Utah GOP Gets Presidential Line on June 26 Primary Ballot

[Click to Enlarge]

Back in June the Utah Republican Party made the decision to allocate delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa using a primary in lieu of caucus meetings. The only problem at the time was that legally there was no place for the presidential primary on the June 26 primary ballot that typically only has contests for state and local offices. That changed over the past couple of weeks when the state legislature proposed and passed legislation in special session adding the presidential vote to the June primary. The bill -- SB 3004¹ -- was signed by Governor Gary Herbert on Thursday. That option will now be available to both parties in the future when funding is not appropriated by the legislature for the (still, by statute, scheduled in February) Western States Presidential Primary.

This seems like a ho-hum sort of move. It is.

...for 2012.

The move brings Utah in line with a great many other states that hold presidential primaries concurrently with primaries for state and local offices. What will make Utah different from those states in the future is that the state parties will have the ability -- should the legislature put it in the budget -- to opt into an earlier primary already codified into law. Assuming the economic ship has been righted to some extent by 2015 and that the national parties have done little to change the rules behind the formation of the presidential primary calendar, Utah could challenge the calendar by opting into the February primary. Now, for that scenario to work, you would probably have to assume that President Obama is reelected next year. Otherwise, Republican-controlled Utah is not going to be motivated to appropriate funds for what those in power view as an unnecessary contest. The tricky party, at least from the Utah perspective, is that Utah Democrats would have no options. The presidential line being included on the June primary ballot is contingent upon funds not being allocated for the separate February primary. Utah Democrats would have to choose between a more than likely non-compliant primary and holding caucuses as they are doing in 2012.

The states probably don't need any more help in the process of the presidential primary calendar date setting. They are doing just fine, thanks. But this either/or strategy is an interesting one that other states may consider in the future.  The contingency factor layered into the Utah law would have to be removed, but a law that allows parties to opt into a primary that is early/non-compliant in the process and a fallback option that piggybacked on a preexisting primary for state and local offices could be a workable plan in some states. I say some states because states with primaries for state and local office that fall after the second week in June would conflict with national party rules on the backend of the calendar. Those states with late August and early September primaries would have less flexibility than other states on this.

A tip of the cap to Tony Roza at The Green Papers for the news.

--
¹ Text of SB 3004 can be found here.

Recent Posts:

Housekeeping: Wyoming Democrats Avoid Passover Conflict with Alternate Caucus Date

Gardner's Bluffing but It Has Nothing to Do with the MOVE Act

On Defining "Similar Contest" and Candidate Boycott Pledges

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

In Utah, One More Step to a June 26 Presidential Primary

Back in June, the Utah Republican Party decided to scrap ideas to revert to a caucus/convention system to select national convention delegates in the presidential nomination process. Instead, the party opted to focus on a primary. Since the Beehive state's presidential primary -- the Western States Presidential Primary election -- did not receive any appropriations in the FY2012 Utah budget, that left the state Republican Party no recourse but to hold the primary concurrent with state and local primaries in June.

The only problem is that there was/is no legal way of doing that  -- adding the presidential line to the ballot -- given current state election law. The Utah state legislature, in the midst of a special session, has done its part to remedy that situation, adding language to the law that would automatically trigger the later primary as an option should funds not be allocated to the first Tuesday in February presidential primary election. The section on the state funding requirement had been there prior to this, but not the trigger provision. Here is the new subsection added to the law (Section 20A.9.802, section 1.a.ii):

A political party may participate in a regular primary election for the office of President of the United States only if there is no Western States Presidential Primary election in that year.

The bill (SB 3004) has passed both the Senate and the House with just one dissenting vote across chambers and now awaits Governor Gary Herbert's (R) consideration. The state Republican Party has already obviously signaled its desire to use the June primary as a means of allocating its national convention delegates, and this bill was a necessary part of that plan, though in the end, a bit of a formality with a Republican-controlled state government.

FHQ will add a link to the legislation to our left sidebar Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures section.

Hat tip to Evan Millett for passing this information on to FHQ.

