Showing posts with label state and local primaries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label state and local primaries. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Alabama House Votes to Move Presidential/Other Primaries to March

The Alabama state House today voted nearly unanimously to move both the presidential primary and those for state and local office to March. By a vote of 99-1, the House passed HB 425 which would shift the presidential primary back from the first Tuesday in February to the first second Tuesday in March while the primaries for state and local offices would move to the same March date from the traditional first Tuesday in June date.

This bill replaced an earlier bill -- HB 32 -- that sought to move the presidential primary back to June to coincide with the primaries for state and local offices as a cost savings measure. Those costs are still saved under the new provision by holding both sets of primaries concurrently in March.

The Republican-sponsored legislation now heads over the Senate where it has until mid-June to be considered prior to the legislature adjourning for the year.

NOTE: As this bill has now passed the House and more than seemingly replaced Rep. Clouse's original bill, Alabama will be reshaded on the map on the 2012 presidential primary calendar.


Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Bill to Move Presidential Caucuses and State Primaries Passes Colorado Senate

The Colorado Senate today passed SB 189; a bill that would shift both the Centennial state's presidential precinct caucuses and the primaries for state and local offices. As FHQ mentioned last month when the bill was introduced, the presidential precinct caucuses would move up from the third Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in March. The state and local primaries would be moved up from the second Tuesday in August to the last Tuesday in June in order to comply with the federal mandate called for in the MOVE act -- providing for 45 day buffer between the completion of the nomination process and the general election -- passed by Congress in 2009.

The bill now moves to the Colorado state House. FHQ will have the final vote tally when it is made available.


Christie Signals Support for June Primary in New Jersey

Gov. Chris Christie said Tuesday he’s inclined to move New Jersey’s 2012 presidential primary to June to save money and avoid penalties such as losing delegates.

New Jersey law says the primary will be held Feb.7, 2012, but that would violate new national party rules designed to prevent the chaos of the 2008 primary season, when states were competing for prominence by pushing their dates earlier and earlier.

“My inclination would be to say, listen these rules are so kind of screwy now about how we’re going to pick delegates … that I don’t know whether it’s enough value for New Jersey to move up,” Christie said in response to a question at a town hall in Cape May. “We’re going to have election in June anyway, especially in 2012 because we have a United States senate race at the top of the ticket.”

Christie said he’d have to get an agreement from the Democrats who hold the majority in both houses of the Legislature to change the law. He already has an unlikely ally in Assemblyman John Wisniewski, the state Democratic Party Chairman, who has submitted a bill to consolidate all primaries June. A Republican senator and an assemblyman are also sponsoring similar bills.


This is the first inkling of movement from New Jersey since the bill (A3777) cited above was introduced in February. The two Republican bills (S71 and A757) mentioned have been in committee since being introduced in February 2010. Like California, the savings from consolidating the two sets of primaries are being touted by proponents, but the underlying partisan implications are potentially important as well. That Republican Assemblymembers in California (There was unanimous bipartisan support for the bill moving the California primary back to June in the vote on Monday.) and the Republican governor of New Jersey are willing to set partisan concerns aside is indicative.

The savings are being valued over giving voters in the two states -- Republican voters especially -- a meaningful voice in the nomination process. Of course, Democrats with power over date-setting in more Democratic states are gambling that early and more conservative states will produce a conservative nominee that will not fare as well against President Obama while some Republicans in those same states are not resisting in the hopes that the nomination has yet to be determined by the time the process gets to what would be two primaries (California and New Jersey) at the tail end of the primary calendar.

And perhaps it should be mentioned that this is the clearest indication yet that Chris Christie will not run for the Republican nomination. Taking away a potentially early burst of delegates from your home state -- something favorite sons have benefited from to varying degrees of success in the past -- is no way to manage a presidential run.


Wednesday, April 6, 2011

DC Council Passes Bill to Move Primaries to April

The Washington DC City Council on Tuesday passed B19-90, a bill to move the presidential and local primaries to the first Tuesday in April. The presidential primary would shift from the second Tuesday in February and the local primaries would move up to April from September. The former brings the District in line with the national parties' rules on the timing of the presidential primary there while the latter move is in accordance with the federal mandate handed down in the MOVE act.

