Related:
--
Recent posts:
Showing posts with label primary bills. Show all posts
Showing posts with label primary bills. Show all posts
Saturday, March 18, 2023
The Fix is in for the Idaho Presidential Primary Bill
Wednesday, March 15, 2023
Connecticut Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary
--
Related:
--
Recent posts:
Tuesday, March 14, 2023
Maryland Presidential Primary Move Passes State Senate
Related:
--
Recent posts:
Saturday, March 11, 2023
Indications Rhode Island Will Re-explore Presidential Primary Date
The Providence Journal reports that Rhode Island, too, may shift the date on which the Ocean state's presidential primary falls in 2024 because of a conflict with the Passover holiday.
Rep. Rebecca Kislak, D-Providence, has quietly raised the issue behind the scenes with the secretary of state's office and Democratic Party Leadership. She said Thursday she is "confident that over the next days or weeks" she will be able to introduce legislation to move the date.
..."We are exploring the possibility of moving the primary," echoed state Rep. Joseph McNamara, the state Democratic chairman. House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi said Kislak had briefed him on the problem, and he was open to a legislative fix.
Secretary of State Gregg Amore also told The Journal: "Yes. It needs legislative action."
Legislators in Maryland are already moving legislation to push the primary in the Old Line state back into May, and in a change prompted not by the Passover conflict, two bills in Pennsylvania (also in conflict with Passover) would shift the primary in the Keystone state up to mid-March. If all of those changes occur, that would leave Delaware alone on the fourth Tuesday in April in 2024, the lone remnant of a subregional mid-Atlantic/northeastern primary that has existed in one form or another since the 2012 cycle.
Connecticut has also been a part of that group but because there are five Tuesdays in April in 2024, the differing language of the laws in these states matters. The states with primaries conflicting with Passover specify the fourth Tuesday in April whereas the Connecticut law sets the date of the presidential primary in the Nutmeg state for the last Tuesday of April, the 30th in 2024. That difference has not mattered until now.
In a mark of just how quiet things have been on the calendar front in 2023 (relative to previous cycles), it may be that the Passover conflict could be the impetus for most of the calendar changes in the 2024 cycle.
--
Recent posts:
Friday, March 10, 2023
UPDATED: Maryland Bills Would Resolve Presidential Primary Conflict with Passover...
--
Related:
--
Recent posts:
Wednesday, March 8, 2023
Pennsylvania House Bill Would Move Presidential Primary from April to March
Tuesday, March 7, 2023
Hawaii Senate Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill
Related:
--
Recent posts:
May Presidential Primary Bill Continues Its Quick Pass Through Idaho Legislature, but...
With just two dissenting votes, the panel passed off H 138 to the full state Senate for consideration on the floor. But that move followed quick passage through the state House and a committee hearing on the upper chamber side that heard far more testimony against the move to consolidate the presidential primary with later contests. And both the trade-offs involved in the discussion and the battle lines drawn offer an interesting mix of factors in a state long under unified Republican control.
Part of the equation is a classic tale in the journey that some bills take to move a presidential nominating contest around on the primary calendar. Bill sponsors (and Secretary of State Phil McGrane) in this case have touted the savings that eliminating the separate presidential primary will have once merged with the primaries for state and local office in late May. Indeed, the move would strike an estimated $2.7 million from the state budget. No one providing testimony offered much to counter that reality.
Instead, the resistance came from the Idaho state Republican Party and to the supposed infringement on its right to free association under the first amendment. To boil the session down to its essence, it was a struggle between a state party's right to determine when to hold a nominating contest and the state's obligation to foot the bill for such an election.
That happens across the country from time to time. But what is unique here is that this is a Republican-on-Republican dispute. A majority of Republican legislators are driving a change to a process that the state Republican Party opposes. The latter wants an earlier presidential primary that does not fall after the nomination has already been decided. That is the typical draw for the frontloading of presidential primaries and caucuses.
