Election Year Restrictions on Mass Mailings by Members of Congress: How H.R. 2056 Would Change Current Law
Congressional research reportAug 20, 2010
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Election Year Restrictions on Mass Mailings
by Members of Congress: How H.R. 2056
Would Change Current Law
Matthew Eric Glassman
Analyst on the Congress
August 20, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R40569
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
How H.R. 2056 Would Change Mass Mailing Restrictions
Summary
Current law prohibits the franking of mass mailings by Senators fewer than 60 days, and by
House Members fewer than 90 days, prior to any primary or general election in which the
Member is a candidate. H.R. 2056 would amend Title 39, United States Code, by altering the
prohibition for both Senators and House Members to the period starting 90 days prior to any
primary and ending on the day of the general election, unless the Member has made a public
announcement that the Member will not be a candidate for reelection to any federal office.
The legislation would also prohibit the franking of mass mailings for the same period by any
congressional committee or subcommittee of which the chair or ranking member is a candidate
for reelection to any federal office.
These changes would increase the mass-mailing-prohibited period for all Senators and some
House Members. Table 1 and Table 2 of this report detail the hypothetical effects H.R. 2056
would have caused had it been enacted prior to the 2010 election season and the 2008 election
season. For example, had the legislation been enacted prior to the 2010 election season, affected
Members would have seen increased prohibited periods ranging from one day to 244 days,
depending on the primary date in the Member’s home state.
This report provides an overview of the proposed changes and an analysis of the effect of the
legislation on the mass-mailing-prohibited period for each state’s Members, and other issues
related to the proposed changes.
H.R. 2056 has been referred to the Committees on House Administration, Energy and Commerce,
Ways and Means, and Oversight and Government Reform. No further action has been taken.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service
How H.R. 2056 Would Change Mass Mailing Restrictions
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
Legislative History......................................................................................................................1
111th Congress.......................................................................................................................1
Previous Congresses .............................................................................................................1
Overview of Legislative Provisions .............................................................................................2
Amendment of Election Year Mass Mailing Restrictions .......................................................2
Defining “Candidate”......................................................................................................3
Prohibition of Election Year Committee Mass Mailing ..........................................................3
Analysis......................................................................................................................................4
Increased Election Year Restricted Period..............................................................................4
House .............................................................................................................................4
Senate.............................................................................................................................5
Applicability to Jurisdictions Without Primary Elections .......................................................6
Applicability to Candidates for Non-Federal Offices .............................................................6
Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Actual 2010 Mass Mailing Restrictions and Hypothetical
Restrictions Based On Proposed Legislation.............................................................................8
Table 2. Comparison of Actual 2008 Mass Mailing Restrictions and Hypothetical
Restrictions Based On Proposed Legislation........................................................................... 10
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 12
Congressional Research Service
How H.R. 2056 Would Change Mass Mailing Restrictions
Introduction
Current law prohibits the franking of mass mailings by Senators fewer than 60 days, and by
House Members fewer than 90 days, prior to any primary or general election in which the
Member is a candidate. H.R. 2056 would amend Title 39, United States Code, by altering the
prohibition for both Senators and House Members to the period starting 90 days prior to any
primary and ending on the day of the general election, unless the Member has made a public
announcement that the Member will not be a candidate for reelection to any federal office.
The legislation would also prohibit the franking of mass mailings for the same period by any
congressional committee or subcommittee of which the chair or ranking member is a candidate
for reelection to any federal office.
These changes would increase the mass-mailing-prohibited period for all Senators and some
House Members. Table 1 and Table 2 of this report detail the hypothetical effects H.R. 2056
would have caused had it been enacted prior to the 2010 election season and the 2008 election
season. For example, had the legislation been enacted prior to the 2010 election season, affected
Members would have seen increased prohibited periods ranging from one day to 244 days,
depending on the primary date in the Member’s home state.
H.R. 2056 has been referred to the Committees on House Administration, Energy and Commerce,
Ways and Means, and Oversight and Government Reform. No further action has been taken.
This report provides an overview of the proposed changes and an analysis of the effect of the
legislation on the mass-mailing-prohibited period for each state’s Members, and other issues
related to the proposed changes.
