Illinois in 2012 Redux

[This is part four in a continuing series this week examining current state legislative action affecting the positioning of presidential primaries in 2012.]

There are two points about Illinois I want to deal with in this space. First of all, some of the points in our earlier discussion of the state legislative action in Land of Lincoln were incorrect. A closer reading of SB 46, the bill at the heart of that earlier post, reveals that the presidential primary is not a part of the equation. As has been discussed here more times than regular readers probably care to remember, states are constrained in their ability to frontload based on whether the state holds its presidential primary concurrently with its primaries for state and local office. States that have already severed those ties find it much easier to move that those states where a decision has to be made between moving everything or splitting those primaries and funding an all new presidential primary election.

Illinois is one of the states that has traditionally held its primaries concurrently in the post-reform era. When the state legislature opted to move the state's primary from March into February in anticipation of the 2008 election, all the primaries moved. Now, however, the state legislature is considering a couple of proposals (one more than was initially known to FHQ) to split those primaries, leaving the presidential contest in February, but moving the primaries for state and local offices back. The state senate legislation mentioned already proposes moving those contests all the way back to June. This move has been spearheaded by a long list of Republicans senators. On the House side, though, the proposal (HB 2308) is led by a handful of Democrats and the move is far less drastic; moving those state and local primaries back to the state's traditional third Tuesday in March primary date.

Yeah, but those aren't presidential primaries, are they?

No, they aren't. However, should this legislation make it through the legislature and be signed into law it will make future attempts by Illinois to frontload that much easier. In my initial examination of this "split primaries" issue, those split primaries states from 1976-1996 were over five times as likely to frontload as those states where all primaries were held concurrently. That effect has lessened over the last few cycles however. Including data through 2008, split primaries states are still well over twice as likely to move as their concurrent primaries counterparts.

Of course, both of the pieces of legislation cited above are also currently stuck in committee. While neither is in jeopardy at the moment, it isn't clear how likely either is to pass the through the whole legislature. Pat Quinn, Rod Blagojevich's replacement, signaled early on once he assumed office that he was interested in moving state and local primaries back to a later date. So there is some support for the idea there.


Recent Posts:
New Hampshire in 2012

Or Not: Arkansas is Staying in May for 2012

New Jersey in 2012 Redux

New Hampshire in 2012

[This is part three in a continuing series this week examining current state legislative action affecting the positioning of presidential primaries in 2012.]

You didn't expect New Hampshire to stand idly by while other states move in anticipation of 2012, did you? Well, they're not, but what the General Court typically does in the Granite State is simply tweak the election law's language to protect the state's first-in-the-nation status. New Hampshire, after all, is unique because the legislature long ago ceded presidential primary scheduling power to the secretary of state. The advantage there is that one person can more easily make the decision on when the primary should be held. That avoids the potential for partisan wrangling (though it should be admitted that all or most of the legislators in the state support New Hampshire's status being retained) that could potentially delay the decision.

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

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

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

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

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

Seven day cushion? Check.

Protection from interloping caucuses? Check.

Exception for Iowa? Check.

I really like that clause at the end that excludes Iowa from the secretary of state's decision calculus. But why not just say Iowa? There has to be some legal matter that precludes them from naming Iowa directly that I'm missing. I may need to email Jim Splaine -- the bill's sponsor -- and find out. Splaine is close political ally of Secretary of State William Gardner and not only usually sponsors/writes the primary protection bills, but also was among the group of Gardner allies that leaked December 11 as a potential date for the New Hampshire primary in 2008. Of course, that was December 11, 2007! [That was a wildly entertaining period of political speculation.]

HB 341 was introduced and referred to committee on January 8 and has been there ever since. It may make its way out (Splaine is a member of the Election Law Committee.), but I'd guess that the folks in New Hampshire will take a wait-and-see-approach to this; waiting on what both the national parties decide to do about their nomination rules in 2012.

Now, none of this may prove necessary, technically. With the Democratic Change Commission (DCC)having been announced and the GOP still settling on the remaining members of its own Temporary Delegate Selection Committee (TDSC), there has been some discussion of Iowa and New Hampshire in 2012 already. And sources from both sides seem to be indicating that the Granite state is safe for 2012.

