The Great Primary Calendar re-shuffle Megathread

[Mr. Morden]

Nope.  Because:

-If any other state holds primaries/caucuses before the first Tuesday of March, they lose half their delegates.

The penalty is for going before the first Tuesday of March, not March 1st.

[Mr. Morden]

Super Tuesday seems a bit small.

At least five of the states on the current "Super Tuesday" of Feb. 7th (including CA) are likely to move later, and the new Super Tuesday will probably be March 6th.

[Mr. Morden]

FHQ gets a copy of the actual text of the new RNC rules:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/02/update-on-2012-republican-delegate.html

and notes that we've all been misled on the proportionality requirement.  The rule is written extremely broadly, and allows states to fulfill the requirement by using a statewide PR / WTA by CD hybrid system.  Let me explain:

States with primaries after April 1 can allocate their delegates however they like.  States that vote before April "have to allocate their delegates by PR", but it's really faux-PR, at least for those states with primaries in March.

Let me use MN as an example.  MN held their caucus on the first Tuesday of February in 2008.  For 2012, they've moved to March 6th.  That means that they can't allocate their delegates via WTA.  They have to use a system that incorporates PR.  If they want to allocate all 37 of their delegates by PR, they may do so.  But if they want to, they can actually allocate up to 24 of those delegates by CD, with the winner of each of the 8 CDs in the state getting 3 delegates, and the remaining 13 delegates being allocated proportionally based on the statewide total.  (The fraction of delegates that can be used for WTA by CD varies by state, but is typically over 50% of the state's delegates.)  And even with those 13 delegates allocated by statewide PR, the state can set a minimum threshold as high as 20% if they like.

In 2008, the MN GOP caucus results were:

Romney 41.4%
McCain 22.0%
Huckabee 19.9%
Paul 15.7%
and Romney gets a plurality in all 8 CDs

So yes, under 2012 RNC rules, MN could write its allocation rules so that Romney gets 41.4% of the delegates, McCain gets 22.0% of the delegates, Huckabee 19.9%, etc.  But they could also write their rules such that 24 delegates are WTA by CD (all going to Romney), and the remaining 13 delegates are distribution between Romney and McCain, as Huck and Paul don't crack 20%.

(EDIT: Oh yeah, and I forgot the best part.  States can also include a provision in their allocation rules such that it reverts to WTA if one candidate gets more than 50%.  So again, this isn't real PR.)

These options would be available to the states with primaries in March.  The states with primaries in Jan. / Feb. would be hit with the additional penalty of the 50% delegate cut.  And it's unclear whether they'd have the same options with respect to PR, or if they'd be forced into full blown statewide PR for all of their delegates.  It may depend on how the RNC ends up interpreting the rule, which hasn't been decided yet.

[Mr. Morden]

I thought state's leeway in deciding how PR is implemented was reported when the new rules passed, no?

It was reported that the rule was vague, but this is the first time it's been made explicit that the states are actually free to allocate a majority of their delegates by WTA by CD, escaping proportionality altogether for all but about 1/3rd of their delegates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

20% is the maximum threshold that states can set as their minimum for getting delegates.  But they're free to set that threshold anywhere between 0% and 20%.  Iowa has traditionally used something approximating straight PR, and will probably do the same in 2012.  McCain even got a delegate there in 2000, despite getting less than 5% of the vote.

[Mr. Morden]

To start with, I'll try to post what I understand the "current" calendar to be in the near future.  I'll get to that soon, and edit this post appropriately.  In the meantime, here are two versions of it:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2010/06/2012-presidential-primary-calendar.html
(that is a very useful blog on this topic btw)

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c

Neither one of those blogs get everything right concerning South Carolina.  Frontloading gives a more likely date for the South Carolina GOP primary, but neglects the fact the parties can, have, and likely will, have their primaries on different dates.

Like me, FHQ is only tracking the GOP calendar.  The Dem. calendar is unimportant (unless and until Obama gets a serious primary challenger).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is that a given?  In 2008, SC positioned itself 10 days before Florida rather than 3.  Why isn't that a possibility for 2012?

[Mr. Morden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is that a given?  In 2008, SC positioned itself 10 days before Florida rather than 3.  Why isn't that a possibility for 2012?

