On "The People of New Hampshire vs. Joe Biden"

Politico's Ryan Lizza recently sat down with Ray Buckley, the longtime New Hampshire Democratic Party chair, for a conversation about the fallout in the Granite state since the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) adopted President Biden's presidential primary calendar proposal back in December.

This is a really fascinating conversation with a few items that were new to me in the context of this brewing back and forth between New Hampshire Democrats and the national party. But it was a conversation that, given who was on the other end of the line, was focused on one side of that back and forth. That is both understandable and fine. 

What was perhaps less so was the number of times Lizza dipped into the well to use phrases like "Biden screwed you" or "Democrats betrayed New Hampshire." There was nothing in this conversation that backed those notions up, even with a New Hampshire-centric focus. And I get it. This is an important story. Well, FHQ thinks so anyway. But primary calendar stories are inevitably not clickbait. Trust me, they are not. So Lizza tried a bit too hard to play to his audience -- Buckley -- and/or to spice up a story that, again, while important, lacks a natural spice. 

Again, I get it. 

And fortunately, Buckley, for his part, never took that "betrayal/screwed" bait. In fact, the story Buckley told about the period leading up to the DNCRBC decision on the calendar proposal underlined that. He described to Lizza how the New Hampshire congressional delegation had met with Biden on the Monday before the president's letter to the DNCRBC members -- the one first revealing the calendar proposal -- on Wednesday. Buckley said that Biden on that Monday thanked the four members of the all-Democratic New Hampshire delegation for their points (on the Granite state primary and the 2024 calendar) and gave no indication of what was coming. He did not, in other words, thank them for their points defending the first-in-the-nation primary and make any promises that that would continue. 

Now, FHQ will argue, as it had elsewhere in this space, that what set expectations high for New Hampshire dodging the bullet again in 2024 was that the conventional wisdom that had developed before December 1 was that the Iowa caucuses would be nixed and all the other pre-window states -- New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina in that order -- would move up and room would be made in late February for a midwestern alternative (Michigan) before Super Tuesday in early March. That was the reporting. Basically, that New Hampshire would shift into the very first position, not just the first primary position. But that was the reporting without one major component: the president had not weighed in. Biden ultimately did provide input on the eve of the DNCRBC meeting on December 2. One will excuse New Hampshirites for suffering from whiplash after going from thinking the primary was safe one day and knowing they were in for a battle with the president/DNC the next. 

But seemingly no assurances were made that New Hampshire would retain its position in the primary calendar order. It is just that the president held his input on the calendar until the very end. But betrayal? Screwed? The record really does not reflect that.

However, that is small(er) potatoes in the full context of what is actually going on between the White House/DNC and New Hampshire Democrats on the issue of the Granite state's 2024 presidential primary. The biggest shortcoming throughout the whole conversation was the omission of the rules as they will exist with respect to punishments in the 2024 cycle. Lizza and Buckley continually cited part of the rules with respect to rogue state contests. That, in New Hampshire's case, if Democrats in the Granite state conduct a primary before the February 6 slot set aside for them in the newly adopted calendar proposal, then the party would lose delegates to the national convention.¹ That ground has been covered both in this conversation and elsewhere. 

But neither Lizza nor Buckley made mention of the penalties for candidates who campaign in states with rogue contests. The same DNC rules that have been enhanced for the 2024 cycle. That those candidate penalties were ignored was particularly glaring in light of the emphasis Buckley placed on advanced planning by past Democratic incumbent presidents. The chair made a point in his conversation with Lizza to link how both Bill Clinton (in 1995) and Barack Obama (in 2011) set up shop in New Hampshire in August before the primary and the subsequent success New Hampshire Democrats had in general elections in those cycles. It is a valid point. 

Yet, under the newly adopted rules -- rules that have been finalized for 2024 other than the calendar portion of them -- candidates cannot campaign in a state with a rogue contest. Otherwise, such a candidate would forfeit any delegates won in that primary or caucus. Under those rules, candidate Biden cannot campaign in New Hampshire in or ahead of 2024 if the presidential primary in the Granite state is not on February 6. The broadened definition of campaigning in the 2024 DNC rules includes setting up shop in New Hampshire in the way Buckley described. That also answers 1) why Biden cannot file to appear on the New Hampshire primary ballot -- that is "campaigning" too under the definition -- and 2) why Biden could not appear/campaign in the state until after the primary (whenever it may be).

Those are important facts about the contours of the current divide between New Hampshire Democrats and the White House/national party that never came up in the conversation. And again, it is a glaring omission. More so, when one considers the hypothesis that dawned on Lizza midway through one of his questions late in the conversation: that it would be better for New Hampshire if Biden ultimately did not seek reelection. In other words, there would be an open and competitive Democratic nomination race in 2024 that would early and often bring candidates back into the Granite state. 

Not necessarily. 

Now, there are not a lot of delegates at stake in New Hampshire, a reality Lizza raised at least once. Are candidates going to care that they may lose out on a handful of delegates that would only have gotten them a tiny fraction of the way toward the total needed to continue to be competitive for, much less clinch, the nomination? Would the potential win -- even a win in a "state-sponsored public opinion poll," even in a state where the results on the Democratic side are already heavily discounted because of demography in the state in the best of times -- outweigh those delegate penalties on candidates? 

