About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe
William Tucker

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Our First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary: The National Parties Are Threatening It Again

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:56:46 AM EDT


(Discuss. - promoted by Dean Barker)

Yet again, it appears that there is an effort by the national political parties to impact the traditional New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary, but there is time to stop it.

A Democratic National Committee panel has made a recommendation that in 2012, the Iowa Caucuses will be scheduled on Monday, February 6th.  The New Hampshire Primary would be on Tuesday February 14th, and the Nevada Caucuses would occur on Saturday, February 18th.  The full DNC will vote on the recommendations later this Summer.

The DNC panel's recommendation creates a situation similar to 2008 where there will be uncertainty as to what the primary and caucus schedule will be.  The traditional role of the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary has been that there is a period of seven days or more after New Hampshire before other nominating events are held, and our Secretary of State has used the authority of our state's first-in-the-nation primary law to set our date at a time that guarantees that tradition.

The historic tradition has been that since 1920, New Hampshire has had its presidential primary at least seven days ahead of any other state.  When other states try to piggy-back on New Hampshire, we respond.  In 2012, we will have to do so again if the DNC schedule is not changed.  Our state law that we have a date a week or more ahead of other states will be followed.  

Rep. Jim Splaine :: Our First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary: The National Parties Are Threatening It Again
We cannot allow the Nevada Piggy-Back to occur, and we need to encourage our New Hampshire Democratic national party representatives to hold to a position that there will not be another major nominating event within a week after New Hampshire.  We have to ask our Republican national party representatives to do the same.  

Our state law mandates that our Secretary of State move our primary "...7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election..." and legislation that I sponsored this year that was signed by Governor John Lynch on June 9th and effective August 8th (cut-and-pasted below) further requires the Secretary of State to "protect the tradition of the New Hampshire first-in-the-nation presidential primary."

I expect that Secretary of State Bill Gardner will enthusiastically follow the requirements of our state law, and if the national Democratic and Republican parties don't preserve our tradition in their rules, we will again have to comply with our law to keep our state's tradition.  That "tradition" is AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS.  That uncertainty for 2012 about when our primary will be held can be largely solved by action by the national parties now.  

The decision about when the Iowa Caucus will be held eventually is to be determined by the State of Iowa.  The decision about when the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary will be held is determined by our Secretary of State as he follows the mandates of our state law.  We need to encourage the national parties to appreciate the tradition of our primary.  

-----------------------
House Bill 341 follows, signed by Governor John Lynch on June 9th, 2010, effective August 8th (the paragraph in the bill repeats the current long-standing NH First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary Law, which I originally sponsored in 1975 and to which I have authored three other updates since then):

CHAPTER 121 - HB 341 - FINAL VERSION - 2010 SESSION

HOUSE BILL 341
AN ACT relative to the date selected for the presidential primary election.

SPONSORS: Rep. Splaine, Rock 16

COMMITTEE: Election Law

ANALYSIS
This bill modifies the statute relating to the date for the presidential primary election.

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in italic.

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE In the Year of Our Lord  Two Thousand Ten

AN ACT relative to the date selected for the presidential primary election.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

121:1 Election Dates; Presidential Primary Election. Amend RSA 653:9 to read as follows:

653:9 Presidential Primary Election. The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a date selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous. Said primary shall be held in connection with the regular March town meeting or election or, if held on any other day, at a special election called by the secretary of state for that purpose. The purpose of this section is to protect the tradition of the New Hampshire first-in-the-nation presidential primary.
121:2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

Approved: June 9, 2010

Effective Date: August 8, 2010

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Jim, you are obviously the go-to guy on the NH-Primary, (4.00 / 1)
but in looking at that proposed schedule I am not unhappy.

For one, it's in February, so there's definitely some sanity in pushing it back.

But more importantly for me, there is more space between us and Iowa.  The 24/7 cable news monster makes it very hard to unspin Iowan spin in short amounts of time, so I like that.  

I honestly haven't given much thought to the next state up after us.


birch, finch, beech


Similar? (4.00 / 2)
Jim,
How is a caucus "similar" to a primary?

Is this an interpretation thing? Because it's kinda unfair for the DNC/RNC to have to consult with the NHSOS on what similar means, evey cycle. Bill Gardner isn't going to be SOS forever, y'know.

Apparently, the DNC does not consider a caucus to be similar to a primary.


www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com


A tiny bit OT, but: (0.00 / 0)
After seeing a live feed on CSPAN in 2004 of one of the Iowa caucus locations, with all kinds of wierd last minute stuff, societal peer pressure, etc, I for one will never consider a caucus similar to a primary.

I am SO glad I don't live in a caucus state.

birch, finch, beech


[ Parent ]
I'll step in - (0.00 / 0)
A caucus is similar to a primary in that:

  1. It selects delegates to the national party convention (sometimes in several phases)
  2. It is open to all registered voters, not just (for example) people elected to a state convention
  3. As a result, it encourages candidates to mount retail campaigns in the state: door knocking, debates, etc.
  4. It has been previously ruled on by the NH Secretary of State, and found similar. (Iowa is grandfathered.)

The Iowa Straw Poll doesn't count as similar: it elects no delegates to the convention.

The national party calendar committee knows all this. They don't need to consult.  


[ Parent ]
In the NV caucus (0.00 / 0)
can you "vote" more than once, like in Iowa?

In a primary, you cast a ballot and head along your way. A caucus is a kind of "instant run off" election. That is dissimilar. No?

