It would be easy to get lost in all the parliamentary procedure of the marathon, one day session the Republican Convention Committee on Rules pushed through a day ago. All the maneuvering aside, though, there were actually a number of noteworthy actions that emerged from the committee's work that will stretch through 2016 and remain influential into the 2020 cycle. Here are five:
1. Presidential nomination study committee
Much as it did eight years ago in Minneapolis, the Rules Committee created a temporary body to consider some of the thornier presidential nomination process questions outside the convention. The scope of the 2009-10 Temporary Delegate Selection Committee concerned just the ins and outs of the primary calendar (leading to additions like the proportionality requirement, for example). However, the newly created temporary committee on presidential nominations has a seemingly broader scope. Everything from delegate apportionment (Rule 14), the calendar (Rule 16) and penalties (Rule 17) will be on the table.
But why not just deal with this all at the convention?
As proponents yesterday in Cleveland collectively put it, the intent was to give the Republican Party the time and space to adequately consider those matters. The argument, as was later borne out in even limited discussion on Rules 14 and 16 matters, was that a maximum two day Convention Committee on Rules was not sufficient to fully consider controversial rules destined to stir up lengthy debates.
Unlike a 2013 subcommittee the Republican National Committee chartered with much the same goal, this committee will likely have a membership that encompasses more than merely Standing Rules Committee members. Instead the new 11 member study panel will potentially have a wider, more representative membership. Of course, the rule vested the power to select the membership in the national committee chair.
Like the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee, this new committee is likely to meet in 2017 with the goal of providing the RNC with recommendations to act on in 2018.
2. Rule 12
Summer 2018 is the cut off for action on any changes to Rules 1-11 and 13-25 in the Rules of the Republican Party because of Rule 12. That measure, added at the 2012 convention, has been in the crosshairs of opponents since Tampa. Breaking with tradition, the five line Rule 12 more explicitly gave the RNC the power to make changes to the aforementioned sets of rules.
Unlike the rule that gave rise to the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee after 2008, though, Rule 12 shifted a more sweeping set of rules-making powers away from the convention and toward the Republican National Committee. The trade-off is that the rule allows the party to adapt to changes that may emerge outside the convention and before the next presidential nomination race.1
Generally, the Rule 12 battle lines (and those of the Romney-led changes in 2012) have been drawn between the RNC proper supporting the latter view and some of the more grassroots elements and traditionalists within the party down to the rank-and-file in favor of the former. That meant that any vote like the one to strike Rule 12 from the rule book was a potential early-day proxy of the similarly divided vote that was expected later on unbinding the delegates.
The amendment to strike Rule 12 from the rulebook failed, garnering only 23 votes in the affirmative.
3. Inaction on Rules 14 and 16
Those two actions -- creating a study committee and retaining Rule 12 -- allow the RNC not only the ability hereafter to make rules changes outside the convention, but give the national party the space to fully consider some of the more time-consuming aspects of the presidential nomination process. All of that is contained primarily within Rules 14-17.
Surprisingly, no amendments were offered to Rule 17, the penalties regime that contributed to a much smoother pre-primary period (especially with respect to the formation of the presidential primary calendar, but also the finalizing of state party bylaws affecting the allocation process). Rule 17 aside, however, every additional measure brought before the Rules Committee failed. Not only was an attempt to force proportionality on the carve-out states voted down, but so, too, were a series of proposals to grant various bonus delegates to states under the Rule 14 apportionment formula.
In that vein, amendments were considered and voted down to add additional bonus delegates to the state-level at-large pool based on Republicans in a state's congressional delegation, and then for having Republican governors. The proposal that received the longest debate was over whether to provide a 20% bonus to states with closed primaries. As with the rest, this amendment was voted down as well. Unlike some of the rest the closed primaries incentive had been a part of morning side negotiations between a grassroots conservative group of delegates and the RNC. When a deal fell through there, the closed primary provision became vulnerable to the same lopsided results that continued to occur with some of the more controversial measures.
Part of what neutered any serious consideration of these proposed changes was the study committee the committee had voted on earlier in the day. A constant refrain throughout the consideration of this section of the rulebook was that the committee just did not have the time in two days of potential meetings at the convention to adequately dispatch with changes. The existence of a future study panel strengthened that argument and gave the majority group of Trump/RNC delegates an escape hatch from potentially time-consuming debate that could delay the progress of the full body in considering changes to all 42 rules.
Essentially, the study committee allowed the Convention Committee on Rules to hit the pause button on any changes to the presidential nomination process for now. However, the RNC will revisit those matters later and outside of the convention.
4. Binding/Unbinding
After failing to attack the specific binding language in Rule 16, the headline act -- the attempt to unbind the delegates to vote their conscience -- shifted into the third segment of the RNC Rules meeting. But before the conscience clause amendment to Rule 38 (the Unit Rule) was even raised, an amendment to Rule 37 from Nevada Rules Committee member, Jordan Ross, came before the committee. The Ross amendment and subsequent vote had the effect of taking the wind out of the sails of the Free the Delegates movement in the Rules Committee.
Rather than freeing the delegates, the Ross amendment moved in the opposite direction, adding more specific language to Rule 37 (and later Rule 38 as well) explicitly binding delegates based on the results of primaries and caucuses. Operationally, all this entailed was the addition of the phrase "nothing in the rule shall prohibit the binding of delegates pursuant to Rule 16(a)(2)" to the current text of Rule 37(b) and Rule 38.
The one-sided vote in favor of the change to Rule 37(b) laid bare what would come on the subsequent vote on Colorado delegate Kendal Unruh's conscience clause amendment that came up next in the sequence. But while the Free the Delegates proposal seemingly came in like a lion, it left the vote of the Convention Committee on Rules a lamb.
Assuming this package of rules changes passes muster with the full 2016 convention, Republican delegates in 2020 will more clearly than ever before be bound based on the results of the primaries and caucuses then. Yes, the convention will continue to have the ability to set its own rules, but such a change will require a significant grassroots movement to organize such a push. Even then, as this 2016 process has demonstrated, arguing to change the rules midstream is an uphill battle after millions of primary voters and caucusgoers have expressed their preferences.
5. The Infamous Rule 40
The final noteworthy change that came out of the committee's meetings was to Rule 40(b). Like Rule 12, this rule triggered some dissatisfaction in Tampa that has persisted for four years. Unlike Rule 12, Rule 40(b) loomed over the discussions of the 2016 Republican presidential nomination process from at least 2014. The reason is that because so many candidates initially entered the race for the 2016 Republican nomination, the eight state majority threshold described in the rule seemed to potentially project a stalemate at the convention over the nominee. Even as the field winnowed, the Rule 40 doomsday scenarios morphed from no one meeting that threshold to multiple candidate reaching it (while others did not).
This controversy -- the complication -- was not lost on the members of the Rules Committee. In a unanimous vote, the committee voted on an amendment to revert the eight state majority threshold to its pre-2012, five state plurality level. Rules Committee chair, Enid Mickelsen, even interjected after passage that, "this thorn that has been in our flesh...for four years now that caused such disappointment and so much trouble has finally been removed."
While Rule 12 survived, then, the eight state majority Rule 40 did not.
--
All of this and more will go before all 2472 delegates on the first evening of the convention after the Rules Committee has convened one last time. Further debate could come up on the floor via the use of minority reports. But if the series of votes in Rules are any indication, that is an uphill climb for opponents of the package even if they have the signatures.
--
1 As proponents of Rule 12, like New Hampshire's Steve Duprey argued, the rule laid the ground work for action by the RNC on the creation of the committee that examined the presidential primary debates process for 2016. But it also facilitated changes to the rules pushed through by the Romney team in Tampa. Chiefly, that included reinstating a mandatory proportionality requirement that had become optional, shrinking the proportionality window by two weeks and tweaking the penalties on rules-breaking states. In that regard, Rule 12 was actually used to scale back some of what 2012 delegates like Virginia's Morton Blackwell have called Romney's power-grab.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/16/16)
The Electoral College Map (7/15/16)
The Mechanics of the Rules Committee and Minority Reports
Showing posts sorted by date for query rnc subcommittee. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query rnc subcommittee. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Sunday, July 17, 2016
Friday, January 24, 2014
RNC Passes 2016 Delegate Selection Rules Proposals
The full RNC voted early this afternoon to pass a series of changes to the national party's delegate selection rules; the rules that will govern the process by which the party selects its next presidential nominee. Neither the Rules Committee process nor the full RNC consideration today were all that contentious. In both meetings where the changes were considered -- and ultimately passed -- there were just a handful of dissenting votes.
In other words, there was some consensus within the RNC membership behind the changes that the Rules subcommittee devised and submitted for consideration at this winter meeting.
--
FHQ will certainly have a more robust analysis about the exact changes made in the coming week(s), but for now some reactions to, well, the reactions to these alterations.
A few of the talking points emerging in reaction to the changes are nothing new. They tend to fall in at least a couple of categories. On the one hand, there is skepticism that it will ever work in their intended fashion; in this case, to rein in not only a chaotic calendar formation process, but to tweak the overall nomination process. On the other, there are comments about the national parties fighting the last war; mistakenly making changes to account for problems from the last cycle.
I don't know. Those observations certainly aren't wrong, but in both cases, miss the all-too-important nuance. The "last war" line strikes me as off base in the narrow context of the relationship between the national parties and the states (whether state parties and/or state governments).1 Of course the national parties are fighting the last war when they assemble to devise a delegate selection plan for an upcoming presidential nomination cycle. They move forward with the uncertainty-addled information they have. This is, and has been since the 1972 cycle, an iterative and sequential process. The national parties make rules and the states (and candidates) react to those rules -- some in compliance, but some, and usually only a handful, not. Wash, rinse repeat.
Only, it really is not that simple. There is no way of testing these rules changes ahead of their implementation. The only laboratory is either the experience from previous cycles or the combination of the invisible primary and primary season for the next cycle in real time. A national party does not know and often cannot (adequately) rectify midstream (see Florida and Michigan in 2008) problems that may come up along the way. That is the sequential part of the process. The national parties have to have their rules in place so that the states can react to them, to plan for the upcoming election. Only, some states don't play by the rules, or haven't in a select set of cases over the 2008 and 2012 cycles.
And that is where the probably-warranted skepticism comes in to play. State actors may behave seemingly rationally; moving a primary up and out of compliance with national party rules under the assumption that delegate sanctions will not be enforced. That line of reasoning was used numerous times in 2012 during the formation of the Republican presidential primary calendar. But for the second consecutive cycle, the RNC actually did enforce its penalties. And this is where the national parties have become more sophisticated in their responses to rogue activity. The combination of enforcement and an incremental closing of loopholes that states have exploited in the past have made it harder to states to misbehave.
FHQ spent a lot of time in 2011 and 2012 talking about the work both parties had done to coordinate the basic structure of a presidential primary calendar. We spent still more time talking about the fact that a lack of meaningful and coordinated penalties. One of the missed opportunities in 2012 was the fact that both parties had seen the ineffectiveness of the 50% delegate reduction penalty on states. It worked for most, but some were willing to take that type of hit to their delegation in order to impact the nomination process.
States may not be similarly willing to take a much deeper cut at their delegations in 2016. Nine (in the case of small states) or twelve (for big states) total delegates is a significant reduction. But you know what is missing from a lot of the reaction pieces penned in the wake of the RNC rules changes? The Democratic Party.
Oh, sure, there are certainly some light comparative mentions -- usually having to do with the respective fields of candidates and she who must not be named -- but nothing that comes close to identifying the impact the DNC's eventual delegate selection rules will have on whether the RNC will be successful in its endeavor. On the surface, that's a strange concept. It almost sounds like the DNC would be helping the RNC. [That would never happen!] But that isn't the case. This is more a matter of shared interests -- common nuisances -- among the two national parties. If the DNC ups its penalties, for example, it would go a long way toward determining whether the RNC will get the type of primary calendar it is angling for.
But if you want potential unintended consequences, look to the potential for cross-party differences over some of the Rule 20-based changes the RNC just made. These are the rules pushing up the end of the primary process. Now sure, the RNC made allowances for waivers for Democratically-controlled states that may not be able to comply with those rules (depending on what the DNC does).
That's not all of the unintended consequences either, but FHQ will save that for another time.
The bottom line for now is that the national parties are doing exactly what one would expect them to do. While they are still susceptible to rogue states, the national parties have gotten more sophisticated in their responses to them. The traditionally-exploited loopholes have largely been closed. Want rogue states in 2016? Look at the usual suspects FHQ has been mentioning for months. It won't be Florida. It'll be Arizona, Michigan, Missouri and North Carolina.
And start looking to the end of the calendar too. We may see some creative rogue states in 2016. The reactions the curbs on late May and early June contests may provide for some unconventional "rogue" activity.
--
1 In the broader context of the overarching delegate selection process, there may be something to this. Again FHQ is reminded of John Sununu's comments on this at the National Association of Secretaries of State meeting in January 2013. I'm paraphrasing here, but he mentioned that national parties often tread this line of managing or controlling the delegate selection process. He said that when parties attempt to control the process rather than manage it, they often get themselves into some form of trouble. Whether what the RNC has done this week falls into the control or manage category likely is in the eye of the beholder.
In other words, there was some consensus within the RNC membership behind the changes that the Rules subcommittee devised and submitted for consideration at this winter meeting.
--
FHQ will certainly have a more robust analysis about the exact changes made in the coming week(s), but for now some reactions to, well, the reactions to these alterations.
A few of the talking points emerging in reaction to the changes are nothing new. They tend to fall in at least a couple of categories. On the one hand, there is skepticism that it will ever work in their intended fashion; in this case, to rein in not only a chaotic calendar formation process, but to tweak the overall nomination process. On the other, there are comments about the national parties fighting the last war; mistakenly making changes to account for problems from the last cycle.
I don't know. Those observations certainly aren't wrong, but in both cases, miss the all-too-important nuance. The "last war" line strikes me as off base in the narrow context of the relationship between the national parties and the states (whether state parties and/or state governments).1 Of course the national parties are fighting the last war when they assemble to devise a delegate selection plan for an upcoming presidential nomination cycle. They move forward with the uncertainty-addled information they have. This is, and has been since the 1972 cycle, an iterative and sequential process. The national parties make rules and the states (and candidates) react to those rules -- some in compliance, but some, and usually only a handful, not. Wash, rinse repeat.
Only, it really is not that simple. There is no way of testing these rules changes ahead of their implementation. The only laboratory is either the experience from previous cycles or the combination of the invisible primary and primary season for the next cycle in real time. A national party does not know and often cannot (adequately) rectify midstream (see Florida and Michigan in 2008) problems that may come up along the way. That is the sequential part of the process. The national parties have to have their rules in place so that the states can react to them, to plan for the upcoming election. Only, some states don't play by the rules, or haven't in a select set of cases over the 2008 and 2012 cycles.
And that is where the probably-warranted skepticism comes in to play. State actors may behave seemingly rationally; moving a primary up and out of compliance with national party rules under the assumption that delegate sanctions will not be enforced. That line of reasoning was used numerous times in 2012 during the formation of the Republican presidential primary calendar. But for the second consecutive cycle, the RNC actually did enforce its penalties. And this is where the national parties have become more sophisticated in their responses to rogue activity. The combination of enforcement and an incremental closing of loopholes that states have exploited in the past have made it harder to states to misbehave.
FHQ spent a lot of time in 2011 and 2012 talking about the work both parties had done to coordinate the basic structure of a presidential primary calendar. We spent still more time talking about the fact that a lack of meaningful and coordinated penalties. One of the missed opportunities in 2012 was the fact that both parties had seen the ineffectiveness of the 50% delegate reduction penalty on states. It worked for most, but some were willing to take that type of hit to their delegation in order to impact the nomination process.
States may not be similarly willing to take a much deeper cut at their delegations in 2016. Nine (in the case of small states) or twelve (for big states) total delegates is a significant reduction. But you know what is missing from a lot of the reaction pieces penned in the wake of the RNC rules changes? The Democratic Party.
Oh, sure, there are certainly some light comparative mentions -- usually having to do with the respective fields of candidates and she who must not be named -- but nothing that comes close to identifying the impact the DNC's eventual delegate selection rules will have on whether the RNC will be successful in its endeavor. On the surface, that's a strange concept. It almost sounds like the DNC would be helping the RNC. [That would never happen!] But that isn't the case. This is more a matter of shared interests -- common nuisances -- among the two national parties. If the DNC ups its penalties, for example, it would go a long way toward determining whether the RNC will get the type of primary calendar it is angling for.
But if you want potential unintended consequences, look to the potential for cross-party differences over some of the Rule 20-based changes the RNC just made. These are the rules pushing up the end of the primary process. Now sure, the RNC made allowances for waivers for Democratically-controlled states that may not be able to comply with those rules (depending on what the DNC does).
That's not all of the unintended consequences either, but FHQ will save that for another time.
The bottom line for now is that the national parties are doing exactly what one would expect them to do. While they are still susceptible to rogue states, the national parties have gotten more sophisticated in their responses to them. The traditionally-exploited loopholes have largely been closed. Want rogue states in 2016? Look at the usual suspects FHQ has been mentioning for months. It won't be Florida. It'll be Arizona, Michigan, Missouri and North Carolina.
And start looking to the end of the calendar too. We may see some creative rogue states in 2016. The reactions the curbs on late May and early June contests may provide for some unconventional "rogue" activity.
--
1 In the broader context of the overarching delegate selection process, there may be something to this. Again FHQ is reminded of John Sununu's comments on this at the National Association of Secretaries of State meeting in January 2013. I'm paraphrasing here, but he mentioned that national parties often tread this line of managing or controlling the delegate selection process. He said that when parties attempt to control the process rather than manage it, they often get themselves into some form of trouble. Whether what the RNC has done this week falls into the control or manage category likely is in the eye of the beholder.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Round Up on RNC Rules Committee Meeting
There weren't any surprises at the RNC Rules Committee meeting in DC this afternoon. Here are a few takes on the proposed 2016 delegate selection rules changes, post-meeting:
Zeke Miller at Time says the rules moves are all about the money.
WaPo's Reid Wilson and USA Today's Susan Page talk calendar compression.
Benjy Sarlin over at MSNBC frames the changes as an attempt to reduce the odds of a divisive primary.
FHQ will weigh in when we have had a chance to see the actual language of the changes. In the meantime, the package of revisions that passed the Rules Committee on a near-unanimous voice vote today heads off for consideration in the full RNC tomorrow. To pass, the series of changes will require a three-quarters vote. That is a pretty high bar, but the Rules Committee vote signals pretty close to a consensus on the changes. The committee reports will be made to the full RNC a little after 11am tomorrow morning.
Zeke Miller at Time says the rules moves are all about the money.
WaPo's Reid Wilson and USA Today's Susan Page talk calendar compression.
Benjy Sarlin over at MSNBC frames the changes as an attempt to reduce the odds of a divisive primary.
FHQ will weigh in when we have had a chance to see the actual language of the changes. In the meantime, the package of revisions that passed the Rules Committee on a near-unanimous voice vote today heads off for consideration in the full RNC tomorrow. To pass, the series of changes will require a three-quarters vote. That is a pretty high bar, but the Rules Committee vote signals pretty close to a consensus on the changes. The committee reports will be made to the full RNC a little after 11am tomorrow morning.
The RNC Already Increased Penalties on Potential Rogue Primary States
There is a lot of chatter this morning about what the RNC will be up to these next couple of days in Washington, DC. One thing neither the Rules Committee nor the full RNC will do -- despite the bulk of reports today -- is to increase the penalties on states that move their delegate selection contests ahead of the March 1 threshold or state parties that do not allocate delegates in accordance with the rules laid out by the national party.
Why?
Mainly, the RNC will not be upping the penalties because it has already done so. Some seem to have conveniently forgotten the struggle over the rules in the Rules Committee meetings in the week leading up to the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa. Perhaps the increased penalties got lost in the shuffle of Rule 40 changes that had Ron Paul delegates up in arms during the actual convention.
But the point is, the Bennett rule -- named for former Ohio GOP chair, Bob Bennett who devised the penalty -- had already been added, stripping rogue state delegations down to nine delegates (12 including the automatic delegates) for holding primaries or caucuses too early. The rules coming out of Tampa also included a 50% penalty on states that did not follow proportionality requirement. None of that is new. None of that will be new after the RNC winter meeting concludes.
What will potentially be new is:
1) The proportionality requirement will see some changes. The rules package will reduce the window of the proportionality requirement from all of March to just the first two weeks of March. Additionally, the language of the rule (described in Rule 16(c)2) will be ever so slightly altered. As it is now the word "may" appears, suggesting that states allocated delegates in a proportional manner before March 15. The new rule will, as was the case in 2012, mandate this with the word "shall". All that is doing is insuring that there is an actual proportionality requirement for the 50% penalty already described in Rule 17 to apply to.
2) The super penalty described in the Bennett rule will be tightened up to close a loophole that a very small number of small states could have exploited. FHQ has covered those discrepancies for nearly a year.
There are some other matters -- particularly Rule 20 -- that may be noteworthy during the Rules Committee meeting today. But that rule has nothing to do with penalties. It is something that will from the RNC perspective help lay the groundwork for an earlier convention. Everything else will be about tightening up the language for the penalties that are already there.
Why?
Mainly, the RNC will not be upping the penalties because it has already done so. Some seem to have conveniently forgotten the struggle over the rules in the Rules Committee meetings in the week leading up to the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa. Perhaps the increased penalties got lost in the shuffle of Rule 40 changes that had Ron Paul delegates up in arms during the actual convention.
But the point is, the Bennett rule -- named for former Ohio GOP chair, Bob Bennett who devised the penalty -- had already been added, stripping rogue state delegations down to nine delegates (12 including the automatic delegates) for holding primaries or caucuses too early. The rules coming out of Tampa also included a 50% penalty on states that did not follow proportionality requirement. None of that is new. None of that will be new after the RNC winter meeting concludes.
What will potentially be new is:
1) The proportionality requirement will see some changes. The rules package will reduce the window of the proportionality requirement from all of March to just the first two weeks of March. Additionally, the language of the rule (described in Rule 16(c)2) will be ever so slightly altered. As it is now the word "may" appears, suggesting that states allocated delegates in a proportional manner before March 15. The new rule will, as was the case in 2012, mandate this with the word "shall". All that is doing is insuring that there is an actual proportionality requirement for the 50% penalty already described in Rule 17 to apply to.
2) The super penalty described in the Bennett rule will be tightened up to close a loophole that a very small number of small states could have exploited. FHQ has covered those discrepancies for nearly a year.
There are some other matters -- particularly Rule 20 -- that may be noteworthy during the Rules Committee meeting today. But that rule has nothing to do with penalties. It is something that will from the RNC perspective help lay the groundwork for an earlier convention. Everything else will be about tightening up the language for the penalties that are already there.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Morton Blackwell on RNC Rules Subcommittee Proposals for 2016
Virginia Republican National Committeeman, Morton Blackwell, has posted over at RedState an open letter to RNC Chair, Reince Priebus, concerning the forthcoming Rules subcommittee proposals tweaking the 2016 delegate selection rules. The prevailing sentiment is opposition to the changes. Yet, even that is nuanced.
Some of it takes the form of a suggestion box entry. There is a call for clearer language in Rule 16(a)(1) where there appears to be an allowance on the part of the RNC for either proportional or winner-take-all allocation rules (regardless of timing). That is perhaps not completely consistent with the restrictions on winner-take-all allocation laid out later in Rule 16 and penalized in Rule 17.1
Other points -- like the one on the width of the proportionality window -- show some resistance, but not outright defiance. The impact of an all-proportional March versus a half-proportional March (March 15 cutoff) is indeterminate. It may or may not slow down or speed up the pace with which the ultimate nominee accrues delegates. Much of that depends on the dynamics of the race -- who is still in the race, what the terrain is (what the sequence of events is).
The fact the tone is this way on these proposed rules changes may be a function of either the scale of the change or the fact that the issues in the proposed changes have been discussed and find some consensus within the Rules Committee and/or the RNC.
The new wrinkle, and where the discussion in the Rules Committee gathering at the RNC winter meeting this week in DC is likely to be interesting,2 is the change proposed to Rule 20. Peter Hamby brought this up in his rundown of the proposed changes a few weeks back. This is the rule that accounts for the certification of the election/selection of delegates.
