Louisiana Senate Panel Defers Presidential Primary Bill

With more or less a week to go in the legislative session, the Louisiana Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee dealt a seemingly serious blow to the bill to shift the Pelican state presidential primary back into compliance with national party delegate selection rules. By a vote of 6-1, the panel deferred on HB 509. The bill proposes moving the Louisiana presidential primary from the second or third Saturday in February to the third Saturday after the first Tuesday in March.¹ Discussion around the bill was very limited before Senator Karen Carter Peterson (D-5th, New Orleans) made a motion to defer the bill. Senator Mike Walsworth (R-33rd, West Monroe) was the only member of the committee to question the Representative Alan Seabaugh, the House member speaking on behalf of the bill. Walsworth focused mainly on the costs of the move to taxpayers² and on a repeated line of questioning as to why Louisiana was not trying to hold its primary on Super Tuesday.³

This was a strange move by the committee, but in FHQ's opinion -- having watched the hearing -- the deferral was more a matter of fatigue on the part of the committee than of playing politics with the date of the presidential primary. The committee had several nominations on their agenda and the chair, Senator Bob Kostelka (R-35th, Monroe) mentioned from the outset of the hearing that the committee wanted to move quickly through the consideration of bills and onto the nominations before them. Following lengthy discussions of a resolution to call on Congress to deal with the national debt and of a proposed Ten Commandments monument on the Louisiana state capitol grounds, the members of the committee, already two hours into the meeting, seemed eager to move on to those nominations.

In fact, reports of the death of this bill seem to have been premature, as it is slated to be reconsidered by the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee during its next meeting Friday morning. Should the bill be killed in that meeting, the implications are not that severe,⁴ despite warnings of delegate penalties. FHQ would expect both parties to abandon the non-compliant primary in favor of caucuses. The Republican Party in Louisiana has already indicated that it would do so, and Democrats, with an uncompetitive nomination race before them, would likely follow suit.

Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for sending along the link the New Orleans Times-Picayune story.

--

¹ The House-passed version of the bill would move the primary to the first Saturday after the first Tuesday in March, but the Louisiana secretary of state's office raised concerns over the conflict that date would have with Passover. Louisiana law -- like those in other states -- prohibits elections on religious holidays, and thus mandated an amendment to the original bill.

² There would be no extra costs. The third Saturday after the first Tuesday in March is a date on which elections to 158 municipal elections in addition to both major parties' state central committees are held. That the presidential primary would coincide with those elections would actually save Louisiana taxpayers money.

³ Louisiana has not held a presidential primary on Super Tuesday since 1992. The calendar was more jumbled that year without a clear Super Tuesday after the collection of southern states that had held the most concerted regional primary to date in 1988. Regardless, Louisiana stuck with the second Tuesday in March date for its primary until the 2008 cycle; a date that had seen a large number of states pass by moving to earlier dates over that twenty year period.

⁴ That "severity" could certainly be a point of contention. Obviously a switch to caucuses would translate into much lower participation in the contest and that has its own implications. The point here, however, is that Louisiana, despite the warnings, will not lose delegates to either the Democratic or Republican conventions. The state parties will switch to compliant caucuses before allocating delegates via a non-compliant primary.

Recent Posts:

California Senate Committee Unanimously Passes June Primary Bill

April 24th Primary Bill Passes Committee Hurdle in Delaware Senate

Wisconsin Senate Passes April Presidential Primary Bill

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

California Senate Committee Unanimously Passes June Primary Bill

During a Wednesday, June 8 hearing, the California state Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee voted unanimously to recommend AB 80 for passage before the full chamber. The legislation would shift the date of the California presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in June; eliminating the separate presidential primary election and consolidating it with primaries for state and local offices.

To this point AB 80 has received full bipartisan support on both the committee and floor levels in the Assembly and now in committee in the Senate. However, it is unclear as to whether the bipartisanship will continue as the bill approaches its likely final legislative hurdle. Senate Minority Leader Robert Dutton (R-31st, Rancho Cucamonga), earlier in the session, was quite vocal about the late primary within the context of the budget discussions. But that talk has dissipated of late. Any opposition will emerge soon enough, but will only be token at best -- especially if only from Republicans -- in the Democratic-controlled upper chamber.

