Deep in the Heart of Texas: The Lone Star State in 2012

I bet you thought this was going to be a secession post.* Nope, but I have to admit that I let this one slip through the cracks. A while back I touted the usefulness of the National Conference of State Legislatures' election reform legislation database. There really is a lot to see there. So much, in fact, that I've missed one Texas-sized frontloading bill. It turns out that some of the states that hold concurrent primaries (presidential primaries at the same time as primaries for state and local offices) are rather difficult to track when it comes to legislation shifting a state's presidential primary date. NCSL simply treats them as primary changes and not presidential primary changes. In other words, if you just search for those bills affecting presidential primaries, you may be missing out on some of the potential movement on the state legislative level.

That was the case with Texas. They are adamant about holding these things at one time in the Lone Star state. When I contacted the elections division of the Texas Secretary of State's office a few years back, they made it abundantly clear that in Texas, they hold their presidential primaries with their other primaries and that is that. [And thus was born a major variable and subsequent finding about the importance of split primaries and frontloading. But that's a different story.]

In 2007, then, the big story out of Texas -- in the context of the frontloading of their presidential primary -- was the burden the various proposals to move the state's 2008 primaries would put on local elections officials. That was the major reason Texas stayed where it did.** And it proved a masterstroke anyway since the state was so consequential to the nominations of John McCain and Barack Obama. [Yes, Obama. The president did win more delegates in Texas despite losing the primary to Hillary Clinton. Ah, prima-caucuses.]

That burden, however, has not deterred one of the House sponsors of the 2007 bill from introducing legislation to move the Lone Star state's primaries (presidential primary included) to the first Tuesday in February for 2012 and beyond. Rep. Roberto Alonzo (D-Dallas) during the filing period last (gulp) November (Yeah, I really missed that one.) filed HB 246 to shift the state's primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February.

Now, under normal circumstances I'd try to shoot this one down like I did for both North Carolina and Oregon. In both those cases, members of the out-party are proposing frontloading bills for 2012. And normally that partisanship argument holds water, but not in Texas. First, Texas is a big state. We aren't talking about a handful of delegates here. That the Lone Star state didn't shift, given past movement, was one of the surprises of the movement (or non-movement) in the lead up to 2008. Also, in North Carolina and Oregon we're talking about Republicans pushing a bill on unreceptive Democrats. In Texas, a Democrat is pushing a bill in a Republican legislature. And by all estimates, the 2012 primary season, and especially the timing of events, is more consequential to the Republicans than it is to the Democrats. So, the majority of the Texas legislature may at least be receptive to the idea of a move. Whether it comes to pass...

Well, that's a different story.

Still, we can put Texas up on the big board now to join the other handful of states that are actually looking into moving forward in 2012 and not back like a few others. It is more likely in Texas' case than in North Carolina and Oregon, I'll say that.


* Speaking of secession, I couldn't resist the urge to draw up a Texas-less map. The electoral college map looks strange with that gaping hole and without the second of its Florida-Texas legs holding it up.
** Here's what I wrote about Texas back in the summer of 2007:

Texas:
The plan that made its way through the Texas legislature (HB 2017) to move the primary from the first Tuesday in March to February 5 did not fail because it didn't have bipartisan support in both chambers. It failed because of opposition from both in and outside the capitol. County election clerks fretted over the impact the move would have on local elections (Texas law requires that the presidential and the state and local primaries be held on the same date.). Office-holding candidates seeking higher office (including some in the legislature, no doubt) also protested because filing to run would take place in 2007 (the year before the election), which under the Texas Constitution would force them to vacate their currently held offices. The last action taken on HB 2017 was on May 23, just four days before the legislature adjourned.

Sadly, the link to the story in the original post is dead now. I'll have to try to find that somewhere else and link it back here.


Recent Posts:
The Links (4/16/09): Data, Data Everywhere

Now Obama's Fighting Climate Change Reform?