Back when the 2008 date was set, several states were still considering moving earlier, and Nevada had already scheduled its caucus for the same date as South Carolina chose for its primary.  They went for 10 days before because they wanted to be (along with Nevada) not just the first in the South, but also the first after Iowa and New Hampshire.  (As it was, Michigan later changed to before South Carolina.)  Nevada has moved its caucuses to mid-February and at the moment, no State is considering moving its contest into January.  If the present circumstances hold, South Carolina has no reason to not be considerate to Iowa and New Hampshire, especially if Florida moves its primary later.  Feb 4 would fall within the RNC guidelines,
[/quote]

If Florida moves later, then I agree SC would go on Feb. 4th to stay within RNC rules.  If Florida stays on Jan. 31st, then SC might just as easily move to the 21st as 28th, just in case.  It gives SC more of a buffer on either side, and decreases the probability that some candidates will try to sidestep SC in favor of FL.

[Mr. Morden]

OK, it appears I was led astray by a mistake by FHQ on the date of Minnesota's caucus.  It should be Feb. 7th.  Apparently, state law sets both parties' caucuses as the first Tuesday of Feb., unless the state has the consent of both political parties to move that date.  The parties have to agree to this before March 1st of the year before the caucuses:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/Minnesota_caucus_could_scramble_12_calendar.html

Well, March 1st has come and gone, and the Minnesota GOP refused to move the caucus date.  So it's still scheduled for Feb. 7th.  The MN GOP says this shouldn't be a problem for the primary calendar because the caucus is "non-binding".  But technically, I think almost all the caucuses are non-binding, so I think it kind of is a problem for the RNC pushing the calendar later.  Just another indication that the primaries are likely going to start in early January again.

Meanwhile, it looks like Michigan, which is currently scheduled for Feb. 28th, has no intention of moving later to avoid sanctions, and may again move *earlier*, as in 2008:

http://detnews.com/article/20110304/POLITICS02/103040402/Michigan-will-try-again-for-early-primary

[Mr. Morden]

And now a bipartisan group of state legislators in Georgia has offered a bill that would allow the Georgia Secretary of State (currently a Republican) to set the state's primary date himself:

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/03/04/in-a-game-of-presidential-primary-poker-georgia-will-play-it-close-to-the-vest/

He'd be able to name any date he likes, provided that it's no earlier than Jan. 30th and no later than the 2nd Tuesday of June.  And he wouldn't have to announce the date until Dec. 1, thus potentially waiting out every other state.

Apparently, the speculation is that this might be a bid to join Florida on Jan. 31st, but Georgia wants to wait and see how the current clash between Florida and the RNC plays out before committing to that date.

[Mr. Morden]

Geez, we really don't have a lot of time left. For states that want change, most have to go to the legislature, and in most cases states are already halfway done meaning few new bills will be able to enter and make it out before the session closes.

A lot of states have bills in the pipeline.  Of course, not all of them will pass.  Virginia actually has a bill that would move the primary later that's been passed by both houses, and is just waiting for McDonnell's signature.  Every Feb. 7th primary state except DE, NY, and UT has a bill having to do with primary timing that's at least been proposed, if not yet voted on.  Utah is actually the most significant case, as they have a very short legislative session, which actually ends as early as this coming week.  So the chances are pretty good that Utah will be sticking with Feb. 7th.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that's true at all.  As previously mentioned, it's not just Florida.  There are several February primary/caucus states that aren't going to move.  Utah will probably stay on Feb. 7th.  MN is likely going to stay on Feb. 7th.  New York is a question mark, but nothing's been proposed in the legislature yet.  Arizona probably isn't going to move later.  Michigan probably isn't going to move later, and might even move earlier.

The DNC and RNC were naive if they actually thought their rules changes were going to be enough to shift the start of primary season back to February.  It was never going to work.  They only way to stop primary season from starting in January is via federal legislation.

[Mr. Morden]

I also think NH, IA etc would call special leg. sessions to make sure their primary is the earliest/most rad.

They don't need them.  In Iowa, the individual state parties set the caucus date (and the two parties don't have to go on the same day, though historically they have).  In NH, the Secretary of State sets the primary himself (the same system being proposed in Georgia).  That way, they can wait until very late in the game before announcing their primary date.

That's part of the hypocrisy of IA and NH.  They yell and scream about other states breaking national party rules by going too early, but then they also insist that they're not going to be bound by national party rules themselves, and will move their primaries earlier than everyone else no matter what the national parties say.

[Mr. Morden]

Utah is now locked in to a Feb. 7th primary, as the state legislature has adjourned for the year, without changing the primary date:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/03/update-on-utah-locked-in-on-feb-7.html

While the Utah GOP could still decide to hold a later caucus that they pay for themselves (as opposed to the primary, which the state pays for), there's no reason to believe that's going to happen.  The state appears to be essentially a lock for a Feb. 7th primary, which is a month earlier than the national parties would like.

We now seem to have something of a split among the January / February primary states.  On the one hand, states like California, New Jersey, Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee, Maryland, and others all have bills in the pipeline to move the primary to March or later, and all seem to be on track to do so.  In each of those cases, the push for a later primary appears to be bipartisan.

On the flip side, the states that look most willing to defy DNC and RNC wishes, and stick with January or February primaries are Utah, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Minnesota.  They all seem willing to accept the risk of a 50% delegate loss in order to go early.

The biggest question mark remains New York.  If California moves to June as expected, then New York is the biggest delegate prize among February primaries.  Are they going to move too?  There haven't yet been any bills presented in the legislature that would effect primary timing, and I'm not aware of any public statements by any state legislative leaders on this.  But I believe the New York legislature meets year round, so there should still be plenty of time on this.

[Mr. Morden]

Yeah, the Utah legislature only meets for about six and a half weeks a year (between January and March):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_State_Legislature

There are several other states that only meet between January and April.  And on the other end of the spectrum, you've got states whose legislatures are in session pretty much year round.

[Mr. Morden]

OK, looks like everyone got the Utah story wrong.  True, the legislature didn't change the primary date, but they also failed to appropriate any money for the primary next year:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsoutofcontext/51428755-64/primary-date-utah-party.html.csp

Which means that, while Utah law says there will be a primary on Feb. 7th, there actually won't be one, because there's no money for it.  The parties are on their own, and have to fund their own delegate contests, which might be a party-run primary, or a caucus, or a state convention, or whatever.  It sounds like the Utah GOP will likely go late with their contest, possibly as late as June.

So I've changed the calendar in the OP to reflect this, and would also now amend the list of states I consider most likely to defy national party rules to go early as: FL, GA, AZ, MI, and MN.

[Mr. Morden]

Missouri joins the states with a good chance of keeping an early primary.  There had been some support in both parties for moving to a later date, but the GOP leadership was divided on the issue, and when a bill came up in the state senate to move the primary to March, a Republican senator offered an amendment that would actually require that the primary be held just one week after NH (whenever NH decides to hold its primary) instead, and the amendment passed by a vote of 16-14:

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/dfbdf304c117464986fbb88495d044e8/MO-XGR--Presidential-Primary/

It's not clear that the revised bill is actually going to go anywhere, and even if both houses passed it, it would probably be vetoed by Nixon.  But this definitely increases the chances that the legislature simply won't be able to agree on when to schedule the primary, which means that it stays on Feb. 7th, one month earlier than the national parties would like.

[Mr. Morden]

There are bills in both houses of the Florida legislature to move the primary later, but they're backed by Democrats, while it's the Republicans who are in the majority.  The GOP leadership in the legislature says they're willing to move to February, but only if Florida can still go before any other state besides IA, NH, NV, and SC.  Since at least a couple of the Feb. 7th states are probably going to stay where they are, I don't see Florida moving.

Florida's legislative session ends on May 6th, so that's the deadline for making a change.  Two other February primary states (Arizona and Georgia) have legislative sessions that end in April.  There haven't been any bills proposed in the Arizona legislature to move the primary.  And in Georgia, the only bill to move the primary would actually allow the state's Secretary of State to set the primary date unilaterally, allowing him to go as early as Jan. 30th if he wants.

[Mr. Morden]

So has NV indicated they are going to move into Jan to secure position as fourth state? NV is pretty important for Romney. He needs that second win after NH to fend off losses in IA and SC.

Nevada is still clinging to the hope that all the other states will move into March like the RNC wants them to.  Of course, that's not really going to happen.  Not all of them are going to move.  Nevada will probably move up into January in the end, but nothing's certain.

So, should all this happen, we'd be looking at the first 10 or so states having half-delegates?  Wouldn't big states like FL, MI, and others, besides, having half delegates mean that the later states would have that much more weight if the contest ends up split like 2008?  (Texas, especially, will be a heavyweight)

Yes, there could end up being a lot of states with half delegates.  But remember, back in 2008, the RNC had similar 50% delegate penalties for states with January primaries, including NH, SC, and FL.  But even with delegate penalties, McCain basically won the nomination by winning those three states.  He won because the momentum he got from winning those states carried over into Super Tuesday and beyond.  That's the gamble that each of these states is making by setting early primaries dates.  The gamble is that "momentum" trumps delegates.

This is a good read that I've linked to before:

http://www.slate.com/id/2179500/pagenum/all

"We don't nominate presidents anymore by getting to the point where somebody has a majority of the delegates. We nominate someone when we get to the point that there is a communal sense that one of the candidates has effectively won the nomination and the race is over."

Of course, that was said just before the 2008 Democratic race, a contest in which delegates actually mattered more than momentum.  Maybe the 2012 GOP race will end up like that.  But there's no way to know yet.

[Mr. Morden]

Yes, the media has something of an interest in prolonging the nomination fight.  And yet, that's been the case forever, and there are still many cases in which a winner is annointed very early.  The most extreme recent case is the Democratic race in 2004.  Kerry looked to be dead in the water as late as December 2003.  Then, once the primary voting actually starts, he wins back to back victories in IA and NH, and he becomes the putative nominee.  The race ended right away, well before he had amassed a majority of delegates, despite the fact that every Democratic primary assigned delegates by proportional representation.

Maybe the 2012 GOP nomination race will be like that.  Maybe it won't be.  There's no reliable way to predict such things this far in advance.

[Mr. Morden]

Virginia officially moves to March 6th, to avoid the 50% delegate penalty:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/03/gov-mcdonnell-makes-it-official.html

I've updated the calendar in the OP accordingly.

[Mr. Morden]

Merged into the primary calendar thread.

i agree, FL is throwing a wrench into this whole thing and they are thumbing their noses at the RNC, so why should they also be awarded with the convention.

It's not just Florida though.  There are several other states that will hold early primaries as well, inviting RNC sanctions.  Florida is just the most extreme case at the moment.

Again, the DNC/RNC plan for moving the start of primary season a month later was never going to work.  As long as the individual states are running and paying for their own primaries, there is going to be primary calendar "chaos".  If the RNC wants later primaries, they should pay for the primaries themselves.

[Mr. Morden]

Texas is likely to move its primary to April to avoid the penalty for not using proportional delegate allocation.

Indeed, it's being talked about.  But have any bills to do that actually been put forward on this in the legislature yet?

Anyway, a lot of activity going on in state legislatures at the moment to move some of the February primaries later, to avoid sanctions.  In Maryland, Oklahoma, and DC, legislatures have passed bills to move the respective primaries later, and those bills are now awaiting the signature of the governor (or mayor, in the case of DC).

But the most interesting activity is in the states that have gone rogue.  States that have primaries in January/February, and want to keep them there, or move even earlier: Florida, Georgia, Michigan, and Missouri.  (Well, Arizona and Minnesota too, but there's nothing new to report there.)

Florida

The Florida Speaker of the House has indicated that he will introduce legislation to set up a 10 person committee (3 people each appointed by the governor and both houses of the legislature, plus the Secretary of State in a non-voting role), that would have the power to set the state's primary whenever they want, between the first Tuesday in January and the first Tuesday in March:

link

So yes, if Florida gets too annoyed by the RNC harrassing it, they could move their primary even *earlier*, bumping Iowa and NH into December.  Florida's legislative session ends on May 6, but if they vote to create this committee, the committee would be able to defer the choice of a primary date until as late as October.

Georgia

Georgia is currently scheduled for Feb. 7th, which leaves them open to the 50% delegate penalty.  However, Georgia wants to go early anyway.  The House has passed a bill that would grant the Secretary of State (a Republican, at present) the power to decide the primary date on his own, but that hasn't been passed by the Senate, and the last day of the Georgia legislature's 2011 session is *today*.  So if it doesn't pass today, Georgia will stick with a Feb. 7th primary.

Michigan

Michigan's primary is Feb. 28th, which breaks national party rules.  But Michigan has no intention of moving later.  They may end up moving *earlier*.  Earlier this week, a bill was introduced to move the primary up to Jan. 31st, the same day as Florida:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/04/bill-introduced-in-michigan-house-to.html

We'll have to wait and see what happens to that bill.  Michigan's legislature is in session all year, so this controversy could go well into the fall.

Missouri

Missouri's primary is scheduled for Feb. 7th.  Again, in violation of national party rules.  The House passed a bill to move the primary back to March 6th.  But the Senate passed a bill that would anchor the primary to NH, and hold it one week after NH, whenever NH votes.  Not clear what's going to happen.  There's a good chance that the legislature will be deadlocked, and the primary will stay on Feb. 7th.  The legislature adjourns on May 30th.

[Mr. Morden]

Wow.  What if Florida, Georgia, and Michigan all end up on January 31?

That's a very real possibility now that the Georgia Senate has indeed passed the bill that would give the state's Secretary of State the power to set the primary whenever he likes, going as early as Jan. 31 if he wants:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/04/georgia-senate-passes-presidential.html

The bill has now passed both houses of the legislature, and goes to Gov. Deal to sign.

In Missouri, things have gotten more crazy, with the relevant committee in the House approving a bill that would move Missouri's primary all the way up to November 2011(!):

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/04/did-missouri-house-up-ante-on-state.html

I'm nor sure that version is really going to pass the full House.  But it's looking more likely that either the legislature will deadlock, or they'll pass an early primary bill that Nixon will veto, and Missouri will still have an early primary on Feb. 7th, which is the status quo.

[Mr. Morden]

Update: it's official. Washington has canceled its presidential primary. Washington will definitely be a top target for Paul and whoever becomes the religious right candidate.

I don't think it is official.  It's been passed by both houses of the legislature, but I don't think the bill has been signed by the governor yet (though it presumably will be).  I'll update the calendar in the OP once the bill is signed.

[Mr. Morden]

So did the bill with Georgia go through?

Like I said here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=128721.msg2871890#msg2871890

"The bill has now passed both houses of the legislature, and goes to Gov. Deal to sign."

That's where we're at right now.  Deal hasn't signed it yet, but everyone expects that he will.  Just like we have bills in DC, MD, OK, and WA to move or cancel primaries that have been passed by the respectively legislatures but aren't yet signed by the governor (or mayor in the case of DC).

[Mr. Morden]

An update on several bills to move or cancel primaries.  In the following states, you have a bill that's been passed by both houses of the legislature, and the move would become official with the signature of the governor (or mayor in the case of DC):

DC (bill would move primary to April 3)
Maryland (bill would move primary to April 3)
Georgia (bill would give the Secretary of State the power to set the primary when he likes)
Oklahoma (bill would move the primary to March 6)
Tennessee (bill would move the primary to March 6)
Washington (bill would cancel the primary, so that delegates for both parties would be allocated by caucus)

As I said, none of those moves is official yet, because the governor (or mayor in the case of DC) still has to sign the bill.  But it's expected to be signed all six of these cases.

There are also of course, efforts to move to later primaries in other February states, like California and New Jersey, but those bills haven't yet passed both houses of the legislature.

[Mr. Morden]

DC has officially moved its primary to April 3:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/05/dc-to-april-3.html

and I've updated the calendar in the OP.

Also, the Arizona legislature adjourned for the year, and did not move the primary.  That means the primary is locked into February, and Arizona will get hit by the 50% delegate penalty unless the RNC gives them a waiver.  The primary is tentatively scheduled for Feb. 28, but the governor has the power to move it to Feb. 7 if she wishes.