Frontloading HQ: presidential primaries

Showing posts with label presidential primaries. Show all posts

Friday, July 10, 2026

"Would You Let New Mexico Pick the President?"

Jesús Rodríguez at The New Yorker on the Democrats' efforts to settle on a lead-off state for 2028:

"Democrats are deciding what kind of party they want to be, but first they have to decide who gets to decide. Since January, twelve states have been trying to court the Rules and Bylaws Committee, insisting that their primary is the one that will determine a Democratic Presidential candidate who can beat the Republican heir to the maga movement. This has turned the discussion, at least in part, into a competition over which state is most like the rest of the nation, as several officials and party chairs told me. 'Nevada is a microcosm of the United States, with its diverse population,' the Nevada senator Catherine Cortez Masto said. 'I think you get a microcosm of the Democratic Party here,' Representative Sarah McBride, one of Delaware’s biggest boosters since the Bidens, said of the literal First State. 'We are a state, I think, that is the melting pot for the country,' Anderson Clayton, the chair of the North Carolina Democratic Party, said. 'We look like America,' Curtis Hertel, the chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, said. 'It’s a country of fifty states, but Georgia is the best representation of the diversity of our party,' Charlie Bailey, who chairs the Georgia Democrats, said.

"But the contest over the first-in-the-nation primaries has also become a proxy war over the future of the Party. The D.N.C.’s decision, expected by late summer, could have a significant effect on the 2028 cycle—from the crop of campaign staffers who can afford to relocate, to the ability of small campaigns to break through in large media markets. Although Iowa and New Hampshire haven’t always picked candidates that go on to win the Presidency, the early victors get to fly out of Des Moines and Manchester with an extremely valuable spoil: momentum, the type that an inert political party might need against a major popular movement. 'The issue here is about the stakes in this election, in 2028,' the New Hampshire senator Maggie Hassan, who won her seat in 2016 by a thousand and seventeen votes, told me. 'We have to win. We have to reverse Trumpism.'"

Noteworthy: This is a really nice, well-reported piece. But... [You knew there was going to be a but.]

But it is typically gauzy media account in how it approaches this "battle" within the Democratic Party. Rodríguez goes heavy on diversity and representation, which are important! Each are among the many factors the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is using to home in on the four or five states that will ultimately fill out the party's early window on the 2028 presidential primary calendar.

However, what's missing from the piece is arguably the most important component to the RBC's decision: Can the state/state party actually get the contest in question into the early window? And if one is going to report that a calendar decision is "expected by late summer," then not mentioning feasibility of primary/caucus movement -- even once! -- stands as a pretty glaring omission.

Why?

Well, if the end of summer is the point at which a decision on the calendar is to be made, then it really constrains the choice that is being made. It would limit the decision to states with contests already in the window or those that can easily get there. And not all 12 of the state parties that threw their hat in the ring for one of those early spots can get there.

Not without the certainty that the midterms will likely bring.

Control of state government come January 2027 will not be assured until then. And which party controls the levers of power will determine whether those states can or will be motivated to move a contest into February ahead of 2028. State governments hold that power in 10 of the 12 states vying for early slots in 2028. Iowa and South Carolina are the only exceptions.

These things matter. They may not be wholly determinative of the outcome, but they have an outsized role in how this is all going to shake out at some point later this year.

And don't get FHQ started on this "two-hundred-and-seventy-thousand dollar fine" that the DNC will slap "on any state that staged an unauthorized competition." There is much more to it than that.

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Now we know which states they are looking at

Some thoughts on the 2028 Democratic primary calendar process now that the deadline for state parties to apply with the DNC has come and gone

At FHQ Plus: The die appears cast for ranked choice voting in the 2028 presidential nomination races

Over at FHQ Plus...

Ranked choice voting?

Again? Come on, FHQ. Didn’t you already write — at length — about Democrats and RCV not all that long ago?

I did.

However, while the national party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) voted in late May to restrict the use of RCV in the delegate allocation portion of the presidential nomination process, the panel left open the door for reconsideration of the decision before the 2028 rules are finalized. And the RBC revisited the changes to Rule 14.A at their most recent meeting in Pittsburgh at the end of June.

So think of this update as the next chapter (if not coda for the 2028 cycle) to the story.

What exactly happened in Pittsburgh, how does it affect the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination process and how does this compare to what Republicans are doing with regard to RCV for 2028? FHQ dives into those questions over at FHQ Plus.

