Presidential Primary: Elbowing Gets Ugly Over Which States Go First


By Roger Simon
Aug 24, 2007


The ugly elbowing over which states will go first in the 2008 presidential primary process is due to explode into open warfare Saturday as the Democratic National Committee decides what to do about "rogue" states that are threatening to violate party rules. The DNC's powerful Rules and Bylaws Committee is scheduled to meet at 10 a.m. Saturday in Washington to decide primarily what sanctions to take against Florida, whose Democrats say they will conduct a primary on Jan. 29, in violation of party rules.

I have learned, however, that a secret 9 a.m. "off-the-record" breakfast will precede the open meeting, at which time the 30 sometimes-contentious members of the rules committee will try to reach some agreement. "We will decide then whether to blow off Florida," a rules-committee member told me.

The elbowing for position in the primary calendar has become especially intense this year, with several states threatening to flaunt party rules. Some members of the rules committee now feel only they can re-establish order in an increasingly chaotic process. "There are strong personalities on the rules committee, and they are leaning toward stricter sanctions," a Democratic official said. "We've got to make a clear statement."

While some calendar jockeying is taking place because of state pride -- Iowa and New Hampshire are desperately trying to hang onto their "first in the nation" status -- movement in other states has been due to positioning by the presidential candidates.

"Hillary got what she wanted by having New York move up to Feb. 5, and Barack Obama got what he wanted by moving Illinois up to Feb. 5," one source said. "We are waiting to see who wants what in Florida."

The rules committee will allow Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina to hold their contests before Feb. 5. All other states will be barred from holding primaries or caucuses before Feb. 5 and there seems little support for granting a waiver to Florida or other states, such as Michigan, that are also threatening to move up.

The question remains, however, what power the DNC really has, and some see the current battle as a direct challenge to the authority of the party. The DNC does have options. First, it could demand a boycott of rogue states by the presidential contenders. "We will try to get the candidates not to campaign in those states," a DNC member told me.

But would the candidates comply? In 1996, when Delaware moved its primary too close to New Hampshire's, Republican frontrunner Bob Dole and incumbent President Bill Clinton both agreed to skip Delaware.

But getting candidates to take a pass on Delaware, a tiny state with only three electoral votes (the minimum a state can have), is not the same thing as getting candidates to boycott Florida, with its 27 electoral votes and its rich source of campaign contributions.

Candidates might decide they would much rather risk offending the DNC than offending Floridians. "Yes, candidates would still campaign in (rogue) states," one rules-committee member told me, but then added that it will change their calculation on how much time to spend in such states.

The DNC could also strip the rogue states of from 50-100 percent of their delegates to the nominating convention. The most likely option right now is for stripping them of all delegates, at least two rules-committee members told me.

"You are going to see big signs on the floor of the Democratic Convention that say 'Florida' and 'Michigan,' and you are going to see rows of empty seats beneath them," one DNC member warned.

Maybe. However heated tempers are now, they will have cooled considerably by the time the convention rolls around in August of 2008. And the credentials committee of the convention, whose membership will be packed by the presumptive nominee, can overrule anything the rules committee decides now.

In the interest of a party unity and because withholding delegates from a candidate who has already won the nomination would be meaningless, the delegates from Florida or any other rogue state would probably be seated.

One member of the rules committee told me, however, that in an extremely tight race, the missing Florida delegates, about 10 percent of what a candidate needs for the nomination, could make the difference, and stripping Florida of its delegates, therefore, could be a meaningful act. Then there is Michigan. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has long been angry that his state, with its 17 electoral votes and a significant number of black voters, does not really figure into deciding who the Democratic nominee will be.

In the past, Michigan has chiefly gotten attention for its "outlier" results, such as Jesse Jackson's victory in the 1988 Democratic caucuses and George Wallace's victory in 1972.

Levin has long wanted to his state to be added to the list of early contenders, but the DNC voted last year to give Nevada that honor instead. Now, the Michigan legislature is threatening to move up its contest to Jan. 15, a date the Michigan senate approved this week. The Michigan house will not act until next week. "If they do move up, we are going to have to sanction them," a DNC member said of Michigan.

Once again, however, there is a risk: Michigan is a classic battleground state, and Democrats cannot risk offending voters there.

There are other tricky problems that the rules committee must also address, such as what to do about those states whose "early voting" laws would allow voters to cast ballots late in 2007 for primaries early in 2008. DNC rules currently forbid any voting for the 2008 primaries to take place before 2008.

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/pu ... 5607.shtml