Election News and Features
States Jockey for Influence in 2008 Primaries
by
findingDulcinea Staff
The Florida Democratic Party defies the Democratic National Committee by scheduling a January 29 primary, becoming the latest state to push its vote earlier in the year; but are states actually hurting voters in their scramble for influence?
30-Second Summary
An unprecedented 20 states have moved their primary elections to Feb. 5—now known as “Super Duper Tuesday”—creating an election schedule so front-loaded that later state votes may have little effect on either party’s nomination.
So, states continue to vie for influence and attention by scheduling earlier primaries. Although there are loose national party regulations that restrict states from moving their votes before Feb. 5, Florida has ignored these and moved its election to Jan. 29.
As a result of Florida’s decision, the DNC has blocked the state’s delegates from the 2008 Democratic convention. However, Florida is calling the committee’s bluff, betting that it would rather reinstate the delegates than anger the swing-state’s democratic voters.
Although state party leaders argue that their intentions are noble—to garner more leverage for their voters in the nomination process—many analysts think the moves are actually degrading the election process.
The crowded primary will force candidates to campaign in multiple regions simultaneously, spending less time traveling to individual areas and engaging voters. This also means a heavier dependence on television and radio ads, a trend that will send the already high cost of campaigning even higher.
Congress is considering a bill that would rotate regional primaries each election cycle. But Constitutional restrictions have prevented the 300 such bills proposed over the past century from gaining approval.
The proposed legislation would do nothing to regulate the 2008 primary schedule, which may still move as early as December 2007, depending on Iowa’s and New Hampshire’s still-unsettled election dates.
So, states continue to vie for influence and attention by scheduling earlier primaries. Although there are loose national party regulations that restrict states from moving their votes before Feb. 5, Florida has ignored these and moved its election to Jan. 29.
As a result of Florida’s decision, the DNC has blocked the state’s delegates from the 2008 Democratic convention. However, Florida is calling the committee’s bluff, betting that it would rather reinstate the delegates than anger the swing-state’s democratic voters.
Although state party leaders argue that their intentions are noble—to garner more leverage for their voters in the nomination process—many analysts think the moves are actually degrading the election process.
The crowded primary will force candidates to campaign in multiple regions simultaneously, spending less time traveling to individual areas and engaging voters. This also means a heavier dependence on television and radio ads, a trend that will send the already high cost of campaigning even higher.
Congress is considering a bill that would rotate regional primaries each election cycle. But Constitutional restrictions have prevented the 300 such bills proposed over the past century from gaining approval.
The proposed legislation would do nothing to regulate the 2008 primary schedule, which may still move as early as December 2007, depending on Iowa’s and New Hampshire’s still-unsettled election dates.
Headline Links: Florida's move and what it means for primary regulation
Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina are the only states approved by both national parties to hold their primary voting before Feb. 5. However, in May the Florida legislature voted to schedule the primaries for Jan. 29 without the party’s approval.
Source: The New York Times
Despite congressional efforts to regulate the presidential nominating system, the Constitution limits lawmakers to setting the date of the national election. And although it is unclear whether the fundamental principles of federalism would allow Congress to dictate when states hold presidential primaries, political parties are generally considered private entities protected by the First Amendment’s right to free association.
Source: McClatchy Newspapers
Background: Recent primary moves
On Aug. 8 South Carolina's Republican Party announced that it would move its presidential primary to Jan. 19. The move could push New Hampshire's primary to as early as Jan. 8, which according to state law must be held at least week before any other primary, and move Iowa's caucuses to as early as December.
Source: The Washington Post
Illinois changed its primary to Feb. 5 in a move that is expected to help presidential hopeful and Illinois Senator Barack Obama's nomination bid.
Source: Time Magazine
Florida has officially moved its primary to Jan. 29. The move is intended to give Florida voters more influence in the primary election, but has upset national leaders from both parties.
Source: The Boston Globe
In response to Florida’s decision to change its primary election, national Democratic leaders are considering making the Democratic primary a “non-binding election.” This means that the votes of Florida democrats would not affect the party’s nomination, and the party would divide up the state’s delegates later.
Source: The St. Petersburg Times
New York’s decision to move its presidential primaries up to Feb. 5 might have been aimed at giving residents of the Empire state more clout, but it may actually have the opposite affect. With New York natives Clinton and Giuliani running, outside candidates may just cut their losses and skip the state, shortchanging area voters and highlighting how the front-loaded primary could reduce voter access to candidates across the country.
Source: The New York Times (free registration required)
Opinions: How will earlier primaries affect campaigning?
The Hartford Courant states that, although holding more than 20 primaries the first week of February may not be ideal, Connecticut would do well to “join the pack” lest the state get left by the wayside of candidates courting more influential states.
Source: The Hartford Courant
According to Express News and KENS5 in San Antonio, Texans are sick of casting ballots in primary elections that have effectively already been decided by other states. And even though the current rush to February 5 isn’t ideal, Texas needs to join the fray or get left behind.
Source: San Antonio's Express news and KENS5
The Philadelphia Inquirer says that Pennsylvania needs to follow the example of New Jersey and move up its primaries, saying that if “Pennsylvania doesn't move up its election date next year, its voters will again be irrelevant in choosing the nominees.”
Source: The Philadelphia Inquirer
In his Seattle Times column, David Broder says that the 2008 election process is “truly insane.” With a process that traditionally began in March now ending in February, and the resultant lack of campaign time afforded voters to make an informed decision, Broder offers what he views as a simple and sensible solution.
Source: The Seattle Times
The New York Times writes that New York’s recent push to shift the date of its presidential primaries from March to February 5 is meant to garner more attention from candidates. However, because of the popularity of natives Clinton and Guiliani, and the state’s election rules, the shift may prevent other candidates from vying for New York votes.
Source: The New York Times (free registration required)
The North Carolina based Salisbury Post suggests that “instead of going to an earlier primary here, why don't we mount a campaign for other states to move their primaries back to May, or maybe even June, July or August?”
Source: The Salisbury Post
Reference Material: History of the primary elections
The government created the presidential primaries in the early 20th century to curtail the influence of state “party machines.” Before that, only the party leaders in each state could nominate candidates. Now, Republicans and Democrats use primaries to allow voters to choose their presidential nominees.
Source: Fact Monster
Most Recent Beyond The Headlines
© 2012 Dulcinea Media, Inc.
