"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.

New Hampshire Democrats make a pitch for first ahead of DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting

Elena Schneider in Politico Playbook has the details on a memo making the rounds from New Hampshire Democrats arguing the case for why the Granite state should go first in 2028:

"Fight for first: New Hampshire Democrats are circulating a memo to DNC members, arguing their case to return to the first-in-the-nation primary slot, after being demoted ahead of the 2024 cycle. The memo, scooped by POLITICO’s Elena Schneider, argues that New Hampshire should retain its coveted first-place slot, not “based simply on tradition,” but because “we are a small, purple state with unmatched civic participation.” The memo takes a more conciliatory tone, in a shift for the state that held an unsanctioned primary in 2024 with in-state Democrats organizing a write-in campaign on behalf of then-President Joe Biden. It is timed ahead of Monday’s meeting of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee , which is charged with setting the Democrats’ presidential primary calendar."

--

Noteworthy: A case was always going to be made by New Hampshire Democrats to keep (or return, depending on one's perspective) the Granite state first in the order of primaries in the Democratic presidential nomination process for 2028. And given that similar memos were already circulated by Nevada Democrats around the August Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) meeting, one from the Silver state's Democratic counterparts back east is no surprise. This is an introductory maneuver, one made to fit the New Hampshire primary into the rubric voiced by DNC Chair Ken Martin and likely to be taken up in the form of a resolution during the October RBC meeting. That is why the state party is playing up the small and purple virtues of New Hampshire.

But FHQ does not read that as taking a more conciliatory tone. After all, the rubber has yet to meet the road in all of this. New Hampshire Democrats did not strike a defiant tone with the DNC until after the calendar rules for 2024 were initially passed by the RBC in late 2022. Any tone shift from New Hampshire Democrats this time around will not be truly felt until a similar juncture in the 2028 cycle (if at all). Of course they are playing "conciliatory" now. The calendar rules are still undecided. 

"DNC set to start process for deciding which states will vote earliest in 2028 presidential primaries"

Hunter Woodall at CBS News provides an update what the Democratic National Committee is likely to look for in states that will make up the early window on the 2028 presidential primary calendar:

"A source familiar with the calendar efforts detailed the materials written by the co-chairs of the party's rules and bylaws panel, including a draft resolution and request for proposal, were shared Friday with members. At the late October meeting, members will have a chance to revise and vote on the work.

"The resolution outlines standards, which according to the source, cover the following:

• "'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;
• Efficiency: the lineup of early states must be affordable and practical for candidates and not exhaust their resources, precluding them from effectively participating in future contests;
• Fairness: the practical ability to run a fair, transparent and inclusive primary or caucus.'

"The plans call for four or five states to be chosen by DNC members to hold a nominating contest in what's known as the "early window," which comes before states begin voting in large numbers on Super Tuesday and the weeks afterwards. Under the draft, each of the four regions being focused on by the DNC, the East, Midwest, South and West, would need to have at least one state from its respective areas be chosen."

--

Noteworthy: The draft resolution cited above lays out criteria for those state parties petitioning the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) to be among the primaries and caucuses included in the early primary calendar in 2028. The points are consistent with those that Chair Ken Martin laid out in early August, but it also fleshes that out some by carrying over elements from the 2024 process. For starters, the party is looking for regional representation across four regions of the country in the early window. The RBC will also look to fill the early window -- ranging from the first Tuesday in February to the first Monday in March -- with four to five contests. [There are five Tuesdays in February 2028.]

One thing that is not included in the 2028 list that was among the criteria for 2024 (and will be just as inescapable now)? Feasibility.

More at FHQ Plus (subscription):

DNC Chair Martin lays out early state checklist for 2028

"DNC Chair says Democrats plan to be competitive in Iowa despite caucus uncertainty"

Skylar Tallal at KGAN/CBS2 pulls back the curtain on DNC Chair Martin's latest comments on Democrats running in Iowa in 2026 and the caucuses there in 2028:

"Yet, looking ahead to 2028 and the future of Iowa Democrats regaining their first-in-the-nation title back is still unclear.

"'What's important to me is there's no predetermined outcome in terms of what the calendar looks like,' Martin said. 'Everyone who wants to make a bid will have a fair shot and opportunity to actually make their case including Iowa.'

"Iowa Democrats lost their first-in-the-nation caucuses back in 2024 and have since asked Iowans to fill out a survey asking what they should for 2028 if Iowa is once again left out of the early presidential nominating calendar.

"Martin said him [sic] and the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee, who chooses the order of the calendar, will be looking for states that can test their nominees, is fair and cost efficient."

--

Noteworthy: Look, there is not that much here. Tallal's is a story that mainly highlights Democratic efforts from the top down to compete in Iowa in the 2026 midterms. There just is not that much about the calendar, Iowa's place in it and 2028. However, Martin continues to repeat what has been a drumbeat out of the national party concerning its process to select states to fill out the early calendar in the coming presidential cycle. And while the oft-used line about Iowa having the same chance as any other state petitioning the national party to go early in 2028 continues to be trotted out, leaving the door open to Iowa's inclusion in the early window, other signals have been more ominous for Democrats in the Hawkeye state. The scheduling and/or sanctioning of their delegate selection -- be it caucus or party-run primary -- is still months away while the available evidence points toward not being included in the states granted a waiver by the party to go early. 

