The New York state legislature is working to finish up its business for 2015. However, a number of matters that have yet to be fully addressed have pushed the expected adjournment of the body back at least into next week.1 One of the issues that remains unresolved is the the date of the 2016 presidential primary. As of now, New York law schedules that election for the first Tuesday in February, a date non-compliant with national party rules.
The inter-chamber discussions have centered on an April 26 date, but that that date falls in the middle of Passover week in 2016 has created some friction, elevating a bill -- one of five total bills dealing with the presidential primary -- calling for an April 19 presidential primary. That bill, S5958, advanced through the state Senate on Thursday, June 18 by a 36-27 vote largely along party lines (four Democrats voted in favor of the measure).2 As of Friday, June 19, now has an identical companion bill -- A8310 -- in the Assembly.
The Democratic-controlled lower chamber now has a couple of bills that would shift the presidential primary to April 19. But there are also three previously introduced bills that would move the election to April 26. The later date would align the New York presidential primary with similar elections in Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. It is also a date that has the approval of the Democratic National Committee (or was proposed by the DNC).
As FHQ has explained (and this is well explained in the Capitol New York piece by Bill Mahoney), New York Democrats are motivated to hold the primary on April 26 because of the delegate bonuses associated with the date. The 10% timing bonus would be available on April 19, but the 15% clustering bonus would not without concurrent elections in neighboring states.
That there is a companion bill in the Assembly can be taken as a good sign that April 19 is closer to a go than not, but this matter is not closed. Democrats can attain a 15% timing bonus for a contest in May (or later). How tempting that ends up being to Democrats in the Assembly remains to be seen. However, with the end of the session already having been pushed back, a quick compromise may be the path of least resistance.
--
1 The state Senate is set to gather on Tuesday, June 23.
2 The committee vote was a more narrow 13-10 to move the legislation to the full chamber. In addition to those 13 Republican yeas, 2 Democrats voted for the bill in committee but reserved the right to vote against it on the floor (which they did).
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Friday, June 19, 2015
March 19 a Possibility for Virginia Republican Presidential Nominating Convention
FHQ dealt with the primary or convention question in Virginia a week ago, but Adam Wollner at the National Journal has incrementally advanced Travis Fain's Daily Press story with some interesting additions. Namely this:
--
It has been hypothesized that caucus/convention states would benefit the Rand Paul campaign in 2016 like they did his father in 2012 (and to a lesser degree 2008). That may be true. But this is dependent upon two factors. First, when is the caucuses or convention scheduled? But also, what allocation rules does the state party adopt?
If a state party opts for precinct caucuses (with a presidential preference vote) before March 15, then the resulting allocation of delegates to the national convention will have to be proportionate to the vote shares received by the candidates in that original vote. Again, the RNC has eliminated non-binding caucuses for the 2016 cycle. Delegates, then, will be bound to candidates based on the results of those early votes. In 2012, the majority of Republican caucus states held caucuses before March 15. Only Missouri held first round caucuses after that point, and only Montana and Nebraska held consequential state conventions after mid-March.
But if there is a break from that pattern in 2016 and caucus states opt for slightly later dates on the calendar, then there could be a number of winner-take-all caucus states. On the surface, that seemingly creates an alternate caucus strategy for the Paul campaign. Virginia is one of those wildcard states. Senator Paul's home state of Kentucky is another. But how many other states could fit into that post-March 14 space on the calendar is an open question. The answer to that question, though depends on state level rules and how much control Paul-aligned forces have within state Republican parties in those caucus states.
Iowa and Nevada are locked into early calendar spots, but are exempt from the proportionality requirement. Nevada Republicans have already voted to proportionally allocated their national convention delegates. Iowa is still a question mark. Next in line are Colorado and Minnesota; caucus states where state law controls the date. Both are locked into positions before March 15 at this point. That means proportional allocation.
Outside of Kentucky and Virginia, that leaves Alaska, Kansas, Maine, North Dakota, Washington, Wyoming and the territories. How well the Paul campaign can affect decision-making in those states depends on the extent to which Paul-aligned folks are involved in those state parties. Given the events of 2012, Maine is probably tops on that list.
But digging too deeply into this does ignore one rather large point: Even if all of those states are scheduled after March 14 and all are winner-take-all, they still only cumulatively comprise 228 delegates. Add Kentucky and Virginia and that's 322 delegates. Add those late conventions in Montana and Nebraska and that total rises to 376. That is still only about a quarter of the delegates necessary to clinch the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Sure, one can also add to that any delegates proportionally won in other states, but all of that is a plan built on a lot of ifs.
Still, it is fun trip into the rules weeds.
--
1 This list includes Virginia. Wollner mentions in his National Journal piece that the Virginia presidential primary would "likely" be on March 1. If Virginia holds a presidential primary during the 2016 cycle, it will be on March 1. For the primary to fall on a date other than March 1, the law would have to be changed, and the legislature adjourned for 2015 at the end of February. There currently are no plans to convene a special session.
But [conservative activist Russ] Moulton said his allies on the state central committee are eyeing March 19 as a possible date for the convention, which he argued could actually give the state even more influence because it could award all of the delegates to the winner, instead of dividing them up among several of the top finishers.Most of the primary states are pretty much locked into position on the presidential primary calendar at this point because the bulk of state legislatures have adjourned for the year.1 This possible primary to convention switch in Virginia makes the Old Dominion something of a wildcard in all of that. And if Virginia Republicans 1) settle on a presidential nominating convention and 2) schedule it for March 19, then the party would have the option of reestablishing the winner-take-all allocation rules the party utilized before the 2012 cycle.
--
It has been hypothesized that caucus/convention states would benefit the Rand Paul campaign in 2016 like they did his father in 2012 (and to a lesser degree 2008). That may be true. But this is dependent upon two factors. First, when is the caucuses or convention scheduled? But also, what allocation rules does the state party adopt?
If a state party opts for precinct caucuses (with a presidential preference vote) before March 15, then the resulting allocation of delegates to the national convention will have to be proportionate to the vote shares received by the candidates in that original vote. Again, the RNC has eliminated non-binding caucuses for the 2016 cycle. Delegates, then, will be bound to candidates based on the results of those early votes. In 2012, the majority of Republican caucus states held caucuses before March 15. Only Missouri held first round caucuses after that point, and only Montana and Nebraska held consequential state conventions after mid-March.
But if there is a break from that pattern in 2016 and caucus states opt for slightly later dates on the calendar, then there could be a number of winner-take-all caucus states. On the surface, that seemingly creates an alternate caucus strategy for the Paul campaign. Virginia is one of those wildcard states. Senator Paul's home state of Kentucky is another. But how many other states could fit into that post-March 14 space on the calendar is an open question. The answer to that question, though depends on state level rules and how much control Paul-aligned forces have within state Republican parties in those caucus states.
Iowa and Nevada are locked into early calendar spots, but are exempt from the proportionality requirement. Nevada Republicans have already voted to proportionally allocated their national convention delegates. Iowa is still a question mark. Next in line are Colorado and Minnesota; caucus states where state law controls the date. Both are locked into positions before March 15 at this point. That means proportional allocation.
Outside of Kentucky and Virginia, that leaves Alaska, Kansas, Maine, North Dakota, Washington, Wyoming and the territories. How well the Paul campaign can affect decision-making in those states depends on the extent to which Paul-aligned folks are involved in those state parties. Given the events of 2012, Maine is probably tops on that list.
But digging too deeply into this does ignore one rather large point: Even if all of those states are scheduled after March 14 and all are winner-take-all, they still only cumulatively comprise 228 delegates. Add Kentucky and Virginia and that's 322 delegates. Add those late conventions in Montana and Nebraska and that total rises to 376. That is still only about a quarter of the delegates necessary to clinch the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Sure, one can also add to that any delegates proportionally won in other states, but all of that is a plan built on a lot of ifs.
Still, it is fun trip into the rules weeds.
--
1 This list includes Virginia. Wollner mentions in his National Journal piece that the Virginia presidential primary would "likely" be on March 1. If Virginia holds a presidential primary during the 2016 cycle, it will be on March 1. For the primary to fall on a date other than March 1, the law would have to be changed, and the legislature adjourned for 2015 at the end of February. There currently are no plans to convene a special session.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Never a Dull Moment in Nevada
FHQ is going to flag this typically great story from Jon Ralston on the not-so behind the scenes maneuvering ahead of leadership elections at the county level within the Nevada Republican Party. It is a nice extension to the story of the recently failed attempt in the Silver state to switch from a caucus/convention system to a primary.
Then as now, it is a story of 2016 possibilities with 2020 implications. Which is to say, this is a political battle with both short and long term incentives for state and national interests. There in the desert, Nevada has an early spot on the presidential primary calendar, but is also a battleground state in the fall. All that creates a matrix of cross-cutting incentives.
And throw in the candidates too.
In this one case, all of those interests are pulling in different directions (or parts of them are anyway). Consider that the Rand Paul campaign and those aligned with it in Nevada are attempting to advantage the Kentucky senator in the Silver state caucuses in 2016. This is not a mystery. It is inside baseball, but it is not really happening behind the scenes. And lest FHQ be accused of pointing fingers at the Paul campaign, note that this is not the first instance in political history in which self interest has played a role. It isn't even the first example in presidential nomination politics, believe it or not. The post-reform era began after all with the recommendations of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The first nominee on the Democratic side after those reforms were instituted for the 1972 cycle was George McGovern; the same McGovern from the aforementioned commission. The Paul campaign is not doing anything that other candidates would not do.
However, they are doing it in Nevada. And the last thing that Nevada needs -- if it wants to protect that early calendar position in the future -- is more uncertainty, more chaos or more dissension in the Nevada Republican delegation. Think about this for a moment. The national parties are either indifferent to or like having Iowa and New Hampshire first because after having occupied the first two spots on the primary calendar for nearly half a century, the national parties know what they have in those states more or less.
They have a reasonable idea about how Iowa and New Hampshire will affect the process. That isn't the case in Nevada. Well, actually it is, but for all the wrong reasons. The only certainty in the Nevada (Republican) caucuses is uncertainty. After two cycles in the spotlight of the early calendar, Nevada is batting 1.000 in creating headaches for the Republican National Committee. And since the RNC-backed effort to switch to a presidential primary in the Silver state fell through and the Paul campaign is already working to help Paul out in the state, that intra-party rift and those headaches may return for round three in 2016. Again, if the only certainty is a headache, then it makes it likely that the headache symptoms will be dealt with in the future.
Of course, Democrats nationally and in Nevada do not mind seeing any of this. But it may only be Nevada Democrats that end up paying a price. One factor that bolsters the protected statuses of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina is that political actors of either partisan stripe are of one mind when it comes to first in the nation/South privilege: Keep it at all costs (even if it means agreeing with the other party). Nevada Democrats should enjoy the ride now. By maintaining the caucuses for 2016, it makes it less likely Nevada will be continue to be first in the West in 2020. Another flawed Republican caucus there makes it much more likely that the RNC dumps the Silver state. Not having an early Nevada Republican caucus undercuts Nevada Democrats' case for keeping theirs (not completely, mind you, but it would make Nevada unique among the carve-out states). The national parties want certainty and if Republicans tap another western states, national Democrats will want to cede any potential organizational advantage in that state.
It is all about certainty and the Nevada experiment has provided all the wrong kind.
Then as now, it is a story of 2016 possibilities with 2020 implications. Which is to say, this is a political battle with both short and long term incentives for state and national interests. There in the desert, Nevada has an early spot on the presidential primary calendar, but is also a battleground state in the fall. All that creates a matrix of cross-cutting incentives.
And throw in the candidates too.
In this one case, all of those interests are pulling in different directions (or parts of them are anyway). Consider that the Rand Paul campaign and those aligned with it in Nevada are attempting to advantage the Kentucky senator in the Silver state caucuses in 2016. This is not a mystery. It is inside baseball, but it is not really happening behind the scenes. And lest FHQ be accused of pointing fingers at the Paul campaign, note that this is not the first instance in political history in which self interest has played a role. It isn't even the first example in presidential nomination politics, believe it or not. The post-reform era began after all with the recommendations of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The first nominee on the Democratic side after those reforms were instituted for the 1972 cycle was George McGovern; the same McGovern from the aforementioned commission. The Paul campaign is not doing anything that other candidates would not do.
However, they are doing it in Nevada. And the last thing that Nevada needs -- if it wants to protect that early calendar position in the future -- is more uncertainty, more chaos or more dissension in the Nevada Republican delegation. Think about this for a moment. The national parties are either indifferent to or like having Iowa and New Hampshire first because after having occupied the first two spots on the primary calendar for nearly half a century, the national parties know what they have in those states more or less.
They have a reasonable idea about how Iowa and New Hampshire will affect the process. That isn't the case in Nevada. Well, actually it is, but for all the wrong reasons. The only certainty in the Nevada (Republican) caucuses is uncertainty. After two cycles in the spotlight of the early calendar, Nevada is batting 1.000 in creating headaches for the Republican National Committee. And since the RNC-backed effort to switch to a presidential primary in the Silver state fell through and the Paul campaign is already working to help Paul out in the state, that intra-party rift and those headaches may return for round three in 2016. Again, if the only certainty is a headache, then it makes it likely that the headache symptoms will be dealt with in the future.
Of course, Democrats nationally and in Nevada do not mind seeing any of this. But it may only be Nevada Democrats that end up paying a price. One factor that bolsters the protected statuses of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina is that political actors of either partisan stripe are of one mind when it comes to first in the nation/South privilege: Keep it at all costs (even if it means agreeing with the other party). Nevada Democrats should enjoy the ride now. By maintaining the caucuses for 2016, it makes it less likely Nevada will be continue to be first in the West in 2020. Another flawed Republican caucus there makes it much more likely that the RNC dumps the Silver state. Not having an early Nevada Republican caucus undercuts Nevada Democrats' case for keeping theirs (not completely, mind you, but it would make Nevada unique among the carve-out states). The national parties want certainty and if Republicans tap another western states, national Democrats will want to cede any potential organizational advantage in that state.
It is all about certainty and the Nevada experiment has provided all the wrong kind.
How is the DNC Involved in the New York Presidential Primary Situation?
Legislation is currently active in New York to bring the presidential primary back into compliance with the national party delegate selection rules. However, the effort to move the election from the first Tuesday in February to April 26 is facing a backlash from a group of 71 Democratic legislators. And the sticking point is not pushing the presidential primary out of February; a position that while non-compliant would keep the Empire state very early on the calendar. Instead, Democratic legislators in New York are upset that the proposed calendar position for the presidential primary election is in the middle of Passover week.
Now, that is a story in and of itself. The state legislature in New York is winding down its work for the session and not resolving the issues surrounding the scheduling of the presidential primary next year would have New York on the wrong side of national party rules (with a February primary). Any delay -- any impasse -- means that a date change is in some jeopardy. Things get prioritized differently when that legislative countdown clock is ticking toward zero hour.
But what is odd is to whom Democratic lawmakers in New York have chosen to air their grievances. The letter the group of 71 sent was sent to the Democratic National Committee.
Why?
To FHQ that is the real story in all of this. Why would legislators choose to reach out to the DNC? There are national party rules prohibiting February presidential primaries and significant penalties that come along with that. Beyond that, however, there is nothing in the Democratic delegate selection rules for 2016 that explicitly schedule the New York presidential primary for April 26. There may be some pressure from the DNC to do that, but there is absolutely nothing preventing New York legislators of any partisan stripe from agreeing on a primary date anywhere on the calendar between March 1 and sometime in early to mid-June.
Nothing.
That is a lot of dates from which to choose. And as FHQ has mentioned there is incentive for New York Democrats to want that April 26 date, Passover conflict aside. It means bonus delegates tacked onto the New York delegation to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia next July; extra delegates for a later primary scheduled concurrently with similar contests in potentially five other states. Yet, if New York Democrats want to take advantage of those bonuses, they would have to be on April 26.
There may also be pressure that is being exerted on the New York Democratic Party and/or legislators by the DNC to keep a partially Democratic-controlled state (or group of states) later on the calendar. These sorts of rumors emerged in 2011; that Democrats were attempting to schedule contests in states the party controlled later in the process as a means of influencing the Republican nomination. The hope then as presumably now would be to produce a more conservative nominee chosen by a frontloaded group of more conservative states.
Again, however, that is potential pressure folks in New York are getting from the DNC. That is a lot different than rules violations that give the national party some reason to penalize a state. There is something missing in the reporting on this story. It does not make any sense that New York Democrats would point the finger at the national party. The way this process -- the scheduling of presidential nominating contests -- works should mean that those legislators should be pointing their fingers at each other.
--
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for sharing news of the Passover conflict with FHQ.
Now, that is a story in and of itself. The state legislature in New York is winding down its work for the session and not resolving the issues surrounding the scheduling of the presidential primary next year would have New York on the wrong side of national party rules (with a February primary). Any delay -- any impasse -- means that a date change is in some jeopardy. Things get prioritized differently when that legislative countdown clock is ticking toward zero hour.
But what is odd is to whom Democratic lawmakers in New York have chosen to air their grievances. The letter the group of 71 sent was sent to the Democratic National Committee.
Why?
To FHQ that is the real story in all of this. Why would legislators choose to reach out to the DNC? There are national party rules prohibiting February presidential primaries and significant penalties that come along with that. Beyond that, however, there is nothing in the Democratic delegate selection rules for 2016 that explicitly schedule the New York presidential primary for April 26. There may be some pressure from the DNC to do that, but there is absolutely nothing preventing New York legislators of any partisan stripe from agreeing on a primary date anywhere on the calendar between March 1 and sometime in early to mid-June.
Nothing.
That is a lot of dates from which to choose. And as FHQ has mentioned there is incentive for New York Democrats to want that April 26 date, Passover conflict aside. It means bonus delegates tacked onto the New York delegation to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia next July; extra delegates for a later primary scheduled concurrently with similar contests in potentially five other states. Yet, if New York Democrats want to take advantage of those bonuses, they would have to be on April 26.
There may also be pressure that is being exerted on the New York Democratic Party and/or legislators by the DNC to keep a partially Democratic-controlled state (or group of states) later on the calendar. These sorts of rumors emerged in 2011; that Democrats were attempting to schedule contests in states the party controlled later in the process as a means of influencing the Republican nomination. The hope then as presumably now would be to produce a more conservative nominee chosen by a frontloaded group of more conservative states.
Again, however, that is potential pressure folks in New York are getting from the DNC. That is a lot different than rules violations that give the national party some reason to penalize a state. There is something missing in the reporting on this story. It does not make any sense that New York Democrats would point the finger at the national party. The way this process -- the scheduling of presidential nominating contests -- works should mean that those legislators should be pointing their fingers at each other.
--
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for sharing news of the Passover conflict with FHQ.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation Rules by State
NOTES:
1. FHQ will not dive too far into all of this now. This is, more or less, a baseline to which the 2016 rules as they come more into focus can be compared.
2. This nicely highlights what FHQ said throughout the 2012 cycle: There just were not that many truly winner-take-contests. Though Idaho and Puerto Rico ended up allocating all of their delegates to the winner (in this case, Mitt Romney), those two were the only early (proportionality window) states that had conditional winner-take-all provisions that were triggered. The six truly winner-take-all states comprised only 9% of the total 2286 Republican delegates.
3. There could have been many more categories added to this, but FHQ erred on the side of simplicity. That "hybrid" group includes loophole primary states like Illinois where delegates are elected directly, winner-take-most (winner-take-all by congressional district) states like South Carolina and a host of other conditionally winner-take-all states. As FHQ mentioned in the rundown of 2016 proportionality rules changes, even if you reallocate delegates in states that fall in this category, the changes are not very much different than a proportional allocation. Again, this is a catch-all group of sorts, but with a tighter definition of proportionality for 2016, some of these states -- those in the proportionality window -- will likely drift over into the proportional category. Others with contests that fall on or after March 15 may end up in the winner-take-all category (see possibly Ohio).
4. While that "hybrid" group is still something of a mystery, the wild card in 2016 will be what happens with the bulk of the caucuses states; those with no formal rules binding delegates to candidates. Given the changes to the national party rules -- There is now a requirement that delegates be bound based on the results of the primaries or caucuses (with some caveats). -- the previously non-binding caucus states will have to devise rules for allocating delegates. As most have to start and complete the caucus/convention process between March and early June, most of the first steps in the process will be early. Whether those states fall in the proportionality window remains undetermined. But that does have an impact on the types of delegate allocation rules those states will be able to adopt. But in 2012, there were more delegates available in the "no formal rules" states than there were in truly winner-take-all states.
--
Links to state-level delegate allocation rules (click to see details of each state's plan):
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
New York Assembly Bill Introduced to Set Presidential Primary for April 26
On Monday, June 15, legislation was introduced in the New York Assembly to schedule the presidential primary in the Empire state for April 26.
Assemblyman Michael Cusick (D-63rd, Staten Island) filed A8256 to push the New York presidential primary back to where it was during the 2012 cycle; the fourth Tuesday in April. The legislation passed in 2011 to move New York back into compliance with the national party rules was passed with a sunset provision that expired at the end of 2012. The current legislation contains a similar provision that expires after the 2016 elections.
Now, it should be noted that this bill was proposed by a Democrat in the Democratic-controlled chamber of the New York state legislature. However, it the language in the bill indicates Republican Party buy-in. The fingerprints are there anyway. The delegate selection rules that the New York Republican Party voted on last week are included as well as procedure for the 2016 presidential primary process in the state. That is, the bill lays out a winner-take-most plan (where a candidate can receive all of the at-large/statewide or congressional district delegates if that candidate wins each of those political units).
Given that time is running short on the New York legislature -- as was the case four years ago -- this bill would bot have come forth if it did not have sufficient support on both sides of the capitol building. The move in 2011 also came up in June and quickly moved through the legislature and to the governor's desk.
--
UPDATE (3pm): An April 26 date would align the New York presidential primary with presidential primaries in neighboring Connecticut and Rhode Island. If Pennsylvania maintains its position (also on April 26), it would bridge those three contests with primaries in Delaware and Maryland on the same date (along with the primary in the Keystone state). All would be eligible for timing and clustering bonus delegates under the Democratic National Committee delegate selection rules.
New York Republicans would not benefit from similar national party incentives. The late date also does not come anywhere close to the March 1 target date some within the New York Republican Party were aiming for earlier this year. Unlike the Texas reversion to its March 1 position, New York essentially standing pat -- assuming A8256 (or any of the other similar bills cited below) becomes law -- means that its large cache of delegates will continue to be toward the end of the process. With California set for a June primary, both will serve as delegate weights drawing out the calendar; keeping that 75% delegates allocated mark in late April rather than earlier (with earlier New York and/or California primaries).
UPDATE (4:30pm): There are four other bills -- in both the Assembly and Senate -- that also propose moving the presidential primary to an April date. The aforementioned A8256 has no pair in the Senate. However, A8251, also introduced by Assemblyman Cusick, has an identical bill, S5960 that has been proposed by Senator Rich Funke (R-55th, Rochester). All of those bills call for an April 26 New York presidential primary. Senator Funke also filed S5958 and S5962. The former outlines the details for an April 19 primary while the latter schedules the election for April 26 like the others. The two that are companion bills across chambers likely have the inside track toward quick passage, but A8256 was a late add to the Assembly Election Law Committee agenda for today.
Assemblyman Michael Cusick (D-63rd, Staten Island) filed A8256 to push the New York presidential primary back to where it was during the 2012 cycle; the fourth Tuesday in April. The legislation passed in 2011 to move New York back into compliance with the national party rules was passed with a sunset provision that expired at the end of 2012. The current legislation contains a similar provision that expires after the 2016 elections.
Now, it should be noted that this bill was proposed by a Democrat in the Democratic-controlled chamber of the New York state legislature. However, it the language in the bill indicates Republican Party buy-in. The fingerprints are there anyway. The delegate selection rules that the New York Republican Party voted on last week are included as well as procedure for the 2016 presidential primary process in the state. That is, the bill lays out a winner-take-most plan (where a candidate can receive all of the at-large/statewide or congressional district delegates if that candidate wins each of those political units).
Given that time is running short on the New York legislature -- as was the case four years ago -- this bill would bot have come forth if it did not have sufficient support on both sides of the capitol building. The move in 2011 also came up in June and quickly moved through the legislature and to the governor's desk.
--
UPDATE (3pm): An April 26 date would align the New York presidential primary with presidential primaries in neighboring Connecticut and Rhode Island. If Pennsylvania maintains its position (also on April 26), it would bridge those three contests with primaries in Delaware and Maryland on the same date (along with the primary in the Keystone state). All would be eligible for timing and clustering bonus delegates under the Democratic National Committee delegate selection rules.
