• Super Tuesday primary bill passes Idaho House

• Second May presidential primary bill introduced in Idaho Senate

Change is coming to the early presidential primary calendar on the Republican side.

No, not that kind of change.

Hewing to tradition, the Republican National Committee (RNC) appears poised to once again march out Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina as the states where the first four presidential nomination contests will take place in 2028. But that does not mean that it will be business as usual in the window before Super Tuesday ushers in the heart of the primary calendar’s voting phase.

And where will the bulk of that change occur? It centers once again on first-in-the-South South Carolina. After relative stability during much of the post-reform era, Republicans in the Palmetto state face a second consecutive cycle of transition in the application of their delegate selection rules. Only, this time, the tweaks are out of their control.

Three years ago, the South Carolina Republican Party unilaterally decided to cede their typical third position in the Republican order behind the caucuses in Iowa and the New Hampshire primary to Nevada, opting instead for a marginally later date in the spot on the calendar just before Super Tuesday. As the state’s leading Democratic powerbroker, Jim Clyburn, has subsequently said of questions facing state Democrats’ current calendar maneuvering: Do you lead off the calendar or bat clean-up as Palmetto state Democrats had done a cycle prior. That decision was not on state Republicans’ plates for 2024, but, intentionally or not, they followed the latter route that Democrats chose in 2020.

This time, however, Republicans in South Carolina will not have that same luxury. For 2028, a rules change at the national level will affect how South Carolina Republicans have traditionally handled their delegate selection process during competitive cycles dating back to 1980.

Starting in 2028, that tradition will be broken, barring additional (and unforeseen) RNC rules changes. Let’s examine the change and its impact…

Read more

Missouri House Elections Committee reports amended Super Tuesday primary bill “do pass”

It seems the presidential primary is an issue that will not die in Missouri.

Even before the primary in the Show-Me state was eliminated in the waning days of the 2022 legislative session in Jefferson City, there were attempts to repeal the statute. And since that omnibus elections bill became law, there has been a parade of legislation to bring the presidential preference election back. By FHQ’s count there have been 19 bills since the 2023 legislative session that were either introduced with or, at some point during the legislative process, contained a provision reestablishing a state-run presidential primary in Missouri.

To dredge up some of the language from my research, there has been no lack of willingness to resurrect the presidential primary. However, there has not been an ability to bring about that outcome.

Not yet anyway. Up to this point four years on since the elimination of the primary, all 19 of those presidential primary bills have failed. Two have passed the House along the way but were subsequently stymied in the state Senate. Another got a floor vote in the House, but enough Democrats voted present on the final vote to tank the legislation despite more overall votes in favor of passage.1 Of the remainder, some were merged with other similar legislation, others managed to navigate out of committee with instructions to pass them and another set died quieter deaths, bottled up at the committee stage. And technically, there are two bills still active during the ongoing 2026 session.

Regardless of where any of these bills end up, the roadblocks are seemingly always the same.

There is a formidable enough faction within the Republican supermajorities in both chambers of the General Assembly in Jefferson City that sees the presidential primary as a “dog and pony show,” a beauty contest. As a result, that faction constantly derails most efforts to restore the primary. And those folks are not wrong. Well, they would not have been wrong if this was a debate held in 2011 or 2013 and not 2026.

FHQ does not choose those past dates at random. There is definitely a before and after to the 2012 cycle for Missouri Republicans. It was a formative cycle for some and continues to have repercussions for the politics around the presidential primary in the Show-Me state.

Below the fold, FHQ will have a look at the legacy of 2012 in Missouri, how primary proponents are attempting to compromise with the filibustering faction and the implications of the current legislation for 2028 (if one assumes passage and the governor’s signature).

Let’s dig in…

Read more

• S. Carolina Dems deploy Biden as they seek early primary

• Pete Buttigieg stays out of fight over NH primary

This is not a new idea or even one unique to FHQ, but over the years I have often talked about how the overlap between the new reforms to the presidential nomination system in the early 1970s and the unified Democratic control of state governments across a wide swath of the United States at the same time greatly helped facilitate the rise in the number of presidential primary elections. In fact, it was often thought that one of the consequences, if not the intent, of the McGovern-Fraser reforms was a more robust caucus system.

It did not turn out that way. And it did not happen all at once. But actors in a number of states found it easier to simply tack a presidential preference line onto the existing state-run primaries for other offices that fit into the window during the front half of the year ahead of the national conventions.

And the tie that bound all of this?

Democrats were largely pulling the strings. The national party had put in place a new and vastly different set of delegate selection rules, and Democratic decision makers on the state level were responding to those changes in order to come into compliance with them. However, the infrastructure that was built did not affect just Democrats. As it was state run, and perhaps more importantly, state funded, it often drew in Republican actors and the Republican presidential nomination process as well.

But again, the infrastructure was built by Democrats and not Republicans. And as a result, the latter found themselves playing catch up in a new system over which it often had little control. It also did not help — or hurt, depending on the perspective — that this formative era for the new system was occurring during a period when Republicans more often than not occupied the White House. So while Democrats tested, retested and tweaked delegate selection rules in an effort to 1) find the proper mix of rules and/or 2) retake the presidency, the stakes were much lower for Republicans. The urgency to put their nomination rules under the spotlight just was not the same as it was for Democrats.

It is not that the Republicans did not make changes to their delegate rules over time. Rather, it was that they often did not face the same incentives or constraints that Democrats did. As a result, there were often disjunctures in how the two major national parties dealt with common issues from within the new system that had been put in place. While Democrats, for example, largely banned winner-take-all contests after the 1970s, Republicans still allow the practice even now. But it was only recently that the RNC curtailed its use in early contests. And it took them a couple of cycles — 2012 and 2016 — to get it “right,” or at the very least stabilize the institution of a proportional window at the beginning of the presidential primary calendar.

Similarly, Democrats created a defined window in which delegate selection events could occur by 1980. Yes, it expanded and contracted some over the years, but it has always been clearly defined in the national party rules since 1980.1

The Republicans?

Well, their window has been less well defined. True to form, the national party traditionally deferred to the states and state parties to determine the contours of their delegate selection processes, including when the contests were scheduled. The rules adopted for the 1996 process at the 1992 Republican National Convention in Houston gave the barest of instructions, indicating that “the selection process for choosing those who will select delegates or alternate delegates shall not begin before September 1 of the year before the year in which the national convention is to be held.” And that particular guidance was important to the national party because of the chaos that erupted in Michigan during the 1988 cycle where those who selected delegates to the national convention were chosen in 1986.2 The whole process in Michigan devolved into competing state conventions run by different candidate factions within the state party in early 1988.3

But it was not until the 1996 cycle that the Rules of the Republican Party ever set a fully defined window for the selection of delegates, the first Monday in February until the third Tuesday in June.

In both cases, limiting winner-take-all practices and defining the window in which primaries and caucuses could be conducted, Republicans lagged their Democratic counterparts in dealing with a similar issue in their respective delegate selection processes during the post-reform era. And whether one chalks that lag up to deference to the states, a lack of urgency, occupying the White House for the early years of the post-reform era or some combination of them, it has typically been the Republican process that has played catch up with similar rule changes mostly already established on the Democratic side.

Yet, it does not always work in that direction. Republicans actually have an innovation in the rules that emerged from their 2024 convention in Milwaukee that Democrats have not dealt with to this point in the post-reform era. [There is a good reason for that, and we will get to it below the fold.]

Let’s dig back into the backdoor winner-take-all allocation rules that have been a part of the Republican nomination process for the last few cycles…

Read more

• Senate companion bill would also see Rhode Island presidential primary shifted to Super Tuesday

• Idaho legislators again try to resurrect presidential primary in the Gem state

I had initially planned on a big “rest of the calendar” update today — actually that was planned for last week — but it has gotten bogged down by research and data gathering issues. Never fear, I will have that one soon.

Instead, today I have one that started out as the opening to a piece most of which ended up here. But I did not want that front half to lay fallow any longer, so let’s talk about the limits of calendar crafting power…

Read more

Yes, FHQ already weighed in on the January 31 meeting of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee both here and during the meeting on Bluesky. But those were all quick reactions and after some additional time for reflection, you guessed it, I have a few more thoughts.

