roundup of big state primary calendar news

[Mr. Morden]

Actually, the SC GOP primary is currently scheduled for Saturday, February 2 which I believe keeps in within the acceptable GOP window.  The parties run their own primaries in this state, so they don't have to both be on the same date and don't require any change in the law to be moved up.  I fully expect that the SC GOP primary will move up a week to Saturday January 26 now, but they'll wait a bit to see if any other state might muscle in on their date.

I think I heard that the FL bill actually says that the FL primary will be "seven days after the NH primary, but no earlier than the first Tuesday following Jan. 1st".  (The original House bill said something like that, but the amended version might be different.)  If that's the case, then the likely scenario is that the SC GOP moves up to Jan. 26th, then NH feels threatened by the encroachment of both NV and SC, so they move up to Jan. 15th, which moves FL to Jan. 22nd.  Then the SC GOP has to move up to the 19th in order to still be ahead of FL, which prompts NH to move up to Jan. 8th, which moves FL to Jan. 15th....etc.  Final scenario: NH primary in December.  SC GOP primary on Jan. 5th.  FL primary on Jan. 8th.  It could happen.

[Mr. Morden]

It's also starting to look like "Super Duper Tuesday" might not be quite as "Super Duper" as we thought.  I mean, yes, it'll be bigger than any previous Super Tuesday, but probably not with over half the country voting on that one day, as it looks like TX, FL, PA, OH, and MI could all end up voting on some day other than Feb. 5th.

In 2000,  we already had a Super Tuesday (at that point in the first week of March) in which CA, NY, OH, and more than 10 other states voted on the same day.  Feb. 5th, 2008 will be bigger than that, but maybe not *that* much bigger, given the way things are trending.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I doubt New Hampshire would move their primary up just one week because that predictable accordion effect from Florida and South Carolina.  If they do move, they'll have to commit to an all at one time move to either December 18 or December 11 (I can't imagine anyone would schedule a primary for Christmas Day or New Year's Day.)  The South Carolina GOP would then probably choose Saturday December 22 as that would not conflict with any bowl games that Clemson or USC would be likely to go to.

[Mr. Morden]

OK, despite the filing deadline problems that I mentioned yesterday, the relevant committee in the TX Senate has passed the bill that moves the state primary to Feb. 5th anyway:

http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=6487979

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it looks like TX may be on track to move their primary to Feb. 5th after all.  "Super Duper Tuesday" now starting to look a bit more "Super Duper".

[Tender Branson]

IL Senate agrees to move the Primary to Feb. 5, 2008.

Gov. Blagojevich will sign it.

http://www.whbf.com/Global/story.asp?S=6520917&nav=0zGo

[Mr. Morden]

Regarding Texas, it sounds like the full Senate will take up the Feb. 5th primary bill within a week or two.  And back to Florida: I still haven't heard anything about Crist signing the bill, though he's promised to do so.  Also, I may have been wrong in assuming that the FL bill moves the primary to one week after NH but no earlier than the first week of January.  That's what the original House version of the bill said.  But it sounds like the version that passed may have just pegged the primary to the last Tuesday in January.  Thus, NH might not move their primary all the way back to December.  They might just move it up a week or two earlier in January.

[Mr. Morden]

Crist has signed the bill that moves Florida's primary to January 29th:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/05/21/ap3742486.html

So it's official.  Florida will hold its primary on Jan. 29th, though there are still some questions about whether the Democratic primary in the state will count for anything.

Summary of where things stand in the eight largest states:

CA & NY Have both officially moved their primaries to Feb. 5th.

TX A bill that would move the primary to Feb. 5th has passed the House, and passed the relevant committee in the Senate, but still awaits a vote in the full Senate and the governor's signature.

FL Has officially moved its primary to Jan. 29th, and the GOP primary on that day will definitely count towards awarding FL's delegates (though the number of delegates the state gets will be reduced due to its early primary).  The DNC's sanctions against early primaries are so severe, however, that there is talk of having the Dem. Jan. 29th primary being nonbinding, with the binding vote being held at caucuses to be held on Feb. 5th or later....possibly Feb. 12th.

