Thursday, April 14, 2011

Florida House Committee Passes Amended Bill to Create a Presidential Primary Date-Setting Committee

As expected, an amendment was offered this morning in the Florida House State Affairs Committee to create a Presidential Preference Primary Date Setting Committee. The 10 person group -- staffed with members chosen by the Speaker of the House, President of the Senate and Governor -- would have until October 1 to select a date for the Sunshine state's presidential primary. This provides the state with some timing flexibility by breaking the decision out of the confines of the short period of time in which the Florida legislature is in session.

The amendment was added to HB 1355 by voice vote and the committee substitute was then passed by the State Affairs Committee by a vote of 12-6. That bill is a controversial elections bill that has seen and will see on the floor of the House and in the Senate if it passes resistance by the Democratic minority (via Travis Pillow at The Florida Independent).

Among other things, the bill would require people who change their addresses on election day to vote by provisional ballot and impose new regulations on groups that register voters. It would also dampen the prospects of citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives, shortening the time signatures are valid from four years to two.
Republican support should push it and the primary committee-creating committee provision through the legislature and to Republican Governor Rick Scott's desk.

The Florida legislature is set to adjourn on May 6.


Georgia Senate Passes Presidential Primary Bill on Sine Die Day

The Georgia state Senate on Wednesday passed HB 454 -- the bill to hand the presidential primary date-setting authority to the secretary of state -- by a vote of 43-6. The bill now heads to Governor Nathan Deal's desk for signature and would provide the Peach state with the same sort of flexibility in scheduling the presidential primary in the future that Florida is seeking with the formation of an outside committee to make the decision. Should Deal sign the bill into law, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp would have until December 1 at the latest to set the date for next year's presidential primary. And while Kemp may feel compelled to move the primary into compliance with national party rules, the law would give him the ability to set the date as early as the end of January.

This is the second consecutive cycle in which the Georgia General Assembly has finalized the decision on the presidential primary on the last day of the session. The 2007 move was a bit more last minute as the original bill to move the primary died and it took an amendment to another elections bill to get the move to a February primary through the legislature.

Thanks to Andre Walker at Georgia Politics Unfiltered for live blogging sine die day at the Georgia General Assembly in Atlanta and passing the news along.


Recent Posts:




Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

A Follow Up on the Later Texas Primary

Early last week FHQ discussed the several bills before both the Texas state Senate and House concerning the Lone Star state's compliance with the federal mandates in the MOVE act that passed Congress in 2009. Unlike many states, Texas does not have the problem of having to complete a late nomination process within 45 days prior to the general election. Instead, Texas has compliance issues on the front end of the calendar; having to balance a late, constitutionally mandated filing deadline (January 2 of the election year) with the need to have an advantageously scheduled presidential primary election. The 45 day buffer applies there and not to the general election. And I should say that after having just sat through the audio of the House Defense and Veterans Affairs committee meeting from April 7, that that is probably the simplest way of describing a set of issues that is complicated by a great many factors.

I won't get into it all here, but will instead keep my comments confined to the point the bills are in in the legislative process and the portions that will affect the timing of the 2012 presidential primary in the state. First of all, amending the constitution to change the filing deadline and the Texas resign-to-run provisions is a consideration, but is viewed as a last resort according to HB 111 sponsor, Van Taylor. Secondly, there is a broad, bipartisan consensus that the Texas legislature should do something to address the need to ensure that military personnel have the ability to vote and have their votes counted.

Getting to a point that that is accomplished and the various complicating factors are accounted for is the hard part though. The committee substitute to HB 111 discussed in the hearing would move the presidential primary back to first Tuesday in April. That move was supported by both Republican National Committeeman from Texas, Bill Crocker, and Texas Republican Party Chairman, Steve Munisteri. Both cited the need to comply with national party rules concerning timing and stressed the potential penalties associated with violations (half or more of the delegation). That is not a concern on timing but is based on the rules regarding Republican delegate allocation in the state. As was the case for the Republican National Committee in every post-reform cycle but 2012, the Republican Party of Texas cannot change its rules except at its convention and the party would need to change its winner-take-all allocation method to comply with the RNC rules if the state maintained a March primary. In other words, the state party could not make the necessary change to its method of delegate allocation until its convention following the primary in 2012. This concerned both Republicans for the potential penalties associated with an inability to make that change. Interestingly neither Crocker nor Munisteri mentioned the potential for Texas losing significance for moving to a later date and both touted the possible advantages of not only maintaining the winner-take-all rules with an April primary, but also the additional significance that would carry if the nomination race was still being contested at that point.

Overall, in this particular instance, the ability to maintain winner-take-all rules was valued over the potential loss of influence by having to move the primary back. At least that was the perspective from the national party and the state party. Other Republican legislators on the floor of the House or Senate may object to moving the primary back. That said, the only people that offered testimony at the hearing that were against any provisions in the bill or the committee substitute were county-level elections officials -- and they had no issues with an April primary.

In the end, the committee substitute that includes the April primary amendment was withdrawn and the bill left pending in the committee while the sponsor considers tweaks to potentially appease the bill's detractors. So, though the April primary provision is not officially part of an amended version of the House bill, there seems to be some consensus behind the idea. The Senate side committee consideration of the companion bill (SB 100) produced a substitute that left the presidential primary alone for the time being, but as was alluded to in the House committee hearing, the Senate consensus revolved around a mid- to late March primary date instead of an April date. If the state Republican Party has its way, though, that will not remain the prevailing sentiment in the Senate.

There are a lot of issues to iron out on this one and only a month and a half to make the necessary changes and shepherd the bill(s) through the legislature before adjournment at the end of May. The bottom line is that the April date for the presidential primary seems likely at this point.

Hat tip to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for bringing this news to my attention.


Wednesday, April 13, 2011

The 2012 Candidates: Santorum's In

Former Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum, threw his hat in the Republican nomination ring on On the Record with Greta VanSusteren tonight. No [exploratory] website, no video. Just a traditional television launch. He becomes the sixth Republican to announce the formation of an exploratory committee with the intent of exploring a bid for the White House. The senator's natural constituency among the early states is probably in Iowa and South Carolina -- He did win a straw poll in Greenville County, South Carolina over the weekend -- but even then he will face an uphill battle. He fills a niche on social issues possibly to the right of some of the other candidates, but may struggle to differentiate himself from them on economic matters, where the general election battle is likely to be waged. But in the primaries, invisible or otherwise, Santorum may serve the purpose of pulling some of his colleagues to the right on certain issues.

In other words, he may make some of the debates interesting, but won't ultimately go anywhere in terms of winning the nomination next year.

--

Democrats:
Barack Obama (announced: 4/4/11)

Republicans:
Michelle Bachmann
Haley Barbour
John Bolton
Jeb Bush
Herman Cain (exploratory: 1/12/11)
Chris Christie
Mitch Daniels
Jim DeMint (3/24/11)
Newt Gingrich (exploratory: 3/4/11)
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
Jon Huntsman
Bobby Jindal
Gary Johnson
Sarah Palin
George Pataki
Ron Paul
Tim Pawlenty (exploratory: 3/21/11)
Mike Pence (1/27/11)
Rick Perry
Buddy Roemer (exploratory: 3/3/11)
Mitt Romney (exploratory: 4/11/11)
Rick Santorum (exploratory 4/13/11)
John Thune (2/22/11)



The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (4/13/11)

With the Michigan Democratic Party selecting a date for caucuses in 2012, an update of the 2012 presidential primary calendar is in order. [And look out for a link to the new Michigan primary legislation as well.]

[Click to Enlarge]


Reading the Map:

As was the case with the maps from past cycles, the earlier a contest is scheduled in 2012, the darker the color in which the state is shaded. Florida, for instance, is a much deeper shade of blue in January than South Dakota is in June. There are, however, some differences between the earlier maps and the one that appears above.

  1. Several caucus states have yet to select a date for the first step of their delegate selection processes in 2012. Until a decision is made by state parties in those states, they will appear in gray on the map.
  2. The states where legislation to move the presidential primary is active are two-toned. One color indicates the timing of the primary according to the current law whereas the second color is meant to highlight the most likely month to which the primary could be moved. [With the exception of Texas, the proposed movement is backward.] This is clear in most states, but in others -- Maryland and Tennessee -- where multiple timing options are being considered, the most likely date is used. Here that is defined as a bill -- or date change -- with the most institutional support. In both cases, the majority party leadership is sponsoring one change over another (February to March in Tennessee and February to April in Maryland). That option is given more weight on the map.
  3. Kentucky is unique because the legislation there calls for shifting the primary from May to August. As August is not included in the color coding, white designates that potential move with the May shade of blue. Georgia, too, is unique. The state legislature is considering a bill to shift primary date-setting power from the legislature to the secretary of state. The effect is that the Peach state has a dark blue stripe for its current February primary date and a gray stripe to reflect the fact that a change from that based on the bill in question would put the future 2012 primary date in limbo until December 1 at the latest.
  4. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina are shaded on the map according to the latest possible date these states would have if Florida opts not to move their primary into compliance with the national party rules. Iowa Republicans and Nevada Republicans and Democrats have decided to accept the party-designated dates, but FHQ operates under the assumption that both will move to a point ahead of the earliest exempt state should one or more move or maintain a February or earlier date.
  5. States that are bisected vertically are states where the state parties have different dates for their caucuses and/or primaries. The left hand section is shaded to reflect the state Democratic Party's scheduling while the right is for the state Republican Party's decision on the timing of its delegate selection event.


Reading the Calendar:

  1. Caucus states are italicized while primary states are not. Several caucus states are missing from the list because they have not formalized the date on which their contests will be held in 2012. Colorado appears because the caucuses dates there are set by the state, whereas a state like Alaska has caucuses run by the state parties and as such do not have their dates codified in state law.
  2. States that have changed dates appear twice (or more) on the calendar; once by the old date and once by the new date. The old date will be struck through while the new date will be color-coded with the amount of movement (in days) in parentheses. States in green are states that have moved to earlier dates on the calendar and states in red are those that have moved to later dates. Arkansas, for example, has moved its 2012 primary and moved it back 104 days from its 2008 position.
  3. The date of any primary or caucus moves that have taken place -- whether through gubernatorial signature or state party move -- also appear in parentheses following the state's/party's new entry on the calendar.
  4. States with active legislation have links to those bills included with their entries on the calendar. If there are multiple bills they are divided by chamber and/or numbered accordingly.
  5. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina appear twice. The earlier entry corresponds with the latest possible date these states would have if Florida opts not to move their primary into compliance with the national party rules. The second, later entry for each of the non-exempt states reflects the position the national parties would prefer the earliest states to hold their delegate selection events.


2012 Presidential Primary Calendar


January 2012

Monday, January 16:

Iowa caucuses1


Tuesday, January 24
:

New Hampshire1


Saturday, January 28:

Nevada caucuses1

South Carolina1


Florida (bills: House/Senate)


February 2012

Monday, February 6:

Iowa caucuses (moved: 2/8/11) (based on national party rules)


Tuesday, February 7 (Super Tuesday):

Alabama (bills: House 1, 2)

Arkansas

California (bills: Assembly)

Connecticut (bills: House)

Delaware

Georgia (bills: House)

Illinois

Minnesota caucuses (+28) (moved: 3/1/11)

Missouri (bills: House 1, 2, 3/Senate)

Montana Republican caucuses

New Jersey (bills: Assembly 1, 2/Senate)

New York

Oklahoma (bills: House 1, 2, 3/Senate 1, 2)

Tennessee (bills: House 1, 2, 3/Senate 1, 2, 3)

Utah


Saturday, February 11:

Louisiana


Tuesday, February 14:

Maryland (bills: House/Senate 1, 2)

New Hampshire (based on national party rules)

Virginia

Washington, DC (bills: Council)


Saturday, February 18:

Nevada Republican caucuses (-28) (moved: 12/16/10) (based on national party rules)

Nevada Democratic caucuses2 (-28) (moved: 2/24/11) (based on national party rules)


Tuesday, February 21:

Hawaii Republican caucuses (+87) (moved: 5/16/09)

Wisconsin


Tuesday, February 28:

Arizona3

Michigan4 (bills: House)

South Carolina (based on national party rules)


March 2012

Tuesday, March 6:

Massachusetts4 (bills: House)

Ohio

Rhode Island

Texas (bills: House)

Vermont

Virginia (-21) (bills: House 1, 2/Senate) (moved: 3/25/11)


Sunday, March 11:

Maine Democratic caucuses (-28) (moved: 3/27/11)


Tuesday, March 13:

Mississippi

Utah Democratic caucuses (-35) (moved: 3/25/11)


Tuesday, March 20:

