Missouri bill prefiled to reinstate presidential primary

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. 

Missouri state Senator David Gregory (R-15th, St. Louis) has prefiled legislation -- SB 1139 -- in the upper chamber to reestablish the presidential primary election in the Show-Me state. The bill is exactly the same as the legislation the senator filed in February 2025 to bring back the primary that was eliminated by an act of the legislature in 2022. 

Here is an edited FHQ summary of the early 2025 legislation:

[L]egislation has also been introduced in the Missouri state Senate to bring back the state-funded presidential preference election eliminated by the General Assembly in 2022. SB 670, introduced by Senator David Gregory (R-15th, St. Louis), would basically reset conditions to where they were with respect to the parameters of the presidential primary prior to 2022. That is to say that the primary election would revert to a position on the presidential primary calendar following Super Tuesday. 

However, Gregory's SB 670 would schedule the presidential preference election for the second Tuesday in March as opposed to the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March as was the case prior to 2022. 

That is a small difference and would not have any impact on the positioning of any Missouri presidential primary reinstated under this bill for 2028. 

Efforts to reestablish the primary prior this latest bill have fallen short since 2022, often victims of the logistics of scheduling the presidential primary either concurrent with or in addition to primaries for other offices. Several possible proposed dates have emerged because of that: Super Tuesday, the week after Super Tuesday or the first Tuesday in April (alongside local primaries). None of them have passed muster with a majority of both the Missouri House and Senate. 

Perhaps 2026 will be the year.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

The 2028 Presidential Primary Calendar Plus 

Tracking the evolution of the timeline of delegate selection events that will determine the next presidential nominees

"Scoop: S. Carolina Dems enlist influencers for primary fight"

Holly Otterbein at Axios has the latest on South Carolina Democrats ramping up their defense of an early calendar spot:

"South Carolina will host a "creator" briefing alongside the national party's meeting in Los Angeles this week — a reflection of the growing importance of Democrat-friendly influencers as the party seeks to recapture young voters from the GOP.

"It's part of an increasingly hot battle within the party over which states will get the earliest slots on the 2028 primary calendar — and likely have outsized sway in determining who wins the Democratic nomination."

...

Noteworthy: One's mileage may vary on just how significant it is that South Carolina Democrats are turning to influencers in the state party's effort to retain an earlier (or the first) spot on the 2028 presidential primary calendar. More notable I would argue is the fact that Palmetto state Democrats are taking this approach in a public way ahead of and concurrent with the upcoming DNC meeting. No decisions will be made on the calendar this week, but South Carolina Democrats are following in the footsteps of their counterparts from New Hampshire who lobbied the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) during the panel's October meeting. 

This activity will likely only escalate between now and when waiver requests to the RBC are made by state parties in the lead up to (and very likely after) the January 16 deadline. 

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Are Democrats really considering putting Michigan's primary first for 2028? 

The early answer appears to be yes. But why when the Great Lakes state is not a perfect fit for the national party's selection criteria?

"Iowa Democrats split on defying DNC in 2028 presidential calendar fight"

The Des Moines Register's Brianne Pfannenstiel has the summary of the Iowa Democratic Party survey on the 2028 caucuses:

"Most Iowa Democrats who responded to a state party survey want to be in the early voting window when it comes to presidential primaries, but they’re split over whether they should defy national Democrats to make it happen.

"The Iowa Democratic Party’s State Central Committee voted Saturday, Dec. 6, to release the results of a survey the party conducted to gather feedback about the future of its presidential nominating caucuses.

"The results offer insight but no clear consensus for a party that is continuing to grapple with the fallout of major shifts in the national presidential nominating calendar."

--

Survey of 750 Iowa Democrats (results):

Timing of the Iowa caucuses

Iowa should go first: 

44.7 percent

Iowa should go early: 

20.6 percent

Iowa should go on Super Tuesday (or later): 

12.6 percent

Don't care (where Iowa is on the 2028 calendar): 

22 percent

Following DNC timing rules

Work within the early state selection rules and accept the DNC's decision on timing (even if Iowa is not early): 

51.1 percent

Work within the rules but flout them if Iowa is not granted a waiver for an early contest: 

34.4 percent

Go rogue without regard for the decisions on Iowa's scheduling at the DNC level: 

14.4 percent

...

Noteworthy: The state central committee also voted at its December 6 meeting to not surprisingly move forward in the DNC's early state selection process. Those waiver proposals -- state party cases for why their contest should be early in the 2028 Democratic presidential primary calendar -- are due to the Rules and Bylaws Committee by January 16. 

