Michigan Republicans Take First Step Toward 2016 Presidential Primary Date Change

WKZO in Michigan reports:

March 15th, 2016 appears to be the likely date of the Michigan Republican presidential primary in the next election. The Michigan Republican Party's Policy Committee approved the date... 

There is a bit more to the story, but it was little more than a blurb that has not been reported elsewhere. FHQ spoke with Michigan Republican Party Member Relations Director, Brian Koss, who confirmed the report and added some background as well.

Here's what we know:
1. The Policy Committee of the Michigan Republican Party approved the date change from the last Tuesday in February to March 15. That would have the effect of shifting the Michigan presidential primary back three weeks in 2016.

2. The committee also recommended a change to the method of delegate allocation. The change is not all that significant, but Mr. Koss indicated that it was the result of a compromise among the committee membership. Some wanted a winner-take-all allocation while others preferred a more proportional method of awarding delegates to presidential candidates. In the end, the Michigan Republican delegate allocation would look similar to the party's 2012 delegate selection plan (pre-penalty). Basically the recommendation calls for the allocation to be winner-take-all by congressional district with the statewide, at-large delegates being allocated proportionally. That is exactly the same as it was in 2012. The added wrinkle is that if one candidate receives over 50% of the vote statewide, then that candidate wins all of the at-large delegates.

3. This is the first step in the process. The Policy Committee has only recommended changes that the State Central Committee will now consider. Mr. Koss signaled that there was support for both changes -- date and delegate allocation -- on the SCC.

4. However, only part of the changes would be binding. The state party controls the ability to alter the method of delegate allocation, can only signal its preference for a primary date (unless it opts to fund the primary election itself and hold it on March 15, 2016). If SCC votes positively on the recommended allocation change, then that would be changed in the state party rules.

The primary, however, is state funded and thus the legislature must initiate legislation to move the date of the contest back on the calendar. FHQ will have more on the developments on that front soon, but for the time being, without action from the state government, the actions by the SCC will be little more than a non-binding preference/recommendation. Much of that recommendation -- where the Michigan presidential primary ends up on the calendar -- depends on how the midterm elections affect the partisan control of both the state legislature and the governor's mansion.

Again, this is the first step and gives us some idea about the thinking in Michigan on the Republican side.

--
NOTES:
The WKZO report indicates that March 15 is the "is the earliest a primary can be held without losing delegates to the Republican National Convention." Well, sort of. In reality, that is the earliest a primary can be held without any penalty. But a March 15 Michigan primary would suffer no losses to its delegation to the Republican National Convention. The primary would have to be before March 1 for the party to lose delegates. The March 15 threshold is one that refers to the method of allocation. The RNC rules require that contests prior to March 15 maintain some element of proportional allocation in their plan. Both the Michigan allocation plan of 2012 and the recommended changes for 2016 would be compliant there. March 15 then is not about avoiding a delegate penalty.

In fact, on March 15, Michigan would not even need to avoid a true winner-take-all allocation. That would be compliant then. But again, the allocation recommendation from the MIGOP Policy Committee was function of compromise, not avoiding penalty.

The question that emerges is why March 15? That was the less "controversial" of the two recommendations. The consensus on March 15 in Michigan may lend some credence to the talk of a Midwestern regional primary on that date, after a March 1 Southern regional primary. Ohio is a week earlier on March 8 and Wisconsin could potentially move up and maintain a winner-take-all allocation on March 15.

All of that, though, is a matter for 2015.

Recent Posts:
New York Has Reverted to a February Presidential Primary for 2016

State GOP parties jockey for primary calendar advantage

Revisiting the 2016 Republican Delegate Selection Rules

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

Housekeeping: Wyoming Democrats Avoid Passover Conflict with Alternate Caucus Date

[Click to Enlarge]

FHQ readers with a watchful eye may have read our post concerning the changed date for the Hawaii Democratic caucuses and had the same thought FHQ did. Hawaii Democrats had a conflict between their original April 7 caucuses date and the Passover/Easter holidays, does Wyoming, whose Democrats had also called for April 7 caucuses in their original delegate selection plan, have the same issue?

