An SEC Primary in 2016? Not so fast… (Part II)

A couple of weeks ago FHQ examined the likelihood that the states most closely associated with Secretary of State Brian Kemp's (R-GA) southeastern regional primary proposal would be able to implement a presidential primary move. That was more of an internal look at what may affect the calculus in each state. The post touched on outside factors that may affect that decision-making process, but only in passing. Obviously, there are other matters that may intervene to complicate things.

There is some history here. The idea of a southern regional primary is not a new one. Barely a year after the reformed presidential nomination process got its first trial run in 1972, Jimmy Carter was out laying the groundwork for a nomination bid on the Democratic side in 1976 but was also trumpeting the strategic virtues of holding a collective southern regional primary. The benefits seemed clear. The South would speak with one voice and propel a more moderate-to-conservative candidate to the Democratic nomination who could, in turn, better compete in the general election.

As it turned out, it took the states of the South a decade and a half to coordinate this, bringing the idea to fruition. It took some cajoling from the Carter folks ahead of the 1980 renomination run against Ted Kennedy to convince legislators in Florida to hold pat in March and legislators in Alabama and Georgia to move up to coincide with the primary in the Sunshine state. That subregional primary was to serve as a counterweight to the delegate gains Kennedy was likely to win in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.¹

Four years later, several southern and border states adopted caucuses for the competitive Democratic nomination race, joining Alabama, Florida and Georgia in March, though not all on the same date. Only the Oklahoma Democratic caucuses were on that same second Tuesday in March date. Caucuses in Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi and South Carolina followed later in the month. Collectively the South spoke with something approximating a single voice, but the result was not support for a more moderate candidate.² Rather, it was support for Walter Mondale.

There was, then, no alignment between the notion of a strong, unified regional voice in the process and a homegrown, southern, moderate-to-conservative candidate. The former seemed more likely with a southern bloc of contests, but that did not happen until the 1988 invisible primary. Even then -- with everything lined up -- the South did not speak with one voice in the 1988 Democratic primary. The unintended consequence was that three Democratic candidates emerged from the Southern Super Tuesday with a claim to victory -- Dukakis in the populous South (Florida and Texas), Gore in the peripheral South and Jackson in the Deep South -- all while George HW Bush used a sweep of the region on Super Tuesday to consolidate his hold on the Republican nomination.

--
The dynamics of any given nomination race matter and it is difficult to gauge ahead of time -- as a decision-maker on the state level -- what those dynamics will look like in, say, two years time. That is the cautionary tale for those thinking of coordinating primaries in 2016. That past repeated itself to some degree in 2008 on the Democratic side (though not in a regional sense). Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton roughly split the logjam of national contests on Super Tuesday while John McCain significantly stretched the delegate lead he had established during the January contests.

What are the dynamics FHQ is talking about?

The candidates who run combined with the sequence of primaries and caucuses and the rules of delegate allocation are basics. And all are unknown at this point in time to those state-level decision-makers. There is a baseline calendar for 2016, but the question is how state actors view that terrain in light of the national party rules on (national convention) delegate selection. Actually, this constitutes several questions:

1. Do we want to move our delegate selection contest up (to an earlier point on the calendar)?
2. Does a new position mean incurring a penalty from one or both national parties?
3. Does a new position mean conducting an election on the same day as a number of other regional partners?
4. Does a new position mean conducting an election on the same day as a number of other states with no one dominant region? 
5. Does moving to a new position to create a regional primary (question #3) mean that other states (or regions -- see question #4) will herd toward that date; typically in the post-reform era, the first date allowed by both national parties (the first Tuesday in March in 2016)?

Now, there is no indication that state-level decision makers actually consider these matters this deeply. Rather, in most cases, state legislators (collectively) see, on its surface, a good idea -- a regional primary -- and run with it. In the process, however, there is little evaluation of the unintended consequences.

None of this is happening in a vacuum. These decisions to move a primary or caucuses are not independent of one another. The answer to question #1 depends on the willingness and ability of the state to move based on structural factors. FHQ has already discussed that for the states potentially involved in this retro-southern regional primary concept proposed by Georgia Secretary of State Kemp. Nothing in that proposal suggests that any of the southern go rogue, so the states of the South will avoid penalty so long as the Democratic National Committee retains a similar calendar to the Republican National Committee.

But there is something to questions #3-5 posed above. Partnering with other states in a region has its advantages, but it seems that that exercise has diminishing returns for the states involved as more states sign on. This needs a deeper examination, but one could argue that the most successful regional primaries have been subregional primaries; smaller clusters of contests at a point on the calendar that provides that group of states with the spotlight and is also earlier than the point at which 50% plus one of the delegates has been allocated to one candidate (effectively ending the nomination race). Contrast the 1988 Southern Super Tuesday with the 2008 Potomac Primary (Maryland, Virginia and Washington, DC), for example.

The former was a mega-primary that allowed candidates to pick and choose their spots (as on the Democratic side in 1988). One could also just as easily see such a contest giving advantage to an unintended beneficiary (as on the Republican side in 1988). That is, someone of the party opposite the dominant partisanship of the region or a front-running candidate with the resources to compete in such a large number of states. Alternatively, the latter, if shrewdly scheduled (in this case a week after a rush of more than 25 contests in 2008), can draw candidates into a small area of competition with similar issues. Again, that was true in 2008 with the Potomac Primary, but one could also consider the Alabama/Mississippi cluster the week after Super Tuesday in 2012 another of these. Many have argued that those contests were evidence of Romney's poor showings in the South, but while the former Massachusetts governor lost in both, he emerged at near parity with Santorum and Gingrich in the delegate count in each. In other words, it was competitive; something a subregional cluster would desire.

This is actually an idea that the DNC attempted to nurture in 2012: clusters of primaries. Neighboring groups of three or more states that held concurrent primaries in or after April on the calendar a 15% delegate bonus. That was viewed as a way of matching up state and candidate interests but also for giving incentive to later primary and caucuses dates.

Broadly speaking, though, this is an hypothesis that needs some additional research. Is there at point of diminishing returns in terms of what states and candidates get out of a Super Tuesday pile up of contests. Smaller, distinct (date and regional proximity) clusters may be better able to accomplish this. That seemed to be part of the lesson that states seemed to have learned after 2008. Part of the motivation many states had in moving back was a change in national party rules (the February to March transition of the post-carve-out window), but the other part was that a number of states herded to Super Tuesday in 2008 and got nothing out of it.

Those are the competing interests facing those states willing to move around for the 2016 cycle: 1) Learn the lesson of 2008 and attempt to pick and choose a spot on the calendar (either alone or as a small cluster of subregional states) or 2) Move en masse to the earliest date allowed by the parties -- the first Tuesday in March.³ Those two options are not mutually exclusive. It could be that a group of southern states, for instance, cluster on March 1 (fulfilling the first option with the exception maybe of the small cluster) and that has the effect of triggering a rush on the date by other states. That reactionary group of states would be operating under the rationale -- as was the case before 2008 -- that if they do not move they will run the risk of falling after the point in the races where enough of the delegates have been allocated to have singled out a presumptive nominee.

There may also be the added layer of indirect involvement from the national parties as well; coaxing some states to move around. And this goes both ways; not Democratic and Republican so much as moving up and back. In 2012, there was some talk about national Democrats urging some states to move back to negatively affect the Republican process. Northeastern states would move back, making the front half of the calendar more southern and conservative. That would, in turn, hypothetically hurt Romney. The result was something of a mixed bag. Romney had a somewhat rough path to the nomination, but that was not a function of a conservative first half of the calendar. There was a good regional mix of early contests even if a group of mid-Atlantic/northeastern states moved back into late April. The real culprit for the drawn out Republican contest was the dispersion of contests across the entire calendar.

Assuming we witness some movement on Secretary Kemp's southern regional primary on March 1, we could see Republicans (nationally or the RNC quietly) urge just the opposite of what Democrats wanted in 2012. The idea of a southern regional primary isn't new as discussed above, but neither is the idea of a regional primary in this cycle. It was just last November that RNC Chairman Reince Priebus was talking about a midwestern regional primary. If contests in the South begin moving up to March 1, there could very quickly be a quiet yet concerted effort to find a group of contests to serve as a counterbalance on the Republican calendar either on March 1 or not long after. Ohio is already scheduled for that week after Super Tuesday.

--
States once were slow to react to primary/caucuses movement in other states. A move in one cycle was met with a move in a the next subsequent cycle (if a state was compelled to move at all). That process has sped up over the last several presidential election cycles and reaction time had decreased. Since California moved its presidential primary from June to March in the 1996 cycle -- shifting with it the center of gravity in terms of the balance of delegates allocated over time across the primary calendar -- states have begun reacting within cycle. In other words, moving to a date that looks ripe for the taking now does not necessarily mean that that same date will not be jam packed with a number of other contests in the near future.

This hypothesis fits well in the policy diffusion literature. It also is something that FHQ has explored to some extent in a regional context. If one state moves its primary or caucuses, does that increase the likelihood that a neighboring state moves as well? What we found across a limited dataset -- the 2004 and 2008 cycles -- was the exact opposite: That if a neighboring state moved up, it decreased movement in surrounding states. At this point, FHQ is willing to chalk that up to a limited number of observations in just primary states across just a couple of cycles. It bears further research.

--
Again, it is easy to look at the surface issues here and move on if you are a state-level actor. Move up, bring along some regional partners, get more attention and affect the nomination. Under that surface, though, there is a lot to think through. It can quickly become a complicated series of unknowns. The changes to the Republican delegate selection rules have limited the world of possibilities by adding some penalties with teeth, but that does not mean that there are not 50 states -- some with multiple actors involved -- that are attempting to reduce uncertainty, game the system and gain an advantage for themselves (in terms of gaining attention and influencing the process). One move by a state or a series of states can set off any number of possibilities in reaction.

That's the take home message in this jumbled mess: unintended consequences. One move begets another move that may negate your original move. And there usually is not a rejoinder to the response. There isn't time.

--
¹ As it turned out, Carter won New Hampshire and all three southern states in the 1980 primaries and it was not until later in the calendar that Kennedy began to close the delegate gap. Even that was too little too late.

² Jesse Jackson's win in South Carolina and Gary Hart's in Oklahoma were the only two holes in an otherwise unified South. Those exceptions were early (March) contests and undercut the idea of the South collectively influencing the process by backing one candidate.

³ There is a third option as well. States could simply hold their ground and stay where current state law has the primary scheduled. Many states will do this as well.

Recent Posts:
From Utah, a Bill to Potentially Disrupt the 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

Iowa. Still a Winnowing Contest. ...to Clinton and everyone else.

Missouri Once Again Initiates an Attempt at Presidential Primary Calendar Compliance

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

An SEC Primary in 2016? Not so fast… (Part I)

Last week at the National Association of Secretaries of State meeting in Washington, Georgia secretary of state, Brian Kemp (R), rolled out a proposal for the alignment of southern presidential primaries on the first Tuesday in March in 2016. And Secretary Kemp has gotten some "positive feedback" on the plan from others in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi.¹

That's all well and good, but let's have a bit of a look under the hood on this thing. In the first part, FHQ will look at those states named above that have expressed an interest in the possibility of a southeastern regional primary.

The date that Secretary Kemp has proposed for what has been affectionately called the SEC primary is March 1. That is the first date on which states other than the four carve-outs -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- can hold delegate selection events under the actual (RNC) or expected (DNC) rules. In other words, that may be an attractive landing point for any number of states (see Super Tuesday on February 5, 2008). As of now, March 1 already has a southern flavor. Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia are scheduled for that date according to current state laws in each. Adding Georgia to the mix gives the South the clearest and strongest regional voice on that date. That would make five out of the eight states southern with Massachusetts and Vermont serving as only a token regional counterweight.

But what is the likelihood that others (from the South) join those four (or five if one counts Georgia) on March 1?

Georgia is unique in that the state legislature ceded the authority to set the date of the Peach state presidential primary to the secretary of state in 2011. That makes Georgia like New Hampshire in that regard. Basically what that transfer of power means is that Georgia, like New Hampshire, is better able to move its presidential primary around without the potential for gridlock or just inaction on the part of a state legislature. Getting Georgia to March 1, then, is an easier task than it will be for other states.

And there will be something of a dilemma in the other states to whom that Secretary Kemp has reached out. Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi will have push a date change through their legislatures. Secretaries of state in each of those states can (attempt to) initiate the legislative process on such moves, but that is no guarantee that there will actually be any shifting. The reason there is no guarantee is that such a proposal raises questions about the expected utility of a move. Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi are already in March.

What difference does it make to move up a week (as is the case in Alabama and Mississippi) or two-ish (for Louisiana's now customary Saturday primary)?

In Alabama and Mississippi, the expected cost or benefit of a move may or may not be financial. Both are already in March, so the trade-off is more a matter of going with a larger group of southern states and risking getting lost in the shuffle or sticking with a smaller subregional primary on a date a week later when they may collectively and effectively counterbalance the Ohio primary on the same date. That is a tougher question to answer when both dates -- the first and second Tuesday in March -- are potentially attractive landing points on the calendar for a number of states. Getting lost in the shuffle may be a foregone conclusion when it is all said and done and the calendar is finalized in late 2015.

The gamble is similar in Louisiana in that the internal debate is a function of choosing between a date where they may have a greater share of the spotlight later on (if the nomination races are still going in late March) and a date when many other southern states hold their contests; a proposition the nets the Pelican state some regional clout but not necessarily direct attention from the candidates. The situation in Louisiana is complicated by the fact that the state has utilized a Saturday primary the last two cycles. Part of that is designed to reserve a spot on the presidential primary stage where Louisiana stands alone or with other smaller and/or caucuses states. The spotlight favors them.