If signed by the mayor, this legislation would align DC with the Maryland presidential primary. Interestingly, both bills passed -- council or legislature -- a year to the day before the date on which the bills propose the primaries in each be held: April 3.

Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for passing this information along.


Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Maryland House Bill to Move Presidential Primary to April Unanimously Passes Senate

The Maryland Senate for the second time in as many weeks passed a bill designed to move the Old Line state's presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in April. Last week the Senate passed and sent off to the House SB 501, but today state senators voted 46-0 to pass HB 671. That bill has now passed both houses of the legislature and will head off to Governor Martin O'Malley for his signature.

A few other notes:
  1. The bill was originally proposed by the governor's office and had/has support of the leadership in both parties in both houses of the legislature.
  2. HB 671 would also move the primaries for state and local offices from September to the last Tuesday in June.
  3. If the move to February for the 2008 primary season is any guide here, the Senate bill will pass the House first and the two will be concurrently signed in to law together.
Hat tip to Matt Verghese for the tweet and the news.


Monday, April 4, 2011

Bill to Move All Alabama Primaries to March in Presidential Election Years Introduced

Last week Rep. Steve Clouse (R-93rd, Dale & Houston) introduced HB 425; the representative's second proposed bill to amend the current election law regarding the state's presidential primaries. Whereas his earlier bill, HB 32, sought to shift the February presidential primary back to June to coincide with the primaries for state and local offices, though, the new legislation seeks to move the presidential primary back to the first second Tuesday in March -- to comply with national party rules -- and to move the June primaries for state and local offices up. The move for state and local primaries from June to March would only be in presidential election years and would keep Alabama early enough in the presidential primary process to ensure Alabama voters the opportunity to participate meaningfully in presidential nomination selection.

But the bill, if enacted, would also accomplish the task of saving the state some money by combining the presidential primary with the primaries for state and local offices. The savings were not enough in the initial bill to offset pushing the state's presidential primary out of the window of decisiveness over the nomination races. The new bill addresses that main concern in the original legislation.


Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Primary Bill Passes Unanimously in Maryland Senate

On Tuesday, the Maryland Senate unanimously passed (46-0) SB 501, the amended version of which shifts the Old Line state's presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in April. The legislation would also move the primaries for state and local offices from September to the last Tuesday in June in order to keep the state in compliance with the federal MOVE act. Originally, the bill called for a first Tuesday in March presidential primary and a second Tuesday in July primary for state and local offices, but SB 501 was amended to resemble the competing Senate bill, SB 820, a bill that mirrored the House version (HB 671) passed last week. The two measures -- House and Senate -- have the bipartisan sponsorship of the leadership and have both subsequently passed unanimously. In other words, it is only a matter of time before these bills find their way to Governor O'Malley's desk for approval. And since the bills were introduced at the governor's request, his signature should be considered something of a foregone conclusion.


Thursday, March 24, 2011

Maryland House Unanimously Passes Primary Bill, But Senate Version May Now Be at Odds [UPDATED]

The Maryland House yesterday unanimously passed a measure shifting the presidential primary from February to April and the primaries for state and local offices from September to June. HB 671 passed 139-0. The passage of this bill has always been something of a foregone conclusion considering both the Democratic and Republican leadership in the House sponsored the legislation on the request of Governor Martin O'Malley (D).

However, the ease with which this process may resolve itself may have met some resistance today in the Maryland Senate. The Education, Health and Environmental Affairs committee passed by a 9-2 vote an amended version of SB 501 today. That bill differs from the original companion to the House bill (SB 820) in that the presidential primary would be moved from February to the first Tuesday in March, not April and the state and local primaries would be moved to the second Tuesday in July and not the third Tuesday in June. Part of that was rectified in the amendments offered and adopted by the committee, but now the bill headed to the state Senate floor does not match the House version.

The amendments added the leadership to the list of sponsors which originally included only Education, Health and Environmental Affairs committee vice chair, Senator Roy Dyson (D-29th, Calvert, Charles & St. Mary's Counties) and altered the language concerning the timing of the primaries for state and local offices -- changing the proposed July date to the preferred June date. Dyson alluded to the consensus behind the June date in his comments in the committee hearing for both Senate bills last week. But he didn't say much about the presidential primary's timing. And that portion was left unamended in the version of SB 501 that passed while SB 820 was left in committee. The fact that the leadership was added to the list of sponsors is an interesting pseudo-seal of approval on a measure that will now go to the floor.

The result is that now the Senate version calls for a March primary while the House version -- a version that has passed the chamber already -- endorses an April presidential primary. A few things could happen here. First, SB 820 could emerge from committee and be passed as is and everything is fine. Second, as we saw in Missouri recently, the bill could be amended on the floor to include the April presidential primary date. The third option is that the newly amended SB 501 passes and the two chambers have to figure out how to reconcile the differences on the presidential primary date. Both of the changes bring Maryland into compliance with the national party rules, so that issue is not complicating the matter any.

UPDATE: The Washington Post has more including:
The Senate is expected to amend a similar bill to reflect the provisions of the House version Friday, according to an aide to the Senate president.
The article also says that the House bill passed on Monday. Yeah, it looks that way, and you would probably have to check daily like FHQ does to know this, but the bill passed the House yesterday. The House treated yesterday, March 23, as the March 21 legislative day (see also today's House agenda).



Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Colorado Bill to Shift Presidential Caucuses Up Two Weeks

Last week in the Colorado Senate a bill was introduced to move the date on which the state's state and local primaries are held from the last week in August to the last week in June. The bill was designed to bring the Centennial state into compliance with the federal mandates called for in the MOVE act passed by Congress in 2009. Sponsored by Senator Rollie Heath (D-18th, Boulder), the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee chair, SB 189 also shifts the state precinct caucuses -- used for presidential delegate allocation -- up from the third Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in March.

As was discussed earlier on FHQ in the context of the Minnesota caucuses situation that arose in February, it is rare for state law to cover the timing of caucuses. Typically that task is left up to the state parties. However, Colorado and Minnesota are the two most consistent exceptions to that rule.

The Colorado bill was introduced on March 10 and referred to Heath's committee then as well.


Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Goodbye Potomac Primary. Hello Mid-Atlantic Primary?

The D.C. Council moved forward with a bill Tuesday to set the presidential and local primary for the first Tuesday in April 2012.

There's one more vote on the bill before it becomes final. On Tuesday, as they discussed the bill, several councilmembers raised the idea of teaming up with Maryland and Delaware to hold their primaries on the same day. And a potential "Mid-Atlantic Primary" is not beyond reach: Both Maryland and Delaware are considering the first Tuesday in April as well.

There are hearings this week in the Maryland Senate over the two competing bills there to move the Old Line state's primary back to the first Tuesday in either March or April. The latter seemingly has more institutional support. That in conjunction with what is happening with the DC Council appears to put some movement behind the idea of an early April primary for Maryland and DC. But this Delaware twist is a new one. There may have been some interstate discussions between Democratic Party officials on the state party level, but that has yet to materialize in Delaware in the form of legislation to alter the date on which the First state's primary is held. That said, as FHQ mentioned a couple of weeks ago, we are right around the same time period in the cycle in which the Delaware legislature proposed legislation to move the primary ahead of the 2004 primaries.

The only observation one can take from this subregional cluster is that it lacks -- with Delaware substituting for Virginia -- some of the same punch the Potomac primary had in terms of delegates at stake in 2008. The Democratic bonuses for going in April and as a group will help make up some of that difference. And the state Republican Parties will have the option of allocating delegates on a winner-take-all basis as well. The move, then, is not without merit.

Developing...


Saturday, March 12, 2011

A Follow Up on the Oregon Primary Bill

FHQ was fortunate enough yesterday and today to have exchanged emails with Tyler Smith, the attorney who spoke on behalf of the Oregon Republican Party at the public hearing on HB 2429 on March 9. As we have discussed here during this week, that bill proposes moving the Oregon primaries -- including the presidential primary -- from the third Tuesday in May to the second Tuesday in June. No, that shift is not on the surface all that consequential, moving the Beaver state's primary from late in the presidential nomination process to latest in the presidential nomination process.

However, as is often the case, local factors can play a significant role in shaping a state party's reaction to any elections legislation and that is the situation here. FHQ's statements regarding the points raised in the hearing on HB 2429 were extensions of an Oregon-based blog that left some doubt as to the true nature of both the Republican and Democratic stances on the bill in question. First of all, as Mr. Smith pointed out to me, he was the only one who made any statement at the hearing. The Democratic Party of Oregon has yet to weigh in and the only representative of the party to speak on the matter was House Leader Dave Hunt who co-chairs the committee from which the legislation originated. And that was not necessarily the official position of the state party.

As for the Oregon Republican Party response, it makes more sense given the proper context. Mr. Smith explained that Oregon Republican Party bylaws require the party to have completed the delegate selection process -- a process that is complicated by the fact that the party allocates delegates proportionally --by July 1 (Article XVII, Section A). However, if in 2012, the Oregon presidential primary is on June 12, the results would not be certified until thirty days later, or July 11. As the allocation is proportional, that certification is necessary in order complete the allocation properly. But beyond that, it is less than proper to have allocated delegates ten days after the deadline to have done so. The primary move proposed in HB 2429, then, is a very real problem for the Oregon Republican Party.

Well, why not just change the deadline? Why indeed. Again, let us look to the Oregon Republican Party's bylaws. Changes can only be made at the Biennial Organizational Meeting (Article XXVI, Section A) which occurs between January 1 and February 28 of odd numbered years (Article IV, Section A), a point that has already passed in this presidential election cycle. The party also has the option of make amendments to the bylaws -- presumably including the aforementioned July 1 deadline -- at "duly convened" meeting of the Oregon Republican Party State Central Committee (Article XXVI, Section A). There is time in which to make that change, but it is unclear if the State Central Committee is willing or able to get together to get that done should the bill passed the Oregon legislature and be signed into law.

This really is a fabulous example of the overlap of state party and national party rules with state law. And that in a nutshell is why fundamentally altering the presidential nomination process is so difficult.



Thursday, March 10, 2011

Oregon Democrats and Republicans on Opposite Ends of Primary Debate

The public hearing yesterday on HB 2429 -- a bill proposed in the Oregon House in January to move the Beaver state's primary from the third Tuesday in May to the second Tuesday in June -- clearly indicated a partisan break in sentiment on the intent of the legislation. Oregon Democrats -- the majority party in the Oregon House -- came out in favor of the move.
House Democratic Leader Dave Hunt, who co-chairs the House Rules Committee, said he's considering the bill because it would shorten the period for the general election and provide more space between the new even-year sessions of the Legislature and the primary.
In the even years, the session could run as late as the filing deadline in early March, said Hunt, adding that he would prefer to provide some breathing space between the two.
Shortening the general election by what would amount to three weeks is probably not a solid enough argument for Democrats to make, but the filing deadline argument has some precedent. Discussions in Kentucky during the 2011 legislative session and in Arkansas in 2009 -- both concerning bills to move primaries to August -- contained similar arguments. The perceived benefit is that the filing deadline and thus the decision to run for candidates comes at a point in which the legislature is no longer in session. The "breathing space" Hunt mentions would separate legislative decisions from decisions to run for office; that the latter would have less influence on the former.

Legislative members of the Oregon GOP and the state party voiced far different opinions on the proposed move.
At the hearing, Tyler Smith, a lawyer representing the Oregon Republican Party, opposed the bill. He said the later primary date could complicate the ability of the party to select delegates for the Republican National Convention. And Rep. Vicki Berger, R-Salem, said she was skeptical of holding elections so close to summer when voters have their attentions diverted.
I don't know that either side has really developed a clear set of arguments on this proposed move. Three or four weeks deeper into the spring (or school year summer) probably won't make all that much difference to voters and it certainly won't complicate national convention delegate selection. Other states have scheduled and have had in the past early June primaries with little or no difficulty. The only potential conflict is that a later primary may come slightly closer to the point at which the state parties hold state conventions and begin identifying actual delegates to attend the national conventions. Those occur in July in Oregon, though, and the results of any primary would certainly have been finalized by that point whether in May or June.

In any event, there don't seem to be strong arguments for or against this measure and that doesn't necessarily bode well for the bill passing and being signed into law. Plus, in the grand scheme of things, it isn't in any way altering the impact Oregon is likely to have on the outcome of the Republican nomination race. Both dates are late enough that any impact would be dependent upon the race lasting that long. It could happen, but that goes against the grain of all post-reform Republican nominations.

NOTE: See an update on this post (with a deeper explanation of some of the state-level factors) here.


Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Oregon Bill to Move Primaries Back to June

There are a couple of bills before the Oregon legislature -- introduced earlier -- concerning the timing of primaries in the Beaver state, but one (SB 615) leaves the presidential primary alone while moving the state and local primaries to September.1 The other, however, introduced at the behest of the House Interim Committee on Rules, proposes moving all of the primaries -- presidential included -- from the third Tuesday in May to the second Tuesday in June. HB 2429, if passed and signed into law, would place Oregon's presidential primary -- and those for state and local offices as well -- on June 12, the final day in which delegate selection events can be held according to the national parties' rules regarding delegate selection.

Section 254.056 of the Oregon Statutes does not as it is currently written separately mention the various primaries, merely the date on which the primary is to be held. SB 615 amends the code to reflect separate dates for the two sets of primaries, but HB 2429 does not. The latter continues to treat all of the primary elections as one and on one date.

Here's the current law:

254.056 Date and purpose of general election and primary election. (1) The general election shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each even-numbered year. Except as provided in ORS 254.650, at the general election officers of the state and subdivisions of the state, members of Congress and electors of President and Vice President of the United States as are to be elected in that year shall be elected.

(2) The primary election shall be held on the third Tuesday in May of each even-numbered year. At the primary election precinct committeepersons shall be elected and major political party candidates shall be nominated for offices to be filled at the general election held in that year. [1979 c.190 §229; 1979 c.316 §20a; 1987 c.267 §1; 1995 c.712 §1; 1999 c.59 §64; 1999 c.999 §28; 2001 c.965 §12; 2003 c.542 §7]

And here is how HB 2429 amends it:
254.056 is amended to read:   254.056. (1) The general election shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each even-numbered year. Except as provided in ORS 254.650, at the general election officers of the state and subdivisions of the state, members of Congress and electors of President and Vice President of the United States as are to be elected in that year shall be elected.   (2) The primary election shall be held on the   { - third Tuesday in May - }  { +  second Tuesday in June + } of each even-numbered year. At the primary election precinct committeepersons shall be elected and major political party candidates shall be nominated for offices to be filled at the general election held in that year.
No, this isn't, as was the case with Idaho, a big move, but it is another proposed move backward and one that was not necessary to bring Oregon back into compliance with national party rules. Overall, it is a curious move simply because it isn't clear what the motivation -- at least in regard to the presidential primary timing -- is.

1This bill would place the state and local primaries very close to the back end of the window to hold primaries and remain in compliance with the MOVE act mandate (in order to finish primary elections, print ballots and get them out to military and overseas personnel abroad 45 days prior to the general election date).

UPDATE: HB 2429 is slated for a public hearing on March 9.


Wednesday, March 2, 2011

A Two-Thirds Potomac Primary? DC Might Try to Align Primary with Maryland

A public hearing today by the DC Board of Elections and Ethics brought another 2012 primary date option there to the fore. Freeman Klopott from the Washington Examiner has more:
"I've taken the temperature of other council members and there seems to be some consensus around April 3," Ward 3 Councilwoman Mary Cheh told The Washington Examiner on Wednesday before a hearing on the city's 2012 primary date. Cheh heads the council committee that has oversight over D.C. elections. "We want to have a vote which serves as a presidential primary and a primary for local candidates," she said.
The options for this one have been all over the place. Early on there was talk of a July primary for local district offices and later when a bill was proposed, the talk shifted to holding concurrent presidential and district primaries in June on the closing date of the window in which the national parties allow states and territories to hold primaries or caucuses. With there being support among the leadership of both parties in both houses in Maryland to move the Old Line state's primary to April, though, and that being the likely destination for the primary there, council members in DC are reconsidering their date again. Both Maryland and DC would benefit from holding later (after March) primaries and, with the Democratic Party, by clustering together as the two did with Virginia in 2008.


Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Bill Emerges to Shift All Missouri Primaries to June

Yesterday, Rep. Jay Barnes (R-114th, Cole) introduced legislation (HB 694) to move the Show-Me state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the second Tuesday after the first Monday in June. The legislation also includes a provision to shift the date of the primaries for state and local offices from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in August to coincide with the presidential primary in June. Missouri is another state with primaries at opposite ends of the presidential year primary calendar; an early presidential primary and a late primary for state and local offices.

As FHQ has discussed most recently in the case of Massachusetts, but elsewhere also, states in this position are receiving pressure from both ends. There is pressure from the national parties to move February presidential primaries back into March and into compliance with the parties' rules. And there is also pressure from the federal mandate laid out in the MOVE act to move late state and local primaries earlier in order to print and distribute ballots to military and civilian personnel overseas in a timely manner. A trend is now beginning to emerge among states and territories in this position. Legislators are introducing legislation to combine the primaries at a point in time that complies with both sets of rules and saves the state the money used on a separate presidential primary in the process. There is no estimate of the savings in the case of this bill and Missouri, but considering similarly-sized Alabama estimates its savings based on eliminating the separate presidential primary at around $4 million, the total is likely at least a couple of million dollars.

Though the bill is sponsored by a member of the majority party, Republicans on the relevant elections committees in both the Missouri House and Senate have put forward bills to move the state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. It is unclear how likely this new bill is to move forward given the seeming institutional suppost the other two bills have. The cost savings may end up being tempting to legislators, but they will have to weigh that against the influence the state may lose if the primary is moved back to June.


Alabama Bill to Eliminate Separate February Primary Introduced

Legislators in Alabama wasted little time on the opening day of the state's legislative session in acting to alter the election law regarding the timing of the presidential primary there. Rep. Steve Clouse (R-93rd, Dale & Houston) introduced HB 32 which would eliminate the state's separate presidential primary and move it from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in June where it would coincide with the primaries for state and local offices. The move would save the state $3.9 million (see the Financial Note on the bill below). Another $250,000 is saved by removing the Mardi Gras-specific language that was added to the law in 2007 when the primary was created and moved to February. The February primary conflicted with Mardi Gras in 2008 and required state reimbursement of funds used in localities forced to make alternative arrangements because of that conflict.

The bill has some bipartisan support among the eleven co-sponsors (9 Republicans and 2 Democrats) of the measure. Given the shift from Democratic to Republican control of both chambers of the Alabama legislature and the fact that Republicans hold a nearly two to one advantage in both House, it is unlikely that Democratic support is necessary. But it does exist.

Alabama becomes the eleventh state (including DC) to propose legislation moving its presidential primary back during 2011 and the fifth (including DC) to propose eliminating a separate presidential primary in order to combine that process with later primaries for state and local offices. These cost-saving measures are slowly proliferating in 2011 after (but not necessarily because) Arkansas started the trend in 2009. These moves along with efforts to eliminate 2012 presidential primaries altogether in Kansas and Washington paint a clear picture of the financial environment in which state legislatures are working and the means through which they are cutting costs.

Finally, Alabama is no stranger to moving a presidential primary backwards. The state, after having occupied a position on the second Tuesday in March from 1980-1988, moved back to June in 1992.

--
Fiscal note to HB 32:

FISCAL NOTE

House Bill 32 as introduced moves the presidential preference primary to June, beginning in 2012, which will result in one less election during 2012 and every fourth year thereafter. Having one less election will reduce election expenses paid from the State General Fund by an estimated $3,900,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and by a similar amount every fourth fiscal year thereafter.

In addition, this bill deletes language that allows counties that recognize Mardi Gras as a holiday to be reimbursed for election expenses as a result of the day of the presidential preference primary being the same day as Mardi Gras. The deletion of this provision will further decrease the election expenses, paid from the State General Fund, by an estimated $250,000 for any fiscal year in which the presidential preference primary date is on the same day as Mardi Gras.



Sunday, February 27, 2011

Massachusetts Bill Would Move All Primaries to June

Last week FHQ commented on Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin's discussion of the implications of budget constraints on the commonwealth's ability to hold a presidential primary in 2012. In that legislative hearing the secretary suggested an increase in the budget outlay for the elections division or a switch to what would be a state party-funded caucus system. FHQ offered an additional alternative: moving the primaries for state and local offices to an earlier, within-window date (in order to comply with the MOVE act) that could accommodate a concurrent and later presidential primary.

As it turns out, a bill was introduced in the Massachusetts House last month to accomplish just that. And on Friday, H 1972 was referred to the Joint Committee on Election Laws. The bill, sponsored by Rep. James Dwyer (D-30th, Woburn) and Minority Leader Bradley Jones (R-20th, North Reading), would move the presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in June to coincide with the primaries for state and local offices that would be moved from September (a date seven weeks prior to the general election more specifically).

The language of the law (Chapter 53, Section 28, Section 9) would change from
State primaries shall be held on the seventh Tuesday preceding biennial state elections and on the fourth Tuesday preceding special state elections, except that primaries before special elections for senator or representative in congress shall be held on the sixth Tuesday preceding said elections. Presidential primaries shall be held on the first Tuesday in March in any year in which presidential electors are to be elected. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, any town may hold its preliminary or regular town elections on the same date designated as the date to hold a presidential primary, in any year in which presidential electors are to be elected, provided that such election is by a ballot independent of the ballot used at a presidential primary. City and town primaries before all city and town elections shall be held on the twenty-eighth day preceding such elections.
to
State primaries shall be held on the first Tuesday in June preceding biennial state elections and on the ninth Tuesday preceding special state elections, including primaries before special elections for senator or representative in congress. Presidential primaries shall be held on the first Tuesday in June in any year in which presidential electors are to be elected. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, any town may hold its preliminary or regular town elections on the same date designated as the date to hold a presidential primary, in any year in which presidential electors are to be elected, provided that such election is by a ballot independent of the ballot used at a presidential primary. City and town primaries before all city and town elections shall be held on the sixty-third day preceding such elections.
In a unified Democratic state government, it is not clear that the bipartisan co-sponsorship of this bill is helpful or not. What is clear is that while this would more than likely remove Massachusetts and its voters from factoring into the decision-making on the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, it does assist the commonwealth in reducing elections costs by eliminating a separate presidential primary. One additional consideration for lawmakers in Massachusetts is how a potential move of the state and local primaries from September to June affects them. After all, such a move could affect their reelection/renomination calculus. That may not prove to be a deal-breaker in an instance where budgetary constraints are exerting unusual pressure on state legislators across the country, but it is a factor that could affect the life and ultimate success of this bill.


Saturday, February 12, 2011

New Bill Introduced to Eliminate Separate Presidential Primary in New Jersey

Superfluous though it may be, a new bill to eliminate the February presidential primary and shift it back to occur concurrently with the June primaries for state and local offices has been introduced in the New Jersey Assembly. The only things different about this bill and the two technically-active current bills are that the new one (A3777) was introduced by a Democrat and during the 2011 session. Other than that, the bill is exactly like the two bills proposed last year by Republicans in the Assembly and Senate.