"Iowa GOP Chair Kaufmann Selected to Lead RNC Presidential Nominating Process Committee"

In a press release from the Republican Party of Iowa:

"Iowa GOP Chairman Jeff Kaufmann released the following statement in response to being named Chair of the Republican National Committee’s Presidential Nominating Process Committee:

“I’m honored that President Trump and Chairman Gruters have asked me to lead this critical committee shaping our party’s presidential nominating process. This committee will be giving recommendations to determine whether Iowa Republicans remain First in the Nation.

I’m proud that Iowa continues to play a leading role in defining what it means to be a Republican and ensuring grassroots voters everywhere have a voice in choosing our next nominee. Together, we’ll build a process that reflects our values, strengthens our party, and positions us to win in 2028.”

About Chairman Kaufmann:

In 2014, Kaufmann took over the Iowa GOP and led the party to tremendous success on the local, state, and federal levels. In his time as the chair, the GOP won control of both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship for the first time in almost twenty years, and on the federal level, the GOP captured 5 of 6 federal offices while delivering Iowa to the GOP presidential candidate for the first time since 2004.

At the 2024 Republican National Convention, Trump picked Kaufmann to officially nominate him for President of the United States, becoming the first Iowan to have this honor.

This will be Chairman Kaufmann’s second time leading this powerful committee, having previously served as chair during the 2024 presidential election cycle, when the party nominated President Trump, who went on to win a second term in the White House."

--

Noteworthy: News has continued to trickle out about the national party committee that will guide the rules-making process for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination since the September 30 deadline to name the committee. The latest is that RPI Chair Kaufmann will head the efforts. 

Folks in the media were quick to treat the snubbing of Scott Brennan, Iowa's former member of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, as indicative of Hawkeye state Democrats' standing in the push to gain early state status for 2028. And if Kaufmann's appointment to chair the RNC's Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process is treated in a similar light, then little needs to be read into the move. It would seemingly suggest that Iowa's position, and for that matter the RNC's position on the early calendar generally, are secure ahead of 2028. 

In other words, the RNC is looking at nomination rules beyond the calendar. 

...if the chair selection is any indication. How big an if that is will become clearer between now and June 30, the deadline for the committee to send any recommended rules changes for 2028 to the full RNC.

RNC Chair names members of the 2028 Presidential Nominating Process Committee

September 30 was not just the end of the fiscal year for the federal government. Under the rules of the Republican National Committee (RNC), it was also deadline day for the national party chair to name the members of the Standing Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process for the 2028 cycle. 

According to Rule 10(a)(9):

There shall be a Standing Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process to review the rules governing the nomination of the Republican Party’s presidential nominee. The chairman of the Republican National Committee shall appoint all temporary members of the Standing Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process, not to exceed eleven (11) members, and shall appoint one (1) as chairman, and the chairman of the Republican National Committee shall serve as an ex officio member. The chairman of the Republican National Committee shall convene the Standing Committee on the Presidential Nominating process at his discretion, but no later than September 30 of the year following a presidential election. The Standing Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process shall make any recommendations it deems appropriate and report such recommendations to the Republican National Committee no later than June 30 of the year two years prior to a presidential election.

At least two of the new members of panel have come forward publicly following the appointment:

1. Republican Party of Florida Chair Evan Power

   Honored to have been appointed to the @GOP committee on the Presidential Nominating Process pic.twitter.com/fPr0gf4FVG

   — Evan Power (@EvanPower) September 30, 2025

   More here:

   “I am deeply honored to serve on the RNC’s Standing Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process,” Power said.

   
   

   “Having participated in multiple national conventions, I’ve seen firsthand how a strong, inclusive nominating process empowers our voters and elevates principled candidates. I look forward to working with fellow committee members to refine our rules, promote geographic diversity, and build on the successes we’ve achieved in Florida — ensuring the Republican Party remains united and ready to win big in the cycles ahead.”

    

2. West Virginia Republican National Committeeman Larry Pack

   I’m proud to have been appointed to serve on the @GOP RNC Committee on Presidential Nominating Process. It’s time to begin preparing for 2028 and a GOP victory

   — Larry Pack (@LarryPack) September 30, 2025

--

Noteworthy: Comparatively, Republican rules set up a timeline for crafting a presidential nomination cycle's rules that is modestly more compact than what is likely to occur on the Democratic side. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) has been at work throughout 2025 but was not fully seated until August. Yes, the primary calendar rules will gain all of the attention, but the RBC will work through not only the full delegate selection rules but the Call to the Convention as well into 2026. Although the calendar work may extend beyond next summer, the remainder of the 2028 rules will likely be set in stone by August 2026. 

Republicans, on the other hand, have just empaneled their nominating rules committee whose work is due to the full RNC in the form of recommended changes (if any) by June 30, 2026. The RNC then has until September 30, 2026 to finalize and adopt the rules that will govern the 2028 presidential nomination process. It all occurs in a window that is exactly one year long. 

[Under Rule 12, September 30, 2026 is the last date on which amendments can be made to a subset of the Rules of the Republican Party for the 2028 cycle.]

"Michigan lawmakers weigh moving primary date ahead of 2026 campaign"

Craig Mauger, Beth LeBlanc and Melissa Nann Burke at The Detroit News detail a bipartisan legislative push in the Great Lakes state to move the date of the primaries for state and federal offices:

"Michigan lawmakers, from both sides of the aisle, are weighing a new push to move the state's August primary to May, a change that could shake up next year's fight for control of state government.

"While there's been little bipartisan cooperation in the divided Legislature so far this year, members of the Democratic-led Senate and representatives within the Republican-led House have both been considering yet-to-be-unveiled proposals to alter the traditional August primary date."

--

Noteworthy: Could any change on this front in Michigan affect the scheduling of the 2028 presidential primary in the state as well? I'm glad you asked. Let's walk through some of the possibilities at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Would Michigan primary consolidation stop at state/federal and municipal offices?

"Democratic Calendar in Disarray: The Importance of the 2028 Presidential Primary Schedule"

Nick Field, writing at Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball, looks at some of the questions facing Democrats as they set out to put together an early calendar lineup for 2028:

"[T]he primary calendar is now under the purview of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee. Martin has reshaped this critical committee, as 32 of its 49 members are new, with Martin ousting some party power brokers who haven’t been shy in making their displeasure known far and wide. According to what Martin told Favreau, the committee won’t release their proposed calendar until the winter of 2027...

"Top of the agenda for the group is bound to be whether New Hampshire leads the pack again or South Carolina now assumes that role. There’s also the question of Nevada, and whether any other states can join the pre-Super Tuesday portion of the calendar. This trio of states is set to get two seats each on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, perhaps an indication that none of them will be dropped from the early window.

"All of these scheduling questions could ultimately prove pivotal for the potential 2028 candidates."

--

Noteworthy: Perhaps this is one of those cases in which a headline writer was overly playful with an often over-expressed notion -- Dems in disarray -- that does not exactly match the tenor of the piece. However, having written for Crystal Ball a few times over the years, my experience was that the author came up with them. Regardless of whether it was used tongue-in-cheek or seriously, I just do not see that much disarray with the Democrats and their 2028 calendar. 

That is, not yet anyway. 

Look, if used seriously in the context of Nick Field's piece, the usual thicket of rules that the two major parties, but especially the out-party, faces every four years can be confused for disarray. But I don't think it is disarray at this point. After all, Democrats on the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) are literally at the beginning of what is likely to be a lengthy process. Everything is seemingly on the table. 

But as this process progresses and we learn more about how state parties will be able to pitch their primaries or caucuses to the RBC and the new members of the panel get the historical context of the rules and the rules-making process that staff quadrennially provides, that aforementioned everything will winnow down to a much smaller, actually feasible, set of options from which the committee will ultimately choose in the next 18 months.

And no, none of this necessarily portends big changes to the early calendar for 2028. But yes, the New Hampshire question will be among the more prominent ones the RBC will have to tackle.

--

There is more in there to respond to, but I will save that for something over at FHQ Plus, where I have a bit more space to address things.

In the meantime, here is where the 2028 primary calendar currently stands.

"Should Iowa Democrats go 'rogue' and go first with 2028 caucuses? Survey seeks party input"

Brianne Pfannenstiel at The Des Moines Register digs in on where Iowa Democrats are with the 2028 presidential primary calendar process at the starting line:

"As national Democrats begin gearing up for a conversation about the 2028 presidential nominating calendar, Iowa Democrats are asking themselves whether they want to obey the national party’s process or go 'rogue' with a renewed push for first-in-the-nation status.

"In a new survey set released to Iowa Democrats Thursday, Aug. 21, Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart writes that although the party’s focus is on winning elections in 2026, 'discussions about the 2028 nominating process have begun.'

“'Without an incumbent president on the ballot, we are likely to have one of the deepest and longest nominating campaigns in history,' she wrote in the survey introduction. 'Unlike 2024, the outcome of the presidential nominating process will be in doubt. As Iowa Democrats, we have choices to make about how to proceed.'”

--

Noteworthy: Chair Hart struck a pragmatic tone at the outset of the national party's calendar deliberations. While the survey teases the idea that Hawkeye state Democrats may go rogue for 2028, Hart pointed out that 1) it is still much too early and 2) there are a lot of moving parts that will affect what the state party may do with regard to the caucuses next time around, including how the party performs in state contests during the 2026 midterms. 

Others within the party were much more forceful, recently removed DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee member (and Iowa national committeeman) Scott Brennan among them. "Full speed ahead and damn the DNC," he said, striking a defiant posture. 

Of course, Iowa Democrats can be defiant without actually breaking any likely DNC rules for 2028. One should expect the state party to hold early caucuses again during the next cycle. It is, after all, state law. What those early -- January? February? -- caucuses do, however, matters. If they merely select delegates to go to the next step of the caucus/convention process as was the case for the 2024 cycle, then Iowa Democrats will not have held their "first determining step," as the DNC calls it, and will be rules-compliant. 

What matters is not that preliminary selection process. The part that will be and always has been important, not to mention determinative, is the allocation process. If the results of any caucus vote determines which candidates win how ever many delegate slots -- allocation -- then such a caucus would run afoul of DNC rules. 

And it is worth raising another reality: Now that Iowa Democrats have held a mail-in party-run presidential primary, it will be hard for the state party to make the case for returning to the in-person caucuses alone, rogue or not. That is a much more difficult argument to make before the national party and to rank-and-file Democrats in the Hawkeye state. 

--

Related at FHQ+:

Background on 2023 state law change and the implications for Iowa Democrats

--

More:

Iowa Capital Dispatch: Iowa Democrats launch survey, discussion on future of presidential caucuses

Associated Press: Iowa Democrats consider bringing back lead off caucuses, even if it means going ‘rogue’ in 2028

"Inside the Dems' fight to be 'the new Iowa' and hold the first 2028 primary"

Alex Thompson at Axios pulls back the curtain on the beginning of the Democrats' process to set the 2028 early calendar :

"Democratic Party officials are quietly battling over which state will be the first to vote in the 2028 presidential primary — a fight that's set to break into the open next week, when the officials meet in Minneapolis.

