North Carolina governor, Roy Cooper (D), made quick work of SB 655. The bill came to the Tar Heel state chief executive on June 14 and was signed today (June 22).

The bill untethers the North Carolina presidential primary from carve-out South Carolina and schedules a consolidated primary -- presidential and state/local offices -- for the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. North Carolina now joins California as the only two states to have officially moved up (and to the same earliest allowed date) on the 2020 presidential primary calendar. The Tar Heel state also shifts up the allocation of its delegates to coincide with a number of its neighbors; mainly the leftovers from the 2016 SEC primary.

Importantly, the change represents a shift of another large group of delegates toward the beginning of the 2020 primary calendar. The 2020 calendar is not 2008 yet, but it is moving in that direction.

...and before the most intense period for primary movement in any cycle: the year before a presidential election year.

--
Related:
6/12/18: Revived March Presidential Primary Bill Passes North Carolina Senate
6/6/17: Amended Primary Legislation Passes North Carolina House
6/1/17: North Carolina Inches Toward Joining a Nascent SEC Primary for 2020
4/27/17: North Carolina Presidential Primary Bill Unanimously Passes State Senate

After over a year on the back burner, legislation to solidify the date of the North Carolina presidential was resurrected by the state Senate on June 12.

SB 655 unanimously passed the Senate in April 2017, but was amended and passed with more resistance last June by the state House. It was upon its return to the Senate that SB 655 lost momentum, stalling based on a seemingly noncontroversial change.

The difference between the Senate-passed version and the House-amended version?

A change in the date on which the legislation would take effect if/once signed into law. The original bill called for the date change to take effect on the signature of the governor. However, the House version would have delayed that until January 2019.

Basically, the House amendment had the effect of exempting the 2018 midterm primaries, keeping that round of elections in May and pushing all primaries in subsequent cycles -- presidential and midterm -- to March. Again, that was a minor difference. And while it was enough to stall the legislation in 2017, the passage of time made any difference across legislative chambers over the effective date moot.

Now that the May 2018 primaries have come and gone in the Tar Heel state, the Senate resisting a January 2019 effective date became unnecessary. And that is what led to the chamber's near-unanimous (41-3) concurrence with the year old, House-amended version of SB 655. That vote sends the measure to Governor Roy Cooper (D) for his consideration.

--
This bill is moving on to the next step in the process, then. But what would it accomplish?

As FHQ said in the spring of 2017, the change adds certainty. And in this case it is early certainty on the date of the 2020 North Carolina presidential preference primary. That is meaningful compared to how legislators in the Tar Heel state handled the scheduling of the 2016 presidential primary.

In 2013, as part of a broader elections measure, the North Carolina presidential primary was uprooted from its traditional May position, consolidated with primaries for other offices, and tethered it to the South Carolina presidential primary. Given South Carolina's protected position among the earliest four primary states and the tendency of the parties in the Palmetto state to settle on primary dates after other states have settled on theirs, it left uncertain where the North Carolina presidential primary  would fall on the calendar and if it would end up in violation of the national parties' rules on the timing of presidential primaries and caucuses.

Both issues were resolved but not until the late summer of 2015. And the change that was made -- setting the presidential primary for March 15 during the 2016 cycle -- expired at the end of 2016. That meant that North Carolina reverted to the 2013 change at that point; tethered to the South Carolina primary.

As long as SB 655 was bottled up in the state Senate, the North Carolina primary date remained uncertain. That continues to be true, but that the legislation has progressed to the gubernatorial consideration stage is at least some evidence that North Carolina is moving toward a quicker, earlier, and permanent resolution to the same 2016-style problems for the 2020 cycle. And considering the level to which the bill passed both chambers, Governor Cooper is unlikely to exercise a veto for fear of an override.

It is just a matter of time, then, before North Carolina can be permanently slotted into a first Tuesday after the first Monday in March primary date (for all offices), joining neighbors Tennessee, Virginia, and likely Georgia (and a number of other southern states as well).

--
The 2020 presidential primary calendar

--
Related:
6/6/17: Amended Primary Legislation Passes North Carolina House
6/1/17: North Carolina Inches Toward Joining a Nascent SEC Primary for 2020
4/27/17: North Carolina Presidential Primary Bill Unanimously Passes State Senate

--
A tip of the cap to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News for sending news of this along to a vacationing FHQ.

After clearing a committee hurdle late last week, SB 655, made it onto the calendar of the North Carolina House.

When considered on the floor of the chamber this morning, the bill was amended with just one dissenting vote and subsequently passed by a 71-46 margin largely along party lines (with Republicans in favor of the amended bill). That is a far different picture than the contrasting unanimous vote on the original legislation in late April.

But the amendment was not driving the difference across chambers. The change added by the state House was a relatively noncontroversial tweak to the date on which the proposed law would take effect. Rather than launching upon the signature of the governor, the law in the amended bill would not kick in until January 2019. The practical effect of the move is to exempt the 2018 primary elections, keeping that consolidated primary election during the midterms next year in May.

While the focus at FHQ is often on the presidential primaries, this proposal in North Carolina has from the start sought to move the entire set of nominating contests from May to March while adding clarity to the language regarding the timing of the presidential primary.

The bill with the new "effective by" date will now head back to the state Senate for consideration.

--
Related:
6/12/18: Revived March Presidential Primary Bill Passes North Carolina Senate
6/1/17: North Carolina Inches Toward Joining a Nascent SEC Primary for 2020
4/27/17: North Carolina Presidential Primary Bill Unanimously Passes State Senate

A North Carolina House committee advanced on June 1 a bill to further specify the date of the presidential primary election in the Tar Heel state. 

With no debate on the measure, the House Elections and Ethics Law Committee favorably reported SB 655 after testimony from the state Senate sponsor of the legislation. State Senator Andrew Brock (R-34th, Davie, Rowan) has over the last several election cycles introduced legislation to move the North Carolina presidential primary to an earlier and more influential position on the presidential primary calendar. However, those moves often fell flat. 

The legislative receptivity to a change in 2017, though, is different for at least two reasons. 

First, the omnibus elections legislation the newly Republican-controlled North Carolina General Assembly passed in 2013 altered the date of the primary for the first time since 1988. But the change was conditional. May was left as the default position unless the earliest South Carolina primary was scheduled for before March 15. 

The triggering of that condition was a near certainty. South Carolina in 2016 had at least a February position protected by the national parties and had not had a contest later than March 15 since Palmetto state Democrats convened for caucuses slightly later than that in 1984. And while there was certainty that South Carolina would pull North Carolina under the 2013 change into an earlier date, there was uncertainty over when the Tar Heel state contest would occur and whether that would invite delegate sanctions from the national parties (if too early).

It was that threat of penalties that ultimately forced the hand of North Carolina legislators in late 2015. It was then that the General Assembly set the date of the North Carolina primary for March 15, but only for the 2016 cycle. Following the expiration of that change, the North Carolina primary reverted to its traditional May date, but with the same problematic South Carolina tether added in 2013.

Together, the creation of the earlier primary and inefficient and circuitous route it took to March 15 provided the impetus for change in 2017. 2016 proved that North Carolina could pull off an earlier primary and also demonstrated the need for a more certain date. And that is what Sen. Brock and others are advocating.

SB 655 moved through the state Senate with little to no resistance, passing the upper chamber unanimously. Now, the bill has been pushed through the committee stage on the House side of the Capitol and is poised for a floor vote some time during the first full week of June.

That would, assuming a signature from Governor Roy Cooper (D), shift the North Carolina primary up -- two weeks relative to 2016 -- to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. The Tar Heel state would join a mostly southern line up of other states on the first sanctioned date of the 2020 calendar. Neighboring Tennessee and Virginia as well as Alabama, Texas and likely Georgia are also currently slated to hold contests then.

The test will be whether the calendar remains southern up front or if other states join the head of the queue.

--
Related:
6/12/18: Revived March Presidential Primary Bill Passes North Carolina Senate
6/6/17: Amended Primary Legislation Passes North Carolina House
4/27/17: North Carolina Presidential Primary Bill Unanimously Passes State Senate

If one goes on headlines alone, then SB 655 passing the North Carolina state senate with no dissent is a rather mundane if not arcane legislative action. However, as is often the case, there is some nuance to what Tar Heel state legislators in the state's upper chamber accomplished.

The accomplishment?

The state senate passed legislation setting the date of a consolidated primary -- presidential, state and local primaries -- for the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

Of course, the real value in this bill is certainty. By selecting a fixed date, legislators eliminated the atypical biennial rotation the North Carolina primary was stuck in after the passage of an omnibus elections law package in 2013. For much of the post-reform era -- 1972 to now -- North Carolina has had a consolidated primary election. And for much of that period, the Tar Heel state was rooted on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May. Since the state concurrently held all of its primaries, the state enjoyed a smaller budgetary hit as compared to states with separated presidential and state/local primaries; two separate elections to fund. Granted, the trade-off was that North Carolina witnessed an increasing number of states shift to ever-earlier dates on the presidential primary calendar over the course of that period.

