Primary Season Getting Earlier

Lichtman said earlier voting could create the longest-ever general election campaign if the two party nominees are largely decided by mid-January. That would leave almost 10 months for the candidates -- and any third-party entrant -- to battle for the presidency before Election Day on Nov. 4, 2008.

"We could have the general election starting at a time when traditionally the nominees hadn't been close to being selected," he said. The primary campaign has so far done "anything but inspire the voters," he added. "I doubt if a 10-month general election campaign will do any better."

The timing of Dawson's decision was prompted in part by a Sept. 4 deadline for states to notify the Republican National Committee about their plans to hold a primary or risk losing some delegates to the national convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul in September 2008.

South Carolina's Democratic primary, which is scheduled to take place Jan. 29, is not affected by the decision. But the resulting moves by New Hampshire and Iowa would apply to both parties' contests in those states.

The calendar has been shifting despite warnings from officials of the two national party committees, who have threatened to punish state parties holding their voting earlier.

The RNC can block half of a state's delegates to the national convention for defying the party's wishes. The Democratic National Committee has threatened to disqualify delegates pledged to candidates who campaign in states in which it has not authorized early voting.

Those threats have had little impact on state leaders, who predict that the parties would not follow through on those threats by the time of the conventions next summer.

Florida's legislature moved its primary to Jan. 29 in the hopes of attracting Democratic and Republican candidates to the state before Feb. 5, when more than 20 states, including California and New York, are scheduled to vote on a day dubbed "Tsunami Tuesday." In past years, some of the biggest states have conducted primaries in May or June, long after the nominees had been determined.

Still unclear is the potential impact of decisions by Michigan and Nevada, which could also seek to vote earlier. Politicians in both states have been eager to move up their presidential voting, hoping to become more relevant in the nomination process.

Some advocates of earlier dates for larger states' primaries had argued that democracy is not served by having small and somewhat demographically generic states, such as New Hampshire and Iowa, wield so much clout in the nominating process.

But some political consultants who are veterans of national campaigns say that shifting the calendar does not change the basic equation: The winners in Iowa and New Hampshire will gain momentum that could overwhelm their rivals in subsequent primaries.

"Moving the primary calendar three weeks doesn't make this process any more democratic or change the outcome," said Stephanie Cutter, who served as communications director for Democratic candidate John F. Kerry in 2004. "It just means that the front-runners will run the table that much faster."

Washingtonpost.com staff writer Chris Cillizza contributed to this report.