"Nevada, New Hampshire, and Michigan are currently the frontrunners to be 'the new Iowa,' and lead off the 2028 Democratic primary season, according to several people familiar with the Rules and Bylaws committee that will determine the order."

--

Noteworthy: First of all, I don't know how much "fight[ing]" or "battling" there is over the calendar at this point. As Thompson notes much further on in the story than was probably necessary, the process is at the starting line. If there are fights now, then that portends a likely ugly process. It won't be. It will be politics as it usually is. State parties will jockey for early spots, candidates will push their preferences (directly or through proxies/supporters on the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and those members of the panel will have their own opinions as well. There will be some push and pull, and things may get heated along the way -- they probably won't (although it may be reported that way) -- but the calendar is a collective action problem the party's new (as of the 2024 cycle) process has already resolved once. 

As for "the new Iowa," well, Michigan was already the new Iowa in 2024. The Great Lakes state became the midwestern state in the early window. And, yes, South Carolina was the new first (sanctioned) state in the process as well. Would Nevada, New Hampshire and Michigan not be vying to be the new South Carolina? 

And finally, this passage from Thompson's piece merits a response:

"For decades, Iowa's caucuses and New Hampshire's primary kicked off the presidential primary season.

"But the order of contests has become a free-for-all since Iowa botched its caucuses in 2020, and then-President Biden changed the calendar in 2024 to favor his re-election bid by moving up the primary in Biden-friendly South Carolina."

I don't know that Iowa's caucus experience in 2020 triggered the reexamination of the calendar. It was a part of it, but the DNC was already moving in the direction of diversifying the early calendar and opening the process up for 2024. The party voluntarily moved toward an orderly process -- not a free-for-all -- whereby Iowa and New Hampshire (and Nevada and South Carolina) no longer received (near) automatic waivers to hold early contests. Rather, all state parties -- those that wanted to anyway -- could pitch the party on being early. 

And then as now, the early favorites to win those slots were states that were mostly already early. That's the story here: that Nevada, New Hampshire and Michigan are the states being talked about now as the possible first Democratic primary state for 2028. All were granted early spots during the last cycle.

Bottom line: there is a long way to go, folks.

--

More on the 2028 presidential primary calendar here and here.

"In Boost to FITN Fortunes, NH’s O’Brien Tapped to Head RNC Rules Committee"

Michael Graham at the NH Journal has the story on the new RNC Rules Committee chair:

"Former New Hampshire House Speaker Bill O’Brien has been elected chairman of the Republican National Committee’s powerful Rules Committee, placing the veteran GOP leader at the center of the party’s preparations for the next presidential election.

"O’Brien, who serves as New Hampshire’s Republican National Committeeman, was chosen by his colleagues to lead the panel through the end of the next Republican National Convention. The Rules Committee oversees the party’s governing framework, including convention procedures, delegate selection, and the presidential nomination calendar..."

--

Noteworthy: While there have been no rumblings of any imminent changes to the beginning of the 2028 presidential primary calendar on the Republican side, this is a feather in the cap for Republicans in the Granite state. New Hampshire probably is -- and was -- not going anywhere, but holding the gavel in Rules Committee meetings provides some additional insulation for the first-in-the-nation primary that was not there before.

"DNC chair says Democrats will start process of setting 2028 primary calendar this month"

Sarah Fortinsky at the The Hill summarizes DNC Chair Ken Martin's comments on the 2028 Democratic primary calendar:

"Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin said on Sunday that the party will begin deliberating the 2028 primary calendar later this month at a meeting in Minneapolis.

"'We’re going to start that conversation actually this month in August at our DNC meeting in Minneapolis,' Martin said in an interview on NewsNation’s 'The Hill Sunday,' when host Chris Stirewalt asked about the primary calendar in the next president election.

"'The Rules and Bylaws Committee, which is newly composed, will start this conversation by putting forward the rules and procedures, and start to really figure out how we’re going to engage in this,' he continued.

"Martin said the process will play out over the next year, and he expects to have a calendar set by the end of next year."

--

Noteworthy: The rough timeline here suggests that the DNC will carry over some elements of the process from the 2024 cycle. That the final calendar decisions at the national party level did not come down until not only after the 2022 midterms but in December of that year was a break from the protocol the party had utilized in most previous post-reform cycles. Usually, those early window calendar slots were settled on in the late summer/early fall of the midterm year alongside the formal final adoption of the entire rules package for the upcoming presidential nomination process. 

--

More from FHQ Plus (subscription):

DNC Chair Martin lays out early state checklist for 2028

"South Carolina Democrats will fight to keep 'first in the nation' primary status in 2028"

Alexandra Marquez weighs in at NBC News on the uncertainty of the early 2028 primary calendar for Democrats:

"Three years before 2028, the outlines of the next presidential race are already growing clearer, with large fields of potential primary candidates in both parties already making early moves.

"But one big thing is very much unclear for Democrats: which state will vote first when the primaries start."

...

"In South Carolina, which was tapped to host the Democrats’ first sanctioned primary for the first time in 2024, state Democrats are adamant they will be first in line on the primary calendar again in 2028.

"'Oh yeah, we’re first,' South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Christale Spain told NBC News at the party’s headquarters in Columbia earlier this month. She added, 'South Carolina is first. That means the South is first. So we’re gonna continue to fight for that.'"

--

Noteworthy: Early reporting on the South Carolina angle of the 2028 primary calendar story has come to lean so heavily on comments from Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC, 6th) that they have almost become conventional wisdom:

"Clyburn told reporters at his annual fish fry he’s not concerned about South Carolina being the lead off contest, after the Democratic Party kicked off its 2024 presidential nominating process with the Palmetto State.

“'I never asked for anything more than keep us in the pre-primary window which covers a whole month before the primary starts,' Clyburn said. 'So I think it’s important to the party for that to be the case. Whether it be one, two, three or four, I don’t care.'”

But the resulting picture -- a kind of "we're just glad to be here" sentiment -- is maybe a bit too deferential to Clyburn. There are other perspectives among state Democrats on the "should South Carolina be first?" discussion as Chair Spain demonstrates. 

However, would one expect her to say anything less at this stage of the process? Of course she is going to advocate for the Palmetto state going first in 2028. But this is the first break (of sorts) from that South Carolina conventional wisdom that has developed in the reporting on the primary calendar. 

"South Carolina's early state status is far from secure. But 2028 Dems are going anyway."

Note that the title of this piece changed from when it was first released via RSS. It is now published under the headline "Democrats in South Carolina are barely pretending they're not already running for president."

--

Politico's Brakkton Booker and Elena Schneider report on prospective 2028 Democrats' travel to traditional early states (and shuffling the calendar moving forward):

"South Carolina Democrats know their grip on the top spot is tenuous, with traditional early states like Iowa and New Hampshire eager to reclaim their lead-off position, and others — like North Carolina and Georgia — seeking to emerge as new states to consider. And it comes as there’s been a major reshuffling on a powerful panel at the Democratic National Committee that has huge sway over the presidential nominating process."

...

"But moving the order of primary states is easier said than done. North Carolina is hamstrung by state law from moving its date, and Democrats would need the GOP-controlled legislature to agree to any changes. DNC members have also emphasized smaller states to allow lesser-known candidates to build followings.

“'The most powerful force in the universe is inertia, so South Carolina is probably the favorite to stay just because of that,' said an incoming member of the committee granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. 'Every state has a chance to be first, but I do think we have to come into this with a degree of realism.'”

--

Noteworthy: In 2022 the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) had a short checklist for states vying for one of the several early calendar slots for 2024:

• Diversity
• Competitiveness
• Feasibility

The first two, to be sure, were and are more than aspirational or symbolic. Diversity of the Democratic primary electorate in a given (prospective early) state was always important to the DNCRBC when the calendar decisions were made in 2022. General election competitiveness was less so. Both paled in comparison to the unavoidable third item on the list: feasibility. A state cannot be early if decision makers cannot get a date change made. That is all the more difficult when 1) Republicans control all of some of the levers of power in state government (whether governor, secretary of state or state legislature) and/or 2) there is no Republican buy-in at the state and/or national level. And conversations between Democrats and Republicans at the national, much less the state, level are not apparent at this time ahead of decisions on the 2028 calendar. 

It is early yet for 2028, and those conversations can happen at any time, but there is no evidence they have or are in the offing at this point. And that is food for thought as the media treatments of this topic gain steam. Feasibility matters.

"[I]t seems that New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada will remain early"

CNN's Zachary Wolf and Isaac Dovere recently chatted about the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination:

"What are the early states to watch?

"WOLF: Biden forced a lot of changes in the primary process for Democrats, including Iowa not really being an early state for them anymore. What’s the early map going to look like?

"DOVERE: Biden did push through some changes, especially making South Carolina first. But some of the other changes, particularly moving Iowa off of the early-state calendar, were very much supported by a lot of other people in the Democratic National Coalition. We’ll see what the calendar ends up looking like. The chances that Iowa gets back to a primary position seem very low. That said, the chances that New Hampshire gets back to the first-in-the-nation spot that actually is required by New Hampshire state law seem much higher.

"We won’t know the full answer on the calendar until at least sometime in 2026, and there is a lot of wrangling and back-and-forth among the states and among the DNC members. What is definitely true, though, is that no matter what arrangement will come, it seems that New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada will remain early. Where exactly they are is a little bit unclear."

--

Noteworthy: It is very early in the 2028 process, but at this juncture, FHQ agrees with Dovere's assessment. It does seem like Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina are "safe" in the early window for 2028. But again, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee has yet to formally sit down to even begin the process of hearing pitches from state parties that want their state's primary or caucus included in the early lineup for 2028, much less actually settling on which states will fill those slots. That heavy lifting likely will not start taking place until after August and more likely toward the end of 2025/beginning of 2026. The early window for 2028 may ultimately come to look similar to 2020 (sans Iowa), but that is far from guaranteed this far out.

"‘Who’s got next?’ Democrats already lining up for 2028 presidential race in early voting states"

The AP's Steve Peoples, Meg Kinnard and Holly Ramer on early 2028 candidate travel:

"The first presidential primary votes won’t be cast for another two and a half years. And yet, over the span of 10 days in July, three Democratic presidential prospects are scheduled to campaign in South Carolina.

"Nearly a half dozen others have made recent pilgrimages to South Carolina, New Hampshire and Iowa — states that traditionally host the nation’s opening presidential nomination contests. Still other ambitious Democrats are having private conversations with officials on the ground there.

"The voters in these states are used to seeing presidential contenders months or even years before most of the country, but the political jockeying in 2025 for the 2028 presidential contest appears to be playing out earlier, with more frequency and with less pretense than ever before."

Related from The Hill:

"South Carolina becomes early hot spot for potential 2028 candidates"

--

Noteworthy: Decisions on the 2028 Democratic presidential primary calendar are far off, so the press is maybe being a bit reflexive in focusing on Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina as usual. Still, that is where the potential candidates have been popping up to this point in the cycle. Perhaps that is an indication of where the calendar will go (or where the candidates think it will go). And that is not without import.

However, left with far fewer visitors and a much lower frequency of visits are two states that, unlike the traditional three above, are locked into likely early calendar positions by state law (subject to change): Nevada, a state that has been in the early lineup on the Democratic side as long as South Carolina has, and Michigan. 

That said, Maryland Governor Wes Moore (D) was in Detroit in the days leading up to July 4.

"Iowa Democrats plot 2028 comeback for caucuses"

From Alex Thompson at Axios:

"Iowa Democrats are urging the national party to restore the state's traditional place as the first contest of the presidential primary season — and some are pushing for Iowa's caucuses to be first even if the Democratic National Committee disagrees.

"Iowa returning to the lead-off spot could scramble the 2028 presidential contest, and significantly affect who becomes the Democratic nominee.

"Some Iowa Democrats are arguing for their state party to go first in primary season — no matter what the DNC does — because Republicans are set to hold their Iowa caucuses anyway. The Iowa Democrats don't want to cede the national media limelight to the GOP."

More from FHQ Plus (subscription):

Are the Iowa caucuses coming back to the early Democratic presidential nomination process?

"Gov. Tim Walz calls for less ‘rigid’ Democratic nominating calendar in future election cycles"

From Robin Opsahl the Iowa Capital Dispatch:

"One of the major questions leading up to the 2028 presidential election season — especially for Iowa — is the Democratic presidential nominating calendar. Following issues in the 2020 Democratic caucuses and Democratic National Committee concerns about the accessibility of the caucus system, Iowa was booted from it’s longtime first-in-the-nation position in the Democratic nominating calendar in 2022, replaced by South Carolina.

"When asked by Iowa Capital Dispatch Editor-in-Chief Kathie Obradovich which state should go first, Walz immediately quipped, 'Minnesota.' But in a longer response, the Democratic governor said he believes Democrats should rotate which states kick off the nominating process each presidential election cycle — a process he said may not be popular in states that may not traditionally have held early contests, but could improve Democrats’ odds in elections.

"He reflected on how in his 2024 run with Harris, winning the presidency came down to winning a handful of contested states.

"'On the calendar, I think you can’t be too rigid,' Walz said. 'And it was … I don’t know if the word is depressing, but going to the seven states over and over and over again, and recognizing that you could win a presidential election or lose one doing that — I think we’ve got to be broader.'”

More from FHQ Plus (subscription):

The 2028 Democratic primary calendar and the recent DNC committee appointments

Puerto Rico bill would create new avenue to canceling presidential primary

Legislation has been introduced in Puerto Rico to allow for the conditional cancelation of future state-run and funded presidential primary elections. 

Rep. José Varela Fernández (PPD-32nd) introduced PC 76 in January 2025. The measure would grant the government in the US territory the ability to cancel a presidential primary in the event that a presidential candidate has received the minimum number of delegates necessary clinch a nomination at least 30 days before the preference vote is scheduled on the island. 

The intent is twofold. First, the objective is to save money, not funding a choice-less primary vote. But also Varela Fernández's legislation would give the government the flexibility to call off a presidential primary vote should a repeat of the circumstances of 2024 arise again in future cycles. President Joe Biden faced only token opposition for the Democratic nomination and former President Trump wrapped up the Republican nomination well in advance of the late April vote. Both coasted to nominations that were decided well in advance of the two Puerto Rico primaries in 2024.

In the absence of the state-funded option, territorial parties would left to devise a method for conducting a presidential preference vote and electing delegates -- they are elected on the state-run primary ballot in Puerto Rico -- on their own. Both parties did as much in 2024 after the primary was canceled by the government in the territory.

Companion bill introduced in Ohio House to move presidential primary to May

Rep. Daniel Troy (D-23rd, Willowick) has for a second consecutive legislative session introduced a bill to move the presidential year primaries in the Buckeye state to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May. Currently, Ohio statute calls for the consolidated primary, including the presidential preference vote, to be conducted on the third Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

HB 197 is similar to legislation that Rep. Troy proposed and failed to move during the 2023 legislative session. The aim is to eliminate the presidential year exception to the timing of primaries in the Buckeye state, making the scheduling uniform across all years. 

The measure is identical to legislation introduced on the Senate side earlier in the 2025 session.

Missouri House passes Super Tuesday primary bill

The Missouri House on Monday, April 14 passed HB 126, a measure that would reestablish a state-run presidential primary in the Show-Me state and schedule the election for Super Tuesday. 43 Republicans from the majority, including four of five from leadership, joined all but one Democrat present (42 of 43) in voting in favor of the bill. The majority of Republicans -- 64 in total -- voted against HB 126.

Moving forward there is both a short term prognosis for the legislation but some longer term implications involved. For starters, HB 126 was merged with HB 367 at the committee stage. Together the combined bill not only restored the presidential primary but it also expanded the window for early voting from two to six weeks. That expansion remains in the final bill passed on Monday by the Missouri House. In discussions with the lead sponsor of similar legislation in the state Senate, however, the expanded early voting window will ultimately be scratched, squaring the two visions of the legislation across chambers and, perhaps, easing the path of HB 126 in the upper chamber. Yet, that would likely require a similar coalition of some majority Republicans banding together with all or most of the Senate Democrats. 