IL A bill that would move the primary to Feb. 5th has passed both houses of the legislature, and is expected to be signed by the governor....though he hasn't done so yet.

PA There have been hearings on the subject of moving the primary to Feb. 5th.  However, the effort doesn't appear to be going anywhere, as far as I can tell.

OH Ohioans still don't appear to have any interest in moving up their primary to February or earlier.

MI Tentative primary dates are Feb. 5th for the GOP and Feb. 9th for the Dems, though the two parties have had discussions about holding a joint primary on the 5th.  However, with FL's move to Jan. 29th, there's a good chance that the MI GOP will also move their primary to some time pre-Feb. 5th as well.  And it's also looking like the Dems probably won't follow them, owing to those strict DNC sanctions for early primaries.

[jimrtex]

How exactly does a Jan. 29 primary in Florida and Michigan violate DNC and RNC rules ? The 2 states appear to hold their primaries together with SC and all other traditionial primaries/caucuses set by the DNC/RNC are before FL and MI. Can anyone help me out ?

The DNC rules allow IA, NV, NH, and SC to hold their primaries in January.  But they explicitly prohibit any other states from holding their primaries before Feb. 5th.  The DNC could theoretically block all of the delegates from any offending state from participating in the convention, which would mean that any primaries held outside of the window allowed by the DNC would have only symbolic significance.  They wouldn't really count towards winning the nomination.

The DNC would reduce the number of pledged delegates (those chosen by the primary) by 50%, and take convention voting privileges from unpledged delegates (Democrat governors, senators, representatives, and DNC members).

In addition, if a candidate campaigned in the state, he would lose any pledged delegates that he won in the primary.

The DNC has a bonus scheme as well, that was intended to encourage states to hold later primaries (April, May, or June), especially if they moved their primary back from when it was held in 2004.  At best, some states may get a small bonus (5% for keeping it in April, or 10% for keeping it in May or June).  I doubt that any will go for the 30% bonus by moving from April or earlier, to May or June.

[Brandon H]

If either party threatens to take away any of a states delegates for moving their primary, that state just needs to threaten to withhold electoral votes for the party's designated candidate should that party win that state. I don't think any state party would have the guts to do it, but I believe they would have the leverage to do it if they wanted.

[jimrtex]

Sorry, but what's a "reading"?  I'm not up on legislative lingo.

In Texas, the Constitution requires a bill to be read on three separate days in each House (this can be overridden on a 4/5 vote).  Bills are also required to be considered in committee.

Congress uses the same procedure, but it is in their rules, and not required by the US Constitution (or at least I couldn't find it).

The idea is that a bill can't be rushed through on one day when some members might be absent, and also gives them the chance to reconsider.

The basic process (simple version) is this:

(1) Bill is filed in one house or the other (in Texas, identical or similar bills are usually filed in both houses).
(2) Bill is given first reading.  This is very perfunctory, and there is usually unanimous consent to dispense with reading the entire bill.  So the reading clerk simply reads "HB 31415 by Doe", "HB 31416 by Smith", etc.
(3) The bill is assigned to a committee (or committees) by the presiding officer (speaker in the House, Lt.Governor in the Senate).
(4) The committee hears testimony (this is referred to as hearing).  Often they simply postpone further action, effectively killing the bill.  Often they will make a substitute for the bill, which is done because there were some technical or other problems found with the bill.  If the committee likes the bill, or at least wants it considered by the full house, they report it back to the house.
(5) Bill is given second reading.  This is usually the main debate on the bill.  Amendments can be offered.  Sometimes a bill is sent back to committee.  Sometimes the bill passes.  Sometimes it fails.  Ordinarily a bill that would likely fail would never get this far, unless it was being done to politically embarrass its supporters.
(6) Bill is given third reading.  If the bill is uncontroversial, the rules might be suspended to permit immediate consideration (same day) 3rd reading.  If it passes on 3rd reading it is final passage by the house, and is then sent to the other house where the procedure is repeated.   

