From Richard Winger at Ballot Access News:
Idaho holds a presidential primary on March 8, 2016, for qualified parties that tell the Secretary of State that they want a presidential primary and will have at least two candidates. The Constitution Party has notified the Secretary of State that it intends to have a contested presidential primary.
Earlier this year, the legislature moved the presidential primary from May 2016 to March 2016. The Constitution Party’s presidential convention is in April 2016. The Constitution Party says the delegates sent to the national convention will be bound by the outcome of its presidential primary.
This will be the first time the Constitution Party has ever had a presidential primary in any state with at least two candidates listed on the ballot. The Constitution Party has had presidential primaries in California and Missouri, but in those primaries only one presidential candidate was on the primary ballot. Thanks to Floyd Whitley for the news.
I’m not suggesting Idaho shouldn’t have their say.
I’m suggesting there will be a front-runner by then. And I suspect, at least, they’ll be a non-interventionist.
@ Trent Hill:
That may be. And if so, then a competitive state presidential primary will only add to that front runner’s momentum…but this assumes CP-Idaho’s registered base will vote that way. I suggest that it is not necessarily so monolithic.
Sometimes a significant number of Idahoans cast ballots counter-trend to party establishments. For example, the 2012 Republican Party Caucus. The establishment candidate (Romney) had a fix put in. The complicit state caucus was structured (only my outside opinion here) to achieve the establishment’s desired result. They got it.
Yet even so, we found some interesting voting dynamics between north Idaho (voting either for Rick Santorum or Ron Paul) and south Idaho (far more monolithic, literally only a couple exceptions). It is fair to say in addition to the establishment orchestrations that the “Mormon ballot” was a forcing agent for the Idaho caucus result.
But, that was not the only dynamic at play. North Idaho has a long term difference in voting patterns from south Idaho. That difference is regional, cultural, economic, demographic, and of course heritage. US Congressional District 1 votes its ballots far different than does US District 2. This is easily seen in the 2012 presidential caucus results. US District 1 was much more heterogeneous…meaning it is a lot less willing to follow establishment policy and prejudices.
So Idaho voters even within a single political party (in this case the Republican) often yield markedly different ballot results in the counties. “Front runner status” may not be significant in north Idaho. The outcome will depend more on comparative regional turnout, that and the willingness of a Constitution Party presidential candidate actually willing to campaign here.
In any case, registered CP-Idaho voters themselves rightfully have a say in the selection process of their preferred presidential candidate, rather than having a state chairman (like me) dictate the delegate slate. That has often been the case in the past. No longer. We insist upon the right.
On the one hand, I would prefer that they nominate a non-interventionist. On the other, maybe not, because then there will be a clearer separation from the LP.
J.R. Myers would be a superb candidate for the Constitution Party.
I expect there will, by the time of this primary, be a clear front-runner in the race.
Your participation, Mr. Myers, would benefit the entire national party.
Of course I favor Idaho (as is expected from any state chairman) in this statewide primary. But even so, I truly believe that this is a positive step in the maturation of political process within the Constitution Party itself.
Turnout at the primary now becomes key.
I hope to participate in this primary.
This is good, it makes people more aware of the Constitution Party and that they don’t have to stay with the two major parties.
.