2008 GOP Candidate Emergence, Part 3

North Carolina Bill to Move 2012 Primary to February

On Wednesday, a bill (S150) to move North Carolina's presidential primary from May to February in 2012 was filed in the state Senate. Under normal circumstances, I might get excited about this. For starters, it isn't typically until after the midterm elections that the full flurry of frontloading activity takes place in state legislatures across the country. [Well, that's not true. There is usually activity, but it usually isn't "successful" activity resulting in an actual move.] Arkansas, for instance, is close to moving its presidential primary back in 2012 and there has been a bill introduced in Illinois with essentially the same goal for the primaries in the Land of Lincoln. North Carolina, though, becomes the first state to have a bill introduced that proposes a move forward on the 2012 presidential primary calendar.

A couple of questions come out of this:
1) Why aren't you excited?
2) What's with the lack of activity?

Let's deal with number one first. This bill isn't groundbreaking legislation in the North Carolina Senate. Actually, it is deja vu all over again. The same bill was introduced by the same group of Republican senators two years ago. [Well, the group of nine senate co-sponsors in 2007 has now swelled to ten; adding Austin Allran to the list in 2009.] That bill (S168) was referred to the Judiciary (I) committee, where it got bottled up and eventually faded away. Judiciary (I) is still chaired by Democratic State Senator Martin L. Nesbitt, who was new to the post at the outset of the 2007 session. Needless to say, the conditions are the very same in 2009 as they were in 2007 (within the legislature at least), and the outcome isn't likely to be any different. Removed from the equation, though, is fact that both parties' nominations won't be at stake in 2012 (making successful passage of this bill even less likely still). And that brings us to the second question.

Why isn't there any more activity on the frontloading front? [After all, it seemed like a big deal when all these states were moving prior to the 2008 primary season.] Well, part of it is political. Unless Obama fails miserably in the next couple of years, the president won't be challenged in the Democratic primaries in 2012. All eyes are on the GOP then. Either the national party will devise a different nomination system (either completely different or slightly modified) or Republican-dominated states (whether state legislatures or state parties) will look to move to more influential positions on the primary calendar in 2012.

States where the Democratic Party is the majority party or where there is more competition between the parties are less likely to throw their hats in the frontloading ring. In the Democratic-controlled states there is no perceived need to get involved in the GOP nomination race; especially if the state's primary or caucus is closed to Democrats or independents. [Why move up for the Republicans?] If the primary is open to cross-over/independent voters, they could have a moderating effect on the Republican nomination race. But why would a Democratic state be motivated to have a moderating effect on the outcome of the GOP nomination? A more extreme candidate, is a more beatable candidate for an incumbent Democratic candidate.

In the more competitive/divided government states (in terms of party competition), Democrats, again, would be motivated to obstruct Republican efforts to move a presidential primary forward. Such a state is likely to be a battleground state in the general election and Democrats within the state would not be motivated to allow for an earlier contest and in turn earlier party and candidate organization in the state. It just is not strategically wise.

To make a short story long, then, there isn't any frontloading activity because...
1) it is early.

2) only one party will likely have a contested nomination race, and

3) This is related to the the first point -- I would suspect some states are still waiting to see if the Republican Party or both parties working together in some way attempt to fundamentally alter the presidential nomination system. But that's a subject for another post.

H/t: Ballot Access News for bringing this to our attention today.

Recent Posts:
1988 Presidential Primary Calendar

1984 Presidential Primary Calendar

More on the Potential August Arkansas Primary

Kansas' On-Again-Off-Again Presidential Primary

The trials and tribulations of the Kansas state legislature continue in regard to the potential for a presidential primary in the state for 2012. If it wasn't bad enough that the legislature went through the same process during the 2007 legislative session to establish and frontload a presidential primary for 2008, it is now that they have repeated the same steps. The current bill (HB 2683--click link and type the bill number in the "Track Bill" space on the right) was only part of a larger piece of election law legislation that would have required a photo ID to vote (via Ballot Access News)as well. Despite that, the bill passed both houses of the legislature either on its own or as an amendment before heading to a conference committee. That legislation emerged from conference this week and was voted down in the House by a vote of 53-68 after having passed unanimously during the first go 'round. The bill now returns to conference, where the already small chances of a presidential primary for 2012 being established during this session grow slimmer.

After the massive frontloading in the lead up to this cycle, there just aren't that many states that aren't "early" anymore. The momentum of the frontloading trend will slow down for 2012 as a result.

...unless, of course, one or both of the parties shift the window for holding events to an earlier start date. That's the portion of the conventions I'll have my eye on this summer. How will those rules change or will they?

Recent Posts:
The Dakota Effect

Obama's Slide: Is Clinton Taking Advantage?

The Electoral College Maps (4/30/08)

An update on what's been happening over the summer

Who has moved, who hasn't and who hasn't decided for the 2008 cycle (since the last update)?

One thing to note: Deadlines for states to set their primary or caucus dates.
The Republican National Committee during their 2004 convention set the cut off at the first Tuesday in September (Sept. 4, 2007). All this is laid out in Rule 15.C.11 of the GOP rules. The sanctions for violation can be found in Rule 16.

The Democratic party requires that state parties submit their delegate selection plans to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee by September 16, 2007 (Rule 1.E). Since the state plans are to include dates for delegate selection events (Rule 11), Sept. 16 is the deadline to set these dates. Violations of the timing rules can be found in Rule 20.C.1.a & b.

It may take a lot of scrolling but you can find all the rules (and sanctions) mentioned if you follow the links for each party above.

STILL UP IN THE AIR:
Arizona:
While still up in the air, the speculation that Arizona would move to February 5, 2008 has been going around for quite some time. In fact, the first post on this blog shows the primary calendar as compiled by the National Association of Secretaries of State on March 20, 2007, and Arizona is penciled in as a state with a contest on February 5. The NASS's current calendar has Arizona's primary listed as set to occur on February 26, the same day as the Michigan primary. What make Arizona unique when it comes to setting presidential primary dates is that the governor can issue a proclamation to change the date. State law sets the fourth Tuesday in February as the date on which the primary is to occur. In 2004 however, Governor Janet Napolitano issued the first of these proclamations to move the state's contest from that date to the first Tuesday in February (February 3). Speculation continues that she will repeat the action during this cycle.

Florida:
Florida threw the whole primary system on its head when Governor Charlie Crist signed HB 537 into law on May 21 (see press release from the governor's office). The bill called for moving the state's 2008 primary from the first Tuesday in March to January 29, the same day as the Democratic National Committee-allowed South Carolina Democratic primary. Florida's legislature went against both national parties in setting the date outside of the prescribed window in which delegate selection contests are to take place.

Since that time the South Carolina GOP has moved its primary from February 2 to January 19 in response to Florida's move. In addition, the Florida Democratic party has since buckled under the pressure from the national party to move back inside the window period or be sanctioned with a loss of delegates. Both Ballot Access News and thegreenpapers.com have reported that the state Democratic party's Executive Committee has asked the state legislature to move the primary back a week to February 5 (I am somewhat hesitant to go forward with this given that neither site provides any documentation of any such occurrence. However, in the interest of a broader talking point, I'll throw it out there.). The Republican-controlled legislature reconvenes for a special session next month, but more than likely won't be interested in helping out its Democratic brethren. This puts the Democrats in Florida in a bit of a quandary: stay and accept the national party's sanctions or move back a week and fund its own primary or caucus. So Florida isn't officially set, at least on the Democratic side. Well, I don't suppose it is set on the GOP side either since the January 29 primary would trigger sanctions from the Republican National Committee as well.

Iowa: see SC post from Monday for the latest speculation.

Michigan:
The 2008 presidential primary in Michigan is currently scheduled for February 26, or three weeks after the February 5 blockbuster. However, two bills are making the rounds in the state Senate that would change that date. SB 624 would move the primary to January 29 for 2008 and set future presidential primaries to take place on the first Tuesday in February. SB 625 would permanently move the primary to the first Tuesday in February for 2008 and all subsequent cycles.
Ballot Access News adds an interesting bit of information. These bills would also require that voters choose which party's ballot they want when checking in at the polling station (as opposed to choosing in the voting booth in the past). This sort of primary is discouraged by the DNC and is the explanation for why Michigan Democrats have not recently had a presidential primary as a means of allocating the state's delegates. I don't suppose Michigan primary voters ever really had much of a choice in the first place with the Democrats not openly participating in the statewide primary. All that accomplished was to allow Democratic and independent voters to vote in the Republican primary (with the Democrats holding a caucus at some other time).

New Hampshire: see SC post from Monday for the latest speculation.

New Mexico:
The Democratic Party in New Mexico on August 2 submitted to the national party their delegate selection plan for 2008. This included the method by and date on which the Democratic delegates will be allocated. New Mexico Democrats have decided to hold their caucuses on February 5. This shift toward party determination of date and method of delegate selection took place prior to the 2004 cycle. Governor Bill Richardson signed into law H 1039 which left the decision up to the state parties. If either party chose to hold a primary then it would be held on the traditional first Tuesday in June date with the other state and local primaries. If however, either of the parties wanted to hold a delegate selection event at an earlier time they could opt to hold one. The law does not explicitly say whether the state parties foot the bill for these events, though one would assume they do. At this time, New Mexico Republicans have yet to decide on a date. Speculation exists through both the National Association of Secretaries of State and the National Conference of State Legislatures that the GOP will join their Democratic brethren in New Mexico by moving to February 5.

Ohio (Up in the air, but not really):
A bill proposal to move Ohio's 2008 primary in line with Florida's January 29 contest in the Ohio Senate registered more than a blip on the radar in mid-July. At least the bill (SB 202) is up on the legislature's web page now. But it doesn't seem like it is going to go anywhere. It hasn't been assigned to committee yet after nearly a month. For the time being, it looks like Ohio will hold a first Tuesday in March primary.

Pennsylvania:
It is difficult to get a feel for what Pennsylvania is going to do as far as its 2008 presidential primary is concerned. The date has been up in the air most of this year. The National Association of Secretaries of State on its constantly updated calendar (There's a link to a pdf of the calendar on the site's front page.) shows that the state legislature is still considering moves to either February 12 or March 4 from the fourth Tuesday in April. The bill that would move the primary to February 12 (HB 289) is the one that has received the most recent attention. Having passed the House, it is now under consideration in the Senate. There has not been any action on the March 4 proposals (that I could track down) since this past March. SB 516 was cited in an earlier post and is the bill that most "recently" included a provision to move the state's primary to March 4, 2008. It also would move the primary to March 6 for the 2012 cycle. Regardless, Pennsylvania still will not be a player in the de facto national primary on February 5.


IN:
Alabama: see previous post.

Alaska: Both the state Democratic and Republican parties opted to hold their caucuses and district conventions, respectively, on February 5 as of May 29, 2007 (read more from CQ here).

Arkansas: see previous post.

California: see previous post.

Connecticut:
Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell signed SB 1184 into law on June 25. This moves the presidential primary in Connecticut from the old Super Tuesday (first Tuesday in March) to the new Super Duper Tuesday (February 5, 2008).

Georgia:
After the back and forth between the House and Senate on the last day of the Georgia General Assembly's session, a measure made it through in the form of an amendment to a broader elections bill that would move the state's 2008 presidential primary to February 5 from the first week in March. The original House bill calling for the same action didn't make the cut; getting the ax on the final day and causing the insertion of the amendment in the above bill. Governor Sonny Perdue signed the bill into law on May 29 (see the governor's press release and brace yourself, it's exciting). Here is a write-up from CQ.

Illinois:
Governor Rod Blagojevich signed into law HB 0426 on June 20. The bill moves the state's 2008 presidential primary to February 5.

Kansas: Though the Kansas legislature failed to pass a bill to institute a presidential primary for 2008, the state parties both decided to position their respective caucuses in February. The Democrats joined the queue for February 5 and the Republicans decided to wait until the weekend after the rush with a Saturday, February 9 caucus. Both moves are not being widely reported on the usual sites but there are a couple of articles here and here.

Louisiana: see previous post (no further changes).

Maryland: see previous post.

New Jersey: see previous post.

New York: see previous post.

North Dakota:
Buried deep in an AP story fronted by a headline touting John Edwards' troop plans was news that North Dakota had decided to move the state's 2008 caucuses to February 5. This was an ominous sign at odds with the argument that candidates would visit the state given by Secretary of State, Al Jaeger just one day prior on May 24.

