Kansas Democrats Settle on May Party-Run Primary

The Kansas Democratic Party on Thursday, May 2 released their 2020 draft delegate selection plan, exactly one year ahead of when the party intends to hold a presidential preference primary.

Like Alaska, Hawaii and North Dakota Democrats, Democrats in Kansas are shifting away from traditional caucuses and toward a mode of delegate selection closer to a primary. While the window for voting in the May 2 party-run primary in the Sunflower state is fairly narrow -- 10am-2pm -- that is offset by 1) the contest being scheduled for a Saturday and 2) the party allowing for absentee voting (by mail) from March 30 through April 24. Additionally, although the field is likely to have winnowed to some degree by the beginning (March 30) of that absentee window, registered Democrats in Kansas will use a ranked choice voting ballot. Absent additional details, it would appear that voters will have a full list of candidates to rank order on the ballot (unlike the variation in Alaska where voters choose/rank their top three).

Moreover, Kansas would become the largest state to adopt a party-run primary approach to delegate selection process, and that bigger potential electorate entails a larger cost to the process. Those costs are borne out through the need for addition voting locations and volunteers to staff them. The draft Kansas plan does indicate that the party will have at least one primary day voting location in each of the Sunflower state's 40 state senate districts. While the allocation of delegates to the national convention will be based on the results of the May 2 primary, the selection process will follow starting with May 9 state senate district conventions, May 16 congressional district conventions (where congressional district delegates will be chosen) and a June 6 state convention (where at-large and PLEO delegates will be selected).

Finally, Kansas Democrats have 39 delegates (which includes six superdelegates) under the Democratic Party delegate apportionment formula. However, due to the proposed date of the party-run primary -- after the May 1 -- the party would gain an additional 20 percent bonus on its base delegation. That would likely tack another six delegates onto the total number of Kansas delegates heading to the national convention in Milwaukee.


Related:
3/13/19: North Dakota Democrats Plan to Hold March 10 Firehouse Caucuses

3/26/19: Hawaii Democrats Aim for an April Party-Run Primary in Lieu of Caucuses

3/31/19: Alaska Democrats Plan on April 4 Party-Run Primary



--
The Kansas Democratic party-run primary date is now reflected on the 2020 FHQ Presidential Primary Calendar.

--

Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

New York Democrats Signal an April Presidential Primary

After a one cycle departure, it appears as if New York will rejoin the late April Acela primary for 2020.

Empire state Democrats have indicated in the party's draft delegate selection plan that the 2020 presidential primary -- currently scheduled for February 4¹-- will fall on April 28. That would once again align the New York primary with primaries in Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. That mid-Atlantic/northeastern regional primary formed in the aftermath of the 2008 cycle when New York, Connecticut and Delaware all held February primaries that, while allowed under national party rules in 2008, would have been in violation in 2012 under the new rules in both parties. Those moved to late April to coincide with the traditional Pennsylvania primary date and were joined by Rhode Island (which had a more modest move from March to April).

That changed in 2016. Most of the Acela primary states held pat, but New York pushed forward a week to mid-April. Democrats in the state did not want the primary to fall in the middle of the Passover commemoration. The remaining four states, however, were joined by Maryland. But without New York, the grouping was a noncontiguous five state regional primary.

That is important because there are incentives built into the Democratic delegate selection process. New York benefited in 2016 from holding an April primary. The delegation from the Empire state got a 10 percent boost. But by breaking from the other states, New York Democrats missed out on an additional 15 percent bonus for clustering with two or more neighbors. Additionally, New York's move affected Connecticut and Rhode Island. By cutting the two northeastern off from those in the mid-Atlantic, it cost Connecticut and Rhode Island the clustering bonus laid out in the Democratic call for the convention.

With New York hypothetically back in late April as the bridge between Connecticut and Rhode Island in the northeast and Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania in the mid-Atlantic, all six states would be in line for a 25 percent bonus -- 10 percent for April primaries and 15 percent for a clustering of three or more contiguous states -- to their base apportionment of delegates. That would take a six state group with 543 pledged delegates and increase the total by roughly 120 delegates (across all six states). That is more than double the number of bonus delegates that California lost in its more from June 2016 to March 2020. And significantly, that is a large chunk of delegates at stake in an area of the calendar where presumptive nominees have emerged. But those presumptive nominees have not typically broken the 50 percent plus one delegate barrier by that point. Rather, the gap in the delegate count has been sufficiently large (considering the remaining delegates to be allocated) to force the remaining viable competition from the race. Both Romney and Trump benefited from the Acela primary cluster in 2012 and 2016, respectively. However, that regional primary played less a role in the one-on-one 2016 Democratic nomination race. Sanders lingered well after that point, competing against the delegate math through the end of primary season.

That may be a lot to digest, but the delegate math -- both the overall trajectory in primary season and the bonuses to the state party -- seem to have figured into the primary date decision making within the New York state Democratic party. Of course, this remains unofficial until the legislature in New York makes the change. Typically the legislature waits on input from the state parties with respect to what a compliant date would be relative to the national party rules and then introduces and passes a bill in the late spring. That step remains in this process.


New York's position and those of other states can be found on the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


--
¹ While the New York presidential primary is currently scheduled to coincide with the February spring primary, it is only a placeholder on the calendar to which the primary reverts every cycle. The standard operating procedure that has emerged in the Empire state over the last several cycles has seen the state legislature set the primary for April, but also make the change temporary. The date change typically sunsets at the end of the presidential election year and returns the primary to February.

Wyoming Democrats Will Caucus in March

...but the specific date remains TBD.

At the tail end of March, the Wyoming Democratic Party quietly released the proposed details of its 2020 delegate selection process. The draft delegate selection plan is more modest compared to some of the changes offered up in other caucus states. Whereas the majority of the remaining caucus states are exploring some variation of party-run primaries (Alaska, Hawaii, North Dakota) and/or ranked choice voting (Iowa, Nevada), Democrats in Wyoming are keeping the caucus/convention process in the Equality state in line in most respects with the process the party has utilized in past cycles.

Much of it, however, remains an unknown until after the Wyoming Democratic Party state central committee meeting on April 27. For instance, much is unsaid -- in fact it is literally left out -- about efforts at increasing participation as called for in Rule 2 on the DNC delegate selection rules for 2020. Those blanks will (likely) be filled in after the SCC meeting.

