By WILL WEISSERT (Associated Press)<\/p>\n
WASHINGTON — New Hampshire is in open rebellion. Georgia is all but out. <\/p>\n
South Carolina and Nevada are on board but face stiff Republican pushback. Michigan\u2019s compliance may mean having to cut the state legislative session short, despite Democrats controlling both chambers and the governor\u2019s mansion. <\/p>\n
Then there\u2019s Iowa, which is looking for ways to still go first without violating party rules. <\/p>\n
Months after the Democratic Party approved President Joe Biden\u2019s plan to overhaul its primary order to better reflect a deeply diverse voter base, implementing the revamped order has proven anything but simple. Party officials now expect the process to continue through the end of the year — even as the 2024 presidential race heats up all around it.<\/p>\n
\u201cDespite the fact that it looked like relatively smooth sailing for the president when he proposed it \u2026 the kind of backlash you\u2019re hearing, the reactions, are exactly what we would have expected,\u201d said David Redlawsk, chair of the political science department at the University of Delaware and co-author of the book \u201cWhy Iowa? How Caucuses and Sequential Elections Improve the Presidential Nominating Process.\u201d <\/p>\n
The DNC says it prepared for an arduous process, but is not too concerned by the uncertainty, in part because Biden faces only minor primary challengers in self-help author Marianne Williamson and anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.<\/p>\n
Biden\u2019s political advisers say the president doesn\u2019t expect to campaign extensively in the Democratic primary and instead will focus on the general election. But the primary calendar drama might nonetheless prove a headache for Democrats who want to project unity ahead of 2024 and might spell trouble for 2028 — when the party has promised to revisit its primary calendar anew. <\/p>\n
Jim Roosevelt, co-chairman of the DNC\u2019s Rules and Bylaws Committee, said he \u201cwas not surprised\u201d at the objections of Iowa and New Hampshire since they are losing their leadoff spots, and that the committee is \u201cdefinitely able to work around\u201d the protests of Republicans in places adjusting to new rules or new slots on the calendar.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think having a sitting president is the most likely time to make a fundamental change to make the process more representative,\u201d said Roosevelt, who also noted that the party last enforced a reordering of its primary calendar ahead of a competitive presidential primary in 2008. <\/p>\n
It will get that chance again, though, since a potential reorder next cycle will come when, no matter what happens in 2024, there won\u2019t be an incumbent Democratic president seeking reelection. <\/p>\n
Another long, contentious new calendar process then might mean uncertainty with real electoral consequences — perhaps even making it difficult for Democrats running in a competitive presidential primary to know where to campaign, hire staff and advertise. The party can try and mitigate that by starting its 2028 calendar discussions early, potentially even weeks after next year\u2019s election. <\/p>\n
The prospect of another drawn-out fight won\u2019t deter the party, though: \u201cDefinitely we\u2019ll see this again in 2028,\u201d Roosevelt said. <\/p>\n
In the meantime, the DNC isn\u2019t planning to alter the 2024 plan it approved in February stripping Iowa\u2019s caucus of the leadoff spot it held since 1972, and replacing it with South Carolina, which is set to have its primary Feb. 3. Going second, three days later, were supposed to be New Hampshire and Nevada, which is scrapping its caucus in favor of a primary. <\/p>\n
The new order had them being followed by Georgia\u2019s primary on Feb. 13 and Michigan\u2019s two weeks after that. Those states would precede most of the rest of the country, which would vote on Super Tuesday in early March — giving them enormous influence on deciding which primary candidates can make it that far. <\/p>\n
But New Hampshire responded by pointing to its state law mandating that it hold the nation\u2019s first presidential primary — which Iowa only circumvented for five decades because it held a caucus \u2014 and threatening to jump ahead. <\/p>\n