Over a longer time horizon, however, there are some additional roadblocks to Missouri becoming a presidential primary state (rather than a caucus and/or party-run primary state) again in 2028. HB 126 does not include any appropriation for the presidential primary election. That was left to future legislatures that may or may not be as open to the election itself and/or the fiscal tag required to implement it. Even if HB 126 passes the state Senate and is subsequently signed into law, there still may not be a presidential primary in Missouri for 2028 and beyond. 

The set up would be similar to that which existed in neighboring Kansas for years. The Sunflower state had a presidential primary on the books for two decades before it was eliminated for 2016. But Kansas legislatures during that period routinely refused to fund the election and had to go through the process of "canceling" it every four years

--

Final vote on HB 126: 85 in favor, 64 opposed, 2 present (one from each party)

--

Related: 

4/1/25: Missouri House tees up final passage on Super Tuesday presidential primary bill

2/26/25: Missouri House presidential primary bills merged, deemed "do pass" in committee

2/14/25: From Missouri, a competing bill to restore the Show-Me state presidential primary

Missouri House tees up final passage on Super Tuesday presidential primary bill

The Missouri House on Monday, March 31 put the final touches on legislation to reinstate a state-run presidential primary in the Show-Me state. HB 126 would set the primary election for the first Tuesday in March -- one week earlier than the primary had been in presidential cycles of the recent past -- and widen the in-person absentee voting window.

The floor amendments added during the "perfection" session on Monday clear the way for a third reading and final passage of the measure in the state House. This is as deep into the legislative process that a bill has moved since a similar effort was defeated on the floor of the House in April 2023. None of the primary reinstatement legislation introduced during the 2024 session moved beyond the committee stage. 

--

Related: 

2/26/25: Missouri House presidential primary bills merged, deemed "do pass" in committee

2/14/25: From Missouri, a competing bill to restore the Show-Me state presidential primary

Republican lawsuit seeks to overturn novel Virginia primary law

Here is one from Markus Schmidt at The Virginia Mercury with a potential impact on the presidential nomination process:

On March 1, members of the district’s GOP committee by a 22-1 margin agreed to file a lawsuit seeking to overturn what has been dubbed Helmer’s law, named after Del. Dan Helmer, D-Fairfax, who sponsored the legislation in 2021. The law effectively forces parties to nominate candidates through state-run primary elections rather than their own party-run contests.

The lawsuit, which Republicans said will be filed by Staunton attorney Jeff Adams, argues that the law — which went into effect in January 2024 — violates both the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions by removing a party’s ability to determine how it selects its own nominees.

Republicans have long expressed concerns that because Virginia does not require voters to register by party, the law allows Democrats to participate in Republican primaries, and vice versa, potentially influencing the outcome.

No, Democrats being able to participate in a Republican primary (or vice versa) in a state without partisan registration is not a new issue, but it is the one that Republicans in the commonwealth are so loudly vocalizing in the context of this law/lawsuit. But there are remedies to that that are not judicial. After all, legislative fixes are available to the Virginia GOP on that front as well. 

Regardless, crossover voting is an easier story to tell than what is likely at the heart of this case. The intent of the law is to provide for the equality of participation in the nomination process for all eligible voters, especially those who may be outside the jurisdiction at the time of the election or those unable to appear in person at a firehouse primary, caucus or convention for a variety of other reasons. The state-funded primary option guarantees that equality but the available party-run alternatives do not. And it is not that those alternatives necessarily cannot guarantee the same equality of participation for all eligible voters, but rather that state and local parties would find it difficult to finance such options.

The 2021 law, then, does not prohibit alternative nomination processes outside of the state-run primary. That is what is novel about it. Instead it places a burden on state and local parties to go that route. That burden is what is driving the lawsuit. That is the origin of the "effectively forc[ing] parties to nominate candidates through state-run primary elections..." argument. Those political units -- state and local parties -- might argue they cannot pony up the requisite resources for any alternative and that, as a result, their first amendment freedom to associate is being threatened. 

This is an interesting one, but the current law's applicability to the presidential nomination process deserves some attention as well. I will dig into that in the coming days over at FHQ Plus.

Missouri House presidential primary bills merged, deemed "do pass" in committee

Two bills -- HB 126 and HB 367 -- pertaining to the reinstatement of the presidential primary in Missouri got an initial green light in the state House Elections Committee on Tuesday, February 25. 

Functionally, the two bills have been merged. The language from Rep. Banderman's HB 367, reestablishing a presidential primary in Missouri, scheduling the contest for Super Tuesday and broadening no-excuse in-person absentee voting was presented as a committee substitute to Rep. Veit's HB 126. Veit will now be the sponsor of the vehicle as it continues to wind through the legislative process. 

In executive session on Tuesday, the House Elections Committee voted "do pass" on the newly merged bills by a 7-4 tally. All Democrats in attendance (3) supported the measure while committee Republicans were evenly split.

The committee's action removes one scheduling option from the table: the one that sought to exactly replicate the parameters around the Missouri presidential primary as it existed prior to being eliminated in 2022. Although the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March option is now gone, there remains a Senate version that would revive the presidential primary in the Show-Me state and place it on the second Tuesday in March. 

West Virginia legislator angles for February presidential primary

West Virginia state House Delegate Michael Hite (R-92nd, Berkeley) has again introduced legislation to create a separate presidential primary election in the Mountain state and schedule the contest for earlier on the primary calendar. HB 2440 would break up the consolidated May primary in West Virginia, creating a separate presidential primary to be conducted on the third Tuesday in February.

The measure is identical to legislation -- HB 5288 -- Hite put forth during the 2024 legislative session. That bill languished in committee and died without action at the conclusion of the session. 

Such a move would put both major parties in the Mountain state at odds with the rules that have existed for presidential nomination processes dating back to the 2012 cycle. A February primary would cost the state parties national convention delegate under DNC and RNC guidelines for being earlier than March.

Iowa House measure would create first-in-the-nation presidential primary option

After Iowa Democrats lost their privileged position atop the presidential primary calendar in 2024, at least one Democrat in the Hawkeye state is pushing back. Rep. David Jacoby (D-86th, Coralville) has introduced HF 484 to establish a state-run presidential primary option alongside the state's long-running first-in-the-nation caucuses. 

On the one hand, Jacoby's legislation would align Iowa with the aims of national Democrats. The DNC has made a point over the last several cycles of encouraging increased participation in the presidential nomination process by nudging state Democratic parties toward primaries (state-run if possible) over state party-run caucuses. This bill successfully navigating the legislative process in Des Moines and being signed into law would shift Iowa Democrats closer to that national party goal. 

However, that one step forward is made in conjunction with another provision that runs counter to the national party rules with respect to the presidential primary calendar. On that front, Jacoby's bill would set the date for the state-run presidential primary for "at least four days earlier than the scheduled date for any meeting, caucus, or primary which constitutes the first determining stage of the presidential nominating process in any other state, territory, or any other group which has the authority to select delegates in the presidential nomination."

Now, no final decisions have been made by the DNC about which states will comprise the early window contests on the 2028 presidential primary calendar. That will not be settled until the late summer/early fall of 2026 at the earliest. Therefore, this bill would not necessarily put Iowa Democrats in the crosshairs of the national party with regard to the timing of this proposed state-run presidential primary. But nor does the potential law provide much statutory leeway either. If HF 484 becomes law and Iowa Democrats do not secure an early slot on the calendar -- and not just early, first -- then the state party would run afoul of national party rules, incurring sanctions. 

Indeed, Iowa would not only run afoul of the DNC rules under those circumstances, but that primary would also trigger the similar state law in New Hampshire (the seven days before any similar contest provision). And that would set off a race to see which state could organize the earliest (unsanctioned) contest the fastest, all under the auspices of state law in both cases. 

Those are all concerns that are layered into this particular bill. But there are issues back home in the Hawkeye state as well. Chief among those issues is that Democrats are locked out of power from the decision-making positions in Iowa. In other words, Jacoby would have to get at least some, if not a lot of buy-in from Republicans who hold the reins of power in both the legislative and executive branches in the state. It is not clear that Iowa Republicans, in or out of the legislature, would go for this bill. After all, the Republican Party of Iowa stuck with the first-in-the-nation caucuses in 2024 -- it was consistent with Republican National Committee calendar rules -- while state Democrats abandoned them for a vote-by-mail party-run presidential primary to stay within their national party's guidelines. 

An all new, state-run primary would also ostensibly require state funds to implement the legislation. There is no fiscal note included in this legislation, but any price tag would likely be met with some resistance from Republican legislators, who may or may not prefer the caucuses to a primary option. However, keeping Iowa first, as this bill does, would potentially win over some support for a primary option. Yet, given the presence of the caucus option already, it would likely be minimal. 

Some Iowa Democrats have been clamoring for a presidential primary option since 2023-24, and while this bill may meet that wish, it faces an uphill climb for a host of reasons.

--

NOTE: Counter to the reporting from KAAL TV in southern Minnesota, this legislation would not "end the [presidential] caucus system" in Iowa. Rather, it would provide for a state-run primary option if a state party chair requested such an election from the state commissioner of elections. The caucuses would remain an option, the default option in fact.

An early update on presidential primary movement in 2025

There are likely much larger fish to fry at the moment, and besides, it remains very early in the 2028 presidential nomination cycle. But actors on the state level in state legislatures across the country are laying the groundwork for the next round of (state-funded) presidential primary elections now. 

But as was the case during the 2024 legislative sessions in state capitols around the nation, much of the work is predominantly of two different varieties. First, legislators in states with recently eliminated presidential primary elections have attempted to bring those elections back. Much of the 2024 activity on that front was in an effort to rescue the elections for 2024. 

As it turned out those efforts were for naught. Legislators in neither Idaho nor Missouri were successful during the early months of the presidential election year in reviving state-funded presidential preference elections. And so far, only a handful of bills in Missouri have been introduced in 2025 to reverse the elimination of the primary in the Show-Me state.

The other grouping of legislation at the state level is a series of bills that have been raised in the past and have gone nowhere. Whether that changes in 2025 is yet to be determined, but if past is prelude, then many of these measures will gather dust in committee before dying at the end of legislative sessions. Count bills in Hawaii, New York, Ohio and Oregon among this group. 

In total, this is about what one should expect of legislation to shift presidential primaries around on the calendar this far in advance of another series of nomination contests. Very simply, the urgency is just not there this far out, nor is the attention with other more pressing matters before legislators at both the national and state levels. And that is reflected in the figure above: The success rate of primary legislation in the year following a presidential election is very low. It is low anyway, regardless of year, but the activity is at its nadir in the year after and typically at its peak during the session in the year immediately prior to a presidential election year. 

--

For more on the 2028 presidential primary calendar see the bare bones up-to-date calendar here and the 2028 presidential primary calendar plus here at FHQ Plus. Last update here.