"DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Proposes Early States for 2028 Democratic Presidential Nominating Calendar"

DNC press release:

Committee members highlighted the calendar’s ability to battle-test the field of candidates with a rigorous, fair, and efficient mix of early states.

Today, at the July meeting of the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC), the RBC voted to select six states for the early window of the 2028 Democratic presidential nominating calendar: South Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan, and Virginia. At the meeting, the RBC voted to issue the waivers to each of the six early window states, inviting them to hold nominating contests prior to Super Tuesday in the following order:

• South Carolina, January 22, 2028
• Nevada, February 1, 2028
• New Hampshire, February 8, 2028
• New Mexico, February 15, 2028
• Michigan, February 22, 2028
• Virginia, February 29, 2028

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

“The Rules and Bylaws Committee has proposed a rigorous, fair, and efficient calendar that will win Democrats back the White House in 2028. After months of hard work and deliberation, we are very proud of the calendar that the RBC has put forward — which is also the most diverse calendar Democrats have ever had for an open nominating contest. We look forward to presenting the proposal to our colleagues across the DNC for their approval in a few weeks.”

DNC Chair Ken Martin released the following statement:

“I commend the RBC for their diligent work and commitment to a fair and transparent selection process. As a result of their hard work, today, Democrats took a critical step toward retaking the White House in 2028 by ensuring we have the strongest possible nominee.”

Additional Context on the Early Window Process:

• During the meeting, RBC members debated the potential early window options and ultimately determined that the six states selected best fit the goals laid out by the committee: a rigorous, fair, and efficient calendar that will produce the strongest possible nominee to win back the White House.
• The RBC also chose to amend the Committee’s previously adopted resolution on the Principles and Procedures for Review of the 2028 Democratic Party Presidential Primary Calendar. The amended resolution allowed them to select a sixth state for the early window, instead of only 4 or 5. Members explained this change was a reflection of the numerous strong applications and their goal to create the best early window possible from their available options.
• The RBC’s decision will now be put before the full DNC for a vote at the DNC’s summer meeting, August 13-15.
• The RBC’s decision comes after many months of careful planning and deliberation by the RBC, including:
• Deliberately chosen criteria for selection and an open application process
• Thoughtful consideration of applications and presentations by states
• Thorough review of the rules for the process
• The full meeting was livestreamed and can be found on the DNC’s YouTube page here.

Background on Selected States:

• Battle-testing Our Candidates: The early window delivers on RBC’s goal of a battle-tested nominee both with key battleground states and tests with a comprehensive range of voters key to winning back the White House.
• Key battleground states are prominently featured in the early window with both Nevada and Michigan.
• Other early window states feature competitive downballot races and swing voter populations with New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Virginia.
• Comprehensive Test with Diverse Voters: The early window provides a comprehensive test with diverse groups of voters that are key to winning a general election. In fact, it is the most diverse open field early window in Democratic Party history, massively increasing diverse representation from 2020 early window states.
• Black Voters: 4.6 million Black people live in the early window states, an increase of 2.8 million.
• Latino Voters: 4.2 million Latinos live in the early window states, an increase of 2.4 million.
• AANHPI Voters: 1.4 million Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islander Americans live in the early window states, an increase of 900k.
• Native American Voters: 370k Native Americans live in the early window states, an increase of 280k.
• Non-college Voters: 14 million Americans in the early window states do not have a college degree, an increase of 7.7 million.
• Young Voters: More than 2.8 million young (18-24) people live in the early window states, an increase of more than 1.6 million.
• Union Voters: More than 1.1 million union workers live in the early window states, an increase of more than 700k.
• Veterans/Military Voters: More than 2.1 million veteran and military voters live in the early window states, an increase of more than 1.2 million.
• Keeping the Contest Open, Affordable: The early window is open and affordable for candidates — ensuring voters choose our 2028 nominee, not money.
• The earliest portion of the window creates an open field, and does not box out any candidates based solely on warchest and name ID.
• South Carolina has a very affordable media market, with estimated weekly ad cost that is among the lowest of any of the early states.
• The relatively inexpensive Reno media market serves the vast majority of Nevadans outside of the Las Vegas media market.
• Both South Carolina and New Hampshire are geographically compact states, making travel more affordable and accessible.

--

More on this to come over the weekend at FHQ Plus.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Democrats devise their own super penalty for primary calendar violations 

The Rules and Bylaws Committee adopted new enhanced penalties to punish states and candidates who break timing rules in 2028

At FHQ Plus: The coming 2028 primary calendar vote from the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee

Over at FHQ Plus...

The Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) of the Democratic National Committee opened up the first of two days of meetings on Thursday, July 23 and it looks as if the panel has cleared the way for further, if not final, consideration of the states that will make up the early calendar lineup on the party’s 2028 presidential primary calendar. With work on the delegate selection rules and Call for the Convention now done, the RBC can now return its focus to determining which states will kick off the presidential primary process in a year and a half or so.

Over at FHQ yesterday, I shared some quick thoughts on where the process is and what seems to be coming in reaction to Shane Goldmacher’s reporting at The New York Times. But DNC Chair Ken Martin led off day one of this RBC meeting in Washington with some remarks that are worth incorporating into how one might approach any calendar vote that might be coming on Friday. I dig into all of that over at FHQ Plus.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Democrats devise their own super penalty for primary calendar violations

The Rules and Bylaws Committee adopted new enhanced penalties to punish states and candidates who break timing rules in 2028

--

Subscribe below and consider becoming a paid subscriber for access to the remainder of the post.

--

"South Carolina and Nevada Fight to Kick Off Democrats’ 2028 Presidential Calendar"

Shane Goldmacher at The New York Times has the latest on the two frontrunners for the Democrats' top primary calendar spot for 2028:

"South Carolina and Nevada have emerged as the two front-runners to begin the 2028 Democratic presidential nominating calendar, but their jockeying has grown acrimonious and pitted Black and Latino party leaders against each other, according to interviews with more than a dozen party officials involved in the discussions.