Sure, some of it is reaction to the media reaction to the meeting, but the heart of the matter is that folks are still balancing the chatter about the early calendar selection process wrong.

So let’s dig in with some nuance…

Read more

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) convened on the sidelines of the DNC meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico this weekend to consider the applications of states bidding for one of four or five slots in the early window of the 2028 presidential primary calendar.

The quick take from the morning session was that all twelve states that applied for the honor were advanced to the presentation stage, where each state party will make an in-person case for inclusion in the early window before the full RBC. That differed from the process four years ago when three states were trimmed from a pool of 20 applicants at this point in the process.

None of the 2028 twelve -- Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee or Virginia -- fell into that category at this meeting. None were deemed too large as New York was when the Empire state was cut in 2022. None had the complication of proposing an earlier state party-run caucus in a state with an existing (but later) state-run primary (Nebraska). And Democrats Abroad did not apply this time around as they did during the 2024 cycle.

None of the 2028 twelve had those issues, but that is not to say that there were and are no issues involved.

Share

So what was the point of the meeting if all the states were going to advance to the presentation stage?

It was to raise those issues that the committee has for all twelve early state candidates collectively and individually address in their presentations to the panel.

Feasibility was key. Basically, how can you get your state in an early position on the calendar? How can barriers be overcome? So, in other words, for the more Republican-leaning states in the pool, how can Republican veto points -- legislatures, governors, secretaries of state -- be circumvented or Republican buy-in won?

Additionally, the RBC appeared intent on approaching the early calendar as a process that will tell a story about the Democratic Party, its constituency groups and priorities. However, given the feasibility issues raised above, the options will be somewhat limited on which states the DNC can actually get into or out of the early window. A lot, then, is going to fall on any would-be fifth state that gets thrust into the mix. That state will likely be the focal point of this “story,” or at least the fifth chapter in it (especially if it is the only one that differs from a mostly carried over lineup of early states).

And another point was raised as well; something FHQ has mentioned previously: just because the southern region had the most applicants does not ensure that any fifth state will come from that regional subgroup. It may, but there is no guarantee if that is not the “story” that the RBC and the Democratic Party as a whole wants to tell.

—

The RBC will next meet at the DNC meeting in New Orleans in early April. It is not clear at this time that the panel will conduct the presentations there or focus on the 2028 delegate selection rules that were placed on the back burner in Puerto Rico in the absence of committee co-chair Jim Roosevelt. If the 2024 process is any guide, then a stand-alone meeting of the RBC will be scheduled outside of any DNC meeting for the early state presentations.

Leave a comment

• These Are the 12 States Vying to Kick Off Democrats’ 2028 Contest

• New Mexico Democrats seek to move up 2028 presidential primary, citing state’s diverse electorate

• What’s in Iowa Democrats’ bid to regain first-in-the-nation status?

• As the DNC chooses the 2028 primary order, NH makes its case for first

• [Illinois] State Democrats looking to push forward 2028 primary

• Virginia Democrats push for earlier spot on 2028 presidential primary calendar

• South Carolina Democrats file formal bid to keep first-in-nation presidential primary spot in 2028

• Nevada Democrats push to host first 2028 primary, highlighting battleground advantages

• Michigan Democrats apply to vote early in 2028 presidential primary

Back in October, the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee adopted rules defining the process by which early window states would be selected by the party to lead off the 2028 presidential primary calendar.

Those rules set a January 16, 2026 deadline for state and territorial parties to apply for the four or five early spots on the national party’s calendar. Now that the deadline has passed, it is clearer what that playing field looks like for the limited number of early calendar slots. Twelve state parties from across the country submitted materials to be considered by the RBC over the coming days, weeks and months.

Below, FHQ assesses the field of states pushing for the honor of occupying one of the four or five early slots on the calendar ahead of Super Tuesday in 2028.

Read more

Subscribe now

It is maybe a little early for a greatest hits of the 2028 presidential nomination cycle, but since the same things continue to get rehashed every time a DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting occurs or a new deadline in the process draws near, FHQ finds itself repeating some things that I have already discussed — yes, behind the paywall in some cases — since the 2024 election. So here’s a freebie for FHQ Plus subscribers of all stripes, free and paid, clearing up some of the misconceptions about the Democratic process to name a new slate of early window states for the 2028 cycle.

I shared some thoughts on Shane Goldmacher’s NYT piece — the item that prompted all of this in the first place — over at our sister site, but I also wanted to annotate a few things to provide a bit of color and highlight a few additional tidbits that are all too often overlooked by the media in the 2028 early calendar process.

—

On Nevada

Goldmacher writes…

“Nevada’s supporters argue that the Western state has something to please everyone: It’s small. It’s a battleground. It has influential labor unions. It has a diverse population based in Las Vegas. But it also has many rural enclaves across the state.”

But the pushback to Nevada began at the October DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting and it came from, you guessed it, New Hampshire. The Silver state being situated away from where national news outlets are based on the east coast and the state’s use of mail-in ballots in its presidential primary may hurt the state party’s cause in pushing for the first spot. As FHQ wrote at the time…

Why should a state go first if it takes days, weeks or more to complete the count? By then, the process has moved on in the sequence and actual results from some subsequent state have taken precedence. On one level, that is seemingly meant to raise the inconclusive results from the Iowa Democratic caucuses in 2020. But FHQ did not think [New Hampshire RBC member Joanne] Dowdell’s comments were directed at Iowa, though Democrats in the Hawkeye state may eventually vie for an early spot in 2028. No, I think that was directed at Nevada, its threatening position in the pre-window and its vote-by-mail primary. The Silver state does not take as long to count votes as, say, California, but regardless of how long it takes, when the ballots are due — in by Election Day, postmarked by Election Day, etc. — plays a significant role in the process. Would the results of a lead-off Nevada primary be known on primary night? The next day? The next week?

—

On rogue New Hampshire

Goldmacher writes…

“[DNC] Party officials also have to contend with a patchwork of state laws that have already set some primary calendars. New Hampshire, for instance, has a law that it must hold the first primary nationwide — which it did in 2024, even after Democrats threatened to bar the state’s delegation from the party’s convention. (The delegates were eventually seated.)”

<eye roll>

Yes, this narrative is already etched in marble and displayed in national newsrooms post-2024 Democratic primaries, but FHQ will scream this into the void once more. National news outlets continue to describe New Hampshire’s place in and treatment by the national party during the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination process incorrectly. Or at best, many media outlets continue to relate an incomplete story on the matter.

Yes, the New Hampshire Democratic delegation was seated at the national convention, but that did not happen despite the state and state party having gone rogue with a primary that was earlier than DNC rules allowed. No, New Hampshire Democrats were ultimately forced by the rules and the party to conduct a compliant party-run process in April 2024 that was used to allocate delegates in the presidential nomination process.

Now sure, one could potentially (and maybe even persuasively) argue that New Hampshire Democrats only hastily threw a charade of a party-run process together to satisfy the DNC and/or help the national party avoid an uncomfortable situation at the convention (to ignore the rules or change them to accommodate the New Hampshire delegation). One could. However, as FHQ said about the 2024 New Hampshire delegate selection process at that time…

It is likely that this action will be treated as the DNC caving to the defiance of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. That is not what has happened. Some will argue that the state party went along with the January 23 beauty contest primary (with attendant write-in effort on behalf of the president) after all. But the record will show that, while New Hampshire Democrats will have had a full delegation at the national convention in Chicago, it also will have selected those delegates based on a contest other than the state-run (first-in-the-nation) primary. In other words, New Hampshire Democrats have demonstrated that it is possible to break with that tradition. It will not be easy in future cycles to go back on that.

File that one away as the 2028 calendar conversation continues. And also bear in mind that 2028 will be something on the Democratic side that 2024 was not: competitive. That has implications for New Hampshire as well.

Share

On Georgia

This is just lazy from Goldmacher…

Some states that might want to be considered would need approval from Republican-controlled state legislatures.

“It’s not an answer we can have right now,” Charlie Bailey, the chairman of the Georgia Democratic Party, said of changing his state’s laws. But he urged the inclusion of his state — along with South Carolina — in the kickoff group.