Colorado caucuses5 (bills: House)

Illinois (-42) (bills: Senate) (signed: 3/17/10)


April 2012

Tuesday, April 3:

Kansas (bills: House/Senate -- cancel primary)


Saturday, April 7:

Hawaii Democratic caucuses (-46) (moved: 3/18/11)

Washington Democratic caucuses (-56) (moved: 3/26/11)

Wyoming Democratic caucuses (-28) (moved: 3/16/11)


Saturday, April 14:

Nebraska Democratic caucuses (-60) (moved: 3/5/11)


Sunday, April 15:

Alaska Democratic caucuses (-70) (moved: 4/4/11)


Tuesday, April 24:

Pennsylvania


May 2012

Saturday, May 5:

Michigan Democratic caucuses (-111) (moved: 4/13/11)


Tuesday, May 8:

Indiana

North Carolina (bills: Senate)

West Virginia


Tuesday, May 15:

Idaho (+7) (bills: House) (signed: 2/23/11)

Nebraska

Oregon (bills: House)


Tuesday, May 22:

Arkansas (-104) (bills: House) (signed: 2/4/09)

Idaho

Kentucky (bills: House) (died: legislature adjourned)

Washington (bills: House 1, 2/Senate -- cancel primary)


June 2012

Tuesday, June 5:

Montana (GOP -119) (moved: 6/18/10)

New Mexico6 (bills: Senate) (died: legislature adjourned)

South Dakota


1 New Hampshire law calls for the Granite state to hold a primary on the second Tuesday of March or seven days prior to any other similar election, whichever is earlier. Florida is first now, so New Hampshire would be a week earlier at the latest. Traditionally, Iowa has gone on the Monday a week prior to New Hampshire. For the time being we'll wedge South Carolina in on the Saturday between New Hampshire and Florida, but these are just guesses at the moment. Any rogue states could cause a shift.

2 The Nevada Democratic caucuses date is based on both DNC rules and the state party's draft delegate selection plan as of February 24, 2011.

3 In Arizona the governor can use his or her proclamation powers to move the state's primary to a date on which the event would have an impact on the nomination. In 2004 and 2008 the primary was moved to the first Tuesday in February.
4 Massachusetts and Michigan are the only states that passed a frontloading bill prior to 2008 that was not permanent. The Bay state reverts to its first Tuesday in March date in 2012 while Michigan will fall back to the fourth Tuesday in February.
5 The Colorado Democratic and Republican parties have the option to move their caucuses from the third Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February.
6 The law in New Mexico allows the parties to decide when to hold their nominating contests. The Democrats have gone in early February in the last two cycles, but the GOP has held steady in June. They have the option of moving however.




Bill Introduced in Michigan House to Move Presidential Primary to January

On Tuesday, April 12, Representative Paul Scott (R-51st, Grand Blanc) introduced HB 4535 in the Michigan House. The legislation would shift the presidential primary in the Wolverine state from the fourth Tuesday in February to the last Tuesday in January -- the same date on which the Florida presidential primary is currently scheduled. It is ironic that this bill was introduced just a day before news that Michigan Democrats would hold May caucuses in 2012 and that news broke of a proposal to form a committee to set the date of the 2012 primary in Florida. Of course the window of time granted the Florida committee allows it to place the primary there between the first Tuesdays of January and March; keeping Florida in violation of national party rules.

Michigan now joins Florida and Missouri as the only states with active legislation to maintain dates that defy those national party rules. There are also a few states -- New York, Arizona, Wisconsin and Delaware -- that have proposed no legislation to change the dates of primaries that are currently non-compliant. Those states, however, are not actively attempting to break the rules as laid out by both the DNC and RNC.

This move could set off a long ordeal with the RNC as it is conceivable that the Republican-controlled legislature could pass the bill and send it off to Republican Governor Rick Snyder to sign into law. What further complicates matters is that the Michigan legislature is a year-round legislature and could be dealing with this into the fall.

It should also be noted that this move potentially pairs Michigan and Florida again in the same roles they played relative to the primary calendar in 2008.


Michigan Democrats Not Looking to Repeat 2008 Opt for May Caucuses

On Wednesday, the Michigan Democratic Party released for public comment a draft of its 2012 delegate selection plan. The plan calls for, among other things, May 5 caucuses as the first determining step in the Democratic delegate selection process in the Wolverine state. That is a break from the state party's use of the state-funded primary in 2008; an option that has only been sporadically used in the past.

