Primary Movement Starts with the State Legislatures (2023)

The National Conference of State Legislatures has this calendar as well, but in alphabetical order. FHQ is more concerned with sequence. Which state legislatures convene first (1), when do their sessions end (2) and how does this impact the scheduling of presidential primaries (3)? 

[Much more below the calendar.]

2023 State Legislative Session Calendar (sequential)
Date (Convene)	States	Date (Adjourn)
January 2, 2023	Montana1 Ohio1	May 111 year-round2
January 3	Kentucky1 Minnesota1 Mississippi1 North Dakota1 Pennsylvania1 Rhode Island1 Washington, DC1 Wisconsin1	April 131 May 221 April 3n1 April 281 year-round2 year-round2 year-round2 year-round2
January 4	California3 Connecticut1 Maine4 Massachusetts1 Missouri1 Nebraska1 New Hampshire1 New York1 Vermont1	year-round2 June 71 June 211 year-round2 May 301 May 261 January 3, 20241 year-round2 May 91
January 9	American Samoa1 Arizona1 Arkansas1 Colorado1 Guam1 Georgia1 Idaho1 Indiana1 Iowa1 Kansas1 Puerto Rico1 Virgin Islands1 Washington1	--1 April 221 March 101 May 91 December 311 March 301 April 81 February 81 May 171 May 121 --1 year-round2 April 291
January 10	Delaware1 South Carolina1 South Dakota1 Tennessee1 Texas1 Wyoming1	January 9, 20241 year-round2 March 271 May 61 May 291 March 31
January 11	Illinois1 Maryland1 Michigan1 New Jersey1 North Carolina1 Virginia1 West Virginia1	year round2 April 101 year round2 year round2 July 281 February 251 March 111
January 17	Alaska1 New Mexico1 Oregon1 Utah1	April 171 March 181 June 261 March 31
January 18	Hawaii1	May 4
February 6	Nevada Oklahoma	June 5 May 26
March 7	Alabama Florida	June 8 May 5
April 10	Louisiana	June 8
Notes: 1 States in italics are caucus states. State parties and not state legislatures control the scheduling of those contests. 2 State legislatures whose session calendars have them meeting throughout the year. 3 Technically, California opened its 2023 legislative session with an organizational session on December 5, 2022. That counted as the first legislative day of the session, but the legislature was in recess thereafter until January 4, 2023. 4 Technically, Maine opened its 2023 legislative session with an organizational session on December 7, 2022. That counted as the first legislative day of the session, but the legislature was in recess thereafter until January 4, 2023.

2023 in the state legislatures
The table answers the first two of the three questions posed above. However, with the schedule of state legislative sessions down, what impact will that have on the formation of the 2024 presidential primary calendar? The biggest thing is that 2024 is not 2020. The partisan tables are turned with the Republican Party gearing up for an active and competitive nomination race while Democrats are less likely at this time to have one with an incumbent in the White House. Most recently the topline conditions that match best are from the last time a Democratic incumbent sought renomination, 2012. But that was a completely different environment with respect to the emerging primary calendar.

For starters, both parties allowed states to conduct February contests in 2008. Yet, given the flirting that early states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina did with the idea of late 2007 primaries or caucuses, both national parties made rules changes for 2012 intended to push back the start of primary season. And those changes meant that entering this period in the 2012 cycle -- early 2011 -- there were roughly 20 states with laws on the books that scheduled primaries that were not in compliance with the new national party rules. In other words, there was a tension at this point in the 2012 cycle that does not exist today. There was built-in and expected primary movement then that is not present in 2023 (or at least not present at near the same level). 

However, the backwards movement that characterized a lot of calendar movement for 2012 continued in 2013-14. And importantly for 2016, past rogue states like Florida, Michigan and Arizona moved back from the brink. But the 2020 cycle saw California move all of its delegates from June all the way back up to Super Tuesday in March, further concentrating just how many delegates were at stake so early in the process. What 2016 and 2020 demonstrated was that the national parties had -- at least for those two cycles -- devised a workable mix of penalties and bonuses to keep states in line.

Will that hold in 2024? The early indications are less clear than they have been in recent cycles, but 2023 will settle that score.

Here are a few things to look out for as state legislative session progress (mostly) over the first half of  2023 and into the latter half of the year.


1. Primary movement or primary movement?
There are at least a couple of different categories of primary movement. One is the movement of existing primaries from one spot on the calendar to another. The late 2022 attempt to shift the Michigan presidential primary from March to February is one such example. With Michigan factoring into the Democratic National Committee pre-window plans, one can expect further action on this front in the Great Lakes state in the coming months.  

The other type of primary movement concerns changes to the mode of delegate selection: primary or caucus. Every cycle there is at least some movement from primary to caucus or from caucus to primary. There has been a push in the Democratic process since 2016 to move away from caucuses in favor of primaries, whether state government- or state party-run. Democratic-controlled states on the whole shifted to state government-run contests for 2020 while the most of the rest adopted delegate selection plans with state party-run primaries. Only Iowa, Nevada and Wyoming kept caucuses intact. And the Covid-19 pandemic claimed the Wyoming caucuses, forcing the state party to use a mail-in process that more closely resembled a primary. In the intervening time, the Nevada legislature passed a bill establishing a presidential primary that was signed into law in 2021. And Iowa Democrats pledged during their pitch to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) to protect their early calendar position to adopt a mail-in process that makes the Democratic caucuses there caucuses-in-name-only. 

Primary to caucus movement or vice versa will likely be more mixed on the Republican side of the ledger. A number of state Republican parties scaled down their operations for 2020 with an incumbent seeking renomination. A handful of primary states shifted to caucuses and a fair number of caucus states cancelled those contests in favor of other means of delegate selection. [Democrats on the state level followed much the same route in a number of states in 2012 when the party was last defending the White House.] But those Republican moves for 2020 will likely reverse to some extent for 2024. Yet, at least one Republican-controlled state, Missouri, has already eliminated its primary for 2024. Although there is an effort to reestablish it. Of course, with a competitive nomination race, there could be movement in one or both directions as state Republican parties potentially consider which mode -- primary or caucus -- helps one candidate or type of candidate over others. 

2. Likely Movers
As noted above, the impetus to move for 2024 is different than it was in the recent past. Democrats are idle at this time, so the motivation is less pronounced for states to move their contests around because of an active nomination race. Granted, the calendar proposal adopted by the DNCRBC will trigger some activity. Michigan fits in there as may some other states. But are there some states more likely to move than others?