In the case where Biden is running for renomination and is an advocate of a change at the top of the calendar? Yes. Yes, candidate Biden would care. If this DNCRBC-adopted calendar proposal is successfully adopted by the full DNC in early February, then the president will not be in the Granite state to organize for November 2024 until sometime after the likely January 2024 New Hampshire primary. Those will be the rules. The president will follow them. ...whether some "mechanic from Arkansas or Oklahoma" runs and wins in New Hampshire or not.

However, perhaps things look different if Biden does not seek reelection in 2024 and a bunch a prospective candidates mull whether to campaign (in violation of the rules) in a rogue New Hampshire. Maybe. But that way peril lies for prospective candidates. Take the case of Michigan in 2008 under a set of DNC rules where national party had the option to strip candidates of any delegates won in a rogue contest. Some candidates like Hillary Clinton decided to stay on the ballot of the Michigan primary. Others, like Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, opted to remove their names from the ballot. The Florida and Michigan situation was already messy in 2008 without that wrinkle.  Having to determine an equitable way to allocate delegates after the fact in a rogue contest where some candidates were on the ballot and others were not was not easy, and New Hampshire Democrats would be signing up for that role in a cycle where DNC rules now require the stripping of those delegates from candidates. Memories of Florida and Michigan in 2007-08 alone may be enough to deter some candidates in an open Democratic presidential nomination race in New Hampshire in 2023-24. And that is without considering that the New Hampshire results are already discounted in the press and by the Democratic primary electorate because of its lack of diversity. 

Folks, this is not a slam dunk for New Hampshire. Things may be better for Democrats in the state if Biden opts not to run, but they will not necessarily be markedly better. Candidates running against the national party may be more inclined to take a chance. But what does that get them? A feather in the cap that may work with anti-establishment voters in subsequent states. Who fits that profile when voting starts in 2024 may be a majority of the Democratic primary electorate, but it is not now. 

Look, this calendar shake up remains a gamble for Biden and the DNC for the reasons Buckley cited. But New Hampshire Democrats are gambling too, gambling that the old rules of thumb will once again apply in 2024. And it just is not clear that that is the case in a cycle when New Hampshire, for the first time since 1980, is likely not directly protected by DNC rules.

Again, this is a great conversation between Lizza and Buckley. If you are interested in the 2024 calendar machinations like FHQ is, then you should listen to it. But take it with a grain of salt. Take it with a grain of salt because it is 1) understandably New Hampshire-centric and 2) it does not fully account for the rules as they will exist for the 2024 cycle. 

And those rules should be given some attention. 

-- 

¹ And yes, the delegate reduction is something that would happen outside of the control of New Hampshire Democrats. The state party is in control of neither the governor's mansion nor the General Court -- the legislature -- in Concord. Of course, neither Lizza nor Buckley spent any time discussing alternate routes New Hampshire Democrats could take to comply with the proposed DNC rules outside of utilizing the presidential primary option. But again, that is understandable given the framing of the story/conversation.

--

Recent posts:

Alternative Bill Would Schedule New York Presidential Primary for April

New Hampshire Senate Moves to Further Protect First-in-the-Nation Presidential Primary with Constitutional Amendment

Hawaii Bill Would Establish a Presidential Primary

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

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

Iowa Back in the Democratic Pre-Window?

During the last month or so there has been significant chatter about not to mention back and forth between New Hampshire Democrats and the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) over the position of the Granite state presidential primary on the 2024 Democratic presidential primary calendar. But that has mostly overshadowed the impact the proposed calendar overhaul has had on the other traditional lead-off state, Iowa. 

Sure, the caucuses in the Hawkeye state were ousted from their spot at the head of the class in the Democratic presidential nomination process for first time in the last half century. However, more (national) attention has been paid to the defiance of New Hampshire Democrats, who received a pre-window waiver (albeit with a demanding set of conditions), than to Iowa Democrats also potentially breaking the rules to continue occupying the top slot. 

Placed on the back burner in reality or not, the Iowa situation has not gone anywhere. In fact, the recent deadline for the states granted contingent pre-window waivers by the DNCRBC to check in with their progress did not go unnoticed. When it was revealed that Georgia and New Hampshire had both fallen short of meeting the state-specific mandates from the national panel, Iowa Democrats took the opportunity to lobby once again to be reinserted into the lineup. 

In a letter to the DNCRBC, Ross Wilburn, outgoing Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) chair, astutely leaned on the feasibility argument that weighed so heavily on the panel down the stretch in their decision-making process. Those potential complications forced the committee to punt on a calendar decision until after the 2022 midterms. As Wilburn wrote:

"The Iowa Democratic Party believes that, with two states apparently unable to meet the criteria set forth as conditions of a waiver, within the timeline set forth by this committee, we have a compelling case to be granted a conditional waiver for a pre-window contest. As a state party run contest, we retain the ultimate ability to tailor our contest to RBC rules and specifications and maintain a flexibility that states with state-run contests cannot. To that end, we request consideration for a conditional waiver be considered at the February meeting of the RBC."

Honing in on the revised, fully-absentee caucuses that the IDP pitched to the DNCRBC in the summer, Wilburn continued:

"The process we proposed allowed flexibility as to the date while complying with Iowa law. We believe that Iowa can be an important part of the solution to an early nominating calendar by providing flexibility with its new process."

But Wilburn was not the only one making the case. Iowa's sole member of the DNCRBC, Scott Brennan also weighed in:

"We view this as an opportunity to go back and say, 'Take another look, you made a mistake with us the first time. We're willing to forgive and forget and take our spot back in the pre-window."