New York Republicans would not benefit from similar national party incentives. The late date also does not come anywhere close to the March 1 target date some within the New York Republican Party were aiming for earlier this year. Unlike the Texas reversion to its March 1 position, New York essentially standing pat -- assuming A8256 (or any of the other similar bills cited below) becomes law -- means that its large cache of delegates will continue to be toward the end of the process. With California set for a June primary, both will serve as delegate weights drawing out the calendar; keeping that 75% delegates allocated mark in late April rather than earlier (with earlier New York and/or California primaries).
UPDATE (4:30pm): There are four other bills -- in both the Assembly and Senate -- that also propose moving the presidential primary to an April date. The aforementioned A8256 has no pair in the Senate. However, A8251, also introduced by Assemblyman Cusick, has an identical bill, S5960 that has been proposed by Senator Rich Funke (R-55th, Rochester). All of those bills call for an April 26 New York presidential primary. Senator Funke also filed S5958 and S5962. The former outlines the details for an April 19 primary while the latter schedules the election for April 26 like the others. The two that are companion bills across chambers likely have the inside track toward quick passage, but A8256 was a late add to the Assembly Election Law Committee agenda for today.
Friday, June 12, 2015
Louisiana Legislature Passes Budget on to Jindal, Presidential Primary Funding Included
On the final day of the 2015 legislative session, Louisiana state legislators pushed through a package of bills to fund the government in the Pelican state for fiscal year 2015-16. The foundation of that budget includes funding for the 2016 presidential primary in the state, money that was not initially included in Governor Bobby Jindal's (R) original proposal to the legislature in March.
The governor is expected to sign the legislation. That keeps the Louisiana presidential primary on Saturday, March 5 next year. Democrats in the state are already slated to utilize the primary allocating delegates to the national convention, but Pelican state Republicans have in the past used both the primary and caucuses for allocating their delegates. That March 5 date will have Louisiana Democrats sharing calendar space with caucuses in Kansas and Nebraska. Louisiana Republicans, on the other hand, will have the date to themselves, a bridge between the SEC primary on March 1 and the primary in neighboring Mississippi on March 8.
The governor is expected to sign the legislation. That keeps the Louisiana presidential primary on Saturday, March 5 next year. Democrats in the state are already slated to utilize the primary allocating delegates to the national convention, but Pelican state Republicans have in the past used both the primary and caucuses for allocating their delegates. That March 5 date will have Louisiana Democrats sharing calendar space with caucuses in Kansas and Nebraska. Louisiana Republicans, on the other hand, will have the date to themselves, a bridge between the SEC primary on March 1 and the primary in neighboring Mississippi on March 8.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Presidential Primary or Convention Question Still Looms Over Virginia Republicans for 2016
Back in March the question was raised as to whether the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) would hold a state-funded presidential primary in 2016 or opt instead for a party-funded convention. Other states have moved around on the calendar -- some have even switched from primaries to caucuses or from caucuses to primaries -- in the time since while the Virginia question has lain fallow for three months.
That appears likely to change when the RPV State Central Committee (SCC) meets on Saturday, June 27 to decide on the process for selecting and allocating delegates to the Republican National Convention next year in Cleveland. Based on past positions of current voting members of the SCC on the primary or convention question, the early whip count looks like it favors the convention format. The one thing that might change that in the actual vote in late June is that the SCC members are up for reelection themselves next year.
Travis Fain's article at the (Hampton) Daily Press mentions that RPV Chair John C. Whitbeck has not taken a position on the matter. Maybe not, but he certainly seems to lean toward the convention option.
--
There are some interesting side notes to explore assuming Virginia Republicans opt for a convention.
--
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for passing along this news to FHQ.
That appears likely to change when the RPV State Central Committee (SCC) meets on Saturday, June 27 to decide on the process for selecting and allocating delegates to the Republican National Convention next year in Cleveland. Based on past positions of current voting members of the SCC on the primary or convention question, the early whip count looks like it favors the convention format. The one thing that might change that in the actual vote in late June is that the SCC members are up for reelection themselves next year.
Travis Fain's article at the (Hampton) Daily Press mentions that RPV Chair John C. Whitbeck has not taken a position on the matter. Maybe not, but he certainly seems to lean toward the convention option.
--
There are some interesting side notes to explore assuming Virginia Republicans opt for a convention.
- First, is the scheduling. As of now, Virginia is an adopted member of the SEC primary with a primary election scheduled for March 1. Virginia Republicans last selected and allocated delegates to the national convention at a state convention in 1996. During that cycle Virginia Republicans held caucuses leading up to the convention throughout March. Old Dominion Republicans have utilized a primary in the time since then. However, the party has still maintained a caucus/convention system for selecting delegates to the national convention. The primary has been used to allocate/bind delegates to particular candidates based on the results in that statewide election. The 2012 convention was in mid-June.
- How does the Minnesota decision affect Virginia in a convention (not primary) scenario? Recall that recently the RNC denied the request of Minnesota Republicans to continue to not binding delegates to the convention based on precinct caucuses results. If Virginia Republicans switch to a convention, caucuses naturally precede that end point. Would that mean that delegates would have to be bound based on the results of the earlier steps in the Virginia caucuses? No. Republican National Committee rules -- see Rule 16(a)(1) -- allow the selection and allocation of national convention delegates in a state convention vote. If Virginia Republicans only choose delegates at the earliest stages of the caucus/convention process -- without a presidential preference vote -- then the ultimate selection and allocation can take place at the convention. The difference as compared to Minnesota is that Republicans in the Gopher state were asking to send delegates to the convention unbound to any candidate.
- Depending on the timing of the convention, Virginia Republicans could allocate all of their delegates to one candidate. Virginia is one of the few states that has a history with truly winner-take-all rules (see 2008).
- FHQ will try not to overanalyze this, but again, depending on the timing of a supposed state convention, the early steps of the process could be much harder to determine/report on with no presidential preference vote. The advantage of a preference vote at the precinct caucus level is that it provides some indication of who won -- who the delegates moving on to subsequent steps are bound to/aligned with. Without a preference vote, there is no similar signal. And finding out requires a party willing to share who those delegates are and delegates willing to share to whom they are aligned. Absent that (or perhaps even with it), there is jockeying by the various campaigns to organize and get their folks through to the next step(s) of the process. This is a loophole case that may look a lot like those non-binding caucuses from the early 2012 calendar.
--
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for passing along this news to FHQ.
"...allows the party to..."
Ohio officially moved its presidential primary from March 8 to March 15 with Governor John Kasich's signature yesterday. Any time a state with 66 delegates moves -- even if only a week -- it is newsworthy.
But let's be real about the implications here. Here's is how Randy Ludlow describes it in the Columbus Dispatch:
As in, "Moving the presidential primary from March 8 to March 15 next year allows the [Ohio Republican] party to shift from awarding its presidential convention delegates proportionally to granting all the delegates to the statewide winner."
Just four words turn the original text -- that implies a switch from proportional to winner-take-all was automatic upon Kasich's signature -- into a brief sentence that captures the sequence of all of this. The state government has completed its work by passing a bill through the legislature that was subsequently signed into law by the governor. In primary states, it is the state government that controls the date of the contest. However, the state parties hold the power to set the delegate allocation method (within national party guidelines).
Ohio Republicans have signaled that that switch -- proportional to winner-take-all -- is coming, but FHQ has yet to see any reporting (or anything on the Ohio Republican Party website to confirm) that a rules change has actually been made yet. In 2011, Ohio Republicans did not settle on a delegate allocation plan for 2012 until October (due to a prolonged redistricting dispute). With no redistricting conflicts, Ohio Republicans will have the ability to set those rules a little earlier in 2015 than they did in 2011.
Again, the Ohio presidential primary has moved to March 15. The state government controls that. However, the state party controls the method of delegate allocation. Those are interrelated but distinct actions taken by different actors.
--
The other troubling thing here -- and this was likely not Ludlow's intent in a very brief item -- is that by making it seem as if a primary date change automatically triggers a delegate allocation change, it builds on the false 2012 narrative that once the proportionality window closes, all primaries and caucuses are winner-take-all. In other words, the Republican National Committee has required winner-take-all contests on and after March 15. That was false in 2012 and it is false for the 2016 cycle. The close of the proportionality window marks the end of the RNC's requirements on delegate allocation at the state level. Once the window closes, state parties are free to set a method of delegate allocation of their choosing. It can be proportional. It can be winner-take-all. It can be some hybrid in between. The state party's hold maximum latitude in setting their delegate allocation rules if that state has a contest on or after March 15.
But let's be real about the implications here. Here's is how Randy Ludlow describes it in the Columbus Dispatch:
Moving the presidential primary from March 8 to March 15 next year shifts Ohio from awarding its presidential convention delegates proportionally to granting all the delegates to the statewide winner.That is not technically right. And it really is not something FHQ should feel compelled to respond to except for the fact that the difference between being misleading (about the process) and accurately describing matters is a four word phrase: allows the party to.
As in, "Moving the presidential primary from March 8 to March 15 next year allows the [Ohio Republican] party to shift from awarding its presidential convention delegates proportionally to granting all the delegates to the statewide winner."
Just four words turn the original text -- that implies a switch from proportional to winner-take-all was automatic upon Kasich's signature -- into a brief sentence that captures the sequence of all of this. The state government has completed its work by passing a bill through the legislature that was subsequently signed into law by the governor. In primary states, it is the state government that controls the date of the contest. However, the state parties hold the power to set the delegate allocation method (within national party guidelines).
Ohio Republicans have signaled that that switch -- proportional to winner-take-all -- is coming, but FHQ has yet to see any reporting (or anything on the Ohio Republican Party website to confirm) that a rules change has actually been made yet. In 2011, Ohio Republicans did not settle on a delegate allocation plan for 2012 until October (due to a prolonged redistricting dispute). With no redistricting conflicts, Ohio Republicans will have the ability to set those rules a little earlier in 2015 than they did in 2011.
Again, the Ohio presidential primary has moved to March 15. The state government controls that. However, the state party controls the method of delegate allocation. Those are interrelated but distinct actions taken by different actors.
--
The other troubling thing here -- and this was likely not Ludlow's intent in a very brief item -- is that by making it seem as if a primary date change automatically triggers a delegate allocation change, it builds on the false 2012 narrative that once the proportionality window closes, all primaries and caucuses are winner-take-all. In other words, the Republican National Committee has required winner-take-all contests on and after March 15. That was false in 2012 and it is false for the 2016 cycle. The close of the proportionality window marks the end of the RNC's requirements on delegate allocation at the state level. Once the window closes, state parties are free to set a method of delegate allocation of their choosing. It can be proportional. It can be winner-take-all. It can be some hybrid in between. The state party's hold maximum latitude in setting their delegate allocation rules if that state has a contest on or after March 15.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Bill to Move Pennsylvania Presidential Primary to March 15 Introduced
On Wednesday, June 10, Pennsylvania state Representative Keith Greiner (R-43rd, Lancaster) introduced HB 1318. The legislation would move the presidential primary (and those for other offices) up to the third Tuesday in March. With rare exception, the Pennsylvania presidential primary has been scheduled on the fourth Tuesday in April throughout the post-reform era.1
Greiner's bill claims the bipartisan support of 16 co-sponsors (11 Republicans and 5 Democrats) and would align the Pennsylvania presidential primary with those in Florida, Illinois, Missouri and Ohio. Like Illinois, Pennsylvania directly elects delegates to the national convention in the primary and the presidential preference vote is a beauty contest. That adds some nuance to a date on the 2016 presidential primary calendar that already serves as the first day after the close of the Republican proportionality window. The other three contests are already winner-take-all (Florida), have a history with a winner-take-all allocation in the pre-proportionality era (Missouri) or are signaling a potential shift to winner-take-all rules (Ohio). If those three end up with truly winner-take-all allocation plans, that potentially makes both Illinois and Pennsylvania tougher draws for the candidates (or not an alternative with clear delegate gains).
However, that likely puts the cart before the horse in Pennsylvania. The newly introduced legislation will have to navigate a Republican-controlled legislature, but also pass muster with a Democratic governor. The former may be the easier task as Republicans are more motivated this cycle to have an earlier primary than Democrats. Republicans, it can be argued are after a guarantee that their respective state's contest will influence the Republican nomination. Democrats, on the other hand, are motivated to stick with a date that on the calendar that offers additional delegates to the national convention in Philadelphia. The later date and group of neighboring states with contests already slated for April 26 both would lead to bonus delegates. That, in turn, means that Democrats in the Keystone state may have more incentive to maintain the status quo primary date in April.
There are Democratic co-sponsors to the HB 1318, but the chair of the state Democratic Party has already spoken out in opposition to the move (as has the Pennsylvania Republican chair). Pennsylvania is getting a late start on this compared to most other states and the road is not necessarily a clear one toward passage and a gubernatorial signature. The move would not be without implications. A March Pennsylvania presidential primary would further compress an already compressed calendar in 2016 (as compared to four years ago).
--
1 The lone exception since the reformed system of nominating presidential candidates began in 1972 is the 2000 cycle when Pennsylvania shared the first Tuesday in April date with the Wisconsin presidential primary.
Greiner's bill claims the bipartisan support of 16 co-sponsors (11 Republicans and 5 Democrats) and would align the Pennsylvania presidential primary with those in Florida, Illinois, Missouri and Ohio. Like Illinois, Pennsylvania directly elects delegates to the national convention in the primary and the presidential preference vote is a beauty contest. That adds some nuance to a date on the 2016 presidential primary calendar that already serves as the first day after the close of the Republican proportionality window. The other three contests are already winner-take-all (Florida), have a history with a winner-take-all allocation in the pre-proportionality era (Missouri) or are signaling a potential shift to winner-take-all rules (Ohio). If those three end up with truly winner-take-all allocation plans, that potentially makes both Illinois and Pennsylvania tougher draws for the candidates (or not an alternative with clear delegate gains).
However, that likely puts the cart before the horse in Pennsylvania. The newly introduced legislation will have to navigate a Republican-controlled legislature, but also pass muster with a Democratic governor. The former may be the easier task as Republicans are more motivated this cycle to have an earlier primary than Democrats. Republicans, it can be argued are after a guarantee that their respective state's contest will influence the Republican nomination. Democrats, on the other hand, are motivated to stick with a date that on the calendar that offers additional delegates to the national convention in Philadelphia. The later date and group of neighboring states with contests already slated for April 26 both would lead to bonus delegates. That, in turn, means that Democrats in the Keystone state may have more incentive to maintain the status quo primary date in April.
There are Democratic co-sponsors to the HB 1318, but the chair of the state Democratic Party has already spoken out in opposition to the move (as has the Pennsylvania Republican chair). Pennsylvania is getting a late start on this compared to most other states and the road is not necessarily a clear one toward passage and a gubernatorial signature. The move would not be without implications. A March Pennsylvania presidential primary would further compress an already compressed calendar in 2016 (as compared to four years ago).
--
1 The lone exception since the reformed system of nominating presidential candidates began in 1972 is the 2000 cycle when Pennsylvania shared the first Tuesday in April date with the Wisconsin presidential primary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)