Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Much Ado About Nothing in New Mexico

The legislature in New Mexico adjourned for the session last Saturday, and in the process a bill that would have moved the presidential primary in the Land of Enchantment -- and those for state and local offices held concurrently -- died in committee. SB 572 was introduced by Republican state senator, William H. Payne (R-20th, Bernalillo) on February 17, the deadline date for legislation to be introduced. The legislation would have shifted the New Mexico primary from the first Tuesday in June to the first Tuesday in March. However, once the Republican-sponsored bill was introduced in the Democratic-controlled Senate, it was referred to the Senate Rules Committee where it spent the last month of the session.

New Mexico has represented a quirky situation the last two cycles (2004, 2008). Typically, in the post-reform era, New Mexico had brought up the rear with a June primary. Though the primary remained in that position in both 2004 and 2008, a 2003 change to the primary election law allowed the parties to decide how they wanted to allocate delegates for the purposes of nominating a presidential candidate.

New Mexico statutes, Chapter 1, Article 8, Section 54 -- presidential primary, date of election:
In the year in which the president and vice president of the United States are to be elected, the registered voters of this state shall be given an opportunity to express their preference for the person to be the presidential candidate of their party in either a presidential primary election or in accordance with the selection procedure for presidential candidates of each voter's party. The presidential primary election shall be held on the same date as the primary election is held in this state.
That "or in accordance with the selection procedure for presidential candidates of each voter's party" segment of the law allowed the parties to decide where on the calendar to hold their delegate selection event. In both 2004 and in 2008, New Mexico Democrats essentially held a firehouse primary on the first Tuesday in February while Republicans in the state continued to allocate their national convention delegates using the June primary. Senator Payne's bill would have changed that, moving the primary for president and all other offices up to the earliest date on which the national parties are allowing non-exempt states to hold delegate selection events.

Unless the state GOP opts to hold its own earlier contest, it appears that delegate selection in both parties will take place during the first Tuesday in June primary in New Mexico in 2012.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 4:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Four years in...

FHQ let yesterday come and go without marking the fourth anniversary of the site. Usually we like to keep it business-like around here, but it is worth noting that we've been at this for an entire presidential election cycle now. [Are there other measures of time other than presidential election cycles?] Something that started out on a personal level as a means of collecting data about the formation of the 2008 presidential primary calendar for my dissertation research has grown into a resource for not only the formation of the calendar but for tracking the factors relevant to presidential nomination races.

FHQ has come a long way since that first post (and can probably be faulted for starting well after much of the initial calendar action had taken place in 2007), and has morphed from something that wasn't necessarily intended for public consumption to something that is a tool for academics and journalists alike. I'm proud of that evolution and want to extend a hearty thank you to all who have been readers, loyal or otherwise, over the last four years.

Thanks,
Josh


Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:00 AM 2 comments
Labels:
Share |

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Battle Lines Being Drawn in Wisconsin?


The Government Accountability Board in Wisconsin over the last couple of days has telegraphed its desire for different primary dates in the Badger state. At this point, that mostly revolves around changing the date of the September primary for state and local offices in order to comply with the MOVE act to ensure that military personnel overseas receive ballots in a timely manner. However, the issue of the timing of the presidential primary has been broached as well.

Recall that the presidential primary in Wisconsin is currently scheduled for the third Tuesday in February, a date that would be in violation of national party delegate selection rules if it remains unchanged. From the AP on the matter of the presidential primary yesterday:
[Government Accountability Board director Kevin]Kennedy's letter said the staff also considered holding the 2012 presidential primary after March 1 at the recommendation of the national Republican and Democratic parties. The presidential primary is now held on the third Tuesday in February.

Local election officials suggested moving the presidential primary to April during spring non-partisan elections. To save money, they also suggested holding the primary for the spring election during the November general election, starting in 2012.

Kennedy said the board will discuss presidential primary changes later.
Some of that same sentiment carried over into comments made by members of the board today. Moving the date back to April would return the Badger state presidential primary to the position it held in cycles prior to the the 2004 cycle when the primary date was moved forward into February (see 2000 presidential primary calendar). The interesting thing that emerged from the discussion today was that the board was not going to make proposals that would affect the flexibility of the legislature to make a move on the primary. Again from the AP:
[Government Accountability Board elections specialist Katie] Mueller said staff had also looked into changing to the date of the presidential primary election, on the recommendation of the national Democratic and Republican parties. Clerks initially suggested moving the presidential primary to the same day as the spring election. They also suggested holding the spring primary on the same day as the November general election. That idea was scrapped after staff learned the Wisconsin Constitution prohibits holding any judicial elections during a partisan general election.

Mueller said any future proposals made to change the presidential primary dates would not affect the 2012 presidential primary.
The November primary idea hints at a way for the state to save money by combining elections. And it is noteworthy that that discussion was never taken in the direction of combining the presidential with those April local elections like Director Kennedy had mentioned yesterday.

That last line also really requires a touch more explication. It could mean that Wisconsin has no plans to change the date of the primary, keeping it out of compliance with national party rules. That, of course, is something that will be up to the legislature to decide. But that could also mean that the Government Accountability Board won't make a recommendation on moving the 2012 presidential primary and will simply defer to the legislature to make the decision. The Wisconsin legislature can opt to wait, though, considering its session is year-round. It's something to keep an eye on.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

More on the Possible Mid-Atlantic Primary

FHQ is late to this, but we did want to document what happened late last week with the development of the so-called Mid-Atlantic Primary that would coordinate the primaries in Delaware, Maryland and Washington DC. Maryland and DC are moving ahead with plans to shift their respective primaries to the first Tuesday in April, but as of now, despite the mentions of it in press reports on what is happening in both Maryland and DC,1 Delaware has remained quiet. Now, that doesn't mean that nothing is going on in the First state, but the progress on moving the presidential primary date there is lagging compared to their neighbors to the south.

And really there was no direct mention of either Delaware or DC in the testimony from Linda Lamone from the State Board of Elections last week in the hearings (March 16, 2011) on the state Senate bills before the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee last Wednesday. There was instead talk of coordination with other, unnamed states and an overwhelming sense -- given the comments from the committee -- that the bipartisan support behind the move to April among the Maryland Senate leadership (SB 820) trumped the alternative bill (SB 501) to move the date to the first Tuesday in March. Meanwhile, the state House bill (HB 671) to move the presidential primary to April -- having had a similar hearing the week before -- was reported favorably from the House Ways and Means Committee and is on its way to being voted on soon after a second reading on the floor.

In Washington, the story is similar. An amended version of the introduced bill to change the dates of the presidential primary and that for local primaries in the District as well emerged from committee and received its first reading and vote last Tuesday. The 10-2 vote on the 13 member Council is indicative of the level of support the bill (B19-0090) has on the Council. The bill would now move those primaries to the first Tuesday in April as opposed to the second Tuesday after the first Monday in June.

And now Delaware the nation tuns its lonely eyes to you.

--
Maryland political leaders, including U.S. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, have been coordinating with Delaware and D.C. to hold their presidential primaries on the same day, to gain more national recognition, [Gov. O'Malley's lobbyist, Stacy] Mayer said. No agreement has been reached yet, she said.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 9:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Monday, March 21, 2011

Tennessee Senate Subcommittee Hearings Show Support for Primary Move to March over May

Rare are the instances when reporting is done on committee and subcommittee hearings on the state legislative level. Well, it happens, but not all that often with bills that would move the date on which state-funded presidential primaries are held. That's why it was nice to see some of that type of reporting last week. From no other source do we get a better glimpse at the motivation behind the shifts or potential shifts of primary dates.

In Tennessee Senate subcommittee of the State and Local Government Committee, state senators debated the two possibilities of a new date for the Volunteer state's presidential primary. Both SB 599 and SB 929 are bills that represent the majority party Republicans' desire to move the primary back to the first Tuesday in March. Tom Humphrey from the Knoxville News Sentinel:

Republican [Majority Leader Mark] Norris, who is sponsoring the bill, said it accommodates requests from the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee.

The idea, he said, is to "team up with some other states" to perhaps gain more national attention to the Tennessee primary.

But the Democratic-sponsored bill (SB 1875) would shift the date of the presidential primary back to the first Tuesday in May where it would coincide with municipal elections. Again, Humphrey:

Senate Democratic Leader Jim Kyle of Memphis has a bill, SB1875, which would instead set the presidential primary on the first Tuesday in May. Kyle told the senators he would not oppose the Norris bill, but wanted them to be mindful of the impact of the presidential primary date on local elections.

Most cities and counties set their local primary election dates to coincide with the statewide presidential primary date, since they then avoid having to pay most of the election costs. With a February or March primary, Kyle said, local candidates must file their qualifying petitions in November or December, and some potential challengers to incumbents often do not realize that fact, leaving incumbents with "a free ride."

Notice that Kyle's emphasis is not on the potential cost-savings to the state per se but on the burden on challenging candidates due to such an early (February) presidential primary and the financial burden on unreimbursed local elections officials in the event a municipal election is not held concurrently with the presidential primary.

The Republican bills to move the primary to March are still the odds on favorites to pass the now-unified Republican-controlled government.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 9:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

The 2012 Candidates: Pawlenty's In (...exploring mode)


Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty took the first formal step toward a run for the Republican presidential nomination next year by announcing the formation of an exploratory committee today. Pawlenty's nascent team has put together a series summer blockbuster trailer-like ads over the last year or so, but the former governor is going to have to find a way to use that and other means of making himself known to potential Republican primary voters.


Four Republicans have now formed exploratory committees. The list:
Michelle Bachmann
Haley Barbour
John Bolton
Jeb Bush
Herman Cain (exploratory: 1/12/11)
Chris Christie
Mitch Daniels
Jim DeMint
Newt Gingrich (exploratory: 3/4/11)
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
Jon Huntsman
Bobby Jindal
Gary Johnson
Sarah Palin
George Pataki
Ron Paul
Tim Pawlenty (exploratory: 3/21/11)
Mike Pence (1/27/11)
Rick Perry
Buddy Roemer (exploratory: 3/3/11)
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum
John Thune (2/22/11)


Posted by Josh Putnam at 5:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , ,
Share |

Feb. 7 Minnesota Caucuses with March 6 Results?

That is exactly what the Minnesota Democratic Farm-Labor Party is proposing in the draft of its 2012 delegate selection plan (Section III.A). Ordinarily, FHQ would take a skeptical stance on this plan -- with the skepticism based entirely on the scant chance that the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee would sign off on it. In this instance, though, I think DFLers in Minnesota are likely to "get away" with this. First of all, the Democratic nomination is unlikely to be contested. That in turn means that no one in the media or otherwise is going to be clamoring to find out the results of a contest that is likely to be between President Obama and himself. In other words, there's no news there.

I have had this idea come up in the course of conversations about frontloading in the past: the notion that a state would hold its contest early, but release its results later. It doesn't matter in the least for Democrats in 2012 because the results don't matter, but I wonder how open the Rules and Bylaws Committee will be to opening up that Pandora's box. The idea sounds good in theory, but it also seems like something where states or state actors would or could cheat -- leaking their results -- as an attempt to have some influence over the process. That's a slippery slope. If you're looking for a guide as to how likely this is to pass muster with the RBC, pay attention to Iowa Democrats and to a lesser extent New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner. The extent to which they feel threatened and further whether they act on that threat will determine to some degree how the Rules and Bylaws Committee will come down on this one. [At this point, Minnesota is but one of those worries with Florida being more of a threat at the moment.]

The easy out is for the RBC to punt until the 2016 cycle by allowing Minnesota to implement the plan as outlined. The argument that it won't blunt Iowa and New Hampshire's impact in a year in which the Democratic nomination race is settled is solid. But that doesn't mean that Iowa and New Hampshire won't come out against the idea in relation to the 2012 calendar (but be looking ahead to 2016).

UPDATE: It should also be noted that even though the provision in Minnesota state law placing the caucus on the first Tuesday in February was triggered on March 1, the law could still be changed. Could be. However, with Republicans in control of the Minnesota legislature -- and with a contested nomination race -- that is unlikely. With the Democratic delegate selection rules calling for state legislators to do whatever they can to bring the timing of states' delegate selection events in line with the national party rules, a bill could be proposed but would probably not go anywhere. That could, in turn, be part of the Minnesota DFL's defense of the February 7 date. However, that argument would more than likely prove to be less than effective considering the party pays for the caucuses and has the ability schedule the contest when and where it desires.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:35 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , ,
Share |

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/21/11)

With Democratic delegate selection plans going public in various states, dates for some of the caucus states are becoming known. So far Hawaii, Minnesota, Nebraska and Wyoming have all proposed dates that will first be public for comment, but then be submitted with any changes to the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee. As such, a calendar update is in order.