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

The Democrats and ranked choice voting in the 2028 presidential nomination process

Coming off a Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting primarily devoted to the primary calendar, the headline maybe instead should be about RCV.

Subscribe below and consider becoming a paid subscriber for access to the remainder of the post.

Wednesday, July 1, 2026

At FHQ Plus: Democrats devise their own super penalty for primary calendar violations

Over at FHQ Plus...

June 25, 2026.

Yes, it is a date like any other, but in FHQ’s estimation, it is a date worth marking on your, ahem, calendar. No, it was not the date of some presidential primary, the sort of calendar marking we do around here. Instead, it was the date of another in a long line of DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) meetings. However, depending on how the party finalizes its decisions on waivers for states to conduct early window (pre-March) primaries or caucuses in 2028, it is a meeting and a date that stand to be referenced often in 2027, 2028 and, perhaps, even beyond.

And that is because this was a meeting where the RBC once again took up and considered the punishments for 1) state parties that violate the timing rules laid out in Rule 12 and 2) the candidates who campaign in those states that have held primaries or caucuses too early. Yes, the RBC does this every cycle and even made incremental changes to the severity of the punishments described in Rule 21 for the 2024 cycle. But the panel did not rest on its laurels, merely carrying over the 2024 language for use in 2028. And it probably is not accurate to say the changes adopted by the RBC for 2028 were incremental because the degree to which the sanctions were increased in this case was fairly substantial.

How substantial? Over at FHQ Plus, I will delve into the amendments made to the Rule 21 penalties and size up just how the changes might impact how easily (or not) the early calendar comes together for Democrats for 2028.

Subscribe below and consider becoming a paid subscriber for access to the remainder of the post.

Monday, June 29, 2026

Nevada's first in the nation bid earns major endorsements from national Latino, AAPI groups

Nevada Democratic Party press release:

Following last week’s Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting in Pittsburgh, Nevada’s bid to host the first in the nation presidential primary scored two major endorsements from leading national Democratic organizations representing prominent Latino and AAPI voices, CHC BOLD PAC and ASPIRE PAC. The organizations highlighted Nevada’s unparalleled diversity and emphasized that it is the one state in the early window where presidential campaigns can craft and pressure-test an economic message that resonates across the country, begin the work necessary to build support among working-class voters, and mobilize diverse communities who are critical to our success.

CHC BOLD PAC called on the DNC to elevate Latino voters by making Nevada the first presidential primary so candidates can prove they can win back working-class and Latino voters who voted for Trump in 2024 – many of whom are now regretting their vote. BOLD PAC pointed to Nevada’s nearly one million Latino residents, its status as a battleground state, and its proven track record of electing Democrats through strong Latino engagement, arguing that no state better reflects the diverse working-class Latino coalition Democrats need to win in 2028.

“If Democrats want to flip the White House in 2028 and continue winning up and down the ballot, we must prioritize Latino voices through early outreach and meaningful engagement in the presidential nominating process. No state better represents the broad coalition of diverse working-class voters that our party must build in order to be successful than Nevada.” – CHC BOLD PAC Chairwoman Linda Sánchez

ASPIRE PAC also endorsed Nevada’s bid, citing the state’s nation-leading AAPI population among early-state contenders and the growing political power of AAPI voters nationwide. Nevada being the First in the Nation primary would ensure presidential campaigns engage AAPI communities early and meaningfully, strengthening the Democratic Party’s relationship with one of the country’s fastest-growing electorates.

“The diversity of Nevada’s voters best represents the broad coalition that a viable 2028 Democratic presidential candidate must have to take back the White House. Candidates who can win the primary in a battleground state with significant Asian, Black, and Latino primary voters will have a solid path to the Democratic nomination and can defeat a Republican in the general election.” – ASPIRE PAC Chair Marilyn Strickland

These endorsements come after other prominent organizations including Latino Victory Fund, Somos Votantes, UNITE Here and AAPI Victory backed Nevada’s first in the nation campaign earlier this year, demonstrating the growing support as national organizations recognize that the Democratic presidential nominating process should begin in the battleground state that best reflects the country and the voters who will decide the next presidential election.

Noteworthy: Nevada's endorsement from this pair of groups comes on the heels of South Carolina previously being endorsed by Democratic state party chairs across the Deep South and tapping Joe Biden to help make a 2028 push for first-in-the-nation status.

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

The Annotated 2028 Presidential Primary Calendar

Tracking the evolution of the timeline of delegate selection events that will determine the next presidential nominees

Wednesday, June 24, 2026

At FHQ Plus: What would happen if Democrats raised the 15% qualifying threshold for delegates to 20%?

Over at FHQ Plus...

The Democratic Party has not always had a threshold candidates have had to surpass in order to qualify for delegates in its post-reform presidential nomination process, but it has operated under a flat 15 percent threshold since the rule was clarified for the 1992 cycle. That is nine cycles — six of them competitive — in which the 15 percent threshold has been utilized in the Democratic process. And it looks like that will extend to a tenth cycle in 2028.

Although, at a recent Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) meeting in Washington, DC there were some questions raised about where the qualifying threshold has been set. And that is something that stood in fairly stark contrast to the rules-crafting sessions the panel has undertaken during cycles of the recent past. No, nothing changed for 2028, but the idea of either raising or lowering the threshold was broached (in what turned out to be an aside) in the nation’s capital at the end of May.

Now, the May meeting was ostensibly for the RBC to hear pitches from the 12 state parties vying for spots in the early window of the party’s 2028 presidential primary calendar. But a third day — well, half a day really — was devoted to continuing the process of going line by line through the DNC delegate selection guidelines, making any amendments along the way to the rules that will govern the party’s 2028 nomination process. The threshold discussion that followed came when the panel got to Rule 14.B. Here is how that rule read going into the May meeting (before any amendments):

States shall allocate district-level delegates and alternates in proportion to the percentage of the primary or caucus vote won in that district by each preference, except that preferences falling below a fifteen percent (15%) threshold shall not be awarded any delegates. Subject to section F. of this rule, no state shall have a threshold above or below fifteen percent (15%).

It was there that DNC member Wendy Davis (Georgia) interjected to inquire about possibly lowering the 15 percent threshold in view of the fact that the party is likely to see another logjam of candidates similar to the 2020 cycle. [The following is a transcript of the discussion lightly edited for clarity.]

Davis: So this is to my recollection the first instance we’ve talked about the 15 percent threshold. Would this be the place for us to discuss whether we wanted to maintain a 15 percent rule or potentially lower the threshold since there going to be so many candidates? It seems pretty high to me when we’re gonna…the early states will have [so many candidates].

After RBC co-Chair Minyon Moore responded, she yielded the floor to longtime DNC member Elaine Kamarck (Virginia) to provide some context on the history of the 15 percent rule and to subsequently make a case for potentially raising the threshold to 20 percent. [Again, and for transparency, this has been edited slightly for clarity.]

Kamarck: I can talk a little bit about that. I mean we’ve had thresholds as high as 25 percent at some point. There was a lot of support for [a] 20 percent threshold which I personally would favor: a slightly higher threshold. Here’s the problem I see with the 15 percent threshold. I want to go right to the content of this. There are many delegate districts that have only three delegates, okay? Or four delegates. That’s because there’s a lot of congressional districts that are Republican districts and they just don’t have enough of a Democratic vote to get a lot of delegates. And in those districts, nobody with 16 percent ever gets a delegate.
So we have this idea that somehow if you get 15 percent, you’re going to get a delegate. It just doesn’t happen, you know? It just doesn’t happen mathematically unless you’re maybe in the handful of districts that get nine delegates. And those are almost all majority minority districts, which, thank you Republican Party, they’ve now busted up. So the illusion of 15 percent is just an illusion. It just never happens. So, I think it is much more realistic to move it to, say, a 20 percent threshold, particularly when we’re looking at races that there’s going to be just a ton of candidates.
So I like this. It has always been argued that this [the 15 percent threshold] would be greater inclusion, right? And that was the rationale for 15%. The problem is that nobody ever gets included under a 15 percent in a multi-candidate race anyway.
Davis: Not even at the at-large level?
Kamarck: No, it doesn’t even work out at the at-large [level]. But at the district level, it really doesn’t work out. So, I would love to have, I would love to see a 20 percent threshold. I think of all the years when we should do it, this is the time. So, I thank you for bringing it up.

Now, FHQ’s initial reaction to Kamarck’s case was that it sounded right. Honestly, I do not often make a habit of contradicting her in this area.3 And my recollection was (and is) that a five percent shift up to 20 percent probably would not make much of a difference anyway. Yes, there is the math of it that Kamarck notes (more on that below), but also the reality is that, beyond a contest or two into the sequence of primaries and caucuses, there just are not that many candidates who clear the 15 percent threshold to claim many delegates.