When one thinks about that, there are a few factors for which to account. FHQ will not be exhaustive here, but only point toward the most likely factors motivating primary movement. One is where the contests are currently scheduled. The movement seen so far for the 2024 cycle has been focused more on states switching modes rather than switching positions on the calendar. But later states are more likely to be motivated to move up on the calendar than early states are to move back. Yes, the Louisiana primary shifted to a later date for 2024 in 2021, but that was due to a non-compliance issue. There are a handful of other states that face non-compliance issues as well, but that is because of a change in Republican National Committee (RNC) rules and they are at the end of the calendar.

But second, look to the partisan alignment of state legislatures. That has not been a significant factor in past iterations of my research, but in an increasingly polarized environment, may be becoming a more significant one now. Republican-controlled states, then, might be more inclined to seek out earlier dates. Look, in particular and as noted above, at the Republican-controlled group of states with early June primary dates as of now. Also states like Florida and Ohio with mid-March primaries may be motivated to move to even earlier dates. A wide open Republican race (not to mention favorite son candidates in Florida's case) may draw them to earlier dates for 2024.

Contrast that with the Democratic-controlled state governments across the country. Their motivation is different. Diversify the beginning of the calendar? Protect the president and/or create a smoother path to renomination? Affect the Republican process? Any movement among Democratic states is likely to be if not minimal, then narrow and particularized. 


3. Regional primaries
Part of what drove the mid-Atlantic/northeastern states back in 2012 and kept them there for 2016 and 2020 was the allure of a regional primary clustering bonus provided for in the rules of the Democratic National Committee. Neighboring states that hold their primaries together and late enough on the calendar are rewarded with additional delegates; more activists they can take to the convention. That is no small thing for a small state. While a later contest date potentially means a lesser voice for a given state in the primary process, it means a greater voice at the convention.

And that bonus may hold more sway this time around without an active nomination race than it has in the most recent cycles. Of course, this would mainly be a Democratic phenomenon and one that may be more active in the likely absence of a competitive nomination race if states opt to collectively chase the bonuses with less on the line (and less need to hold early contests).

4. Priorities for election legislation at the state level

This is a factor that has weighed on me since the 2020 election in trying to handicap what we may witness in 2023 with respect to presidential primary movement. Republican state legislatures have moved in that time to protect what the party collectively views as threats to election integrity while Democrats on the state level have focused on combatting what they see as voter suppression. Yes, state legislators can walk and chew gum at the same time, so it is possible to both fight the above fights and also move primaries around for 2024. 

Inevitably, there will be legislation proposed across the country to move primaries to varying points on the calendar, but does such legislation take a backseat in the legislative process to potentially higher priorities on electoral matters? That strikes FHQ as a big question heading into 2023. Yes, rules changes in both national parties will affect some change at the margins, and although there may be some fallout from and noise about the Democrats' proposed changes to the beginning of the calendar, this may -- MAY -- be a quiet year overall for calendar movement.¹ And what is likely to keep things quiet-ish is that the parties have a pretty good mix of rules and penalties in place to deal with most rogue states not named Iowa and New Hampshire. And honestly, those rules and penalties have not been tested on the traditionally earliest pair of states.

Anyway, as state legislatures begin to convene as they have over the last week, they will be considering any number of things. Undoubtedly though, that will include primary calendar movement if not caucus to primary movement.

--

¹ Even with the proposed changes, one can map out the range in which most states are likely to fall on the calendar at this point. 

--

Recent posts:

"It will be a state-sponsored public opinion poll"

It Isn't Just the Democrats Who Are Shaking up the 2024 Presidential Primary Calendar

New Hampshire Democrats' Lose-Lose Predicament

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.   

"It will be a state-sponsored public opinion poll"

Anthony Brooks of WBUR had a nice report on Here and Now about the showdown over the New Hampshire presidential primary between Granite state Democrats and the Democratic National Committee. 

Regular readers of FHQ will note that it covers familiar ground, but Brooks also did well to get DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) Co-chair Jim Roosevelt on record for the piece. And Roosevelt's comments were illuminating:

On New Hampshire generally...

"New Hampshire has done this [held the first-in-the-nation primary] and done this well for a century or more, but they have always abided by the party rules. This is the first time they are not doing that."

On the effects of punishments for DNC rule breaking... 

"It [the New Hampshire presidential primary] will be a state-sponsored public opinion poll."

Neither of those statements is all that surprising. The notion of the DNCRBC going beyond the 50 percent penalty on states that violate the rules on the timing of primaries and caucuses came up at the panel's meeting in early December. It is not even a revelation that this is the first time in the post-reform era that New Hampshire will have broken the DNC timing rules. FHQ has covered that ground.

However, what is surprising -- or perhaps, noteworthy -- is that Brooks even reached out to Roosevelt for comment or that Roosevelt went on the record. It is not exactly common for rules committee members, much less chairs, to either comment or be a part of these stories. It is not that chairs cannot or should not do so, but rather, that they usually do not. Roosevelt's comments represent a small counter to the very vocal defiance from the Granite state to this point following the DNCRBC adoption of the president's calendar proposal. But it does say something about how the DNCRBC is signaling it will deal with states that run afoul of the party rules. ...even New Hampshire.

--

There is one other thing from the Brooks interview that merits mentioning. The edit of the final story transitions from Brooks describing the penalties New Hampshire Democrats may face -- mainly focused on not seating delegates at the national convention -- to Roosevelt's comment about the state-sponsored public opinion poll. Unfortunately, it is not clear at this point whether those two things necessarily track one another. 

In personal conversations, Roosevelt has always made plain to me the fact that the delegate penalties on candidates or states apply during primary season; meaning a violating state's/candidate's delegates are not included in the various delegate counts that are tallied as the race moves from one state to another. It is a perceptual (if not real) penalty. [The count is very real to the perception of how the race is going and how it typically ends.]

The convention and the seating of delegates are different matters. A convention -- or its Credentials Committee -- makes the decisions on whether to seat delegates, and those decisions are made after primary season (and typically after the nomination race) has concluded. Alternatively, a presumptive nominee can urge the full seating of a sanctioned state's delegation as Barack Obama did with Florida and Michigan in 2008 (reversing a May 2008 decision by the DNCRBC to seat all of the two states' delegates but only count each delegate's vote as half).

So, it is not clear from this Here and Now story that Roosevelt is threatening to hypothetically not seat the New Hampshire delegation at the 2024 Democratic National Convention (should the state ultimately not be in compliance). It is clear that the DNCRBC has only so much power and it exists mainly before and during primary season. But a national convention is the ultimate arbiter in either national party. And a convention has different goals from what the party is attempting to accomplish during a nomination race. It can go against a previous decision by one of the party's standing committees. 

In fact, this is kind of what New Hampshire Democrats are banking on for 2024.

