Signs Delaware Presidential Primary is Staying Put

Back in January, FHQ, discussing prospective primary movement during the 2019 state legislative sessions convening across the country, highlighted the group of mid-Atlantic/northeastern states that have seeming settled in late April since the 2012 cycle. Under Democratic control, states like Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New York and Rhode Island not only moved away from February presidential primary dates leftover from the 2008 cycle, but moved deeper into the calendar for the 2012 cycle and have stayed there.

That made more sense in 2012 when Barack Obama was seeking renomination on the Democratic side -- the stakes were lower and the costs of a later primary less -- but that group of Acela corridor states maintained their April positions despite an open nomination in 2016. Now, it could be argued that during the time that primary date changes were being considered by state legislatures in 2015, Hillary Clinton was a prohibitive favorite to win the 2016 nomination. States with Democrats in control of state government, in turn, may have been less likely to make any changes to the presidential primary date.

But the outlook for the 2020 nomination is and has been a wide open race. Yet, in none of those states, save New York (which operates under a unique set of circumstances), have made any moves toward a presidential primary change. All has been quiet. And that silence typically will signal no primary movement.

However, there has been an additional signal out of Delaware. No, there is no proposed presidential primary date change, but for the second consecutive state legislative session in the First state, there is an effort underway to attempt to align the September primaries for state and local offices with the presidential primary in April. HB 89 passed the state House in Delaware in 2017, but died in the state Senate. And now in 2019, HB 41, a nearly identical proposal, has so far followed a similar trajectory. The plan to consolidate state primaries with the April presidential primary flew through the state House in January, but has again hit the wall in the state Senate.

The legislative session adjourns in June and the bill still has time to work its way through the state Senate, but the proposed move is less important for the move than it is for the anchor point on the calendar.¹ Linking those primaries for state and local offices to the presidential primary in Delaware is the clearest active effort among those April Acela primary state signaling a non-movement. The others have been more passive at this point.



As of now, Delaware is scheduled to have an April 28 presidential primary on the latter half of the 2020 presidential primary calendar.


--
¹ Delaware was a late mover in 2011, the last time the state shifted its presidential primary date. That legislation was passed toward the end of the legislative session that cycle.

Utah Democrats Will Use New Presidential Primary Option for 2020

With the release of a draft of its 2020 delegate selection plan, the Utah Democratic Party has confirmed that it will utilize the new presidential primary signed into law recently by Governor Gary Herbert (R).

The confirmation means that Utah Democrats will return to a primary for delegate allocation for the first time since the 2008 cycle. The state party opted for caucuses in 2012 when there was no national party rules-compliant primary option. The February date in state statute was too early and the late June option added that cycle for state Republicans was too late. Both parties used caucuses in 2016 when the presidential primary was not funded by the state.

Like the last time Utah Democrats used a primary for delegate allocation in 2008, the election will fall on Super Tuesday. In the Democratic delegate apportionment formula, Utah is not delegate-rich, falling behind ten of the 13 states now slated to hold delegate selection events on Super Tuesday.

Finally, in the switch from 2016 caucuses to 2020 primary, Utah becomes part of another trend. The Beehive state now joins Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska and Washington state as states to have opted into state government-run primary elections for the 2020 cycle.

--
The Utah Democratic Party decision opt into the primary will be reflected on the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.



Related:
2/25/19: Legislation Would Push Reestablished Utah Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday

3/7/19: Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Introduced in Utah

3/11/19 (a): Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Unanimously Passes Senate Committee Stage in Utah

3/11/19 (b): Utah Senate Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill

3/14/19: Utah House Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill

4/1/19: Utah Presidential Primary Shifts to Super Tuesday


--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Washington State Democrats Opt for Presidential Primary Over Caucuses

It was decision time this past weekend as the Washington State Democratic Party convened in Pasco. Among the items on the agenda was delegate selection in 2020. Chiefly, the question before the Rules Committee on Saturday and the State Coordinating Committee on Sunday was whether the party would continue to use the caucus/convention system it has used to allocate and select delegates to the national convention throughout the post-reform era.

But a newly early and revamped semi-open presidential primary bill signed into law in March removed most of the conflicts the Democratic Party in the Evergreen state have historically had with the primary option available to Washington parties in the past. Moreover, the state party has been facing pressure from vocal Democrats in the state to make the process more democratic; something that was demonstrated by the over 93 percent support for the primary option in an unscientific poll open during the draft delegate selection plan public comment period. On top of that, the national party rules for the 2020 cycle urge state parties to increase participation and use state-run primaries where available.

In total, that was enough to nudge the Washington State Democratic Party to break with tradition. By a vote of 11-5 on Saturday, the Rules Committee recommended that the party shift to the primary option. That was followed on Sunday by 121-40 vote by the State Coordinating Committee in favor of a primary.

The decision officially moves Washington Democrats into a March 10 slot on the 2020 presidential primary calendar. That primary will coincide with contests in six other states including the primary in neighboring Idaho.


--
The Washington primary change is now reflected on the 2020 FHQ Presidential Primary Calendar.


Related:
1/16/19: Washington State Legislation Would Again Try to Move Presidential Primary to March

1/30/19: An Update on March Presidential Primary Bills in Washington: One Bill Through Committee

1/31/19: Washington Senate Passes Democratic March Presidential Primary Bill

2/19/19: Senate-Passed Washington Presidential Primary Bill Passes House Committee Stage on Party Line Vote

3/5/19: Washington State House Passes March Presidential Primary Bill

3/12/19: Washington Democrats Will Allocate Delegates in March, but How?

3/14/19: Washington Presidential Primary Shifts Up to March 10 After Inslee Adds Signature

--

Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

DC Council Eyes Earlier Primary with New Bill

Last week the Democratic Party in Washington, DC released for public comment its draft delegate selection plan for 2020. However, one of the details missing from the document was a date for the planned presidential primary in the district. That is all the more unusual because the primary date set in district statute.