Recent Posts:

An Opening Offer: Iowa Republican Caucuses Tentatively Scheduled for January 3

On Ignoring Laws to Schedule Primaries and Caucuses

"I'm not sure at this point that I do know where everybody else is."

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

Governor Deal Signs Presidential Primary Date Setting Power Over to Georgia Secretary of State

On Friday, May 13, Governor Nathan Deal (R) signed HB 454 into law. The bill transfers the authority for setting the date of the Georgia presidential primary from the General Assembly to the secretary of state. The Peach state's current secretary of state, Brian Kemp, will have until December 1 (at the latest) to choose the date on which Georgia will hold its presidential primary. Though that December deadline and the 60 days required to be within the point of selecting a date and holding the contest would allow for a primary as early as the last Tuesday in January, early signals out of the Republican Party of Georgia indicate a likely April primary. That, however, may depend on the chair Georgia Republicans select this weekend at their annual state convention.

Part of the reason for the higher likelihood of an April primary hinges on Georgia Republicans traditionally holding winner-take-all primaries; something the new Republican delegate selection rules do not allow before April. Presumably, the state party would have a chance to alter the winner-take-all rules to avoid that problem (...if an earlier primary without penalties is desired).¹ It is not clear whether Kemp, a Republican, would follow the suggestions of the state party, but it is likely given the fact that the primary is a means of the party allocating its delegates to the national convention.

One final note should probably be made as the path of this legislation has reached its completion. By ceding the power to the secretary of state, the Georgia General Assembly has granted the state more flexibility -- on par with New Hampshire and similar though not exactly like what is happening in Florida -- to select a presidential primary date that will put the state in a position on the calendar to influence the nomination. The short legislative session that Georgia typically holds so early in the year has continually hampered the states ability to be as free as some other states in selecting a time for a primary.

[Click to Enlarge]

This move on Georgia's part moves the Peach state out of February and now has Georgia designated as "No Date" for our purposes here at FHQ until Secretary Kemp selects a date for the presidential primary.

Follow this link for a look back at the legislative process behind this bill and other presidential primary news in Georgia.

--

¹ Texas has had the same problem but has no recourse between now and next year's primary due to the fact that the Republican Party of Texas has already held its 2011 state convention and has no means of changing its winner-take-all requirement.

Recent Posts:

Missouri House Passes Conference Committee Report, Moving Presidential Primary to March

Kansas House Passes Conference Committee Report to Cancel 2012 Presidential Primary

Gregoire's Signature Cancels 2012 Washington Presidential Primary

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

Tennessee Presidential Primary to March 6

On Monday May 9, Governor Bill Haslam (R) signed HB 612, moving the Tennessee presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. The Volunteer state now joins both Oklahoma and Virginia in moving to March 6 and also Maryland and Washington, DC as states (or districts) to have shifted their delegate selection events to later dates.

[Click to Enlarge]

See the updated 2012 presidential primary calendar here.

Recent Posts:

Texas Inches Closer to an April Presidential Primary. ...or does it?

Washington State Democrats Amend Delegate Selection Plan, Change Caucus Date

New Jersey Assembly Unanimously Passes June Presidential Primary Bill

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

Tennessee Senate Passes House Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March

On Monday, April 25 the Tennessee state Senate considered and passed HB 612, the state House bill designed to shift the Volunteer state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. Simultaneous to that, the Senate moved its own version of the bill (SB 599) to the dead bill file. That move clears the way for the House version -- now passed by both chambers -- to move on to the governor's desk. And with the Republican-controlled legislature having overwhelmingly passed the bill (unanimously in the Senate, 31-0), there is likely to be little resistance from Republican governor, Bill Haslam.

If signed, the law would bring Tennessee into compliance with the national party rules regarding the timing of delegate selection events.

Recent Posts:

Chicken Little and the Iowa Caucuses

Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee Bill Passes Florida House

The Links (4/20/11): Miscellany

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

An April Primary in Georgia?

