NPR (“Democrats vote to upend presidential primary calendar for 2024 but challenges persist“):
Members of the Democratic National Committee overwhelmingly voted to reshuffle the party’s presidential primary calendar, booting the Iowa caucuses from the early slate of states and boosting primaries in South Carolina, Nevada, Georgia and Michigan.
The vote Saturday, which punctuated a three-day gathering in Philadelphia, ratifies a proposal the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) made in December and officially cements what many Democrats have long called for: the elevation of states that are more reflective of the Democratic party’s diversity.
“Folks, the Democratic party looks like America and so does this proposal,” DNC Chair Jaime Harrison said ahead of the vote.
The RBC made its recommendation after conducting a lengthy process in which states interested in one of the coveted early window spots pitched the committee on areas of diversity, voter access, and competitiveness in a general election.
Under the adopted proposal, which President Biden himself advocated for in a letter to the RBC in December, the 2024 presidential calendar will have South Carolina in the plum first position on Feb. 3, followed by New Hampshire and Nevada jointly sharing the no. 2 slot on Feb. 6, then Georgia on Feb. 13 and Michigan on Feb. 27.
It’s a calendar that in many ways rewards states that helped propel Biden to the White House in 2020, including South Carolina, which drastically shifted Biden’s presidential fortunes.
“It’s a big day for the state of South Carolina, and I would say not just South Carolina, but our region,” said Trav Robertson, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party. “It is a clear indication that the DNC is no longer going to take the South for granted.”
As I noted two months ago, when this was floated,
The optics of moving up the state that turned the tide for the sitting President [South Carolina] and punishing a state where he has historically underperformed [Iowa] aren’t great but, in reality, the 2024 nomination is Biden’s regardless unless he decides not to or is unable to run. And serious election analysts, regardless of party affiliation, of argued for years that Iowa and New Hampshire are incredibly unrepresentative states.
This is, therefore, a bold move. I’m not exactly sure how it’s going to work, though, with Republicans not going along. It would be incredibly expensive—not to mention confusing—for each state to hold two primary contests.
Even aside from that question, some Democrats are concerned about the logistics of the shift. Mostly, though, it’s just more whining by Iowa and New Hampshire that their longstanding and completely undeserved primacy is being undercut:
But the sweeping calendar changes are not without hurdles – and they come in the form of outstanding questions about whether New Hampshire and Georgia can meet the demands imposed on them by the national party.
Members of the Iowa and New Hampshire Democratic delegations energetically voiced opposition to the new calendar Saturday before the official vote.
“I vigorously support our president and I support the principles that guided the calendar,” said Rita Hart, chair of the Iowa Democratic party. “But I cannot support a proposal that further erodes Democratic party support in my state and the entire middle part of the country.”
Joanne Dowdell, a member of the RBC from New Hampshire, said it “broke my heart to vote against [Biden’s] proposed calendar.”
“I agree with my colleagues that it is essential that we lift up diverse voices in our presidential election process,” she said. “When some members say that we are frustrated or that we are attacking them by standing up for New Hampshire, it is frustrating. It is frustrating the DNC is set to punish us despite the fact we don’t have the ability to unilaterally change state law.”
New Hampshire Democrats, who for generations have viewed the first primary in the nation as their political birthright, insist following the DNC’s marching orders on the primary schedule isn’t up to them. They point to a state law that gives the secretary of state, currently a Republican, the power to move the date of the primary to protect its first-in-the-nation status.
But there is an actual problem here, one we’ve known about for years and one that’s more subtle:
“This is not about New Hampshire’s history or our pride,” Dowdell said. “This is about state law.”
The DNC is not only requiring that states in the early window hold the primary on the dates specified by the national party but also implement expanded voter access – something New Hampshire Democrats say is a political impossibility.
“We have a Republican trifecta on the state level with Republicans controlling the governorship, the House, and the Senate, and they have all said very clearly and colorfully that these provisions are non-starters and will not be done,” longtime New Hampshire Democratic party chair Ray Buckley told reporters Friday.
“We’re in an impossible, no-win position,” he said. “We know that New Hampshire will still hold the first-in-the-nation primary, whether or not the DNC approves of it.”
That New Hampshire has a law that automagically keeps its primary first by moving it in response to any other state that tries to match or get ahead is a longstanding issue. That Republicans control the state and are especially unlikely to compromise, given that the GOP primaries don’t seem to be making a commensurate move, complicates the issue.
Then again, the solution is obvious: screw New Hampshire. The national parties, not the several states—let alone the least significant ones—get to decide how their candidates are selected. The Granite State can either get on board or pound sand.
But if that happens – which Buckley stressed is not a hypothetical but an eventuality – DNC rules will be triggered and consequences will be meted out.
“It wouldn’t be the first time states have tried to jump the line,” RBC member Mo Elleithee told NPR. “I hope it doesn’t come to that. But I think the DNC is probably better prepared to enforce this calendar than it ever has been.”
In December, the DNC detailed the enforcement actions it is prepared to take. Should a state – like New Hampshire – not meet the requirements and hold its primary early anyway, the state automatically loses half its delegates.
Presidential candidates would also be precluded from campaigning — which includes putting their name on the ballot — in any state that goes outside the DNC-approved window.
Cutting New Hampshire’s delegates in half really isn’t that much a punishment, in that they contribute a negligible amount of delegates to the overall count. Their power has come from being seen as a culling mechanism to weed out lesser candidates. Simply not recognizing it as a real primary if it comes before the party’s schedule would seem the more effective solution.
“The DNC can choose to do whatever they wish to do,” Buckley said. “But it seems odd that we would be punished for doing something that is completely out of our control.”
It’s . . . completely in New Hampshire’s control. But, yes, the fact that Republicans are in the decisionmaking role—and, again, that the Republican primary calendar will not be in sync—is problematic. But, again, screw them.
Both New Hampshire and Georgia have received extensions on meeting the DNC’s requirements via a waiver process until early summer.
When asked what would practically change between now and then, Buckley said the extension “was offered to us and we took that as an olive branch that there will be an option to have further conversation and try to make this work.”
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Dowdell and Buckley’s comments come amid exasperation from some DNC members who are sympathetic to New Hampshire’s political uphill battle but frustrated by the public nature of their complaints.
The state’s Democratic U.S. senators recently skipped a White House congressional gala in protest and have vowed the primary will continue as usual. A group of Democrats, including former Gov. John Lynch, warned Biden the new calendar could affect the president’s reelection campaign. Former Democratic New Hampshire House Speaker Steve Shurtleff went as far as to say he would look for another candidate to support if the state lost its first place spot.
“We get it – they have a Republican legislature, they’ve got a Republican governor,” Elleithee said. “I look forward to seeing them put the same level of energy into fighting that as they are into fighting us.”
Did I mention Screw them? Because really. Screw them.
Elleithee said Georgia, which has been critical in delivering the U.S. Senate for Democrats in the past two election cycles, made “one of the most compelling pitches of all the states that came in.”
“They sort of hit all the criteria and really fit into the framework that we set as to the values and the factors that we cared about,” he said. “They came in hot, they came in strong, and they were impressive.”
But like New Hampshire, Georgia faces significant challenges in meeting the DNC’s requirements, as Republicans control the state government there as well.
The Republican National Committee has retained its lineup of early states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, has said both parties’ primaries must be held on the same day to minimize the costs of administering elections.
Wendy Davis, a DNC member from Georgia, said state Democrats now have to work to convince “Republican leaders that [moving the primary up] is good for our state, not just that it’s good for Joe Biden.”
I’m more sympathetic to Georgia here because this isn’t a problem of their own doing. It is indeed unreasonable to expect states to hold two primary votes. It’s not only expensive but logistically challenging. It typically requires school closures and finding armies of election volunteers.
Davis points to the outsized attention states receive when they are slotted in the early window, along with the major economic boon that comes with hosting an early primary.
“There’s campaign spending there. Ask people in Iowa who sell snow shovels – they sell more snow shovels in a caucus year than they do any other time,” she told NPR.
I’m not sure snow shovel sales should really factor in although, in election season, there is a lot of shoveling to be done.
“A lot of money is spent on radio and TV with direct mail, houses buying yard signs, all the things you think of in a campaign,” she said. “The reality in my town, for example, which is 35,000 people in Rome, Georgia — people who are running for president will be buying radio ads on our little radio stations. That’s an influx of revenue that if we are on Super Tuesday, we don’t get.”
Super Tuesday is massive but probably not like having a standalone primary with two weeks of fallout before the next vote. Of course, to the extent that economic benefit—and outsized influence on the outcome of the race—is factored into the equation, the more sense it makes to have a rotation system wherein given blocks of states all go on the same day but with variable order over successive primary seasons.
But just like Democrats, Republicans could face their own penalties, including a loss of delegates, for holding their primary out of order.
Again, this was an obvious issue that I pointed out in December: the two parties really need to negotiate a common primary schedule. And, yes, I’m aware that they’re not exactly in a cooperating mood these days.
The DNC will meet again in June to review where Georgia and New Hampshire stand in meeting the party’s requirements.
Biden has encouraged the DNC to revisit the process of evaluating states for the early window every four years.
Elleithee said the current calendar “makes a lot of sense for a race in which we have an incumbent Democratic president running for reelection with no serious opposition.”
Biden has not yet officially announced his reelection bid.
“It might not be the calendar that makes sense in 2028 when we have a wide open field,” Elleithee said. “And so we’ll be making decisions on what makes sense in that environment. Doing this now sets the precedent that we can do it moving forward, when it’s going to have an even greater impact.”
Robertson of the South Carolina Democratic Party said revisiting the calendar each cycle is critical.
“The fact is that the only way you survive is to evaluate, adapt and change,” he said.
I actually think that approach is folly. The advantage of making longterm decisions right now is that the 2024 primaries are likely to be uncontested, meaning changes won’t benefit any given candidate. That’s a perfect time to think strategically and long-term. While my longstanding preference is for a national primary followed by a run-off, the aforementioned rotating regional primary system would also work nicely. Simply divide the country into, say, five groups of states that are roughly equal in population and diversity (urban/rural/demographic) and randomize who goes first, second, third, fourth, and fifth and the first go-round and how they’ll rotate thereafter.
Obviously, given their different constituencies, Democrats are more concerned about giving Black and Hispanic voters a bigger voice in the nomination process, whereas Republicans are perfectly happy to have rural, white voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have the first cut at culling the candidates. They’re salt-of-the-earth Real Americans, after all. But, to the extent that both parties are really competing only in a handful of “swing” states, with the vast majority of states essentially locked in several elections in advance, a more diverse selection process would ultimately be equally beneficial to both.