— emphasis is FHQ’s

Georgia Democrats do not have to work with Republican legislators in control of the General Assembly in the Peach state to facilitate an early spot on the calendar for 2028. The state just has to elect a Democratic secretary of state. As in New Hampshire, the secretary of state selects the date of the presidential primary in Georgia. It has been that way since the 2012 cycle.

Sure, the law can be changed too, but it does not have to be. Democrats in the Peach state do not necessarily have to work through a Republican-controlled legislature.

—

On what was missing in the absence of Iowa in 2024

Goldmacher includes this quote from Chair Hart…

“Rita Hart, the Iowa Democratic Party chairwoman, said her state was applying to be in the early mix again, and was open to again holding a caucus so it would not conflict with New Hampshire’s law about primaries. The counting of votes in Iowa’s Democratic caucuses in 2020 was a disaster. ‘Lessons learned,’ Ms. Hart said.

“‘It was a mistake in the last go-around that we didn’t include a state in the middle of the country that had a rural electorate,’ she added.”

The Iowa Democratic Party played the rural card in defense of its first-in-the-nation position ahead of 2024. But several members of that iteration of the RBC balked at the notion, arguing that — and this is FHQ paraphrasing — Iowa does not have a monopoly on rural. I can still hear RBC member Leah Daughtry (NY) at one RBC meeting in 2022 making the point that even a state like New York, the namesake city of which is synonymous with urban, has a rural component. And Daughtry was not alone in that thinking at the meeting in question. And in fact, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina and South Carolina all have distinctly rural areas and rural voters. They are not corn rural or soy bean rural, but they are rural in their own unique ways.

That often gets missed in coverage. [Note: In his defense, Goldmacher did raise the rural areas in Nevada in his paragraph devoted to the Silver state.]

—

On Minnesota

Goldmacher shares…

Minnesota, which applied to be in the early window four years ago, will not apply this year, according to its Democratic chairman, Richard Carlbom.

As I mentioned over at our sister site, this was maybe the one bit of breaking news in all of this from Goldmacher: that Minnesota, one of the most talked about possible additions to the early state lineup for 2024, is not vying for an early spot for 2028. There is probably a pretty good reason for that.

—

On Michigan

Goldmacher writes…

Curtis Hertel, the chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, said no other state would be a better proving ground for an eventual nominee.

“If you’re looking to win in America, it makes sense for states early on that reflect the diversity of America,” Mr. Hertel said. “The states that we have to win at the end of the day, it’s incredibly important to make sure they are early in the process.”

Unlike Democrats in some other states, however, Mr. Hertel isn’t pushing to be at the very front of the line.

“Not saying we have to be first!” he added.

— emphasis is FHQ’s

Michigan may not be fighting for the first spot exactly, but that is an idea — a first-in-the-nation Michigan primary — that was part of the calendar chatter in 2025.

It was mentioned as a possibility enough that FHQ decided to take a long look at what a first-in-the-nation Michigan primary might signal about the evolution of the Democratic nomination process.

Friday’s deadline is not a point at which any decisions will be made on the 2028 calendar. It is just a deadline. The list of applicants will be compiled, it will be narrowed, pitches will be made by the finalist state party delegations and then decisions will be made much later in 2026 about which state primaries will populate the early calendar for 2028.

It is still early in this process, folks.

Leave a comment

Related:

Subscribe now

FHQ has spent considerable time on the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination process thus far this fall. There have, after all, been Rules and Bylaws Committee meetings and related news about the calendar shake ups the national party may attempt to undertake among other things.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, things have been comparatively quiet. Yes, the Republican National Committee named members to the Presidential Nominating Process Committee in accordance with the party rules and the conventional wisdom at this time is that, unlike their counterparts in the Democratic Party, Republicans will stick with the traditional early states on the 2028 presidential primary calendar. But that is about it.

Yet, the nominating rules for Republicans are already different from 2024 even before the party, either at the committee level or in full, has fully begun to consider any additional alterations to how the rules guide the process.

But let’s back up for a minute. The Republican process for setting the nominating rules is not the same as it is on the Democratic side.

Historically, Democrats would come out of the party’s national convention having passed a resolution there forming a commission with a mandate to consider specific changes to the rules for the next cycle (before handing off recommendations to the Rules and Bylaws Committee). Most recently, the Unity Reform Commission explored the rules around caucuses, superdelegates and open/closed primaries (and other delegate selection events) after the 2016 cycle. And while that has been the traditional model for Democrats to initiate any inter-cycle rules changes throughout the post-reform era, the party has skipped the commission stage in recent cycles, opting instead to start, as it has again for the 2028 cycle, with the Rules and Bylaws Committee. There typically are specific rules that are pinpointed for change in the time between the convention and when rules have to be adopted for the next cycle by late summer/early fall of the midterm election year, but the RBC also goes line-by-line through all of the Charter and Bylaws, the Delegate Selection Rules and the Call for the Convention in the process.

Again, however, Republicans have tended to run the process in a different manner. For much of the post-reform era, the GOP practice was to do little to make any changes. What came out of the convention was what stood as the Rules of the Republican Party through the intervening presidential nomination process and until the next convention. But that practice also ran the risk of leaving the national party flatfooted if any need arose to respond to changes the Democratic Party may institute or changes that might arise from the state level, particularly calendar conflicts.

The 2008 Republican convention dealt with this by empowering the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee with a specific mandate. And four years on, the 2012 convention went a step further by adopting Rule 12, which allowed changes to the wide swath of the Rules of the Republican Party outside of those pertaining to the proceedings of the national convention itself.

Coming out of any national convention in recent cycles, then, the Republican Party has emerged with a set of temporary rules for the next cycle. But that document is bifurcated, split between rules that can be amended before October 1 of the midterm election year under the provisions of Rule 12 and those that cannot be changed. The latter are, again, those rules that govern the national convention itself.

And they can be changed too, only, the question is when. The party can amend Rules 1-11 and 13-25 — rules on party organization, delegate selection/allocation/binding, enforcement and contests — between the convention and, in the 2028 cycle, October 1, 2026. Those rules are locked in once September 30, 2026 comes and goes. Then state parties have a year — until September 30, 2027 — to adopt their delegate selection rules in response to those guidelines. It is at that point that the rules governing the delegate selection process are in place for 2028 (barring any rules violations and other challenges on the state level that have to be adjudicated).

But then, once primary season concludes and preparations for the national convention kick into high gear, the RNC reexamines the full set of rules, including those beyond Rule 25. The party sends a rules package to the convention for consideration and adoption that includes tweaks to the previously mentioned rules for the next cycle and to the convention proceedings rules for the current cycle. Again, those are the rules that under Rule 12 cannot be amended until this point in time in the cycle.

So what appears below the fold is a walk through the changes that were adopted at the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. They are all set up below as a comparison between 2024 and 2028. But that is only truly accurate for the new baseline set for Rules 1-11 and 13-25. Those are the heart of the delegate selection rules for 2028, the ones that can still be changed up to fall 2026. The remaining rules — those for the proceedings of the national convention — reflect changes that were made to the temporary rules coming out of the 2020 convention in Charlotte for adoption and use at the 2024 convention. They may yet be changed but that will not happen until after primary season in 2028.

Share

Warning: What appears below is A LOT. FHQ has provided a brief synopsis of what the various changes mean (if there is any to be divined). Some deserve and will in the future get a fuller, separate treatment here at FHQ Plus.

Read more

Subscribe now

Let’s talk about New York.

…because CNN’s Edward-Isaac Dovere is reporting state Senator James Skoufis is set to introduce legislation to move the presidential primary in the Empire state to Super Tuesday for 2028. That is potentially a lot of delegates shifting to a much earlier allocation point on the presidential primary calendar for the next cycle. But more on that below the fold. First, a couple of other New York primary-related items…

Moving on up?

For starters, where is the New York primary moving? Well, possibly to Super Tuesday, right? That is the reporting, sure. But FHQ does not mean the destination, but the starting point, pre-move. Dovere suggests “up” and, heck, FHQ even hinted at that same thing by saying delegate allocation would move “much earlier” above.

However, the answer hinges on the point of reference: 2024 or now. Relative to the position of the New York presidential primary in 2024, a Super Tuesday position for 2028 would be four weeks earlier. That is up.

But the New York presidential primary is not currently scheduled by law to fall on the first Tuesday in April like it was during primary season a year ago. No, that date lapsed at the end of 2024 and the New York primary reverted to the same spot it has after every cycle since 2012: the first Tuesday in February.

Asterisks abound, but based on that reality, technically, the New York primary would be moving back to get to Super Tuesday if Skoufis’ legislation successfully navigates the New York Assembly and is signed into law by Governor Hochul.

Well, does that not mean that the New York primary is currently too early and thus runs afoul of the delegate selection rules of both major national parties? It does! Yet, the protocol that has been established in the Empire state since 2012 has seen the legislature, in coordination with the state parties, set both the date of the presidential nomination contest and the parameters around delegate allocation for both sides.

It turns out that it is handy to have that default noncompliant February date. Not to place any undue calendar pressure on the national parties, but, rather, to force the legislature to revisit the date and delegate allocation rules each cycle in order to adapt to any rules changes made at the national level. Indeed, it is the fact that New York legislators have followed this same pattern every cycle since 2012 that does not raise red flags every time the primary there restarts at February each cycle.

But again, to move up, all New York legislators would really have to do is nothing. The primary is already in February. The Assembly could leave it there and roll the dice, but that is unlikely to happen. The penalties are too steep.

Share

A change of heart for Skoufis?

Well actuallys aside on the scheduling of the presidential primary, that Senator Skoufis is bringing forth this legislation raised an eyebrow or two over at FHQ.

Why?

This is not his first rodeo. In fact, this would be at least the fourth bill the senator has introduced to move the New York presidential primary. Only, the previous three efforts sought to move the election in the opposite direction, later in the process. In 2021, 2023 and earlier this year, Skoufis authored bills to permanently move — not temporarily divert from the February spot — the New York presidential primary to the fourth Tuesday in June, consolidating the presidential contest with those primaries for federal office in the state.

Yes, the fourth Tuesday in June.

It is a date so late on the presidential primary calendar that it would draw timing penalties from both national parties for being too late. Essentially a late June contest would be too close to the national conventions to get the results certified and delegates credentialed in time for the opening gavel at either national party confab.

But this proposed Super Tuesday bill not only reverses course on where to move the primary, but also abandons the idea of consolidating the primaries, a change intended to save costs, avoiding the hit to the state budget an additional election creates. Potential presidential nomination clout for New York apparently outweighs those savings with a competitive cycle on the horizon.

That is one hypothesis anyway. But it would be nice to know why Skoufis shifted gears from going later to going earlier.

Of course, he and Assemblyman Landon Dais, the sponsor of similar legislation in the lower chamber Assembly — do not address that. No, they fall into the same traps that legislators often fall into on this matter. Basically, “if we move up, we’ll matter.”

Eh, maybe?

Here is how Skoufis and Dais open their op-ed argument for New York moving to Super Tuesday:

“Outside of being an automated teller machine for candidates, New York has next to no say in choosing our presidential nominees. Every four years, the states that vote between early January when caucuses and primaries kick off, and early March when, in one day, over one third of delegates are awarded — are the deciders. New York’s presidential primaries have been all over the calendar since 2016, in mid-April, late June, and early April respectively — after the race was completely or effectively decided without our input.”

So here’s the thing: Legislators, especially some from larger states, tend to lean on this “presidential candidates use our state as an ATM, but we’re an afterthought otherwise” argument a lot. And it is not wrong. But those legislators often fail to reckon with two fundamental things.

First, such a primary move is almost always treated in a given state as if it is made in isolation. It is not. It never is. When states like California and Texas (or New York even) move, it often triggers similar moves in other states, states where legislators similarly do not want their voters left behind, voiceless in the presidential nomination process. Large states, as it happens, have a certain gravity to them in the area of primary movement.

To compound matters, this latest proposed legislation would plop the New York presidential primary into an already-crowded area on the calendar. And since that election would coincide with primaries in California and Texas, three of the four most populous states in the country would all have delegate selection events on the same early March date. That would potentially be an even bigger draw for legislators in other states not wanting to be left behind.

And that raises the other issue legislators often fail to wrestle with in considering these types of moves: history. Every half generation or so, a new crop of legislators has to relearn the lessons of the past when it comes to frontloading. Skoufis and Dais are a prime example. They highlight the positioning of the New York primary in the last three cycles, but fail to acknowledge that the presidential primary in the Empire state has been on Super Tuesday before. In fact, for the first three cycles of the 21st century, the New York primary was scheduled on Super Tuesday. And that included moving even earlier to keep up with the new and even earlier (February) Super Tuesday in 2008.

However, the lesson learned from 2008 was similar to that learned by some southern states after the Souther Super Tuesday in 1988: It was not worth it. The event was too crowded, offered shallow tarmac-based campaigning, did not have the desired influence on the nomination race and/or was not the financial boon advocates thought it would be.

Moreover, New York post-2008 is a great example of that. State-level actors were not making a decision in 2011 to get less attention by moving the primary to April. No, the thinking at the time was that by going later on a unique date and holding the primary alongside neighboring states would be more effective in grabbing the attention — both candidate presence and spending — than to conduct a primary on a crowded earlier date.

Neither of those factors are being considered in this latest push by Skoufis in New York. The New York primary’s past on Super Tuesday is not being considered, nor is the question of why past legislators opted to draw back from that early date in the process.

But that, my friends, is what the legislative process is for: to raise those issues. As Skoufis and Dais go on to argue…

“There is no downside to our legislation mandating New York votes for presidential nominees on Super Tuesday. There is no additional taxpayer burden. There are no onerous complexities.”

All of that may be true, but advocates of these sorts of primary moves, especially in large states, rarely get the upside returns they envision (or promise) up front. Allow FHQ to play a GenX card and cite WarGames:

Moving presidential primaries is a strange game and often the only winning move is not to play.

…if one is talking about large states. As states like California — and New York! — have learned, they are damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

—

But let’s get back to the delegates and some other potential implications of a Super Tuesday move for New York.

Read more

Well, I was going to write about the Republican presidential nomination rules for 2028 this week, but apparently the Democrats are “eyeing” ranked choice voting (RCV) in the presidential primaries.

…or at least that is what Holly Otterbein at Axios is reporting.

So I will take the bait since the lobbying that Celinda Lake, Jamie Raskin and FairVote have done has had the desired effect of getting attention. Only, much of that attention is tackling RCV with very little context. But then, that is often what the bulletpointed highlights at Axios tend to invite.

Here is some of that context…

Read more

First in the nation?

It seems to be a possibility if the reporting from Axios in the lead up to the August meeting of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) is to be believed. Of course, as Alex Thompson noted at the time, the knock on the presidential primary in the Great Lakes state going first is that it is too big. Too many people, too many media markets, too expensive.

However, none of those things seemed to have been a deterrent to the Democrats adding the Michigan primary to the early window of the presidential primary calendar for 2024. Although, slotting the Michigan contest into the last spot in the pre-window period before Super Tuesday is perhaps different than placing it first. That is because both national parties have come to recognize during the post-reform era what the Republican Party called the “on-ramp” in the autopsy report put together following its losses in the 2012 election.

What is the “on-ramp?”

Well, in the words of that GOP autopsy…

“[T]he newly organized primaries would begin only after the “carve-out” states have held their individual elections. It remains important to have an “on ramp” of small states that hold unique primary days before the primary season turns into a multi-state process with many states voting on one day. The idea of a little-known candidate having a fair chance remains important.

— emphasis is FHQ’s

Yes, that is a Republican Party document. No, FHQ does not want to run the risk of putting Republican words to a Democratic Party process, but as I said above, the idea of “a little-known candidate having a fair chance” is not exclusive to the Republican Party. It is a concept that both major parties have nurtured in their delegate selection rules over the years. And both did so during and before the 2012 election that autopsy was authored in response to and have done so in the presidential cycles since then. Call it the Jimmy Carter principle. In their own ways, both the Democratic and Republican parties value fairness in their rules. Each likes the idea of the little guy (or gal) having a chance.

Share

In fact, the RBC recommitted to that concept when it recently adopted the party’s criteria for selecting the four or five states that will make up the early window group for 2028:

“Fairness: the lineup of early states must be affordable and practicable for candidates and not exhaust their resources unreasonably, precluding them from effectively participating in future contests.”

