"We're still going to be early," said Sen. Jill Holtzman Vogel (R-Winchester), who sponsored the bill. She is a lawyer who specializes in election issues and helped advise the RNC as it considered the new rules.
The Virginia House of Delegates adopted a bill setting the date on a bipartisan 97 to 1 vote on Tuesday. The bill has already passed the Senate and will now go to the governor. Vogel said it was written with Gov. Bob McDonnell's input, and she expects he will sign the measure into law.
"Democrats, Republicans and the governor joined hands to make sure we were together on this important issue," she said.
Vogel said that Virginia is dealing with the scheduling issue earlier than other states but that it is likely that a number of states will choose March 6 for their primaries, in an attempt to hold their elections as early as possible under the new party rules. She said the date could emerge as the nation's "new Super Tuesday."
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Virginia Senate Bill to Move Presidential Primary to March Passes House
Following a third reading of the Senate bill that would move Virginia's 2012 presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March, the commonwealth's House of Delegates passed SB 1246 (97Y, 1N) today. There is an analogous House bill (HB 1834) still in Senate committee, but even with that bill out there, this would presumably clear the way for the Senate bill -- having now been passed by both chambers and assuming no amendments were added in House -- to move on to Governor Bob McDonnell's desk. And given the level of bipartisan support, the governor's signature should prove a formality.
If that is the case, Virginia would become the first state to move its presidential nominating contest during the 2011 state legislative sessions. Arkansas shifted back in 2009 and Illinois did likewise last year. Hawaii Republicans opted for a February 2012 caucus in 2009 -- up from May -- and Montana Republicans abandoned their February caucus for the June state-funded primary in 2010.
UPDATE: Here's the rundown of the situation from The Washington Post's Rosalind Helderman. Most instructive:
The governor's signature seems like a formality given that he has already provided some input on the matter. As for March 6 being the "new Super Tuesday", we'll see. Several states are moving in that direction with legislation, but ten states have remained silent thus far -- two because their legislative sessions have not convened yet.
Recent Posts:
Missouri House Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary to March
Republicans in the Missouri House yesterday introduced a bill (HB 503) to move the Show Me state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. Missouri now becomes the sixth state scheduled to have a February or earlier contest to introduce legislation to shift its presidential primary back to the national parties' newly designated first Tuesday in March starting line.
The bill was introduced by House Elections Committee chair, Tony Dugger, and was co-sponsored by 14 other Republican representatives. Among that 14 were five of the six other Republican members of the Elections Committee; the committee to which the bill will most likely be referred. With a nearly two to one Republican to Democrat ratio in the House, this is a bill that will likely not require any bipartisan support until it gets to Governor Jay Nixon's desk -- assuming it passes both Republican-controlled Houses first. Of course, as the only Democratic check within the state government -- in terms of presidential primary timing -- Nixon would be compelled by Rule 20.C.7 of the 2012 Democratic Delegate Selection Rules to sign legislation bringing the state's nominating contest back into compliance with those rules. Not doing so could open the Democratic Party in the state to additional penalties from the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. That scenario, however, is unlikely.
One other additional note about this bill concerns its language. The terminology is slightly different from the language witnessed in other similar legislation in other states, but the meaning is essentially the same. By inserting "after the first Monday" into this segment of the election law, Missouri legislators are setting up a situation where they could fall a week after the earliest allowed date (should it continue to be the first Tuesday in March) when and if the first Tuesday in March falls on March 1. While states like Oklahoma, Virginia and Tennessee would continue to hold contests on the first Tuesday of March, Missouri would have to wait until the first Monday has passed in order to hold their presidential primary. Again, this would not occur all that often.
Recent Posts:
Monday, February 14, 2011
2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (Feb. 7-13)
Last week once again brought no actual movement on the 2012 presidential primary calendar, but there was a significant amount of action in that direction within state legislatures.
- Pass it on: The Virginia House followed the Senate's lead in passing a measure (HB 1834) to move the commonwealth's primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March last Tuesday. The House of Delegates in Virginia remained active last week, voting with little dissension (21Y, 1N) in the Committee on Privileges and Elections to send the Senate companion to the floor for a vote.
- Bottled up: Bills currently in committee in California and Washington (and this one) had future public hearings scheduled last week The California bill would move the presidential primary back to June to coincide with the primaries for state and local offices while one Washington bill would eliminate the presidential primary altogether while the other would allow for a presidential primary only if both parties use that as their method of delegate allocation. All four bills in Oklahoma dealing with the 2012 presidential primaries received a first reading, had amends added and were all referred to committee as well.
- Introducing...: There were also several bills either introduced or pre-filed last week to move back several states primaries. Florida would move to March under two Democratic bills, Maryland would move to either March or April, DC would move to June and hold all its primaries concurrently (Technically, that happened the week before last.), Tennessee would join a host of states on March 6 and New Jersey would follow the California plan to eliminate the separate presidential primary moving it back to June with everything else.
- As has been mentioned in this space several times, there are currently 18 states with presidential primaries scheduled for February 2012. That would put those 18 states in violation of both parties' delegate selection rules for 2012.
- Of those 18 primary states, 15 of them (California, Connecticut, Missouri, New York, Arizona, Georgia, Delaware, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia) have convened their 2011 state legislative sessions.
- Of those 15 states, 6 (California, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Maryland, Tennessee and Virginia) have bills that have been introduced and are active within the state legislature to move their contests' dates back. Both California and New Jersey have bills that would eliminate an early and separate presidential primaries and position those events with the other primaries for state and local offices. That would mean June presidential primaries for both states if those bills pass and are signed into law. In the remaining states, the efforts are to simply shift the states' presidential primaries from dates in violation of the two major parties' rules to the earliest allowed date (the first Tuesday in March). There is also an active bill in Washington, DC to move the districts primary back to June.
- For this next week the 15 early states in conflict with the national parties' rules will be the ones to watch. They will not be joined by any additional states this week or for that matter the rest of February. Alabama will be the next February primary state to convene its legislative session on March 1.
- How would all of this look if all these bills happened to be passed and signed into law? States with active bills to move their primaries are listed twice, once where law has them currently and once in bold and italicized for where active legislation could move them. NOTE: THIS IS NOT THE CURRENT CALENDAR, ONLY WHAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE IF CURRENT LEGISLATION IS ENACTED.
Tuesday, January 31: Florida
Tuesday, February 7 (Super Tuesday): Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Utah
Saturday, February 11: Louisiana
Tuesday, February 14: Washington, DC, Maryland, Virginia
Tuesday, February 7 (Super Tuesday): Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Utah
Saturday, February 11: Louisiana
Tuesday, February 14: Washington, DC, Maryland, Virginia
Saturday, February 18: Nevada Republican caucuses
Tuesday, February 21: Hawaii Republican caucuses, Wisconsin
Tuesday, February 28: Arizona, Michigan
Tuesday, March 6: Florida, Maryland, Minnesota caucuses, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia
Tuesday, March 13: Mississippi
Tuesday, March 20: Colorado caucuses, Illinois
Tuesday, April 3: Kansas, Maryland
Tuesday, February 21: Hawaii Republican caucuses, Wisconsin
Tuesday, February 28: Arizona, Michigan
Tuesday, March 6: Florida, Maryland, Minnesota caucuses, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia
Tuesday, March 13: Mississippi
Tuesday, March 20: Colorado caucuses, Illinois
Tuesday, April 3: Kansas, Maryland
Tuesday, April 24: Pennsylvania
Tuesday, May 8: Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia
Tuesday, May 15: Idaho, Nebraska, Oregon
Tuesday, May 22: Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky and Washington
Tuesday, June 5: California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota
Tuesday, May 8: Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia
Tuesday, May 15: Idaho, Nebraska, Oregon
Tuesday, May 22: Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky and Washington
Tuesday, June 5: California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota
Tuesday, June 12: Washington, DC
Tuesday, August 7: Kentucky
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Mitt Romney's already got trouble in Nevada?
Is it already time to poke holes in the chances of a nominal frontrunner for one of the parties' presidential nominations? Who had February 13th in the pool?
