Tinkering With Tradition
August 19, 2006 | Leave a Comment
A key national Democratic panel yesterday voted to punish its own Presidential candidates if they campaign in a New Hampshire Presidential primary held out of compliance with the party’s 2008 nominating contest schedule.
The Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee met in Chicago on the eve of a larger meeting involving the full 300-member DNC and added a provision to a proposed new delegate selection rule that would deny candidates delegates won in states holding primaries or caucuses outside of the specific date set by the DNC.
Today, the full DNC is expected to adopt the new overall rule pushing New Hampshire’s primary from second to third on the 2008 Presidential nominating calendar, behind Iowa and, now, three days behind a Nevada caucus.
Gov. John Lynch and state Rep. James Splaine, D-Portsmouth, a longtime defender of the New Hampshire primary, issued last-minute letters asking the DNC to reconsider. But it was expected to fall on deaf ears as the DNC is expected to pass the new rule easily. State Democratic Chairman Kathy Sullivan called New Hampshire’s effort today “an uphill battle.”
The DNC’s action can be seen on the cable news network C-SPAN beginning at 11 a.m.
New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner has often said that the date of the primary will not be dictated by any party rule.
State law says the primary must be held seven days ahead of any “similar election.” Gardner has said that an additional caucus may fit into his broad interpretation that the law requires him to preserve the primary’s traditional impact on national politics, even though party-run caucuses are structured much differently than state-run primaries and may not be “similar.”
As a result, Gardner has strongly indicated he may jump the date of the primary ahead of the Jan. 22, 2008 date set out in the proposed DNC rule, regardless of what that rule says.
The DNC now appears poised to punish candidates who campaign in the Granite State by withholding their delegates if they campaign in a state that holds a primary or caucus on a date other than the one specifically mandated by the DNC.
As reported by the New Hampshire Union Leader, the amendment to the delegate selection rule was first bought up by rules committee member Carol Khare Fowler of South Carolina at the rules panel’s meeting in Washington last month.
After questions were raised, the Fowler plan, which defines campaigning, was set aside at that meeting. But it re-surfaced yesterday, was adopted by the rules committee and will be part of the new overall rule to be considered today.
Gardner has said he will not set the date of the primary until the fall of 2007, after all other states have moved their caucuses and primaries. By that time, candidates will have well-established campaigns in New Hampshire and it is doubtful they will pack up their campaigns and abandon the state once the date is set.
In fact, potential Democratic Presidential candidates New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry have said they will campaign in New Hampshire regardless of potential punishment by the DNC.
“I don’t think candidates are campaigning in New Hampshire to pick up 18 or 19 delegates,” said Sullivan, a rules committee member, said in a telephone interview from Chicago after yesterday’s vote. She said the rules committee voted “under the mistaken impression that New Hampshire actually cares whether we have any delegates or not.”
She said that under the Fowler amendment, “We would probably end up losing all of our pledged delegates, which is 18, but this is not about delegates for us.”
Sullivan also said today’s vote “will be an uphill battle for us. Typically, the full DNC does not reject the recommendations of the rules committee.”
Lynch’s letter to all DNC members reiterated warnings he gave the rules committee members before last month’s meeting.
He said the new rule would “exacerbate the significant problem with frontloading (the nominating calendar), which already makes it difficult for qualified potential candidates to compete. Moreover, by placing Nevada between Iowa and New Hampshire, the DNC will be placing itself on a collision course with the laws of Iowa and New Hampshire, which could result in chaos for the nominating process.”
The national party is adding Nevada to the early mix primarily because its racially and ethnically diverse population stands in contrast to Iowa and New Hampshire’s mostly white makeup.
Lynch wrote, “Our party can strengthen its nominating process and increase diversity. The plan now before you is the wrong way to do it.”
Splaine, who authored the 1975 state law mandating the primary be held a week ahead of any “similar election,” wrote that the law “will be used to protect our lead-off position. It must be. With that in mind, I ask that you consider turning down the recommendations” of the rules committee.”
Comments