And even that was a carryover from the feasibility guideline from 2024 cycle criteria that saw Michigan elevated to early state status in the Democratic process.

Still, how big is too big? Michigan might have been a feasible enough state to be included among the early states for an incumbent reelection cycle in 2024, wedged in as the final contest in the sequence before Super Tuesday. But is the Great Lakes state fair by the DNC definition in the first slot for 2028?

That is a tougher question to answer and, perhaps, a steeper hill to climb for Michigan Democrats ahead of 2028. There is a reason that FHQ noted that it was “bearish on the notion of Michigan going first” a week and a half before the RBC met in late October to hammer out the early state selection criteria. The reason? On the surface at least, it “[c]onflicts with the party’s proposed efficiency [fairness] criterion.”1

And that makes sense. Michigan was the ninth most delegate-rich state in the Democratic presidential nomination process in 2024. And depending on how things shake out with North Carolina in the delegate apportionment formula for 2028, the Great Lakes state will likely be the ninth or tenth most delegate-rich state next time around.

Is a state that large fair by the letter of the law in the resolution the RBC adopted at the end of last month?

The panel will settle that question in the coming months. But if Michigan is seriously being considered for that spot at the front of the 2028 primary calendar queue then how do Democrats from the state overcome that seeming conflict with the criteria? And why would that pass muster with the national party?

FHQ could not square that pre-meeting in mid-October. However, after some thought and the October 27 meeting itself, there are some interesting answers to “why Michigan.” Let’s walk through it all below the fold.

Read more

Subscribe now

Let’s talk about Iowa.

Because apparently Democrats cannot quit the Hawkeye state.

After all, 2028 remains rather distant, a little more than two years out from the start of the voting phase of the nomination process. And that is not to mention that Iowa Democrats lost their place at the front of the presidential primary queue for 2024 (and do not exactly look likely to return there the next time around).

So what gives? None of that, together, is something that screams, “Come to the heartland!” Yet, folks said to be kicking the tires on a potential White House bid keep popping over to Iowa for some reason.

Reid Epstein had a nice piece up at the New York Times in late September that captured much of how FHQ has been thinking about nascent 2028 candidate travel to Iowa. It’s the attention, stupid. Trips to Iowa still resonate and, in fact, register nationally in a way that some other out-of-state travel just does not seem to match.

Iowa is still a thing in people’s minds with respect to the presidential nomination process. It is still a thing to which the media will pay attention and cover as well. Yes, national Democrats removed the Iowa caucuses — actually it was a mail-in, party-run primary — from the early window of the calendar for 2024, but that was only one part of the overall Iowa industrial complex.

Republicans are still in town and playing the same early calendar game that had been operable for both major parties since the 2008 cycle. That is, until the Democratic National Committee reshuffled the deck for 2024.1 On the Republican side then, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada have led the way and are very likely to continue leading the way in the Republican presidential nomination process into 2028.

And truth be told, the way the early calendar process for 2024 was handled by the Democratic Party and played by Iowa Democrats always kind of left the door open for 2028. It was something of an open secret that Iowa Democrats, unlike their counterparts in New Hampshire, were playing along with the 2024 changes. They were playing the long game in the hopes of being in the good graces of rules makers on the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) once it came time to consider the 2028 calendar. That time has now come and while the national party has maintained the line that Iowa Democrats will have the same chance to pitch the RBC on including the delegate selection event Hawkeye state Democrats conduct in the early window, the signals so far have not been promising from an Iowa perspective. Thus the chatter about Iowa going rogue (but more on that below).

Share

But the Iowa industrial complex is about more than just the parties. As NYT’s Epstein notes, the campaign/political infrastructure is still there. It did not just disappear when national Democrats pulled up the tent stakes and headed off for South Carolina and Michigan for 2024.2 As noted above, those Iowa hands still had incentives to keep at it with a possible early spot for 2028 dangling out there (however remote those chances may ultimately be in the current context). Nor, FHQ would add, did members of the national media discard all of their Iowa contacts before and during 2024. They, as another part of that infrastructure, had the same incentives as the volunteers and operatives in the state. Plus, again, Republicans continued and continue to uphold Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status.

Additionally, Democrats obviously do not actually have a calendar for 2028 yet. The only things that are close to set in stone in the early calendar are that state laws in Nevada and Michigan require state-run presidential primary elections to take place on the first and fourth Tuesdays in February, respectively and that New Hampshire still has its first-in-the-nation primary law on the books.

Given the above conditions, and especially in the absence of defined calendar rules for 2028, of course, prospective Democratic presidential candidates are going to Iowa to fill the void.

But how long can that last? Is the trend of Democrats trekking to Iowa guaranteed to continue up to and into 2028 or will there be some break, whether engineered by the national party or that develops organically, to change the incentive structure described above? Let’s explore that below.

Read more

At FHQ: DNC press release on the October 27 Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting

Earlier this week the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) convened in Washington, DC to consider and vote on a resolution intended to guide the process under which the panel will accept submissions from and award early presidential primary calendar spots to any and all state parties that opt to apply.

The resolution adopted on October 27 outlines a process that resembles the one used for the first time during the 2024 cycle. State parties will submit detailed requests for pre-window waivers, the committee will review those applications, a subset of finalists will then be chosen to make direct pitches to the panel, followed by the RBC selecting four or five states to fill out the early portion (pre-March 7, 2028) of the calendar. Subsequent to that, the full DNC will vote on those selections.

All of that is roughly the same as it was for 2024.

Underneath the surface, however, there are some differences.

First of all, the DNC has now had a trial run of this particular early state selection system. And that 2024 experience is paying dividends now for the 2028 process. The current iteration is more expedited. It was not until April 2022 that a similar document was adopted for the 2024 process. That gives the current RBC an additional six months with which to work.

Whether that translates to a quicker decision on the four or five early calendar states is a matter complicated by, as the 2024 process highlighted, how disruptive the RBC ultimately wants to (or can) be with its decision this cycle. The less the 2028 early calendar selections depart from the status quo established for 2024, the easier it will be for the RBC to make an earlier decision (before, say, the midterms). Those states are already roughly where they would need to be on the calendar. There could be some shuffling, but each is already in the early window or can be with few or no obstacles.

Yet, the road toward something more disruptive — a more wholesale change at the front of the queue that would see all or some subset of, in alphabetical order, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina removed — is paved with complications like which party controls the levers of power in not only those states but the states that would ostensibly take their place. Again, and as was the case in the previous cycle, that may extend the decision-making process on which states will occupy the early calendar spots beyond the midterm elections. It is those elections that will determine partisan control of most of the offices/bodies that would be charged with effecting change to the calendar on the state-level (for those states — the vast majority — who have state government-run contests).

Also, the guiding principles of the selection process are different for 2028 than they were during the prior cycle. Whereas the RBC pinpointed the diversity, competitiveness and feasibility of contests in states vying for early calendar slots for 2024, the focus this time around is on rigorousness, fairness and efficiency. DNC Chair Ken Martin had previously laid out those basic categories. And while there was some daylight between his description of the new labels (at the time in August), there is in reality a significant amount of overlap between old and new criteria for states applying for early slots on the 2028 calendar. There may just be more meat on the bones this for 2028 after that trial run of the early states selection systems was conducted last cycle.

Immediately below is the language of both the resolution adopted on October 27 by the RBC and an additional document, the Request for Proposals (RFP), that provides in greater detail the steps any applying state party must take to demonstrate how it meets the criteria set forth in the resolution.

Please note that FHQ has transcribed these from the recent RBC meeting. While both documents as they appear below reflect the amendments made to the draft resolution and the draft RFP during the meeting, there may be future changes to bring the language of both final documents in line with each other through conforming changes made by RBC staff. However, those changes will not affect the substance of either document as they appear below.

For paid subscribers, there will be further discussion below those two documents of the differences between the 2024 cycle process and 2028, plus some additional thoughts coming out of the October 27 RBC meeting. There was some subtext to what some members said during that gathering that may have implications for not only which states end up with early calendar positions for 2028 but for the delegate selection rules and Call for the Convention that will be hammered out next year as well.

Subscribe now

The adopted October 27 resolution:

Resolution on Principles and Procedures for Review of the 2028 Democratic Party Presidential Nomination Calendar

WHEREAS, the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) is entrusted with the crucial role of drafting the rules for the Party’s presidential nominating contest, ensuring that the process by which the Party nominates its candidate for President of the United States reflects its most sacred principles and values; and

WHEREAS, as such, the RBC’s goal in every presidential election cycle is to produce the strongest possible Democratic nominee for president by constructing a nominating process that reflects the diversity of the Party, gives candidates the opportunity and incentive to meet voters, and exemplifies our passionate belief in American democracy; and

WHEREAS, each presidential election cycle, the RBC administers the delegate selection process, and oversees implementation of the rules governing Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses for that cycle; and

WHEREAS, the RBC proposes a Call to the Convention and Delegate Selection Rules for adoption by the DNC that govern the selection of the delegates to the National Convention, and works with each State Party to develop a written Delegate Selection Plan that fully complies with the Delegate Selection Rules and other Party requirements; and

WHEREAS, the timing and scheduling of presidential primaries and caucuses is a critical component of the Delegate Selection Process; and

WHEREAS, since 1980, the DNC’s Delegate Selection Rules have permitted each State Party to determine when to hold its primary or caucus as long as the date of those contests fall within the “window,” which is the period specified in the Rules in which states can hold Democratic presidential primaries or caucuses; and

WHEREAS, under Delegate Selection Rules adopted each cycle by the DNC, the RBC will review the date and manner of each state and territory’s presidential primary or caucus to ensure it complies with the Rules; and

WHEREAS, since the 2012 cycle, the window has opened on the first Tuesday in March of the presidential election year; and

WHEREAS, from 1980 through 2020, the DNC’s Delegate Selection Rules allowed a specified small group of states to hold their presidential nominating contests before the window; and

WHEREAS, in 2022, the RBC adopted criteria for approval of Rule 12 waivers and invited all interested State Parties to apply to hold their contests prior to the opening of the window; and

WHEREAS, to effectuate a process of selecting states to hold early nominating contests, the RBC and DNC approved a new version of Rule 12 in the 2024 Delegate Selection Rules that reconfirmed the opening of the window on the first Tuesday in March, while stating that the “DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee may provide waivers to State Parties to hold their first determining stage before the window, within the calendar year” and requiring all such waivers to be ratified by the full DNC; and

WHEREAS, 20 State Parties applied to the RBC for Rule 12 waivers, and the RBC reviewed those application over the course of several months; and

WHEREAS, the RBC ultimately granted Rule 12 waivers to five State Parties, with each waiver designating a specific date on which the respective nominating contest could be held and outlined other criteria for the waiver to be considered valid; and

WHEREAS, the RBC voted unanimously in favor of a motion to receive State Party applications for Rule 12 waivers in advance of the 2028 nominating contest;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) will conduct a fair and transparent process to set the order of Democratic presidential nominating contests occurring prior to the opening of the window on March 7, 2028; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the RBC will approve a schedule of early (pre-window) nominating contests that meets the following three criteria:

1. Rigorousness: the lineup of early states must be a comprehensive test of candidates with diverse groups of voters that are key to winning the general election; and

2. Fairness: the lineup of early states must be affordable and practicable for candidates and not exhaust their resources unreasonably, precluding them from effectively participating in future contests; and

3. Efficiency: the practical ability to schedule and run a fair, transparent and inclusive primary or caucus; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the RBC will conduct the process by allowing State Parties to apply for exemptions to Rule 12, thus permitting them to hold their presidential primaries or caucuses prior to the opening of the window; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that following the RBC’s adoption of this resolution the RBC will open a public comment period in which the Party stakeholders are given the opportunity to voice their views on the primary process through a designated portal; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the RBC will approve Rule 12 waivers for no fewer than four (4) and no more than five (5) states; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the RBC must issue at least one Rule 12 waiver for each of the DNC’s four geographical regions (East, Midwest, South and West); and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Rule 12 waivers issued as part of this process will comply with the following rules and procedures:

1. Each waiver issued by the RBC will be considered conditional and pending until the completion of requirements outlined in each waiver, and each State Party receiving a waiver will have 30 days from its issuance to complete such requirements and return a signed affirmation attesting as much to the RBC.

2. Each waiver issued by the RBC will specify a date on which the state’s early nominating contest must be held, and will require the State Party chair to attest that the contest will be held on that date.

3. In addition to specifying a date for the contest, waivers issued by the RBC may include additional requirements for the respective State Party to meet for the waiver to be considered valid.

4. In the event that a State Party fails to comply with the requirements of a waiver within 30 days of its issuance, that waiver will be considered expired and invalid.

5. In the event that a waiver issued by the RBC expires and becomes invalid, the RBC may by majority vote provide additional time for a State Party to comply with the waiver, approve a replacement waiver for a different State Party, or take no further action.

6. All waivers approved by the RBC must be subsequently approved by the full DNC, as part of the approval of the Call to the Convention and Delegate Selection Rules.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the RBC will execute the process consistent with the following rules, guidelines, and principles:

1. The RBC will execute this process in the most transparent, open and fair manner feasible and commits to providing adequate, clear and timely notice of major milestones and requirements.

2. After this resolution is adopted, the RBC will send notification to State Parties stating that Rule 12 wavier applications must be submitted by 5PM EST on January 16, 2026.

3. Following receipt of applications, the RBC may request additional information from individual states prior to the issuance of an invitation to the presentation stage.

4. The RBC will then invite a subset of State Parties that applied for Rule 12 waivers to publicly present their case to the RBC and answer questions.

5. Following State Party presentations, the RBC will continue to meet to discuss applications and will vote to approve states for inclusion in the pre-window period and the order of such state contests.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the RBC will have continuing jurisdiction under the rules governing the 2028 presidential nominating process to maximize its ability to enforce the decisions it makes in this review of the 2028 nominating calendar; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the RBC will apply severe penalties for State Parties that hold early nominating contests without a waiver to do so, and for candidates who actively campaign for votes in such unauthorized contests.

Share

The Request for Proposals:

OVERVIEW

On October 27, 2025, the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was presented with a resolution establishing principles for a thorough review of the “pre-window” period of the 2028 Democratic presidential nominating process. The resolution laid out the contours of a process through which Democratic State Parties may apply to the RBC for an exemption to the “window” rule, which requires State Parties to hold their nominating contests after the first Tuesday in March unless specifically exempted in the rule itself.

Pursuant to that resolution, the RBC is issuing this Request for Proposals (RFP) to all Democratic State Parties interested in applying to hold their 2028 presidential nominating contest before the opening of the window on March 7, 2028.

State Parties have been notified that their response to the RFP must be received by January 16, 2026 at 5PM EST. After initial review of RFP responses, the RBC may ask specific State Parties for additional information. The RBC will then select a group of finalists to make presentations in person to the Committee. The RBC will continue to meet following the presentations before announcing its selection of pre-window states to receive waivers, and may include conditions on such waivers. The waivers must be approved by the full DNC as part of the adoption of the 2028 Call to the National Convention and Delegate Selection Rules.

SECTION I — GENERAL

1. Provide the full name of your Democratic State Party.

2. Provide the full name, title, email address and phone number of the State Party’s primary point of contact for this application.

3. Which nominating contest format does your State Party propose to use during the 2028 pre-window period?

   1. State-run primary

   2. Party-run primary

   3. Party-run caucus

4. If your state has voter registration by party, describe your plan to increase Democratic Party registration and get-out-the-vote efforts should you be chosen as an early state.

5. Provide an opening statement on why your state should be considered for inclusion in the lineup of early nominating contests.

SECTION II — Rigorousness

The RBC established “Rigorousness” as the first criteria of evaluation and called for the lineup of early states to be a comprehensive test of candidates with the diverse groups of voters that are key to winning the general election.

1. Describe how the inclusion of your state in the pre-window nominating process will advance the objective of testing candidates with diverse groups of voters that include populations critical to general election victory. Please describe your populations critical to general election victory.

2. Describe State Party long-term plans or current programs to identify and reach out to each diverse community.

3. Explain how a pre-window contest in your state would contribute to Democratic victory in the general election. Your response should address contributions to the ability of Democratic candidates to win at the Congressional and state-level as well as in the presidential election.