New Hampshire RNC member, Sean Mahoney, has said that new RNC chair, Michael Steele has assured him that the Granite state will be represented on the TDSC. The trajectory of recent Republican efforts at reform seems to indicate New Hampshire is safe anyway. The original Delaware Plan that was debated at the 2000 Republican Convention didn't call for an Iowa/New Hampshire exception. That plan was later modified to include those exceptions, but the GOP move onto the Ohio Plan, successfully passing it at the RNC level before having the effort quashed at the convention in St. Paul. But that plan also included an Iowa New Hampshire (and Nevada, South Carolina) exception as well. [Read more about those plans here.]

On the Democratic side, new DCC member from New Hampshire, Ned Helms, who was a state chair for the Obama general election campaign, insists that Iowa and New Hampshire are safe. The Iowa/New Hampshire issue may come up when the 37 members of the DCC get together, but the commission's intent is not to change Iowa and New Hampshire's positions. Embedded in that link is a nice mention of the window for future contests being closed to exclude the potential for any January contests. But that move is dangerous given how many states have "first Tuesday in February" primary dates. Even on its latest possible date, the first Tuesday in February would fall on February 7 (as it does in 2012). That would mean that either Iowa and New Hampshire squeeze into the other six days, decreasing their impact, or that state legislatures -- some of them not necessarily friendly to the wants and needs of the Democratic Party -- will have to make changes to bring their states into compliance. And what happens if February 1 is the first Tuesday in February? Again, good idea from an intentions standpoint, but with MANY unintended consequences.

That would obviously violate New Hampshire state law. Maybe they should go ahead and make the changes in HB 341 law. [Or maybe I should remove that technically above.]

Up Next: A return to the Land of Lincoln


Recent Posts:
Or Not: Arkansas is Staying in May for 2012

New Jersey in 2012 Redux

On the Move Again? 2012 Arkansas Primary

Or Not: Arkansas is Staying in May for 2012

...for now.

Just yesterday a bill to move Arkansas' primaries for all offices to June (from late May) emerged from committee. That bill, though, doesn't appear to have widespread support because despite the "Do Pass" authorization SB 253 got from the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee, that bill was withdrawn today by its sponsor, Steve Faris (D-Malevern).

Now, it should be noted that Faris was not only the sponsor of the legislation but is the chair of the committee that granted the "Do Pass" distinction for SB 253. Being in that position certainly helps push a bill through committee, but county clerks also had issues with the effect a June primary may have on turnout. I suspect also that legislators in the full body were somewhat wary of making another change less than two months after repealing the separate February presidential primary. It does, however, look like the state will take the Indiana approach and form an interim study to better estimate the ramifications of a June primary.


Recent Posts:
New Jersey in 2012 Redux

On the Move Again? 2012 Arkansas Primary

Oregon in 2012

New Jersey in 2012 Redux

[This is part two in a continuing series this week examining current state legislative action affecting the positioning of presidential primaries in 2012.]

Earlier this year, in a similar series of posts, FHQ looked into the possibility of New Jersey shifting its 2012 presidential primary (currently set to take place on February 7, 2012) because of a provision in a recently passed bill allowing the lieutenant governor the power to move elections if they conflict with religious holidays. Now, that discussion centered on Republicans taking over the executive branch after the elections this fall in the Garden state and then, somewhat frivolously, using the power in the above law to move New Jersey into an advantageous position on the 2012 calendar. If Republicans were able to take over the executive branch [That just means winning the governor's race since the governor would, then, appoint a lieutenant governor], they could be motivated to put the Garden state in a position to have a real influence on the GOP nomination race.

But, again, that scenario is something of a stretch. It certainly depends on several things falling into place first. Granted, Jon Corzine is doing his best to help the GOP cause in the gubernatorial race, but we'll have to see how things go on that front.

No, there is actually legislation -- carried over from the 2008 legislative session -- that addresses the date of the state's presidential primary. New Jersey, though, isn't following North Carolina or Oregon's lead. [The state government would challenge the national party rules to frontload further as the state is already on the earliest allowable date. Moving foward further, then, would mean violating those rules, at least as they existed for the 2008 cycle. Those rules could change.] The bill (A 2413) seeks to, as was the case in Arkansas, eliminate the separate presidential primary and move it back in line with the primaries in the state for statewide and local offices. In other words, the presidential primary would move back to the end of the presidential primary queue and be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in June (June 5, 2012).

Interestingly, this legislation is being pushed by a Republican state representative. And I would assume that the move is not one proposed as a means of depriving New Jersey an impact on the GOP nomination, but more so as a way of saving money for the state. And this was the case in Arkansas as well. The issue here is that states which have recently (read: in 2008) separated their presidential primaries and primaries for state and local offices are faced with more of a quandary than states that have split primaries, but have institutionalized the separate presidential primary over a series of presidential election cycles. For example, many of the states in the northeast have August or September primaries for state and local offices which basically forces a separate presidential primary (so that it complies with the national party rules concerning the scheduling of presidential delegate selection events). With a June primary in place, New Jersey is not in that position.

The other obvious question here concerns the likelihood of this bill passing. Again, this bill is sponsored by a Republican in a chamber (and overall legislative body) controlled by Democrats. That doesn't mean the bill can't gain Democratic support, but the fact that it has been stuck in committee since basically this time last year (It was referred to the State Government Committee on March 3, 2008.), doesn't bode well for its chances of passage.

Still, the bill is worth tracking and is probably a much more plausible avenue for a primary date change than the alternative mentioned previously.

Up Next: New Hampshire


Recent Posts:
On the Move Again? 2012 Arkansas Primary

Oregon in 2012

I'll Admit It. CQ's Got Me on This One.

On the Move Again? 2012 Arkansas Primary

What? Already?

[Click Map to Enlarge]

Yes, already. In our earlier Arkansas discussion, FHQ described the particulars behind the second bill (SB 253) that proposed moving the primaries in the Natural State -- all the primaries -- to August. From back in early February, I had this to say:

"...the May primary for state legislative positions will occur within a couple of weeks of the end of the one of the legislative sessions. That leaves only a small window of time for incumbents to campaign for the election. On top of that, legislators have traditionally eschewed fundraising (due to a self-imposed rule) activities during sessions and for 30 days before and after them. That obviously encompasses the primaries in this case and poses a problem for state legislative incumbents."

The amendment process had the bill in and out of the Senate committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs and first changed the language to meet the changes (repealing the presidential primary and moving back in line with other primaries) signed into law before moving the proposed primary date back to the first week in June. This latter change was no doubt instituted because of the national party rules that cut the nomination phase of the presidential election off during the first couple of weeks of June. That also gets state legislators closer to their goal of having 30 days in between the end of the legislative session and a primary election. There may be a couple of days lost, but that gets incumbents closer to their self-imposed rule and within the national party guidelines for delegate selection.

And those amendment changes seem likely to be pushed through. The bill just yesterday emerged from the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee with a "Do Pass" authorization (see bill link above for a detailed look at the list of actions SB 253 has been through). Committees in both chambers granted HB 1021 (the original bill to repeal the presidential primary and move it back to May) the same authorization before it was passed and signed into law.

So buckle up folks. Arkansas may not be done backloading for 2012 and beyond yet.


Recent Posts:
Oregon in 2012

I'll Admit It. CQ's Got Me on This One.

NPR's 2012 Bracket Results (1st Round) Are Now Up

Oregon in 2012

Back in January I discussed several states where legislative action was already underway to shift presidential primary dates for the 2012 cycle. Recently though, I happened upon a great new resource -- thanks to the good folks at Election Updates -- for tracking various election reform legislation in state legislatures. As it turns out, there are several states missing from consideration. Now, Oklahoma's bill doesn't deal with the date of the primary, only where the funding is coming from and the New Jersey discussion was based not on a direct date change but on a law that allows the lieutenant governor the ability to change a primary date if it conflicts with a religious holiday. However, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois and North Carolina have actually proposed date-shifting bills and had varying levels of success in passing them (Arkansas' passed and Illinois' is still in committee.). In both cases however, the moves (or potential moves) buck the recent trends and shift their states' presidential primaries to later dates in 2012.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

But not everyone is backloading. This week, then, we'll have a few more installments in this series detailing state legislative action on this front. There is actually additional legislation in both the Illinois and New Jersey legislatures that would shift their presidential primaries in 2012 and beyond to later dates. Also, there is a bill before the New Hampshire General Court -- the Granite state's legislature -- that tweaks the language of the state's presidential primary law to further protect the its first-in-the-nation status. Finally, there is also a bill being considered in the Oregon legislature to move the Beaver state's presidential primary (and all other primaries for state and local offices) to the first week in February.

