Bills Introduced in Both Chambers to Move Tennessee Presidential Primary to March

On February 10, bills were introduced in both the Tennessee state House and Senate to shift the Volunteer state's presidential primary back to March where the primary was between the 1988 and 2000 cycles. While the presidential primary during those years was on the second Tuesday in March, the current legislation would move it from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. This would be the third consecutive cycle Tennessee has moved its primary -- from the second Tuesday in March to the second Tuesday in February in 2004 and up to the first Tuesday in February in 2008.

Tennessee, like Florida, is under unified Republican control, but in contrast to the Sunshine state, Republicans in the Tennessee General Assembly are the ones pushing, or at least proposing, the date change. In the House, Rep. Gerald McCormick (R-26, Chattanooga) introduced HB 612, and Sen. Mark Norris (R-32, Collierville) introduced SB 599. As was the case in Maryland, these legislators are members of the leadership in their respective chambers. McCormick is the Republican leader in the House and Norris is the majority leader in the Senate. Leadership sponsorship does not guarantee a bill will pass, but it won't hurt its chances.

The change to March, if codified, would bring Tennessee back into compliance with the 2012 delegate selection rules in both national parties.

Recent Posts:

“I happen to think the position we’re in right now is the correct one."

Democrat Files House Companion for March Presidential Primary in Florida

Expected House Companion Bill to Move Maryland Primaries Introduced

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

“I happen to think the position we’re in right now is the correct one."

Spoken like someone who might endorse shifting the Florida presidential primary back to March like the national parties and the Florida Democratic Party and state legislators want, right?

Well, maybe not.

Those were the words of Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos this morning in some press availability time. On the one hand the senator holds some clout as the leading Republican in the state Senate majority. However, on the other, sticking up for Florida and its right to have a primary whenever it wants is a nice and easy issue to trumpet support of when you are running for the Republican nomination for US Senate in 2012 (No, the primaries for state and local office are later in the year in Florida, not concurrent with the presidential primary.).

Even if Haridopolos had potentially conflicting motivations here, that doesn't really say much for the general lack of response from other Republican legislators on this same issue. As FHQ said earlier today, it has been quiet from their corner of the state of Florida.

Not anymore -- at least not from one influential Republican.

--

Here's the full post from Peter Schorsch at the saintpetersblog (St. Petersburg Times):

Haridopolos: Keep presidential primary in January '12

Despite calls from both major political parties leaders in Florida – and legislation already being filed that would do so – Senate President Mike Haridopolos said Thursday that the state’s 2012 presidential primary should not be moved from January to March, reports the News Service of Florida. Haridopolos, who will himself be on the ballot next year for U.S. Senate, said that even if either the Democratic or Republican National Committees strip Florida of all of its delegates, as the DNC did in 2008, it was worth holding the primary early. “Florida’s the most important state in the presidential election,” he said. “I happen to think the position we’re in right now is the correct one. We’re going to most likely decide who the next president of the United States is. I think it’d make a lot of sense if we did it early in the process.” Both Republican Party of Florida Chairman David Bitner and Florida Democratic Party Chairman Rod Smith have urged lawmakers to move the primary to March, which both national parties have said would preserve its delegate strength.

Recent Posts:

Democrat Files House Companion for March Presidential Primary in Florida

Expected House Companion Bill to Move Maryland Primaries Introduced

Two Bills to Move Maryland Presidential Primary Back Introduced

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

2012 Presidential Primaries: North Carolina

Earlier this week the North Carolina General Assembly convened for the first time under Republican control since the Reconstruction era. This actually has some implications for the timing of the Tarheel state's presidential primary in 2012. In the Senate at least there has been Republican support for a February presidential primary for the last three sessions. Those bills (S18 -- 2005-06, S168 -- 2007-08, S150 -- 2009-10) were all proposed by Republican senator, Andrew Brock, and supported by a group of Republicans who signed on as cosponsors. However, during each of those sessions, the bills inevitable got stuck in the Judiciary (I) Committee then controlled by Democrats.

If the past three sessions are any indication, Brock and others may once again propose legislation to try and shift the presidential primary to an earlier date. But the change in control of the General Assembly doesn't make this a done deal. Republicans do control the committees now, but that's only part of the story. First, the Senate has yet to finalize the committees and committee assignments under the new regime. Secondly, there is no indication that there will be any support for such a measure in the lower chamber.

Finally even though North Carolina has some past experience with shifting the date on which its presidential primary is held (1976 and 1988), the state has consistently held that contest concurrently with the primaries for state and local offices (as a matter of convenience). The past two experiences with frontloading have been temporary actions that created and funded a separate presidential primary that was later canceled and moved back to coincide with the other primaries on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May. There is emerging some evidence to suggest that, given budgetary constraints at the state level, states are less willing to fund a separate primary. California, New Jersey and Oklahoma already have proposed legislation on the table to pull separate presidential primaries back in line with the primaries for state and local offices or to defund the presidential primary altogether. Even with Republicans now in control of the North Carolina General Assembly, there may be some budgetary resistance to creating and funding a separate presidential primary.