The reason that this is somewhat contentious is that this is the potential provision that would allow state Republican central committees to select delegates in states with late primaries that may conflict with the logistical requirement of having delegates in place 35 days before the convention. In other words, this is something that is necessary in order to lay the groundwork for a late June or early July convention. [FHQ has more on this here (in the discussion of providing incentive to late primary states to move up).]
Blackwell views this as an overreach of the RNC, infringing on a state's ability to select delegates to the convention as it sees fit. Whether this is eventually a contentious discussion at the meeting remains to be seen. Much will depend on the calculus of RNC members present and voting on the change. Will they see Blackwell's way or will they value the earlier convention that Chairman Priebus and others with the party want?
--
1 Mr. Blackwell also points out the inconsistency regarding automatic delegates in Rule 17 that FHQ described here.
2 FHQ does not necessarily mean heated or controversial here. Rather, it may take some time to unpack and explain everything on the proposed rules change in the context of the meeting.
Some of it takes the form of a suggestion box entry. There is a call for clearer language in Rule 16(a)(1) where there appears to be an allowance on the part of the RNC for either proportional or winner-take-all allocation rules (regardless of timing). That is perhaps not completely consistent with the restrictions on winner-take-all allocation laid out later in Rule 16 and penalized in Rule 17.1
Other points -- like the one on the width of the proportionality window -- show some resistance, but not outright defiance. The impact of an all-proportional March versus a half-proportional March (March 15 cutoff) is indeterminate. It may or may not slow down or speed up the pace with which the ultimate nominee accrues delegates. Much of that depends on the dynamics of the race -- who is still in the race, what the terrain is (what the sequence of events is).
The fact the tone is this way on these proposed rules changes may be a function of either the scale of the change or the fact that the issues in the proposed changes have been discussed and find some consensus within the Rules Committee and/or the RNC.
The new wrinkle, and where the discussion in the Rules Committee gathering at the RNC winter meeting this week in DC is likely to be interesting,2 is the change proposed to Rule 20. Peter Hamby brought this up in his rundown of the proposed changes a few weeks back. This is the rule that accounts for the certification of the election/selection of delegates.
The reason that this is somewhat contentious is that this is the potential provision that would allow state Republican central committees to select delegates in states with late primaries that may conflict with the logistical requirement of having delegates in place 35 days before the convention. In other words, this is something that is necessary in order to lay the groundwork for a late June or early July convention. [FHQ has more on this here (in the discussion of providing incentive to late primary states to move up).]
Blackwell views this as an overreach of the RNC, infringing on a state's ability to select delegates to the convention as it sees fit. Whether this is eventually a contentious discussion at the meeting remains to be seen. Much will depend on the calculus of RNC members present and voting on the change. Will they see Blackwell's way or will they value the earlier convention that Chairman Priebus and others with the party want?
--
1 Mr. Blackwell also points out the inconsistency regarding automatic delegates in Rule 17 that FHQ described here.
2 FHQ does not necessarily mean heated or controversial here. Rather, it may take some time to unpack and explain everything on the proposed rules change in the context of the meeting.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
For RNC Members, A Rules Contradiction That Would Affect Them in 2016
The Republican National Committee is on the eve today of another annual winter confab. This meeting will likely see the Rules Committee take up and consider -- if not vote on and send to the full RNC -- a series of tweaks to the 2016 delegate selection rules that came out of the party's Tampa convention in August 2012. This will not be the first time the Rules Committee and then the full RNC has revised those rules.1 However, this time around, the changes are likely to be more substantial both in terms of quality and quantity. That is a function of the alterations coming out of a special rules subcommittee that was tasked last August -- at the summer meeting -- with reexamining the process by which the Republican Party nominates its presidential candidates; the delegate selection portion anyway.
One seemingly minor change that is likely to be included in the full series of proposed rules changes concerns the convention voting rights of the automatic delegates. Recall that the automatic delegates are the three members of the RNC from each state: the state party chair, the national committeeman and national committeewoman. In most but not all cases, these delegates are free to select any candidate of their choosing. They are an unbound part of the state delegation to the national convention.
That said, there has been some discussion as to how these automatic delegates should be treated at the convention should the state they represent violate the delegate selection rules on timing. In 2012, the rules the Republican Party utilized removed the voting privileges of the RNC members/automatic delegates from states in violation of those rules (Rule 16.e.1). On its surface, then, the penalty was supposed to strike at a group of people -- those RNC members involved in state party politics -- in a position within the national party to presumably deter state-level moves that would bring a state into violation of the rules. This obviously is something that is easier said in rule-making than done in practice. Regardless, the stick was put in place.
The effectiveness of such a penalty is not entirely clear, but it can be quite difficult for a state party chair or national committeeman/committeewoman to prevent a state legislature and governor -- potentially of a different party -- from acting in a manner consistent with the Republican National Committee delegate selection rules. Still, that language persists in the rules that will govern the 2016 Republican presidential nomination process.
Rule 17.f.1 (the same exact language as Rule 16.e.1 in 2012):
(f) If a state or state Republican Party is determined to be in violation:
(1) No member of the Republican National Committee from the offending state shall be permitted to serve as a delegate or alternate delegate to the national convention.
Yet, that seems to be undermined by the language describing the new super penalty earlier in Rule 17. Here's the relevant portion of Rule 17.
Rule 17.a (emphasis FHQ's):
If any state or state Republican Party violates Rule No. 16(c)(1) of The Rules of the Republican Party with regard to a primary, caucus, convention or other process to elect, select, allocate, or bind delegates and alternate delegates to the national convention by conducting its process prior to the last Tuesday in February, the number of delegates to the national convention shall be reduced to nine (9) plus the members of the Republican National Committee from that state...
Now, regular readers will be acquainted with what may be perceived as an annoying practice: FHQ's insistence on saying that the super penalty reduces a state delegation to nine delegates plus the three automatic delegates should a state violate the nomination rules. That is a function of the above language. Yet, that language in Rule 17.a is contradicted by the two-part rule fully described in Rule 17.f.1-2.
The RNC members -- the three automatic delegates from each state -- have convention voting rights in one section of the rule but not the other. The RNC is aware of this issue, but it remains to be seen what the ultimate remedy will be. The penalty stripping RNC members from violating states of their convention votes is one that has passed muster with the group in the past, but given the out -- and given the reality that RNC members may have very little sway in how the timing of their state's primary, for instance, is decided -- the RNC may also opt to retain the voting privileges of their membership at the expense of other delegates from the a violating state's delegation.
Again, it is not clear what proposed changes the RNC rules subcommittee will bring to the Rules Committee on this issue and a number of others, but details will emerge as the RNC convenes tomorrow.
--
1 There was a cosmetic change to Rule 16.a.2 at the 2013 spring meeting that clarified the procedure for dealing with potential rogue delegates and their votes at the national convention.
One seemingly minor change that is likely to be included in the full series of proposed rules changes concerns the convention voting rights of the automatic delegates. Recall that the automatic delegates are the three members of the RNC from each state: the state party chair, the national committeeman and national committeewoman. In most but not all cases, these delegates are free to select any candidate of their choosing. They are an unbound part of the state delegation to the national convention.
That said, there has been some discussion as to how these automatic delegates should be treated at the convention should the state they represent violate the delegate selection rules on timing. In 2012, the rules the Republican Party utilized removed the voting privileges of the RNC members/automatic delegates from states in violation of those rules (Rule 16.e.1). On its surface, then, the penalty was supposed to strike at a group of people -- those RNC members involved in state party politics -- in a position within the national party to presumably deter state-level moves that would bring a state into violation of the rules. This obviously is something that is easier said in rule-making than done in practice. Regardless, the stick was put in place.
The effectiveness of such a penalty is not entirely clear, but it can be quite difficult for a state party chair or national committeeman/committeewoman to prevent a state legislature and governor -- potentially of a different party -- from acting in a manner consistent with the Republican National Committee delegate selection rules. Still, that language persists in the rules that will govern the 2016 Republican presidential nomination process.
Rule 17.f.1 (the same exact language as Rule 16.e.1 in 2012):
(f) If a state or state Republican Party is determined to be in violation:
(1) No member of the Republican National Committee from the offending state shall be permitted to serve as a delegate or alternate delegate to the national convention.
Yet, that seems to be undermined by the language describing the new super penalty earlier in Rule 17. Here's the relevant portion of Rule 17.
Rule 17.a (emphasis FHQ's):
If any state or state Republican Party violates Rule No. 16(c)(1) of The Rules of the Republican Party with regard to a primary, caucus, convention or other process to elect, select, allocate, or bind delegates and alternate delegates to the national convention by conducting its process prior to the last Tuesday in February, the number of delegates to the national convention shall be reduced to nine (9) plus the members of the Republican National Committee from that state...
Now, regular readers will be acquainted with what may be perceived as an annoying practice: FHQ's insistence on saying that the super penalty reduces a state delegation to nine delegates plus the three automatic delegates should a state violate the nomination rules. That is a function of the above language. Yet, that language in Rule 17.a is contradicted by the two-part rule fully described in Rule 17.f.1-2.
The RNC members -- the three automatic delegates from each state -- have convention voting rights in one section of the rule but not the other. The RNC is aware of this issue, but it remains to be seen what the ultimate remedy will be. The penalty stripping RNC members from violating states of their convention votes is one that has passed muster with the group in the past, but given the out -- and given the reality that RNC members may have very little sway in how the timing of their state's primary, for instance, is decided -- the RNC may also opt to retain the voting privileges of their membership at the expense of other delegates from the a violating state's delegation.
Again, it is not clear what proposed changes the RNC rules subcommittee will bring to the Rules Committee on this issue and a number of others, but details will emerge as the RNC convenes tomorrow.
--
1 There was a cosmetic change to Rule 16.a.2 at the 2013 spring meeting that clarified the procedure for dealing with potential rogue delegates and their votes at the national convention.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Unclear What Shape Final RNC Super Penalty May Take
With the 2014 RNC Winter Meeting looming toward the end of the month, and some consideration, if not vote, on a new set of rules proposals likely to occur, it appears as if the intricacies have not been fully settled on. There is no doubt in FHQ's mind that whatever rules the RNC subcommittee comes up with in regard to the 2016 Republican presidential nomination debates will grab all or most of the headlines. But there will be other rules or rules changes that come out of the RNC meeting that will warrant some discussion as well.
One of those rules is the new super penalty the RNC passed in Tampa in August 2012. Recall that the Republican National Convention implemented for 2016 a stricter penalty (Rule 17) for states willing to violate the timing rules (Rule 16) by scheduling their delegate selection events earlier than the first Tuesday in March. Instead of stripping a state of half its delegation as was the case in 2012 and before, the RNC would reduce a rogue state delegation to just nine delegates (plus the three party/automatic delegates). The intent is to shrink the potential power of any rogue state down to something smaller than what any of the four carve-out states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- would have to offer in terms of their individual number of delegates. That, in turn, keeps the candidates away and focused on the carve-outs.
…theoretically.
However, as FHQ noted once that super penalty came to light in January 2013, there was a loophole for a select few small states. The more draconian penalty would actually have been severe for big states, but less than the 50% penalty those same states would have been subject to in 2012 and before. The new proposals includes a provision to correct that discrepancy.
But it isn't clear what exactly this fix is.
As was originally reported by Peter Hamby last month, the RNC subcommittee remedy was to penalize rogue states by knocking them down to nine delegates (plus the three party/automatic delegates) or one third of their originally apportioned delegates, whichever is number is smaller. That one third provision was the remedy to the original super penalty intended to target those smaller loophole states.
Yet, in Saturday's New Hampshire Union Leader, Garry Rayno describes a slightly different penalty for those very same smaller states. Instead of being left with one third of their delegates, smaller rogue states with fewer than 30 apportioned delegates (originally, pre-penalty) would be stripped of all but six delegates (presumably plus the three party/automatic delegates). That is not a huge difference, but that is a different penalty than the one Hamby detailed in December.
Let's look a state or two under both plans (Hamby and Rayno descriptions) and the original super penalty. In 2012, there were 17 states and five territories with 30 or fewer delegates. Given that 30 delegate threshold in Rayno's description there are two groups of states to examine. States in the 25-30 delegate range and those with 24 or fewer delegates in their delegations.
One of those rules is the new super penalty the RNC passed in Tampa in August 2012. Recall that the Republican National Convention implemented for 2016 a stricter penalty (Rule 17) for states willing to violate the timing rules (Rule 16) by scheduling their delegate selection events earlier than the first Tuesday in March. Instead of stripping a state of half its delegation as was the case in 2012 and before, the RNC would reduce a rogue state delegation to just nine delegates (plus the three party/automatic delegates). The intent is to shrink the potential power of any rogue state down to something smaller than what any of the four carve-out states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- would have to offer in terms of their individual number of delegates. That, in turn, keeps the candidates away and focused on the carve-outs.
…theoretically.
However, as FHQ noted once that super penalty came to light in January 2013, there was a loophole for a select few small states. The more draconian penalty would actually have been severe for big states, but less than the 50% penalty those same states would have been subject to in 2012 and before. The new proposals includes a provision to correct that discrepancy.
But it isn't clear what exactly this fix is.
As was originally reported by Peter Hamby last month, the RNC subcommittee remedy was to penalize rogue states by knocking them down to nine delegates (plus the three party/automatic delegates) or one third of their originally apportioned delegates, whichever is number is smaller. That one third provision was the remedy to the original super penalty intended to target those smaller loophole states.
Yet, in Saturday's New Hampshire Union Leader, Garry Rayno describes a slightly different penalty for those very same smaller states. Instead of being left with one third of their delegates, smaller rogue states with fewer than 30 apportioned delegates (originally, pre-penalty) would be stripped of all but six delegates (presumably plus the three party/automatic delegates). That is not a huge difference, but that is a different penalty than the one Hamby detailed in December.
Let's look a state or two under both plans (Hamby and Rayno descriptions) and the original super penalty. In 2012, there were 17 states and five territories with 30 or fewer delegates. Given that 30 delegate threshold in Rayno's description there are two groups of states to examine. States in the 25-30 delegate range and those with 24 or fewer delegates in their delegations.
- State in the 25-30 delegate range: Wyoming (28 delegates in 2012)
Let's assume that Wyoming opts to hold (what will now have to be binding) precinct caucuses in February 2016. That would run afoul of the new RNC rules.
Original super penalty reduction: 9 delegates (plus the three party/automatic delegates); 12 total. That is a 57% reduction.
Hamby super penalty reduction: 9 delegates or one third of original delegation (9.33 delegates), whichever is smaller. Most of the rounding rules for 2016 indicate that fractions would be rounded down. That would leave Wyoming with 9 delegates (plus the three party/automatic delegates); 12 total. That's a 57% reduction.
Rayno super penalty reduction: 6 delegates (presumably plus the three party/automatic delegates); 9 total. That's a 68% reduction.
- State with 24 or fewer delegates: Maine (24 delegates in 2012)
Let's assume that Maine opts to hold (what will now have to be binding) precinct caucuses in February 2016. That would run afoul of the new RNC rules.
Original super penalty reduction: 9 delegates (plus the three party/automatic delegates); 12 total. That is a 50% reduction.
Hamby super penalty reduction: 9 delegates or one third of original delegation (8 delegates), whichever is smaller. That would leave Maine with 8 delegates (plus the three party/automatic delegates); 11 total. That's a 54% reduction.
Rayno super penalty reduction: 6 delegates (presumably plus the three party/automatic delegates); 9 total. That is a 62% reduction.
- State with 24 or fewer delegates: Delaware (17 delegates in 2012) -- Smallest state/non-territory delegation
Let's assume that Delaware opts to hold a primary in February 2016. That would run afoul of the new RNC rules.
Original super penalty reduction: 9 delegates (plus the three party/automatic delegates) [NOTE: less than 50% reduction]; 12 total. That is just a 29% reduction.
Hamby super penalty reduction: 9 delegates or one third of original delegation (5.67 delegates), whichever is smaller. Most of the rounding rules for 2016 indicate that fractions would be rounded down. That would leave Delaware with 5 delegates (plus the three party/automatic delegates); 8 total. That is a 53% reduction.
Rayno super penalty reduction: 6 delegates (presumably plus the three party/automatic delegates); 9 total. That is a 47% reduction.
In all cases, the penalty decreases as the size of a state's delegation decreases. But the proposal Hamby described sees a very slight decrease as a delegation gets smaller as compared to the original conception of the super penalty or the version Rayno reported. Understandably, the corrections are more severe than the original, but the Rayno version reduces a delegation more than the one Hamby described in December. For all states (not including those territories with just 9 delegates) with fewer than 30 delegates, the Hamby-described penalty is roughly 55% of the delegation (with a range of 53-57%). On the other hand the Rayno version is more severe on the "bigger" small delegation states. The reductions on states with fewer than 30 delegates range anywhere from 47-68%.
Now, these are very subtle differences. A handful of delegates here and there makes a difference in terms of what the weight of the ultimate penalty is on an individual state. None of these states were chosen at random either. All three have at various points in the post-reform era tested the resolve of the national parties by moving in on the turf of the carve-out states (generally New Hampshire). The RNC, then, would have some incentive to close any loophole that might entice any or all of those states to jump up the calendar into, say, February.
But how to do that is the question. Pick your poison.
The main remaining question is whether this will be enough of a deterrent to prevent states, small and big alike, from encroaching on the turf of the carve-out states. That is a question that will have to wait until 2015 for an answer. In the meantime, the RNC will have to settle on what its small state super penalty will be.
Friday, January 3, 2014
Christie's Primary Map May Be the Same as Romney's, But the Order of the Primaries Won't Be.
Dave Catanese over at The Run 2016 has this to say:
And Mr. Catanese is absolutely correct that a home state candidate from the Sunshine state -- whether Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush -- upsets the calculus some for the latent presidential campaign of the New Jersey governor.
But here's the thing: We don't know if that is going to be the order of those contests. FHQ is reasonably confident that the four carve-out states will retain their positions with perhaps minimal pressure from any rogue states. FHQ is also fairly confident that Florida will not be one of those states pushing the carve-outs in 2016. However, given the new law scheduling the Florida presidential primary, Florida is also not likely to hold down the fifth position on the calendar as it did in 2012. Right now that distinction belongs to Arizona and Michigan.1
The situation in Florida -- the scheduling of the primary -- is conditional. The Sunshine state will conduct a presidential primary election on the first date in which there are no penalties assessed by the national parties. Many are interpreting that as the first Tuesday in March (March 1, 2016). But that misses one other highly relevant point. Florida avoids the timing penalty by holding a March primary, but there is also the matter of the proportionality window in the Republican rules.
Recall that Florida has stuck with a true winner-take-all allocation of its delegates. If the Republican Party of Florida continues with that practice in 2016, the new law would push the presidential primary in the Sunshine state back to the third Tuesday in March according to the proposed penalty structure likely to emerge from the RNC rules subcommittee reexamining the rules. Now, Florida Republicans could merely take the 50% delegate reduction associated with a violation of the proportionality requirement and go on March 1, but that is not what the law says. If Florida Republicans value the presidential primary as a means of allocating delegates, they would have to utilize the state-funded option that is administered by the (secretary of) state and follows the law.
…on March 15, 2016 along with the Illinois primary.
--
Arizona and Michigan now occupy the fifth position on the 2016 presidential primary calendar and are the biggest threats to the carve-out states. Florida will play a role, but it will likely be on or two weeks after Super Tuesday. That's different from Romney's map. Like Romney, Christie would like to and likely have to do well in Arizona and Michigan as springboards into Super Tuesday the next week. Christie would also need to employ a similar Super Tuesday strategy to the former Massachusetts governor: rack up wins and delegates outside the South while peeling off as many as possible delegates in the South.
That's what makes the method of allocation Texas Republicans adopt for 2016 so important. Remember "proportionality" on the Republican side isn't mathematical proportionality. There are a number of ways to get there.
--
1 And that assumes Colorado, Minnesota and Utah do not opt into early February dates for their respective caucuses, caucuses and primary. It also assumes that Missouri either moves its primary back or once again adopts caucuses as a means of allocating delegates. North Carolina is newly rogue as well. …but for how long?
With the first four states likely to keep their pecking order, Christie’s team may just adopt the same mindset. Must wins in New Hampshire and Nevada, with Iowa and South Carolina as only icing.
…
The main difference would be Florida, a primary that could be rendered mostly meaningless if one of its homestate contenders jumps into the race. If say, Sen. Marco Rubio is a candidate, then South Carolina may become demonstrably more vital to Christie.FHQ does not disagree here on the basic campaign strategic point. On the surface, Christie's strategy would theoretically be the same as Romney's. Win in New Hampshire and Nevada, take what you can get in Iowa and South Carolina and win Florida. FHQ has hinted at as much stretching back into primary season 2012.
And Mr. Catanese is absolutely correct that a home state candidate from the Sunshine state -- whether Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush -- upsets the calculus some for the latent presidential campaign of the New Jersey governor.
But here's the thing: We don't know if that is going to be the order of those contests. FHQ is reasonably confident that the four carve-out states will retain their positions with perhaps minimal pressure from any rogue states. FHQ is also fairly confident that Florida will not be one of those states pushing the carve-outs in 2016. However, given the new law scheduling the Florida presidential primary, Florida is also not likely to hold down the fifth position on the calendar as it did in 2012. Right now that distinction belongs to Arizona and Michigan.1
The situation in Florida -- the scheduling of the primary -- is conditional. The Sunshine state will conduct a presidential primary election on the first date in which there are no penalties assessed by the national parties. Many are interpreting that as the first Tuesday in March (March 1, 2016). But that misses one other highly relevant point. Florida avoids the timing penalty by holding a March primary, but there is also the matter of the proportionality window in the Republican rules.
Recall that Florida has stuck with a true winner-take-all allocation of its delegates. If the Republican Party of Florida continues with that practice in 2016, the new law would push the presidential primary in the Sunshine state back to the third Tuesday in March according to the proposed penalty structure likely to emerge from the RNC rules subcommittee reexamining the rules. Now, Florida Republicans could merely take the 50% delegate reduction associated with a violation of the proportionality requirement and go on March 1, but that is not what the law says. If Florida Republicans value the presidential primary as a means of allocating delegates, they would have to utilize the state-funded option that is administered by the (secretary of) state and follows the law.
…on March 15, 2016 along with the Illinois primary.
--
Arizona and Michigan now occupy the fifth position on the 2016 presidential primary calendar and are the biggest threats to the carve-out states. Florida will play a role, but it will likely be on or two weeks after Super Tuesday. That's different from Romney's map. Like Romney, Christie would like to and likely have to do well in Arizona and Michigan as springboards into Super Tuesday the next week. Christie would also need to employ a similar Super Tuesday strategy to the former Massachusetts governor: rack up wins and delegates outside the South while peeling off as many as possible delegates in the South.
That's what makes the method of allocation Texas Republicans adopt for 2016 so important. Remember "proportionality" on the Republican side isn't mathematical proportionality. There are a number of ways to get there.
--
1 And that assumes Colorado, Minnesota and Utah do not opt into early February dates for their respective caucuses, caucuses and primary. It also assumes that Missouri either moves its primary back or once again adopts caucuses as a means of allocating delegates. North Carolina is newly rogue as well. …but for how long?
Monday, December 30, 2013
Another Take on the RNC's Efforts to Alter the Presidential Nomination Rules for 2016
S.V. Date has a nice synopsis up over at NPR today about what's different about the RNC work to reign in the 2016 presidential delegate selection rules relative to 2012. What is particularly worth reading is the discussion of the prospective penalties as compared to the penalties that were. The short version: In 2012, there was just one 50% penalty that could be levied once against states -- whether they violated the timing rule or the proportionality rule. In 2016 there will be a couple of sanctions; one for each type of violation.
The problem with the short version is that it glosses over a lot of the nuance.
The main issue with Date's account is that it hinges on a flawed understanding of the history of the rules the Republican National Committee has used in its delegate selection process. This flaw led to many missing out on the true essence of the proportionality rule the RNC added for the 2012 cycle. And it looks like it is going to carry over into 2016 in some cases.
Here's the line that stuck in FHQ's craw (emphasis mine):
In other words, the RNC provided no mandates -- no guidance -- to the states on the issue of delegate allocation. It was up to the states. That is just how it was for any state that held a delegate selection event on or after April 1, 2012. States were certainly allowed to allocate delegates in a winner-take-all fashion after that point on the calendar, but there was no rush by states with contests beyond that point to do so. The majority of states took the road of least resistance: they left their delegate allocation alone. The only newly added winner-take-all states to the back end of the 2012 calendar were the ones that moved beyond April 1 to protect the winner-take-all allocation they had utilized in the past (see Maryland and Wisconsin).
The point here is to point out this faulty view of the history of these rules. The Republican nomination process has never been a bastion of rampant winner-take-all rules. If anything was or has been rampant, it has been states having the freedom to choose their methods of allocation. There were curbs -- or attempts at curbs -- on that freedom for the first time on the Republican side in 2012. With a new super penalty added to the mix in 2016, there are hopes within the RNC that they have gotten things right this time.
As the party's general counsel, John Ryder, said, "I think this strikes a good balance."
--
FHQ will have more on this story later.
The problem with the short version is that it glosses over a lot of the nuance.
The main issue with Date's account is that it hinges on a flawed understanding of the history of the rules the Republican National Committee has used in its delegate selection process. This flaw led to many missing out on the true essence of the proportionality rule the RNC added for the 2012 cycle. And it looks like it is going to carry over into 2016 in some cases.
Here's the line that stuck in FHQ's craw (emphasis mine):
"If this thinking sounds familiar, it should. The RNC tried to accomplish similar goals heading into 2012. The four early states were given the month of February. Other states could start holding contests on March 1 if they allocated delegates proportionally, and on April 1 if they awarded all the delegates to the top vote-getter. A state that violated either rule faced a 50-percent loss of delegates."There was a proportionality requirement in 2012, but this makes it sound as if there was something of a winner-take-all requirement as well. There was not. The point of the April 1 threshold in 2012 was that states that chose to hold contests on or after that point on the calendar could allocate their delegates to candidates in any RNC-sanctioned method; not just winner-take-all. That was consistent with how the party had viewed delegate allocation at any point the calendar in years prior. The national party viewed that as a decision that was completely at the discretion of the states -- parties or governments.
In other words, the RNC provided no mandates -- no guidance -- to the states on the issue of delegate allocation. It was up to the states. That is just how it was for any state that held a delegate selection event on or after April 1, 2012. States were certainly allowed to allocate delegates in a winner-take-all fashion after that point on the calendar, but there was no rush by states with contests beyond that point to do so. The majority of states took the road of least resistance: they left their delegate allocation alone. The only newly added winner-take-all states to the back end of the 2012 calendar were the ones that moved beyond April 1 to protect the winner-take-all allocation they had utilized in the past (see Maryland and Wisconsin).
The point here is to point out this faulty view of the history of these rules. The Republican nomination process has never been a bastion of rampant winner-take-all rules. If anything was or has been rampant, it has been states having the freedom to choose their methods of allocation. There were curbs -- or attempts at curbs -- on that freedom for the first time on the Republican side in 2012. With a new super penalty added to the mix in 2016, there are hopes within the RNC that they have gotten things right this time.
As the party's general counsel, John Ryder, said, "I think this strikes a good balance."
--
FHQ will have more on this story later.
Friday, December 20, 2013
Is South Carolina losing its early-primary luster?
Here we go again.
FHQ realizes that we are still roughly two years away from the presidential primary season kicking off in earnest and story ideas are limited. But come on. There's absolutely no need to keep rehashing these same stories over and over again. Remember four years ago when Iowa Republicans -- and the press folks who pushed the story -- were lamenting the fact that none of the (prospective) candidates were traipsing across the Hawkeye state wooing potential caucus-goers?
Well, now the dateline has changed. The worrywarts have moved south to the Palmetto state and the fortunes of the South Carolina primary in the context of the Republican nomination process. And it is all no more warranted in South Carolina than it was in Iowa four years ago.
The question, then: Is South Carolina losing its early-primary luster?
No.
And the kicker here is that Ali Weinberg's piece at First Read says exactly why the answer is no. South Carolina Republicans haven't lost anything. In fact, unless the RNC fundamentally alters its primary rules between now and summer 2014, South Carolina will have gained leverage -- via the rules -- over the state's position in 2012. Not only does South Carolina have its position as one of the first four "carve-out" states to hold a nominating contest in 2016, but the state and the other three privileged states have up to a month before the next earliest contest in which to schedule their primaries or caucuses.
Does that guarantee "luster"?
I suppose that depends on how you want to define luster. If you define it -- as both the First Read and State items do -- as somehow hinging on this illusory notion of "picking presidents" then, yeah, perhaps South Carolina has lost one claim that has been able to trumpet in the context of Republican nominations since 1980. But come on. That's not luster.
The truth of the matter is that South Carolina will have either the third or fourth position in the Republican primary calendar in 2016, and with that comes something. FHQ won't call it luster. But it does offer South Carolina just what it has since 1980: a privileged position to have among the first cracks at importantly winnowing the field of candidates.
That's what these early contests do. Can they "pick presidents"? Sometimes. Do they always? Nope. That really often depends on the idiosyncratic dynamics of a given nomination race and how it meanders through the sequence of delegate selection events.
--
As a postscript, FHQ does want to once again highlight something that looks to be, well, cumbersome to overcome for some during the 2016 cycle. Everyone keeps raising the specter of Florida. In this South Carolina discussion, it is that candidates would rather spend time in Florida than South Carolina. Of course, this is rooted in the activity -- the experience with -- the Sunshine state in the formation of the primary calendar these last two cycles.
But it really does look as if many -- at least the ones that are writing about these issues so early -- are ignoring reality. The assumption is that South Carolina will happen and then ten days later, the next contest will be in Florida. That was absolutely the case in 2008 and 2012.
It is not the case for 2016 as of now. And even if Florida was somehow immediately after South Carolina, the Florida primary would not be the only game in town that week.
Why?
Well, the way the primary election law is structured in Florida, the primary there falls on the earliest unpenalized date. If Republicans in Florida stick with a true winner-take-all allocation of delegates (and the RNC fixes the may/shall issue for the proportionality requirement1), then the Sunshine state primary will fall on the third Tuesday in March; well after where South Carolina will end up on the calendar.
Again, FHQ says "as of now" because the law can certainly be changed. But that just doesn't seem likely for now.
So, if you are into worrying about poor little ol' South Carolina and its primary, worry about Michigan and Arizona. They are more problematic to where the Palmetto primary will land.
…and it isn't clear that South Carolina really gives two shakes about either. Republicans there are only worried about being first in the South.
--
1 It looks like that is going to be the case.
FHQ realizes that we are still roughly two years away from the presidential primary season kicking off in earnest and story ideas are limited. But come on. There's absolutely no need to keep rehashing these same stories over and over again. Remember four years ago when Iowa Republicans -- and the press folks who pushed the story -- were lamenting the fact that none of the (prospective) candidates were traipsing across the Hawkeye state wooing potential caucus-goers?
Well, now the dateline has changed. The worrywarts have moved south to the Palmetto state and the fortunes of the South Carolina primary in the context of the Republican nomination process. And it is all no more warranted in South Carolina than it was in Iowa four years ago.
The question, then: Is South Carolina losing its early-primary luster?
No.
And the kicker here is that Ali Weinberg's piece at First Read says exactly why the answer is no. South Carolina Republicans haven't lost anything. In fact, unless the RNC fundamentally alters its primary rules between now and summer 2014, South Carolina will have gained leverage -- via the rules -- over the state's position in 2012. Not only does South Carolina have its position as one of the first four "carve-out" states to hold a nominating contest in 2016, but the state and the other three privileged states have up to a month before the next earliest contest in which to schedule their primaries or caucuses.
Does that guarantee "luster"?
I suppose that depends on how you want to define luster. If you define it -- as both the First Read and State items do -- as somehow hinging on this illusory notion of "picking presidents" then, yeah, perhaps South Carolina has lost one claim that has been able to trumpet in the context of Republican nominations since 1980. But come on. That's not luster.
The truth of the matter is that South Carolina will have either the third or fourth position in the Republican primary calendar in 2016, and with that comes something. FHQ won't call it luster. But it does offer South Carolina just what it has since 1980: a privileged position to have among the first cracks at importantly winnowing the field of candidates.
That's what these early contests do. Can they "pick presidents"? Sometimes. Do they always? Nope. That really often depends on the idiosyncratic dynamics of a given nomination race and how it meanders through the sequence of delegate selection events.
--
As a postscript, FHQ does want to once again highlight something that looks to be, well, cumbersome to overcome for some during the 2016 cycle. Everyone keeps raising the specter of Florida. In this South Carolina discussion, it is that candidates would rather spend time in Florida than South Carolina. Of course, this is rooted in the activity -- the experience with -- the Sunshine state in the formation of the primary calendar these last two cycles.
But it really does look as if many -- at least the ones that are writing about these issues so early -- are ignoring reality. The assumption is that South Carolina will happen and then ten days later, the next contest will be in Florida. That was absolutely the case in 2008 and 2012.
It is not the case for 2016 as of now. And even if Florida was somehow immediately after South Carolina, the Florida primary would not be the only game in town that week.
Why?
Well, the way the primary election law is structured in Florida, the primary there falls on the earliest unpenalized date. If Republicans in Florida stick with a true winner-take-all allocation of delegates (and the RNC fixes the may/shall issue for the proportionality requirement1), then the Sunshine state primary will fall on the third Tuesday in March; well after where South Carolina will end up on the calendar.
Again, FHQ says "as of now" because the law can certainly be changed. But that just doesn't seem likely for now.
So, if you are into worrying about poor little ol' South Carolina and its primary, worry about Michigan and Arizona. They are more problematic to where the Palmetto primary will land.
…and it isn't clear that South Carolina really gives two shakes about either. Republicans there are only worried about being first in the South.
--
1 It looks like that is going to be the case.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Fool Me Once, Shame on Me. Fool Me Twice...
Look, FHQ gets it: Florida has created a lifetime's worth of uncertainty for the presidential primary calendar (and the nomination process itself to some extent) over the last two cycles. But the reactions to the latest on the efforts by the Republican National Committee to tinker with the party's nomination process/rules ignore the current reality where Florida and 2016 intersect.
Perhaps, it is deserved. FHQ isn't here to defend Florida, but as of right now, the Sunshine state is not in a position to continue to be a "serial scofflaw", as Jason Linkins describes the state, much less have it assumed that Florida will once again throw a monkeywrench into the best laid plans of the parties and/or the infringe on the turf of the carve-out states, as Craig Robinson does.
The reality is that this super penalty is nothing new. The so-called Bennett rule -- named after former Ohio Republican chairman, Bob Bennett, who devised it -- has been codified in the RNC rules since Tampa. The only thing new based on the reporting that Peter Hamby at CNN did was to shed light on the mathematical problem that FHQ mentioned months ago. Basically, if a state has a small enough (pre-penalty) delegation, it could receive a lesser penalty than the 50% reduction that was on the books in 2012. Again, this was a very limited number of states. But there was some potential for the rules to be exploited; not keeping with the original intent of the rule (which was to provide some certainty to the front end of the calendar).
But that is the small states; not Florida.
The point is, political actors in Florida -- those in the state legislature, governor's mansion and the Republican Party of Florida -- saw those changes. After all, the infighting that produced those rules changes, including the Bennett rule, happened in their backyard; in Tampa. What was the reaction in Florida once the Bennett rule was added? Well, the state legislature very quickly moved to push the Florida primary back on the 2016 and future primary calendars during its 2013 session.
Unlike the 2008 and 2012 cycles, there is actually some certainty -- right now -- as to when the Florida presidential primary will be held. If the Republican Party of Florida tweaks its allocation rules, the primary will be on the first Tuesday in March. If the state party opts to continue with its tradition winner-take-all allocation, then it will be on the third Tuesday in March, the point on the calendar when it is apparently proposed that the proportionality requirement should expire. The 2016 Florida primary date hinges on the point on the calendar where the Florida delegation will not be penalized; the earliest unpenalized date. That, as FHQ noted, is dependent upon what combination of rules the Republican Party of Florida opts to utilize.
[And one other thing that FHQ would like to push back on is Robinson's description of the penalties that Florida faced in 2012. Yes, Florida broke both the timing and allocation rules. But the RNC only had one 50% penalty it could levy. The RNC rules did not provide for a double penalty scenario. That has been changed for 2016. There is the Bennett rule (9 delegate plus automatic delegates) penalty and a separate 50% penalty for states that do not comply with the provisions in the proportionality requirement. This rule was put in place in reaction to both Florida and Arizona in 2012. Both technically were double violators.]
There was ample motivation for Florida to have reacted this way; to provide certainty instead of uncertainty in this process for once. Some have argued that it was the rules change or more precisely the new, more draconian penalty. Others contend that Marco Rubio and his allies in the state advocated for the move with a potential Rubio run for the nomination in mind. This is likely not an either/or thing. Those two factors and a desire to play nice in 2016 because of them is as good an explanation as any for the move.
Could this change? Absolutely. The Florida legislature may change its mind in 2015 and reverse course, but such a change would have to make it through the governor to be enacted. No matter how the gubernatorial election goes in Florida in 2014, the sort of provocative primary movement that Florida made in 2008 and 2012 is not likely going to pass muster.
The Sunshine state is definitely part of the reason why the rules/penalties changes were made, but at this point -- in late 2013 -- it doesn't look like Florida is going to be the troublemaker it has recently been in the presidential nomination process.
No, at this point, FHQ would suggest looking at Michigan and Arizona.1 Both contests are currently positioned on the last Tuesday in February; a clear violation of the intended RNC rules. [It is unclear how either state will fare under the Democratic Party rules. The party has yet to officially begin its rules-making process, but past rules put both Arizona and Michigan on the wrong side of the penalty threshold.]
Again, maybe Florida deserves it simply for 2008 and 2012, but FHQ does not think Florida will be the one causing the trouble -- should any occur -- in 2016.
--
1 The recent change in North Carolina also means the Tar Heel state is vulnerable to the super penalty. However, FHQ has been told that will be taken care of. Recall that the provision anchoring the North Carolina primary to the South Carolina primary was added late to an omnibus elections bill. The addition was so last minute, that it was largely glossed over because of the importance placed on passing the whole elections bill. Those with reservations, then, didn't want to rock the boat and delay or derail the efforts to make changes (voter ID requirement, changes to early voting process) that the Republican majority in the North Carolina General Assembly wanted to push through before the legislature adjourned for the year.
It should also be noted that there is a direct line of communication between the RNC and the North Carolina General Assembly. State Representative David Lewis (R-53rd) is the national committeeman from the state and additionally is the chairman of the North Carolina House Elections Committee. [The other wrinkle here is that the amendment to the elections bill that changed the North Carolina primary date was added in the state Senate at the last minute.] FHQ is told by folks in the know here in North Carolina and in the RNC that this will be changed at some point next year. We shall see.
Perhaps, it is deserved. FHQ isn't here to defend Florida, but as of right now, the Sunshine state is not in a position to continue to be a "serial scofflaw", as Jason Linkins describes the state, much less have it assumed that Florida will once again throw a monkeywrench into the best laid plans of the parties and/or the infringe on the turf of the carve-out states, as Craig Robinson does.
The reality is that this super penalty is nothing new. The so-called Bennett rule -- named after former Ohio Republican chairman, Bob Bennett, who devised it -- has been codified in the RNC rules since Tampa. The only thing new based on the reporting that Peter Hamby at CNN did was to shed light on the mathematical problem that FHQ mentioned months ago. Basically, if a state has a small enough (pre-penalty) delegation, it could receive a lesser penalty than the 50% reduction that was on the books in 2012. Again, this was a very limited number of states. But there was some potential for the rules to be exploited; not keeping with the original intent of the rule (which was to provide some certainty to the front end of the calendar).
But that is the small states; not Florida.
The point is, political actors in Florida -- those in the state legislature, governor's mansion and the Republican Party of Florida -- saw those changes. After all, the infighting that produced those rules changes, including the Bennett rule, happened in their backyard; in Tampa. What was the reaction in Florida once the Bennett rule was added? Well, the state legislature very quickly moved to push the Florida primary back on the 2016 and future primary calendars during its 2013 session.
Unlike the 2008 and 2012 cycles, there is actually some certainty -- right now -- as to when the Florida presidential primary will be held. If the Republican Party of Florida tweaks its allocation rules, the primary will be on the first Tuesday in March. If the state party opts to continue with its tradition winner-take-all allocation, then it will be on the third Tuesday in March, the point on the calendar when it is apparently proposed that the proportionality requirement should expire. The 2016 Florida primary date hinges on the point on the calendar where the Florida delegation will not be penalized; the earliest unpenalized date. That, as FHQ noted, is dependent upon what combination of rules the Republican Party of Florida opts to utilize.
[And one other thing that FHQ would like to push back on is Robinson's description of the penalties that Florida faced in 2012. Yes, Florida broke both the timing and allocation rules. But the RNC only had one 50% penalty it could levy. The RNC rules did not provide for a double penalty scenario. That has been changed for 2016. There is the Bennett rule (9 delegate plus automatic delegates) penalty and a separate 50% penalty for states that do not comply with the provisions in the proportionality requirement. This rule was put in place in reaction to both Florida and Arizona in 2012. Both technically were double violators.]
There was ample motivation for Florida to have reacted this way; to provide certainty instead of uncertainty in this process for once. Some have argued that it was the rules change or more precisely the new, more draconian penalty. Others contend that Marco Rubio and his allies in the state advocated for the move with a potential Rubio run for the nomination in mind. This is likely not an either/or thing. Those two factors and a desire to play nice in 2016 because of them is as good an explanation as any for the move.
Could this change? Absolutely. The Florida legislature may change its mind in 2015 and reverse course, but such a change would have to make it through the governor to be enacted. No matter how the gubernatorial election goes in Florida in 2014, the sort of provocative primary movement that Florida made in 2008 and 2012 is not likely going to pass muster.
The Sunshine state is definitely part of the reason why the rules/penalties changes were made, but at this point -- in late 2013 -- it doesn't look like Florida is going to be the troublemaker it has recently been in the presidential nomination process.
No, at this point, FHQ would suggest looking at Michigan and Arizona.1 Both contests are currently positioned on the last Tuesday in February; a clear violation of the intended RNC rules. [It is unclear how either state will fare under the Democratic Party rules. The party has yet to officially begin its rules-making process, but past rules put both Arizona and Michigan on the wrong side of the penalty threshold.]
Again, maybe Florida deserves it simply for 2008 and 2012, but FHQ does not think Florida will be the one causing the trouble -- should any occur -- in 2016.
--
1 The recent change in North Carolina also means the Tar Heel state is vulnerable to the super penalty. However, FHQ has been told that will be taken care of. Recall that the provision anchoring the North Carolina primary to the South Carolina primary was added late to an omnibus elections bill. The addition was so last minute, that it was largely glossed over because of the importance placed on passing the whole elections bill. Those with reservations, then, didn't want to rock the boat and delay or derail the efforts to make changes (voter ID requirement, changes to early voting process) that the Republican majority in the North Carolina General Assembly wanted to push through before the legislature adjourned for the year.
It should also be noted that there is a direct line of communication between the RNC and the North Carolina General Assembly. State Representative David Lewis (R-53rd) is the national committeeman from the state and additionally is the chairman of the North Carolina House Elections Committee. [The other wrinkle here is that the amendment to the elections bill that changed the North Carolina primary date was added in the state Senate at the last minute.] FHQ is told by folks in the know here in North Carolina and in the RNC that this will be changed at some point next year. We shall see.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
A Closer Look at What the RNC Subcommittee on 2016 Delegate Selection Rules Has Been Up To
Back in September -- actually on the eve of the government shutdown -- FHQ took part in what has become a fairly regular series of meetings with party rules officials (and a handful of academics) from both national parties that the National Presidential Caucus has organized for several years running now. It is always a fascinating experience of which I'm thankful to be a part. I say that because these meetings offer 1) a rare opportunity to see folks from the Democratic and Republican parties constructively discuss remedies to some of the rules-based problems that are common to both parties and 2) a limited -- The parties folks play it close-to-the-vest. -- glimpse into some of the changes that are being considered for 2016.
Those events are bookmarked in FHQ's head for days like today as well; a day when news of the progress of one of the parties' rules-making comes to light. Peter Hamby has a great rundown of the situation on the Republican side as of now, about nine months before the rules for 2016 cycle will be set in stone. There's fodder in there for several posts, but let's have a more thorough look at some of the things being considered by the RNC. [Quotations below are from Hamby.]
The less obvious matter has to do with that March 1 cutoff. Again, as FHQ has detailed, there is a window of time between the last Tuesday of February and the first Tuesday in March in which the timing rules laid out in Rule 16 are not consistent with the penalties described in Rule 17 for violating those timing rules. Rule 16 currently sets the threshold for a state having violated the timing rules at the first Tuesday in March (not March 1). But the penalty from Rule 17 is only assessed if a state holds its contest before the final Tuesday in February. One would imagine that this discrepancy would be fixed at some point -- FHQ has been told by a number of Republican rules officials that it would be addressed. -- but the above only indicates intention, not the actual rules change.
One other minor point on this one: There is a lack of consistency across a couple of other rules here that FHQ will address in a later post, but it should be noted that delegations will technically be stripped down to 12 delegates instead of nine once the three national party (automatic) delegates are added to the total. Those folks -- the state party chair, the national committeeman and the national committeewoman -- will be a part of the delegation.
The change may be minor in terms of the actual allocation of delegates in 2016, but it does give states an extra two weeks in March in which to schedule their delegate selection events without penalty. This is a small carrot of sorts from the RNC to the states. After Super Tuesday Lite on March 6, 2012, there really were not a lot of contests until April. There was a southern swing during the second week, followed by trips to Illinois and Louisiana to close out the month. In other words, the thinking here on the part of the RNC subcommittee is that that is a spot early enough (but not too early) on the calendar to warrant a few more contests. As footnote two indicates below, Texas will already be much earlier in 2016. Those last two weeks could prove advantageous to states with traditional winner-take-all rules but which have also been later on the calendar in the past. This is speculative, but the talk among some California Republicans during 2011 when the Golden state primary was being moved from February to June was that Democrats controlling the state would just move it back in 2016 (when their party had a competitive nomination race). California Republicans have typically utilized a winner-take-all by congressional district allocation plan. If (and this is a big IF) Democratic legislators in the state actually do move the primary back up into March as they did for the 1996 cycle, Republicans in the state could continue that practice and not be penalized.
And that small extra two week window is absolutely being used by the national party as a means of enticing later states to move up. But they are also using a stick.
Why?
Read through those three paragraphs from Hamby again. Now, let's dissect that and reassemble it sequentially.
1) Let's take the beauty contest angle first. Did you catch the omission? Those late contests are not beauty contests. They aren't anything like the Missouri Republican primary in 2012, when voters went to the polls to cast a meaningless ballot. Well, they aren't so far as FHQ sees it, anyway. What's missing is the binding of delegates. That is the primary purpose of any primary election is the binding of delegates. In most cases, primary states still have some form or fashion of a caucuses/conventions system for actually selecting the delegates who will go to the convention. But the results of the primary bind the delegates.
There is nothing in Hamby's synopsis about the binding of delegates. A state could theoretically, then, select and submit delegates to the RNC ahead of a primary contest, the results of which would later actually bind the delegates to particular candidates (see, for instance, Romney-bound delegates who were Ron Paul supporters in 2012 -- The new RNC rules that came out of Tampa have made any mischief from those types of delegates impossible.).
Got that? Now here's one other wrinkle that brings things full circle. The new RNC rules also require the binding of delegates based on the results of the earliest statewide contest. This eliminated the beauty contest loophole that early caucuses states have used in the past to avoid the timing penalty (see Colorado and Minnesota in 2012). Those first step, precinct caucuses are the results used to bind delegates to particular candidates now. If state parties in late states use a caucuses/convention system as usual to select delegates, the precinct level results -- results in an election before the primary -- could supersede the primary results as the statewide results.
Confused?
In reality, all this really does is put the onus on the states to be very clear about what their processes -- selecting and binding -- entail. Keep in mind also that Hamby's description of this via his sources in the RNC is that it is the state party that is submitting the list of delegates; not necessarily with any input from a caucuses/convention process. When a dispute between Paul and establishment delegates in Nevada led to the cancelation of the Nevada Republican State convention in 2008, the state central committee ultimately selected the delegates who went to the St. Paul convention. To FHQ, this is the sort of process that is being described.
…and those delegates would be bound based on the results of the primary. That isn't a beauty contest. However, the fact that those primaries are late and the race will have likely been decided by that point renders it almost a beauty contest; maybe even technically so. Generally though, when we talk of beauty contests, what makes them so is the absence of a binding mechanism. It isn't clear to me that that is missing in this case. FHQ would be surprised if that was true in practice.
2) The other thing about this particular idea is that it makes for a potentially unhappy compromise. On the one hand, Tea Party folks might like the prospect of wresting control of a state party away from the establishment wing of the party. That is something about which the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party has become increasingly organized at least up to 2012. Theoretically, it gives them -- once in control -- the ability to name their folks to these delegate lists in late primary states. As has been witnessed over the last few years, however, instances of the Tea Party taking over state parties have been pretty limited in number. What this accomplishes in most cases, on the other hand, is that it provides more fuel for the fire of dissension within the Republican Party. All that does is potentially give state-level Tea Party factions one more thing to grouse about within the frame of RNC/establishment unfairness.
Both the delegate slates and beauty contest/binding issues are messy. Want to avoid them as a state party? Move your contest up. That is a pretty clever stick, folks.
…at least on paper. But states have proven clever in their own right in responding to national party rules. The problem for the states is that the national parties have wised up. They've adapted by moving to close the loopholes that states have exploited in the past.
Will it work? Time will tell.
--
As a coda to this discussion, FHQ should note the procedural barriers that the RNC now faces in changing its rules. According to Rule 12, three-quarters of the full 168 member RNC has to sign off on any rules change. That is a very high bar. First however, the subcommittee proposal -- and it will likely be introduced as a package to be voted on rather than in pieces -- will have to clear the Rules Committee. The threshold for passage there is only 50%, but something that passes the Rules Committee by a bare majority will likely not fare well before the full RNC. A near-unanimous vote in the Rules Committee may prove a necessary signal to the full RNC or at least three-fourths of them. Whether that will be sufficient in the eyes of that many RNC members remains to be seen. Three-quarters is awfully high and makes potentially big, fundamental changes with unclear ramifications that much more difficult. FHQ has spoken to a number of RNC rules folks and there are differing opinions on this. They run the gamut from confidence that the chairman can push the changes he wants through (as has typically been the case) to doubt based on how high the bar for change has been set.
It will make for an interesting set of winter and spring RNC meetings. Expect the subcommittee to issue its recommendations at the winter meeting and for them to be more fully debated and voted on at the spring or summer meeting next year.
--
1 Well, the 2012 Republican delegate selection rules did not allow for a double penalty; one for both a timing violation and a proportionality violation. As such, the Florida delegation was only officially reduced by 50% for the timing violation.
2 On that point, it should be noted that the Texas primary and its large cache of delegates will be in March 2016. A battle over redistricting in the Lone Star state forced the primary to late May 2012.
Those events are bookmarked in FHQ's head for days like today as well; a day when news of the progress of one of the parties' rules-making comes to light. Peter Hamby has a great rundown of the situation on the Republican side as of now, about nine months before the rules for 2016 cycle will be set in stone. There's fodder in there for several posts, but let's have a more thorough look at some of the things being considered by the RNC. [Quotations below are from Hamby.]
1) "The first four early-voting states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada -- would continue to hold their contests in February."This is certainly what both the RNC and DNC would like. However, other states will have a say in whether or not the carve-out states actually hold their contests in February (More on this in a moment.). One thing that should be noted is that I'm sure the Republicans that Hamby spoke with said February. And that is what the party wants. Yet, that is not what the current RNC rules say. The rules that came out of the Tampa convention last year and currently govern the 2016 process give Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina a window of a month before the next earliest contest in which to schedule their primaries or caucuses (Rule 16.c.1). Now, that language is obviously apt to change -- That is what the subcommittee is up to, after all. -- but FHQ is of a mind that it will not. Ideally, those four contest occur in February, but things may push into the latter half of January.
2) "To prevent other states from jumping the order and compelling the first four to move their dates even earlier as they did in 2012, any state that attempts to hold its nominating contest before March 1 would have their number of delegates to the convention slashed to just nine people or, in the case of smaller states, one-third of their delegation -- whichever number is smaller."If you have read FHQ closely since the conventions last year, you will note a couple of either potentially subtle or subtle changes to this particular penalty. The most obvious is the addition of a super penalty for smaller states that break the timing rule. Now, it isn't the super penalty did not apply to smaller states before. It did. Rather, the reason for the change is that the fewer delegates a state had the less the "strip them of all but nine delegates" penalty mattered. As FHQ has pointed out, there was a very small number of small states that could move their contests around and receive a penalty smaller than 50%. The RNC proposal described by Hamby closes that loophole; slicing those smaller loophole states' delegations by two-thirds if they violate the timing rule.
The less obvious matter has to do with that March 1 cutoff. Again, as FHQ has detailed, there is a window of time between the last Tuesday of February and the first Tuesday in March in which the timing rules laid out in Rule 16 are not consistent with the penalties described in Rule 17 for violating those timing rules. Rule 16 currently sets the threshold for a state having violated the timing rules at the first Tuesday in March (not March 1). But the penalty from Rule 17 is only assessed if a state holds its contest before the final Tuesday in February. One would imagine that this discrepancy would be fixed at some point -- FHQ has been told by a number of Republican rules officials that it would be addressed. -- but the above only indicates intention, not the actual rules change.
One other minor point on this one: There is a lack of consistency across a couple of other rules here that FHQ will address in a later post, but it should be noted that delegations will technically be stripped down to 12 delegates instead of nine once the three national party (automatic) delegates are added to the total. Those folks -- the state party chair, the national committeeman and the national committeewoman -- will be a part of the delegation.
3) "Any state holding a primary or caucus during the first two weeks of March must award its delegates proportionally, rather than winner-take-all."Relative to the 2012 rules, this proposal condenses the proportionality window to just two weeks. Last year, that window encompassed any non-carve-out state with a contest prior to April 1. For all practical purposes, then, the proportionality window stretched all the way from the Florida primary on January 29 to April 1 in 2012.1 This really is a minor shift. As the Growth and Opportunity Project Report aptly noted earlier this year, the method by which states allocate delegates does not have a very clear impact on the nomination process. Stated differently, the impact the delegate allocation rules have is dependent upon the dynamics of a given nomination race. Recall, it was the dispersion of the calendar of events that made Mitt Romney's march to 1144 so slow in 2012 and not the proportionality requirement.2
The change may be minor in terms of the actual allocation of delegates in 2016, but it does give states an extra two weeks in March in which to schedule their delegate selection events without penalty. This is a small carrot of sorts from the RNC to the states. After Super Tuesday Lite on March 6, 2012, there really were not a lot of contests until April. There was a southern swing during the second week, followed by trips to Illinois and Louisiana to close out the month. In other words, the thinking here on the part of the RNC subcommittee is that that is a spot early enough (but not too early) on the calendar to warrant a few more contests. As footnote two indicates below, Texas will already be much earlier in 2016. Those last two weeks could prove advantageous to states with traditional winner-take-all rules but which have also been later on the calendar in the past. This is speculative, but the talk among some California Republicans during 2011 when the Golden state primary was being moved from February to June was that Democrats controlling the state would just move it back in 2016 (when their party had a competitive nomination race). California Republicans have typically utilized a winner-take-all by congressional district allocation plan. If (and this is a big IF) Democratic legislators in the state actually do move the primary back up into March as they did for the 1996 cycle, Republicans in the state could continue that practice and not be penalized.
And that small extra two week window is absolutely being used by the national party as a means of enticing later states to move up. But they are also using a stick.
4) "The Republican National Convention will be held either in late June or early July, though ideally on a date before the July 4 holiday."
"Moving the convention to June would have the effect of ending the primary campaign in May because of RNC rules that require state party organizations to submit their delegate lists to the national party at least 35 days before the convention."
"States with primaries scheduled for June 2016, including California, New Jersey and New Mexico, would essentially be holding nothing more than beauty contests. Party organizations in those states would instead submit their delegate lists to the RNC ahead of time, before any primary vote takes place, Republicans said."The stick -- and you will have to bear with me here while I fully lay this out -- is that with an earlier convention, those late states would be meaningless beauty contest events. Well, that is the description used, but FHQ doubts very seriously that that is the case.
Why?
Read through those three paragraphs from Hamby again. Now, let's dissect that and reassemble it sequentially.
A) The RNC wants/sets a late June convention date.There are two things here that require careful explication.
B) However, the national party requires delegates to be submitted from the states 35 days in advance. This is a very real logistical issue.
C) Late states -- especially late May and June primary and caucuses/convention states -- are then in a bind as to how to select delegates.
[This is an issue that FHQ has raised before. How does a party motivate late states to stomach the expenditure necessary to shift up the dates of their contests, typically contests that are held concurrently with the nominations for down ballot races? The answer is not very easily. But...]
D) Late states are forced to submit delegates ahead of time -- ahead of their contests -- to the RNC to stay within RNC rules.
1) Let's take the beauty contest angle first. Did you catch the omission? Those late contests are not beauty contests. They aren't anything like the Missouri Republican primary in 2012, when voters went to the polls to cast a meaningless ballot. Well, they aren't so far as FHQ sees it, anyway. What's missing is the binding of delegates. That is the primary purpose of any primary election is the binding of delegates. In most cases, primary states still have some form or fashion of a caucuses/conventions system for actually selecting the delegates who will go to the convention. But the results of the primary bind the delegates.
There is nothing in Hamby's synopsis about the binding of delegates. A state could theoretically, then, select and submit delegates to the RNC ahead of a primary contest, the results of which would later actually bind the delegates to particular candidates (see, for instance, Romney-bound delegates who were Ron Paul supporters in 2012 -- The new RNC rules that came out of Tampa have made any mischief from those types of delegates impossible.).
Got that? Now here's one other wrinkle that brings things full circle. The new RNC rules also require the binding of delegates based on the results of the earliest statewide contest. This eliminated the beauty contest loophole that early caucuses states have used in the past to avoid the timing penalty (see Colorado and Minnesota in 2012). Those first step, precinct caucuses are the results used to bind delegates to particular candidates now. If state parties in late states use a caucuses/convention system as usual to select delegates, the precinct level results -- results in an election before the primary -- could supersede the primary results as the statewide results.
Confused?
In reality, all this really does is put the onus on the states to be very clear about what their processes -- selecting and binding -- entail. Keep in mind also that Hamby's description of this via his sources in the RNC is that it is the state party that is submitting the list of delegates; not necessarily with any input from a caucuses/convention process. When a dispute between Paul and establishment delegates in Nevada led to the cancelation of the Nevada Republican State convention in 2008, the state central committee ultimately selected the delegates who went to the St. Paul convention. To FHQ, this is the sort of process that is being described.
…and those delegates would be bound based on the results of the primary. That isn't a beauty contest. However, the fact that those primaries are late and the race will have likely been decided by that point renders it almost a beauty contest; maybe even technically so. Generally though, when we talk of beauty contests, what makes them so is the absence of a binding mechanism. It isn't clear to me that that is missing in this case. FHQ would be surprised if that was true in practice.
2) The other thing about this particular idea is that it makes for a potentially unhappy compromise. On the one hand, Tea Party folks might like the prospect of wresting control of a state party away from the establishment wing of the party. That is something about which the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party has become increasingly organized at least up to 2012. Theoretically, it gives them -- once in control -- the ability to name their folks to these delegate lists in late primary states. As has been witnessed over the last few years, however, instances of the Tea Party taking over state parties have been pretty limited in number. What this accomplishes in most cases, on the other hand, is that it provides more fuel for the fire of dissension within the Republican Party. All that does is potentially give state-level Tea Party factions one more thing to grouse about within the frame of RNC/establishment unfairness.
Both the delegate slates and beauty contest/binding issues are messy. Want to avoid them as a state party? Move your contest up. That is a pretty clever stick, folks.
…at least on paper. But states have proven clever in their own right in responding to national party rules. The problem for the states is that the national parties have wised up. They've adapted by moving to close the loopholes that states have exploited in the past.
Will it work? Time will tell.
--
As a coda to this discussion, FHQ should note the procedural barriers that the RNC now faces in changing its rules. According to Rule 12, three-quarters of the full 168 member RNC has to sign off on any rules change. That is a very high bar. First however, the subcommittee proposal -- and it will likely be introduced as a package to be voted on rather than in pieces -- will have to clear the Rules Committee. The threshold for passage there is only 50%, but something that passes the Rules Committee by a bare majority will likely not fare well before the full RNC. A near-unanimous vote in the Rules Committee may prove a necessary signal to the full RNC or at least three-fourths of them. Whether that will be sufficient in the eyes of that many RNC members remains to be seen. Three-quarters is awfully high and makes potentially big, fundamental changes with unclear ramifications that much more difficult. FHQ has spoken to a number of RNC rules folks and there are differing opinions on this. They run the gamut from confidence that the chairman can push the changes he wants through (as has typically been the case) to doubt based on how high the bar for change has been set.
It will make for an interesting set of winter and spring RNC meetings. Expect the subcommittee to issue its recommendations at the winter meeting and for them to be more fully debated and voted on at the spring or summer meeting next year.
--
1 Well, the 2012 Republican delegate selection rules did not allow for a double penalty; one for both a timing violation and a proportionality violation. As such, the Florida delegation was only officially reduced by 50% for the timing violation.
2 On that point, it should be noted that the Texas primary and its large cache of delegates will be in March 2016. A battle over redistricting in the Lone Star state forced the primary to late May 2012.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Candidates who participate in unsanctioned debates should be penalized 30 percent of their delegates
That's Reince Priebus from Kansas City discussing the 2016 Republican presidential nomination process before the Midwest Republican Leadership Conference.
Here's the full context from David Lieb with the AP:
On some level, this is a long way for me to say, "Hey. Look at that 'should' in 'should be penalized' in Priebus' comment about primary debates." Despite the presence of some uncertainty as to the final version of the RNC rules for 2016, the 30% figure does continue to leave us with some questions about any proposed penalties and how they are meted out. And truth be told, those questions are the same basic questions FHQ posed several weeks ago during and in the aftermath of the RNC summer meeting in Boston. But now we have something concrete from the chairman of the national party in the way of sanctions.
First of all, this statement makes clear that the RNC is considering a plan similar to the DNC rules that attempt to rein in rogue states on the primary calendar. The DNC instituted a plan for the 2008 cycle that would not only hit those states in violation of the rules, but also penalize candidates who campaigned in those states. Given Chairman Priebus' comments, the RNC may look to go in a similar direction though seemingly directed more at the candidates than the states/state parties.
The new question that emerges is, "30% of which delegates?"
Extending this, what would happen in the case of multiple violations?3 If the penalty is assessed on the state total and not the overall delegate total, the multiple violations problem is somewhat minimized but not completely eliminated. Under that rule/sanction, candidates would be penalized for participating in hypothetical rogue debates in Iowa and New Hampshire, for example. They would lose 30% of their delegates in each state. Under the alternative "penalize the overall total" there is nothing left for the party to use once the penalty is handed down. A candidate could rationalize continued participation in rogue debates by saying either, "I've already been penalized, what's to stop me from taking part in this next unsanctioned debate?" or "There's no way the RNC is actually going to stick to this penalty. I'll go ahead and attend this next debate."
Of course, the same sort of rationale exists for the candidates under the state-level sanction as well if there are multiple rogue debates in one state. They can't be penalized twice.
All of this makes the final subquestion above all the more interesting. Why not penalize the states/state parties as well? To some extent, the penalize the candidates strategy is sound, albeit with some backwards logic. By penalizing the candidates, the candidates are bound to stay away from rogue debates and thus state parties will not hold them. That could happen, but if you are the RNC, why leave it to chance? Even if the frontrunner is an establishment-type candidate, it will be hard for such a candidate to stay away from all of these debates should others participate.
Why?
I keep thinking of the 1980 general election presidential debates, particularly that Reagan/Anderson debate. They took aim at Carter instead of each other for nearly the entire time. Carter had no equivalent way to respond. If states/state parties are not checked in some way, what is to prevent them from allowing a similar forum for any and all also-rans through viable alternative candidates from participating and raking the aforementioned frontrunner through the coals for an hour to an hour and a half. Actually, those candidates would have incentive to do so -- attack -- in order to negate the deficit created by the 30% delegate penalty. The objective is to reduce the number of delegates for a frontrunner by making that candidate less palatable to voters. And again, without a debate stage, it is most difficult for a non-participating candidate to respond in kind. How does a national party disincentivize this outcome without penalizing the states/state parties as well.
Overall, this is a tough calculus for the campaigns to undertake. It isn't as if what we're talking about here are real delegates allocated after a given state votes. Rather, the issue to attempting to ascertain the impact of all of these movements on a virtual delegate count in the months leading up to the Iowa caucuses.
This can go any number of ways in practice. The cautionary tale of the unintended consequences nested in seemingly innovative or simple rules changes in the post-reform era is or should be ever present for the national parties. That said, there are two paths that FHQ sees as more likely than some of the others:
Some form of backfire seems most likely. However, the bottom line here is that tinkering with rules in this particular area borders on being a fool's errand. It crossed the line from managing the presidential nomination process to attempting to control it. National parties that have crossed that line in the post-reform era have been the parties that have faced unintended consequences -- often bad ones -- when the rules go from paper to practice.
--
1 Granted, the idea is one that is coming from someone -- the RNC chairman -- with some power over the process, but still, it's just an idea; not a rule.
2 This exercise utilizes Gingrich's delegate figures from 2012 in South Carolina and overall.
3 Recall, that the multiple violations problem was an issue for the RNC in 2012. There was no contingency in place for states that violated both the timing rules and the proportionality requirement. There was only one 50% penalty that could be levied whether one or both rules were broken by states. Florida, for instance, did not face two 50% penalties for holding a non-compliant January primary and allocating its delegates in a winner-take-all fashion.
Here's the full context from David Lieb with the AP:
Priebus defended plans to shorten the primary season by imposing "a death penalty" for any state that jumps ahead of the national party's calendar, cutting their delegates to the national convention to "next to zero." He proposed to hold no more than eight GOP primary debates, with the party picking the host partners and moderators. Candidates who participate in unsanctioned debates should be penalized 30 percent of their delegates, Priebus said.Now, FHQ will try not go too deep on this. After all, this just an idea that is floating around out there.1 The "death/super penalty" is on the books, but earlier conventions and presidential primary debates sanctions among other things are not. These are all matters that will be discussed, tweaked or completely changed by the RNC's new Rules subcommittee.
On some level, this is a long way for me to say, "Hey. Look at that 'should' in 'should be penalized' in Priebus' comment about primary debates." Despite the presence of some uncertainty as to the final version of the RNC rules for 2016, the 30% figure does continue to leave us with some questions about any proposed penalties and how they are meted out. And truth be told, those questions are the same basic questions FHQ posed several weeks ago during and in the aftermath of the RNC summer meeting in Boston. But now we have something concrete from the chairman of the national party in the way of sanctions.
First of all, this statement makes clear that the RNC is considering a plan similar to the DNC rules that attempt to rein in rogue states on the primary calendar. The DNC instituted a plan for the 2008 cycle that would not only hit those states in violation of the rules, but also penalize candidates who campaigned in those states. Given Chairman Priebus' comments, the RNC may look to go in a similar direction though seemingly directed more at the candidates than the states/state parties.
The new question that emerges is, "30% of which delegates?"
Is this 30% of the overall delegates a candidate has/will have?
Is it 30% of the delegates won from a state that holds a rogue debate?
Why are states/state parties not penalized for holding unsanctioned debates?The first two subquestions are direct alternatives to each other. Either the RNC under this plan would penalize 30% of all of a candidate's delegates from all states or just rogue debates states. The latter seems more "fair" but if the objective is keep the candidates away from presidential primary debates that are conducted minus the national party's blessing, then that former may prove more effective. If you are Newt Gingrich, for example, then losing about 8 of 23 delegates after having participated in a hypothetically rogue South Carolina debate is probably better than losing 41 delegates from your eventual 135 delegate total.2 Candidates, depending on the race and their relative positioning among each other can probably shrug off the loss at the state level, but would find it much more difficult to do the same if the penalty affected the overall total.
Extending this, what would happen in the case of multiple violations?3 If the penalty is assessed on the state total and not the overall delegate total, the multiple violations problem is somewhat minimized but not completely eliminated. Under that rule/sanction, candidates would be penalized for participating in hypothetical rogue debates in Iowa and New Hampshire, for example. They would lose 30% of their delegates in each state. Under the alternative "penalize the overall total" there is nothing left for the party to use once the penalty is handed down. A candidate could rationalize continued participation in rogue debates by saying either, "I've already been penalized, what's to stop me from taking part in this next unsanctioned debate?" or "There's no way the RNC is actually going to stick to this penalty. I'll go ahead and attend this next debate."
Of course, the same sort of rationale exists for the candidates under the state-level sanction as well if there are multiple rogue debates in one state. They can't be penalized twice.
All of this makes the final subquestion above all the more interesting. Why not penalize the states/state parties as well? To some extent, the penalize the candidates strategy is sound, albeit with some backwards logic. By penalizing the candidates, the candidates are bound to stay away from rogue debates and thus state parties will not hold them. That could happen, but if you are the RNC, why leave it to chance? Even if the frontrunner is an establishment-type candidate, it will be hard for such a candidate to stay away from all of these debates should others participate.
Why?
I keep thinking of the 1980 general election presidential debates, particularly that Reagan/Anderson debate. They took aim at Carter instead of each other for nearly the entire time. Carter had no equivalent way to respond. If states/state parties are not checked in some way, what is to prevent them from allowing a similar forum for any and all also-rans through viable alternative candidates from participating and raking the aforementioned frontrunner through the coals for an hour to an hour and a half. Actually, those candidates would have incentive to do so -- attack -- in order to negate the deficit created by the 30% delegate penalty. The objective is to reduce the number of delegates for a frontrunner by making that candidate less palatable to voters. And again, without a debate stage, it is most difficult for a non-participating candidate to respond in kind. How does a national party disincentivize this outcome without penalizing the states/state parties as well.
Overall, this is a tough calculus for the campaigns to undertake. It isn't as if what we're talking about here are real delegates allocated after a given state votes. Rather, the issue to attempting to ascertain the impact of all of these movements on a virtual delegate count in the months leading up to the Iowa caucuses.
This can go any number of ways in practice. The cautionary tale of the unintended consequences nested in seemingly innovative or simple rules changes in the post-reform era is or should be ever present for the national parties. That said, there are two paths that FHQ sees as more likely than some of the others:
- Backfire. The rules change instituting a candidate penalty backfires. Either an establishment-type candidate is frontrunner and is baited into participating in rogue debates as a defense mechanism or a candidate other than an establishment-type is the frontrunner, is able to stay away from any rogue debates, and begins primary season against a group of candidates who, on the offensive, were forced to participate in unsanctioned debates and are at a delegate deficit before any delegates are actually allocated.
- A redefined invisible primary. Let's call this one the "Only winning move is not to play" strategy. No, I'm not talking about not playing in any rogue debates; I'm talking about not playing at all. If the calculus of all of this is so rigorous, why not skip it? Delay jumping into the race as much as possible. If you are a frontrunner (or potential frontrunner), establishment-type candidate and incentives exist in the altered rules for your adversaries to attack and attack and attack you in rogue and sanctioned debates, why not remove the target? Don't run or delay running until the last minute. [Think of the possibility for white knight stories!!!] This option seems like a magic bullet for the RNC, but one that looks good in theory, but not necessarily in practice. Yes, there may be an emergent and perverse pressure among the viable candidates to hold out as long as possible, but 1) It is hard to invisibly/unnoticed put in place the infrastructure necessary to run for a presidential nomination; 2) Given that reality, states/state parties may still have incentive to host rogue debates; and 3) Additionally, the press involved in those hypothetical debates would be potentially likely to ask participants about the policy positions of looming candidacies whether they have an presidential nomination exploratory committee or not.
Some form of backfire seems most likely. However, the bottom line here is that tinkering with rules in this particular area borders on being a fool's errand. It crossed the line from managing the presidential nomination process to attempting to control it. National parties that have crossed that line in the post-reform era have been the parties that have faced unintended consequences -- often bad ones -- when the rules go from paper to practice.
--
1 Granted, the idea is one that is coming from someone -- the RNC chairman -- with some power over the process, but still, it's just an idea; not a rule.
2 This exercise utilizes Gingrich's delegate figures from 2012 in South Carolina and overall.
3 Recall, that the multiple violations problem was an issue for the RNC in 2012. There was no contingency in place for states that violated both the timing rules and the proportionality requirement. There was only one 50% penalty that could be levied whether one or both rules were broken by states. Florida, for instance, did not face two 50% penalties for holding a non-compliant January primary and allocating its delegates in a winner-take-all fashion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)