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

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

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

More on the 2028 presidential primary calendar here and here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

--

More from FHQ Plus (subscription):

DNC Chair Martin lays out early state checklist for 2028

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

...

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

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

--

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

• Diversity
• Competitiveness
• Feasibility

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

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

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

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

"What are the early states to watch?

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

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related from The Hill:

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

--

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

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

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

"Iowa Democrats plot 2028 comeback for caucuses"

From Alex Thompson at Axios:

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

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

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

More from FHQ Plus (subscription):

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

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

From Robin Opsahl the Iowa Capital Dispatch:

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

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

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

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

More from FHQ Plus (subscription):

The 2028 Democratic primary calendar and the recent DNC committee appointments

Puerto Rico bill would create new avenue to canceling presidential primary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missouri House passes Super Tuesday primary bill

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

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

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

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

--

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

--

Related: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

Related: 

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

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

Republican lawsuit seeks to overturn novel Virginia primary law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

West Virginia legislator angles for February presidential primary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

An early update on presidential primary movement in 2025

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

Alternate Missouri Senate bill would reestablish presidential primary and schedule for April

The fourth of four bills currently before the Missouri General Assembly in its 2025 state legislative session would also bring back the presidential primary nixed in 2022 but schedule the election for yet another -- a fourth -- distinct date on the calendar. 

SB 417, introduced by Senator Jill Carter (R-32nd, Jaspar/Newton), resurrects ideas first brought forth in discussions over similar legislation in 2023. Namely, the objective, then as now, would be to consolidate the presidential preference primary with the general election for municipal offices on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in April. Only, the 2025 version contains a twist. 

The catch to conducting concurrent presidential primaries with a general election for municipal offices is an administrative one. The consolidation would require election administrators to simultaneously print both partisan primary ballots and effectively nonpartisan general election ballots as one across all municipalities (and the offices contained therein) together. It was that issue that played at least some role in derailing the push to reinstate the presidential primary in the Show-Me state before 2024: Administrators balked at the potential complexity introduced into the process. 

However, there is a fix to that snag in Carter's SB 417. The senator would have all presidential candidates regardless of party listed on the ballot for the presidential primary/municipal general election. There would be no Democratic ballot, no Republican ballot, no ballot for those wishing to simply vote in municipal elections. Instead, everything would be on one ballot that all Missouri voters turning out in early April would receive. Results would then be delivered to state party chairs who would in turn allocate delegate slots to candidates identified with the respective parties. 

Left unspecified is how the uncommitted line (or lines) on the ballot would be treated. If there is merely one uncommitted option, then it could serve as a catch-all that is difficult to parse out along partisan lines for the purposes of allocation. That problem could potentially be solved by placing an uncommitted (Democratic) line in addition to an uncommitted (Republican) option on the ballot. But it is not clear in Carter's legislation which is the prescribed protocol. 

So, one leftover administrative issue is addressed, but in so doing, a possible unintended consequence is introduced. 

On the Missouri Senate side, bill would schedule a reinstated presidential primary in March

There are two bills currently in the Missouri state House to reinstate a presidential primary in the Show-Me state, but there is also action on the matter in the upper chamber in Jefferson City. 

In fact, legislation has also been introduced in the Missouri state Senate to bring back the state-funded presidential preference election eliminated by the General Assembly in 2022. One measure, SB 670 introduced by Senator David Gregory (R-15th, St. Louis), is more in line with HB 126 which would basically reset conditions to where they were with respect to the parameters of the presidential primary prior to 2022. That is to say that the primary election would revert to a position on the presidential primary calendar following Super Tuesday. 

But the two are not identical. The House version replicates the pre-2022 language in state law. In it, the primary would fall on the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March. However, Gregory's SB 670 strips out the latter portion and simply schedules the presidential preference election for the second Tuesday in March. In most years, including 2028, there is no difference between the two: the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March is often the second Tuesday in March. 

The exception is when March begins on a Tuesday. When March 1 falls on a Tuesday, then the second Tuesday in March is March 8. But the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March is not until March 15. It is the same reason it appears as if the Missouri presidential primary moved up a week from 2016 to 2020. In the former year, March began on a Tuesday. 

In the grand scheme of things, none of this is all that consequential. Yet, it is meaningful that none of the three Missouri bills discussed in this space thus far in 2025 are aligned on what the date of any reinstated presidential primary would be. And that is part of what derailed the 2023 efforts to revive the presidential primary in the Show-Me state. 

From Missouri, a competing bill to restore the Show-Me state presidential primary

Earlier this week, FHQ raised legislation introduced in Missouri that aims to reestablish the presidential primary formally nixed in 2022. That bill envisions a Super Tuesday primary in early March. But it is not the only measure seeking to reinstate the presidential preference election in the Show-Me state. 

A similar state House bill -- HB 126 -- would also bring back the state-funded presidential primary, but the legislation from Rep. Rudy Veit (R-59th, Wardsville) would schedule the election for the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March. Veit's legislation would turn back the clock, reestablishing the parameters under which the state's presidential primary was conducted before it was eliminated. There would be no Super Tuesday and no expansion of absentee voting as is the case in the competing House bill.

Veit filed similar legislation in late 2022 ahead of the 2023 legislative session in Jefferson City. It and other bills met roadblocks along the way in the legislative process and ultimately amounted to nothing.