Iowa Democratic Draft Delegate Selection Plan Points Toward Changes Ahead

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• Today is deadline day for state parties to submit draft delegate selection plans to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. An update on where that process stands. Also, the Hawaii bid to establish a presidential primary appears to have taken another hit. All the details at FHQ Plus.

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

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

...

Iowa Democrats (IDP) got a draft in just under the wire. As noted above, it is deadline day for draft delegate selection plans to be submitted to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and the 2024 draft plan is now publicly available from Hawkeye state Democrats. Importantly, IDP indicates that it will conduct caucuses on the same day as Iowa Republicans next year. That fact, alongside the caucus bill that is working its way through the state legislature, would appear to indicate that Democrats in Iowa are prepared to defy DNC rules.

But as FHQ noted yesterday, there seems to be a fundamental misreading of that legislation and how it interacts with the proposed plans for Democratic delegate selection in the state in 2024. Here is the operative section from the draft plan on the proposed scheduling of the delegate selection process in Iowa:

The Iowa Caucuses shall consist of an expression of presidential preference, conducted by mail, AND in-person precinct caucuses. The precinct caucuses will be held in accordance with Iowa Code (ICO 43.4) at least eight days prior to any other state’s presidential nominating contest, on the same date as the Republican Caucuses. The purpose of the precinct caucuses will be to elect unbound delegates to county conventions, elect precinct committee persons, and move platform resolutions to the county convention. No expression of presidential preference will be tabulated at the precinct caucuses. The period for expression of presidential preference by mail will begin and end on dates included in the Iowa Democratic Party Chair’s call to caucus, which shall be issued no later than 90 days prior to the Caucuses.

So what does that suggest? A few things:

1. The caucuses will coincide with the Republican delegate selection process. That is still likely to be in January 2024.
2. Note that there is no mention of any "first determining step," the language the DNC uses for when votes are cast to determine delegate allocation.
3. In fact, that section goes to great lengths to bifurcate the delegate selection and allocation processes. Unbound delegates will be chosen at the likely January precinct caucuses. [Binding is Republican Party language, but FHQ digresses.] No attempt is being made at the precinct caucuses to select delegates pledged to any particular presidential candidate. [There will not, at least under this draft plan, be any slating of delegates before the preference vote.]
4. The allocation process will be based on the vote-by-mail presidential preference vote, the dates of which are unspecified, and left to remain that way until a caucus call is issued by the Iowa Democratic Party no later than roughly three months before the caucuses (late summer/early fall 2023). That is a tell of sorts. On some level, that issuance of a call rider to the section above allows Iowa Democrats to kick the can down the road a bit on this matter and continue to potentially lobby the DNCRBC for a spot in the early window (should some other previously selected early state fail to comply). And barring that, it simply buys the state party time to figure all of this out (on its own or in conjunction with the DNCRBC).
5. Look, Iowa Democrats may call this a caucus, but it is not. More than ever before the 2024 plan resembles the Democratic delegate selection/allocation process in most other states. There is, on the one hand, a process, usually a state-run primary, for voters to express presidential preference. The allocation is based on that. And on the other, there is a caucus process designed to actually select the human beings/delegates who will fill those allocated slots. The preference vote Iowa Democrats describe above is a primary. It is a party-run primary by any other name, and allocation will be based on that. Delegate selection will continue to run through the caucus process. Only now, that will potentially begin before the preference vote. That, in and of itself, is not necessarily unusual. 

Now, flashback to that caucus bill in the legislature. Folks, it got amended before being passed by the state House earlier this week. And the new provisions fit well with the bifurcated process Iowa Democrats detail in their draft delegate selection plan. Many raced to the conclusion that the in-person caucusing component doomed Iowa Democrats' plan. It does not. What the amended bill does do is the same thing that the draft delegate selection plan does: it makes a point to separate out the allocation and selection processes. And that is a big change in Iowa.

In the meantime, recall that this is a draft plan. It will go before the DNCRBC for review and together both sides will hammer out something that works under the new DNC guidelines for 2024. 

...or Iowa Democrats will face penalties. But the plan above makes it more likely that Iowa Democrats will be able to comply.

...

Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) looks like he will make a splash in the staff primary by hiring the first woman of color to run a Republican presidential nomination campaign. Jennifer DeCasper may not register as a seasoned hand at the presidential campaign level -- there is no defection here, for instance -- but her hiring carries a certain symbolism to it. 

...

I don't know, but it seems like maybe Politico is late to this story. Those who have been reading Invisible Primary: Visible this year will know that Trump 2023 is closer to Trump 2019 than Trump 2015 by most measures. And part of that is campaign discipline, something endorsements have continued to show. 

...

On this date...

...in 1976, former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter won the Democratic caucuses in Colorado. 

...in 1980, the Texas primary saw frontrunners win on both sides; former California Governor Ronald Reagan on the Republican side and President Carter in the Democratic contest. But that was back when Texas Democrats were using the Texas Two-Step system with delegates allocated in caucuses the same day as the primary.

...in 1988, Vice President Bush swept Republican primaries in Indiana, Ohio and Washington, DC while Jesse Jackson's win in the nation's capital kept Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis from winning all three contests in the Democratic nomination race. 

