A Few Additional Notes on the Proposed Virginia Primary Move

Yesterday, a couple of bills were introduced in the Virginia House to move the state's presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March for the 2012 cycle. I wanted to take a few moments to step back and look at them a bit more closely. Now, neither one is all that substantively different from the other -- other than the fact that Rep. McClellan's version proposes lowering the petition signature requirement for candidates by 50% and Rep. Cole's does not -- but their are a handful of implications that are attendant to the introduction and/or passage of either of these bills.

1. Goodbye Potomac Primary? The week following Super Tuesday in 2008, there were three Tuesday contests: Maryland, Virginia and Washington DC. This regional or subregional primary was not all that consequential in the scope of the overall race -- Obama and McCain swept all three -- but they did start a string of consecutive victories in February for Senator Obama and inched McCain closer to the Republican nomination. Collectively, however, the three, regionally clustered contests commanded all of the campaign media's attention after Super Tuesday and the idea of the candidates devoting their energies to the issues and people of a region or subregion was looked upon favorably by some within the national parties. The Democratic Change Commission actually built the notion in their rules recommendation. Yet, the legislative action in Virginia -- temporarily at least -- breaks up that grouping of contests if it passes the legislature and is signed into law by Governor McDonnell. The question isn't whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, rather is one concerning whether Maryland and Washington DC follow suit. Maryland's legislature convened on January 12 as well, but as of yet there is no bill that has been introduced to shift the date on which the Old Line state's presidential primary will be held.

2. Rules Compliance. These bills, if passed and signed into law, would bring the state into compliance with both sets of national party rules on delegate selection event timing. Any contest scheduled on or after the first Tuesday in March complies. Virginia is one of eighteen states that currently had an election law on the books that calls for a February (or earlier) primary in violation of national party rules.

3. Democrats and Republicans. FHQ discussed this previously, but significance of divided government on frontloading (and it should be noted that this bill proposes moving the bill backward not forward) should be mentioned. Not only are we more likely to see movement in states with unified control of the state government, but election years with no incumbent running for reelection are more likely to see movement as well. Virginia has neither working in its favor. The legislature is divided -- Democrats control the Senate and Republicans have a majority in the House -- and President Obama is running for reelection. That said, the fact that one of these bills was sponsored by a Democrat and the other by a Republican speaks to at least some potential for consensus on this issue. Again, it is a bill to move the primary back, not forward, so the dynamics are not necessarily the same. As we said in the earlier post, the expectation is that Democratic-controlled state governments would be more likely to move back and into compliance with the DNC delegate selection rules, while Republican-controlled state governments face the dilemma of moving back in accordance with the RNC rules but losing potential influence over the nomination in the process. With at least one Virginia Republican, following the rules trumps influence. That may not be the case in other states.

4. Democrats and Republicans, Part II. Two different bills, two different sponsors, two different parties. Which one will move forward (or will one move forward)? If one of these versions is to move forward and if partisanship plays a role, Rep. Cole's (R) version is likely to find more support among the Republican majority in the Virginia House.

As the legislative session in Virginia progresses, these are some things to keep an eye on when either of these bills are being considered.

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

Two Bills Introduced to Move Virginia Presidential Primary from February to March

There have been two bills introduced in the Virginia House to shift the date on which the state's presidential primary is held from the first second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. Both bills (HB 1667 and HB 1843) are exactly the same except for the fact that the former bill lowers the petition signature requirement from 10,000 to 5,000 for presidential candidates. That bill was introduced by Democrat Jennifer McClellan while HB 1843 was introduced by Republican Mark Cole. Each bill was prefiled on Monday, January 10 and was introduced today.

Both bills will be added to our left sidebar gadget, "Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures".

NOTE: Please make note of the strikethrough above. Virginia state law places the state's presidential primary on the SECOND Tuesday in February, not the first as was initially stated. Thanks to reader, MysteryPolitico, for catching that.

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

More on the California Bill to Move Presidential Primary Back to June

After the introduction of AB 80 last week -- the bill that would move California's presidential primary back to June -- FHQ contacted Assemblymember Fong's (the bill's sponsor) office to inquire about the motivation behind the effort. I had assumed that it was a cost-saving measure and that the national party rules proposing sanctions on all February states would be part of the equation. It turns out they were (see summary and background below the break), but I was surprised to see the "not enough bang for our buck" argument.

Let me explain. Arkansas moved its presidential primary early in 2005 to the first Tuesday in February for the 2008 cycle. Then Hillary Clinton decided to run for the Democratic nomination. Then Mike Huckabee decided to run for the Republican nomination. All the while a bevy of states -- California included -- opted to hold their delegate selection events on the same early February date. As February 5, 2008 approached the candidates on both sides ceded the Natural state to its favorite son and daughter and Arkansas was lost among candidate visits and news coverage of contests in other February 5 states. Now, Arkansas had a reasonable gripe. Why spend all that money on a separate presidential primary and get essentially nothing out of it?

Why indeed? That's why legislators in Arkansas moved the state's presidential primary back to its traditional May position during the 2009 legislative session.

But does that same argument work in California? No, California, like Arkansas, didn't have the stage all to itself on February 5, but as long as most states follow the national party rules and subsequently cluster around the earliest allowable date, no state is going to have that luxury. Unlike Arkansas, however, the Golden state did receive many more candidate visits than the other February 5 states. In fact, the total number of visits to California only trailed four other states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida).

The question remains, though. Were those 155 total candidate visits enough bang for the cost the state incurred for holding for the first time a separate presidential primary from its primaries for state and local offices? FHQ has asked the staff of the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee for an estimate of the savings they would expect if AB 80 passed and became law. Once they have heard back from the secretary of state's office later in the session, they will have that figure. My guess is that is still not going to look like it is worth it compared to the attention Iowa and New Hampshire get. That said, no state is going to get that kind of attention unless the government there decides to break the national party rules to a degree never witnessed in the post-reform era.

--

AB 80 (Fong): Presidential Primary

SUMMARY

This bill saves the state and local governments millions of dollars by eliminating California's stand-alone presidential primary election in February and instead consolidating it with primary elections for other offices in June.

BACKGROUND

In 2007, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, Senate Bill 113 (Calderon), Chapter 2, Statutes of 2007, to move the State's presidential primary from June to the first Tuesday in February. At the time, the intent behind moving up the primary was to encourage presidential candidates to campaign in California, and to debate and discuss issues and policies important to the people of this state, while also to encourage voter registration, voter interest, and voter participation in the 2008 election.

Consequently, in 2008 California held its presidential primary on February 5^th. However, by the time California voters cast their ballots 33 other states had also moved up their presidential primaries. Fifteen states held their presidential primary on the same day as California, limiting California's influence on the selection of presidential candidates.

In August of 2010, the Republican and Democratic National Committees adopted policies that prohibit any type of selection process for presidential candidates, via election or caucus from occurring prior to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March, with the exception of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada who are permitted to begin their processes at any time on or after February 1.

These policies are intended to discourage the trend of early primary elections because the earlier the primary, the longer the period of time between the primary and general elections, which could result in lower voter turnouts and increased costs of campaigning by lengthening the campaign season.

While a state is free to schedule its presidential primary election or caucus whenever it wants, it may face sanctions at the national convention if its election or caucus is held at a time or in a manner that violates the national party rules.

In addition, current law requires the 2012 presidential primary to occur on the first Tuesday in February and prohibits it from being consolidated with the statewide direct primary to be held in that year - meaning, California would be required to hold 3 separate statewide elections in 2012, imposing a huge cost on the state and local governments at a time when our state's fiscal situation is in crisis.

AB 80 will eliminate the state's stand-alone presidential primary election and consolidate it with other primary elections, saving the state and local governments tens of millions of dollars on avoided election costs, as well as conform California law to national party rules.

AB 80

AB 80 does the following:

Requires the presidential primary to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June of each year evenly divisible by the number four.

Requires the presidential primary election to be consolidated with the statewide direct primary that is held in that year.

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

Everyone I know has a big but...

With all due respect to Pee Wee Herman...

Despite having talked quite a bit about the significance of the Florida as the domino that first has to fall before we have any idea about what the first part of the 2012 presidential primary calendar will look like, FHQ is hesitant to completely wade into the back and forth about what's actually happening in the Sunshine state. The truth is, the state legislative session does not begin until March and anything that is said between now and that point will ultimately take a backseat to the debate that will take place in the legislature.

That said, there has been enough talk about Florida changing the date of its presidential primary and for various reasons (because the delegate selection rules should be followed, because the national convention is in Tampa).

...but...

And this is the thing: the temptation is there for the Republican-controlled state government in Florida to thumb their noses at the Republican National Committee's 2012 delegate selection rules. The move to the final Tuesday in January in 2007 was a permanent move. It was not a "let's try this out for one cycle and see how it goes" plan. It was a "let's stake a claim as an additional early state in the presidential primary process" plan. That will be the subject of the debate that will surround what promises to be a sure thing proposal before the Florida House and Senate. There will be a bill to move the presidential primary back to March or later, but chances are there is going to be one side that says, "let's move" while the other nods but responds by saying something like what Marco Rubio said this week:

"It's right for Florida for a lot of reasons. What's the point of Florida voters having a primary later in the year that won't mean anything? ... I think Florida is the ideal test. There isn't an issue confronting America that they won't have to address in a state like Florida. And as a Republican, I think it behooves us to have an early Republican primary in Florida. Because if a Republican can't win Florida, they can't win the presidency. So we better make sure whoever we nominate is someone who can be palatable to Floridians."

That's a tough argument to counter effectively. No, Rubio isn't currently a member of either house of the state legislature, but the junior senator from the Sunshine state perfectly encapsulates the argument against moving the primary.

So, it will be a roller coaster of speculation between now and when the Florida legislature convenes on March 8, but keep your distance and know that while the rules give Florida but one move, the legislators will be tempted to maintain the status quo even if it means ceding half its delegates to the Republican national convention.

We shall see...

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

How many double-takes can one do in a split second?

I think I broke the record.

Last night as I was putting the finishing touches on the two posts I was working on, a Google Alert email came up on my phone. [Well, the buzz of my phone told me I had a message. I had to actually pick the phone up to see that it was one of the Google Alert variety.] Instead of totally interrupting my train of thought and clicking on the adjacent email tab online, I picked up my phone and this is what I saw:

Presidential Primary Process Reorganized

Kansas City Star

Instead of the traditional Iowa-New Hampshire-Super Tuesday trifecta, the 2012 cycle will be the first to use a rotating system among four region: ...

WHAT!?! How did I miss this? How was it not being more widely reported than in the Kansas City Star (No offense Star employees.)?

At that point my posts were forced to take a backseat to this new and necessary investigation. I switched to the computer, found the relevant Alert message in my email queue and clicked on it. Rapidly, I scanned the article for the headline I had seen on my phone. I located it and this is what I read:

Presidential Primary Process Reorganized

WASHINGTON | The two major political parties have announced the implementation of a regional primary system for presidential nominations. Instead of the traditional Iowa-New Hampshire-Super Tuesday trifecta, the 2012 cycle will be the first to use a rotating system among four regions: Northeast, Southeast, Northwest and Southwest. The first region to hold primaries next year will be the Northeast, which will go last in 2016.

This plan is the culmination of efforts from disparate advocates, including the National Association of Secretaries of States and former Florida Gov. Bob Graham. The intention is to increase diverse participation by ensuring that all areas of the country get an early say in the nomination process.

Again, what!?! First of all, how had a near impossibility -- the fact that both major parties had quietly altered their 2012 delegate selection rules after having settled on them already -- been left unreported to this point? Secondly, why was this only in the Kansas City Star?

It was then that I looked up at the true headline (and just a section heading masquerading as one on a smartphone):

Headlines that America deserves to see this year

Oh, well that explains it. Perhaps this should be amended to read "Headlines that America deserves to see in 2014". That will be the next time we will see any sort of headline on a definitive change in primary organization. And maybe you've seen over the years, I'm not entirely bullish on that happening then or any other time. But 2014 would be the earliest possible time that we would see that.

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

South Carolina Has State Funded Presidential Primaries

Richard Winger over at Ballot Access News today -- in describing the introduction of a bill in Oklahoma to have the state parties pay for presidential primaries* -- mentioned that South Carolina remained the only state where the state parties still picked up the tab for presidential primary elections. That did used to be the case. However, in 2007 the South Carolina legislature passed S 99 (text and history of the bill below) which gave the funding power to the state while keeping the date-setting control in the hands of the state party committees. The bill passed and was later vetoed by Governor Mark Sanford. But that veto was overridden by the legislature. At no point during the remainder of that 2007-2008 session nor during the subsequent 2009-2010 session did the legislature act to reverse what it had accomplished in S 99.

Should Oklahoma pass HB 1057, it would become the only state where the parties pay for their own presidential primaries.

...just like South Carolina used to.

--

Text of S 99:

AN ACT TO AMEND SECTIONS 7-11-20 AND 7-13-15, BOTH AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PARTY CONVENTIONS AND PARTY PRIMARY ELECTIONS CONDUCTED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION CONDUCT PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARIES, THAT THE STATE COMMITTEE OF THE PARTY SET THE DATE, FILING REQUIREMENTS AND CERTIFICATION FEE FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARIES, TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR VERIFICATION OF THE QUALIFICATION OF CANDIDATES, TO CLARIFY CERTAIN EXISTING PROVISIONS CONCERNING PRIMARIES, AND TO SPECIFY WHICH PRIMARIES MUST BE CONDUCTED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION; TO DESIGNATE SECTION 14 OF ACT 253 OF 1992 AS SECTION 7-11-25, RELATING TO POLITICAL PARTIES NOT PROHIBITED FROM CONDUCTING PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE OR ADVISORY PRIMARIES, SO AS TO DELETE THE REFERENCES TO PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARIES; AND BY ADDING SECTION 7-9-110 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A POLITICAL PARTY OR STATE ELECTION COMMISSION TO CONDUCT A PRIMARY OR ELECTION, WITHOUT CHARGE, IN A FACILITY THAT RECEIVES STATE FUNDS FOR SUPPORT OR OPERATION.

Bill History.

*Note that this is a similar bill to the one introduced in Oklahoma two years ago that would have done the same thing. HB 1340 got bottled up and died in committee when the legislature adjourned for the year in 2009. The spirit of that bill lives on in HB 1057.

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

Washington Primary: Moving Up, Back or Packin' It Up?

The answer, it seems, is "Both A and C", but it depends on which primary you're talking about. That Washington Governor Christine Gregiore called for the elimination of the Evergreen state's presidential primary is old news -- she did that back in December -- but the idea appears to be gaining momentum with Secretary of State Sam Reed now endorsing the idea as well. As was the speculated to be the case in California, with the proposed shift of the primary there, this effort in Washington is a cost saving measure. Of course, it makes more sense in Washington.

Why?

Well, the Washington presidential primary has been next to meaningless throughout much of its history. Both parties still use caucuses as a means of allocation national presidential delegates as well. In 2008, the Washington Republican Party allocated 49% of its delegates through the February 19 primary, but had already begun the process of allocating the other 51% during the first round of local caucuses on February 9. Likewise, the Democrats utilized both systems, but the primary was only advisory -- a beauty contest -- while the caucus carried all of the weight in terms of determining the allocation of delegates. If the best the state funded primary can do is allocate 49% of the delegates in but one party's primary, then it may probably be best for the state to save the money and let the two parties foot the bill for their own nominating contests. The Washington state parties have always seemingly valued having more control over the process through the years. [Mike Huckabee didn't think too highly of the caucus process in Washington in 2008.]

California, on the other hand, uses the primary as the, pardon the pun, primary means of allocation and while the move back to June, in conjunction with the other primaries, would save the state some money, it would come at the price of losing a significant say in who the parties' nominees would be. [Nothing, of course, precludes the state from changing its mind in the future when economic forecasts are potentially rosier.]

--

Washington Secretary of State Reed also made a request that the state legislature move on legislation that would shift the state's primaries for state and local offices up two weeks on the calendar to early August. This would pull the state into compliance with a federal law that passed in 2009 and sought to protect the voting rights of military personnel overseas. FHQ previously mentioned that amendment to a defense authorization bill here, here and here. We don't often talk about the movement of state and local primaries around here, though it is a void in the political science literature I'd like to at some point examine more closely, but this is one of the few instances of movement that has been triggered by this federal legislation. Early on in the new legislative sessions is when we are likely to see more of this sort of action take place.

The Washington state legislature convenes on Monday (January 10).

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

The Impact of 2010 State Governmental Elections on Frontloading: Part Two

Yesterday's post on the prevalence of unified government in state governments following the 2010 elections set the stage for a further examination of the influence that will have on the likelihood of proposed bills that may shift the dates on which presidential primaries and caucuses will be held. Now, there are a fair number of factors that come into play in the frontloading decision-making calculus of any state legislature (or ultimately the state government). For the time being, FHQ will focus on a handful of them.

First, presidential incumbency matters. I found as much in my research [pdf]. Over the 1976-2008 period, those cycles without an incumbent president on the ballot were three times less likely to witness widespread primary movement than in those cycles where both parties had contested nominations. 2012 will be one of those cycles with an incumbent president on the ballot.