"A powerful panel of 49 insiders of the Democratic National Committee is set to meet this week in Washington to sketch out the order of the early-state calendar. The full party body would then vote next month to finalize the choices."

--

Noteworthy: There is a lot in Goldmacher's piece, but let me offer a few thoughts on where the process to select the four or five states that will make up the Democrats' 2028 presidential primary calendar is:

1. Remember, there may or may not be a vote on this matter at the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) meeting this week. 

2. Still, South Carolina and Nevada seemingly lead for the top slot. And while it is good to have that progress report, it is also true that around this time last year the chatter was about Michigan, New Hampshire and Nevada having a leg up for first-in-the-nation. Things change. But importantly, time is running out (even if the RBC vote is delayed beyond this week).

3a. It is striking that New Hampshire is not in the mix for the first spot. In some ways, the Granite state's absence is understandable. The 2024 experience between the state party in New Hampshire and the national party was, well, rocky and Democrats in the Granite state broke the rules before they ultimately complied with them. That is not to say that this is retribution on the part of the DNC. The support seemingly just is not there on a revamped RBC. And it is notable that workarounds like pairing New Hampshire and Nevada's primaries on the same day are not being floated this time around as in 2022. But New Hampshire remains in good position to be granted a waiver for some spot in the early window, but probably not first.

3b. That New Hampshire appears to be on the outside looking in with respect to the leadoff spot suggests a number of things. That the DNC is up to repeating the same fight for 2028. That the national party feels comfortable that the harsher penalties it is likely to adopt next month in Austin will keep rogue states in check.

4. The fifth spot, according to Goldmacher's sources, seems to be coming down to a couple of blue states (with unified Democratic control of state government) with other states from their respective regions vying for the top spot. In fact, it appears that the fifth slot may hinge on whether South Carolina or Nevada goes first. If South Carolina gets the nod, then New Mexico would join Nevada and give the early window two western states. If it is Nevada, then Virginia would, alongside South Carolina, be a second southern state before Super Tuesday. 

5. There appears to be some friction on the RBC about the timing of this decision. Some members of the panel appear poised to vote on the early calendar lineup now while others want to wait. As Goldmacher writes about the former group:

Others believe that waiting could cause a mangled mess, because it would probably mean that candidates would announce their bids before a final calendar had been set.

That really is not a good reason to vote now. Prospective candidates are already doing the things that presidential candidates do before announcing their candidacies. Voting to finalize the calendar now is not going to affect any of that one way or another. Those announcements are an arbitrary point in the process. And regardless, the calendar rules may be set ahead of the announcement window, but the calendar is not set until states and state parties do their part next year. I mean, that is FrontloadingHQ 101.

And as I argued earlier today, waiting until after the midterms likely maximizes the ways in which the pieces available to the RBC can be moved around in the early window. Or alternatively, the states considered "may not be limited all that much by a decision now, but where those pieces could be moved around in the early window of the primary calendar would be greatly constrained."

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Democrats devise their own super penalty for primary calendar violations 

The Rules and Bylaws Committee adopted new enhanced penalties to punish states and candidates who break timing rules in 2028

Are they or aren't they? Not so fast on those 2028 DNC calendar rules.

Yesterday FHQ put reporting from the Associated Press that Democrats could vote later this week on which states will fill out the party's early state lineup for 2028 into the context of what a decision now may mean for which states are likely to make the cut. 

What was missing from the AP account was just how much weight that could was carrying. Adam Sexton at WMUR in Manchester, NH shed a little more light on that: 

"There is a lot of uncertainty right now over what the Democratic National Committee's Rules & Bylaws Committee will do when it potentially starts voting on the order of its presidential nominating calendar later this week.

"'It could be this week, could be the next couple of weeks,' said Ray Buckley, chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. 'It could be in the next couple months. That's really up to the committee to decide.'"

Buckley is not only chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party but a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee as well. FHQ would not say that the chairman is throwing cold water on the notion of a vote this week to determine which states might get waivers from the party to hold early contests in 2028 and when those contests will be. However, Buckley is not saying that things are full steam ahead on that front either. 

--

Noteworthy: So what? What does it matter if there is a vote on the calendar rules now, in two weeks or two months? 

Well, again, a vote now, as FHQ argued in yesterday's post, takes a number of options off the table. The states, among those 12 that applied for early status with the DNC, may not be limited all that much by a decision now, but where those pieces could be moved around in the early window of the primary calendar would be greatly constrained. And only time, not to mention the certainty of the midterm results, can resolve that. 

In a nutshell, that is what the members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee are wrestling with: Decide now and move on or wait and use the information from the midterms to better tailor an early calendar order. Clearly the latter would represent in many respects a repeat of the party's process for the 2024 calendar. And while it has been a while, it has been reported that DNC Chair Frank Martin seems to be pushing for an earlier decision. As Politico put it in a piece nearly a year ago:

One DNC member, granted anonymity to discuss the issue candidly, said DNC Chair Ken Martin told them he wanted the primary calendar to be sorted out quickly, potentially as soon as the end of 2025 or early 2026, and has urged rules members to expect related meetings throughout this fall.

No, a decision on the calendar did not come in 2025 or early 2026, but that does indicate some pressure from the chair for a decision earlier rather than later. That may factor into the timeline for a calendar decision.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Some additional thoughts on the Democrats' recent 2028 primary calendar meeting 

Learning, incentives, appearance versus reality and the limits of the national parties in calendar crafting

At FHQ Plus: Is the early 2028 Republican presidential primary calendar set?

Over at FHQ Plus...

The early 2028 calendar: Democratic change, Republican stability

The running assumption with respect to the 2028 presidential primary calendar — the early window of it anyway — is that the Democratic National Committee will reprise its 2024 calendar process and, at a bare minimum, explore changes to the states that will comprise the lineup of early contests in the presidential nomination process for the coming cycle. Actually, that is not an assumption at all. Democrats are in the midst of that review process with pitches for early state status from state parties involved now in the rearview. And a decision could come this week.

To the extent there is one, then, the assumption is across the aisle with Republicans and their calendar maneuvering — or lack thereof — ahead of the 2028 cycle. Reporting thus far has indicated that the GOP has adopted and appears to be sticking with a calendar rules package that is more traditional than that of their Democratic counterparts. In other words, the assumption has been that the Republican National Committee is very likely to sign off on and stick with the traditional lineup of early state contests: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

The ultimate Republican rules will not likely specify it — they have not in past cycles and do not in the current (convention-adopted) rules for 2028 — but the expectation is that Iowa’s caucuses will precede the New Hampshire primary and that the Republican contests in Nevada and South Carolina will follow thereafter in some order. Yet, that expectation may not match reality in the end and for a variety of reasons. Over at FHQ Plus, I will explore those reasons that rules-based expectations may or may not be reflected in the eventual lineup of states on the 2028 presidential primary calendar.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

The Annotated 2028 Presidential Primary Calendar

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

--

Subscribe below and consider becoming a paid subscriber for access to the remainder of the post.

--

"Democrats could take preliminary vote on their 2028 presidential primary calendar later this week"

Meg Kinnard and Joey Cappelletti at The Associated Press share the latest on the Democrats' efforts to nail down the early states for 2028:

"Democrats could vote as early as this week on the order of their primary calendar for the 2028 presidential election, although the decision wouldn’t be final until the full Democratic National Committee agrees.

The panel that sets the party’s voting order could make that determination as early as Friday when it meets in Washington, two people with knowledge of the party’s process but not authorized to discuss it publicly told The Associated Press on Monday.

The Rules and Bylaws Committee has been holding monthly meetings as it considers the order in which states will vote during the 2028 primaries. The panel has heard presentations from a dozen states hoping to kick off the party’s primaries and caucuses, including Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

The calendar isn’t considered set until it’s approved by the full DNC, which is scheduled to meet in August."

--

Noteworthy: Let's start at the end. The calendar rules are not set until they are approved by the DNC. As the Democrats' 2024 calendar process demonstrated, rules are one thing, implementing them is another. If the calendar was set when the DNC adopted the rules, then the New Hampshire primary would have been the same day as the Nevada primary and the Georgia primary would have occupied a spot in mid-February. 

It did not work out way.

That aside, there is a bigger point about the 2028 presidential primary calendar that is missing in the AP account. If the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is making a decision at this point, before the midterms, then it likely means that of the 12 states who applied for early status, those currently lacking Democratic control of state government are out of the mix. That group includes Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee. And it is not exactly a revelation. Additionally, it is unlikely that the RBC reverses course on the Iowa's caucuses. Again, that is not really a surprise. 

And that leaves a handful of blue states -- Delaware, Illinois, New Mexico and Virginia -- and four of the five states initially granted waivers in 2023, three of which ended up in the early window -- Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina. All three and New Hampshire check more of the boxes in the criteria for early state selection than the four blue states. But that latter group is most likely to fill any fifth slot for which the RBC may grant an early state waiver.

It is a largely status quo group of states relative to 2024 with some lingering mystery about the order. 

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Now we know which states they are looking at 

Some thoughts on the 2028 Democratic primary calendar process now that the deadline for state parties to apply with the DNC has come and gone

"Would You Let New Mexico Pick the President?"

Jesús Rodríguez at The New Yorker on the Democrats' efforts to settle on a lead-off state for 2028:

"Democrats are deciding what kind of party they want to be, but first they have to decide who gets to decide. Since January, twelve states have been trying to court the Rules and Bylaws Committee, insisting that their primary is the one that will determine a Democratic Presidential candidate who can beat the Republican heir to the maga movement. This has turned the discussion, at least in part, into a competition over which state is most like the rest of the nation, as several officials and party chairs told me. 'Nevada is a microcosm of the United States, with its diverse population,' the Nevada senator Catherine Cortez Masto said. 'I think you get a microcosm of the Democratic Party here,' Representative Sarah McBride, one of Delaware’s biggest boosters since the Bidens, said of the literal First State. 'We are a state, I think, that is the melting pot for the country,' Anderson Clayton, the chair of the North Carolina Democratic Party, said. 'We look like America,' Curtis Hertel, the chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, said. 'It’s a country of fifty states, but Georgia is the best representation of the diversity of our party,' Charlie Bailey, who chairs the Georgia Democrats, said.

"But the contest over the first-in-the-nation primaries has also become a proxy war over the future of the Party. The D.N.C.’s decision, expected by late summer, could have a significant effect on the 2028 cycle—from the crop of campaign staffers who can afford to relocate, to the ability of small campaigns to break through in large media markets. Although Iowa and New Hampshire haven’t always picked candidates that go on to win the Presidency, the early victors get to fly out of Des Moines and Manchester with an extremely valuable spoil: momentum, the type that an inert political party might need against a major popular movement. 'The issue here is about the stakes in this election, in 2028,' the New Hampshire senator Maggie Hassan, who won her seat in 2016 by a thousand and seventeen votes, told me. 'We have to win. We have to reverse Trumpism.'"

--

Noteworthy: This is a really nice, well-reported piece. But... [You knew there was going to be a but.]

But it is typically gauzy media account in how it approaches this "battle" within the Democratic Party. Rodríguez goes heavy on diversity and representation, which are important! Each are among the many factors the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is using to home in on the four or five states that will ultimately fill out the party's early window on the 2028 presidential primary calendar.

However, what's missing from the piece is arguably the most important component to the RBC's decision: Can the state/state party actually get the contest in question into the early window? And if one is going to report that a calendar decision is "expected by late summer," then not mentioning feasibility of primary/caucus movement -- even once! -- stands as a pretty glaring omission.

Why?

Well, if the end of summer is the point at which a decision on the calendar is to be made, then it really constrains the choice that is being made. It would limit the decision to states with contests already in the window or those that can easily get there. And not all 12 of the state parties that threw their hat in the ring for one of those early spots can get there. 

Not without the certainty that the midterms will likely bring. 

Control of state government come January 2027 will not be assured until then. And which party controls the levers of power will determine whether those states can or will be motivated to move a contest into February ahead of 2028. State governments hold that power in 10 of the 12 states vying for early slots in 2028. Iowa and South Carolina are the only exceptions.

These things matter. They may not be wholly determinative of the outcome, but they have an outsized role in how this is all going to shake out at some point later this year. 

And don't get FHQ started on this "two-hundred-and-seventy-thousand dollar fine" that the DNC will slap "on any state that staged an unauthorized competition." There is much more to it than that.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Now we know which states they are looking at 

Some thoughts on the 2028 Democratic primary calendar process now that the deadline for state parties to apply with the DNC has come and gone

At FHQ Plus: The die appears cast for ranked choice voting in the 2028 presidential nomination races

Over at FHQ Plus...

Ranked choice voting?

Again? Come on, FHQ. Didn’t you already write — at length — about Democrats and RCV not all that long ago?

I did.

However, while the national party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) voted in late May to restrict the use of RCV in the delegate allocation portion of the presidential nomination process, the panel left open the door for reconsideration of the decision before the 2028 rules are finalized. And the RBC revisited the changes to Rule 14.A at their most recent meeting in Pittsburgh at the end of June.

So think of this update as the next chapter (if not coda for the 2028 cycle) to the story.

What exactly happened in Pittsburgh, how does it affect the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination process and how does this compare to what Republicans are doing with regard to RCV for 2028? FHQ dives into those questions over at FHQ Plus.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

The Democrats and ranked choice voting in the 2028 presidential nomination process

Coming off a Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting primarily devoted to the primary calendar, the headline maybe instead should be about RCV.

--

Subscribe below and consider becoming a paid subscriber for access to the remainder of the post.

--

At FHQ Plus: Democrats devise their own super penalty for primary calendar violations

Over at FHQ Plus...

June 25, 2026.

Yes, it is a date like any other, but in FHQ’s estimation, it is a date worth marking on your, ahem, calendar. No, it was not the date of some presidential primary, the sort of calendar marking we do around here. Instead, it was the date of another in a long line of DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) meetings. However, depending on how the party finalizes its decisions on waivers for states to conduct early window (pre-March) primaries or caucuses in 2028, it is a meeting and a date that stand to be referenced often in 2027, 2028 and, perhaps, even beyond.

And that is because this was a meeting where the RBC once again took up and considered the punishments for 1) state parties that violate the timing rules laid out in Rule 12 and 2) the candidates who campaign in those states that have held primaries or caucuses too early. Yes, the RBC does this every cycle and even made incremental changes to the severity of the punishments described in Rule 21 for the 2024 cycle. But the panel did not rest on its laurels, merely carrying over the 2024 language for use in 2028. And it probably is not accurate to say the changes adopted by the RBC for 2028 were incremental because the degree to which the sanctions were increased in this case was fairly substantial.

How substantial? Over at FHQ Plus, I will delve into the amendments made to the Rule 21 penalties and size up just how the changes might impact how easily (or not) the early calendar comes together for Democrats for 2028.

--

Subscribe below and consider becoming a paid subscriber for access to the remainder of the post.

--

DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Votes to Strengthen Penalties for Violations of Early Window of Presidential Nominating Calendar

DNC press release:

At this week’s meeting, the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) voted to strengthen penalties for states that hold or candidates who participate in an unsanctioned contest in the early window of the presidential nominating calendar. The RBC is working diligently to establish a calendar that delivers the strongest possible nominee for president. These strengthened rules aim to enforce a fair and orderly nominating process by providing clarity for both states and candidates. Importantly, these changes are being implemented early in the process, prior to a decision on the calendar and before any candidates are in the field, to ensure fairness to all parties.

Highlights from the changes include:

• Increasing the delegates lost for states that host an unsanctioned contest from 50% to 100%, including all automatic delegates.
• Requiring campaigns and candidates to denounce any efforts to campaign on their behalf in unsanctioned contests, expanding existing requirements beyond just a ban on direct participation.
• Prohibiting candidate participation in DNC debates, if that candidate or their campaign violates the early window rules.
• Prohibiting candidates who violate the rules from earning delegates in any early window contest.
• Implementing a $270,000 fine for any state that hosts an unsanctioned contest.
• Setting clear deadlines for states to establish the dates of their contests.
• Preventing backtracking on penalties for states or candidates who violate the rules.

The strengthened penalties were added via amendments to Rule 21 of the 2028 Delegate Selection Rules. The full meeting was livestreamed and can be found on the DNC’s YouTube page here.

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

“Today, the Rules and Bylaws Committee completed its work on the 2028 Delegate Selection Rules, creating a fair, efficient, and rigorous process to govern how we select our 2028 nominee. These newly-adopted rules strengthen the Delegate Selection Process to ensure maximum participation and clarity.”

DNC Chair Ken Martin released the following statement:

“Democrats must retake the White House in 2028. Today, the Rules and Bylaws Committee took important steps to bring us closer to that reality by creating a clear and orderly process to deliver the strongest possible nominee.”

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Democrats devise their own super penalty for primary calendar violations

The Rules and Bylaws Committee adopted new enhanced penalties to punish states and candidates who break timing rules in 2028

At FHQ Plus: What would happen if Democrats raised the 15% qualifying threshold for delegates to 20%?

Over at FHQ Plus...

The Democratic Party has not always had a threshold candidates have had to surpass in order to qualify for delegates in its post-reform presidential nomination process, but it has operated under a flat 15 percent threshold since the rule was clarified for the 1992 cycle. That is nine cycles — six of them competitive — in which the 15 percent threshold has been utilized in the Democratic process. And it looks like that will extend to a tenth cycle in 2028. 

Although, at a recent Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) meeting in Washington, DC there were some questions raised about where the qualifying threshold has been set. And that is something that stood in fairly stark contrast to the rules-crafting sessions the panel has undertaken during cycles of the recent past. No, nothing changed for 2028, but the idea of either raising or lowering the threshold was broached (in what turned out to be an aside) in the nation’s capital at the end of May.

Now, the May meeting was ostensibly for the RBC to hear pitches from the 12 state parties vying for spots in the early window of the party’s 2028 presidential primary calendar. But a third day — well, half a day really — was devoted to continuing the process of going line by line through the DNC delegate selection guidelines, making any amendments along the way to the rules that will govern the party’s 2028 nomination process. The threshold discussion that followed came when the panel got to Rule 14.B. Here is how that rule read going into the May meeting (before any amendments):

States shall allocate district-level delegates and alternates in proportion to the percentage of the primary or caucus vote won in that district by each preference, except that preferences falling below a fifteen percent (15%) threshold shall not be awarded any delegates. Subject to section F. of this rule, no state shall have a threshold above or below fifteen percent (15%).

It was there that DNC member Wendy Davis (Georgia) interjected to inquire about possibly lowering the 15 percent threshold in view of the fact that the party is likely to see another logjam of candidates similar to the 2020 cycle. [The following is a transcript of the discussion lightly edited for clarity.] 

Davis: So this is to my recollection the first instance we’ve talked about the 15 percent threshold. Would this be the place for us to discuss whether we wanted to maintain a 15 percent rule or potentially lower the threshold since there going to be so many candidates? It seems pretty high to me when we’re gonna…the early states will have [so many candidates].

After RBC co-Chair Minyon Moore responded, she yielded the floor to longtime DNC member Elaine Kamarck (Virginia) to provide some context on the history of the 15 percent rule and to subsequently make a case for potentially raising the threshold to 20 percent. [Again, and for transparency, this has been edited slightly for clarity.]

Kamarck: I can talk a little bit about that. I mean we’ve had thresholds as high as 25 percent at some point. There was a lot of support for [a] 20 percent threshold which I personally would favor: a slightly higher threshold. Here’s the problem I see with the 15 percent threshold. I want to go right to the content of this. There are many delegate districts that have only three delegates, okay? Or four delegates. That’s because there’s a lot of congressional districts that are Republican districts and they just don’t have enough of a Democratic vote to get a lot of delegates. And in those districts, nobody with 16 percent ever gets a delegate.

So we have this idea that somehow if you get 15 percent, you’re going to get a delegate. It just doesn’t happen, you know? It just doesn’t happen mathematically unless you’re maybe in the handful of districts that get nine delegates. And those are almost all majority minority districts, which, thank you Republican Party, they’ve now busted up. So the illusion of 15 percent is just an illusion. It just never happens. So, I think it is much more realistic to move it to, say, a 20 percent threshold, particularly when we’re looking at races that there’s going to be just a ton of candidates. 

So I like this. It has always been argued that this [the 15 percent threshold] would be greater inclusion, right? And that was the rationale for 15%. The problem is that nobody ever gets included under a 15 percent in a multi-candidate race anyway.

Davis: Not even at the at-large level?

Kamarck: No, it doesn’t even work out at the at-large [level]. But at the district level, it really doesn’t work out. So, I would love to have, I would love to see a 20 percent threshold. I think of all the years when we should do it, this is the time. So, I thank you for bringing it up.

Now, FHQ’s initial reaction to Kamarck’s case was that it sounded right. Honestly, I do not often make a habit of contradicting her in this area.3 And my recollection was (and is) that a five percent shift up to 20 percent probably would not make much of a difference anyway. Yes, there is the math of it that Kamarck notes (more on that below), but also the reality is that, beyond a contest or two into the sequence of primaries and caucuses, there just are not that many candidates who clear the 15 percent threshold to claim many delegates. 

After all, the winnowing starts well before delegate counting really kicks in. Wins and losses (outright or relative to expectations) are sufficient to separate the wheat from the chaff early on during the momentum phase of the calendar before delegates become the currency of the process. Yet, delegate counting does not begin in earnest until a little deeper into the calendar when more delegates than are typically available in the early window of the calendar are on the line, during any later delegate phase of the process. 

But Kamarck’s notion of the limited impact of a change to a 20 percent threshold is a testable hypothesis. So let’s test it. 

Over at FHQ Plus, I will briefly look back at the history of the qualifying threshold in the Democratic presidential nomination process, discuss the purpose of such a mechanism and examine the evidence of what a shift to a 20 percent threshold would have looked like during the Democratic nomination races of the 21st century.

--

Subscribe below and consider becoming a paid subscriber to get the rest.

--

"Republicans are gutting southern Dem districts. Dems might front-load the South in its 2028 primaries to respond."

Lisa Kashinsky at Politico reports on the possibility of two southern states making it into the early window of the 2028 presidential primary calendar, post-Callais:

"Democrats are weighing whether they can use their 2028 primary calendar to try to rebuild their party’s strength in the South amid aggressive GOP gerrymanders.

"As Democratic National Committee members meet in D.C. this week to discuss which states will lead the next presidential nominating contest, the GOP push to dismantle majority-Black districts and dilute Democrats’ power across the South is ratcheting up the selection stakes. Some members are now advocating for two southern states to make the cut as the Callais ruling adds fresh urgency to Democrats’ long-running debate over how to amplify the voices of Black voters who have long been the party’s backbone."

--

Noteworthy: A couple of thoughts about this...

1. Even before the Callais decision came down, it was true that approaching a majority of the states -- five of 12 -- that applied for a waiver from the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) to hold an early contest in 2028 were from the south. That has not changed following the decision. As I said at our sister site, FHQ Plus back in January: "The only other mysteries are if there will be a fifth state and which state that may be. The overrepresentation of southern states in the pool may give the region an advantage in claiming a second spot among the would-be five early states. Granted, that is far from guaranteed." Post-Callais, that overrepresentation of the South positions the DNC to make a statement with the calendar. [Side note: Bear in mind also that the DNC attempted to get two southern states into the early window for 2024 as well.]
2. As a counterpoint, however, look at the 2028 presidential primary calendar and consider the southern states that have applied for early state status...

• North Carolina? Super Tuesday.
• Tennessee? Super Tuesday.
• Virginia? Super Tuesday.
• Georgia? Regardless of the partisan affiliation of the next Secretary of State in the Peach state, they can easily -- and without penalty from either party -- set a Super Tuesday date for the Georgia primary. 
• And hey, throw in Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas? All Super Tuesday primaries.

There is an argument that the calendar is already frontloaded with southern states, a remnant of Republican efforts across the region to create an "SEC primary" ahead of 2016. The only thing that separates those states above from the early window on the 2028 calendar is at most a week and possibly even just a weekend before Super Tuesday. That does not preclude the RBC from granting early state waivers to two southern states, but such a move may or may not be superfluous given how southern-tinged the front of the calendar already is. 

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Now we know which states they are looking at 

Some thoughts on the 2028 Democratic primary calendar process now that the deadline for state parties to apply with the DNC has come and gone

"5 Southern Democratic chairs say South Carolina should lead off 2028 presidential primary calendar"

Meg Kinard at the AP sets the stage for the presentation South Carolina Democrats will make to the Rules and Bylaws Committee for going early in 2028:

"Democratic leaders in a handful of southern states are lobbying for South Carolina to reprise its role as the party’s first-in-the-nation state to cast primary ballots in 2028, arguing that the state best represents the initial playing field for presidential candidates to build the coalitions needed to win.

"The state party chairs of five Democratic parties wrote a letter Thursday to the Democratic National Committee calling on party leaders 'to do everything in your power to ensure South Carolina continues to serve as the indispensable first proving ground for Democratic presidential nominees.' The DNC is currently debating the order in which states will vote in the next round of presidential primaries.

"The state should hold the first presidential balloting in 2028, they argued, in part because it 'is not simply a geographic starting point. It is a moral and political compass for our party and our nation.'”

...

“'The fight for voting rights is no longer just a courtroom battle, it is an electoral one,' the Democratic chairs from Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia wrote in the letter, provided to The Associated Press ahead of its release. 'And it begins in South Carolina.'”

--

Noteworthy: There are five states from the south, including South Carolina, that have applied with the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) to hold early contests in 2028. The Democrat chairs in all of the other southern states, save Florida and Texas, back the Palmetto state's bid to go not only early but first. It is an endorsement that will likely carry some weight with the members of the RBC, coming from fellow DNC members. 

Now, it may not ultimately prove decisive in this selection process, but this is an endorsement that will not hurt South Carolina Democrats' case for an early slot in 2028. 

And it is worth noting that this sort of endorsement from fellow regional allies is unique so far to the presentation stage of the selection process. No other applicant states have brought forth anything similar in their pitches to the panel.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Now we know which states they are looking at 

Some thoughts on the 2028 Democratic primary calendar process now that the deadline for state parties to apply with the DNC has come and gone

"Democrats to pitch new-look Iowa Caucuses in bid to go first once more"

Brianne Pfannenstiel at the Des Moines Register shares the latest on Iowa Democrats push to return to the early window for 2028:

"Iowa Democrats will travel to Washington, D.C., this week to pitch a streamlined caucus plan they hope will convince national party leaders that Iowa deserves another shot to be at the front of the presidential nominating calendar."

...

"Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart has argued repeatedly that the [DNC Rules and Bylaws] committee should reconsider Iowa as Democrats work to regain ground with rural, working-class voters who have fled the party in droves.

"'In order to do that, we've got to have a state like Iowa where any Democratic presidential candidate can compete, where it's affordable and where the candidates can look forward to getting up close and personal and really understanding the issues that will bring us back to an understanding of working class voters,' Hart told the Des Moines Register."

--

Noteworthy: The devil, as always, is in the details.

More will obviously be revealed when the Iowa Democratic delegation makes its case before the RBC this week, but one thing is clear in Pfannenstiel's interview with Chair Hart: The old caucuses are gone. 

There would be no more physical gathering in groups at caucus sites, determining viability (15 percent support) and realigning among viable groups to begin the process of calculating state delegate equivalents for the next steps in the overall caucus/convention process. All of that is out, streamlined and replaced by paper ballots similar to those used in the Iowa Republican presidential caucus process but to be preceded by an absentee voting period in the lead up to the caucus meeting (a carry over from the 2024 Democratic process).

Part the RBC will likely enjoy seeing included: the streamlined process. Anything that appears miles simpler than the 2020 process will go a long way.

Part(s) the RBC may push back on: Not only having a party-run process lead off (or be early on) the 2028 presidential primary calendar, but having a heretofore untested new (albeit simplified) party-run process be a part of the early window. Of the 12 states applying for an early window waiver, only Iowa is proposing a party-run affair. The remaining 11 all have state-run presidential primary elections. 

