Puerto Rico bill would create new avenue to canceling presidential primary

Legislation has been introduced in Puerto Rico to allow for the conditional cancelation of future state-run and funded presidential primary elections. 

Rep. José Varela Fernández (PPD-32nd) introduced PC 76 in January 2025. The measure would grant the government in the US territory the ability to cancel a presidential primary in the event that a presidential candidate has received the minimum number of delegates necessary clinch a nomination at least 30 days before the preference vote is scheduled on the island. 

The intent is twofold. First, the objective is to save money, not funding a choice-less primary vote. But also Varela Fernández's legislation would give the government the flexibility to call off a presidential primary vote should a repeat of the circumstances of 2024 arise again in future cycles. President Joe Biden faced only token opposition for the Democratic nomination and former President Trump wrapped up the Republican nomination well in advance of the late April vote. Both coasted to nominations that were decided well in advance of the two Puerto Rico primaries in 2024.

In the absence of the state-funded option, territorial parties would left to devise a method for conducting a presidential preference vote and electing delegates -- they are elected on the state-run primary ballot in Puerto Rico -- on their own. Both parties did as much in 2024 after the primary was canceled by the government in the territory.

Companion bill introduced in Ohio House to move presidential primary to May

Rep. Daniel Troy (D-23rd, Willowick) has for a second consecutive legislative session introduced a bill to move the presidential year primaries in the Buckeye state to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May. Currently, Ohio statute calls for the consolidated primary, including the presidential preference vote, to be conducted on the third Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

HB 197 is similar to legislation that Rep. Troy proposed and failed to move during the 2023 legislative session. The aim is to eliminate the presidential year exception to the timing of primaries in the Buckeye state, making the scheduling uniform across all years. 

The measure is identical to legislation introduced on the Senate side earlier in the 2025 session.

Missouri House passes Super Tuesday primary bill

The Missouri House on Monday, April 14 passed HB 126, a measure that would reestablish a state-run presidential primary in the Show-Me state and schedule the election for Super Tuesday. 43 Republicans from the majority, including four of five from leadership, joined all but one Democrat present (42 of 43) in voting in favor of the bill. The majority of Republicans -- 64 in total -- voted against HB 126.

Moving forward there is both a short term prognosis for the legislation but some longer term implications involved. For starters, HB 126 was merged with HB 367 at the committee stage. Together the combined bill not only restored the presidential primary but it also expanded the window for early voting from two to six weeks. That expansion remains in the final bill passed on Monday by the Missouri House. In discussions with the lead sponsor of similar legislation in the state Senate, however, the expanded early voting window will ultimately be scratched, squaring the two visions of the legislation across chambers and, perhaps, easing the path of HB 126 in the upper chamber. Yet, that would likely require a similar coalition of some majority Republicans banding together with all or most of the Senate Democrats. 

Over a longer time horizon, however, there are some additional roadblocks to Missouri becoming a presidential primary state (rather than a caucus and/or party-run primary state) again in 2028. HB 126 does not include any appropriation for the presidential primary election. That was left to future legislatures that may or may not be as open to the election itself and/or the fiscal tag required to implement it. Even if HB 126 passes the state Senate and is subsequently signed into law, there still may not be a presidential primary in Missouri for 2028 and beyond. 

The set up would be similar to that which existed in neighboring Kansas for years. The Sunflower state had a presidential primary on the books for two decades before it was eliminated for 2016. But Kansas legislatures during that period routinely refused to fund the election and had to go through the process of "canceling" it every four years

--

Final vote on HB 126: 85 in favor, 64 opposed, 2 present (one from each party)

--

Related: 

4/1/25: Missouri House tees up final passage on Super Tuesday presidential primary bill

2/26/25: Missouri House presidential primary bills merged, deemed "do pass" in committee

2/14/25: From Missouri, a competing bill to restore the Show-Me state presidential primary

Missouri House tees up final passage on Super Tuesday presidential primary bill

The Missouri House on Monday, March 31 put the final touches on legislation to reinstate a state-run presidential primary in the Show-Me state. HB 126 would set the primary election for the first Tuesday in March -- one week earlier than the primary had been in presidential cycles of the recent past -- and widen the in-person absentee voting window.