And that's where we'll start.

Oregon has done this before. In 1996, the Beaver state shifted its presidential primary into March (from May) and ended up aligned with the remnants of the 1988 Southern Super Tuesday and more importantly two weeks ahead California (which had also already moved that cycle). That did not prove a good mood since most of the GOP candidates' attention was focused on the nearly contiguous group of southern states. In 2000, then, Oregon opted to save money (I'll have to track down the data I have on this from the Oregon Secretary of State's office. Off the top of my head the state saved $3 million by backloading in 2000.). What's curious is that the state's voters approved the statewide mail-in ballot system in 1998, so it could have been done more cheaply in 2000 as a result.

Oregon also unsuccessfully attempted to jump on the 2008 Super Tuesday bandwagon in 2007. Here's what I wrote in the late summer of 2007:

Oregon:
Since Oregon's legislature adjourned for the year on June 28 and no action was taken since April on the one bill (HB 2084) which would have moved Oregon's 2008 presidential primary to February 5, the state appears destined to hold it primary toward the end of the process (on May 20).

In 2007 the bill was introduced in the House at the request of Democratic Secretary of State Bill Bradbury. In 2009, though, the action has originated in the State Senate from the Republican minority. This isn't a surprise since typically changes of this type take place within the party outside of the White House. Again, the bill (SB 412) would shift the Oregon primaries for all offices to the first Tuesday in February in any presidential election year. And thus far Oregon is the only state other than North Carolina to propose moving ahead (Indiana doesn't count here, yet.). On top of that, the Beaver state is moving all the other primary elections forward.

That is the other, law-based layer to the frontloading calculus: move just the presidential primary or move everything (States like California, Maryland and Texas have insisted on this in the past: having every primary at once.). In 2008, then, to take two examples from this current crop of states looking to move for 2012, Arkansas split its primaries and moved the new presidential primary forward, whereas Illinois opted to move everything up to February 5. Arkansas has since repealed the presidential primary, moving the contest back to May in 2012. Illinois, where winter weather-related drags on turnout in February are problematic, has also discussed moving back with a caveat. [I'll revisit Illinois in another post.] Oregon, then, is taking the Illinois approach in 2008 approach. [North Carolina, for instance, is proposing the Arkansas approach in reverse.]

Well, the proposed approach is like Illinois' in 2008. The bill was introduced during the first week in February and was immediately referred to the Senate Rules Committee where it has been couped up since that time. Again, the proposal is a Republican one in a Democratic-controlled legislature (and a Democratic governor to boot). The likelihood of this getting out of committee, then, is lower because of the partisan implications involved. The legislature will adjourn until 2011 (barring a special session next year) no later than June 30. So there is a time constraint here as well.

Next: Back to New Jersey


Recent Posts:
I'll Admit It. CQ's Got Me on This One.

NPR's 2012 Bracket Results (1st Round) Are Now Up

2012 Primaries: Democratic Change Commission Named

I'll Admit It. CQ's Got Me on This One.

...to some extent.

[Click Map Enlarge and HERE for a link to CQ's Interactive Map]

No, they don't have a layer that shows the split presidential and House districts, but this interactive map that CQ put together to accompany the data they've put out over the last couple of weeks is pretty snazzy. And the clarity of the district lines is great.

Click on the link under the map to go play around with it.


Recent Posts:
NPR's 2012 Bracket Results (1st Round) Are Now Up

2012 Primaries: Democratic Change Commission Named

Let's Try This 2012 GOP Bracket Again

NPR's 2012 Bracket Results (1st Round) Are Now Up

[Click Bracket to Enlarge and HERE to Vote in the Second Round]

Sure, the bracket pairings don't match up the way they're supposed to, but the second round is set in NPR's Political March Madness. Click on the link above (directly under the bracket) to vote in round two. Those results will be posted on Monday (March 30).

