Talk Elections

The relevant committee in the Texas House of Reps has passed a bill that moves TX's primary to Feb. 5th:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8O5FGTG2.html

The bill still must be passed by the full House and Senate, then signed by Gov. Perry, but it sounds like it has bipartisan support.

The IL House of Reps passed a bill that would move IL's primary to Feb. 5th by a vote of 110-4:

http://www.lincolncourier.com/story.asp?SID=5398&SEC=8

It now moves to the Senate, where "Senate President Emil Jones, D-Chicago, "supports the concept.""

The Michigan GOP is considering holding their primary as early as Jan. 29th:

link (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070329/REPOSITORY/703290358/1013/NEWS03)

MI Dems have their primary tentatively scheduled for Feb. 9th, but could join the GOP in going pre-Feb. 5th if other states (more than just IA/NV/NH/SC) go pre-Feb. 5th as well.

So, to sum up the current state of affairs among the 8 largest states:

CA Has already moved their primary to Feb. 5th.

TX Bill that moves primary to Feb. 5th has passed House committee.  Still needs to pass full House, Senate, and Gov's signature.  But it looks like that will probably happen.

NY Bill that moves primary to Feb. 5th has passed both houses of legislature, but I don't think Spitzer has signed it yet.  But he's promised to sign it, so it looks like it'll happen.

FL House has passed bill that sets the primary for seven days after NH primary.  (NH primary is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 22nd, so 7 days later is the 29th.)  Senate is considering a variety of proposals that would set it for some time in Feb., with no specific date decided yet.  It's unclear how the two houses will reconcile.

IL House has passed a bill moving primary to Feb. 5th.  Still needs to pass the Senate and get signed by Gov., but that looks likely.

PA There have been hearings on the subject of moving the primary to Feb. 5th.  Rendell supports the idea, but it sounds like some Republicans are skeptical.  And the GOP controls the Senate, so one would need some GOP support in order to do anything.

OH The one big state that apparently has no interest in moving their primary up to Feb. or earlier.

MI The two parties set their own primary dates, which don't have to be on the same day.  It sounds like the GOP may go pre-Feb. 5th, perhaps as early as Jan. 29th.  The Dems are tentatively scheduled for Feb. 9th, but may move up to Feb. 5th or earlier, especially of other big states (like Florida) move to pre-Feb. 5th as well.

Just a note on recent polling...if Michigan and Florida move to Jan 29th, this helps McCain big time. Hear me out...McCain is close/tied in Iowa, and leading in New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, and in one recent poll, Florida. If he were to win all those, he might sweep Feb 5th. Just a possibility.

Ohio doesn't need to move its primary in order to get more attention. 

Kucinich apparently wanted Ohio to move up its primary, but no one in the state legislature was interested.

What about Georgia and North Carolina? I know New Jersey has a bill that's at similar progression to Texas's (bipartisan, passed in Assembly), but are they moving their primaries forward, too?

I know that in both GA and NC, a bill exists that would move the primary up to Feb. 5th, but I haven't seen any news stories on the status of either of them for a while, so I don't know what's going on.  According to this site:

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/chrnothp08.html

LOL!  Like it would make one bit of difference for him.  Kucinich couldn't win anything statewide in Ohio, not even a Democratic primary.

NJ has now officially moved their primary up to Feb. 5th.  Corzine just signed the bill:

link (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20070402_Primary_in_N_J__for_president_now_Feb__5.html)

That makes NJ the second most populous state to be holding a Feb. 5th primary as of right now.  But as the first post in this thread makes clear, there are several larger states that will soon be joining it.

NY Gov. Spitzer has now signed the bill that moves NY's primary to Feb. 5th:

link (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/start-spreading-the-news-new-york-joins-super-duper-tuesday-2007-04-09.html)

New York has now officially joined California, New Jersey, and a slew of other states in holding Feb. 5th primaries.  Still waiting to see what happens with other big states like TX, FL, IL, and PA.

The Texas House has approved the legislation that would move Texas's primary to Feb. 5th, thus moving the state one step closer to joining CA and NY on that day:

link (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=House+votes+to+move+Texas+primary+to+February&articleId=5f57f82e-3725-472f-8cdd-0ad56596d699)

Of course, it still needs to be approved by the senate and the governor before it becomes law.

Dark red: Vote in January
Light red: Vote Feb. 5
Green: thinking of changing to Feb. 5
Dark green or blue: Vote later in Feb.
Medium green or blue: Vote in March
Light green or blue: Vote April or later

()

Not sure if that map is 100% accurate.  For example, both TX and IL are in exactly the same boat right now.  Both could be said to be "thinking about moving to Feb. 5", as legislation to move the primary to that day has been passed in the state house, but not yet acted on in the senate.  So why are they shaded differently?

Anyway, the latest development is that the Michigan GOP has voted to hold their primary on Feb. 5th:

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070415/NEWS81/104150118


As mentioned earlier in this thread...in MI, each party sets their own primary date.  They have now set up tentative dates of Feb. 5th for the GOP and Feb. 9th for the Dems.  But either party could still change their mind.  In particular, if FL moves to pre-Feb. 5th, then there's a good chance that both parties in MI will figure "Well, if other big states are ignoring the national party rules, we might as well do so too, and they'll go pre-Feb. 5th as well.

So the state to watch right now is Florida, Florida, Florida.  If they end up scheduling their primary on or after Feb. 5th, then I don't see any further big shakeups in the schedule.  NH may even stick with Jan. 22nd, even though it's after NV, as NV isn't getting a huge amount of attention right now anyway.

But if Florida moves to Jan. 29th, then both parties in Michigan will likely move up their primaries to pre-Feb. 5th as well.  And the SC GOP will probably move up their primary to earlier than Florida's, so as to preserve their first in the South status, which will probably prompt NH to move up their primary even further, so that it's not so close to SC's primary, which will prompt FL to move up their primary further, etc., etc.  There'll be this bidding war that will probably end up with the NH primary taking place in December, and several other states voting in January ahead of Feb. 5th.

The shading is based on when the primary currently is. Green states are considering moving their primaries to Feb. 5th; blue states are not. Red states already have early primaries.

Here's a simplified map.

Red: Feb. 5 or earlier
Green: May move to Feb. 5 or earlier
Blue: After Feb. 5 with no consideration of moving

Michigan should really be purple, but I can't do that.

()

Why should Michigan be purple?

Latest development: The relevant Florida Senate committee has voted to approve the provision already passed by the House that would move FL's primary to one week after the NH primary, in violation of DNC and RNC rules:

http://www.miamiherald.com/569/story/77884.html


This obviously makes it more likely that the Jan. 29th primary will be approved by both houses and signed by Crist.  As I speculated upthread, if such a large, influential state ends up ignoring the national party rules wrt the primary scheduling, that will make it very likely that there will be a bidding war between several states (most likely IA, NH, SC, FL, and MI) to keep moving their primary or caucus earlier and earlier.  We will probably end up with IA and NH voting in December, and several other states voting in January.

As a sidenote, I've seen a couple news stories about local officials in PA being unhappy with the effort to move up the primary there to Feb. 5th, because of the timing of the other races that are typically scheduled to coincide with the primary.  It definitely looks like an early primary in PA is less likely than an early primary in FL, TX, or IL.

By the way, some backfill on the effort to move Florida's primary to pre-Feb. 5th:

Back in late 2006, when Giuliani was not quite as strong in the polls as he is now, and there were still doubts in some quarters about whether he'd actually run, there were rumors that McCain's people were hoping that SC would be the only state to vote in between NH and Feb. 5th, while Romney's people were pulling for earlier primaries in both FL and MI.  The thinking being that, at least at that time, McCain was stronger in SC than basically anywhere else, whereas in FL, Romney had signed up many of Jeb Bush's people, and in MI, Romney had the whole "I'm the son of the former governor" thing going.

Now that Giuliani is running strong, and there's the prospect of Fred Thompson entering the race, the thinking of the campaigns might be different, but that's apparently what the campaigns were thinking a few months ago.

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.

I wasn't being very precise when I said that this would violate the RNC rules as well.  The RNC has the same primary window which begins on Feb. 5th (but they actually have *no* exception for IA/NV/NH/SC).  However, states can still hold their primaries before the window starts.  They just lose half of their delegates if they do so.  IA, NH, and SC are going to do this, and suffer the hit in the number of delegates they have.  (And it looks like NV Republicans may join NV Democrats in doing that as well.)  So it's not really against the RNC rules.  You just lose a lot of delegates by doing so.

The full Florida Senate has approved the "one week after New Hampshire" plan for the primary:

http://www.local6.com/news/13211539/detail.html

but it now has to be repassed by the House, because of the Senate's amendments.  Still, it looks pretty likely that we will have a Florida primary in January.

Update from Florida: Howard Dean says he's serious about enforcing the party rules, prompting Florida Dems to consider holding a caucus that's separate from the Jan. 29th primary:

http://www.miamiherald.com/458/story/93299.html

The Florida House has now passed the Senate version of the bill, sending it to Gov. Christ, who is expected to sign it:

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=6465245&nav=4QcS


So it now looks like a certainty that FL will hold its primary before Feb. 5th, which means that any Democratic candidate who campaigns there will not be awarded any of their FL delegates, which means that the FL Dems may schedule a separate caucus for Feb. 5th or later.

It's also pretty likely that the SC GOP will now move up their primary to earlier than Jan. 29th, which means that there's a good chance that the NH primary will move up as well, and we'll have a giant bidding war that will end up with some primaries being held in December of this year.

Fresh news out of Texas.  According to this:

link (http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/07/texas-unlikely-to-move-primary-from-march-to-february/)

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.

Back to Florida--according to this:

On the subject of the Florida Dems using the Jan. 29th primary as a "beauty contest", with the actual delegates selected in caucuses, this article:

link (http://wpherald.com/articles/4679/1/Florida-Democrats-face-impasse-over-primary-date/Republican-controlled-legislature-sets-early-primary-date.html)

says that one date for Dem. FL caucuses that's been floated is Feb. 12th.