But, that Roosevelt is speaking out now suggests that such an eventuality will not come without a fight. And that is really the take home message from all of this. New Hampshire Democrats are telegraphing that they intend to break what are likely to be the DNC calendar rules (when adopted in February). And Roosevelt is signaling that New Hampshire will not be protected in 2024. It will be treated as any other state that breaks the timing rules. 

--

Recent posts:

It Isn't Just the Democrats Who Are Shaking up the 2024 Presidential Primary Calendar

New Hampshire Democrats' Lose-Lose Predicament

South Carolina's Rise to the Pre-Window

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.   

It Isn't Just the Democrats Who Are Shaking up the 2024 Presidential Primary Calendar

Ever since early December when the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee adopted President Biden's early calendar proposal there has been a lot of talk around here and elsewhere about how those changes may affect how the beginning of the 2024 presidential primary calendar develops. Bumping the South Carolina Democratic primary up to the first slot will likely have the effect of pushing at least the Iowa Republican caucuses and New Hampshire primary into January. 

But there may be some changes forthcoming at the end of the calendar as well. 

Last week the Republican National Committee (RNC) announced the dates of its 2024 national convention set to take place in Milwaukee. And the July 15 kickoff will trigger a new provision in the rules of the Republican Party amended earlier this year. It has been the case over the last few cycles that the RNC, much like their DNC counterparts, set a window in which most states can hold primaries and caucuses. On the Democratic side that Rule 12.A window runs from the first Tuesday in March through the second Tuesday in June. And the Republican equivalent for the last two cycles described in Rule 16(c)(1) has been from March 1 until the second Saturday in June. 

Only now, there is an additional OR phrase tagged on the back end of the defined Republican window. Contests must now be held on or before "the second Saturday in June in the year in which a national convention is held or less than forty-five (45) days before the national convention is scheduled to begin."

That is where the convention decision from last week comes into play. 45 days before July 15 is Wednesday, May 31, 2024. All Republican primaries and caucuses, then, must be completed by the end of May which, in turn, means that a handful of states are out of compliance (or will be) with June primary dates scheduled under various state laws. 

Five states and territories -- Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota and Washington (DC) -- will all have to either change the dates of those contests or make alternate plans. Republican control at the state level in Montana and South Dakota means changes are more likely there than elsewhere in places where Democrats hold the levers of power. But changes will have to occur in those states as well. DC Republicans already had to deal with a similar issue -- one where the primary was too late to comply with RNC timing rules -- when a mid-June primary scheduled for the 2016 cycle forced the party to opt for a March convention. Without amended laws, the others will have to seek out state party-run paths to compliance if the current laws are left unchanged. 

Now, to be clear, like the beginning of the calendar where small delegate caches do not make a huge difference in the grand scheme of a nomination race, this change at the back of the calendar likely will not be decisive. Together those six states and territories would have comprised just under seven percent of the total number of Republican delegates at stake in 2020.¹ However, this rules change will have the effect of further compressing the overall calendar. Not by much, but it will push the end of the calendar up by a couple of weeks while the DNC decision on their pre-window will widen it by about as much if not a little more once Iowa and New Hampshire settle into place for the Republican process. 

In the end, this is another way in which the two national parties have diverged in their thinking -- if not approach to -- the 2024 presidential primary calendar. 

--

¹ For Democrats, the share is even smaller. The five states amounted to nearly six percent of the total number of Democratic delegates in the 2020 cycle.

--

Recent posts:

New Hampshire Democrats' Lose-Lose Predicament

South Carolina's Rise to the Pre-Window

Updated Notes on the 2024 Presidential Primary Calendar

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.   

New Hampshire Democrats' Lose-Lose Predicament

Look, FHQ does not want to double dip on the New Hampshire/DNC rift over the Granite state's position on the 2024 presidential primary calendar. I already weighed in at length in response to the Boston Globe op-ed the New Hampshire congressional delegation -- all Democrats -- ran last week in defense of the Granite state's first-in-the-nation status. 

Plus, there is ample time to discuss these things. There probably isn't infinite time to deal with the issues -- fixes take time -- but there is more than enough time to talk about them. 

As such and to reiterate, New Hampshire will have the first primary in 2024. There, I said it. It will be first primary at the very least in the Republican process. However, despite the rapid-fire defiance from Granite state Democrats there remain questions about the fate of their 2024 process. While several New Hampshire Democrats have suggested the DNC cannot effectively enforce the penalties on the Democratic delegation from New Hampshire, the simple truth of the matter is that that hypothesis has not been tested in the post-reform era under these exact conditions. New Hampshire does not have a (direct) guaranteed first primary position in the DNC's proposed process for the first time since 1984.¹ And it has less latitude as a result.

By definition, then, this is a different game that the New Hampshire Democrats are playing during the 2024 cycle. And their options are more limited. 

That reality is true regardless of the arguments the state party and their surrogates are making. The letter that Chairman Raymond Buckley of the New Hampshire Democratic Party sent to DNC Chair Jaime Harrison as part of this blitz to defend the early presidential primary status makes the usual arguments.² State law, fragile but consistent Democratic advantage in the Granite state, etc. 

But Chairman Buckley's notion of the "undue burden" the DNC is placing on the New Hampshire Democratic Party triggered a few thoughts I had upon first seeing the conditions of the state party's pre-window waiver. The chairman is not exactly wrong that the contingencies will force New Hampshire into noncompliance. That was clear early on. Yet, while Buckley's attention was on the early vote requirements and participatory comparisons to the other proposed early states, my thoughts were elsewhere. 

Why did the contingencies focus exclusively on routing change in New Hampshire through the Republican-controlled state government? Yes, that is an avenue for changing the state laws on primary scheduling and adding early voting. But that is just one path. Why was there no focus on the secretary of state in New Hampshire? After all, it is that office that holds the date-setting power for the presidential primary in the Granite state. 

For example, why not focus on the "similar election" language in New Hampshire state law. The secretary of state is charged with scheduling the presidential primary at least seven days before any other similar election. But what is a similar election? There is no definition of it in state law. The layman shorthand has always been that Iowa has a caucus and that is why the Hawkeye state has gone first without falling into any major tiff with New Hampshire over the years. 

However, former Secretary Bill Gardner always gave a more nuanced explanation than the simplistic primary/caucus binary. Iowans in both parties, after all, were voting ahead of New Hampshirites every cycle. Gardner looked at those acts differently. Republicans were voting, yes, but they were voting on delegates to the next step of the caucus/convention process and not national convention delegates. In other words, there was no direct connection between those precinct caucus votes and the ultimately delegate allocation. Republican caucus votes at snowy Des Moines precinct caucuses, for example, were not binding in the way they were and are in New Hampshire. Similarly, the votes of Iowa Democrats caucusing in school gyms and living rooms across the state traditionally translated into state delegate equivalents and were reported as such (and not as Candidate X won Y delegates from Iowa). 

