of the Nevada Democratic Party which was quickly followed by a mass resignation of most of the state party apparatus. The particulars of the intra-party squabble are less important, however, than the impact the moves may have with respect to electoral politics in upcoming cycles. The elevation of a Bernie Sanders-aligned chair and subsequent loss of party infrastructure is only going to place more strain on the relationship between the state/state party and the Democratic National Committee. Sure, that will affect fundraising and get-out-the-vote efforts in the near term, but Nevada Democrats -- in the state legislature and in the now-departing state party -- have come out of the 2024 gates with a brazen yet flawed vehicle to challenge Iowa and New Hampshire for first-in-the-nation status on the presidential primary calendar moving forward. 

The developments of this past weekend in the Silver state will only serve to further hamper that effort. 

Last month, FHQ asked whether the stars would align for Nevada to take over the spot at the front of the queue on the 2024 presidential primary calendar. A state and its decision makers can be willing to do something -- in this case establish a presidential primary to replace a caucus and schedule the contest early on the calendar -- but are those actors actually able to pull that maneuver off? I cannot speak to the current willingness within what will be a new state party structure, but each move thus far in Nevada in 2021 has made it less likely that the state will be able to successfully move up the calendar and displace Iowa and New Hampshire. 

Take a look at Iowa for a moment. It is a BIG deal that there are dissenting voices in the Hawkeye state these days, dissenting voices suggesting it is time for Iowa (Democrats) to give up their coveted early calendar position and shift away from a caucus/convention system to select and allocate national convention delegates. Part of what has made Iowa successful in keeping its slot at the front is that everyone there -- within the two major state parties, across the two parties and among elected officials -- was on the same page: do whatever it takes to stay first. Again, that there is some break in this is BIG deal. That does not mean that Iowa will lose its position at the top, but it will not help. 

And that is an effort to preserve something that Iowa has held for nearly half a century. Already on the defensive after 2020, Iowans may have some difficulty in continuing to make that case.

Now, go back to Nevada. Democrats in the legislature (and formerly of the state party) are not trying to preserve something, but to gain something. A bill to set a January date for a newly established presidential primary may only agitate the DNC and will certainly give New Hampshire secretary of state Bill Gardner ample time to once again move ahead of any would-be interlopers on their first-in-the-nation status. Layer on top of that potential agitation a state party apparatus that does not as clearly see eye to eye with the national party and one has a recipe for disaster. Or if not disaster, then a (very) problematic path to first-in-the-nation status. 

Certainly, under these circumstances, the DNC would be inclined to continue pushing for a state government-run presidential primary rather than let a state party it is at odds with conduct caucuses early on the 2024 calendar. But even if that new party structure supports the presidential primary, it will not be in a good position to make the pitch that it should be first if is remains at loggerheads with the national party and backs an ineffective primary bill that really only stirs the pot. Other states will likely make these pitches too if the DNC entertains replacing Iowa and/or New Hampshire at the front of the line. And what once looked like a reasonable cross-section of the Democratic Party primary electorate in Nevada may look worse off -- like less of a safe bet -- for having provoked the national party. Other states may begin to look attractive as alternatives. 

And it could also be that the road of least resistance is just maintaining the status quo on the presidential primary calendar. Those first two states may not come off looking too good -- representative -- until one begins to consider what the alternatives are. 

...and more importantly what getting one of those alternatives there would entail. Talk of replacing Iowa and New Hampshire is easy. Replacing them is not. So far in 2021, Nevada has done itself no favors in its attempt to be that alternative.



Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:15 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Thursday, February 25, 2021

Nevada Senate Bill Would Establish Consolidated Presidential Primary in June

In one corner, there is the recent proposal from majority Democrats in the Nevada Assembly to not only establish a presidential primary in the Silver state, but to schedule it in late January in an effort to challenge for first-in-the-nation status on the presidential primary calendar.

But in the other now is a counterproposal of sorts from nearly the full Republican caucus (including all of the leadership) in the Nevada state Senate. However, instead of being early calendar provocative, the Republican bill introduced last week -- SB 130 -- would similarly establish a presidential primary, but tether it to the primary for state and local offices. That primary currently falls on the second Tuesday in June. 

On timing, then, these two measures could not place the presidential primary further away from one another. Democrats, who are not assured of having an active nomination race in 2024 with an incumbent in the White House, are pushing the envelope in Nevada on the front end of the calendar. But the Republican bill would schedule the new presidential primary -- consolidated with the other primaries -- near the back end of the primary calendar when the GOP may have an active nomination race. [No Democratic contest can be later than the second Tuesday in June, and no Republican primary or caucus can fall on a date after the second Saturday in June.]  

It is a stark contrast, one that breaks with how in-parties and out-parties behave between cycles with respect to their delegate selection rules (on both the national and state levels). The motivation for Republicans is clear. The countermeasure would create a presidential primary, but avoid the costs of funding an all new separate presidential primary election as the Democrats' proposal does. Yet, as with the Democratic bill in the Assembly, this latest bill can also be amended. But would Silver state legislators want to contend with anything other than a June primary for their own renomination contests (if the full consolidated primary was moved to any earlier date upon amendment)? Alternatively, would such a proposal meet the Democrats' wishes of a presidential primary but allow Silver state Republicans to stick with their caucuses for allocating national convention delegates? 

Regardless, Nevada Republicans are in the minority in both chambers of the state legislature, so it is not exactly clear how much leverage they bring to the discussion of the establishment and scheduling of a presidential primary. 


--
A link to this legislation has been added to the 2024 FHQ presidential primary calendar.



Posted by Josh Putnam at 1:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Share |

Tuesday, February 23, 2021

If It Was So Easy to Change Then It Would Have Changed By Now

FHQ read with some interest the latest editorial from Michelle Cottle at The New York Times before the weekend hit. It was one of a genre the vintage of which one sees in the seemingly lazy days between presidential nomination cycles. One can call those of that ilk the "it's time for a change (to the presidential nomination process)." Sure, they are around every cycle, but they tend to most often arise in the midst of (or perhaps just before) a new round of presidential primaries and caucuses. 

In other words, they often come too late. So in Cottle's defense, at least her call for reform is coming at a time in which it may actually matter: before the national parties set their rules for the upcoming cycle. Granted, FHQ's defense of the piece only goes about that far. Much of it leans on a sort of Green Lantern theory of presidential nomination reform. If only the interested players tried a bit harder, then all the ills of the process would be gone. But that theory and this piece ignore the realities of reform. 

If it was as easy to change the process as it is made out there, then certainly things would have changed by now, nearly half a century into the post-reform era. But those rules do not change with ease. They are and the presidential nomination process is a tremendous collective action problem for the parties. And while consensus may (or may not) exist to make changes, agreeing to what those tweaks will be is a much more difficult enterprise when considering the mix of interests involved: the national parties, the state parties, the state governments, the candidates and their proxies on rules-making bodies. Getting enough of those groups on the same page is tough enough in the abstract, but the climb is steeper still when the politics of any given moment intersect with the process. 

Now may be one of those times when the moment is right for change. Iowa Democrats bungled their caucuses in 2020. Neither primary or caucus electorate in Iowa nor New Hampshire matches well with the current constituency of the broader Democratic Party coalition of the moment. And there seems to be a willing candidate to fill their void on the primary calendar. Maybe the stars will align. However, missteps may scuttle any potential for change. Nevada Democrats may be at some risk of overplaying their hand. The conditions are right, but the provocative nature of their January primary bill may complicate its efforts, riling up not only New Hampshire as Cottle points out, but also the national party.

And that is what often gets lost in these primary reform prescriptions that pop up every four years. They can raise the ills of any given process, but often fail in considering the process for bringing about such a change. 

Take Cottle's consideration of caucuses in 2020. Caucuses are not new, nor are the problems associated with them. She notes that "caucuses are a convoluted, vaguely anti-democratic way to pick a nominee," and that "the Democratic National Committee urged the state parties to shift to primaries." The DNC did and as Cottle mentioned, most states responded. This was quietly a big deal for the DNC. It was a rules change that worked and worked really well. It was not a new directive from the national party to hold primaries because some states -- Kansas, for example -- are controlled by the Republican Party on the state level and were not open to establishing a primary. In fact, after years of caucusing in the face of unfunded (and ultimately cancelled) primaries, Republicans in the Sunflower states eliminated the primary option once and for all in 2015.

But even most states in that bind adapted. Most adopted party-run primary systems that had early and mail-in options for those seeking to participate in the process. Sure, the national party would prefer state government-run primaries, but lacking that alternative in some states produced something of a laboratory for innovative party-run primary plans. Best practices derived from those states may serve as a call to action in states like Iowa where there, for now, continue to be caucuses. But Iowa is also a state where the Republican Party is calling the shots in state government. There is the delicate balance to tread with New Hampshire, but there are some success stories from the 2020 cycle that should be celebrated rather than barely mentioned. Often it is those incremental changes that prove the most consequential. 
 
In the end, however, other changes -- like those to the beginning of calendar -- are tougher. Not impossible, but difficult. And it will take more than "the national party seiz[ing] the opportunity to shake even harder, reforming a system that’s increasingly out of touch with voters." It will take the national party working with interests on the ground in the states to make it happen. And as the last fifty years have shown, that is easier said than done. 


Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Thursday, February 18, 2021

Why Can't Nevada Just Replicate New Hampshire's Calendar Strategy?


What's so complicated? 

That was the question that FHQ got in response to our recent rundown of the problems inherent in the Nevada bill introduced this week to challenge New Hampshire's (and Iowa's) entrenched primacy at the front of the queue on the presidential primary calendar.

And it is not an unreasonable proposition: amend the currently flawed bill that schedules the would-be newly established Nevada presidential primary for the next to last Tuesday in January, leaving the state vulnerable to a New Hampshire leapfrog with no recourse for the Silver state. That is indeed a simple addendum. And while it replicates part of the mechanism that New Hampshire has utilized with success over the years to protect its first in the nation status, it leaves in this case some unanswered questions in the Nevada context.

Let's assume for a moment that Nevada lawmakers do, in fact, amend AB 126, adding a provision like New Hampshire's that requires the Silver state presidential primary to be seven days before any other similar contest. Who or what makes that happen? Who implements that provision? In New Hampshire, that decision has been left to the discretion of the secretary of state since 1976. And Bill Gardner, the secretary of state in the Granite state during the whole interim period has proven adept at waiting other states out and then scheduling the state's presidential primary. That one person has that decision-making authority (and has protected New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation status so successfully time after time) is no small thing. As I discussed in my dissertation research, states may have the willingness to move a primary (or in this case challenge for first-in-the-nation status), but do they have the ability. New Hampshire has with its system. Nevada may if the legislature cedes the date-setting authority to its secretary of state. 

The state legislative route has proven a less fruitful path throughout the post-reform era. If the Nevada legislature retained the authority to set the date then it might run the risk in 2023 -- after a 2022 midterm election, for example -- of getting bogged down in a partisan clash over calendar positioning. That could even occur within any Democratic majority that may survive the midterms intact. And furthermore, it could be constrained by the time in which the legislature is in session. This is why states like Georgia and Colorado moved to empower their secretary of state or governor, respectively, to make the decision on where on the calendar the states' presidential primaries will be scheduled. 

So that question presents one complicating factor. 

Note that the above only considers an interstate conflict between Nevada and New Hampshire; one that includes both state governments and state parties as stakeholders. But those are not the exclusive stakeholders in the "who goes first?" conundrum. The national parties also have some say in this. And sure, folks in the Granite state will argue that no matter what the national parties dictate, New Hampshire is going to follow state law and set its primary -- compliant with national party rules or not -- at the beginning of the calendar. That has worked in the past even before the time in which the Iowa and New Hampshire were codified into the national parties' rules. New Hampshire would basically blackmail candidates, daring them to campaign in other rogue states encroaching on New Hampshire's position. Prospectively being dead in New Hampshire at the outset of a long and arduous campaign through a three to five month calendar of contests was enough to keep most candidates in line and protect New Hampshire. 

But times and conditions have changed. The national parties have only gotten more hands-on in their approach to the nominating process as it has increasingly nationalized and pushed more meaningfully into the invisible primary. New Hampshire may also dare the national parties to sanction them, but there really has not been a valid test of the hypothesis that New Hampshire has those national party penalties levied against the state. We do not know how candidates would react to that, especially in the context of a disputed claim to first-in-the-nation status. 

And Nevada may be in the process of laying a claim to that status. However, it is a somewhat ham-handed attempt. And would be even with a provision added to mimic the "seven days before any other similar contest" line in the New Hampshire law. FHQ says this because the bill is clearly intended as a provocation:
“It would not be ideal to just have a back-and-forth and just have a leapfrog exercise,” he [Nevada Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson (D)] said, “so the hope is that we can coordinate with the national party as well as our states, and work something out.” Frierson said he “certainly [is] not trying to start some dispute between states,” adding that “this is the beginning of the conversation.”
It is not clear that this starting point to the conversation is one that the Democratic National Committee endorses. Yes, the national party may want a change at the beginning of the calendar to demographically diversify the kickoff event so that it better aligns with the Democratic primary electorate, but it may want a more deft handling of the approach than the shot across the bow that Nevada has offered to this point. 

As an aside, I can still hear members of the DNC complaining about both Democratic legislators in Florida who voted for the bill to move the Sunshine state presidential primary into January for 2008 and even more about how "whiny" the state party was when the DNC sanctioned them and offered to help organize later caucuses that would be compliant. And those comments were four years later. 

By provoking a clash, Nevada Democrats in the state party and the state legislature may be inviting the ire of the DNC in a way that ultimately gets both Nevada and New Hampshire penalized and another state elevated to the first primary position (whether either state has a "seven days before any other similar contest" provision or not).

And it is not that Nevada has this completely wrong. The impulse to shift from a caucus to a primary is a shrewd one, one that potentially brings the state into the good graces of the national party at a time when the DNC seems more inclined than at almost any other point in the post-reform era make a change to the start of the calendar. But by predetermining the primary date and opening up a conflict with New Hampshire and breaking the unwritten compact between the carve-out states, Nevada may dash its own hopes before it even gives itself a chance to be considered for the top honor. 

The better approach is to switch to a primary and leave the date unsettled for now. [That is not unprecedented. Utah funded its new 2020 presidential primary in 2018 but did not set the date until 2019. But, of course, Utah did not do that as a means of making a claim on the first-in-the-nation primary.] That puts Nevada in a prime position to pitch itself to the DNC as a possible alternative to New Hampshire (and/or Iowa) before the national party finalizes its delegate selection rules next year. "Ready, willing, able and more diverse" is a better pitch than "Here we are. Deal with our provocation."

In the end, adding a replicating passage from New Hampshire law may get the ball rolling for Nevada, but there are other complications to consider. And they are complexities that involve other stakeholders in the process. And it is those stakeholders that make this a more delicate dance for Nevada than is often appreciated.




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

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.   
Posted by Josh Putnam at 1:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Share |

Tuesday, February 16, 2021

Nevada Legislation Would Establish January Presidential Primary, but it's Flawed

Often there are few secrets in politics. And at least a couple of things are quite clear in the Democratic maneuvering in the midst of the evolving 2024 invisible primary. 
  1. Within the broader Democratic Party coalition there is some dissatisfaction with Iowa and New Hampshire continuing to lead off the presidential primary calendar. How large that faction is and the level of pressure it can bring on decision makers over the next year and a half remains to be seen. But it is a position that was recently given voice (again) by former DNC Chair Tom Perez.
  2. Nevada -- both Democratic lawmakers and the state Democratic Party -- have made no secret that they will challenge the calendar status quo. 
Those two realities may or may not ever converge, but the latter took some shape yesterday with the introduction of the legislation in the Nevada Assembly -- the Silver state's lower chamber -- to create a separate presidential primary election and schedule it for the Tuesday before the last Tuesday in January of a presidential election year. [In 2024, that would fall on January 23.]

But here is the thing: AB 126 is a retread for the most part. It resurrects -- at least with respect to the scheduling aspects of the bill -- Republican-sponsored bills from the 2013 and 2015 state legislative sessions that went nowhere. And they went nowhere because both were materially the same and were equally as flawed. 

One could ask, "Flawed how?" But before diving in to that question, it is appropriate to explore what the goals are with each bill. The previous Republican bills that sought to create a January presidential primary for the 2016 cycle did not aim to be first on the calendar per se, but to be first in the West. The aim of the Democratic sponsors -- Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson (D-8th, Clark), Assemblywoman Teresa Benitez-Thompson (D-27th, Washoe) and Assemblywoman Brittney Miller (D-5th, Clark) -- in 2021 is different. This latest attempt to jump into January is an attempt at being first, not first-in-the-West but first-in-the-nation.

That goal and this bill are not well aligned. 

As written, this bill certainly protects Nevada as the first state to hold a delegate selection event in the West. It even empowers the secretary of state to reschedule the newly established presidential primary for an even earlier date than the Tuesday preceding the last Tuesday in January if another western state plans to hold an event earlier than that. [The secretary of state in consultation with the Legislative Council could schedule the presidential primary for as early as January 2.] But that list of states does not include New Hampshire (or Iowa for that matter). 

If left unamended, this bill (if it becomes law) would leave the state of Nevada impotent in dealing with New Hampshire, impotent in its challenge to first-in-the-nation status. Yes, folks in the Granite state will raise the state law that requires the New Hampshire primary to be at least seven days before any other similar contest. But that requirement is next to useless without empowering an actor who can pull the trigger on a scheduling decision on a moment's notice. New Hampshire has been adept at staying first because the secretary of state makes the scheduling decision and not a state legislature. Bill Gardner, the New Hampshire secretary of state, can do what he always does with states seeking to threaten New Hampshire's status: Wait them out and schedule the New Hampshire primary at time when state legislatures often are not in session and late enough to make it difficult for said legislature to respond quickly enough and still manage a presidential primary election effectively. 

Gardner would have no problem waiting until mid- to late November 2023 to leapfrog Nevada into mid-January, all the while knowing the Nevada legislature would have no real recourse.

The other problem with this bill is likely its specificity in view of the national parties and their rules on delegate selection. Nevada holds a privileged position on the primary calendar, codified in both national parties' sets of delegate selection rules. This bill as currently written would violate those rules. No, neither party has finalized their rules for the 2024 nomination process, but a January primary set this early on runs the risk of drawing the ire of the national parties as they are in the process of settling on those rules. Setting a date for late January is a provocation. On the Democratic side would cost the Nevada Democratic Party half of its delegation and candidates who campaign there any share of those reduced delegates they have won in the rogue primary. In the Republican process, the Nevada Republican Party would be subject to the super penalty if it opted into a January presidential primary. That would reduce the Nevada Republican delegation to just six delegates.

But again, those national rules are not set yet. However, by forcing the issue and scheduling a January primary now (as this bill would do), any goodwill Nevada may have in either party may dissipate; any desire to change course at the front of the calendar may not disappear, but it may no longer include Nevada. 

Then what recourse does an aspiring first-in-the-nation state like Nevada have? 

Well, bear in mind that AB 126 is just the introduced version of this legislation. It can be amended. And if the state is going to successfully challenge New Hampshire for first-in-the-nation status it will have to be. 

First, it would likely prove fruitful in dealing with New Hampshire and the national parties to leave the date of the newly created primary unsettled for now. This is something FHQ raised in a recent piece. In other words, create the presidential primary, but do not set a date. At least on the Democratic side, that gets Nevada even further in the good graces of a national party that more and more values primaries over caucuses. But by not setting a date for the election, it also does not agitate the decision-makers in the national party as they are determining the rules for the next nomination process. Such a move demonstrates that the state is serious about a defining principle within the party now -- increased participation -- while also making it known that it may be a preferable first state. 

Second, in dealing with New Hampshire specifically, not setting a date is just common sense. If the legislature sets a date now, then New Hampshire is just going to jump that later at a time that is maximally convenient for the preservation of its own first-in-the-nation status. Ideally, Nevada would want to replicate what New Hampshire does: cede the date-setting authority to one actor who can more quickly and nimbly decide on a date for the presidential primary. Furthermore, if by that point in 2023, Nevada has the backing of the DNC to be the first state -- no sure thing -- then the secretary of state or whichever actor has been empowered by the hypothetical new law can set the date for the first position without fear of sanction from the national party. Those sights may at that time be turned on New Hampshire. 

Granted, there are a lot of ifs built into that timeline but it is by far a better course of action in challenging New Hampshire and making a case to be first-in-the-nation than this bill that the Assembly rolled out in Carson City a day ago. 

If you come for the king, you best not miss. And AB 126 misses as currently written. It comes nowhere close to meeting the goals that either the bill or the Democratic Party in Nevada has laid out.


--
A link to this legislation has been added to the 2024 FHQ presidential primary calendar.



Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Share |

Monday, February 8, 2021

Are the Parties Taking Different Paths on the 2024 Primary Calendar?

"Two roads diverged in a yellow wood..."
    -- Robert Frost (opening line from "The Road Not Taken")

--
Since the inauguration the other week FHQ has devoted considerable (virtual) ink to the 2024 presidential primary that is coming into shape, even two years before the first serious/viable candidates are likely to throw their respective hats in the ring. 

Look, it is early. But already there are some important stories about the 2024 nomination processes and particular focus has been placed on the order of the earliest states on the primary calendar. Iowa had problems with its caucuses in 2020. Nevada is considering a switch to a primary, and further may opt to challenge Iowa and New Hampshire in so doing. And New Hampshire is New Hampshire: free to allow an empowered secretary of state to simply wait things out (and hope the national parties do not turn their penalties on the Granite state to enforce a new order).

All of this -- even among a small group of states -- highlights the overlapping interests and incentives involved in both maintaining and reforming (or often merely tweaking) the rules that govern how both national parties select and allocate the delegates that ultimately nominate their presidential candidates. 

The national parties on some level enjoy the stability/certainty of an early calendar order that persists across cycles. No, it may not be perfect for one or both parties, but the devil one knows is often preferable to the unknown one that may bring with it unintended consequences that leave a system worse off than the status quo ante. And that is often true even in the face of (legitimate) pressure to make changes from groups within the broader party coalition. 

The states and state parties offer at least two other sets of interests and incentives and they two do not always work in concert with one another (and sometimes that goes beyond just simple partisan differences between the governing party in a state legislature -- if there is a unified one -- and an opposition state party). 

Take the delicate dance now starting in Nevada. Democrats control not only the state legislature, but the state government. Between the legislative and executive branches, there is unified Democratic control. Both seeing an opening in the wake of Iowa's 2020 issues and responding to pressure within the Democratic party coalition, the state government seems poised to move away from caucuses as the means of allocating national convention delegates to a state-run presidential primary. And Republicans in the state -- both in the legislature and within the formal state party apparatus -- are not opposed to that change.  And that is a reflection of the different incentives on the Republican side within the party coalition and ahead of a likely open and competitive presidential nomination race in 2024. 

Those realities make it less likely that Nevada Republicans will have any desire to rock the boat. And that shows, particularly when it comes to any effort to move any hypothetical Nevada presidential primary to the first position on the primary calendar. Silver state Republicans very simply do not want to jeopardize their current position in the order. 

And that is a concern of sorts on the Democratic side as well. The forthcoming primary bill's sponsor, Nevada Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson (D), told the Las Vegas Review-Journal:
“We will have to work through (the bill’s) language and work with the national parties — both Democrats and Republicans — and convince them of Nevada’s importance in the West.”
DNC member from Nevada, Allison Stephens, in the same story added:
“We don’t want to compromise our position as No. 3 in the nation. We can not fall below third. If changing to a primary would jeopardize our early state status, I would be concerned. We do have to work within the parameters of the party.”
But although the interests and incentives may be similar, the actions to this point in the cycle across the two parties are noteworthy. This primary effort may go forward with bipartisan support in the Nevada legislature, but both sides on the state level are cognizant of the stakes there and on the national party level. And so far the two parties have diverged in important ways. 

On the Republican side, there has been a concerted effort among carve-out state members of the Republican National Committee to band together in order to protect the status quo. That is why Nevada Republican Party chair, Michael McDonald acknowledged a desire in the state to be first but also noted that:
"We're united with the RNC to make that happen. We have a great working relationship with the four carve-out states and a great working relationship with the RNC. We respect each other and we don't intend to move anything. We respect each other's position."
Democrats in Nevada and nationally are performing a similar dance, but the one big thing to this point in how the calendar in particular is coming together for 2024 is that the same carve-out state coalition to protect the status quo start to the primary calendar has not yet materialized among the national party membership from those states. That is not to suggest that that will not happen. But it has not to this point, in stark contrast to how carve-out state Republicans are approaching the cycle. 

This may in retrospect months from now be much ado about nothing. But it could also be that once again there is a different approach to this across parties. And importantly that says something about the stability of the system long term. Changes tend to last when both parties agree to them, whether formally or informally. And there is a divergence between the two parties at this early juncture. 



Posted by Josh Putnam at 1:15 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Wednesday, February 3, 2021

Nevada's Willing, but Will the Stars Align for a Push to an Earlier Point on the 2024 Calendar?

Nevada pushed back into the news again yesterday. Michelle L. Price at the Associated Press reported that movers and shakers in the Silver state are attempting to position a potential new presidential primary there as the first-in-the-nation contest for the 2024 cycle. That is nothing new. In fact, FHQ just last week discussed the contours of such a shift in the context of a January Washington Post article on the matter. 

But there were some other interesting nuggets in that story worth reflecting on that are new. Last week, FHQ was more abstract and speculative when talking about the possibility of a Nevada presidential primary. Then, the idea of a state legislative push to establish a presidential primary election was definitely that: speculative. However, Price reported that legislation (with supposed bipartisan support) is likely for a legislature that just gaveled in for the session on February 1. There is no bill yet.

And that seemingly settles (or at least starts to settle) a question FHQ posed in the previous post: which route will Nevada decision-makers take? The state parties could seize this one by the reins and hold a party-run primary, but appears that there is support across party lines in the state legislature to create a state-run/state-funded presidential primary option. 

Of course, that leaves some of the previous questions from last week unanswered. Establishing a primary election is one thing, but scheduling it is another. How will any forthcoming legislation deal with that question (especially in light of the fact that neither national party has finalized much less really started finalizing their respective 2024 delegate selection rules)? Will legislators punt on that decision and pass a later bill scheduling the 2024 contest? Will they follow the lead of both New Hampshire and Georgia and leave the date unset, ceding the date-setting authority to, say, the secretary of state? The latter would potentially maximize the Nevada's ability to move on the fly and respond to any potential move by New Hampshire's secretary of state to stay first. [For the record, Bill Gardner, the secretary of state in the Granite state nonchalantly responded to the Nevada speculation in the AP story by suggesting that it would all settle out in good time.]

Furthermore, it should be noted that Nevada is no stranger to these sorts of attempted maneuvers. A 2013 bill, one that ended up going nowhere, sought not only establish a primary in late January, but allowed the secretary of state to change that date to an even earlier position should one or more of a list of western states tried to move in on Nevada's first-in-the-west position carved out by the national parties. This bill was resurrected (but mostly as a placeholder) in 2015. That bill was ultimately significantly amended and became the legislation that died at the end of the legislative session (in part because Harry Reid intervened).

That intervention is an important sidebar. Nevada's position as a carve-out state on the Democratic side has it codified in national party rules as a caucus state. Switching to a primary could have in 2015 jeopardized the Silver state's early position in future cycles. However, in the time since, the terrain has shifted away from caucuses on the Democratic side. The combination of Nevada's willingness to adopt a presidential primary as the means of allocating national convention delegates and Iowa Democrats' problematic implementation of their 2020 caucuses may play to Nevada's advantage during the 2024 cycle. But part of that willingness -- at least this early -- is about making the change to a primary and likely not yet selecting the date on which it will occur. That remains to be seen as one awaits any legislation to be introduced on the subject in the coming days and weeks. 

Keeping the date as an unknown not only likely helps grease the wheels with the national party, but would also aid the state in any prospective calendar battle with New Hampshire (and maybe Iowa) in 2023.

--
Speaking of Iowa, the other tidbit worth flagging in Price's reporting for this story comes from the Hawkeye state. Earlier this week, FHQ wrote some about the standard operating procedure in Iowa with respect to protecting the caucuses' position. Typically, that means both state parties acting in concert with one another, banding together in defense of the caucuses. In the past that has worked. But there are signs of vulnerability on that front for the 2024 cycle. Republicans are there and so, too, is the newly elected Iowa Democratic Party chair. 

But there is dissension in the ranks of the Iowa Democratic state central committee about the prudence of protecting the caucuses this time around. After 2020, some on the committee view keeping the caucuses as an "uphill battle." And some in that camp see moving to a primary and focusing on "winning elections" in a state that became a deeper shade of red in the Trump era as a better path to take than clinging to the caucuses. 

That there is any division on the Democratic state committee on the matter of the caucuses is noteworthy. That division ultimately poses some trouble not only for Iowa Democrats in search of another cycle at the front of the primary calendar queue but potentially for Republicans as well. The interesting thing may be how carve-out state members of both the DNC and DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee work together (or if they do). Republicans from those states on the RNC are unified. Democrats may not be. And that speaks to the different priorities and incentives in both parties when it comes to the early 2024 calendar line up.



Posted by Josh Putnam at 1:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)