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Now we know which states they are looking at 

Some thoughts on the 2028 Democratic primary calendar process now that the deadline for state parties to apply with the DNC has come and gone

"New Hampshire Democrats prepare to make case for first-in-the-nation primary status"

Adam Sexton at WMUR has the latest on the Democrats' 2028 presidential primary calendar from on the ground in the Granite state:

"The New Hampshire primary is facing a critical test in the weeks ahead as state Democrats prepare to make their case to the Democratic National Committee to restore the Granite State's first-in-the-nation status on their presidential nominating calendar."

...

"In an interview for 'CloseUp,' New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley said he's feeling positive about the DNC process so far.

"'Obviously, there was a thumb that was put on the process last time. We thought we were in good position,' Buckley said. 'This time, there's no thumb on what the final decisions are going to be. We have made an effort. We're meeting with them individually.'

"Buckley said he expects a final vote on the DNC primary calendar sometime toward the end of the summer."

--

Noteworthy: In an additional video post, Sexton revealed that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) next will meet this week and will hear pitches from the 12 states being considered for early window spots in May. A May 2026 DNCRBC meeting for 2028 early state pitches would be about a month earlier than a similar meeting during the 2024 cycle. 

Chair Buckley, also a DNCRBC member, forecasting a finalizing of the 2028 early calendar by late summer would seemingly suggest either little shake up to the early calendar lineup from 2024 for 2028 or that any change is likely to be driven largely by the blue state parties that applied for early calendar status. Purple and red states will likely face uncertainty over their ability to move into position until the midterms provide further clarity. 

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

The Annotated 2028 Presidential Primary Calendar

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

Nevada Democrats respond to questions raised at January DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting

In a letter dated March 2, 2026, the Nevada Democratic Party has responded to questions posed by DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee members at the panel's January 31 meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Questions there ranged from those specific to the bid of Democrats in the Silver state for an early calendar spot in 2028 and broader questions the committee had for all early state applicants. 

The letter:

--

Noteworthy: Look, Nevada Democrats have a strong case for an early slot on the 2028 Democratic presidential primary calendar, if not the first spot (for which the state party is aiming). 

The primary is already early. [The inclusion of Nevada's primary could be a part of a path of least resistance for the DNC.]

The electorate is diverse on a number of fronts that could be perceived as helpful to the national party's general election efforts.

What potentially hurts Nevada Democrats' cause -- more so vying for the first-in-the-nation honor rather than merely being included in the early window -- are factors that are outside of the state party's control. 

Fair or not, Nevada cannot change the fact that it is in the Pacific time zone. Democrats there can lean into that as the party has in the letter above, making the case that being west coast-adjacent is another diversity box that Nevada's primary checks. 

And while changes could be made to election administration to help expedite vote counting in particular, with a Republican in the governor's mansion in Carson City, such changes are less likely than if a Democrat held that office. Still, in the face of arguments that have already been raised in RBC meetings about the calendar that Nevada may struggle to count primary votes in a timely manner, the state party has responded thusly...

With universal vote by mail, seven days of in-person early voting, county-wide Election Day vote centers, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, and a ballot cure process, Nevada has some of the most progressive voter access laws in the country. As Nevada’s voting preferences have shifted from in-person early voting to voting by mail, changes have been adopted to expedite the tabulation and reporting of votes at the county level. County election offices are now able to begin counting mail and dropbox ballots beginning 15 days prior to election day. Upon the close of polls on Election Day, counties will report all mail, dropbox, and in-person early vote totals received prior to Election Day, followed by Election Day in-person totals, and any mail or dropbox ballots received on Election Day. Given the smaller voter universe relative to the general election and the limited scope of the presidential primary ballot, this process will be expeditious.

Left unanswered is whether and how these new measures have been stress tested. FHQ is not suggesting that they have not, but they certainly have not been tested under the intense spotlight of a presidential nomination race, especially if Nevada ended up with the first sanctioned primary on the Democratic side. That will not change between now and 2028, but Nevada Democrats can come armed with data from the midterm primaries in June and perhaps the general election in November if the Rules and Bylaws Committee has yet to finalize the party's early calendar lineup by that point in time. That may additionally aid in allaying any lingering fears members of the panel may have.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Some additional thoughts on the Democrats' recent 2028 primary calendar meeting 

Learning, incentives, appearance versus reality and the limits of the national parties in calendar crafting

"Pete Buttigieg stays out of fight over NH primary"

Former Transportation secretary and Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg was in New Hampshire late last on the hustings for Democrats running for office this year in the Granite state. Adam Sexton at WMUR out of Manchester got the secretary on record about New Hampshire's place in the national party's plans for an early calendar lineup for 2028:

Sexton: 

You were very diplomatic during the administration in terms of the debates at the DNC about New Hampshire first-in-the-nation status. The Granite state wants it back now. Are you going to be on New Hampshire's side and say New Hampshire should go first? 

Buttigieg:

I respect that I am not one of the people who gets to make the rules or make those decisions. What I will say is that campaigning in New Hampshire made me, I think, a better public servant. The conversations that I had, the way that the size, the scale and the civic spirit of the state really forces people on the national stage to stop and pay attention to things on a more immediate human scale. I think that’s a very healthy thing to have in our politics."

