Latest Threat To New Hampshire's First-Primary Status? Wyoming!
Forget Nevada and Florida — the next challenge to New Hampshire's plum spot as first primary state may be coming from, of all places, little Wyoming. The Casper Star-Tribune reports that the Wyoming Republican Central Committee voted unanimously to have the state's Presidential delegates picked on the same day as the New Hampshire Republican primary — a move that could upend the GOP Presidential primary schedule and provoke a huge political fight. More after the jump.
So will Wyoming's primary join New Hampshire's in the front of the lineup?
It depends. Wyoming delegates are chosen through county party conventions, rather than a primary election. So the state GOP could conceivably hold their conventions without needing a new state law to change their date, as you need with a primary. So Wyoming Republicans set about figuring out how to move it to the front.
But they decided against setting a specific date. Here's why: If they did, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner — who has the power to unilaterally set his state's primary date — could simply move New Hampshire's date up, thus besting Wyoming again.
Their solution: They passed a resolution declaring that the state would choose its delegates on the same day as New Hampshire — whatever date New Hampshire ends up choosing. The wording of the resolution was done so that their state would be "like Velcro" attached to New Hampshire, according to Tom Sansonetti, a former Wyoming GOP chairman who worked for the proposal, who spoke to the Star-Tribune.
While this could ultimately provoke an angry reaction from New Hampshire, which values its influential place in the lineup. New Hampshire officials are for the time being keeping cool on the subject. "Obviously we would want to take a look at how their process works," said Dave Scanlan, New Hampshire Deputy Secretary of State, who spoke with Election Central. "At this point it's one thing to say something — it's another thing to do it."
So will it happen, then? Not necessarily. Right now the policy of holding their convention on the same date as the New Hampshire primary is fixed. But if, say, the national GOP leans hard on the state to push its date back again, as seems likely, Wyoming could pass another resolution repealing the first one, and return to their place later in the process. Or the Wyoming GOP could stand its ground and insist that they're going forward with the earlier date — which could provoke a big political fight.
Incidentally, Wyoming Democrats are reportedly not going to follow suit, so this will remain a strictly GOP battle. Stay tuned.















This is idiotic. This has turned into a pissing contest betwen which of the most insignificant states has the least amount of embarrassment over transparently trying to fingale its way into the spotlight at the expense of...oh...only the entire WORLD. As long as we are comitted to doing this competely irrationally, let's have the population of Anchorage pick the candidates for the election of the next leader of the only superpower...that way we'll be sure to end up with someone everybody hates!
February 8, 2007 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does it take a Const. Amendment? OK, Let's have one.
No pres. Primary or caucus may be held before June 1 of the election year in question.
The first state or states to hold primaries or caucuses will be rotated: if you were first this time, you're last next time.
No party may hold PRes. selection convention or meeting before Aug. 24 of the election year in question.
No exploratory committee to be formed before Feb. 1 of the election year. No actual candidate committee to be formed or receive money before Mar. 10 of the election year.
All monies raised by candidates must be spent only on expenses directly related to the election of the candidate. Monies not dispbursed by Dec. 31st after the election in question revert to the Federal Treasury.
No Federally licensed broadcaster may broadcast "news" of Presidential candidates before the candidate forms an exploratory committee or a campaign committee.
February 8, 2007 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd vote for that -- but especially the rotating initial primary. After all, it makes sense why Wyoming is trying to get in on it; what's funny is that this is an issue at all.
February 8, 2007 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great ideas! I think the last one may violate the first amendment, however. And, unfortunately, most candidates are foregoing public money in order to avoid spending limits.
Unfortunately, politics is not practical. It's too...uh...political.
Still, I'd vote for you in a minute running on an election platform like that one.
February 8, 2007 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Republican in their right mind thinks that Wyoming-- the state we have to thank for the career of the most unpopular politician of the last decade-- should have any role at all in picking the next GOP candidate?
On the other hand, maybe this is the start of Dick Cheney's stealth run for the 2008 nomination! (You laugh, but remember... back in spring 2000 he wasn't running for vice president, either.)
February 9, 2007 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about this reasonable compromise: each state will be divided into 180 precincts, and each day delegates for the party convention will be elected, in one precinct of each state. This will last from January 1 till July 1 on the election year.
If the number of delegates from a state is smaller than 180, each delegate will be selected in a different precinct and on a different date, as evenly spread out over 6 months as possible.
Lots of advantages. No state jumps in front of another, and yet the primaries will be as protracted as we like it. Next, no chasing from one corner of a state to another, just zooming from one state to another.
February 11, 2007 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink