Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Colorado House Passes Senate Bill to Move Presidential Nominating Caucuses Up

The Colorado House today passed SB 189. The legislation not only moves the Centennial state's presidential nominating caucuses from the third Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in March, but also shifts the primaries for state and local offices from the second Tuesday in August to the last Tuesday in June. The latter provision brings Colorado into compliance with the mandates put in place by the federal MOVE act (It requires states to allow for a 45 day window in which military personnel abroad can vote. There would not have been enough time in Colorado, for instance, to finalize the general election ballot after the August primary and still get the ballots off to those in the military without cutting into that 45 day window.).

The bill has now passed both houses of the General Assembly and heads off to the desk of Governor John Hickenlooper for his consideration.


Oklahoma to March 6

On May 2, Governor Mary Fallin (R) signed HB 1614, enacting the law to move the Oklahoma presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. The bill also continues to give the State Elections Board the ability to move the primary date if a regional primary involving the Sooner state's neighbors develops and as long as that date is some time on or after the first week in March.

Oklahoma now joins Virginia as another state to have moved its primary to March 6, 2012 during the 2011 state legislative session.

[Click to Enlarge]


Hat tip to Tony Roza at The Green Papers for passing this news along.


Monday, May 2, 2011

DC to April 3

Slightly contrary to the immediately prior post, Washington DC mayor, Vincent Gray, signed B19-90 on Wednesday, April 27, moving both the presidential primary and the primaries for district-wide offices to the first Tuesday in April. The mayor had acted on Wednesday unbeknownst to FHQ -- and other media outlets -- but the DC Council's web page for the legislation had yet to be updated to reflect that as of Thursday of last week.

DC, then, moves to April 3, 2012.

[Click to Enlarge]

And for the record, we are awaiting gubernatorial action on several other bills across the country, including:

Move to March 6:

Move to April 3:

Give the Secretary of State the power to set the primary date:

Cancel the 2012 Presidential Primary:



Thursday, April 28, 2011

Barring a Mayoral Veto, DC Will Move Primaries to April 3 Tomorrow

The deadline for Washington DC mayor, Vincent Gray, to act on B19-90, the bill to move both the presidential primaries and the primaries for district offices to the first Tuesday in April in presidential election years is tomorrow, Friday, April 29. The DC Council passed the bill back on April 5 and transmitted the legislation to the mayor on April 14. After that point, the mayor has three options: 1) sign the bill in which case it becomes an act, 2) do nothing in which case it becomes an act, or 3) veto the bill in which case the council can choose to override the veto.

Given that the mayoral review period has almost concluded, the most likely action -- inaction, really -- is for the mayor to do nothing, thus enacting the law. Now, technically, the act would then go to the US Congress for review as well, but on non-controversial legislation like this, that should prove to be nothing more than a formality. That has been the case in the past anyway.

For our purposes here at FHQ, DC will move to the April 3 line on the calendar should Mayor Gray fail to act on B19-90 tomorrow.


Tuesday, April 26, 2011

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (4/26/11)

North Dakota Democrats have made their choice for the date of the party's 2012 caucuses and attendant to that is an update of the 2012 presidential primary calendar.

[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 1, 2/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 1, 2)

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 (bills: House)


Tuesday, February 14:

Maryland (bills: House/Senate 1, 2)

New Hampshire (based on national party rules)

Virginia

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 (bills: House)

South Carolina (based on national party rules)


March 2012

Tuesday, March 6:

Massachusetts4 (bills: House)

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas (bills: House)

Vermont

Virginia (-21) (bills: House 1, 2/Senate) (moved: 3/25/11)


Sunday, March 11:

Maine Democratic caucuses (-28) (moved: 3/27/11)


Tuesday, March 13:

Mississippi

Utah Democratic caucuses (-35) (moved: 3/25/11)


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)

Washington Democratic caucuses (-56) (moved: 3/26/11)

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


Saturday, April 14:

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


Sunday, April 15:

Alaska Democratic caucuses (-70) (moved: 4/4/11)


Tuesday, April 24:

Pennsylvania


May 2012

Saturday, May 5:

Michigan Democratic caucuses (-111) (moved: 4/13/11)


Tuesday, May 8:

Indiana

North Carolina (bills: Senate)

West Virginia


Tuesday, May 15:

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

Nebraska

Oregon (bills: House)


Tuesday, May 22:

Arkansas (-107) (bills: House) (signed: 2/4/09)

Idaho

Kentucky (bills: House) (died: legislature adjourned)

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


June 2012

Tuesday, June 5:

Montana (GOP -121) (moved: 6/18/10)

New Mexico6 (bills: Senate) (died: legislature adjourned)

North Dakota Democratic caucuses (-121) (moved: 4/21/11)

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.