In recent cycles, however, those lines have blurred some without any real (negative) response from Gardner. Iowa Republicans made those initial caucus votes binding in 2016 in response to a change in Republican National Committee rules that cycle. And while Democrats in Iowa retained the state delegate equivalent standard in 2020, that was not the only metric reported on caucus night and national convention delegate counts were locked based on precinct caucus results. 

The point here is that Gardner's rationale changed over time, or rather, implementation in Iowa changed without Gardner responding by jumping New Hampshire past the Hawkeye state caucuses. So, not only is there no definition of similar election in state law, but there is demonstrated discretion with how a New Hampshire secretary of state can approach the similar election conundrum. There is some wiggle room.

Sure, current New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan is a Republican, but this is his first go-round in the quadrennial calendar wars as secretary of state. Scanlan has already vowed to follow the primary law, but again, why did the DNC not focus on him in the contingencies for New Hampshire's pre-window waiver instead of the Republican-controlled legislature? 

Perhaps, for example, a primary in which an incumbent president is running unopposed or largely unopposed is not a similar election. Little is on the line. Perhaps another state's primary in which candidates are not on the ballot but are on it in New Hampshire, a state famous for its low bar for candidate entry, is not a similar contest. 2024 may be that cycle and South Carolina and Nevada may have those types of primaries. Maybe. But put a pin in that for a second. 

In addition, rather than aiming for the secretary of state, the DNC contingencies could have focused on a different, middle ground. Look at that New Hampshire presidential primary statute again. Ideally, under the law, the New Hampshire primary is supposed to occur on the second Tuesday in March concurrent with March town meetings across the state. It is only when that is not possible -- when that date is not seven days before any similar election -- that the presidential primary in the Granite state shifts to an earlier point on the calendar. 

Since town meetings still occur separate from the New Hampshire presidential primary in years when it is before the second Tuesday in March, perhaps the DNC could have built a contingency that honed in on that dual system -- the presence of a presidential primary and a separate set of town meetings. The Republican legislature may not want to change the date, but they could be more receptive to a later option tethered to town meeting day for either Democrats or parties without an active (competitive) nomination race. Again, the Republican legislature in New Hampshire could be more receptive to that sort of maneuver. 

Then again, an option that Chairman Buckley failed to note in his letter to DNC Chair Harrison was a party-run option. The New Hampshire Democratic Party could run its own contest -- and/or fight the state law if they have to in order to hold one -- that falls on a later date on the calendar, maybe even town meeting day. That option is out there. But Buckley did not mention that. And the DNC did not make an alternate party-run contest a condition for the state party to successfully win its pre-window waiver because the party prefers a state-run option where one is available (just not a noncompliant one). 

Of course, there is a reason Buckley did not mention that party-run option. It is the same reason that the secretary of state likely would not carve out a more exclusive definition of similar election and why the Republican legislature likely would not change state law to accommodate a later option (even one that preserved the first slot for itself). None of those actors would make any of those moves because any one of them would undermine the first-in-the-nation law and the unified front everyone in the state has attempted to maintain over the years. 

It is not that there are not options, it is that New Hampshire actors little incentive to utilize them. Not yet anyway. New Hampshire Democrats are banking on the DNC caving again and not enforcing its rules. However, the 2024 cycle is different. Again, New Hampshire Democrats do not have the same guarantees from the national party that they have had in the past. And that changes the calculus.

That is the problem. That is the lose-lose situation in which New Hampshire Democrats find themselves mired. If they remain defiant, they run the risk of running afoul of DNC rules and being assessed penalties that could set the party back both within the state and potentially nationally. If they bend or aid in bending to one of the options above, then they have undermined forever the state law that the party has used as a shield throughout the post-reform era. There are no wins there; only a hope from the New Hampshire Democratic Party that the DNC folds in all of this.

Maybe, but it will be a messy process in getting to that point.

--

¹ Before 1984, both New Hampshire and Iowa were indirectly exempt in the DNC rules or unaffected. See more here.

² Below is the letter Buckley sent to the DNC chair.

--

Recent posts:

South Carolina's Rise to the Pre-Window

Updated Notes on the 2024 Presidential Primary Calendar

Prefiled Bills Seek to Reestablish Missouri Presidential Primary

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.   

South Carolina's Rise to the Pre-Window

If you have not already read it, then FHQ highly recommends the recent Washington Post opinion piece from College of Charleston political scientists Gibbs Knotts and Jordan Ragusa. How the South Carolina primary gained primacy -- From first in the South to first in the Nation is a really good accounting of how, over time, the presidential primary in the Palmetto state got to where it did in the calendar proposal adopted by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee earlier this month. 

There were a couple of passages in the piece that made me think of a pair of stories.

1. In the section about the efforts of South Carolina Democrats to move the party-run presidential primary up in the 1992 process, Knotts and Ragusa write:

"By the 1990s, however, the success of South Carolina’s Republican presidential primary was undeniable and, in 1992, the state’s Democrats attempted to position themselves alongside Republicans as the First in the South state. Despite support for the early primary, Georgia leaped past South Carolina to host the first primary in the South that year as its governor, Zell Miller, worked with Georgia’s state legislature to secure the coveted position."

The jockeying between South Carolina in Georgia during the 1992 cycle is partly a story of a change in Democratic rules for the cycle. Following 1988, the DNC made the decision to widen the so-called window -- the period that states can hold presidential primaries and caucuses without penalty or a waiver -- by a week. In previous cycles the earliest states could conduct the first stage of their delegate selection events was the second Tuesday in March. But for 1992, that earliest point got bumped up to the first Tuesday in March. 

Several states took advantage of the change and moved to the new earliest position for 1992 during 1991. But none of them were from the South other than South Carolina. And that left the South Carolina Democratic primary as the first primary in the South scheduled on the Saturday before the remnants of the 1988 Southern Super Tuesday (on the second Tuesday in March 1992).

But things changed.

In early October 1991, Governor Bill Clinton (D-AR) entered the Democratic nomination race. And the story goes that Clinton discussed with his fellow southern governor, Zell Miller (D-GA), the idea of moving the presidential primary in the Peach state up to that earliest point to potentially give Clinton a lifeline on the early part of the calendar. 

Miller came to Clinton's aid, but there are two things to note here. First, Bill Clinton entered the race in October 1991, barely five months before the Iowa caucuses kicked off the voting phase of the 1992 cycle. In current presidential nomination politics that is white knight time, not a juncture in the cycle when serious contenders, much less future nominees, decide to throw their hats in the ring. Times have changed. 

Second, at that point in time -- fall 1991 -- the Georgia General Assembly was already adjourned for the year. Miller eventually leaned on the legislature, but did so when the body reconvened for the second half of the 1991-92 legislative session. HB 196 -- changing the date of the primary -- did not clear the legislative hurdle to be signed into law until mid-January 1992. And that was less than two months before the primary election. But that was not the end of the story. Section V preclearance under the Voting Rights Act was still a thing at this time and Georgia was a covered jurisdiction. The presidential primary date change still had to win preclearance from the Justice Department (which it ultimately did). 

The Georgia move is unusual in a great many respects. Primary date changes do not usually happen in the year of a presidential election. And if they do, those changes are typically intended for the next cycle. Also, this change came together rather quickly. That was also unique. More often than not, coordination on this sort of move -- one that goes through the legislative process -- takes some time (and in the case of Georgia at the time, was an effort eased by a Democratic legislature).

But that is how Georgia came to jump South Carolina -- really late -- and claimed the first-in-the-South mantle during the 1992 cycle. 

2. Knotts and Ragusa also pinpoint the 2004 cycle as a turning point for the South Carolina Democratic primary rising to the early part of the Democratic calendar. They write:

"Later that decade, the DNC prevented South Carolina Democratic leaders from holding an early primary alongside the state’s GOP contest because of national rules prohibiting primaries from occurring before the first Tuesday in March. Only two states had waivers: Iowa and New Hampshire. 

"Eventually, the DNC conceded, and South Carolina Democrats held the inaugural First in the South primary in 2004. Since then, the state has played a critical role in the race for the White House, often serving as a decisive vote after mixed, and often controversial, results in Iowa and New Hampshire."

Here, FHQ would gently push back to add some context. The 2004 cycle was important, but it did not represent a cycle in which the DNC relented and let South Carolina go early. Well, the DNC did not let South Carolina alone go earlier. As in the 1992 cycle, the DNC decided to widen the window for 2004. This time the party allowed states -- those with no waiver -- to hold contests as early as the first Tuesday in February, a month earlier than had been the case from 1992-2000. It was both a response to the Republican calendars that had come to include February contests over the previous few cycles, but also to compress the calendar and settle on a nominee as early as possible and better prepare for a run against an incumbent Republican president.

Again, South Carolina Democrats took advantage of the earlier window and moved their presidential primary to that first Tuesday in February position alongside six other states. Missouri and Oklahoma, two peripherally southern states, held primaries that same day, but, technically, South Carolina was the first-in-the-South.

It was not until after 2004 and the 2006 Price commission that the DNC moved on recommendations to expand the pre-window lineup for the 2008 cycle. Those changes brought geographic and racial diversity in to the early part of the calendar before the window opened that cycle (once again on the first Tuesday in February). They also ushered South Carolina not only into the pre-window period on the calendar, but as the lone southern representative there. 

That was what gave South Carolina Democrats the early (first-in-the-South) and a distinct (with a pre-window waiver) position that it still holds. Only, the proposed slot for the Democratic presidential primary in the Palmetto state is slightly earlier in 2024.

--

Recent posts:

Updated Notes on the 2024 Presidential Primary Calendar

Prefiled Bills Seek to Reestablish Missouri Presidential Primary

What Happens if States Don't Go Along with the National Party? [Annotated]

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.   

Updated Notes on the 2024 Presidential Primary Calendar

Quick! Go read this post of initial notes about the calendar from early 2021. It's a good baseline. FHQ will wait.

--

As the invisible primary leading up to the 2024 presidential primary season moves from one phase to another, it is worth taking a step back here at FHQ to better assess where the evolution of the primary calendar stands. The end of 2022 mostly brings to a close the national party phase of the process. The Rule 12 deadline to make changes to the Republican National Committee (RNC) rules for 2024 came and went this past September 30 with no significant tweaks, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) finalized all but its calendar rules back in September as well. But while the RNC stuck with the calendar rules it carried over from 2016 (into 2020 and now 2024), the DNC punted the decision until after the midterm elections (for good reason). 

And following a December meeting, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) adopted a calendar plan that was a radical departure from the Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina (in that order) plan the party has utilized in presidential nomination rules starting with and since the 2008 cycle. That answers a few questions that were left hanging out there throughout much of 2021 and 2022. Namely...

1. Are the national parties taking different paths on the 2024 presidential primary calendar? [Yes.]
2. From where will the 2024 delegate rules changes come? [Interestingly, the in-party Democrats.]

Not only did Democrats break with the standard protocol of national parties having rules in place by the late summer of the midterm year, but the party was also more active in altering its rules as the party in the White House than the out party. And that is unusual. But it speaks to something that FHQ touched on in March of last year:

"The relative silence on the Republican side has made this all a mystery to this point in the cycle. The obvious "problem" areas once common across parties are not exactly problematic for Republicans. It could also be said that the perception of delegate selection rules problems is asymmetric across national parties. That may yet change as the cycle develops, but at this point bet on state-level changes over national-level rules changes until anything new bubbles up, something that also differs from how Democrats have handled things in their own rules change track up to now."

The problems, perceived or otherwise, have changed. This is no longer the calendar chaos of 2008 that the two national parties are trying to clean up. That was a common problem then. States had incentive -- or lacked disincentives -- to jump the queue on the primary calendar in order to chase influence and attention.  Both parties pushed back the opening of the window -- when states other than exempt ones like Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina can start conducting primaries and caucuses -- to the beginning of March for 2012 and spent the next several cycles devising ways to penalize violating states.¹ In other words, states have been kept largely in check due to those efforts to 1) informally coordinate a February start to primary season and 2) tackle the penalty severity issue. 

But again, the problems are different now. They are asymmetric. While Republicans are content with the usual lineup of early states in their process, the Democrats have become increasingly disgruntled with the mismatch between the diversity of the broader Democratic Party network and that of the sum of the four earliest states. That divergence in goals has obvious implications for the 2024 presidential primary calendar and how it evolves.

With that in mind and now that the process is shifting from the national party phase to the state parties/government phase in 2023, a reexamination of the calendar notes from early 2021 are in order. 

1. There are still no official dates for the earliest contests. 

There continues to be no guidance from the RNC on the matter other than exemptions from timing penalties for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada (in that order in the rules but without the timing). And while the DNCRBC has adopted a plan that sets forth specific dates for South Carolina, Nevada/New Hampshire, Georgia and Michigan, that plan has yet to be finalized by the full DNC (a formality) and is aspirational in part or in whole. 