But the elections package the North Carolina General Assembly passed in 2013 altered that. First, it separated the presidential primary from the primaries for other offices and tethered it to the fluid, but protected early presidential primary calendar date of the South Carolina presidential primary.¹ In other words, there was no North Carolina primary scheduled until there was a South Carolina primary scheduled.

Moreover, this was a provocative action on the part of Republicans holding unified control of not only the General Assembly but including the governor's mansion as well. Being tethered to the early, but unknown date of the South Carolina primary meant that the newly separate North Carolina presidential primary would run afoul of national party rules governing the timing of presidential primaries and caucuses. The severe delegate penalties the state potentially faced in that too early primary forced legislators back into action in 2015. To avoid those penalties, North Carolina legislators settled on a couple of tweaks. The first was to set the date of the presidential primary for March 15, while the second was to reconsolidate all of the primaries (but in March).

However, that move was only temporary. It affected only the primaries in 2016. That sunset provision expired at the end of the year and the primaries reverted to their post-2013 state: a tethered North Carolina presidential primary and May primaries for other offices. This is a messy, irregular manner in which to schedule and conduct elections. The practical effect since the 2013 changes has been to have the other primaries in May during midterm years and in flux during presidential years due to the statute's treatment of the presidential primary. If it is unknown when the presidential primary will be under current law, then there will be uncertainty as to whether there will be a move later to reconsolidate the primaries on an earlier date.

Again, this is complicated.

But state Senator Andrew Brock's (R-34th, Davie, Rowan) SB 655 streamlines all of it. The bill proposes shifting up the date of the primaries for other offices by two months in all even years (covering presidential and midterm years) and consolidates the presidential primary with them every four years. Further, the legislation would remove the Tar Heel state from the list of potential troublemakers for 2020. The national parties would have no need penalize North Carolina if its primary was scheduled on the earliest date allowed under the rules in both parties.²

More importantly, perhaps, the change would align the North Carolina presidential primary with primaries in neighboring states (Tennessee, Virginia and likely Georgia). Alabama and Texas also have primaries scheduled for that date at this time. All were part of the first iteration of the SEC primary in 2016. Adding North Carolina would shift the delegates of the tenth most populous state -- a not insubstantial number of delegates -- into the fifth slot on the calendar. In 2016, that was a position on the calendar on which the 25% delegates allocated mark was passed.

Without passing too much judgment, this move to simplify the primary schedule is a win for elections administrators in the state as well as voters. And given the unanimity of support in the state Senate, legislators on some level see it that way too.

--
Related:
6/12/18: Revived March Presidential Primary Bill Passes North Carolina Senate
6/6/17: Amended Primary Legislation Passes North Carolina House
6/1/17: North Carolina Inches Toward Joining a Nascent SEC Primary for 2020


--
¹ The legislation and ultimately the law actually left the presidential primary in May unless South Carolina had a primary before March 15. Given the first in the South status the Palmetto state primary has enjoyed in both parties since 2006, it was a virtual certainty that that North Carolina provision would be triggered. And that would have the effect of shifting North Carolina to the Tuesday following the South Carolina primary.

² It is still early in the 2020 cycle, but there is no indication that either party is looking to alter the basic primary calendar structure: carve-out states in February followed by all other states within a March to early June window.

New State Polls (11/7/16)
Morning Polls
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Clinton	Trump	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Colorado	Remington	11/1-11/2	+/-2.27%	1863 likely voters	42	41	6	+1	+3.91
Florida	Remington	11/1-11/2	+/-2.02%	2352 likely voters	45	48	3	+3	--
Florida	Quinnipiac	11/3-11/6	+/-3.3%	884 likely voters	46	45	5	+1	+1.98
Georgia	Landmark	11/6	+/-2.8%	1200 likely voters	46	49	2	+3	+3.04
Missouri	Emerson	11/4-11/5	+/-3.5%	750 likely voters	41	47	4	+6	+8.02
Nevada	Remington	11/1-11/2	+/-2.31%	1793 likely voters	45	46	4	+1	--
Nevada	Emerson	11/4-11/5	+/-3.9%	600 likely voters	47	46	2	+1	+0.96
New Hampshire	Emerson	11/4-11/5	+/-3.0%	1000 likely voters	45	44	3	+1	--
New Hampshire	UNH/WMUR	11/3-11/6	+/-3.7%	707 likely voters	49	38	4	+11	+4.82
New Mexico	ZiaPoll	11/6	+/-1.8%	8439 likely voters	46	44	1	+2	+6.44
North Carolina	Remington	11/1-11/2	+/-1.92%	2596 likely voters	45	48	2	+3	--
North Carolina	Quinnipiac	11/3-11/6	+/-3.3%	870 likely voters	47	45	4	+2	--
North Carolina	Siena/New York Times (Upshot)	11/4-11/6	+/-3.5%	800 likely voters	44	44	6	+/-0	+1.36
Ohio	Remington	11/1-11/2	+/-1.94%	2557 likely voters	44	45	3	+1	--
Ohio	TargetSmart	10/31-11/3	--	1194 likely voters	40	43	2	+3	--
Ohio	Emerson	11/4-11/5	+/-3.2%	900 likely voters	39	46	6	+7	+0.01
Pennsylvania	Remington	11/1-11/2	+/-1.89%	2683 likely voters	46	45	3	+1	+5.00
Virginia	Remington	11/1-11/2	+/-1.77%	3076 likely voters	46	44	3	+2	--
Virginia	Christopher Newport	11/4-11/6	+/-3.6%	1193 likely voters	48	42	5	+6	+6.20
Wisconsin	Remington	11/1-11/2	+/-1.88%	2720 likely voters	49	41	4	+8	+6.49
Afternoon Polls
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Clinton	Trump	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Arizona	Data Orbital	11/4-11/6	+/-4.12%	550 likely voters	44	47	1	+3	+1.71
Florida	Opinion Savvy	11/5-11/6	+/-3.4%	853 likely voters	48	46	1	+2	--
Florida	Trafalgar	11/6	+/-2.89%	1100 likely voters	46	50	1	+4	+1.89
Georgia	YouGov/CBS	11/3-11/5	+/-4.6%	995 likely voters	43	49	3	+6	+3.14
Michigan	Trafalgar	11/6	+/-2.77%	1200 likely voters	47	49	1	+2	+6.51
Nevada	Trafalgar	11/1-11/4	+/-3.02%	1100 likely voters	45	50	2	+5	+0.80
Pennsylvania	Trafalgar	11/3-11/5	+/-2.68%	1300 likely voters	47	48	2	+1	--
Pennsylvania	YouGov/CBS	11/3-11/5	+/-4.3%	931 likely voters	45	43	4	+2	+4.84
Utah	Trafalgar	11/3-11/5	+/-2.67%	1350 likely voters	30	40	2	+10	--
Utah	YouGov/CBS	11/3-11/5	+/-4.9%	762 likely voters	23	40	4	+17	+9.971
Evening Polls
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Clinton	Trump	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Florida	Gravis	11/1-11/2	+/-2.8%	1220 registered voters	46	45	2	+1	+1.87
Michigan	Gravis	11/1-11/4	+/-3.0%	1079 registered voters	46	41	3	+5	+6.46
Nevada	Gravis	11/3-11/6	+/-2.9%	1158 likely voters	45	43	5	+2	+0.83
New Mexico	Gravis	11/1-11/2	+/-2.7%	1327 registered voters	45	37	2	+8	+6.58
North Carolina	Gravis	11/1-11/4	+/-2.8%	1250 registered voters	46	45	3	+1	+1.36
Virginia	Gravis	11/1-11/4	+/-2.7%	1362 registered voters	47	42	3	+5	--
Virginia	Hampton	11/2-11/6	+/-4.4%	802 likely voters	45	41	14	+4	+6.12
1Excluding the two head-to-head online panel surveys in Utah lowers Trump's average advantage there to 8.48 points. Those polls are outliers in view of the majority of surveys in the Beehive state during 2016 and serve as an anchor on the data. The change would shift Utah within the Lean Trump category, closer to Toss Up Trump. McMullin garnered 24% in the YouGov survey and 25% support in the Trafalgar survey. He currently has an FHQ graduated weighted average share of support of 23.39%, trailing both Trump and Clinton.

--
Changes (11/7/16) -- Early edition
One last day.

