"New rules threaten region's 2012 primary clout"

Over the weekend, Freeman Klopott penned a nice piece in the Washington Examiner on the apparent break up of the 2008 Potomoc Primary, the subregional primary the brought the primaries in Washington, DC, Virginia and Maryland together (see full article below). The outcome was attractive enough that the Democratic Change Commission recommended to the Rules and Bylaws Committee that the 2012 Democratic Delegate Selection Rules include some provision that would entice state to hold similar "clustered" contests. From the looks of it, the addition of extra delegates was not enough to keep the model regional primary together for the 2012 cycle. There is still time in the legislative session, but with Virginia already close to moving its primary to March and DC considering a later primary that would coincide with those for state and local offices, it doesn't necessarily look good for the Potomac Primary in 2012.

Regional primaries are difficult to coordinate across states and especially state governments and even when they are successfully managed the initial intention is rarely met. Just ask the southern participants in the Southern Super Tuesday in 1988.

--

New rules threaten region's 2012 primary clout

by Freeman Klopott, Washington Examiner

New presidential primary rules passed by the Democrat and Republican national committees are busting the bonds that made the 2008 "Potomac Primary" possible and threatening the Washington region's clout in 2012.

In 2008, Virginia, D.C. and Maryland all held their primaries on Feb. 12. It was just one week after "Super Tuesday," when 24 states voted on presidential candidates. But there were no clear front-runners for the party nominations following the Feb. 5 votes, and the Washington region became key for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Forming the Potomac Primary guaranteed the Washington region electoral pull.

"We'd like to have a regional primary again to help make sure we remain important to the candidates," said David Meadows, executive director of the D.C. Democratic Committee.

But "right now both parties have coordinated what they want to do with the primary calendar because things got out of hand in 2008, " said political scientist Josh Putnam, who tracks the primary calendar on his blog Frontloading HQ. "Now states with primaries scheduled for February are stuck having to change that."

On Feb. 1, Virginia broke ranks. Its Senate passed a bill to set the commonwealth's primary for March 6. If that's the final date, then under the new party rules Virginia's Republican Party will have to change its delegate apportionments from its winner-take-all model to one that distributes them based on the number of votes each candidate receives. If the party doesn't, Virginia risks losing half its delegates at the Republican National Convention.

Meanwhile, Ward 3 D.C. Councilwoman Mary Cheh has introduced a bill tentatively setting the District's primary for June 5. Gov. Martin O'Malley is "likely" to introduce s bill setting Maryland's primary for April 3, spokesman Shaun Adamec said.

That's the first day new party rules allow for winner-take-all states to vote and, Meadows said, "we're hoping D.C. will join Maryland."

Adamec said, "we'd like to have a regional primary again, and hope the other states join us in April."

Down in Virginia, though, "we didn't think about a regional primary," said Sen. Jill Vogel, R-Winchester, who introduced the March 6 bill. "We wanted to have it on the earliest day we could."

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

Presidential Primary Bill Introduced in Kansas Senate

On February 7, SB 128 was introduced in the Kansas Senate. The bill addresses a section of the Sunflower state's election law that the House bill (HB 2126) canceling the 2012 presidential primary does not alter in any way. This is relevant because the earlier post concerning the House bill mentioned that the legislation seemed to eliminate the presidential primary permanently. It does not. That bill simply does not include the subsection that the Senate bill is now changing.

The Senate bill changes references to the 2012 primary to 2016; essentially delaying the 2012 presidential primary in Kansas. The primary will be held, if state-appropriated funds are available, on the first Tuesday in April unless the Kansas secretary of state identifies an alternate date on which at least five other states are holding delegate selection events. The secretary of state has to inform the governor and other state officials of the certification of an alternate on or before November 1 of the year preceding the presidential election.

[FHQ will go ahead and pencil Kansas in on our 2016 presidential primary calendar. Kidding, sort of.]

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

Virginia House Unanimously Passes Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March

The Virginia House of Delegates today passed HB 1843 in a 99-0 vote to move the state's presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. The House has followed the Senate's lead from last week in passing a similar bill. Both bills have to work their way through the opposite chamber now -- something that is seemingly a formality given the support each bill has received in its respective chamber -- before one heads off to Governor Bob McDonnell for his signature.

SB 1246 has been received by the House and has been referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections there. The legislature is in session until February 26 so the move of the primary should be wrapped up, at least on the legislative end, by then.

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

Kentucky isn't the only state to consider an August presidential primary during the 2012 cycle

Yesterday, FHQ detailed the bill passed by the Kentucky Senate to shift the commonwealth's presidential primary from May to August. But the Bluegrass state is not the only state to have proposed a bill that would move a presidential primary to August for the 2012 cycle. Two years ago, the Arkansas legislature, almost simultaneous with the passage of the bill that eliminated the state's separate presidential primary (moving it back to May), proposed a bill that would have moved the Natural state's primary to the third week in August.

The reasoning behind the move(s) may have been different in both cases, but the idea of a later (out-of-window) presidential primary is apparently not a new one.

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

"Bill would return California's 2012 presidential primary to June"

The article from Mark Barabak that appeared in Sunday's LA Times covers some old ground for those who have been reading FHQ since the beginning of the year (see full article below). However, that said, he does provide a great rundown of some of the financial constraints that are facing some states in terms of the implementation of their 2012 presidential nominating contests. If the national parties are getting any assistance in their effort to push back the start time of primary season, it is the fact that states with both separate and early presidential primaries and later primaries for state and local offices (that are nonetheless still within the national parties' window) are tempted to hold both sets of primaries concurrently -- and later -- as a means of saving money.