FHQ could deride the story on Romney in Nevada that appeared on the Boston Globe's Political Intelligence blog for coming way too early, but on a weekend when CPAC straw poll results are being overhyped, it is actually in the right place (see full item below). The take-home is that Romney will likely find it difficult to repeat his Silver state performance from 2008. Matt Viser attributes that to Ron Paul/Tea Party support in the Nevada leftover from 2008 and 2010 (more on Paul's supporters and the impact they had on the 2008 Nevada Republican convention here), and while that is not off the mark, it misses one very important piece of the puzzle from the last cycle.
The former Massachusetts governor was able to exploit the Nevada caucuses for a number of reasons (a general popularity in the west, religion, organization -- especially in western caucus states), but the fact that most of Romney's opponents were focused on the South Carolina Republican primary on the same day had as much of an influence on the results in both those states as anything else. If, given the rules changes nationally (Republican rules placing the Nevada caucuses third in the process) and within the state (the party making the first step of the caucus binding in terms of delegate allocation -- a change from 2008), Nevada has the spotlight to itself, then it should not only likely be understood that the 2012 candidates will pay more attention to the Silver state, but that Mitt Romney will find it difficult to crack the 50% barrier in the 2012 Nevada caucuses.
As for FHQ, we are still skeptical that the South Carolina Republican Party will actually cede its traditional third in line position in the Republican nomination process for Nevada. It should be noted that the Republican rules, unlike the Democratic rules, provide no dates for any of the exempt nominating contests; only that they should have a position in February ahead of all the other contests that are supposed to begin in March. But that's a story for another time.
--
by Matt Viser, Globe staff
LAS VEGAS — Mitt Romney has a lot riding on Nevada as he readies his early-state strategy for a possible Republican primary campaign, but changes in the state’s caucus rules and surge of Tea Party activism will make the state a tougher environment for him than 2008, when Romney romped with more than 50 percent of the vote.Nevada falls third in the tentative primary schedule, and it holds outsized importance for the former Massachusetts governor. If he runs for president, as appears likely, he would not be expected to win the early states of Iowa or South Carolina.
Under almost any scenario, that means he must win in New Hampshire. And Nevada, falling just after the Granite State, would present the second key test of his strength.
By the numbers, Romney — who is scheduled to visit Las Vegas on Monday — should perform strongly in the Silver State. An estimated 7.5 percent of Nevada residents share Romney’s Mormon faith, and exit polls showed Mormons accounted for one in four caucus voters in 2008.But while he would start the 2012 Nevada contest with a formidable organization and as the overwhelming favorite, the landscape in this Western state is more hostile.
Seeking to become more than a primary backwater bypassed by most candidates, Nevada changed its caucus rules for next year’s campaign to make the outcome binding on its delegates to the Republican National Convention.
The intent was to increase the state’s prominence in the primaries, and it’s working. Nevada is attracting stronger interest from such would-be candidates as Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty, who have made early visits and are planning more.
The rightward tug of insurgents in the Republican Party, meanwhile, has added a measure of anti-establishment volatility to the Nevada electorate that was largely absent four years ago and could seriously hurt Romney, whose health care plan in Massachusetts, used as the model for the national overhaul last year, is widely despised by conservatives.
‘‘Mitt Romney has a strong Mormon base of support in Nevada that will continue,’’ said Chuck Muth, a conservative activist who is planning to host candidate forums at a bar with a mechanical bull, just south of the Vegas strip. ‘‘The biggest hurdle for Mitt Romney to overcome is RomneyCare.’’
Romney, who is expected to announce his candidacy in the spring, declined requests for an interview. Like most other potential candidates, Romney has been quietly testing the waters for a run. He appeared Sunday in Washington at the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual event that attracts many presidential aspirants. He will travel to Las Vegas on Monday to speak at a business convention on the strip.
Romney is ahead in the polls in Nevada and his supporters maintain he can attract Tea Party support by talking about fiscal conservatism and other issues important to the party’s right wing.
‘‘No one candidate is going to get every Tea Party vote in Nevada,’’ said Ryan Erwin, a top political consultant in the state who is prepared to lead Romney’s state operation. ‘‘But regardless of whether we are talking about activists in the Tea Party movement or those who simply share the philosophy, voters focused on balanced budgets and fiscal restraint in Nevada are largely Romney people.’’
Romney has been defending the 2006 Massachusetts health plan, the signature accomplishment of his gubernatorial administration, as an example of a state exercising its powers to solve problems within its borders. He criticizes the Obama plan, by contrast, as a federal overreach that usurps states’ rights.
That argument has yet to appease Tea Party activists.
Sharron Angle, the Tea Party candidate who stunned the GOP by winning Nevada’s Senate primary last year before losing to Majority Leader Harry Reid, would not criticize Romney directly in an interview. But she said the Massachusetts health plan will be a factor in the Nevada election.
‘‘It failed, and we know that this Obamacare is unconstitutional,’’ she said. ‘‘I think that those kinds of things are going to come into play during the presidential election.’’
Surveys of Republican Nevada voters have shown Romney with a moderate lead. A poll conducted last month by Public Policy Polling put Romney at 31 percent, compared to Sarah Palin (19 percent), Gingrich (18 percent), and Mike Huckabee (14 percent).‘‘The 800-pound gorilla in Republican politics is Mitt Romney,’’ said David Damore, a political science professor at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. ‘‘You’re going to see him run the traditional top down organization and count on his religious affiliation. But he’s got a lot of issues to overcome.’’
While the mood is uncertain a year before the Nevada caucus (tentatively scheduled for Feb. 18, 2012), a billboard on I-215 leaving Las Vegas warns of the some of the dangers for establishment candidates like Romney: ‘‘Ron Paul 2012.’’ The Texas Republican congressman finished second behind Romney four years ago, and conservative activists want him back in the race.
Paul’s last high-profile trip to the state was in 2009. But several Tea Party favorites — Representative Michele Bachmann, of Minnesota, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and former Godfather’s Pizza executive Herman Cain — have made multiple visits to the state in recent months. Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, a Mormon who is resigning as US ambassador to China and weighing a run for president, could cut into Romney’s church support.
High unemployment, which at 14 percent was the worst in the country in December, and foreclosures are big issues in Nevada and helped fuel voter anger in 2010.
With few formally declared candidates and a year to go, voters have yet to seriously tune in to presidential politics. In a dozen interviews with Nevada Republicans, support for Romney was mixed.‘‘The key issue here is jobs, jobs, jobs,’’ said Robert Sulliman, a security services manager. ‘‘Who better to make things happen than Mitt Romney?’’
But those who identified themselves as aligned with the Tea Party tended to oppose him.
‘‘I’m not a fan,’’ said Bettye Gilmour, a 67-year-old retired social worker. ‘‘He’s very presidential looking, but he’s too much of a politician.’’Romney’s organization has not yet geared up in Nevada — but it is ready to go on short notice, said his supporters. His team still has its database of voter identification files — called ‘‘Romney Connect’’ — that will give him a big head start. Romney’s son Josh has been staying in touch with former campaign workers.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
New Bill Introduced to Eliminate Separate Presidential Primary in New Jersey
Superfluous though it may be, a new bill to eliminate the February presidential primary and shift it back to occur concurrently with the June primaries for state and local offices has been introduced in the New Jersey Assembly. The only things different about this bill and the two technically-active current bills are that the new one (A3777) was introduced by a Democrat and during the 2011 session. Other than that, the bill is exactly like the two bills proposed last year by Republicans in the Assembly and Senate.
That a Democrat introduced the bill is important considering both houses of the New Jersey legislature are controlled by the Democratic Party. That it was introduced by deputy speaker, John Wisnieski, is indicative of at least some institutional support for such a move among Democrats (similar to what has been seen in Maryland and Tennessee). And unless the Republicans who proposed similar bills in 2010 have changed their tunes, there is some bipartisan support for the idea of one June primary to nominate candidates for national, state and local offices. Like California, some of the impetus behind the push has to be budgetary. Similar separate presidential primary elections have come under fire in the Golden state and was eliminated in 2009 in Arkansas.
As state legislatures continue their sessions and to deal with budgetary constraints, separate presidential primaries could increasingly be targeted as a means of cutting costs. To this point, however, momentum behind that idea is limited to a handful of states.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Florida Primary: Are Governor Scott and the GOP Leadership in the General Assembly Really "At Odds"?