What the May caucus option does is help Michigan Democrats avert a repeat of the 2008 primary crisis. The Michigan state legislature has done little to bring the primary date -- February 28, 2012 -- into compliance with national party rules.1 The only bills that explicitly mention the presidential primary are the two appropriations bills before the House and the Senate. Each chamber's version sets aside $10 million for the election. The Michigan situation is complicated by the fact that the presidential primary is held concurrently with school board elections that the legislature is hesitant to split the two sets of elections for budgetary reasons. Foreseeing that issue, Democrats in the state took a proactive approach and chose to utilize later caucuses as a means of allocating delegates in an uncontested nomination race.

The focus in Michigan now shifts to the Republican-controlled legislature (and Republican governor) to see what will happen with the presidential primary there.

--

Hat tip to the AP for the news. It should be noted that state law has to be changed to alter the date, but that has no bearing on the Michigan Democratic Party's decision to hold a caucus instead of a primary. There is nothing, given a quick reading of the pertinent sections of the Michigan election laws, that binds the parties to the use of the primary; especially if the party is picking up the tab on the caucuses. A Democratic primary in Michigan would simply be a beauty contest with no bearing on the allocation of delegates the the convention in Charlotte.

--
1 On Tuesday, April 12, Rep. Paul Scott (R-51st, Grand Blanc) introduced legislation in the Michigan House to shift the Wolverine state's presidential primary from the fourth Tuesday in February to the last Tuesday in January -- the same date on which the Florida primary is currently scheduled.


Bill to Move Presidential Caucuses and State Primaries Passes Colorado Senate

The Colorado Senate today passed SB 189; a bill that would shift both the Centennial state's presidential precinct caucuses and the primaries for state and local offices. As FHQ mentioned last month when the bill was introduced, the presidential precinct caucuses would move up from the third Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in March. The state and local primaries would be moved up from the second Tuesday in August to the last Tuesday in June in order to comply with the federal mandate called for in the MOVE act -- providing for 45 day buffer between the completion of the nomination process and the general election -- passed by Congress in 2009.

The bill now moves to the Colorado state House. FHQ will have the final vote tally when it is made available.


Florida Legislature to Create Outside Committee with Primary Date-Setting Authority

Rachel Weiner at The Fix is reporting that Florida Speaker of the House Dean Cannon indicated in a conference call today that he will introduce legislation tomorrow to create a commission charged both with solving the Sunshine state's presidential primary dispute with national and early primary/caucus state parties and setting a date for the primary.

Florida’s legislative session ends May 6. Cannon said the legislation, which he will put forward tomorrow, will add “flexibility” to the process. This way, he said, Florida Republicans can work with other states on its calendar without forcing legislators to attend a special summer session.
The bipartisan "presidential preference primary date selection committee" would be asked to make a decision by October on a primary date within the window of the first Tuesday in January and the first Tuesday in March. The panel would be made up of ten appointees — three picked by the House Speaker, three by the Senate President and three by governor, along with the secretary of state as a non-voting chair.
Where the state lawmakers are not backing down is their conviction that Florida should be early. “We belong early in that conversation, because the path to the White House has to go through Florida,” Cannon said.
A more thorough analysis will have to wait until the legislation is [hopefully] accessible tomorrow after it is filed. But in the meantime, this proposal accomplishes one main objective. It buys Florida some more time. With the end of the legislative session approaching in less than a month, it was becoming less and less likely that the state would be able to deal with this issue in time. The proposed set up sounds a lot like the system used to govern the date-setting of Washington state's presidential primary. The law in the Evergreen state sets the primary -- one that has in the past only been utilized by Republicans as a means of allocating delegates -- for the fourth Tuesday in May. However, if the state parties desire an alternate date the third provision in the law is triggered:

