2 years ago
New Hampshire is the leading contender to replace Iowa at the beginning of the Democratic presidential calendar, according to interviews with more than a dozen Democratic power brokers who are involved in the party's bid to reorder its nominating process.
The demise of Iowa as the first caucus state isn't official yet. But conversations with state party chairs, members of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee and key political operatives familiar with the process revealed that New Hampshire holds a number of major advantages as the DNC begins the process of remaking the path to the party's presidential nomination. A decision is expected from the DNC rules committee by mid-July, after state parties submit formal applications and make presentations to the panel by late June.
New Hampshire has for years gone second after Iowa's caucuses. If the committee dumps caucuses, as it has hinted, then the calendar order pops open — and the only other serious challenger for the lead-off slot is Nevada, which is leaning on its diversity to make the jump from third to first. New Hampshire, though, fits well on two criteria that the party’s rules committee wants to prioritize for its early primaries: general election competitiveness and regional diversity. Critically, Democrats in most other New England states are standing behind New Hampshire rather than launching their own bids for early-state status, as states in other regions have started to do.
“I think there will be a lot of support to keep a New England primary and probably in New Hampshire,” said Tim Jerman, a DNC member from Vermont. “Who wants to start from scratch now to rebuild the wheel they have perfected?”
Massachusetts Democratic Party Chair Gus Bickford said that “New Hampshire has an ally in Massachusetts,” while the Rhode Island Democratic Party also confirmed it would not be applying for an early spot.
The factors aligned in New Hampshire's favor could mean the state that has long gone second — maintaining the first-in-the-nation primary, after the Iowa caucuses — starts in the best position to take advantage of a calendar shakeup.
But New Hampshire's lack of racial diversity is a serious potential stumbling block for the state, given the priority the DNC's rules committee has put on making sure its early-state lineup is diverse — and the criticism from both inside and outside the party to increase the early-state window's racial diversity to reflect the party's base voters. New Hampshire’s population is 90 percent white, per the U.S. Census Bureau. That's also been one of the reasons behind the push to remove Iowa, which is 85 percent white, from the beginning of the Democratic presidential calendar.
It's one of the main factors opening the door to Nevada, another early state that’s lobbying for the first slot. People of color make up the majority in Nevada, a state that also has a large union presence, and in 2021, Democrats changed their presidential contest from a caucus to a primary, a reflection of the party moving away from caucuses altogether. And the Democratic-controlled Legislature has also implemented broad access to the ballot, while New Hampshire does not allow for in-person early voting or no-excuse absentee voting.
In a letter to RBC members sent earlier this month and obtained by POLITICO, Nevada’s congressional delegation and governor urged the committee to “strongly consider Nevada as a battle-tested early state that represents the future of the Democratic Party and deserves to be First in the Nation,” adding that “as a highly competitive battleground with strong union representation and one of the most diverse electorates in the country, our state offers a real test of who can put together a winning coalition.”
Rules committee members have publicly said that a single state does not need to include all the criteria they’ve set out. Instead, the composite of all four or five early states will cover those stated goals, so “if the issue is the diversity of the four states taken as a whole, rather than on a state-by-state basis, then New Hampshire has less of an issue related to diversity if Iowa is replaced by a more diverse state,” said one DNC rules committee member, granted anonymity to discuss the issue candidly.
Even so, one Nevada Democratic operative involved in the process argued that “on the metrics that the RBC said they are going to make the decision on — and diversity being the most important pillar — it’s hands down, no contest between the two. We also come out ahead on feasibility and competitiveness.”
“New Hampshire is defending 100 years of tradition, so it puts the onus on Nevada to make a compelling argument for why we should jump ahead of them,” the source continued.
But tradition can also work in New Hampshire’s favor. Their early primary is enshrined in state law, which requires it to go one week before any other presidential primary contests. “The secretary of state has the flexibility to decide when the filing period is and when the primary is,” said former Democratic Gov. John Lynch.
“If that means holding it Thanksgiving week, we have to do that,” Lynch said.
Another RBC member, granted anonymity to speak candidly, acknowledged that it “would be a tough row to hoe to remove them, given their state statute.”
This isn’t the first time New Hampshire has worked aggressively to keep its first primary status. In 2006, New Hampshire Democrats threatened to move their primary date to the fall of 2007, ahead of the 2008 presidential primaries, if Nevada held its caucuses between Iowa and New Hampshire. Ultimately, Nevada held its caucuses after New Hampshire.
One of the New Hampshire primary’s most stalwart defenders, Bill Gardner, has recently retired from his longtime role as secretary of state, but Lynch said Gardner will still “be there giving advice and the office will still be a staunch defender.”
“The willingness is there to do it, as well as the law,” Lynch said. “I think regardless of what happens nationally, New Hampshire will retain its status.”
New Hampshire may also be more immune to sanctions from the DNC, which has used seating delegates as a punishment against states that tried to jump the line, like Florida and Michigan in 2008. But New Hampshire's clout has always been about its timing, not the delegate haul available there. The state has about 30 delegates, compared to Florida, which has over 249 delegates.
“The New Hampshire argument boils down to: No one can beat them to the punch, and there’s not much the DNC can do to stop them,” said one Democratic operative who has worked in New Hampshire politics.
It’s not yet clear, though, how New Hampshire Republicans might respond, should New Hampshire Democrats jump in front of Iowa. The New Hampshire Republican Party did not respond to a request for comment.
New Hampshire’s defenders also point to the state's small size as a factor in its favor, allowing for in-person politicking in living rooms and high school auditoriums. The cost-effectiveness of campaigning in a small state leaves room for little-known or especially talented candidates — or both — to break out.
“What’s special about New Hampshire is that candidates have to listen to voters on a one-on-one basis, and it helps them become a better candidate,” said Bill Shaheen, a DNC member from New Hampshire. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, and that’s what it is with New Hampshire.”
New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley cautioned against getting ahead of the DNC's process. “We’re not counting our chickens, we’re not even counting our eggs,” he said. “We take our role very seriously, and we’re prepared to have this conversation, both in public and in one-on-one conversations.”
Buckley himself may give New Hampshire Democrats another leg up. He’s been the chair for 15 years, a tenure that’s much longer than most state party chairs.
When asked about the state’s work to advocate for its position in the presidential nominating process, Buckley said that “a lot of individuals are putting in a lot of work, and 99 percent of it is behind-the-scenes.”
English (US)