The floor amendments added during the "perfection" session on Monday clear the way for a third reading and final passage of the measure in the state House. This is as deep into the legislative process that a bill has moved since a similar effort was defeated on the floor of the House in April 2023. None of the primary reinstatement legislation introduced during the 2024 session moved beyond the committee stage. 

--

Related: 

2/26/25: Missouri House presidential primary bills merged, deemed "do pass" in committee

2/14/25: From Missouri, a competing bill to restore the Show-Me state presidential primary

Missouri House presidential primary bills merged, deemed "do pass" in committee

Two bills -- HB 126 and HB 367 -- pertaining to the reinstatement of the presidential primary in Missouri got an initial green light in the state House Elections Committee on Tuesday, February 25. 

Functionally, the two bills have been merged. The language from Rep. Banderman's HB 367, reestablishing a presidential primary in Missouri, scheduling the contest for Super Tuesday and broadening no-excuse in-person absentee voting was presented as a committee substitute to Rep. Veit's HB 126. Veit will now be the sponsor of the vehicle as it continues to wind through the legislative process. 

In executive session on Tuesday, the House Elections Committee voted "do pass" on the newly merged bills by a 7-4 tally. All Democrats in attendance (3) supported the measure while committee Republicans were evenly split.

The committee's action removes one scheduling option from the table: the one that sought to exactly replicate the parameters around the Missouri presidential primary as it existed prior to being eliminated in 2022. Although the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March option is now gone, there remains a Senate version that would revive the presidential primary in the Show-Me state and place it on the second Tuesday in March. 

West Virginia legislator angles for February presidential primary

West Virginia state House Delegate Michael Hite (R-92nd, Berkeley) has again introduced legislation to create a separate presidential primary election in the Mountain state and schedule the contest for earlier on the primary calendar. HB 2440 would break up the consolidated May primary in West Virginia, creating a separate presidential primary to be conducted on the third Tuesday in February.

The measure is identical to legislation -- HB 5288 -- Hite put forth during the 2024 legislative session. That bill languished in committee and died without action at the conclusion of the session. 

Such a move would put both major parties in the Mountain state at odds with the rules that have existed for presidential nomination processes dating back to the 2012 cycle. A February primary would cost the state parties national convention delegate under DNC and RNC guidelines for being earlier than March.

Iowa House measure would create first-in-the-nation presidential primary option

After Iowa Democrats lost their privileged position atop the presidential primary calendar in 2024, at least one Democrat in the Hawkeye state is pushing back. Rep. David Jacoby (D-86th, Coralville) has introduced HF 484 to establish a state-run presidential primary option alongside the state's long-running first-in-the-nation caucuses. 

On the one hand, Jacoby's legislation would align Iowa with the aims of national Democrats. The DNC has made a point over the last several cycles of encouraging increased participation in the presidential nomination process by nudging state Democratic parties toward primaries (state-run if possible) over state party-run caucuses. This bill successfully navigating the legislative process in Des Moines and being signed into law would shift Iowa Democrats closer to that national party goal. 

However, that one step forward is made in conjunction with another provision that runs counter to the national party rules with respect to the presidential primary calendar. On that front, Jacoby's bill would set the date for the state-run presidential primary for "at least four days earlier than the scheduled date for any meeting, caucus, or primary which constitutes the first determining stage of the presidential nominating process in any other state, territory, or any other group which has the authority to select delegates in the presidential nomination."

Now, no final decisions have been made by the DNC about which states will comprise the early window contests on the 2028 presidential primary calendar. That will not be settled until the late summer/early fall of 2026 at the earliest. Therefore, this bill would not necessarily put Iowa Democrats in the crosshairs of the national party with regard to the timing of this proposed state-run presidential primary. But nor does the potential law provide much statutory leeway either. If HF 484 becomes law and Iowa Democrats do not secure an early slot on the calendar -- and not just early, first -- then the state party would run afoul of national party rules, incurring sanctions. 

Indeed, Iowa would not only run afoul of the DNC rules under those circumstances, but that primary would also trigger the similar state law in New Hampshire (the seven days before any similar contest provision). And that would set off a race to see which state could organize the earliest (unsanctioned) contest the fastest, all under the auspices of state law in both cases. 

Those are all concerns that are layered into this particular bill. But there are issues back home in the Hawkeye state as well. Chief among those issues is that Democrats are locked out of power from the decision-making positions in Iowa. In other words, Jacoby would have to get at least some, if not a lot of buy-in from Republicans who hold the reins of power in both the legislative and executive branches in the state. It is not clear that Iowa Republicans, in or out of the legislature, would go for this bill. After all, the Republican Party of Iowa stuck with the first-in-the-nation caucuses in 2024 -- it was consistent with Republican National Committee calendar rules -- while state Democrats abandoned them for a vote-by-mail party-run presidential primary to stay within their national party's guidelines. 

An all new, state-run primary would also ostensibly require state funds to implement the legislation. There is no fiscal note included in this legislation, but any price tag would likely be met with some resistance from Republican legislators, who may or may not prefer the caucuses to a primary option. However, keeping Iowa first, as this bill does, would potentially win over some support for a primary option. Yet, given the presence of the caucus option already, it would likely be minimal. 

Some Iowa Democrats have been clamoring for a presidential primary option since 2023-24, and while this bill may meet that wish, it faces an uphill climb for a host of reasons.

--

NOTE: Counter to the reporting from KAAL TV in southern Minnesota, this legislation would not "end the [presidential] caucus system" in Iowa. Rather, it would provide for a state-run primary option if a state party chair requested such an election from the state commissioner of elections. The caucuses would remain an option, the default option in fact.

An early update on presidential primary movement in 2025

There are likely much larger fish to fry at the moment, and besides, it remains very early in the 2028 presidential nomination cycle. But actors on the state level in state legislatures across the country are laying the groundwork for the next round of (state-funded) presidential primary elections now. 

But as was the case during the 2024 legislative sessions in state capitols around the nation, much of the work is predominantly of two different varieties. First, legislators in states with recently eliminated presidential primary elections have attempted to bring those elections back. Much of the 2024 activity on that front was in an effort to rescue the elections for 2024. 

As it turned out those efforts were for naught. Legislators in neither Idaho nor Missouri were successful during the early months of the presidential election year in reviving state-funded presidential preference elections. And so far, only a handful of bills in Missouri have been introduced in 2025 to reverse the elimination of the primary in the Show-Me state.

The other grouping of legislation at the state level is a series of bills that have been raised in the past and have gone nowhere. Whether that changes in 2025 is yet to be determined, but if past is prelude, then many of these measures will gather dust in committee before dying at the end of legislative sessions. Count bills in Hawaii, New York, Ohio and Oregon among this group. 

In total, this is about what one should expect of legislation to shift presidential primaries around on the calendar this far in advance of another series of nomination contests. Very simply, the urgency is just not there this far out, nor is the attention with other more pressing matters before legislators at both the national and state levels. And that is reflected in the figure above: The success rate of primary legislation in the year following a presidential election is very low. It is low anyway, regardless of year, but the activity is at its nadir in the year after and typically at its peak during the session in the year immediately prior to a presidential election year. 

--

For more on the 2028 presidential primary calendar see the bare bones up-to-date calendar here and the 2028 presidential primary calendar plus here at FHQ Plus. Last update here.

Alternate Missouri Senate bill would reestablish presidential primary and schedule for April

The fourth of four bills currently before the Missouri General Assembly in its 2025 state legislative session would also bring back the presidential primary nixed in 2022 but schedule the election for yet another -- a fourth -- distinct date on the calendar. 

SB 417, introduced by Senator Jill Carter (R-32nd, Jaspar/Newton), resurrects ideas first brought forth in discussions over similar legislation in 2023. Namely, the objective, then as now, would be to consolidate the presidential preference primary with the general election for municipal offices on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in April. Only, the 2025 version contains a twist. 

The catch to conducting concurrent presidential primaries with a general election for municipal offices is an administrative one. The consolidation would require election administrators to simultaneously print both partisan primary ballots and effectively nonpartisan general election ballots as one across all municipalities (and the offices contained therein) together. It was that issue that played at least some role in derailing the push to reinstate the presidential primary in the Show-Me state before 2024: Administrators balked at the potential complexity introduced into the process. 

However, there is a fix to that snag in Carter's SB 417. The senator would have all presidential candidates regardless of party listed on the ballot for the presidential primary/municipal general election. There would be no Democratic ballot, no Republican ballot, no ballot for those wishing to simply vote in municipal elections. Instead, everything would be on one ballot that all Missouri voters turning out in early April would receive. Results would then be delivered to state party chairs who would in turn allocate delegate slots to candidates identified with the respective parties. 