4. Describe any notable or important electoral gains or losses (at any level) made by Democrats in your state since 2012.

5. Provide any additional data or information the Committee should consider when evaluating your state as a rigorous test of candidates.

SECTION III — Fairness

The RBC established “Fairness” as the second criteria of evaluation and called for the lineup of early states to be affordable and practicable for candidates and not exhaust their resources unreasonably, precluding them from effectively participating in future contests.

1. Describe how the size, geography, population, structure and infrastructure of the state will facilitate presidential candidates engaging in “retail politics.”

2. Provide relevant demographic and political data and analysis related to the cost of paid communications in the state. Responses should include a description of the state’s major traditional, online, and constituency-based media markets, digital communications and social media investments, and any available data on the cost of running political advertisements and organizing in those markets.

3. Describe the county and grassroots infrastructure currently in place that can assist in reaching voters across your state.

4. Describe the process for candidates to access the ballot and any associated costs they may incur.

5. Provide any additional data or information the Committee should consider when evaluating your state as a fair test of candidates.

SECTION IV — Efficiency

The RBC established “Efficiency” as the third and final criteria of evaluation and called for states to demonstrate the practical ability to schedule and run a fair, transparent and inclusive primary or caucus.

FOR STATE PARTIES APPLYING TO HOLD A STATE-RUN PRIMARY PRIOR TO THE WINDOW

State Parties applying to hold a state-run primary before the window must provide written answers to the following questions:

1. Provide a general statement of how the date of a state-run primary is established and whether and how it may be changed (i.e. primary date established by state law, which must be amended, etc.).

2. Provide a detailed timeline of when and how the State Party would attempt to set the primary date.

3. Indicate whether the presidential primary would need to be separated from any other existing congressional or state primaries.

4. Provide a detailed description of conversations between the State Party, the Governor’s office, the highest-ranking state election official, state legislative leaders, and the Republican state committee on the topic of scheduling the state’s nominating contest before the window. Please be reminded that these responses will be kept confidential and only shared with the RBC members and staff.

5. Attach letters of support or statements for the record from state officials or other key individuals who would play a key role in the process of establishing a state-run primary date during the pre-window period. In states where statutory changes must be made, statements of support from both the Governor’s office and relevant state legislative leaders should be included.

6. Attach letters of support or statements for the record supportive of your application from non-governmental organizations, particularly from core Democratic Party constituencies, individuals or other sources.

7. Describe any absentee or early voting opportunities voters can use to cast their ballots.

8. Provide a detailed description of when and how election results are reported and certified.

9. Provide any additional data or information the Committee should consider when evaluating your state as an efficient test of presidential candidates.

FOR STATE PARTIES APPLYING TO HOLD A PARTY-RUN CAUCUS OR PARTY-RUN PRIMARY PRIOR TO THE WINDOW

State Parties applying to hold a caucus process or party-run (“firehouse”) primary prior to the window must provide answers to the following questions:

1. Describe your State Party’s experience in conducting a party-run primary or caucus. Provide information on problems that have arisen and how those issues will be avoided in 2028.

2. Provide an overview of how the State Party would structure its proposed caucus and/or party-run primary, and any changes to past processes the State Party is planning or proposing to implement for its 2028 nominating contest.

3. Provide a detailed description and summary of the anticipated number of levels (including the first tier) or the proposed 2028 process.

4. Provide a description of the number of proposed caucus sites or voting centers and any absentee or early voting opportunities that would be available to voters.

5. Provide a detailed description of the expected cost of running the process by the State Party and the State Party’s expected method of paying for the process, including disclosing any anticipated non-party contributions or financing.

6. Provide a detailed description of when and how elections results are reported and certified.

7. Attach letters of support or statements for the record supportive of your application from non-governmental organizations, particularly from core Democratic Party constituency groups, individuals or other sources.

8. Describe voting procedures, including if proxies or mail ballots are used and early voting opportunities voters can use to cast their ballots.

9. Provide any additional data or information the Committee should consider when evaluating your state as an efficient test of presidential candidates.

Read more

Earlier this week, The Detroit News reported on the bipartisan effort in Michigan to consolidate the August primaries for state and federal offices in May with the existing municipal primaries. The proposal would not affect the February presidential primary. However, even a move to consolidate all of the other primaries may rejigger the incentives as they currently exist in Michigan in terms of how the 2028 presidential primary in the Great Lakes state is scheduled in the coming months.

Yes, there are weightier calendar-related topics out there at the moment, but this is a fun little thought exercises that puts into stark contrast just how complicated the calculus behind primary movement can be. And that is just in one state, not a full aggregation of the complexities across all states and both major parties.

Here is a look at how a change to the scheduling of other primaries may affect the Michigan presidential primary.

Read more

Ken Martin, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, stopped by The Hill Sunday on NewsNation to chat with Chris Stirewalt about an array of issues facing the party on Sunday. One of those topics? The 2028 presidential primary calendar.

While Stirewalt hit with the now-typical retrospective Biden-had-his-thumb-on-the-scale question about the decision-making behind the early states on the 2024 calendar, Martin parried with a line that has become rote for the DNC in 2025 looking ahead to 2028. In summary from The Hill:

“Martin, who was elected chair in February, said he is committed to making the process fair and said any state that wants an early primary date should be permitted to bid for one and be considered.”

Which, again, anyone who has read a calendar story since the November 2024 election has seen some variation of that line.1 Here is DNC deputy communications director Abhi Rahman in a story on Iowa and the 2028 calendar last month:

“The DNC is committed to running a fair, transparent, and rigorous process for the 2028 primary calendar. All states will have an opportunity to participate.”

Martin, however, took things a step further, outlining a rubric for those state parties that might pitch the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) in the next year on being included among the states in the early window of the calendar for 2028.

“Martin also said he anticipates a crowded primary field in 2028 and said he wants to make sure the process for setting the calendar is guided by three principles: ‘One, it has to be rigorous. Two, it has to be efficient. Three, it has to be fair.’

“‘It has to be rigorous, in the sense that it battle tests our nominee and prepares them for the general election,’ he said, expanding on the first principle.

“Martin said it has to be ‘efficient’ in a way that ‘we don’t bankrupt our candidates in the early part of this process.’

“‘We want them to have resources for the general election because the only prize that matters is November.’

“‘And the third thing is that it has to be fair,’ he added. ‘It has to allow all of our candidates, which God knows how many candidates we’re going to have, to actually compete in those early states.’”

— emphasis is FHQ’s

First, that is revealing. It provides some initial insight into what the party, through the DNCRBC, will try to identify in states, the state parties of which will attempt to formally sell the panel on the virtues of their state being early in the 2028 order. And while this is an early set of (likely not all-encompassing) principles for that process next year, it does differ in some subtle ways from the guidelines the DNCRBC operated under when crafting the calendar rules for the 2024 cycle.

Let’s compare…

Read more

Iowa and its Democratic caucuses are back in the news. Alex Thompson at Axios has the latest on the long-telegraphed push those in and around the Democratic Party in the Hawkeye state have been making to return the presidential caucuses to the top of the primary calendar for 2028 after being benched by the national party for 2024.

The long and short of it?

Many in Iowa Democratic circles want to see the early calendar revert to its pre-2024 form, at least the part with Iowa at the front of the queue. In addition, a subset of that group wants to go first regardless of whether the Democratic National Committee (DNC) greenlights such a return.

None of that is exactly news. Iowa Democrats have been signaling that intent since at least 2022 when it became increasingly clear over the course of the year that the state and its caucuses were going to be on the outside looking in when it came to the decisions concerning the early window of the 2024 Democratic presidential primary calendar. But after a 2024 on the sidelines of the early Democratic presidential nomination process, the desire to shift back to the front has not dissipated in Iowa. That is not unimportant.

However, the process to determine the early primary calendar lineup for 2028 remains in its very formative stages. There is not even a full DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) for the cycle yet. Moreover, the bulk of the panel’s deliberations, much less its decisions on the 2028 calendar rules, will not happen until 2026. And notably on the national party side of the equation, the intent seems to be that the RBC will continue for the 2028 cycle with the protocol adopted for 2024. Which is to say that the committee will hear pitches from state parties on why their respective states should be included in the early window rather than just automatically grandfathering in the early states from the previous cycle.