Spoiler Alert: There was only one upset. (12) Brownback over (5) Daniels. I was looking at the vote totals yesterday and briefly considered doing a quick and dirty investigation of the correlation between the number of votes cast in a particular match up and the seeding/name recognition. The "no name" pairings, on the surface, had far fewer votes cast than pairings like Palin-Steele. And I think Brownback over Daniels fits that category to some extent.


Recent Posts:
2012 Primaries: Democratic Change Commission Named

Let's Try This 2012 GOP Bracket Again

Obama's Special Olympics Gaffe: An Interesting Counterfactual

2012 Primaries: Democratic Change Commission Named

And here I thought the GOP would be the first to move on the issues attendant to the presidential primary system.

"Today, Governor Tim Kaine, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, announced the 37 member Democratic Change Commission, which will recommend changes to the Democratic Party's rules for the 2012 presidential nominating and delegate selection process. Governor Kaine also announced that he has named Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina and Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri as Co-Chairs of the Change Commission."

Now, this is significant news, but first let's look a bit more closely at the intent of the Commission and then I'll give my rapid fire thoughts on the commission's membership.

"The Democratic Change Commission will address three issues: 1) changing the window of time during which primaries and caucuses may be held 2) reducing the number of superdelegates and 3) improving the caucus system."

The Intent

No, those don't sound like the sweeping changes that some people would like to see come to the presidential nomination system. [And for the record, I am an impartial observer here. Despite the name of this blog, that is not the system I prefer; only the one I study. But I have a research niche carved out whether change comes or not. And if you've read FHQ at all, you know that we think a national primary is the most likely system to emerge. That doesn't mean another system won't emerge, but because of the barriers that exist, a national primary is the most likely outcome.]

First, changing the window means that the February experiment is over in the minds of some within the party. That's code for, "Let's move the starting point back to March." And there's a lot of talk out there about March being a good starting point. Most of that finds its root in any of the reform regimes that represent the most upheaval to the system (NASS rotating regional primary, Ohio Plan, American Plan, etc.). That, however, would set up quite a few potential showdowns with compliant-turned-rogue states (States that are compliant in February under the current rules, but would be in violation is the window were closed and did not include February.). For example, without some coordination with the Republican Party, the Democratic Party faces the possibility of having quite a few states (those in Republican control) not comply with any such effort to scale back the starting point of the window.

Take my current home state of Georgia. Here's a state that finds both the governor's mansion and the General Assembly in GOP control. Now, are they really going to be inclined to move just because the Democratic Party says so (assuming the GOP holds pat on their own rules)? I doubt it. And Georgia isn't an isolated case here. Of the states holding primaries before March in 2008, Florida, South Carolina (which will likely be exempt anyway) and Tennessee all are in the same position. And Arizona's governor (now Republican after Janet Napolitano vacated to be Homeland Security Secretary) has proclamation power to move the state's contest earlier if the final week in February is not early enough for the Grand Canyon state to be consequential in the process. Add to that the very likely possibility that Oklahoma's next governor will be Republican and you have quite a few potential partisan rogues.

This first point, then, seems like it could be messy.

The second and third points will be talked about, but are more remnants of the unique 2008 primary season than anything. As was the case initially with primary reform in Republican Party during last summer's convention in St. Paul, the winning candidates rarely sanction the change of a system that brought about their nomination. The GOP for the first time created a loophole (allowing for rules to be set outside of the confines of the convention), but Barack Obama is the head of the Democratic Party and these latter two goals of the commission are among the chief reasons he received the Democratic nomination. Now, that isn't to say that some measure of reform in the areas of superdelegates and caucuses won't come to pass, just that it is less likely. Regardless, it is probable that there will be some scaling back of the number of superdelegates and there may be some incentivizing structure discussed to get some caucus states to shift to being primary states. On the latter point, though, the economy will have a large say in whether that happens. Primaries are the much more expensive route. There is a balance, then, that has to be discovered between the inclusiveness of a primary system versus the price tag of (not to mention the control state parties have over) the caucus system.

