In response to the coronavirus pandemic, the Alaska Republican Party has called an audible on its state convention set to gavel in on April 3 and continue through April 4.
State party chair, Glenn Clary, announced that both the April 2 state central committee meeting and the state convention would meet electronically, canceling the in-person gathering planned to take place in Juneau. The state central committee in its meeting will select a slate of 29 delegates to the national convention that the state convention participants will vote on electronically on April 3.
Those 29 delegates will likely all be bound to President Trump. Alaska Republicans earlier became part of the group of Republican states that canceled delegate selection events for the 2020 cycle.
--
Alaska Republican Party chair's press release archived here.
--
Related Posts:
Alaska Democrats Extend Mail-In Voting Window, Cancel In-Person Voting
Showing posts with label delegate selection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label delegate selection. Show all posts
Thursday, March 26, 2020
Monday, March 16, 2020
Tennessee Democrats Move to Remote Congressional District Conventions
Just under two weeks since the Tennessee presidential primary and a little more than a week since the county conventions in the Volunteer state, the coronavirus has stepped in to disrupt the delegate selection process there.
District conventions were set to take place across the state this coming weekend on Saturday, March 21. County selectors, as they are called in Tennessee, were elected from respective presidential preference groups at the March 7 county conventions to attend the district conventions and select national convention delegates from those districts.
That will still happen this weekend, but the Tennessee Democratic Party "out of an abundance of caution" has moved the process to a remote teleconferencing format in order to tamp down on the spread of the virus that is causing a wave of shut downs and cancelations across the country.
Life has been greatly affected and that extends to the delegate selection process occurring quietly behind primaries and caucuses as they happen. Not many delegates have been selected yet, but the pace is getting ready to pick steam as the calendar turns to April. Tennessee joins South Carolina Democrats in making moves to limit in-person gatherings. Whether and to what extent other state parties react remains an open question at this point. But it is a developing story as the coronavirus situation evolves.
--
Puerto Rico Democrats Signal Presidential Primary Date Change
The Puerto Rico Democratic Party on Saturday, March 14, in a press release indicated that the party is examining a presidential primary date change in the face of the coronavirus spread.
Just last August, the legislature in the island territory pushed the Democratic presidential primary up ten weeks to the last Sunday in March. But in an effort to blunt the spread of the pandemic coronavirus, Puerto Rico Democrats are reconsidering. And there are two options on the table, both of which would require legislative action to enact.
The first option (from the press release):
However, there is another contingency (also from the press release):
One thing that would gird against any June primary that coincides with the Republican presidential primary is the delegate selection process Puerto Rico Democrats have laid out. District delegate candidates have already been made to file to appear on the March 29 ballot. That will not be affected by any primary date change. However, there is a state convention planned for May 31 where PLEO and at-large delegates will be selected. That could still happen with a June 7 primary by selecting a slate of PLEO and at-large delegates for any active candidates and then filling any slots allocated to those candidates in the primary from those slates after the results come in. That would be a logistically easier option than pushing back the date of the state convention.
Again, either option would require some intervention and action on the part of the legislature in the territory. That is a bit of a departure from the recent primary postponements in Georgia and Louisiana where secretaries of state acted under broad emergency powers afforded them either by law or by gubernatorial emergency declarations.
A similar trajectory may present itself in Puerto Rico at some point, but the early signals are that this presidential primary date change will take a path through the legislative process. And that will have to be expedited because the clock is ticking toward the March 29 date on which the primary is currently scheduled. There are now less than two weeks in which to act.
--
March 14 press release archived here.
Just last August, the legislature in the island territory pushed the Democratic presidential primary up ten weeks to the last Sunday in March. But in an effort to blunt the spread of the pandemic coronavirus, Puerto Rico Democrats are reconsidering. And there are two options on the table, both of which would require legislative action to enact.
The first option (from the press release):
Seriously concerned about the welfare of voters and arguing that the safety of every citizen is paramount, (state party chair Charles) Rodriguez will request that the Presidential Primary Act be amended for the vote to take place on Sunday, April 26.That change is simple enough. It would shift back the date of the primary by four weeks to April 26.
However, there is another contingency (also from the press release):
Otherwise, a second alternative in mind by the leader of the local Democrats is to allow the party to choose the date, in the event the situation caused by the coronavirus could also affect the primary in April.Opting for the second plan could entail an even later Democratic primary in Puerto Rico. That could certainly push things later on the calendar into May. Another factor worth pointing out is that Puerto Rico Republicans are currently slated to have their own presidential primary on Sunday, June 7. Consolidating those two contests could save some money on the island and fall late enough on the calendar to be out of the danger zone for the spread of the virus.
One thing that would gird against any June primary that coincides with the Republican presidential primary is the delegate selection process Puerto Rico Democrats have laid out. District delegate candidates have already been made to file to appear on the March 29 ballot. That will not be affected by any primary date change. However, there is a state convention planned for May 31 where PLEO and at-large delegates will be selected. That could still happen with a June 7 primary by selecting a slate of PLEO and at-large delegates for any active candidates and then filling any slots allocated to those candidates in the primary from those slates after the results come in. That would be a logistically easier option than pushing back the date of the state convention.
Again, either option would require some intervention and action on the part of the legislature in the territory. That is a bit of a departure from the recent primary postponements in Georgia and Louisiana where secretaries of state acted under broad emergency powers afforded them either by law or by gubernatorial emergency declarations.
A similar trajectory may present itself in Puerto Rico at some point, but the early signals are that this presidential primary date change will take a path through the legislative process. And that will have to be expedited because the clock is ticking toward the March 29 date on which the primary is currently scheduled. There are now less than two weeks in which to act.
--
March 14 press release archived here.
Sunday, March 15, 2020
South Carolina Democrats Call Audible on Delegate Selection with a Thumbs Up from the DNC
This is an important story out of South Carolina from the Post and Courier's Caitlin Byrd.
Democrats in the Palmetto state had a primary on February 29 to allocate national convention delegate slots to the Democratic candidates still in the race at that time. Both former Vice President Biden and Vermont Senator Sanders qualified for delegates then.
And while that went smoothly enough in South Carolina before the tipping point in the coronavirus evolution in the United States, other Democratic state parties and other state officials have had to make adjustments to how they are conducting the delegate process. Georgia and Louisiana shifted back the dates of their respective primaries and Wyoming Democrats eliminated the in-person portion of their caucus process. But all those changes more directly affect the delegate allocation process.
What is happening under the surface of all the remaining primaries and caucuses is the delegate selection process, the process of actually filling the delegate slots allocated to the various candidates with actual human beings pledged to the candidates who won more than 15 percent of the vote in states and congressional districts across the country.
Typically, those selection processes happen in tiers of caucuses and conventions parallel to and often after the "first determining step" primaries and caucuses. Precinct meetings feed into county conventions and those select and send delegates to district and state conventions in some states. All those meetings tend to entail gatherings of enough people that would raise concerns about further community spread in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.
That means that state parties are scrambling to come up with alternate plans for the multi-level selection processes. And South Carolina Democrats offer a glimpse into not only how state parties are responding to the concerns, but how the national party is being flexible in allowing state parties to act in order to carry out their delegate selection plans. In the face of likely poor turnout, the DNC has granted the South Carolina Democratic Party the ability to conduct precinct reorganization meetings (on March 14) and county conventions (held between March 20 and April 7) to be conducted virtually via Facebook Live, Skype, FaceTime or some other type of (online or otherwise) conference call.
That national party flexibility is warranted given all of the fallout from coronavirus and that all of this builds toward the district and state conventions to be held simultaneously in South Carolina on May 30.
But to be clear, this is not an issue that is unique to the Palmetto state. The selection process will be affected across the country and is a story to watch as the Covid 19 concerns evolve. The problem may not be unique and the state party response may not be either.
Democrats in the Palmetto state had a primary on February 29 to allocate national convention delegate slots to the Democratic candidates still in the race at that time. Both former Vice President Biden and Vermont Senator Sanders qualified for delegates then.
And while that went smoothly enough in South Carolina before the tipping point in the coronavirus evolution in the United States, other Democratic state parties and other state officials have had to make adjustments to how they are conducting the delegate process. Georgia and Louisiana shifted back the dates of their respective primaries and Wyoming Democrats eliminated the in-person portion of their caucus process. But all those changes more directly affect the delegate allocation process.
What is happening under the surface of all the remaining primaries and caucuses is the delegate selection process, the process of actually filling the delegate slots allocated to the various candidates with actual human beings pledged to the candidates who won more than 15 percent of the vote in states and congressional districts across the country.
Typically, those selection processes happen in tiers of caucuses and conventions parallel to and often after the "first determining step" primaries and caucuses. Precinct meetings feed into county conventions and those select and send delegates to district and state conventions in some states. All those meetings tend to entail gatherings of enough people that would raise concerns about further community spread in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.
That means that state parties are scrambling to come up with alternate plans for the multi-level selection processes. And South Carolina Democrats offer a glimpse into not only how state parties are responding to the concerns, but how the national party is being flexible in allowing state parties to act in order to carry out their delegate selection plans. In the face of likely poor turnout, the DNC has granted the South Carolina Democratic Party the ability to conduct precinct reorganization meetings (on March 14) and county conventions (held between March 20 and April 7) to be conducted virtually via Facebook Live, Skype, FaceTime or some other type of (online or otherwise) conference call.
That national party flexibility is warranted given all of the fallout from coronavirus and that all of this builds toward the district and state conventions to be held simultaneously in South Carolina on May 30.
But to be clear, this is not an issue that is unique to the Palmetto state. The selection process will be affected across the country and is a story to watch as the Covid 19 concerns evolve. The problem may not be unique and the state party response may not be either.
Monday, March 2, 2020
So a Candidate Has Dropped Out. What Happens to Their Delegates?
With Pete Buttigieg and now Amy Klobuchar heading for the exits in the 2020 Democratic nomination race, one question has filled my inbox and DMs on Twitter:
What happens now with the 26 pledged delegates Buttigieg has and the 7 in Klobuchar's column?
First of all, 33 delegates obviously does not amount to much in the grand scheme of things when 1991 pledged delegates are needed on the first ballot to clinch the Democratic nomination in 2020. Nonetheless, if this race gets bogged down in the delegate math over the next three months and primary season ends with no clear resolution to who the presumptive nominee is, then those 33 delegates may matter.
But what happens to them? Well, it depends. What has happened so far in the first four states and will happen on Super Tuesday is the allocation of delegate slots to particular candidates. That is important, but it is not the only facet of the process. What runs parallel and very often behind the allocation process is the selection process. That process fills those slots allocated to candidates in primaries and caucuses across the country with actual human beings.
And those people, when they file to run as delegate candidates, pledge to a particular candidate (or to remain uncommitted if that is their preference and the uncommitted line on the ballot gets 15 percent of the vote). Those pledges are just that: pledges. Delegates are instructed by the national party rules to "in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them." But that is not a binding mechanism. Democratic delegates are not bound as Republican delegates are. They are pledged and technically can support whomever they want regardless of that pledge. However, because of the way they are selected -- typically with some input from the campaigns -- and because the campaigns have the right to review all delegates selected to represent them, they tend to be quite loyal. Pledged delegates can stray, then, but do not often do so.
[Yes, there are laws in some states that require delegates to respect those pledges, but there are questions about the constitutionality of those laws not to mention issues with how a state would even go about challenging that in the context of a national convention that is only in session for a limited amount of time.]
But what are the limits of those pledges? Surely when a candidate drops out of the race something happens to either the delegates allocated to them or who have been selected to represent them. It does. But first what happens depends on how the candidate in question exits the race. Both Buttigieg and Klobuchar have suspended their campaigns.
That is a meaningful distinction. Their campaigns have been suspended but they are still technically candidates in the race. Even without any involvement from those two campaigns, delegate candidates of those two candidates in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada will continue in the delegate selection process.
District delegates of Buttigieg and Klobuchar when they are selected will then immediately become free agents, free to choose a candidate to back or to let candidates woo them as they might superdelegates now. They become a set of first ballot unpledged delegates.
Most of the delegates won by these two candidates are district delegates. Buttigieg claimed nine district delegates in Iowa, six district delegates in New Hampshire and three district delegates in Nevada. Klobuchar was allocated one district delegate in Iowa and an additional four in New Hampshire. Ten of those 23 district delegates -- the ones from New Hampshire -- have already basically been chosen. Slates of district delegates were elected for each active candidate at pre-primary caucuses in the Granite state on January 25. Iowa district delegates will be selected on April 25 and Nevada Democrats will select their district delegates at the party's May 30 state convention. If the Buttigieg and Klobuchar campaigns are still in suspension at those points, then they will retain those delegates and they will all become free agents upon selection.
Things get more complicated when it comes to the ten at-large and PLEO (pledged party leaders and elected officials) delegates. However, as was the case with district delegates, if a candidate's campaign remains in suspension through the selection process, then those delegates will be selected for that candidate and they would become free agents at the convention.
Yet, if the candidate changes the state of the campaign -- comes out of suspension or more formally ends their campaign -- then the process works a bit differently. There is boilerplate language in every state delegate selection plan about how to treat those delegate slots in the event that someone is not longer a candidate:
If Buttigieg and Klobuchar stay suspended then they have some control over the 33 delegate slots allocated them. More importantly, they would have some control over where their allocated slots do not go. Buttigieg, in his remarks when dropping out of the race, strongly hinted that he was not for a revolution of the sort for which Sanders is advocating. And Klobuchar is set to endorse Biden. If both remain suspended, then their statewide delegates would not be reallocated. And that reallocation would benefit Sanders the most in Iowa and New Hampshire. [Buttigieg won delegates in Nevada but they were district delegates and cannot be reallocated.]
While both candidates may retain some control over who gets selected, they do not have full control over any delegates selected to represent them. An endorsement like the one of Biden from Klobuchar may carry some weight with her handful of delegates, but that is not binding. Those delegates would not have to follow that instruction. They are free agents at the point they are selected.
So, no, 33 delegates is not really much more than a drop in the bucket, but with Super Tuesday looming, these distinctions above may matter a whole lot more if candidates like Bloomberg and Warren rack up some decent numbers of delegates. It could become a lot more consequential.
What happens now with the 26 pledged delegates Buttigieg has and the 7 in Klobuchar's column?
First of all, 33 delegates obviously does not amount to much in the grand scheme of things when 1991 pledged delegates are needed on the first ballot to clinch the Democratic nomination in 2020. Nonetheless, if this race gets bogged down in the delegate math over the next three months and primary season ends with no clear resolution to who the presumptive nominee is, then those 33 delegates may matter.
But what happens to them? Well, it depends. What has happened so far in the first four states and will happen on Super Tuesday is the allocation of delegate slots to particular candidates. That is important, but it is not the only facet of the process. What runs parallel and very often behind the allocation process is the selection process. That process fills those slots allocated to candidates in primaries and caucuses across the country with actual human beings.
And those people, when they file to run as delegate candidates, pledge to a particular candidate (or to remain uncommitted if that is their preference and the uncommitted line on the ballot gets 15 percent of the vote). Those pledges are just that: pledges. Delegates are instructed by the national party rules to "in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them." But that is not a binding mechanism. Democratic delegates are not bound as Republican delegates are. They are pledged and technically can support whomever they want regardless of that pledge. However, because of the way they are selected -- typically with some input from the campaigns -- and because the campaigns have the right to review all delegates selected to represent them, they tend to be quite loyal. Pledged delegates can stray, then, but do not often do so.
[Yes, there are laws in some states that require delegates to respect those pledges, but there are questions about the constitutionality of those laws not to mention issues with how a state would even go about challenging that in the context of a national convention that is only in session for a limited amount of time.]
But what are the limits of those pledges? Surely when a candidate drops out of the race something happens to either the delegates allocated to them or who have been selected to represent them. It does. But first what happens depends on how the candidate in question exits the race. Both Buttigieg and Klobuchar have suspended their campaigns.
That is a meaningful distinction. Their campaigns have been suspended but they are still technically candidates in the race. Even without any involvement from those two campaigns, delegate candidates of those two candidates in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada will continue in the delegate selection process.
District delegates of Buttigieg and Klobuchar when they are selected will then immediately become free agents, free to choose a candidate to back or to let candidates woo them as they might superdelegates now. They become a set of first ballot unpledged delegates.
Most of the delegates won by these two candidates are district delegates. Buttigieg claimed nine district delegates in Iowa, six district delegates in New Hampshire and three district delegates in Nevada. Klobuchar was allocated one district delegate in Iowa and an additional four in New Hampshire. Ten of those 23 district delegates -- the ones from New Hampshire -- have already basically been chosen. Slates of district delegates were elected for each active candidate at pre-primary caucuses in the Granite state on January 25. Iowa district delegates will be selected on April 25 and Nevada Democrats will select their district delegates at the party's May 30 state convention. If the Buttigieg and Klobuchar campaigns are still in suspension at those points, then they will retain those delegates and they will all become free agents upon selection.
Things get more complicated when it comes to the ten at-large and PLEO (pledged party leaders and elected officials) delegates. However, as was the case with district delegates, if a candidate's campaign remains in suspension through the selection process, then those delegates will be selected for that candidate and they would become free agents at the convention.
Yet, if the candidate changes the state of the campaign -- comes out of suspension or more formally ends their campaign -- then the process works a bit differently. There is boilerplate language in every state delegate selection plan about how to treat those delegate slots in the event that someone is not longer a candidate:
If a presidential candidate otherwise entitled to an allocation is no longer a candidate at the time of selection of the at-large delegates, their allocation will be proportionally divided among the other preferences entitled to an allocation.Yes, the delegate slots would be proportionally reallocated to the candidates who 1) got over 15 percent statewide in the primary or caucus originally and 2) are still active in the race for the nomination. But this only applies in the case that a candidate is no longer a candidate. A suspended campaign is still a campaign and the candidate it backs is still a candidate.
If Buttigieg and Klobuchar stay suspended then they have some control over the 33 delegate slots allocated them. More importantly, they would have some control over where their allocated slots do not go. Buttigieg, in his remarks when dropping out of the race, strongly hinted that he was not for a revolution of the sort for which Sanders is advocating. And Klobuchar is set to endorse Biden. If both remain suspended, then their statewide delegates would not be reallocated. And that reallocation would benefit Sanders the most in Iowa and New Hampshire. [Buttigieg won delegates in Nevada but they were district delegates and cannot be reallocated.]
While both candidates may retain some control over who gets selected, they do not have full control over any delegates selected to represent them. An endorsement like the one of Biden from Klobuchar may carry some weight with her handful of delegates, but that is not binding. Those delegates would not have to follow that instruction. They are free agents at the point they are selected.
So, no, 33 delegates is not really much more than a drop in the bucket, but with Super Tuesday looming, these distinctions above may matter a whole lot more if candidates like Bloomberg and Warren rack up some decent numbers of delegates. It could become a lot more consequential.
Thursday, October 17, 2019
North Dakota Republicans to Hold State Convention and Select Delegates in Late March
It looks like business as usual for North Dakota Republicans in 2020.
The delegate allocation formula that Peace Garden state Republicans will use mirrors what the party did in 2016. District conventions will be held between January 1 and March 1 to select delegates to the state convention. Those delegates to the March 27-29 state convention in Bismarck will then select delegates to represent the state at the 2020 Republican National Convention in Charlotte.
The elected national convention delegation then has the option of binding itself on the first ballot at the national convention in whole in or part to a particular candidate or candidates. Binding to an incumbent president would have a higher likelihood than not in 2020. But even if the delegation opts to bind itself to a candidate or candidates, the binding is completely voluntary and delegates remain able to vote their conscience if another candidate is more appealing (and has made the convention roll call nomination ballot via Rule 40).
So while it is likely that the 2020 delegation from North Dakota will be just as unbound as it was at the Cleveland convention in 2016, there is at least some chance that a group of Trump-aligned delegates are chosen and will vote for the president at the convention in Charlotte.
--
The dates of the North Dakota Republican state convention have been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
The delegate allocation formula that Peace Garden state Republicans will use mirrors what the party did in 2016. District conventions will be held between January 1 and March 1 to select delegates to the state convention. Those delegates to the March 27-29 state convention in Bismarck will then select delegates to represent the state at the 2020 Republican National Convention in Charlotte.
The elected national convention delegation then has the option of binding itself on the first ballot at the national convention in whole in or part to a particular candidate or candidates. Binding to an incumbent president would have a higher likelihood than not in 2020. But even if the delegation opts to bind itself to a candidate or candidates, the binding is completely voluntary and delegates remain able to vote their conscience if another candidate is more appealing (and has made the convention roll call nomination ballot via Rule 40).
So while it is likely that the 2020 delegation from North Dakota will be just as unbound as it was at the Cleveland convention in 2016, there is at least some chance that a group of Trump-aligned delegates are chosen and will vote for the president at the convention in Charlotte.
--
The dates of the North Dakota Republican state convention have been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Monday, January 7, 2019
#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Trump's Reelection and the 2020 Delegate Game
As we head into 2019 and the heart of the invisible primary, FHQ is beginning a series to catalog some of the maneuvering going on among and between the various campaigns and candidates as they move from the nascent to the real. We have been doing this for some time on Twitter, but in an effort to protect against some of the activities disappearing into the ether, we'll archive them here.
Has FHQ missed something you feel should be included? Drop us a line or a comment and we'll make room for it.
--
While the Republican National Committee had an opportunity in 2017 and stretching into the first three-quarters of 2018 to make changes to aspects of the presidential nomination process for 2020, the party largely left well enough alone. And that is in keeping with how parties have approached process questions when they occupy the White House. Candidates who have won not only nominations, but the presidency tend to like the process that got them there. As such, the parties under their direction more often than not will either make no changes at all or only minor changes.
Look at the DNC in the 2009-2010 period. There was a commission -- the Democratic Change Commission -- that examined the way in which the party nominated its presidential candidates, but once the recommendations had worked their way through the Rules and Bylaws Committee, the result was a just a handful of small changes. The clustering bonus, where neighboring states could schedule their contests together after a certain point on the calendar in order to net a 15 percent increase in their delegation, stands out. But the most consequential, although often overshadowed change, was the increase in the total number of base delegates from 3000 to 3700 in the convention call. That had the effect of diluting the impact of superdelegates, or would have if the 2012 Democratic nomination had been competitive. In reality, it rewarded more Democrats with a trip to the national convention.
But those are the sorts of changes that often come out of White House-occupying parties.
And the 2017-2018 Republicans were no different. They had an opportunity through the Temporary Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process to examine the rules for 2020 and make any recommendations for changes. And they did. But the only change that emerged was the elimination of a 2016 creation: the debates sanctioning committee.
Everything else was left untouched. And that included the Rule 40 threshold determining whose name can be placed in nomination at the national convention. That was left alone because only the convention can change it.
And though the low bar of that threshold remains as it was set in 2016 at the convention, it has been a topic of some discussion in recent weeks. But the efforts to change it -- to raise it -- are both too late and have been shot down by the Trump reelction effort.
The campaign will endeavor instead to protect itself by "dominating the delegate game," by focusing not on changes to the national rules governing delegate selection, but on state-level rules for selecting and allocating delegates (created in response to the national guidelines).
In that patchwork of state party rules opportunities exist for presidential candidates. Creating the most advantageous calendar, for example. Or altering the balance of winner-take-all or proportional states for another.
Actually, this is at least part of where we are likely to see some changes during 2019. State parties will finalize their delegate selection processes in both parties as 2019 wears on. And although it is a gamble -- because what appears advantageous now may not be in 2020 -- we may see an effort on the Republican side similar to what was witnessed on the Democratic side in 2011: a national party urging action on the part of the states.
If a state is viewed now as a strong Trump state in the nomination phase of the process, then why not move it to a point on the calendar where the number of Trump delegates could be maximized? Take Georgia. Traditionally the Peach state has been a Super Tuesday mainstay. And it may still be in 2020. However, the newly elected Republican secretary of state there may hear from the Trump campaign. So might the Georgia Republican Party. The former could set the date of the Georgia primary for some point after March 15 and that would allow the latter to set the allocation method for winner-take-all (without penalty).
The same could be said for other early primary states where there is some combination of Republicans control of state government and perception of Trump doing well there in 2020. If one wanted to massage the delegate game a bit in order to raise the number of Trump delegates at the national convention, then this would be the way to do it.
And bear in mind, any changes to the primary calendar that Republicans make affects the Democratic process too. While the Democrats of 2011 sought to potentially influence the 2012 Republican process, this 2019 Republican maneuvering adds an additional element: protecting the president.
--
Elsewhere over the weekend...
1. Elizabeth Warren had a pretty good roll out to her presidential campaign from exploratory committee announcement to the trickle of stories about staffing hires to her initial Iowa trek. She was in the news or steadily made it all week.
2. Castro has surround his January 12 announcement event with trips to all the early states but South Carolina.
3. Cory Booker won't be the first and won't be the last to visit the Palmetto state, but he'll speak there on MLK.
4. The Booker super PAC continues to take shape.
4. Biden continues to hold support at home.
5. And no one has passed his test to keep him out of the 2020 sweepstakes yet either.
6. California donors are willing to let the dust settle a bit on the Democratic nomination contest.
7. One can't do one of these without an O'Rourke mention. Draft Beto has moved into South Carolina.
8. According to his wife, Sherrod Brown is heading for an announcement "within the next two months".
Has FHQ missed something you feel should be included? Drop us a line or a comment and we'll make room for it.
--
While the Republican National Committee had an opportunity in 2017 and stretching into the first three-quarters of 2018 to make changes to aspects of the presidential nomination process for 2020, the party largely left well enough alone. And that is in keeping with how parties have approached process questions when they occupy the White House. Candidates who have won not only nominations, but the presidency tend to like the process that got them there. As such, the parties under their direction more often than not will either make no changes at all or only minor changes.
Look at the DNC in the 2009-2010 period. There was a commission -- the Democratic Change Commission -- that examined the way in which the party nominated its presidential candidates, but once the recommendations had worked their way through the Rules and Bylaws Committee, the result was a just a handful of small changes. The clustering bonus, where neighboring states could schedule their contests together after a certain point on the calendar in order to net a 15 percent increase in their delegation, stands out. But the most consequential, although often overshadowed change, was the increase in the total number of base delegates from 3000 to 3700 in the convention call. That had the effect of diluting the impact of superdelegates, or would have if the 2012 Democratic nomination had been competitive. In reality, it rewarded more Democrats with a trip to the national convention.
But those are the sorts of changes that often come out of White House-occupying parties.
And the 2017-2018 Republicans were no different. They had an opportunity through the Temporary Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process to examine the rules for 2020 and make any recommendations for changes. And they did. But the only change that emerged was the elimination of a 2016 creation: the debates sanctioning committee.
Everything else was left untouched. And that included the Rule 40 threshold determining whose name can be placed in nomination at the national convention. That was left alone because only the convention can change it.
And though the low bar of that threshold remains as it was set in 2016 at the convention, it has been a topic of some discussion in recent weeks. But the efforts to change it -- to raise it -- are both too late and have been shot down by the Trump reelction effort.
The campaign will endeavor instead to protect itself by "dominating the delegate game," by focusing not on changes to the national rules governing delegate selection, but on state-level rules for selecting and allocating delegates (created in response to the national guidelines).
In that patchwork of state party rules opportunities exist for presidential candidates. Creating the most advantageous calendar, for example. Or altering the balance of winner-take-all or proportional states for another.
Actually, this is at least part of where we are likely to see some changes during 2019. State parties will finalize their delegate selection processes in both parties as 2019 wears on. And although it is a gamble -- because what appears advantageous now may not be in 2020 -- we may see an effort on the Republican side similar to what was witnessed on the Democratic side in 2011: a national party urging action on the part of the states.
If a state is viewed now as a strong Trump state in the nomination phase of the process, then why not move it to a point on the calendar where the number of Trump delegates could be maximized? Take Georgia. Traditionally the Peach state has been a Super Tuesday mainstay. And it may still be in 2020. However, the newly elected Republican secretary of state there may hear from the Trump campaign. So might the Georgia Republican Party. The former could set the date of the Georgia primary for some point after March 15 and that would allow the latter to set the allocation method for winner-take-all (without penalty).
The same could be said for other early primary states where there is some combination of Republicans control of state government and perception of Trump doing well there in 2020. If one wanted to massage the delegate game a bit in order to raise the number of Trump delegates at the national convention, then this would be the way to do it.
And bear in mind, any changes to the primary calendar that Republicans make affects the Democratic process too. While the Democrats of 2011 sought to potentially influence the 2012 Republican process, this 2019 Republican maneuvering adds an additional element: protecting the president.
--
Elsewhere over the weekend...
1. Elizabeth Warren had a pretty good roll out to her presidential campaign from exploratory committee announcement to the trickle of stories about staffing hires to her initial Iowa trek. She was in the news or steadily made it all week.
2. Castro has surround his January 12 announcement event with trips to all the early states but South Carolina.
3. Cory Booker won't be the first and won't be the last to visit the Palmetto state, but he'll speak there on MLK.
4. The Booker super PAC continues to take shape.
4. Biden continues to hold support at home.
5. And no one has passed his test to keep him out of the 2020 sweepstakes yet either.
6. California donors are willing to let the dust settle a bit on the Democratic nomination contest.
7. One can't do one of these without an O'Rourke mention. Draft Beto has moved into South Carolina.
8. According to his wife, Sherrod Brown is heading for an announcement "within the next two months".
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Candidates Don't Always Choose the Delegates
In fact, that scenario may be exception rather than rule in the Republican presidential nomination process.
FHQ says this in response to a section in an otherwise fantastic piece by Jonathan Bernstein on thebrokered deadlocked convention chatter that has cropped up over the last week or so. Look, Jon and I are 100% on the same page on the overarching premise he presents: The winnowing mechanism in the party-adapted, post-reform era of presidential nominations is strong.1 It works. Candidates drop out or withdraw from a race when the writing is on the wall. That writing tends to come in the form of a combination of not winning contests/delegates and/or the financial backing of donors drying up.2
But while we tend to almost always agree on the theoretical end, we sometimes part ways on process. Such is my wont, rules nag that FHQ is. Here is what I take issue with:
That dynamic has had something of a ripple effect throughout the post-reform era. Democrats have tended to be the ones reforming the process -- they were the party out of the White House for the early portion of the period -- and have been much more centralized in their response; mandating proportionality, requiring certain diversity quotas, etc. Part of the centralization on the Democratic side is that the candidates basically have the right to review their delegates. The national party gives them the ability to weed out a Bernie Sanders supporter in a Hillary Clinton allocated delegate slot for example.
By contrast, the Republican Party has tended to be much more decentralized in its approach to the delegate selection/allocation process. The mantra had, up until the last couple of cycles, been let the states figure it out. It, in that instance, means an array of things: caucuses or primary, proportional or winner-take-all allocation formulas, etc. But that principle also applied and still applies to delegate selection, or perhaps more particularly to candidates picking and choosing their delegates. In states where the law requires the filing of delegates or delegate slates, candidates have some control. Think loophole primary states like Illinois, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, where delegates are listed on the ballot and directly elected. Ohio is another example. Remember, Rick Santorum did not have a full slate of delegates in a number of Ohio districts that the former Pennsylvania senator actually ended up winning in the primary.
The candidates have more control in those types of states than they and their campaigns have in others. In other states, the delegate selection process is completely different from the delegate allocation process. The latter awards slots to candidates based on the results of a primary or caucus. But the identity of who fills those slots occurs in the (sometimes, especially in primary states) separate delegate selection process (usually through the election year caucus/convention system). This is how Ron Paul-aligned delegates made it to the convention in Mitt Romney slots in 2012.
And this happened in 2012 in more than just those non-binding caucuses that have been eliminated by the RNC for the 2016 cycle.3 Though it did not ultimately end well for Paul delegates, they were able to overrun the Massachusetts Republican delegate selection process and fill Romney delegate slots temporarily. It was only because Romney campaign surrogates in the Massachusetts Republican Party required an affidavit of those delegates pledging to support Romney -- an action those delegates refused -- that there were Romney delegates from Massachusetts at the national convention in Tampa.
That reality -- that candidates do not have full control over the delegate selection process -- presents something of a problem in this deadlocked convention scenario. Though it should be pointed out how that Massachusetts case ended. Romney sent delegates to the convention. But that was not because Romney and his campaign had chosen the delegates. Rather, it was a function of Romney having surrogates in positions of power within the Massachusetts Republican Party. It is different, but the outcome was the same.
The RNC recognizes this as a problem. The party attempted to close that loophole among the many others that Ron Paul delegates and supporters railed against at the convention in 2012 and continue to rail against even now. The original change to Rule 15(b) -- now Rule 16(a)(2) -- gave candidates the ability to "pre-certify" or approve delegates in order for those delegates to be certified by the RNC for the convention. But that was one of the Ginsberg rules that did not make it out of Tampa.4 Instead, the national party -- the RNC -- now has all the power (a fact that is consistent with Bernstein's point about parties doing what they can to avoid the deadlocked convention scenario or any sticky situation for that matter). Delegates are now bound to candidates based on the earliest, statewide election, and if those delegates, regardless of what preference they hold, fail to reflect the binding in their convention vote, then the vote will be recorded as if they had voted the binding.
