Presidential Nominating Process: Current Issues

Kevin J. Coleman
Analyst in Elections

The presidential nominating calendar for 2012 is not fully set, as some legislatures and state parties continue to consider date changes for primaries and caucuses. Consequently, the dates of the earliest contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina have not been determined and may not be for some time. These states are exempt from both parties’ national rules that do not allow delegate selection contests to be held before the first Tuesday in March.

Every four years, the presidential nominating process generates complaints and proposed modifications, often directed at the seemingly haphazard and fast-paced calendar of primaries and caucuses. The rapid pace of primaries and caucuses that characterized the 2000 and 2004 cycles continued in 2008, despite national party efforts to reverse the phenomenon known as frontloading. Because many states scheduled early contests in the 2000 cycle, both parties subsequently created task forces on the process. For a time the parties pursued a cooperative effort to confront problems associated with front-loading for 2004. In the end, Democrats approved moving up state primary dates for 2004, but retained Iowa and New Hampshire’s early events; Republicans rejected a proposed reform plan. At the state level, the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) has long supported a regional primary plan that would rotate regional dates every four years.

The Democratic Party approved changes to its calendar rules again in July 2006, when the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee extended an exemption to Nevada and South Carolina (Iowa and New Hampshire were previously exempted) from the designated period for holding delegate selection events; and the Committee proposed sanctions for any violations. With the exception of these four states, Democratic party delegate selection rules dictate that the first determining step in choosing national convention delegates could not begin until February 5, 2008. The Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) stripped Florida of its national convention delegates on August 25, 2007, because the legislature scheduled the 2008 Presidential primary for January 29, a date that conflicted with party rules. Michigan Democrats also forfeited their national convention delegates by scheduling a January 15 primary. In the end, the DNC decided on May 31, 2008, to seat full delegations for each state with a half vote for each of the delegates, thereby reducing each delegation’s vote by 50% at the convention. On the day before the national convention, the Credentials Committee restored full voting rights for both state delegations.

Front-loading is only the most recent among a list of complaints about the nominating system, which has resisted wholesale change despite criticism every four years from voters, the candidates, and the press. After several decades of debate, observers are divided on the best approach to reform. The lack of consensus for reworking the primary system is due partly to its complex design, which frustrates pursuit of a simple, obvious solution, and partly to the political parties pursuing their own variable interests concerning their delegate selection rules. The states further complicate the process by independently scheduling primary election dates. Congress, political commentators, academics, and others have offered various reform proposals over the years, but many important dimensions of reform depend on whether the parties are willing to change the system for choosing delegates to their national conventions. No bills have been introduced in the 112th Congress to revise the nominating process.


Date of Report: September 20, 2011
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: RL34222
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices

Sandy Streeter
Analyst on Co ngress and the Legislative Process

Most routine operations of federal departments and agencies are funded each year through the enactment of 12 regular appropriations acts. Because these bills are annual, expiring at the end of the fiscal year (September 30), regular appropriations bills for the subsequent fiscal year must be enacted by October 1. Final action on most regular appropriations bills, however, is frequently delayed beyond the start of the fiscal year. When this occurs, the affected departments and agencies are generally funded under temporary continuing appropriations acts until the final funding decisions become law. Because continuing appropriations acts are generally enacted in the form of joint resolutions, such acts are referred to as continuing resolutions (or CRs).

CRs may be divided into two categories based on duration—those that provide interim (or temporary) funding and those that provide funds through the end of the fiscal year. Interim continuing resolutions provide funding until a specific date or until the enactment of the applicable regular appropriations acts, if earlier. Full-year continuing resolutions provide funding in lieu of one or more regular appropriations bills through the end of the fiscal year.

Over the past 35 years, the nature, scope, and duration of continuing resolutions gradually expanded. From the early 1970s through 1987, CRs gradually expanded from being used to provide interim funding measures of comparatively brief duration and length to measures providing funding through the end of the fiscal year. The full-year measures included, in some cases, the full text of one or more regular appropriations bills and contained substantive legislation (i.e., provisions under the jurisdiction of committees other than the House and Senate Appropriations Committees). Since 1988, continuing resolutions have primarily been interim funding measures, and included major legislation less frequently.

In certain years, delay in the enactment of regular appropriations measures and CRs has led to periods during which appropriations authority has lapsed. Such periods generally are referred to as funding gaps.

Congress is not expected to enact all 12 regular appropriations acts by the deadline and is, therefore, considering measures providing temporary FY2012 continuing appropriations. On September 21, 2012, the House rejected a House amendment containing FY2012 continuing appropriations. This full substitute amendment would have replaced the text of an unrelated Senate amendment to H.R. 2608 (112th Congress), Small Business Program Extension and Reform Act of 2011. The House amendment would have continued funding through November 18, 2011, or until enactment of FY2012 regular measure(s), if earlier. Some reporters have suggested that those voting against the amendment were generally either opposed to the overall discretionary spending level provided in the amendment or opposed to a specific rescission that was included.


Date of Report: September 22, 2011
Number of Pages: 19
Order Number: RL30343
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The Senate’s Executive Calendar

Betsy Palmer
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

Treaties and nominations constitute the executive business of the Senate and are the subjects of the Senate’s Executive Calendar. When a Senate committee reports a treaty or nomination, it is said to be placed “on the calendar” and is available for floor consideration. In addition, there is a category of nominations that are not immediately referred to committee, but instead placed directly on the Executive Calendar under the heading, “Privileged Nominations.”


Date of Report: September 21, 2011
Number of Pages: 4
Order Number: 98-438
Price: $19.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

House Rules Manual: Summary of Contents

Judy Schneider
Specialist on the Congress

The House Rules and Manual, officially titled Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives, contains the fundamental source material describing procedures in the House of Representatives. Included are the Constitution of the United States, selected provisions of Jefferson’s Manual, rules of the House, provisions of law and resolutions enacted or adopted under the rule-making authority of the House, and pertinent decisions of the Speaker and chairmen of the Committee of the Whole interpreting the rules and procedural authority used in the House, often referred to as parliamentarian’s notes or annotations.

Printed as a “House Document,” the Manual is usually authorized by House resolution at the end of a Congress for printing at the beginning of the following Congress. As such, the House document number reflects the Congress that authorized the printing although the cover page identifies the applicable Congress for the contents (111-157 is the Manual for the 112th Congress).


Date of Report: September 22, 2011
Number of Pages: 5
Order Number: 98-262
Price: $19.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Prosecution of Public Corruption: An Overview of Amendments Under H.R. 2572 and S. 401

Charles Doyle
Senior Specialist in American Public Law

The Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act (S. 401) and the Clean Up Government Act (H.R. 2572) amend federal law governing the prosecution of federal, state, and local officials. They would: 

•       Expand the scope of federal mail and wire fraud statutes to reach undisclosed self-dealing by public officials—in response to Skilling. 

•       Modify the mail and wire fraud statutes to encompass any thing of value not just money or property—in response to Cleveland 

•       Amend the definition of official act for bribery purposes—to overcome the Valdes decision. 

•       Adjust the federal gratuities provision to reach “goodwill” gifts—in response to Sun Diamond. 

•       Bring District of Columbia employees within the coverage of the federal embezzlement statute. 

•       Increase the criminal penalties that attend various bribery, illegal gratuities, embezzlement statutes and related provisions.

They would also change several related procedural provisions:

•       Extend the statute of limitations from five to six years for several corruption offenses. 

•       Authorize the trial of perjury and obstruction charges in the district of the adversely effected judicial proceedings. 

•       Authorize the trial of multi-district cases in any district in which an act in furtherance is committed. 

•       Increase the number of public corruption offenses considered racketeering and wiretap predicate offenses.

This report is available in an abridged version, as CRS Report R42015, Prosecution of Public Corruption: An Abridged Overview of Amendments Under H.R. 2572 and S. 401, by Charles Doyle, which lacks the footnotes, attributions, and citations to authority found in this report. Related CRS Reports include CRS Report R40852, Deprivation of Honest Services as a Basis for Federal Mail and Wire Fraud Convictions, by Charles Doyle, and CRS Report R41930, Mail and Wire Fraud: A Brief Overview of Federal Criminal Law, by Charles Doyle.


Date of Report: September 21, 2011
Number of Pages: 26
Order Number: R42016
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.