--

Noteworthy: Look, clearly I fell prey to the headline to this one. There really is not a whole lot there. Buttigieg was, to borrow Sexton's word, diplomatic in response to the question about being on "New Hampshire's side" in the 2028 calendar discussions. And not to make a mountain out of a molehill, but a couple of things:

1. Buttigieg's nonresponse is, in and of itself, notable. It may have been missing in 2024, but one does not have to go very far back in time before that to find ample evidence of candidates falling over themselves to defend New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation status while campaigning there. Buttigieg did not, well, pander in his brief answer to Sexton's question. Instead, he deferred to the process the DNC has laid out for deciding on the early calendar for 2028. The DNC may not have kept New Hampshire from being the (unsanctioned) first contest in 2024 and it may not have kept all candidates out of the state then, but the change in process has kept candidates -- candidate, singular, I suppose -- from reflexively defending New Hampshire traditional status. And again, that is a noteworthy change.
2. Note also that Buttigieg plays up the virtues of retail politics, and specifically how the New Hampshire primary fills that role (or did so during his time campaigning there during the 2020 cycle). That is something that is a plank in the Rules and Bylaws Committee's criteria for the states vying for early 2028 slots on the calendar (see Section III of the Request for Proposals). However, at least some folks on the committee are questioning the value of in-primary-season retail politics in an ever-changing presidential nomination campaign landscape. How the committee deals with that will go a long way toward determining New Hampshire's place in the early part of the 2028 calendar. 

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Some additional thoughts on the Democrats' recent 2028 primary calendar meeting 

Learning, incentives, appearance versus reality and the limits of the national parties in calendar crafting

"S. Carolina Dems deploy Biden as they seek early primary"

Alex Thompson at Axios looks into the latest twist in the South Carolina Democrats' efforts to retain first-in-the-nation status for 2028:

"South Carolina Democrats are enlisting former President Biden to try to save the state's place as the first contest in the party's next presidential primary."

"Christale Spain, chair of South Carolina's Democratic Party, has been inviting members of the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee to the Biden reception as part of the lobbying effort.

"'This intimate gathering offers a rare opportunity to spend time with the former president,' Spain wrote to one committee member."

--

Noteworthy: It really is not clear at this point whether Biden inserting himself -- or being inserted by South Carolina Democrats -- will help sway members of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee as the panel continues to consider the states that will make up the party's early state line up on the 2028 presidential primary calendar. An argument could be made that it may prove persuasive to some members of the committee and backfire with others. 

Biden or not, the biggest feather Palmetto state Democrats have in their caps for the 2028 calendar process is the fact that the South Carolina presidential primary remains among the most, if not the most, mobile piece on the calendar board. The state funds and runs the primary but the state parties decide the date on which the election will fall. Importantly, any decision does not have to go through any state legislature or any other state governmental office first. 

The South Carolina primary, then, could be easily moved into any early position, including first-in-the-nation, or could just as easily be moved out of the early lineup altogether. But as of now, while there is a lot of competition from states vying to be the southern state with some representation on the early calendar, few yet have the ability to get into position that South Carolina Democrats have.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Now we know which states they are looking at 

Some thoughts on the 2028 Democratic primary calendar process now that the deadline for state parties to apply with the DNC has come and gone

"Democrats to shake up primary map, as 12 states vie to be among the first"

Maeve Reston from the Washington Post puts a wrap on last weekend's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting in Puerto Rico:

"A powerful Democratic committee that will determine which states hold the party’s first nominating contests in the 2028 presidential race voted Saturday to advance 12 states that had applied to hold the first in the nation contests.

"Iowa had traditionally held the first caucuses, and New Hampshire has long relished its status as the first-in-the-nation primary. But in 2024, Joe Biden’s allies pressed the Democratic Party to move up South Carolina’s primary ahead of New Hampshire to highlight his strength among Black voters.

"After steep losses in the 2024 general election, party leaders have said they are ready to completely rethink the early-state lineup. On Saturday, Democrats advanced the 12 states that applied to hold the first nominating contests: Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.”

--

Noteworthy: Contrast the "shake up" mentioned in the headline coupled with the "completely rethink the early-state lineup" above with the close to Reston's piece:

"States like New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are all vying to hold the first nominating contest. Party officials from states like Georgia and Michigan have made it clear that they will be satisfied being anywhere in the early rotation."

The five states in that list? All were conditionally granted waivers by the DNC to conduct early contests in 2024. That does not make it sound like much of a "shake up."

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Some additional thoughts on the Democrats' recent 2028 primary calendar meeting 

Learning, incentives, appearance versus reality and the limits of the national parties in calendar crafting

"DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Votes to Advance 12 States to Next Phase of 2028 Presidential Calendar Selection Process"

The following is a press release from the DNC on the January 31 Rules and Bylaws Committee that began to consider the submission materials from state parties applying for early state waivers in the 2028 presidential nomination process:

Today, at the January meeting of the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC), the RBC reviewed applications for the early nominating window of the 2028 presidential calendar. The RBC received 12 applications for the early window and voted to advance all 12 of those states to the next phase of the process, which is an opportunity for states to deliver presentations to the Committee.

The states invited to present are: Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.

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

“Today, the Rules and Bylaws Committee took another crucial step forward to create a nominating calendar that delivers a strong, battle-tested Democratic nominee to take back the White House in 2028. The RBC remains committed to running a rigorous, efficient, and fair selection process and looks forward to states presenting their cases directly to the Committee in the coming months.”

DNC Chair Ken Martin released the following statement:

“As the Rules and Bylaws Committee continues their work to set the Democratic Party’s 2028 presidential nominating calendar, I commend the Committee for their commitment to a transparent and fair process that produces the strongest possible Democratic nominee.”

Background on the 2028 Calendar Process:

At the October 27, 2025 RBC meeting, the Committee passed a resolution outlining the next steps in determining the early window of the 2028 presidential nominating calendar. The Resolution established that the fundamental goal for the 2028 calendar process is to “produce the strongest possible Democratic nominee for president” and included the following requirements:

• 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 Committee will execute the calendar process “in the most transparent, open, and fair manner feasible,” while providing “adequate, clear, and timely notice on major milestones and requirements.”
• Three pillars will be used to evaluate early state applicants:
• 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.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee moves all 12 states vying for early state status for 2028 to next stage 

State parties will now make in-person presentations to the panel for inclusion in the early window