roundup of big state primary calendar news

[Sam Spade]

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

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

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.

[Mr. Morden]

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.

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.

[Mr. Morden]

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

"Their primary essentially won't count, " Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said of Florida. "Anybody who campaigns in Florida is ineligible for delegates."

His comments in New Hampshire were his first public response since Florida Democratic leaders decided Sunday to go ahead and set their presidential primary for Jan. 29, the day state lawmakers had chosen.

Because the DNC bars all but a handful of states from scheduling an election earlier than Feb. 5, Florida Democrats until Sunday had seriously considered making Jan. 29 a nonbinding vote and holding their own caucuses later.

Instead, there's a faceoff that has Democratic presidential campaigns uncertain about how to proceed. Some Democrats worry that if their candidates don't campaign hard early on Republicans would have a big leg up toward winning Florida's 27 electoral votes.

"This thing could be a total mess unless we find a way out of this, a compromise, " said Sen. Bill Nelson.

Compromise at this point looks unlikely, though.

The rules, unanimously passed in 2006 by nearly 450 Democratic party activists across the country - including Florida - are clear and leave little or no leeway for Dean to waive them: Any state that violates the schedule set by the DNC loses half its delegates to the national nominating convention and any candidate who campaigns in that state will forfeit all delegates from that state.

By moving to Jan. 29, Dean told a New Hampshire student, Florida Democrats "essentially converted their primary to a straw poll."

Translation: National leaders of the "count every vote" party are refusing to count the votes of Florida, where the term "disenfranchised voters" became a rallying cry in 2000.

The presidential campaigns have tried to stay on the sidelines, but to date only Dennis Kucinich and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been unambiguous in promising that they will campaign aggressively in Florida no matter what.

The DNC's rules committee on Aug. 25 will consider the Florida Democratic Party's plan to hold a Jan. 29 primary. What are the prospects the committee will approve that plan and waive any penalties against the state?

"None, " predicted former state Democratic chairwoman Terrie Brady, a DNC member from Jacksonville.

That means that starting on Aug. 26 any candidate campaigning or raising money in Florida will likely lose a shot at winning any of Florida's 208 delegates.

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

Michigan Democrats will move up their presidential caucus to as early as Jan. 29, and perhaps even into December, as a showdown with two other states threatens to move the selection of a nominee to 11 months before Election Day.

Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said Tuesday that his party would advance its caucuses in response to Monday's decision by Florida Democrats to break national party rules and hold a Jan. 29 primary. And if New Hampshire makes good on its threat to vote before Jan. 22, Michigan will move to a date on or before New Hampshire's -- even in December.

The bottom line: Michigan Democrats will at least match any state that breaks party rules allowing just four states to vote on a nominee before Feb. 5.

Michigan and New Hampshire seem headed to the climax of more than two decades of fighting over the primary calendar. U.S. Sen. Carl Levin and others from Michigan have long sought to dethrone New Hampshire and Iowa, the traditional kick-off states. This year, dozens of states have moved to hold primaries or caucuses in January or early February, the biggest effort to diminish the influence of New Hampshire and Iowa.

"Other states see New Hampshire and Iowa still have disproportionate influence," Brewer said.

Florida, another state jealous of New Hampshire, decided this week to hold its primary Jan. 29, a week after New Hampshire. Brewer said Michigan Democrats will follow through on a pledge to move up along with Florida, which could trigger New Hampshire to decide this fall to move even earlier.

As it stands, Michigan Republicans will hold a primary Feb. 5 and Michigan Democrats will vote in caucuses Feb. 9. A caucus is a party-run gathering in which small groups of Democrats meet to pick a candidate; a primary runs like a general election, with established polling places.

The heads of the state's two major parties are negotiating to see if they can hold a joint primary.

State GOP chairman Saul Anuzis said Tuesday that he still hopes that would happen, though Republicans probably would not agree to a December date. People attending Democratic caucuses, which are mini-elections held at many locations across the state, are required to declare themselves Democrats.

Brewer said state Democrats would wait until New Hampshire picks a date before choosing. But Tuesday, New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner, empowered by law to keep New Hampshire first, would not rule out the possibility that he could set a date, see Michigan match it and then move New Hampshire's primary again.

[Mr. Morden]

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

Some Pennsylvania politicians -- notably Gov. Ed Rendell -- want to move the state's 2008 primary election up to as early as Feb. 5 to give Pennsylvanians a greater say over which candidates lead the Democratic and Republican presidential tickets next year.

But it would be difficult to make such a dramatic change happen, because too many legislators and officials fear that an earlier primary would cause logistical headaches for election bureaus, additional costs to counties, petition circulating difficulties for candidates and extra burdens on school boards in adopting their new budgets.

"It's dubious at best that we will be moving to an earlier primary in 2008," said Rep. Matthew Baker, R-Tioga, Republican chairman of the House State Government Committee, which held a three-hour hearing yesterday on the issue.

Because many ballot preparations would have to be started much sooner by county elections officials, "we would have to pass a law [for a Feb. 5 primary] before the end of June," Mr. Baker said. "With the new state budget still unsettled, I don't think there's enough time. Plus we heard a lot of testimony against the idea."

The state's spring primary usually is held in May, but in presidential election years it moves up to late April. The 2008 Pennsylvania primary -- to choose candidates for presidential and state legislative races -- is now set for April 22.

Holding it then will put Pennsylvania weeks behind many other states that hold presidential primaries in January, February and March.

Mr. Rendell said that would reduce the Keystone State's impact on the 2008 presidential race. With 12 million people and a prominent role in national politics, Pennsylvania should attract more attention from candidates of both parties next year, he said.

"There will be real contests for both parties' nominations in 2008," the governor said in a statement. "The election will be perhaps the most important in many, many years.

"I do not believe that Pennsylvanians should be left out of this [candidate selection] process, so I support advancing Pennsylvania's primary in 2008 to Feb. 5, which will join us with our sister industrial states."

The Iowa political caucuses are set for Jan. 14; the New Hampshire primary is Jan. 22; Florida's primary is Jan. 29; and 20 other states already plan to vote on Feb. 5. By April 22, many politicians think, the Democrats and the GOP will have chosen their candidates for November and Pennsylvania will have no influence over the outcomes.

Rep. Harry Readshaw, D-Carrick, has introduced a separate bill to move the primary up to Feb. 12. A third bill, by Rep. Ron Buxton, D-Dauphin, would put the primary on March 11. They probably won't be acted on either.

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.

[muon2]

IL has an official Feb 5 date as of yesterday when the governor signed the bill.  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.

[Mr. Morden]

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/

On June 27, a group of four Michigan Republican State Senators, including the Majority Leader of the Senate, introduced SB624. It provides for a January 29 presidential primary in 2008. It also says that if the parties that are qualified to hold a presidential primary jointly desire a different date, their wishes shall prevail. It also says that if all the parties that are entitled to a presidential primary agree to cancel the primary, it will be cancelled.

The same four Senators also introduced SB 625, which is virtually identical, except it sets the 2008 primary on February 5. Both bills also amend the existing law so that it becomes more difficult for a party to qualify for its own presidential primary. Existing law says that any party that got 5% for president in the last election (in the entire USA) is entitled to a presidential primary. The bill changes that to 25% for president in the last election, within Michigan.

[Tender Branson]

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:

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 ?

[Reaganfan]

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

[Mr. Morden]

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.

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?

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 ?

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).

[Mr. Morden]

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

The state House yesterday passed a bill to change Pennsylvania's presidential primary from April 22 to Feb. 12, but the legislation and primary appear unlikely to move.

The bill requires Senate approval, and Erik Arneson, a spokesman for Senate Republicans, said the Senate does not plan to consider it at this time. Republicans control the Senate with a 29-21 majority.

Bill sponsor Rep. Harry Readshaw, D-Allegheny, called the Senate's expected delay a "death knell" for the proposal. The state would need to move the primary date before the summer recess for counties to adjust to the administrative changes in time for the 2007 primary season, he said.

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:

"It's dubious at best that we will be moving to an earlier primary in 2008," said Rep. Matthew Baker, R-Tioga, Republican chairman of the House State Government Committee, which held a three-hour hearing yesterday on the issue.

Because many ballot preparations would have to be started much sooner by county elections officials, "we would have to pass a law [for a Feb. 5 primary] before the end of June," Mr. Baker said. "With the new state budget still unsettled, I don't think there's enough time. Plus we heard a lot of testimony against the idea."

[Keystone Phil]

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

The state House yesterday passed a bill to change Pennsylvania's presidential primary from April 22 to Feb. 12, but the legislation and primary appear unlikely to move.

The bill requires Senate approval, and Erik Arneson, a spokesman for Senate Republicans, said the Senate does not plan to consider it at this time. Republicans control the Senate with a 29-21 majority.

Bill sponsor Rep. Harry Readshaw, D-Allegheny, called the Senate's expected delay a "death knell" for the proposal. The state would need to move the primary date before the summer recess for counties to adjust to the administrative changes in time for the 2007 primary season, he said.

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:

"It's dubious at best that we will be moving to an earlier primary in 2008," said Rep. Matthew Baker, R-Tioga, Republican chairman of the House State Government Committee, which held a three-hour hearing yesterday on the issue.

Because many ballot preparations would have to be started much sooner by county elections officials, "we would have to pass a law [for a Feb. 5 primary] before the end of June," Mr. Baker said. "With the new state budget still unsettled, I don't think there's enough time. Plus we heard a lot of testimony against the idea."

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.

[True Federalist]

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).

[Mr. Morden]

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

Ohio voters would go to the polls to cast their votes in the presidential primary in January rather than March, under a plan unveiled Friday.

It has the backing of Dayton state Sen. Tom Roberts.

Currently, the presidential primary is set for March 4.

Roberts and fellow Democrats Eric Kearney of Cincinnati and Shirley Smith of Cleveland want the legislature to move up the primary to Jan. 29.

In a written statement, Roberts said, “Ohioans want the presidential candidates from both parties to come to our state, listen to our voices, and propose real solutions to our most pressing needs.”

A bill to move the primary to January was introduced Friday by Kearney.
.
.
.
.
The Ohio Democratic Party supports the March 4 primary date.

"We are not looking to move up," said spokesman Randy Borntrager.

The Ohio GOP has taken no position on the primary date.

[Mr. Morden]

Also note this story on the matter:

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

The bill is considered unlikely to pass. The three sponsors are Democrats, but the Ohio legislature has a Republican majority. The Ohio Democratic Party opposes the bill, as do Republican legislative leaders. Thanks to David Leip for this news.

[Mr. Morden]

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/

On July 18, the Michigan Senate Campaigns & Elections Committee passed both SB624 and SB625. They both set up presidential primaries in which voters would need to request a primary ballot, and each party would receive a list of voters who had chosen that party’s primary ballot.

This is a change from past Michigan presidential primaries, in which voters decided in the secrecy of the voting booth which presidential primary to vote in. In recent years Democrats have not even held a presidential primary in Michigan, because national party rules forbid that type of presidential primary.

SB624 and SB625 are identical, except that SB624 sets up a January 29 primary date, whereas SB625 sets up a February 5 date. However, both bills give the two major parties flexibility to move the date of the presidential primary, if they both agree. Also, both bills make it more difficult for a party to qualify for its own presidential primary. Existing law provides a presidential primary for any party that got 5% of the vote for president in the last election, in the entire U.S. These bills change that to 25% within Michigan.

[Mr. Morden]

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

Yesterday, Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI), a supporter of ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, wrote to members of the Republican state committee to protest rules changes that she claims will help a small cadre of conservative activists at the expense of other Republicans.

Here's the background: the state party and the presidential candidates have publicly endorsed a jointly-held presidential primary run by the state on Feb. 5 or earlier. This will happen only if the legislature passes and Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) signs a bill setting the date. The state senate is expected to send its version of the bill to the state house as early as Thursday. If the bill gets to Granholm's desk, she'll sign it.

Both parties have fall-back options in case the bill fails. The Democrats might hold a caucus; that benefits labor and potentially a labor-allied John Edwards. Or they could hold a regular primary, presumably to the advantage of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. DNC rules require a "closed" primary -- only registered Democrats can participate.

Miller's complaint is threefold. First, she worries about the "or earlier" part of the bill. That's because the RNC has promised to penalize any state that holds a delegate selection contest before Feb. 5.

And she's particularly worried about the preference of the GOP state party's presidential committee to prepare a delegate selection convention on Jan. 25-26, just in case.

"I cannot understand why we as a party would want to suffer the consequences that holding a convention...would bring," Miller writes in the letter, a copy of which was sent to this column by a sympathizer. "I believe this process does nothing to broaden the electorate, garner our party any valuable information, or improve our appeal as a party."

Anuzis, in an e-mail, said he is aware of Miller's objections.

"I have made Giuliani's, McCain's and Romneys' preferences and strategy known to our entire State Committee and county chairs," Anuzis said in an e-mail. "I fully understand the Congresswomen's concerns about our fallback position of holding an early state convention to chose our national delegates."

In her letter, Miller insists she is not writing on the Giuliani campaign's behalf. But her concerns mirror those expressed by Giuliani's political advisers. For them, it's most convenient, strategy-wise, for Michigan to choose delegates on Feb. 5 or later. Going earlier breaks with their master plan, which is to use momentum from a Florida victory on Jan. 29 to collect hundreds of delegates on Feb. 5. If Michigan holds a primary on Jan. 29, it will dilute the momentum effect provided by Florida. Giuliani could still do well, but he'd have to work for it from the same starting position as the other candidates.

If Michigan Republicans held a convention -- that most narrow of delegate selection processes that favors party activists -- on Jan .25, Giuliani would not, needless to say, be the frontrunner. Florida would not have that week to itself. McCain doesn't want a convention either, but his team -- including the RNC committeeman Chuck Yob -- has won them before.

And an update:

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

A bill scheduling a joint primary for Jan. 29 was supposed to clear the state senate last week. It did not. Backers still expect the bill to pass. But what happens when it goes to the House is anyone's guess. And even if it passes, there's no guarantee that Gov. Jennifer Granholm, facing lots of internal Democratic opposition, will sign it.

Today, Sen. Sam Brownback's campaign announced its opposition to an internal Michigan Republican Party rules change that would institute a nominating convention, rather than a caucus or primary, if the bill fails to pass.

Rob Wasinger, Brownback's campaign manager, said the "proposed rule changes as posted on www.migop.org would take authority away from District Chairs and party activists and put it in the hands of paid staff members and other appointees of the chair who may be biased in the Presidential contest and who do not have the experience of running district caucuses. The authority should remain where it has been for years: in the hands of grassroots Republican activists elected by Republicans across the state."

[Mr. Morden]

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

If, as seems likely, New Hampshire votes in early January, Michigan Democrats have vowed to match. They could also prompt Iowa to change its first-in-the-nation caucuses, perhaps even moving into December -- a move Michigan Democrats also have said they would match.

"It's possible," is how state Democratic Party spokesman Jason Moon described the vision of a pre-Christmas Michigan caucus.

Katon Dawson, the head of South Carolina's Republican Party, is expected to say today that he will reschedule his party's contest on Jan. 19 -- three weeks earlier than scheduled, in reaction to Florida's decision to move its primary to Jan. 29. The location of Dawson's announcement -- on the steps of the New Hampshire Statehouse, and with New Hampshire's top election administrator by his side -- has prompted speculation that New Hampshire, too, will announce a change. New Hampshire, slated to vote Jan. 22, has a state law requiring that its voters go to the polls a week before any other primary.

If New Hampshire announces a move today, it would almost certainly spark retaliation by Michigan.

Michigan Democrats are scheduled to hold caucuses of the party faithful on Feb. 9, but that almost certainly won't happen. State officials have long eyed New Hampshire's status as a kingmaker in presidential politics, saying New Hampshire and other early-voting states pay little heed to the manufacturing job loss and other issues affecting Michigan. This election cycle, state Democrats have vowed that if any state violates the schedule rules laid down by the national party, they too would move.

"We will not violate the rules first," Debbie Dingell, one of Michigan's representatives on the Democratic National Committee, said Wednesday. "But it's time to end New Hampshire's lock on issues."

"If they break the rules, I expect Michigan is not going to stand still," said U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, a longtime Democratic critic of New Hampshire's status.

The new developments may make it less likely that Michigan Republicans would join Democrats in a joint, state-run primary. State GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis said there was a limit to how early the state GOP will go.

"Our preference was a Feb. 5 primary, and going on Jan. 29 to match Florida makes sense," he said.

If it doesn't hold a primary, the Michigan GOP likely would allocate its presidential nominating delegates through a statewide convention of party activists.