But interestingly, Idaho is stuck in this weird vicious cycle where the lessons of the past are forgotten and bound to be re-learned on some level. To garner attention in the presidential nomination process, the state Republican Party abandoned the May primary in 2011 in favor of earlier (Super Tuesday) caucuses. That pushed the state government -- again, under Republican control -- to eliminate the presidential primary line from the May primary ballot altogether. And those moves had implications. First, the earlier caucuses actually brought 2012 Republican candidates into the Gem state to campaign. But the caucus process also proved arduous for the state party. Financing it was one thing, but finding the requisite manpower to pull it off was another. Often, there is no substitute for a state-run process, even if that means a later date.
But it did not end up meaning a later date. In fact, ahead of the 2016 cycle, Idaho legislators revisited the idea of a presidential primary. And the legislature opted to set aside funds for a separate, earlier election a week after Super Tuesday. That expenditure was offset by the prospect of bringing in candidates again and bringing in any financial windfall that brought for Idaho businesses in the process. Only, that windfall never came. 2016 Republicans focused on delegate-rich Michigan instead. And not only did those gains not come in 2016, but the Idaho presidential primary was even less of a draw to Democrats in 2020 on a date crowded with other, more delegate-rich contests.
And that is why proponents of H 138 are talking up the cost savings and the potential gain in turnout in the May primary. The irony, of course, is that those turnout gains may never be realized. The state Republican Party may be forced to abandon the potentially later presidential primary to hold earlier caucuses once again. And that, in turn, may put legislators in 2027 right back where they were in 2015: considering an earlier presidential primary for the upcoming cycle. And so it continues in Idaho.
--
A few other odds and ends from this hearing:
1. Former state senator and current Ada County Commission chair, Rod Beck noted in his testimony before the committee that the bill they are considering does not, in fact, do what proponents set out to do. It eliminates the separate presidential primary, but does not also build back the legal infrastructure that was in place before the presidential line was eliminated from the May primary ballot in 2012. This is something FHQ noted in the initial post on H 138. In other words, under the provisions of this bill, there will not be a presidential primary in March OR May. That is an additional nudge to the state party (or state parties) to move to caucuses for 2024.
2. As another in a long line of folks testifying on this bill noted, a late May primary also creates a logistical nightmare for the state party. The point was that a late May primary forces a caucus/convention process to select delegates into a very small window before a July national convention. That point was, perhaps, a bit exaggerated. After all, other states have begun the selection process before a late primary allocates slots to particular presidential candidates in the past. There would be ways to work around that in Idaho as well. However, that late May primary date would push Idaho much closer to the new 45 day buffer the RNC has put in place for 2024. States have to have completed their delegate allocation and selection processes before the end of May. So there is probably some wiggle room for Idaho under the scenario where the state conducts a late primary, but not a whole lot.
3. Yet another person who offered testimony raised questions about the supposed impact a move to consolidate the primaries would have on turnout. Obviously, if the parties move to adopt a caucus procedure, then those effects will be minimal. But the point made was that Idaho has changed the process so often in the last decade plus that it is difficult to get a baseline to compare turnout to, a baseline that is not just some function of the quirks of any given presidential nomination cycle.
--
Related:
--
Recent posts:
Saturday, March 4, 2023
Kansas Bill Would Reestablish Presidential Primary in the Sunflower State
--
Recent posts:
Wednesday, March 1, 2023
Second Hawaii Committee Green Lights Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill
An amended SB 1005 was quickly passed by the panel with no objections. The move now clears the way for the legislation to be considered by the full Senate.
With the House companion bill bottled up in committee, the Senate version becomes the only viable path to creating a stand-alone presidential primary for 2024 in the Aloha state, a state that has only ever known party-run delegate selection/allocation processes.
Hawaii is the last state government under unified Democratic control with no state-run presidential primary.
Related:
--
Recent posts:
Tuesday, February 28, 2023
Maryland Legislative Leaders Signal Presidential Primary Change is Forthcoming
Last week, Baltimore leaders called for legislative action to resolve a conflict between the 2024 presidential primary in Maryland and the observance of Passover. This week, the leaders of the General Assembly in the Old Line state responded.
In a joint statement House Speaker Adrienne Jones (D-10th, Baltimore) and Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-46th, Baltimore City) said:
"As State leaders and as legislators, we have been intentional in our effort to pass election laws and create policies that remove barriers to voting. A primary election date that unintentionally coincides with the Passover holiday would prevent thousands of Marylanders from engaging in their fundamental right to vote. We will work with the State Board of Elections and local election officials to find a more appropriate date."
Maryland danced around spring holidays in 2016 as well, and may not be the only state with a primary at the end of April that explores a change for 2024.
--
Recent posts:
Sunday, February 26, 2023
Idaho House Passes May Presidential Primary Bill
After being moved out of committee with a Do Pass recommendation earlier in the week, HB 138 was quickly considered on the floor of the Idaho House on Friday, February 24.
Related:
--
Recent posts:
Saturday, February 25, 2023
Hawaii Super Tuesday Primary Bill Stymied in House Committee
Testimony was taken in a hearing on HB 1485, and unlike the committee discussion on the Senate companion, the House bill revealed an internal squabble among the Hawaii Democratic Party over the potential change. While the state party supports the transition from a party-run process to a state-run primary -- both the state party chair and national committeeman spoke in favor of the move in the hearing -- the Stonewall Caucus within the party objected. At issue was not the party-run to state-run change, but rather, the possible shift from a closed caucus or party-run primary process to the open primary called for in the Hawaii constitution. That constitutional provision conflicts with a stated preference for a closed process in the Hawaii Democratic Party constitution.
But that intra-party disagreement was not what derailed HB 1485 in committee. After all, all Hawaii officials are nominated in the very same open primaries. No, instead it was a technical issue that will bottle the legislation up in committee on the House side and likely kill it.
On the recommendation of committee chair, Rep. David Tarnas (D-8th, Hawi), JHA deferred the measure because it missed a just-passed deadline for bills to have been moved out of their initial committees. HB 1485 came to the panel with no stated appropriation, but the Hawaii Office of Elections estimated the cost to the state at $2.7 million, something that would cause it to be re-referred to the Finance Committee. That need for a secondary committee referral triggered the lateral deadline.
However, HB 1485 being blocked does not kill the effort to create a presidential primary election in Hawaii this session. It just kills the House version. The Senate companion legislation, the amended SB 1005, made it through its first committee ahead of the deadline and will move to Ways and Means where the price tag of the proposed stand-alone primary will be debated. It is that bill -- the Senate companion -- that will now become the vehicle for the Super Tuesday presidential primary effort.
No hearing has been scheduled for SB 1005 in Senate Ways and Means as of now.
Related:
--
Recent posts:
Thursday, February 23, 2023
Idaho Committee Advances May Primary Bill
The panel advanced HB 138 to the House floor with a Do Pass recommendation. Bill sponsor Rep. Dustin Manwaring (R-29th, Pocatello) made the case to the committee that consolidating the stand-alone March presidential primary with the primaries for other offices in May would save the state $2.7 million. And those savings were something Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane (R) reiterated in supporting the legislation according to the Idaho Capital Sun.
“As I came into office and began working on the budget for the office, this was one of the biggest things that stood out,” McGrane told legislators Wednesday. “So we started asking the question on what is the utility of what we are trying to do? I think Rep. Manwaring framed it very well — we just haven’t seen the return on investment.”
Indeed, it was always going to be a difficult proposition to draw presidential candidates to Idaho for a March primary that often got overshadowed by other, more delegate-rich contests. But with Michigan already having vacated that second Tuesday in March date for a spot in the pre-window on the Democratic party calendar, and Hawaii potentially shifting to a primary a week earlier, Idaho stands to actually be able to draw Republican candidates in March 2024. That is especially true in light of the fact that neighboring Washington also has a primary on the same date and will be the biggest delegate prize on a surprisingly thin date so early on the calendar. There would be more delegates at stake in the Pacific and Mountain northwest than in Mississippi, the only other state currently occupying the second Tuesday in March.