Left unspecified is how the uncommitted line (or lines) on the ballot would be treated. If there is merely one uncommitted option, then it could serve as a catch-all that is difficult to parse out along partisan lines for the purposes of allocation. That problem could potentially be solved by placing an uncommitted (Democratic) line in addition to an uncommitted (Republican) option on the ballot. But it is not clear in Carter's legislation which is the prescribed protocol. 

So, one leftover administrative issue is addressed, but in so doing, a possible unintended consequence is introduced. 

On the Missouri Senate side, bill would schedule a reinstated presidential primary in March

There are two bills currently in the Missouri state House to reinstate a presidential primary in the Show-Me state, but there is also action on the matter in the upper chamber in Jefferson City. 

In fact, legislation has also been introduced in the Missouri state Senate to bring back the state-funded presidential preference election eliminated by the General Assembly in 2022. One measure, SB 670 introduced by Senator David Gregory (R-15th, St. Louis), is more in line with HB 126 which would basically reset conditions to where they were with respect to the parameters of the presidential primary prior to 2022. That is to say that the primary election would revert to a position on the presidential primary calendar following Super Tuesday. 

But the two are not identical. The House version replicates the pre-2022 language in state law. In it, the primary would fall on the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March. However, Gregory's SB 670 strips out the latter portion and simply schedules the presidential preference election for the second Tuesday in March. In most years, including 2028, there is no difference between the two: the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March is often the second Tuesday in March. 

The exception is when March begins on a Tuesday. When March 1 falls on a Tuesday, then the second Tuesday in March is March 8. But the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March is not until March 15. It is the same reason it appears as if the Missouri presidential primary moved up a week from 2016 to 2020. In the former year, March began on a Tuesday. 

In the grand scheme of things, none of this is all that consequential. Yet, it is meaningful that none of the three Missouri bills discussed in this space thus far in 2025 are aligned on what the date of any reinstated presidential primary would be. And that is part of what derailed the 2023 efforts to revive the presidential primary in the Show-Me state. 

From Missouri, a competing bill to restore the Show-Me state presidential primary

Earlier this week, FHQ raised legislation introduced in Missouri that aims to reestablish the presidential primary formally nixed in 2022. That bill envisions a Super Tuesday primary in early March. But it is not the only measure seeking to reinstate the presidential preference election in the Show-Me state. 

A similar state House bill -- HB 126 -- would also bring back the state-funded presidential primary, but the legislation from Rep. Rudy Veit (R-59th, Wardsville) would schedule the election for the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March. Veit's legislation would turn back the clock, reestablishing the parameters under which the state's presidential primary was conducted before it was eliminated. There would be no Super Tuesday and no expansion of absentee voting as is the case in the competing House bill.

Veit filed similar legislation in late 2022 ahead of the 2023 legislative session in Jefferson City. It and other bills met roadblocks along the way in the legislative process and ultimately amounted to nothing.

New York bill introduced to move February presidential primary to April

Last week new legislation was filed in the New York Assembly to shift the presidential primary in the Empire state from February to April. A 4421 would not only move the presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the fourth Tuesday in April, but would also push the late June congressional primary to August. 

But the bill from Assemblymember Andrew Molitor (R-150th, Westfield) requires some further unpacking.

First, this is not a new idea. Versions of this same legislation were put forth in each of the last two legislative sessions. And in neither case did the bills go anywhere. This is all despite the fact that the New York presidential primary ended up scheduled for sometime in April in each of the last four cycles. [Note: Covid did ultimately push the April 2020 presidential primary to June.]

The past inaction says something about those previous bills: They break (and have broken) with the post-2008 protocol that has been established in the Empire state for dealing with the scheduling of the presidential primary election. No legislation since 2007 has sought to permanently change the date of the election. Instead, when late spring rolls around in the year before the presidential election, the New York state legislature introduces legislation crafted in consultation with the state parties to not only set the date of the presidential primary in the state but to define the terms of delegate allocation and selection to be used by each of the major parties. That legislation then sunsets after the general election, reverting the primary to the date set for the 2008 primary in 2007: the (noncompliant) first Tuesday in February. 