And while there may yet be a bill proposed, there is still a question of when the new primary would be scheduled. Brock's past bills have called for a February primary, which at the times the were introduced were in compliance with the national party rules. But it is yet to be seen if there is a willingness to just move up to the earliest allowed date (March 6, 2012 in this case) or to go against both national parties' sets of delegate selection rules and go in February some time (as the proposed bill in Texas would do). This is all speculative, but much would likely depend on what the 18 currently non-compliant states do and how quickly they do it relative to when the General Assembly in North Carolina wraps up its business over the summer.

North Carolina, then, potentially represents a rare case during this cycle of a state that may move forward. The focus remains on those states that have to move back to be in compliance with the DNC's and RNC's rules. That new mandate for moving back is what makes this 2012 cycle and the formation of its presidential primary calendar unique compared to the race to the front that has marked recent cycles.

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

The Impact of 2010 State Governmental Elections on Frontloading: Part Two

Yesterday's post on the prevalence of unified government in state governments following the 2010 elections set the stage for a further examination of the influence that will have on the likelihood of proposed bills that may shift the dates on which presidential primaries and caucuses will be held. Now, there are a fair number of factors that come into play in the frontloading decision-making calculus of any state legislature (or ultimately the state government). For the time being, FHQ will focus on a handful of them.

First, presidential incumbency matters. I found as much in my research [pdf]. Over the 1976-2008 period, those cycles without an incumbent president on the ballot were three times less likely to witness widespread primary movement than in those cycles where both parties had contested nominations. 2012 will be one of those cycles with an incumbent president on the ballot.

What that tells us is that there is potentially a partisan element to all of this. As Philip Klinkner (1994) found in his book on out party committee activity, those parties currently out of the White House are more likely to tinker with their rules -- as a means of shuffling the deck and potentially increasing their likelihood of success -- than those that occupy the White House. In other words, in this cycle we would expect to see the Republicans being less content with the status quo and thus more likely to alter their rules in some fashion. While the Republican Party did allow rules changes (or the exploration of that possibility) outside of the national convention for the first -- a process that led to the adoption of rules requiring states to proportionally allocate delegates in the event a contest is held prior to April -- that effort is not really the point for our purposes here. Instead, we are looking at the secondary actors here: the state governments. To what level are the states willing to, within those rules, make changes to their election laws to impact their influence over the nomination process? When it comes to frontloading, that is the important question to ask. All things equal, the expectation would be that Republican-controlled governments would be more likely frontload than Democratic-controlled state governments.

2012 is a weird cycle, though. After having allowed February primaries, both national parties are now seeking to scale things back in 2012 and are mandating March or later primary and caucus dates for non-exempt states. For the first time, then, the parties are attempting to force states to backload as opposed to allowing them to frontload to a certain point in the past.

That leaves those 18 states currently in violation (see map below) of the national parties' delegate selection rules firmly within the crosshairs. Each has to move back to a later, compliant date or they face the delegation-reducing sanctions both parties are employing. [For the time being, I'll shunt my thoughts on the effectiveness of those sanctions to the side.]

[Click to Enlarge]

Those 18 states are either the states most likely to move into compliance or the most likely to thumb their noses at the national party rules in an attempt to influence the nominations. And that brings us full circle. Democratic-controlled state governments (of those 18 states) would tend to fall into the former group while Republican-controlled state governments would be more likely to tempt fate and stick it out despite the looming spectre of sanctions. Two Democratic-controlled states (Arkansas and Illinois) in the last legislative session moved to later dates and a third, California (a newly unified Democratic state government), has a proposal to move its primary back to a later date on the 2012 presidential primary calendar.

[Click to Enlarge]

You can begin to see the possible impact here as highlighted by the map above (especially when combined with the partisan maps from part one). The unified state governments would hypothetically be more likely to see some action if they were under Democratic control than if they were under Republican control (seeking greater influence over the nomination) or in the midst of divided control (unable to move into compliance with either national party's delegate selection rules). In other words, there is not only a line between unified and divided state governments, but between states with unified Democratic control and unified Republican control. States like California are more likely to move back, but are unified Republican states like Florida or Georgia more or less likely to move back than states like New York or Missouri with divided government? That will be something for those of us watching to keep our eye on.

The problem with focusing on the states in violation of the national party rules is that it completely disregards states -- particularly unified states -- that are currently compliant but may move to an earlier date valuing influence over the potential costs to their national delegations. Here's where that Texas bill comes into the picture.