But those considerations seem to have taken a back seat to the cost considerations and the likely turnout gain for the May primary even with presidential primary that may fall after the nomination has been wrapped up.
--
As noted in the previous post on this bill, it still is not clear that this legislation builds back the same legal infrastructure that existed in 2011 when the presidential primary was wiped from the May primary portion of the electoral code and eliminated it altogether. The bill that created the separate presidential primary in 2012 (for the 2016 cycle) did not affect the May primary. However, that appeared to be of little concern to the State Affairs Committee on Wednesday. And it remains to be seen if that will be problematic to members on the floor of the state House.
--
Recent posts:
Tuesday, February 21, 2023
May Presidential Primary Bill Gets First Committee Hearing in Ohio House
The House version of an Ohio bill to move the Buckeye state presidential primary from March to May came before the Government Oversight Committee on Tuesday, February 21.
HB 21 sponsor, Rep. Daniel Troy (D-23rd, Willowick) introduced the measure and advocated for the date change before the panel, a committee on which three of the bill's co-sponsors sit. Troy did not break any new ground, leaning on the same arguments he has made publicly:
Candidates for all federal, state, and county offices will not have to be filing petitions for nomination to be on the November ballot, almost 11 months prior to that actual election in the preceding calendar year. Voter confusion will be minimized with a consistent date every spring (and assuredly better weather). With the redistricting process looming again, it provides more time to get all the ducks in a row before filing deadlines. It will shorten the election season and potentially allow more time for governing and less time for partisan politics.
And all of that went over well enough. It seemed. There were few tea leaves to read in this the bill's first hearing, but when the floor was opened for questions from the rest of the committee, only silence followed. Rep. Troy could only respond, "I guess that means it's a good bill."
To which committee chair, Rep. Bob Peterson (R-91st, Fayette) responded, "Unless it's a bad bill."
And that was it. Even with a bipartisan trio of co-sponsors on the 13 person committee, HB 21 likely faces an uphill climb among Republicans in control of enough of the levers of state governmental power to derail a move back on the presidential primary calendar ahead of a cycle in which the GOP will have a competitive nomination battle.
--
Related:
--
Recent posts:
Saturday, February 18, 2023
New Hampshire Senate Republicans Add a New Layer to Budding 2024 Delegate Fight
The year is young and yet the multi-front battle between a variety of interests in New Hampshire and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) simmers on.
National Republicans kept the presidential primary in the Granite state in its first-in-the-nation position for 2024. Democrats did not. And while the vocal proponents of the first-in-the-nation primary on both sides of the aisle in New Hampshire have stepped forward to vigorously defend that status, the various state-level actors involved are differently constrained in a matter that highlights well the complexities of a nomination system steeped in federalism and stretched across both governments and political parties. Republicans in the Granite state, for example, feel emboldened while the New Hampshire Democratic Party is stuck between a state law -- and the status it creates for the presidential primary -- and a national party that has taken formal steps to knock the contest from its typical perch in the process.
But that does not mean Democrats in the state are powerless. Those in the state Senate joined Republicans in unanimously advancing a resolution defending the primary. That was not a move without risks for Democrats in the state. Non-binding though that resolution may have been, the fact that state Senate Democrats supported it en masse could be viewed by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) as another datapoint -- another act of defiance -- that continues to build a case against New Hampshire Democrats. That case may ultimately lead to increased penalties on the New Hampshire Democratic delegation should the party allocate delegates based on a primary that is presumed to go rogue in 2024.
However, that symbolic gesture may be as far as New Hampshire Democrats in the state government are willing to go. None of them signed on to new legislation introduced this week and sponsored by the entire Republican Senate caucus. It is one thing for Granite state Democrats to support the first-in-the-nation status of the New Hampshire presidential primary in spirit, but Republicans have now moved on to second order issues in the process in an effort to shore up the operation of the FITN franchise.
