Puerto Rico bill would create new avenue to canceling presidential primary

Legislation has been introduced in Puerto Rico to allow for the conditional cancelation of future state-run and funded presidential primary elections. 

Rep. José Varela Fernández (PPD-32nd) introduced PC 76 in January 2025. The measure would grant the government in the US territory the ability to cancel a presidential primary in the event that a presidential candidate has received the minimum number of delegates necessary clinch a nomination at least 30 days before the preference vote is scheduled on the island. 

The intent is twofold. First, the objective is to save money, not funding a choice-less primary vote. But also Varela Fernández's legislation would give the government the flexibility to call off a presidential primary vote should a repeat of the circumstances of 2024 arise again in future cycles. President Joe Biden faced only token opposition for the Democratic nomination and former President Trump wrapped up the Republican nomination well in advance of the late April vote. Both coasted to nominations that were decided well in advance of the two Puerto Rico primaries in 2024.

In the absence of the state-funded option, territorial parties would left to devise a method for conducting a presidential preference vote and electing delegates -- they are elected on the state-run primary ballot in Puerto Rico -- on their own. Both parties did as much in 2024 after the primary was canceled by the government in the territory.

Companion bill introduced in Ohio House to move presidential primary to May

Rep. Daniel Troy (D-23rd, Willowick) has for a second consecutive legislative session introduced a bill to move the presidential year primaries in the Buckeye state to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May. Currently, Ohio statute calls for the consolidated primary, including the presidential preference vote, to be conducted on the third Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

HB 197 is similar to legislation that Rep. Troy proposed and failed to move during the 2023 legislative session. The aim is to eliminate the presidential year exception to the timing of primaries in the Buckeye state, making the scheduling uniform across all years. 

The measure is identical to legislation introduced on the Senate side earlier in the 2025 session.

Missouri House passes Super Tuesday primary bill

The Missouri House on Monday, April 14 passed HB 126, a measure that would reestablish a state-run presidential primary in the Show-Me state and schedule the election for Super Tuesday. 43 Republicans from the majority, including four of five from leadership, joined all but one Democrat present (42 of 43) in voting in favor of the bill. The majority of Republicans -- 64 in total -- voted against HB 126.

Moving forward there is both a short term prognosis for the legislation but some longer term implications involved. For starters, HB 126 was merged with HB 367 at the committee stage. Together the combined bill not only restored the presidential primary but it also expanded the window for early voting from two to six weeks. That expansion remains in the final bill passed on Monday by the Missouri House. In discussions with the lead sponsor of similar legislation in the state Senate, however, the expanded early voting window will ultimately be scratched, squaring the two visions of the legislation across chambers and, perhaps, easing the path of HB 126 in the upper chamber. Yet, that would likely require a similar coalition of some majority Republicans banding together with all or most of the Senate Democrats. 

Over a longer time horizon, however, there are some additional roadblocks to Missouri becoming a presidential primary state (rather than a caucus and/or party-run primary state) again in 2028. HB 126 does not include any appropriation for the presidential primary election. That was left to future legislatures that may or may not be as open to the election itself and/or the fiscal tag required to implement it. Even if HB 126 passes the state Senate and is subsequently signed into law, there still may not be a presidential primary in Missouri for 2028 and beyond. 

The set up would be similar to that which existed in neighboring Kansas for years. The Sunflower state had a presidential primary on the books for two decades before it was eliminated for 2016. But Kansas legislatures during that period routinely refused to fund the election and had to go through the process of "canceling" it every four years

--

Final vote on HB 126: 85 in favor, 64 opposed, 2 present (one from each party)

--

Related: 

4/1/25: Missouri House tees up final passage on Super Tuesday presidential primary bill

2/26/25: Missouri House presidential primary bills merged, deemed "do pass" in committee

2/14/25: From Missouri, a competing bill to restore the Show-Me state presidential primary

Missouri House tees up final passage on Super Tuesday presidential primary bill

The Missouri House on Monday, March 31 put the final touches on legislation to reinstate a state-run presidential primary in the Show-Me state. HB 126 would set the primary election for the first Tuesday in March -- one week earlier than the primary had been in presidential cycles of the recent past -- and widen the in-person absentee voting window.