Legislators in Arkansas face a slightly different calculus. First of all, the new RNC rules almost force Arkansas to consider moving up. Currently scheduled for the next to last Tuesday in May, the Arkansas primary falls at a point on the calendar after the cutoff for when primaries will need to be held to accommodate a late June or early to mid-July Republican convention. But that only adds to the classic late state dilemma: move everything up (presidential primary, state and local primaries and all) or create a separate presidential primary that is easier to move around (but also costs the state additional election funds)? Arkansas has twice gone the latter route (1988 and 2008) and twice has gotten essentially no bang for its buck, the extra expenditure got the state nothing in the way of advertising dollars or candidate attention. How ready and willing is Arkansas going to be to repeat that pattern? The alternative -- moving a consolidated set of primaries to an earlier date -- has its own pitfalls. Such a move impacts state legislators tasked with making the move in the first place. Moving a consolidated primary up lengthens a state legislators general election campaign. It also potentially means that the primary campaign overlaps with the state legislative sessions which means the primary phase campaigning will be happening during the state legislative session. Both potentially make legislators' decisions that much more difficult.

Despite officials being open to the idea of a regional primary in the southeast, that does not necessarily mean that it will be enough to overcome the questions that will be raised during state legislative efforts to move primary dates for 2016 around. Those questions represent potential roadblocks in the legislative process that could derail movement to earlier positions on the primary calendar.

Of course, that is not all that complicates the potential effectiveness of this proposal or its intended implementation. FHQ will examine the other issues attendant to this proposal that may pop up in the intervening period between now and 2016 in part two.

--
¹ Below is the press release from Secretary Kemp's office yesterday:

Recent Posts:
May Presidential Primary Could Be on the Move in Nebraska

Oregon Republicans are Rethinking May Presidential Primary Date

With RNC Rules Revised, the Ball is Now in the Democrats' Court

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

Primary Movement Starts with the State Legislatures: The 2014 State Legislative Session Calendar

The name of the action may have changed since the last time FHQ did this in 2011, but if we're going to follow along as states shuffle -- or don't shuffle -- around on the 2016 presidential primary calendar, that activity will happen on the state level.

…in the state legislatures (for primaries).

A number of state legislatures return to work today, but their start points stretch out across the first half of 2014. From the National Conference of State Legislatures:

State Legislative Calendar 2014

Midterm years are not normally times for states to begin calendar jockeying. The national parties have yet to finalize their respective sets of delegate selection rules to govern the 2016 presidential nomination processes after all. That will happen later this year. However, that does not mean that there will not be legislation introduced that will affect when presidential primaries will be held in two years. Nor does it mean that the national parties will not begin to preemptively exert some pressure on political actors on the state level in states that may potentially cause some problems in 2016.

A few to keep an eye on in 2014:
1) Arizona:
The governor does have the power of proclamation to move the primary up but not back on the calendar. If the discrepancy in Rules 16 and 17 of the current RNC rules is resolved, then both Arizona and Michigan will find themselves in a bind at a point on the calendar one week ahead of the March 1 position all states other than the four carve-outs can fall on or after. The bottom line in the Grand Canyon state (and further east in the Great Lakes state) is that it is going to require state legislative action to move the primaries in each around.

2) Michigan:
See Arizona, minus the gubernatorial proclamation power.

3) Missouri:
The Show-Me state presidential primary is technically -- or will technically -- be in violation of the RNC (and likely DNC) rules on the first Tuesday in February. The state legislature there has also proven inept in 2011, 2012 and 2013 at moving the primary into compliance. FHQ would be surprised if there is not another attempt to move the 2016 election back during the 2014 session. But it is far from clear that the outcome will be any different now than in previous years. Regardless, the Missouri Republican Party is likely to trigger caucuses for allocating delegates in 2016 -- just like the party did in 2011 -- to avoid penalty if the state government proves resistant to moving the contest.

4) North Carolina:
The General Assembly in Raleigh will not reconvene for 2014 until May and even then the duration of the session is very short. Still, the omnibus elections bill passed during a special session during the summer of 2013 anchored the North Carolina presidential primary to South Carolina's. That will put the Tar Heel state in the crosshairs of both national parties penalties. The presidential primary provision added to the bill (and ultimate law) was also inserted last minute by the state Senate and rather than risk killing the bill, the state House -- a member of which is the national committeeman to the RNC from North Carolina -- opted to go along. But that did not mean that the primary move was kosher with everyone. FHQ has been told by a couple of sources that efforts are likely to be made later this year to bring the North Carolina primary back into compliance with the likely national party rules.

Recent Posts:
The Death of the Idaho Republican Presidential Caucuses has been Greatly Exaggerated

Christie's Primary Map May Be the Same as Romney's, But the Order of the Primaries Won't Be

Another Take on the RNC's Efforts to Alter the Presidential Nomination Rules for 2016

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

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.