As has been the case in the post-reform era, though, there are two types of states: those with in-window primaries for state and local offices and those with primaries that fall after the window has closed. The former group has the "luxury" in this cycle of potentially saving some money by eliminating their separate presidential primaries and moving them back in line with the other primary elections in the state. Again, that is potentially helping the national parties to get some states to comply with their delegate selection rules for 2012 (see Arkansas, California, New Jersey).

The latter group, on the other hand, faces quite a different landscape as compared to past cycles when frontloading was unfettered or at least allowed given certain parameters. As those states had already incurred the start up costs associated with the separate primary, they were much freer to float their contests -- usually to earlier dates -- than states with concurrent primaries. But those states face a dilemma in the 2012 cycle. They still have the freedom to move around (or to flaunt party rules by going earlier than is allowed), but they don't have the ability to move back and hold all their primaries at once since their primaries for state and local offices are outside of the backend of the window for presidential primaries.

Yes, those states could move their primaries for state and local offices to earlier dates as well. And we do see some momentum behind that idea (see DC). Again, the parties are benefiting from a confluence of forces. Very late primaries for state and local offices are also under attack this cycle. The MOVE act has forced or will force late primary states to move so that the primary process can be completed and ballots printed and mail to military and other voters abroad in time for the general election. This opens the door to a potential double move that could shrink some states' budget deficits. Those states with early presidential primaries and late (out-of-window) primaries for state and local offices would move both primaries to the same date that is a midpoint between the two and allows those states to kill two birds with one stone. To this point, Washington, DC is the only "state" examining this option, but as legislative sessions drag on and budget discussions continue, it is an idea that could gain some momentum.

...and reshape the 2012 presidential primary calendar in ways that have not been witnessed in the post-reform era.

--

Bill would return California's 2012 presidential primary to June

by Mark Z. Barabak, LA Times

For years, Sacramento lawmakers worked to give California voters a bigger say in national politics by scheduling the state's presidential primary as early as they could.

The series of moves culminated in 2008 with a Feb. 5 vote, the earliest in state history. But now a legislative effort is underway to move the California primary back where it started — to June, on the last day of the 2012 nominating season — as a way to save tens of millions of dollars. "That's a lot of money," said the bill's sponsor, Assemblyman Paul Fong (D-Cupertino), "at a time when every penny counts."

His measure is set for its first committee hearing next month.

If the bill is passed and signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, who has not taken a position, California would join other cash-strapped states that have decided to forgo the added cost — and any added attention from presidential candidates and the political press corps — by ceding their early spot on the calendar.

In Washington state, officials are talking about canceling their primary, a non-binding "beauty contest" that does not determine the awarding of delegates. "Our [budget] cuts are hurting the poor, hurting kids, really damaging education," said Secretary of State Sam Reed. The estimated savings: $10 million.

Other states canceling their primaries, pushing back the date or weighing those options include Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, Montana, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Virginia.

Their moves reverse a decades-old trend of states stampeding to the front of the calendar in hopes of grabbing a bit of the attention and revenue showered on the two leadoff states, Iowa and New Hampshire. For many, including California, that meant holding two primaries: an early one for president and a later one for other offices, boosting their costs.

The front-loading may have reached its climax in 2008, when more than 20 states — California and New York among them — voted on the single biggest day of primary balloting ever held.

"The whole idea of moving forward looked good," said Josh Putnam, a political scientist at Davidson College in North Carolina who tracks 2012 scheduling on his website, Frontloading HQ. "But then everyone had the same idea, and states ended up getting lost in the shuffle."

Hoping to introduce some order and extend the primary season, the two major parties have set rules allowing just four states to vote next February: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. States that jump the queue would be punished by losing delegates to the party's nominating conventions.

As it stands, Florida, which broke the rules to vote early in 2008, is again scheduled to hold a Jan. 31 primary, which would place it ahead of the four officially sanctioned states. If Florida doesn't budge, the balloting could move earlier into January, as Iowa and the others leap ahead to preserve their status.

Even if Florida lawmakers reschedule their vote, New Hampshire may advance its proposed Feb. 14 primary to keep a seven-day window ahead of Nevada. If that happens, it would probably push Iowa to move up into January.

With the Republican field still taking shape, it is too early to predict the consequences of all the shuffling, but experience suggests that caution should be a guide.

Given the heavy front-loading, many anticipated that the 2008 nominations would be decided no later than early February. The Republican race was, in fact, over fairly swiftly. But Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton battled all the way to June in the longest, most contentious primary fight in generations.

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

Alternate Bill to Cancel Presidential Primary Proposed in Washington State

In Washington state today, Rep. Christopher Hurst (D) introduced a bill (HB 1860) to tie whether the state has a presidential primary to the two parties collectively utilizing the system as a means of allocating all of their national convention delegates. If, as has been the custom in the state during recent presidential election cycles, the Republicans split the allocation of their delegates between both the primary and a caucus and the Democrats shun the primary in support of a caucus, the presidential primary in the state would be cancelled during that cycle. This has the effect of avoiding the sunset provision that is included in both SB 5119 and HB 1324. Instead, it makes the expenditure of funds for the primary dependent upon the parties both adopting the primary as the sole method of delegate allocation.

