U.S. Common Sense

Source:  Ask.com - 10/9/2007

Thoughts: In the campaign of “change,” the word used often by politicians during campaign years, the two dominating parties seem to be stuck upon tradition when it comes to the primaries. For the past 30 years, the two dominating parties have acted as animals on a leash regarding the influence New Hampshire State law has on how political primaries are scheduled. According to state law, New Hampshire must be the first state to hold a primary by at least a week before any similar event in any other state. Iowa is an exemption since they have a caucus rather than a formal primary. But why should one state hold so much influence over the rest of the nation?

It could be tradition. It could be respect. It could even be compromise. However, I believe it is weakness. The two dominating parties would rather allow our states to waste time in their sessions to constantly decide if they are going to move their primary date up a few weeks or months to get ahead of another state while generating confusion and fatigue on their citizens rather than to take New Hampshire to court over their law. Instead, the parties decide to punish other states (which are not subject to the laws of another state) who desire to go first or at least earlier in the cycle. Florida has already stepped up to the plate to challenge the Democratic national party, even though the DNC said that their delegates would be stripped from the nominating process. Michigan is just the next in what I foresee to be an increasing number of states this year and in the next election cycle to challenge the national primaries and New Hampshire law regarding the validity over how outside organizations can influence or limit a states decision as to how and when they choose to set their primary dates. However, if by the 2020 election there continues to be primary date chaos between the states, the federal government should consider drafting a constitutional amendment creating a date in which no state can schedule a primary before in any election cycle or simply call for a national primary day.

Article:  “Clinton In, 5 Dems Out of Mich. Primary”
By Kathy Barks Hoffman

LANSING, Mich. (AP) - Five Democratic candidates have withdrawn from Michigan’s Jan. 15 presidential primary, leaving what amounts to a beauty contest for front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and a handful of lesser-knowns.

(Article continues.)

Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson filed paperwork Tuesday, the deadline to withdraw from the ballot, said Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State’s office. Two other candidates, Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich, said in statements that they also were bypassing the primary.

Although Michigan is a critical Midwest state in presidential voting, it violated Democratic National Committee rules by moving its primary earlier in the process. The candidates are honoring the DNC’s wishes in skipping the contest.

Clinton broke with the leading candidates, with her campaign issuing a statement saying the New York senator will remain on the ballot. Chris Dodd also plans to stay on the ballot.

“We’re honoring the pledge and we won’t campaign or spend money in states that aren’t in compliance with the DNC calendar,” said Clinton spokesman Jay Carson. “We don’t think it’s necessary to remove ourselves from the ballot.”

All the Democratic candidates already have agreed not to campaign in Michigan because it broke DNC rules when it moved its primary ahead of Feb. 5. Party rules say states cannot hold their 2008 primary contests before Feb. 5, except for Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.

The calendar was designed to preserve the traditional role that Iowa and New Hampshire have played in selecting the nominee, while adding two states with more racial and geographic diversity to influential early slots.

(Read the rest of the article here.)