Yes.

Earlier in the week FHQ spoke with Kyle DeBeer, the interim executive director of the Wyoming Democratic Party, and he confirmed to us that the party had opted -- in an April 30, 2011 state central committee meeting -- to shift the date of the caucuses back a week on the calendar to April 14. That date continues to be about a month later than when the party began its delegate selection process in 2008. Wyoming Republicans will have precinct meetings and a straw poll between February 9-29 before some of the delegates are actually allocated in March 6-10 county convention meetings.

Below is the amended 2012 Wyoming Democratic Party Delegate Selection Plan:

2012 Wyoming Democratic Party Delegate Selection Plan

Find an update to the 2012 presidential primary calendar here.

Recent Posts:

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

On Defining "Similar Contest" and Candidate Boycott Pledges

What Bill Gardner's Statement Really Means

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

Hawaii GOP Moves Caucuses to March 13

On Saturday, May 14, Hawaii Republicans at their 2011 state convention adopted a series of rules changes. One of those changes was to shift the previously-moved (to February from May) caucuses back to the second Tuesday in March. The primary motivation for the move was to bring the state party's delegate selection process into compliance with the national party rule prohibiting primaries and caucuses -- other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- from being held earlier than the first Tuesday in March. As was mentioned over the weekend prior to the convention adopting the rules change, this date putsHawaii Republicans on the same day as Mississippi and Utah Democrats and a week after the earliest allowed calendar position (where most Republican-controlled states are clustering).

[See more on the move at Hawaii Free Press.]

[Click to Enlarge]

Hawaii Democrats indicated earlier in April in the draft of their 2012 delegate selection plan that they plan to hold caucuses on April 7.

See the update 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar here.

Recent Posts:

The 2012 Candidates: Huck's out & Other Housekeeping

Moving Caucuses to March on the Rules Changes Agenda at Hawaii GOP Convention

A Follow Up on the April Presidential Primary in Texas: Signals from the Republican Party of Texas

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

Moving Caucuses to March on the Rules Changes Agenda at Hawaii GOP Convention

The Republican Party of Hawaii is holding its annual state convention this weekend and on the agenda is a rules change regarding the selection of delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa next year. Previously, the party had opted to abandon the May state convention as the primary means of allocating delegates in favor of earlier precinct caucuses. When that decision was made back in 2009, the party had chosen the third Tuesday in February -- to coincide with Hawaii Democrats' 2008 caucus date -- for those caucuses. In the time since, however, the Republican delegate selection rules for 2012 have made that date a violation, and now the state party's convention agenda has a move to March as part of the proceedings.

According to the second paragraph of Part D (Delegates to the National Republican Convention), Section 214 (Election):

Hawaii Republican caucuses shall be held on the second Tuesday in March of each Presidential Election Year.

Currently, only Mississippi and Utah's Democratic caucuses are scheduled on the date a week after the proposed Super Tuesday (earliest possible date to hold contests according to the national party rules, and when the largest group of states typically clusters) on March 6.

The Hawaii Republican Party becomes the first party in a traditional Republican caucus state to make any overt move toward scheduling its 2012 delegate selection event. Republican state parties are not faced with the same deadline to submit delegate selection plan drafts to the national party as is the case on the Democratic side. That May 2 deadline is what has provided FHQ with the bulk of the Democratic caucus dates for 2012. Absent that deadline on the Republican side, state parties have been slower to act. But Hawaii has likely become the first to act.

Recent Posts:

A Follow Up on the April Presidential Primary in Texas: Signals from the Republican Party of Texas

Michigan GOP to Decide in August on Timing of 2012 Primary/Caucus

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

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

Hawaii Democrats Zero in on April 7 Precinct Caucuses for 2012

With the release of their draft delegate selection plan this week, Hawaii Democrats, like their brethren in Wyoming, tentatively selected April 7 as the date of the first determining step of their delegate selection process. Those precinct caucuses will kick off a process that will end with the selection of national convention delegates at the Hawaii Democratic convention on May 26, 2012. In 2008, the precinct caucuses in Hawaii took place on February 19. The move, assuming approval from the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee, would bring Hawaii Democrats into compliance with the DNC's delegate selection rules and would bring with it bonus delegates (10% of the delegate total for the April 1-30 period). Again, as was the case with the Wyoming Democratic Party plan, there is no conflict with the national party rules on the timing of the contest. As such, unless there is another violation embedded in the plan, it should meet the committee's approval.

Recent Posts:

Wyoming Democrats' Draft Delegate Selection Plan Indicates April Caucuses

Oklahoma House Passes Second March Primary Bill

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/17/11)

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

Wyoming Democrats' Draft Delegate Selection Plan Indicates April Caucuses

Though it isn't imminent, the May 2 deadline for state Democratic Parties to have submitted their draft delegate selection plans to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is approaching (Rule 1.D). Before that can happen, though, said draft plans must be posted for thirty days of public viewing/comment prior to submission (Rule 1.C). What that means is that state parties should begin to tip their hands in terms of when they are considering scheduling their delegate selection events. In primary states, that decision is dependent to some degree on what the state legislature has done to schedule or reschedule those contests. Caucus states, on the other hand, are more of an unknown, but these draft delegate selection plans give a glimpse into the state parties' thinking. As long as the first step of the contest occurs within the window of time in which the two national parties allow contests to be held, the approval process from the national parties should be nothing more than a formality.

That seems to be the case in Wyoming where the Democratic Party there has proposed April 7 county caucuses as the first step in determining national convention delegates. Wyoming Democrats appear, it seems, to be shifting the opening of their caucuses back by a month compared to the 2008 county caucuses in a year in which the Democratic nomination will not be contested. By moving back to April, the party opens the possibility of bonus delegates for holding an event in April or later.

Now, it should be noted that the Republican Party has a different set of delegate selection rules and the state parties in caucus states have a different motivation with a contested nomination on the horizon in 2012. That said, Wyoming Republicans are more of a wild card -- especially considering what happened with the Equality state's Republican caucuses in 2008 -- than their Democratic counterparts. As of yet, however, there is no indication from Wyoming Republicans about when they are considering holding the county caucuses in the state.

Recent Posts:

Oklahoma House Passes Second March Primary Bill

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/17/11)

Missouri to a Week After New Hampshire?

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

State Parties in Florida and Ohio Add Their Two Cents on the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

State parties always have their say on the date that is ultimately chosen (or maintained) for any given state's presidential primary, but their influence varies depending on the circumstances. On the Democratic side state parties have to submit a delegate selection plan to the DNC for approval. [It should be noted that the DNC checks that each of the states is complying with the entire list of delegate selection rules, not just those concerning timing.] That same type of approval is not required on the Republican side, but that translates into one less formal hurdle in a decision-making calculus that is largely the same across parties. There may be an added step on the Democratic side, but states always opt to operate within the existing framework of rules (...at least initially*).

What do I mean by "existing framework of rules"?

Well, state parties always face a decision on timing their delegate selection events. They can opt to go-it-alone and foot the bill for a primary or caucus (most likely) of their own or they can choose to utilize the state-funded primary system that is already in place. The first option allows the parties the freedom to hold a primary or caucus whenever they desire while the second option cedes the date-setting power to the state government (or some alternate, state government-sanctioned entity). The convenience of the latter option usually trumps the price tag of the former.