What that tells us is that there is potentially a partisan element to all of this. As Philip Klinkner (1994) found in his book on out party committee activity, those parties currently out of the White House are more likely to tinker with their rules -- as a means of shuffling the deck and potentially increasing their likelihood of success -- than those that occupy the White House. In other words, in this cycle we would expect to see the Republicans being less content with the status quo and thus more likely to alter their rules in some fashion. While the Republican Party did allow rules changes (or the exploration of that possibility) outside of the national convention for the first -- a process that led to the adoption of rules requiring states to proportionally allocate delegates in the event a contest is held prior to April -- that effort is not really the point for our purposes here. Instead, we are looking at the secondary actors here: the state governments. To what level are the states willing to, within those rules, make changes to their election laws to impact their influence over the nomination process? When it comes to frontloading, that is the important question to ask. All things equal, the expectation would be that Republican-controlled governments would be more likely frontload than Democratic-controlled state governments.

2012 is a weird cycle, though. After having allowed February primaries, both national parties are now seeking to scale things back in 2012 and are mandating March or later primary and caucus dates for non-exempt states. For the first time, then, the parties are attempting to force states to backload as opposed to allowing them to frontload to a certain point in the past.

That leaves those 18 states currently in violation (see map below) of the national parties' delegate selection rules firmly within the crosshairs. Each has to move back to a later, compliant date or they face the delegation-reducing sanctions both parties are employing. [For the time being, I'll shunt my thoughts on the effectiveness of those sanctions to the side.]

[Click to Enlarge]

Those 18 states are either the states most likely to move into compliance or the most likely to thumb their noses at the national party rules in an attempt to influence the nominations. And that brings us full circle. Democratic-controlled state governments (of those 18 states) would tend to fall into the former group while Republican-controlled state governments would be more likely to tempt fate and stick it out despite the looming spectre of sanctions. Two Democratic-controlled states (Arkansas and Illinois) in the last legislative session moved to later dates and a third, California (a newly unified Democratic state government), has a proposal to move its primary back to a later date on the 2012 presidential primary calendar.

[Click to Enlarge]

You can begin to see the possible impact here as highlighted by the map above (especially when combined with the partisan maps from part one). The unified state governments would hypothetically be more likely to see some action if they were under Democratic control than if they were under Republican control (seeking greater influence over the nomination) or in the midst of divided control (unable to move into compliance with either national party's delegate selection rules). In other words, there is not only a line between unified and divided state governments, but between states with unified Democratic control and unified Republican control. States like California are more likely to move back, but are unified Republican states like Florida or Georgia more or less likely to move back than states like New York or Missouri with divided government? That will be something for those of us watching to keep our eye on.

The problem with focusing on the states in violation of the national party rules is that it completely disregards states -- particularly unified states -- that are currently compliant but may move to an earlier date valuing influence over the potential costs to their national delegations. Here's where that Texas bill comes into the picture.

[Click to Enlarge]

There are obviously states with unified control that may opt to move into violation of the national parties as well. But those states are much more likely to be Republican-controlled than otherwise. Pennsylvania, a state long divided between the parties and incidentally enough unable to move out of April during the post-reform period, may be worth watching along with Texas since both are Republican-controlled.

The point to take home is that while there may be some states that stick it out with primary dates in violation of the national party rules, there will also be far less movement forward than in the past. There will be movement backward, but much of that will likely depend on the presence of unified government in the state and which party is in control.


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

Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures

Now that California has joined Texas among the ranks of states with primary-shifting bills before its state legislature, FHQ is going to add a gadget in the left sidebar (directly under primary calendar) that will allow you to track the status of those bills.

Just as a refresher:

1) The California bill would move the presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June.

2) The Texas bill is a true frontloading bill. The proposal there calls for the Lone Star state's primary to be moved from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February.

Stay tuned on the front page for updates and to the sidebar for the status of the bills.

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

California Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary Back to June

California State Assemblymember, Paul Fong (D-Mountain View) introduced a bill (AB 80) yesterday which would shift the state's presidential primary in 2012 and in future presidential cycles from the first Tuesday in February back to June. Details are scant at this point (as you might have been able to tell from the bill link above), but there are few things that can be said of this despite not having the text of the bill at which to look.

First of all, California did this during the 2008 cycle as well. In September 2004, then-Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill that moved the Golden state's primary from its March position back to June. Now, keep in mind that California has always been one the states that has traditionally held both its presidential primary and its primaries for state and local offices at the same time. Record low turnout in both 2002 and 2004 served as the impetus for the move. However, in 2007, when states began moving and clustering their primaries and caucuses for 2008 in February, California followed suit (see California section). But this time the state assembly decoupled the presidential primary from the primaries for state and local offices. This didn't come cheap. The early cost estimates to create the all-new, separate presidential primary placed that number at $90 million.

And that brings us to the second point. With such a high price tag and with California in poor shape economically, this current move by the assembly to "recouple" the two sets of primaries seems like a no-brainer. Of course, passing this bill would also mean that California's voice would likely go unheard at the tail end of the nomination process, a place the state's primary has not been since the 1992 cycle. This could be a point of debate once this bill is in committee (Fong is the chair of the Assembly Elections Committee.). That could be as early as February 3.

Given our post earlier today, none of the above says anything about the partisanship in the state legislature in California. It was among the states that shifted from divided to unified government with Jerry Brown's election as governor. It was also one of the few states that moved toward the Democrats in that regard. With an uncontested nomination, Democratic-controlled states may be more likely to bring their primary scheduling into compliance with national party rules because of that than their Republican-controlled counterparts in other states. We shall see. We'll have more on this point in tomorrow's post. That said, California moving back is a big deal. It is currently one of the 18 states with elections laws on the books that schedule the presidential primary in February and thus in violation of national party rules on delegate selection.

[h/t Ballot Access News for the link.]

--

UPDATE: Here is the text of AB 80. As expected the bill combines all sets of primaries on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June and would move the presidential primary to that position from the first Tuesday in February.

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

The Impact of 2010 State Governmental Elections on Frontloading: Part One

On Monday, FHQ posted a chronological list of the start dates for all 50 state legislative sessions. Now, from that calendar several factors, as discussed there, could be gleaned that could impact the evolution of the 2012 presidential primary calendar. However, it was only intended as the opening of an incremental assessment of the state of play in the calendar maneuvering that will take place throughout 2011. State legislatures are very much at the nexus of this decision in a majority of states -- those with primaries. As such the partisan composition of those state legislatures is an important point of departure.

The Republican wave that swept over the 111th Congress grabbed a majority of the headlines as did some of the wins the party saw in gubernatorial races. Yet, those GOP advances stretched down-ballot to state legislatures as well. Nationwide that translated into a gain of more than 675 seats across all state legislatures according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Before I get too far into this first step look into the post-2010 partisan composition of state legislatures, or more to the point, whether there is unified or divided government on the state level, I should note that this is but one of many factors that plays a role in determining if a state ultimately opts to shift the date on which its presidential primary is held. In the models I ran in my dissertation research [pdf], I repeatedly found that structural factors had a greater influence a state's propensity to frontload in the 1976-2008 period than what I deemed political factors. In other words, matters such as whether a state held its presidential primary concurrently with its primaries for state and local offices was of greater import than divided government. It should be noted that another political factor, the presence of an incumbent president running for reelection, had a larger impact than either a divided state government (legislature and governor) or a divided legislature. The theory behind all of this is that rationally acting decision makers would utilize a cost/benefit analysis when deciding whether to frontload their primary. Those state-level decision makers with less structural, political, economic and cultural impediments standing in the way of the decision were found to be more likely to have shifted their primary (or caucus) over the period mentioned above.

While inter-chamber partisan division within a legislature would hypothetically serve as a deterrent to frontloading, it was never the statistically significant factor that inter-branch partisan division (between the executive and legislative branches) consistently proved to be.

That said, what impact did the 2010 Republican wave have on the presence of unified or divided government? First, it is instructive to examine the executive and legislative chamber flips in partisan control during the 2010 elections.

[Click to Enlarge]

Understandably, this is a map that trends red, but only shows two instances (Maine and Wisconsin) where the Republican Party gained control of the executive branch and both the upper and lower chambers of the legislature. Overall, the map does not tell us much more than the map the National Conference of State Legislatures provides other than the fact that it adds gubernatorial gains to the equation. But let's add in a map that shows the prevalence of unified government and then create a hybrid of the two that demonstrates not only the presence of Republican-controlled unified government, but the gains made on that front during 2010.

[Click to Enlarge]

Again, this second map shows us the extent to which unified government extended following the 2010 elections. On the surface, the midterms proved to be a boon to Republican fortunes nearly nationwide. It would, theoretically, have an impact not only on frontloading but on redistricting as well. Unified Republican-control on the state level translates into fewer hurdles between a party making congressional seat gains through redistricting or making an advantageous move of a primary ahead of a presidential nomination cycle that will only see a competitive Republican race.

But what was the impact of 2010?

[Click to Enlarge]

Well, the state that already had unified government prior to 2010 are shaded in either dark red or blue. The gains in unified control by either party are in the lighter shades. If we were a truly enterprising blog, FHQ would go ahead an layer in the new electoral college map as a means of discerning the states where unified control was established and where redistricting will have to take place. Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are the big ones on that front and sadly for the Democratic Party, California is neither redistricted by its state legislature nor did it gain any seats in the latest reapportionment. Redistricting aside, however, this series of maps does set the stage for an examination of how the partisan shifts in control at the state level will potentially impact the frontloading process during the 2011 state legislative sessions.

With so many states now under unified Republican control and with the Republican nomination being the only contested race, the potential exists for quite a lot of primary movement. But FHQ will delve into that tomorrow with a wider discussion of other factors that could influence state legislative decision making in terms of presidential primary timing.

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

Headline Writers Need to Be Stopped

Earlier FHQ linked to an article from the Columbus Dispatch that correctly identified the news in its article on the possibility of a later 2012 presidential primary in Ohio. In fact, the headline was good enough in our opinion to repeat here.

"Slow redistricting could delay Ohio's presidential primary"

That story has since been picked up in part by the Associated Press and has morphed from the incoming secretary of state pointing out a potential timing issue between the redistricting process and the presidential primary into said secretary of state contemplating moving the presidential primary himself.

"Secretary of State might move Ohio's 2012 presidential primary date"

or

"Ohio Elections Boss Considers Later 2012 Primary"

I'm no expert -- well, I suppose I am -- but the last time I checked, in Ohio, as in many other states, the state legislature is responsible for moving the date on which the state's primary is held. And that move has to be signed off on by the governor, not the secretary of state. New Hampshire is the only state where the secretary of state plays a direct role in the scheduling of presidential primaries. The state legislature in the Granite state ceded that power in 1976 in an effort to assure the state maximum flexibility in maintaining its first in the nation primary. Now this isn't to suggest that secretaries of state, under which typically resides a state board of elections, has no role to play in this process. However, that role is rarely anything other than an advisory role. And that seems to be the case in Ohio. The state legislature will be the entity to act on this if it cannot quickly draw the congressional district lines. [Let's keep in mind that Ohio is now under unified Republican control following the 2010 elections.]

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

"Slow redistricting could delay Ohio's presidential primary"

From the Columbus Dispatch this morning:

"Ohio's 2012 presidential primary election might have to be moved to later in the year if state lawmakers are slow to draw new congressional districts this year, incoming Secretary of State Jon Husted said yesterday."

There is always a domino effect. Ohio state law requires petitions for candidacy to be filed at least 90 days in advance of the March 6, 2012 primary (December 7, 2011), but both congressional and state legislative districts will have to have been drawn by then so candidates -- both incumbents and challengers -- know where they are running. This obviously puts a bit of pressure on state and local boards of elections to solidify the field of candidates and then print (or prepare electronic) ballots for the primary.

It remains to be seen if this news will actually filter down to members of the state legislature, some of whom may opt to introduce a bill that shifts the date on which the presidential primary (and those for other offices as well) is held. Though it didn't go anywhere, a group of Democratic state senators proposed a bill that would have moved the Ohio primary into January for the 2008 cycle. That would have been in violation of both national parties' delegate selection rules (And wouldn't it have been fun to tack Ohio onto the Florida/Michigan mess?). Of course, that didn't stop the bill's introduction.

File this one away and be on the lookout for other similar situations in other states where reapportionment has forced district redraws.

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

A View of the 2008 Presidential Election Results Through the Lens of the Electoral College Spectrum

[Click to Enlarge]

Yesterday, FHQ promised that it would be back today with a look at the impact the reapportionment changes would have had on the 2008 election. More importantly, though, it is instructive to dust off the Electoral College Spectrum and begin to visualize how the seat/electoral college vote shifts will impact the 2012 presidential election. The map above accomplishes the former without much explanation -- Obama would have lost six electoral votes overall in 2008 -- and below you will find the latter.

The Electoral College Spectrum*
HI-4 (7)**	ME-4 (153)	NH-4 (257)	GA-16 (166)	NE-4 (58)
VT-3 (10)	WA-12 (165)	IA-6 (263)	SD-3 (150)	KY-8 (54)
RI-4 (14)	MI-16 (181)	CO-9*** (272/275)	ND-3 (147)	LA-8 (46)
MA-11 (25)	OR-7 (188)	VA-13 (285/266)	AZ-11 (144)	AR-6 (38)
NY-29 (54)	NJ-14 (202)	OH-18 (303/253)	SC-9 (133)	AL-9 (32)
DE-3 (57)	NM-5 (207)	FL-29 (332/235)	TX-38 (124)	AK-3 (23)
IL-20 (77)	WI-10 (217)	IN-11 (343/206)	WV-5 (86)	ID-4 (20)
MD-10 (87)	NV-6 (223)	NC-15+1**** (359/195)	MS-6 (81)	UT-6 (16)
CA-55 (142)	PA-20 (243)	MO-10 (179)	TN-11 (75)	OK-7 (10)
CT-7 (149)	MN-10 (253)	MT-3 (169)	KS-6 (64)	WY-3 (3)
*Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. **The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, McCain won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Obama's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 275 electoral votes. McCain's numbers are only totaled through the states he would have needed in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and McCain's is on the right in italics. ***Colorado is the state where Obama crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. ****Nebraska allocates electoral votes based on statewide results and the results within each of its congressional districts. Nebraska's 2nd district voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

Again, this graphic is helpful from the standpoint of ranking the states from most pro-Obama to most pro-GOP, but it also provides a glimpse into what each side has to do in the general election in 2012 to either maintain or win back the White House. President Obama had such a cushion in the 2008 election -- even under the newly reapportioned electoral college -- that the Democrat could lose next year all of the middle column states except the three on top and still win. In other words, the president could yield Florida, Ohio and North Carolina, among others, and still win re-election assuming that the Republican nominee is unable to advance into some of the other seemingly safer Obama states. It is hard not to see New Hampshire and Iowa -- two of the three states that flipped between the parties between the 2000 and 2004 elections -- as well as Colorado and Virginia as the major battlegrounds of the 2012 election. And in light of the announced layoffs at Organizing for America, these states are important enough that FHQ would be willing to wager that no OFA scale back will affect any of the states listed immediately above.

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

Frontloading Starts with State Legislatures: The 2011 State Legislative Session Calendar

The National Conference of State Legislatures has this calendar as well, but in alphabetical order. FHQ is more concerned with sequence. Which state legislatures convene first, when do their sessions end and how does this impact the scheduling of presidential primaries?

2011 State Legislative Session Calendar
Date (Open)	States	Date (Close)
December 1, 2010	Maine*	June 15, 2011
December 6	California	September 9
January 3, 2011	Montana Ohio	late April year-round**
January 4	Kentucky Minnesota * Mississippi North Dakota* Pennsylvania Rhode Island	March 22 May 23 early April late April year-round** late June
January 5	Connecticut Indiana Massachusetts Missouri Nebraska New Hampshire New York Vermont	June 8 April 29 year-round** May 30 early June July 1 year-round** mid May
January 10	Arizona Arkansas Georgia Idaho Iowa* Kansas* Washington	late April March 10 mid April late March late April late May April 24
January 11	Delaware South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Wisconsin Wyoming*	June 30 June 2 mid March mid May May 30 year-round** early March
January 12	Colorado* Illinois Maryland Michigan New Jersey Virginia West Virginia	May 11 year-round** early April year-round** year-round** February 26 mid March
January 18	Alaska* New Mexico	April 17 March 19
January 19	Hawaii*	mid May
January 24	Utah	March 10
January 26	North Carolina	early June
February 1	Oregon	June 30
February 7	Nevada* Oklahoma	June 6 May 27
March 1	Alabama	mid June
March 8	Florida	May 6
April 25	Louisiana	June 23
Notes: *States in italics are caucus states. State parties and not state legislatures control the scheduling of those contests. **State legislatures with year-round sessions.

The table answers the first two of the three questions posed above. With the schedule of state legislative sessions down, though, what impact will this have on the 2012 presidential primary calendar? As has been mentioned several times in this space, the true impact of anything dealing with the 2012 calendar will be felt first in the 18 non-exempt states with primaries currently positioned prior to March. Those are the states where some action is necessary to pull the timing of their delegate selection event within the bounds set by the two national parties' 2012 delegate selection rules.

The most interesting note is that the state legislature in Florida does not convene until March 8; the next to last state to open its session. Why is this noteworthy? Well, Florida, a state whose election codes have the 2012 presidential primary scheduled for January 31, is technically scheduled ahead of when the parties want the exempt states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- to hold their contests. To be sure, if Florida were to leave the law alone, those four states would likely move their contests to earlier dates than what the parties desire, but the end result is that Florida holds a tremendous amount of sway over what the eventual primary calendar will look like in 2012. The late state legislative start date in Florida, then, means that many states will have already missed the window to pre-file or introduce legislation to alter the section of state election laws concerning presidential primary timing; all before Florida has even opened its legislative session. Other states, like Virginia (another primary state scheduled in violation of the national party rules), will have already brought the gavel down on the 2011 state legislative session by the time Florida starts. In other words, a state could act on 2012 primary timing prior to when the true lynchpin in the process moves (or doesn't move). Now, states in that position are not without options. One way to circumvent that problem is to bring the issue up in a special session; one that is already scheduled or where that isn't the singular issue. The other is to add an amendment for moving the primary date to another piece of legislation as a means of passing it through the legislature. Though another state's actions were not the motivation, this is what happened in Georgia (see Georgia section of that post) during the 2007 session of its General Assembly. Efforts to pass a bill specifically designed to move the date on which the Peach state's presidential primary would be held in 2008 failed, but language accomplishing the same ends was inserted in another bill in the form of an amendment toward the end of the session.

An additional factor to note is that the above discussion only accounts for those states in violation of the national party rules; those states, again, that would technically require action to come into compliance. What it does not account for are those states currently in compliance with those rules that may choose to challenge and thus violate them. The bill that has been pre-filed in Texas is an example of this.

Let us also recall that the Republican nomination contest, as the likely only competitive one, will be where all of this matters most. First of all, the Republican rules governing the 2012 nomination process provide only one penalty for states that choose to violate the timing rule: one half of their delegation to the national convention. This was not enough of a penalty to prevent all those 2008 states with contests prior to February (New Hampshire and South Carolina included) from rolling the dice. Florida and others may choose influence over delegates again in 2012. Of course, some have speculated that since the Republican National Convention is in Tampa, Florida Republicans may desire having a full delegation at a convention they are hosting. For other states (and even Florida for that matter), it remains an open question.

Regardless of all of that, state legislatures will convene mostly over the next few weeks and will continue to do so throughout the first third of 2011. That is when the work to shape the 2012 presidential primary calendar will truly commence and is something we here at FHQ will be watching closely.

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

The 2012-2020 Electoral College Map

[Click to Enlarge]

In view of the fact that the Census Bureau released its population numbers prior to the holidays, FHQ needs to issue a clerical change to its 2012 electoral college map; shifting from projection to reality. Not to beat a dead horse, but the take away is that the population in the purple to bluish states in the Rust Belt and northeast grew at a much slower rate (Michigan lost population) than red states in the southeast and purple to reddish states in the southwest. The seats in Congress shift accordingly. And while that appears to hypothetically swell the ranks of the GOP not only in the House but in the electoral college tally as well, that growth may be muted even in light of the gains the Republican Party made at the state legislative level in the 2010 midterm elections.

There was only a six electoral vote shift using the 2008 election results and the newly reapportioned map. Obama would have won 359-179 as opposed to 365-173. And the question remains whether Republicans at the state level will solidify through redistricting what they have in terms of current House districts or attempt to squeeze a few more seats out of the process while potentially opening the door to future electoral vulnerability in those races. We'll likely see a little bit of both strategies employed with the net effect that the GOP makes gains but not the extent that some of the doomsday scenarios that made the rounds following the 2010 "shellacking".

We'll have more tomorrow on the impact of these changes on the electoral college in 2012 and beyond, but for now the new map (especially in the sidebar for reference) will suffice.

--
UPDATE: Here's a look at the 2008 results using the 2012-2020 electoral college along with the electoral college spectrum and a look at the potential battleground states for 2012.

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

Happy New Year

FHQ wants to wish all out there a happy new year. From our perspective, 2011 should bring plenty to talk about from state legislatures and state parties positioning their primaries and caucuses (or failing to do so) for the 2012 presidential nomination cycle.

Here's to a bright new year!

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

Really, Seriously!?! New Hampshire Wants to Keep Its First in the Nation Primary Status?

Well, that's news to FHQ. Have they done this before?

Actually, this is a post (at least in part) that FHQ put together last January when the General Court in New Hampshire was tweaking the election law regarding the timing of its presidential primary. It has been sitting in the queue for a year for some reason; probably because it perfectly proves the point that the "warning" that the Granite state will protect its position really is not all that newsworthy.

Well, it is (...around these parts). And The Union Leader's John DiStaso is absolutely right in saying that New Hampshirites on the Democratic Change Commission and on the Rules and Bylaws Committee were awfully quiet when it came time to vote on the delegate selection rules for 2012. They knew the proposed four day window between New Hampshire and Nevada would be in violation of the state law. In my own personal experience at the Change Commission's May meeting, Ray Buckley, chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party and committeeman, uttered nary a word about this conflict.

FHQ remains neutral in these things (the pros and cons of New Hampshire's privileged position -- Hey, I just research this stuff.), but one would have to see right off that the powers-that-be in the Granite state would stand up to defend their turf as they see it. If they allow the law's enforcement to be fudged in any way, the state becomes vulnerable to challenges in future presidential nomination cycles.

That said, New Hampshire did let the law enforcement slide somewhat in 2008. That seven day window applies on either side of the primary in New Hampshire -- before and after. Given how Iowa and New Hampshire decided to adhere to the unwritten rule that no contest should take place outside of the election year, both contests ended up compressed in a six day period between January 3 and January 8, 2008. [Notice that no one is mentioning the Wyoming Republican caucuses on January 5, still.] This was likely the motivation for the law change last January (described below in the text from the unpublished post); to codify an exemption for Iowa. In other words, there is some room for ex post facto maneuvering.

...but it is dangerous (from the perspective of the Granite state) and New Hampshire will never do anything to jeopardize its position. The key in all of this is that New Hampshire secretary of state, Bill Gardner holds all the power. The state is able to avoid any partisan squabbles in the General Court because the decision on the timing of the primary bypasses the legislature altogether and is in the secretary of state's hands. New Hampshire is much better equipped to move at the last minute than any other state.

--

Unpublished Post from January 8, 2010:

From the AP:

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — New Hampshire lawmakers hope to end any doubt about the state's intent to continue holding the first presidential primary.

The state House is voting Wednesday on whether to give the secretary of state wider latitude in setting the primary date. That would help protect the state's tradition of being first.

State Rep. Jim Splaine is sponsoring the bill. The measure will go to the Senate if the House approves it and is widely expected to become law.

Maddeningly limited in the scope of its information, isn't it?

The details of the changes in Rep. Jim Splaine's bill (HB 341) before the New Hampshire House of Representatives are below. As it is under current law, the New Hampshire secretary of state has the ability to set the date of the Granite state's presidential primary, and that law requires that the primary be at least a week before any other similar contest.

The change?

Actually, this is the same bill that Splaine introduced during the 2009 legislative session and it just carried over to 2010. Here's what we had to say about the General Court's efforts during the early spring of 2009:

The bottom line is that when the legislature makes a change to the law concerning the presidential primary, it is typically couched in terms of 1) a change in the duties of the secretary of state on the matter and 2) to protect the state's position in the nomination process. And that's what they've done with the law below.

Here's is the New Hampshire law as it stands now:

"Presidential Primary Election. The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a date selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous. Said primary shall be held in connection with the regular March town meeting or election or, if held on any other day, at a special election called by the secretary of state for that purpose."

The real meat and potatoes here is the seven day cushion that New Hampshire requires between its primary and any other "similar election." Similar election has usually meant another primary, but the Democratic Party's rules for delegate selection initially placed the Nevada caucuses in between Iowa and New Hampshire and raised the issue of other states' caucuses challenging New Hampshire's primacy. The changes called for in HB 341 take care of that, though (Changes in Bold):

"Presidential Primary Election. The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a date selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, or holds a caucus or in the interpretation of the secretary of state holds any contest at which delegates are chosen for the national conventions, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous. Said primary shall be held in connection with the regular March town meeting or election or, if held on any other day, at a special election called by the secretary of state for that purpose. Any caucus of a state first held before 1975 shall not be affected by this provision."

Seven day cushion? Check.

Protection from interloping caucuses? Check.

Exception for Iowa? Check.

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

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (12/20/10)

For the most up-to-date version of this calendar see the left sidebar under the 2012 electoral college projection or click here.

With the Nevada GOP's action last week -- setting the date of the party's 2012 presidential caucuses -- the big board is in need of an update. Here again are the guidelines for reading the calendar from the last update from June:

1. Caucus states are italicized while primary states are not. Several caucus states are missing from the list because they have not formalized the date on which their contests will be held in 2012. Colorado appears because the caucuses dates there are set by the state, whereas a state like Alaska has caucuses run by the state parties and as such do not have their dates codified in state law.
2. States that have changed dates appear twice (or more) on the calendar; once by the old date and once by the new date. The old date will be struck through while the new date will be color-coded with the amount of movement (in days) in parentheses. States in green are states that have moved to earlier dates on the calendar and states in red are those that have moved to later dates. Arkansas, for example, has moved its 2012 primary and moved it back 104 days from its 2008 position.

2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Monday, January 16, 2012: Iowa caucuses*

Tuesday, January 24: New Hampshire*

Saturday, January 28: Nevada caucuses*, South Carolina*

A note on the placement of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

Tuesday, January 31: Florida

Tuesday, February 7 (Super Tuesday): Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Montana Republican caucuses, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah

Saturday, February 11: Louisiana

Tuesday, February 14: Maryland, Virginia

Saturday, February 18: Nevada Republican caucuses (-28)

Tuesday, February 21: Hawaii Republican caucuses (+87), Wisconsin

Tuesday, February 28: Arizona**, Michigan***

Tuesday, March 6: Massachusetts***, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont

Tuesday, March 13: Mississippi

Tuesday, March 20: Colorado caucuses****, Illinois (-42)

Tuesday, April 24: Pennsylvania

Tuesday, May 8: Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia

Tuesday, May 15: Nebraska, Oregon

Tuesday, May 22: Arkansas (-104), Idaho, Kentucky

Tuesday, June 5: Montana (GOP -119), New Mexico***** and South Dakota

*New Hampshire law calls for the Granite state to hold a primary on the second Tuesday of March or seven days prior to any other similar election, whichever is earlier. Florida is first now, so New Hampshire would be a week earlier at the latest. Traditionally, Iowa has gone on the Monday a week prior to New Hampshire. For the time being we'll wedge South Carolina in on the Saturday between New Hampshire and Florida, but these are just guesses at the moment. Any rogue states could cause a shift.

**In Arizona the governor can use his or her proclamation powers to move the state's primary to a date on which the event would have an impact on the nomination. In 2004 and 2008 the primary was moved to the first Tuesday in February.

***Massachusetts and Michigan are the only states that passed a frontloading bill prior to 2008 that was not permanent. The Bay state reverts to its first Tuesday in March date in 2012 while Michigan will fall back to the fourth Tuesday in February.

****The Colorado Democratic and Republican parties have the option to move their caucuses from the third Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February.

*****The law in New Mexico allows the parties to decide when to hold their nominating contests. The Democrats have gone in early February in the last two cycles, but the GOP has held steady in June. They have the option of moving however.

A note on the Minnesota caucuses.

Notes:

1. Since the Nevada caucuses on both sides of the aisle are given a privileged position -- ahead of the window in which all non-exempt states can hold delegate selection events -- it is more difficult to tabulate how much change there was/will be between the state's 2008 and 2012 positions. This is also true because the state parties are setting caucus dates and are not subject to laws as in primary states where the date is set in stone. In other words, they have a bit more freedom to choose the dates of their contests. What appears above for Nevada assumes that if the GOP had not chosen the February 18, 2012 date in their meeting last week, the state would have continued to hold mid-January caucus meetings (the third Saturday in January to be precise). As such, the Nevada GOP dropped back by four weeks.

2. There are still 18 non-exempt states (between Florida and Arizona/Michigan on the calendar above) that will have to shift the dates on which their primaries are held to come into compliance with the both national parties' sets of rules governing delegate selection. These states continue to be the ones to watch once state legislatures convene in early 2011.

3. You can read more on the potential calendar movement in Molly Ball's article at Politico. You might even see a comment or two from yours truly in there somewhere.

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