In the wake of Democratic state legislators filing bills in the Florida General Assembly to move the Sunshine state's presidential primary from January back to March, there has been quite a bit of chatter in the Florida press about "battles brewing" and "lines forming" over when the primary should be held. The fight being portrayed, though, misses the point and actually mischaracterizes the parties involved.
The true dividing line on this issue is not, as it seems to be in some of the Florida press, an intra-party struggle within the Republican-controlled state government, but rather a inter-party battle between those same Republicans in control and the minority party Democrats without a contested presidential nomination race. There has been a fair amount of talk about the bills being offered by Democrats to move the primary back into compliance and about the Florida Democratic Party's chair calling for a later date.* But that angle has taken a backseat to the supposedly looming intra-party battle among Republicans.
Look, there may yet be a contentious debate over whether Florida should assert itself and maintain an early, non-compliant primary date or tow the national party line and move back. There are obvious pros and cons either way: go early and take a penalty (one that may not be enforced at the convention) or go later and with many other states and have less influence (while maintaining a full slate of delegates). But it isn't apparent to me that there either is or will definitely be a battle on this issue -- not during this legislative session at least.
Let's look a bit more closely at these "battle lines". First off, the Republican leadership in the House and Senate appears to be supportive of maintaining the January primary.
President of the Senate Mike Haridopolos: "I happen to think the position we're in right now is the correct one. We're going to most likely decide who the next president of the United States is. I think it'd make sense if we did it early in the process."
Speaker of the House Dean Cannon: "I think the earlier we are, the more relevant we are as a national voice. I think the members of the House will be reluctant to move it all the way forward. Again, I'm not taking any hard and fast position, but I certainly favoring [sic] leaving it early as a general principle."
There's some wiggle room there for both, but both seem to support the idea of leaving the presidential primary where it is.
What about the other side of this brewing showdown? Rick Scott has maintained a fairly consistent albeit ambiguous line. In the governor's comments after speaking with RNC chair, Reince Priebus, and in more recently, he has essentially said that Florida should go as early as it can without losing any delegates. That doesn't really tell us anything other than the governor is trying to tread the fine line between what the national party wants and what may be best on the state level (Florida influencing the ultimate identity of the Republican nominee.). In other words, I don't see Scott bringing any real pressure to the table to get legislators to do what the national party desires. Not at this time anyway.
I don't really see that happening in the future either. And I think that simply because this whole discussion of a brewing fight amongst Republicans in Florida on this issue ignores one concrete fact: the governor will likely stay out of the discussion in any direct way unless and until a bill to change the date of the primary lands on his desk. To the extent there will be a debate on this issue, it will take place in the legislature and the leadership seems inclined to potentially bottle these bills up in committee to keep the primary where it is.
Republican legislators may be gambling on this, but it is a calculated gamble. They are betting that, though the national party may complain about a non-compliant primary, they will eventually cave before the convention and reinstate all of the the delegates as they have done in the past. You will also hear some talk about Florida having to switch to a proportional allocation of delegates because of a change in Republican Party rules -- and I don't expect any fight there -- but that will happen whether they have a primary in January or March. The real issue is whether there will be a full Florida delegation in the event of a January primary. If Republicans in the state legislature do nothing and leave the primary where it is, they are operating under the assumption that the national party will yield to Florida in the interest of demonstrating national party unity to the American people at the Tampa convention. Any and all divisiveness will be tamped down or eliminated altogether.
So battle lines? What battle lines? If there are any, they are where they have been since Florida moved in 2007: between the state parties/governments and the national parties. That there is any imminent battle looming among Republicans in Florida has yet to manifest itself in any measurable way in my eyes.
*According to Rule 20.C.7 of the 2012 Democratic Delegate Selection Rules, the state party has make at least some effort to change the date through the legislature if it wants to have any chance of a waiver to hold an early primary or assistance from the national party in holding an alternate contest.
Recent Posts:
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Bills Introduced in Both Chambers to Move Tennessee Presidential Primary to March
On February 10, bills were introduced in both the Tennessee state House and Senate to shift the Volunteer state's presidential primary back to March where the primary was between the 1988 and 2000 cycles. While the presidential primary during those years was on the second Tuesday in March, the current legislation would move it from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. This would be the third consecutive cycle Tennessee has moved its primary -- from the second Tuesday in March to the second Tuesday in February in 2004 and up to the first Tuesday in February in 2008.
Tennessee, like Florida, is under unified Republican control, but in contrast to the Sunshine state, Republicans in the Tennessee General Assembly are the ones pushing, or at least proposing, the date change. In the House, Rep. Gerald McCormick (R-26, Chattanooga) introduced HB 612, and Sen. Mark Norris (R-32, Collierville) introduced SB 599. As was the case in Maryland, these legislators are members of the leadership in their respective chambers. McCormick is the Republican leader in the House and Norris is the majority leader in the Senate. Leadership sponsorship does not guarantee a bill will pass, but it won't hurt its chances.
The change to March, if codified, would bring Tennessee back into compliance with the 2012 delegate selection rules in both national parties.
Recent Posts:
“I happen to think the position we’re in right now is the correct one."
Spoken like someone who might endorse shifting the Florida presidential primary back to March like the national parties and the Florida Democratic Party and state legislators want, right?
Well, maybe not.
Those were the words of Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos this morning in some press availability time. On the one hand the senator holds some clout as the leading Republican in the state Senate majority. However, on the other, sticking up for Florida and its right to have a primary whenever it wants is a nice and easy issue to trumpet support of when you are running for the Republican nomination for US Senate in 2012 (No, the primaries for state and local office are later in the year in Florida, not concurrent with the presidential primary.).
Even if Haridopolos had potentially conflicting motivations here, that doesn't really say much for the general lack of response from other Republican legislators on this same issue. As FHQ said earlier today, it has been quiet from their corner of the state of Florida.
Not anymore -- at least not from one influential Republican.
--
Here's the full post from Peter Schorsch at the saintpetersblog (St. Petersburg Times):
Haridopolos: Keep presidential primary in January '12
Despite calls from both major political parties leaders in Florida – and legislation already being filed that would do so – Senate President Mike Haridopolos said Thursday that the state’s 2012 presidential primary should not be moved from January to March, reports the News Service of Florida. Haridopolos, who will himself be on the ballot next year for U.S. Senate, said that even if either the Democratic or Republican National Committees strip Florida of all of its delegates, as the DNC did in 2008, it was worth holding the primary early. “Florida’s the most important state in the presidential election,” he said. “I happen to think the position we’re in right now is the correct one. We’re going to most likely decide who the next president of the United States is. I think it’d make a lot of sense if we did it early in the process.” Both Republican Party of Florida Chairman David Bitner and Florida Democratic Party Chairman Rod Smith have urged lawmakers to move the primary to March, which both national parties have said would preserve its delegate strength.
Recent Posts:
Democrat Files House Companion for March Presidential Primary in Florida
On February 9, Representative Martin Kiar (D-97, Parkland) filed a companion bill (H 695) to S 860 which would also move the Sunshine state's presidential primary from the last Tuesday in January to the first Tuesday in March. This move would bring Florida back into compliance with both set of national party delegate selection rules, but again, like the Senate bill, it is being pushed -- so far at least -- by Democrats and not the Republicans in control of both chambers in the state legislature. The extent to which Republican lawmakers jump on board either of these bills as co-sponsors or just voicing support, will go a long way toward determining whether either bill has a chance of making it through to Governor Scott's desk to be signed into law. The RNC is certainly urging action, but Republican legislators have been quiet thus far.
Recent Posts:
Expected House Companion Bill to Move Maryland Primaries Introduced
As was mentioned in the post yesterday about the legislation introduced in the Maryland Senate to move the state's primaries, there was already a placemarker for a House companion bill (HB 671) to SB 820.
As was the case with the Senate bill, the House companion also has the support of the full leadership in the chamber. The bill is sponsored by Speaker of the House Michael Busch (D-30, Anne Arundel County) and co-sponsored by the majority leader, Kumar Barve (D-17, Montgomery County), and the minority leader, Anthony O'Donnell (R-29C, Calvert and St. Mary's Counties). Given the weight of the leadership in both chambers, these bills are more likely to pass than SB 501 and have the effect of moving the presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in April and the primaries for state and local offices from the second Tuesday after the first Monday in September to the last Tuesday in June.
Recent Posts:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)