Ink in the form of Governor Nathan Deal's name has yet to hit paper much less dry on the recently passed legislation to hand the date-setting authority for the Peach state's presidential primary to Secretary of State Brian Kemp. But that has not stopped some -- FHQ included -- from speculating on where the Georgia primary will end up on the 2012 presidential primary calendar. That list now includes the current GOP state party chair, Sue Everhart conceding (via the AJC Political Insider blog) "that Georgia is likely to seek an April date."

Conceding? Why?

Well, let's look at the factors involved in the decision-making calculus in the Peach state. First of all, Georgia Democrats will take a back seat in the process. No, the national party likely won't have a competitive nomination race at the presidential level, and that doesn't help. But neither does the fact that the party is in the minority in the state after being swept in every statewide race last year and kept in the minority in the state legislature. Really, so long as Kemp does not select -- assuming the bill is signed into law -- a date prior to the first Tuesday in March, he is not likely to hear even a peep out of Georgia Democrats.

Technically, though, Kemp, a Republican, has the ability to select any date between the last Tuesday in January (the first available Tuesday 60 days following the final date on which the secretary would be able to choose a date, December 1) and the second Tuesday in June. Again, as FHQ pointed out back when the legislation was first proposed, the opening point of that window of time coincides with the date on which the primary in Florida is currently scheduled. If Florida, whether through its state legislature or the proposed bipartisan committee, continues to defy national party rules and maintains that January date, it may become a more attractive location for the Georgia primary in the eyes of Republicans in the state.

It would be attractive save for two reasons. The Georgia delegation to the Republican National Convention in Tampa would be halved and the delegates from that primary would have to be allocated proportionally. Neither of those options is seemingly palatable to the state party's chair nor presumably to others within the party. Traditionally, Georgia has had a winner-take-all allocation of delegates and would go to the convention with a diluted voice of sorts. In practice all the delegates from the Georgia delegation would line up behind the presumptive GOP nominee, but they wouldn't all be Romney men or Palin loyalists or Pawlenty people. In the big picture it isn't a big deal, but to state party folks who have worked hard for a candidate it does.

And yeah, they do hold some sway in the state party; a party that will elect a chair next month at the state convention. That's why one of those candidates, the current chair, Sue Everhart, is conceding that there may be an April primary in Georgia. Of course, she and the party would have to convince Brian Kemp of that first.

Recent Posts:

Washington State House Passes Senate Bill to Cancel 2012 Presidential Primary

Senate Version of Tennessee Primary Bill Passes Committee

Washington State Inches Closer to Canceling 2012 Presidential Primary

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

Senate Version of Tennessee Primary Bill Passes Committee

The Tennessee Senate State and Local Government Committee today unanimously passed SB 599. The bill is the equivalent of the House measure (HB 612) that passed last week. Both bills are seeking to shift the date on which the Volunteer state primary is held from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. After weeks of deferring action on the bill, the committee acted and passed the measure by a 9-0 vote. The measure now moves to the floor of the Senate for consideration there by the full chamber.

The Tennessee legislature like the Oklahoma legislature is Republican-controlled and has similarly shown no willingness to defy national party rules and stick with their current February primary date.

Recent Posts:

Washington State Inches Closer to Canceling 2012 Presidential Primary

Whither Mid-Atlantic Primary? Delaware Delegate Selection Plan Indicates as Much. ...sort of.

Tennessee House Passes March Presidential Primary Bill

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

Tennessee House Passes March Presidential Primary Bill

For five consecutive weeks the Tennessee Senate subcommittee of the State and Local Government Committee has deferred action on the bills before it that would move the Volunteer state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. And while the on again, off again calendar placement has not been repeated in the state House, the two Republican-sponsored bills to accomplish the same thing in that chamber have languished in committee since being introduced in February.¹ The House, however, can now say that it has passed one of the two bills.

HB 612 passed the state House on April 14 by a bipartisan vote of 91-2. Those two dissenting votes were from two Republicans. The bill now heads to the state Senate for consideration.

--

¹ Democratic-sponsored bills to move the presidential primary to May to coincide with municipal elections have gone nowhere in committee.

Recent Posts:

Bill Prefiled in Louisiana to Move Presidential Primary to March

Did the Missouri House Up the Ante on the State Senate Presidential Primary Bill?

Florida House Committee Passes Amended Bill to Create a Presidential Primary Date-Setting Committee

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

Georgia Senate Passes Presidential Primary Bill on Sine Die Day

The Georgia state Senate on Wednesday passed HB 454 -- the bill to hand the presidential primary date-setting authority to the secretary of state -- by a vote of 43-6. The bill now heads to Governor Nathan Deal's desk for signature and would provide the Peach state with the same sort of flexibility in scheduling the presidential primary in the future that Florida is seeking with the formation of an outside committee to make the decision. Should Deal sign the bill into law, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp would have until December 1 at the latest to set the date for next year's presidential primary. And while Kemp may feel compelled to move the primary into compliance with national party rules, the law would give him the ability to set the date as early as the end of January.

This is the second consecutive cycle in which the Georgia General Assembly has finalized the decision on the presidential primary on the last day of the session. The 2007 move was a bit more last minute as the original bill to move the primary died and it took an amendment to another elections bill to get the move to a February primary through the legislature.

Thanks to Andre Walker at Georgia Politics Unfiltered for live blogging sine die day at the Georgia General Assembly in Atlanta and passing the news along.

Recent Posts:

A Follow Up on the Later Texas Primary

The 2012 Candidates: Santorum's In

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (4/13/11)

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

Tennessee Senate Subcommittee Hearings Show Support for Primary Move to March over May

Rare are the instances when reporting is done on committee and subcommittee hearings on the state legislative level. Well, it happens, but not all that often with bills that would move the date on which state-funded presidential primaries are held. That's why it was nice to see some of that type of reporting last week. From no other source do we get a better glimpse at the motivation behind the shifts or potential shifts of primary dates.

In Tennessee Senate subcommittee of the State and Local Government Committee, state senators debated the two possibilities of a new date for the Volunteer state's presidential primary. Both SB 599 and SB 929 are bills that represent the majority party Republicans' desire to move the primary back to the first Tuesday in March. Tom Humphrey from the Knoxville News Sentinel:

Republican [Majority Leader Mark] Norris, who is sponsoring the bill, said it accommodates requests from the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee.

The idea, he said, is to "team up with some other states" to perhaps gain more national attention to the Tennessee primary.

But the Democratic-sponsored bill (SB 1875) would shift the date of the presidential primary back to the first Tuesday in May where it would coincide with municipal elections. Again, Humphrey:

Senate Democratic Leader Jim Kyle of Memphis has a bill, SB1875, which would instead set the presidential primary on the first Tuesday in May. Kyle told the senators he would not oppose the Norris bill, but wanted them to be mindful of the impact of the presidential primary date on local elections.

Most cities and counties set their local primary election dates to coincide with the statewide presidential primary date, since they then avoid having to pay most of the election costs. With a February or March primary, Kyle said, local candidates must file their qualifying petitions in November or December, and some potential challengers to incumbents often do not realize that fact, leaving incumbents with "a free ride."

Notice that Kyle's emphasis is not on the potential cost-savings to the state per se but on the burden on challenging candidates due to such an early (February) presidential primary and the financial burden on unreimbursed local elections officials in the event a municipal election is not held concurrently with the presidential primary.

The Republican bills to move the primary to March are still the odds on favorites to pass the now-unified Republican-controlled government.

Recent Posts:

The 2012 Candidates: Pawlenty's In (...exploring mode)

Feb. 7 Minnesota Caucuses with March 6 Results?

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/21/11)

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

Crossover Day Vote Sends Georgia Primary Bill to the State Senate

Wednesday marked the 30th day of the 2011 legislative session in the Georgia General Assembly; the deadline by which legislation has to be passed in one chamber of the legislature in order for the other chamber to consider it (before the 40 day session is adjourned). Among the bills up for the deadline vote -- and it was tough to see it when seemingly everyone following crossover day in Georgia was more interested in the Senate vote to allow the Sunday sale of alcohol¹ -- was the House bill to shift the presidential primary date-setting authority from the legislature to the office of the secretary of state. As FHQ has mentioned previously, HB 454, would give the Peach state the flexibility to adapt more easily -- and more quickly -- to changing national party rules regarding the timing of primaries and caucuses allocating presidential delegates. More to the point, it would allow the secretary of state the ability to -- like the secretary of state in New Hampshire -- more easily set the date of the state's primary at a point that is first, competitive, but also maximizes Georgia's influence over the presidential nomination process.