Sometimes, a bill might pass on 2nd reading, but fail on 3rd reading, if opponents have talked someone into changing their vote, or possibly because some absent members show up the next day.

[jimrtex]

Fresh news out of Texas.  According to this:

link

The Texas Senate is unlikely to pass anything resembling the House bill that moves the primary up from March to February 5th.  That's because of rules imposed by the Texas constitution that would effectively prevent any officeholder in Texas from filing papers to run for another office more than a year before their current term expires.  If the primary is moved up to February, they would have to file more than a year before their term is up.  Not sure if the House was unaware of this rule, or if they just don't care.

The only way out is for them to split up the presidential primary from the primary for other offices, which would cost more $, and would also require them to start from scratch legislatively.  Not sure what the odds of that happening are.

The Texas Constitution is a little more specific.  The restriction is that if county or district officers seek another office, with more than one year remaining on their term, they must resign their current position.  It does not apply to state senators, state representatives, state officers, congressmen, US senators, presidents or vice presidents.

The provision was added during the 1950s, shortly after the terms of office for the county and district offices were increased from 2 to 4 years, and the intent was that if someone decided to run for a different offfice whose election cycle was at the midpoint of their four year term, they would be forced to resign.  This would permit their current office to be filled at the upcoming general election.  At that time, the primary was held in July.  So let's say you had been elected in November 2006, to a term running from January 2007-2011.  You then decide to run for a different office in 2008.  As soon as you filed for that office, you would resign; but then the final two years of your term in the old office could be filled at the regular primary and general election in 2008.

On the other hand, if your current term ended in January 2009, you could run for another office at the 2008 election without any problem, since even with a March primary, the filing deadline would be in January 2008, just barely within the 1-year limit of the constitution.

The idea wasn't to keep someone running for another office while they held office, but to make sure there could be a convenient election to fill the vacacny in case they switched office at midterm.  If there wasn't the provision, they would simply resign 1 day before the term of their new office began, leaving a vacancy that was more difficult to fill.

But with a February primary, the filing period was moved into October or November of the preceding year, inadvertantly tripping over the literal language of the Constitution.

There is a proposed constitutional amendment that would extend the period from one year, one year plus 90 days.  It was voted down by the House 71:72 (and a 2/3 supermajority is required).   I'm not quite sure why.  It was considered after a 6-hour debate on a extremely contentious highly partisan Voter ID bill.  Most but not all of the opposition to the constitutional amendment was from Democrats who had been on the losing side in the Voter ID debate.  But the sponsor of the February primary is a Black Democrat who voted in favor of the amendment (and understood it was part of the deal to get her primary bill through).  There were suggestions that the constitutional amendment was being proposed to benefit certain county officials, though it would only maintain the status quo, and wouldn't take effect until it was approved by the voters, which would be too late for the 2008 elections.

After the constitutional amendment was rejected by the House, there was an effort to salvage the bill by sending it back to committee - but that received an objection (it needed unanimous consent).  So now action has been postponed until the 28th, at which time votes might be found to pass the amendment.  It is really a long way from the 2/3 supermajority.

I don't know if the House was aware of the constitutional provision or not (it doesn't apply to them; but could apply to some who might want to run against them).  During the House Election Committee hearing on the February primary there were two scheduling concerns.  One was whether it would have an impact on state senators and state representatives.  There is a constitutional provision requiring legislators to have lived in their district for a year before they are elected, but this is based on the November election date, so it was noted that the primary date and filing date had no effect.  There was also concern about the effect on procedural deadlines, since now the start of the November 2008 election cycle will overlap with the November 2007 elections.  In November 2007 there will be a state special election for constitutional amendments, as well as a city elections in Houston.  The early primary also pushes the registration deadline back towards the first of January and the holiday period.  But I think they decided to pretty much ignore the concerns of election officials.