But there are some questions about how that works in the scenario where no candidate has a majority of the delegates heading into the convention. That is a matter that FHQ has promised some folks on Twitter that I would address. ...tomorrow.
The bottom line: In the Republican process, the candidates do not necessarily choose the delegates, at least not across the board as is the case on the Democratic side. There is variation across state on the issue of how much control the candidate and their campaigns have over the delegate selection process.
--
There is one other bit of nuance that FHQ would add to one of the footnotes in Bernstein's piece. I don't want to belabor this. It is a footnote, after all and I have gone on for some time already. Usually when I hit four footnotes of my own, that is a telltale sign that it has been a long post. Yet, let's look at Jon's point about the differences between the two parties on delegate allocation rules:
That depends. It is certainly true in the case of truly winner-take-all states like Florida. The number of winner-take-all states is pretty limited and confined to the area of the calendar after March 14 when it is less likely to matter (i.e.: post-winnowing). However, outside of that handful of truly winner-take-all states there is some variation in terms of how able losing candidates are to win delegates. It depends first on how many candidates are on the ballot and active/viable. But being awarded delegates also depends on the thresholds of the vote that state party bylaws or state laws require a candidate to win. The RNC allows states to set that as high as 20%, but does not require states to have any threshold. Some states do (Alabama and Mississippi), some states don't (Alaska and Hawaii). This tends only to be a minor point. FHQ retrospectively looked at some of these factors in the context of 2012 and the thresholds only really affected things at the margins.
On proportional representation rules.
Well, here's the thing: What the RNC has in place for 2016 in terms of the proportionality requirement (for all states with contests from March 1-14) is now a lot like the DNC proportionality mandate for all states. That is part of the RNC tightening its definition of proportionality. Basically, it requires either a proportional allocation of all delegates based on the statewide result or the proportional allocation of at-large delegates based on the statewide vote and the proportional allocation of congressional district delegates based on the result within the congressional district. The only real differences between parties are that...
1) The DNC requires a 15% threshold for anyone to receive delegates (Rule 13.B) while the RNC only suggests states maintain such thresholds.
...and...
2) The DNC does not treat each district the same with respect to how many delegates are apportioned it. While the RNC has three delegates per district, the DNC allows for those numbers to vary based on how loyally Democratic the district has been in past elections. For primaries and caucuses in that two week proportionality window in early March, then, those Republican delegate hauls between candidates may be closer than they otherwise would have been during past cycles.
--
1 By "party-adapted" FHQ means the post-reform period after the national parties (and the states and candidates for that matter) had been through a round or two in the new system and had learned the ropes. 1980 onward is a good way of thinking about this. Democrats had used the new system twice (1972, 1976) and the Republicans had been through it once (1976).
2 I know, I know: super PACS! FHQ is still not really convinced that super PACs are really going to change any of the established dynamics of the nomination process. It may mean more money floating around out there, but super PAC financial backers are going to be guided by the same sorts of constraints that campaign funders have always faced. That constraint can be summed up in one question: Do I keep giving to a candidate/campaign that is not going to win the nomination? This is kind of the same principle that guides the candidates as well as Bernstein points out.
3 That move offers some evidence that the RNC can behave in a centralized, top-down manner when it perceives a need to do so.
4 Washington, DC national committeeman, Ben Ginsberg, was the Romney campaigns man behind the rules changes in Tampa that tightened the RNC grip on nomination process. ...in a way that drew the ire of some within the party.
FHQ says this in response to a section in an otherwise fantastic piece by Jonathan Bernstein on the
But while we tend to almost always agree on the theoretical end, we sometimes part ways on process. Such is my wont, rules nag that FHQ is. Here is what I take issue with:
This has all changed. Delegates don’t represent state parties at all anymore. Instead, they are chosen by the candidates, who have an incentive to recruit the most gung-ho loyalists they can. Or, sometimes, they’ll use the delegate slots as an inducement (or a reward) to persuade important party actors -- the people who hold sway over the nomination process -- to join them.Candidates having control over who fills delegate slots is a Democratic Party practice. The DNC ushered in the post-reform era and more or less dragged the RNC into it in the process. To comply with the rules of the new nomination system, the states -- increasingly state governments as primaries proliferated -- passed laws to govern the new processes on the state level. Those laws affected not only Democrats but Republicans as well.
That dynamic has had something of a ripple effect throughout the post-reform era. Democrats have tended to be the ones reforming the process -- they were the party out of the White House for the early portion of the period -- and have been much more centralized in their response; mandating proportionality, requiring certain diversity quotas, etc. Part of the centralization on the Democratic side is that the candidates basically have the right to review their delegates. The national party gives them the ability to weed out a Bernie Sanders supporter in a Hillary Clinton allocated delegate slot for example.
By contrast, the Republican Party has tended to be much more decentralized in its approach to the delegate selection/allocation process. The mantra had, up until the last couple of cycles, been let the states figure it out. It, in that instance, means an array of things: caucuses or primary, proportional or winner-take-all allocation formulas, etc. But that principle also applied and still applies to delegate selection, or perhaps more particularly to candidates picking and choosing their delegates. In states where the law requires the filing of delegates or delegate slates, candidates have some control. Think loophole primary states like Illinois, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, where delegates are listed on the ballot and directly elected. Ohio is another example. Remember, Rick Santorum did not have a full slate of delegates in a number of Ohio districts that the former Pennsylvania senator actually ended up winning in the primary.
The candidates have more control in those types of states than they and their campaigns have in others. In other states, the delegate selection process is completely different from the delegate allocation process. The latter awards slots to candidates based on the results of a primary or caucus. But the identity of who fills those slots occurs in the (sometimes, especially in primary states) separate delegate selection process (usually through the election year caucus/convention system). This is how Ron Paul-aligned delegates made it to the convention in Mitt Romney slots in 2012.
And this happened in 2012 in more than just those non-binding caucuses that have been eliminated by the RNC for the 2016 cycle.3 Though it did not ultimately end well for Paul delegates, they were able to overrun the Massachusetts Republican delegate selection process and fill Romney delegate slots temporarily. It was only because Romney campaign surrogates in the Massachusetts Republican Party required an affidavit of those delegates pledging to support Romney -- an action those delegates refused -- that there were Romney delegates from Massachusetts at the national convention in Tampa.
That reality -- that candidates do not have full control over the delegate selection process -- presents something of a problem in this deadlocked convention scenario. Though it should be pointed out how that Massachusetts case ended. Romney sent delegates to the convention. But that was not because Romney and his campaign had chosen the delegates. Rather, it was a function of Romney having surrogates in positions of power within the Massachusetts Republican Party. It is different, but the outcome was the same.
The RNC recognizes this as a problem. The party attempted to close that loophole among the many others that Ron Paul delegates and supporters railed against at the convention in 2012 and continue to rail against even now. The original change to Rule 15(b) -- now Rule 16(a)(2) -- gave candidates the ability to "pre-certify" or approve delegates in order for those delegates to be certified by the RNC for the convention. But that was one of the Ginsberg rules that did not make it out of Tampa.4 Instead, the national party -- the RNC -- now has all the power (a fact that is consistent with Bernstein's point about parties doing what they can to avoid the deadlocked convention scenario or any sticky situation for that matter). Delegates are now bound to candidates based on the earliest, statewide election, and if those delegates, regardless of what preference they hold, fail to reflect the binding in their convention vote, then the vote will be recorded as if they had voted the binding.
But there are some questions about how that works in the scenario where no candidate has a majority of the delegates heading into the convention. That is a matter that FHQ has promised some folks on Twitter that I would address. ...tomorrow.
The bottom line: In the Republican process, the candidates do not necessarily choose the delegates, at least not across the board as is the case on the Democratic side. There is variation across state on the issue of how much control the candidate and their campaigns have over the delegate selection process.
--
There is one other bit of nuance that FHQ would add to one of the footnotes in Bernstein's piece. I don't want to belabor this. It is a footnote, after all and I have gone on for some time already. Usually when I hit four footnotes of my own, that is a telltale sign that it has been a long post. Yet, let's look at Jon's point about the differences between the two parties on delegate allocation rules:
It’s unlikely Cruz and Paul could win that many delegates (especially that many each) because Republican rules don’t produce many delegates for losing candidates in most states. And because Republicans don't have the proportional representation rules that Democrats insist on, even a close contest between two leading candidates is unlikely to leave them with (almost) equal delegate hauls.On not producing many delegates for losing candidates.
That depends. It is certainly true in the case of truly winner-take-all states like Florida. The number of winner-take-all states is pretty limited and confined to the area of the calendar after March 14 when it is less likely to matter (i.e.: post-winnowing). However, outside of that handful of truly winner-take-all states there is some variation in terms of how able losing candidates are to win delegates. It depends first on how many candidates are on the ballot and active/viable. But being awarded delegates also depends on the thresholds of the vote that state party bylaws or state laws require a candidate to win. The RNC allows states to set that as high as 20%, but does not require states to have any threshold. Some states do (Alabama and Mississippi), some states don't (Alaska and Hawaii). This tends only to be a minor point. FHQ retrospectively looked at some of these factors in the context of 2012 and the thresholds only really affected things at the margins.
On proportional representation rules.
Well, here's the thing: What the RNC has in place for 2016 in terms of the proportionality requirement (for all states with contests from March 1-14) is now a lot like the DNC proportionality mandate for all states. That is part of the RNC tightening its definition of proportionality. Basically, it requires either a proportional allocation of all delegates based on the statewide result or the proportional allocation of at-large delegates based on the statewide vote and the proportional allocation of congressional district delegates based on the result within the congressional district. The only real differences between parties are that...
1) The DNC requires a 15% threshold for anyone to receive delegates (Rule 13.B) while the RNC only suggests states maintain such thresholds.
...and...
2) The DNC does not treat each district the same with respect to how many delegates are apportioned it. While the RNC has three delegates per district, the DNC allows for those numbers to vary based on how loyally Democratic the district has been in past elections. For primaries and caucuses in that two week proportionality window in early March, then, those Republican delegate hauls between candidates may be closer than they otherwise would have been during past cycles.
--
1 By "party-adapted" FHQ means the post-reform period after the national parties (and the states and candidates for that matter) had been through a round or two in the new system and had learned the ropes. 1980 onward is a good way of thinking about this. Democrats had used the new system twice (1972, 1976) and the Republicans had been through it once (1976).
2 I know, I know: super PACS! FHQ is still not really convinced that super PACs are really going to change any of the established dynamics of the nomination process. It may mean more money floating around out there, but super PAC financial backers are going to be guided by the same sorts of constraints that campaign funders have always faced. That constraint can be summed up in one question: Do I keep giving to a candidate/campaign that is not going to win the nomination? This is kind of the same principle that guides the candidates as well as Bernstein points out.
3 That move offers some evidence that the RNC can behave in a centralized, top-down manner when it perceives a need to do so.
4 Washington, DC national committeeman, Ben Ginsberg, was the Romney campaigns man behind the rules changes in Tampa that tightened the RNC grip on nomination process. ...in a way that drew the ire of some within the party.