That is a power that is unique to New Hampshire, though similar actions have been taken in Arizona to give the, in the Grand Canyon state's case, governor the ability to set the primary on a "better" date should the date called for by state law -- the fourth Tuesday in February -- fall outside of the window of influence. Georgia, then, is attempting to join a select few states with this ability and the bipartisan effort to accomplish this passed the House by a vote of 153Y-21N. The potential for added flexibility was cited by proponents of the measure while the few opponents brought up the constitutional balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.

One additional note that should be made is that Georgia was in the exact same position four years ago. It was around the same time that the Georgia House passed HB 487 by a similar margin in 2007. That bill was intended to shift the Peach state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. The state Senate subsequently passed a different version of the bill that did not pass the House when the altered bill was returned to its house of origin. A last minute amendment to a separate elections bill saved the cause of the earlier presidential primary date and brought it into effect. The moral here is that the legislative process happens. That said, this bill does seem to have bipartisan back -- in terms of its sponsorship -- and we'll have to see how far that takes in the Senate over the final ten legislative days of the session.

Hat tip to Andre Walker at Georgia Politics Unfiltered for passing this news along.

--

¹This is an annual rite of spring in the Georgia General Assembly. The Sunday sales issue always comes up and is always voted down. Usually, however, it is defeated in committee. Not in 2011. The bill (SB 10) passed the Senate and now heads to the House.

Recent Posts:

Colorado Bill to Shift Presidential Caucuses Up Two Weeks

Funding the South Carolina Presidential Primary

Goodbye Potomac Primary. Hello Mid-Atlantic Primary?

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

Bill to Hand Power to Set Primary Date Over to Secretary of State Filed in Georgia

A bipartisan coalition of six Georgia representatives has come up with by far the most interesting approach to 2012 presidential primary timing. Rep. Mark Hamilton (R-23rd, Cumming), Rep. John Meadows (R-5th, Calhoun), Majority Whip Edward Lindsey (R-54th, Atlanta), Rep. Mary Oliver (D-83rd, Decatur), Rep. Tyrone Brooks (D-63rd, Atlanta) and Rep. Alisha Morgan (D-39th, Austell) prefiled HB 454 on March 3 and has several wrinkles to it.

First of all, the bill shifts the presidential primary date-setting authority from the state legislature to the secretary of state. The effect is that this frees a state of the potential for partisan conflict that often hampers the movement of a primary. Such a move would also remove the issue of a state legislature having to be in session to move the date of a presidential primary around. This is how New Hampshire has been able to move with such ease in protecting its first-in-the-nation status since 1976. There is no partisan conflict and in New Hampshire's case, Secretary of State Bill Gardner can wait until a very late date -- after all the other states have selected dates -- to choose when New Hampshire will go. It would appear that this is the intent in Georgia as well.

The short term impact of this is that Georgia will remain an unknown for a while if this bill is passed and signed into law. There are, however, a few additional guidelines that add to the intrigue of this. The secretary of state wouldn't have unlimited discretion here. He or she would have to make a decision on the date "not later than 60 days preceding the date on which the presidential primary is to be held". Candidates have to have time to file and local elections administrators have to have time to prepare for the primary.

But let's look at this in the context of 2012. Secretary of State Brian Kemp, if given this authority, could wait all the way up to December 1, and like New Hampshire, see where all the other states are going to be positioned on the calendar. Now, 60 days from December 1 is January 30. That is just enough time to see not where New Hampshire is positioned, but where Florida ends up. Oddly -- or not so oddly enough -- Florida is currently positioned on January 31. Kemp can wait it out, see if Florida budges, how the RNC reacts and set the date of the Georgia primary accordingly. If the RNC caves to Florida's insistence on being on January 31, then Kemp could move Georgia up to coincide with its neighbor to the south on January 31. But if the RNC comes down hard on Florida, Kemp could move Georgia's primary back into compliance with national party rules (on March 6, for instance).

What this bill would do is keep Georgia's options open and allow it the most leeway to select an advantageous date that would not necessarily threaten New Hampshire or Iowa or South Carolina, but would potentially help the Peach state to align with Florida in a sub-regional act of defiance.

File this one away.

UPDATE: Jim Galloway at the AJC beat me to the punch by minutes, but adds more.

Recent Posts:

The Links (3/4/11) -- Calendar Edition

A Note on FHQ's 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar(s)

The 2012 Candidates: Newt's In (?)

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

Companion Senate Bill to Move Tennessee Presidential Primary to May Introduced

Last week, Tennessee House Democrats proposed a bill (HB 760) that would shift the state's presidential primary back from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in May. The Democratic leadership on the state Senate side has now followed suit. Minority Leader Jim Kyle (D-28th, Memphis) introduced SB 1875 last Thursday (February 17) which would have the impact of scheduling the presidential primary concurrently with municipal elections held in May.

The intention of Democrats in a time where budget deficits are a real concern on the state level is likely to prioritize elections outlays. However, it is much easier for the minority party Democrats to do this in a cycle where the party's standard bearer is likely to receive no concerted opposition in the primaries next year. Majority party Republicans, with a contested nomination to come in 2012 are more likely to balk at this as a result. Tennessee has moved its primary the last two cycles -- from the second Tuesday in March to the second Tuesday in February in 2004 and from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in February in 2008. Legislators in the Volunteer state, then, have had a recent history of moving the state's presidential primary around to maximize the state's influence.

The reality is that legislators there have merely moved the state into a period of time before or simultaneous with a decision on the nomination having been determined. Tennessee has not proven decisive, but it has been a part of the decision. And while Tennessee Democrats may have the thought of the bonus delegates that are awarded to later primary states, they are unlikely to see those with Republicans in control of the state government and a contested nomination race on the horizon.

If one was to place bets on which set of primary bills will emerge, one would have to wager on the primary moving to March and not May based on partisanship and partisan control alone. However, this is yet further evidence of 2012 primary laws being crafted with budgetary concerns at least secondarily in mind.

Recent Posts:

2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (Feb. 14-20)

New York GOP to Switch to Proportional Delegate Allocation in 2012?

Virginia House Bill to Move Presidential Primary Passes Senate

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

Three New Presidential Primary Bills Emerge in Tennessee

Late last week, bills were introduced by the Republican leadership in both chambers of the Tennessee General Assembly to move the Volunteer state's 2012 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. Since that time, there have been three additional bills introduced that would affect the timing of the state's presidential primary. Two are revisions of the bills filed last week -- yet in the form of an all-new bill -- that would maintain the same shift described in the previous legislation, but would augment that with a change in the filing deadlines as well. As such, HB 793 and SB 929, also sponsored by Rep. Gerald McCormick (R-26, Chattanooga) and Sen. Mark Norris (R-32, Collierville) respectively, seemingly replace HB 612 and SB 599. Again, these bills, as was the case with their predecessors have the backing of the Republican (majority party) leadership and that stands to help the bill through the General Assembly.

In contrast, HB 760, introduced by Democratic House leader, Craig Fitzhugh (D-82, Ripley), while it does have the support of the minority party leader, will potentially face more institutional, not to mention partisan, barriers to passing. Complicating matters further -- from a partisan perspective -- is the fact that this bill calls for the presidential primary to be moved to first Tuesday in May to coincide with the municipal primaries in the state. This not only saves money, but it also moves the primary out of the window of time in which the Republican nomination is likely to be decided. The cost savings are attractive, but it is questionable how open Republican legislators are going to be toward moving the primary out of contention on the calendar. Democrats obviously have a bit more leeway on this front given that the party is very unlikely to have a contested nomination race next year.

These bills will be added to the Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures section in the left sidebar.