The floor amendments added during the "perfection" session on Monday clear the way for a third reading and final passage of the measure in the state House. This is as deep into the legislative process that a bill has moved since a similar effort was defeated on the floor of the House in April 2023. None of the primary reinstatement legislation introduced during the 2024 session moved beyond the committee stage. 

--

Related: 

2/26/25: Missouri House presidential primary bills merged, deemed "do pass" in committee

2/14/25: From Missouri, a competing bill to restore the Show-Me state presidential primary

Republican lawsuit seeks to overturn novel Virginia primary law

Here is one from Markus Schmidt at The Virginia Mercury with a potential impact on the presidential nomination process:

On March 1, members of the district’s GOP committee by a 22-1 margin agreed to file a lawsuit seeking to overturn what has been dubbed Helmer’s law, named after Del. Dan Helmer, D-Fairfax, who sponsored the legislation in 2021. The law effectively forces parties to nominate candidates through state-run primary elections rather than their own party-run contests.

The lawsuit, which Republicans said will be filed by Staunton attorney Jeff Adams, argues that the law — which went into effect in January 2024 — violates both the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions by removing a party’s ability to determine how it selects its own nominees.

Republicans have long expressed concerns that because Virginia does not require voters to register by party, the law allows Democrats to participate in Republican primaries, and vice versa, potentially influencing the outcome.

No, Democrats being able to participate in a Republican primary (or vice versa) in a state without partisan registration is not a new issue, but it is the one that Republicans in the commonwealth are so loudly vocalizing in the context of this law/lawsuit. But there are remedies to that that are not judicial. After all, legislative fixes are available to the Virginia GOP on that front as well. 

Regardless, crossover voting is an easier story to tell than what is likely at the heart of this case. The intent of the law is to provide for the equality of participation in the nomination process for all eligible voters, especially those who may be outside the jurisdiction at the time of the election or those unable to appear in person at a firehouse primary, caucus or convention for a variety of other reasons. The state-funded primary option guarantees that equality but the available party-run alternatives do not. And it is not that those alternatives necessarily cannot guarantee the same equality of participation for all eligible voters, but rather that state and local parties would find it difficult to finance such options.

The 2021 law, then, does not prohibit alternative nomination processes outside of the state-run primary. That is what is novel about it. Instead it places a burden on state and local parties to go that route. That burden is what is driving the lawsuit. That is the origin of the "effectively forc[ing] parties to nominate candidates through state-run primary elections..." argument. Those political units -- state and local parties -- might argue they cannot pony up the requisite resources for any alternative and that, as a result, their first amendment freedom to associate is being threatened. 

This is an interesting one, but the current law's applicability to the presidential nomination process deserves some attention as well. I will dig into that in the coming days over at FHQ Plus.

Missouri House presidential primary bills merged, deemed "do pass" in committee

Two bills -- HB 126 and HB 367 -- pertaining to the reinstatement of the presidential primary in Missouri got an initial green light in the state House Elections Committee on Tuesday, February 25. 

Functionally, the two bills have been merged. The language from Rep. Banderman's HB 367, reestablishing a presidential primary in Missouri, scheduling the contest for Super Tuesday and broadening no-excuse in-person absentee voting was presented as a committee substitute to Rep. Veit's HB 126. Veit will now be the sponsor of the vehicle as it continues to wind through the legislative process. 

In executive session on Tuesday, the House Elections Committee voted "do pass" on the newly merged bills by a 7-4 tally. All Democrats in attendance (3) supported the measure while committee Republicans were evenly split.

The committee's action removes one scheduling option from the table: the one that sought to exactly replicate the parameters around the Missouri presidential primary as it existed prior to being eliminated in 2022. Although the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March option is now gone, there remains a Senate version that would revive the presidential primary in the Show-Me state and place it on the second Tuesday in March. 

West Virginia legislator angles for February presidential primary

West Virginia state House Delegate Michael Hite (R-92nd, Berkeley) has again introduced legislation to create a separate presidential primary election in the Mountain state and schedule the contest for earlier on the primary calendar. HB 2440 would break up the consolidated May primary in West Virginia, creating a separate presidential primary to be conducted on the third Tuesday in February.

The measure is identical to legislation -- HB 5288 -- Hite put forth during the 2024 legislative session. That bill languished in committee and died without action at the conclusion of the session. 

Such a move would put both major parties in the Mountain state at odds with the rules that have existed for presidential nomination processes dating back to the 2012 cycle. A February primary would cost the state parties national convention delegate under DNC and RNC guidelines for being earlier than March.

Iowa House measure would create first-in-the-nation presidential primary option

After Iowa Democrats lost their privileged position atop the presidential primary calendar in 2024, at least one Democrat in the Hawkeye state is pushing back. Rep. David Jacoby (D-86th, Coralville) has introduced HF 484 to establish a state-run presidential primary option alongside the state's long-running first-in-the-nation caucuses. 

On the one hand, Jacoby's legislation would align Iowa with the aims of national Democrats. The DNC has made a point over the last several cycles of encouraging increased participation in the presidential nomination process by nudging state Democratic parties toward primaries (state-run if possible) over state party-run caucuses. This bill successfully navigating the legislative process in Des Moines and being signed into law would shift Iowa Democrats closer to that national party goal. 

However, that one step forward is made in conjunction with another provision that runs counter to the national party rules with respect to the presidential primary calendar. On that front, Jacoby's bill would set the date for the state-run presidential primary for "at least four days earlier than the scheduled date for any meeting, caucus, or primary which constitutes the first determining stage of the presidential nominating process in any other state, territory, or any other group which has the authority to select delegates in the presidential nomination."

Now, no final decisions have been made by the DNC about which states will comprise the early window contests on the 2028 presidential primary calendar. That will not be settled until the late summer/early fall of 2026 at the earliest. Therefore, this bill would not necessarily put Iowa Democrats in the crosshairs of the national party with regard to the timing of this proposed state-run presidential primary. But nor does the potential law provide much statutory leeway either. If HF 484 becomes law and Iowa Democrats do not secure an early slot on the calendar -- and not just early, first -- then the state party would run afoul of national party rules, incurring sanctions. 

Indeed, Iowa would not only run afoul of the DNC rules under those circumstances, but that primary would also trigger the similar state law in New Hampshire (the seven days before any similar contest provision). And that would set off a race to see which state could organize the earliest (unsanctioned) contest the fastest, all under the auspices of state law in both cases. 

Those are all concerns that are layered into this particular bill. But there are issues back home in the Hawkeye state as well. Chief among those issues is that Democrats are locked out of power from the decision-making positions in Iowa. In other words, Jacoby would have to get at least some, if not a lot of buy-in from Republicans who hold the reins of power in both the legislative and executive branches in the state. It is not clear that Iowa Republicans, in or out of the legislature, would go for this bill. After all, the Republican Party of Iowa stuck with the first-in-the-nation caucuses in 2024 -- it was consistent with Republican National Committee calendar rules -- while state Democrats abandoned them for a vote-by-mail party-run presidential primary to stay within their national party's guidelines. 

An all new, state-run primary would also ostensibly require state funds to implement the legislation. There is no fiscal note included in this legislation, but any price tag would likely be met with some resistance from Republican legislators, who may or may not prefer the caucuses to a primary option. However, keeping Iowa first, as this bill does, would potentially win over some support for a primary option. Yet, given the presence of the caucus option already, it would likely be minimal. 

Some Iowa Democrats have been clamoring for a presidential primary option since 2023-24, and while this bill may meet that wish, it faces an uphill climb for a host of reasons.

--

NOTE: Counter to the reporting from KAAL TV in southern Minnesota, this legislation would not "end the [presidential] caucus system" in Iowa. Rather, it would provide for a state-run primary option if a state party chair requested such an election from the state commissioner of elections. The caucuses would remain an option, the default option in fact.

An early update on presidential primary movement in 2025

There are likely much larger fish to fry at the moment, and besides, it remains very early in the 2028 presidential nomination cycle. But actors on the state level in state legislatures across the country are laying the groundwork for the next round of (state-funded) presidential primary elections now. 

But as was the case during the 2024 legislative sessions in state capitols around the nation, much of the work is predominantly of two different varieties. First, legislators in states with recently eliminated presidential primary elections have attempted to bring those elections back. Much of the 2024 activity on that front was in an effort to rescue the elections for 2024. 

As it turned out those efforts were for naught. Legislators in neither Idaho nor Missouri were successful during the early months of the presidential election year in reviving state-funded presidential preference elections. And so far, only a handful of bills in Missouri have been introduced in 2025 to reverse the elimination of the primary in the Show-Me state.

The other grouping of legislation at the state level is a series of bills that have been raised in the past and have gone nowhere. Whether that changes in 2025 is yet to be determined, but if past is prelude, then many of these measures will gather dust in committee before dying at the end of legislative sessions. Count bills in Hawaii, New York, Ohio and Oregon among this group. 

In total, this is about what one should expect of legislation to shift presidential primaries around on the calendar this far in advance of another series of nomination contests. Very simply, the urgency is just not there this far out, nor is the attention with other more pressing matters before legislators at both the national and state levels. And that is reflected in the figure above: The success rate of primary legislation in the year following a presidential election is very low. It is low anyway, regardless of year, but the activity is at its nadir in the year after and typically at its peak during the session in the year immediately prior to a presidential election year. 

--

For more on the 2028 presidential primary calendar see the bare bones up-to-date calendar here and the 2028 presidential primary calendar plus here at FHQ Plus. Last update here.

Alternate Missouri Senate bill would reestablish presidential primary and schedule for April

The fourth of four bills currently before the Missouri General Assembly in its 2025 state legislative session would also bring back the presidential primary nixed in 2022 but schedule the election for yet another -- a fourth -- distinct date on the calendar. 

SB 417, introduced by Senator Jill Carter (R-32nd, Jaspar/Newton), resurrects ideas first brought forth in discussions over similar legislation in 2023. Namely, the objective, then as now, would be to consolidate the presidential preference primary with the general election for municipal offices on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in April. Only, the 2025 version contains a twist. 

The catch to conducting concurrent presidential primaries with a general election for municipal offices is an administrative one. The consolidation would require election administrators to simultaneously print both partisan primary ballots and effectively nonpartisan general election ballots as one across all municipalities (and the offices contained therein) together. It was that issue that played at least some role in derailing the push to reinstate the presidential primary in the Show-Me state before 2024: Administrators balked at the potential complexity introduced into the process. 

However, there is a fix to that snag in Carter's SB 417. The senator would have all presidential candidates regardless of party listed on the ballot for the presidential primary/municipal general election. There would be no Democratic ballot, no Republican ballot, no ballot for those wishing to simply vote in municipal elections. Instead, everything would be on one ballot that all Missouri voters turning out in early April would receive. Results would then be delivered to state party chairs who would in turn allocate delegate slots to candidates identified with the respective parties. 

Left unspecified is how the uncommitted line (or lines) on the ballot would be treated. If there is merely one uncommitted option, then it could serve as a catch-all that is difficult to parse out along partisan lines for the purposes of allocation. That problem could potentially be solved by placing an uncommitted (Democratic) line in addition to an uncommitted (Republican) option on the ballot. But it is not clear in Carter's legislation which is the prescribed protocol. 

So, one leftover administrative issue is addressed, but in so doing, a possible unintended consequence is introduced. 