[Click to Enlarge]

There are obviously states with unified control that may opt to move into violation of the national parties as well. But those states are much more likely to be Republican-controlled than otherwise. Pennsylvania, a state long divided between the parties and incidentally enough unable to move out of April during the post-reform period, may be worth watching along with Texas since both are Republican-controlled.

The point to take home is that while there may be some states that stick it out with primary dates in violation of the national party rules, there will also be far less movement forward than in the past. There will be movement backward, but much of that will likely depend on the presence of unified government in the state and which party is in control.


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

The Impact of 2010 State Governmental Elections on Frontloading: Part One

On Monday, FHQ posted a chronological list of the start dates for all 50 state legislative sessions. Now, from that calendar several factors, as discussed there, could be gleaned that could impact the evolution of the 2012 presidential primary calendar. However, it was only intended as the opening of an incremental assessment of the state of play in the calendar maneuvering that will take place throughout 2011. State legislatures are very much at the nexus of this decision in a majority of states -- those with primaries. As such the partisan composition of those state legislatures is an important point of departure.

The Republican wave that swept over the 111th Congress grabbed a majority of the headlines as did some of the wins the party saw in gubernatorial races. Yet, those GOP advances stretched down-ballot to state legislatures as well. Nationwide that translated into a gain of more than 675 seats across all state legislatures according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Before I get too far into this first step look into the post-2010 partisan composition of state legislatures, or more to the point, whether there is unified or divided government on the state level, I should note that this is but one of many factors that plays a role in determining if a state ultimately opts to shift the date on which its presidential primary is held. In the models I ran in my dissertation research [pdf], I repeatedly found that structural factors had a greater influence a state's propensity to frontload in the 1976-2008 period than what I deemed political factors. In other words, matters such as whether a state held its presidential primary concurrently with its primaries for state and local offices was of greater import than divided government. It should be noted that another political factor, the presence of an incumbent president running for reelection, had a larger impact than either a divided state government (legislature and governor) or a divided legislature. The theory behind all of this is that rationally acting decision makers would utilize a cost/benefit analysis when deciding whether to frontload their primary. Those state-level decision makers with less structural, political, economic and cultural impediments standing in the way of the decision were found to be more likely to have shifted their primary (or caucus) over the period mentioned above.

While inter-chamber partisan division within a legislature would hypothetically serve as a deterrent to frontloading, it was never the statistically significant factor that inter-branch partisan division (between the executive and legislative branches) consistently proved to be.

That said, what impact did the 2010 Republican wave have on the presence of unified or divided government? First, it is instructive to examine the executive and legislative chamber flips in partisan control during the 2010 elections.

[Click to Enlarge]

Understandably, this is a map that trends red, but only shows two instances (Maine and Wisconsin) where the Republican Party gained control of the executive branch and both the upper and lower chambers of the legislature. Overall, the map does not tell us much more than the map the National Conference of State Legislatures provides other than the fact that it adds gubernatorial gains to the equation. But let's add in a map that shows the prevalence of unified government and then create a hybrid of the two that demonstrates not only the presence of Republican-controlled unified government, but the gains made on that front during 2010.

[Click to Enlarge]

Again, this second map shows us the extent to which unified government extended following the 2010 elections. On the surface, the midterms proved to be a boon to Republican fortunes nearly nationwide. It would, theoretically, have an impact not only on frontloading but on redistricting as well. Unified Republican-control on the state level translates into fewer hurdles between a party making congressional seat gains through redistricting or making an advantageous move of a primary ahead of a presidential nomination cycle that will only see a competitive Republican race.

But what was the impact of 2010?

[Click to Enlarge]

Well, the state that already had unified government prior to 2010 are shaded in either dark red or blue. The gains in unified control by either party are in the lighter shades. If we were a truly enterprising blog, FHQ would go ahead an layer in the new electoral college map as a means of discerning the states where unified control was established and where redistricting will have to take place. Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are the big ones on that front and sadly for the Democratic Party, California is neither redistricted by its state legislature nor did it gain any seats in the latest reapportionment. Redistricting aside, however, this series of maps does set the stage for an examination of how the partisan shifts in control at the state level will potentially impact the frontloading process during the 2011 state legislative sessions.

With so many states now under unified Republican control and with the Republican nomination being the only contested race, the potential exists for quite a lot of primary movement. But FHQ will delve into that tomorrow with a wider discussion of other factors that could influence state legislative decision making in terms of presidential primary timing.

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

Frontloading Starts with State Legislatures: The 2011 State Legislative Session Calendar

The National Conference of State Legislatures has this calendar as well, but in alphabetical order. FHQ is more concerned with sequence. Which state legislatures convene first, when do their sessions end and how does this impact the scheduling of presidential primaries?