South Carolina Democrats will hold a primary on February 3, 2024. The state party pulls the strings there and can get that done. 

Nevada, with a Republican in the governor's mansion now dividing government with Democrats in the state legislature, is also (more than likely) locked into the February 6, 2024 position both called for in state law and set aside for the Nevada primary by the DNCRBC-passed rules package. 

Iowa's midwestern replacement in the DNCRBC plan also stands a good chance of moving into the position -- February 27, 2024 -- carved out for it by the proposed rules with a newly unified Democratic government in charge in Michigan. 

Those, as FHQ mentioned recently, are the known knowns at this point. All have positions and are either already in them or very likely will be in 2023.

The unknown knowns of the early calendar are Iowa, New Hampshire and Georgia. All three have reserved spots in at least one party's calendar plans but all three are wildcards in terms of where they may ultimately end up on the calendar.

Georgia is probably the easiest with which to deal. The DNCRBC plan calls for a February 13, 2024 presidential primary in Peach state, but that does not appear to have any buy-in from the Republican-controlled secretary of state's office. With no leverage there -- in the office that controls the scheduling of the Georgia primary -- national Democrats are unlikely to get their wish. And since there is no specific date set for the Georgia primary in state law, the primary is likely to end up in a position on or after the first Tuesday in March (Super Tuesday) to remain compliant with both parties' delegate selection rules. 

While the Georgia primary may end up after the pre-window period into which national Democrats hope to place it, Iowa and New Hampshire are likely to end up before it, which is to say before the next earliest similar contest, the South Carolina Democratic primary. But it may be the Nevada Republicans who hold the key to determining just how early the 2024 primary season begins. 

Should Nevada Republicans opt into the February 6 primary in the Silver state, then... 

1. South Carolina Republicans likely move into a January 27 slot (the Saturday a week ahead of South Carolina Democrats),
2. The New Hampshire secretary of state, in turn, would be likely to shift the Granite state primary to the Tuesday at least seven days before the South Carolina Republican primary (January 16),
3. And the Iowa Republicans select the date eight days before that (January 8).

If Nevada Republicans choose to go the caucus/convention route, then they may end up with a slightly later February date, but it only has the effect of shifting back the start laid out above by a week (because of the South Carolina Democratic primary on February 3).

All of this is to say that there are some knowns in the direction these states will move, but no clear specificity about where exactly they will hold their delegate selection events. The one complicating factor is what Democrats in both Iowa and New Hampshire do. If either or both defy national party rules and go along with Republicans in their states, then the pieces may not fall into place as easily as described above. 

Then there are the unknown unknowns as the process heads into 2023: all of the other states. Clearly, state law provides dates for most of the primaries, but that can change. 

2. Automatically problematic states.

In the last calendar update FHQ described a couple of noncompliant states; noncompliant due to quirks of state law. New York sunsets its presidential primary scheduling every four years. When the presidential election year ends, the presidential primary reverts to a first Tuesday in February position. That is the date on which the Nevada primary is now set. That is compliant for Nevada but not New York. But the process in New York is for the state legislature to set the date and allocation rules in consultation with the state parties during the session in the year before the presidential election. That will get done. The process just is not at that point yet. New York, then, looks noncompliant on February 6, but will ultimately not be either on that date or a risk to be noncompliant. 

Louisiana was in another predicament. 

In 2019, the state legislature shifted the date of the presidential primary from the first Saturday of March to the first Saturday in April for the 2020 cycle alone. Like New York, there was a sunset provision. Runoff elections in concurrent municipal elections would have conflicted with the Good Friday holiday in 2020, but not in 2024. After 2020, the Louisiana primary reverted to the prior first Saturday in March date. Such a position works in cycle when that first Saturday in March follows the first Tuesday. But in 2024, the first Saturday in March precedes the first Tuesday, the traditional opening of the window in which most states can conduct primaries and caucuses. 

That would have put the Louisiana primary in conflict with national party rules. However, the legislature in the Pelican state acted in 2021 to avert that problem, shifting back the primary to the last Saturday in March. [That is a permanent change; one that does not have a sunset for future cycles.] Louisiana, then, is back in compliance with national party rules for 2024.

3. Most of the states without official contest dates are caucus states or party-run primary states. Among that group, dates are rarely set in state party rules. Hawaii Republicans are the exception. Most state parties wait until the year before the presidential election to set a timeline for delegate selection in the plans they submit to the national parties for approval.

And there is discretion in state law with regard to scheduling some primaries as well. Georgia and New Hampshire, for example, were described above.  

4. Bear in mind that all of this is in flux. Some of these laws will change. In fact, there were a handful of states in 2020 and 2021 that explored different dates, but Louisiana was the only one that made any change. Well, and the DNCRBC put forth an early state proposal that reshaped that part of the calendar relative to recent past cycles. That all may give some indication of future maneuvering, but typically the bulk of that action will not occur until 2023. That is when the most urgency on states to schedule primaries and caucuses comes: after the national parties finalize their rules for the cycle and during the state legislative sessions that begin following the midterm elections. 

Part of the description above lays out a rosy picture for an orderly formation of the calendar the rest of the way. It may ultimately differ from what the DNCRBC has laid out for the pre-window, but the calendar could fall into place without much chaos. Due to the penalties in place in both parties, it is unlikely that any states outside of Iowa, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire or South Carolina will jump into the early window (or beyond it). There may be threatening legislation in the other states, but it is unlikely to be successful. There may be movement by the remaining states, but it is likely to occur within the window. 

Regardless, state-level actors -- state parties and state governments -- will tell that tale now that the ball is in their court for 2023.

Updated 2024 presidential primary calendar.

--

¹ There was an asymmetry in that response as well. Republicans added the super penalty for states that opted to jump into January and February. Democrats, on the other hand, had been content to penalize rules breakers half their delegation during primary season while reserving the discretion to strip violating candidates of any delegates won in a rogue contest. The former penalty on states remains, but the latter has been strengthened for the 2024 cycle. 

 

--

Recent posts:

Prefiled Bills Seek to Reestablish Missouri Presidential Primary

What Happens if States Don't Go Along with the National Party? [Annotated]

New Hampshire Congressional Delegation Defends First-in-the-Nation Presidential Primary

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.   

Prefiled Bills Seek to Reestablish Missouri Presidential Primary

Yes, that's right. Reestablish. 

The effort in Missouri to eliminate the presidential primary failed in 2021, but was resurrected earlier this year as part of a state Senate substitute to a House-passed omnibus elections bill. And the impetus behind the push is, well, interesting. 

Read the rest at FHQ Plus.

--

Both bills have been added to the updated 2024 presidential primary calendar. 

