roundup of big state primary calendar news

[Mr. Morden]

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

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.

[Reaganfan]

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.

[Padfoot]

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

[Mr. Morden]

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

[Verily]

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?

[Mr. Morden]

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

NORTH CAROLINA:  On Jan. 31, 2005 Sen. Andrew C. Brock (R) filed legislation, SB18, to move the presidential primary from the Tuesday following the first Monday in May to the first Tuesday in February.  The bill did not moved from committee, however.  Brock reintroduced his bill, SB168, on Feb. 13, 2007.

[Padfoot]

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

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

[Mr. Morden]

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

link

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.

[Mr. Morden]

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

link

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.

[Mr. Morden]

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

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

[Mr. Morden]

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

Michigan Republicans voted Saturday to hold their presidential primary next Feb. 5, but agreed they'd move up the date if Michigan Democrats go earlier.

"Our goal is to go Feb. 5, but I have the option to go earlier, if needed," Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis said after a state central committee meeting he says grew heated at times.

The chairman added that moving earlier than Feb. 5 is not anyone's first choice because Republican and Democratic rules would force the Michigan parties to give up half their delegates to their respective 2008 national conventions.

Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer said Democrats for now are working on holding a Feb. 9 caucus to select their presidential favorite. But he added that talks are continuing with Anuzis over a possible joint presidential primary on Feb. 5 or earlier.

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.

[Verily]

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.

[TommyC1776]

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?

[Mr. Morden]

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

Florida Senate leaders, eager to replace touch-screen machines with devices that use paper ballots, have offered a deal to their House counterparts: Give us the new machines and we'll move up the state's presidential primary date.

The House has already voted to move up the primary from its current date in March 2008 to Feb. 5 or even earlier -- Jan. 29 -- if New Hampshire holds its primary Jan. 22.

But House leaders have been reluctant to set aside any money to replace touch-screen machines in 15 counties, including Miami-Dade and Broward.

A Senate panel voted Tuesday to move the primary to the last Tuesday in January, but placed the provision in a comprehensive elections bill that also calls for junking the ATM-style machines that have been criticized because votes are not recorded on paper.

''We believe very strongly in that paper-trail bill,'' said Sen. Lee Constantine, R-Altamonte Springs and chairman of the Senate Ethics and Elections committee. ``We thought the primary bill was the one to place it on because it was the one the House has a strong interest in.''

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.

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[Tender Branson]

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 ...

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 ?

[Mr. Morden]

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 ...

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.

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[Mr. Morden]

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

A grand plan to give Florida a bigger say in presidential politics by holding one of the earliest primaries in the nation could backfire and leave Democrats in the largest swing state with less power than in Rhode Island.

A bill expected to pass the Legislature this week would set the vote for Jan. 29, 2008 -- one week after New Hampshire's -- jumping over the Feb. 5 start date set by the national parties to try to stretch out the primary schedule.

During a visit to Miami by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean on Tuesday, the party made clear that any candidate who stumps in states that break the Feb. 5 rule would forfeit all delegates to the nominating convention. That means, for example, that if Sen. Hillary Clinton campaigned in Florida, she would not win a single delegate even if she won a majority of the primary vote.

''I am concerned because I want to be represented,'' said Democratic activist Barbara Walters, who came to Dean's rally. ``To be told we're not going to get delegates -- I don't understand the thinking.''

The potential sanctions have prompted the Florida Democratic Party to consider staging a costly, post-Feb. 5 caucus to pick convention delegates. That would make the Jan. 29 primary set by the GOP-controlled Legislature as nonbinding as a show of hands.

''We're looking at all the options,'' said Leonard Joseph, the state party's executive director. ``I think it's important to have a voice and have as many delegates as we can participate.''

The fallout from Florida's earliest primary ever is still unclear in a rapidly changing political climate marked by the most wide-open presidential race in more than half a century and a fluid primary calendar from state to state.

The GOP doesn't have as much to lose. The national Republican Party would take away half -- not all -- of Florida's delegates if it votes Jan. 29.

[Mr. Morden]

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

The Florida House has passed and sent to the governor a plan to move the state's 2008 presidential primary to January 29 in an attempt to give the nation's fourth-largest state more say in the nominating process.
Governor Charlie Crist is expected to sign the bill, which was passed unanimously by Florida's House lawmakers today.

Moving up Florida's primary, which is currently in early March, would put the state's contest behind only the Iowa and Nevada Caucuses and the New Hampshire primary _ and on the same day as South Carolina's Democratic primary.

National Republican and Democratic leaders have said they will take away delegates to the nominating conventions if Florida moves its primary earlier than February fifth.

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.

[Mr. Morden]

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.

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

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

And according to this:

link

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.

[muon2]

The IL bill 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.

[Mr. Morden]

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!)

[True Federalist]

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.

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.