Legislative History
111th Congress
On April 22, 2009, Representative John Tierney introduced the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act
of 2009 (H.R. 2056, 111th Congress). Section 203 of the bill would amend the election year mass
mailing restriction on Members in Title 39, United States Code, by extending the period during
which mass mailings are prohibited. In addition, H.R. 2056 provides for election year mass
mailing restrictions on congressional committees and subcommittees. The bill was referred to the
Committees on House Administration, Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Oversight
and Government Reform. No further action has been taken.
Previous Congresses
Similar legislation has been introduced in past Congresses. During the 110th Congress,
Representative Tierney introduced the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act of 2007 (H.R. 1614,
Congressional Research Service
1
How H.R. 2056 Would Change Mass Mailing Restrictions
110th Congress),1 which included identical provisions to H.R. 2056. The bill was referred to the
Committees on House Administration, Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Oversight
and Government Reform. No further action was taken.
During the 110th Congress, legislation with identical language with regard to election year mass
mailing restrictions, was also introduced in the Senate (S. 936, the Fair Elections Now Act, 110th
Congress) by Senator Richard Durbin, on March 20, 2007. The bill was referred to the Committee
on Finance. No further action was taken. On May 3, 2007, Senator Durbin introduced similar
legislation (S. 1285, 110th Congress, the Fair Elections Now Act), also with identical language
with regard to election year mass mailing restrictions, which was referred to the Committee on
Rules and Administration. The committee held hearings on S. 1285 on June 20, 2007. No further
action was taken.
During the 109th Congress, Representative Tierney introduced comparable legislation, the Clean
Money, Clean Elections Act (H.R. 3099). Had the legislation been enacted, Section 303 would
have amended the election year mass mailing restrictions on Members by extending the period
during which mass mailings were prohibited. H.R. 3099 did not contain provisions restricting
committee mass mailings. The bill was referred to the House Committees on House
Administration, Energy and Commerce, and Government Reform. No further action was taken.
Overview of Legislative Provisions
Amendment of Election Year Mass Mailing Restrictions
Current law and chamber rules provide that mass mailings2 may not be franked by a Senator
fewer than 60 days, or by a House Member fewer than 90 days, immediately before the date of
any primary or general election (whether regular, special, or runoff) in which such Member is a
candidate for any public office. 3 Senate rules further state that no Senator may frank mass
mailings in the 60 days prior to the general election, regardless of whether or not they are a
candidate for election.4
H.R. 2056 would amend election year mass mailing restrictions by altering the period of time
during which Members are prohibited from franking any mass mailing and the statutory
conditions under which the prohibition applies. If enacted, Members of both the House and
Senate would be prohibited from sending any mass mailing during the period starting 90 days
prior to any primary election in which such Member is a candidate and ending on the day of the
general election.
1
For an overview of the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act, see CRS Report RL33814, Public Financing of
Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis, by (name redacted).
2
A mass mailing is defined at 39 U.S.C. 3210(6)(e) as “any mailing of newsletters or other pieces of mail with
substantially identical content (whether such mail is deposited singly or in bulk, or at the same time or different times),
totaling more than 500 pieces” in one session of Congress. Direct responses, correspondence with government officials,
and releases to media are exempt.
3
39 U.S.C. 3210(6)(a).
4
U.S. Senate Handbook, Appendix I-D, p. I-116, available from Senate computers at http://webster/rules/
rules.cfm?page=handbook and Senate Ethics Manual, p. 171, available at http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/
manual.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2
How H.R. 2056 Would Change Mass Mailing Restrictions
Defining “Candidate”
The House and Senate define “candidate” differently. As defined by the House Commission on
Congressional Mailing Standards, a candidate is a “Member whose name appears anywhere on
any official ballot to be used in such election,”5 without regard to whether or not the candidate is
running unopposed.
Because state laws vary considerably in regard to ballot practices in primary elections, this
definition of candidate may impact House Members differently, depending on which state they
represent. In some states, candidates running unopposed are not placed on primary ballots, and
therefore a House Member running in such a state would not be subject to the mass mailing
prohibition. In other states, unopposed candidates do appear on primary ballots, in which case the
mass mailing prohibition would apply to House Members running unopposed.
Senate rules define a candidate as “an individual who seeks nomination for election” if that
individual has either received campaign contributions in excess of $5,000 or made campaign
expenditures in excess of $5,000.6 All Senators are prohibited from franking mass mailings prior
to the general election, regardless of whether or not they are candidates. In regard to primary
elections, Senate rules exempt candidates running unopposed from the mass mailing restrictions.7
Uncontested primary candidacy is only established when the Committee on Rules and
Administration receives written certification from the appropriate state official.
The new statutory prohibition would apply only to Members who were candidates for reelection
to any federal office. However, Members would still be subject to further restrictions found in
House and Senate rules.
Prohibition of Election Year Committee Mass Mailing
Although House and Senate regulations currently restrict committee mass mailing during the preelection period, current statutory law does not. 8 If enacted, H.R. 2056 would prohibit a
congressional committee or subcommittee from mailing any mass mailing during the same period
individual members are prohibited from mass mailings, if either the chair or ranking member of
the committee or subcommittee were a candidate for reelection to any federal office.
5
U.S. Congress, Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, Regulation of the Use of the Congressional Frank
By Members of the House of Representatives, 105th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1998), p. 25.
6
U.S. Senate Handbook, Appendix M, Franking Privileges for Members of Congress, available at
http://webster.senate.gov/rules/handbook/1713.htm, p. 11.
7
Senate Rule XL. See also U.S. Senate Handbook, Appendix I-K, and Senate Ethics Manual, p. 171.
8
Senate Ethics regulations require committee mass mailings to be sent under the frank of the chairman and are subject
to identical franking regulations as individual Senators. Committees in the House have been subject to pre-election
regulations identical to individual Members since the 109th Congress and are currently limited to $5,000 each session
for mass mailing. See U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Regulations Governing the Use of the
Mailing Frank, committee print, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., April 2008, S. Prt. 110-43, p. 3; H.Res. 224, 109th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
3
How H.R. 2056 Would Change Mass Mailing Restrictions
Analysis
Increased Election Year Restricted Period
If enacted, the provisions of H.R. 2056 that amend the election year mass mailing restrictions
would generally increase the period of time individual Members were restricted from sending any
mass mailings. However, because state laws vary in regards to the timing of primary elections,
both current law and the proposed legislation affect individual Members differently, based on
when primary elections are held in the state they represent.
To assess the impact of the change on Members from each state, two tables compare the current
law and proposed law for the 2008 and 2010 election seasons. Table 1 reports the 2010 primary
date and the length of the mass-mailing-restricted period for the 2010 election by state. It also
reports the length of the hypothetical mass-mailing-restricted period for the 2010 election (and
the difference between the hypothetical and actual period) if the election-year mass mailing
restrictions proposed in H.R. 2056 had been in effect. Table 2 reports the same information for
2008, to illustrate the hypothetical effect of the restrictions during a presidential election year,
when some states employ a different primary calendar.
If enacted, H.R. 2056 would also make the election year mass-mailing-restricted period identical
for House Members and Senate Members. Members of both chambers would be prohibited from
sending mass mail during the period 90 days prior to the primary election until the date of the
general election. Under current law, as already noted, election year mass mailing restrictions are
shorter for Senators than for House Members.
Had the proposed legislation been enacted prior to the 2010 election season, some House
Members would have experienced no difference in the length of their restricted period; others
would have experienced an increase of up to 184 days. All Senators would have experienced an
increase in the restricted period of at least 30 days; some would have experienced an increase of
up to 244 days. Similar, in 2008, House Members would have experienced an increase in the
length of the restricted period ranging from 0 to 183 days; Senators would have experienced an
increase in the restricted period between 30 and 234 days.
House
If enacted prior to the 2010 or 2008 election seasons, the provisions of H.R. 2056 would have
increased the restricted period for all House Members whose states hold primaries more than 90
days prior to the general election. In 2010, 19 states will hold primaries fewer than 90 days prior
to the general election. Thirty-one states will hold primaries more than 90 days prior to the
general election. Similarly, in 2008, 19 states held primaries few than 90 days prior to the general;
31 held primaries more than 90 days prior.9
9
Currently, for Members in states where the primary election is more than 90 days before the general election, a
“window” of time opens between the primary election date and the general election cut-off date in which the sending of
mass mailings is restricted. Under the proposed legislation, such “windows” would cease to exist.
Congressional Research Service
4
How H.R. 2056 Would Change Mass Mailing Restrictions
For example, under current law, in 2010, all House Members seeking reelection are prohibited
from sending mass mailings fewer than 90 days prior to the general election—August 4, 2010, to
November 2, 2010. Texas held its primary on March 12, 2010. House Members from Texas were
thus also prohibited from making mass mailings between December 12, 2005, and March 12,
2010. Therefore, Members from Texas were restricted from sending mass mailings for two
separate 90-day periods totaling 180 days.10
If the proposed legislation in H.R. 2056 had been enacted prior to the 2010 primary and general
election seasons, House Members from Texas would have been prohibited from mailing any mass
mailings from December 12, 2009 (90 days prior to the primary election), until November 2,
2010, a total of 335 days.
There would have been no increase for House Members representing states that held primaries
fewer than 90 days prior to the general election. For example, Hawaii will hold its primary on
September 18, 2010. House Members from Hawaii will thus be prohibited from making mass
mailings between June 20, 2010, and September 18, 2010. Because this period overlaps with the
general election restrictions that began on August 4, 2010, House Members from Hawaii will be
restricted from making mass mailings for a single period of 135 consecutive days.
If the proposed changes in H.R. 2056 had been enacted prior to the 2010 primary and general
elections seasons, House Members from Hawaii would have been prohibited from mailing any
mass mailings from June 20, 2010, until November 2, 2010, the identical 135 days prohibited
under current law.
Senate
Under the proposed legislation, the provisions which extend the restricted period from 60 days to
90 days prior to the primary would restrict Senators for at least 30 additional days under the
proposed legislation.
All Senators who represent states that hold primaries fewer than 90 days prior to the general
election would be restricted for 30 additional days. For example, under current law, in 2010, a
Senator who represents Delaware will be prohibited from mailing any mass mailing from July 15,
2010, until November 2, 2010, a total of 109 days. If the proposed changes in H.R. 2056 had been
enacted prior to the 2010 primary and general election seasons, a Senator from Delaware would
have been prohibited from mailing any mass mailings from June 16, 2010, until November 2,
2010, a total of 139 days.
Under current law, Senators who represent states that hold primaries more than 90 days prior to
the general election are restricted from making mass mailings for a total of 120 days, 60 prior to
the primary election and 60 prior to the general election. For example, in 2010, a Senator who
10
The phrase “fewer than 90 days” has several plausible interpretations. In Interpretive Rule 149, the Senate Ethics
Committee stated that the “limitation is computed by excluding the actual day of the election, whether it is a primary,
general, regular, special, or runoff” and used the following example: if a primary election is scheduled for May 1, the
moratoria restrictions would begin at 11:59.59 PM on March 2. All dates listed in this report follow this guideline, and
cut-off dates are listed strictly; the cut-off date for the example would be listed as March 2. Because H.R. 2056
describes a “period” of time rather than using the “fewer” formulation, it is not clear how the new restrictions would be
interpreted. In this report, “90-day period” will be interpreted as “fewer than 90 days” as defined by the Senate rules.
Congressional Research Service
5
How H.R. 2056 Would Change Mass Mailing Restrictions
represented North Dakota will be prohibited from mailing any mass mailing from April 9, 2010,
until June 8, 2010, and from September 3, 2010, until November 2, 2010.
If the proposed changes in H.R. 2056 had been enacted prior to the 2010 primary and general
election seasons, a Senator from North Dakota would have been prohibited from mailing any
mass mailings from April 9, 2010, until November 2, 2010, a total of 237 days.
Applicability to Jurisdictions Without Primary Elections
One question raised by the proposed legislation is how the new restrictions on mass mailing
would apply to Members or Delegates from states and territories that do not hold primary
elections. Currently, one territory (American Samoa) does not hold primary elections. Instead, it
uses a system in which the general election is an open contest. If no candidate receives more than
50% of the vote, a runoff election is held several weeks later, with the date set pursuant to
territorial law. Prior to 2008, Louisiana used a similar system.
Under current law, the restrictions on states and territories without primaries are clear; candidates
are prohibited from franking mass mailings fewer than 60 days (90 for House Members) prior to
any primary or general election, including runoff elections.11 Thus, for example, Members who
represent Louisiana were prohibited from franking mass mailings fewer than 60 days (90 for
House Members) prior to the 2006 general election, as well as during the 60 days (90 for House
Members) prior to any runoff election that might take place after the general election.