Recent Posts:

"Rubio favors early presidential primary for Florida in 2012"

Midweek Update on Presidential Primary Movement

Are we done writing the eulogy for the Iowa Caucuses?

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

Florida Primary: Are Governor Scott and the GOP Leadership in the General Assembly Really "At Odds"?

In the wake of Democratic state legislators filing bills in the Florida General Assembly to move the Sunshine state's presidential primary from January back to March, there has been quite a bit of chatter in the Florida press about "battles brewing" and "lines forming" over when the primary should be held. The fight being portrayed, though, misses the point and actually mischaracterizes the parties involved.

The true dividing line on this issue is not, as it seems to be in some of the Florida press, an intra-party struggle within the Republican-controlled state government, but rather a inter-party battle between those same Republicans in control and the minority party Democrats without a contested presidential nomination race. There has been a fair amount of talk about the bills being offered by Democrats to move the primary back into compliance and about the Florida Democratic Party's chair calling for a later date.* But that angle has taken a backseat to the supposedly looming intra-party battle among Republicans.

Look, there may yet be a contentious debate over whether Florida should assert itself and maintain an early, non-compliant primary date or tow the national party line and move back. There are obvious pros and cons either way: go early and take a penalty (one that may not be enforced at the convention) or go later and with many other states and have less influence (while maintaining a full slate of delegates). But it isn't apparent to me that there either is or will definitely be a battle on this issue -- not during this legislative session at least.

Let's look a bit more closely at these "battle lines". First off, the Republican leadership in the House and Senate appears to be supportive of maintaining the January primary.

President of the Senate Mike Haridopolos: "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 sense if we did it early in the process."

Speaker of the House Dean Cannon: "I think the earlier we are, the more relevant we are as a national voice. I think the members of the House will be reluctant to move it all the way forward. Again, I'm not taking any hard and fast position, but I certainly favoring [sic] leaving it early as a general principle."

There's some wiggle room there for both, but both seem to support the idea of leaving the presidential primary where it is.

What about the other side of this brewing showdown? Rick Scott has maintained a fairly consistent albeit ambiguous line. In the governor's comments after speaking with RNC chair, Reince Priebus, and in more recently, he has essentially said that Florida should go as early as it can without losing any delegates. That doesn't really tell us anything other than the governor is trying to tread the fine line between what the national party wants and what may be best on the state level (Florida influencing the ultimate identity of the Republican nominee.). In other words, I don't see Scott bringing any real pressure to the table to get legislators to do what the national party desires. Not at this time anyway.

I don't really see that happening in the future either. And I think that simply because this whole discussion of a brewing fight amongst Republicans in Florida on this issue ignores one concrete fact: the governor will likely stay out of the discussion in any direct way unless and until a bill to change the date of the primary lands on his desk. To the extent there will be a debate on this issue, it will take place in the legislature and the leadership seems inclined to potentially bottle these bills up in committee to keep the primary where it is.

Republican legislators may be gambling on this, but it is a calculated gamble. They are betting that, though the national party may complain about a non-compliant primary, they will eventually cave before the convention and reinstate all of the the delegates as they have done in the past. You will also hear some talk about Florida having to switch to a proportional allocation of delegates because of a change in Republican Party rules -- and I don't expect any fight there -- but that will happen whether they have a primary in January or March. The real issue is whether there will be a full Florida delegation in the event of a January primary. If Republicans in the state legislature do nothing and leave the primary where it is, they are operating under the assumption that the national party will yield to Florida in the interest of demonstrating national party unity to the American people at the Tampa convention. Any and all divisiveness will be tamped down or eliminated altogether.

So battle lines? What battle lines? If there are any, they are where they have been since Florida moved in 2007: between the state parties/governments and the national parties. That there is any imminent battle looming among Republicans in Florida has yet to manifest itself in any measurable way in my eyes.

*According to Rule 20.C.7 of the 2012 Democratic Delegate Selection Rules, the state party has make at least some effort to change the date through the legislature if it wants to have any chance of a waiver to hold an early primary or assistance from the national party in holding an alternate contest.

Recent Posts:

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

“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

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

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.