There is no indication that there is any momentum behind this latest effort to change that protocol. While the current method does technically put New York parties in noncompliance with national party rules, that reality at the very least forces legislators to revisit both the timing and method of delegate selection every four years. And theoretically at least that provides them an opportunity to carve out an advantageous position on the calendar (even if the default has been to place the election in April sometime).

--

There is alternate legislation this session to permanently shift the primary to June as well.

Super Tuesday bill would reinstate Missouri presidential primary

Efforts have once again been revived in Missouri to rescue the Show-Me state's presidential primary after it was eliminated during the 2022 General Assembly session. Neither legislation filed in 2023 nor 2024 was successful in reinstating the state-funded option for the 2024 cycle. 

But work has started early in Jefferson City with 2028 in mind. One such bill, HB 367 from Rep. Brad Banderman (R-119th, St. Clair), would not only bring the presidential primary election back as a standalone contest, but would schedule the election for the first Tuesday in March, Super Tuesday. Unlike the other bills put forth, Banderman's legislation would also expand the window for early in-person absentee voting from two to six weeks. 

Under new legislation the Oregon presidential primary would shift up to March

A new bill filed in the Oregon state Senate would move the consolidated primary in the Beaver state, including the presidential primary, from the third Tuesday in May to the first Tuesday in March (Super Tuesday).

SB 392 was introduced last month by Senator Fred Girod (R-9th, Stayton) and would change the primary date to March in presidential years alone. In all other years, the primary would continue to fall on the third Tuesday in May. Similar legislation that has been raised in past cycles has gone nowhere, left to languish in committee.

Legislation introduced in New York would shift presidential primary to noncompliant date

Senator James Skoufis (D-42nd) has introduced a bill in the New York State Senate to consolidate the presidential primary in the Empire state with the primaries for state and local offices. 

S 1687, like the similar bills that have been filed in the three previous legislative sessions in Albany, would combine the presidential preference vote with other primaries on the fourth Tuesday in June. The intent is simple enough: to reduce the burden on both the state and its voters by forgoing the expense of administering a separate presidential primary election. 

But there is a catch. Noble though the goals of this legislation may or may not be, a late June presidential primary would run afoul of both national parties' delegate selection rules. The contest would fall too late in the cycle and would thus incur penalties for any New York state party that did not opt out of the primary and hold a party-funded and run contest on an earlier and compliant date. 

UPDATE (2/12/25): 

A companion bill, identical to the Senate version, has also been filed in the New York Assembly. A 5058, introduced by Assemblymember Jonathan Jacobson (D-104th, Newburgh), would also change the presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the fourth Tuesday in June (from one noncompliant date to another).

Ohio Senate Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to May

Legislation has once again been introduced by Ohio state Senator William DeMora (D-25th, Franklin) to move the presidential year primaries in the Buckeye state to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May. Currently, Ohio statute calls for the consolidated primary, including the presidential preference vote, to be conducted on the third Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

SB 37 is similar to legislation that Sen. DeMora proposed and was unsuccessful in moving during the 2023 legislative session. The aim is to eliminate the presidential year exception to the timing of primaries in the Buckeye state, making the scheduling uniform across all years. 

Hawaii bill seeks to establish state-run presidential primary for 2028

Sen. Karl Rhoads (D-13th, Dowsett Highlands) introduced SB 114 to establish a state-run and funded presidential primary in the Aloha state. The election would be scheduled for the first Tuesday after the first Monday in April. 

That would fall on April 4, 2028 (the same day on which the Connecticut and Wisconsin primaries are currently scheduled).

There is a central tension point in the New Hampshire presidential primary situation, but this still isn't it.

Updated (2:15pm, Wednesday, November 15):

New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan set the presidential primary date for January 23, 2024. 

--

Original post:

It is primary date announcement day in New Hampshire.

Later today, Secretary of State David Scanlan will follow his statutorily-defined role and officially schedule next year's presidential presidential primary in the Granite state. It will answer the question of when the contest will occur on the 2024 presidential primary calendar, but that action will do little to change what has been clear for some time: New Hampshire will have an early contest and it will conflict with Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules for this cycle. 

But again, that has been clear for a while now. Republicans control the levers of power in the state and balked at making any changes to business as usual in terms of how the primary date gets decided every four years. That left in place a law that requires Secretary Scanlan to schedule the primary at least seven days before any other similar election. And Scanlan has maintained for nearly a year now that he intended to follow state law. Unless he takes issue with something in the Iowa Republican Party plans for 2024, then the primary will most likely land on January 23. [In none of Scanlan's comments since Iowa's Republican Party scheduled the caucuses there has he indicated that there is anything problematic.]