The split results on the two questions above will not necessarily make it any easier for the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) either in the state or with the national party. It is not the united, near-consensus front IDP Chair Rita Hart would otherwise like to present to the DNC and it means that no matter what the state party opts to do for 2028 with respect to the caucuses, that some sizable enough faction is going to be less than happy with the direction the party chooses. 

--

Much more on the results to the survey from on the ground in Iowa from John Deeth.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

How long will Democratic presidential contenders keep going to Iowa? 

Possible 2028 Democrats keep trekking to the Hawkeye state but those visits aren't guaranteed to last. Here's why.

"New York lawmakers aim to move 2028 primaries up to Super Tuesday"

Edward-Isaac Dovere at CNN has the latest 2028 calendar news from Albany:

"James Skoufis, a New York state senator who previously ran for Democratic National Committee chair, told CNN he will introduce a bill Thursday to move the Empire State’s 2028 presidential primary to Super Tuesday, traditionally the first time a large batch of states votes on the same day and often the day that presidential front-runners separate themselves from the also-rans.

"Skoufis has already lined up what he believes will grow into enough support to pass. His proposal has the potential to reshape the next White House race for Democrats, who would need to put together larger-scale campaigns early, given the size and diversity of New York’s electorate and the expense of the state’s media markets."

...

Noteworthy: The New York primary was a Super Tuesday regular from 2000-2008, even moving up to the at-the-time new February Super Tuesday for 2008. When both parties restricted February primaries for 2012, New York legislators moved to the current protocol they have used in every cycle since. Basically that has entailed leaving the primary in February until June-ish of the year prior to a presidential election at which time the legislature (in coordination with both state parties) sets the date and the delegate allocation rules for the cycle. The date of the primary then reverts to February at the end of the presidential election year and the process starts all over again. 

Skoufis' proposed legislation would break from that established post-2008 protocol. 

--

More at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

New York? On Super Tuesday?

It has happened before and history may repeat itself in 2028. What are the implications?

"Scoop: Dems eye ranked-choice voting for primaries"

Holly Otterbein at Axios has the details on the push to bring ranked choice voting to Democratic presidential primaries in 2028:

"Democratic politicians and activists are quietly lobbying to upend the way the party picks its presidential nominee by urging the use of ranked-choice voting.

"It's a tool that drew national attention when it propelled New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani to a decisive primary win.

"Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin and other top party officials have met privately with advocates who are pushing for the voting method to be expanded for the 2028 presidential primaries, three sources tell Axios."

...

Burying the lede: "For the DNC to approve the use of ranked-choice voting in primaries, it would need the support of the powerful rules and bylaws committee and a majority of the 450-member body. State parties also would need to OK it, and many states would need to amend their election laws."

--

More at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

The latest trial balloon for ranked choice voting in presidential primaries.

Recent lobbying efforts to bring RCV to the Democratic presidential nomination process face obstacles in and outside of the national party.

"Booker backs national party returning N.H. to FITN"

Kevin Landrigan at the Union Leader:

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) on a visit to New Hampshire saying things that people who are thinking about (if not actually) running for president say in places they often say them:

"'This is my second favorite new state after New Jersey. The culture up here blew me away when I ran. There’s something special here in New Hampshire and I support your efforts to be the first-in-the-nation primary,' Booker told WMUR during an interview Friday."

--

Noteworthy: Usually, the extent to which presidential candidates, prospective or otherwise, weighed in on the order of a primary calendar in the past was behind the scenes and through proxies at and/or on the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC). This is not that. And, in fact, Booker's statement may be the first of many ahead of any calendar decisions being made in 2026. It is a byproduct of the DNC opening up the process for states beyond the traditional ones to become a part of the early calendar lineup. There was some of this during the 2024 cycle, but the input was mainly coming from the incumbent Biden administration/campaign and the president's marginal challengers complaining, rightly or wrongly, about thumbs being put on the (rules) scales. 

Prospective 2028 candidates may be much more involved in voicing their opinions on the early calendar as those discussions continue within the RBC into 2026.

For what it is worth, Booker received votes in the 2020 New Hampshire primary, but he had withdrawn (in January) from the race for the Democratic nomination before any votes were cast (in February) in either Iowa or New Hampshire during the last cycle under the old early calendar rules.

"Iowa Matters Less Than Ever for Democrats, but They Can’t Quit It"

Reid Epstein at The New York Times looks at why prospective 2028 Democratic presidential candidates are still going to Iowa:

Not only did Democrats in the Hawkeye state lose their spot among the states in the early presidential primary calendar in 2024, but...

"This summer, Ken Martin, the new D.N.C. chairman, took Iowa’s delegates off the party’s powerful rules committee, which is expected to begin debating the 2028 calendar at its meeting in Washington next month and make a final determination by next summer. So far, D.N.C. members have shown little appetite for returning Iowa to its first-in-the-nation status.

"One major reason Democrats keep going to Iowa, though, is the media attention that still follows."

--

Noteworthy: FHQ has seen this question posed a few times elsewhere over the course of 2025 and NYT's Epstein does well to hone in on the media attention a trip to Iowa (even an Iowa with a delegate selection event likely outside of the early window for Democrats in 2028) at this stage can potentially bring a prospective candidate.  But is that draw inevitable? Will it be perpetual if so? Or is Iowa likely to turn back into a pumpkin at some point before the race for the 2028 Democratic nomination really heats up? We walk through a discussion of those questions at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

How long will Democratic presidential contenders keep going to Iowa? 

Possible 2028 Democrats keep trekking to the Hawkeye state but those visits aren't guaranteed to last. Here's why.

"2028 presidential hopefuls flock to key battleground states: Where have they traveled?"

Oren Oppenheim at ABC News:

"One year out from the 2026 midterms, major Democratic Party names have been taking the show on the road, saying that they’re helping the party lay the groundwork to battle for the U.S. House.

"They also might be preparing to run for president."

...

"ABC News has tracked at least 43 visits or planned visits so far in 2025 and 2026 by Democratic presidential hopefuls to key early or battleground presidential election states. Some of those states are also expected to be key House battlegrounds in 2026."

courtesy of ABC News

--

Noteworthy: This is not the first and will not be the last glimpse at the travel of prospective 2028 Democratic presidential candidates, but it is a check-in following the 2025 off-year elections. There is nothing all that surprising in the pattern of the candidate visits thus far. 

However, despite its double billing as both (very likely) early 2028 primary state and general election battleground, Nevada still does not garner that much attention. ABC News could have (should have?) discounted travel by candidates to neighboring states. Under those conditions, the Silver state has had just three candidates drop in during 2025 (or that are scheduled to trek that way in early 2026). 

Nevada has been a part of the early window on the Democratic calendar for nearly 20 years now -- five, and likely six, cycles -- and in many ways that still has not translated. By comparison, Iowa, a state that is very likely to be excluded from the early window on the 2028 calendar (but could go rogue!), is seeing more visitors. A visit to Iowa still carries more weight.

Will that affect Nevada's attempt to nail down the lead-off spot in the order for 2028? It may be a knock on Silver state Democrats' case. But it is still early yet. 

"Democrats set January deadline for states to apply for early 2028 primary contests"

Meg Kinnard at The AP with the details on the DNC Rules and Bylaws-passed resolution guiding the selection of early primary states for 2028:

"The Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee on Monday approved a plan giving states until January 16 to submit applications to hold voting contests in the early window ahead of Super Tuesday, when a massive haul of delegates will be awarded.

"Four or five states will get an early slot, and all four regions — East, Midwest, South and West — must be represented, according to the framework."

And from Caroline Vakil at The Hill:

"States seeking to be one of the first stomping grounds to weigh in on the 2028 Democratic presidential primary will be evaluated on rigorousness, efficiency and fairness."

More from Elena Schneider at Politico:

"The DNC planned to reevaluate the order ahead of the 2028 primary, but the committee’s moves take on fresh significance for a wide-open presidential primary process, in which the voting order of states will likely impact candidates’ strategy. But unlike in 2022, when Biden set the calendar, the DNC now has control of the process.

"Jockeying for a calendar spot has already started, though several DNC members privately said they expect the composition of the early window to resemble previous years — which included South Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada and Michigan. The order of the states may prove trickier than which states are included."

--

And there were reactions on the state level...

Iowa (via Brianne Pfannenstiel at the Des Moines Register):

"'I am disappointed the DNC is already backtracking on its promise for an open and democratic process by rushing through this proposal,' [Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita] Hart said in a statement. 'Whatever fake timeline the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee tries to put on this process, I remain committed to having continued family conversations regarding our Iowa Caucus process with members of our State Central Committee, our campaigns and Democrats across the state.'