After all, the winnowing starts well before delegate counting really kicks in. Wins and losses (outright or relative to expectations) are sufficient to separate the wheat from the chaff early on during the momentum phase of the calendar before delegates become the currency of the process. Yet, delegate counting does not begin in earnest until a little deeper into the calendar when more delegates than are typically available in the early window of the calendar are on the line, during any later delegate phase of the process.

But Kamarck’s notion of the limited impact of a change to a 20 percent threshold is a testable hypothesis. So let’s test it.

Over at FHQ Plus, I will briefly look back at the history of the qualifying threshold in the Democratic presidential nomination process, discuss the purpose of such a mechanism and examine the evidence of what a shift to a 20 percent threshold would have looked like during the Democratic nomination races of the 21st century.

Subscribe below and consider becoming a paid subscriber to get the rest.

Friday, June 19, 2026

Gov. McKee's signature moves Rhode Island presidential primary to Super Tuesday

On Thursday, June 18, Governor Dan McKee (D) signed H 7090 and S 2491 into law. The identical measures move the presidential primary in Rhode Island from the fourth Tuesday in April up to the first Tuesday in March, Super Tuesday.

Noteworthy: The Rhode Island primary joins state-run primaries in 13 other states that are currently scheduled for Super Tuesday in 2028. The Ocean state returns to Super Tuesday for the first time since 2004.

Rhode Island also becomes the first state to officially move one way or the other on the primary calendar during the 2028 cycle.

Related:

2/9/26: Rhode Island legislation eyeing Super Tuesday presidential primary

2/18/26: Senate companion bill would also see Rhode Island presidential primary shifted to Super Tuesday

4/7/26: "Rhode Island primary election day could change in 2026 and 2028. Here's why."

4/30/26: Rhode Island House passes Super Tuesday presidential primary bill

6/4/26: Rhode Island Senate committee advances Super Tuesday presidential primary bill

6/4/26: Super Tuesday presidential primary bill unanimously passes Rhode Island Senate

6/11/26: Rhode Island Senate committee tees up concurrence vote on Super Tuesday presidential primary bill

6/12/26: On to the governor: Super Tuesday primary bills clear final legislative hurdles in Rhode Island

This action will be added to the annotated 2028 presidential primary calendar over at our sister site, FHQ Plus.

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

The Annotated 2028 Presidential Primary Calendar

Tracking the evolution of the timeline of delegate selection events that will determine the next presidential nominees

Wednesday, June 17, 2026

Idaho Republicans to consider resolution to get the Gem state out of the primary business altogether

Post-convention Update (6/22/26): Neither of the resolutions below were adopted by the convention.

The Idaho Republican Party will gather for its 2026 state convention this weekend and among its business is consideration of a pair of resolutions that, taken together, would attempt to push the state entirely out of using state-run primary elections for party nominations.

And what is driving the effort to shift to nominations by caucuses? The "whereas" section of Resolution 19 spells it out...

WHEREAS: The goal of the Idaho Republican party is to select candidates who best represent the Idaho Republican Platform and who will vote to maintain a conservative Idaho way of life.

WHEREAS: Republican candidates, elected to office, have failed to vote to uphold the Idaho Constitution, the Republican Platform, and conservative values they espoused when campaigning.

WHEREAS: The ability to select the candidates who best represent Republican Party Values in primary elections has been jeopardized by candidates misrepresenting themselves as Republicans to be competitive.

WHEREAS: The Idaho closed Republican primary has been irrevocably compromised by non-Republican voters’ ability to register as Republicans for the primary election and the state has no way of stopping this practice.

WHEREAS: The state has no remedy for closed primary crossover voting

WHEREAS: Unaffiliated and newly registered voters can choose to vote in the Republican primary on election day

WHEREAS: Caucusing diminishes the ability for non-Republicans to infiltrate the Republican Party vote for representation.

WHEREAS: Caucusing allows more engaged discussion, debate, and informed voter participation to discern the candidates most representative of the Idaho Republican Platform, conservative values, and the Idaho Constitution.

There is a certain circularity to it all. Basically, non-Republicans have "infiltrated" the partially closed primary system in Idaho. Only, it has not been partially closed. The Republican primary has been closed, full stop, since the 2012 cycle, something current IDP Chair Dorothy Moon raised in a recent op-ed. Under Idaho state law, the state parties can choose whether unaffiliated voters and/or those affiliated with other parties can participate in their primaries. And the Idaho Republican Party has always confined participation to registered Republicans.

But voters are free to register and affiliate with a party of their choosing whether they are truly Republicans (or Democrats, etc.) or not. And that is where the infiltration has occurred. Non-Republicans, however defined, have registered as Republicans and elected Republicans who have not "best represent[ed] the Idaho Republican Platform."