The resolution for the constitutional amendment to change the 1-year overlap was filed on the same day as the House committee hearing on the primary date, so it is quite possible that someone recognized the problem, even though there was no testimony as to the problem.

The senate committee was very aware of the 1-year provision in the constitution.  One of the those testifying in opposition against the primary date, had been with the Texas AG office in 1982, when the constitution provision had been upheld by the USSC ('Clements v Fasching'.  He pointed out that the 5-4 decision was probably decided on the basis that office holders could run for another office at the end of the current term with no penalty, but that this could change with a change in the primary date.  It could be that a court might order a split primary, rather than negating the 1-year provision in the constitution.

Currently, the primary date legislation doesn't have the 2/3 majority needed for Senate consideration.  Similarly, the Voter ID legislation is one vote short of a 2/3 majority to consider it.  I wouldn't be surprised that the primary date bill is being held hostage.  The Senate also amended the primary date bill, so even if passed it would have to go a conference committee.  And the legislature is in the process of a major meltdown, which might mean that nothing will get passed in the last week of the session (which ends on May 28).

[Jasengle]

did You Hear Florida moved Up its Primary to January

[Mr. Morden]

Thanks jimrtex.  It sounds like the early primary bill in TX is in pretty serious trouble.  You say that the last day of the legislative session is May 28th.  Is there another session later this year?  If this doesn't pass before then, is that the end of it, or could it be passed later in the year?

Anyway, here's a new news story on the troubled effort to move up the primary in TX:

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/05/22/22primary.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Sam Spade]

The Texas Legislature is kinda strange to most unfamiliar with it.

The Texas Legislature is limited to meeting only 140 days every two years by the Constitution. 

May 28 will be the last day they meet until 2009, unless called into special session by the Governor. 

Special sessions can only last 30 days at a time (though the Governor may call as many as he wants) and can only consider issues brought by the Governor in the proclamation declaring a special session.

[Mr. Morden]

The Texas primary bill is being declared dead:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4835047.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would have driven down voter participation to hold the primary when the presidential nomination race was still contested, rather than in March, when it would likely already be over???

Anyway, this means that Super Duper Tuesday will not be as Super Duper as some previously expected.  CA, NY, and (almost certainly, though the bill hasn't been signed yet) IL will all vote on Feb. 5th, but FL, TX, and OH won't, and PA and MI probably won't either.  So it might not actually be that much bigger than the Super Tuesday of 2000 (which, back then, was held in the first week of March).

Also, as I previously speculated, it looks like the FL primary bill that ended up being passed did *not* peg the FL primary date to NH, it just set it for the last Tuesday of January, regardless of when NH votes:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4169.html

Thus it looks unlikely that NH will move its primary to December.  If they move it up, it'll probably be to either January 8th or January 15th.  Not sure about Iowa though.  If NH moves to Jan. 8th, then I suppose Iowa might move to December.

[Mr. Morden]

Implications of this: I have to assume that the Giuliani people are pleased that Super Tuesday will be dominated by states like CA, NY, and IL rather than the Deep South.  On the Dem side, if by Super Tuesday it's come down to Clinton vs. Obama, then one would assume that Clinton would have a big advantage in NY (and maybe NJ as well?), while Obama would have a major advantage in IL.  Each of the two candidates would probably barely contest the race in the other's home state.  So CA will be the biggest battleground by a mile. 

[muon2]

Sorry, but what's a "reading"?  I'm not up on legislative lingo.

In Texas, the Constitution requires a bill to be read on three separate days in each House (this can be overridden on a 4/5 vote).  Bills are also required to be considered in committee.

Congress uses the same procedure, but it is in their rules, and not required by the US Constitution (or at least I couldn't find it).

The idea is that a bill can't be rushed through on one day when some members might be absent, and also gives them the chance to reconsider.