What is known about the process is that Wyoming Democrats will once again conduct caucuses for the 2020 cycle and those will fall some time in March; up to a month earlier than the April 9 caucuses the party held in 2016.

Additionally, the party will pool all of their 13 delegates in the selection process. Instead of applying the 15 percent threshold to district, at-large and party leaders/elected official delegates -- three separate, individual applications -- as is customary, Wyoming Democrats will apply it only once to the 13 delegate pool. It is a small change in a small delegate state, but one that could have an effect on allocation on the margins. At most it affect the rounding for who would get delegates and who does not (and how many). This one will be worth monitoring as it works its way through the review process. How receptive the Rules and Bylaws Committee is to that transition in the rules remains an open question. But again, the shift breaks with how allocation is typically done in the Democratic process. There is far more pooling of delegates in the Republican process.


--
The Wyoming caucuses change is now reflected on the 2020 FHQ Presidential Primary Calendar.

--

Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Alaska Democrats Plan on April 4 Party-Run Primary

On Saturday, March 30, the Alaska Democratic Party released for public comment the party's draft delegate selection plan for the 2020 cycle. And in it were details from yet another traditionally caucus state laying the groundwork for a party-run primary.

Yes, the caucuses will remain as the primary means through which delegates will be selected, but the allocation process will shift from hinging on the results of precinct caucuses to a party-run primary that will take place in at least nine locations across the state between 10am and 2pm on Saturday, April 4. No, a four hour voting window in just nine (to start) locations does not come across as adequate in a state as geographically large as Alaska, but Democrats in the Last Frontier have planned for that. In addition to the in-person voting on the April 4 primary day, Alaska Democrats will also have the option voting absentee by mail or electronically (in a system that remains undetermined). That window for alternate forms of voting will stretch from March 3 (Super Tuesday) through March 24.

Miscellany

• The Alaska draft plan calls for a ranked choice system of voting, elements of which have appeared in other formerly caucus states (Hawaii, Iowa and Nevada). 

• The Alaska primary will for the second cycle in a row coincide with the contest in Hawaii. Although both are positioned after the fourth Tuesday in March, the pair alone does not qualify for a regional cluster bonus (15 percent added to the base delegation). Four years ago when Washington state Democrats joined the pair, the collective trio qualified for that bonus. Unless another partner joins the effort -- Oregon comes to mind (but is unlikely) as do the Pacific territories -- then Alaska and Hawaii would fall short of a 15 percent clustering bonus, but would maintain a 10 percent timing bonus for the April date of their contests.

--
Alaska now joins Hawaii and North Dakota as non-carve-out and traditionally caucus states that have moved in the direction of party-run primaries as means of allocating delegates. The only states that have attempted so far to maintain the traditional caucus set up as a part of the allocation process are Iowa and Nevada. And one can hypothesize that such a move is a clear enough nod to the New Hampshire primary that both states' contests bookend. The other caucus states have no similar conflict.


--
The Alaska party-run primary date has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


Related:
2/11/19: Iowa Democrats Release Draft Delegate Selection Plan for 2020

3/13/19: North Dakota Democrats Plan to Hold March 10 Firehouse Caucuses

3/21/19: Nevada Democrats Release Draft Delegate Selection Plan

3/26/19: Hawaii Democrats Aim for an April Party-Run Primary in Lieu of Caucuses

--

Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Maine Democrats Signal Caucuses in Draft Delegate Selection Plan, but...

FHQ has been following the release of delegate selection plans by state Democratic parties across the country since Idaho Democrats released their plan for public comment toward the end of January. In particular, FHQ has kept an eye on caucus states, not only for the dates on which those contests are tentatively scheduled for 2020, but for how they plan to respond to the new DNC rules pushing for increased participation in the format.

While Maine fits into that category as well -- traditional albeit not constant caucus state -- there is another set of attendant questions raised in the Pine Tree state: will there be a primary option and will Democrats there utilize it for delegate allocation? Following the release of the Maine Democratic Party draft delegate selection plan, the answer appears to be, "Caucuses, but we'll get back to you."

The plan, then, lays out a caucus/convention system through which delegates to the national convention will be selected and allocated. However, the plan acknowledges that there is legislation pending in the Maine legislature to reestablish a presidential primary. In fact, there are two bills: one to establish a March presidential primary similar to the one that was created in 2016 but expired in 2018 and another similar bill that would conduct a March primary under a ranked choice voting system. One thing that can be gleaned from the Maine Democratic Party draft plan is that the party seemingly prefers the latter. Moreover, the plan indicates that should the ranked choice presidential primary bill pass the legislature and be signed into law, then the party would utilize the primary over the caucuses (and submit a revised plan to the DNC later).

But until such time that Maine has a presidential primary codified in statute, Democrats will plan on conducting a caucus/convention system with precinct caucuses commencing on Sunday, March 8. That would put the Maine Democratic caucuses in line with the date of those conducted in 2016, the Sunday after Super Tuesday.

That is not the only aspect of the planned caucuses that would carry over from previous cycles. Unlike the other caucus states that have released draft delegate selection plans thus far in 2019, Maine Democrats are not laying the groundwork for any fundamental changes to the caucus process to promote increased participation. There are no virtual caucuses. There is no early voting. Instead, the party will, in the event that it conducts caucuses, rely on the same no-excuse absentee voting system the party has used since 2004 to allow those Democrats with conflicts with the caucuses' date and/or time to express their presidential preference.

One can read that at least a couple of different ways. First, the state party is comfortable with the past level of participation under an absentee system that has been tested over four presidential cycles. But second, while maintaining the status quo may indicate how confident the state party may be in the plan passing muster with the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, it may also signal some confidence that the party is waiting on the state legislature to work through the particulars of a presidential primary option. [It could, of course, be both as well.] One thing is for certain: the Maine legislature will adjourn in mid-June, so an answer would come between now and then. Both primary bills have been shelved in committee awaiting a working hearing at which time the bills may be amended.