The bill also gives the parties the option of together agreeing upon and notifying the secretary of state of an alternate (and presumably earlier) date for the primary. It is currently set for the fourth Tuesday in May.

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

Virginia House Bill to Move Presidential Primary on Cusp of Tuesday Vote

It looks like the Virginia legislature put in some time over the weekend to beat the Tuesday cross-over deadline -- when bills must be finished in one chamber to be considered in the opposite chamber. The House of Delegates is on pace to finish up work on HB 1843 -- the bill to move the commonwealth's presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March -- with an up or down vote tomorrow after Sunday's first constitutional reading and the second reading today.

The bill is now engrossed as a substitute and will more than likely beat tomorrow's deadline with a vote to send it to the Senate.

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

2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (Jan. 31-Feb. 6)

Another week came and went and while no states officially moved, there were a couple that actually passed bills shifting the dates on which their nominating contests will be held.

• Pass it on: Virginia's Senate passed SB 1246 to move the state's presidential primary from the second week in February to the first Tuesday in March. Idaho's House also passed HB 60 to move the primary election up a week to the third Tuesday in May.
• You're out: The Kansas House bill (HB 2126) to cancel the Sunflower state's presidential primary was referred to committee on January 31.
• Out the window: This one has flown under the radar, but the Kentucky House voted in January to move all its primaries from May to August. Yeah, it's more problematic than it sounds.
• It's always sunny: RNC Chairman Reince Priebus got in on the act this week by urging Florida to move back the state's presidential primary and state Democratic Party Chair Rod Smith warned again about the impact the noncompliant primary could have on Democrats.
• As has been mentioned in this space several times, there are currently 18 states with presidential primaries scheduled for February 2012. That would put those 18 states in violation of both parties' delegate selection rules for 2012.
• Of those 18 primary states, 14 of them (California, Connecticut, Missouri, New York, Arizona, Georgia, Delaware, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Utah and Virginia) have convened their 2011 state legislative sessions.
• Of those 14 states, 3 (California, New Jersey and Virginia) have bills that have been introduced and are active within the state legislature to move their contests' dates. Both California and New Jersey have bills that would eliminate an early and separate presidential primaries and position those events with the other primaries for state and local offices. That would mean June presidential primaries for both states if those bills pass and are signed into law.
• For this next week the 14 early states in conflict with the national parties' rules will be joined by Oklahoma which convenes its state legislative session on February 7 (see HB 1057, HB 1614, HB 2138 and SB 808; four bills that would alter the date on which the state's presidential primary is held.). Those 15 states will be the ones to watch.

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

Kentucky Moving to August?

I'm not sure how this one ran so far beneath my radar, but it does make for an interesting discussion on a Monday morning on a couple of levels.

First of all, a bill (SB 4) was introduced and passed in the Kentucky Senate in January proposing a move of the Bluegrass state's primary -- both the presidential primary and those for state and local offices -- from the first Tuesday after the third Monday in May to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in August. The stated intent of the bill is to free up the legislature to focus on their work -- at least the controversial work -- without fear of being challenged in a primary by an opponent who entered the race because of a vote on a contentious piece of legislation. The filing deadline is in January for the May primary and many Kentucky legislators apparently wait until after the filing deadline and know who, if anyone, they will be facing off against in May before addressing potentially divisive legislation. And with the legislative session ending in March, the overall efficiency of activity in the legislature can be negatively affected.

But moving the primary back is an interesting way of dealing with this problem. The simpler solution, it seems, would be to shift the filing deadline back to a point that occurs prior to the start of the legislative session instead of trying to incur the wrath of the national parties with a presidential primary date that is in violation of both parties' rules; not for being too early, but for being too late. An August Kentucky primary would occur in 2012 on August 7, according to the provisions of this bill, just less than three weeks before the opening of the Republican National Convention on August 27.

Is this even doable given the national party rules on the window of time in which primaries and caucuses can be held? Well, there are a couple of ways of looking at that. The first concerns the parameters of the window rule and the other revolves around the structural and political constraints internal and external to Kentucky.

The main question that Richard Winger raises at Ballot Access News is one that came up here at FHQ last week in our discussion of the potential bill to move the District of Columbia primary elections -- including the presidential primary possibly -- to July. Namely, why has the back end of the window not been adjusted since 2004 as the national conventions have crept into September, later than the traditional end of July (for the party out of the White House) and the end of August (for the party in the White House)? This is a valid point. I'll grant the argument that the parties need some time to shift from the primary phase to the general election phase of the presidential election and that there may be some logistical concerns that need to be addressed in that intervening period between the close of primary season and the conventions that formally nominate presidential candidates. What is not clear to me is that the burden on the parties has in any way changed since 2004. In other words, has it become more burdensome to accomplish those logistical tasks in the period from the second week in June to the beginning of the conventions -- now in late August instead of late July?

There is no evidence that I could muster that would point to the necessity of essentially an extra month to accomplish those matters. One could highlight the Florida and Michigan problems from the 2008 cycle on the Democratic side or the issues Mike Huckabee had about the caucus results (and challenges to primary and caucus results and subsequent delegate disputes more generally) in Washington in 2008 on the Republican side. Those are, however, issues that were dealt with either before the end of the primary process (The Rules and Bylaws Committee met the weekend before the last round of contests to deal with Florida and Michigan.) or in the regular course of the primary/caucus winnowing of candidates (The voters spoke and made McCain the nominee and any argument from Huckabee as to the Arizona senator's legitimacy as the party's nominee because of what had happened in Washington moot.). But that doesn't change the fact that there are challenges (see the 2012 Democratic Delegate Selection Rules, section 20 for a look at the number of ways things can be challenged and the amount of time it could take to deal with them) and other logistical issues that arise and need to be taken care of during the period between the end of the primary process and before the beginning of the conventions.

But that period does not probably need to be as long as it was in 2008. There's nothing to suggest that it there is any greater frequency of issues which in turn necessitates an extra month for this period. Why not shift the back end of the window back to correspond with the backward shift the conventions have now taken?

But that doesn't really address the potential Kentucky move. It merely suggests that the national parties want some time between the end of the nominating contests and the conventions. Would the three weeks between the proposed August Kentucky primary in 2012 and the Republican convention be enough time? To Kentucky, probably. It is unlikely that there would be issues with the results. One candidate likely would have consolidated enough delegates by that point that Kentucky would not be decisive in the nomination and a court challenge by another candidate would be frivolous at best.

That point about court challenges (or any other problems) underlines why the national parties would have an issue with such a small window of time between the end of contests and a convention. Sure, even the national parties would view that scenario as far-fetched, but even they plan for worst-case scenarios. And even if that worst-case scenario did not happen, the parties have a vested interest in putting as much space between the primary phase of the competition and the general election phase as possible. First of all, if the primary process has been divisive, another contest simply serves as a means of reopening that wound when the party would rather be focusing on unifying the party ahead of its convention. Absent divisiveness, one could also foresee a situation where the parties would not want such a late contest. Let's look at the 2008 Republican nomination race for an illustration of this, but assume there was an August Kentucky primary during that cycle. McCain had wrapped up the nomination as of the first week in March. However, the thing that marked that final stretch of contests on the Republican side was not how Romney and Huckabee -- two candidates who had withdrawn from the race -- were doing, but how much support Ron Paul continued to get into the June contests. Of the final nine contests for the Republican nomination, Paul received double digit support (an average of 17%) in five. Even if Paul wasn't a serious contender for the nomination, that is a significant protest vote; one that no party would want less than three weeks before a convention.

Again, the parties want a transitional period between the two phases of the campaign, but there is nothing that would point toward a need for that period to be expanded or that the back end of the window should not be adjusted due to convention creep. But neither party would want a late contest like what Kentucky is proposing.

--

That first area of discussion ended up with a point about the external pressures Kentucky is getting (or will potentially get if this bill becomes law) from the national parties, but that is only one piece of the structural/political puzzle this primary date shift makes up. What other considerations are involved?

At first glance, the Kentucky bill seems like a more institutionally crafty way of doing what HB 1057 in Oklahoma seeks to accomplish: forcing the state parties to take on funding of presidential nominating contests. If the presidential primary is too late, the state parties will have to pick up the bill for a contest of a rules-compliant date. More insidiously, that would be a means of more than likely forcing a caucus with far less participation, but more party control (see Meinke et al. 2006). In a scenario where Kentucky had an open or semi-open primary that would make more sense. It would be a means of closing off the process and limiting who could participate. But Kentucky's primaries are already closed.

There has also been some more widespread discussion this cycle among other states about costs savings and the presidential primaries -- moving a separate presidential primary back in line with those for state and local offices (see California, New Jersey) or eliminating presidential primaries altogether (see Kansas, Washington). That is not the case in Kentucky. There is nothing to be gained financially for the state from such a move. Removing the presidential line from the ballot decreases the burden little if any since the presidential primary and those primaries for state and local offices are held concurrently as is.

While the above structural constraints -- outside of the national party rules -- may serve as no hinderance to the movement of this bill through the Kentucky legislature, the political roadblocks are much greater. First of all, this bill was proposed in and passed by the Republican-controlled state Senate and though I don't know for sure -- the Kentucky legislature's web site was less than forthcoming about who voted for and against this bill -- I suspect that the 21-14 vote to pass it was largely along party lines. The Republicans have a 22-15 advantage in the Senate with one independent. The state House and beyond that chamber, the governor's mansion, are controlled by Democrats, Democrats who are likely to get some pressure from the DNC to ignore or vote down this legislation. The Democratic Delegate Selection Rules for 2012 (section 20.C.7) call for Democrats in states in situations such as these to take "all provable and positive steps" to keep the state's Democratic delegate selection compliant with the rules. If the House doesn't do that, Governor Beshear likely will.

But why enter this scenario in the first place? Why not just shift the filing deadline back? That's a much easier route. [Yes, there are implications for an earlier filing deadline, but they have to be less onerous than those taken on in the event that Kentucky's presidential primary is moved back and out of compliance with the national party rules.]

Hat tip to Richard Winger over at Ballot Access News for sending this Kentucky information my way.

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

Companion House Bill to Move Primary to March Moves Forward in Virginia

Earlier in the week the Virginia Senate passed SB 1246 which would shift the date on which the state's 2012 presidential primary would be held from February to March. On Friday, the effort in the House of Delegates -- HB 1843 -- inched closer to following suit. The legislation emerged from the House Privileges and Elections Committee after a unanimous vote (22Y, 0N). Despite the fact that the bill was reported from committee "with substitute", it appears to be identical to the Senate bill. It not only seems that the legislation in both chambers has bipartisan support, but that crossover of the bills -- since they are identical -- will be a seamless transition as well. The date for crossover is on Tuesday, so a vote on passage will likely take place sometime this week.

Hat tip to Frank Leone at DemRulz for passing this along to FHQ.

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

Presidential Election Funding Bill Introduced in the US House

Occasionally FHQ will wade into discussions on campaign finance or campaign finance reform and typically those instances are reserved for times a consequential loophole has been discovered and utilized or when new legislation is introduced to deal with the perceived problems within the system. And hey, go ahead and throw in a reference or two to the Citizens United decision while you're at it. But as was the case with the congressional election funding system proposed during the 2009 session of the 111th Congress, David Price's (D-NC, 4th district) revamped presidential election funding bill (HR 414) that was introduced on January 25 is likely going nowhere fast. This is even clearer given that the Republican Party now controls the House and furthermore that the party just voted to eliminate the system altogether as a means of cutting costs.

But let us set those realities to the side for a moment and look at the new provisions within the bill on the merits. The key with any bill on the campaign finance front is that it offer prospective candidates enough of a carrot that they voluntarily opt into the system in the first place. In other words, if a candidate has to think about whether he or she can out-raise the new limits then the battle has already been lost. Here are some of the highlights:

In the primaries phase:

• The dollar for dollar match from the federal coffers jumps to a 4:1 ratio. For every dollar raised, the federal government matches with four. This was the same ratio that was used in the congressional funding system from 2009.
• The US government will match up to $100 million. If, as a candidate, you can raise $25 million, then you get $100 million from the government funding system. That $125 million sum -- which would/could be available six months prior to the first delegate selection event -- sounds reasonably sufficient until you see that Obama was able to raise that $25 million in the first quarter of 2007 and was just getting started at that point. In a crowded field with multiple frontrunners that might work, but that doesn't happen all that often.
• Contributions limits are adjusted based on inflation, but the overall caps on what the government will match do not.

In the general election phase:

• The bill includes a repeal of federal funding of national party conventions. This is strange to me. I get the intent, but if you are going to argue that the parties should fund this, should not the argument also be made that parties should handle the funding of candidates as well? Both are party business after all. [Yes, there are several attendant conflicts on the latter point, but it should not go unmentioned.]
• To receive any general election matching funds a candidate must have participated in the primary matching phase.
• The cap on what the government will match is $150 million ($50 million plus a 4:1 match capped at $100 million). That's approximately double what McCain got in 2008 and about the same amount that Obama raised in September 2008 alone.

The campaign finance system may be worth saving, but it will ultimately take more than baby carrots to entice candidates into the program in the first place. There is a lot more to this bill (have a look yourself), but given the comparatively low caps and the fact that the Republican-controlled House will never go for this, HR 414 is destined to die in committee. Still, it represents something interesting at which to look.

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

Idaho Bill to Move Presidential Primary Up a Week Passes State House

The election consolidation bill that includes a provision to shift the date on which Idaho's primary -- including the presidential primary -- up from the fourth week in May to the third week in May has passed the state House by a vote of 67-0 with three members absent. HB 60 now moves over to the state Senate for consideration there.

No, this isn't a significant potential shift, but it does join the bill in Texas (HB 318) as the only active bills which seek to move their state's presidential primaries forward. Due to the mandates from the national parties to allow only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina to hold their nominating contests in February, there are a number of states with February or earlier dates that require a change to be compliant. The expectation, then, is that the majority of movement ahead of 2012 will be backward, not forward. As we have mentioned here, though, that assumes those noncompliant states opt to follow the parties' new guidelines. And that's a big if.

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

A Favorite Son Strategy by Republican Governors? In 2012?

Maybe in 1912, but not in 2012.

FHQ is hesitant to play along with David Broder's thought exercise about Republican governors being able to leverage their influence over the 2012 Republican presidential nomination process. Look, we're big proponents of thought exercises around here (See FHQ poke constructive holes in the various presidential primary reform plans here, here, here, here and here for instance.), but this one seems like a reach. And sure, it is probably fair to say that I tend to be a contrarian within these confines, so let's look at this one a bit more closely.

First, let's look at the assumptions the outcome to Broder's exercise makes. I think he is right to look at the signals gubernatorial endorsements send to rank and file primary voters and potentially have on the presidential nomination process. The significance of those endorsements is the primary contribution that Cohen et al. made to the political science literature in The Party Decides. In other words, gubernatorial endorsements serve as an institutional party cue to primary voters and caucus-goers of elite support from within the party during the invisible primary. Of course, there is a difference between the level of influence Broder is speaking about and the what Cohen et al. posit. Broder's is a more calculated and coordinated impact whereas Cohen et al. discuss more of a general influence borne of the aggregated actions of individual governors.

Often it is more about who is on the sidelines rather than who is actually endorsing presidential candidates for your party's nomination. There were, between 1980 and 2004, only two races in which more than three quarters of the governors from one party actually made endorsements. The Republican races in 1996 and 2000. Republican governors overwhelmingly backed both Bob Dole and George W. Bush in the invisible primary phase of the race. I don't have the numbers pre-Iowa from 2008, but as of the end of February there were still ten Democratic and ten Republican governors who had yet to endorse candidates. Will that change in 2012 on the Republican side? There is no way of knowing, but it should be noted that when no clear frontrunner emerges, the tendency is for more governors to wait it out. The 1988 and 2004 Democratic nomination races illustrate this nicely. Only 19% and 5% of Democratic governors in those respective cycles came forward to endorse a candidate during the invisible primary period.*

The major problem with Broder's idea, then, is that it requires a level of coordination on the part of the Republican governors not seen since the days of before presidential nomination reform. And even then, such action was likely to have manifest itself at the nominating convention rather than the invisible primary.

Can Republican governors coordinate that collective action problem (Broder is assuming in his op/ed that they can.) and even if they can, what impact do those endorsements play? I'll take that second first as it builds nicely on the point from above. With the exception of 2004, those governors who endorsed candidates during the invisible primary were more likely to have throws their support behind the eventual winner of the nomination. Again, the numbers I have for 2008 were collected in the midst of the battle for the nominations, but the Republican endorsements follow the trend (7 of 22 Republican governors supported McCain) while the Democratic endorsements were like 2004, inconclusive (10 of 28 Democratic governors backed Clinton while 7 supported Obama.). What this all seems to indicate is that the governors who play the endorsement game typically send a collective signal of their choice to voters. Typically. Now, first of all, we're talking about a plurality, not unanimity. But we also see that in multi-candidate races, there's less of a chance that even a modicum of consensus builds behind one candidate. In other words, when there is no clear frontrunner.

The conditions seem right, then. But can or will Republican governors pull the trigger on such a plan. They perhaps can, but Broder's idea also seems to require some help from the candidates; that they acknowledge that one candidate is more likely to win in one area than another and stay away. It isn't clear to me that that is a viable strategy. "Skipping" has not been and will not more than likely be a winning strategy for any candidate. Just look at Rudy Giuliani in 2008. He ceded the bulk of attention to Huckabee, McCain and Romney waiting on Florida's primary to roll around. But by then it was too late. The same will be true in 2012 no matter what the calendar ultimately looks like.

The more I think about this, the more it seems like a way to elevate someone other than the four candidates who have been talked about (and polled) the most frequently: Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin and Romney. If the longer shots like Pawlenty or Barbour try and pick and choose their spots -- and one would have to think that they would have to pick off Iowa and South Carolina respectively to catapult themselves into the conversation -- they risk yielding attention to the other candidates who may or may not be organizing and spending money in all the early states and into Super Tuesday instead of based on geography.

I just don't see the governors being able to coordinate this with the candidates. Now collectively, some group of governors and others within the party's establishment may be able to signal to voters who they want to be the choice, but that's the only way that that's going to occur. This individual endorsement having a direct influence over the outcome of a given primary or caucus hypothesis is a stretch. It is an aggregate versus individual-level issue. We see an aggregate influence over the identity of the eventual nominee, but not an individual influence over individual state results in terms of these gubernatorial endorsements.

I mean, look at how quickly Terry Branstad responded to the Broder's assertion that the Iowa governor was backing Pawlenty.

*These numbers come from Figure 1.1 in "The Invisible Primary in Presidential Nominations, 1980-2004." by Cohen et al. which appears in Mayer's The Making of the Presidential Candidates, 2004.

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

Vote on Idaho Election Consolidation Bill Scheduled for Feb. 3 in House

The election consolidation bill (HB 60) that is before the Idaho state House emerged from the State Affairs Committee with a "Do Pass" recommendation and received a second reading -- following the reading upon introduction -- today. The bill is scheduled for its third reading -- the voting stage -- tomorrow. Among the provisions embedded in the bill is one to shift the date on which the Gem state's primaries -- including the presidential primary -- from the fourth Tuesday in May to the third Tuesday in May. To be sure, it isn't a significant shift, but is nonetheless a primary move.

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

Woe is me.

Folks, Florida's presidential primary is already early. Perhaps you've heard me say this about two million times since I first put the 2012 presidential primary calendar together back in December 2008. I don't want to make this a reoccurring item because I suppose I've griped about this before, but I have to draw the line somewhere.

And today that somewhere was headlines about RNC Chairman Reince Priebus calling on the Florida state government to move the Sunshine state's presidential primary back to a time that would comply with the national parties' rules on delegate selection (some time on or after March 6). But that's not the image everyone got from some of the headlines floating around out there.

From Politico:

Priebus to Fla.: Don't move primary

From CNN:

RNC Chairman urges Florida not to move up 2012 primary

Now look, FHQ is not perfect (We make and have people call us on mistakes too.), but these headlines are just misleading. And to be fair, these are just the headlines. The stories are right on which is a far cry from some items that can't get some of the basic facts of the Florida situation right (like the date of the primary -- January 31, 2012 -- and various other outlets that are blurring the line on the differences in penalties for going early in both parties -- GOP takes 50% of the delegates and that is it).

For the record, then, Florida is already scheduled early and the RNC is hoping that the state will move its primary back.

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

FL Democratic Party Chair Piggybacks on Priebus' Call for Later Primary

From Kevin Derby's blog at Sunshine State News:

With RNC Chairman Reince Priebus in Tampa to check out the location of the 2012 GOP convention on Wednesday and calling for Sunshine State Republicans to schedule a later presidential primary, Florida Democratic Party Chairman Rod Smith agreed and called once again for the state to move the primary back.

The primary was held early in 2008 despite protests by both major national parties. Smith had sent a letter to the Republican Party of Florida back in January to hold the primary later in the year.

“As Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus reminds Florida’s Republican leaders of the penalties they would face unless they change the presidential primary date, today I am renewing my call for bi-partisan cooperation on this issue,” said Smith. “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 given the governor’s expressed desire to hold the primary as early as possible without losing delegates.”

