An uproar over '08 primary calendar

Florida's decision to move its primary to Jan. 29 in defiance of both parties' rules fuels speculation about penalties.

By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the May 25, 2007 edition

Page 1 of 2

Washington - 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 on Monday by Gov. Charlie Crist (R). 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," and analysts were 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," says Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

And if one assumes that Iowa and New Hampshire will do whatever its takes to maintain their status as "firsts," those two states could be more important than ever in shaping the nomination races. Typically, only the top three candidates out of Iowa for each party are able to compete effectively in subsequent contests, and New Hampshire then typically winnows the field even further.

Page 1 | 2 | Next Page