...in 2003, Democrats held their first presidential primary debate of the 2004 cycle. In a mark of how different the era was as compared to now, of the nine debate participants, only three -- Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham and Al Sharpton had officially launched formal presidential campaigns. The remaining candidates had merely formed exploratory committees to that point in the race before formal announcements later in 2003.

...in 2007, Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination debated for the first time at the Reagan Library in California in a forum hosted by MSNBC. 

...in 2008, Illinois Senator won the Democratic caucuses in Guam (by seven votes).

...in 2015, Ben Carson announced his bid for the 2016 Republican nomination.

...in 2016, Donald Trump won the Indiana primary, forcing Texas Senator Ted Cruz from the race and prompting RNC Chair Reince Priebus to declare that Trump would be the presumptive nominee.

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Did Glenn Youngkin Run for 2024?

Invisible Primary: Visible -- New Hampshirites Are Not Surprisingly Defending the New Hampshire Primary

Sunday Series: Have the Democrats Actually Created Calendar Chaos for 2024 and Beyond?

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

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

From FHQ Plus: The State of Democratic Delegate Selection Plans for 2024

The following is a cross-posted excerpt from FHQ Plus, FHQ's new subscription service. Come check the rest out and consider a paid subscription to support our work. 

--

From Friday Happy Hour Wrap Up 4/28/23:

As a general note, the release of the draft 2024 delegate selection plan from Democrats in the American Samoa brings the total number of publicly available plans up to 42 (at last check). That leaves parties in 15 states and territories that have not yet released draft plans ahead of the May 3 deadline next week for submission to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC). Many of them — think California and Wisconsin — are not hiding anything. As far as the dates of those state-run primaries go, they will fall on the dates state law specifies. The draft delegate selection plans will only confirm that.

For other states — like Idaho, Kansas and Missouri — there have been recent changes to state laws (or to the progress of primary bills) that leave their plans up in the air. All are teetering on the line between a state-run primary and a party-run caucus. That is big distinction for any state party planning a delegate selection event just a few short months away. And the uncertainty about the availability of a state-run and funded election will only cause more delays. 

Another subset of states that are delayed in making public their draft plans is also understandable. Iowa, for example, has asked the national party for an extension. Georgia Democrats already have that extension, having been granted one back in February. The date in the Peach state would be in doubt anyway because Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) holds the authority to set the timing of the primary. But both are examples of state parties with potential early state positions on the calendar at stake. Georgia Democrats could lose their spot and Iowa Democrats hope to somehow slip back into the early window.

And then there are the remainder of the territories. The parties there are notoriously tardy in releasing their plans. Actually, FHQ was quite surprised to see the one from American Samoa pop up now. It was not until July 2019 that the party’s 2020 plans there came to light. 

But all told, the number of calendar question marks on the Democratic side are dwindling. Other questions remain on the Republican side.

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

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Forfeiting New Hampshire?

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Trump's Inevitability?

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Hutchinson's Turn to (Officially) Jump in

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

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

From FHQ Plus: Calendar Foreshadowing in New York

The following is a cross-posted excerpt from FHQ Plus, FHQ's new subscription service. Come check the rest out and consider a paid subscription to support our work. 

--

From Lunchables -- 4/18/23:

One of the missing pieces of the 2024 presidential primary calendar is the primary in the Empire state. And the major reason for that is the standard protocol for scheduling the election every cycle dating back to 2012. Basically some variation of the following has taken place every cycle since the New York legislature moved the presidential primary — the “spring primary” — to February for 2008. 

1. Faced with a noncompliant primary, the New York legislature some time in the late spring sets the parameters of the next year’s presidential primary, including the date, method of delegate allocation, etc.

2. At the end of the presidential election year, the date of the primary — typically in April in 2012-20 period — reverts to the noncompliant February position it had to begin with.

3. The process starts anew for the next cycle.

In the 2024 cycle, New York is stuck somewhere in step one above: saddled with a February presidential primary date that no one with decision-making power over the date of the primary intends to keep. 

But that does not mean that there have not been hints about where the thinking is in the Empire state with respect to the primary date for 2024. Those hints, however, have not come from the legislature as of yet nor even from inside the state to this point. Instead, there has been talk of concurrent Connecticut and New York primaries in early April during a committee hearing concerning a bill to reschedule the presidential primary date in the Nutmeg state. And there was another mention of a cluster of contests involving Connecticut, New York and Rhode Island on the same April 2 date for 2024 in the draft delegate selection plan (DSP) of Ocean state Democrats. 

Now, there are further indications that actors actually in New York are targeting April 2. Quietly last week, the New York Democratic Party posted for public comment its draft delegate selection plan for the upcoming cycle. And in it were details of a presidential primary to take place on April 2, 2024. That is likely more than merely aspirational. The same basic pattern occurred four years ago when the 2020 draft delegate selection plan foreshadowed the legislative change to come in Albany.

And legislative action is still required in this instance. It just is unlikely to occur before June (if recent cycles are any indication). There are currently three bills dealing with the scheduling of the presidential primary already introduced in the New York Assembly or Senate, but none of them are necessarily candidates to be vehicles for the sort of change called for in the Democrats’ delegate selection plan. Sure, all three could be amended, but it has been standard for a clean bill with details of not just the timing of the presidential primary but the preferred delegate allocation method of each of the parties to be included in the introduced legislation.

That is likely still a ways off, but this is one more clue that New York is going to have a primary cluster with Connecticut and Rhode Island on April 2. And Hawaii and Missouri could be there too.

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- How the Republican Candidates Line Up in South Carolina

Invisible Primary: Visible -- DeSantis Wilts in the Glare of the National Spotlight

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Chris Christie's Decision

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

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Alaska Democrats Will Hold an April 6 Party-Run Presidential Primary

A week ago, on Wednesday, March 22, 2023, the Alaska Democratic Party quietly released its initial draft delegate selection plan for the 2024 cycle. 

Read the rest at FHQ Plus.

--

This change in Alaska has been added to FHQ's 2024 presidential primary calendar. 

Related:

3/22/23: Invisible Primary: Visible -- Where are all the delegate selection plans?

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

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- South Carolina's Position in the Republican Nomination Process

North Dakota Democrats Aim for April 6 Party-Run Primary in 2024

California Bill to Change Primary Date Amended

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

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

North Dakota Democrats Aim for April 6 Party-Run Primary in 2024

Late last week, the North Dakota Democratic-Nonpartisan League Party released its 2024 draft delegate selection plan (DSP) for public comment. 

Read the rest at FHQ Plus. 

--

This change has been added to FHQ's 2024 presidential primary calendar. 

Related:

3/22/23: Invisible Primary: Visible -- Where are all the delegate selection plans?

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

--

Recent posts:

California Bill to Change Primary Date Amended

Bill Eliminating Idaho Presidential Primary Ready for Governor

Kansas Committee OKs Amended Presidential Primary Bill

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

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Where are all the delegate selection plans?

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

May 3 is fast approaching. That date may carry less significance in 2023 because the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination process looks to be only nominally competitive at this time. But that does not mean that May 3 does not matter at all. 

What is the big deal about May 3? That is the date by which state Democratic parties must have submitted draft delegate selection plans (DSPs) for 2024 to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) for review (and ultimately approval in some form). 

But May 3 is still more than a month away. 

It is. But part of the submission process is that a state party's draft DSPs must be made public for comment for a period of 30 days before they can be submitted. In other words, if one does the backward math, then 30 days before May 3 falls on April 2, a little more than a week away. And so far anyway, there has not been a rush to get these draft DSPs in front of the public. Just seven states, territories or other jurisdictions of 57 have posted them at this point asking from public comment: Arkansas, Democrats Abroad, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Washington, DC. [Apparently there is some urgency in O states.]

None of this is hugely important ten months out from any votes being cast, but it does offer a glimpse into a few things. State laws dictate when most primaries will be held and lock in those dates until a legislature opts to change them. Some state legislatures across the country are considering their calendar options, but for caucus states or other states with 2024 question marks, the DSPs provide some insight into the plans of state parties (where state laws are not involved).

For example, there is no official date for the North Dakota caucuses at this point. The DSP will give us the first indication of where the contest will end up on the 2024 presidential primary calendar. The same is true for, say, Iowa as well. And that is kind of the point here. Iowa Democrats do not have a protected spot atop the Democratic calendar for 2024 as the state has for the entire post-reform era. The Iowa Democratic DSP will give some of the first clues as to whether the party will relent to the DNC calendar changes this cycle or buck the national party and hold unsanctioned caucuses earlier than allowed. 

That goes for New Hampshire too. And Democrats in the Granite state posted their draft DSP earlier this week. In most cycles, New Hampshire Democrats would simply parrot the adopted DNC rules and give the date the national party had carved out for them with a simple parenthetical appended: (date subject to change). The message there from New Hampshire Democrats? "We will hold our primary on the date set aside for us unless some other state jumps in front, in which case the secretary of state will bump our primary up to protect our first-in-the-nation position."

Of course, 2024 is not going to be a normal cycle for New Hampshire Democrats. There is only a guaranteed early slot for the party if they follow the new DNC mandate and conduct a primary on February 6, 2024. And all signs have pointed toward an earlier position on the calendar. Earlier than February 6, anyway. The state party has basically signaled since December that it would follow the state law and the New Hampshire secretary of state, following said law, will likely take that primary into January 2024.

But now, New Hampshire Democrats have put a more official stamp on that sentiment. The newly released draft DSP specifies no date, a break from the past protocol. Additionally, it says what New Hampshire Democrats have been saying for months: 

The “first determining step” of New Hampshire's delegate selection process will occur on a date to be determined by the New Hampshire Secretary of State in accordance with NH RSA 653:9, with a “Presidential Preference Primary.” The Republican Presidential Preference Primary will be held in conjunction with the Democratic Presidential Preference Primary.

The key there is the solidarity with Republicans in New Hampshire. In other words, there will be no break up, no severing of the two parties' processes. That would seemingly eliminate some alternative routes for the New Hampshire Democratic delegate selection process. It would also open the state party to penalties from the DNC. But this is just a draft after all. Consider it New Hampshire Democrats' official counter to the 2024 calendar rules the DNC adopted in February. There will be further back and forth as the New Hampshire plan goes through the review process, including representatives of the state party defending the current plan before the DNCRBC. There will be more clues to come, and probably some penalties from the look of it.

...

In the travel primary, maybe Ron DeSantis is just heading to Michigan next month. Or maybe the Florida governor is trekking to a state with a late February primary in 2024. Michigan Republicans (and the Republican National Committee) still have some decisions to make on that front. 

...

In a busy week for committee hearings on presidential primary (movement) bills, there are updates on Connecticut's possible move up to early April and Ohio's potential push back to March. 

...

On this date...

...in 1980, Jimmy Carter swept the Virginia caucuses, garnering more than 80 percent of the vote on his way to a contentious Democratic (re)nomination.

...in 2007, FHQ was born with a simple mission to gather (and share) anecdotal evidence around presidential primary movement ahead of the 2008 primaries. Things blossomed from there.

...in 2016, there were contests in American Samoa (Republican caucuses), Arizona (primary), Idaho (Democratic caucuses) and Utah (caucuses). It was a microcosm of the processes in both parties that cycle as Sanders and Cruz won caucuses (except in American Samoa) and Clinton and Trump won the Arizona primary. There were exceptions throughout primary season, but in general the two eventual nominees performed better in primaries than in caucuses.

...in 2017, legislation funding the Utah presidential primary was signed into law. After not funding the election in either 2012 or 2016, forcing caucuses, the legislature ponied up the funds necessary to switch back to a primary for 2020.

...in 2020, the Wyoming Democratic Party nixed in-person voting for the upcoming caucuses due to Covid, shifting to a completely vote-by-mail structure, the window of which was also extended.

--

Recent posts:

Ohio Bill to Move Presidential Primary to May Has Second Committee Hearing

Connecticut Parties Behind Effort to Move Presidential Primary

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Pence's Predicament

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

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Georgia Republicans Nudge Delegate Allocation in a Winner-Take-All Direction

Back in May 2019, the Georgia Republican Party gathered in Savannah for its state convention. Coming out of the weekend, the biggest of headlines was the election of David Shafer as state party chair, but that was not all Republican delegates to the state convention considered.

No, there were also changes considered and made to the rules of the Georgia Republican Party, including some tinkering with the party's process for selecting and allocating delegates to the Republican National Convention. The main change on that front was the insertion of a new section into Rule 7.3 of the Georgia Republican Party rules. That new section plus a new preface to the original section defining delegate allocation in the state created a contingency based on when the presidential primary is scheduled.

B) If the Presidential Preference Primary shall occur on March 15 or thereafter in the year in which a Republican National Convention is held, the Republican Presidential candidate receiving the highest number of votes in the Presidential Preference Primary in each Congressional District shall receive all votes of such Congressional District Delegates and seated Alternates to the Republican National Convention. The Republican Presidential candidate receiving the highest number of votes in the Primary statewide shall receive all statewide (State at Large) Delegate and seated Alternate votes to the Republican National Convention, and such Delegates and Alternates shall file a qualification oath as required by O.C.G.A. $ 21-2-196.

Given the national party rules restricting the usage of winner-take-all allocation methods prior to March 15, the Georgia Republican Party basically created an allocation method for primaries scheduled on either side of that line of demarcation in the Republican presidential primary calendar.

The rules in the event of a pre-March 15 primary are the same as they were in Georgia in 2016: proportional under the broader Republican National Committee definition of the term with a 20 percent qualifying threshold (statewide and in each the congressional districts) and a winner-take-all trigger if a candidate wins a majority in each unit (statewide and in each the congressional districts). None of that has changed.

However, the new section B to Rule 7.3 accounts for a March 15 or later presidential primary. And it shifts Georgia Republican delegate allocation back to a method the party reliably used before 2012: a winner-take-most/winner-take-all by congressional district method. A candidate who wins a plurality statewide would win all of the statewide/at-large delegates. Any candidate who wins a plurality in any of the 14 congressional districts would win the three delegates from that district.

And that will be the method Peach state Republicans use in 2020. A month after the Savannah state convention, Secretary of State Raffensperger (R) set the Georgia presidential primary date for March 24. Georgia, then, will have a more winner-take-all flavored allocation method for 2020 than it has in any cycle since 2008.

While this may be treated by some as some advantage for President Trump, it should be noted that there were already winner-take-all triggers both statewide and at the congressional district level in the plan Georgia Republicans used in 2016. An incumbent president, popular within his own party, very likely would have/will hit those majority thresholds that would have tripped the winner-take-all triggers.

In any event, Georgia will be more winner-take-all in 2020 than it has been in recent cycles.


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

Florida GOP Eschews Presidential Primary Cancelation, but...

While a handful of other Republican state parties have made decisions throughout the summer months of 2019 to cancel 2020 primaries and caucuses, the Florida Republican Party has chosen not to join the club.

Republican Party of Florida chair, Joe Gruters said, "If people think that they want to challenge the president, by all means, go ahead, they’re going to get annihilated," according to The Palm Beach Post.

But while spinning the likely landslide primary win as a bonus for the president is one thing, that may not be the end of the story on the fate of the Republican presidential primary the Sunshine state in 2020. Florida, as it turns out, has a law on the books that cancels the primary if only one candidate makes the primary ballot. This canceled the Republican primary in the state in 2004 when George W. Bush was up for renomination. And the Florida primary was again canceled in 2012 when Barack Obama saw no competition for the Democratic presidential nomination.