--
One other aspect of the current draft plan from the Maine Democratic Party worth flagging is the proposed way of allocating delegates. The preference on that front appears to be for a truly proportional method with no threshold to qualify for delegates. In other words, candidates would not have to win up 15 percent or more of the vote statewide or in one of the two congressional districts to be allocated any delegates. If that gets rejected by the RBC and the party cannot win a waiver to allocate delegates in that way, then it will use the traditional 15 percent threshold to determine which candidates receive delegates and those who do not.

--
The tentative caucus date for Maine has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


--
Related:
1/18/19: Maine Lost its Presidential Primary

2/1/19: Maine Decision to Re-Establish a Presidential Primary Option for 2020 Hinges on Money

2/9/19: Maine Committee Hearing Highlights Familiar Divisions in Caucus to Primary Shifts

3/16/19: Alternative Bill Would Reestablish a Presidential Primary in Maine but with Ranked Choice Voting

3/22/19: Maine Committee Hearing Finds Support for and Roadblocks to a Ranked Choice Presidential Primary


4/23/19: New Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Introduced in Maine

5/10/19: Maine Committee Working Session Offers Little Clarity on 2020 Presidential Primary

6/3/19: Maine Senate Advances Super Tuesday Primary Bill

6/4/19: On to the Governor: Maine House Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill

6/19/19: Fate of a Reestablished Presidential Primary in Maine Not Clear Entering Final Legislative Day

6/20/19: Governor Mills' Signature Sets Maine Presidential Primary for Super Tuesday


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

Hawaii Democrats Aim for an April Party-Run Primary in Lieu of Caucuses

The Hawaii Democratic Party on Monday, March 25 released its draft 2020 delegate selection plan for a thirty day comment period.

Traditionally a caucus state, but faced with new encouragements from the DNC concerning participation in that format, Hawaii Democrats have opted instead to pursue a party-run primary for the 2020 cycle. Although the language used in the plan refers to the Saturday, April 4 event as both a preference poll and a primary, the reality is that, much like North Dakota before it, Hawaii Democrats will attempt to broaden participation in the presidential nomination process. At 20 locations around the Aloha state, Hawaii Democrats will be able to vote for their top three preferences in a limited ranked choice voting system between 7am and 3pm on April 4. Additionally, the party will allow for an early vote-by-mail period (with the same limited top three preferences ranked choice system) that stretches from March 3 (Super Tuesday) through March 28.

While that part -- the early vote-by-mail window -- of the process is occurring, Hawaii Democrats will hold precinct meetings to begin the selection process. On Wednesday, March 4 (the day after Super Tuesday), those precinct meetings will choose delegates to the May 23-24 state convention where national convention delegates will be chosen.

--
This is further evidence of state parties, especially caucus state parties, straying from business as usual. Moreover, it provides at least some credence to the notion that later caucus states -- those not in the February carve-out state window -- are freer to move in the direction of contests that look more like primary election, but primaries conducted by the state parties. North Dakota and Hawaii have followed the sort of "firehouse caucus" model that came out of the discussions dating all the way back to the 2016 national convention in Philadelphia and were noted in the Unity Reform Commission report. Thus far, only Iowa and Nevada -- both states tiptoeing around the New Hampshire primary they bookend -- have attempted to thread a certain needle, maintaining the traditional caucuses while opening the door through early voting and/or virtual caucuses as a means of increasing participation. Neither followed the "firehouse caucus" model and New Hampshire is why.

The remaining caucus states are mostly not actually states at all, but territories. Although there are a few states yet to release their draft delegate selection plans, it is likely that they follow the model more similar to what Hawaii has outlined above. However, it remains to be seen what territorial parties will do with their contests. Time will tell. All drafts are due to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee for review by May 3.

--
The Hawaii party-run primary date has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


Related:
2/11/19: Iowa Democrats Release Draft Delegate Selection Plan for 2020

3/13/19: North Dakota Democrats Plan to Hold March 10 Firehouse Caucuses

3/21/19: Nevada Democrats Release Draft Delegate Selection Plan

--

Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Nevada Democrats Release Draft Delegate Selection Plan

Although some of the details came to light a couple of weeks ago, Nevada Democrats on Wednesday, March 20 released their draft delegate selection plan for the 2020 cycle, providing a fuller accounting of how the party will select and allocate delegates. The devil is always in the details:

The process
Before digging in, let's go over some basics. First of all, the is a draft. All Democratic state parties are tasked with devising a draft delegate selection plan that it then releases publicly and opens to public comment for at least 30 days. On or before May 3, those state parties then submit both the draft plans and any comments collected from the public to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) for review. The RBC then approves the plan or more often requests some changes that state parties typically work on over the summer.

What Nevada Democrats released today, then, is not a finished product. It may or may not -- in whole or in part -- pass muster with the RBC.


The delegate toplines
The draft plan confirms that Nevada Democrats will have a total of 48 delegates apportioned to the state for 2020. That is five delegates more than the 43 total delegates the party had in 2016. As in 2016, there will be 36 pledged delegates in 2020 in the Nevada delegation. That includes eight at-large delegates, 23 congressional district delegates and five party leader and elected official (PLEO) delegates. Most of that is just the same as it was for 2016. The only difference comes from the addition of one at-large delegate. That means that the remaining gain in total delegates cycle over cycle came entirely from the superdelegates (one governor, one senator and two additional Democratic members of the US House).

Just as in 2016, there is only one congressional district in Nevada with an odd number of delegates for 2020. This is a marginal consideration, especially in a winnowing contest (as opposed to those later contests where the game changes to counting delegates), but it can present an opportunity to the district winners in the rounding to determine the allocation of whole, rather than fractional, delegates. [There is some additional insight on this here in the table footnotes.]


The changes that will grab attention

...and affect strategy
The easiest thing to do here is to use previously released draft delegate selection plans from other caucus states as touch points. As FHQ mentioned recently in discussing the North Dakota draft plan, there is a range of responses to the new DNC rules regarding expectations for caucus states with respect to increasing participation. This scale runs from basically a party-run primary (North Dakota) to more traditional caucuses with alternate means of participating (Iowa). As was hypothesized then, the earlier carve-out state caucuses are in a position of having to dance around state law in New Hampshire because both Iowa and Nevada bookend the primary in the Granite state and have some interest in maintaining the delicate balance with regard to calendar scheduling. Later caucus state, then, may feel more empowered -- if they have the resources -- to move in the direction of so-called "firehouse caucuses" than the two earlier caucus states that must in some way tiptoe around the "similar contest"distinction that the New Hampshire secretary of state is charged with assessing.

Nevada, we would then expect, is closer to Iowa than North Dakota. And it is.

Like Iowa, Nevada will add virtual caucuses in its attempt at expanding participation in the overarching caucus process. In the draft plan, Nevada Democrats will add a couple of no excuse online fora for Democrats to vote on either Sunday, February 16 or Monday, February 17.

Unlike Iowa, Nevada Democrats plan on allowing a window for early voting at locations yet to be determined as well. The four day early voting window stretches from Saturday, February 15 through Tuesday, February 18 and will provide an additional outlet for participation.

Another important difference between the Iowa and Nevada draft plans is that Nevada Democrats are not capping the input that the virtual caucuses or early voting will have on the process. Recall that draft plan in Iowa limits the impact of the virtual caucuses in the Hawkeye state by capping the number of delegates moving on to the next step in the Iowa process to just 10 percent. That may or may not hold up to RBC scrutiny and remains something of an unknown moving forward. But comparatively, whereas the Iowa draft plan makes some attempt at preserving the traditional caucuses (through the virtual caucuses cap), the Nevada Democratic Party does not.

Nevada Democrats, then, are theoretically opening up the floodgates on participation. This has implications for how candidates and their campaigns will approach both states. In Iowa, the onus is on the campaigns to identify those caucusgoers who would be best suited for that format. Attempting to run up the score in the virtual caucuses will not yield a good return on investment because of that cap. Candidates, then, still have incentives to play the traditional caucus game in Iowa. The system is engineered toward that end.

But the incentives are different in Nevada (or will be if this plan or some variation of it is accepted by the RBC). With no cap, campaigns have every reason, if they have the resources to do so, to push as many of their supporters to participate in the virtual caucuses and early vote. On caucus day in Nevada, campaigns real motivation is to insure that grassroots activists and other diehard supporters who want to be delegates make it to the precinct to participate and move on in the selection process. Of course, campaigns can also try to squeeze out any additional leftover casual support on caucus day to the traditional caucuses. But the intent here is clear: those campaigns with the means and wherewithal will make every attempt to run up the score as much as possible through the new early outlets with the allocation process (how many delegates a candidate wins) in mind and focus more on the selection process (who fills a candidate's the allocated slots) on caucus day.

This is an important difference across the two states. But it also raises an important question.


More strategy 
No, none of the results to the virtual caucuses or early voting will be released until caucus day, but what does Bill Gardner think?

The New Hampshire law empowers the secretary of state to move the Granite state primary to a position that is seven days before any other similar contest. While Nevada will caucus on Saturday, February 22 -- 11 days after New Hampshire primary voters go to the polls -- both the new virtual caucuses and early voting window in Nevada stretch into the seven day window after the New Hampshire primary. If Iowa's virtual caucuses avoid the "similar contest" designation from Gardner, then they likely will in Nevada as well. However, Nevada also has that proposed early voting window. Gardner will likely wait until the fall to set a date, but this all -- whether in Iowa or Nevada, much less early voting in other states -- will give the New Hampshire secretary of state some factors to think about before he sets the date of the primary.


Other considerations
Although it is less clear in the Nevada draft plan (than in the its Iowa counterpart), there is seemingly ranked choice voting involved in both the virtual caucuses and early voting. Caucusgoers will not only provide their top preference, but additional preferences as well. The system is described in less detail in Nevada than in Iowa. The bottom line difference between the two, however, remains the fact that if one assumes more participation in early and virtual caucuses, then viability at the caucuses on actual caucus day are likely to be determined in the earlier voting outlets. But that assumes that there is not only greater participation in those earlier fora, but much greater participation. But if that comes to pass, the earlier results may have a significant effect on the decision-making of those attending the traditional caucuses on February 22 when all the votes are rolled into one pot from precinct to precinct.

There is still a balance there. Well-resourced campaigns may have incentive to run up the score in the earlier contests, but they still have some motivation to play the game in the traditional caucuses with respect to the selection process.

The comparison between Iowa and Nevada is an interesting one, but one explained by their positions on the calendar (pending draft plans from the remaining caucus states).


--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

North Dakota Democrats Plan to Hold March 10 Firehouse Caucuses

North Dakota Democrats on Wednesday, March 13 released for public comment the party's draft 2020 delegate selection plan.

Traditionally, Democrats in the Peace Garden state have conducted caucuses as the means by which the party has allocated delegates to the national convention. But caucus states on the Democratic side face a burden in the 2020 that they have not faced in the past. The onus is on those state parties to make the case to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee that they have taken steps to maximize participation in the typically low turnout caucus/convention format. And the evidence thus far indicates that Democratic caucus states are reacting to the new encouragements in Rule 2 in different ways. Iowa Democrats, for example, have proposed new virtual caucuses. Nevada Democrats, too, have laid out plans for early voting in their caucus process.¹

Now, with the release of the draft delegate selection plan, North Dakota Democrats have put their own unique spin on a more participatory caucus. Rather than a traditional moving caucus, the North Dakota Democratic-NPL will essentially conduct a party-run primary. Often this is called a firehouse primary because they have been, more often than not, held in firehouses, but North Dakota Democrats are using the term "firehouse caucus" -- verbiage that came out of the Unity Amendment that created the Unity Reform Commission and later appeared in the URC recommendations -- instead.

The terms -- firehouse caucus or firehouse primary -- are interchangeable as both are party-run primaries where typically no state-funded primary option is available. In practice, the difference rests on how many polling locations are set up. State-funded (and run) primaries offer more locations and theoretically greater participation. And while the party-run version has fewer locations, they run all day rather than the smaller and more rigid window used in the caucus format.

And that is the basic structure of the North Dakota plan. There will be 14 firehouse caucus locations set up throughout the state and polls will be open from 11am-7pm on Tuesday, March 10. [That is twelve weeks earlier than the first Tuesday in June caucuses North Dakota Democrats held in 2016.]

In addition to those changes, the party will also use a vote-by-mail process. What is clear about the vote-by-mail proposal is that it is intended to function much like the virtual caucuses in Iowa. Voters with conflicts during the hours in which the caucuses are in session have an alternative option available to them. And it is an option that is available from January 20-March 3. What is not clear is how the vote-by-mail system will operate; whether it will function on top of the state's vote-by-mail system or not. Most unclear is how ballots will be distributed to voters wanting to take advantage of the process. That is something the Rules and Bylaws Committee will train its sights on when this plan is reviewed.

It should likely be the expectation that other caucus states will fall in line with some variation of this plan rather than what Iowa has done and Nevada plans to do. Later caucus states will not have the same restrictions -- working around New Hampshire -- with their delegate selection plans like the other carve-out caucus states do.


The date of the North Dakota Democratic firehouse caucus will be added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.

--
¹ There are a great many things left unsaid about details of how the Nevada Democrats are going to accommodate early voting in the caucuses. FHQ will have more on that in a separate post.

--

Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Democrats Abroad Chart Out an Early March Presidential Preference Vote in Draft Delegate Selection Plan

Since 1976 American citizens and Democrats living and working overseas have had voting rights at the national convention through the Democratic Party Committee Abroad. That is no different for the 2020 cycle when 13 of 21 total delegates to the national convention in Milwaukee will be at stake in a global presidential preference vote.

As was the case in 2016, voting will take place over a week, beginning on Super Tuesday according to the Democrats Abroad draft delegate selection plan. While the voting begins on Super Tuesday, it will end a week later on March 10 should be draft plan be approved by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. Sanders was announced as the winner of the Democrats Abroad preference vote in 2016 nearly two weeks after voting -- which can take place in person, by mail, by email or by fax -- was complete.


--
The dates of the DPCA preference vote have been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.

Colorado Democrats Signal Super Tuesday Presidential Primary in Draft Delegate Selection Plan

The public release late last week of the Colorado Democratic Party draft delegate selection plan contained at least some indication that the newly reestablished presidential primary in the Centennial state will fall on Super Tuesday.

Indeed, that is the earliest date on which the Colorado governor in consultation with the secretary of state can set the date. But the pair have until September 1, 2019 under the new law to set the date for a Tuesday between the first and third Tuesdays of the March. That gives them a bit of discretion in choosing the most advantageous spot on the calendar for the Colorado primary. And that window is going to be jam-packed with contests. As of now, the first Tuesday in March -- Super Tuesday -- is the most delegate-rich date on the calendar, followed by the second Tuesday in March (if Washington finalizes a move to that date), and that is followed by the third most delegate-rich date on the third Tuesday in March.

That is the range in which Colorado can settle. And there are a number of different paths that can be taken. Again, the state Democratic Party and the secretary of state are assuming a March 3 date for the primary. That would not only be the earliest date allowed by the national parties for states other than the carve-out states to hold primaries and caucuses, but would be the earliest under Colorado law that the date could be set. But that is a date devoid of regional partners (unless one considers the behemoth contest further west in California). Utah, too, could end up on Super Tuesday. Other western partners -- Idaho and likely Washington -- would coincide with a Colorado primary a week later and neighbor Arizona has its primary on the third week in March.

Regardless, the governor and secretary of state have until September 1 to make that decision. All we have from Colorado Democrats and the secretary are assumptions -- signals -- that the primary in the Centennial state will fall on that date. However, the date remains an unknown and Colorado something of a wildcard on the 2020 presidential primary calendar.

--

Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Iowa Democrats Release Draft Delegate Selection Plan for 2020

A few weeks ago FHQ mentioned in response to some early chatter about how Iowa Democrats may react to some of the changes to the 2020 DNC delegate selection rules that the devil would be in the details.

Well, the Iowa Democratic Party provided those details today when the party released its draft delegate selection plan for the 2020 cycle.


The process
Before digging in, let's go over some basics. First of all, the is a draft. All Democratic state parties are tasked with devising a draft delegate selection plan that it then releases publicly and opens to public comment for at least 30 days. On or before May 3, those state parties then submit both the draft plan and any comments collected from the public to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) for review. The RBC then approves the plan or more often requests some changes that state parties typically work on over the summer.

What Iowa Democrats released today, then, is not a finished product. It may or may not pass muster with the RBC.


The delegate toplines
The draft plan confirms that Iowa Democrats will have a total of 49 delegates apportioned to the state for 2020. That is three delegates fewer than the 52 total delegates the party had in 2016. As in 2016, there will be eight superdelegates in 2020 in the Iowa delegation, leaving 41 delegates at stake on caucus night next year. Of those 41 pledged delegates, there will be nine at-large delegates, 27 congressional district delegates and five party leader and elected official (PLEO) delegates. Compared to 2016, the reduction in total delegates came from the congressional district subset (two fewer delegates) and the PLEO group (one less delegate).

Whereas there was only one congressional district with an odd number of delegates in 2016, three of the four Iowa congressional district will have an odd number this time around. This is a marginal consideration, especially in a winnowing contest (as opposed to those later contests where the game changes to counting delegates), but it can present an opportunity to the district winners in the rounding to determine the allocation of whole, rather than fractional, delegates. [There is some additional insight on this here in the table footnotes.]


The changes that will grab attention

...and affect strategy
Much of what led to the earlier post on the details of the discussions Iowa Democrats were having with respect to their draft delegate selection plan concerned how the party would manage to adapt to the DNC's new rules encouraging broader participation. Again, caucus state parties have to make a case to the RBC for how the caucus process is more open to participation in 2020.

The early signal is that Iowa Democrats are going to scale up the tele-caucusing and satellite caucuses the party conducted for the 2016 cycle. They have proposed doing that through a series of six virtual caucuses; one each day between January 29 and February 3 (the planned date of the caucuses). More importantly as part of the scaling up, the virtual caucuses will account for an additional ten percent to each congressional district's total apportioned delegates. In other words, if any given congressional district convention has 300 delegates, for example, then 30 additional delegates would be added to the district convention delegation. That would have meant an additional 140 district delegates or so in 2016.

This is not insubstantial. And it is certainly not insubstantial when compared to five total delegates that went to the state convention based on the tele-caucuses and satellite caucuses in 2016.

But there is catch to all of this. Positive step though this may be toward the goals laid out in the 2020 DNC delegate selection rules changes, it is a completely ungrounded number. And in fairness, Iowa Democratic Party chair, Troy Price intimated as much in his comments upon the public introduction of the draft plan.

On the one hand, the ten percent addition for the six virtual caucuses may be an expectation. The Iowa Democratic Party expects around ten percent or so of the total caucus-goers to participate via these new channels. But that may or may not be right.

So, on the other hand, this 10 percent may be a value judgment from the party. The door is open to increased participation, but that increase in preferences in virtual caucuses does not translate equally to delegates in the process relative to the preferences to delegates ratio in the regular caucuses.

Assume that in 2020 an equivalent 171,000 people caucus in the usual way just as they did in 2016. But now let's say that an additional 34,000 people opt to participate in the 2020 virtual caucuses. That is an additional 20 percent participating but affecting only that blanket 10 percent piece of the pie.

More ominously, perhaps, consider the same 171,000 turnout to participate in the whole 2020 caucus process -- regular and virtual -- in Iowa, but the virtual process peels off, say, 71,000 people who just do not want to deal with the hassle/like the convenience of the new outlet. Well, that 71,000 will determine the 10 percent of virtual delegates while the 100,000 determines all the rest.

The preference to delegate ratio is imbalanced in both scenarios.

And that may be a problem for the party when it takes this draft plan before the RBC. And FHQ says that because in many ways, this plan looks -- especially if one assumes some imbalance -- like the old Texas two-step. Under that system in the Lone Star state, roughly two-thirds of the pledged delegates were allocated based on the votes in a presidential primary while the remaining third were allocated in a caucus/convention system. Although more people voted in the primary and had an impact on the larger share of delegates, the smaller number of caucus-goers had a larger vote to delegate ratio.

While the Texas process was grandfathered into and preserved by the RBC for years, the practice was halted during the 2016 cycle. One has to wonder whether the RBC will look on this proposal from Iowa Democrats in a similar light.

However, in fairness to the Iowa Democratic Party, they honestly do not know what to expect out of this, and they certainly have at least some desire to keep people caucusing in the customary way while at the same time offering those who need accommodations an avenue to participate more easily.  This proposed system comes close to achieving that balance. "Take advantage of the virtual caucuses, Iowans, but not too much. It might affect how your participation filters into support for the candidates," is basically what the party is saying.

And because of that impact -- the effect on the candidates' fortunes -- the campaigns are going to have to be careful in promoting the virtual caucuses. Push too many in that direction rather than typical caucus participation, then your support may not efficiently translate into delegates to the next stage of the process. The ten percent addition will temper campaign activity on that front. In other words, campaigns still have every incentive to do much of what they have always done in Iowa.

The dial is still turned to the regular caucuses in this proposal.


The unheralded changes (a lightning round)
Another new addition to the 2016 proposal as opposed to the 2016 system is that 2020 will lock allocation based on final preferences during the precinct caucus stage. This is a change borrows language directly from the Unity Reform Commission report. That means that once the precinct round is complete, the delegate allocation is complete. No more can there be changes on the margins as realignment based on viability occurs at the county, district and state conventions. The selection of actual people to fill those delegate slots may be affected but the candidate to who delegates are pledged will not.

Ranked choice voting will also be a component of the virtual caucuses. Virtual caucus-goers will submit their ranked preferences and the realignment process will commence and continue until preferences are sorted to candidates above the 15 percent viability threshold.

Finally, there will also be a paper trail added. Not only will caucus-goers walk the room as they have traditionally done, but they will additionally express their preference on paper as well to aid in any recounts that may become necessary.


--
Related:
1/22/19: #InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- The Devil's in the Details of Any Iowa Caucus Rules Changes

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- The Devil's in the Details of Any Iowa Caucus Rules Changes

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the movements during the day that was...

Rules matter.

That is not anything that should come as revelatory from this site. The national parties have set their rules for the 2020 process and now the cycle has entered a phase where states are considering whether and how to adapt to those rules and their changes.

Iowa, in particular, is at a bit of a crossroads. On the one hand, the DNC instituted a bevy of new encouragements for caucus states in the 2020 cycle in an effort to broaden participation. But the state party in the Hawkeye state is also trying to remedy those problems that it diagnosed coming out of the 2016 cycle. And most of those had to do with the crush of participants that did or tried to caucus three years ago.

It is a bit of a double whammy, then, to have to show signs of broadening participation for the next cycle and simultaneously troubleshoot around even more potential participation the next time around.

One of the potential work-arounds proposed has been tele-caucusing, something Iowa Democrats tried on a more limited scale in 2016 among military personnel stationed abroad or outside of the state. But the party also planned for satellite caucuses as well as a means of accommodating those with conflicts with the exact timing of the caucuses.

But both of those efforts were targeted pretty narrowly and had only a small impact on the overall delegate allocation. The military tele-caucuses only affected the allocation of two state convention delegates while the satellite caucuses allocated three state convention delegates. Those were state convention delegates that had some say among the nearly 1300 state convention delegates in the ultimate allocation of the 15 statewide delegates (at-large and PLEO).

The questions that arise from that are fairly obvious:
1. Will the tele-caucuses be scaled up to affect the allocation of delegates at the county or state level in some way? If the expectation is that turnout will rise significantly over this ease of participation, then that has to be reflected in the impact it has on delegate allocation in some way.

2. Can the tele-caucuses be scaled up from the trial run in 2016? Yes, there was a trial run, but opening it up more would mean the logistics increase by an order of magnitude.

The first of those has a rules-based answer whose blank has not yet been filled by the Iowa Democratic Party. But the second is more of a leap of faith, or perhaps a trial by fire that can have rules crafted to address the front side, but reveal shortcomings under scrutiny on the back end.

First thing's first, however: let's see what Iowa Democrat specifically devise and then attempt to divine the potential impact.


--
Elsewhere in the invisible primary...

1. Harris got a lot of bucks for the bang out of her presidential rollout.

2. Inslee was allowed into New Hampshire after all, and his timetable for a decision has shrunk.

3. Draft Beto has stretched into the Granite state now.


Has FHQ missed something you feel should be included? Drop us a line or a comment and we'll make room for it.

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation Rules by State

Convention: State will bind delegates to the national convention at a state/territory convention. Other conventions will leave the delegation unbound.

Proportional: State will proportionally allocate delegates based either on the statewide primary/caucus vote or on the combination of the statewide and congressional district votes.

Proportional with Trigger: State will follow above proportional rules but allows for a winner-take-all allocation if a candidate wins a majority of the vote statewide or at the congressional district level.

Hybrid: State will follow some form of winner-take-most plan (i.e.: winner-take-all by congressional district) or directly elects delegates on the primary ballot.

Winner-take-all: State will award all delegates to the plurality winner of the primary or caucus.

--
October 1 came and went with little fanfare. But that was the deadline for states to have finalized and submitted delegate selection plans to the Republican National Committee for approval. Most of the rules have been adopted by state parties at meetings and conventions throughout 2015. That gave the RNC a chance to green light most of them as they became available.

Some plans, however, are more available than others as FHQ found when trying to put together a "what do we know now about delegate allocation rules" post over the course of this week. Thankfully Zeke Miller at Time came along and filled in a number of those gaps.

I will make some broad comments now and revisit this on a state-by-state basis as 2016 approaches (more specifically in October and November). What should we focus on? Here are a few things:

1) Which states have new rules since 2012?

Most of the changes cycle-over-cycle are from formerly non-binding caucus states that, due to a change in the RNC rules, had to adopt a binding plan. Iowa, Minnesota, Maine and Washington to name a few developed differing sets of binding rules. Two other states, Montana and Nebraska traded beauty contest primaries with non-binding caucus/convention systems for winner-take-all primaries. Others like Ohio made a switch to winner-take-all rules to advantage one candidate or another. 

2) For (proportional) states in the proportionality window and out, is there a threshold that will limit which candidates will qualify to be awarded delegates?

This is a big one that will very likely aid the winnowing of this atypically large field of Republican presidential candidates. Candidates will very likely be separated into at least four groups: 

a) those who win contests
b) those who lose contests
c) those who win delegates
d) those who do not win delegates

The candidates who fall into categories b or d are going to feel pressure in various ways to drop out of the race. The saving grace for those candidates in category b is if they are winning delegates, but staying in striking distance.

3) For other (proportional) states in the proportionality window and out, is there a winner-take-all trigger [see striped states above]?

In other words, can a candidate win all of the delegates or all of the either statewide/at-large or congressional district delegates if they win the state or the congressional district? There are a lot of these trigger states on the calendar in the proportionality window. Their impact -- as potential winner-take-all states -- very much depends on the size of the field and competition among the candidates at the point that a contest is held. As FHQ pointed out in 2011 and again this year, the smaller the field is, the more likely it is that a backdoor winner-take-all contest will be triggered. It is difficult to see that with 15 candidates involved now, but the field will winnow and the calculus will change. 

4) What else is there to know?

Lots. There are rounding schemes and recalculations of delegate allocations and other sliding rules that are conditional. As always this process is a patchwork of rules in 50 states. There is a lot of variation; a lot of caveats. FHQ will be doing a tour through all 50 states as we did in 2012 and the additional territories where rules are available and state party officials willing to talk to fill in gaps. Updates will come often over the next couple of months and will be archived here for future reference. 

And here is the full report on delegate allocation rules from the RNC.

Recent Posts:
North Carolina Presidential Primary Shifts to March 15 After McCrory Signature

So the RNC is Floating the Idea of a New Presidential Primary Order?

Trouble Seems to be Brewing in North Carolina

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

Kansas Republicans Set Delegate Allocation Rules for 2016

Despite reports that the Kansas Republican Party set its caucus date at its midyear convention on Saturday, July 25, the real headline came from changes to the party's delegate allocation process.

The Lawrence Journal-World ran a story late Saturday that Kansas Republicans had set the date of their 2016 caucuses for March 5 at their Saturday meeting. However, that decision was tentatively made back in January and formalized thereafter. Party chair, Kelly Arnold, testified before a Kansas legislative committee considering a bill to permanently cancel the perpetually cancelled Kansas presidential primary in March (2015) that the party would hold caucuses on March 5.¹ The party website also reflected that decision at that time.

The question about the caucuses was less when on Saturday than it was how. As in "How will Kansas Republicans allocate delegates to candidates in the 2016 Republican presidential nomination process?" There were two main differences in the plan adopted that are departures from the delegate allocation plan the Kansas Republican Party utilized in 2012.

First, due to the tighter definition of proportionality that the Republican National Committee has in place for contests within the March 1-14 proportionality window in 2016, Sunflower state Republicans had to alter the manner in which its congressional district delegates will be allocated. Whereas it was fine in 2012 to allocate those congressional district delegates on a winner-take-all basis (while the statewide/at-large delegates were proportionally allocated) while remaining compliant with the proportionality rules, in 2016 it will not be. Those congressional district delegates now have to be allocated proportionally as well.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, Kansas Republicans lowered the threshold for receiving delegates -- congressional district or at-large -- from 20% to 10%. Strategically, that lowers if not eliminates the need for the party to make rules accounting for the possibility that no candidate crosses the threshold to receive delegates. Scheduled over a month after the Iowa caucuses are likely to be held, the March 5 Kansas Republican caucuses will see a field winnowed from the 16 candidates who have formally announced runs (as of July 2015).

Functionally, though, the lowered threshold means that more candidates are likely to qualify for delegates in 2016 than was the case in 2012. Only Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney cleared the 20% threshold the 2012 caucuses. Under the newly adopted 2016 rules, however, both Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul would also have been allocated delegates in 2012. The loser in the change -- if the 2016 rules had been used in 2012 -- would have been Rick Santorum. Instead of a 33-7 Santorum to Romney delegate distribution, Santorum likely would have claimed roughly 23 delegates to 8 for Romney, 5 for Paul and 4 for Gingrich.

And that difference is a direct reflection of both of those rules changes for 2016: 1) proportionally allocating congressional district delegates and 2) lowering the threshold for qualifying for delegates.

There is one more factor to note in closing on this discussion of the Kansas Republican caucus rules for 2016. The three automatic delegates -- the party chair, national committeeman and national committeewoman -- are all still allocated to the statewide winner of the caucuses. That portion of the allocation rules is unchanged; a tiny winner-take-all remnant that carries over to 2016.


--
¹ Arnold made it clear that the caucuses "will" take place on March 5 in that testimony, separating that distinction/decision from the caucuses planning that was still ongoing at that point.

Recent Posts:
Cuomo Signs Bill Setting 2016 New York Presidential Primary for April 19

March 15 Presidential Primary Bill Unanimously Passes North Carolina State Senate

March 8 the Target Date for Washington State Presidential Primary

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

Kansas Republican to Caucus on March 5

The Kansas Republican Party has settled on March 5, 2016 as the date of the party's presidential caucuses.

Coming off the state convention in late January, Kansas Republicans announced that they had tentatively set the date of the 2016 caucuses for March 5. In the time since, what the party described then as "will probably" changed to "will" be on March 5 by the time Kansas Republican Party Chairman Kelly Arnold testified in favor of legislation canceling the 2016 presidential primary in the Sunflower state. The date has subsequently been added to the party's calendar of upcoming events.

March 5 caucuses for Kansas Republicans means that both parties in the state will share the same delegate selection date for the first since Kansas last held a presidential primary in 1992. The first Saturday in March date is also the same date Kansas Republicans used four years ago. This time the party will be competing with more than just distant US territories. As of now, the Louisiana primary also shares that date (on the Republican primary calendar) with Kansas.

Recent Posts:
2008 Republican Delegate Allocation Rules by State

Ted Cruz, Texas Primary Polls and Delegate Allocation in the Lone Star State

Still Unresolved, New York Senate Passes Bill Scheduling an April 19 Presidential Primary

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

March 1 a Go for Colorado Democratic Caucuses in 2016

A few weeks ago, the Colorado Democratic Party released a draft of its 2016 delegate selection plan.¹ Following the failed attempt at the close of the 2015 state legislative session to switch from a caucus/convention system to a more open primary system, both parties were essentially locked into caucuses and Colorado Democrats have selected March 1 for the date on which to hold their "first determining step" caucuses.

Parties in Colorado have two possible dates on which they can conduct precinct caucuses (with a presidential preference vote): the first Tuesday in February or the first Tuesday in March. The former is an option added for the 2008 cycle to allow the state parties the latitude to opt into a date that would be early enough to at the very least keep the Colorado caucuses in line with the logjam of states holding contests on February 5, Super Tuesday in 2008. As 2012 approached, the February option remained in state law, but the March option was pushed up a couple of weeks from the third to first Tuesday in March.

That meant that the second, later option was in line with the earliest date allowed on the informally coordinated calendar structure the national parties had devised for the 2012 cycle; the first Tuesday in March. It also meant that the caucuses date choice allowed by Colorado law was basically an optionless option. The national party delegate selection rules in 2012 prohibited February contests (with some loopholes and nose-thumbing states). Colorado Democrats settled on the March option in 2011 and have done so again in 2015 for the 2016 presidential election cycle.

Though non-binding caucuses technically allowed Colorado Republicans to hold February 7 caucuses in 2012 without penalty from the Republican National Committee, the new 2016 rules requiring the binding of delegates (based on the earliest, statewide vote) limits Republicans in the Centennial state in a way they were not in 2011. It also means that Colorado Republicans would be vulnerable to the more severe penalties the RNC introduced for 2016. Still, the option exists, but it is a decision for another time.

For now, Colorado Democrats are headed for March 1 caucuses. That places Colorado caucusgoers behind only Nevadans on the calendar in western state voting.

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

Recent Posts:
Alabama to March 1, Joins SEC Primary

Brownback Signs Legislation Permanently Eliminating Presidential Primary in Kansas

Makings of a Deal Emerge in North Carolina Presidential Primary Impasse

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

Utah Republicans Are Preparing for March 22 Presidential Caucuses

The Utah Republican Party this past weekend completed a meeting in which the framework for the 2016 election cycle was set. One tweet of note that caught FHQ's eye coming out of the meeting was from Utah state Senator Todd Weiler (R-23rd, Davis, Salt Lake):

The 2016 #utgop caucus and presidential primary will be held on March 22. #utpol #utleg

— Todd Weiler (@gopTODD) May 30, 2015

Utah Republican Party Executive Director, Julian Babbitt confirmed that the party will in fact caucus during March 22 neighborhood meetings across Utah (like Beehive state Democrats), but that the online voting portion of that process will begin a week earlier on March 15, giving voters ample opportunity to cast presidential preference ballots.

Both the start point for the online voting on March 15 and the final, in-person voting opportunity during the March 22 caucuses will fall outside of the Republican National Committee proportionality window. That allows Utah Republicans to continue with a truly winner-take-all allocation of delegates to the winner of the combined preference vote. Asked whether there were any plans to change course on that allocation method, Babbitt referred to section 7.0B of the state party bylaws -- the description of the winner-take-all method -- and offered that there was no effort underway to alter anything with the allocation of national convention delegates.

Utah Republicans can now be slotted into the March 22 slot on the 2016 presidential primary calendar but with a caveat. We also know that Utah will be another truly winner-take-all primary in mid-March to join Florida.

Recent Posts:
End of Legislative Session Kills January Presidential Primary Bill in Texas

Nevada Adjourns Legislative Session Without Passing Presidential Primary Bill

Update on the 2016 New York Presidential Primary

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

Kansas Democrats Set for March 5 Caucuses in 2016

According to the draft delegate selection plan made available earlier this month, Kansas Democrats will caucus on March 5, 2016.¹

The March 5 caucuses only initiates a delegate selection process that will continue with district conventions on April 2 (to select congressional district delegates) and a state party selection of pledged and at-large delegates on April 30, 2016. But the allocation of those delegate slots to particular candidate will be based on the "first determining step" on March 5.

This move brings Kansas Democrats' caucuses in line with the Democratic caucuses in neighboring Nebraska. The two states also had concurrent caucuses in 2012, but in April alongside Wyoming Democrats. That made those three states eligible for the 15% clustering bonus then. That requires at least three neighboring states holding delegate selection events together, but after a point on the calendar in late March. Though Nebraska and Kansas will hold caucuses on the same date, they are but two states and are both scheduled too early to qualify for the bonus in 2016.


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

Recent Posts:
Let's Talk About the Primary Calendar and the Republican Nomination Race

Utah Democrats Will Caucus on March 22

Colorado Presidential Primary Bill Dies in Committee

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