All 14 New Hampshire Senate Republicans this week introduced SB 271, legislation that moves to protect delegates allocated and selected using the results of the presidential primary, rogue or not.
Here is the text [additions to existing law in bold italics]:
Delegates to National Party Conventions. Amend RSA 653:5 to read as follows:
653:5 Delegates to National Party Conventions. At every presidential primary election, the voters of the state shall vote their preference for party candidates for president and thereby choose the delegates to each presidential nominating convention to which the state is entitled. The New Hampshire delegates so selected shall be seated and have complete voting rights at any national party nominating convention.
That proposed change is apparently a bridge (of defiance) too far for state Senate Democrats, at least in terms of sponsoring the legislation. [Whether support is withheld during subsequent steps of the bill's consideration throughout the legislative process has yet to be seen.] In the near term, this is a costless act for Senate Republicans to attempt to advance this bill. The primary maintains its protection under current Republican National Committee (RNC) rules, and it matters little that there may be a law requiring delegates selected through the compliant primary to be seated at the Republican National Convention.
It is New Hampshire Democrats who would be drawn into further conflict with the Democratic National Committee if this bill is adopted and signed into law.
But here is the thing. The catch here is that this sort of legislation, if it ever becomes law, is unlikely to withstand any sort of legal challenge. A national convention determines the rules that govern it and the delegates/delegations that participate in it. State law does not; not in a direct way or as the final say in any event.
National parties set the rules for a nomination process and then states -- both state governments and state parties -- react to that guidance. In the vast majority of cases state laws and state party rules conform to the national party guidelines. Sometimes they do not. And when they fail to -- when a primary is too early or delegates are allocated in a prohibited manner -- there is a price to pay. National parties have contingencies if not penalties in place to deal with state parties operating in such rogue state scenarios. Moreover, national parties further frown on state parties and affiliated actors in state governments who flaunt the national rules. This is the position Senate Democrats in New Hampshire are in with this legislation. It is one thing to symbolically defend the first-in-the-nation primary, but it is another to attempt to dictate to a national party/national convention how to run part of its process. Courts usually side with the parties in these situations over state law. The parties, after all, retain the first amendment right to freedom of association and that tends to prevail in these sorts of state law versus party rules disputes.
But there is a state law already protecting the primary in New Hampshire that conflicts with national party rules on the Democratic side now too.1 That, too, would seemingly invite a potential court challenge now. Perhaps, but the timing of these things -- the different parts of New Hampshire state law overlapping with the national party rules -- is different. A rogue primary is one thing. There are penalties in place to deal with that and those issues are typically dealt with prior to the commencement of a national convention. See, for example, the Florida and Michigan situation from 2008.
Dictating in state law whether particular delegates shall be seated at a national convention run by a national party is another thing altogether. While the action of allocating and selecting the delegates happens well in advance of a national convention, the seating part obviously happens at said convention. The window for action is much smaller. And obviously -- and perhaps most importantly -- there are enforcement issues involved. Who under this proposed law is going to make the Democratic National Convention seat those delegates? Well, in the short window of time between any credentials fight over a rogue New Hampshire delegation, potentially at the convention in question, and a presidential candidate being nominated, the courts may be asked to step in. But again, those courts are likely to defer to the national party on the matter.
And the last thing New Hampshire Republicans likely want to do is invite scrutiny of any law in the Granite state that defines nomination processes in conflict with national party rules. That sets a precedent that possibly undermines New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation status even more in future cycles.
SB 271 may or may not ultimately go anywhere. It is Republican-sponsored legislation in a Republican-controlled state government. But at the outset, it is another symbolic measure that puts state Democrats even more on the defensive. In other words, it is good politics locally, but is unlikely to carry weight outside the borders of the Granite state or in the long term if implemented.
--
1 The first-in-the-nation primary law that has been in place since 1975 in New Hampshire has not directly come into conflict with national party rules since 1984 and has been directly protect in DNC rules in every cycle since. ...until 2024.
--
Recent posts:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)