"The state has no remedy for closed primary crossover voting." But what is not clear is whether the Idaho Republican Party has such a remedy. Sure, a party-run caucus is going to have a lower rate of participation than a state-run primary. However, that is only a partial remedy. It does not fully eliminate the potential for "infiltration."

Why?

For an answer, look to the 2024 Idaho Republican presidential caucuses. They, too, were a closed affair with no on-site registration. What did the Idaho Republican Party use to determine affiliation with the party for the purposes of participating in the 2024 caucus?

State voter rolls.

The same remediless option the state uses for the primary. The only difference was that the Idaho Republican Party required voters to have registered/affiliated with the party by January 1, 2024 (ahead of the March 2 caucuses). That tamps down on any last-minute registrations, but not those fully committed to voting Republican in a given cycle.

Noteworthy: Mind you, all of this is based on a couple of non-binding resolution proposals the Idaho Republican Party is considering this weekend in Meridian. The delegates to the convention may reject either or both. But even if the convention votes in favor of one or both of Resolutions 18 and/or 19, there is nothing there to compel the (Republican-controlled) legislature in Boise to make the necessary changes to state law to change the nomination process.

And while none of this directly affects the presidential nomination process in the Gem state for Republicans, the outcome will likely color any discussions around any resumed efforts to resurrect the state-run presidential primary. Prior attempts have already failed in both 2024 and 2026.

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

The Annotated 2028 Presidential Primary Calendar

Tracking the evolution of the timeline of delegate selection events that will determine the next presidential nominees

New legislation proposes slight shift in New Jersey primary timing

Late last week, New Jersey state Sen. Brian Stack (D-33rd, Union City) introduced legislation -- S 4445 -- to push back the primary in the Garden state by a week.

The impetus for the bill's introduction is the conflict between the early voting period for the state's June consolidated primary and the Memorial Day holiday. Stack's reasoning, according to the New Jersey Globe, was simple enough...

"This year, the June 2 primary triggered in-person early voting to begin on the day after Memorial Day. Stack wants some daylight between the holiday weekend and the start of the six-day early voting period.

“'The whole purpose of six days of early voting in the primary is to increase voter turnout,' Stack said. 'Starting right after Memorial Day really crimps the turnout. It defeats the purpose.'

"Some election officials noted that being closed on the day before the first day of early voting creates obstacles to early voting, including confirming board workers and delivering machines."

The fix in S 4445?

Shift the primary back a week from the Tuesday after the first Monday in June to the Tuesday after the second Monday in June. That would push the beginning of the early voting period (and preparation for it) out of conflict with Memorial Day in late May.

Noteworthy: Now, this is not an example of frontloading. Quite the contrary, actually. If this bill is enacted, then New Jersey would be backloading the consolidated primary (including the presidential primary) about as far as it could be without penalty under national party rules.

...under most circumstances.

Let's consider 2028. Under the provisions of this measure, the New Jersey primary would fall on June 13, the Tuesday after the second Monday in June.

The last date on which a primary or caucus can be held under Democratic National Committee delegate selection rules is the second Tuesday in June. That would be June 13 in 2028, the last possible date on the Democratic presidential primary calendar.

On the Republican side, things are a touch more complicated because Republican National Committee rules provide two (conditional) last dates for the primary calendar. The last date on which primaries and caucuses can be conducted under Republican rules is either the second Saturday in June or less than 45 days before the start of the national convention. June 13, 2028 would be fine for New Jersey Republicans under the former. The second Saturday in June is June 17 in 2028. And while the date of the 2028 Republican National Convention is unknown at this time, following established norms where the party in the White House holds the later of the two major party conventions, a June 13 date would likely be outside of the 45 day window established by the RNC rules.

So June 13 looks okay for New Jersey in 2028.

But fast forward four years to 2032 when June begins on a Tuesday. That puts the Tuesday after the second Monday of June on June 15, a date after both the second Tuesday in June (June 8) described in DNC rules and the second Saturday in June (June 12) from the RNC guidelines. It would mean at least a 50 percent reduction to the Democratic delegation from the Garden state and the super penalty for New Jersey's Republican delegation (reduction to 12 total delegates).

Of course, Sen. Stack, again according to the Globe, has anticipated that possible conflict. "But Stack also acknowledged that New Jersey’s hands might be tied in presidential elections since national party rules require delegates to be selected by a certain date. He said he has no intention of diminishing the state’s role in the presidential nomination process and is willing to amend his bill to exempt presidential primaries if necessary."

But what that exemption would look like for a presidential primary is unknown. Would it still be held on the current date -- the Tuesday after the first Monday in June -- and in conflict with Memorial Day? Presumably not.

There are two alternatives.

The first is less an exemption for the presidential primary than a breaking up of the consolidated primary to hold a separate presidential primary on a date compliant with both parties' rules and everything else on the Tuesday after the second Tuesday in June as called for in this bill. That would "free up" the legislature in Trenton to move the separate presidential primary to some earlier -- or much earlier -- date on the calendar. Granted, "freeing up" also means the state funding the new and separate presidential primary election (which may or may not prove problematic).

The second option is to create a presidential year -- and not presidential primary -- exemption. In other words, in all years but those divisible by four, the New Jersey primary would fall on the Tuesday after the second Monday in June as called for in Stack's legislation. However, in presidential election years, the date of the consolidated primary would be both earlier and compliant with national party rules.

Or, you know, Sen. Stack could avoid all of these complications and propose shifting the New Jersey consolidated primary in the other direction: into late May (rather than mid-June). Holding a primary and any attendant early voting period slightly before Memorial Day is a means to the same end as well.

This bill will be added to the annotated 2028 presidential primary calendar over at our sister site, FHQ Plus.

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

The Annotated 2028 Presidential Primary Calendar

Tracking the evolution of the timeline of delegate selection events that will determine the next presidential nominees

Friday, June 12, 2026

On to the governor: Super Tuesday primary bills clear final legislative hurdles in Rhode Island

Presidential primary legislation was caught up in the hustle and bustle of the final day of the 2026 session of the Rhode Island General Assembly on Thursday, June 11. Both the state House and Senate concurred with the versions of legislation passed in the opposite chamber to move the presidential primary in the Ocean state to Super Tuesday.

H 7090 was unanimously concurred with (38-0) as a part of a multi-bill consent calendar package as the first order of business before the Senate in the afternoon session. And the story was identical on the other side of the capitol in the House. S 2491, the Senate-passed version, was concurred with in the lower chamber in similar fashion by a vote of 63-0.

Both measures now head to Governor Dan McKee (D) for his consideration.

Noteworthy: Rhode Island now moves a step closer to shifting its presidential primary from the end of April to the earliest Tuesday on the primary calendar that complies with national party rules. The primary in the Ocean state would join contests in at least 14 other states on Super Tuesday. [Puerto Rico Democrats have already stated their intention to schedule their primary for the first Tuesday in March as well.]

Related:

2/9/26: Rhode Island legislation eyeing Super Tuesday presidential primary

2/18/26: Senate companion bill would also see Rhode Island presidential primary shifted to Super Tuesday

4/7/26: "Rhode Island primary election day could change in 2026 and 2028. Here's why."

4/30/26: Rhode Island House passes Super Tuesday presidential primary bill

6/4/26: Rhode Island Senate committee advances Super Tuesday presidential primary bill

6/4/26: Super Tuesday presidential primary bill unanimously passes Rhode Island Senate

6/11/26: Rhode Island Senate committee tees up concurrence vote on Super Tuesday presidential primary bill

6/19/26: Gov. McKee's signature moves Rhode Island presidential primary to Super Tuesday

This action will be added to the annotated 2028 presidential primary calendar over at our sister site, FHQ Plus.

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

The Annotated 2028 Presidential Primary Calendar

Tracking the evolution of the timeline of delegate selection events that will determine the next presidential nominees

Thursday, June 11, 2026

Rhode Island Senate committee tees up concurrence vote on Super Tuesday presidential primary bill

The Rhode Island Senate Judiciary Committee quickly took up and, without debate, signed off on H 7090 on Tuesday, June 9. That House-passed measure aims to move the presidential primary in the Ocean state from the fourth Tuesday in April up to the first Tuesday in March, Super Tuesday. The panel recommended that the upper chamber concur with the House on the legislation.

The bill now heads to the Senate floor where it is up for consideration on the consent calendar for Thursday, June 11.

Noteworthy: After a quiet 2026 in terms of primary calendar movement ahead of 2028, Rhode Island has inched up to the precipice of becoming the first state to move (via legislative action) this year.

The move, if it comes to fruition, would schedule the Rhode Island presidential primary back on the first Tuesday in March for the first time since 2008 and back on Super Tuesday for the first time since 2004.

The Senate version of the legislation passed the upper chamber last week.