South Carolina: see previous post.

Tennessee: see previous post.

Washington: A nine member committee (see the press release from the Secretary of State's office) made up of Washington state political leaders made the decision in June to move the state's 2008 presidential primary to February 19. Since that decision was made, the Washington Democratic party opted not to allocate delegates based on the primary and the Republican party will only distribute 51% of the state's delegates to the Republican convention through the contest. So while the state moved the primary from May into February (the same day as the Wisconsin primary), it is a mostly non-binding contest.


OUT (tried to move but did not):
Montana: see previous post.

North Carolina:
Senate bill 168 was introduced in February 2007 but was stuck in committee when the General Assembly in Raleigh adjourned on August 2. With no special session in sight prior to when the national parties require states to have presidential primaries and caucuses set, North Carolina will continue to have a first week in May primary (May 6, 2008).

Oregon:
Since Oregon's legislature adjourned for the year on June 28 and no action was taken since April on the one bill (HB 2084) which would have moved Oregon's 2008 presidential primary to February 5, the state appears destined to hold it primary toward the end of the process (on May 20).

Rhode Island:
The state legislature's session ended in late June with no presidential primary movement. H5636 died in committee in the House as did a similar bill (S740) which had passed on the Senate side. Both plans called for moving the primary from March to February 5, 2008.

Texas:
The plan that made its way through the Texas legislature (HB 2017) to move the primary from the first Tuesday in March to February 5 did not fail because it didn't have bipartisan support in both chambers. It failed because of opposition from both in and outside the capitol. County election clerks fretted over the impact the move would have on local elections (Texas law requires that the presidential and the state and local primaries be held on the same date.). Office-holding candidates seeking higher office (including some in the legislature, no doubt) also protested because filing to run would take place in 2007 (the year before the election), which under the Texas Constitution would force them to vacate their currently held offices. The last action taken on HB 2017 was on May 23, just four days before the legislature adjourned.

I'll supplement this later with other states that have made or tried to make moves, but this post is a good summary of what the big players for the 2008 cycle have done.

Where are they now?

Before I continue with part two of my look at actions within the states to alter the delegate selection calendar for the 2008 presidential nomination cycle, I want update where bills are in the legislative process in the states where plans to move are still under consideration.

NOTE: Please consult my original post or follow the links for the particulars of each bill. The descriptions that follow will be simple updates of progress within the legislative process.

Connecticut:
SB 1184: As of April 16 the bill had made it out of the Joint Government Administration and Elections Committee and was on the calendar for consideration in the Senate.
The plan? Move to February 5.

Florida:
HB 537 is still in the Senate as of March 22 after having passed the House on the previous day.
The plan? Move the state's 2008 presidential primary to the week directly following the New Hampshire primary (whenever that is; currently on January 22, 2008).

Georgia:
HB 487 was passed by the Georgia House on March 20 and has since been read and referred to the Senate Ethics Committee. As of April 17, that bill had been favorably reported out of the Ethics Committee and had been read for a second time by the Senate. The bill passed the Senate on April 20, but without the section covering the lowering of percentage thresholds that trigger runoffs. That version was then sent back to the House where it was not passed. The House then added the provision calling for the move of the presidential primary on a broad election bill (SB 194) from the Senate. The House then sent that bill back to the Senate which the members subsequently agreed to. Sadly, the above link does not include the language for the primary move, but here and here are links to sources discussing the amendment to the Senate bill. Apparently, Governor Sonny Perdue's signature is the only thing now separating this move from reality.
The plan? Move to February 5.

Illinois:
HB 0426: The House passed the plan on March 28 and the bill was referred to the Senate Rules Committee the following day. On April 18 the bill emerged from Rules and was assigned to the Senate Executive Committee for consideration.
The plan? Move to February 5.

Kansas:
With the Kansas Legislature set to reconvene for a "wrap-up" session on April 25, there is a chance, albeit slim, that action could be taken on the bills to set or move the date of the state's presidential primary. Neither of the bills (S 310 and S 320) are on the agenda for either chamber however. See here to search both bills' histories.
The plans? Permanently set the primary date for the first Tuesday in April (S 310) OR
leave the decision up to the secretary of state given that the legislature provides appropriations for the primary (S 320).