[Click to Enlarge]


Reading the Map:

As was the case with the maps from past cycles, the earlier a contest is scheduled in 2012, the darker the color in which the state is shaded. Florida, for instance, is a much deeper shade of blue in January than South Dakota is in June. There are, however, some differences between the earlier maps and the one that appears above.

  1. Several caucus states have yet to select a date for the first step of their delegate selection processes in 2012. Until a decision is made by state parties in those states, they will appear in gray on the map.
  2. The states where legislation to move the presidential primary is active are two-toned. One color indicates the timing of the primary according to the current law whereas the second color is meant to highlight the most likely month to which the primary could be moved. [With the exception of Texas, the proposed movement is backward.] This is clear in most states, but in others -- Maryland and Tennessee -- where multiple timing options are being considered, the most likely date is used. Here that is defined as a bill -- or date change -- with the most institutional support. In both cases, the majority party leadership is sponsoring one change over another (February to March in Tennessee and February to April in Maryland). That option is given more weight on the map.
  3. Kentucky is unique because the legislation there calls for shifting the primary from May to August. As August is not included in the color coding, white designates that potential move with the May shade of blue. Georgia, too, is unique. The state legislature is considering a bill to shift primary date-setting power from the legislature to the secretary of state. The effect is that the Peach state has a dark blue stripe for its current February primary date and a gray stripe to reflect the fact that a change from that based on the bill in question would put the future 2012 primary date in limbo until December 1 at the latest.
  4. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina are shaded on the map according to the latest possible date these states would have if Florida opts not to move their primary into compliance with the national party rules. Iowa Republicans and Nevada Republicans and Democrats have decided to accept the party-designated dates, but FHQ operates under the assumption that both will move to a point ahead of the earliest exempt state should one or more move or maintain a February or earlier date.
  5. States that are bisected vertically are states where the state parties have different dates for their caucuses and/or primaries. The left hand section is shaded to reflect the state Democratic Party's scheduling while the right is for the state Republican Party's decision on the timing of its delegate selection event.


Reading the Calendar:

  1. Caucus states are italicized while primary states are not. Several caucus states are missing from the list because they have not formalized the date on which their contests will be held in 2012. Colorado appears because the caucuses dates there are set by the state, whereas a state like Alaska has caucuses run by the state parties and as such do not have their dates codified in state law.
  2. States that have changed dates appear twice (or more) on the calendar; once by the old date and once by the new date. The old date will be struck through while the new date will be color-coded with the amount of movement (in days) in parentheses. States in green are states that have moved to earlier dates on the calendar and states in red are those that have moved to later dates. Arkansas, for example, has moved its 2012 primary and moved it back 104 days from its 2008 position.
  3. The date of any primary or caucus moves that have taken place -- whether through gubernatorial signature or state party move -- also appear in parentheses following the state's/party's new entry on the calendar.
  4. States with active legislation have links to those bills included with their entries on the calendar. If there are multiple bills they are divided by chamber and/or numbered accordingly.
  5. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina appear twice. The earlier entry corresponds with the latest possible date these states would have if Florida opts not to move their primary into compliance with the national party rules. The second, later entry for each of the non-exempt states reflects the position the national parties would prefer the earliest states to hold their delegate selection events.


2012 Presidential Primary Calendar


January 2012

Monday, January 16:

Iowa caucuses1


Tuesday, January 24:

New Hampshire1


Saturday, January 28:

Nevada caucuses1

South Carolina1


Florida (bills: House/Senate)


February 2012

Monday, February 6:

Iowa caucuses (moved: 2/8/11) (based on national party rules)


Tuesday, February 7 (Super Tuesday):

Alabama (bills: House)

Arkansas

California (bills: Assembly)

Connecticut (bills: House)

Delaware

Georgia (bills: House)

Illinois

Minnesota caucuses (+28) (moved: 3/1/11)

Missouri (bills: House 1, 2, 3/Senate)

Montana Republican caucuses

New Jersey (bills: Assembly 1, 2/Senate)

New York

Oklahoma (bills: House 1, 2, 3/Senate 1, 2)

Tennessee (bills: House 1, 2, 3/Senate 1, 2, 3)

Utah


Saturday, February 11:

Louisiana


Tuesday, February 14:

Maryland (bills: House/Senate 1, 2)

New Hampshire (based on national party rules)

Virginia (bills: House 1, 2/Senate)

Washington, DC (bills: Council)


Saturday, February 18:

Nevada Republican caucuses (-28) (moved: 12/16/10) (based on national party rules)

Nevada Democratic caucuses2 (-28) (moved: 2/24/11) (based on national party rules)


Tuesday, February 21:

Hawaii Republican caucuses (+87) (moved: 5/16/09)

Wisconsin


Tuesday, February 28:

Arizona3

Michigan4

South Carolina (based on national party rules)


March 2012

Tuesday, March 6:

Massachusetts4 (bills: House)

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas (bills: House)

Vermont


Tuesday, March 13:

Mississippi


Tuesday, March 20:

Colorado caucuses5 (bills: House)

Illinois (-42) (bills: Senate) (signed: 3/17/10)


April 2012

Tuesday, April 3:

Kansas (bills: House/Senate -- cancel primary)


Saturday, April 7:

Hawaii Democratic caucuses (-46) (moved: 3/18/11)

Wyoming Democratic caucuses (-28) (moved: 3/16/11)


Saturday, April 14:

Nebraska Democratic caucuses (-60) (moved: 3/5/11)


Tuesday, April 24:

Pennsylvania


May 2012

Tuesday, May 8:

Indiana

North Carolina

West Virginia


Tuesday, May 15:

Idaho (+7) (bills: House) (signed: 2/23/11)

Nebraska

Oregon (bills: House)


Tuesday, May 22:

Arkansas (-104) (bills: House) (signed: 2/4/09)

Idaho

Kentucky (bills: House)

Washington (bills: House 1, 2/Senate -- cancel primary)


June 2012

Tuesday, June 5:

Montana (GOP -119) (moved: 6/18/10)

New Mexico6

South Dakota


--

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

2 The Nevada Democratic caucuses date is based on both DNC rules and the state party's draft delegate selection plan as of February 24, 2011.

3 In Arizona the governor can use his or her proclamation powers to move the state's primary to a date on which the event would have an impact on the nomination. In 2004 and 2008 the primary was moved to the first Tuesday in February.
4 Massachusetts and Michigan are the only states that passed a frontloading bill prior to 2008 that was not permanent. The Bay state reverts to its first Tuesday in March date in 2012 while Michigan will fall back to the fourth Tuesday in February.
5 The Colorado Democratic and Republican parties have the option to move their caucuses from the third Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February.
6 The law in New Mexico allows the parties to decide when to hold their nominating contests. The Democrats have gone in early February in the last two cycles, but the GOP has held steady in June. They have the option of moving however.




Posted by Josh Putnam at 8:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , ,
Share |

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Nebraska Dems Stick with Caucuses Over Primary but Move from February to April

Nebraska Democrats for the first time in 2008 abandoned the Cornhusker state's May presidential primary as a means of allocating national convention delegates and instead adopted a February caucus. The Nebraska Democratic Party will in 2012 again choose delegates to the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte through a series of caucuses. Instead of February, however, the state Democrats will begin the process with precinct caucuses on April 14.

Thus far Democratic caucus states are using the freedom caucus states have in terms of scheduling their delegate selection events -- no partisan conflicts, no checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches, etc. -- to move to later dates. With the pressure of having to hold an early contest that may come from a contested nomination race, Democrats in some caucus states are opting instead to go later and take bonus delegates in the process. That is becoming clearer as more caucus states' Democrats submit draft delegate selection plans for public comment.

[Hat tip to The Green Papers for the link.]



Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Hawaii Democrats Zero in on April 7 Precinct Caucuses for 2012

With the release of their draft delegate selection plan this week, Hawaii Democrats, like their brethren in Wyoming, tentatively selected April 7 as the date of the first determining step of their delegate selection process. Those precinct caucuses will kick off a process that will end with the selection of national convention delegates at the Hawaii Democratic convention on May 26, 2012. In 2008, the precinct caucuses in Hawaii took place on February 19. The move, assuming approval from the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee, would bring Hawaii Democrats into compliance with the DNC's delegate selection rules and would bring with it bonus delegates (10% of the delegate total for the April 1-30 period). Again, as was the case with the Wyoming Democratic Party plan, there is no conflict with the national party rules on the timing of the contest. As such, unless there is another violation embedded in the plan, it should meet the committee's approval.


Posted by Josh Putnam at 9:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)