GOP presidential hopefuls might skip Nevada’s caucus

Several likely GOP presidential campaigns are threatening to skip the Nevada GOP caucus because they fear it’s rigged for a Rand Paul win, said Republican insiders concerned the Silver State could lose its clout as one of four early voting states.

As a result, some campaigns are pressing behind the scenes for the Legislature to drop caucuses run by the political parties in favor of a government-staged state primary in February.

“A number of presidential campaigns are waiting to see what happens in the Legislature before deciding whether to engage in Nevada or not,” said a top GOP operative. “There is real concern that the state party will either be incompetent — or use incompetence as an excuse to rig it for Rand Paul.”

The operative spoke on condition of anonymity because the topic is sensitive and no campaign wants to give the public impression that GOP candidates see Paul as a major political threat, particularly in Nevada. Of the campaigns contacted for this story only Paul’s operation would comment.

Paul spokesman Sergio Gor said the candidate would be fine running in a either a GOP caucus or a primary that would draw a broader group than political activists who dominate caucuses.

“Senator Paul has a unique appeal to the voters of Nevada,” Gor said. “His message of privacy, curbing government spending and implementing term limits is a message which Nevadans agree with. We are confident that he will do very well in Nevada regardless of what system is utilized.”

Mitt Romney won the 2008 Nevada presidential caucus largely by capturing 90 percent of the Mormon vote, but Ron Paul — a congressman from Texas and Rand Paul’s father — came in second, energizing supporters who became more active in the GOP apparatus.

In 2012, the Nevada Republican Party took several days to count caucus votes and declared Mitt Romney the winner over Ron Paul. By then, Paul loyalists had taken over the Nevada Republican Party, which has since been sidelined by Gov. Brian Sandoval, who set up his own PACs and political operation to help Republican candidates.

But Paul’s backers rejected Sandoval’s pick for chairman of the state party, instead selecting Michael McDonald, who has ties to both the so-called Paulites and the establishment wings of the GOP.

McDonald said he favors a switch to a primary, according to an April 27 Washington Examiner report, but he did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

‘There are pros and cons to everything,” McDonald told the Examiner, noting the troubled vote count in 2012 — before he took over leadership of the party. “It was a total disaster the way it was handled. It was an embarrassment for the state.”

A primary could bring more people home to the GOP, he said.

“Our hope is that it will drive more people out and get more Republicans involved,” McDonald said.

“The governor is open and willing to take a close look at changing our presidential selection process especially when it enhances our status as an early state in nominating the next president of the United States,” Sandoval’s spokeswoman Mari St. Martin said.

Asked if Sandoval would back shifting all the primary races to February, St. Martin added: “The governor supports election reform that encourages more Nevadans to participate in the democratic process.”

Carl Bunce, who directed Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 Nevada campaigns and is now helping Rand Paul, said the end result will be the same, regardless of the process.

“I understand the motivation of our popular governor and his circles are to minimize state party influence in the processes that surround the presidential cycle and reduce any potential outreach to people who participate (vote) to get involved in grassroots actions of Nevada GOP,” Bunce said. “They are not really thinking it all the way through. Regardless if it is a caucus or a primary, the state party still picks the national delegates. The grassroots will do the exact same thing as 2008 and 2012 with the exact same results, if not better with the depressed party participation from a primary.”

TWO PENDING BILLS

AB302 in the Assembly would replace the caucus with a presidential primary on the last Tuesday in February, close to the Republican National Committee’s tentative calendar setting a Feb. 4 Nevada’s caucus, following those in Iowa and New Hampshire and before South Carolina.

The bill was sponsored by Assembly Speaker John Hambrick, R-Las Vegas.

SB421 in the Senate is more sweeping and would shift the presidential, state constitutional, congressional and legislative primary elections now held in June to one day February.

The move to shorten the primary calendar would benefit incumbents and could cost the state $8 million to $10 million, one Democratic insider said.

State Sen. James Settelmeyer, R-Minden, a co-sponsor of SB421, calls it a response to 2012’s presidential caucuses problems. He said he was contacted by constituents who felt intimidated by the caucus setting, where votes are cast in public.

Constituents “didn’t feel they had the ability to speak freely or felt intimidated by the process,” Settelmeyer said. Voting “is a private thing, and I don’t believe the caucus is private.”

The prospects of the bills remain unclear as the 120-day session winds to a close on June 1.

Nick Phillips, the Clark County Republican Party’s political director, said he favors moving to a primary system “due to the increased turnout of Nevadans.”

“The reason for the increased turnout is that a primary has a shorter time commitment than a caucus, is more familiar to voters and campaigns are more well equipped to get the information to voters to come,” Phillips said. “Additionally, a primary election could include early voting and extending voting hours, which makes it more likely that people can fit voting into their schedule as opposed to the shorter time window of a caucus.”

Whether any presidential campaign would blow off a Nevada caucus is in doubt. It would be unusual for a candidate to skip one of the four early voting states and risk being seen as having an organization too weak to compete.

The GOP operative said the Silver State would also suffer, especially if caucuses are held but don’t go smoothly.

“If there is a caucus and it is anything but well-run, I am all but certain Nevada will lose our ‘first four’ status,” the GOP operative said.

Democratic insiders are in rare agreement with that point of view.

“We are very concerned about the Legislature’s move to establish a presidential preference primary because it jeopardizes Nevada’s position in the early state Democratic calendar,” said the Democrat insider.

Nevada’s 2008 award of early state status was thanks to U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., on the condition that Nevada was a caucus state by statute.

“A move to a presidential preference primary by the state raises serious questions because this was not anticipated at the time that we were awarded our position,” the insider said. “Any changes this close to the presidential primary calendar creates unnecessary uncertainty and confusion and will likely have unintended consequences both for Nevada and other early states.

“I doubt they would penalize us this cycle (though New Hampshire will surely make noise),” the insider added. “But we’ll be forced to rethink our position in the next presidential — and without the benefit of having Harry Reid there to defend us.”

Reid is retiring rather than running for a sixth Senate term in 2016.

Contact Laura Myers at lmyers@reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2919. Find her on Twitter: @lmyerslvrj.