Maryland:
HB 1434 and SB 1025 have both passed their respective chambers and have each passed third readings in the opposite chamber as of April 2. The House also offered and adopted amendments to the Senate bill on April 6. The legislature has adjourned (on April 9) for the session though. However, the members can still present bills to the governor twenty days after the end of the session and have May 9 as the last day on which an extended session could be held according to the 2007 Session - Dates of Interest Calendar. Neither bill has had much resistance, so it can hardly be considered a stretch to assume that one of them will make it to the desk of the governor.
The plan? Move to February 12 to coincide with Virginia.

Montana:
HB 797: The third reading of this bill was passed and transmitted to the Senate on March 29 where it was referred to the State Administration Committee on April 2. A committee hearing was then held on April 11 where the bill was tabled for consideration on the Senate floor.
The plan? Allow the secretary of state to decide on a February or March date.

North Carolina:
S 168: This bill is the same as a bill introduced in the North Carolina General Assembly during the 2006 session. And since this year's version has been locked up in the Senate Judiciary Committee since mid-February, it may suffer the same fate as its precursor.
The plan? Move to February 5.

Oregon:
HB 2084 (Search for bill history here.): Since passing the House Elections, Ethics and Rules Committee on March 28, the Oregon House has since been referred the measure to the Ways and Means Committee for consideration (as of April 3).
The plan? Allow the secretary of state to decide (presumably February 5).

Pennsylvania:
As was the case in North Carolina, no actions have been taken on any of the three plans to alter the date on which the 2008 presidential primary will be held in Pennsylvania.
The plans? 1) Move to the first Tuesday in March for 2008 (HB 63)
2) Move to the first Tuesday in March for 2008 and 2012 (SB 516)
3) Permanently move to the second Tuesday in February (HB 289)

Rhode Island:
H 5636 and S 740 (Search for both here.): Both bills call for the same thing but are at different points within the legislative process. The House bill has been in the Judiciary Committee since being referred there on February 28. The Senate bill, on the other hand, has been recommended for passage by the Senate Judiciary Committee (April 10) and placed on the Senate calendar (April 12).
The plans? Move to February 5.

Tennessee:
HB 2211 and SB 2012 (Search for both here and click on the "Legislation" tab on the left.): The former was substituted for the latter in the Senate on April 16 and subsequently passed by a unanimous vote. On April 19 the bill was signed by the speaker of the House and transmitted to the governor for his consideration.
The plan? Move to February 5.

Texas:
HB 2017 and SB 1843: Both of these bills are identical, but the House bill is the real mover and shaker. That measure passed the House on April 13 and was received by the Senate on April 16. On April 19 it was read for the first time in the Senate and referred to the State Affairs Committee for consideration.
The plan? Move to February 5.

So Georgia and Tennessee are now the closest of this bunch to joining the bunch already on February 5.

The Bills that Changed (or Will Potentially Change) the Primary Calendar

Since the focus on the 2008 presidential election has shifted to candidate fund-raising lately and because legislation about moving presidential primaries is going through state legislatures, things are at a bit of a standstill. With that said, I thought I would take a step back and archive all the moves states have made or are making. I'll break this into several parts depending upon the actors behind the moves in each state. For the most part, state legislatures make the decisions to move primaries, but state parties, governors and/or secretaries of state can have a say as well. In this post I'll look at the actions of state legislatures to move these primaries and in subsequent post(s), I'll examine the actions taken by (mostly) state parties to move presidential primaries or caucuses.


States that have moved:

Alabama:
HB 51 passed both houses of the Alabama legislature during the 2006 session, changing the date of the state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in June to the now-crowded date of February 5. After being a state at the head of the frontloading movement for all three presidential elections cycles during the 1980's, Alabama reverted to its pre-1980 position in June for the 1992 cycle and has been there ever since. This original proposal for HB 51 had the primary moving to the Saturday after the New Hampshire primary (February 2), but that portion of the bill was edited to read February 5. With more states pushing to the front of the line recently though, talk about that Saturday before February 5 has been revived.