A doff of the cap to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for passing the news along.

Recent Posts:

April 24th Primary Bill Passes Committee Hurdle in Delaware Senate

Wisconsin Senate Passes April Presidential Primary Bill

Unanimous Late Night Senate Vote Sends April Primary Bill to Connecticut Governor

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

April 24th Primary Bill Passes Committee Hurdle in Delaware Senate

The Delaware state Senate Administrative Services/Elections Committee on Wednesday considered and passed SB 89 with a 4 (out of the six members) on the merits. That basically clears the way for the bill to be considered by the full Senate in relatively short order and be moved from one Democratic-controlled chamber to the next before the session ends at the end of June.

SB 89 is now on the Senate's "Ready List" and could be debated and voted upon quickly in the near future. The bill would move the First state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the last Tuesday in April -- the same date as Pennsylvania and as Connecticut is targeting with with legislation to move the primary there.

Recent Posts:

Wisconsin Senate Passes April Presidential Primary Bill

Unanimous Late Night Senate Vote Sends April Primary Bill to Connecticut Governor

Republican National Committeeman for Texas Warns of Penalties for March/Winner-Take-All Primary

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

Wisconsin Senate Passes April Presidential Primary Bill

Fast track is right.

The day after the Wisconsin Senate Transportation and Elections Committee passed SB 115 -- making it available for consideration on the floor -- the full state Senate took up the matter. On a voice vote with no opposition, the legislation to move the Badger state presidential primaries back into compliance with national parties' rules -- a point the bill's sponsor Sen. Mary Lazich raised in her short statement of support for the bill -- passed the Senate.

The amended version of the legislation now heads to the Assembly for consideration by the lower chamber. The committee amendment agreed to by the full Senate in no way affects the presidential primary date change -- from the third Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in April -- but does clarify language regarding the deadline by which the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board must submit a certified list of presidential candidates to local elections officials.

Recent Posts:

Unanimous Late Night Senate Vote Sends April Primary Bill to Connecticut Governor

Republican National Committeeman for Texas Warns of Penalties for March/Winner-Take-All Primary

April Presidential Primary Bill Advances Out of Wisconsin Senate Committee

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

Unanimous Late Night Senate Vote Sends April Primary Bill to Connecticut Governor

Not long before midnight on Tuesday, June 7, the Connecticut Senate unanimously passed (36-0) HB 6532. The legislation proposes moving Connecticut presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the last Tuesday in April and now moves on to the executive stage of the process. With unanimous support in both chambers of the legislature, Governor Dan Malloy's (D) support is expected.

If signed, the bill would bring the Connecticut primary in line with the presidential primary in Pennsylvania. Delaware is also eying that date with legislation active in the First state's legislature and there have been hints that New York and Rhode Island may also schedule their contests for that date.

Recent Posts:

Republican National Committeeman for Texas Warns of Penalties for March/Winner-Take-All Primary

April Presidential Primary Bill Advances Out of Wisconsin Senate Committee

Utah Republicans Opt to Link 2012 Presidential Primary to Late June State & Local Primaries

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

Republican National Committeeman for Texas Warns of Penalties for March/Winner-Take-All Primary

See update at the conclusion of the post.

In a letter to Texas state legislators, Republican National Committeeman for Texas and General Counsel to the Republican National Committee, Bill Crocker, again warned of the sanctions Lone Star state Republicans are facing by holding a March 6 presidential primary.¹ Under the rules of the Republican Party of Texas, there is a winner-take-all element to the allocation of delegates, thus potentially making Texas Republicans vulnerable to the penalties laid out in the Rules of the Republican Party (Here's a link to a summary memo of these specific rules.). But that isn't the point Mr. Crocker is making. He treats the Texas Republican rules regarding the allocation of delegates as strictly winner-take-all. That, however, is somewhat misleading and as a result Mr. Crocker overstates his case in the letter.

Here is that segment of the letter in question:

Under our present law, the Texas presidential primary must be held on the first Tuesday in March, which in 2012 will be March 6. The Rules of the Republican Party (the national party rules) provide that delegates to the 2012 Republican National Convention from a state which has a March primary, if bound by the results of that primary, must be allocated among the primary candidates in accordance with the results of the primary election "on a proportional basis." [Rule 15(b)]

The Rules of the RPT require national convention delegates from Texas to vote in accordance with the results of the Texas primary, and require allocation of delegates among the candidates on a basis which may not be considered proportional. Our delegates from a congressional district are allocated on a winner-take-all basis to the candidate who obtains more than 50% of the primary votes in that congressional district. Our at-large delegates are allocated on a winner-take-all basis to the candidate who obtains more than 50% of the primary vote in the state.

Now, Mr. Crocker is absolutely correct on a couple of counts. First, Sections 8 and 9 of the General Rules for All Conventions and Meetings from the Republican Party of Texas state essentially what Mr. Crocker has already stated: at-large delegates are allocated on a winner-take-all basis if one candidate wins more than 50% of the statewide vote in the Texas primary and congressional district delegates are allocated in a similar fashion on the district-level vote (win more than 50% of the district vote, receive all the delegates). He is also right that any Republican contest scheduled prior to April 1 must allocated delegates proportionally. What is misleading though, is that the rules are not explained fully. That proportionality requirement, as FHQ highlighted in our original write-up concerning the memo from the RNC (link above), is not quite so strenuous in its application as some have interpreted.

For starters, the only delegate allocation that the proportionality requirement applies to is the allocation of at-large delegates. The winner-take-all allocation of congressional district delegates is fine then. But let's take a closer look at how the Texas allocation rules square with the RNC rules. Is there a problem? More importantly, if there is a problem is it as dire as the picture Mr. Crocker is painting?

FHQ's reading of the situation is that Texas is largely compliant with the RNC's delegate selection rules for 2012. The only issue is that if a candidate receives 50% or more of the vote in the Texas presidential primary on March 6, the winner-take-all provision in the Texas plan will be triggered. Is there a problem? Yes, but will it crush the Republican Party of Texas in terms of penalties? Only if one candidate surpasses the 50% mark in the vote total.

How likely is that, though?

If Mitt Romney reels off a winning streak in the early states, sweeping Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina (and perhaps Arizona, Florida, Michigan and Minnesota should those states hold non-compliant February contests), the field may have been winnowed down to the point that "Mitt is inevitable" reality becomes, well, inevitable. That might have the effect of making Texas and all the other March and later contests largely meaningless -- merely ratifying the decisions of the earlier states. The margins of victory for the inevitable nominee would rise and likely, as was the case for John McCain in 2008, above 50%. Could that happen? Sure, it is still early enough that that possibility is still on the table. But it isn't the only possibility and it may not even be the most likely possibility.

What's more likely, at least in FHQ's estimation, is that some other candidate or candidates emerge(s) as the alternative to Romney in those early state contests. In other words, the extent to which the race remains competitive once the presidential primary sequence reaches Texas and the other March 6 (Super Tuesday) states will determine the likelihood of one candidate receiving 50% of the vote statewide and all of the Lone Star state's at-large delegates. 2008 isn't the only guide, but in the most competitive Super Tuesday states three years ago -- the big delegate prizes on February 5 -- few featured candidates who crossed the 50% barrier. Texas will be a delegate treasure trove on March 6, and will thus attract a great deal of candidate and media attention. That doesn't guarantee that Texas will be competitive, but it lends itself to that conclusion. So, maybe there was a reason Texas voters weren't terribly excited about the idea of Governor Rick Perry running for president: they didn't want a favorite son to make Texas less competitive and possibly cost the state's Republican delegation half of its members.

At this juncture, FHQ would say that Texas is safe; not completely safe from sanctions, mind you, but safe relative to the doomsday scenario Mr. Crocker describes in his letter. Now, I want to be clear that I'm not trying to be hard on Mr. Crocker. Faced with a choice between completely safe with an April 1 primary or mostly safe where Texas is currently scheduled, you'd probably opt for the former if you are within the party elite. But as general counsel for the RNC, Mr. Crocker should be clear in laying out what potentially faces the state party.

--

Update: As Mystery Politico rightly points out in the comments section below, there is a minimum threshold that a state party can set whereby all the delegates from a state are allocated on a winner-take-all basis (see Section III.v in the memo linked above). As long as a state sets a minimum threshold no lower than 50%, the proportionality requirement is completely negated. If a state, then, sets a 50% threshold and a candidate receives 50% of the vote, that candidate could walk away with all of the delegates from the state.

...even in a contest prior to April 1. As I said in the comments, I'm as guilty as Bill Crocker in overstating the severity of the problem. There is no problem. Texas is fine with their plan as it currently stands. What's most troubling is that the general counsel for the RNC did not know this.

--

¹ Mr. Crocker made a similar point in stressing the importance of a shift to April in testimony to the House Defense and Veterans' Affairs Committee concerning HB 111 this past April.

Recent Posts:

April Presidential Primary Bill Advances Out of Wisconsin Senate Committee

Utah Republicans Opt to Link 2012 Presidential Primary to Late June State & Local Primaries

The 2012 Candidates (6/3/11)

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

April Presidential Primary Bill Advances Out of Wisconsin Senate Committee

On Tuesday, June 7, the Wisconsin Senate Transportation and Elections Committee quickly dispatched with SB 115 in an executive session. The bill, sponsored by committee chair, Sen. Mary Lazich (R-28th, New Berlin), would shift the presidential primary in the Badger state back from the third Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in April and was unanimously favored by the committee.

The committee vote was 5-0 and presumably moves the bill to the floor for consideration by the full state Senate. The state Assembly version is due to be considered by the Election and Campaign Reform Committee on Thursday.

Recent Posts:

Utah Republicans Opt to Link 2012 Presidential Primary to Late June State & Local Primaries

The 2012 Candidates (6/3/11)

Missouri State Rep Raises Specter of Gubernatorial Veto on Presidential Primary Bill

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

Utah Republicans Opt to Link 2012 Presidential Primary to Late June State & Local Primaries

The Utah Republican State Executive Committee has voted to schedule the party's presidential primary for June 26, 2012. That fourth Tuesday in June date is the date on which the state has traditionally held its primaries for state and local offices. According to Bob Bernick at UtahPolicy.com, the state party had a decision to make between holding caucus meetings during the parties' mass meetings to start the state convention delegate selection process in March or moving the primary back to June to coincide with the other primaries in the state. The State Executive Committee opted for the latter. Concerns over keeping the contest closed to registered Republican voters were paramount in the committee's decision:

[Utah Republican Party Chairman Thomas] Wright said since Republicans hold closed primaries, with only registered party members voting, it would be a technical nightmare in the caucus meetings to try to determine who was legally a GOP registered voter – and thus able to cast a ballot in the presidential race.

It’s possible some registered Republicans would be turned away – making them really mad – while some Democrats or independents would be allowed to vote, violating GOP rules.

So, GOP Utah leaders decided it would just be better all around to hold their presidential primary on the regular primary election date – the last Tuesday in June.

Since both Democrats and Republicans will be holding any statewide or local primary elections on that June day, it won’t cost the state or counties any more money to hold a statewide presidential primary vote that day, said Wright.

Recall that what set this move to June in motion was the state legislature's decision during its January-March session not to fund the scheduled February 2012 presidential primary in the Beehive state. That shifted the decision to the state parties. Utah Democrats have already chosen to begin the delegate selection process with March 13 caucus meetings -- the former option mentioned above. Then again, Utah Democrats did not have much of a choice. The party could have opted for the mid-March caucuses or caucuses on some other date. The June primary would have been too late according to the Democratic National Committee's 2012 Delegate Selection Rules. Those rules mandate that non-exempt primaries and caucuses be scheduled between the first Tuesday in March and the second Tuesday in June (Rule 11.A). The RNC rules have a similar mandate on the front end of the calendar, but not on the back end. In other words, the late June presidential primary in Utah is compliant with the RNC rules but not with DNC rules.

[Click to Enlarge]

You can find an updated version of FHQ's 2012 presidential primary calendar here.

Recent Posts:

The 2012 Candidates (6/3/11)

Missouri State Rep Raises Specter of Gubernatorial Veto on Presidential Primary Bill

New Jersey State Senate Committee Votes in Favor of June Presidential Primary Bills

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

The 2012 Candidates (6/3/11)

Added:

Candidacy announcements: Cain, Pawlenty, Romney

Out: Daniels, Trump

New classifications: "latest denials"¹, "reconsidering"

--

Democrats:

Barack Obama (announced: 4/4/11)

Republicans:

Michelle Bachmann

Haley Barbour (4/25/11)

John Bolton

Jeb Bush (latest denial: 5/23/11)

Herman Cain (exploratory: 1/12/11) (candidacy: 5/21/11)

Chris Christie (latest denial: 6/1/11)

Mitch Daniels (5/22/11)

Jim DeMint (latest denials: 3/24/11, 6/1/11)

Newt Gingrich (exploratory: 3/4/11) (candidacy: 5/11/11)

Rudy Giuliani

Mike Huckabee (5/14/11)

Jon Huntsman

Bobby Jindal (12/8/10)

Gary Johnson (candidacy: 4/21/11)

Roy Moore (exploratory: 4/18/11)

Sarah Palin

George Pataki (4/20/11)

Ron Paul (exploratory: 4/14/11) (candidacy: 5/13/11)

Tim Pawlenty (exploratory: 3/21/11) (candidacy: 5/23/11)

Mike Pence (1/27/11)

Rick Perry (latest denials: 4/15/11, 5/20/11) (reconsidering: 5/25/11)

Buddy Roemer (exploratory: 3/3/11)

Mitt Romney (exploratory: 4/11/11) (candidacy: 6/2/11)

Rick Santorum (exploratory 4/13/11)

John Thune (2/22/11)

Donald Trump (5/16/11)

--

¹ This classification has been added for prospective candidates who have been repeatedly asked and denied and intention to run for president (ie: Christie, Bush). Prospective candidates who have issued definitive answers but about whom rumors have forced more recent denials are also included in this categorization (ie: DeMint).

Recent Posts:

Missouri State Rep Raises Specter of Gubernatorial Veto on Presidential Primary Bill

New Jersey State Senate Committee Votes in Favor of June Presidential Primary Bills

The Big Advantage New Hampshire Has Over Florida on Primary Scheduling

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

Missouri State Rep Raises Specter of Gubernatorial Veto on Presidential Primary Bill

Democratic Missouri representative, Tom Shively (D-8th, Shelbyville), in a column in today's Linn County Leader, raised doubt as to whether SB 282 -- the legislation passed by the Missouri General Assembly to move the presidential primary back to March -- would be signed by Governor Jay Nixon. But the veto would not arise because of the presidential primary provision. No, what is at issue instead is a provision in the bill curtailing gubernatorial power -- specifically the power of appointment to statewide offices in the event of a vacancy.

Shively:

Although Nixon hasn’t publicly announced his intentions on [sic] HB 282, governors typically don’t give up power voluntarily, and another provision of the bill would take away the gubernatorial authority to appoint replacements to vacancies in the offices of U.S. senator, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, state auditor and attorney general. Such vacancies are uncommon but are seen as golden opportunities for a governor to shape the political landscape when they do occur. [sic] HB 282 would require that such vacancies be filled by special election.

This is an interesting conundrum for Nixon. He faces, on the one hand, curbing his and future Missouri governors' powers, but on the other, the very likely stiff penalties on the Show Me state's Democratic delegation from the DNC for willingly violating the national party's delegate selection rules. Legislators (and governors) who do not actively seek to remedy such a conflict are subject to penalties equal to the 50% penalty called for in the rules (Rule 20.C.1.a, Rule 20.C.7). As Shively also mentions a veto override is possible, but would require the support of at least three Democrats in the state House (the margin is more comfortable for Republicans in the state Senate.). But the Democratic caucus in the state House would face the same sort of dilemma Nixon is staring down on this issue, except the legislators would not have as great a need to preserve executive power.

The writing seems like it is on the wall on this one. If FHQ had to guess, we would guess that Nixon will sign the bill if a veto override is likely. [Of course he didn't do that on the recent redistricting plan legislation when four Democratic representatives joined Republicans in overriding the governor's veto.]

Recent Posts:

New Jersey State Senate Committee Votes in Favor of June Presidential Primary Bills

The Big Advantage New Hampshire Has Over Florida on Primary Scheduling

Dogpile on Iowa and New Hampshire ...Again.

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