Monday, December 22, 2014
Nebraska Democrats Commit to Caucuses for 2016
During the weekend of December 13-14 the Nebraska Democratic Party voted to conduct their delegate selection/allocation process through a caucuses/convention system. From NDP chair, Vince Powers:
In the wake of changes to the Republican National Committee rules changes -- particularly those attempting to facilitate an earlier convention -- there was talk of amending a bill in the spring of 2014 to shift the date of the primary to an earlier spot on the 2016 primary calendar. That legislation was never amended but did provide more state government guidance on the delegate selection process (primarily on the binding of those delegates to candidates).
The delegate selection plan Nebraska Democrats used in 2012, if carried over in 2016, would pass muster under the new law.
Left unclear by the NDP is when the precinct caucuses will take place in 2016. That decision will be made in 2015.
Recent Posts:
Michigan Presidential Primary Move Bottled Up in State House Until After Christmas
DC on Cusp of a June 2016 Presidential Primary
Michigan Presidential Primary on the Move?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The NDP after a robust discussion voted today to hold caucuses for the 2016 Presidential nomination. @NebraskaDems @LJSdon @RobynnTysver
— Vince Powers (@vince_powers) December 14, 2014
The party switched from utilizing the mid- to late May primary in the Cornhusker state to caucuses for the 2008 cycle and retained the process in 2012. Such a move gives the NDP the flexibility to set the date of the precinct caucuses that the Nebraska Unicam did not or does not provide under the primary law.In the wake of changes to the Republican National Committee rules changes -- particularly those attempting to facilitate an earlier convention -- there was talk of amending a bill in the spring of 2014 to shift the date of the primary to an earlier spot on the 2016 primary calendar. That legislation was never amended but did provide more state government guidance on the delegate selection process (primarily on the binding of those delegates to candidates).
The delegate selection plan Nebraska Democrats used in 2012, if carried over in 2016, would pass muster under the new law.
Left unclear by the NDP is when the precinct caucuses will take place in 2016. That decision will be made in 2015.
Recent Posts:
Michigan Presidential Primary Move Bottled Up in State House Until After Christmas
DC on Cusp of a June 2016 Presidential Primary
Michigan Presidential Primary on the Move?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Texas
This is the fortieth in a multipart series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation by state.1 The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2012 -- especially relative to 2008 -- in order to gauge the impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. As FHQ has argued in the past, this has often been cast as a black and white change. That the RNC has winner-take-all rules and the Democrats have proportional rules. Beyond that, the changes have been wrongly interpreted in a great many cases as having made a 180º change from straight winner-take-all to straight proportional rules in all pre-April 1 primary and caucus states. That is not the case.
The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).
For links to the other states' plans see the Republican Delegate Selection Plans by State section in the left sidebar under the calendar.
TEXAS
These weeks where FHQ says something to the effect of "It's a shame the Republican presidential nomination race wasn't competitive for [insert state here] so we can all see how the allocation rules work," seem like a waste. [And that doesn't even mention the fact that we continue to pump these rules primers out. Talk about a waste!] The Republican Party of Texas is utilizing a proportional method of allocation in 2012 -- a change from the past -- but they take the long way of getting there. The kicker is that the change was never really necessary in the first place -- whether Texas had held its primary on March 6, April 3 or May 29. In years past, the Texas GOP allocated delegates on a winner-take-all basis statewide and by congressional district. However, if no candidate received a majority of the vote either statewide or on the congressional district level, the allocation was proportional.
That was kosher under the newly amended RNC delegate selection rules. That method of allocation met the proportionality requirements for states with contests prior to April 1. Yet, RPT altered its rules -- creating a proportional allocation under any circumstance -- in the fall of 2011 in preparation for what was at that point a March 6 primary.
So how is the Texas proportional allocation different?
Texas delegate breakdown:
At-large allocation:
Congressional district allocation:
As Rule 38, Section 8 of the Republican Party of Texas rules describes, delegates are allocated to candidates in proportion to that candidate's share of the statewide vote.2 There is no threshold for receiving delegates. However, there is a threshold to receiving the assignment of particular delegates. If a candidate does not receive 20% of the vote statewide, then that candidate is not eligible for congressional district delegates unless he or she receives at least 20% of the vote in any given congressional district. All that really means is that a candidate under 20% statewide and 20% in all congressional districts will gain statewide, at-large delegates to "fill out" their allotment of delegates. Meanwhile, candidates, say Mitt Romney, well over 20% both statewide and on the congressional district will gather the assignment of the most delegates from the congressional district level as a means of completing the full allocation based on the overall statewide vote while the candidates further back will be assigned at-large delegates.
Election of these delegates will take place at the state convention on June 7-9.
Automatic delegate allocation:
The three Texas automatic delegates are free to pledge themselves to a candidate of their choosing. The national committee positions are elected to four years terms at one of the state conventions held every two even-numbered years. Those positions are term-limited after two consecutive terms. That means that committeeman and RNC legal counsel Bill Crocker -- serving since 2004 -- will be replaced in his role as committeeman at the state convention. Committeewoman Borah Van Dormolen was elected in a runoff in 2009 and is still in her first term. The party chairperson is elected every two years and can serve no more than four consecutive terms. Current chair, Steve Munisteri, was first elected to the post in 2010. He will be up for reelection at the state convention but will not be term limited.
--
1 FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.
2 Republican Party of Texas Rules (2011):2011 Republican Party Rules
Recent Posts:
Excuses, excuses
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Kentucky
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Oregon
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).
For links to the other states' plans see the Republican Delegate Selection Plans by State section in the left sidebar under the calendar.
TEXAS
These weeks where FHQ says something to the effect of "It's a shame the Republican presidential nomination race wasn't competitive for [insert state here] so we can all see how the allocation rules work," seem like a waste. [And that doesn't even mention the fact that we continue to pump these rules primers out. Talk about a waste!] The Republican Party of Texas is utilizing a proportional method of allocation in 2012 -- a change from the past -- but they take the long way of getting there. The kicker is that the change was never really necessary in the first place -- whether Texas had held its primary on March 6, April 3 or May 29. In years past, the Texas GOP allocated delegates on a winner-take-all basis statewide and by congressional district. However, if no candidate received a majority of the vote either statewide or on the congressional district level, the allocation was proportional.
That was kosher under the newly amended RNC delegate selection rules. That method of allocation met the proportionality requirements for states with contests prior to April 1. Yet, RPT altered its rules -- creating a proportional allocation under any circumstance -- in the fall of 2011 in preparation for what was at that point a March 6 primary.
So how is the Texas proportional allocation different?
Texas delegate breakdown:
- 155 total delegates
- 44 at-large delegates
- 108 congressional delegates
- 3 automatic delegates
At-large allocation:
Congressional district allocation:
As Rule 38, Section 8 of the Republican Party of Texas rules describes, delegates are allocated to candidates in proportion to that candidate's share of the statewide vote.2 There is no threshold for receiving delegates. However, there is a threshold to receiving the assignment of particular delegates. If a candidate does not receive 20% of the vote statewide, then that candidate is not eligible for congressional district delegates unless he or she receives at least 20% of the vote in any given congressional district. All that really means is that a candidate under 20% statewide and 20% in all congressional districts will gain statewide, at-large delegates to "fill out" their allotment of delegates. Meanwhile, candidates, say Mitt Romney, well over 20% both statewide and on the congressional district will gather the assignment of the most delegates from the congressional district level as a means of completing the full allocation based on the overall statewide vote while the candidates further back will be assigned at-large delegates.
Election of these delegates will take place at the state convention on June 7-9.
Automatic delegate allocation:
The three Texas automatic delegates are free to pledge themselves to a candidate of their choosing. The national committee positions are elected to four years terms at one of the state conventions held every two even-numbered years. Those positions are term-limited after two consecutive terms. That means that committeeman and RNC legal counsel Bill Crocker -- serving since 2004 -- will be replaced in his role as committeeman at the state convention. Committeewoman Borah Van Dormolen was elected in a runoff in 2009 and is still in her first term. The party chairperson is elected every two years and can serve no more than four consecutive terms. Current chair, Steve Munisteri, was first elected to the post in 2010. He will be up for reelection at the state convention but will not be term limited.
--
1 FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.
2 Republican Party of Texas Rules (2011):2011 Republican Party Rules
Recent Posts:
Excuses, excuses
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Kentucky
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Oregon
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Kentucky
This is the thirty-ninth in a multipart series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation by state.1 The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2012 -- especially relative to 2008 -- in order to gauge the impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. As FHQ has argued in the past, this has often been cast as a black and white change. That the RNC has winner-take-all rules and the Democrats have proportional rules. Beyond that, the changes have been wrongly interpreted in a great many cases as having made a 180º change from straight winner-take-all to straight proportional rules in all pre-April 1 primary and caucus states. That is not the case.
The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).
For links to the other states' plans see the Republican Delegate Selection Plans by State section in the left sidebar under the calendar.
KENTUCKY
Yes, much of the air has been let out of the balloon in the Republican presidential race for delegates. And even though everyone is kind of, but not really, waiting on Mitt Romney to inevitably pass the 1144 delegate threshold, there is actually some underlying intrigue to the way in which some of the remaining states are allocating national convention delegates. Kentucky is one of those states.
...but only just barely.
The last two weeks have witnessed contests a couple of states with proportional allocation rules -- something mandated by state election law in both North Carolina and Oregon. Kentucky follows suit with one exception: Election law in the Bluegrass state requires that candidates must receive at least 15% of the vote in the presidential preference primary to be allocated any of the delegates apportioned to Kentucky.2 Neither North Carolina nor Oregon had similar minimum thresholds for delegates.
And lest you say this is of little consequence, well, you are probably right. However, if any candidate or the uncommitted line on the ballot should clear that 15% threshold in the Kentucky presidential preference primary, things could get somewhat interesting. You know, interesting in a more than likely less than suspenseful way. If said candidate has already withdrawn those delegate slots become uncommitted according to state law.3 Of course, no candidate has "withdrawn" as it is defined or under the terms defined in the KRS 118.641(2) -- in writing to the chairman of the Kentucky delegation.
Now, that isn't all. The delegates and alternates to the convention, then, upon call of a meeting by the chairman of the Kentucky delegate, vote to determine the allocation of delegates; not the uncommitted delegates, all of the delegates.4 That vote determines the proportional binding of delegates on the first convention ballot called for by state law.
This would mean a lot more if, say, Ron Paul got to 15% of the vote in the primary to qualify for delegates. Without that, the above is moot with only Romney over the 15% threshold. However, if Paul or another -- particularly a withdrawn -- candidate received a share of the vote over the threshold, it could trigger a vote by the delegates at the convention to determine the binding on the first ballot.
There is the potential for mischief on the binding until you realize that the state party's Nominating Committee is the one that actually nominates slates of delegates to be voted on/selected at district and state conventions. That committee does not have complete control but continues to nominate slates until one is agreed to by either the state convention or district conventions. There are party rule mechanisms in place in some states to give the state party more control -- not less -- over the actual delegate selection (not the binding) that others do not have (see a variety of non-binding caucus states and the Paul campaign delegate strategy for examples).
Kentucky delegate breakdown:
Quite simply, candidates over 15% of the primary vote receive a proportionate share of the delegates. If Romney is the only one over 15%, the former Massachusetts governor would be allocated all 42 of the non-automatic delegates.