Brennan added that Iowa Democrats "stand ready, willing and able to fill in" before setting expectations for the coming weeks before the DNC presumably votes on finalizing the early calendar:

Brennan said he expects the committee will discuss Wilburn’s request at its February meeting, but meet virtually in the meantime in the next couple of weeks to discuss granting a deadline extension for New Hampshire and Georgia.

Even Governor Kim Reynolds (R-IA) added her two cents during her second inaugural speech this past week:

“To the national Democrats, to President Biden, I say this: Reconsider,” she said. “Come back to Iowa, and you won’t regret it.”

None of this is unexpected. The Iowa loose end will have to be tied off at some point by either the DNCRBC or the Iowa Democratic Party. But until (and perhaps after) the DNC finalizes the 2024 calendar rules, the IDP clearly has no qualms about continuing to pitch the caucuses as a solution to any implementation problems other states may have. 

But one thing this highlights that I do not think has been emphasized enough since the DNCRBC handed down its proposal in December is that that action has so far served as a massive wedge in between a host of institutionalized traditions that have developed during the post-reform era with Iowa and New Hampshire at the front of the queue. 

Think about how both parties in each state may have differed on every policy position under the sun, but agreed on one thing, keeping their respective states first in the presidential primary order. That bipartisanship still exists in both states, but it has been weakened. State parties in Iowa and New Hampshire are still fighting to remain first, but Republicans in both states have not been shy about pointing out how the DNCRBC decision means that national Democrats do not care about the interests of either state. And neither have Democrats in the two states been unwilling to tell the national party what the decision may mean for Democrats in their states or nationally. That past togetherness on the matter between Democrats and Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire is gone. 

And that is not the only wedge. The DNCRBC decision has also undermined the Iowa/New Hampshire relationship. It has not always been the case, yet both states have done well to band together to ward off threats in the past. Now, those threats were from other potential rogue states and not a change in national party rules, but Iowa and New Hampshire would work together. Iowa Democrats even consulted with New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner in the lead up to the 2020 cycle to insure that any changes to the caucus process in the Hawkeye state would not run afoul of the state law in the Granite state. 

That working relationship now seems to be gone too in the aftermath of the DNCRBC adoption of the calendar rules package. New Hampshire Democrats failed to meet the DNCRBC stipulations by January 5, and Iowa Democrats did not hesitate to offer the caucuses up as a substitute. That would not have happened in the past. 

None of that was by design, per se. The DNCRBC and the Biden administration simply wanted to change up the states and order of the contests in the pre-window. But it would be a mistake not to make note of the extent to which that has already eroded rituals if not instincts that have developed in the post-reform era, traditions primary watchers could be excused for taking for granted. 

In the end, as the DNC winter meeting approaches at the beginning of February, Iowa may or may not prove to be a suitable substitute. However, the DNCRBC did not support a plan that included five state-run contests by accident. It has a preference for them. That is why the Iowa caucuses -- feasibility of movement aside -- should be discounted as much as New Hampshire Democrats potentially offering to shift to a party-run contest in order to comply with the DNCRBC proposal (which they have not done and likely will not).

Of course, that may leave the DNCRBC with other imperfect possibilities relative to the criteria it has used during the selection process. Then again, Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats may just ignore them anyway. But that is another matter. 

--

Recent posts:

Legislative Odds and Ends from New Hampshire with 2024 Implications

Roadblock to an Earlier Michigan Presidential Primary?

Bill Introduced in Michigan Senate to Move Presidential Primary to February 27

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

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

Progress Report: New Hampshire's calendar status, post-deadline day

Part of the calendar package that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) adopted early last month was a deadline for states that were at that time granted conditional waivers to be able to schedule primaries and caucuses in the pre-window period. That deadline -- January 5, 2023 -- was put in place as an early marker by which those states were to have shown state-specific progress toward the goal of moving their contests into the prescribed positions. 

Three of the five states -- South Carolina, Nevada and Michigan -- are in good shape after January 5 based on a variety of factors. South Carolina's state parties, and not the state government, select the date of the presidential primary, Nevada is on the prescribed date already, and the 2022 midterms left Democrats in unified control of state government in Michigan. That puts each on a glide path to compliance with the likely DNC rules for the 2024 presidential nomination cycle.

But the remaining two states have run into problems and failed to meet the January 5 deadline. The easy explanation is that both New Hampshire and Georgia have a Republicans problem. Republicans control state government in New Hampshire and the secretary of state's office in Georgia. 

However, both states were required to do different things by the DNCRBC before January 5 in order to retain their waivers. 

Georgia Democrats had to win over Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and convince him to move the presidential primary to February 13. They have failed to do so to this point. Yet, the secretary's office has provided the criteria by which the primary could occur earlier: 1) the Democratic and Republican presidential primaries must occur concurrently (as has been the custom in the Peach state and most states with state-run primaries, for that matter) and 2) the primary cannot be so early that it leads to delegate penalties from one or both national parties. February 13 does not work under those criteria, but a date later in the pre-window period may.

New Hampshire Democrats, on the other hand, had a much higher bar to clear before January 5. Although the secretary of state selects the date on which the presidential primary in the Granite state falls -- just as in Georgia -- the DNCRBC instead targeted the legislative process. The panel expected progress toward changing state law to specify the February 6, 2024 date on which the DNC has proposed to schedule the New Hampshire primary and to expand voting to include no-excuse absentee balloting in the state. Democrats in New Hampshire would have likely balked at those demands anyway, but had no real recourse with Republicans uninterested in making those changes in unified control of state government. 

But FHQ will not rehash all of that again. One can always go read about the New Hampshire defense of the first-in-the-nation law, the lose-lose situation in which the Democratic Party there finds itself for the 2024 cycle and what happened in 1984 when New Hampshire was in a similar predicament (and what that might mean for 2024).

Instead, let's examine where this process has been and where it is likely to go given that it looks like both the DNCRBC and New Hampshire Democrats may be digging in for an extended standoff.

Where this has been

I. In the lead up to the December 2 DNCRBC meeting it looked as if the panel might take the path of least resistance toward change: knock Iowa from its perch atop the calendar, move every other early state up and add an Iowa replacement to the mix. That set expectations high that New Hampshire Democrats would be able to easily protect their traditional first primary position. When the Biden calendar proposal was revealed and adopted by the DNCRBC, those high expectations were dashed and New Hampshire Democrats reacted swiftly and defiantly. 

II. But it was not just that South Carolina supplanted New Hampshire in the president's plan that rankled Democrats in the Granite state. Sure, that stuck in their craws, but the aforementioned hoops through which the DNCRBC required the New Hampshire Democratic Party to jump added insult to injury. The herculean tasks made it appear as if the DNCRBC had only provided the New Hampshire primary a waiver-in-name-only; a hollow protection of the state's first-in-the-nation status in the Democratic process given impossibly high requirements. Again, the reaction was (pre-Christmas) defiance.

III. Then came January 5. And the reaction was again defiance but this time mixed with a request that the DNCRBC not punish New Hampshire Democrats for being unable to meet "unrealistic and unattainable" goals. That was further buttressed by the New Hampshire Republicans in power from the governor to the legislative leaders and the secretary of state on down signaling that no changes were imminent. 

Where it is going

IV. However, since there are clear roadblocks to compliance in the cases of both New Hampshire and Georgia, an extension was granted. That grace period will provide both sides -- the DNCRBC and, in this case, New Hampshire Democrats -- some time to consider alternatives. 

V. Extension or not, all states conditionally granted waivers to hold nominating contests in the pre-window have until February 1 -- the night before the February 2-4 Democratic Winter meeting kicks off -- to complete all action on making the changes required by the DNRBC. That early February meeting is when the DNC is set to vote on the calendar proposal adopted by the DNCRBC in December. 

VI. Following the final DNC adoption of the calendar rules for 2024 state parties will spend the spring finalizing draft delegate selection plans, including when the state's nominating contest is scheduled to occur. Those plans must face a public comment period of at least one month before being submitted for DNCRBC review before the early stages of May 2023. 

VII. Thereafter, any points of contention -- any noncompliance issues in state delegate selection plans -- will be hammered out between the state parties in question and the DNCRBC before final approval is granted (or not) during the summer and into the fall. Noncompliance at that stage will trigger penalties. The automatic penalty for a timing violation is a 50 percent reduction in a state's delegation. But if the New Hampshire secretary of state schedules the presidential primary for any date other than the one prescribed by DNC rules and Granite state Democrats go along with it (defying DNC rules), then the party is likely to draw the Florida/Michigan treatment from the DNCRBC. It is also at the discretion of the DNCRBC to go beyond the 50 percent penalty and in the case of Florida and Michigan, both of which planned to and held noncompliant primaries in 2008, that penalty was a raised to 100 percent. [Of course, there are caveats to that penalty.]

FHQ will stop there. To go further is to speculate more than I am willing given the intended scope here.

The point is less to lay out the above timeline than it is to show that New Hampshire Democrats have already had around three opportunities to respond to the DNCRBC concerning the proposed changes to the calendar. They will have roughly four more chances to do so in the coming year both before the national party rules are finalized and after. 

How they respond (or continue to respond) matters.

There is a reason FHQ said this when the president's calendar plan was released on the eve of the December DNCRBC meeting:

"If I'm folks in NH, I'm real quiet right now other than to say, "There is a state law. We will defer to the secretary of state on the matter as the law requires." That's it. Quietly and happily go along for the ride and say you did everything you could to lobby for a change."

That drew the ire of some in New Hampshire at the time, but it reflects the DNC rules and the nature of how they have been interpreted over time. Those rules, specifically Rule 21, require state parties to have "acted in good faith" and to have taken "all provable positive steps" towards making any changes on the state level to bring the state's delegate selection plan into compliance with DNC rules. 

DNCRBC co-Chair Jim Roosevelt echoed the language in that rule when he recently discussed the New Hampshire and Georgia situations with NPR. 

"Hopefully there will be flexibility," said Jim Roosevelt, co-chair of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, of his colleagues. The committee is likely to meet and vote on granting the extensions in the coming weeks before a planned DNC-wide vote to approve or deny the new calendar at a meeting in Philadelphia in early February. 

Roosevelt said the DNC has worked with other states in the past as long as they can show they are making their "best effort" and taking "provable, positive steps."

Notice that. Roosevelt mentions both DNCRBC-side flexibility on providing more time but also in working with state parties that will meet them in the middle somewhere. 

New Hampshire Democrats have certainly leaned in on the law the state has on the books to protect its first-in-the-nation status in the time since the calendar proposal was unveiled. But whether they have to this point made their "best efforts" at change or taken "provable, positive steps" toward compliance is debatable (if not in the eye of the beholder). 

The DNC will likely adopt some calendar plan next month in Philadelphia. There may even be some changes to accommodate New Hampshire and/or Georgia. But if the New Hampshire primary remains tethered to the Nevada primary on February 6 in those adopted rules, then how New Hampshire Democrats react may go some way toward telling interested onlookers how the DNCRBC is likely to respond. 

Does the New Hampshire Democratic Party delegate selection plan submitted to the DNCRBC for review go along with the proposed February 6 date or leave that part open pending the decision of Secretary of State Scanlan (R)? 

Do Democrats in the New Hampshire state legislature make any moves to change the primary date (futile though those efforts may ultimately be)? Do they make some attempt to consolidate the Democratic primary with town meetings in March (as the primary was initially intended to be prior to 1975)? 

Does the New Hampshire Democratic Party offer to hold a party-run contest? 

Those are all signals of, if not outright, good faith moves and/or provable, positive steps. And those steps may in some cases still trigger a 50 percent delegate reduction, but it may also help the party avoid making the New Hampshire primary into a "state-sponsored public opinion poll" in the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination process. 

Continued defiance in the eyes of the DNCRBC will not help avoid that fate. 

But ultimately New Hampshire Democrats may bank on the fact that the DNC will eventually cave and not be able to enforce any effort to keep a swing state delegation out of the convention. Of course, a president who wanted to diversify the early calendar who becomes presumptive nominee with little or only token opposition and leads said convention may have some input on the matter. 

However, that is a ways down the road and both sides -- New Hampshire Democrats and the DNCRBC -- have some built-in off ramps (as laid out above) along the way. Will either or both take them or will the showdown continue into 2024? 

--

Recent posts:

Legislation is on the way to move Pennsylvania presidential primary up

Progress Report: A view of an early Georgia Democratic Presidential Primary, post-deadline day

A Super Tuesday Presidential Primary in Oregon?

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

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

Progress Report: A view of an early Georgia Democratic Presidential Primary, post-deadline day

Last week's DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee-imposed deadline for states granted contingent waivers for early contests to update their progress came and went on January 5 with little new light shed on the subject. 

Yes, South Carolina, Nevada and Michigan gave favorable reports and received positive marks from the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC). And all of that was expected because of either how dates are chosen (South Carolina), being on the prescribed date already (Nevada) or the midterms shifting state legislative control in the direction of Democrats (Michigan). None of that was new or unexpected. 

Neither was it unexpected that New Hampshire, Iowa and Georgia may present some problems for the recently adopted calendar proposal put forth by President Biden and his team. It came as little surprise, then, that the DNCRBC co-chairs granted both New Hampshire and Georgia some extra time beyond January 5 to work toward the plan outlined in the proposed pre-window calendar in the Democratic presidential nomination process for 2024. 

And that is less a story of backlash than it is about the political realities of changing the lineup at the beginning of the calendar. Again, if it was so easy to change, then it would have changed by now. 

Look, the calendar proposal, as is, was unworkable from the start. New Hampshire Democrats were most assuredly going to balk at losing their position atop the primary calendar, and their defiant reaction is mostly just par for the course. Plus, given the hoops that Granite state Democrats were given to jump through to retain their waiver, the very clear signal was that 1) the DNCRBC never really thought New Hampshire Democrats were going to play along and/or 2) the panel was going to have this standoff with them anyway and boot the state from the pre-window altogether. 

[But FHQ digresses. We will return to the Granite state in a separate post.]

Georgia is much the same. As in New Hampshire, Republicans control the levers of power with respect to the selection of a date for the presidential primary. Thus far, the secretary of state's office in Georgia has resisted entreaties about shifting up the date of presidential primary in the Peach state:

"We’ve been clear: This needs to be equitable so that no one loses a single delegate and needs to take place on the same day to save taxpayer funds."

-- Jordan Fuchs, Georgia Deputy Secretary of State

And representatives in Secretary Raffensperger's (R) office have not been doing this just recently. Democrats, in the state of Georgia and nationally, have been repeatedly rebuffed throughout the course of Georgia Democrats' efforts to appeal to the DNCRBC to add the Peach state to the pre-window lineup. 

"Sterling said the agency 'has been telling Democrats for over a year that we will do nothing that would require having two dates' for the parties’ primaries. He said that because of the national GOP’s calendar, holding Georgia’s Republican primary before March 1 'would cut their delegate count in half.'”

-- Gabriel Sterling, COO  Georgia Secretary of State

[Actually, a primary before March 1 would cost Georgia Republicans around 85 percent of their delegates.]

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp (R) also opposes the move. A spokesman said, "the governor has no role in this process and does not support the idea." Well, under Georgia law, the governor issues a proclamation about the presidential primary, but that follows the secretary of state scheduling the contest. Informally, the governor could lobby on behalf of such a move. ...if he was so inclined. 

And in this case, Kemp is not. 

That is a fair amount of resistance to the calendar proposal adopted by the DNCRBC in December to shift the Georgia primary to February 13. But that just makes February 13 unworkable.  

In looking at the above comments from folks in the Georgia secretary of state's office, there is a path for Georgia to be added to the pre-window that satisfies the two main criteria: 1) the state holds just one primary for both parties and 2) neither party loses delegates (for going too early). Just because February 13 is unworkable for Georgia does not mean that the DNCRBC does not have a set of workable component parts, New Hampshire aside, to assemble an alternate pre-window calendar. 

Nevada is likely locked into the February 6 position called for in state law. But everything else is maneuverable. 

If the space between South Carolina and Nevada(/New Hampshire) is deemed to be too small and the three state cluster in the calendar's first four days too heavy a lift in the eyes of the DNCRBC, then South Carolina could be shifted up slightly (if the panel and the president remain wedded to the idea of the Palmetto state primary leading off the proceedings).

Michigan is also maneuverable. Yes, Democrats in power in the state recently submitted their letters to the DNCRBC pledging to make the necessary changes to state law to add the Great Lakes state to the early window. But those Democrats are also in "you say jump and we'll ask how high" mode. In other words, they are happy to be a part of the conversation and could just as easily shift up to an earlier date if necessary to better space out currently listed contests across February 2024.

There is no reason the DNCRBC cannot work with the component parts already described in the proposal. To that end, just swap Georgia and Michigan in the order. Move Michigan up a week or two and slot Georgia into a spot on Saturday, March 2. Democrats in Michigan can make that sort of change just as easily as they can moving to February 27, and Georgia can be the lead-in contest to Super Tuesday on March 2 without costing Peach state taxpayers any additional money for a second presidential primary election or the Georgia Republican Party any delegates to the national convention. 

The beginnings of the Democratic and Republican calendars are unaligned in the rules and a contest can slip into a slot ahead of the first Tuesday in March (Democratic) but after March 1 (Republican) in 2024. Again, February 13 is unworkable for a Georgia Democratic presidential primary, but there are tweaks the DNCRBC can make to create a doable pre-window slate of contests that also satisfies the basic premise of the Biden proposal.

They will still have the New Hampshire problem, but the DNCRBC was always going to have to have that fight if they and the president are serious about dislodging the Granite state from the first primary position in the Democratic order. But as I say, that is a story for a separate post. 

Everything else? That is fixable. 

--

Recent posts:

A Super Tuesday Presidential Primary in Oregon?

New York Bill Would Consolidate Primaries in June

Primary Movement Starts with the State Legislatures (2023)

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

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

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

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

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

On New Hampshire generally...

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

Recent posts:

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

New Hampshire Democrats' Lose-Lose Predicament

South Carolina's Rise to the Pre-Window

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

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

South Carolina's Rise to the Pre-Window

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

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

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

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

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

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

But things changed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

Recent posts:

Updated Notes on the 2024 Presidential Primary Calendar

Prefiled Bills Seek to Reestablish Missouri Presidential Primary

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

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

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

Democrats Mull Changes to the 2024 Calendar?

Which Democrats?

According to The Hill, there are "vocal concerns about South Carolina from all corners of the party." But the tell that these are not serious concerns is in the supposed compromise states being offered as substitutes for the newly tabbed first state in the 2024 pre-window lineup. 

North Carolina?

Democrats in the Tar Heel state did not even apply for a waiver when the process was opened up by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) earlier in 2022. If one thinks South Carolina Democrats -- a state party that has been knowingly and willingly involved in the pre-window period of the calendar for four cycles now -- were surprised by being moved in President Biden's proposal to the first slot, then imagine how North Carolina Democrats would feel at having the honor fall in their laps. Any initial elation would quickly subside, overtaken by the need to actually prepare for being first.

Specifically, North Carolina has a near Republican supermajority in the General Assembly, where any effort to move the presidential primary would start. In theory, Republican legislators may like a more prominent position on the calendar. But in practice, none of them would like seeing the state's Republican delegation slashed by more than 80 percent. State Democrats cannot work around that roadblock. Nor can the national party.

Georgia?

FHQ has discussed this in depth elsewhere, but Georgia has a Republican obstacle of its own. Brad Raffensperger, Republican secretary of state in the Peach state, has signaled that his office will not jeopardize either party's full slate of delegates and has no interest in taxing election workers across two presidential primaries (nor for adding the costs of a second presidential primary to accommodate the DNC plan).

Yes, Georgia was a part of the proposed Biden pre-window slate, but it was always wishful thinking that the national party, much less Georgia Democrats, could make that change happen given the existing constraints. It was an aspirational move with little downside. "Hey, we tried to add Georgia as an early state, but local Republicans stood in our way," is not a bad argument to make in a closely divided state. By itself, that probably will not move many votes, but as part of a larger narrative about Republican obstruction it might. 

Nevada?

Well, at least Nevada makes some sense. Heading into the DNCRBC meeting in early December, the Silver state seemed to be vying for the top slot with New Hampshire and then ended up getting lumped into the same second position alongside the primary in the Granite state. 

But Nevada, like North Carolina and Georgia above, has potential Republican opposition to any move. The new governor stands in the way of any change to the date of the primary. Moreover, the contest is already scheduled for February 6. South Carolina could be moved back in the order (along with New Hampshire) to make way for the Silver state to go first. 

That makes some sense (and was probably why Nevada garnered so much "first" chatter in the first place).

But here's the thing: the DNC cannot signal to one important constituency (African Americans) that they are moving a state (South Carolina) to better calibrate their collective voice in the process and then take it back without some backlash. And that backlash would likely be far greater than the "concerns" that are quietly making their way around some parts of the broader Democratic Party coalition. 

Folks, this is politics. Any move, significant like this one or otherwise, is going to create perceived winners and losers. After all, there is already a burgeoning cottage industry speculating about what these calendar changes may mean for candidates in 2028! There are winners and losers in this calendar proposal and there is definitely backlash to the decision.

Look, it was clear in the immediate aftermath of the DNCRBC vote to adopt the president's proposal that there was opposition to South Carolina being granted the first slot on the 2024 primary calendar. And it has become even clearer in the time since that detractors of the plan are going to use the period between that December 2 vote and the February DNC meeting -- the one that will vote on ratifying the plan -- to gin up if not opposition, then an alternative. But so far all the opposition has done is throw stuff at the wall with the hopes that something will stick. Nothing has. And that is mainly due to the fact that those who stand in opposition to the proposal have yet to grapple with the realities of this process. 

It is fine to throw states out there that are more diverse or more competitive (in a general election) than South Carolina is. The DNCRBC has conducted a process over the course of much of 2022 that already did that. It considered all the states that the Biden proposal included. But one additional factor the DNCRBC weighed that is completely lacking in the sturm and drang of complaints thus far was feasibility. As in, how feasible is it that any given state is actually able to move into a particular slot? 

Georgia and North Carolina? Nope.

Nevada? As described above, maybe.

South Carolina? Definitely. 

And until detractors of the president's proposal wrestle with that reality, their complaints are never going to be taken seriously. 

--

There is a weak point to the president's proposal that many are missing. 

Another reason neither Georgia nor North Carolina are workable in the first position -- and The Hill piece speaks to this to some degree -- is how big and expensive each would be compared to past early states. Both parties still seem to value what the 2013 GOP autopsy called the on ramp to bigger states and multi-contest dates. Both parties continue to hold to notions of retail politics and the little guy having a chance to compete with those who have vast to near-unlimited resources.¹ And both Georgia and North Carolina would break with that principle. 

But if anything was slapdash about the calendar proposal that emerged from the December 2 DNCRBC vote it was not South Carolina, but the early cluster that was created by a compromise.

The initial proposal from the Biden team was different than what was voted on by the panel:

Tuesday, February 6: South Carolina

Tuesday, February 13: Nevada/New Hampshire

Tuesday, February 20: Georgia

Tuesday, February 27: Michigan

But because the Nevada primary was already scheduled for February 6 and prospects for movement away from that position dim, the compromise was to move the South Carolina primary to Saturday, February 3 and shift everything else but Michigan up a week. 

But that turned a plan that called for three small-ish state contests in eight days to three small-ish state contests in a four day span. That may seem like a minuscule difference, but it has the effect of creating a cluster of contests that equate to something akin to the Georgia or North Carolina in the first spot. And this was raised as a concern among DNCRBC members in the period before the vote was taken. Both Carol Fowler (SC) and Scott Brennan (IA) brought up how this cluster of contests sandwiched into a small window to start the calendar may negatively impact how well the party adheres to the value of giving all candidates a chance. 

That is no small thing and no doubt would impact candidate strategy and how the calendar winnows candidates. If anything happens between now and when the DNC votes on the proposal passed by the DNCRBC it may be to tinker some with that cluster of contests.² But it is more likely that South Carolina gets nudged a little earlier to account for the injurious impact the proposed cluster would have than being removed from the top slot altogether as detractors appear to want. 

That, and New Hampshire is likely to jump to the head of the queue anyway. But that is a story that will play out as 2023 progresses.

--

¹ That may or may not be obsolete in an environment where invisible primary fundraising allows candidates to run practically everywhere even before Iowa and New Hampshire results have been factored into the equation. A small-time candidate would have an incredibly difficult game of catch-up to play if the plan is to initially rely on early wins -- either outright or relative to expectations -- to jumpstart a campaign. In other words, there has to be some measure of viability demonstrated before voting starts. [Incidentally, the Democrats' debate inclusion process in 2020 helped to repeatedly make that viability point as the invisible primary wound down.]

² One of the near certainties is that neither Georgia nor New Hampshire will meet the January 5 conditions to actually be granted a waiver to even be in the pre-window. That would have the effect of clearing out the beginning of the calendar to some extent.

--

Recent posts:

Adjournment Kills Michigan Presidential Primary Bill

Nevada Holds the Key for 2024 Republican Presidential Primary Calendar

Iowa and New Hampshire Are No Strangers to Threats: The case of 1984 and what it may mean for 2024

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

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

Why South Carolina Got the Nod to Lead the 2024 Democratic Calendar

It has been a while since the national parties have either allowed states other than Iowa and New Hampshire to go first on the presidential primary calendar or have failed to expressly protect the traditional first pair in their rules. 

In fact, the entire post-reform era since the 1972 cycle has operated that way in both parties' processes. Now, to be clear, states have challenged Iowa and New Hampshire throughout that period, but the two have always been able to maneuver around those threats on their own -- banded together in first-in-the-nation solidarity or individually -- or in recent years, have kept their spots, protected by national party rules. 

That has changed.

The decision by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) late last week to adopt the proposal put forth by the president stripped Iowa of its position and effectively/indirectly did the same to New Hampshire. Instead of the usual two states at the front of the queue, South Carolina got the green light to move up from the fourth and final spot in the pre-window -- the one that the Palmetto state has held in the Democratic nomination process since the 2008 cycle -- all the way up to the top slot. 

President Biden's late input on the DNCRBC process to award waivers to four or five states to lead the 2024 calendar upset the emerging consensus that Nevada and New Hampshire were the states vying for the honor of going first. The proposition also set off a flurry of chatter that South Carolina received the prized spot because the state had rescued his primary campaign in 2020 and/or that it was meant as a favor to Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC, 6th), whose endorsement appeared instrumental in the days leading up to the late February primary in the Palmetto state. That all may be, but it is not anything that is foreign to this process. Incumbent presidents tend to support the rules -- calendar and otherwise -- that got them to the nomination, and Biden has done just that, at least in part. 