On the Missouri Senate side, bill would schedule a reinstated presidential primary in March

There are two bills currently in the Missouri state House to reinstate a presidential primary in the Show-Me state, but there is also action on the matter in the upper chamber in Jefferson City. 

In fact, legislation has also been introduced in the Missouri state Senate to bring back the state-funded presidential preference election eliminated by the General Assembly in 2022. One measure, SB 670 introduced by Senator David Gregory (R-15th, St. Louis), is more in line with HB 126 which would basically reset conditions to where they were with respect to the parameters of the presidential primary prior to 2022. That is to say that the primary election would revert to a position on the presidential primary calendar following Super Tuesday. 

But the two are not identical. The House version replicates the pre-2022 language in state law. In it, the primary would fall on the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March. However, Gregory's SB 670 strips out the latter portion and simply schedules the presidential preference election for the second Tuesday in March. In most years, including 2028, there is no difference between the two: the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March is often the second Tuesday in March. 

The exception is when March begins on a Tuesday. When March 1 falls on a Tuesday, then the second Tuesday in March is March 8. But the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March is not until March 15. It is the same reason it appears as if the Missouri presidential primary moved up a week from 2016 to 2020. In the former year, March began on a Tuesday. 

In the grand scheme of things, none of this is all that consequential. Yet, it is meaningful that none of the three Missouri bills discussed in this space thus far in 2025 are aligned on what the date of any reinstated presidential primary would be. And that is part of what derailed the 2023 efforts to revive the presidential primary in the Show-Me state. 

From Missouri, a competing bill to restore the Show-Me state presidential primary

Earlier this week, FHQ raised legislation introduced in Missouri that aims to reestablish the presidential primary formally nixed in 2022. That bill envisions a Super Tuesday primary in early March. But it is not the only measure seeking to reinstate the presidential preference election in the Show-Me state. 

A similar state House bill -- HB 126 -- would also bring back the state-funded presidential primary, but the legislation from Rep. Rudy Veit (R-59th, Wardsville) would schedule the election for the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March. Veit's legislation would turn back the clock, reestablishing the parameters under which the state's presidential primary was conducted before it was eliminated. There would be no Super Tuesday and no expansion of absentee voting as is the case in the competing House bill.

Veit filed similar legislation in late 2022 ahead of the 2023 legislative session in Jefferson City. It and other bills met roadblocks along the way in the legislative process and ultimately amounted to nothing.

New York bill introduced to move February presidential primary to April

Last week new legislation was filed in the New York Assembly to shift the presidential primary in the Empire state from February to April. A 4421 would not only move the presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the fourth Tuesday in April, but would also push the late June congressional primary to August. 

But the bill from Assemblymember Andrew Molitor (R-150th, Westfield) requires some further unpacking.

First, this is not a new idea. Versions of this same legislation were put forth in each of the last two legislative sessions. And in neither case did the bills go anywhere. This is all despite the fact that the New York presidential primary ended up scheduled for sometime in April in each of the last four cycles. [Note: Covid did ultimately push the April 2020 presidential primary to June.]

The past inaction says something about those previous bills: They break (and have broken) with the post-2008 protocol that has been established in the Empire state for dealing with the scheduling of the presidential primary election. No legislation since 2007 has sought to permanently change the date of the election. Instead, when late spring rolls around in the year before the presidential election, the New York state legislature introduces legislation crafted in consultation with the state parties to not only set the date of the presidential primary in the state but to define the terms of delegate allocation and selection to be used by each of the major parties. That legislation then sunsets after the general election, reverting the primary to the date set for the 2008 primary in 2007: the (noncompliant) first Tuesday in February. 

There is no indication that there is any momentum behind this latest effort to change that protocol. While the current method does technically put New York parties in noncompliance with national party rules, that reality at the very least forces legislators to revisit both the timing and method of delegate selection every four years. And theoretically at least that provides them an opportunity to carve out an advantageous position on the calendar (even if the default has been to place the election in April sometime).

--

There is alternate legislation this session to permanently shift the primary to June as well.

Super Tuesday bill would reinstate Missouri presidential primary

Efforts have once again been revived in Missouri to rescue the Show-Me state's presidential primary after it was eliminated during the 2022 General Assembly session. Neither legislation filed in 2023 nor 2024 was successful in reinstating the state-funded option for the 2024 cycle. 

But work has started early in Jefferson City with 2028 in mind. One such bill, HB 367 from Rep. Brad Banderman (R-119th, St. Clair), would not only bring the presidential primary election back as a standalone contest, but would schedule the election for the first Tuesday in March, Super Tuesday. Unlike the other bills put forth, Banderman's legislation would also expand the window for early in-person absentee voting from two to six weeks. 

Under new legislation the Oregon presidential primary would shift up to March

A new bill filed in the Oregon state Senate would move the consolidated primary in the Beaver state, including the presidential primary, from the third Tuesday in May to the first Tuesday in March (Super Tuesday).

SB 392 was introduced last month by Senator Fred Girod (R-9th, Stayton) and would change the primary date to March in presidential years alone. In all other years, the primary would continue to fall on the third Tuesday in May. Similar legislation that has been raised in past cycles has gone nowhere, left to languish in committee.

Legislation introduced in New York would shift presidential primary to noncompliant date

Senator James Skoufis (D-42nd) has introduced a bill in the New York State Senate to consolidate the presidential primary in the Empire state with the primaries for state and local offices. 

S 1687, like the similar bills that have been filed in the three previous legislative sessions in Albany, would combine the presidential preference vote with other primaries on the fourth Tuesday in June. The intent is simple enough: to reduce the burden on both the state and its voters by forgoing the expense of administering a separate presidential primary election. 

But there is a catch. Noble though the goals of this legislation may or may not be, a late June presidential primary would run afoul of both national parties' delegate selection rules. The contest would fall too late in the cycle and would thus incur penalties for any New York state party that did not opt out of the primary and hold a party-funded and run contest on an earlier and compliant date. 

UPDATE (2/12/25): 

A companion bill, identical to the Senate version, has also been filed in the New York Assembly. A 5058, introduced by Assemblymember Jonathan Jacobson (D-104th, Newburgh), would also change the presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the fourth Tuesday in June (from one noncompliant date to another).

Ohio Senate Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to May

Legislation has once again been introduced by Ohio state Senator William DeMora (D-25th, Franklin) to move the presidential year primaries in the Buckeye state to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May. Currently, Ohio statute calls for the consolidated primary, including the presidential preference vote, to be conducted on the third Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

SB 37 is similar to legislation that Sen. DeMora proposed and was unsuccessful in moving during the 2023 legislative session. The aim is to eliminate the presidential year exception to the timing of primaries in the Buckeye state, making the scheduling uniform across all years. 

Hawaii bill seeks to establish state-run presidential primary for 2028

Sen. Karl Rhoads (D-13th, Dowsett Highlands) introduced SB 114 to establish a state-run and funded presidential primary in the Aloha state. The election would be scheduled for the first Tuesday after the first Monday in April. 

That would fall on April 4, 2028 (the same day on which the Connecticut and Wisconsin primaries are currently scheduled).

Uncommitted delegates are not necessarily Listen to Michigan delegates

Leading the day at FHQ...

The Michigan presidential primary is now in the rearview mirror, and while others will move on to the next contests or focus on the perceived threats the results in the Great Lakes state have on both likely nominees, FHQ will do what it does. And namely, that means digging into the delegates. 

For those who are interested in such things, there are a pair of delegate stories out of Michigan -- one on each side -- worth fleshing out some. 

Democrats

The story of the night in Michigan -- well, it seemed like it had already been flagged as the story well in advance of last night -- was how Listen to Michigan's push for Michiganders to vote uncommitted in protest of President Biden's Gaza policy would fare. Lowball estimates from the group and its allies aside, the group did pretty well. And by pretty well, FHQ means that they were probably wildly successful in capturing the attention of media folks and political junkies desperate for something other than "Biden and Trump win again."

Well, Biden and Trump won again and Listen to Michigan certainly grabbed some attention. Some will try to read the tea leaves on what that portends for the general election in a battleground state -- a fool's errand -- but there are other ways of looking at how uncommitted did in the Michigan primary.

Some of this FHQ contextualized yesterday over at FHQ Plus. Uncommitted 2024 did about as well as Uncommitted 2012 would have done had the Michigan Democratic presidential primary actually counted and not been a beauty contest that cycle. And that is to say that Uncommitted 2024 failed to hit 15 percent statewide to qualify for any PLEO or at-large delegates. Despite that, Uncommitted 2024, just like Uncommitted 2012 would have, managed to qualify in a couple of congressional districts. Then, it was the sixth and tenth districts. Last night saw Uncommitted 2024 qualify in the sixth and 12th districts, receiving just north of 17 percent in each. 

And what does that get Uncommitted 2024 in the delegate count? 

Two delegates. 

One delegate in each of those districts. 

[As of this writing, the Michigan secretary of state has all 83 counties reporting, but the tally may not be complete.]

However, just because there are two uncommitted delegates does not mean that those are two Listen to Michigan delegates. Again, they are uncommitted delegate slots. Uncommitted. Any national convention delegate candidate that files as uncommitted in the sixth and 12th districts can run for one of those two slots. It will be the uncommitted delegates to the congressional district conventions in May who will decide who gets those positions. 

Listen to Michigan may organize its supporters in Michigan to run for and win spots to the congressional district conventions -- more on that process here -- but the group does not have a lock on those delegate slots. Nor does it have the ability to vet potential national convention delegates in the same way that an actual candidate and their campaign can. The group will not have that check. 

In other words, Listen to Michigan is vulnerable to a knowledgable and organized delegate operation, one that could run or overrun the uncommitted delegate pool in those congressional districts and take those uncommitted slots for their own. 

Yes, FHQ is suggesting that the Biden campaign could swoop in and win those uncommitted delegate slots in Michigan's sixth and 12th districts.  

But they likely will not. That would likely end up being far more trouble than it is worth. Why stir up an angry hornets' nest any more than it is already riled up over two delegates? There really is no need to. Had uncommitted fared better last night, reaching, say, a third of the vote, then maybe there could have been a more concerted effort to contest the selection of delegate candidates to those allocated slots. But as it is -- at two delegates -- why attempt that particular flex?

Republicans

FHQ is not really sure what the deal with the AP delegate count in Michigan on the Republican side was, but it had been stuck on Trump 9, Haley 2 for the longest time. The Michigan Republican delegate selection plan is weird, but this is not that hard (even with an incomplete tally at this point).

Here is the number one needs to know: 25 percent.

If Nikki Haley slips under 25 percent in the Michigan primary results then she will claim three (3) delegates. As it stands now, she is over that mark and would be allocated four (4) delegates.

Trump will get the rest regardless of whether his total climbs some or falls. Why? 

Well, as of now, Trump is sitting on 68.2 percent of the vote in the Michigan primary. That would qualify him for 11 delegates. If the former president's total rose above 68.75 percent, then he would grab the last delegate, his would-be twelfth. But he would claim that delegate no matter what. Even if Trump stayed right where he is -- under 68.75 percent -- he would still win the last delegate. It would be unallocated based on the results, but all unallocated delegates go to the winner of the primary. 

--

FHQ has started rolling out the state-by-state series on Democratic delegate allocation rules over at FHQ Plus. So far there have been looks at rules in...

• Colorado 
• Maine
• Massachusetts
• North Carolina
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Vermont
• Virginia

What's the difference between Democratic and Republican delegate selection rules? FHQ Plus has it covered.

Looking for more on delegates and delegate allocation? Continue here at the central hub for Republican delegate allocation rules on the state level at FHQ. That includes the latest from...

• Alabama

--

Recent posts:

Trump and Titanic Tuesday 2008

Haley's Path Forward ...and more in response to New Hampshire

2024 has been a weird cycle in New Hampshire ...and more

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and now find us on Threads (@fhq.plus) and Bluesky (fhq@bsky.social).

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Haley's Path Forward ...and more in response to New Hampshire

Nikki Haley's path to the the 2024 Republican presidential nomination may have more obstacles.

Leading the day at FHQ...

Nikki Haley is marching on. 

...for now. 

A day after an expectations-beating performance in New Hampshire, the former South Carolina governor faces a daunting task ahead in her one-on-one duel with Donald Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. Mired in the teens in the Granite state as recently as the holiday season, Haley rose as other candidates fell by the wayside. That cleared a path to a head-to-head with Trump, but the results in the New Hampshire primary did little to grease the skids for the former UN ambassador to rise much further. 

In fact, New Hampshire was a good state for Haley on paper: more college educated and fewer evangelical voters (than in Iowa), independents could participate, etc. And she still came up short. Still, the final polls made things looked bleaker than they turned out to be and that is not nothing. But exactly how much that something is worth remains to be seen. 

It buys Haley some time, but not much. And it is tough to chart out a viable path forward to the nomination, much less South Carolina on February 24. Viable path. There is a path, but it entails stringing together what little Haley's campaign can muster in the meantime. She is the headliner on the Trump-less primary ballot in Nevada. Yes, it is a beauty contest primary, and while a win promises no delegates, it may carry the distinction of garnering her more votes than Trump will receive in the Silver state caucuses two days later. Again, that is not nothing, but how much that particular something is worth is hard to gauge. A vote-rich "win" in the Nevada primary coupled with a win the caucuses in the Virgin Islands on February 8 probably does not hurt. 

But what does that buy Haley in two weeks' time? 

Maybe it grants her a bit more time, but it grants her time to consider that she is even further behind in the delegate count and that her home of South Carolina still does not offer much relief. Perhaps the polls in the Palmetto state will have moved by then. Maybe Nevada, the Virgin Islands and/or the campaign will spur such a change. But if the polls do not move, then, as FHQ noted yesterday, the cacophony of winnowing pressures from Republicans in the broader party network are only going to grow louder and the prospect of not just a loss at home, but a big loss, will loom large. 

Again, there is a path forward for Nikki Haley. Only, it is not a particularly good path. And it certainly gets her no closer to the nomination. 

But hey, if she can manage to bankroll it, then why not play it out, grab what delegates she can, cross her fingers that Trump's legal troubles catch up with him and head into the convention in good standing? Yeah, that is a path, too. In theory. It just is not a sustainable path. Whatever incentives the former president's courtroom drama provide to stay in the race, the winnowing pressures will more than offset. And that would affect any "good" standing she may have as the candidate with the second most delegates at the convention.

The convention is way off. Haley's concerns are more immediate. And her path? Filled with obstacles.

--

All the New Hampshire results are not in, but it looks like the delegate count out of the Granite state is going to end at...

Trump -- 12 delegates 

Haley -- 10

But currently Haley is clinging to her tenth delegate. If she drops below 43.2 percent, then she will fall below the rounding threshold and that tenth delegate will become unallocated. Trump is not in a position to round up unless he approaches 57 percent of the vote. However, he would claim that unallocated delegate formerly in Haley's column because all unallocated delegates go to the winner of the primary. That would push Trump's total to 13 delegates in the state. 

UPDATE:

More on that last delegate and why it went to Trump at FHQ Plus.

--

Recent posts:

2024 has been a weird cycle in New Hampshire ...and more

How many delegates do New Hampshire Democrats have anyway?

Trump's firewall isn't the delegate rules, it's his support ...and more in response to Iowa

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and now find us on Threads (@fhq.plus) and Bluesky (fhq@bsky.social).

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.