CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Dec. 5, 2007 – 8:45 p.m.
Top 7 Questions on Florida and Michigan Primaries
By Rachel Kapochunas, CQ Staff
1. What are Florida and Michigan’s 2008 presidential primary dates and how and when were those dates finalized?
On May 21, Florida Republican Gov. Charlie Crist signed legislation into law designating Jan. 29 as the state’s presidential primary date. The primary had been previously scheduled for March.
In Michigan, Democratic Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm signed legislation into law Sept. 4 establishing Jan. 15 as the state’s presidential primary date. But, lower courts in Michigan ruled that the primary process was unconstitutional because Michigan political parties would obtain information regarding voters’ political affiliation through the primary process and that information would not be made public. Voters do not register by party in Michigan. But the State Supreme Court decided Nov. 21 to overturn those rulings and allow the Jan. 15 date to stand.
2. Why did these states and others schedule earlier delegate selection contests?
There is no heir-apparent for either party’s nomination and states are eager to exert influence over the nominating process. In past elections, the opportunities provided by early contests for candidates to gain momentum has resulted in more attention being paid to those states. Other candidates have stumbled in early contests and had to drop out. By the time other states held their primaries, the nominee was already apparent.
The desire to play a role in the nominating process has been so strong that more than 20 states have scheduled one or more party contests on Feb. 5, the earliest date permitted by both parties on which states may hold a contest without penalty.
3. What rules have Florida and Michigan broken by setting these primary dates?
The dates chosen by Florida and Michigan violate both national party rules because they fall before Feb. 5.
Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules stipulate that all but a select handful of states (Iowa- Jan.3 caucus, New Hampshire -Jan. 8 primary, Nevada- Jan. 19 caucus and South Carolina- Jan. 26 primary) are permitted to hold nominating contests earlier than Feb. 5, 2008.
Republican National Committee (RNC) rules state that all states holding binding delegate selection contests prior to Feb. 5 will be penalized, including New Hampshire and South Carolina. Wyoming Republicans also broke RNC rules by scheduling caucuses Jan. 5. The RNC has said it will not penalize Iowa Republicans for holding caucuses Jan. 3 or Nevada Republicans for holding caucuses Jan. 19 because they deem those to be non-binding contests.
New Hampshire traditionally holds the first-in-the-nation primary and Iowa traditionally holds the first caucus in the nation.
4. What penalties do violators face for scheduling primaries before Feb. 5?
Democrats in Florida originally faced the loss of half of their delegates to the party’s 2008 national convention in Denver and candidates who campaigned in the state would then be forced to forfeit any delegates received by Florida. But in late August, the DNC took a harder line against Florida, and threatened to strip them of all 210 delegates if the party did not change their delegate selection plan within 30 days. Florida Democrats did not back down and the DNC is now proceeding as if Florida will have no delegates attending the convention.
Just more than a week after Michigan’s primary was finalized, the rule-making body of the DNC recommended Dec. 1 that like Florida Democrats, Michigan Democrats should be stripped of all 156 delegates. The DNC said penalties would take effect in 30 days if Michigan Democrats chose not to alter their delegate selection plan.
The previous penalties laid out by the DNC for presidential candidates who campaign in these states are now moot since they have no delegates, the DNC confirmed Wednesday. But presidential candidates signed an earlier “four-state” pledge not to campaign in states that violate the DNC scheduling rules. The pledge was offered by the four states permitted by the DNC to hold earlier Democratic nominating contests: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
In addition, several Democratic candidates withdrew their names from Michigan’s primary ballot, including: Illinois Sen. Barack Obama ; former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards , the party’s 2004 vice presidential nominee; Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden; and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson .
Republicans who violate RNC scheduling rules face a loss of half of their delegates, which is 57 of Florida’s 114 total delegates and 30 of Michigan’s 60 delegates.
5. Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida and others sued the DNC over the penalties? Was that resolved?
Nelson and fellow Florida Democratic Rep. Alcee L. Hastings were two plaintiffs in a case brought against the DNC and its chairman, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. They argued that the DNC penalties against Florida Democrats were unconstitutional and violated Florida voters’ rights.
But Chief U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida ruled in the DNC’s favor Wednesday, arguing that the national party has the right to set its own rules.
Nelson said he is not planning to appeal the case but will pursue legislation to reform the presidential primary system.
6. What scenarios may occur for Florida and Michigan at next summer’s national conventions?
The possibility remains that full penalties will not be carried out against Florida and Michigan and state parties are likely to appeal to their nominee and committee members to seat their delegates.