And according to this:

link (http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070504/NEWS01/705040359/1004/NEWS01)

the SC GOP is likely to move up their primary to before Florida's, while the SC Dems will likely stay where they are on Jan. 29th.  I've read elsewhere that something similar will probably happen in MI.  The GOP will probably move up their primary to some time before Feb. 5th, while the Dems will stick with Feb. 9th.

Thus, we could be looking at two very different primary schedules for the two parties:

The Dems with just four small states holding primaries / caucuses before Feb. 5th, with all the big states waiting until Feb. 5th or later (and a non-binding election in FL on Jan. 29th that doesn't count for anything).

The GOP with those same small states voting before Feb. 5th, but FL and MI also voting before Feb. 5th.

The IL bill (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=0426&GAID=9&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=27429&SessionID=51&GA=95) is now on 3rd reading in the Senate. That's the final step before going to the Gov. The state Board of Election is already preparing as if for a Feb 5 primary.

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

If IL does move up to Feb. 5th and TX doesn't, then Feb. 5th will be dominated by three largely Democratic states: CA, NY, and IL.  In fact for the Dems, it looks like we may have CA, NY, IL, and NJ voting on Feb. 5th, with other big states like TX, FL (at least, the vote that counts towards delegates), PA, OH, and MI all voting later.  One would think that Clinton would be the heavy favorite in NY and NJ, while Obama would be the heavy favorite in IL, setting up CA as the biggest battleground by far.  (Though of course, with the Dems' proportional system for allocating delegates, the margin of victory in places like NY and IL can matter a great deal!)

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.

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.

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.

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


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".

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

did You Hear Florida moved Up its Primary to January

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

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.

The Texas primary bill is being declared dead:

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


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.

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. 

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.

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 (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-presidential-calendar,1,3805065.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed)

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.

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.

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.

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


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.

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.

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

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.

Of course not.  But there's no logical reason why Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina must receive "preferred" status if other states want to hold primaries at the same date as those states (other than maybe tradition, which I don't find valid).  Generically holding primaries in 2008 and not 2007 should be the cutoff line (though I think all primaries should be held later).

Furthermore, it leads to the inevitable conclusion that some states controlled so heavily by Republicans will move their primaries up before the deadlines to screw the other parties - precisely what happened here.  If the RNC had made the same move, ultra-controlled Democratic states would have no doubt done the same thing.  That's the primary reason why Dean's dictate was stupid.

That's not exactly true.  The RNC does penalize pre-Feb. 5th states by awarding those states fewer delegates than they would get if they voted on Feb. 5th or later.  I don't remember the exact number, but I think pre-Feb. 5th states might be sacrificing up to 50% of their delegates.  (The RNC also has no exceptions for IA or NH, so those states are giving up much of their delegation as well.)

However, even with that penalty, FL still has a lot of delegates to offer, so it's sure to get a lot of attention from the GOP candidates.  Whereas, on the Dem. side, even if all the candidates campaign there, I can't see them going all out for what will essentially be a beauty contest, that has no binding result.  Not with half the country voting a week later, in elections that *will* result in the awarding of delegates, which count towards determining the nomination.

Updates from both Florida and Michigan.

First, Florida:

It looks like the cutoff date for campaigning in Florida will be August 25th.  Unless Florida moves its primary to some other date in the interim, every Democratic candidate who campaigns in Florida after Aug. 25th will be ineligible to win any of the state's delegates:

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/06/13/State/Florida_primary_will_.shtml


Meanwhile, in Michigan, Democrats are pushing to move up their primary to Jan. 29th as well, if not earlier, and there's a good chance the state GOP will join them:

link (http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070613/POLITICS01/706130413/1022/POLITICS)

An update on the effort to move up the Pennsylvania primary, which doesn't sound too optimistic about the chances of it moving up from its current spot in April:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07166/794357-103.stm


Also, here's an updated map of the state-by-state primary dates just published in the Wall Street Journal:

()

It appears to include states like CT and IL as being on Feb. 5th, though I think in those cases, the bill to move the primary up to Feb. 5th has been passed by the legislature but not yet signed by the governor.  However, it's probably going to happen in those states, so they might as well be included.

I still don't understand why so many news sources are suggesting that NC will vote on Feb. 5th.  AFAIK, a bill was introduced to move up NC's primary to Feb. 5th, but it went nowhere.

IL has an official Feb 5 date as of yesterday when the governor signed the bill (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=0426&GAID=9&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=27429&SessionID=51&GA=95).  Petitions for the primary will begin to circulate in early Aug, and must be filed at the end of Oct (more than a year before the election!). Early voting for the IL primary will begin Jan 14.

The primary calendar seems to be largely set at this point, at least among the largest states.  Here's the situation in the 11 largest states:

Jan. 29 FL (though the Democratic vote probably won't count)
Feb. 5 CA, GA, IL, NJ, NY
March or later NC, OH, PA, TX
?????? MI

Michigan is the wildcard now.  And things may not be settled there for some time, as the two parties currently can set their primary dates on their own, and may move up in response to whatever NH does (and NH may not decide for some time).  However, the two parties' ability to hold separate primaries in MI may be eliminated if either of these bills pass the MI legislature:

http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/06/27/michigan-bill-for-january-presidential-primary/

Hmm. That´s really a problem. Isn´t there a deadline sometimes in September or October when every state has to have it´s primary/caucus date fixed ? What if this is the case lets say in early September that every state has signed their respective date into law and lets say 2 days before the deadline the DNC approves a softening of their rules, so that the votes finally count in the Jan. 29 primary ? No state would have enough time to pass an earlier date before the deadline. Florida has it´s "legitimate rule-softened-primary" and negative publicity about voter disenfranchisement is avoided. Probably this won´t happen though.

What if status quo prevails and every Democrat who campaigns in FL after August 26 is scrapped of its delegates ?

Do you think that Obama would get above 15% if he doesn´t campaign in the state for the last 5 months ? Would it be better for him to poker and at least hope to get above 15% to get any delegates, while Hillary will campaign there under every circumstance and get NO delegates whatsoever ?

FEB 5TH could be really good for Rudy Giuliani...if things stay as they are now. He could take NJ, NY, CA and more.

Well, they're meeting on Aug. 25th to decide this very issue of whether FL's move should be allowed.  Why would they rule that it shouldn't be allowed, and then just a few days later reverse themselves?  Anyway, the DNC has pretty much committed itself, and I can't see them backing down now.  Why would any state follow their rules in the future if they back down now?


If Clinton and Obama are the main two contenders on Jan. 29th, then I think he would have a pretty good chance of getting 15% even without campaigning there.  FL is so big, I don't know if anyone other than Clinton and Obama would have the $ to go all out there, and even Clinton campaigns there, would she bother with anything more than a token effort designed to avoid alienating Floridians for the GE?  What's the point of campaigning hard if all the delegates could end up going to Obama anyway?  The "win" probably wouldn't provide much momentum anyway if her principal rival isn't competing there, just as Bush didn't really get any boost against McCain when he won Iowa in 2000 (which McCain skipped).

Update from Pennsylvania:

As mentioned in another thread, the state House passed a bill that would move the state's primary to Feb. 12th, however it appears the state Senate is unlikely to act on it:

http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1184118915107150.xml&coll=1


As mentioned way upthread, it's the GOP legislators in PA that have seemed more skeptical of an early primary from the begining.  To quote from an article I posted a bit upthread:

They are mainly worried about the cost of moving up the primary though I really think that would be cancelled out by the amount of revenue we'd receive from people coming to PA to cover the primary.

Another concern is weather which I don't take all that seriously. NY and NH both have early primaries and their weather is worse than our weather. They seem worried about seniors not being able to vote but I think that concern is overblown.

Phil, by February 12 the nomination races are likely to be already largely settled.  At best a Feb. 12 primary will get sloppy seconds of coverage along with Virginia and Tennessee by both the campaigns and the media after Mega Tuesday the week before, even if it isn't decided by then.  On the other hand if it should turn out to be a brokered convention for either party as a result of Mega Tuesday, then keeping the Apr. 22 date ensures at least three weeks of undivided attention (more than three weeks if Kansas moves up its April Fools Primary).

Ohio becomes the last of the big states to at least consider an early primary.....in this case, Jan. 29:

http://www.whiotv.com/news/13679915/detail.html

Also note this story on the matter:

http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/07/14/ohio-bill-for-january-presidential-primary/

I had previously mentioned that there were two nearly identical bills that had been proposed in the MI Senate....one would set the primary for both parties at Jan. 29th, the other Feb. 5th (but also giving both parties the option of moving to a different date if they both agree).  It appears that *both* bills have passed the relevant committee, and I'm assuming that they'll now move to the full Senate:

http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/07/18/michigan-presidential-primary-bill-advances/

More on Michigan: The move to hold a joint primary for the two parties has stalled, and one option being floated for the GOP's backup plan is to select the delegates at a nominating convention to be held Jan. 25-26.  The Giuliani people do not like the idea of MI (where Romney has more organizational strength) voting before Feb. 5th, and they're also not keen on a nominating convention, which would likely be dominated by conservative activists who would be less likely to vote for Giuliani than an average GOP primary voter.  From last week:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/rep_candace_miller_a_supporter.php


And an update:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/updating_the_michigan_primary.php

Following the news about IA, NH, and SC possibly all moving up their contests, the MI Dems have reiterated their desire to match the primary date of any state that violates the DNC rules:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070809/POLITICS01/708090325/1022/POLITICS


In other news, the Florida GOP is joining the Dems in fighting national party rules that punish them for holding an early primary, and the Florida Dems are floating a compromise idea:

http://www.tbo.com/news/politics/MGBAR0W335F.html

Looks like Michigan may now be holding a primary for both primaries on January 15th:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/17/321548.aspx


My guess as to what happens next, assuming MI goes through with this: NH will move to Jan. 8th, and IA will move to Saturday, Jan. 5th, just to avoid voting in December.  I don't know if this will make much difference on the Dem. side, since MI's primary won't count towards awarding delegates if it's outside the DNC window, so I'm not sure if the candidates will bother pouring too many resources into such a big state if they don't get any delegates out of it.