However, under the proposed changes in H.R. 2056, the beginning of the restricted period is
defined in relation only to primary elections; Members are prohibited from franking mass
mailings 90 days prior to the primary election. This creates an ambiguity for states and territories
that do not have primary elections. Arguably, the intent of the proposed legislation is that the
restricted period would begin 90 days prior to the general election in states without primaries.
However, the legislation could be alternatively read to place no restrictions on mass mailings in
states and territories that do not have primaries. In this case, Members from such states would be
subject only to mass mailing restrictions in House and Senate rules.
Similarly, the end of the restricted period in the proposed legislation is defined in relationship
only to the general election, with no specific mention of runoff elections. As with the beginning
of the restricted period, arguably the intent of the legislation is to restrict mass mailings in the
period between the general election and runoff election in a state without a primary election.
However, the legislation could be interpreted to place no restrictions on mass mailings between
the general and runoff elections. In this case, again, Members from such states would be subject
only to mass mailing restrictions in House and Senate rules.
Applicability to Candidates for Non-Federal Offices
Another question raised by the proposed legislation is how the new restrictions would apply to
Members seeking non-federal public office. Under the current statute, House members are subject
to election year mass mailing restrictions if they are a candidate for reelection or a candidate for
11
39 U.S.C. 3210(6)(A)(i).
Congressional Research Service
6
How H.R. 2056 Would Change Mass Mailing Restrictions
any other public office. 12 Senators are subject to election year mass mailing restrictions for the
general election regardless of their status as candidates, and for primary elections if they are a
candidate for any national, state, or local office. 13
Under the proposed changes in H.R. 2056, Members are only subject to the restrictions if they are
candidates for reelection to any federal offices. Candidates for non-federal office would only be
subject to the restrictions of House and Senate rules. Current House rules reflect the current
statutory laws, restricting election year mass mailings 90 days prior to any primary or general
election to which the Member is a candidate. Current Senate rules also reflect the current
statutory laws, restricting election year mass mailings fewer than 60 days prior to any primary
election to which the Senator is a contested candidate, and fewer than 60 days prior to any general
election.
12
13
39 U.S.C. 3210(6)(A)(ii)(II).
39 U.S.C. 3210(6)(C).
Congressional Research Service
7
How H.R. 2056 Would Change Mass Mailing Restrictions
Table 1. Comparison of Actual 2010 Mass Mailing Restrictions and Hypothetical
Restrictions Based On Proposed Legislation
Actual Mass Mailing
Restricted Days
Hypothetical Mass
Mailing Restricted Days
House
Senate
Start Date
Days
House
Senate
Change (days)
State/Territory
2010
Primary
Date
Alabama
6/1/10
180
120
3/3/10
244
+64
+124
Alaska
8/24/10
160
120
5/26/10
160
0
+40
American
SamoaError!
N/A
90
N/A
?
?
?
N/A
Arizona
8/24/10
160
120
5/26/10
160
0
+40
Arkansas
5/18/10
180
120
2/17/10
258
+78
+138
California
6/8/10
180
120
3/10/10
237
+57
+117
Colorado
8/8/10
176
120
5/10/10
176
0
+56
Connecticut
8/8/10
176
120
5/10/10
176
0
+56
Delaware
9/14/10
139
109
6/16/10
139
0
+30
D.C.
9/14/10
139
N/A
6/16/10
139
0
N/A
Florida
8/24/10
160
120
5/26/10
160
0
+40
Georgia
7/20/10
180
120
4/21/10
195
+15
+75
Guam
9/4/10
149
N/A
6/6/10
149
0
N/A
Hawaii
9/18/10
135
105
6/20/10
135
0
+30
Idaho
5/25/10
180
120
2/24/10
251
+71
+131
Illinois
2/2/10
180
120
11/3/09
364
+184
+244
Indiana
5/4/10
180
120
2/3/10
272
+92
+152
Iowa
6/8/10
180
120
3/10/10
237
+57
+117
Kansas
8/3/10
180
120
5/5/10
181
+1
+61
Kentucky
5/18/10
180
120
2/17/10
258
+78
+138
Louisiana
8/28/10
156
120
5/30/10
156
0
+36
Maine
6/8/10
180
120
3/10/10
237
+57
+117
Maryland
9/14/10
139
109
6/16/10
139
0
+30
Massachusetts
9/14/10
139
109
6/16/10
139
0
+30
Michigan
8/3/10
180
120
5/5/10
181
+1
+61
Minnesota
8/10/10
174
120
5/12/10
174
0
+54
Mississippi
6/1/10
180
120
3/3/10
244
+64
+124
Missouri
8/3/10
180
120
5/5/10
181
+1
+61
Montana
6/8/10
180
120
3/10/10
237
+57
+117
Nebraska
5/11/10
180
120
2/10/10
265
+85
+145
Nevada
6/8/10
180
120
3/10/10
237
+57
+117
Reference source not
found.