--

Recent posts:

What Happens if States Don't Go Along with the National Party? [Annotated]

New Hampshire Congressional Delegation Defends First-in-the-Nation Presidential Primary

Democrats Mull Changes to the 2024 Calendar?

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.   

What Happens if States Don't Go Along with the National Party? [Annotated]

Meg Kinnard has a super helpful explainer up at the Associated Press about how parties and states set their presidential primary and caucus dates. There is good stuff in there. We need pieces like these. But the section added on the penalties applied to violating states by the national parties highlights the fact that some things just get lost in the oral and written histories of presidential nominations over time. 

A few things about that penalties section...

First, the DNC does have a penalties regime in place for rogue states. If a state jumps into the pre-window period on the calendar, then that state loses half of its delegates.¹ But the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) also has the discretion to increase that penalty. This is what was witnessed in Florida and Michigan in 2008. Both states would have been stripped of half of their delegates under the rules. But the DNCRBC, getting little to no help from either state party in Florida or Michigan or state Democratic legislators (some of whom had voted for the primary date changes that put both states in violation of the rules) opted to make an example of both in late 2007. Using that discretion, the DNCRBC stripped both states of all of their delegates. 

And yes, near the end of primary season in 2008, the DNCRBC did restore all of those delegates to both Florida and Michigan in a Memorial Day weekend compromise that held that all delegates from the two states to be seated but only retain half a vote at the convention. But that was not the end of the story. At the beginning of August 2008, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), the presumptive Democratic nominee, requested that the states' full voting rights be restored at the Denver convention later in the month. It was a request Obama's main opponent, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) echoed and the Credentials Committee at the convention honored.² 

It is this very tension that state Democratic parties in both Iowa and New Hampshire are now banking on for 2024. That is, the national parties are typically torn in this situation. On the one hand, upholding the rules -- or relenting -- has implications for future cycles (and state behavior in them). But on the other, at that time in the cycle -- the convention -- those same national parties and the nominees they are set to formally nominate are transitioning toward a general election fight where unity is key; unity that would be disrupted if one or more state delegations are not seated at the convention. The timing just is not right for national parties to truly and effectively crack down (unless maybe the state is a lost cause or a sure thing). 

Kinnard then moves on to 2012...

After the chaos of 2008, both national parties saw the need to right the ship for 2012. Despite the fact that both the DNC and RNC shifted back by a month the point on the calendar when non-carve-out states -- those other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- could hold contests, Florida and Michigan jumped the queue into the pre-window once again. They were joined by a handful of non-binding Republican caucuses. 

The Republican rules covered the noncompliant Florida primary at the end of January and the similarly noncompliant Michigan primary at the end February. Both lost half of their delegates. The few non-binding caucuses skirted the Republican sanctions because no delegates were allocated directly based on the results of the first stage caucuses. But the penalties that were levied were upheld at the Republican National Convention in Tampa. 

Nothing was done on the Democratic side with Florida or Michigan in 2012 because the state Democratic parties in each shifted to caucuses during that cycle to avoid sanction from primaries moved by Republican-controlled state governments and because President Obama was seeking renomination without any serious opposition.

It is worth noting that Florida and Michigan Democrats in the state parties and state legislatures made good faith efforts to comply with the rules in 2012 in contrast with 2008. It is those sorts of efforts under Rule 21 that often help in avoiding sanction from the DNCRBC. 

Things then shift to penalties on candidates...

The description here would be, I suppose, closer to what the Republican National Committee does to candidates; ding them on speaking slots. But none of that is officially part of the RNC rules. And, in fact, it would be less an RNC move than a presumptive nominee's at that point. It is their convention after all, and the nominees-to-be tend to orchestrate things with assists from the national party. In that light, a move to bump a former opposition candidate to a poor speaking slot for campaigning in a rogue state months before would be more petty than anything.

But while the RNC does not have official candidate penalties, the DNC does. It has since the same 2008 cycle rules changes that also added Nevada and South Carolina to the pre-window lineup of states. But those penalties were never meted out because it was discretionary. The rules changes for the 2024 cycle alter that calculus. No longer may the party strip a candidate who has campaigned in a rogue state of all of their delegates won in that state; they shall do that. And beyond the strengthening of the rules there, the DNC has also made the definition of the what constitutes campaigning more inclusive. Campaigning now includes filing to be on a ballot in a rogue state or not working to remove one's name from a rogue state ballot (where filing is not required and ballot access is more automatic). The new rules have also granted the DNC chair the authority to take matters a step further should candidates not not abide by these rules. The chair can prohibit candidates in violation of the campaigning rules from presidential primary debates sanctioned by the national party. 

Those are deterrents with some teeth that have implications for the candidates before and during primary season, not just at the end of it. The idea is to keep candidates out of rogue states in order to neuter the violating contests in those states. Under those circumstances, states theoretically would not want to hold rogue contests because the lure -- candidates and attention -- would no longer exist (or would at the very least be greatly minimized). 

Is the DNC committed to penalizing Iowa and New Hampshire if either goes rogue? 

Ultimately that will be a question better posed in the summer of 2024 as the conventions approach. But the DNC is serious about the candidate penalties (see rules changes for 2024) and fully stripping states of their delegates -- beyond the baseline 50 percent sanction -- is also on still on the table. Such a prospect was raised in the conversations about the calendar rules at the DNCRBC meeting that adopted the new calendar proposal. 

Rules matter. So do rules changes. 

--

¹ Republicans had the same 50 percent penalty for states in violation of the RNC timing rules in both 2008 and 2012. However, the party strengthened its penalty for going rouge for the 2016 cycle; something the national party has had in place ever since. The super penalty strips a bigger state of all but nine of its delegates and smaller states of all but six delegates.

² Honestly, this should not count against Kinnard. I had trouble enough tracking down information to even confirm my recollection of events. FHQ has some oblique references to the moves here and also here. Wikipedia has a footnote which leads to a piece on the DNC Credentials Committee vote, but sometimes one just has to go straight to the roll call vote on the nomination which shows a full Florida delegations of 211 and likewise a 157 delegate Michigan group.

--

Recent posts:

New Hampshire Congressional Delegation Defends First-in-the-Nation Presidential Primary

Democrats Mull Changes to the 2024 Calendar?

Adjournment Kills Michigan Presidential Primary Bill

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.   

New Hampshire Congressional Delegation Defends First-in-the-Nation Presidential Primary

And folks, why would they not? 

It is completely natural for New Hampshire Democrats like Sen. Hassan, Sen. Shaheen, Rep. Kuster and Rep. Pappas to defend this particular piece of political real estate. Every New Hampshire politician, regardless of party, has done so for at least the half century of the post-reform era. But it is worth considering -- on this side of the decision by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) to strip Iowa of its position altogether and shunt New Hampshire's presidential primary into the second position alongside Nevada -- whether the old arguments have grown stale. New Hampshirites will likely argue no, but 2024 represents the first cycle that New Hampshire's position in the pecking order has not been directly protected in the Democratic process since 1980 (and the first time in the post-reform era that its first-in-the-nation status has not been at least indirectly protected).

Things are different. But the arguments have remained largely unchanged from past cycles when the primary came under threat. 

Retail politics

The congressional delegation starts by making the claim that the New Hampshire presidential primary occupying the first position makes both the country and democracy stronger. That having given power to voters and not party bosses in the process over a century ago has allowed the state to nurture and harness a certain participatory culture. In combination with the small size of the Granite state that all makes retail politics maximally possible. 

Sure, it takes time to develop a culture like that, but retail politics is possible elsewhere. In South Carolina, for instance. The Palmetto state is bigger than New Hampshire, but it is not bank-bustingly bigger. Candidates can meet face to face with voters, hear their concerns cheaply and easily, and be tested just the same. South Carolina Democrats have been a part of the pre-window since the 2008 cycle, and no, that is not a century's worth of experience, but it offers an electorate that is more diverse than what the Granite state has to offer. And it is debatable whether an unrepresentative primary is better for the country or democracy in a narrow or broad sense. The DNCRBC has placed a bet that diversity matters in the Democratic (and democratic) process. 

Blackmail

Another part of the New Hampshire primary culture that the four member congressional delegation leans on is blackmail. That will be read in a negative light, but it is not intended in that way. Look, New Hampshire decision makers across the board have taken a "protect the first-in-the-nation position at any costs" approach for a very long time. Decision makers in any other state under the same conditions would do and would have done the same thing that folks in New Hampshire have been doing for the last 50 years. 

But part of that effort has definitely been blackmail through organizing candidate boycotts when other states have threatened to encroach on the New Hampshire primary's primacy. The threat to candidates has always been some form of "pledge that you will not campaign in the aggressor state or you are done here in the Granite state." In other words, cross New Hampshire and prepare to have your presidential aspirations kneecapped. That happened in 1996 in a standoff with Delaware and again in 2012 when Nevada Republicans tried to carve out an early spot once pushed there by a rogue Florida primary.

The problem in the 2024 cycle is that the DNCRBC has turned the tables on New Hampshire. By locking the presidential primary in the Granite state in the second position behind South Carolina in the rules, a New Hampshire shift would open the state up to penalties. But more importantly, candidates who campaign in a potentially rogue New Hampshire would then not only be stripped of any delegates won in the state, but also be subject to possible prohibition from candidate debates for campaigning in the state.

Of course, the New Hampshire congressional delegation does not broach the topic of unofficial candidate boycotts. That is not the particular blackmail they bring to the table. Instead, they raise the prospect that New Hampshire Republicans will use state Democrats' supposed negligence against the state party and lure crucial independents into the still-first Republican presidential primary. Furthermore, they argue that those same independents may stick with the GOP in a general election, potentially tipping the balance against Democrats in a narrowly divided state, and by extension, possibly costing the party Senate control and/or electoral votes. 

All of that is true. Those things could happen. But it could also be that President Biden seeks reelection, ends up running largely unopposed, and New Hampshire independents flock to the competitive Republican presidential primary anyway. Is it a gamble for the president and the DNC to potentially irk a sliver to a lot of New Hampshire voters by coming down hard on the state Democratic Party for fighting to maintain its traditional position? It undoubtedly would be if it is not already. But are independents, Democratic-leaning or otherwise, going to vote for a Republican nominee in the Trump mold (or Trump himself) over Biden because of the primary? The answer is maybe (or if one is in New Hampshire, YES!). But that seems to be a gamble the president and those around him are willing to take in this fight. There are very few scenarios where New Hampshire's four electoral votes serve as the tipping point in the electoral college. It is possible although less probable than other, bigger states. And neither New Hampshire US Senate seat is up until 2026. Is that gamble worth it? Time will tell that tale. 

The Nevada pairing

Dipping back into the well of retail politics, the congressional delegation also draws attention to the injurious impact that not only the New Hampshire primary not being first, but pairing it with the Nevada primary will have. That is not wrong, but the group missed an opportunity to point out a major drawback in the president's calendar proposal. It is not just that the New Hampshire/Nevada pairing will put a cross-country strain on campaigns, but that three contests (including a leadoff South Carolina primary) in the proposed calendar's first four days turns a typical slow build up through small states into a more nationalized event. 

The New Hampshire/Nevada pairing would have an impact on the retail politics that the process has typically known, but three contests on top of each other as proposed would further hamper face-to-face contact with voters and have implications for how the field of candidates winnows. The winnowing issues are less problematic if Biden runs for reelection and is largely unopposed. But setting the precedent of an early calendar cluster in 2024 may lay the groundwork for a repeat of the untested experiment in 2028 when it may matter substantially more in a competitive environment.

State law

Finally, the New Hampshire congressional delegation defends the state's first-in-the-nation primary with the trump card decision makers in the state ultimately end up pulling every time a threat arises: state law. There is a state law. It does require the secretary of state to schedule the New Hampshire presidential primary for a position on the calendar at least seven days in advance of any other similar contest. And lest one forget, the state law also codifies how the parties are to select and allocate delegates based on the results of the primary. So while it is tempting to argue that the secretary of state is the actor bound by the law, the state parties are tied to it as well. 

Granted, it is also true that the courts have continually sided with political parties under free association grounds when these sorts of conflicts arise between law and party rules. The New Hampshire Democratic Party could fight elements of this law as well. But in so doing, the party would further undermine the statute and the position of the New Hampshire presidential primary on the calendar. Plus, the party can allocate delegates under DNC rules, but it cannot unilaterally change the date of the presidential primary. That decision is out of the party's hands. 

And that is the predicament New Hampshire Democrats find themselves in on this issue. For the first time their first-in-the-nation primary is neither directly nor indirectly protected by DNC rules. And their arguments come down to basically a state law that could be challenged in court by the state party (if it did not want to further threaten the primary's position) and a variation on the blackmail New Hampshire actors have made for half a century. The conditions are different for 2024 and the arguments look different in that light.

The New Hampshire presidential primary will be first. But it will be first in the Republican process. The secretary of state will see to that. But the question remains whether New Hampshire Democrats will break in the unprecedented standoff with the DNC.

--

Recent posts:

Democrats Mull Changes to the 2024 Calendar?

Adjournment Kills Michigan Presidential Primary Bill

Nevada Holds the Key for 2024 Republican Presidential Primary Calendar

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.