None of what will happen today, much less much of what has happened (or not happened) in New Hampshire state government this year has much of anything to do with the DNC calendar changes for the 2024 cycle. Well, they have not had much to do with it for months anyway. 

That is not where the tension is. That is not where the tension has been. But that did not stop NPR from pointing the finger in the wrong direction in a story about the announcement today. No, instead Josh Rogers gives us New Hampshire is expected to set a primary date that will buck Biden's preference.

Just to reiterate: All of that -- New Hampshire Secretary of State Scanlan not going along with Biden and the DNC's calendar design for 2024 -- has been a known known for most of 2023. And that has not been where the tension has been in this first-in-the-nation ordeal. Instead, that tension lies where it has been: in an intra-party dispute on the Democratic side between the national party and the New Hampshire Democratic Party. 

Look, FHQ realizes that New Hampshire Democrats are not going to budge on this. They just aren't. But the decision makers in the state party have and have had the power to defuse this situation all along. All they had to do -- all they have to do -- is plan for a party-run process that complies with national party rules and not go along with a rogue primary and primary date. Yes, that far easier said than done. There are political pressures that those same decision makers face from the rank-and-file members of the state party. And that is all well and good.

However, that is where the tension is in all of this. It is not and has not been between the DNC and Scanlan or Biden and Scanlan. And stories that are inevitably going to pursue that angle in the wake of the secretary's decision today are barking up the wrong tree. They just are. Today's announcement is meaningful in that it will answer the question of when the primary will be. It is an early contest in the process and that is important. 

But disputes with the DNC? That is all about the New Hampshire Democratic Party opting into a contest that the secretary of state sets, not the secretary himself or the action he is on the verge of taking. And the NPR piece is another in a long line of them that fails to note that. 

This is a fact that will become more and more prominent in the context of the Democratic calendar standoff as it will now move into the consideration of penalties phase. And the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee has already given strong indications about where that is headed. 

--

Over at FHQ Plus...

Some additional clarity on Republican delegate allocation rules at the state level

Gavin Newsom is running for president

Revisiting effective winnowing

Actually, Dean Phillips has broken any DNC rules. ...yet.

--

Recent posts:

Which couple of states?

Why DeSantis Attacks Haley

There is no path to the Democratic nomination that goes through New Hampshire

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and now find us on Threads: (@fhq.plus) and Bluesky (fhq@bsky.social).

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

Which couple of states?

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• The Biden campaign officially informing Democrats in New Hampshire that he would not file to appear on the presidential primary ballot brought out all usual points in the stories about the national party's standoff with decision makers in the Granite state. ...and all the usual omissions. All the details at FHQ Plus.

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

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

Leave it to FHQ to locate and respond to something buried deep in a piece on Biden and New Hampshire. Well, in truth, that is where the primary calendar stuff usually gets tucked away. And Steven Porter's recent article at The Boston Globe saved the intrigue for the final line of a story about New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan's reaction to Biden skipping out on the primary there: 

"Scanlan said he’s not quite ready to announce the date of the 2024 primary. He’s still keeping an eye on a couple of states to make sure they don’t try to jump ahead."

But which "couple of states?"

There are not a lot of states with legislatures currently in session. And fewer are actually looking at moving presidential primaries around. None of those efforts are particularly active at this late date. So it is unlikely that Scanlan is eyeing any state with a state-run process, a primary that would definitively conflict with the oft-discussed first-in-the-nation presidential primary law in New Hampshire. 

All that leaves are some question marks in states that project to have party-run processes in 2024, party-run processes that will not necessarily trigger any action from Scanlan in Concord. What is missing on that front are answers to where contests in Alaska, Wyoming and four of the five territories will end up in the order. [Ahem.] Let's go ahead and scratch the territories from the list. Call them what one will. Primary or caucus. It really does not matter. Those contests will be party-run and in locales far away from both New Hampshire and where the candidates are likely to be next January. And there just are not a lot of delegates at stake.¹ 

It would appear, then, that Scanlan is referring to the uncertainty surrounding the dates of the Republican delegate selection events in Alaska and Wyoming. But a caucus, which is how Republicans in those states have typically chosen to select and allocate delegates, is not a primary. 

Now, it used to be that the distinction from the New Hampshire perspective as to defining a "similar election" was not primary or caucus -- even if that became the shorthand -- but rather, whether the threatening contest allocated delegates or not. That was the line that former New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner drew. Iowa's caucuses were always in the clear because neither Democratic nor Republican caucuses in the Hawkeye state allocated (bound) delegates to the national convention. 

Even that line got blurred in recent years. Wyoming Republicans jumped the New Hampshire primary in 2008 and stayed there on January 5, three days before the primary in the Granite state. And those caucuses allocated some but not all of Wyoming's Republican delegates that cycle. Actions in Iowa in recent cycles also helped to further muddle things. In 2016, Republicans in Iowa bound delegates to candidates for the first time in response to changes in Republican National Committee rules, and a cycle later Hawkeye state Democrats reported more than just state delegate equivalents on caucus night which more clearly bound delegates to particular candidates. In neither case did Bill Gardner opt to leapfrog Iowa. 

So what Scanlan is waiting on is probably not that. The hold up with Alaska and Wyoming Republicans is twofold. Yes, it is the when. When will the contest occur. But it is also the how. How will those parties conduct their processes. That may have something to do with what the parties in Alaska and Wyoming call their delegate selection events -- primary or caucus -- but it may have more to do with whether they include a mail-in option or something else that makes the processes more "primary-like" in Scanlan's eye.

But if past cycles are any indication, then Alaska Republicans will likely land on Super Tuesday and Wyoming Republicans will claim a spot some time in March. And it would not be a total surprise if both end up on March 2, the weekend before Super Tuesday. 

All of this is to say that it still looks very much like New Hampshire will be scheduled for January 23. Scanlan may not officially make that decision, but it is pretty safe to continue to assume that that is the date. The secretary has some time anyway before settling on a date. And it is always better safe than sorry in the Granite state. 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• Silver travel: Both Trump and DeSantis have rare events scheduled in Nevada this weekend. And there is some intrigue to who the Florida governor may be hanging out with at the confab he is attending in Las Vegas.
• Moving on?: Another big money backer may now be leaning toward Nikki Haley in the Republican nomination race. Ken Griffin, who earlier in the cycle was behind DeSantis and then backed off, may now be inching toward Haley. 
• MASSive money: Losing Griffin is less a problem when DeSantis can raise half a million dollars in events in Massachusetts. 
• It doesn't hurt: Endorsements from former members of Congress may be discounted, but it is better to have them than not. Haley reeled in the support of former New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg. 
• FLip: Florida state Rep. Randy Fine has withdrawn his endorsement of Governor Ron DeSantis and lined up behind Trump.
• Crunch time: Michigan Democrats in the state legislature are acting like they are going to adjourn the session early. ...which will mean the new presidential primary law can take effect in time to facilitate a February 27 primary.

--

¹ Now, Puerto Rico does offer more delegates than New Hampshire, but Republicans there would cede all but nine of them to penalties in order to challenge the Granite state on the calendar. There are also some quirks that do make the Puerto Rico Republican process a bit of a wild card, but it is not that wild. There is uncertainty as to what the date of the contest there may be, but it very likely will not fall on any date before March.

--

Recent posts:

Why DeSantis Attacks Haley

There is no path to the Democratic nomination that goes through New Hampshire

It is tough to move the Pennsylvania presidential primary

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and now find us on Threads: (@fhq.plus) and Bluesky (fhq@bsky.social).

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

It is tough to move the Pennsylvania presidential primary

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• The DNC has quietly had a pretty interesting conversation about ranked choice voting in the presidential nomination process this cycle. Not much is going to change on the surface for 2024 -- RCV will have the same basic footprint as in 2020 -- but there have been some important changes under the hood that bring the practice more in line with DNC rules. All the details at FHQ Plus.
• I included the wrong link to the DNCRBC meeting recap yesterday. You can find that deep dive here if you missed it.

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

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

Despite a flurry of legislative activity over the last month and a half, an inter-chamber impasse played a role in derailing the effort to shift the presidential primary in the Keystone state up to an earlier and potentially more influential date. 

It is not a new story. It is not even really a partisan story. Yes, Republicans control the Pennsylvania state Senate and Democrats have the narrowest of majorities in the lower chamber. However, Democrats in the Senate largely supported the effort to move the primary from the fourth Tuesday in April to the third Tuesday in March (March 19). House Democrats countered with a bill that would have shifted the primary to April 2, in line with primaries in several other regional/neighboring states.

But part of the impetus behind the change in the first place was to fix the conflict the presidential primary had with the observance of Passover. The Senate version did that and the House version did too. However, the latter legislation would have had the primary butting up against Easter weekend. And as consideration of the primary move stretched into the fall, election administrators across Pennsylvania got antsy about their preparations for the next election cycle after the current one ends. And that does not even mention some of the other elections-related riders that made it into the House-amended version of the Senate bill when it originally came before the body earlier in October. 

Basically, the effort got mired in the legislative process. And even though the House struck the entirety of the previous version of the Senate-passed bill, replacing it with only one provision calling for the primary to shift up a week to April 16 to clear the Passover conflict (and passing it), the Senate does not seem inclined to take up the measure. 

It is too late. 

Look, there was a lot involved in this Pennsylvania process this year. There is not just one explanation for why the primary in the commonwealth will once again be scheduled for the fourth Tuesday in April. But it is worth noting that Pennsylvania has nearly always held down that position on the presidential primary calendar. Only twice has the primary strayed from that spot. And both the 1984 and 2000 primaries were only marginally earlier in April. 

Why? 

Unlike other states in the immediate aftermath of the Democratic Party rules changes that ushered in reforms to the nomination system, the reaction in Pennsylvania was more muted. Ahead of 1972, the state already had a primary well-enough in advance of a summer national convention. In other words, a presidential primary to allocate and select delegates could easily be consolidated with that spring primary. And it was. 

But in other states, especially those with late summer and early fall primaries for other offices, that was not an option. Decision makers in those states had to either uproot that primary and schedule it alongside a new presidential primary or create and fund a separate presidential primary election. Many took the latter route and normalized the expenditure in the state budget. 

Back in Pennsylvania, the consolidated primary left decision makers there in much the same dilemma as those early post-reform actors in other states anytime a push to reschedule the presidential primary in the Keystone state arose. Only, more often than not, the thinking in Pennsylvania was not to create and fund a separate election but to move everything up to an earlier date, dates that would place the filing process in the previous year and conflict with the conclusion of the previous off-year elections. 

That is why Pennsylvania barely moved the two times since 1972 that the primary date has been changed. That, in turn, has meant that a separate primary never got normalized nor did the practice of revisiting the date on a regular basis. Very simply, the concept was foreign to legislators in the state. It still is: 

[Rep. Arvind] Venkat also said moving the presidential primary on a year-by-year basis could be subject to the whim of the party in control of the legislature depending on whether it would be beneficial.

“The only pathway forward if we are going to move our primary is to change the election code on a permanent basis,” Venkat said.

So yes, many of the above stories about partisan squabbles or inter-chamber impasses or poison pill riders or election administrator pushback will get woven into the narrative on this non-move. But there is an institutional story too. The consolidated primary -- one that has nearly always been where it is -- is almost set in stone and there has not been much appetite to change that over the years. There has been some. It almost always comes up in the years before a presidential election year, but it also almost always goes nowhere. 

...and fast. The hurdles are too steep.

...

From around the invisible primary...

• The Post and Courier has a rundown of the two South Carolinians' third quarter fundraising. Both Haley and Scott have plenty in the coffers for the time being, but Haley saw the trajectory of her efforts increase more during the last three months as compared to Scott. 
• Trump leads the way in the money primary in Oklahoma, raising more than three times his nearest competitor in the Sooner state since the beginning of 2022.
• It is too bad this South Carolina candidate visit tracker has not been updated recently. I like those things and I'll flag this one from The Post and Courier here. 
• Vivek Ramaswamy filed for the New Hampshire primary in Concord today. 
• Florida Governor Ron DeSantis launched the Veterans for DeSantis Coalition today and will have its first formal even in Anderson, South Carolina on Thursday, October 19.

--

Recent posts:

Is confusion inevitable in the Nevada Republican Party primary/caucus situation?

In Nevada, a choice between a symbolic win and delegates

The incentives of chasing delegates in California's Republican primary

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and find us on Threads: @fhq.plus.

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