2011 State Legislative Session Calendar
Date (Open)	States	Date (Close)
December 1, 2010	Maine*	June 15, 2011
December 6	California	September 9
January 3, 2011	Montana Ohio	late April year-round**
January 4	Kentucky Minnesota * Mississippi North Dakota* Pennsylvania Rhode Island	March 22 May 23 early April late April year-round** late June
January 5	Connecticut Indiana Massachusetts Missouri Nebraska New Hampshire New York Vermont	June 8 April 29 year-round** May 30 early June July 1 year-round** mid May
January 10	Arizona Arkansas Georgia Idaho Iowa* Kansas* Washington	late April March 10 mid April late March late April late May April 24
January 11	Delaware South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Wisconsin Wyoming*	June 30 June 2 mid March mid May May 30 year-round** early March
January 12	Colorado* Illinois Maryland Michigan New Jersey Virginia West Virginia	May 11 year-round** early April year-round** year-round** February 26 mid March
January 18	Alaska* New Mexico	April 17 March 19
January 19	Hawaii*	mid May
January 24	Utah	March 10
January 26	North Carolina	early June
February 1	Oregon	June 30
February 7	Nevada* Oklahoma	June 6 May 27
March 1	Alabama	mid June
March 8	Florida	May 6
April 25	Louisiana	June 23
Notes: *States in italics are caucus states. State parties and not state legislatures control the scheduling of those contests. **State legislatures with year-round sessions.

The table answers the first two of the three questions posed above. With the schedule of state legislative sessions down, though, what impact will this have on the 2012 presidential primary calendar? As has been mentioned several times in this space, the true impact of anything dealing with the 2012 calendar will be felt first in the 18 non-exempt states with primaries currently positioned prior to March. Those are the states where some action is necessary to pull the timing of their delegate selection event within the bounds set by the two national parties' 2012 delegate selection rules.

The most interesting note is that the state legislature in Florida does not convene until March 8; the next to last state to open its session. Why is this noteworthy? Well, Florida, a state whose election codes have the 2012 presidential primary scheduled for January 31, is technically scheduled ahead of when the parties want the exempt states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- to hold their contests. To be sure, if Florida were to leave the law alone, those four states would likely move their contests to earlier dates than what the parties desire, but the end result is that Florida holds a tremendous amount of sway over what the eventual primary calendar will look like in 2012. The late state legislative start date in Florida, then, means that many states will have already missed the window to pre-file or introduce legislation to alter the section of state election laws concerning presidential primary timing; all before Florida has even opened its legislative session. Other states, like Virginia (another primary state scheduled in violation of the national party rules), will have already brought the gavel down on the 2011 state legislative session by the time Florida starts. In other words, a state could act on 2012 primary timing prior to when the true lynchpin in the process moves (or doesn't move). Now, states in that position are not without options. One way to circumvent that problem is to bring the issue up in a special session; one that is already scheduled or where that isn't the singular issue. The other is to add an amendment for moving the primary date to another piece of legislation as a means of passing it through the legislature. Though another state's actions were not the motivation, this is what happened in Georgia (see Georgia section of that post) during the 2007 session of its General Assembly. Efforts to pass a bill specifically designed to move the date on which the Peach state's presidential primary would be held in 2008 failed, but language accomplishing the same ends was inserted in another bill in the form of an amendment toward the end of the session.

An additional factor to note is that the above discussion only accounts for those states in violation of the national party rules; those states, again, that would technically require action to come into compliance. What it does not account for are those states currently in compliance with those rules that may choose to challenge and thus violate them. The bill that has been pre-filed in Texas is an example of this.

Let us also recall that the Republican nomination contest, as the likely only competitive one, will be where all of this matters most. First of all, the Republican rules governing the 2012 nomination process provide only one penalty for states that choose to violate the timing rule: one half of their delegation to the national convention. This was not enough of a penalty to prevent all those 2008 states with contests prior to February (New Hampshire and South Carolina included) from rolling the dice. Florida and others may choose influence over delegates again in 2012. Of course, some have speculated that since the Republican National Convention is in Tampa, Florida Republicans may desire having a full delegation at a convention they are hosting. For other states (and even Florida for that matter), it remains an open question.

Regardless of all of that, state legislatures will convene mostly over the next few weeks and will continue to do so throughout the first third of 2011. That is when the work to shape the 2012 presidential primary calendar will truly commence and is something we here at FHQ will be watching closely.

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

Redistricting, State Legislative Elections and 2012

Justin Levitt, writing over at Election Law Blog, has the scoop this morning on the impact yesterday's state legislative races will impact the redistricting process over the course of the next year. The bottom line: Republicans are now in control of the redistricting apparatus states with 189 congressional districts to be drawn. And there are still 68 seats yet to be categorized because the results are not clear yet.

The focus was on the House, the Senate and the gubernatorial races last night with an occasional nod to redistricting, but that last item really is the big thing coming out of yesterday.

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