Automatic delegate allocation:
Similar to the type of autonomy the Republican Party of Kentucky has over the nomination of delegate slates, the Republican State Central Committee is the body that elects the party chairperson, the national committeeman and national committeewoman. The Executive Committee of the state party puts forth a slate of candidates including those offices or the RSCC to vote on (see RPK rule 2.04(j)). The election of the two national committee members and the party chair is not a duty of the delegates to the state convention. There will not, then, likely be turnover in any of these positions in 2012. None of the automatic delegates from Kentucky has publicly endorsed any of the candidates for the Republican nomination.
--
1 FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.
2 Kentucky Revised statute, 118.641(1)(a):
The candidates receiving the highest number of votes, provided each candidate receives at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total vote cast by his political party, shall be awarded a pro rata portion of the authorized delegate vote of his political party.
3 Kentucky Revised statute, 118.641(2):
Each political party shall, on the first ballot at its national convention, cast this Commonwealth's vote for the candidates as determined by the primary or party caucus and calculated under this section or under party rules, whichever is applicable. Provided, however, that in the event of the death or withdrawal of a candidate receiving votes under this section prior to the tabulation of the first ballot, any delegate votes allocated to such candidate shall be considered uncommitted. Withdrawal shall mean notice in writing by the candidate to the chairman of the Kentucky delegation prior to the first ballot.
4 Republican Party of Kentucky rule, 8.04:
8.04. National Convention Delegates: With regard to the allocation of delegate votes of the Kentucky Republican Party at the Republican National Convention pursuant to the Kentucky Presidential Preference Primary Statutes, the method of allocation set forth in KRS 118.641(1)(a) shall be the method used by the Kentucky Republican Party. In the event that a candidate dies or withdraws and the delegate votes allocated to such candidate become uncommitted pursuant to KRS 118.641(2), the Chairman of the delegation shall call a meeting of the delegates and alternate delegates at the convention by giving notice to each delegate and alternate delegate of the time and place of the said meeting. At the meeting the delegates (or alternate delegates who replace any delegates who fail to attend) in attendance shall vote by secret ballot for any candidate for the Republican nomination for President each may choose. The number of votes cast for the various candidates shall be converted to a percentage of the total votes cast by the delegates at said meeting, and the delegate votes which have become uncommitted as provided above shall be allocated to the candidates in accordance with their said respective percentages, and these said delegate votes shall be cast on the first ballot in such proportion for the said candidates. All fractions shall be rounded to the nearest whole number.
Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Oregon
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Nebraska
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: West Virginia
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).
For links to the other states' plans see the Republican Delegate Selection Plans by State section in the left sidebar under the calendar.
KENTUCKY
Yes, much of the air has been let out of the balloon in the Republican presidential race for delegates. And even though everyone is kind of, but not really, waiting on Mitt Romney to inevitably pass the 1144 delegate threshold, there is actually some underlying intrigue to the way in which some of the remaining states are allocating national convention delegates. Kentucky is one of those states.
...but only just barely.
The last two weeks have witnessed contests a couple of states with proportional allocation rules -- something mandated by state election law in both North Carolina and Oregon. Kentucky follows suit with one exception: Election law in the Bluegrass state requires that candidates must receive at least 15% of the vote in the presidential preference primary to be allocated any of the delegates apportioned to Kentucky.2 Neither North Carolina nor Oregon had similar minimum thresholds for delegates.
And lest you say this is of little consequence, well, you are probably right. However, if any candidate or the uncommitted line on the ballot should clear that 15% threshold in the Kentucky presidential preference primary, things could get somewhat interesting. You know, interesting in a more than likely less than suspenseful way. If said candidate has already withdrawn those delegate slots become uncommitted according to state law.3 Of course, no candidate has "withdrawn" as it is defined or under the terms defined in the KRS 118.641(2) -- in writing to the chairman of the Kentucky delegation.
Now, that isn't all. The delegates and alternates to the convention, then, upon call of a meeting by the chairman of the Kentucky delegate, vote to determine the allocation of delegates; not the uncommitted delegates, all of the delegates.4 That vote determines the proportional binding of delegates on the first convention ballot called for by state law.
This would mean a lot more if, say, Ron Paul got to 15% of the vote in the primary to qualify for delegates. Without that, the above is moot with only Romney over the 15% threshold. However, if Paul or another -- particularly a withdrawn -- candidate received a share of the vote over the threshold, it could trigger a vote by the delegates at the convention to determine the binding on the first ballot.
There is the potential for mischief on the binding until you realize that the state party's Nominating Committee is the one that actually nominates slates of delegates to be voted on/selected at district and state conventions. That committee does not have complete control but continues to nominate slates until one is agreed to by either the state convention or district conventions. There are party rule mechanisms in place in some states to give the state party more control -- not less -- over the actual delegate selection (not the binding) that others do not have (see a variety of non-binding caucus states and the Paul campaign delegate strategy for examples).
Kentucky delegate breakdown:
- 45 total delegates
- 24 at-large delegates
- 18 congressional district delegates
- 3 automatic delegates
Quite simply, candidates over 15% of the primary vote receive a proportionate share of the delegates. If Romney is the only one over 15%, the former Massachusetts governor would be allocated all 42 of the non-automatic delegates.
Automatic delegate allocation:
Similar to the type of autonomy the Republican Party of Kentucky has over the nomination of delegate slates, the Republican State Central Committee is the body that elects the party chairperson, the national committeeman and national committeewoman. The Executive Committee of the state party puts forth a slate of candidates including those offices or the RSCC to vote on (see RPK rule 2.04(j)). The election of the two national committee members and the party chair is not a duty of the delegates to the state convention. There will not, then, likely be turnover in any of these positions in 2012. None of the automatic delegates from Kentucky has publicly endorsed any of the candidates for the Republican nomination.
--
1 FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.
2 Kentucky Revised statute, 118.641(1)(a):
The candidates receiving the highest number of votes, provided each candidate receives at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total vote cast by his political party, shall be awarded a pro rata portion of the authorized delegate vote of his political party.
3 Kentucky Revised statute, 118.641(2):
Each political party shall, on the first ballot at its national convention, cast this Commonwealth's vote for the candidates as determined by the primary or party caucus and calculated under this section or under party rules, whichever is applicable. Provided, however, that in the event of the death or withdrawal of a candidate receiving votes under this section prior to the tabulation of the first ballot, any delegate votes allocated to such candidate shall be considered uncommitted. Withdrawal shall mean notice in writing by the candidate to the chairman of the Kentucky delegation prior to the first ballot.
4 Republican Party of Kentucky rule, 8.04:
8.04. National Convention Delegates: With regard to the allocation of delegate votes of the Kentucky Republican Party at the Republican National Convention pursuant to the Kentucky Presidential Preference Primary Statutes, the method of allocation set forth in KRS 118.641(1)(a) shall be the method used by the Kentucky Republican Party. In the event that a candidate dies or withdraws and the delegate votes allocated to such candidate become uncommitted pursuant to KRS 118.641(2), the Chairman of the delegation shall call a meeting of the delegates and alternate delegates at the convention by giving notice to each delegate and alternate delegate of the time and place of the said meeting. At the meeting the delegates (or alternate delegates who replace any delegates who fail to attend) in attendance shall vote by secret ballot for any candidate for the Republican nomination for President each may choose. The number of votes cast for the various candidates shall be converted to a percentage of the total votes cast by the delegates at said meeting, and the delegate votes which have become uncommitted as provided above shall be allocated to the candidates in accordance with their said respective percentages, and these said delegate votes shall be cast on the first ballot in such proportion for the said candidates. All fractions shall be rounded to the nearest whole number.
Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Oregon
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Nebraska
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: West Virginia
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Oregon
This is the thirty-eighth in a multipart series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation by state.1 The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2012 -- especially relative to 2008 -- in order to gauge the impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. As FHQ has argued in the past, this has often been cast as a black and white change. That the RNC has winner-take-all rules and the Democrats have proportional rules. Beyond that, the changes have been wrongly interpreted in a great many cases as having made a 180º change from straight winner-take-all to straight proportional rules in all pre-April 1 primary and caucus states. That is not the case.
The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).
For links to the other states' plans see the Republican Delegate Selection Plans by State section in the left sidebar under the calendar.
OREGON
The Oregon Republican Party method of delegate selection is similar to the method used last week in North Carolina. The main differences are that there are fewer delegates overall and that the automatic delegates are unbound as they are in most other states. Other than that, however, Oregon and North Carolina are just alike: proportional allocation of delegates but without a vote threshold for receiving delegates. The only threshold is the vote share required to round up to one delegate. Given Oregon's apportionment of delegates that mark is just over 2% of the vote. None of the candidates on the ballot last week in North Carolina flirted with that level of support and it should not be an issue for Romney, Santorum, Gingrich or Paul in Oregon either.
Oregon delegate breakdown:
All 25 non-automatic delegates are allocated proportionally based on the vote in the Oregon presidential preference primary. Those delegates are pledged to the various candidates until they are released by the candidate, fail to receive 35% of the vote on any national convention ballot or barring the either of the first two release mechanisms, after two ballots at the convention (OR Revised Statutes, 248.315; Oregon Republican Party Bylaws, Article XVII, Section B).2 If a delegate refuses to uphold the pledge, the delegation chairperson will report to the floor the vote total that is in accordance with the results of the primary (ORP Bylaws, Article XVII, Section B). That will occur until one of the release mechanisms has been triggered.
Automatic delegate allocation:
The national committeewoman and national committeeman are selected in presidential election years by the Oregon Republican Party state central committee (Article XIII, Section B). The same is true of the party chairman (Article VII, Section C). Each of the three automatic delegates are free to choose a candidate of their preference. Thus far one Oregon automatic delegate has already endorsed Mitt Romney.
--
1 FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.
2 Oregon Republican Party bylaws (adopted 2/14/12):
Oregon Republican Party Bylaws
Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Nebraska
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: West Virginia
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: North Carolina
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).
For links to the other states' plans see the Republican Delegate Selection Plans by State section in the left sidebar under the calendar.
OREGON
The Oregon Republican Party method of delegate selection is similar to the method used last week in North Carolina. The main differences are that there are fewer delegates overall and that the automatic delegates are unbound as they are in most other states. Other than that, however, Oregon and North Carolina are just alike: proportional allocation of delegates but without a vote threshold for receiving delegates. The only threshold is the vote share required to round up to one delegate. Given Oregon's apportionment of delegates that mark is just over 2% of the vote. None of the candidates on the ballot last week in North Carolina flirted with that level of support and it should not be an issue for Romney, Santorum, Gingrich or Paul in Oregon either.
Oregon delegate breakdown:
- 28 total delegates
- 10 at-large delegates
- 15 congressional district delegates
- 3 automatic delegates
All 25 non-automatic delegates are allocated proportionally based on the vote in the Oregon presidential preference primary. Those delegates are pledged to the various candidates until they are released by the candidate, fail to receive 35% of the vote on any national convention ballot or barring the either of the first two release mechanisms, after two ballots at the convention (OR Revised Statutes, 248.315; Oregon Republican Party Bylaws, Article XVII, Section B).2 If a delegate refuses to uphold the pledge, the delegation chairperson will report to the floor the vote total that is in accordance with the results of the primary (ORP Bylaws, Article XVII, Section B). That will occur until one of the release mechanisms has been triggered.
Automatic delegate allocation:
The national committeewoman and national committeeman are selected in presidential election years by the Oregon Republican Party state central committee (Article XIII, Section B). The same is true of the party chairman (Article VII, Section C). Each of the three automatic delegates are free to choose a candidate of their preference. Thus far one Oregon automatic delegate has already endorsed Mitt Romney.
--
1 FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.
2 Oregon Republican Party bylaws (adopted 2/14/12):
Oregon Republican Party Bylaws
Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Nebraska
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: West Virginia
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: North Carolina
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Nebraska
This is the thirty-seventh in a multipart series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation by state.1 The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2012 -- especially relative to 2008 -- in order to gauge the impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. As FHQ has argued in the past, this has often been cast as a black and white change. That the RNC has winner-take-all rules and the Democrats have proportional rules. Beyond that, the changes have been wrongly interpreted in a great many cases as having made a 180º change from straight winner-take-all to straight proportional rules in all pre-April 1 primary and caucus states. That is not the case.
The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).
For links to the other states' plans see the Republican Delegate Selection Plans by State section in the left sidebar under the calendar.
NEBRASKA
As if it wasn't bad enough that the Nebraska presidential primary is non-binding, now everyone other than Mitt Romney has stopped contesting the nomination in the remaining primary and caucus states yet to have voted. That makes the primary in the Cornhusker state even less consequential. It has been a while since the presidential nomination campaign saw its last non-binding contest with delegates not also directly on the same ballot. One has to go back to the North Dakota caucuses on Super Tuesday for the last non-binding contest. And typically that is the mark of the caucus state: an early start allows for the caucus/convention process to have culminated with national convention delegate selection in a timely enough manner prior to the start of the national convention. Nebraska is atypical in that regard. The process there begins with a May beauty contest presidential preference primary that has no role in the selection of delegates, continues with early June (June 1-10) county conventions where delegates are chosen to attend the July 14 state convention. It is from the pool of county convention delegates at the state convention that the at-large and congressional district delegates are chosen to go to, in this case, Tampa.
In other words, there is a reason that most are following the Nebraska senate nomination races as opposed to the presidential primary. Well, actually there are few reasons.
Nebraska delegate breakdown:
Again, don't look to the primary as to how the delegates in Nebraska will be allocated. The state convention is where all the delegate action will happen. In terms of the at-large delegates, Article VII, Section 3.b,d of the Nebraska Republican Party constitution covers the selection of at-large delegates.2 Delegate candidates file with the party no more than ten business days following the primary and are selected at the state convention. State law binds delegate candidates to the presidential candidate to whom they are aligned as indicated on the filing form. [Filing as an uncommitted delegate candidate is also an option.] This is a soft binding mechanism as delegates selected to attend the national convention are to use their "best efforts" to support the candidate to whom they have pledged. "Best efforts" is undefined in the statute and there is no specified penalty for not observing the intent of the pledge on the filing form.
Congressional district allocation:
Nebraska state law calls for district conventions to be held for the purposes of selecting congressional district delegates -- among other business -- "immediately after the adjournment of the state postprimary convention". That will take place on July 14. Article VII, Section 3.c further defines the procedure, calling for the district delegate candidates, like the at-large candidates, to file no later than 10 business days after May primary.
Automatic delegate allocation:
Though the national committeeman and committeewoman are elected at the state convention in presidential years (Article IV, Section 1), neither assumes office until after the national convention in the same year. Nebraska Republican Party state chairmen are elected in odd years (Article IX, Section 4). All three automatic delegates from Nebraska are in place then and will not change hands prior to the Tampa convention. All three are unbound and free to endorse or vote for any Republican presidential nomination candidate of their preference.
--
1 FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.
2 Relevant sections of the Nebraska Republican Party constitution related to delegate selection:
Article IV
Representatives on Republican National Committee
Section 1. In each year when a President of the United States is to be elected, the State Convention shall elect a National Committeeman and a National Committeewoman to take office at the close of the succeeding National Convention. The State Chairman shall certify the names of the National Committeeman and National Committeewoman so elected to the National Committee.
Article VII
Post-Primary Conventions
Section 3. National Convention Delegates
(a) In each Presidential election year, delegates and alternates to the Republican National Convention shall be elected in the manner specified in this Section 3, as authorized by the Rules of the National Convention.
(b) All National Convention delegates designated by the Rules of the National Convention as at-large delegates shall be elected at-large by the State Convention. All National Convention alternate delegates designated as at-large alternates shall be elected at-large by the State Convention following the election of at-large National Convention delegates.
(c) All National Convention delegates and alternates designated by the Rules of the National Convention as district delegates or district alternates, respectively, shall be elected by the caucus of delegates of that U.S. House of Representatives district at the State Convention in accordance with the Congressional district boundaries delineated under Nebraska State law. Candidates for National Convention District delegate and District alternate delegate shall file for election in person or by mailing a notice of intent to the State Headquarters postmarked no later than the 10th business day after the state primary election. Only persons elected and credentialed as delegates or alternates to the State Convention shall be qualified to be elected at the State Convention as District National Convention delegates or alternates.
(d) At-large candidates for National Convention delegate and alternate delegate shall file for election in person or by mailing a notice of intent to the State Headquarters postmarked no later than the 10th business day after the state primary election. Only persons elected and credentialed as delegates or alternates to the State Convention shall be qualified to be elected at the State Convention as at-large National Convention delegates or alternates.
(e) All candidates for delegate and alternate at the State Convention shall designate the presidential candidate to whom they are committed or state that they are uncommitted, and shall be bound by such commitment if elected, all in accordance with Nebraska State Law. Delegate and alternate candidates shall indicate their commitments by mailing a notice to State Headquarters, postmarked no later than five business days prior to the date registration for the State Convention commences.
Article IX
State Party Administration
Section 4. ELECTION AND TERMS OF OFFICE. The Chairman and Treasurer shall be elected by the State Central Committee at a meeting held no later than May 1 of each odd-numbered year. The Vice Chairman, the Assistant Chairmen, the Secretary, the General Counsel and the Finance Chairman shall be appointed by the State Chairman with the approval of the Executive Committee as soon as practicable after the election of the State Chairman and shall take office immediately, subject to the approval of their appointments by the State Central Committee at its next meeting. The term of office of the State Officers and members of the State Central Committee shall be approximately two years. They shall serve until their successors have been elected.
Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: West Virginia
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: North Carolina
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Indiana
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).
For links to the other states' plans see the Republican Delegate Selection Plans by State section in the left sidebar under the calendar.
NEBRASKA
As if it wasn't bad enough that the Nebraska presidential primary is non-binding, now everyone other than Mitt Romney has stopped contesting the nomination in the remaining primary and caucus states yet to have voted. That makes the primary in the Cornhusker state even less consequential. It has been a while since the presidential nomination campaign saw its last non-binding contest with delegates not also directly on the same ballot. One has to go back to the North Dakota caucuses on Super Tuesday for the last non-binding contest. And typically that is the mark of the caucus state: an early start allows for the caucus/convention process to have culminated with national convention delegate selection in a timely enough manner prior to the start of the national convention. Nebraska is atypical in that regard. The process there begins with a May beauty contest presidential preference primary that has no role in the selection of delegates, continues with early June (June 1-10) county conventions where delegates are chosen to attend the July 14 state convention. It is from the pool of county convention delegates at the state convention that the at-large and congressional district delegates are chosen to go to, in this case, Tampa.
In other words, there is a reason that most are following the Nebraska senate nomination races as opposed to the presidential primary. Well, actually there are few reasons.
Nebraska delegate breakdown:
- 35 total delegates
- 23 at-large delegates
- 9 congressional district delegates
- 3 automatic delegates
Again, don't look to the primary as to how the delegates in Nebraska will be allocated. The state convention is where all the delegate action will happen. In terms of the at-large delegates, Article VII, Section 3.b,d of the Nebraska Republican Party constitution covers the selection of at-large delegates.2 Delegate candidates file with the party no more than ten business days following the primary and are selected at the state convention. State law binds delegate candidates to the presidential candidate to whom they are aligned as indicated on the filing form. [Filing as an uncommitted delegate candidate is also an option.] This is a soft binding mechanism as delegates selected to attend the national convention are to use their "best efforts" to support the candidate to whom they have pledged. "Best efforts" is undefined in the statute and there is no specified penalty for not observing the intent of the pledge on the filing form.
Congressional district allocation:
Nebraska state law calls for district conventions to be held for the purposes of selecting congressional district delegates -- among other business -- "immediately after the adjournment of the state postprimary convention". That will take place on July 14. Article VII, Section 3.c further defines the procedure, calling for the district delegate candidates, like the at-large candidates, to file no later than 10 business days after May primary.
Automatic delegate allocation:
Though the national committeeman and committeewoman are elected at the state convention in presidential years (Article IV, Section 1), neither assumes office until after the national convention in the same year. Nebraska Republican Party state chairmen are elected in odd years (Article IX, Section 4). All three automatic delegates from Nebraska are in place then and will not change hands prior to the Tampa convention. All three are unbound and free to endorse or vote for any Republican presidential nomination candidate of their preference.
--
1 FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.
2 Relevant sections of the Nebraska Republican Party constitution related to delegate selection:
Article IV
Representatives on Republican National Committee
Section 1. In each year when a President of the United States is to be elected, the State Convention shall elect a National Committeeman and a National Committeewoman to take office at the close of the succeeding National Convention. The State Chairman shall certify the names of the National Committeeman and National Committeewoman so elected to the National Committee.
Article VII
Post-Primary Conventions
Section 3. National Convention Delegates
(a) In each Presidential election year, delegates and alternates to the Republican National Convention shall be elected in the manner specified in this Section 3, as authorized by the Rules of the National Convention.
(b) All National Convention delegates designated by the Rules of the National Convention as at-large delegates shall be elected at-large by the State Convention. All National Convention alternate delegates designated as at-large alternates shall be elected at-large by the State Convention following the election of at-large National Convention delegates.
(c) All National Convention delegates and alternates designated by the Rules of the National Convention as district delegates or district alternates, respectively, shall be elected by the caucus of delegates of that U.S. House of Representatives district at the State Convention in accordance with the Congressional district boundaries delineated under Nebraska State law. Candidates for National Convention District delegate and District alternate delegate shall file for election in person or by mailing a notice of intent to the State Headquarters postmarked no later than the 10th business day after the state primary election. Only persons elected and credentialed as delegates or alternates to the State Convention shall be qualified to be elected at the State Convention as District National Convention delegates or alternates.
(d) At-large candidates for National Convention delegate and alternate delegate shall file for election in person or by mailing a notice of intent to the State Headquarters postmarked no later than the 10th business day after the state primary election. Only persons elected and credentialed as delegates or alternates to the State Convention shall be qualified to be elected at the State Convention as at-large National Convention delegates or alternates.
(e) All candidates for delegate and alternate at the State Convention shall designate the presidential candidate to whom they are committed or state that they are uncommitted, and shall be bound by such commitment if elected, all in accordance with Nebraska State Law. Delegate and alternate candidates shall indicate their commitments by mailing a notice to State Headquarters, postmarked no later than five business days prior to the date registration for the State Convention commences.