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

That penalty, if enforced, would mean Florida would only get half as many delegates as normal at the party's national convention in September. In effect, that would dilute the voting power of Florida Republicans when they go to the polls in the presidential primary, because it would cut the number of delegates voting for the candidate who wins the primary.

Greer says he will ask the state party to choose a full slate of delegates, 114 members, and fight to get them seated at the convention, regardless of party rules.

"I intend to take all 114 delegates to the convention," Greer said. "I'm going to defend our position to the convention floor if necessary and ask that Florida's 114 delegates be seated."

If the state Republican Party adopts Greer's position at a meeting this weekend, which is likely, it will put them into the same sort of confrontation with their parent national party that Florida Democrats already are in.

For the Democrats, there's even more at stake.

National Democratic Party rules also would cut Florida's national convention delegation, planned at 208, in half, similarly diluting the effect of Floridians' primary votes.
Democrats' Rule Bans Campaigning

Further, any candidate who campaigns in Florida before the primary would be ineligible to receive any convention delegate votes from Florida. That would mean, in effect, that Floridians' Democratic primary votes wouldn't count if they voted for a candidate who breaks the boycott.

One possible compromise now being floated, some Democrats said Tuesday, would allow the candidates to campaign here without penalty but cut the delegation to 10 percent of its normal size.
.
.
.
.
.
Alan Katz of Tallahassee, the only Floridian on the national party rules committee, said he has heard discussion of a compromise involving a delegation cut to 10 percent of its normal size, or about 20 delegates.

That would make South Carolina, planned for a Jan. 29 primary, a more important prize for Democratic candidates, with its 54 Democratic convention delegates.

Floridians aren't getting much encouragement even on that possibility. National Democratic Chairman Howard Dean has taken a hard line, saying the Florida primary "essentially won't count."

The national party rules committee will consider the Florida case Aug. 25.

[Mr. Morden]

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

According to sources inside both parties, the two state parties in Michigan have agreed to move the state's primary -- legislatively -- to Jan. 15. This is a compromise date out of respect for Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, who really wanted to move the primary to Jan. 8. Others wanted the primary on Jan. 22 as a way to, essentially, play ball with the other early states. There was a nice window being created for a Jan. 22, 2008 event. But by moving to Jan. 15, this will put pressure on the other early states to either entertain a December event or lobby the two national parties to not sanction Michigan at all.

The state senate is going to move a bill next week and it will be legislatively driven; the state will pay for the primary, not the two parties.

Bottom line: Michigan holding its primary on Jan. 15 means New Hampshire's window to hold a primary has been moved up further to Jan. 8. And then there's Iowa, who now could face a decision to let New Hampshire leap frog it or somehow go 2-3 days before New Hampshire (say, on Sat. Jan. 5) or in December -- something the governor of Iowa said he didn't want to do.

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.

[Tender Branson]

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 ...

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[Verily]

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 ...

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.

[True Federalist]

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

[Mr. Morden]

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

A full-scale war has erupted between the Democratic National Committee and the Florida Democratic Party (FDP). The proximate cause is the DNC's insistence that the FDP follow its primary calendar rules, but this dispute is about more than the 2008 primaries. It's also about party resources and even about whether Florida will be a competitive state in the 2008 general election.

Today, Sen. Bill Nelson, who rarely wades into these internecine debates, fired a shot in the DNC's direction. He co-signed a letter to DNC chairman Howard Dean threatening to ask the government to decide whether the DNC's decision amounts to a violation of voting rights rules. Within the Democratic Party, that's a really aggressive charge to make.

"If the Democratic national committee sanctions Florida, then some of us on the Florida congressional delegation may ask an appropriate legal venue can determine whether a political party's rules supercede a person's right to vote and have that vote count," Nelson said on a conference call this morning. "We're going to fight to have Florida Democrats' votes counted."

Nelson implicitly compared the DNC's actions to the Democrats' version of what transpired in Florida, circa 2000. He called ironic the DNC's launch two weeks ago of a national voter protection program.

DNC officials privately dismiss the charges as absurd. They say they gave the state party numerous options to comply with its rules; the state party claims that the DNC's alternatives -- including a Feb. 9 caucus -- were -- absurd.

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[Mr. Morden]

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.