Arkansas:
The Arkansas legislature was the first to act after February 5 became the opening date of the window in which both parties require presidential primaries to occur. SB 235 made it through the legislature during its 2005 session and was signed into law by Governor Mike Huckabee in March of that year.

California:
California is the big delegate prize for both parties during a presidential nomination, and when the state changes the date on which its primary is held, it is news. The date of the 2008 primary has changed twice since the last cycle though. One move made more news than the other. Primaries have been held on the first Tuesday in March since the 2000 cycle in California, but a 2004 law (SB 1730) switched the state's primary back to its traditional, pre-1996 position (the Tuesday after the first Monday in June). This was news simply because the biggest state was breaking with the trend of increased frontloading. As more and more states moved or considered moving to February 5 though, the California legislature decided not to sit idly by. On January 22, 2007, SB 113 was introduced, changing the presidential primary date from June to February 5. The bill was signed into law in late March, fundamentally altering the outlook of the 2008 nomination contests in both parties.

Louisiana:
During the 2006 legislative session, the Louisiana State Legislature passed HB 1307 which was later signed in to law (Act 845) by Governor Kathleen Blanco. The act changes the date for the state's quadrennial presidential preference primary from the second Tuesday in March to the second Saturday in February. For the 2008 cycle that puts Louisiana's primary just four days after the February 5 super primary. As I mentioned in a post last week though, some legislators are considering moving to an even earlier date because of all the clustering on the Tuesday preceding the state's primary.

New Jersey:
If Louisiana does move again, it will join New Jersey and California as a state that has moved its presidential primary twice since the 2004 cycle. In July 2005, New Jersey moved its 2008 presidential primary from the Tuesday after the first Monday in June to the last Tuesday in February (A30/S550).* However, once momentum built behind the idea of February 5 as a de facto national primary day, New Jersey jumped on the bandwagon and acted (A4010/S2193). That bill was signed into law earlier this week as described here.

*Bill histories for these bills can be found by doing simple bill searches on the front page of the New Jersey legislature's website here.

New York:
A.6430/S.3544 (thanks to nycowboy.org for this link via the New York Legislative Retrieval System) were passed by the New York Assembly and Senate respectively on March 21, 2007. The plan calls for moving the presidential primary in New York from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. As described in an earlier post, the bill now awaits the signature of New York governor, Eliot Spitzer. UPDATE: Governor Spitzer signed into law the above law on April 9, 2007.


States with plans to move being considered in the legislature:

Connecticut:
In Connecticut, a plan to move the state's presidential primary to February 5 (or the first Tuesday in February) for 2008 and all subsequent cycles was introduced to the Senate in the for of SB 1184. As of April 16, the bill had made it out of committee on the Senate side and was added to the chamber's calendar for consideration on the floor.

Florida:
The Florida House recently passed HB 537, which calls for Florida's 2008 presidential primary date to be moved from the second Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February or the Tuesday after the New Hampshire primary; whichever date comes first. This sliding scale is in place unless the earliest date falls on a day earlier than the second Tuesday in January.

Georgia:
HB 487 passed the Georgia House of Representatives on March 20, 2007 (see previous post). The plan calls for moving the 2008 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to February 5 and then to fall on the first Tuesday in February in subsequent cycles. As of march 27 the bill had been read and referred to committee in the Senate.

Illinois:
HB 0426 was passed by the Illinois House on March 28, 2007 and has been read and referred to committee in the Senate. The bill changes the state's 2008 primary from the third Tuesday in March (a date that has been used since the 1970 off-year primaries) to the first Tuesday in February.