Article IX
State Party Administration
Section 4. ELECTION AND TERMS OF OFFICE. The Chairman and Treasurer shall be elected by the State Central Committee at a meeting held no later than May 1 of each odd-numbered year. The Vice Chairman, the Assistant Chairmen, the Secretary, the General Counsel and the Finance Chairman shall be appointed by the State Chairman with the approval of the Executive Committee as soon as practicable after the election of the State Chairman and shall take office immediately, subject to the approval of their appointments by the State Central Committee at its next meeting. The term of office of the State Officers and members of the State Central Committee shall be approximately two years. They shall serve until their successors have been elected.
Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: West Virginia
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: North Carolina
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Indiana
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: West Virginia
This is the thirty-sixth in a multipart series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation by state.1 The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2012 -- especially relative to 2008 -- in order to gauge the impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. As FHQ has argued in the past, this has often been cast as a black and white change. That the RNC has winner-take-all rules and the Democrats have proportional rules. Beyond that, the changes have been wrongly interpreted in a great many cases as having made a 180º change from straight winner-take-all to straight proportional rules in all pre-April 1 primary and caucus states. That is not the case.
The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).
For links to the other states' plans see the Republican Delegate Selection Plans by State section in the left sidebar under the calendar.
WEST VIRGINIA
The story with West Virginia Republican delegate allocation is simple: see Illinois. Well, as FHQ hopes our readers will understand, it is never really as simple as that. Yes, in terms the allocation of congressional district delegates in the Mountain state, the plan is exactly like the method used in Illinois: a loophole primary. Primary voters cast ballots for congressional district delegates directly. And as was the case in Illinois -- unlike Pennsylvania -- those delegates' candidate affiliations are listed with the delegate candidates on the ballot. The twist in West Virginia is that, unlike Illinois, at-large delegates are also directly elected on the primary ballot.2 With the exception of the automatic delegates, then, all of the delegates who will attend the Republican National Convention in Tampa will be selected in the primary election.
West Virginia delegate breakdown:
Similarly, there is an open door to Paul voters in Pennsylvania neighbor, West Virginia, as well. Romney will very likely have name recognition on his side in the Mountain state primary -- His name will be listed next to his delegates. -- but will more and potentially less disciplined Romney voters lose out mathematically to fewer Paul voters. Let me explain. The Romney campaign overfiled delegates in West Virginia. Instead of 19 at-large delegates, the Romney campaign filed 24. Instead of three delegates in each of the congressional districts, the Romney campaign filed at least seven. By contrast, the Paul campaign filed the bare minimum number of delegates in the state: three in each of the three congressional districts and 19 at-large delegates. All told, that means that Romney's likely greater number of total votes statewide and in each of the congressional districts will be split among a greater number of delegate slots. Voters are selecting delegates individually, not as candidate slates. That means that Romney voters may split their vote because the Romney campaign overfiled.
Paul voters, on the other hand, will not be diluting their voting power. If Ron Paul voters are voting for all of Paul's delegates and not for some of the uncommitted slots, then all of those Paul votes will go to all of Paul's delegates. They won't be split like the Romney vote.
The big question watching the West Virginia returns is whether there is enough of a split among Romney votes to allow Paul delegates to make up the likely differential between the two candidates statewide? We shall see.
[Hat tip to the anonymous commenters who asked about delegate vote dilution in the Question Time comments.]
--
1 FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.
2 The at-large delegate slots in Illinois are chosen at the state convention.
Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: North Carolina
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Indiana
Delegate Selection is Never Easy in Nevada
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).
For links to the other states' plans see the Republican Delegate Selection Plans by State section in the left sidebar under the calendar.
WEST VIRGINIA
The story with West Virginia Republican delegate allocation is simple: see Illinois. Well, as FHQ hopes our readers will understand, it is never really as simple as that. Yes, in terms the allocation of congressional district delegates in the Mountain state, the plan is exactly like the method used in Illinois: a loophole primary. Primary voters cast ballots for congressional district delegates directly. And as was the case in Illinois -- unlike Pennsylvania -- those delegates' candidate affiliations are listed with the delegate candidates on the ballot. The twist in West Virginia is that, unlike Illinois, at-large delegates are also directly elected on the primary ballot.2 With the exception of the automatic delegates, then, all of the delegates who will attend the Republican National Convention in Tampa will be selected in the primary election.
West Virginia delegate breakdown:
- 31 total delegates
- 19 at-large delegates
- 9 congressional district delegates
- 3 automatic delegates
Similarly, there is an open door to Paul voters in Pennsylvania neighbor, West Virginia, as well. Romney will very likely have name recognition on his side in the Mountain state primary -- His name will be listed next to his delegates. -- but will more and potentially less disciplined Romney voters lose out mathematically to fewer Paul voters. Let me explain. The Romney campaign overfiled delegates in West Virginia. Instead of 19 at-large delegates, the Romney campaign filed 24. Instead of three delegates in each of the congressional districts, the Romney campaign filed at least seven. By contrast, the Paul campaign filed the bare minimum number of delegates in the state: three in each of the three congressional districts and 19 at-large delegates. All told, that means that Romney's likely greater number of total votes statewide and in each of the congressional districts will be split among a greater number of delegate slots. Voters are selecting delegates individually, not as candidate slates. That means that Romney voters may split their vote because the Romney campaign overfiled.
Paul voters, on the other hand, will not be diluting their voting power. If Ron Paul voters are voting for all of Paul's delegates and not for some of the uncommitted slots, then all of those Paul votes will go to all of Paul's delegates. They won't be split like the Romney vote.
The big question watching the West Virginia returns is whether there is enough of a split among Romney votes to allow Paul delegates to make up the likely differential between the two candidates statewide? We shall see.
[Hat tip to the anonymous commenters who asked about delegate vote dilution in the Question Time comments.]
--
1 FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.
2 The at-large delegate slots in Illinois are chosen at the state convention.
Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: North Carolina
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Indiana
Delegate Selection is Never Easy in Nevada
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: North Carolina
This is the thirty-fifth in a multipart series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation by state.1 The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2012 -- especially relative to 2008 -- in order to gauge the impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. As FHQ has argued in the past, this has often been cast as a black and white change. That the RNC has winner-take-all rules and the Democrats have proportional rules. Beyond that, the changes have been wrongly interpreted in a great many cases as having made a 180º change from straight winner-take-all to straight proportional rules in all pre-April 1 primary and caucus states. That is not the case.
The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).
For links to the other states' plans see the Republican Delegate Selection Plans by State section in the left sidebar under the calendar.
NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina delegate allocation is mostly uniform across both political parties. That is attributable to the fact that the matter is covered by the general statutes in the Tarheel state as opposed to being dictated by state party rules as in a great many other states. What that means is that there is little suspense as to how the 55 Republican delegates will be allocated to particular candidates. Little suspense. Let's look at the delegate breakdown and FHQ will explain what we mean by that.
North Carolina delegate breakdown:
Most of that doubt is a function of this line in the state party rules:
One additional note that should be made is that there is no vote threshold that a candidate has to meet in order to be eligible for delegates. A candidate only has to receive a share of the vote equal to or greater than percentage that would net said candidate at least half a delegate. In this case, 0.909%. In other words, 1% of the vote would make eligible a candidate for some share of the delegates. Both Gingrich, Santorum and a No Preference option are on the North Carolina ballot and may gain delegates. What becomes of the delegates -- the process for their release -- is not entirely clear, though all of the delegates with the exception of those committed to "No Preference" were McCain delegates in 2008.
--
1 FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.
2 Those are bound delegate slots. Actual delegates have already been selected in congressional district meetings and will continue to be selected at the state convention. The at-large delegates and both the national committeeman and national committeewoman will be elected at the June state convention. The latter two positions will be elected in June and will begin serving immediately. The state chairman -- the final automatic delegate -- is elected at odd-year state conventions. There will be no turnover in that position at the upcoming convention.
3 North Carolina Republican Party rules (see Article VII-F):
2011 NCGOP Plan of Organization
Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Indiana
Delegate Selection is Never Easy in Nevada
Question Time: How Much Leverage Does Ron Paul Still Have?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).
For links to the other states' plans see the Republican Delegate Selection Plans by State section in the left sidebar under the calendar.
NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina delegate allocation is mostly uniform across both political parties. That is attributable to the fact that the matter is covered by the general statutes in the Tarheel state as opposed to being dictated by state party rules as in a great many other states. What that means is that there is little suspense as to how the 55 Republican delegates will be allocated to particular candidates. Little suspense. Let's look at the delegate breakdown and FHQ will explain what we mean by that.
North Carolina delegate breakdown:
- 55 total delegates
- 13 at-large delegates
- 39 congressional district delegates
- 3 automatic delegates
Most of that doubt is a function of this line in the state party rules:
In order to comply with the rules of the National Republican Party and with the North Carolina General Statutes, specifically Section 163-213.8, immediately following the Presidential Preference Primary, the State Chairman, after consultation with the North Carolina Chairman for each Candidate receiving votes in the primary, shall allocate Delegate positions between the Candidates accurately reflecting the division of votes in the statewide primary, thereby requiring the election of the 3 Delegates and 3 Alternates 28 at the District Convention and the remaining Delegates at the State Convention, in such allocated numbers as to accurately reflect the results of the statewide primaryThe use of the word remaining is similar to instances where state party rules in both Maryland and Wisconsin included the automatic delegates in the winner-take-all allocation in those states. In the North Carolina case, though, there is an out in the statute (Chapter 163, Section 213.8) that allows national party rules to take precedent over the statute should there be a conflict between the two. Yet, there does not appear to be a conflict here as the RNC rules leave the binding of delegates up to the state party, and the North Carolina Republican Party does not expressly indicate a specific binding mechanism for automatic delegates. Actually the NCGOP rules do not indicate that those three delegates are unbound. As such, the proper interpretation appears to be that those automatic delegates are included in the proportional allocation of the delegates by virtue of being included in the "remaining Delegates at the State Convention".
One additional note that should be made is that there is no vote threshold that a candidate has to meet in order to be eligible for delegates. A candidate only has to receive a share of the vote equal to or greater than percentage that would net said candidate at least half a delegate. In this case, 0.909%. In other words, 1% of the vote would make eligible a candidate for some share of the delegates. Both Gingrich, Santorum and a No Preference option are on the North Carolina ballot and may gain delegates. What becomes of the delegates -- the process for their release -- is not entirely clear, though all of the delegates with the exception of those committed to "No Preference" were McCain delegates in 2008.
--
1 FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.
2 Those are bound delegate slots. Actual delegates have already been selected in congressional district meetings and will continue to be selected at the state convention. The at-large delegates and both the national committeeman and national committeewoman will be elected at the June state convention. The latter two positions will be elected in June and will begin serving immediately. The state chairman -- the final automatic delegate -- is elected at odd-year state conventions. There will be no turnover in that position at the upcoming convention.
3 North Carolina Republican Party rules (see Article VII-F):
2011 NCGOP Plan of Organization
Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Indiana
Delegate Selection is Never Easy in Nevada
Question Time: How Much Leverage Does Ron Paul Still Have?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)