Is that intended to insulate himself against a primary challenge? Again, that would not be a foreign concept. Jimmy Carter's team nudged state legislators in several states -- notably in the South -- to shift their primaries to earlier dates during the 1980 cycle to counter expected (Ted) Kennedy wins in the northeast. And just last cycle, the Trump campaign leaned on a number of states to shift from primaries to caucuses (or to cancel contests altogether) in order to produce electorates likely to minimize or eliminate any opposition success.

The only catch in the 2024 discussion is that there is no looming (and legitimate) challenge to Biden on the horizon. Of course, there is plenty of time for that to change and besides, the president may -- although it does not appear that way at this time -- pass on a reelection bid.

Nonetheless, the South Carolina ascension has "reignited tensions" in the Democratic Party that has some crying foul. And at least some of that is based on the perceptions that some of the above historically consistent actions by incumbent presidents are now wrong in some way. Others have pointed to the Palmetto primary as a poor lead off contest because the state is a virtual lock for Republicans in the electoral college. 

That criticism is all entirely fair. 

But is also overlooks some of the very real and practical reasons that South Carolina ended up first in the proposal. 

To examine this further, let's look at the DNCRBC's own criteria for states to attain an early window waiver. Early on in the process before applications for waivers were submitted, the DNCRBC highlighted diversity, competitiveness and feasibility as markers the panel would use in considering states for potential waivers.

Diversity

South Carolina hits the mark for the most part on diversity. That African Americans comprise a majority of the primary electorate there was clearly something the committee and the president prized as a component of raising minority voices in the process. That is basically why the state was added to the early state lineup for 2008. The state is a nice mix of urban, suburban and rural as well, and is also relatively economically diverse. However, South Carolina is a right-to-work state, which is a knock on the state in a party that values unions/labor interests. Finally, South Carolina is a southern state and has been the lone representative from the South among the first four states since 2008. 

Let's pause there because South Carolina is not the only southern state from which the DNCRBC could have chosen. And, in fact, the committee also designated neighboring Georgia to also appear in the pre-window. But this factors in elsewhere.

Competitiveness

Nope, South Carolina is not a competitive general election state for Democrats. Organizing there for the primaries and not simultaneously preparing for the general election seems like something of a sunk cost (or at the very least an inefficient use of finite resources). That is why the committee had targeted competitive states. So South Carolina does not fit the bill there. 

Feasibility

If one looks at the checklist above, South Carolina has a couple of checks by racial diversity and regional diversity (across the whole lineup of early states). That is neither an exhaustive nor overwhelming list of positives in the favor of South Carolina Democrats. But recall that the primary reason driving the DNCRBC decision in July to punt on the final early calendar lineup until after the midterms was that state were still working on “answering several final but critical questions regarding election administration and feasibility in their states.”

So, to return to the question from above, why South Carolina and not some other southern state? Feasibility.

There are roadblocks in the way of the DNRBC adding another southern state other than South Carolina. Much of it has to do with partisan composition of state government. Republicans dominate most states in the region and have an interest in following RNC rules that forbid states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada from holding contests before March 1. 

Here's how that looks (based on what entity makes the decision on the date and administration of a primary election):

Alabama: unified Republican control of state government

Arkansas: unified Republican control of state government

Florida: unified Republican control of state government

Georgia*: Republican secretary of state

Kentucky: Republican legislature

Louisiana: Republican legislature

Mississippi: unified Republican control of state government

North Carolina: Republican legislature

Oklahoma: unified Republican control of state government

South Carolina*: state parties select the date for their own state government-run (and funded) primary

Tennessee: unified Republican control of state government

Texas*: unified Republican control of state government

Virginia: Republican governor

West Virginia: unified Republican control of state government

*States among the 20 states and territories that actually applied for a waiver from the DNCRBC.

Very simply, South Carolina is maximally maneuverable in the Democratic process compared to all of the other southern states, much less those that applied. 

That maneuverability also likely played a role in South Carolina getting the call over another diverse state that had high hopes of vaulting to the top slot, Nevada. Again, South Carolina Democrats, under state law, can move to a position on the calendar of their choosing with no input from Republicans who control the state government there. 

The midterms changed the calculus in Nevada. The formerly unified Democratic government in the Silver state became divided when Republican Joe Lombardo won the gubernatorial race in November. That meant that Nevada was most likely stuck with the February 6, 2024 date for its newly established presidential primary. Democrats could not move it earlier because Lombardo would not be inclined to take on possible RNC penalties. Ironically, the switch to a primary that was seen as a feather in the cap of Nevada Democrats in this waiver process came back to haunt them. Under a caucus system like the state had in 2020, Nevada Democrats would have been much better able to move around to suit any date the DNCRBC may have placed them in (...although the committee, the president and the party as a whole have largely rejected caucuses in the Democratic nomination process).

In the end, political favoritism may have played some role in the South Carolina Democratic primary rising to the top, as did diversity, but feasibility was also a major, major component in the reasoning behind the move. 

--

Recent posts:

New Ways to Get FHQ

Michigan Presidential Primary Bill Stuck in End-of-Session Rush

DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Adopts Biden Calendar Proposal

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

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