Such is the case in both Florida and Ohio, where lately the two state parties' chairs have been in the news over the timing of the presidential primaries in the Sunshine and Buckeye states. There has been no shortage of talk here at FHQ about the position Florida currently occupies on the 2012 primary calendar and the ramifications a move (or no move) would have on the calendar overall. That said, Florida's is a state government under unified Republican control. And that puts the state's Democratic Party in a tough position. They are nearly powerless in terms of influencing the date-setting decision as the minority party in both chambers of the state legislature. In other words, the Republicans in control of the state may decide to keep the Sunshine state's presidential primary in January and take their punishment (a 50% penalty in terms of the number of delegates in the state's 2012 convention delegate) in exchange for a more direct influence over the identity the eventual Republican nominee. That decision, though, affects the Democrats in the state as well. Through no fault of their own, Florida's Democratic primary would be in violation of the Democratic National Committee's delegate selection rules.

That's problematic (at least in the eyes of Florida Democrats). And that is probably why state party chair, Rod Smith, reached out to newly elected state Republican Party chair (full letter below), David Bitner, last week, urging his Republican counterpart to use his position to speak out in favor of a rules-compliant March date for the state's presidential primary (and against the January primary). It was a nice gesture on Smith's part, but he and the Democratic Party of Florida know this one is out of their hands. The Republicans in the state government may opt to move back, but regardless of the decision, it likely won't be affected much by the Florida Democratic Party's desires or the DNC's delegate selection rules. At the end of the day, they will decide to move (or not move) based upon whether they judge the delegate penalty to be steep enough to warrant a shift in the date of the presidential primary.

In Ohio, the issue is not one of rules violations. Instead, it concerns a new rift between the state party chair where there was once an apparent agreement. Earlier in the month, FHQ posted a link to a story about the new Ohio secretary of state's warning that a prolonged redistricting process in Ohio could delay the state's 2012 primaries. Those contests are slated for the first Tuesday in March currently, but they could be moved back to May when the state holds primary elections in other, non-presidential years. Prior to this warning, however, there had been some discussion and agreement about when the primary should be held among the two state party chairs. Both Democratic chair, Chris Redfern, and Republican chair, Kevin DeWine, had discussed a May primary as the best option. Now, however, DeWine is in favor of keeping the Buckeye state's primary in March because of the impact the state's voters could have on the nomination process and because of what that might do for drumming up support in the state (with an eye toward the general election). Like Florida, Ohio is now under unified Republican control. And even though DeWine might speak for the state party, he may not necessarily speak for Republican state legislators or Governor John Kasich.

State parties and their chairs have some platform for discussing these matters, but in primary states like Florida and Ohio, their influence is limited to the extent to which their wishes and desires overlap with those of the various decision makers within the state government.

*The delegate selection plans and any amendments to them are usually due to the party around Labor Day of the year preceding the presidential election. In the 2008 cycle there was a fair amount of positioning and repositioning after that point. That is expected to some extent from the exempt states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina), but 2008 saw several non-exempt states move after this point (Michigan and Massachusetts among them).

--

January 21, 2011

Chairman David Bitner
Republican Party of Florida
420 E. Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301

Dear Chairman Bitner,

Congratulations on your election as Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida.

On behalf of the Florida Democratic Party, I write today asking for your support to change the date of Florida’s 2012 presidential preference primary. This move is critically important to ensure full representation of our state at our respective national conventions since Florida law currently sets the date of the presidential primary as the last Tuesday in January, which is out of compliance with the rules of both parties.

As you may know, for the first time ever the Republican National Committee has adopted the same timing rules as the Democratic National Committee, which came about through bi-partisan cooperation between the two parties.

It is my sincere hope that we, in the same spirit of cooperation, can work together on selecting a date that complies with the rules set by both national parties. While changing the date of the primary would require action by the Republican Legislature and Governor, I am confident that we can make this happen.

I look forward to working with you on this issue.

Sincerely,

Rod Smith
Chairman, Florida Democratic Party

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

Speak of the Devil: The Texas Two-Step in Court

...and this is something that the Democratic Change Commission will want to consider if the primary/caucus system in Texas comes up in the discussion at its meeting tomorrow in St. Louis. It is even more interesting because this is bound to come up in the session.

Earlier this week, the US District Court covering West Texas denied the Texas Democratic Party's request for a summary ruling in a case involving the pre-2008 changes to its method of delegate selection. [Here is the full ruling.] The case revolves around a challenge to the Texas Two-Step (primary-caucus combination) on the grounds that it violates the preclearance provisions laid forth in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Honestly this is a very clever way of challenging the system. What is Section 5, you ask? According to DOJ:

"Under Section 5, any change with respect to voting in a covered jurisdiction -- or any political subunit within it -- cannot legally be enforced unless and until the jurisdiction first obtains the requisite determination by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or makes a submission to the Attorney General. This requires proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. If the jurisdiction is unable to prove the absence of such discrimination, the District Court denies the requested judgment, or in the case of administrative submissions, the Attorney General objects to the change, and it remains legally unenforceable."

Most of the jurisdictions covered are in the states of the former Confederacy and as the map below (also from DOJ) indicates, Texas is on the list. The catch is that Section 5 typically applies to election procedures for general elections and primaries for state and local offices, not to presidential nomination races. It is a logical extension though.

[Click to Enlarge]

As I mentioned the other day, delegate selection plans are submitted by each state to the (national) Democratic Party for approval, but these have not been the subject of a Section 5 preclearance review in the past. Though, it may be a logical extension of the law, it has, to this point at least, been assumed that the national parties held the right to make the determination of what was admissible in terms of presidential delegate selection on a state by state basis.

And the Democratic Party has been approving the Texas Two-Step for years. This isn't a new conflict. In 1988, for instance, Michael Dukakis won the Texas primary and Jesse Jackson won the caucus (There's more about that here.), only there wasn't nearly as much resulting tension as there was between the two main candidates in 2008. Also lacking in 1988 was the fact that less inclusive segment of the plan (the caucus) overturned the results from the more inclusive other segment (the primary). But the thing about the American legal system is that it is not proactive. The legality of something has to be challenged for it to even make its way into the judicial system to be questioned.

However, it isn't really the Texas Two-Step that is being questioned here, but the delegate equation behind it. Specifically, that past voting for the Democratic Party candidate in a statewide campaign in jurisdictions would determine the strength of that jurisdiction in terms of delegates. That's nothing new. In fact, past voting history and population are used by the national party to determine how many delegates each state gets. And the states, in turn use a similar formula to allocate them on their level.

However, the plaintiffs in the Texas case are arguing that the support of 2006 Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Chris Bell, had the effect of undervaluing Latino voters in state Senatorial districts (the jurisdictions in question. Texas used Senatorial districts whereas most of states divvy up delegates across US House districts.). The problem was that the Texas Democratic Party's formula used raw vote totals instead of the percentage of the vote in Senatorial districts. In essence, even though majority white districts provided Bell with more total votes than some majority Latino districts, they were allocated more delegates despite the fact that the percentage of support for Bell in Latinos districts was higher. When population of the district was accounted for, then, those districts were diminished in value.

So while I'm tempted to use the court's words* against it (This is a minute detail.), it is a fairly consequential statistical blunder in my view whether it was intentional or not. The type of snafu that will get you taken to court.

This is very interesting stuff and something that the Democrats at the Change Commission meeting tomorrow would be well-advised to consider if the Texas Two-Step comes up (or even if it doesn't).

*"Our decision does not mean that political parties must preclear every minute change in their operating procedures. Instead, we closely follow Morse in concluding that political parties must seek preclearance for a change that affects voting that the party promulgates under the explicit or implicit authority of a covered jurisdiction and that presents no significant First Amendment concerns. We therefore hold that Morse controls, that the TDP has provided no specific explanation as to how a requirement that it preclear its delegate allocation formula impacts its associational freedoms, and that this case is justiciable. Accordingly, we DENY the TDP's motion for summary judgment." [from the ruling linked above]

A tip of the cap to Ballot Access News for the link.


Recent Posts:
Reminder: Democratic Change Commission Meets Tomorrow in St. Louis

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (8/27/09)

Ted Kennedy's 2008 Endorsement of Barack Obama