Kansas:
Kansas is attempting to have in 2008 its first presidential primary since 1992. Current law allows the secretary of state to set the primary on a date on or before the first Tuesday in April in which at least five other states are holding delegate selection events. In the past that has typically meant that the state of Kansas has fallen back on the default first Tuesday in April date. Currently, there are two proposals at various stages of the process. SB 310 eliminates the the portions of the code referring to the secretary of state and simply calls for the permanent institution of a presidential primary on the first Tuesday in April. This plan, however, has been bottled up in the Senate Elections and Local Government Committee since hearings on February 14, 2007. The plan that has more support behind it is SB 320, which retains the secretary of state provisions in the current code and reduces to three the number of states that must hold delegate selection events on the same date. SB 320 unanimously passed the Senate and was introduced and referred to the Appropriations Committee in the House in late February of this year. The two dates cited most by state legislators in this scenario are January 29 and February 5 with the latter being the most likely. As of April 6, 2007, the Kansas legislature had failed to act any further, with both chambers generally supporting the idea but not the financial obligation attendant to a presidential primary. Advocates of the presidential primary plan on renewing their effort to include funding in the budget when the legislature reconvenes for its "wrap-up" session at the end of April.

Maryland:
HB 1434 and SB 1025 have passed their respective chambers in the Maryland General Assembly and have been referred to the opposite chamber and introduced to committees there. According to the bills' histories (here and here), the plan to move the state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the second Tuesday in February has wide support in both chambers. The bill was re-referred to the House Ways and Means Committee and was due for a hearing there on April 5.

Montana:
HB 797 allows for the secretary of state to set the date for the presidential preference primary in February or March of 2008. This bill was passed by the Montana House and transmitted to the Senate on March 29, 2007. Currently the bill is being considered in its second committee on the House side and first committee in the Senate.

North Carolina:
North Carolina's Senate is considering a bill (S 168) that would permanently move the state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May to the first Tuesday in February. The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 14, 2007 and is still being considered there. At this time there no similar bill has been introduced in the House.

Oregon:
HB 2084, like the bill in Montana, leaves the decision as to the date on which the presidential primary is held up to the Oregon secretary of state. As of March 28, 2007 the plan had passed the House Elections, Ethics and Rules Committee. Here is the bill's history to this point.

Pennsylvania:
Pennsylvania has several bills circulating both chambers of the General Assembly there. SB 516 has been referred (on March 19, 2007) to the Senate State Government Committee and sets as the dates for the presidential primaries in 2008 and 2012, March 4 and March 6 respectively. HB 289 permanently moves the state's presidential primary from the fourth Tuesday in April to the second Tuesday in February (the 12th in 2008). This bill was sent to the House State Government Committee on February 7, 2007. Like SB 516, HB 63 shifts the date called for in the existing state code concerning primary elections to March 4, 2008. On January 30, 2007 HB 63 was referred to the House State Government Committee.

Rhode Island:
H 5636 and S 740 both call for moving the Rhode Island presidential primary for 2008 and all subsequent cycles from March 18* to February 5. Each bill has been introduced and referred to the Judiciary Committee in their respective chambers, but the Senate, where the bill was first introduced, has been the first to act. The Senate Judiciary Committee has a hearing on the matter scheduled for April 10. No similar action has been taken on the House side as of yet.

*Both bills cite March 18 as the 2008 primary date when in the past the Rhode Island primary has been held on the first Tuesday in March. This runs contrary to where most sources have the state's primary for the 2008 cycle.

Tennessee:
HB 2211 would move the 2008 presidential primary in Tennessee from February 12 to February 5. The Tennessee House passed the bill by a vote of 91-2 on March 22, 2007. The bill's version in the Senate (SB 2012) has been referred to the State and Local Government Committee and is on the calendar there for April 10. The legislature's website will not allow a direct link, but searching for either of the bills referenced here will give you a detailed history of their paths through both chambers.

Texas:
As I discussed in my post late last week, a bill to move Texas' 2008 presidential primary had passed the House Elections Committee. Though there were other bills (HB 993 and HB 996), HB 2017 has been the only one to get out of committee.* The plan in that bill calls for moving the state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. As of April 4, 2007, HB 2017 had been placed on the House calendar for consideration on the floor. The bill's companion in the Senate (SB 1843), has been introduced and referred to the State Affairs Committee, where it has been waiting for action since March 19.

*The "text" tab in the series of tabs running along the top of the page in the above links provides the bill as introduced as well as the bill's analysis from the Elections Committee report in the case of HB 2017.