The Membership

My first inclination is to look not at who specifically these 37 commission members are, but to focus on where they are from and what that says about the group collectively. Let's look at it by the numbers:

• 37 members (2 co-chairs and 35 members)
• Representing 26 states (plus DC, Puerto Rico and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe)
• 7 members are from 7 red states
• 24 members from 19 blue states (and four more from DC)
  
• Of the 15 states within ten points in the presidential election, 13 are represented on the commission (only Indiana and North Dakota are excluded)
• All of the January 2008 Democratic contest states are represented (Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina and Florida)
  

Now, what does any of that have to do with the changes this commission may bring about? Well, it has a "take care of your own" feel to it. The membership hails from the Obama coalition of states and of those outside that coalition, most are states that were within ten points last November. These states won't necessarily have privileged positions on the 2012 calendar but they will be represented on the commission. Part of the Obama success story was primary season organizational efforts that paid dividends in the general election. The flip side here is that the membership isn't a reflection of future goals (in terms of states to target), but represent states where those organizational efforts were the strongest/most vital.

Regardless, the ball is rolling now from the parties' perspective and not just at the state government level.

----------
Full Press Release:

WASHINGTON, March 23 -- Today, Governor Tim Kaine, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, announced the 37 member Democratic Change Commission, which will recommend changes to the Democratic Party's rules for the 2012 presidential nominating and delegate selection process. Governor Kaine also announced that he has named Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina and Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri as Co-Chairs of the Change Commission.

"This Commission will focus on reform that improves the presidential nominating process to put voters first and ensure that as many people as possible can participate," said Kaine. "I want to thank all the members of the Commission who have agreed to serve, including Congressman Clyburn and Senator McCaskill who have graciously agreed to serve as co-chairs."

Governor Kaine went on to say that he hopes to work with the Republican National Committee on a common approach that puts voters first.

President Obama first announced his intention to form the Democratic Change Commission in August 2008, during his presidential campaign. Delegates to the Democratic National Convention adopted President Obama's proposal on Monday, August 25, 2008.

The Democratic Change Commission will address three issues: 1) changing the window of time during which primaries and caucuses may be held 2) reducing the number of superdelegates and 3) improving the caucus system. A copy of the convention resolution establishing the Commission is below. The Commission must issue its report and recommendations to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee no later than January 1, 2010.

The Commission is made up of 35 members and two co-chairs and represents a diverse mix of DNC members, elected officials, representatives of State Parties, academics, labor, business, grassroots activists and other Party leaders. A complete list of the Commission's members is below.

Co-Chairs:

-

Congressman Jim Clyburn

Columbia, South Carolina

-

Senator Claire McCaskill

St. Louis, Missouri

-

Commission Members:

-

Grassroots Activist Jeremy Alters

Miami, Florida

-

Political Strategist Jeff Berman

Washington, DC

-

Grassroots Activist Ashley Bliss

Atlanta, Georgia

-

State Representative Dan Blue

Raleigh, North Carolina

-

Political Strategist Bill Carrick

Los Angeles, California

-

Mayor Michael Coleman

Columbus, Ohio

-

Political Strategist Jeff Forbes

Washington, DC

-

Grassroots Activist Joan Garry

Montclair, New Jersey

-

State Chair Larry Gates

Overland Park, Kansas

-

School Board Member Adelita Grijalva

Tucson, Arizona

-

Professor Rob Hampshire

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

-

Former State Chair Ned Helms

Concord, New Hampshire

-

Former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman

McLean, Virginia

-

Chairman Ron His Horse Is Thunder

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

-

IBT President James Hoffa

Detroit, Michigan

-

Grassroots Activist Roseanne Hope

Minneapolis, Minnesota

-

State Senator Steven Horsford

Las Vegas, Nevada

-

Grassroots Activist Suzie LeVine

Seattle, Washington

-

UAW CAP Director Dick Long

Detroit, Michigan

-

Grassroots Activist Andres Lopez

San Juan, Puerto Rico

-

Former Attorney General Patricia Madrid

Albuquerque, New Mexico

-

DNC Member Debbie Marquez

Edwards, Colorado

-

State Senator Iris Martinez

Chicago, Illinois

-

Delegate Jennifer McClellan

Richmond, Virginia

-

Secretary of State Linda McCulloch

Helena, Montana

-

Attorney General Tom Miller

Des Moines, Iowa

-

DNC Member Minyon Moore

Washington, DC

-

Grassroots Activist Sunah Park

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

-

Campaign Manager David Plouffe

Washington, DC

-

Grassroots Activist Rebecca Prozan

San Francisco, California

-

DNC Member James Roosevelt, Jr

Cambridge, Massachusetts

-

Congresswoman Linda Sanchez

Lakewood, California

-

AFT President Randi Weingarten

New York City, New York

-

State Chair Meredith Wood Smith

Portland, Oregon

-

Grassroots Activist Martin Yeung

Rapid City, South Dakota

-

Resolution Establishing the Democratic Change Commission

(This resolution was recommended by the 2008 Convention Rules Committee at its August 23, 2008 meeting and adopted by the 2008 Democratic National Convention on August 25, 2008 in Denver, Colorado)

Section 1. Establishment of Democratic Change Commission.

BE IT RESOLVED: That no later than 60 days after the date of the next election of the National Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the National Chair shall establish a commission (the "Commission") to review the Delegate Selection Rules in light of developments during the 2008 presidential nominating cycle and to recommend changes to the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2012 Democratic National Convention, not inconsistent with these resolutions, to improve the nominating process.

RESOLVED FURTHER: That the Commission shall be known as the "Democratic Change Commission;" that it shall consist of 35 members and two co-chairs, all with the right to vote on Commission business, appointed by the National Chair of the DNC; that its membership shall be equally divided between men and women and shall be geographically and demographically diverse; that the DNC shall provide the Commission with adequate staff and resources to carry out its mandate in accordance with this Resolution; and that the Commission shall issue its report and recommendations to the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC no later than January 1, 2010.

Section 2. Timing of the Primaries and Caucuses.

RESOLVED FURTHER: That the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2012 Convention shall provide that no meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) shall be held prior to the first Tuesday in March of the election year, except as otherwise provided in the Delegate Selection Rules and recognizing the valuable role played by the approved pre-Window states in 2008; and provided that no such meeting, caucus, convention or primary shall in any event be held prior to February 1 of the calendar year of the National Convention; and that the Commission also shall review the sequence and scheduling of primaries and caucuses with a view towards reducing the scheduling of such events on the first allowable date that resulted in 22 primaries and caucuses being held on such date in 2008 and toward reducing frontloading within the Window period; and that the Commission shall review the rules for proper enforcement of the primary and caucus timing requirements and delegate allocation matters, particularly with respect to action by the Rules and Bylaws Committee; and that in making its recommendations, the Commission consider any revision of the Rules of the Republican Party of the United States adopted by the 2008 Republican National Convention regarding the scheduling and sequence of presidential nominating events.

Section 3. Delegates.

RESOLVED FURTHER: That the Commission shall consider and make appropriate recommendations for revisions to the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2012 Democratic National Convention to provide for a significant reduction of the number of unpledged party leader and elected official (PLEO) delegates in order to enlarge the role and influence of primary and caucus voters in the presidential nominating process. The Commission also shall review the formulas for delegate allocation to assure that delegates are fairly allocated to accurately reflect the will of the voters and that the right of the delegates to reflect the sentiments of those who elected them shall be secured to all delegates.

Section 4. Caucuses.

RESOLVED FURTHER: That the Commission shall consider and recommend appropriate revisions to the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2012 Democratic National Convention to provide that:

a. the use of a caucus/convention system for any stage of the delegate selection process by any State Democratic Party shall be approved by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee in accordance with any new specific criteria to be set out in the Delegate Selection Rules, and which will be designed to ensure that at each stage, any caucus or convention will be adequately planned, organized, and staffed; will take place at such times and in such locations as will meet the requirements of Rule 3 of the Delegate Selection Rules and will otherwise maximize the opportunity for full participation by Democratic voters; will be run using appropriate balloting methods and, as to tiers following the first stage caucus, will utilize accurate lists of participants; and will afford the opportunity for meaningful communication of presidential candidates with their pledged caucus participants reasonably in advance of caucuses and conventions.

b. the use of a caucus/convention system for any stage of the delegate selection process should be organized in a manner that will ensure the maximum ability of Democratic voters to feasibly participate in the first-tier caucuses, including consideration of absentee voting in caucuses to benefit those who cannot attend a scheduled caucus due to military service, work, health conditions, family obligations and other similar reasons that prevent attendance in person.