But there are at least a couple of catches with the third Tuesday in June date outlined in the law. First, that date is too late in the calendar and thus non-compliant under national party rules. The district party would face penalties from both national parties if it chose to allocate delegates through a primary scheduled so close to the convention. Alternatively, it might force one or both major parties in the district to shift to a caucus/convention as DC Republicans did for 2016.

What has also given DC Democrats pause in filling in the primary date in the delegate selection plan is that there is some uncertainty about where on the calendar the primary will land. Yes, the date is currently set, but the DC Council is considering a change. Only, the change is not nearly as dramatic as some of the Democratic members of the Council were speculating about during a February meeting of the DC Democratic Party district central committee. Back then there was talk of aligning the DC presidential primary with the primaries in Maryland and Pennsylvania at the end of April.

Now, however, there has been a bill introduced in the DC Council to move the primary, but not into April. Instead, the plan laid out in B23-0212 is to nudge the DC primary up to the first Tuesday in June in presidential years (leaving the primary in midterm years to remain on the third Tuesday in June). This is a modest shift but it would be enough to move the DC presidential primary back into compliance with the national party rules.

--
One footnote to add to the predicament in which the DC parties and Council find themselves, is that if this shift is successful it would represent the second change to the DC primary schedule since 2017. The Council made the decision in 2018 to move the primary from the second Tuesday in June to the third Tuesday in June. In other words, one step back was needed to move two steps forward.


--
Related: 
2/7/19: DC Presidential Primary on the Move Again?

5/15/18:  Washington, DC Eases Back a Week on the Calendar


--
The Washington, DC presidential primary bill has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Pair of Bills Seek to Move Illinois Presidential Primary

Earlier this session, there were a couple of bills introduced in the Illinois state House to move the date on which the general primary election is held. The thing about tracking the movement of presidential primaries is that one has to adapt to the differences across states in terms of what each calls its presidential primary elections. In the case of Illinois, the state has traditionally held a third Tuesday in March primary that is not only the date for the presidential primary but those for other state and federal offices as well. It is a consolidated primary every even-numbered year.

And it should be additionally noted that the general primary in Illinois has only been on a date other than the third Tuesday in March in a presidential year once in the post-reform era. That was during the 2008 cycle when then-Illinois senator, Barack Obama, was seeking the Democratic nomination. Illinois, then, has been less likely to uproot its consolidated general primary election and shift it to an alternate date.

Moreover, that fact is also relevant when trying to handicap the likelihood of passage for any bill with the goal of moving the general primary away from that traditional third Tuesday in March date. Attempts after the 2011 move back the traditional March date have generally languished in committee and died at the end of legislative sessions. That was true of a push by one legislator to move the consolidated primary to June in both 2013 and 2015 and again in 2017. It was also true of a 2015 bill to move the primary into July as well. And it was true again of 2018 legislation that proposed a marginal move to the first Tuesday in April that also failed.

Now the 2019 session has brought two more bills once again promoting a change in the general primary date. One, HB 3476, represents a subtle change to the existing law. It would keep the primary in March and even keep it in the third week in March. The only change is to push the primary back from a Tuesday to the third Saturday in March. The other, HB 2531, is more in line with the repetitive 2013-2017 attempts to ease the primary into June. Although the 2019 version is by a different legislator -- this time a Republican rather than a Democrat -- and calls for a third Tuesday in June primary. While that is a week earlier than the bills from recent past sessions, it would still place the Illinois presidential primary just outside of the window in which states and territories are allowed by the national parties to hold primaries.

Neither 2019 bill has seen any significant action following February introductions. One can draw from that what one may, but if past is prelude to either effort, then they are unlikely to advance. And that means that Illinois is most likely to retain its traditional March date.


--
The Illinois presidential primary bills have been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Utah Presidential Primary Shifts to Super Tuesday

On Wednesday, March 27, Governor Gary Herbert (R) signed SB 242 into law.

The bill reestablished and the law now explicitly schedules a presidential primary in the Beehive state for the first Tuesday in March during presidential election years. Utah will rejoin Super Tuesday for the first time since the 2008 cycle when the primary coincided with a de facto national primary day with over twenty contests in both parties.

Utah at this time becomes the thirteenth state to schedule a primary or caucus for Super Tuesday. Of the 13, Utah will have fewer delegates at stake in the Democratic process than ten of the Super Tuesday states or territories. Only Vermont and Democrats Abroad will offer fewer delegates on Super Tuesday. Typically, that has been a combination -- few delegates at stake on a date that offers many more delegate-rich states -- that has led to smaller states getting lost in the shuffle.

--
The Utah presidential primary change will be reflected on the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


Related:
2/25/19: Legislation Would Push Reestablished Utah Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday

3/7/19: Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Introduced in Utah

3/11/19 (a): Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Unanimously Passes Senate Committee Stage in Utah

3/11/19 (b): Utah Senate Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill

3/14/19: Utah House Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill


--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Alaska Democrats Plan on April 4 Party-Run Primary

On Saturday, March 30, the Alaska Democratic Party released for public comment the party's draft delegate selection plan for the 2020 cycle. And in it were details from yet another traditionally caucus state laying the groundwork for a party-run primary.

Yes, the caucuses will remain as the primary means through which delegates will be selected, but the allocation process will shift from hinging on the results of precinct caucuses to a party-run primary that will take place in at least nine locations across the state between 10am and 2pm on Saturday, April 4. No, a four hour voting window in just nine (to start) locations does not come across as adequate in a state as geographically large as Alaska, but Democrats in the Last Frontier have planned for that. In addition to the in-person voting on the April 4 primary day, Alaska Democrats will also have the option voting absentee by mail or electronically (in a system that remains undetermined). That window for alternate forms of voting will stretch from March 3 (Super Tuesday) through March 24.

Miscellany

• The Alaska draft plan calls for a ranked choice system of voting, elements of which have appeared in other formerly caucus states (Hawaii, Iowa and Nevada). 

• The Alaska primary will for the second cycle in a row coincide with the contest in Hawaii. Although both are positioned after the fourth Tuesday in March, the pair alone does not qualify for a regional cluster bonus (15 percent added to the base delegation). Four years ago when Washington state Democrats joined the pair, the collective trio qualified for that bonus. Unless another partner joins the effort -- Oregon comes to mind (but is unlikely) as do the Pacific territories -- then Alaska and Hawaii would fall short of a 15 percent clustering bonus, but would maintain a 10 percent timing bonus for the April date of their contests.

--
Alaska now joins Hawaii and North Dakota as non-carve-out and traditionally caucus states that have moved in the direction of party-run primaries as means of allocating delegates. The only states that have attempted so far to maintain the traditional caucus set up as a part of the allocation process are Iowa and Nevada. And one can hypothesize that such a move is a clear enough nod to the New Hampshire primary that both states' contests bookend. The other caucus states have no similar conflict.


--
The Alaska party-run primary date has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


Related:
2/11/19: Iowa Democrats Release Draft Delegate Selection Plan for 2020

3/13/19: North Dakota Democrats Plan to Hold March 10 Firehouse Caucuses

3/21/19: Nevada Democrats Release Draft Delegate Selection Plan

3/26/19: Hawaii Democrats Aim for an April Party-Run Primary in Lieu of Caucuses

--

Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Maine Democrats Signal Caucuses in Draft Delegate Selection Plan, but...

FHQ has been following the release of delegate selection plans by state Democratic parties across the country since Idaho Democrats released their plan for public comment toward the end of January. In particular, FHQ has kept an eye on caucus states, not only for the dates on which those contests are tentatively scheduled for 2020, but for how they plan to respond to the new DNC rules pushing for increased participation in the format.

While Maine fits into that category as well -- traditional albeit not constant caucus state -- there is another set of attendant questions raised in the Pine Tree state: will there be a primary option and will Democrats there utilize it for delegate allocation? Following the release of the Maine Democratic Party draft delegate selection plan, the answer appears to be, "Caucuses, but we'll get back to you."

The plan, then, lays out a caucus/convention system through which delegates to the national convention will be selected and allocated. However, the plan acknowledges that there is legislation pending in the Maine legislature to reestablish a presidential primary. In fact, there are two bills: one to establish a March presidential primary similar to the one that was created in 2016 but expired in 2018 and another similar bill that would conduct a March primary under a ranked choice voting system. One thing that can be gleaned from the Maine Democratic Party draft plan is that the party seemingly prefers the latter. Moreover, the plan indicates that should the ranked choice presidential primary bill pass the legislature and be signed into law, then the party would utilize the primary over the caucuses (and submit a revised plan to the DNC later).

But until such time that Maine has a presidential primary codified in statute, Democrats will plan on conducting a caucus/convention system with precinct caucuses commencing on Sunday, March 8. That would put the Maine Democratic caucuses in line with the date of those conducted in 2016, the Sunday after Super Tuesday.

That is not the only aspect of the planned caucuses that would carry over from previous cycles. Unlike the other caucus states that have released draft delegate selection plans thus far in 2019, Maine Democrats are not laying the groundwork for any fundamental changes to the caucus process to promote increased participation. There are no virtual caucuses. There is no early voting. Instead, the party will, in the event that it conducts caucuses, rely on the same no-excuse absentee voting system the party has used since 2004 to allow those Democrats with conflicts with the caucuses' date and/or time to express their presidential preference.

One can read that at least a couple of different ways. First, the state party is comfortable with the past level of participation under an absentee system that has been tested over four presidential cycles. But second, while maintaining the status quo may indicate how confident the state party may be in the plan passing muster with the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, it may also signal some confidence that the party is waiting on the state legislature to work through the particulars of a presidential primary option. [It could, of course, be both as well.] One thing is for certain: the Maine legislature will adjourn in mid-June, so an answer would come between now and then. Both primary bills have been shelved in committee awaiting a working hearing at which time the bills may be amended.

--
One other aspect of the current draft plan from the Maine Democratic Party worth flagging is the proposed way of allocating delegates. The preference on that front appears to be for a truly proportional method with no threshold to qualify for delegates. In other words, candidates would not have to win up 15 percent or more of the vote statewide or in one of the two congressional districts to be allocated any delegates. If that gets rejected by the RBC and the party cannot win a waiver to allocate delegates in that way, then it will use the traditional 15 percent threshold to determine which candidates receive delegates and those who do not.

--
The tentative caucus date for Maine has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


--
Related:
1/18/19: Maine Lost its Presidential Primary

2/1/19: Maine Decision to Re-Establish a Presidential Primary Option for 2020 Hinges on Money

2/9/19: Maine Committee Hearing Highlights Familiar Divisions in Caucus to Primary Shifts

3/16/19: Alternative Bill Would Reestablish a Presidential Primary in Maine but with Ranked Choice Voting


Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Hawaii Democrats Aim for an April Party-Run Primary in Lieu of Caucuses

The Hawaii Democratic Party on Monday, March 25 released its draft 2020 delegate selection plan for a thirty day comment period.

Traditionally a caucus state, but faced with new encouragements from the DNC concerning participation in that format, Hawaii Democrats have opted instead to pursue a party-run primary for the 2020 cycle. Although the language used in the plan refers to the Saturday, April 4 event as both a preference poll and a primary, the reality is that, much like North Dakota before it, Hawaii Democrats will attempt to broaden participation in the presidential nomination process. At 20 locations around the Aloha state, Hawaii Democrats will be able to vote for their top three preferences in a limited ranked choice voting system between 7am and 3pm on April 4. Additionally, the party will allow for an early vote-by-mail period (with the same limited top three preferences ranked choice system) that stretches from March 3 (Super Tuesday) through March 28.

While that part -- the early vote-by-mail window -- of the process is occurring, Hawaii Democrats will hold precinct meetings to begin the selection process. On Wednesday, March 4 (the day after Super Tuesday), those precinct meetings will choose delegates to the May 23-24 state convention where national convention delegates will be chosen.

--
This is further evidence of state parties, especially caucus state parties, straying from business as usual. Moreover, it provides at least some credence to the notion that later caucus states -- those not in the February carve-out state window -- are freer to move in the direction of contests that look more like primary election, but primaries conducted by the state parties. North Dakota and Hawaii have followed the sort of "firehouse caucus" model that came out of the discussions dating all the way back to the 2016 national convention in Philadelphia and were noted in the Unity Reform Commission report. Thus far, only Iowa and Nevada -- both states tiptoeing around the New Hampshire primary they bookend -- have attempted to thread a certain needle, maintaining the traditional caucuses while opening the door through early voting and/or virtual caucuses as a means of increasing participation. Neither followed the "firehouse caucus" model and New Hampshire is why.

The remaining caucus states are mostly not actually states at all, but territories. Although there are a few states yet to release their draft delegate selection plans, it is likely that they follow the model more similar to what Hawaii has outlined above. However, it remains to be seen what territorial parties will do with their contests. Time will tell. All drafts are due to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee for review by May 3.

--
The Hawaii party-run primary date has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


Related:
2/11/19: Iowa Democrats Release Draft Delegate Selection Plan for 2020

3/13/19: North Dakota Democrats Plan to Hold March 10 Firehouse Caucuses

3/21/19: Nevada Democrats Release Draft Delegate Selection Plan

--

Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Arkansas Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday

Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) quietly signed SB 445 into law last Thursday, March 21.

Arkansas law now calls for a consolidated primary election -- including the presidential primary -- on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March in presidential election years. More importantly, this shifts Arkansas once again into a position on Super Tuesday. At this time, that now aligns the Arkansas primary with contests in at least eleven other states (or other political units). Of the twelve contests in total on Super Tuesday, Arkansas would have the tenth most delegates at stake on the Democratic side. However, the Natural state may also benefit from having a number of regional partners from North Carolina to Texas on the first multi-contest date on the 2020 calendar.

Unlike the May to March shift the presidential primary in the Natural state made four years ago, this move is permanent. It does not sunset as the 2015 change did at the end of 2016.

--
The Arkansas presidential primary change will be reflected on the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.

--
Related:
2/6/19: Out of Arkansas, An Apparent Challenge to the New Hampshire Primary

2/11/19: Arkansas Lawmaker Signals a Scaling Back of Presidential Primary Legislation

2/16/19: Amendment to Arkansas Bill Eyes March for Presidential Primary Move

3/1/19: New March Presidential Primary Bill Flies Through Arkansas Senate Committee

3/9/19: Arkansas Senate Makes Quick Work of March Presidential Primary Bill

3/13/19: Arkansas House Committee Advances March Presidential Primary Bill

3/19/19: On to the Governor: Super Tuesday Bill Passes Arkansas House


--
Tip of the cap to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for the heads up on the news of the move.


--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Maine Committee Hearing Finds Support for and Roadblocks to a Ranked Choice Presidential Primary

On Wednesday, March 20, the Maine Committee on Veterans and Legal Affairs convened and considered legislation to reestablish a presidential primary in the Pine Tree state and conduct it under ranked choice voting rules. Scott Thistle at the Portland Press Herald reported that no one providing testimony spoke against the measure.

Republicans on the panel, however, balked according to Thistle:

But Republicans, who have largely opposed ranked choice, pushed back against its supporters, saying they didn’t believe the original system was broken but working as it should. 

“To me the old analogy is, ‘If it ain’t broke don’t fix it,'” said Rep. Sheldon Hanington, R-Lincoln, a committee member who questioned witnesses. Hanington said he had voted since 1980, was satisfied with the outcomes of some elections and dissatisfied with others, but wasn’t convinced the system was broken.

And representatives from the office of the secretary of state while remaining neutral on the legislation pointed out some technical problems that it would raise if it became law:

Deputy Secretary of State Julie Flynn, the state’s second-highest-ranking election official, said the Secretary of State’s Office was neither for nor against the bill, but did “wholeheartedly support a return to the presidential primary over a caucus …” 

Flynn said there were technical issues with the bill, including the timing of holding a primary election in early March and then tabulating it without running up against other deadlines in state law for candidates to turn in their nominating petitions. She said for the law to go into effect for the 2020 presidential primary, candidates would need to have their petitions filed with the state by July of this year, which would be before the bill, if passed, would go into effect.

Funding would seemingly still be a concern with this bill as it is with the other primary bill since it still calls for a separate presidential primary contest.

Neither bill has seen a working session in committee to add any amendments.


--
LD 1083 has a competing bill, LD 245, that has previously been heard by the committee, and both are similar with respect to the timing of the would-be newly constituted presidential primary. Both would leave the scheduling decision up to the secretary of state, but confine the date to some time in March.

That uncertainty over the scheduling has drawn some push back from the secretary of state's office in the previous hearing hearing over LD 245. During that hearing, deputy secretary of state Julie Flynn revealed that the office had a bill in the works that would reestablish the presidential primary but on a set date, the second Tuesday in March. That bill has yet to make its way to the introduction stage much less a committee hearing. It is unclear whether it will and become another alternative that the Maine legislature will consider alongside the two other options.

It is also worth pointing out that the same filing issues would be present in any competing bill that sets a definitive date in March as well.



--
Related:
1/18/19: Maine Lost its Presidential Primary

2/1/19: Maine Decision to Re-Establish a Presidential Primary Option for 2020 Hinges on Money

2/9/19: Maine Committee Hearing Highlights Familiar Divisions in Caucus to Primary Shifts

3/16/19: Alternative Bill Would Reestablish a Presidential Primary in Maine but with Ranked Choice Voting


Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Nevada Democrats Release Draft Delegate Selection Plan

Although some of the details came to light a couple of weeks ago, Nevada Democrats on Wednesday, March 20 released their draft delegate selection plan for the 2020 cycle, providing a fuller accounting of how the party will select and allocate delegates. The devil is always in the details:

The process
Before digging in, let's go over some basics. First of all, the is a draft. All Democratic state parties are tasked with devising a draft delegate selection plan that it then releases publicly and opens to public comment for at least 30 days. On or before May 3, those state parties then submit both the draft plans and any comments collected from the public to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) for review. The RBC then approves the plan or more often requests some changes that state parties typically work on over the summer.

What Nevada Democrats released today, then, is not a finished product. It may or may not -- in whole or in part -- pass muster with the RBC.


The delegate toplines
The draft plan confirms that Nevada Democrats will have a total of 48 delegates apportioned to the state for 2020. That is five delegates more than the 43 total delegates the party had in 2016. As in 2016, there will be 36 pledged delegates in 2020 in the Nevada delegation. That includes eight at-large delegates, 23 congressional district delegates and five party leader and elected official (PLEO) delegates. Most of that is just the same as it was for 2016. The only difference comes from the addition of one at-large delegate. That means that the remaining gain in total delegates cycle over cycle came entirely from the superdelegates (one governor, one senator and two additional Democratic members of the US House).

Just as in 2016, there is only one congressional district in Nevada with an odd number of delegates for 2020. This is a marginal consideration, especially in a winnowing contest (as opposed to those later contests where the game changes to counting delegates), but it can present an opportunity to the district winners in the rounding to determine the allocation of whole, rather than fractional, delegates. [There is some additional insight on this here in the table footnotes.]


The changes that will grab attention

...and affect strategy
The easiest thing to do here is to use previously released draft delegate selection plans from other caucus states as touch points. As FHQ mentioned recently in discussing the North Dakota draft plan, there is a range of responses to the new DNC rules regarding expectations for caucus states with respect to increasing participation. This scale runs from basically a party-run primary (North Dakota) to more traditional caucuses with alternate means of participating (Iowa). As was hypothesized then, the earlier carve-out state caucuses are in a position of having to dance around state law in New Hampshire because both Iowa and Nevada bookend the primary in the Granite state and have some interest in maintaining the delicate balance with regard to calendar scheduling. Later caucus state, then, may feel more empowered -- if they have the resources -- to move in the direction of so-called "firehouse caucuses" than the two earlier caucus states that must in some way tiptoe around the "similar contest"distinction that the New Hampshire secretary of state is charged with assessing.

Nevada, we would then expect, is closer to Iowa than North Dakota. And it is.

Like Iowa, Nevada will add virtual caucuses to its attempt at expanding participation in the overarching caucus process. In the draft plan, Nevada Democrats will add a couple of no excuse online fora for Democrats to vote on either Sunday, February 16 or Monday, February 17.

Unlike Iowa, Nevada Democrats plan on allowing a window for early voting at locations yet to be determined as well. The four day early voting window stretches from Saturday, February 15 through Tuesday, February 18 and will provide an additional outlet for participation.

Another important difference between the Iowa and Nevada draft plans is that Nevada Democrats are not capping the input that the virtual caucuses or early voting will have on the process. Recall that draft plan in Iowa limits the impact of the virtual caucuses in the Hawkeye state by capping the number of delegates moving on to the next step in the Iowa process to just 10 percent. That may or may not hold up to RBC scrutiny and remains something of an unknown moving forward. But comparatively, whereas the Iowa draft plan makes some attempt at preserving the traditional caucuses (through the virtual caucuses cap), the Nevada Democratic Party does not.

Nevada Democrats, then, are theoretically opening up the floodgates on participation. This has implications for how candidates and their campaigns will approach both states. In Iowa, the onus is on the campaigns to identify those caucusgoers who would be best suited for that format. Attempting to run up the score in the virtual caucuses will not yield a good return on investment because of that cap. Candidates, then, still have incentives to play the traditional caucus game in Iowa. The system is engineered toward that end.

But the incentives are different in Nevada (or will be if this plan or some variation of it is accepted by the RBC). With no cap, campaigns have every reason, if they have the resources to do so, to push as many of their supporters to participate in the virtual caucuses and early vote. On caucus day in Nevada, campaigns real motivation is to insure that grassroots activists and other diehard supporters who want to be delegates make it to the precinct to participate and move on in the selection process. Of course, campaigns can also try to squeeze out any additional leftover casual support on caucus day to the traditional caucuses. But the intent here is clear: those campaigns with the means and wherewithal will make every attempt to run up the score as much as possible through the new early outlets with the allocation process (how many delegates a candidate wins) in mind and focus more on the selection process (who fills a candidate's the allocated slots) on caucus day.

This is an important difference across the two states. But it also raises an important question.


More strategy 
No, none of the results to the virtual caucuses or early voting will be released until caucus day, but what does Bill Gardner think?

The New Hampshire law empowers the secretary of state to move the Granite state primary to a position that is seven days before any other similar contest. While Nevada will caucus on Saturday, February 22 -- 11 days after New Hampshire primary voters go to the polls -- both the new virtual caucuses and early voting window in Nevada stretch into the seven day window after the New Hampshire primary. If Iowa's virtual caucuses avoid the "similar contest" designation from Gardner, then they likely will in Nevada as well. However, Nevada also has that proposed early voting window. Gardner will likely wait until the fall to set a date, but this all -- whether in Iowa or Nevada, much less early voting in other states -- will give the New Hampshire secretary of state some factors to think about before he sets the date of the primary.


Other considerations
Although it is less clear in the Nevada draft plan (than in the its Iowa counterpart), there is seemingly ranked choice voting involved in both the virtual caucuses and early voting. Caucusgoers will not only provide their top preference, but additional preferences as well. The system is described in less detail in Nevada than in Iowa. The bottom line difference between the two, however, remains the fact that if one assumes more participation in early and virtual caucuses, then viability at the caucuses on actual caucus day are likely to be determined in the earlier voting outlets. But that assumes that there is not only greater participation in those earlier fora, but much greater participation. But if that comes to pass, the earlier results may have a significant effect on the decision-making of those attending the traditional caucuses on February 22 when all the votes are rolled into one pot from precinct to precinct.

There is still a balance there. Well-resourced campaigns may have incentive to run up the score in the earlier contests, but they still have some motivation to play the game in the traditional caucuses with respect to the selection process.

The comparison between Iowa and Nevada is an interesting one, but one explained by their positions on the calendar (pending draft plans from the remaining caucus states).


--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

On to the Governor: Super Tuesday Bill Passes Arkansas House

The Arkansas state House on Tuesday, March 19 took up SB 445, the bill to shift presidential year primaries from mid-May up to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

Although there has been some resistance to this bill from county clerks in the Natural state and from some lawmakers for a variety of reasons across both legislative chambers, the Senate-passed presidential primary bill has enjoyed widespread support. That trend continued in a 74-8 vote to pass SB 445. Ten Democrats joined the majority of Republicans in the lower chamber in favor while only three Republicans cast nay votes against.

The measure will now be enrolled and sent to Governor Hutchinson (R) for his consideration. As the bill's Senate sponsor mentioned while the legislation was being considered there, the governor backs the bill. Arkansas now joins Utah as a Super Tuesday state in waiting. Legislation is before the governor in both states to move the primaries in line with other states on March 3, 2020.


--
Hat tip to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News for passing along the news of the bill's passage to FHQ.

--
Related:
2/6/19: Out of Arkansas, An Apparent Challenge to the New Hampshire Primary

2/11/19: Arkansas Lawmaker Signals a Scaling Back of Presidential Primary Legislation

2/16/19: Amendment to Arkansas Bill Eyes March for Presidential Primary Move

3/1/19: New March Presidential Primary Bill Flies Through Arkansas Senate Committee

3/9/19: Arkansas Senate Makes Quick Work of March Presidential Primary Bill

3/13/19: Arkansas House Committee Advances March Presidential Primary Bill

3/25/19: Arkansas Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday


--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Oregon Senate Bill Would Create Separate Super Tuesday Presidential Primary

Already this 2019 legislative session two bills have been introduced in the Oregon state House to position the Beaver state primary on the second Tuesday in March, a point on the calendar that would coincide with contests in neighboring Idaho and Washington. However, both bills have languished in committee since January.

In the meantime on the state Senate side of the capitol, a Republican-introduced bill would create a separate presidential primary and schedule it on the first Tuesday in March, Super Tuesday. And that bill -- SB 779 -- has had its initial public hearing where Rules Committee senators discussed some of the trade-offs involved in such a move. Obviously, creating a separate presidential primary bears some costs. Not only would the change require an extra appropriation, but it would additionally carry some costs relative to the second primary for state and local offices (still on the third Tuesday in May). There was, however, some question raised about just how much turnout would suffer given that the state of Oregon is a vote by mail state. Another point that was raised by those representing county clerks in the Beaver state was that they would be responsible for three elections in the span of about six months: the November 2019 general election, the proposed March presidential primary and the regular May primary. Filing for the March presidential would begin during the certification process attendant to the general election and continue through the holidays.

It is noteworthy that this last problem would not really be that much different for elections administrators if either of the two Democratic-introduced bills were to pass the state House. The late fall time constraints would remain, but there would not be a third election that would follow the presidential primary. Under the two House bills, the presidential primary would remain consolidated with the primaries for state and local office and everything would move into March. That said, the sponsor of one of the House bills -- HB 2107 -- Representative Brian Clem (D-21st, Salem), is the House co-sponsor of this Senate legislation as well alongside Senator Tim Knopp (R-27th, Bend).

The Senate Rules Committee did not act on SB 779, but it has cleared the public hearing hurdle whereas competing legislation in the House has yet to reach that stage despite being proposed earlier. All of the bills would pair Oregon with regional partners: California and likely Utah on March 3 or Idaho and Washington on March 10.


Related:
1/11/19: Pair of Oregon Bills Would Move Primary to March, but with a Twist


The Oregon legislation will be added to the evolving FHQ 2020 Presidential Primary Calendar.


Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Alternative Bill Would Reestablish a Presidential Primary in Maine but with Ranked Choice Voting

While legislation to reestablish a presidential in Maine under the same conditions as an expired 2016 law awaits a committee work session, another effort with a similar goal in mind has emerged.

The bill, sponsored by state Senate president, Troy Jackson (D-1st, Aroostook) and nine other Senate Democrats, would reestablish a presidential primary option, grant state parties the discretion to opt into using the state-funded contest, and leave the scheduling of the contest up to the secretary of state. LD 1083 provides the Maine secretary of state further guidance on scheduling, limiting the officer to any day in March. Each of those provisions, however, is exactly like those in the previously introduced LD 245.

Yet, LD 1083 is neither a replica of the other bill nor the bill reestablishing a presidential primary for a set second Tuesday in March date promised by the office of the secretary of state. No, LD 1083 is different because not only does it reestablish a presidential primary, but it applies the ranked choice voting system utilized in other primary and general election contests in the Pine Tree state.

Maine is not the first legislature where ranked choice voting has been raised in the context of presidential nominations in 2019. Legislators in neighboring New Hampshire are also considering the adoption of ranked choice voting in its presidential primaries. However, unlike the New Hampshire bill, the Maine effort does not clearly detail how the ranked choice system is to operate. The New Hampshire bill is designed with delegate allocation in mind, cutting off the elimination of candidates at those below the 15 percent threshold instead of winnowing to one winner. The Maine bill does not clearly account for the differences between the presidential primary and those for other offices. That said, the ranked choice law already on the books does grant the secretary of state some discretion in determining the rules of the ranked choice system in a given election. And the state parties, under the bill, are given the ability to select and allocation delegates in "accordance with any reasonable procedures established at the state party convention."

Although this bill has nine Democratic co-sponsors, it remains to be seen whether this bill will supplant the other active bill or anything from the secretary of state as the main vehicle for reestablishing the presidential primary in Maine. There will be a committee hearing on the ranked choice bill next week.

--
Side Note: LD 1083 would also establish ranked choice voting as the means by which presidential electors are chosen -- still by congressional district -- as well. In other words, the intent is to apply ranked choice voting to both facets of the presidential election process.


--
Related:
1/18/19: Maine Lost its Presidential Primary

2/1/19: Maine Decision to Re-Establish a Presidential Primary Option for 2020 Hinges on Money

2/9/19: Maine Committee Hearing Highlights Familiar Divisions in Caucus to Primary Shifts


Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Utah House Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill

On the final day of the 2019 regular legislative session, the Utah House passed SB 242 by a vote of 66-1 after no discussion on the floor. The measure reestablishes, funds and schedules the presidential primary in the Beehive state for the first Tuesday in March, Super Tuesday.

The change would align the Utah presidential primary with contests in 11 other states and territories (at this time) on the 2020 presidential primary calendar if Governor Gary Herbert (R) signs it into law.

This would potentially be the first time since the 2008 cycle that both parties have had the option of a primary in Utah. It was also held on Super Tuesday that year on February 5. Four years later, only Republicans in Utah held a late June primary; one that would have been non-compliant under DNC rules in 2012 had the party had a competitive nomination race that cycle. Instead Utah Democrats allocated and selected delegates to the national convention in a caucus/convention system. The legislature refused to fund the primary for the 2016 cycle and did not act on legislation to move the February primary option into compliance with national party rules.

SB 242 now heads to Governor Herbert for his consideration.



Related:
2/25/19: Legislation Would Push Reestablished Utah Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday

3/7/19: Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Introduced in Utah

3/11/19 (a): Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Unanimously Passes Senate Committee Stage in Utah

3/11/19 (b): Utah Senate Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill


--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Washington Presidential Primary Shifts Up to March 10 After Inslee Adds Signature

Presidential candidate and Washington governor, Jay Inslee (D) signed SB 5273 into law on Thursday afternoon, March 14, moving the presidential primary in the Evergreen state from the fourth Tuesday in May to the second Tuesday in March.

The shift gives the governor a glimmer of something positive after Super Tuesday should he make it that far in the currently wide open race.

That said, there is some question as to whether Washington Democrats will ultimately opt for the newly timed primary or for the caucus/convention format the party has used throughout the post-reform era. While the primary law changes the date of the primary, it also alters the operation of the mail-in vote contest. Primary voters will now have to check a box on the Democratic ballot publicly affirming they are Democrats in order to have their ballots counted toward the vote that will determine delegate allocation to the national convention. That was the price Washington had to pay to bring their process (in a state with no partisan registration) in line with the national party rules.

The Washington State Democratic Party will make that primary or caucus determination at its April 7 state central committee meeting. The primary would be on March 10 and the caucuses on March 21. The month of delegate allocation is known, then, but the exact date remains on hold until April.

Washington becomes the first state to have legislation pass and be signed into law moving its primary during the 2019 state legislative session, but follows states like California and North Carolina that moved prior to this year for the 2020 cycle.

--
The Washington primary change has been added to the 2020 FHQ Presidential Primary Calendar.


Related:
Washington State Legislation Would Again Try to Move Presidential Primary to March

An Update on March Presidential Primary Bills in Washington: One Bill Through Committee

Washington Senate Passes Democratic March Presidential Primary Bill

Senate-Passed Washington Presidential Primary Bill Passes House Committee Stage on Party Line Vote

Washington State House Passes March Presidential Primary Bill

Washington Democrats Will Allocate Delegates in March, but How?

--

Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Arkansas House Committee Advances March Presidential Primary Bill

After a hearing on SB 445 that saw opposition to the measure moving the presidential year primary from May to March, the Arkansas House Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs passed the legislation on a voice vote.

While the committee passed the bill on to the House floor with a do pass recommendation, there was some resistance. As with the recent floor vote passing the bill on the Senate side, opposition to the two month move came from the from the membership itself. Representative Bruce Cozart (R-24th, Hot Springs) raised the issue that farmer/legislators might face with a later (April) fiscal session pushed back by a conflicting March primary election. The Libertarian Party of Arkansas took issue with the impact of an earlier filing deadline for independent candidates. And those representing both Arkansas county clerks and school boards brought up concerns with respect to the unevenness of the elections calendar from March in presidential years to May in gubernatorial years.

Despite that opposition, the committee passed the bill behind arguments that this legislation would 1) provide Arkansas voters with a voice in the presidential nomination process and 2) actually resolve the uncertainty around primary dates. On the latter point, SB 445 would make permanent the shift of the consolidated primary election in Arkansas rather than making the move, as the legislature did in 2015, but sunsetting the change after 2016. Future legislatures could still change the dates of the primaries, of course, but they would not be forced to look again at moving the date up if it was already in March.

There are not many other states that have uneven consolidated elections calendars like this, but Alabama is one, shifting primaries from March in presidential years to June in midterm years.

SB 445 now moves to the full House for consideration. It has already passed the Senate.