Changes (November 7 -- Morning)
State	Before	After
Ohio	Toss Up Clinton	Toss Up Trump

• Ohio jumped the partisan line from Toss Up Clinton to Toss Up Trump, but note the average: +0.01. The Buckeye state is close here at FHQ. 
• Nevada rejoins the Watch List, slipping under the Clinton +1 threshold, but the Silver state has been hovering there. 
• Colorado slides off the Watch List. It is now just a bit more than a point from the Lean/Toss Up line (+5) on the Clinton side of the partisan line. 
• The ZiaPoll survey of New Mexico -- given the sample size, it was the whole state -- drew the average in a bit further. It has tracked down to about a six and a half point lead for Clinton in the Land of Enchantment. That pushed New Mexico down to the lower half of the Lean Clinton group of states on the Electoral College Spectrum. 

Late edition

Changes (November 7 -- Afternoon)
State	Before	After
Pennsylvania	Lean Clinton	Toss Up Clinton

• The Trafalgar and YouGov surveys were enough of a drag on the FHQ average in Pennsylvania that the Keystone state slipped just under the Lean/Toss Up line. Pennsylvania, then, follows New Hampshire as states that have until recently been just above that line but have hopped over it into the Toss Up Clinton area. Both remain clustered around that line, however; just on the opposite side.  
• That move also flips Pennsylvania on the Watch List, but keeps it in the same position on the Spectrum. 
• The Trafalgar survey of Michigan is the first to show Trump ahead since 2015. It may be a sign of something in the Great Lakes state or it could be an outlier (balancing out that MSU survey from last week). Either way, it decreased the average margin enough to ease Michigan past Maine on the Spectrum. 
• Also, Utah once again traded spots with Indiana, pushing to the very end of the Lean Trump area. The new polls out of the Beehive state nudge Trump even closer to 40 percent in the averages. Again, that will be enough to keep Clinton and McMullin at bay there and Utah in the Republican column.

Late late edition

• The Breibart wave of last minute Gravis polling releases mostly confirmed the state of the race in each of the states. There was some shuffling among the New Mexico, Michigan, Wisconsin cluster in the Lean Clinton area. New Mexico bounced back slightly after pushing down that column earlier in the day. Everything else held steady.

Barring anything unforeseen or any straggler surveys, this is likely what the final map will look like on election day. There are a few polls yet to be added into the dataset (the non-Breitbart wave of Gravis polls), but the expectation is that that will not alter the bottom line any if at all. It will not where it counts in any event: Clinton 322, Trump 216.

--

NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2016 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
MD-102 (13)	RI-4 (162)	NH-4 (263)	TX-38 (161)	TN-11 (61)
HI-4 (17)	NJ-14 (176)	CO-94 (272 | 275)	SC-9 (123)	AR-6 (50)
VT-3 (20)	OR-7 (183)	FL-29 (301 | 266)	MO-10 (114)	ND-3 (44)
MA-11 (31)	MN-10 (193)	NC-15 (316 | 237)	IN-11 (104)	NE-53 (41)
CA-55 (86)	ME-23 (195)	NV-6 (322 | 222)	UT-6 (93)	KY-8 (36)
NY-29 (115)	NM-5 (200)	OH-18 (216)	MS-6 (87)	AL-9 (28)
IL-20+13 (136)	WI-10 (210)	IA-6 (198)	SD-3 (81)	ID-4 (19)
DE-3 (139)	MI-16 (226)	AZ-11 (192)	KS-6 (78)	WV-5 (15)
WA-12 (151)	VA-13 (239)	GA-16+13 (181)	LA-8 (72)	OK-7 (10)
CT-7 (158)	PA-20 (259)	AK-3 (164)	MT-3 (64)	WY-3 (3)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Clinton's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 275 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics. To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College. 3 Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral college votes to candidates in a more proportional manner. The statewide winner receives the two electoral votes apportioned to the state based on the two US Senate seats each state has. Additionally, the winner within a congressional district is awarded one electoral vote. Given current polling, all five Nebraska electoral votes would be allocated to Trump. In Maine, a split seems more likely. Trump leads in Maine's second congressional district while Clinton is ahead statewide and in the first district. She would receive three of the four Maine electoral votes and Trump the remaining electoral vote. Those congressional district votes are added approximately where they would fall in the Spectrum above. 4 Colorado is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. Currently, Colorado is in the Toss Up Clinton category.

NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.

The Watch List1
State	Switch
Alaska	from Lean Trump	to Toss Up Trump
Indiana	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Mississippi	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Nevada	from Toss Up Clinton	to Toss Up Trump
New Hampshire	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Ohio	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Clinton
Oregon	from Lean Clinton	to Strong Clinton
Pennsylvania	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Utah	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (11/6/16)

The Electoral College Map (11/5/16)

The Electoral College Map (11/4/16)

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.