The basic process (simple version) is this:

(1) Bill is filed in one house or the other (in Texas, identical or similar bills are usually filed in both houses).
(2) Bill is given first reading.  This is very perfunctory, and there is usually unanimous consent to dispense with reading the entire bill.  So the reading clerk simply reads "HB 31415 by Doe", "HB 31416 by Smith", etc.
(3) The bill is assigned to a committee (or committees) by the presiding officer (speaker in the House, Lt.Governor in the Senate).
(4) The committee hears testimony (this is referred to as hearing).  Often they simply postpone further action, effectively killing the bill.  Often they will make a substitute for the bill, which is done because there were some technical or other problems found with the bill.  If the committee likes the bill, or at least wants it considered by the full house, they report it back to the house.
(5) Bill is given second reading.  This is usually the main debate on the bill.  Amendments can be offered.  Sometimes a bill is sent back to committee.  Sometimes the bill passes.  Sometimes it fails.  Ordinarily a bill that would likely fail would never get this far, unless it was being done to politically embarrass its supporters.
(6) Bill is given third reading.  If the bill is uncontroversial, the rules might be suspended to permit immediate consideration (same day) 3rd reading.  If it passes on 3rd reading it is final passage by the house, and is then sent to the other house where the procedure is repeated.   

Sometimes, a bill might pass on 2nd reading, but fail on 3rd reading, if opponents have talked someone into changing their vote, or possibly because some absent members show up the next day.

In IL there are similarly three readings of each bill in each chamber. Readings only include the reading of the title of the bill.

The first reading is perfunctory. The chamber is generally not in session and the reading is handled by the Clerk. The bill is sent to the Rules committee.

The Rules committee refers the bill to a committee for hearing and recommendation. Bills that receive a favorable recommendation from the committee return to the full chamber and are placed on  a calendar of second reading.

After a bill is assigned to committee each step only proceeds with the consent of the sponsor of the bill.

Bills can only be amended in committee or on second reading. Bill are often held on second if negotiations towards an amendment are underway. Amendments on the floor are debatable, but rarely does this occur. The actual second reading is not debated, but allows the bill to move from second to third reading on a non-recorded voice vote.

Debate occurs on the third reading. The final vote is always recorded.

[Mr. Morden]

According to this:

http://www.thepilot.com/stories/20070526/news/local/20070526Elections.html

it sounds like the chances are slim that the bill that will move up North Carolina's primary to Feb. 5th will pass.  It doesn't appear to be going anywhere.

On the flip side, Alaska (a big state in a different way), and Georgia have both moved up to Feb. 5th:

link

Gov. Perdue has signed the bill in GA that sets the primary for Feb. 5th, so it's a done deal.  Barring any surprise entrants to the Feb. 5th sweepstakes, GA will actually be the third biggest delegate prize on the GOP side for Feb. 5th (after CA and NY).  Both parties award delegates based largely on population, but there are bonuses for "party strength" in the state (having a governor of that party, having a large fraction of the state's congressional delegation being from that party, etc.), so GA actually has more GOP delegates than, say, IL, MI, or NJ.  If NY is a gimme for Giuliani, then GA would be the second biggest delegate prize among states that are actually contested by the GOP candidates on Feb. 5th.

For the Democrats, GA has fewer delegates than both NJ and (not yet officially a Feb. 5th state, but probably soon to be one) IL.  However, IL will probably be a gimme for Obama and NY for Clinton, so again, GA will be one of the biggest delegate prizes on the Dem. side that will actually be contested.

[jimrtex]

It sounds like the early primary bill in TX is in pretty serious trouble.  You say that the last day of the legislative session is May 28th.  Is there another session later this year?  If this doesn't pass before then, is that the end of it, or could it be passed later in the year?

The legislature only meets once every two years.  This may be one reason that many legislators were not troubled about having primaries in February.  In states with annual regular sessions, February would be right in the middle of the 2nd session.  In Texas, it is midway between sessions.