--


Alabama House Votes to Move Presidential/Other Primaries to March

The Alabama state House today voted nearly unanimously to move both the presidential primary and those for state and local office to March. By a vote of 99-1, the House passed HB 425 which would shift the presidential primary back from the first Tuesday in February to the first second Tuesday in March while the primaries for state and local offices would move to the same March date from the traditional first Tuesday in June date.

This bill replaced an earlier bill -- HB 32 -- that sought to move the presidential primary back to June to coincide with the primaries for state and local offices as a cost savings measure. Those costs are still saved under the new provision by holding both sets of primaries concurrently in March.

The Republican-sponsored legislation now heads over the Senate where it has until mid-June to be considered prior to the legislature adjourning for the year.

NOTE: As this bill has now passed the House and more than seemingly replaced Rep. Clouse's original bill, Alabama will be reshaded on the map on the 2012 presidential primary calendar.


North Dakota Democrats Choose June Caucuses for 2012

Last week the North Dakota Democratic Party released for public comment the draft of their 2012 delegate selection plan. In it the party selected June 5 as date on which a caucus will serve as the first determining step of the delegate selection process in the Peace Garden state. Not only will North Dakota Democrats benefit from the bonus (20% increase in delegation) for holding a later contest, but the party will also stand to gain from the Montana-North Dakota-South Dakota cluster of contests on June 5 (additional 15% increase in delegation).

On the Democratic side at least, this leaves only Kansas as a traditional caucus state without a proposed date for 2012. The cancelation of the primary in the Sunflower state should be nothing more than a formality, but that stands out as the only reason for the Democrats' hold up there.



Monday, April 25, 2011

Oklahoma Senate Passes Second House Primary Bill

The Oklahoma Senate today -- April 25 -- passed HB 1614, the second House bill that would change the date on which the Sooner state's presidential primary would be held in 2012.

There are a couple of notes to be made about this particular bill in the context of the series of bills that would accomplish the same task. Unlike HB 1615, which passed the Senate earlier in the month, this is a much simpler bill. HB 1614 has the sole purpose of moving the presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. HB 1615, on the other hand, would make the same change to the presidential primary date but would also bump the primaries for state and local offices up from the last Tuesday in July to the last Tuesday June and shift the filing deadline from May to March among other things. The second matter is that while HB 1615 passed both the House and Senate, it passed the upper chamber in an amended form and had to be sent back to the House for consideration.

HB 1614 has now passed both chambers in the same form and can now be enrolled and sent off to Governor Mary Fallin's desk for the Republican's perusal and likely approval. Oklahoma, like Tennessee, is under unified Republican control after the 2010 elections and has seemingly been on course since the legislature convened to move the state's primary back into compliance with the altered national party rules -- reflecting the national parties' desire to the shift back the beginning of the presidential nomination process.


Tennessee Senate Passes House Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March

On Monday, April 25 the Tennessee state Senate considered and passed HB 612, the state House bill designed to shift the Volunteer state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. Simultaneous to that, the Senate moved its own version of the bill (SB 599) to the dead bill file. That move clears the way for the House version -- now passed by both chambers -- to move on to the governor's desk. And with the Republican-controlled legislature having overwhelmingly passed the bill (unanimously in the Senate, 31-0), there is likely to be little resistance from Republican governor, Bill Haslam.

If signed, the law would bring Tennessee into compliance with the national party rules regarding the timing of delegate selection events.


Friday, April 22, 2011

Chicken Little and the Iowa Caucuses

It is bothersome that the same stories keep getting rehashed and continually have to be shot down. Several of these revolve around Mitt Romney, Iowa or some combination of the two. Though Mitt Romney has not returned to Iowa (or South Carolina), the stories of the former Massachusetts governor skipping the Hawkeye state have largely and thankfully died down. [FHQ doesn't know whether to attribute that to the reality of Romney's campaign strategy -- less emphasis on Iowa -- having set in with the press or what.] But various sources, now including New Hampshire Republican Fergus Cullen, keep returning to the Iowa-isn't-important well, assuming that it runs deep when the reality is that it is close to dry.

First of all, the fact that the nominal frontrunner is not making regular visits to Iowa certainly gives the impression that the 2012 Republican caucuses in the Hawkeye state are less meaningful. The other candidates, however, aren't behaving as if Iowa is anything other than one of the first states in the presidential nomination process. [I'll focus on candidate visits here, but this concept could also be operationalized as money spent in the state thus far, staff hired and/or money contributed to the campaigns of 2010 candidates running for office in the state(s).] FHQ has looked at the visits data already and there is little to no evidence there that Iowa's role is shrinking.

Does the state have a smaller percentage of candidate visits than in 2008?
Yes.

Is that being driven by Romney staying away from the Hawkeye state to this point?
Yes, partially.

Are the other candidates, prospective or otherwise, following suit?
No, not really.

Can the rest of the shift in the percentage of candidate visits from 2008 to 2012 be explained by regular cycle to cycle variation?
More than likely, yes.

Let's take a look. Democratic candidates in 2004 split their time pretty evenly between Iowa and New Hampshire. Out of 1660 combined candidate visits to both states only 60 visits separated the two (with Iowa having more.).1 In 2008 the story was different. Obama's increasing viability throughout the invisible primary, coupled with visits by the then-Illinois senator and Edwards' near-permanent presence in the state forced frontrunner Hillary Clinton to have a substantial presence in Iowa as well. Visits and poll position have a way of triggering increased activity from your opponents.

Of course, the point is well taken that these are data for Democrats, and there isn't an equivalent progressive movement within the Iowa Democratic Party that is pushing less "pure" candidates away in the way it has been hypothesized with Romney (and/or other candidates) and Iowa's GOP. Iowa did have a fairly healthy advantage over New Hampshire in terms of the number of visits from Republicans in 2008. No, the discrepancy between Iowa and New Hampshire wasn't as great among Republicans as it was among Democrats, but there were over 200 more visits to Iowa than New Hampshire. But that wasn't the case in 2000, the last competitive Republican nomination race, when most of the Republicans ceded the Hawkeye state to George W. Bush. The focus instead was on New Hampshire which got more attention relative to Iowa. The point here is that there are great number of factors involved in determining how much attention one of these first two states receives and it varies from cycle to cycle.

Is there something to the argument that a rightward shift among the Iowa GOP caucusgoers is forcing anything resembling a revisitation of strategy from the campaigns' perspectives?
Yeah, there's probably something to it, but its impact is being grossly overstated in typically very narrow examinations of the circumstances. And the fact that the nominal frontrunner is the one who isn't showing up -- especially to the level he did in his prior run -- it exacerbates the the perception that Iowa will take a backseat. The take home message is that we shouldn't look at Iowa in 2012 in a vacuum. There is a much broader picture here beyond "Iowa Republicans are lurching to the right and the state is suffering as a result".

--

Now, having set up the proper context through which the Iowa attention situation should be viewed, there is some evidence that Iowa is dropping off. It all depends on the window of time (in which visits occur) is used. According to the Politico 2012 Live Candidate Tracker Iowa has had 182 [prospective] candidate visits since the day after the 2008 election -- the point at which the 2012 invisible primary started. Over that same period of time, New Hampshire had 127 visits. That particular time period is going to contain visits that were made on behalf of candidates running for state and congressional office and Iowa's size and number of competitive districts would have to be accounted for as well. Even then, it wasn't as if New Hampshire was not competitive in 2010 in terms of congressional or state legislative races. But for the sake of this examination, let's close that window to include visits since the day after the 2010 elections. Over that period, Iowa had 79 visits to New Hampshire's 82; a near even distribution of total candidate visits. Since the first of the year that gap is only slightly wider: Iowa has had 68 visits and New Hampshire 78.

New Hampshire, then, has had a greater number of recent visits, but the sky is hardly falling on Republicans in Iowa. Again, the composition of the state party may be a contributing factor to the discrepancy, but it is only one of many and would have a less significant impact than the usual cycle to cycle variation that we normally observe. Plus, once Romney sets foot in the state, a lot of these stories will disappear (or be re-spun as "Romney isn't paying as much attention to Iowa this time" stories).

--