At the DNC meeting Saturday, Rules and Bylaws committee member Don Fowler of South Carolina, who opposed the sanctions against Michigan Democrats said: “No one at this table believes that the delegate sections for Michigan and Florida will be absent at the convention in Denver.” He continued, “We all understand that after the nominee is selected, manipulation will be taken to somehow place those delegations in the convention in Denver.”
Florida Democrats are preparing for all of their delegates to be recognized, despite the DNC sanctions. They have said that they will appeal their party nominee to recognize all delegates if the penalties are enforced. Florida Republicans are also operating as if all their delegates will be seated but said that if only 57 delegates are seated, they will be bound to all vote for the statewide winner in order to consolidate their delegate influence.
Michigan Democrats have 30 days to change their delegate selection plan, but have indicated they will not alter their plan. Michigan Republicans say they are pressing forward with their full 60 delegate plan and did not offer an alternate plan if half of their delegates were seated when faced with the scenario Wednesday.
The DNC said there is no precedent for the situation caused by Florida and Michigan Democrats and that states in recent years have altered their nominating contests when pressed by the committee to adhere to their scheduling rules.
7. Can anything be done to reduce “front-loading” for future presidential primaries?
A reform of the presidential primary scheduling plan could help avoid future front-loading and many lawmakers, party members, and political observers have offered their solutions to solve primary scheduling problems. Among them:
•The Delaware Plan- States are divided into four regions with the least populous holding the first nominating contests. One election day would be designated for each region.
• Rotating Regional Primaries Plan- Nominating contests would be grouped by regions: East, South, Midwest and West. A lottery would determine which region holds the first contest and that region would go last in the next election year. Iowa and New Hampshire would retain their historical status and the first states to hold nominating contests. This plan is supported by the National Association of Secretaries of State.
A rotating regional plan was introduced in the Senate in July by Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. It is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 8 senators from both parties. Democratic Rep. Alcee L. Hastings of Florida introduced a companion bill in the House.
•A plan to divide states into six regions which would each contain six sub-regions. One sub-region from each region would hold a nominating contest on one of six designated election dates. No favored status is given to any states. Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida and co-sponsor Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan offered this plan in Senate legislation this year. Michigan Democratic National Committeewoman Debbie Dingell, wife of Democratic Rep. John D. Dingell , and Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saulius “Saul” Anuzis proposed a bi-partisan plan this week patterned after the Nelson-Levin legislation.
What do you think about the current primary calendar and process? Does it do the job the way you think it should in choosing each party’s nominee or does it need fixing? CQ Politics wants your creative solutions. Please post your ideas in the comments section below. We’ll have the highlights of the responses in a separate story next week.
Greg Giroux contributed to this story.
Comments
The solution I would see comes from what we all learned in pre-school. Sharing. Either randomly or via schedule, 5 states should hold primaries each week for 10 weeks - or every two weeks, or something similar. The next cycle, those who went last go first, first move back to second, etc. Let NH,IA,SC,NV be in the first batch the first time, then let others take their turn. One could construct batches of similar representation in order to have each area of the country represented in each round. End the bickering once and for all by ending the favoritism built into the system, while keeping the timescale and horserace character.
Maybe it's time to rethink the ENTIRE election process. We have the technology to do all of the voting simultaneously and in real time. And we have the technology for the candidates to reach us directly without spending the megabucks that they currently do. Let's upgrade the system.
The primaries have gotten totally ridiculous. I say we spread out the primary season until at least May, with a few states, at the most voting every week. And/or, make only half of the total delegates available via the primaries, and the other half who must select a candidate at the convention itself, thereby allowing political conventions to actually have a purpose once again.
First the nation would be divided into ten regions. Each region would contain 5 states. Beginning with the first full week of April one state from each region (chosen at random at an earlier date) would hold their primaries. Two weeks later 10 more states (once again randomly selected from each region) would hold their primaries. This pattern of one week of primaries followed by an "off week" would continue until all states had voted. Washington DC would hold its primaries during the same week as Virginia. The Pacific territories would hold their primaries during the same week as Hawaii. The Atlantic territories would hold their primary during the same week as Florida. All parties which received at least 2% of the vote nationwide during the last presidential election would be eligible for full ballot access nationwide in both the primaries and general election. A party which received at least 2% of the presidential vote within a single state or a party which received at least 2% for any statewide office would be eligible for full ballot access within that state. Any independent candidate and any parties which did not meet the above requirements could file for ballot access by providing a petition signed by 1% of a state's registered voters. Candidates for president would be barred from beginning any campaign activity before the first day of the year in which the presidential election will occur.
I echo Bernie's comments above. Is has become quite absurd that a few states should dictate what the topics of discussion are for the primary season. I hardly think religion would be as large of an issue if Iowa were not the first caucus. While tradition is important to honor, when that tradition prevent the entire system from effectively functioning, it must be abandoned. Hold primaries whenever each party would like but, do every state's on the same day. I understand the argument that population heavy states like California and Texas would dominate campaigning but, isn't it more just that the majority of people determine the course of the nation rather than the minority that you find in Iowa or New Hampshire?
Three options: OPTION ONE "Swing State First" policy... based on the closeness of the previous presidential election. In 2008, the first ten primaries/caucuses would be: 1. Wisconsin 2. Iowa 3. New Mexico 4. New Hampshire 5. Ohio 6. Pennsylvania 7. Nevada 8. Michigan 9. Minnesota 10. Oregon OPTION TWO "Base Friendly" policy... Pair up the states during primary season. Widest Republican margin of victory one week paired up with widest Democratic margin of victory the first week, then 2nd widest second week and so forth. So that the "Base Friendly" primary/caucus calendar would look something like this: Week1: UT & DC Wk2: MA & WY Wk3: VT & ID Wk4: RI & NE Wk5: MD & OK OPTION THREE: "Swing/Base Hybrid" that puts the most purple, bluest and reddest states together... then second most, thrid most, etc. This primary/caucus calendar would look like this: Week1: WI/DC/UT Wk2: IA/MA/WY Wk3: NM/VT/ID Wk4: NH/RI/NE Wk5: OH/MD/OK Why base it on tradition? Base it on statistics and make it change with the times. It's only fair. I pulled this from a fuller version available here: http://squizzdom.blogspot.com/2007/10/primarycaucus-thing-again-but-with.html
We've got to remove the incentive for frontloading. As painful as it is to admit in a day of popular party elections, conventions did a pretty good job selecting candidates. Have 45% of delegates chosen by primary/caucus and have the remainder of convention of delegates be chosen by the state party before their state votes in the primaries. This would (1) make conventions meaniful and (2) end the pressure for frontloading because no one could get a majority before the convention.
One small change that would go a long way to opening up the electoral process would be to run the primaries in order of the proportion of eligible voters to those who voted in the last presidential election. Under this system we would allow for transparency keep the idea that those paying closer attention would gain the right to narrow the field.
The whole system is both so arcane as to be irrelevant and broken to the point of complete corruption. People have no confidence in their vote being counted. Tie primary reform to total election reform with transparency and equity as driving principles. Eliminate the electoral college and institute paper ballots with meaningful auditing. Eliminate corporate candidate financing. One person one vote -- not, one dollar one vote.
Doesn't the DNC realize that they are going to tick off the Dems in Michigan. The Michigan Dems tried to get the Dem candidates on the 1/15 ballot, but the Repubs in the state legislature voted no. So many Michigan Dems are going to cross over and play havoc in the Repub 1/15/08 primary. We did it before, and we will do it again. What do we do? We vote for the Repub that would be the worst candidate.
I would hold a nationwide primary over a simultaneous 24-hour period, where polls would open and close at the same moment everywhere in the country. I would propose holding this national primary no more than six weeks before the general election, and prohibit any campaign fundraising prior to January 1st of the election year, and no campaign spending until eight weeks before the nationwide primary.
I usually think of myself as somewhat liberal, but on this issue, I am somewhat libertarian. I think we need to abolish the primary system and let the parties select their candidates. Why does the public have to pay for private organizations to choose their candidate? Let the state organizations have local processes to direct their delegates to the national convention and have the selection take place at the convention, rather than this absurd system. LaFollette's concerns in 1901 about the undue influence of party bosses is still a concern today but parties should be able to find ways to keep the process open. With our current mangled system, money becomes the deciding factor rather than political ability.
The States need to get out of the business of running elections to choose party candidates. Either the political parties run and pay for their own elections, or the State does open election, with no party affliation, and chooses the top two candidates in a run-off election. The parties can campaign for who they want, but taxpayers don't need to foot the bill for what the Dems/ Reps want to do in regard to presidential nominations, like we are going to do in Michigan. Our State is broke, yet the politicians want to spend taxpayer money to do the political parties' job. I say Michigan should recall every official who voted for this stupid primary. Oh, and not to mention, who wants to campaign this early in the snow and cold.
We should have regional (clusters of states) primaries, 4, 5 or 6. Shared media areas should considered to reduce costs. Clusters will save time, reduce travel costs & pollution. They should be at least two weeks apart. OR - Have a national primary system with at least one runoff. Aim for at least a 45% plurality, for any parties that are recognized as national parties.
Hold a national primary day!
Being the last state to hold a primary might be more important then being first. 10 States with the highest percentage of voter turn out should get to hold the earliest primary.
Since our nation has one specified election day each November, why not have only one national primary day?
I used to be a registered Democrat but have grown more and more disgusted with the Democratic Party with every passing year. This latest outrage makes me want to scream. Why should Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina hold such power over our elections? Are they the most populous states? Are their people the most representative of the US at large? Is this primary system in any way democratic with a small 'd'? I don't think so. The Democratic Party and the court have now proved beyond a doubt that they don't have the slightest interest in democracy or in fairness. Of the plans described, that proposed by Nelson & Levin is the only fair & equitable one: 'A plan to divide states into six regions which would each contain six sub-regions. One sub-region from each region would hold a nominating contest on one of six designated election dates. No favored status is given to any states.' --Proud to be a registered Independent (and I don't live in Florida or Michigan, either!)
Don't forget the Larry Sabato's regional lottery primary plan: http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2006/summer/sabato-politics-americas/ He expanded on that original article in his new book, "A More Perfect Constitution." I like that plan because the lottery on New Year's Day means that no candidate can set up early state organization until then since they won't know which states will be the early ones! At the same time, it preserves the role of small states as early laboratories for citizens to study the campaigns under a microscope, but sets better rules so NH and IA don't dominate in perpetuity. Check it out...
I came across that same Sabato plan on DailyKos. (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/12/163335/41/344/397313) The argument seems really strong, especially with the background info he provides in his "More Perfect Constitution" book (way too much to go into here, but definitely worth the read). Certainly would be great to see the primaries in states like VA (Feb. 12 this year) actually mean something again!
The IA caucuses and the NH open primary are seriously flawed. Is there anyone who thinks that these votes actually represent the will of the party members in either state? I favor the Levin-Nelson solution. I also think that only the parties' members should be allowed to vote. The polls should be open 7-7 and write-ins and absentees should be allowed. Selecting a nominee is just as important as the election itself in my opinion. I also think that the entire process should be compressed into a 4 month process - 2 1/2 -3 months for primaries and 1-1 1/2 months for the general election with no campaigning (ads by anyone) starting before the 4 month period.
I think I'm posting the first comment in 2008. I think the previous commenters did an excellent job with not only their recommendations, but how accurate their critiques on the primaries turned out to be. As it stands, FL and Mich do not count. Which is not only a ripoff to winner Hillary Clinton, but especially to all the voters who have no say into choosing the primary dates. In addition, now that Super Tuesday has long passed, it turned out that FL and Mich wouldn't have finalized the choice for nominee anyway, so why not reinstate their delegates and count all the votes! My last comment deals with making illegal the option to vote specifically to ensure someone else loses (like the Republicans have been doing by voting in Dem primaries for Obama, knowing that they want Hillary to lose...mark my words, these cheaters will return in the general election and vote for McCain, like they planned all along...and then the Dems again will lose the presidency)
How can this article ignore the facts about the Florida primary laid out in the Tampa Tribune. http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/mar/23/me-primary-predicaments/?news-politicsida The Florida Democratic legislators were blackmailed into voting for the early ballot by the Republican legislators' merging that vote with one for paper balloting that the Dems were desperate to have. They did not "defy" the DNC or deliberately flout its rules. Primary dates are not decided by the Democrats alone.
Rotating the primary elections makes perfect sense which is probably why it hasn't happened yet. I don't see how anyone could believe there would be any fairness in giving Hilliary the votes she won in Michigan when Edwards and Obama didn't even have their names on the ballot. The voters in Michigan had no choice and she still only won 60%. Would someone please explain to me why we still have the electorial college? The reasoning for this is long past and if there is anything in the system that causes people to feel like their vote doesn't really count, this is it!
what most interesting is that obama ran ads in fla against dnc rules,but was given the go ahead even though he agreed not to run ads too. seems like the dnc doesnt even enforce the rules evenly. obama also ran ads in mich telling people to vote uncommited to vote for him. he pulled his nam off the ballot.sort of like someone complaining they dont win the lotter but dont buy tickets. the dnc in order to protect obama has let him block any kind of resolution to the matter. obama evidently feels its more important that he wins than the people of those 2 states vote.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: