All the talk coming out of the Texas legislature this week has been about the birther bill introduced that would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to share with the Texas secretary of state their birth certificates in order to run. FHQ isn't here to debate that bill so much as point out that it has overshadowed another bill that was filed this week; one that would shift the state's presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. State representative, Roberto Alonzo, as he did prior to 2008, introduced a bill to enhance Texas' impact on the presidential nomination process.


Of course, that 2007 bill, pushed by Democrats, got bottled up in committee -- a committee controlled by Republicans -- and Texas stood pat in March. That maintenance of the status quo actually worked well for both parties. Texas was among the states that put McCain over the top in the Republican nomination race and helped Clinton stem the flow of Obama victories after the February 5 Super Tuesday (effectively keeping the contest going).


The 2011 version of the bill (HB 318) is simply a repeat of what happened in 2007. Same Democratic sponsor, same Republican-controlled committee and same goal: Move the primary from March to February. What has changed, however, is that the national parties have a different set of rules regarding the timing of primaries and caucuses in 2012 than they did in 2008. Both parties are in agreement that only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina can go prior to March 2012. All other states, according to the rules drafted and accepted by both national parties, are required to hold delegate selection events in March or later.

On at least one level, those rules make this Texas bill moot. If every other state outside of the exempt states is holding their primary or caucus on the first Tuesday in March or later, then Texas is already positioned on the earliest possible date. However, as FHQ has attempted to point out since the parties began drafting their rules for 2012, this is something that isn't necessarily be easy. In any event, it is a decision -- shifting the date on which a state's primary or caucus is scheduled -- that is fraught with problems.


First of all, with all other factors held equal, the national parties have still not developed a successful incentive or penalty regime to prevent states from ignoring the rules and scheduling their contests outside of the required timeframe. Taking away half of a state's delegates (or all of them) did not deter Florida (or Michigan) from breaking the national party rules in 2008. In fact, both states are still scheduled to have February primaries in 2012, given current election laws in both states. The expectation here at FHQ has always been that the states that are currently outside of that timeframe for 2012 would be where the action was in terms of primary/caucus movement. Yet, states currently in compliance with those timing rules can opt to position their primaries on dates that are in violation of those rules as well. Texas is in that group.


The second set of issues concerns partisanship within the primary date-setting bodies on the state level. Typically, it is the party outside of the White House that tinkers the most with its rules (see Klinkner 1994). In other words, Democrats intent on reelecting President Obama are less interested in shifting the dates on which their primaries or caucuses are scheduled than the Republicans who have a competitive nomination race. In Texas in the case of this bill, that notion is turned on its head; particularly if the same thing that happened in 2007 happens again in 2011. The bill is being sponsored by a Democrat, but the state legislature and the governor's mansion are controlled by Republicans. Those Texas Republicans may opt to go along with the national party rules, but they may also be tempted this time around to flaunt those rules and attempt to give Texas an outsized voice in the Republican nomination race by moving forward.


As such, HB 318, is one to keep an eye on as the Texas legislative session progresses next year.

TAMPA - Florida Republicans likely will abandon their effort to force the state into the ranks of early presidential primary states in 2012.

Instead, the party may seek to revive a controversial but sometimes momentous Florida political tradition -- a presidential candidates' debate and straw poll held before the primaries.

If the event includes a straw poll, it could be the most important pre-primary test of the 2012 candidates, thrusting Florida into the campaign limelight in late 2011.

If it doesn't include a straw poll, it could signal the end, at least for now, of the state's attempt to have an early influence on presidential politics.

The event next fall would be called "Presidency V," the fifth in a series that dates to the 1980's.

In the past, early straw polls by both parties in Florida have strongly influenced presidential nominations. They were mostly abandoned during the 2000's, however, under pressure from candidates unwilling to commit the resources to compete in a serious, mega-state contest before the outset of the primary season.

State Republican Party Chairman John Thrasher said last week he hopes to hold a Presidency V event, and that the state party is already negotiating with "a major network" – he didn't want to say which one – to broadcast the debate.

Including a straw poll "is something that should be on the table," said Thrasher, who leaves the party chairmanship in January. "It's one of the issues I've put on the list to talk about. We haven't come to any final conclusion. This is real early."

He and other top GOP officials said tighter national party rules against states moving up their primary dates, together with Florida's role as 2012 national convention host, suggest Florida should not try to hold an early primary.

"Since we're the host state for the convention, I think everybody feels we'll be significant enough," said Paul Senft of Haines City, one of Florida's three delegates to the Republican National Committee. "We don't want to be caught up in the public relations nightmare of whether we're rocking the boat."


* * * * *

Current state law sets Florida's presidential primary in early January of the election year, a date intended to compete with the early primary states, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

Both national parties, however, sanction early primaries only for those four. The rules are intended to prevent states from moving up their primaries in a quest for influence, a trend that has lengthened the primary season.

The Republican majority in the Legislature chose the date in hope of giving Florida a stronger role in selecting the 2008 Republican nominee. They were willing to break national GOP rules, which previously included only mild penalties.

For Democrats, on the other hand, the early date led to a bitter battle with the national party and a boycott of Florida by the 2008 Democratic candidates.

Last summer, however, the national Republican Party strengthened its penalties as well.

Thrasher, who is also a state senator from Jacksonville and part of legislative leadership, is proposing a Presidency V event instead of an early primary.

He said it likely would be held in Orlando next fall. That and the Tampa convention mean Florida "will be a state where a lot of attention's given" during the presidential nominating process, he said.

Thrasher said Gov.-elect Rick Scott has committed to remain neutral in the presidential primary contest, which could be important in smoothly enacting Presidency V and holding a convention.

A Scott spokesman didn't provide a response to requests for confirmation or denial by the governor-elect.

Thrasher said he hasn't discussed the primary date with Scott or other legislators, who could change the primary date during their regular legislative session in March and April.


* * * * *

Past Florida straw polls were serious contests. Under their rules, candidates can't simply bus in supporters to cast votes. To have a chance to win, they must form grass-roots organizations and court party activists in the state well in advance.

For that reason, the activists loved the polls. The events received intense national coverage and influenced the outcome of presidential races.

In 1988, a convincing win in the Presidency II straw poll helped frontrunner George H.W. Bush overcome a challenge from television evangelist Pat Robertson.

In 1992, comparatively little known Bill Clinton credited his Democratic straw poll win with making him a serious primary contender, then went on to win the presidency.

In the 1996 race, frontrunner Bob Dole won the Presidency III straw poll, but narrowly, leaving primary competitors Phil Gramm and Lamar Alexander in contention. The millions he spent on the event, meanwhile, weakened his campaign. He failed to unseat Clinton.

Dole's experience increased candidates' wariness of Florida straw polls. In 2000, frontrunner George W. Bush didn't want to devote the necessary money and time to the event, and his brother Jeb Bush, then governor, cancelled it.

The leading Democratic candidates refused to participate in a 2004 straw poll.

In 2008, Mitt Romney put together a huge, early field operation in Florida threatening an upset straw poll win.

But the two leaders, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, weren't eager for a straw poll. Then-party Chairman Jim Greer cancelled the straw poll, and Presidency IV included only the debate.

Thrasher was a Romney backer in that campaign, along with several other allies of Jeb Bush, and probably will be so again after he leaves the party chairmanship

Thrasher, who is also a state senator from Jacksonville and part of legislative leadership, is proposing a Presidency V event instead of an early primary.

Thrasher was a Romney backer in that campaign, along with several other allies of Jeb Bush, and probably will be so again after he leaves the party chairmanship

RNC Aims To Draw Out Nominating Process

By Reid Wilson
July 1, 2010 3:56 PM

The RNC is likely to subtly alter their presidential nominating calendar in order to draw out the process of picking a candidate, according to a draft rule sent to members of the national committee today and obtained by Hotline OnCall.

The new rule, written after months of painstaking negotiations among senior members of the national committee, would push the beginning of the presidential nominating process back a month, to Feb., as part of a plan to prevent wealthy candidates from stealing the nomination.

GOP caucuses and primaries would be held that month in the 4 early states -- the rule codifies IA, NH, SC and NV as states allowed to hold contests in a "pre-window." Every other state would be allowed to hold their nominating contests on or after the first Tuesday in March.

But there's an important caveat, members of the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee said: Any state that holds its nominating contest before the first day of April -- that is, any state that rushes to front-load their nominating process -- will have to award their delegates on a proportional basis.

That's a dramatic change from previous party rules; many states awarded delegates on a winner-take-all basis, setting up key dates on which candidates could win big chunks of delegates and shut out their rivals. In '08, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) won all of FL's delegates, even though he won just 36% of the vote. Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee won a combined 59% of the vote -- and no delegates. Giuliani, who had viewed the state as a firewall, dropped out of the race that night.