Congressional Research Service
8
How H.R. 2056 Would Change Mass Mailing Restrictions
Actual Mass Mailing
Restricted Days
Hypothetical Mass
Mailing Restricted Days
House
Senate
Start Date
Days
House
Senate
Change (days)
State/Territory
2010
Primary
Date
New Hampshire
9/14/10
139
109
6/16/10
139
0
+30
New Jersey
6/8/10
180
120
3/10/10
237
+57
+117
New Mexico
6/1/10
180
120
3/3/10
244
+64
+124
New York
9/14/10
139
109
6/16/10
139
0
+30
North Carolina
5/4/10
180
120
2/3/10
272
+92
+152
North Dakota
6/8/10
180
120
3/10/10
237
+57
+117
Ohio
5/4/10
180
120
2/3/10
272
+92
+152
Oklahoma
7/27/10
180
120
4/28/10
188
+8
+68
Oregon
5/18/10
180
120
2/17/10
258
+78
+138
Pennsylvania
5/18/10
180
120
2/17/10
258
+78
+138
Puerto Ricob
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rhode Island
9/14/10
139
109
6/16/10
139
0
+30
South Carolina
6/8/10
180
120
3/10/10
237
+57
+117
South Dakota
6/8/10
180
120
3/10/10
237
+57
+117
Tennessee
8/5/10
179
120
5/7/10
179
0
+59
Texas
3/12/10
180
120
12/12/09
325
+145
+205
Utah
6/22/10
180
120
3/24/10
223
+43
+103
Vermont
8/24/10
160
120
5/26/10
160
0
+40
Virgin Islands
9/11/10
142
N/A
6/13/10
142
0
N/A
Virginia
6/8/10
180
120
3/10/10
244
+64
+124
Washington
8/17/10
167
120
5/19/10
167
0
+37
West Virginia
5/11/10
180
120
2/10/10
265
+85
+145
Wisconsin
9/14/10
139
109
6/16/10
139
0
+30
Wyoming
8/17/10
167
120
5/19/10
167
0
+47
Source: Data on primary dates are from the Federal Election Commission http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2010/
2010pdates.pdf.
Notes:
a.
American Samoa holds an open election on the date of the general election, and a runoff election (if
necessary) two weeks later.
b.
Puerto Rico holds an election for its Resident Commissioner every four years, concurrent with the U.S.
Presidential election.
Congressional Research Service
9
How H.R. 2056 Would Change Mass Mailing Restrictions
Table 2. Comparison of Actual 2008 Mass Mailing Restrictions and Hypothetical
Restrictions Based On Proposed Legislation
Actual Mass Mail
Restricted Days
Hypothetical Mass Mail
Restricted Days
Change (Days)
Start
DateError!
State/Territory
2008
Primary
Date
House
Senate
found.
Days
House
Senate
Alabama
6/3/2008
180
120
3/5/2008
244
+64
+124
Alaska
8/26/2008
160
120
5/28/2008
160
0
+40
N/A
90
N/A
?
?
?
N/A
Arizona
9/2/2008
153
120
6/4/2008
153
0
+33
Arkansas
5/20/2008
180
120
2/20/2008
258
+78
+138
California
6/3/2008
180
120
3/5/2008
244
+64
+124
Colorado
8/12/2008
174
120
5/14/2008
174
0
+54
Connecticut
8/12/2008
174
120
5/14/2008
174
0
+54
Delaware
9/9/2008
146
116
6/11/2008
146
0
+30
D.C.
9/9/2008
146
N/A
6/11/2008
146
0
N/A
Florida
8/26/2008
160
120
5/28/2008
160
0
+40
Georgia
7/15/2008
180
120
4/16/2008
202
+22
+82
Guam
9/6/2008
149
N/A
6/8/2008
149
0
N/A
Hawaii
9/20/2008
135
105
6/25/2008
135
0
+30
Idaho
5/27/2008
180
120
2/27/2008
244
+64
+124
Illinois
2/5/2008
180
120
11/7/2007
363
+183
+243
Indiana
5/6/2008
180
120
2/6/2008
272
+92
+152
Iowa
6/3/2008
180
120
3/5/2008
244
+64
+124
Kansas
8/5/2008
180
120
5/7/2008
181
+1
+61
Kentucky
5/20/2008
180
120
2/20/2008
258
+78
+138
Louisiana
9/6/2008
149
119
6/8/2008
149
0
+30
Maine
6/10/2008
180
120
3/12/2008
237
+57
+117
Maryland
2/12/2008
180
120
11/14/2007
356
+176
+236
Massachusetts
9/16/2008
139
109
6/18/2008
139
0
+30
Michigan
8/5/2008
180
120
5/7/2008
181
+1
+61
Minnesota
9/9/2008
146
116
6/11/2008
146
0
+30
Mississippi
3/11/2008
180
120
12/12/2007
328
+148
+208
Missouri
8/5/2008
180
120
5/7/2008
181
+1
+61
Montana
6/3/2008
180
120
3/5/2008
244
+64
+124
American
SamoaError!
Reference source not
Reference source not
found.
Congressional Research Service
10
How H.R. 2056 Would Change Mass Mailing Restrictions
Actual Mass Mail
Restricted Days
Hypothetical Mass Mail
Restricted Days
Change (Days)
Start
DateError!
State/Territory
2008
Primary
Date
House
Senate
found.
Days
House
Senate
Nebraska
5/13/2008
180
120
2/13/2008
265
+85
+145
Nevada
8/12/2008
174
120
5/14/2008
174
0
+54
New Hampshire
9/9/2008
146
116
6/11/2008
146
0
+30
New Jersey
6/3/2008
180
120
3/5/2008
244
+64
+124
New Mexico
6/3/2008
180
120
3/5/2008
244
+64
+124
New York
9/9/2008
146
116
6/11/2008
146
0
+30
North Carolina
5/6/2008
180
120
2/6/2008
272
+92
+152
North Dakota
6/10/2008
180
120
3/12/2008
237
+57
+117
Ohio
3/4/2008
180
120
12/5/2007
335
+155
+215
Oklahoma
7/29/2008
180
120
4/30/2008
188
+8
+68
Oregon
5/20/2008
180
120
2/20/2008
258
+78
+138
Pennsylvania
4/22/2008
180
120
1/23/2008
286
+106
+166
Puerto Rico
3/9/2008
180
N/A
12/10/2007
330
+150
N/A
Rhode Island
9/19/2008
136
106
6/21/2008
136
0
+30
South Carolina
6/10/2008
180
120
3/12/2008
237
+57
+117
South Dakota
6/3/2008
180
120
3/5/2008
244
+64
+124
Tennessee
8/7/2008
179
120
5/9/2008
179
0
+59
Texas
3/4/2008
180
120
12/5/2007
335
+155
+215
Utah
6/24/2008
180
120
3/26/2008
223
+43
+103
Vermont
9/9/2008
146
116
6/11/2008
146
0
+30
Virgin Islands
9/13/2008
142
N/A
6/15/2008
142
0
N/A
Virginia
6/10/2008
180
120
3/12/2008
237
+57
+117
Washington
8/19/2008
167
120
5/21/2008
167
0
+47
West Virginia
5/13/2008
180
120
2/13/2008
265
+85
+145
Wisconsin
9/9/2008
146
116
6/11/2008
146
0
+30
Wyoming
8/19/2008
167
120
5/21/2008
167
0
+47
Reference source not
Source: Data on primary dates are from the Federal Election Commission http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/
2008pdates.pdf.
Notes:
a.
The Senate Ethics Committee Interpretive Ruling 149 states that the “60-day limitation is computed by
excluding the actual day of the election, whether it is a primary, general, regular, special, or runoff.” For
example, if a primary election is scheduled for May 1, the moratoria restrictions would begin at 11:59.59PM
on March 2. The date listed in the Table would be March 2.
b.
American Samoa holds an open election on the date of the general election, and a runoff election (if
necessary) two weeks later.
Congressional Research Service
11
How H.R. 2056 Would Change Mass Mailing Restrictions
Author Contact Information
Matthew Eric Glassman
Analyst on the Congress
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
12
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.