Section 5. Status of Resolutions

RESOLVED FURTHER: That the Commission may address other matters related to the presidential nominating process and Delegate Selection Rules as may be identified by the National Chair of the Democratic National Committee, and that for the purposes of Article Ten, Section 2 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States, these resolutions shall be deemed to be "otherwise designated."

----------

Recent Posts:
Let's Try This 2012 GOP Bracket Again

Obama's Special Olympics Gaffe: An Interesting Counterfactual

2012 GOP Presidential Candidate Bracket

Let's Try This 2012 GOP Bracket Again

[Click to Enlarge]

I'm not sure that NPR is going to fix the flaws in their 2012 GOP nomination bracket, so I took the liberty of correcting it. First off, as I said in the comments over at the other post, the seedings weren't matched up properly. The way these things are set up, the top seed is supposed to play the lowest possible seed in the next round assuming there are no upsets. Why should the number one seed have to play the 6-11 winner when the three seed gets the 8-9 winner. If there were no upsets, the top seed plays the six and the three seed plays the eight. Look, politics isn't fair, but if were going to go this route, let's at least do it the right way.

The other issue is a minor point, but one I thought should be addressed. These brackets need names. I'm going with the Reagan and Lincoln brackets.

So, without further ado, my picks in what should be the real NPR 2012 bracket.

In the Reagan bracket:
Palin outduels Steele. DeMint advances against Corker in an SEC showdown. Rob Portman upsets Jeb Bush based on Bush fatigue. Newt takes out Cantor, and Mike Pence narrowly avoids being upset by Jeff Flake because Flake resembles Will Forte who used to do a mean John Edwards on Saturday Night Live. Huckabee dispenses Chuck Hagel and Jon Kyl inches past favored Paul Ryan. Finally, Pawlenty stays silent and lets Tom Tancredo eliminate himself. Hey, save it for the second round.

In round two, Palin edges DeMint in an underrated showdown, Portman's fairy tale journey ends at the sweet sixteen against Gingrich, Huckabee outlasts Pence, and Pawlenty's first round rest pays off against Kyl.

Round three see Gingrich upturn the former vice presidential candidate, and Pawlenty send Huckabee back to the book signing circuit.

And in the Reagan bracket final, Gingrich emerges victorious against the Minnesota governor.

In the Lincoln bracket:
Romney romps over a "before his time" George P. Bush. Hey, he'll turn 36 during primary season (...or after its over, if the calendar remains the same). John Thune takes out Meg Whitman and Mitch Daniels vanquishes Kansas Governor Sam Brownback. Charlie Crist puts down yet another Arizonan, John Shadegg. [Is it me, or are there disproportionately too many Arizona Republicans filling out this group of 32?] Haley Barbour uses his insider connections to beat back a strong fight from Ron Paul and meets Mark Sanford who eliminated Rudy. Utah Governor Jon Huntsman bests Jon Ensign in a Battle of the Jons and Bobby Jindal is able to put down a challenge from Alan Keyes.

In the second round, Romney outdoes Thune, Mitch Daniels upsets Charlie Crist, Mark Sanford wins the southern governors showdown and Huntsman surprises Bobby Jindal.

Round three sees Romney crush Daniels and Huntsman keep the upsets going with a defeat of Sanford.

In the Lincoln bracket final Huntsman does the unthinkable and advances to face Gingrich in the finals.

The Finals:
Not bad. A three seed against a seven. Just like my typical basketball brackets, I go for some upsets that aren't likely to happen. I like underdogs. What can I say? [You can say there's no chance this is going to happen.] I've Gingrich winning this one and moving on to face Barack Obama in what would be an interesting general election campaign.

What do you think?


Recent Posts:
Obama's Special Olympics Gaffe: An Interesting Counterfactual

2012 GOP Presidential Candidate Bracket

Obligatory Brackets Post: 2008 Presidential Candidates