Late on December 13, twenty-eight U.S. House members from Texas filed a document with the 3-judge U.S. District Court in San Antonio that is hearing one of the Texas redistricting cases. The letter asks the judges to set a unified primary election for all office in 2012. The letter says, “We believe that a unified primary is a common sense approach to the United States Supreme Court’s stay of Congressional and Legislative plans. A single primary election would reduce voter confusion, reduce the cost to taxpayers of two primaries, and minimize voter fatigue due to multiple elections in a small period of time. We therefore ask this honorable Court to enter orders adopting a single primary date for 2012 at the earliest practicable date.”
The letter appears to have been initiated by the Republican members of the U.S. House from Texas. The first two pages contain the signatures of all 23 Republican members of the U.S. House from Texas, except for Ron Paul. Chances are that Paul would have signed it also, but he is probably away from Congress, campaigning. On the third page are the signatures of six of the nine Democratic members from Texas. The only Democrats who didn’t sign the letter are Silvestre Reyes, Charles Gonzalez, and Lloyd Doggett.
The Republican members of Congress from Texas appear to be in defiance of the Texas Republican Party, which favors keeping the presidential primary in March. See this story about the wishes of the Republican Party.
Assuming the court agrees with the 28 members of Congress who signed the letter, that primary will almost certainly be in April or May, not March. That would automatically extend petitioning deadlines for minor parties and for non-presidential independents, and would almost certainly result in a later deadline for independent presidential petitions as well, although that would take a tweak in the law.
During the hearing yesterday, Steve Munisteri the state chairman of the Republican Party of Texas said that he understood the letter was being circulated. When asked about why they might have a different position than the RPT, he responded that they might be concerned that a split primary would bring out “a different part of the body politic” (referring to the Tea Party).
Ron Paul doesn’t necessarily go along with the congressional delegation, or with the party apparatus. The congressmen are mainly concerned about their re-election, which may or may not have anything to do with who shows up at Republican conventions – particularly in Texas since they have nothing to do with nominations. But the convention does elect the chairman of the RPT.
And I don’t see why Ron Paul would want to have the Texas presidential primary moved.
The congressmen are overestimating the “split” nature of the primary. Currently, for 434 congressional and legislative nominations, only 64 are contested, including just 16 of 72 congressional nominations.
10 of the signers have not filed for re-election. They are probably more concerned about candidate confusion than voter confusion.
And they are underestimating the likelihood that legislative and congressional districts will be known in time for a May primary, let alone one in April.
The Supreme Court will hear the case on January 9. Even if they announced their opinion at that time, the earliest the election could be held would be April 17 (assuming the same 99 days between the delayed opening of filing on November 28 and March 6).
An April 17 primary means early voting on Easter.
But the preclearance trial is January 17-26. A justice will ask the lawyers what would happen if the districts are pre-cleared. State: “We will be back in court to have those districts put in place for the election, since those represent the decision of the legislature. Even if they are partially precleared, we would be entitled to a remedial plan that only affects those districts at issue.” Plaintiffs: “Even if they were precleared, then the district court might rule the maps unconstitutional, and we would want new districts drawn as part of a remedial phase of that case.”
So why wouldn’t the Supreme Court wait on the preclearance trial? January 26 plus 99 days is May 3. But how likely is the DC Court to issue their decision immediately?
It’s really optimistic to expect that legislative and congressional districts will be determined in time for even a late May “single primary”, which won’t be a single primary, because the likelihood of a Republican senate runoff.
The presidential, senatorial, RRC, judicial, SBOE, and a myriad of county offices can be held on March 6.
IF the legislative and congressional districts are determined by mid-February they can be added to the runoff ballot. If there is concern that voters will be too fatigued to vote for an unopposed legislator after having to make a choice in the senate race; simply cancel the legislative race if there is only 1 or 2 candidates. And cut the early voting to one week, to match the runoff. Since there very likely be a Republican senatorial runoff, there is very little incremental cost to add 1, 2, or 3 legislative and congressional races to the ballot.
There could be a smattering of legislative and congressional runoffs in July, but these would be limited to those districts. This is about the only actual incremental cost.
On the Democratic side, it is unlikely that there will be a statewide runoff. There might not even be one candidate on the ballot for most statewide offices in the primary.
If legislative and congressional races with one candidate are cancelled, a statewide primary would not be needed. The incremental cost is relatively low.
I’m sure the Texas Democrats will find a candidate for all the statewide partisan offices. They always do that when the Texas Green Party is already ballot-qualified. The Texas Democrats don’t want the Green Party to get as much as 5% of the vote in any statewide race in 2012, because the Democrats want the Green Party off the ballot for 2014.
The actual petition has signature lines (with typed name) for 22 Republicans, and 3 Democrats. 3 additional Democrats signed at the bottom. So maybe they couldn’t find the other two.
Gonzalez and Paul have announced that they aren’t running for re-election, so it could be that their opinions about the primary aren’t relevant.
#2 There are 9 statewide races and only two Democrats, both unknown.