That could again happen in Florida for 2020 depending on ballot access. But here's the rub: the bar for ballot access to the presidential primary in the Sunshine state is quite low. There are no petitions and no filing fees as hoops through which the various campaigns have to jump. Instead, the process is initiated by the state party itself. A state party submits to the Florida secretary of state a list of candidates to be included on the primary ballot by November 30, 2019. The secretary of state, then, publishes the list within the week by December 3. That becomes the official list unless one or more of the candidates wants his or her name removed from the ballot.

There is still a chance, then, that the Florida primary will be canceled, but it hinges on the list that the Republican Party of Florida will, itself, submit to the secretary of state. Chair Gruters' comments above seem to imply that the three challengers are more than welcome to a spot on the primary ballot.

But whether the party actually submits their names by November 30 remains to be seen. That is the key question moving forward.

--
The Florida primary is set for March 17 and would retain the winner-take-all allocation formula the party has utilized in recent cycles (according to the party rules adopted in 2017).



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

At the End of the Calendar, a Tweak to 2020 Montana Republican Delegate Selection

On the surface, there is not much that separates the delegate selection plan Montana Republican used in 2016 and what the party will carry forward into 2020.

Yes, the primary in Treasure state will fall at the end of the Republican presidential primary calendar, and yes, the allocation will remain winner-take-all for the second consecutive cycle. Those toplines are exactly as they were for the last cycle.

However, the overall process is not without some differences relative to 2016. And those changes do not occur in the delegate allocation portion, but on the delegate selection front. The plurality winner in the June 2 presidential primary will receive all of the delegates to the national convention from the state of Montana. But how those delegate slots are filled and by whom is a bit different for 2020.

In 2016, the power to elect/select delegates to the national convention was within the roles and responsibilities of the Montana state convention without any formal input from the candidate and campaign of the primary winner. That will differ from what will occur in 2020.

Under the rules adopted by the Montana Republican Party adopted in June, the convention will retain the role of ratifying who the national convention delegates from the state are, but will defer to the campaign of the presidential primary-winning candidate on identifying a slate of delegates. Instead of holding both roles -- identifying/selecting delegates and ratifying that -- the state convention will now only hold the latter role. The winning candidate's campaign chooses the slate of delegates and then the state convention ratifies that by majority vote. Should that slate fail to receive that ratification from the state convention, then the candidate submits a new slate (or slates) until that majority threshold is met.

Functionally, this would likely cede in 2020 the selection role to the Trump reelection effort, and that slate would be highly likely to pass muster with the delegates to the Montana Republican state convention. This is another example of a subtle shift in state-level rules that could be interpreted as incumbent-friendly.

It is also a rules change that seemingly has a sunset provision in the rules. Section B.III.F.3 of the Montana Republican Party rules is specific to the 2020 cycle. There is no expiration included in the rule, but a change will have to be made to apply this to 2024 or tweak it for that cycle.


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

Earlier Primary in Place, California Republicans Make Delegate Allocation Changes

Earlier this month when the California Republican Party converged on Indian Wells for the party's 2019 state convention it was a rules-based change in reaction to a new Golden state law prohibiting ballot access to presidential candidates for not disclosing their tax returns that grabbed the headlines.

And that change is not without import. If a nationally recognized candidate is denied access to the ballot, then under the new rule, the CAGOP state central committee or executive committee would meet after March 15, 2020 -- more than a week after the Super Tuesday primary in California -- to determine which candidate would select a slate of delegates to represent them at the national convention in Charlotte.¹

There is an important assumption in that rule. Only one candidate would receive delegates from California. More than anything, that is a nod to the other allocation-based changes the party adopted at the convention. In recent cycles, the California Republican Party has used a winner-take-most/winner-take-all by congressional district delegate allocation scheme. A candidate who wins statewide is awarded all of the at-large delegates and winners within each of the Golden state's 53 districts would receive three delegates from a won district.

However, given the 2017 presidential primary date change in California, that method of allocation was no longer compliant under Republican National Committee rules. The primary, set for Super Tuesday, is early enough on the primary calendar to fit within the proportionality window the party established for the 2012 cycle, requiring early states to have a proportional allocation plan in place. California Republicans had to make a change.

And that is something the California Republicans at the state convention addressed. Proposal 10 highlights the changes in language within the rule from 2016 to 2020. Gone are the winner-take-all elements, at least as the default. In their place is a proportional scheme consistent with RNC rules. Candidates who receive more than 20 percent of the vote either statewide or in congressional districts will qualify for a proportional share of the delegates within those units. And that is where the aforementioned assumption comes into the picture. Again, the ballot access workaround notes that the committee will determine which candidate -- not candidates -- who would name and slate delegates from the state. CAGOP seemingly is of the opinion that that 20 percent bar -- the highest allowed by the RNC -- is sufficient enough to keep other candidates from qualifying (and thus allow President Trump and his campaign the ability to name a slate of delegates from California).

That is one change instituted, but was not the only one. In addition to the new high qualification threshold, the party also adopted a winner-take-all threshold. That, too, factors into the assumptions the party is making in the newly adopted ballot access rule. Should a candidate win a majority of the vote statewide, then that candidate would win all of the delegates from the state. That is another threshold that President Trump could likely easily hit in the primary should his name appear on the ballot.

But in the end, it is clear that these rules were adopted with the idea of the president winning and naming all of the delegates to the national convention from the state in mind. And the sunset provision is a pretty clear indication the changes were made to ease Trump's path to the nomination. Add California to the list of states, then, that have upped their thresholds for this cycle.


--
¹ This provision, while adopted by the state convention, is only in effect for the 2020 cycle. It expires on January 1, 2021.



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

Guam Democratic Delegate Selection Plan Sets Territorial Caucuses for May 2

An August 1 press release from the Democratic Party of Guam announced the party's delegate selection plan for the 2020 presidential nomination cycle.

The document details Guam Democrats plans for May 2 caucuses (coinciding with the party-run primary in Kansas). Timing the contest at that point on the calendar -- the same first Saturday in May date the party used in 2016 -- will qualify the Guam Democratic delegation to the Democratic National Convention for a stage III timing bonus that will increase the delegation by one at-large delegate from six base delegates to a total of seven.

Those seven delegates will be allocated under DNC rules to the candidates who receive 15 percent or more of the vote in the May 2 caucuses.

Rounding out the Guam Democratic delegation are an additional six automatic delegates (superdelegates): the four DNC members from the territory (party chair, party vice chair, national committeeman and national committeewoman), the Guam Democratic delegate to Congress and the Democratic Guam governor.


The Guam Democratic Party caucuses have been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe for daily updates via Email.

Northern Mariana Island Democrats Will Caucus on March 14

While it has seemingly had no public comment period online -- at least one that FHQ has been able to track down -- the delegate selection plan for the Democratic Party in the Northern Mariana Islands has made its way to the Democratic National Committee. This is something that has changed in the last two weeks because when FHQ spoke with folks  on staff with the Rules and Bylaws Committee then, the national party had yet to receive a submission.

In any event, the plan is in, was reviewed and approved by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee on July 30, and calls for a March 14 caucus. That will be the Saturday following contests in Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota and Washington. That second Saturday in March date was the same one the territorial party used in 2016. Although the news of the caucus is new, the date is not. This is only confirmation of that maintenance of the status quo on the calendar.

This leaves only Guam as the remaining Democratic contest with no confirmed date for the 2020 cycle. New York, Puerto Rico and Washington, DC all are in the midst of potential date changes but have preexisting times for their primaries on the books.


The Northern Mariana Island Democratic Party caucuses have been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe for daily updates via Email.

Wyoming Democrats Will Caucus on April 4

In a break from the plan released for public comment earlier in the year, the Wyoming Democratic Party will not caucus in March. Rather, according to the modestly revised draft of the state party's delegate selection plan, Democrats in the Equality state will caucus on April 4.

The specific date was set during the late April meeting of the Wyoming Democratic Party state central committee meeting. Not only does this timing make the delegation eligible for a 10 percent increase to the base number of delegates (one additional delegate), but it also aligns the Wyoming Democratic caucuses with contests in Alaska, Hawaii and Louisiana. Together, those contests alongside the Wisconsin primary the following Tuesday provide a smattering of delegate selection events in an otherwise quiet area on the calendar after the Georgia primary on March 24 and before the Acela primary (Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, likely New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island primaries) on April 28. Those contests sit squarely in the section of the calendar where presumptive nominees typically emerge (not necessarily in terms of the timing, but instead based on the number of delegates allocated by that point).

Unlike a few one congressional district states, Wyoming does not split up its delegation for the purposes of allocation. All 13 pledged delegates will be allocated as one pool of delegates. Candidates receiving 15 percent or more of the caucus vote statewide will be eligible for delegates.



The Wyoming Democratic caucuses date has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Virgin Islands Democratic Caucuses Slated for June

Democrats in the Virgin Islands retained the party's first Saturday in June date for its 2020 caucuses in the June 2019 release of their draft 2020 delegate selection plan. And if all other active legislation around the country is passed and enacted, that will make the June 6 caucuses in the Caribbean territory the final contest on the 2020 presidential primary calendar.¹

The Virgin Islands Democratic delegation will have 13 delegates in total: six automatic delegates -- the territorial governor, delegate to Congress, party chair, vice chair, national committeeman and national committeewoman -- and seven at-large delegates. It is that latter group that is most noteworthy. Rather than being allocated territory-wide as is the case in the American Samoa Democratic caucuses, the seven at-large delegates will be divvied up between intra-territory districts. The St. Croix district is apportioned four of the seven at-large delegates and the St. Thomas/St. John district the remaining three. Instead of the entire pool of delegates being allocated to candidates with 15 percent or more of the vote based on the territory-wide results, there will be two separate allocations based on the two district results.

Splitting the allocation of such a small pool of delegates into subgroups makes it harder for candidates further down in the results to receive any delegates. For instance, hitting 15 percent in the St. Thomas/St. John district would net a candidate 0.45 delegates. Technically, that is not enough to round up depending on the actual results. Absent specific results, then, the threshold to guarantee delegates up front is 16.67 percent in that district. This serves as a cautionary note about the overall allocation process. Allocating large pools of delegates is more forgiving in the rounding process, but the more refined that gets -- the more subgroups of delegates created -- the more problematic it becomes for candidates further down in the results.

Of course, this may all be moot if the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination process has resolved itself by June 6. The presumptive nominee would likely claim all or the vast majority of those delegates. However, if the contest remains active heading into the final contest, then the delegate math (and the subtle intricacies therein) may be of some consequence. Then again, a share seven delegates is not all that likely to make or break anyone at the end of the calendar. But it would be something if it was.

--
¹ This entails legislation in Washington, DC being passed, moving the primary in the district to the first Tuesday in June. The Virgin Islands caucuses would fall just four days later on the calendar.


The Virgin Islands Democratic caucuses date has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

American Samoa Democrats Again Aim for Super Tuesday Caucuses

The American Samoa Democratic Party on July 3 released for public comment a draft 2020 delegate selection plan.

Much of the 2016 process has been carried over to 2020. There will again be ten delegates in the American Samoa delegation: six at-large delegates and four automatic delegates (DNC members). It will be those six delegates that will be allocated based on the results of the territorial caucuses. Those caucuses will fall on Super Tuesday again (March 3, the first Tuesday in March).

Candidates receiving more than 15 percent of the vote territory-wide will be eligible to be allocated a proportional share of the six at-large delegates.

The plan treats the four members of the American Samoa Democratic Party Executive Committee -- the party chair, vice chair, national committeeman and national committeewoman -- as pledged party leader and elected official (PLEO) delegates, but only if they opt to run and be elected/selected for those positions; something new in the Democratic delegate selection rules for the 2020 cycle. Additionally, there is no specific plan outlined for pledging those delegates to candidates based on the results of the caucuses. The assumption then, it seems, is that those four DNC members from the territory will remain automatic and unpledged (and ineligible for participation on the first ballot if no one candidate receives a majority of all delegates including the automatic delegates).

The American Samoa Democratic caucuses now become the sixteenth contest on Super Tuesday 2020.


The American Samoa Democratic caucuses date has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

North Carolina Republicans Have Tweaked Their Delegate Allocation Formula, but...

North Carolina Republicans had a bit of a roller coaster ride in 2015 with respect to how the party's plans for delegate selection came together.

First, North Carolina law at the time tethered the presidential primary in the Tar Heel state to the primary in South Carolina. That was a position -- prior to March 1 -- out of compliance with the national party rules.

Then, in an effort to remedy the calendar issue, the North Carolina General Assembly passed legislation (which was subsequently signed into law) that not only shifted the primary election date back into compliance but called for a winner-take-allocation of delegates. The latter of those changes was then ignored by the North Carolina Republican Party when the party opted for a straight proportional allocation of national convention delegates.¹

But most of that law expired after the 2016 primaries. The primary date reverted to its position tethered to the South Carolina primary and the allocation method called for in state law again defaulted to proportional.

However, the tinkering has continued on both fronts -- within the state party and in the state legislature -- during the 2020 cycle. But the actions from both in that span have conflicted with one another and again threatens the compliance of the NCGOP delegate selection process. At the same time that legislation was active in 2017 in the General Assembly to schedule the North Carolina presidential primary for Super Tuesday (the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March), North Carolina Republicans were voting to make the method of allocation more winner-take-all. That legislation became law in 2018, pushing the presidential primary in the Tar Heel state into the proportionality window (where winner-take-all rules are conditionally prohibited).

Now, while that combination of primary date and allocation rules is non-compliant under 2020 RNC delegate selection rules, it is not a problem, per se. And FHQ will explain why in a moment. But first, let us step through the changes that have been made to the allocation rules to this point.

For the 2016 cycle, North Carolina Republicans pooled all of their delegates (at-large, congressional district and automatic) and proportionally allocated them based on the statewide primary results. Additionally, there was no defined qualifying threshold. In other words, 1) the 2016 NCGOP allocation method was a close to mathematical proportionality as it gets and 2) that allowed for candidates receiving a very marginal share of the statewide primary vote to win delegates. Ben Carson, for example, only won roughly one percent of the vote in the 2016 North Carolina primary, but that was good enough to round him up to one delegate of the state's 72.

Few other states had a bar set so low for a candidate to be allocated any delegates. North Carolina, then, was inconsistent in its method of allocation compared with its peer states, much less the entire pool of states and territories. That gave the NCGOP room for some maneuvering during the 2020 cycle. And tinker they did in 2017.

In assembling a new plan in 2017, North Carolina Republicans shifted away from low bar proportionality and added several new layers that are similar to neighboring states.

• From the Tennessee Republican method, the NCGOP borrowed a fairly high, two-thirds winner-take-all threshold for the allocation of congressional district delegates. Of the states that have winner-take-all thresholds in the Republican nomination process, the vast majority set it at its lowest point, a bare majority. If a candidate wins a majority of the vote, then that candidate wins all of the delegates either statewide or within a given congressional district. A two-thirds winner-take-all trigger is obviously a more difficult bar to hit (especially potentially in a crowded field of candidates).
• From the Georgia Republican allocation method, the NCGOP mimicked the unique proportional allocation scheme for congressional district delegates. If no candidate reaches the two-thirds threshold, then the allocation system awards two delegates to the top vote-getter and the other congressional district delegate to the second highest candidate, but only if both candidates are above the 20 percent qualifying threshold. If only the top candidate clears that barrier in a given congressional district, then all three delegates go to that candidate. That is the backdoor winner-take-all scenario (but confined to just the congressional district level).
• From the South Carolina Republican allocation method, the NCGOP took its new method for allocating at-large delegates. Under the South Carolina system -- and now the North Carolina Republican system -- the plurality winner of the statewide vote wins all of the at-large delegates from the state. 

The elements borrowed from Tennessee and Georgia are both consistent with RNC rules. Yes, the combination contains winner-take-all elements, but those thresholds are rules-compliant. So, too, is the unique proportional allocation. No, that sort of top two allocation method is not exactly mathematically proportional, but there are only so many ways that three congressional district delegates can be allocated proportionally. This is one of them.

But the winner-take-all element that is akin to the South Carolina delegate selection process is not rules-compliant for a primary that is scheduled before March 15. And it is that segment of the NCGOP plan of organization that will have to change to come back into compliance.

That is a problem, right?

Technically, yes. But North Carolina Republicans are on top of it. A change to the at-large delegate allocation is on the agenda for the June 6-9 North Carolina Republican Party state convention in Concord. If adopted -- and the party has a persuasive case built on compliance issues to take to state convention delegates -- the allocation of at-large delegates would become more conditionally proportional. Under the proposal, the allocation of at-large delegates would...

1. Remain winner-take-all in the event that such a scheme is consistent with national party rules. While it is not, the insertion of this element is crafted with future cycles in mind. Should the RNC rescind the proportionality window in the future, then the NCGOP already has language included to allow for a winner-take-all allocation of at-large delegates. Even without a change on that front from the RNC, the NCGOP would have the foundation in place for a winner-take-all allocation of delegates should the North Carolina primary be scheduled for a later date, outside the proportionality window. 
2. Be proportional to all candidates with more than 20 percent of the vote statewide in the primary.

Those changes would bring the North Carolina Republican Party delegate selection process back into compliance with RNC rules. However, what is noteworthy is what is missing in this latest round of proposed changes. There is, for example, no equivalent two-thirds threshold to conditionally award all at-large delegates to a candidate in a way similar to the allocation of congressional district delegates.

In other words, this plan is not quite as helpful to an incumbent president as it could be. And that breaks to some degree from the narrative that the RNC in concert with state parties is working to engineer a delegate selection system that is maximally advantageous to President Trump. Like Massachusetts Republicans, the NCGOP plan moves in the direction of assisting the president, but unlike those Bay state changes, the North Carolina move does not turn the knob as far in the president's favor as it could have.


--
¹ "Ignored" may not be the best way of describing that. State parties ultimately have the discretion to set their own rules for delegate allocation. And the North Carolina Republican Party certainly used that discretion in the midst of the consideration the 2015 bill cited above. That said, the bill-turned-law set the method of allocation for winner-take-all, but allowed state parties an opt-out if that baseline was inconsistent with national party rules. But for Tar Heel state Republicans, a March 15 presidential primary was outside the proportionality window, and thus the winner-take-all scheme was compliant with national party rules. Nonetheless, North Carolina Republicans chose a proportional method of allocation with no qualifying threshold.

Puerto Rico Democrats Further Signal a Primary Move to March

The Puerto Rico Democratic Party wrapped up the public comment period for its draft of their 2020 delegate selection plan on April 30.

The draft plan looks a lot like the plan used in 2016. And that is largely a function of the fact that the election is a government-run primary. Any changes come through the legislature on the island territory.  But while this plan looks at first glance like the 2016 plan, there are a number of mentions of possible changes.

One is the date of the contest. In one footnote to the first Sunday in June date called for, the plan adds:

However, the Governor has announced he plans to submit amendments to the Compulsory Presidential Primaries Act that include, among other things, moving the date for the Democratic presidential primary to the second Sunday of March of the year in which the presidential elections are held. This could move forward the primary for March 8, 2020. If the law is amended, the DPPR would accordingly file an amended Delegate Selection Plan.

This is nothing new. News of a potential Puerto Rico presidential primary move broke in February. But the fact that this appears in the delegate selection plan confirms the idea that the primary may align with the Republican primary in early March. The legislation now sets the Republican contest for the first Sunday in March unless it conflicts with national party rules. And a March 1 date would fall before the first Tuesday in March, making any contest -- Democratic or Republican -- non-compliant with those rules.

Another area of potential change via legislation comes based on the changes to Rule 2 in the Democratic Party delegate selection rules. The changes there have shifted an additional responsibility on state parties to demonstrate steps taken to broaden participation. There is reference in the Puerto Rico plan of legislation to potentially extend early voting to all voters for any reason; a no excuse system.

But again, like the date of the presidential primary, those changes would have to be passed by the Legislative Assembly in Puerto Rico. And additionally, that action would ostensibly have to occur prior to the assembly's recess beginning on July 1 and running through August 11. But while that is during the period of DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee review of state delegate selection plans, the acts of legislatures operate outside of the national party's purview.


As of now the Puerto Rico Democratic presidential primary will remain on June 7 on the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


--
Related:
2/28/19: Puerto Rico Democrats Eye March Presidential Primary Shift


Hat tip to Luiso Joy for bringing the Puerto Rico plan to FHQ's attention.


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