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com


[ Parent ]
Caucuses vary; primaries vary. (0.00 / 0)
A primary limited to previously registered party members is much different than one open to independents. A primary conducted mostly by mail is different than one mostly conducted in person.

Yes, the caucus is different in some significant respects. But the state law was intended to preserve the New Hampshire primary from being overshadowed or diluted by in-person campaigning in other states, earlier or immediately after. (If Illinois held a caucus two days after our vote, candidates would be pulling up stakes here early.)

A lot of people - notoriously Kos - hate the idea of a leadoff NH primary, period. Wherever one stands on that, the state's objection to a caucus a few days later is not a new grab for status: that has been the interpretation of the law for a couple of cycles now.


[ Parent ]
So it's really not about (0.00 / 0)
the mechanism that selcts the delegates. It is about a state, NH in this case, having a window of "alone time" with the candidates. Though the law cannot exactly codify such a squishy notion.

What is odd, and this must drive lawyerly types nuts, is that the NH law puts a high degree of power in the hands of the SOS. The whole nation is held at bay, by allowing the SOS it "rule" on what is "similar." The squish is with the SOS.

Of course, the national parties can ignore bad actors in their little kabuki, should they opt to be mavericky, and penalize them. Like they did last year.

If I was sitting on that committee, I'm not sure I'd be too thrilled with having to capitulate to the whim of any individual. In America, we like checks and balances.

I advise against overplaying the card. Especially, since it ain't the last straw.

Anyone know who is on that committee? Not just the NH reps, if any.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com


[ Parent ]
Ahem. (0.00 / 0)
The law says "similar contest." You think that should mean "mechanically" similar. The legislature did not intend that.

And your whining that the notion is "squishy" is nonsense. It is well understood that the language doesn't say "primary" precisely because the state didn't want to invite games by the parties on inventing new competing processes.  


[ Parent ]
Really, "whining?" (4.00 / 1)
Why you gotta play me like that?

Trying to embed insults under my skin doesn't forward the discussion.

Squishy, as an intangible. Lawyers hate those.

Your SOS is empowered. In an unreasonable way? Maybe.

I like the NH primary. It was very good to me. But I can see where others may balk.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com


[ Parent ]
It really isn't squishy - (0.00 / 0)
at least, no more than the terms "primary" and "caucus" are.

The law says:

653:9 Presidential Primary Election. - The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a date selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous. Said primary shall be held in connection with the regular March town meeting or election or, if held on any other day, at a special election called by the secretary of state for that purpose.

The SoS could schedule the election three months earlier than the next primary or caucus: the law gives him that latitude. There is no headache for lawyers - though there perhaps is a headache for Gardner himself.

The whole point of delegating the date-setting (and only that, not stuff like filing fee levels) to the Secretary of State is to be able to respond to other states changing their own dates - which does indeed happen.

If one thinks that the New Hampshire primary is worthwhile and the state should try to preserve it, the law and the SoS practice do not overreach.

If one thinks that NH has no business always going first, the law and practice are part of the problem.
 


[ Parent ]
My thoughts on this (4.00 / 2)
Yet again, it appears that there is an effort by the national political parties to impact the traditional New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary, but there is time to stop it.

Jim, I'm not sure that I hear you on this. . . . As I see it, the calendar actually adds several days between Iowa and NH.  And I don't see any other primary in the way, hence no problem here.

Am I missing any salient details?


NH is the 'Firewall State' (4.00 / 3)
Thinking:

Rep. Splaine is concerned about the Nevada piggy back. Why? Is it because the bounce will get stepped on? Meaning, the "winner" of the NH primary will have less time to spin that victory, heading into NV. So the bounce will be less, diminishing the "win."

I don't see the gravitas of the NH primary tethered to the following race, but to the one preceeding. NH either chooses to affirm the IA results or "refudiate" them. The power of the NH primary is in its proximity to Iowa, not Nevada.

Especially in the lighting quick media environment that we now live in.

NH is the 'Firewall State.' What happens after, is of less importance.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com


The NH Primary was diminished in 2008 because it came so close after Iowa. (4.00 / 2)

Every extra day between the two is priceless. We need to be very careful not to kill the Goose that keeps giving us the golden eggs. Going to war over this creates a strong probability of wearing out our welcome. We don't want to become a hollow beauty contest with no active campaigning and no delegates at stake, a la Michigan and Florida in 2008.

As Jack said above, and Doug states below, who cares about the schedule after NH?

It is Nevada that should be complaining here.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  


[ Parent ]
I don't expect much action on the Democratic primary in 2012 (0.00 / 0)
But for whatever reason--maybe because Clinton knew Edwards had moved to Iowa in '04 or because Obama thought it'd be easier to beat Clinton in a caucus state than in NH, which has a history with the Clintons--the real action on the Democratic side in 2008 was in Iowa. November and December, everyone was in Iowa. We got the summer and the five days after Iowa.

I think it's more important to be further away from Iowa than Nevada. If you recall '08, nobody really payed much attention to Nevada.

--
@DougLindner


Bingo-High Stakes (4.00 / 1)
Blackjack, Roulette, Showgirls, Penn & Teller, Conventions, that's what people think of when they think of Nevada.
It didn't do much for Hillary after it became a Union endorsenment dance...I had to think hard to even remember it beyond the inability of pundits to predict any outcome.
SEIU did not endorse Edwrads nationally and Nveada was all about SEIU.


4

[ Parent ]

Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox