For much of 2017, there have been a couple of bills working their way through the California State Assembly to change the date of the presidential primary in the Golden state. And for much of the year both have been on a bit of a collision course. Both have made it through their originating chamber, but the bills differ from one another, requiring some reconciliation at some point.
That reconciliation came as August came to a close last week. The crux of this is that the Senate-passed bill called for the continued consolidation of the presidential primary with the direct primary for state and local offices and moving that combined primary from early June to the third Tuesday in March. Additionally, the legislation would have given the California governor the power to shift that consolidated primary up even further on the primary calendar than the newly called for March baseline.
Alternatively, the Assembly took a simpler path, more consistent with the way in which other states tend to move their primaries around. Again, the budgetary constraints placed on the state almost require the presidential and direct primaries to remain consolidated. A separate presidential primary election would cost the state more than $100 million. But the Assembly bill would leave the direct primary in June in midterm election years while shifting the consolidated primary election up to the first Tuesday (after the first Monday) in March in presidential years.
In the end, there were atypical aspects to each piece of legislation. The staggered result of that Assembly bill (AB 84) -- a March primary in one year, and a June primary in another -- is exception rather than rule in most states with consolidated primaries. Alabama and Mississippi stand out as states that have a similar, on-again-off-again approach, but again, most states -- Illinois and Texas among them -- with consolidated primaries tend to be more consistent, holding them at the same calendar point regardless of the what office is at the top of the ticket in a given year.
On the state Senate side, the uncommon provision in the bill (SB 568) was and has always been the additional power granted the governor to shift the primary to an even earlier date than the new third Tuesday in March baseline. It was always poorly designed. Basically, the earliest the governor could realistically schedule the primary was for the first Tuesday in March. There is more to it than that -- which interested readers can dig into here -- but that essentially powerless power ceded to the governor would only really give the executive in the Golden state the ability to move the primary to a point on the calendar where Assembly bill would already move it.
But as of August 31, those complications are gone. First, the Assembly bill was pulled off the active list in the Senate and the gubernatorial provision was removed from the Senate bill. What is left is a piece of legislation (SB 568) that would push the consolidated California primary election up from the first Tuesday (after the first Monday) in June to the first Tuesday (after the first Monday) in March. That calendar position would be used in both presidential and midterm election years starting in 2019, eliminating the staggering of the Assembly bill.
The amended Senate bill will now go on the calendar for a final vote in the Assembly and have to return to the Senate for consideration there before moving on to the governor for signature. With a uniform date now settled, California's potential impact on the 2020 presidential primary calendar can be more clearly discussed. As outlined in previous posts in this space, the proposed shift would move a significant chunk of delegates from late in the calendar to the earliest spot on the calendar after the four carve-out states. Such a cache of delegates moving to the beginning of March would shift up the point at which half the delegates will have been allocated in both parties by about a week depending on how other states react between now and 2020.
First, though, California has to move its primary. And that will likely take more time as the remaining Senate-passed (but now amended) bill continues its path through the legislative process.
--
A tip of the cap to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for passing along news of the amendment to FHQ.
Showing posts with label consolidated primaries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consolidated primaries. Show all posts
Monday, September 4, 2017
Monday, July 17, 2017
California Continues Slow March Toward Earlier Presidential Primary
In the earliest stages of the 2020 presidential election cycle, there has been little maneuvering on the nascent calendar of primary and caucus contests. However, the state that seems most likely to shift in 2017 in anticipation of the next nomination phase is a big one.
The question that emerges from the legislative action in California is where in March the Golden state will settle on the calendar. March is the destination in the two bills that have worked their way through the originating chamber -- one from the Assembly and one from the Senate -- to the cusp of final votes across the capitol. But they are not companion bills, nor has any effort been made to reconcile the two pieces of legislation with each other.
On the Senate side, AB 84 made it out of committee late last week with a unanimous green light to move the primary from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. But the Senate -- including the same Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional amendments -- had already passed the more complicated SB 568. That bill would also move a consolidated California primary from June to March but to the third Tuesday in March (with an option for the governor to move the election up even further).
The same has been true on the Assembly side. The Assembly bill made it through its initial chamber and has made it through the committee stage on the state Senate with no amendments aimed at reconciling the two bills.
And the differences extend beyond a conflict over the date of the primary election in presidential election years. There is also a discrepancy with respect to the timing of the primary in midterm years. The Senate's governor's option bill would move the primary to the third Tuesday in March in both presidential and midterm years with the allowance that the governor may move the primary to an earlier date from the proposed earlier late March baseline. Yet, the Assembly version would maintain the June primary date in midterm years while shifting the consolidated primary to early March in presidential years only.
Neither version has seen much resistance along the way despite the differences. As such, it may be that the state legislature will defer to the governor to decide which version to sign (or veto them both).
Regardless, it should be noted that small changes to the Senate version in the Assembly will ultimately send the legislation back to the Senate if it passes the Assembly. That version, too, received a second reading on the floor of the Assembly, but was referred to the Appropriations Committee. That more complicated version -- with the governor's option -- may end up bottled up there with the more straightforward Assembly version pushing through to the governor.
The slow march (in an even slower year for presidential primary movement) continues in California.
The question that emerges from the legislative action in California is where in March the Golden state will settle on the calendar. March is the destination in the two bills that have worked their way through the originating chamber -- one from the Assembly and one from the Senate -- to the cusp of final votes across the capitol. But they are not companion bills, nor has any effort been made to reconcile the two pieces of legislation with each other.
On the Senate side, AB 84 made it out of committee late last week with a unanimous green light to move the primary from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. But the Senate -- including the same Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional amendments -- had already passed the more complicated SB 568. That bill would also move a consolidated California primary from June to March but to the third Tuesday in March (with an option for the governor to move the election up even further).
The same has been true on the Assembly side. The Assembly bill made it through its initial chamber and has made it through the committee stage on the state Senate with no amendments aimed at reconciling the two bills.
And the differences extend beyond a conflict over the date of the primary election in presidential election years. There is also a discrepancy with respect to the timing of the primary in midterm years. The Senate's governor's option bill would move the primary to the third Tuesday in March in both presidential and midterm years with the allowance that the governor may move the primary to an earlier date from the proposed earlier late March baseline. Yet, the Assembly version would maintain the June primary date in midterm years while shifting the consolidated primary to early March in presidential years only.
Neither version has seen much resistance along the way despite the differences. As such, it may be that the state legislature will defer to the governor to decide which version to sign (or veto them both).
Regardless, it should be noted that small changes to the Senate version in the Assembly will ultimately send the legislation back to the Senate if it passes the Assembly. That version, too, received a second reading on the floor of the Assembly, but was referred to the Appropriations Committee. That more complicated version -- with the governor's option -- may end up bottled up there with the more straightforward Assembly version pushing through to the governor.
The slow march (in an even slower year for presidential primary movement) continues in California.
Friday, May 5, 2017
California Primary to March?
It looks that way.
The question that remains after competing bills passed each house in the state legislature on May 4 is exactly where in March the primary ends up in 2020. The Assembly bill -- AB 84 -- is the more straightforward of the two. It shifts a consolidated California primary back into the first Tuesday (after the first Monday) in March position the Golden state primary occupied during the 2000 and 2004 cycles.
Alternatively, the Senate version -- SB 568 -- is a bit more complex. On the surface, it stakes out a less ambitious, third Tuesday in March spot on the calendar. However, it also gives the California governor the option of bumping the primary up to an even earlier position. Now, given current national party timing penalties on presidential primaries, anything earlier than the first Tuesday in March is a non-starter. That gubernatorial power is rendered mostly powerless; except granting the executive branch the ability to move the primary up as early as the date called for in the Assembly legislation.
While it is true that a version of this March primary legislation has passed each chamber of the California state legislature, one version obviously still has to pass the opposite house and be signed into law. The first of those seems more likely than not, but the gubernatorial signature is not assured (though admittedly likely given the synchronicity of an open 2020 Democratic presidential nomination and Democrats' unified control in the Golden state).
The likelihood of a move, then is quite high. That carries with it a couple of additional notes worth mentioning here.
First, this move would be on the early side. While some states schedule their presidential primaries for the next cycle before the midterm year, it is exception rather than rule. The vast majority states hold off on acting until the timing of the presidential primary is actually on most legislators radar. Occasionally, that is immediately after a presidential election year, but more often than not, the urgency is higher after the midterms and more importantly after the national parties have set their delegate selection rules for the upcoming cycle.
Since this California move would be made earlier than is typical, the legislature would theoretically have the ability to move again. That is probably not likely this time around, but it should be noted that California shifted from March to June after 2004 before moving again -- from June to February -- ahead of the 2008 cycle. All the incentives are to move earlier, and in this 2020 case, California will already be as early as it possibly can be. Unless the national parties seek to penalize March primaries, then, California would be unlikely to pull up the tent stakes and move again; this time to a later date.
Additionally, a California push into March has a certain gravitational pull to it. In delegates terms, the cache of delegates in California represented nearly seven percent of the total number of Republican delegates in 2016 and nearly 11.5 percent on the Democratic side. That is a level of delegate-richness that brings other states along for the ride. That happened in 1996, 2000 and 2008 -- all cycles that witnessed California shifting to an earlier primary date.
While there are only a handful of states with unified Democratic control now -- and thus have less motivation to move -- that may be different after the 2018 midterms. That is still a way off, but bears mention in this context. California may be alone in moving now, but would potentially pull many of those northeastern, mid-Atlantic states that shifted from February to much later dates in 2012 back into March, further frontloading the calendar.
Most of this is a story for 2019. But for now, the momentum is behind a California push into some Tuesday position in March.
The question that remains after competing bills passed each house in the state legislature on May 4 is exactly where in March the primary ends up in 2020. The Assembly bill -- AB 84 -- is the more straightforward of the two. It shifts a consolidated California primary back into the first Tuesday (after the first Monday) in March position the Golden state primary occupied during the 2000 and 2004 cycles.
Alternatively, the Senate version -- SB 568 -- is a bit more complex. On the surface, it stakes out a less ambitious, third Tuesday in March spot on the calendar. However, it also gives the California governor the option of bumping the primary up to an even earlier position. Now, given current national party timing penalties on presidential primaries, anything earlier than the first Tuesday in March is a non-starter. That gubernatorial power is rendered mostly powerless; except granting the executive branch the ability to move the primary up as early as the date called for in the Assembly legislation.
While it is true that a version of this March primary legislation has passed each chamber of the California state legislature, one version obviously still has to pass the opposite house and be signed into law. The first of those seems more likely than not, but the gubernatorial signature is not assured (though admittedly likely given the synchronicity of an open 2020 Democratic presidential nomination and Democrats' unified control in the Golden state).
The likelihood of a move, then is quite high. That carries with it a couple of additional notes worth mentioning here.
First, this move would be on the early side. While some states schedule their presidential primaries for the next cycle before the midterm year, it is exception rather than rule. The vast majority states hold off on acting until the timing of the presidential primary is actually on most legislators radar. Occasionally, that is immediately after a presidential election year, but more often than not, the urgency is higher after the midterms and more importantly after the national parties have set their delegate selection rules for the upcoming cycle.
Since this California move would be made earlier than is typical, the legislature would theoretically have the ability to move again. That is probably not likely this time around, but it should be noted that California shifted from March to June after 2004 before moving again -- from June to February -- ahead of the 2008 cycle. All the incentives are to move earlier, and in this 2020 case, California will already be as early as it possibly can be. Unless the national parties seek to penalize March primaries, then, California would be unlikely to pull up the tent stakes and move again; this time to a later date.
Additionally, a California push into March has a certain gravitational pull to it. In delegates terms, the cache of delegates in California represented nearly seven percent of the total number of Republican delegates in 2016 and nearly 11.5 percent on the Democratic side. That is a level of delegate-richness that brings other states along for the ride. That happened in 1996, 2000 and 2008 -- all cycles that witnessed California shifting to an earlier primary date.
While there are only a handful of states with unified Democratic control now -- and thus have less motivation to move -- that may be different after the 2018 midterms. That is still a way off, but bears mention in this context. California may be alone in moving now, but would potentially pull many of those northeastern, mid-Atlantic states that shifted from February to much later dates in 2012 back into March, further frontloading the calendar.
Most of this is a story for 2019. But for now, the momentum is behind a California push into some Tuesday position in March.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Bill to Move Pennsylvania Presidential Primary to March 15 Introduced
On Wednesday, June 10, Pennsylvania state Representative Keith Greiner (R-43rd, Lancaster) introduced HB 1318. The legislation would move the presidential primary (and those for other offices) up to the third Tuesday in March. With rare exception, the Pennsylvania presidential primary has been scheduled on the fourth Tuesday in April throughout the post-reform era.1
Greiner's bill claims the bipartisan support of 16 co-sponsors (11 Republicans and 5 Democrats) and would align the Pennsylvania presidential primary with those in Florida, Illinois, Missouri and Ohio. Like Illinois, Pennsylvania directly elects delegates to the national convention in the primary and the presidential preference vote is a beauty contest. That adds some nuance to a date on the 2016 presidential primary calendar that already serves as the first day after the close of the Republican proportionality window. The other three contests are already winner-take-all (Florida), have a history with a winner-take-all allocation in the pre-proportionality era (Missouri) or are signaling a potential shift to winner-take-all rules (Ohio). If those three end up with truly winner-take-all allocation plans, that potentially makes both Illinois and Pennsylvania tougher draws for the candidates (or not an alternative with clear delegate gains).
However, that likely puts the cart before the horse in Pennsylvania. The newly introduced legislation will have to navigate a Republican-controlled legislature, but also pass muster with a Democratic governor. The former may be the easier task as Republicans are more motivated this cycle to have an earlier primary than Democrats. Republicans, it can be argued are after a guarantee that their respective state's contest will influence the Republican nomination. Democrats, on the other hand, are motivated to stick with a date that on the calendar that offers additional delegates to the national convention in Philadelphia. The later date and group of neighboring states with contests already slated for April 26 both would lead to bonus delegates. That, in turn, means that Democrats in the Keystone state may have more incentive to maintain the status quo primary date in April.
There are Democratic co-sponsors to the HB 1318, but the chair of the state Democratic Party has already spoken out in opposition to the move (as has the Pennsylvania Republican chair). Pennsylvania is getting a late start on this compared to most other states and the road is not necessarily a clear one toward passage and a gubernatorial signature. The move would not be without implications. A March Pennsylvania presidential primary would further compress an already compressed calendar in 2016 (as compared to four years ago).
--
1 The lone exception since the reformed system of nominating presidential candidates began in 1972 is the 2000 cycle when Pennsylvania shared the first Tuesday in April date with the Wisconsin presidential primary.
Greiner's bill claims the bipartisan support of 16 co-sponsors (11 Republicans and 5 Democrats) and would align the Pennsylvania presidential primary with those in Florida, Illinois, Missouri and Ohio. Like Illinois, Pennsylvania directly elects delegates to the national convention in the primary and the presidential preference vote is a beauty contest. That adds some nuance to a date on the 2016 presidential primary calendar that already serves as the first day after the close of the Republican proportionality window. The other three contests are already winner-take-all (Florida), have a history with a winner-take-all allocation in the pre-proportionality era (Missouri) or are signaling a potential shift to winner-take-all rules (Ohio). If those three end up with truly winner-take-all allocation plans, that potentially makes both Illinois and Pennsylvania tougher draws for the candidates (or not an alternative with clear delegate gains).
However, that likely puts the cart before the horse in Pennsylvania. The newly introduced legislation will have to navigate a Republican-controlled legislature, but also pass muster with a Democratic governor. The former may be the easier task as Republicans are more motivated this cycle to have an earlier primary than Democrats. Republicans, it can be argued are after a guarantee that their respective state's contest will influence the Republican nomination. Democrats, on the other hand, are motivated to stick with a date that on the calendar that offers additional delegates to the national convention in Philadelphia. The later date and group of neighboring states with contests already slated for April 26 both would lead to bonus delegates. That, in turn, means that Democrats in the Keystone state may have more incentive to maintain the status quo primary date in April.
There are Democratic co-sponsors to the HB 1318, but the chair of the state Democratic Party has already spoken out in opposition to the move (as has the Pennsylvania Republican chair). Pennsylvania is getting a late start on this compared to most other states and the road is not necessarily a clear one toward passage and a gubernatorial signature. The move would not be without implications. A March Pennsylvania presidential primary would further compress an already compressed calendar in 2016 (as compared to four years ago).
--
1 The lone exception since the reformed system of nominating presidential candidates began in 1972 is the 2000 cycle when Pennsylvania shared the first Tuesday in April date with the Wisconsin presidential primary.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Alabama to March 1, Joins SEC Primary
On Thursday, May 21, the Alabama House passed legislation moving the presidential primary (and those for other offices) up a week to the first Tuesday in March. The measure, SB 240, had already passed the state Senate earlier in the 2015 session.
Both moves, neither of which garnered more than three dissenting votes along the way, cleared the way for the bill to be transmitted to Governor Robert Bentley (R) for his signature. But that signature never came. Instead the bill sat on the governor's desk as the clock ran down on the state legislature's work for 2015.
This is noteworthy because that potentially put the Alabama presidential primary move in pocket veto territory; a bill passed late in the legislative session but not signed before the legislature adjourns. A bill not signed under those circumstances is vetoed. However, the legislative session ended on Thursday, June 4, two weeks after it passed both legislative chambers and was transmitted to the governor. That is close to the end of the session, but not close enough to trigger a pocket veto.
The reason for that is based on two related rules. First, bills passed by the legislature and sent to the governor have six days (not counting Sundays) to be signed. After that a passed bill becomes law without the signature of the governor. Second, due to the six day window created in that rule, only bills passed in the last five days of the legislative session are open to a pocket veto (those passed bills that do not have a full six day window for gubernatorial consideration).
The SEC primary bill was never in any danger of being pocket vetoed, but it did become law after Thursday, May 28 without Governor Bentley's signature. Alabama joins Arkansas, Tennessee and Texas on March 1. Georgia will also be a part of the southern regional primary that can also claim Oklahoma and Virginia. Massachusetts, Minnesota and Vermont will also conduct primaries or caucuses on that date.
UPDATE (6/9/15, 7:30pm): Odd timing, but news broke (via Mike Cason at AL.com) after the posting of this piece that Governor Bentley signed SB 240 on Wednesday, May 27. That message was apparently not delivered to the Alabama state legislature as of this afternoon (screen grab):
The assignment of an act number seems to only come after a gubernatorial signature (This was the case with the 2011 bill that created a consolidated March primary.) or the expiration of the six day window mentioned above in the original text of the post.
And Secretary of State John Merrill's office press release from late this afternoon indicates that the bill will be signed tomorrow morning at 10am (screen grab):
There's a seemingly weird level of confusion on this one. Regardless, Alabama will have a March 1 presidential primary in 2016.
UPDATE (6/10/15): Ceremonial signing.
Both moves, neither of which garnered more than three dissenting votes along the way, cleared the way for the bill to be transmitted to Governor Robert Bentley (R) for his signature. But that signature never came. Instead the bill sat on the governor's desk as the clock ran down on the state legislature's work for 2015.
This is noteworthy because that potentially put the Alabama presidential primary move in pocket veto territory; a bill passed late in the legislative session but not signed before the legislature adjourns. A bill not signed under those circumstances is vetoed. However, the legislative session ended on Thursday, June 4, two weeks after it passed both legislative chambers and was transmitted to the governor. That is close to the end of the session, but not close enough to trigger a pocket veto.
The reason for that is based on two related rules. First, bills passed by the legislature and sent to the governor have six days (not counting Sundays) to be signed. After that a passed bill becomes law without the signature of the governor. Second, due to the six day window created in that rule, only bills passed in the last five days of the legislative session are open to a pocket veto (those passed bills that do not have a full six day window for gubernatorial consideration).
The SEC primary bill was never in any danger of being pocket vetoed, but it did become law after Thursday, May 28 without Governor Bentley's signature. Alabama joins Arkansas, Tennessee and Texas on March 1. Georgia will also be a part of the southern regional primary that can also claim Oklahoma and Virginia. Massachusetts, Minnesota and Vermont will also conduct primaries or caucuses on that date.
UPDATE (6/9/15, 7:30pm): Odd timing, but news broke (via Mike Cason at AL.com) after the posting of this piece that Governor Bentley signed SB 240 on Wednesday, May 27. That message was apparently not delivered to the Alabama state legislature as of this afternoon (screen grab):
The assignment of an act number seems to only come after a gubernatorial signature (This was the case with the 2011 bill that created a consolidated March primary.) or the expiration of the six day window mentioned above in the original text of the post.
And Secretary of State John Merrill's office press release from late this afternoon indicates that the bill will be signed tomorrow morning at 10am (screen grab):
There's a seemingly weird level of confusion on this one. Regardless, Alabama will have a March 1 presidential primary in 2016.
UPDATE (6/10/15): Ceremonial signing.
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Hutchinson's Signature Moves 2016 Arkansas Presidential Primary to March
Quickly on the heels of the Arkansas state legislature wrapping up the business of its special session on Thursday, Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) signed SB 8 into law on Friday, May 29. The newly changed statute would shift the consolidated May Arkansas primaries, including the presidential primary, to the first Tuesday in March.
Arkansas now joins Tennessee and Texas on the March 1 SEC primary date on the 2016 presidential primary calendar. And despite all the legislative wrangling in both the regular and special sessions, Arkansas becomes the first state to officially move into that calendar position for 2016 during the 2015 state legislative season.1 SEC primary legislation failed in Mississippi and awaits the governor's consideration in Alabama. Georgia is also very likely to wind up on March 1.
Arkansas will share that March 1 date with those states plus neighboring Oklahoma as well as Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont and Virginia. However, the primary in the Natural state will return to its May date at the end of 2016.
--
1 Tennessee changed its law during 2011 for the 2012 cycle and Texas, not a part of the original SEC primary proposal, reverted to its first Tuesday in March primary date after a redistricting dispute in 2011-12 forced a temporary change. Though Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp has coordinated the SEC primary effort (and holds the ultimate power to set the date of the presidential primary in the Peach state), he has not officially scheduled the 2016 Georgia presidential primary. However, it is pretty clear where Georgia will end up on the calendar.
--
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News sending news of the signing on to FHQ.
Arkansas now joins Tennessee and Texas on the March 1 SEC primary date on the 2016 presidential primary calendar. And despite all the legislative wrangling in both the regular and special sessions, Arkansas becomes the first state to officially move into that calendar position for 2016 during the 2015 state legislative season.1 SEC primary legislation failed in Mississippi and awaits the governor's consideration in Alabama. Georgia is also very likely to wind up on March 1.
Arkansas will share that March 1 date with those states plus neighboring Oklahoma as well as Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont and Virginia. However, the primary in the Natural state will return to its May date at the end of 2016.
--
1 Tennessee changed its law during 2011 for the 2012 cycle and Texas, not a part of the original SEC primary proposal, reverted to its first Tuesday in March primary date after a redistricting dispute in 2011-12 forced a temporary change. Though Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp has coordinated the SEC primary effort (and holds the ultimate power to set the date of the presidential primary in the Peach state), he has not officially scheduled the 2016 Georgia presidential primary. However, it is pretty clear where Georgia will end up on the calendar.
--
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News sending news of the signing on to FHQ.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Arkansas House Sends SEC Primary Bill Off to Governor Hutchinson
The Arkansas House on Thursday, May 28 passed SB 8 by a vote of 67-22. The amended version of the bill would shift the primaries for a number of offices -- including the presidential primary -- from the mid-May to the first Tuesday in March during the 2016 cycle. The compromise hammered out in the state Senate would expire at the end of 2016 returning the Arkansas primaries to May for subsequent cycles.
The House had already passed its version of the bill that would have permanently set the date of the consolidated primary for March. That same bill faced resistance in the state Senate though, forcing the compromise to only make the primaries date change for the 2016 cycle. The House passed the compromise version by a wider margin than the permanent change.
The bill now heads to Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) who supported the change in his call for a special session last week.
The House had already passed its version of the bill that would have permanently set the date of the consolidated primary for March. That same bill faced resistance in the state Senate though, forcing the compromise to only make the primaries date change for the 2016 cycle. The House passed the compromise version by a wider margin than the permanent change.
The bill now heads to Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) who supported the change in his call for a special session last week.
Arkansas Senate Passes Compromise SEC Primary Bill
Arkansas legislators worked into the evening on day two of the current special session yesterday. After failing to gather enough votes to suspend the rules and consider SB 8 on the floor of the state Senate1, senators in support of the move to join the SEC primary on March 1 redoubled their efforts to push the measure through.
Those efforts by majority party Republicans included cutting a deal with state Senate Democrats to make the move of the consolidated primary -- including the presidential primary -- to March 1 temporary. Under the provisions of the amended bill, the Arkansas presidential primary will move into the SEC primary position on the calendar, but only for the 2016 cycle. The election would automatically revert to its current May position at the end of 2016 (for the 2020 cycle). This would either save future legislators from having to change the date back to May as they have in other instances when Arkansas has moved its presidential primary forward on the calendar (see 1988 and 2008) or force them to revisit whether to hold an early primary again in 2020 and beyond.
The amended SB 8 emerged from the Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee with a "Do Pass" recommendation and was subsequently passed by a 28-6 vote by the full Senate. The measure now heads to the House for consideration. The lower chamber passed the original (unamended/permanent) version of the SEC primary bill on Wednesday.
For more see coverage from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
--
1 The chamber was able to gain enough support to extract the bill from committee, but not enough to meet the supermajority requirement to consider the bill immediately. Without that supermajority, the bill, by rule, had to wait two calendar days before the chamber could consider it. That would have pushed the special session, originally scheduled to adjourn on Thursday, May 28, into Saturday.
Those efforts by majority party Republicans included cutting a deal with state Senate Democrats to make the move of the consolidated primary -- including the presidential primary -- to March 1 temporary. Under the provisions of the amended bill, the Arkansas presidential primary will move into the SEC primary position on the calendar, but only for the 2016 cycle. The election would automatically revert to its current May position at the end of 2016 (for the 2020 cycle). This would either save future legislators from having to change the date back to May as they have in other instances when Arkansas has moved its presidential primary forward on the calendar (see 1988 and 2008) or force them to revisit whether to hold an early primary again in 2020 and beyond.
The amended SB 8 emerged from the Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee with a "Do Pass" recommendation and was subsequently passed by a 28-6 vote by the full Senate. The measure now heads to the House for consideration. The lower chamber passed the original (unamended/permanent) version of the SEC primary bill on Wednesday.
For more see coverage from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
--
1 The chamber was able to gain enough support to extract the bill from committee, but not enough to meet the supermajority requirement to consider the bill immediately. Without that supermajority, the bill, by rule, had to wait two calendar days before the chamber could consider it. That would have pushed the special session, originally scheduled to adjourn on Thursday, May 28, into Saturday.
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Arkansas House Passes SEC Primary Bill
The Arkansas state House on Wednesday, May 27 passed HB 1006. By a vote of 56-32, the House passed the bill that would shift all primary elections in the Natural state up to the first Tuesday in March from May. Though the legislation faced resistance before getting to committee on the first day of the Arkansas special session and witnessed a number of legislators speaking against the bill on the floor today, HB 1006 passed and will now head to the Senate side of the capitol.1
The Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee rejected an identical bill in on day one of the special session. The real test for this version of an SEC primary bill -- a movement of a consolidated primary -- will be in the upper chamber.
--
1 Those speaking against the bill mostly cited problems associated with moving all of the primaries forward. That had less to do specifically with the presidential primary and dealt more with adjustments required for the primaries for the legislators themselves.
The Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee rejected an identical bill in on day one of the special session. The real test for this version of an SEC primary bill -- a movement of a consolidated primary -- will be in the upper chamber.
--
1 Those speaking against the bill mostly cited problems associated with moving all of the primaries forward. That had less to do specifically with the presidential primary and dealt more with adjustments required for the primaries for the legislators themselves.
Identical SEC Primary Bills Introduced With Mixed Reviews in Arkansas
Given the small window in which the Arkansas legislature has to act during the special session this week, things are likely to move at an expedited pace. While one anti-SEC primary bill was the first introduced on the session's first day a day ago, it was not the only bill filed. But as it turned out, HB 1002 was not the only ominous sign for the Arkansas effort to join the SEC primary on March 1 either.
The Arkansas state House and Senate also the introduction of identical bills to move all of the primaries in the Natural state from May to March. Both versions saw opposition. On the House side, HB 1006 was objected to during its introduction and second reading. However, opponents did not have the numbers to prevent the bill from being referred to the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee. That committee later in the day sent the bill along to the floor with a "Do Pass" recommendation.
The story was different in the Senate. The state Senate version of the SEC primary bill faced no pushback on its way to committee, but once it was in the Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee the effort to move SB 8 along failed. Minority party Democrats voted against the legislation, effectively bottling the bill up in the committee.1
This was one of the questions FHQ posed on the call of the the special session last week. During the regular session earlier this year, the Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee (and later the full Senate) passed an SEC primary bill, but one that would have followed the example of previous Arkansas presidential primary shifts. It would have created a separate presidential primary and left all other primary election in May. An alternate bill -- one similar to the special session bill, SB 8 -- that would have moved all Arkansas primaries to March failed in committee. Entering the special session, it was an open question whether the Senate committee would balk at similar legislation (even with the governor's backing).
It appears that question has now been answered. Though SB 8 quickly stalled in committee, the bill's sponsor, Senator Gary Stubblefield (R-6th, Branch), is contemplating discharging it from committee for consideration on the floor of the state Senate.
Overall, day one of the Arkansas special legislative session was not necessarily a positive one with respect to the SEC primary move. There was resistance in both chambers. That said, the state House will take up its version of the SEC primary bill on day two.
--
1 Democrats on the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee objected to moving all Arkansas primaries to March on the grounds that it would push up filing deadlines and force campaigning into holiday season in the year before the election:
Overall, day one of the Arkansas special legislative session was not necessarily a positive one with respect to the SEC primary move. There was resistance in both chambers. That said, the state House will take up its version of the SEC primary bill on day two.
--
1 Democrats on the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee objected to moving all Arkansas primaries to March on the grounds that it would push up filing deadlines and force campaigning into holiday season in the year before the election:
Sen. Linda Chesterfield, D-Little Rock, said it could result in an unfair advantage to incumbents.
"You're talking about campaigning over Thanksgiving and Christmas," Chesterfield said. "We're talking about campaigning in some of the most treacherous weather around."Others warned that history might repeat itself:
Sen. Joyce Elliott, D-Little Rock, also questioned whether an earlier primary date would increase Arkansas influence. With former Gov. Mike Huckabee seeking the Republican nomination and former Arkansas first-lady Hillary Rodham Clinton campaigning for the Democratic nomination, most other candidates would be reluctant to spend much time here, she suggested.Arkansas last moved its presidential primary forward for the 2008 cycle and saw both Huckabee and Clinton run then as well. That had most candidates campaigning elsewhere, yielding the state to its favorite children.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
First Presidential Primary Bill of Arkansas Special Session Does Not Call for SEC Primary Date
In a sign of what may yet come in the short special session this week in Arkansas, the opening salvo in the effort to join the SEC primary on March 1 does not actually call for moving the presidential primary in the Natural state to March. Instead, Representative Nate Bell (R-20th, Mena), who derailed the regular session bill to create a separate presidential primary scheduled for the SEC primary date, went in a different direction.
On the opening day of the three day special session, Rep. Bell introduced HB 1002. This legislation would bump up the date of the Arkansas consolidated primary, but only to the first Tuesday in May for the 2016 cycle. Under current law, the Arkansas primary would be held on May 24, three weeks later than the proposed date from Bell. Additionally, Bell's bill would also require the state House and Senate Committees on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs to "study the effects and benefits of holding the preferential primary election and the general primary election in May" after the 2016 cycle.1
These study committees have come up from time to time and tend to lead nowhere; as in the presidential primary does not move. That was the case when Indiana in 2009 talked about but did not ultimately study the benefits of moving out of the Hoosier state's typical early May primary for something earlier.
In the Arkansas case, the study committee may be nothing more than a stall tactic. Bell chairs the House State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee and bottled up the previous, regular session bill there. That he has proposed alternative legislation may signal that he is willing to do the same with any SEC primary bill that may once again come over from the state Senate (with the governor's support). This is just a three day session, so running out the clock is very much an option that is on the table as far as the Arkansas effort to join the SEC primary.
--
1 The "general primary election" is what the runoff system is called in Arkansas. The "preferential primary election" that precedes it is what is called a primary election in the majority of states.
On the opening day of the three day special session, Rep. Bell introduced HB 1002. This legislation would bump up the date of the Arkansas consolidated primary, but only to the first Tuesday in May for the 2016 cycle. Under current law, the Arkansas primary would be held on May 24, three weeks later than the proposed date from Bell. Additionally, Bell's bill would also require the state House and Senate Committees on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs to "study the effects and benefits of holding the preferential primary election and the general primary election in May" after the 2016 cycle.1
These study committees have come up from time to time and tend to lead nowhere; as in the presidential primary does not move. That was the case when Indiana in 2009 talked about but did not ultimately study the benefits of moving out of the Hoosier state's typical early May primary for something earlier.
In the Arkansas case, the study committee may be nothing more than a stall tactic. Bell chairs the House State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee and bottled up the previous, regular session bill there. That he has proposed alternative legislation may signal that he is willing to do the same with any SEC primary bill that may once again come over from the state Senate (with the governor's support). This is just a three day session, so running out the clock is very much an option that is on the table as far as the Arkansas effort to join the SEC primary.
--
1 The "general primary election" is what the runoff system is called in Arkansas. The "preferential primary election" that precedes it is what is called a primary election in the majority of states.
Pennsylvania Parties Not That Open to Presidential Primary Change
The proposed shift of the Pennsylvania presidential primary from April to March raised eyebrows in both major parties in the Keystone state.
The resistance has less to do with the presidential primary than it does with moving the all of the primaries -- presidential primary included -- from the fourth Tuesday in April to the third Tuesday in March.1 As FHQ often mentions, creating a separate presidential primary has its costs -- funding an all new election -- but shifting around a consolidated primary also has costs. In that instance, however, the cost is not directly financial. Take the recent discussion in Nevada over a proposed consolidated primary scheduled for the end of February. Concerns there tended to revolve around the idea state legislators would be affected. Their renominations would be pushed to earlier points on the calendar. That would trigger even earlier campaigning and an even longer general election process. Elongating the primary and general election phases for state legislators requires raising and spending more money.
There are financial costs, then, in moving a consolidated primary, but in that case the burden is shifted from the state to the legislators. Over the years, that has tended to produce some reservations among those state legislators. In turn, that often leads to inaction and an unchanged primary date.
This may or may not affect the yet-to-be filed presidential primary bill in Pennsylvania. But, as James P. O'Toole at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette notes, this is an old dilemma in the Keystone state and a move that does not have the support of the two state party chairmen:
--
1 FHQ spoke with Rep. Greiner's spokesperson, Eric Reath, last week and he confirmed that the proposed bill would move the full consolidated primary to March and not create a separate presidential primary.
The resistance has less to do with the presidential primary than it does with moving the all of the primaries -- presidential primary included -- from the fourth Tuesday in April to the third Tuesday in March.1 As FHQ often mentions, creating a separate presidential primary has its costs -- funding an all new election -- but shifting around a consolidated primary also has costs. In that instance, however, the cost is not directly financial. Take the recent discussion in Nevada over a proposed consolidated primary scheduled for the end of February. Concerns there tended to revolve around the idea state legislators would be affected. Their renominations would be pushed to earlier points on the calendar. That would trigger even earlier campaigning and an even longer general election process. Elongating the primary and general election phases for state legislators requires raising and spending more money.
There are financial costs, then, in moving a consolidated primary, but in that case the burden is shifted from the state to the legislators. Over the years, that has tended to produce some reservations among those state legislators. In turn, that often leads to inaction and an unchanged primary date.
This may or may not affect the yet-to-be filed presidential primary bill in Pennsylvania. But, as James P. O'Toole at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette notes, this is an old dilemma in the Keystone state and a move that does not have the support of the two state party chairmen:
"I have not been supportive of changing the primary date because of the way it affects so many other people,'' said Rob Gleason, the chairman of the state Republican Party. "You'd have to change the date of for petition circulation … You'd be circulating petitions in January and February. I've always kind of resisted that.''Bill sponsor, Representative Keith Greiner (R-43rd, Lancaster) claims to have bipartisan support for the move, but shifting the [presidential] primary will likely have to overcome some resistance.
"I see no reason right now to change it, from the Democratic side,' said Jim Burn, the Democratic state chairman. "It throws everything out of whack; people are going to have to start a very complex series of events during the holidays … The costs and the complications far outweigh any benefits.
--
1 FHQ spoke with Rep. Greiner's spokesperson, Eric Reath, last week and he confirmed that the proposed bill would move the full consolidated primary to March and not create a separate presidential primary.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
SEC Primary Bill Passes Alabama House
Joining the SEC primary inched closer to reality in Alabaman this morning.
The Alabama state House on Thursday, May 21 by voice vote passed SB 240. The legislation would make only a minor tweak to the Alabama statutes, moving the consolidated primary -- including the presidential primary -- up a week to March 1. Four years ago, the Alabama legislature eliminated its separate February presidential primary and combined that election with the the June primaries for other offices. The 2011 change brought all of those elections together on the second Tuesday in March, a date that coincided with the primary in neighboring Mississippi.
Though Mississippi's bid to join the 2016 SEC primary on the first Tuesday in March failed during its regular legislative session, the Alabama shift to a week earlier on the 2016 primary calendar has now passed both chambers of the state legislature. That has Alabama poised to join Georgia*, Tennessee and Texas in the SEC primary. Tangentially regional/southern states, Oklahoma and Virginia are also scheduled to hold March 1 presidential primaries.
The Alabama state House on Thursday, May 21 by voice vote passed SB 240. The legislation would make only a minor tweak to the Alabama statutes, moving the consolidated primary -- including the presidential primary -- up a week to March 1. Four years ago, the Alabama legislature eliminated its separate February presidential primary and combined that election with the the June primaries for other offices. The 2011 change brought all of those elections together on the second Tuesday in March, a date that coincided with the primary in neighboring Mississippi.
Though Mississippi's bid to join the 2016 SEC primary on the first Tuesday in March failed during its regular legislative session, the Alabama shift to a week earlier on the 2016 primary calendar has now passed both chambers of the state legislature. That has Alabama poised to join Georgia*, Tennessee and Texas in the SEC primary. Tangentially regional/southern states, Oklahoma and Virginia are also scheduled to hold March 1 presidential primaries.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Hutchinson's Call for Special Session Includes Arkansas Presidential Primary Move
Under a proclamation from Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) a special session of the Arkansas legislature will convene on Tuesday, May 26.1
For our purposes here at FHQ the most noteworthy item on the governor's agenda for the session is "to move the full Arkansas primary elections from May to March". This is an expected move, but an interesting one. The bill (SB 389) that passed the state Senate during the regular session -- and was subsequently withdrawn after it was bottled up in committee on the House -- proposed to create and fund a separate presidential preferential primary election for the first Tuesday in March. That would have left the other primaries back in May.
That separate presidential primary would cost the state an estimated $1.6 million.
But it should be noted that a bill (SB 765) similar to the one the governor is asking the legislature to consider was also proposed during the regular session by the same legislator who introduced the separate presidential primary legislation, Sen. Gary Stubblefield (R-6th, Branch). That bill, when considered beside SB 389, was discarded in committee in the state Senate.
That raises an interesting question: If the Arkansas state House opposes a separate primary, and the state Senate opposes moving a consolidated primary up to March 1, is this special session headed for an impasse? That depends. Did the state Senate committee really oppose the consolidated bill or did it just prefer the separate presidential primary option? If it is the former, then an standoff is likely. However, if it preferred the separate presidential primary option, it may not have opposed the consolidated primary option if it was the only one available.
Either way, that leaves some questions to be answered in a very short three day special session next week.
--
UPDATE (5/21/15): The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has more details on the presidential primary proposal from Governor Hutchinson. All the primaries would be moved from May to the first Tuesday in March, but the fiscal session of the state legislature would be shifted from February to April as well. That latter move would eliminate the conflict of legislators campaigning in the midst of their work on budgetary/appropriations matters. Hypothetically, campaigning would potentially affect deliberations on those matters. This is a long-standing norm in Arkansas and other states. It is also something FHQ has discussed before in the context of an Arkansas presidential primary move.
Democrats in the state legislative minority are raising holiday and weather concerns (similar to minority party Democrats in Nevada), but Republicans are countering that the change is being made in time for everyone to adjust (via the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette):
--
1 The text of press release on the call for a special session:
Governor Asa Hutchinson Makes Official Call for Special Legislative Session
Agenda Items Focus on Economic Development and Government Efficiencies
LITTLE ROCK – Governor Asa Hutchinson has made the official call to legislators for a special session of the 90th General Assembly that will convene Tuesday, May 26, 2015. Along with the official call, the Governor has announced all items on the special session agenda below.
Governor Hutchinson issued the following statement: “This limited agenda focuses on job creation and economic development, while highlighting government efficiencies that will ultimately result in savings to all Arkansas taxpayers.”
Agenda items are as follows:
To consider an Amendment 82 “super project” at Highland Industrial Park in Calhoun County.
To consider reorganization of state agencies to provide efficiencies, better services and savings:
» Merging the Arkansas Department of Rural Services (ADRS) with the Arkansas Economic Development Commission (AEDC)
» Merging the Arkansas Science & Technology Authority (ASTA) with the Arkansas Economic Development Commission (AEDC) » Merging the Arkansas Building Authority (ABA) with the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA)
» Merging the Division of Land Survey with the Arkansas Geographic Information Office (AGIO)
To make a minor fix to DWI law to assure continuation of federal highway funds.
To ensure that state law aligns with potential changes in federal law regarding farm-equipment traffic on a new section of interstate highway.
To correct technical errors made to bills when amendments were engrossed.
To move the full Arkansas primary elections from May to March.
To move the General Assembly’s fiscal session from February to April.
To honor Johnson County Deputy Sheriff Sonny Smith.
To confirm Gubernatorial appointments.
--
For our purposes here at FHQ the most noteworthy item on the governor's agenda for the session is "to move the full Arkansas primary elections from May to March". This is an expected move, but an interesting one. The bill (SB 389) that passed the state Senate during the regular session -- and was subsequently withdrawn after it was bottled up in committee on the House -- proposed to create and fund a separate presidential preferential primary election for the first Tuesday in March. That would have left the other primaries back in May.
That separate presidential primary would cost the state an estimated $1.6 million.
But it should be noted that a bill (SB 765) similar to the one the governor is asking the legislature to consider was also proposed during the regular session by the same legislator who introduced the separate presidential primary legislation, Sen. Gary Stubblefield (R-6th, Branch). That bill, when considered beside SB 389, was discarded in committee in the state Senate.
That raises an interesting question: If the Arkansas state House opposes a separate primary, and the state Senate opposes moving a consolidated primary up to March 1, is this special session headed for an impasse? That depends. Did the state Senate committee really oppose the consolidated bill or did it just prefer the separate presidential primary option? If it is the former, then an standoff is likely. However, if it preferred the separate presidential primary option, it may not have opposed the consolidated primary option if it was the only one available.
Either way, that leaves some questions to be answered in a very short three day special session next week.
--
UPDATE (5/21/15): The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has more details on the presidential primary proposal from Governor Hutchinson. All the primaries would be moved from May to the first Tuesday in March, but the fiscal session of the state legislature would be shifted from February to April as well. That latter move would eliminate the conflict of legislators campaigning in the midst of their work on budgetary/appropriations matters. Hypothetically, campaigning would potentially affect deliberations on those matters. This is a long-standing norm in Arkansas and other states. It is also something FHQ has discussed before in the context of an Arkansas presidential primary move.
Democrats in the state legislative minority are raising holiday and weather concerns (similar to minority party Democrats in Nevada), but Republicans are countering that the change is being made in time for everyone to adjust (via the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette):
[State Senate Democratic Leader Keith] Ingram said that moving all the state's primaries from May to March will create problems, lead to campaigning during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays and devastate state and local primary races if an ice storm occurs on primary day.
But [Speaker of the House, Republican Jeremy] Gillam said that "we are doing it early enough that everybody will have plenty of time to adjust the calendars, whether it be just on making a decision to run for office or how to conduct the elections.
--
1 The text of press release on the call for a special session:
Governor Asa Hutchinson Makes Official Call for Special Legislative Session
Agenda Items Focus on Economic Development and Government Efficiencies
LITTLE ROCK – Governor Asa Hutchinson has made the official call to legislators for a special session of the 90th General Assembly that will convene Tuesday, May 26, 2015. Along with the official call, the Governor has announced all items on the special session agenda below.
Governor Hutchinson issued the following statement: “This limited agenda focuses on job creation and economic development, while highlighting government efficiencies that will ultimately result in savings to all Arkansas taxpayers.”
Agenda items are as follows:
To consider an Amendment 82 “super project” at Highland Industrial Park in Calhoun County.
To consider reorganization of state agencies to provide efficiencies, better services and savings:
» Merging the Arkansas Department of Rural Services (ADRS) with the Arkansas Economic Development Commission (AEDC)
» Merging the Arkansas Science & Technology Authority (ASTA) with the Arkansas Economic Development Commission (AEDC) » Merging the Arkansas Building Authority (ABA) with the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA)
» Merging the Division of Land Survey with the Arkansas Geographic Information Office (AGIO)
To make a minor fix to DWI law to assure continuation of federal highway funds.
To ensure that state law aligns with potential changes in federal law regarding farm-equipment traffic on a new section of interstate highway.
To correct technical errors made to bills when amendments were engrossed.
To move the full Arkansas primary elections from May to March.
To move the General Assembly’s fiscal session from February to April.
To honor Johnson County Deputy Sheriff Sonny Smith.
To confirm Gubernatorial appointments.
--
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Arkansas Governor Promises SEC Presidential Primary Will Be on Special Session Agenda
Arkansas is a week away from convening a supposed special session of the state legislature, but there has been no official call nor a list of agenda items from Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) yet. That appears to be coming on Wednesday, May 20.
However, the governor has made assurances to the sponsor of the two regular session SEC primary bills that the presidential primary date would be on the agenda for one of the likely two planned special sessions; one to deal with economic development next week and another to deal with Medicare in the future. Though the separate presidential primary bill was the one that moved (before stalling) during the regular session, Hutchinson has hinted that a new version of the bill to move all of the Arkansas primaries, including the presidential primary, from May to the first Tuesday in March may be the preferred option for the special session.
Such a bill would have the effect of lengthening the general election campaigns of state legislators among other officeholders in the Natural state. That has its costs but is different than creating and funding a separate presidential primary election.
For now, there is an answer to the question of whether the primary will make it onto the special session docket. It will, but it is not clear the session in which it will be brought up. Time will tell.
However, the governor has made assurances to the sponsor of the two regular session SEC primary bills that the presidential primary date would be on the agenda for one of the likely two planned special sessions; one to deal with economic development next week and another to deal with Medicare in the future. Though the separate presidential primary bill was the one that moved (before stalling) during the regular session, Hutchinson has hinted that a new version of the bill to move all of the Arkansas primaries, including the presidential primary, from May to the first Tuesday in March may be the preferred option for the special session.
Such a bill would have the effect of lengthening the general election campaigns of state legislators among other officeholders in the Natural state. That has its costs but is different than creating and funding a separate presidential primary election.
For now, there is an answer to the question of whether the primary will make it onto the special session docket. It will, but it is not clear the session in which it will be brought up. Time will tell.