In other words, Iowa Democrats will still have an opportunity to pitch the national party on the virtues of the caucuses being first (or merely early) again. Talk, then, of Iowa Democrats going rogue in the event that the adopted 2028 delegate selection rules block the Iowa caucuses again is a bit premature.

Looking down the road a bit, however, the path back for Iowa is not so black and white as (1) get the first spot back (or not) or (2) go rogue in the event that the caucuses are not granted the first slot (or not). As always with these things, the path ahead is complicated for Iowa Democrats.

How complicated? Let’s hash it out some.

Read more

As the quiet time of the early invisible primary continues and politician travel around the county is interpreted through a 2028 lens, there are also actions taking place in the effort to craft rules for the next presidential nomination process.

The DNC Executive Committee met last week (May 30) and among other things revealed the appointments of newly elected Chair Ken Martin to the various standing committees. That included Rules and Bylaws (RBC), the body that will no doubt reexamine the rules used in 2024 and craft those that will govern the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination process (including the calendar).

Here is the lineup of new RBC members:

Read more

To mark the 30th anniversary of his inauguration back in 2007, the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia held a conference on the presidency of Jimmy Carter. The Carter Presidency: Lessons for the 21st Century, a three-day event organized by Professor John Maltese, was a wide-ranging exploration of impact the Georgia native had on various aspects of American politics before, during and after his term in the White House.

Maltese also envisioned an edited volume as an offshoot of that conference. And while that book was ultimately scrapped, the paper my UGA colleagues, Paul Gurian and Audrey Haynes, and I added to the effort survived. Upon President Carter’s passing, I will share a serialized version of that paper, lightly edited to account for the passage of nearly two decades, in this space.

As a preface, I will add that Carter did influence the nomination processes that followed him. However, he was in some respects also the beneficiary being in the right place at the right time in the immediate aftermath of the reforms to the Democratic presidential nomination process ahead of the 1972 cycle. Someone, for example, was going to be the first to identify the importance of the early contests in a sequential process through the states. That was George McGovern in 1972, but Carter hammered the lesson home for subsequent aspirants in 1976. Someone was going to recognize the value in having advantageous states at helpful (and/or early) spots on the primary calendar. While state-level actors played a role, Jimmy Carter and his campaign team were again on the cutting edge of the slippery slope that would come to be known as frontloading. Carter left his mark on the process of how Americans nominate presidential candidates, a mark that even while the process has continued to evolve in ways both big and small, remains imprinted on the blueprints that have guided and will guide those who seek those nominations.

The following is a continuation of Part 1:

The Impact of Jimmy Carter's Primary Campaigns on the Presidential Nomination Process

The 1980 campaign: “Changing the rules changes the game”

Just as they had in the 1976 nomination campaign, the Carter campaign team proved adept at understanding and taking advantages of the rules. As incumbent president and de facto party leader, Carter was able to influence the rules to fit his needs as 1980 approached. The president’s campaign had excelled in 1976 by taking advantage of the primary calendar. Wins in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary provided candidate Carter with necessary momentum heading into the March 9 southern showdown in Florida between himself and George Wallace. But it was the Carter team’s foresight nearly a year in advance of the Florida primary that is striking. Grassroots organization in Iowa and New Hampshire was one thing, but to realize more than a year in advance the strategic importance of Florida specifically to their campaign is another altogether. As Elaine C. Kamarck (2005) noted:

“...in the mid-1970s, Jimmy Carter needed to get George Wallace, the only other southerner running, out of the race early; and so, he needed an early Florida primary. And yet Florida was thinking of moving its primary back, into April. So, in 1975, Jimmy Carter, Hamilton Jordan, and Charlie Kirbo made a trip to Tallahassee so that Carter could convince Governor Askew to keep the Florida primary in March instead of moving it later in the spring.”

Read more

To mark the 30th anniversary of his inauguration back in 2007, the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia held a conference on the presidency of Jimmy Carter. The Carter Presidency: Lessons for the 21st Century, a three-day event organized by Professor John Maltese, was a wide-ranging exploration of impact the Georgia native had on various aspects of American politics before, during and after his term in the White House.

Maltese also envisioned an edited volume as an offshoot of that conference. And while that book was ultimately scrapped, the paper my UGA colleagues, Paul Gurian and Audrey Haynes, and I added to the effort survived. Upon President Carter’s passing, I will share a serialized version of that paper, lightly edited to account for the passage of nearly two decades, in this space.

As a preface, I will add that Carter did influence the nomination processes that followed him. However, he was in some respects also the beneficiary being in the right place at the right time in the immediate aftermath of the reforms to the Democratic presidential nomination process ahead of the 1972 cycle. Someone, for example, was going to be the first to identify the importance of the early contests in a sequential process through the states. That was George McGovern in 1972, but Carter hammered the lesson home for subsequent aspirants in 1976. Someone was going to recognize the value in having advantageous states at helpful (and/or early) spots on the primary calendar. While state-level actors played a role, Jimmy Carter and his campaign team were again on the cutting edge of the slippery slope that would come to be known as frontloading. Carter left his mark on the process of how Americans nominate presidential candidates, a mark that even while the process has continued to evolve in ways both big and small, remains imprinted on the blueprints that have guided and will guide those who seek those nominations.

The Impact of Jimmy Carter's Primary Campaigns on the Presidential Nomination Process

Presidential primary rules have been shown to influence outcomes, oftentimes in ways that were unanticipated. In no other American political institution do the rules of engagement change so frequently. Since the late 1960s the presidential nomination process has undergone change upon change in the rules that govern delegate allocation, the schedule of primaries, campaign finance, and so forth. Candidates running for the parties’ nominations have attempted to take advantage of these rules and, when they had the opportunity, to influence the rules. Jimmy Carter stands out in both of these categories as a modern icon. As a candidate he was able to use the uncertainty created by the new rules to his advantage. As president he utilized his power to influence the rules of the 1980 Democratic presidential nomination campaign with some success. Carter’s strategies are still employed by candidates, although their ability to emerge from the pack has been constrained by the rise of frontloading.

Each modern nomination campaign has involved a slightly different set of rules. In the 1970s and early 1980s, momentum was the dominant dynamic in these campaigns. Longshot candidates like George McGovern (in 1972), Jimmy Carter (in 1976), George H.W. Bush (in 1980) and Gary Hart (in 1984) used victories in Iowa or New Hampshire as a springboard to become a major candidate for the nomination. State legislatures soon realized that by moving their primaries to an earlier date, they could exert more influence on the party’s selection of a presidential nominee (Putnam 2007, 2010). This phenomenon has come to be known as frontloading. By 2000, there were so many primaries so soon after Iowa and New Hampshire that the frontrunners in both parties were able to effectively capture the nomination within weeks of the first contests. Frontloading appears to have dampened the potential impact of momentum, although the results of more recent campaigns seem to belie that conclusion. Despite major changes in the schedule, Carter’s emphasis on the importance of the first contests still rings true.

The rules and procedures governing nomination campaigns condition the interactions between the candidates, the voters, donors and the news media. These rules have both normative and strategic implications (Crespin 2001; Geer 1986; Gurian 1990; Haskell 1992). They influence the strategic calculations candidates make in allocating resources, which affect the outcomes of the primaries (Dunn 1994; Haynes, Gurian and Nichols 1997; Norrander 2000; Parent, Jilson and Weber 1987). These results affect each candidate’s probability of nomination via their impact on media coverage, fundraising, the acquisition of delegates and thus the field of active candidates (Aldrich 1980a, 1980b; Damore 1997; Lengle and Shafer 1976; Marshall 1981).

Here, we will examine the changes that emerged in presidential nomination politics from the traditional convention-dominated system to the current system. We will give special attention to the strategically innovative Carter campaign of 1976 and the combative battle in the Democratic Party’s nomination campaign in 1980 where a sitting president found himself utilizing his entire arsenal, including manipulation of the rules, to win. We will end with a discussion of the impact that Carter’s playbook, directed in large part by his campaign manager Hamilton Jordan, had on the strategies of contemporary political aspirants seeking their party’s nomination for the presidency.

Read more