The governor can call a special session, but he controls the agenda.  Traditionally, the legislative committees considers additional matters during the special session, in hopes that the governor will add their subject matter to his call.  If his favored legislation is making progress, he may add some other matters, perhaps as a trade-off for support of his legislation.

In 2006, a special session to consider changing the tax structure.  The session was called after the primaries were over so that the tax legislation would not be an issue during the primaries.

In the case of the primary date, there is an additional deadline set by the national parties, that primary dates be fixed before September 1st of this year.

Nobody wants a special session.  At the end of the session, many House members appeared to be most intent on getting a new speaker rather than passing any legislation.  The Senate was frustrated by its rules that require a 2/3 majority simply to consider legislation.  The governor was frustrated by the effort of the legislature to overturn his initiatives.

[jimrtex]

The Texas primary bill is being declared dead:

From Houston Chronicle

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would have driven down voter participation to hold the primary when the presidential nomination race was still contested, rather than in March, when it would likely already be over???

Texas holds its primary for state and local offices at the same time as the presidential preference primary.  A change to an earlier date could well cause a reduction in voting, especially in non-presidential years.

The more important consideration from Mr. Allison's perspective is the constitutional provision regarding county and district officers.  "earlier than is now required" is misleading.  Currently, they would have to resign after they were elected to the new position they sought -- unless they were running for another office in the middle of a 4-year year term, in which case their filing for office causes an automatic resignation.

But with an earlier primary and an earlier filing date, a district or county officer who wished to run for another office whose term began at the end of his current term would have to resign his current office.

[Mr. Morden]

The Democratic Party of Florida has dropped the idea of holding a separate caucus to award the state's delegates.  They are adamant that the Jan. 29th primary should be what determines the allocation of delegates, but of course the national party rules disallow that:

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/06/11/State/State_Dems_lead_revol.shtml

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That quote about not disenfranchising the voters is ironic, considering that, with the primary on Jan. 29th, any candidate campaigning in FL will not be able to win any of the delegates, so if all the major candidates campaign there anyway, the vote will be meaningless.  If that's not disenfranchisement, I don't know what is.

[Tender Branson]

The Democratic Party of Florida has dropped the idea of holding a separate caucus to award the state's delegates.  They are adamant that the Jan. 29th primary should be what determines the allocation of delegates, but of course the national party rules disallow that:

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/06/11/State/State_Dems_lead_revol.shtml

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That quote about not disenfranchising the voters is ironic, considering that, with the primary on Jan. 29th, any candidate campaigning in FL will not be able to win any of the delegates, so if all the major candidates campaign there anyway, the vote will be meaningless.  If that's not disenfranchisement, I don't know what is.

The primary voters of FL will certainly be disenfranchised because every major candidate is campaigning there and they are certain to crack the 15% needed to get delegates which they don´t get in the end. So candidates like Gravel who possibly don´t campaign there won´t get delegates anyway, no matter if he campaigns there or not.

But at least the Democrats are right with their decision not to hold a seperate caucus because, as far as I know, the Republicans face the same problem of delegates being not awarded to their candidates. So if anyone blames the Democrats for voter disenfranchisment, they can just fire back and argue its the Republicans fault, because of the Florida legislature controlled by the GOP and GOP Governor Crist signing the disenfranchising primary date.

[Sam Spade]

Only the DNC/Howard Dean has created (IMHO stupid) rules barring a few states from holding primaries before February 5.

The RNC has done no such thing.  Winning the Florida primary awards the full number of delegates.

[Verily]

Only the DNC/Howard Dean has created (IMHO stupid) rules barring a few states from holding primaries before February 5.

What's stupid about those rules? Do you really want primary creep to cause primaries in November?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of course no one is pointing to the real problem here.  Why in hell are state governments in the business of holding political party primaries anyway?  The States should get out of the way and let the parties run their selection process whatever way they please, and pay for it as well.