--
Related:
2/6/19: Out of Arkansas, An Apparent Challenge to the New Hampshire Primary

2/11/19: Arkansas Lawmaker Signals a Scaling Back of Presidential Primary Legislation

2/16/19: Amendment to Arkansas Bill Eyes March for Presidential Primary Move

3/1/19: New March Presidential Primary Bill Flies Through Arkansas Senate Committee

3/9/19: Arkansas Senate Makes Quick Work of March Presidential Primary Bill

3/19/19: On to the Governor: Super Tuesday Bill Passes Arkansas House

3/25/19: Arkansas Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday


--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

North Dakota Democrats Plan to Hold March 10 Firehouse Caucuses

North Dakota Democrats on Wednesday, March 13 released for public comment the party's draft 2020 delegate selection plan.

Traditionally, Democrats in the Peace Garden state have conducted caucuses as the means by which the party has allocated delegates to the national convention. But caucus states on the Democratic side face a burden in the 2020 that they have not faced in the past. The onus is on those state parties to make the case to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee that they have taken steps to maximize participation in the typically low turnout caucus/convention format. And the evidence thus far indicates that Democratic caucus states are reacting to the new encouragements in Rule 2 in different ways. Iowa Democrats, for example, have proposed new virtual caucuses. Nevada Democrats, too, have laid out plans for early voting in their caucus process.¹

Now, with the release of the draft delegate selection plan, North Dakota Democrats have put their own unique spin on a more participatory caucus. Rather than a traditional moving caucus, the North Dakota Democratic-NPL will essentially conduct a party-run primary. Often this is called a firehouse primary because they have been, more often than not, held in firehouses, but North Dakota Democrats are using the term "firehouse caucus" -- verbiage that came out of the Unity Amendment that created the Unity Reform Commission and later appeared in the URC recommendations -- instead.

The terms -- firehouse caucus or firehouse primary -- are interchangeable as both are party-run primaries where typically no state-funded primary option is available. In practice, the difference rests on how many polling locations are set up. State-funded (and run) primaries offer more locations and theoretically greater participation. And while the party-run version has fewer locations, they run all day rather than the smaller and more rigid window used in the caucus format.

And that is the basic structure of the North Dakota plan. There will be 14 firehouse caucus locations set up throughout the state and polls will be open from 11am-7pm on Tuesday, March 10. [That is twelve weeks earlier than the first Tuesday in June caucuses North Dakota Democrats held in 2016.]

In addition to those changes, the party will also use a vote-by-mail process. What is clear about the vote-by-mail proposal is that it is intended to function much like the virtual caucuses in Iowa. Voters with conflicts during the hours in which the caucuses are in session have an alternative option available to them. And it is an option that is available from January 20-March 3. What is not clear is how the vote-by-mail system will operate; whether it will function on top of the state's vote-by-mail system or not. Most unclear is how ballots will be distributed to voters wanting to take advantage of the process. That is something the Rules and Bylaws Committee will train its sights on when this plan is reviewed.

It should likely be the expectation that other caucus states will fall in line with some variation of this plan rather than what Iowa has done and Nevada plans to do. Later caucus states will not have the same restrictions -- working around New Hampshire -- with their delegate selection plans like the other carve-out caucus states do.


The date of the North Dakota Democratic firehouse caucus will be added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.

--
¹ There are a great many things left unsaid about details of how the Nevada Democrats are going to accommodate early voting in the caucuses. FHQ will have more on that in a separate post.

--

Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Washington Democrats Will Allocate Delegates in March, but How?

Last week the Washington State Democratic Party released and opened for public comment their draft delegate selection plan for 2020. Only, rather than just one plan, the party released two plans contingent on the mode of delegate allocation the party opts to use during its April 7 central committee meeting. In doing this, the party has made the primary or caucus question the one most likely to draw public comment in the next thirty days before the central committee votes.

And bear in mind that while those comments are not binding on the decision of the state central committee, they are submitted along with the draft delegate selection plan of choice to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee as part of the plan approval process. Under the hypothetical scenario, then, that the party chooses to continue with the caucus/convention system as the means by which delegates from the state will be allocated and selected even in the face of public support for the primary, the party would have some explaining to do before the RBC. And that is doubly true considering 1) the Democratic primary bill that has made its way through the Washington state legislature is more likely than not to be signed into law and 2) the RBC will be operating under the guidance of Rule 2.K in which "[state] parties are encouraged to use government-run primaries."

In that situation, the Washington State Democratic Party would have to make a very persuasive case to the RBC for why the party chose caucuses over the primary pushed through and passed by a Democratic-controlled state government. And the Democratic bill got the green light -- that it would be consistent with DNC rules -- from RBC member and WSDP parliamentarian, David McDonald during the committee hearings in each legislative chamber.

That is a tough sell.

It seems, then, that the best case to be made for retaining the caucuses is one in which there is a groundswell of support for it in this public comment stage followed by a state central committee vote in favor of the caucuses.

But assuming Governor Inslee (D) signs SB 5273, then it is quite likely the party opts for the primary.

--
Regardless of which option is chosen on April 7 in Washington, the two plans do clearly indicate a couple of important timing points. First, the date listed for the primary in the primary plan is March 10. It is clear then that the state party is assuming the primary bill heading to Inslee's desk -- the one moving the primary from May to March -- will be signed into law. Additionally, the alternate caucuses plan includes a Saturday, March 21 date for precinct caucuses should that plan be adopted and approved by the RBC. Should the party move in that direction, it would constitute a caucus/convention process that begins on the third Saturday in March rather than the fourth Saturday in March on which the precinct caucuses were held in 2016.



Related:
Washington State Legislation Would Again Try to Move Presidential Primary to March

An Update on March Presidential Primary Bills in Washington: One Bill Through Committee

Washington Senate Passes Democratic March Presidential Primary Bill

Senate-Passed Washington Presidential Primary Bill Passes House Committee Stage on Party Line Vote

Washington State House Passes March Presidential Primary Bill

--

Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.