Wednesday, January 28, 2026

"House committee kills plan to reinstate Missouri presidential primary"


"The push to reinstate Missouri’s presidential primary suffered a defeat Tuesday when the House Elections Committee voted to remove it from a wide-ranging elections bill.

"On a voice vote, the committee removed the provision from the bill. The measure also extends the period for 'no-excuse absentee' voting from two to four weeks.

"The committee then voted 13-1, with two abstentions, to send the bill to the full House for debate.

"The primary is unpopular with well-organized groups who prefer the caucus system traditionally used to select Missouri’s delegates to presidential nominating conventions, said the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Peggy McGaugh, a Republican from Carrollton."


--
Noteworthy: Mark one presidential primary bill off the list in Missouri. Four remain active in the 2026 legislative session, two in the House and two others in the state Senate. The dispute has been a consistent one, post-2022, when the presidential primary was nixed in an omnibus elections bill that passed in the waning hours of the legislature's term that year. It boils down to something that Keller later picked up on in his synopsis of the committee's actions during its executive session on the bill on January 27:
"A caucus is easier to control than the primary, she said. Even though Missouri’s primary is just a popularity contest — no delegates are pledged based on the result — opponents don’t want evidence they are not the majority of their party’s voters, she [bill sponsor, McGaugh] said."
But here's the thing: The premise that no delegates are bound, that, in turn, the primary is a beauty contest and, as a result, that the state should not fund the election is built on the thinnest reasoning. Yet, it keeps coming up session after session in Jefferson City when these primary bills face scrutiny in committee (or on the floor). In fact, the sponsor of the controversial 2022 elections bill that eliminated the presidential primary, Rep. John Simmons (R-109th, Washington), raised it in the committee hearing for McGaugh's HB 1871 two weeks ago:
"Why are we having a presidential primary when we aren't binding the electors [delegates] and the parties are still running a caucus and  technically deciding electors there and we the taxpayers are paying $10m for a show election that doesn't actually have legal meaning to it." 
Never mind that the delegates were bound based on the results of the primary when it was still codified in state law (and the caucuses in 2024 when it was not). But that was a function of the parties' rules -- at both the state and national levels -- defining the nature of the binding and not the state, based on state law. 

Missouri Republicans, those in the legislature most firmly opposed to the return of the state-funded primary anyway, seem to have trust issues with the state party. The party rules have consistently bound delegates. However, those same rules -- rules that are very much consistent with those in other states in the national Republican process -- 1) allow for the release of delegates bound to candidates who have dropped out of the race for the nomination and 2) allow delegates aligned with one candidate to be selected and bound to another candidate (again, based on the primary or caucus results). Those Show-Me state Republicans in opposition to the primary want a legal remedy to those outs that Republican delegates have, to lock them into the binding at the convention no matter what.

That is what keeps killing these bills in Missouri. And HB 1871 is yet another casualty. 

--
And just as a postscript, it should be noted that when McGaugh is talking about "control" she is noting control of the presidential primary (or caucus) electorate. This came up in hearing as well, but there are a number of legislative Republicans in the Show-Me state who are not keen on the open primary there. Caucuses allow the Republican Party in Missouri to restrict the electorate to Republicans only, shielding the election from the potential participation of Democrats. 


--
See also


--


No comments: