CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
March 3, 2008 – 4:01 p.m.
The Texas Primary Explained: Why Tuesday’s Dem Winner May Not Be Obvious
By Greg Giroux, CQ Staff
Some states choose presidential convention delegates through primary elections. Others use a system of caucuses. Texas is holding both on Tuesday.
Say again?
That’s right — Texas is a primary state and a caucus state. And there’s a Texas-sized explanation for this unusual setup.
Texas voters don’t register with a political party, so any registered voter can participate in either party’s primary election. Anyone who votes in Tuesday’s Democratic primary — in which New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama are in a critical contest — can also participate in precinct conventions (caucuses) that will begin shortly after the polls close at 7 p.m. local time. (Nearly all of Texas is in the Central time zone; its western tip is in the Mountain time zone).
The purpose of these precinct conventions (caucuses), which will be held at the polling stations, is to select delegates for county conventions or state Senate district conventions on March 29 that in turn will elect delegates to the state Democratic convention on June 6 and 7. The state convention will determine the full delegate slate that will attend the Democratic national convention in Denver in late August. Texas Democrats are allotted 193 pledged delegates and 35 unpledged “superdelegates.”
But wait, it gets more complicated.
At the Democratic precinct conventions, attendees will sign in and reveal their presidential preferences (though they can be “uncommitted”) and elect delegates to the county conventions or state Senate district conventions. The more votes that a voting precinct gave in November 2006 to Chris Bell, the party’s losing candidate for governor, the more delegates it is entitled to send to the county or state Senate district convention. Of the 193 pledged Democratic delegates, 67 will be determined through this caucus process.
Obama has dominated Clinton in nearly all caucus contests that have been held to date, so he’s expected to win the lion’s share of the preference vote among Democrats who participate in the post-primary caucuses.
The other 126 pledged delegates will be determined by the primary vote and are distributed among the 31 state Senate districts. Each state Senate district is allocated between two and eight delegates, depending on the Democratic turnout in the past two general elections.
For example, Texas’ 14th senatorial district, which includes the state capital of Austin, is assigned eight delegates because there was a huge Democratic vote there in the past two elections. But the 31st senatorial district, which takes in the heavily Republican Panhandle, is assigned just two delegates because recent Democratic candidates didn’t get that many votes there.
Under this unconventional system, it’s possible that the winner of the overall statewide vote could capture fewer convention delegates than the runner-up. It may be hard to know exactly who won how many delegates Tuesday night when the results come in.
Texas Republicans also use this unusual primary-caucus system, though their process is less complicated. And the GOP race hasn’t received as much attention as the Democratic contest because Arizona Sen. John McCain has effectively sewn up the GOP nomination.
Any voter who cast a ballot in the Republican election can participate in his or her precinct convention on primary night. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans won’t hold a presidential preference vote at the precinct conventions, which will elect delegates to the county or state Senate district conventions on March 29.
Congressional district caucuses on June 12-14 will elect 96 district-level delegates — three in each of Texas’ 32 congressional districts — to the Republican national convention in September. The state Republican convention also will be held June 12-14, and it will elect the 41 at-large delegates to the national convention. Three delegate spots are automatically awarded to the state party chairman and the state’s Republican national committeeman and Republican national committeewoman.
The winner of the statewide primary vote will take all of the at-large delegates if he wins a majority of the vote, and a majority-vote winner in a congressional district would also win its three delegates. In cases where a candidate does not win a majority of the vote statewide or in a congressional district, the delegates will be distributed proportionally among candidates who received at least 20 percent of the vote.
Comments
I believe Sen. McCain has the Republican nomination "sewn up" (not "sown up")! Thanks for the otherwise informative article on the complex Texas system.
Hopefully, election officials in Texas will have figured out the precise delegate split by the time children born next year die of old age.
willis, thanks for the humorous line. I enjoyed a hearty laugh. It was great.
I can not digest the election process the way it varies from stat to state. We need a less complicated system so that our new ,young and older population can understand how their votes are counted. Education,please. I have had many birthdays and I am still out in the woods as to how my vote count.
For a deeper analysis of the rules in Texas and their implications, visit us over at Frontloading HQ. http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2008/02/texas-ground-rules.html
So many Republicans are upset at having McCain as our Presidential nominee and since he has recently been insisting he is a conservative and has conservative values, I suggest all conserva-tives demand he select a conservative vice president and sign a sworn pledge that he will abide by the promises he has recently made: to keep taxes and spending low, reject amnesty to illegals, appoint conservative judges, secure our borders, and no compromising on items that continue to restrict our freedom and capitalism.
My husband is flying home from Dallas Ft. Worth as i write this, having spent the last three days with the Clinton campaign as a lawyer dealing with this mess. He traveled from caucus to caucus responding to complaints of voter interference and the total lack of understanding the voters had with this process. It is a stupid process, designed to do what, I don't know, but I am sure it was designed this way to confuse the Democrats by the GOP in TX. There were many instances of Obama followers telling Clinton voters to go home, the caucus was cancelled, or moved, some of which were caught by the Election Judge and stopped, but not all. Add to that the fact that the GOP could and did vote in this DEMOCRATIC caucus, and help determine our candidate, which I find outrageous, and 4000 out of 8000 precincts had no one to run them, made it was a mess. The rules said that the first one there could run the whole show, which is why Obama followers were able to turn away Clinton voters. My husband will be coming home with tons of filings to complete, complaints against the Obama campaign for voter interference and such, since he has spent the day interviewing the people who were prevented from voting, or where the attempt was made to interfere. I find that so disgusting, that Obama could do this, although I am sure he will say he "didn't" or "didn't know." This is worse than what was done in Florida in 2000, because of who is doing it. Fortunately, the Election Judges were available to be called in, and filed complaints as well. This system is cleverly designed to give the GOP total control over the election process. The Democrats don't have the ability to do this to them because only they are stupid enough to hold this stupid caucus the same day, at night, of course. It seems to me that these caucuses, which are supposed to be a type of pre-convention convention ,need to be done after the Primary, as in months after, as the other States who choose their delegate slates do. Here in GA we have a Primary, which is open, in that you can vote as you wish without regard to Party, but the delegates are chosen in separate State conventions and if you want to be a delegate you have to get trained to run in an election for it. That tends to weed out the closet or crossover voters from the party faithful. I wonder if what Texas does is constitutional? And can those who were prevented from voting sue the Obama campaign? Anybody know?
suzie from Atlanta, If what you say is true it is far worse than what was attempted in Florida 2000. Fortunately in Florida, Kathryn Hughes was able to step in and prevent the election from being stolen. The efforts of out of town Democrats to overturn what the people of Florida wanted were exposed by the media despite their efforts to spin it against the Republicans. It is well known that Kennedy stole Texas and Illinois in 1960 to defeat Nixon - it was wrong then and what you describe is wrong now. Good luck in exposing Obama. I find it ironic that a Clinton is being treated unfairly by the media, but it is certainly wrong.
*** suzie from atlanta Perhaps more information regarding the Texas Primary-Caucus will alleviate some of your concerns. The caucus' primary purpose is electing delegates. This gives ordinary voters, grass roots voters a unique opportunity to participate as a delegate on a level normally reserved for die-hard party members only. Thus becoming a delegate is meaningful for the average voter. Last Tuesday, only the first-tier of Texas' 3-tier caucus system was completed. The second-tier caucus takes place 29 March at the Senate Convention level. The third and final tier will be completed in June at the State Convention. So the actual delegates will not be determined until then. My precinct was allotted sixteen delegates and 16 alternative delegates. Basically that means if, for some reason, one of the delegates cannot attend the senate caucus an alternative delegate will be appointed to take that person's place. [Iam one of the 16 alternative delegates]. In the unlikely event all sixteen delegates are unable to attend the alternative delegates will go in their place. Although I have no reason to doubt what you say I have not heard or read anything to date that support your husband's allegations. Iam not sure which caucuses necessitated your husband's attention, but nothing unusual nor inappropriate whatsoever occurred in either of the two separate precinct caucuses simultaneously taking place where I caucused. Obama won my precinct with over 100 to Hillary's 32. The other precinct likewise went for Obama, but with much less disparity in numbers. On the eve of the Texas primary, an email sent by the Clinton campaign asking caucus goers to arrive early to take possession of the packet of papers containing forms to record voters' names and vote tallies, was covered by every newspaper across the state. Furthermore the instructions stated that even if outnumbered, allowing the opposition to record the information was not an option. Clinton's concerted effort to control the process has implications regardless whether anything nefarious actually took place. Documented incidents during the (Nevada ?) caucuses reported by hundreds of caucus-goers claimed Clinton's staff locked the doors 10 to 15 minutes too early. Voters, lined-up outside waiting to register, were locked-out. Others complained they were not allowed to register period. On the other hand I have not read nor heard any complaints regarding Obama's campaign with the exception of your post containing your husband's allegations. Nothing else supports that to be the case [that Iam aware of]. Herein until substantial evidence is established to the contrary suggestions based on hearsay, with all due respect, are meaningless.
*** suzie from atlanta Perhaps more information regarding the Texas Primary-Caucus will alleviate some of your concerns. The caucus' primary purpose is electing delegates. This gives ordinary voters, grass roots voters a unique opportunity to participate as a delegate on a level normally reserved for die-hard party members only. Thus becoming a delegate is meaningful for the average voter. Last Tuesday, only the first-tier of Texas' 3-tier caucus system was completed. The second-tier caucus takes place 29 March at the Senate Convention level. The third and final tier will be completed in June at the State Convention. So the actual delegates will not be determined until then. My precinct was allotted sixteen delegates and 16 alternative delegates. Basically that means if, for some reason, one of the delegates cannot attend the senate caucus an alternative delegate will be appointed to take that person's place. [Iam one of the 16 alternative delegates]. In the unlikely event all sixteen delegates are unable to attend the alternative delegates will go in their place. Although I have no reason to doubt what you say I have not heard or read anything to date that support your husband's allegations. Iam not sure which caucuses necessitated your husband's attention, but nothing unusual nor inappropriate whatsoever occurred in either of the two separate precinct caucuses simultaneously taking place where I caucused. Obama won my precinct with over 100 to Hillary's 32. The other precinct likewise went for Obama, but with much less disparity in numbers. On the eve of the Texas primary, an email sent by the Clinton campaign asking caucus goers to arrive early to take possession of the packet of papers containing forms to record voters' names and vote tallies, was covered by every newspaper across the state. Furthermore the instructions stated that even if outnumbered, allowing the opposition to record the information was not an option. Clinton's concerted effort to control the process has implications regardless whether anything nefarious actually took place. Documented incidents during the (Nevada ?) caucuses reported by hundreds of caucus-goers claimed Clinton's staff locked the doors 10 to 15 minutes too early. Voters, lined-up outside waiting to register, were locked-out. Others complained they were not allowed to register period. On the other hand I have not read nor heard any complaints regarding Obama's campaign with the exception of your post containing your husband's allegations. Nothing else supports that to be the case [that Iam aware of]. Herein until substantial evidence is established to the contrary suggestions based on hearsay, with all due respect, are meaningless.
The TEXAS caucus count indicates the 67 delegates will be 37 for Barak and 30 for Hillary, giving a total of 98 for Barak and 95 for Hillary. Barak Obama won Texas, not Hillary Clinton.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: