May 25, 2007

States and influence in the selection nominees.

Forget, for a moment, the battle among all those presidential candidates. The hot contest right now is over the order in which states hold their primaries and caucuses and, as a result, which states wield the most influence in the selection of nominees.

The latest bombshell is Florida's decision to move up its 2008 primaries from March to Jan. 29, signed into law by Gov. Charlie Crist. That maneuver in defiance of both parties' rules for scheduling nomination contests has set in motion a wave of speculation over whether other states will leapfrog to an early date and whether the penalties that could ensue would wind up costing a candidate the nomination.

For the still-fluid primary calendar, the result could be primaries and caucuses held in 2007. That would be a first, primaries held in the calendar year before the general election. Iowa and New Hampshire have made clear they will do whatever it takes to protect their franchise as the "firsts" first caucus and first primary. The national parties' calendars show the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 14 and the New Hampshire primaries on Jan. 22, but those decisions are made at the state level.

New Hampshire was already unhappy that the Democratic National Committee had scheduled a caucus in Nevada for Jan. 19. State law requires that New Hampshire's primary be held one week before any similar election, I am already expecting New Hampshire to go earlier than Jan. 22, possibly even before the Iowa caucuses. If New Hampshire leapfrogs ahead of Iowa, then Iowa may well move its date. Iowa promises to hold its caucuses, which are smaller and more time-consuming than primaries, eight days before the New Hampshire primaries.

Florida may be just the first of many states that flout the party calendars and reschedule primaries for before Feb. 5. Ultimately, all the front-loading of primaries is likely to enhance the importance of the early primaries.

No comments: