tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post6425876744984691465..comments2024-03-26T05:22:08.256-04:00Comments on Frontloading HQ: A Good, Old-Fashioned Conspiracy Theory of 2012 Primary MovementJosh Putnamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-55497903006818486832011-02-23T10:34:49.000-05:002011-02-23T10:34:49.000-05:00MP,
That's a good point. Though, in this case ...MP,<br />That's a good point. Though, in this case we're only talking about a limited number of states on this list with year-round sessions: Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin (about 20% of the early, non-compliant states). Still some clarification is probably necessary.<br /><br />First, most legislation is introduced early in a legislative session -- whether in a year-round state or not. [Anecdotally, Wisconsin has very few bills that have been introduced during the 2011 session thus far, and that was before the recent "gridlock" hit.] Most of the work, then, is done early on in the session and that typically applies to primary movement bills as well. Secondarily, some of these year-round states' legislatures only <a href="http://ncsl.typepad.com/the_thicket/2011/01/a-picture-of-legislative-sessions.html" rel="nofollow">meet sporadically during the second half of the year</a>.<br /><br />One other factor that also plays a role is making a decision in a timely enough manner that the legislation can be enacted and ultimately implemented by elections officials (filing deadlines, ballot printing, etc.).<br /><br />That said, if we were doing a study of this, the length of session would have to be included as a control variable. <br /><br />You've read my mind on your Utah comment. I'm actually hoping to get a post on that very same point -- more broadly applied -- up some time today. One point that should be made about Utah in particular is that the state has a tradition of party-funded primaries. If the state legislature does not act, the state party/parties may act to shift the date back. But yes, Utah is one to watch. A change is going to have to come in the form of an amendment at this point because the deadline to introduce legislation passed on February 3.Josh Putnamhttp://frontloading.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-40490960830593406362011-02-23T00:09:14.126-05:002011-02-23T00:09:14.126-05:00One factor that could partially explain it is that...One factor that could partially explain it is that Romney does better in larger, more urbanized states. And, according to the legislative calendar you posted:<br /><br />http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/01/frontloading-starts-with-state.html<br /><br />larger, more urbanized states are more likely to have longer legislative sessions, with states like NY and MI being in session year round. As such, they're not in as much of a hurry to bring up legislation on changing the primary date, as there are still many many months left in the year for them to do that.<br /><br />One state I'm wondering about though is Utah. According to your calendar, their legislative session ends on March 10, and there's been no bill put forward yet to move the primary. If nothing happens by March 10, are they officially holding their primary on Feb. 7th, or is there the possibility of a special session later in the year?astrojobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06643324377144064814noreply@blogger.com