roundup of big state primary calendar news

[jimrtex]

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

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

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

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

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

[jimrtex]

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

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

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

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

The basic process (simple version) is this:

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

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

[jimrtex]

Fresh news out of Texas.  According to this:

link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jimrtex]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jimrtex]

The Texas primary bill is being declared dead:

From Houston Chronicle

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

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

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

[jimrtex]

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........

[jimrtex]

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:

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.

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.

[jimrtex]

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:

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[jimrtex]

The Massachusetts Senate has approved a February 5th primary.