"She said 'all options are on the table' as the party weighs where to go next."

Nevada (via Mini Racker at the Nevada Independent)¹: 

"'In Nevada, we’re very respectful of the process,' [Nevada DNC member Artie] Blanco said... 'We don’t cry about it; we don’t get angry. We just go back and we start the fight again.'"

New Hampshire (via Josh Rogers at New Hampshire Public Radio):

"New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley participated in Monday's meeting, but did not speak. Yet in a memo Buckley released last week, he argued that New Hampshire deserves to lead off Democrats’ 2028 nominating calendar because it is a state that fairly tests candidates by making them go face to face with voters.

"'We believe that we should go first because we are a small, purple state with unmatched civic participation. In other words, there is no other state that better meets the efficiency, rigorousness, and fairness criteria needed in our presidential nominating process,' Buckley said.

"'New Hampshire's racial diversity continues to increase, especially among our youngest Granite Staters,' Buckley wrote, adding that New Hampshire has a record of diversity that extends beyond race.

"'We are the only state in the country to elect a woman both governor and senator — which we’ve done multiple times,' Buckley said."

--

¹ Racker's quotes from Virginia DNC member Elaine Kamark on the early state selection process for 2024 were particularly interesting as well. They shed some additional light on the hours before Biden released his letter on the 2024 calendar:

"'I think New Hampshire would have ended up first,' Elaine Kamarck, a Brookings senior fellow who authored Primary Politics and is a veteran member of the committee, told The Nevada Independent. 'Because of the history of New Hampshire and because it’s in the Eastern time zone.'"

 And...

"'We’d been asking for guidance for months, so there was kind of relief,' Kamarck said. 'We didn’t know if the president was going to weigh in or not. So it was kind of like, ‘OK, good. He’s finally made his wishes known.’ Some of us thought that, ‘Well, maybe he just won’t weigh in. You know, maybe it’s up to us.’ But he did.'"

--

More at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Now we know what they're looking for.

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee met earlier this week and passed a resolution laying out what the party wants in the 4 or 5 early states for 2028.

"DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Votes to Establish Procedure for Presidential Nominating Calendar Early State Selection Process"

The following is a press release for the DNC on the October 27 Rules and Bylaws Committee that adopted a resolution laying out the guidelines for state parties to apply for early spots on the 2028 primary calendar:

Today, the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) voted to pass a resolution to establish the next steps in determining the early window of the 2028 presidential nominating calendar. The Resolution lays out criteria to ensure a rigorous, efficient, and fair process that will deliver the strongest possible Democratic nominee for president. Following the Resolution’s passage, Democratic State Parties will receive a formal Request for Proposal (RFP), which they can complete and submit to the RBC if they wish to apply for the early window.

Highlights from the Resolution and RFP include:

• The Resolution and RFP establish the fundamental goal for the calendar process of “produc[ing] the strongest possible Democratic nominee for president.”
• The Resolution instructs the committee to execute the calendar process “in the most transparent, open, and fair manner feasible,” requiring the RBC to provide “adequate, clear, and timely notice on major milestones and requirements.”
• The Resolution and RFP establish three pillars that will be used to evaluate early state applicants. Those pillars are:

• Rigorousness: the lineup of early states must be a comprehensive test of candidates with diverse groups of voters that are key to winning the general election;
• Fairness: the lineup of early states must be affordable, practical for candidates, and not exhaust their resources unreasonably, precluding them from effectively participating in future contests;
• Efficiency: the practical ability to run a fair, transparent, and inclusive primary or caucus.

• The Resolution further establishes that the RBC must select between four and five states for the early window and must include one state from each of the DNC’s four geographic regions (East, Midwest, South, and West).
• The Resolution establishes the deadline for state RFP submissions as January 16, 2026.

RBC Co-Chairs Minyon Moore and James Roosevelt, Jr. released the following statement:

“Establishing the nominating calendar is one of the most important responsibilities of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, and we are committed to executing a fair and transparent process that will deliver a battle-tested nominee who will win back the White House for Democrats. Today, the RBC took a crucial first step in charting our path for 2028.”

DNC Chair Ken Martin released the following statement:

“The Rules and Bylaws Committee is hard at work designing a nominating calendar that will result in the strongest possible Democratic nominee for president through a fair, rigorous, and efficient process.”

--

More at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Now we know what they're looking for.

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee met earlier this week and passed a resolution laying out what the party wants in the 4 or 5 early states for 2028.