The change is designed to eliminate a process that rewards wealthy candidates with high name recognition. Instead, candidates will have to campaign across the country and appeal to different audiences, something that could help the GOP pick a stronger nominee.

"By making the second phase of the nominating process proportional, you reduce the possibility that any candidate in any one primary in any one state can deliver a knockout blow that early in the process and end the process prematurely," said John Ryder, TN's RNC representative and a member of the committee. Ryder said the goal is to have a 10-12 week nominating process that finishes before it can divide the party, but continues long enough to ensure the party picks the right nominee.

The delegate selection and calendar fight is one that's been going on at the RNC for years, if not decades. The committee debated a number of proposals that would have more radically altered the calendar process -- grouping states by size, installing rotating primaries and other fixes -- but none would have won the two-thirds of the vote the RNC will need to pass the proposed rule. RNC members will vote on the proposal at their summer meeting in Aug. in Kansas City.

"There has to be consensus to get this thing passed," said Saul Anuzis, MI's national committeeman and another member of the select panel. He called the result "what was realistic in order to get two-thirds of the vote."

Most importantly to members of both parties, candidates and staffers won't have to miss the winter holidays with their families. GOPers have worked closely with Dems and the DNC to push back the start of the primary process in order to avoid a repeat of '08, when the IA caucuses came just 3 days into the new year and the NH primary came the following week. Because of pressure from other states, both IA and NH had threatened to move their nominating contests into '07.

By pushing everything back a month, Ryder said the plan "restore[s] some sanity to the process." Anuzis called the compromise measured, but progress nonetheless.

A special DNC panel has already offered its own amendments to their rules, which would move Dems' windows back as well. And though the RNC gets to vote first, the DNC has to pass its own reforms for both parties' new rules to kick in.

The new rules are likely to be the longest-lasting legacy of chairman Michael Steele's tenure. Altering the presidential calendar so much is something several chairmen have tried, without success. The last effort, in '02, stalled when George W. Bush advisor Karl Rove scuttled plans to help reduce NH's influence on the process.

GOPers are taking no chances this time. The Temporary Delegate Selection Committee has already begun discussions with RNC members. "At this point, the Committee members have heard little opposition to the ideas adopted by the Committee, presumably in part due to the open process throughout this deliberation period," Steele and RNC chief counsel Reince Priebus wrote in an email to RNC members.

Republican National Committee Passes New Rules for Presidential Primary Process

August 7th, 2010

On August 6, the Republican National Committee changed the party’s bylaws on presidential primaries. The author of the plan had worked with Democratic Party officials, so that the two major parties now agree on the timing of presidential primaries and caucuses. This makes it very likely that state legislatures next year will pass bills, making the changes desired by both major parties.

Both parties agree that four particular states, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, are the only ones that can hold caucuses or primaries earlier than March 1. State parties that break the rules will lose half their convention delegates and also lose other privileges. It is now likely that the legislatures of Florida and Michigan will repeal state election laws setting the presidential primaries in January.

The Republican National Committee also voted to hold the 2012 convention in Tampa. This is the first time any presidential national convention has been held in Florida, other than in Miami, where the Republicans met in 1968 and 1972.

Republicans also passed a rule that only affects the Republican Party. States that hold caucuses or presidential primaries in March must assign use proportional representation to allocate delegates. Thus, if a presidential candidate polls 22% of the vote cast in a March presidential primary, he or she will be awarded 22% of the state’s delegates.

There have been two bills introduced in the Virginia House to shift the date on which the state's presidential primary is held from the first Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. Both bills (HB 1667 and HB 1843) are exactly the same except for the fact that the former bill lowers the petition signature requirement from 10,000 to 5,000 for presidential candidates. That bill was introduced by Democrat Jennifer McClellan while HB 1843 was introduced by Republican Mark Cole. Each bill was prefiled on Monday, January 10 and was introduced today.


Both bills will be added to our left sidebar gadget, "Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures".

This would place VA the next after SC. It will also be a proportional (not winner take all) primary since it will be in March. With that the case, I propose that Huckabee takes half of the delegates by winning all the true conservatives who are in the western part of the state and leaves Romney/Gingrich/Pawlenty/Palin to compete for the RINOs in the east.

FiscalConservative,
If VA moves to a proportional primary, do you know how the delegates will be apportioned across the state? Will each congressional district have an equal number, or will they be proportional to population? The eastern part, and northern VA are much more densely populated than the rural west. I'm guessing here, but it seems like they'd get closer to 2/3 of the delegates, or maybe even 3/4. Ugh. I hope not.