The New Hampshire state Senate on Thursday unanimously voted in favor of a resolution affirming the body's support of the Granite state presidential primary's first-in-the-nation status.
All 24 senators voted aye on SCR 1:
A RESOLUTION affirming the general court’s support for New Hampshire’s first in the nation primary.Whereas, New Hampshire first held a primary election for president in 1916, and has held the first in the nation presidential primary since 1920; andWhereas, New Hampshire’s first in the nation presidential primary is a historic and valued landmark in our state and our nation’s democratic culture; andWhereas, New Hampshire voters have consistently and proudly had one of the highest participation rates in the nation, cherishing their role in vetting presidential candidates through person-to-person, grassroots campaigning; andWhereas, the need to engage with voters across New Hampshire provides a necessary proving ground for candidates wishing to serve in the most powerful office in the world, not only testing their political skills but better preparing them for the Oval Office; andWhereas, attempts by national political organizations to alter the presidential nominating calendar and dictate election laws to the people of New Hampshire have been met with widespread, bipartisan condemnation; andWhereas, New Hampshire’s first in the nation presidential primary has grown over the past century into a vital part of our state’s identity; now, therefore be itResolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:That the general court of the state of New Hampshire hereby affirms its support for New Hampshire’s first in the nation presidential primary, and its confidence in the secretary of state to ensure that New Hampshire’s primary maintain its legal and proper status at least one week before any similar nominating contest.That the general court expects all political parties to respect the results of New Hampshire’s first in the nation presidential primary by seating the delegates selected by New Hampshire voters at their national nominating conventions.
The measure now heads to the House side of the General Court.
--
The concurrent resolution comes just days after the Democratic National Committee (DNC) adopted a set of presidential primary calendar rules that reshuffled the lineup of early states and New Hampshire's traditional place in it. Of course, this is merely a symbolic gesture on the part of the General Court, reasserting its position on the laws New Hampshire. However, the language at the end is of particular note: That the general court expects all political parties to respect the results of New Hampshire’s first in the nation presidential primary by seating the delegates selected by New Hampshire voters at their national nominating conventions.
Granted, the street in this back and forth between the Granite state and the DNC runs two ways. Given the tenor of comments recently made by DNC members in Philadelphia at the winter meeting, it is not difficult to imagine the DNC countering that New Hampshire Democrats respect the rules of the process passed by the national party.
In the end, this is a struggle that is likely to continue throughout the consideration of the New Hampshire Democratic Party's delegate selection plan in 2023. And if past is prelude, then legislative Democrats' support of this resolution will factor into not only the consideration of delegate selection plan, but in whether the DNC assesses penalties and how severe they will ultimately be. Florida Democrats, for example, urged leniency in 2007 when the DNC considered (and eventually levied) penalties against the state for planning a rogue primary for 2008. But Democrats in the Sunshine state quickly had the fact that legislative Democrats there voted in favor of moving the primary into violation of national party rules thrown in their faces before the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) voted to strip Florida Democrats of all of their delegates.
Again, this vote in New Hampshire is symbolic. It is not an apples to apples comparison to weigh it equally against the actions in Florida a decade and a half ago. The situations are different. In neither case will those legislative actions end up being (or having been) the deciding factor in any penalties decision on the part of the DNCRBC, but it would be foolish to think it will not be a part of the calculus. [And in defense of New Hampshire Democratic state senators, taking this position in favor of the presidential primary's traditional position is just good politics from a local standpoint. To vote against it would be to potentially invite future trouble at the ballot box.]
The back and forth continues.
--
Recent posts:
No comments:
Post a Comment