That a Democrat introduced the bill is important considering both houses of the New Jersey legislature are controlled by the Democratic Party. That it was introduced by deputy speaker, John Wisnieski, is indicative of at least some institutional support for such a move among Democrats (similar to what has been seen in Maryland and Tennessee). And unless the Republicans who proposed similar bills in 2010 have changed their tunes, there is some bipartisan support for the idea of one June primary to nominate candidates for national, state and local offices. Like California, some of the impetus behind the push has to be budgetary. Similar separate presidential primary elections have come under fire in the Golden state and was eliminated in 2009 in Arkansas.

As state legislatures continue their sessions and to deal with budgetary constraints, separate presidential primaries could increasingly be targeted as a means of cutting costs. To this point, however, momentum behind that idea is limited to a handful of states.


Thursday, February 10, 2011

Expected House Companion Bill to Move Maryland Primaries Introduced

As was mentioned in the post yesterday about the legislation introduced in the Maryland Senate to move the state's primaries, there was already a placemarker for a House companion bill (HB 671) to SB 820.

As was the case with the Senate bill, the House companion also has the support of the full leadership in the chamber. The bill is sponsored by Speaker of the House Michael Busch (D-30, Anne Arundel County) and co-sponsored by the majority leader, Kumar Barve (D-17, Montgomery County), and the minority leader, Anthony O'Donnell (R-29C, Calvert and St. Mary's Counties). Given the weight of the leadership in both chambers, these bills are more likely to pass than SB 501 and have the effect of moving the presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in April and the primaries for state and local offices from the second Tuesday after the first Monday in September to the last Tuesday in June.




Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Two Bills to Move Maryland Presidential Primary Back Introduced

There are now two bills that have been introduced in the Maryland Senate to shift the dates on which the Old Line state's primaries for state and local offices will be held. The express purpose of those bills is to move state and local primaries in midterm election years from the second Tuesday after the first Monday in September because it conflicts with the federal mandate in the MOVE act. That mandate requires at least a 45 day cushion between the primary election and the general election to allow for the printing of ballots and timely distribution of them to military and overseas voters. In addition, both bills also move the state's presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February in order to comply with national party rules regarding the timing of delegate selection events.

SB 501 was introduced on February 4 by Senator Roy Dyson (D-29, Calvert, Charles & St. Mary's Counties) and would move the presidential primary from February to the first Tuesday in March -- which would coincide with the plans in fellow Potomac Primary state Virginia. The midterm year primaries would be shifted from September up to the second Tuesday in July.

And just today (February 9) at the request of President of the Senate Thomas Miller (D-27, Calvert & Prince George's Counties), SB820 was introduced (cosponsored by the Majority Leader Robert Garagiola (D-15, Montgomery County) and Minority Leader Nancy Jacobs (R-34, Cecil & Harford Counties)). The bill would move the presidential primary to the first Tuesday in April and the midterm election year primaries for statewide and local offices to the last Tuesday in June. With a House companion (HB 671) on the way and the full bipartisan support of the Senate leadership, this bill would presumably have the better chance of winning passage and making to Governor O'Malley's desk. It also lends some credence to the presidential primary date discussed in the Washington Examiner's piece over the weekend about the potential breaking up of the Potomac Primary.

Still, that first Tuesday in April date is an interesting one. FHQ would speculate that there are a couple of possible reasons for that date. First, one could guess that Maryland legislators are hoping to catch lightning in a bottle for the second consecutive cycle by hoping that a supposed March 6 Super Tuesday proves inconclusive in wrapping up the Republican nomination race. That would leave the Maryland primary in that sparsely populated area of the calendar between early March and the Pennsylvania primary in late April. In the event that happened, Maryland -- along with Mississippi and Illinois -- could prove quite consequential to the Republican race. The other idea that crosses my mind is that this could also be an effort at another regional primary. There has been some chatter about officials in Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and West Virginia discussing the possibility. And the first Tuesday in April is a date that Pennsylvania has used in the past -- one of the two times the commonwealth moved its presidential primary. At this point, I'm more inclined to put stock in the first option rather than the second. But we'll see. None of those other states have made any moves at the state legislative level on this front as of yet.


Recent Posts:




Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.