But on the GOP side, this will probably lessen the importance of SC, as you'd now have Iowa-New Hampshire-Michigan being the first three contests, followed by SC & NV on the same day.  Romney would probably benefit the most, as he's struggled in SC, and he's ahead of all the candidates in terms of organizing in MI.  In fact, there've been rumors for over a year now that Romney's people in MI were trying to push for an early primary there, because they thought it would help him.

I think this makes Mitt Romney the frontrunner now. He could win in IA and NH, gain ground in the coming months in MI and take it on Jan. 15. Later on he could win NV, where he´s currently leading and which would also make up for a "bad" showing in SC.

If there´s a snowball effect for Romney, he´ll enter Supertuesday as the favorite and Rudy Giuliani will be chewing his fingernails ...

The MI state Senate has now voted to move the state's primary to Jan. 15th:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6959588.stm

Now it just has to pass the House and get signed by the governor.

Wyoming is also early (for Republicans only); no polls yet, but Romney has a solid Mormon base (11%, which means about 20% of the GOP primary electorate) to work with there, too.

Any chance a state that's holding a general election this November might attach a non-binding preference to the ballot?

After looking into this some more, it appears that this is not such a sure thing to pass the MI House, as there's quite a bit of opposition to it among Democratic legislators.  Most of the Democrats voted against it in the Senate.  So it's unclear whether it'll pass the House when it comes up for a vote next week.  But GOP legislators are solidly behind the Jan. 15th primary, as is Granholm.

One thing that might influence those Dem. legislators is what the DNC decides to do about Florida's primary.  The DNC will be meeting tomorrow to discuss sanctions against states that violate their rules for holding primaries early....and it's getting ugly:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/a_fullscale_war_has_erupted.php

The DNC has stripped FL of all of its delegates, because its Jan. 29th falls outside the DNC-sanctioned window for primaries:

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070825/D8R868K00.html

This makes it less likely that the MI legislature will go ahead with moving up their primary to Jan. 15th, but I guess we'll see how that plays out.

The Michigan state House has passed the bill that moves the primary to Jan. 15th:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/jan_15_primary_passes_michigan.php

Looks like there'll still have to be a House-Senate conference bill passed, but it now looks like a lock for passage, and Granholm has promised to sign the bill.

Some fairly big news on the Democratic side.  First, there had been some talk of the MI Dems ignoring their own state's primary, and going ahead with a Feb. 9th caucus.  But that idea is now dead:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/news_michigan_dems_are_unanimo.php

But the really big news is that all the Democratic candidates have pledged not to campaign in FL or MI or any other pre-Feb. 5th states other than IA, NV, NH, and SC.  Those four states had circulated this letter yesterday:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/the_pledge_four_states_urge_de.php

which includes the following pledge for the Dem. presidential candidates to sign:


Each of the Democratic candidates has now agreed to these terms:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/the_jockeying_behind_the_four.php

So there will be no campaigning by the Dem. candidates in FL or MI (I'm assuming the Jan. 15th primary in MI will pass.  It looks like it's certain to.), or any other states that break the rules.

But wait.  NH itself has already announced that they're going to break the rules by moving their primary to at least a week before the Jan. 19th SC GOP primary and NV caucus.  (And IA will presumably move earlier as well....in fact, the people in MI who were pushing the Jan. 15th primary said the reason they were doing so was because IA and NH had already announced they were going to ignore the DNC rules anyway, so why shouldn't MI ignore them too?)  Isn't it the height of hypocrisy for them to be circulating this letter, which says that candidates should avoid other states that break the rules?  I'd say yes.  Anyway, yeah, I expect that IA and NH will be voting earlier than the DNC mandated dates for those states, which means that their delegates won't count either.  Does that mean that the presidential candidates won't campaign there either?  I doubt it....but that would seem to be the logical consequence of this argument.

Granholm has signed the bill moving the MI primary to Jan. 15th:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/04/michigan_makes_primary_move_of.html

So it's official now.  And I think the primary calendar is now pretty much set among the largest states:

Jan. 15 MI
Jan. 29 FL
Feb. 5 CA, GA, IL, NJ, NY
March or later NC, OH, PA, TX

Though on the Democratic side, the FL and MI primaries will not count towards awarding any delegates, and all the Dem. candidates (except Gravel and Kucinich) have pledged not to campaign there, in order to respect the DNC calendar.  Speaking of which, MI Dems have sent a letter to the DNC, blasting them for selective enforcement, for apparently turning a blind eye to NH's flouting of the party rules:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/04/344061.aspx

In response to the MSNBC article which quotes the Levin-Dingell letter, a reader responded:

---

Michigan could invade New Hampshire, but after that whipping they took from Appalachian state........

---

Now there's talk that the boycott of states that violate the DNC rules might go so far as to include candidates witholding their names from the ballot:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070905/COL04/709050325/1001

A big LOL to this failed primary system ... :P

The Florida Democrats are backing down on the Jan. 29th primary.  That is, there will still be a Jan. 29th primary, but it looks like the FL Dems will propose an alternative method for awarding Florida's delegates to the Dem. convention, thus putting an end to the candidates' boycott of the state.  So far, there's no indication that the MI Dems will do the same.  The deadline for proposing a new method for awarding delegates is Sept. 29th:

http://www.miamiherald.com/458/story/238351.html

http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070920/NEWS01/709200368/1010

Never mind.  The Florida Dems have done another 180, and will not go ahead with any alternative method for delegate selection.  They're going to go ahead with the Jan. 29th primary, and hope that the delegates somehow get counted:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-flffladems0923nbsep23,0,190842.story

Believe it or not, there's still an outside chance that there could be a further shakeup to the primary calendar, though I think the chances of that happening are probably remote.