(3) If an alternative date is proposed under subsection (1) or (2) of this section, a committee consisting of the chair and the vice chair of the state committee of each major political party, the secretary of state, the majority leader and minority leader of the senate, and the speaker and the minority leader of the house of representatives shall meet and, if affirmed by a two-thirds vote of the members of the committee, the date of the primary shall be changed. The committee shall meet and decide on the proposed alternate date not later than the first day of October of the year before the year in which a presidential nominee is selected. The secretary of state shall convene and preside over the meeting of the committee. A committee member other than a legislator may appoint, in writing, a designee to serve on his or her behalf. A legislator who is a member of the committee may appoint, in writing, another legislator to serve on his or her behalf.
The Washington committee provides a much more bipartisan context than the Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee proposed in Florida. Democrats will be left on the outside looking in as the speaker, president of the Senate and governor are all Republicans and are likely to select three Republicans each. The non-voting secretary of state is a gubernatorial appointee as well. Given the time frame cited for the primary (last first Tuesday in January and the first Tuesday in March), the date will not adhere to Democratic National Committee rules on timing anyway.

The other looming question coming out of this is whether the committee is being created on a permanent basis or is merely temporary -- to deal only with 2012. If it is the former, the state legislature is being asked to cede its power to set the date of the presidential primary to another entity -- something Georgia is attempting to do (though in the hands of the secretary of state). As Cannon alluded to, though, such a move, if permanent, would give Florida flexibility now and later to deal with setting the date of the primary in a more advantageous position.

For those answers, we will have to wait until the bill is made public, though.

--

UPDATE: The partisan make up of the committee has been clarified. Paul Flemming at the Pensacola News Journal has added that none of the three (speaker, president, governor) can select any more than two people from one party. That would assure a 6-3 advantage for Republicans at the worst. But Democrats would have some voice in the matter.

William March at The Tampa Tribune also seems to indicate in closing his write up on the conference call that the amendment offered tomorrow would make a permanent change to make Florida more like Iowa and New Hampshire.

UPDATE II: An amendment is supposed to be added in the House State Affairs Committee by its chairman, Rep. Seth McKeel (R-63rd, Lakeland) tomorrow. A look at the meeting notice for the committee on April 14 makes it appear as if that amendment will be added to HB 1355, an elections bill that eliminates a Presidential Candidate Selection Committee.

NOTE: Well, I've misread this. The window for the committee is the first Tuesday in January to the first Tuesday in March. In other words, the Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee could technically move Florida's primary up. I'm sure that will go over well if it comes to pass.


Christie Signals Support for June Primary in New Jersey

Gov. Chris Christie said Tuesday he’s inclined to move New Jersey’s 2012 presidential primary to June to save money and avoid penalties such as losing delegates.

New Jersey law says the primary will be held Feb.7, 2012, but that would violate new national party rules designed to prevent the chaos of the 2008 primary season, when states were competing for prominence by pushing their dates earlier and earlier.

“My inclination would be to say, listen these rules are so kind of screwy now about how we’re going to pick delegates … that I don’t know whether it’s enough value for New Jersey to move up,” Christie said in response to a question at a town hall in Cape May. “We’re going to have election in June anyway, especially in 2012 because we have a United States senate race at the top of the ticket.”

Christie said he’d have to get an agreement from the Democrats who hold the majority in both houses of the Legislature to change the law. He already has an unlikely ally in Assemblyman John Wisniewski, the state Democratic Party Chairman, who has submitted a bill to consolidate all primaries June. A Republican senator and an assemblyman are also sponsoring similar bills.


This is the first inkling of movement from New Jersey since the bill (A3777) cited above was introduced in February. The two Republican bills (S71 and A757) mentioned have been in committee since being introduced in February 2010. Like California, the savings from consolidating the two sets of primaries are being touted by proponents, but the underlying partisan implications are potentially important as well. That Republican Assemblymembers in California (There was unanimous bipartisan support for the bill moving the California primary back to June in the vote on Monday.) and the Republican governor of New Jersey are willing to set partisan concerns aside is indicative.

The savings are being valued over giving voters in the two states -- Republican voters especially -- a meaningful voice in the nomination process. Of course, Democrats with power over date-setting in more Democratic states are gambling that early and more conservative states will produce a conservative nominee that will not fare as well against President Obama while some Republicans in those same states are not resisting in the hopes that the nomination has yet to be determined by the time the process gets to what would be two primaries (California and New Jersey) at the tail end of the primary calendar.

And perhaps it should be mentioned that this is the clearest indication yet that Chris Christie will not run for the Republican nomination. Taking away a potentially early burst of delegates from your home state -- something favorite sons have benefited from to varying degrees of success in the past -- is no way to manage a presidential run.