Georgia, meanwhile, likely won\u2019t take its place in the new top 5 because the state\u2019s Republicans rejected calls to move their party\u2019s primary to comply with Democrats\u2019 new date. <\/p>\n
While South Carolina Democrats are set to go first, the state\u2019s Republicans delayed their party\u2019s primary until three weeks later, on Feb. 24. In Nevada, Republicans have sued to maintain their party-run presidential caucus, even as the state shifts to a primary system. Michigan has also approved its new date, but its Legislature may adjourn early to make that work. <\/p>\n
And Iowa has proposed holding a caucus before anyone else, yet may not release the results of its presidential contest until later in deference to new party rules.<\/p>\n
This year\u2019s shakeup followed the 2020 Iowa caucus meltdown. Iowa responded by proposing new rules allowing Democrats to submit their presidential choices by mail, breaking with past caucus rules requiring in-person participation. <\/p>\n
Scott Brennan, an Iowa attorney and member of the DNC\u2019s rules committee, said his state \u201cknew the deck was stacked against us\u201d from the start of the primary calendar shakeup — but its Democrats have since attempted to avoid open defiance of national party plans.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re trying to remain flexible as long as we can,\u201d Brennan said, \u201cto see if there\u2019s a way to fix this.\u201d<\/p>\n
Republicans are still leading off their 2024 primary with Iowa\u2019s caucus, and the Iowa GOP could set its caucus date next month. That would then allow Iowa Democrats to tell the DNC when it plans to hold its caucus, even if the presidential results aren\u2019t released until later. <\/p>\n
Iowa Democrats hope their more flexible attitude could see the state let back into the Democratic primary\u2019s top 5, if Georgia and New Hampshire vacate their spots. That would mean Iowa filling a potential gap between when Nevada votes on Feb. 6 and Michigan does on Feb. 27 — through Roosevelt said such a scenario is unlikely.<\/p>\n
\u201cI give Iowa a lot of credit for trying to work flexibly,\u201d he said. \u201dIf Iowa were to find a way to fully comply with the new rules, that would be considered. Frankly I think it\u2019s too late for that.\u201d<\/p>\n
Roosevelt also noted that one of the reasons the largely white state was moved out of the No. 1 spot \u201cwas demographics, and that\u2019s not going to change.\u201d <\/p>\n
New Hampshire has struck a harsher tone, saying its Republican governor and GOP-controlled Legislature won\u2019t change state law requiring it to hold the nation\u2019s first primary. <\/p>\n
\u201cWe don\u2019t have a choice to delay the primary. Maybe Iowa\u2019s different,\u201d said New Hampshire Democratic National Committeeman Bill Shaheen.<\/p>\n
If New Hampshire presses forward with its plan to go first, and Biden opts not to campaign there, one of his challengers could see a bump in support. That would be potentially embarrassing to the president, though Biden supporters have pointed to polling showing the state\u2019s primary remains far from really competitive. <\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t think the DNC is going to do anything that\u2019s going to change what we\u2019re going to do,\u201d Shaheen said of the national party\u2019s continuing work to overhaul its primary. \u201cWe just don\u2019t like getting pushed around much.\u201d<\/p>\n
Biden\u2019s reelection campaign has refused to discuss his primary challengers or whether they might be buoyed by success in an unsanctioned New Hampshire primary. Iowa Democrats, by contrast, have suggested they\u2019ll list Biden among the presidential preferences in their caucus whether he campaigns there or not — potentially sparing the president embarrassment there. <\/p>\n
Redlawsk said the fact that Democrats have made it this far in their calendar shakeup means \u201cthe battle will continue, but I think it\u2019s far more likely that change will now happen\u201d and that the impact could be profound.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese early states really do condition the campaign. The early states don\u2019t guarantee a winner, but they tell us who is going to lose, at least in the first rounds,\u201d Redlawsk said. \u201cThe winnowing is very likely to be different if the first state is South Carolina, or Nevada, or some combination, than if it were Iowa or New Hampshire.\u201d<\/p>\n