Florida will continue to be a factor in what eventual shape the 2012 presidential primary calendar will take. And Smith is right to put this on the Republican-controlled state legislature (and Governor Scott). They hold all the cards on the decision of when the state's presidential primary will be scheduled (or if there will be a change from the current January 31, 2012 date). The legislature convenes next month.

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

RNC chairman urges Legislature: no early primaries, please

From the St. Petersburg Times on RNC Chair Reince Priebus' trip to central Florida this week:

The new chairman of the Republican National Committee Wednesday urged Florida lawmakers not to hold an early presidential primary in 2012 in violation of RNC rules.

Here's what new RNC chairman Reince Priebus said on the subject after a meeting in Tampa with members of the local Host Committee for the 2012 GOP convention:

"We're doing everything we can at the Republican National Committee to fulfill our promise to try and get presidential primaries on track with some semblance of order. One of the things that we did is that we've put together a primary schedule for the presidentials which protects four early state primaries in February" — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — "but then moves all the other states out of the February window to a date on or after March 1.

"In the March 1 window," he added, "that is to be a proportional-type delegate award system. And then in the April window, that is a potentially winner-take-all, if the state chooses so, delegate award system.

"As far as Florida is concerned, I would do encourage the Legislature to do everything they can to abide by the rules passed by both the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee together to make sure we can bring some order into the presidential election process," Priebus said.

The scheduling of Florida's primary is something Priebus, elected two weeks ago to replace former RNC chairman Michael Steele, said he has already discussed with Florida Gov. Rick Scott. Asked whether Scott told Priebus that he wanted a primary as early as possible without losing delegates, the RNC chairman declined further comment.

"I just don't feel at liberty to talk about a private conversation with the governor," he said.

Your move Florida legislature.

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

Virginia Senate Bill to Move Primary to March Passes

SB 1246, the Virginia Senate bill to move the commonwealth's 2012 presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March, overwhelmingly passed the chamber today. Senator Vogel's (R) bill made it through the Senate with only one dissenting vote (39Y, 1N). As FHQ pointed out this morning, this clears the way for consideration of the one bill that is now before the House of Delegates. HB 1667, which would have changed the date of the presidential primary as well as reduced the petition signature requirement was incorporated into HB 1843 (the same bill as SB 1246) by voice vote in the subcommittee of the House Privileges and Elections Committee. HB 1843 subsequently emerged from that subcommittee with a unanimous (6Y, 0N) recommendation for reporting to the full committee with amendments.

As Virginia's state legislature is only in session until February 26, this bill, if it is going to be passed, is likely to move quickly.

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

Vote on Primary Bill Should Come in VA Senate Today, Hearings in WA & CA Later in the Week

Yesterday, SB 1246 received its second reading (consideration of amendments if any) and was engrossed, clearing the way for an up or down vote on the measure in the state Senate to shift Virginia's 2012 presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. That vote should come, barring other pressing business, some time today. The clearest way for this bill to pass is if its companion in the House of Delegates (the exact same bill), HB 1843, is passed and largely avoids the problem of any hiccups in conference. The next stop would be Governor Bob McDonnell's desk. And if the preliminary votes in the Senate are any indication, this bill has bipartisan support and would be difficult for the governor to ignore.

Later this week, there will also be public hearings on the bills in Washington and California. The Washington Senate bill, SB 5119, passed its first hurdle, receiving a "Do Pass" designation from the Governmental Operations, Tribal Affairs and Elections Committee, and was subsequently referred to Ways and Means which will hold the hearing on Thursday, February 3.

On the same day, California's Assembly committee on elections is due to hold a public hearing on AB 80, the legislation that would eliminate the separate presidential primary in California and place it in June with the primaries for state and local offices. That status tracker has said "may be heard in committee February 3" since it was introduced. However, I spoke with someone from the LA Times yesterday about the 2012 calendar and the California bill who is planning on covering the hearing on Thursday. No, that doesn't cement that hearing time, but it does add more certainty to it.

Both hearings will be interesting to follow from the standpoint of the pros and cons arguments that are likely to be made. Washington's state parties have scarcely utilized the state's presidential primary system for allocating delegates, and the move there is somewhat understandable from a financial perspective. And certainly there are financial concerns with the California bill as well, but the most populous state in the country would be giving up quite a position and some influence over the nomination in the process by moving. Despite the fact that California was behind the several January states and among the Super Tuesday logjam, it was still the fifth most visited state (by the candidates) overall in the 2008 cycle.*

*[Now, visits are only one metric we could use to quantify attention paid to the states, and thus, potential influence that state has over the race. One could also look at spending in each state or ad buys. The latter has been used more often lately as the matching fund system crumbled and it became more difficult to ascertain where candidates were actually spending, not raising, their money.]

CORRECTION (2/2/11): The California Assembly's Elections and Redistricting Committee -- to committee to which AB 80 has been referred -- does not have a hearing scheduled for February 3 to discuss that legislation. It should be noted that the committee meets regularly on the first and third Tuesday of every month at 1:30pm. Yesterday would have been the first opportunity for the committee to have addressed this bill and it will not have another chance until February 15 according to that schedule. Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for keeping FHQ apprised of the situation.

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

DC to Move Back? Up?

Early indications from the Council of the District of Columbia are that a bill will be introduced to move the district's primary to early July 2012. No, not the presidential primary necessarily, but the primaries for other local and district-wide offices. There has been some push by the DC Board of Elections and Ethics to hold the presidential primary concurrently with the other primaries -- more than likely as a cost-saving measure like what California and New Jersey are attempting to do.