What's happening is that the effort by some Michigan Democrats to abandon the state's Jan. 15th primary, and instead hold a caucus on some other date, probably Jan. 8th, isn't quite dead.  This is happening on two different tracks.  First, since most of the Democratic presidential candidates have removed their names from the primary ballot anyway (and none of them are campaigning there), a bill has been proposed in the legislature that would scrap the state's primary, though it looks like it hasn't made any progress so far:

http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/10/29/hearing-set-in-michigan-lawsuit-on-voter-list/

http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/11/03/michigan-bill-to-abolish-presidential-primary-makes-no-headway-so-far/

If this were to pass, then the MI Democrats would hold a caucus instead, and the MI GOP would hold a nominating convention.  But I doubt the Republicans in the state legislature are eager to pass this.  Why would they give up on the primary, if it's giving the state some attention from the GOP candidates?  And it looks like Gov. Granholm is also not too keen on giving up on the primary.  She wants them to hold the primary, send a slate of delegates to the convention, and hope that they're seated.  (That's a strange approach though, as restoring the delegates wouldn't happen until after the nomination is already decided anyway, and it's a sure thing that the primary will receive little attention if Obama and Edwards aren't on the ballot.)

The other track is that, even if this bill doesn't pass, and the primary goes forward on Jan. 15th, under current MI law, either party has until Nov. 14th to decide whether they want to back out of the primary.  The MI Democratic party could just decide on their own not to play in the primary, and instead hold a caucus.  They're meeting on Nov. 7th to discuss this option:

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/politics/index.ssf?/base/politics-1/1194047055108750.xml&storylist=2006elections

However, because Granholm supports the primary, and as governor, she's kind of de facto leader of the party in the state, chances are they won't do this.  They'll just stick with the primary (that currently lacks most of the Dem. candidates on the ballot and doesn't count under DNC rules).

Who are the MI Dems who are trying to opt out of the primary and instead do a caucus?  Looks like there are two different factions here.  One is John Edwards supporters:

link (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+DiStaso's+Granite+Status%3A+Waiting+for+Michigan&articleId=d79c1428-5e49-4b67-8ffa-c78519c7ce78)


The other faction is MI Dems (most notably Carl Levin) who are sick of Iowa and NH's priveleged position on the primary calendar, and want to screw over NH by scheduling a caucus on Jan. 8th.  This would presumably push NH into December, which would both 1) really force the issue of reforming the primary calendar in 2012, and 2) possibly cause NH to lose influence, with its primary getting lost in the craziness of the holiday season.

NH SoS Bill Gardner says he won't announce the date of the NH primary until the MI Dems make a final decision on whether or not they'll hold a caucus, and when that caucus might be.

Huge news out of Michigan:

A judge has ruled that law that moved the primary to Jan. 15th unconstitutional.  Which means that as of now, there will be no Jan. 15th primary in the state, for either party:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071107/NEWS06/71107020/0/SPORTS07


Other stories on this seem to indicate that this decision will be immediately appealed, but I don't know what the prospects for it being overturned are.  So right now, it's unclear whether Michigan will actually hold its primary on Jan. 15th.  And it's unclear what the two parties will do if the Jan. 15th primary doesn't happen.

So what happens to the Democratic candidates who pulled out of the Michigan primary?  Will they be able to get on the ballot if it gets rescheduled to the original date or are they screwed?

From following this for a while, my sense of it is that if the MI Dems can't hold a primary on Jan. 15th, then they just won't participate in a primary at all, and will go with a caucus instead (which may or may not be held before Feb. 5th).  Not sure how the caucus would be run, but if it's like the Iowa caucus, then I don't think there would even be a ballot at all.  Caucus-goers express a presidential preference in their caucus meetings, and that gets reported in the statewide results.  At least, I think that's how it works.

Firstread now reports:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/07/453895.aspx

The MI Dems had a meeting tonight, and the original plan was to make some kind of final decision on whether to participate in the state's Jan. 15th primary, in light of the DNC sanctions against the state.  However, in light of today's court decision to strike down the primary, that item was taken off the agenda, as they attempt to figure out if the legislature can / will do anything to fix the primary:

http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/11/07/michigan-democrats-postpone-decision-on-whether-to-hold-caucus/


As I understand it, the Dems have a Nov. 14th deadline to tell the state whether they'll participate in the primary or not.  Except....that's the very primary that was just struck down.  So maybe there is no deadline.  It looks like the whole thing is up in the air.  And NH SoS Bill Gardner has said that he will not set a date for the NH primary until MI finalizes its plans.  If there is no MI primary on January 15th, I suppose the NH primary might well be held later than the previously assumed Jan. 8th.

Things are as murky as ever regarding when MI and NH are going to vote.

I was looking at the legislation that was introduced last year, which reads as follows (where strikeouts are removed, and bold uppercase are additions.  The January 29, 2008 date was later revised to Jan 15th.

Sec. 613a. (1) Except in 2004 when no statewide presidential primary shall be conducted AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (2) OR (3), a statewide presidential primary election shall be conducted under this act ON JANUARY 29, 2008. AFTER 2008, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (2) OR (3), A STATEWIDE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ELECTION SHALL BE CONDUCTED UNDER THIS ACT on the fourth FIRST Tuesday in February in each presidential election year.

Which would mean that the law now reverts to:

Sec. 613a. (1) Except in 2004 when no statewide presidential primary shall be conducted, a statewide presidential primary election shall be conducted under this act on the fourth Tuesday in February in each presidential election year.

Subsections (2) and (3) in the amended law are the procedures by which the state parties can opt out of the primary, and if all do, the primary would be cancelled.  It doesn't appear that there was an option for the parties to opt out, and the change made in 2004 was simply to cancel the primary for that year.

The date of the primary has additional significance in Michigan since the fourth Tuesday in February is one of the uniform election dates for holding local elections.  The law that was struct down would move that uniform election date to coincide with the presidential primary (January 15, 2008).

The old law (now reverted to law) provided that the Secretary of State would issue a list of candidates based on media reports by the 2nd Friday in November (that's this coming Friday), and the state parties could add to by the following Tuesday.   Candidates would have until December to remove themselves from the ballot.

The part of the law that triggered the court's action was apparently an attempt to make party affilication confidential and not a public record.  Michigan does not appear to have party registration.  So perhaps an appeal could be made on the basis that "membership" in a political party is not a matter of public record.

There is a bill filed that would eliminate the presidential primary for 2008, which basically undoes everything that the law passed last summer did.  But I would think that the legislature would be just as likely to try to fix the January 15 primary as to completely eliminate it.

Update on Michigan:

The state legislature moved fast to fix the Jan. 15th primary law today, but they appear to have failed, at least temporarily:

link (http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/news-48/119456701911490.xml&storylist=newsmichigan)


Unclear whether there's still any chance the Jan. 15th primary will be salvaged legislatively.  If it isn't, then the only way the Jan. 15th primary will happen is if yesterday's court ruling is reversed on appeal.

This article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20071108/cm_rcp/primary_calendar_drama_continu

makes it sound as if there is still a Nov. 14th deadline for all of this to be sorted out.  But if it's resolved with new legislation, then I don't see why the Nov. 14th deadline would need to apply.  The MI legislature can create any new deadline it wishes.  The only hard deadline is the length of time it takes to organize a primary.

What happens if there is no Jan. 15th primary (as is starting to look more likely)?  According to that first article:


However, the second article I mentioned offers a different scenario:


Suffice it to say, if the MI Dems hold caucuses on Jan. 5th or even Jan. 12th, the chances are extremely high that NH would move its primary to December.

Update: Yet another possible date for a MI Democratic caucus has been floated:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071108/UPDATE/711080507/1361

The Senate took a bill related to timing of school board elections that the House had passed last May and had been pigeon-holed in the Senate Education Committee ever since.  On Thursday, the Senate discharged the bill from the education committee, sent it to he committee of the whole, where all the primary election law was stuffed into it, and then passed it, but failed the 2/3 vote to give it immediate effect.  The vote on passage was 26-10-2, but to make it immediately effective it was 21-15-2.

The new bill would give the SoS until November 14 to set the candidate list, after which the candidates would get a second chance to withdraw (previously all but Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich had withdrawn).

Since the bill greatly amended the version passed by the House, the House would either have to agree to the Senate amendments, or send it to a conference committee.  And without the supermajority to give immediate effect, passage of the bill is meaningless.

The Senate stuck a November 14th deadline for setting the initial candidate lists.

I still think that if the court case is not appealed, that the law will revert to the 4th Tuesday in February. 

But that might not satisfy the Democrats, who might still end up holding caucuses.  The reason for creating the lists of persons who voted in each primary is to satisfy the National Democratic Parties rules which forbid the use of open primaries in the selection of convention delegates.  So even if the new January 15th bill were passed, the court would likely sever the part that made the primary acceptable to the NDP.

I suspect that sooner or later, they'll discover that the primary is scheduled for the 4th Tuesday in February - which coincides with a uniform election date in Michigan.

But the Democrats won't permit an open primary to be used for delegate selection, and the Republicans won't want to go that late, so everybody will agree to cancel the primary in 2008, just like was done in 2004.

BTW, one of the articles mentioned that the GOP had penalized 5 states for holding early primaries or caucuses.  The 5 are FL, MI, NH, SC, WY.  IA and NV are apparently not penalized because their GOP precinct caucuses don't formally elect delegates to county conventions on the basis of candidate preference.  What procedure is used to elect the delegates is left up to those attending the precinct caucuses.

From First Read. Even New Hampshire is getting penalized!

Yes, unlike the DNC, which specifically allowed 4 states to vote pre-Feb. 5th, the RNC doesn't have any special exemptions for Iowa and NH, or anyone else.  But the RNC's sanctions aren't serious enough to dissuade candidates from campaigning in those states.  Losing half your delegates is a price that's more than offset by going first.

Anyway, back to Michigan.  Here are some additional details on the MI GOP's likely backup plan if the Jan. 15th primary fails, and some added background on the legislative dealmaking:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2007/11/michigan_in_chaos.html


If nothing happens to restore the Jan. 15th primary, then I assume the MI GOP will go forward with this Jan. 25/26 convention, significantly diminishing the state's influence on the GOP race from what it would have been with a Jan. 15th primary.  (Both because it would be later, and because a convention isn't going to get the same amount of media attention as a primary.)  The Dems would hold a caucus, but there's no consensus on when that caucus would be.  It might be Feb. 9th.  Or it might be in January.  Potentially in early January, even as early as Jan. 5th.

The state legislature apparently will only be meeting one day this coming week (Tuesday) before going on vacation, so I assume if they can't make a deal via horsetrading on that day, the only hope for the primary would be if the court decision is overturned on appeal.  The state has in fact submitted an appeal.

If the primary is dropped, what effect would it have on the race?  Well, aside from the implications on the scheduling of the NH primary, there'd probably be no effect on the Dem. side, because the state had already been stripped of its delegates, and the candidates were ignoring it anyway.  On the GOP side, this would make the SC primary more important, which would probably collectively help Huckabee, McCain, and Thompson.  It makes it a little more likely that one of them will be able to upset Giuliani and Romney, because Giuliani and Romney would both have advantages in MI that they wouldn't in SC.  (Both because they have more $, and MI is a more expensive state to run in, and because Giuliani and Romney are not the kind of Republicans who you would expect to play well in SC.)

County clerks across MI have been ordered to halt preparations for the Jan. 15th primary, due to the court ruling:

http://www.michigansthumb.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19022338&BRD=2292&PAG=461&dept_id=571474&rfi=6

The state has asked the appeals court for a ruling on their appeal of the decision ASAP, preferably by the end of this week, because they need time to prepare for the primary, if it's really going to happen on Jan. 15th.  I would be surprised if this isn't all settled by Thanksgiving.

Update:

The MI Democratic Party has confirmed that it will stick with the primary rather than switch to a caucus *if* the primary is held on Jan. 15th:

http://www.fox28.com/News/index.php?ID=28122

Also, the state Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments in the case tomorrow.

The Michigan Court of Appeals heard the case today, but offered no clues as to when they would make a ruling:

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=7366050&nav=0Rcd


It also looks like the hard deadline on when this must be resolved by is Dec. 1st.  If the primary is Jan. 15th, the overseas military absentee ballots must be sent out by then.

Also, NBC's Firstread continues to say that there's a good chance that this will be resolved legislatively.  But everything else I've read suggests the chances of that happening are slim.

The court has rejected the state's appeal, and the decision to strike down the state's primary stands:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hAWD_zB3_RzCIVVeao207KrMPexAD8SV2L0O0

So now the only way to salvage the Jan. 15th primary is legislatively, but don't hold your breath on that one.

The Court of Appeal's opinion was kind of interesting.   The decision was 2-1 upholding the circuit court's decision, but the dissent laid out the whole case and the reasoning, and the majority decision simply agreed with much of the dissent, except the conclusion as to whether giving the voter list's to the parties was for a public purpose or not.

I suspect that the legislature held off meeting last week to wait for the court's decision.  If the court of appeals had overturned the decision, the legislature would be off the hook.  Now they will be able to bring pressure on the house and senate to pass the replacement bill.

It could still get procedurally messy.  The new primary bill HB 4507 was passed by the House last May (it concerned school board elections), and had been pigeonholed in a senate committee without a hearing.  The Senate pulled it out of the committee and grafted the primary legislation in to the bill, and passed it with a 2/3 majority which permits the lists to be given to the parties, but then failed to get a 2/3 majority to take effect in time for the election.

It also set a bunch of deadlines which have already passed.  So the House will probably have to disagree with Senate on the amendments, and then a conference committee will fix up the bill, and then it can be sent back to both houses to be approved, and given a 2/3 vote to take immediate effect.
An interesting twist in the new bill is that for a candidate to be left off the ballot, they have to sign an affidavit that they aren't running for president.  And even if they do that, the Secretary of State can make a determination that they are actually running and leave them on the ballot.

The Massachusetts Senate has approved a February 5th primary.

Well, it looks like they're not giving up.  The MI attorney general's office is appealing the ruling again, this time to the state supreme court:

http://www.chippewa.com/articles/2007/11/19/ap/politics/d8t0r80g0.txt

The Michigan legislature won't be meeting today after all, so it looks like any legislative fix is dead:

http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/11/19/michigan-house-wont-meet-on-november-20/

The Jan. 15th primary is looking deader and deader.  Now the state's county clerks are saying that there's not enough time left to get out all the absentee ballots:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hAWD_zB3_RzCIVVeao207KrMPexAD8T1JFO80

Michigan is a go for Jan. 15!
(other thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=65332))