2008 Woodie Awards
States contend for primary race
Nadia Galindo
Issue date: 9/10/07 Section: Politics
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Across the nation a political mutiny is occurring among state governments.
Several states have attempted to gain more leverage by moving up the primary elections each state holds to choose a presidential candidate to a date earlier in the year.
This has sparked an outcry from the Democratic and Republican National Committees, other states who are compliant with the traditional party rules and candidates themselves who say the uncertainty is straining and unfair.
Florida's decision to move its primary to Jan. 29 seemed to prompt other states seeking to increase their profile to follow suit.
South Carolina's subsequent decision to leapfrog their GOP primary from Jan. 29 to Jan. 19 due to their "first in the South" legacy forced New Hampshire, whose government requires that it be the first state to hold a primary, to move theirs to Jan. 12 or possibly earlier.
Shortly afterward Michigan announced they would advance their primary to Jan. 15, sending the schedule of this year's primary season into further disarray.
The fact that Iowa has a law forcing it to caucus a week before any elections are held, it becomes easy to see why the situation has angered so many people involved in the political process.
As of the publication of this article, New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner has yet to set a date, saying his decision is based on the actions of other states.
Some Republicans are even trying to push forward legislation known as the Delaware Plan, which would organize states from smallest to largest, having them vote at one-month intervals from one another.
The initial rush of large states like New York and California pushing up their primary dates may have been a catalyst for the latest moves by Florida and South Carolina. But such jockeying for prestige had already been going on since the 2000 election when the Republican National Committee set up strict rules meant to keep the nominating process from becoming a national primary.
Several states have attempted to gain more leverage by moving up the primary elections each state holds to choose a presidential candidate to a date earlier in the year.
This has sparked an outcry from the Democratic and Republican National Committees, other states who are compliant with the traditional party rules and candidates themselves who say the uncertainty is straining and unfair.
Florida's decision to move its primary to Jan. 29 seemed to prompt other states seeking to increase their profile to follow suit.
South Carolina's subsequent decision to leapfrog their GOP primary from Jan. 29 to Jan. 19 due to their "first in the South" legacy forced New Hampshire, whose government requires that it be the first state to hold a primary, to move theirs to Jan. 12 or possibly earlier.
Shortly afterward Michigan announced they would advance their primary to Jan. 15, sending the schedule of this year's primary season into further disarray.
The fact that Iowa has a law forcing it to caucus a week before any elections are held, it becomes easy to see why the situation has angered so many people involved in the political process.
As of the publication of this article, New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner has yet to set a date, saying his decision is based on the actions of other states.
Some Republicans are even trying to push forward legislation known as the Delaware Plan, which would organize states from smallest to largest, having them vote at one-month intervals from one another.
The initial rush of large states like New York and California pushing up their primary dates may have been a catalyst for the latest moves by Florida and South Carolina. But such jockeying for prestige had already been going on since the 2000 election when the Republican National Committee set up strict rules meant to keep the nominating process from becoming a national primary.
Be the first to comment on this story