Monday, May 18, 2015
Legislation on Cusp of Introduction Would Shift Pennsylvania Presidential Primary to March 15
Representative Keith Greiner (R-43rd, Lancaster) on Monday, May 18 announced his intention to introduce legislation to shift the Pennsylvania presidential primary from April up to March:
Without the language of the bill available, there are a great many questions left unanswered here. The largest of them is whether the bill calls for moving the entire consolidated set of primaries including the presidential primary up to March or if a separate presidential primary will be created and scheduled for March 15. That the primaries have all remained concurrent has been one of the major deterrents to Pennsylvania moving in the part (as it has been for a number of states that tend to be toward the end of the calendar). A separate presidential primary in a large state like Pennsylvania would be costly, but so too would increasing the length of the general election for all others seeking other offices under the alternative move.
This move would potentially pull Pennsylvania away from an small mid-Atlantic regional primary with Maryland and Delaware and align them with Florida, Illinois, Missouri and possibly Ohio on March 15. That is a significant line up of states.
However, it should be noted that Republicans are differently motivated this cycle than Democrats are. That is true in the commonwealth as well. Pennsylvania Republicans may value that earlier primary date, but Democrats in the state may value the coalition with Maryland and Delaware in April more. It means bonus delegates for clustering and for holding a later primary. That calculation could play a role in this as Governor Tom Wolf (D) may disagree with a Republican controlled legislature if it passes this upcoming bill.
FHQ will hold further comment until the bill is available.
However, there are some factual inaccuracies in Rep. Greiner's memorandum above and other talking points circulated to the press.
First, Pennsylvania would not retain any winner-take-all allocation. The DNC mandates proportionality in every state. Both parties, following state law, have directly elected delegates in presidential primary elections in the past. Those delegate candidates are listed on the ballot with no indication of the presidential candidate with whom they are aligned and in a section of the ballot separate from the presidential preference vote. That presidential preference vote is largely meaningless. It has no bearing on the allocation of delegates. That is determined by the direct election of the delegates. That makes Pennsylvania a loophole primary. If this bill is passed and signed into law, Pennsylvania would end up on the same date as another loophole primary in Illinois.
Second, FHQ would argue that Rep. Greiner underestimated just how many states are or will be ahead of Pennsylvania on the 2016 presidential primary calendar. Bear in mind that most of the caucus states will likely fall some time in March in order to complete the full caucuses/convention process in time for the national conventions. The better way to assess where Pennsylvania is in the order is to count the number of states behind them, the vast majority of whom are locked into their current calendar positions. By that measure, Pennsylvania is somewhere in the upper 30s in the order. And Washington, DC is behind them, all the way at the end.
Legislation for an Earlier Presidential Primary Date in Pennsylvania
In the near future I intend to introduce legislation that will change the date of Pennsylvania’s presidential primary from the fourth Tuesday of April to the third Tuesday of March.
The lateness of Pennsylvania’s presidential primary diminishes its significance for voters of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Pennsylvania’s presidential primary should have a significant impact on the process of selecting presidential candidates, to reflect our standing as “The Keystone State.”
Achieving this goal is accomplished simply by changing the date of Pennsylvania’s presidential primary.
By moving the primary to the third Tuesday in March, there is no loss of delegates for either party and our primaries will remain "winner-take-all" for both parties’ primary elections, as they have been historically been in the Commonwealth.
I hope you will join me in supporting this important legislation.Throughout the post-reform era, the Pennsylvania primary has been locked on the fourth Tuesday in April. The one exception is the 2000 cycle when the primaries in the Keystone state and Wisconsin coincided on the first Tuesday in April. Moving into March, then, would be new territory for Pennsylvania.
Without the language of the bill available, there are a great many questions left unanswered here. The largest of them is whether the bill calls for moving the entire consolidated set of primaries including the presidential primary up to March or if a separate presidential primary will be created and scheduled for March 15. That the primaries have all remained concurrent has been one of the major deterrents to Pennsylvania moving in the part (as it has been for a number of states that tend to be toward the end of the calendar). A separate presidential primary in a large state like Pennsylvania would be costly, but so too would increasing the length of the general election for all others seeking other offices under the alternative move.
This move would potentially pull Pennsylvania away from an small mid-Atlantic regional primary with Maryland and Delaware and align them with Florida, Illinois, Missouri and possibly Ohio on March 15. That is a significant line up of states.
However, it should be noted that Republicans are differently motivated this cycle than Democrats are. That is true in the commonwealth as well. Pennsylvania Republicans may value that earlier primary date, but Democrats in the state may value the coalition with Maryland and Delaware in April more. It means bonus delegates for clustering and for holding a later primary. That calculation could play a role in this as Governor Tom Wolf (D) may disagree with a Republican controlled legislature if it passes this upcoming bill.
FHQ will hold further comment until the bill is available.
However, there are some factual inaccuracies in Rep. Greiner's memorandum above and other talking points circulated to the press.
First, Pennsylvania would not retain any winner-take-all allocation. The DNC mandates proportionality in every state. Both parties, following state law, have directly elected delegates in presidential primary elections in the past. Those delegate candidates are listed on the ballot with no indication of the presidential candidate with whom they are aligned and in a section of the ballot separate from the presidential preference vote. That presidential preference vote is largely meaningless. It has no bearing on the allocation of delegates. That is determined by the direct election of the delegates. That makes Pennsylvania a loophole primary. If this bill is passed and signed into law, Pennsylvania would end up on the same date as another loophole primary in Illinois.
Second, FHQ would argue that Rep. Greiner underestimated just how many states are or will be ahead of Pennsylvania on the 2016 presidential primary calendar. Bear in mind that most of the caucus states will likely fall some time in March in order to complete the full caucuses/convention process in time for the national conventions. The better way to assess where Pennsylvania is in the order is to count the number of states behind them, the vast majority of whom are locked into their current calendar positions. By that measure, Pennsylvania is somewhere in the upper 30s in the order. And Washington, DC is behind them, all the way at the end.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Nevada Senate Passes Presidential Primary Bill With a Twist
After again amending its bill to create a consolidated primary -- presidential and other offices -- on Monday, May 11, the Nevada state Senate passed SB 421 on Tuesday afternoon on an 11-9 party line vote.
Majority party Republicans in the Senate voted in favor of the measure that would create a presidential primary and couple it with the primaries for other offices in the state. The latter, typically in June, would be moved up to the last Tuesday in February. That not only tamps down on the costs associated with the new presidential primary, but is also in line with what the Republican National Committee has been quietly pushing for while keeping the Nevada delegate selection process early on the presidential primary calendar.
And while that potential move from caucuses to a primary is of note for Republicans, perhaps more interesting is the Democratic reaction to the bill in the state Senate. Nevada Republicans have reason to want to go along with the national party on this one. They control the levers of state government in the Silver state, but the national party has sway over which states are among the privileged few at the beginning of the presidential primary line. Nevada is now among that group of four. For Nevada Democrats, however, there is some concern that trading out the caucuses/convention process for a primary will hurt the party and its protected position on the calendar with the Democratic National Committee. The DNC added the Nevada caucuses to the list of carve-out states for the 2008 cycle and has for three cycles now specified the dates of the "caucuses" in Nevada in the national party delegate selection rules. SB 421 has Nevada Democrats in a bind in switching the process to a state-run primary election.
The national parties, then, are pulling the state parties in different directions on this issue. The RNC wants a Nevada primary to reduce the amount of chaos, if not mismanagement, of the caucuses process by the Nevada Republican Party. However, DNC rules call on Nevada to hold caucuses and not a primary.
This sounds like Nevada Democrats might lose their early status (in the future) only there are a couple of outs for them in all of this. One is in the legislation that just passed the state Senate and the other is in the DNC delegate selection rules.
First, layered into the newly amended SB 421 is a provision that instructs the Nevada secretary of state to conduct a presidential primary election (on the last Tuesday in February) if 1) he or she does NOT receive written word from a national party chairperson that the national party does not want to participate in the primary election and 2) if two or more (presidential) candidates file declarations of candidacy with the secretary of state. That provides Democrats in Nevada with an out to continue with the caucuses/convention system. They only need the chair of the DNC to notify the secretary of state that it does not want Nevada Democrats participating in the primary.
Now, this is a bit of an odd maneuver. The legislation cedes the power over the opt-out to the national party. [Keep in mind that because the RNC wants a Nevada primary, it can do nothing and get its preferred position.] Ultimately, the presidential nomination process is a national party process, but on matters like these the national parties have tended to defer to the state parties (unless it is something in direct violation of the national party delegate selection rules). There is some brinkmanship to this, intentional or not. This is daring the DNC to weigh in on a heretofore state party matter and basically say that it supports a lower turnout election in an early state that just so happens to be a swing state in the general election. That is pretty speculative though.
If that provision is in there, then why did Nevada state Senate Democrats vote against the measure? That can get a bit complicated. If the DNC does not take the bait in the trap described above, then Nevada Democrats are forced into a primary election that "violates" national party rules.1 But Nevada Democrats could apply for a waiver from any penalty under Rule 20 of the DNC rules. All a state party has to do is prove that Democratic legislators acted to prevent the legislation from moving forward. As Democrats are in the legislative minority in Nevada, those state Senate Democrats did everything they could to prevent the change in unanimously opposing the move.
That possibility is a long way off in all of this. But there is never a dull moment in Nevada presidential nomination politics.
--
1 FHQ uses the quotation marks here because technically Nevada and the other carve-out states have violated the timing rules in each of the last two cycles. The dates on which Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina were to hold their contests were clearly laid out in the DNC delegate selection rules. Yet, there was no penalty levied against the early four states.
Majority party Republicans in the Senate voted in favor of the measure that would create a presidential primary and couple it with the primaries for other offices in the state. The latter, typically in June, would be moved up to the last Tuesday in February. That not only tamps down on the costs associated with the new presidential primary, but is also in line with what the Republican National Committee has been quietly pushing for while keeping the Nevada delegate selection process early on the presidential primary calendar.
And while that potential move from caucuses to a primary is of note for Republicans, perhaps more interesting is the Democratic reaction to the bill in the state Senate. Nevada Republicans have reason to want to go along with the national party on this one. They control the levers of state government in the Silver state, but the national party has sway over which states are among the privileged few at the beginning of the presidential primary line. Nevada is now among that group of four. For Nevada Democrats, however, there is some concern that trading out the caucuses/convention process for a primary will hurt the party and its protected position on the calendar with the Democratic National Committee. The DNC added the Nevada caucuses to the list of carve-out states for the 2008 cycle and has for three cycles now specified the dates of the "caucuses" in Nevada in the national party delegate selection rules. SB 421 has Nevada Democrats in a bind in switching the process to a state-run primary election.
The national parties, then, are pulling the state parties in different directions on this issue. The RNC wants a Nevada primary to reduce the amount of chaos, if not mismanagement, of the caucuses process by the Nevada Republican Party. However, DNC rules call on Nevada to hold caucuses and not a primary.
This sounds like Nevada Democrats might lose their early status (in the future) only there are a couple of outs for them in all of this. One is in the legislation that just passed the state Senate and the other is in the DNC delegate selection rules.
First, layered into the newly amended SB 421 is a provision that instructs the Nevada secretary of state to conduct a presidential primary election (on the last Tuesday in February) if 1) he or she does NOT receive written word from a national party chairperson that the national party does not want to participate in the primary election and 2) if two or more (presidential) candidates file declarations of candidacy with the secretary of state. That provides Democrats in Nevada with an out to continue with the caucuses/convention system. They only need the chair of the DNC to notify the secretary of state that it does not want Nevada Democrats participating in the primary.
Now, this is a bit of an odd maneuver. The legislation cedes the power over the opt-out to the national party. [Keep in mind that because the RNC wants a Nevada primary, it can do nothing and get its preferred position.] Ultimately, the presidential nomination process is a national party process, but on matters like these the national parties have tended to defer to the state parties (unless it is something in direct violation of the national party delegate selection rules). There is some brinkmanship to this, intentional or not. This is daring the DNC to weigh in on a heretofore state party matter and basically say that it supports a lower turnout election in an early state that just so happens to be a swing state in the general election. That is pretty speculative though.
If that provision is in there, then why did Nevada state Senate Democrats vote against the measure? That can get a bit complicated. If the DNC does not take the bait in the trap described above, then Nevada Democrats are forced into a primary election that "violates" national party rules.1 But Nevada Democrats could apply for a waiver from any penalty under Rule 20 of the DNC rules. All a state party has to do is prove that Democratic legislators acted to prevent the legislation from moving forward. As Democrats are in the legislative minority in Nevada, those state Senate Democrats did everything they could to prevent the change in unanimously opposing the move.
That possibility is a long way off in all of this. But there is never a dull moment in Nevada presidential nomination politics.
--
1 FHQ uses the quotation marks here because technically Nevada and the other carve-out states have violated the timing rules in each of the last two cycles. The dates on which Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina were to hold their contests were clearly laid out in the DNC delegate selection rules. Yet, there was no penalty levied against the early four states.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Alabama House Committee Favorably Reports SEC Primary Bill
The plan to shift the Alabama presidential primary up a week to March 1 has moved a step closer to reality. The state House Constitution, Campaigns and Elections Committee this week passed SB 240 on to the full body for its consideration.
The state Senate previously passed the measure with only three votes in opposition. And the odds of final passage must seem pretty good. Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill (R) is already hyping the SEC primary. Moving from March 8 up to March 1 would mean Alabama abandoning neighboring Mississippi for other regional partners like Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia as well as Massachusetts, Minnesota and Vermont.
The state Senate previously passed the measure with only three votes in opposition. And the odds of final passage must seem pretty good. Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill (R) is already hyping the SEC primary. Moving from March 8 up to March 1 would mean Alabama abandoning neighboring Mississippi for other regional partners like Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia as well as Massachusetts, Minnesota and Vermont.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Nevada Senate Committee Again Tweaks February Presidential Primary Bill
On Friday, April 10, the Nevada state Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections rescinded its earlier recommendation to the chamber to pass SB 421. Instead, the committee made a technical correction -- changing the date of the proposed primary from the third Tuesday to the last Tuesday in February -- and sent it back out with a "do pass" recommendation.
There are a few reminders about the dynamics around this bill that should be mentioned. First, the bill's sponsor, Senator James Settlemeyer (R-17th, Minden), sits on the committee and helped usher it through despite testimony from the Nevada Republican Party in opposition to the measure. What Settlemeyer may be able to overcome in committee is different than the obstacles he and his bill may face on the floor of the Senate. Secondly, this bill differs meaningfully from the version now active in the Assembly. While the Assembly bill creates a separate presidential primary it makes participation by the state parties optional. If the parties opt in, then a primary date in February is agreed upon and a primary election is conducted. However, if the parties opt instead to select delegates and express presidential preference through a caucuses/convention system, then there is no primary election. The Senate bill makes the primary a requirement, or at least attempts to add some legal muscle to the primary mode of delegate selection in the Silver state.
The Assembly bill is, perhaps, more forward looking: attempting to add the option for the future. The Senate bill, on the other hand, is intended, according to the sponsor, affect the 2016 process in Nevada.
The Assembly version seems the more feasible of the two. That is particularly true since both state parties have already expressed their intention to hold caucuses in 2016.
There are a few reminders about the dynamics around this bill that should be mentioned. First, the bill's sponsor, Senator James Settlemeyer (R-17th, Minden), sits on the committee and helped usher it through despite testimony from the Nevada Republican Party in opposition to the measure. What Settlemeyer may be able to overcome in committee is different than the obstacles he and his bill may face on the floor of the Senate. Secondly, this bill differs meaningfully from the version now active in the Assembly. While the Assembly bill creates a separate presidential primary it makes participation by the state parties optional. If the parties opt in, then a primary date in February is agreed upon and a primary election is conducted. However, if the parties opt instead to select delegates and express presidential preference through a caucuses/convention system, then there is no primary election. The Senate bill makes the primary a requirement, or at least attempts to add some legal muscle to the primary mode of delegate selection in the Silver state.
The Assembly bill is, perhaps, more forward looking: attempting to add the option for the future. The Senate bill, on the other hand, is intended, according to the sponsor, affect the 2016 process in Nevada.
The Assembly version seems the more feasible of the two. That is particularly true since both state parties have already expressed their intention to hold caucuses in 2016.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)