Democrats mull primary schedule changes.

A 12-12-04 post captioned "Praise the Good Lord: Democrats to study possible primary changes" noted in part:

The Democratic National Committee formed a 40-member panel Friday to study whether to shake up the dominance that Iowa and New Hampshire wield in presidential elections.

Officials in Iowa and New Hampshire vigorously oppose any changes that would infringe on their status. They argue that their voters are uniquely engaged in the primary process and give candidates a tough vetting, while a national nominating process would focus on large cities and neglect rural areas.

The commission is the result of pressure from two Michigan Democrats — Sen. Carl Levin and DNC committeewoman Debbie Dingell — who contend that Iowa and New Hampshire lack the diversity to represent the country's interests and that no two states should have such influence on the presidential nomination.

Democratic Party rules require that the two states have the first nominating contests each election year. Victory in those states typically brings momentum that will lead to the nomination, as happened this year when Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., swept both states. Candidates spent much of the early campaign appealing to the interests of voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, two rural states where the population is predominantly white.

Outgoing DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who chose the commissioners, was asked if they should change the system. "They better," he replied . . . .
_______________

A 3-12-05 AP article reports:

Iowa and New Hampshire, combined, have 4.2 million people — just 1.5 percent of the U.S. population. Yet Democratic presidential candidates spend months and millions of dollars each presidential cycle in those two states before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, the first events in the party's nomination process.

Does it make sense to spend so much time and money to reach the same small fraction of the electorate each election? Should other states get a chance to hold the first contests in an election cycle?

A Democratic commission is examining those questions and other aspects of the primary calendar this weekend in Washington.

Iowa and New Hampshire have outmaneuvered critics to hold their leadoff positions during the last quarter-century. Other states have demonstrated increasing frustration by crowding closer to the start of the calendar.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter used the Iowa caucuses as a launching pad for his underdog candidacy and followed with a win in New Hampshire. In 2004, John Kerry delivered a one-two punch to one-time front-runner Howard Dean with victories in both states.

Both states have defended their role by emphasizing the importance of retail politics — door-to-door, face-to-face campaigning — in small states.

"One of the things that is so effective about a state like New Hampshire going early is having a highly engaged electorate," said Jeanne Shaheen, a commission member and former governor of the state. New Hampshire has a law requiring that its presidential primary be held before any similar contest in another state.

Alexis Herman, [one of the two co-chairs] of the commission, said the group will consider how to get a more racially diverse mix of early states while keeping the emphasis on retail politics. She also said states should avoid overlapping each other, scheduling all of their primaries on the same day.

Some members acknowledge making widespread changes could be difficult because they require legislative action in some states and the national party has little enforcement power.

The commission plans to meet again May 14 at a site to be determined.
_______________

I would suggest you State Committee Members with strong feelings about this matter share them with Chairman Kahn at the March 15 meeting, unless of course you like things as they are. In such case, probably the best thing is to keep such thoughts to yourself.