The problem with a July presidential primary is that it falls outside of the party-designated window in which primaries and caucuses can be held. Either the two sets of primaries will continue to be held separately or the two will be held together but slightly earlier so as to fall inside the window. And while the presidential primary may remain separate from the other primaries, the move to July (from the traditional September timing) is fairly significant. It would keep DC in line with the federally-passed MOVE act.

Regardless, this July timing is seen as a starting point.

[It should also be noted that DC held its 2008 presidential primary in conjunction with Maryland and Virginia on February 12, the week after Super Tuesday. Virginia has three bills proposed in its state legislature to move the commonwealth's primary back to March and Maryland has yet to act, though there has been some talk about when the 2012 primary will be held.]

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

2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (Jan. 24-30)

While there wasn't any 2012 calendar movement this past week, there was some further movement toward movement. But what is known this week versus last:

• Virginia is moving closer to a vote in the state Senate on moving the commonwealth's presidential primary back to March.
• A host of bills to accomplish the same thing (February to March primary) in Oklahoma have been pre-filed and are waiting on the state legislature to convene there on February 7.
• The Senate bill to cancel the 2012 presidential primary in Washington emerged from committee and awaits the decision of the Ways and Means Committee before sending it to the floor for an up or down vote.
• The solution in Kansas is similar to Washington, but appears to be a permanent cancelation of the Sunflower state's presidential primary. No dates for the caucuses in either party are known now, and on the Republican side may not be known until next year according to one Republican activist at the state party's meeting over the weekend.
• Oh, and Idaho is looking into frontloading its primary. ...by one week to mid-May.
• As has been mentioned in this space several times, there are currently 18 states with presidential primaries scheduled for February 2012. That would put those 18 states in violation of both parties' delegate selection rules for 2012.
• Of those 18 primary states, 14 of them (California, Connecticut, Missouri, New York, Arizona, Georgia, Delaware, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Utah and Virginia) have convened their 2011 state legislative sessions.
• Of those 14 states, 3 (California, New Jersey and Virginia) have bills that have been introduced and are active within the state legislature to move their contests' dates. Both California and New Jersey have bills that would eliminate an early and separate presidential primaries and position those events with the other primaries for state and local offices. That would mean June presidential primaries for both states if those bills pass and are signed into law.
• For this next week, then, the 14 early states in conflict with the national parties' rules will be the ones to watch.
• Oregon's state legislature convenes this week, but none of the four additional states in violation of the national party rules begin their legislative work; not until Oklahoma next week.

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

Virginia Senate Bill to Move Presidential Primary Back to March Passes First Reading

As was discussed here earlier in the week, the Virginia Senate bill (SB 1246) to move the commonwealth's presidential primary from February to March emerged from committee and received/passed its first -- what's called a Constitutional -- reading from the full chamber. The upcoming second reading will have the full chamber consider and debate any amendments that were added to the bill in committee. No additional reports were issued on the bill, so it is likely that no amendments were added. To the extent that a debate is necessary on this bill, one will take place this week. If the bill passes that test on the floor, it will be engrossed and subsequently given an up or down vote for full passage. Again, most of that should happen this week, shifting the focus to the House of Delegates and the similar bills that chamber has before it.

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

Likely Replacement Bill to Move Idaho Presidential Primary Up Introduced

The election consolidation bill that was introduced in the Idaho House (HB 14) recently now has a what looks like a replacement. Like the earlier House bill, HB 60 would shift the date on which the Gem state's primaries -- including concurrent presidential primary -- from the fourth Tuesday in May to the third Tuesday in May. The only difference is that in this second bill secretary of state, Tim Hurst, inserted a section dealing with school trustees elections. The section that pertains to the timing of the presidential primary remains unchanged.

Both bills will appear in the Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures section in the left sidebar. HB 60 will likely be the one to track however.

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

Update on Bill to Cancel the 2012 Kansas Presidential Primary

News broke yesterday that Kansas secretary of state, Kris Kobach, was advising the state legislature to cancel the Sunflower state's 2012 presidential primary for budgetary reasons, but the bill was not formally introduced in the state House until today. HB 2126 cancels the state's presidential primary and given all the strikethroughs cancels it for good. Now, nothing is ever gone forever, but in this instance all the references to the first Tuesday in April primary in even-numbered years have been struck though and replaced with the first Tuesday in August -- the state's traditional primary date for state and local offices. That August date is one that would fall outside -- on the back end -- of the window in which the parties allow states to hold delegate selection events. Obviously, an August date would not work simply because it would cut things quite close to the national conventions.

The odd thing is that there is only one reference in the bill to presidential preference primaries and it is in regard to the filing deadlines, not the timing of the contest. The option is still there, then, to hold a presidential primary in the future, but it will take a change in the law if this bill is passed and signed into law by Governor Brownback. [It should be noted for the sake of clarity that unlike the similar bill(s) in Washington, HB 2126 does not have a sunset provision temporarily canceling the presidential primary.] Given the facts that, one, the state rarely holds a presidential primary (see 2007 legislature's unsuccessful efforts to move it up) and, two, it saves the state as much as $2 million, this bill will likely pass. But we'll see.

This bill will be added to the Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures section in the left side bar (under the current 2012 primary calendar and the rules). The status of HB 2126 and the bills from other states can be tracked from there.

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

2012 Presidential Primaries: North Carolina

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

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

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

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

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

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