The Washington Post

Will New Hampshire blow up the nomination calendar?

Chief correspondent

The Republican presidential candidates broke camp here Wednesday morning after their rowdy debate the night before and left behind some unfinished business: Will Nevada or New Hampshire blink in their increasingly nasty dispute over the 2012 primary and caucus calendar?

Several Republican candidates have vowed not to participate in Nevada’s GOP caucuses, now set for Jan. 14. They have declared solidarity with New Hampshire, whose secretary of state, William Gardner, has been demanding that Nevada move its caucuses or his state’s first-in-the-nation primary could be pushed into this coming December.

Dan Balz is Chief Correspondent at The Washington Post. He has served as the paper’s National Editor, Political Editor, White House correspondent and Southwest correspondent. View Archive

Gardner now faces a most difficult decision. He could set his primary on Jan. 10, which would show a retreat from a position he outlined just a week ago. Or he could upend the entire calendar by moving New Hampshire’s primary to sometime the month before. For Gardner and his state, a strategic retreat, however unpalatable, would do far less damage to the future of the primary there than would a leap into December.

Neither state started this fight. Florida bears that responsibility. The Republican National Committee tried to establish an orderly flow to the caucuses and primaries that will determine the party’s presidential nominee. After considerable effort, officials set up a calendar that would have started a month later than in 2008 (February rather than January), and that was designed to reward states that held their contests later rather than earlier.

It was a fool’s errand. What RNC officials learned — as did Democratic National Committee officials four years ago — is that state pride and competition trump whatever threats or penalties the national parties can impose. Everyone wants an early opportunity to influence the nomination’s outcome, and nobody fears the consequences of running askew of the rules.

So it was Florida that started the dominoes falling by moving its primary to the last week in January. Florida only wanted to be the fifth state to hold a contest, which may not seem like an undue objective, given its place in past nomination battles. But by leapfrogging that far forward, the Sunshine State guaranteed the spectacle now playing out.

History and tradition give Iowa and New Hampshire the coveted opening slots in the calendar: Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses, followed by the Granite State’s storied primary. Two other states also have been given exemptions to hold their contests ahead of the rest: South Carolina, whose influence on the outcome of the Republican nomination has often eclipsed Iowa’s and New Hampshire’s, and more recently Nevada, which was moved forward largely by the Democrats who wanted a Western state with labor and Latino influence to help round out their opening contests.

Once Florida moved its date, the four states with the authority to go early started to move as well. South Carolina set its primary for Jan. 21. Nevada picked Jan. 14 for its caucuses. Iowa this week set its caucuses for Jan. 3.

That has left New Hampshire with a dilemma. State law says not only that the New Hampshire primary must be the first primary in the nation but also that it should be seven days ahead of any similar contest. To Gardner, the person with sole authority to name the date of New Hampshire’s primary, that does not leave enough time for a comfortable gap between Iowa and New Hampshire (traditionally eight days but only five in 2008) and the required seven days between its primary and Nevada’s caucuses.

A week ago, Gardner issued a statement outlining his objections to the newest calendar. “If Nevada does not adjust its caucus date to a later time, I cannot rule out the possibility of a December primary,” he wrote. “We cannot allow the political process to squeeze us into a date that wedges us by just a few days between two major caucus states. Our primary will have little meaning if states crowd into holding their events just hours after our polls have closed.”

He said New Hampshire could hold its primary as early as Dec. 6 or Dec. 13. “We will respond as we need to in order to honor New Hampshire’s tradition, and to keep our primary relevant,” he warned. “Not to do so would allow us to lose an important element of American democracy forever. New Hampshire will not let that happen.”

The conflict has escalated in the two states. Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Steve Sebelius called Gardner arrogant and said he displayed “a comically inflated sense of the Granite State’s importance in mind-bogglingly equal measure.” But most of the GOP presidential candidates have sided with New Hampshire, perhaps on the assumption that Mitt Romney, who won Nevada in 2008, has a significant advantage in that state.

Among those who have not agreed to boycott Nevada is Romney, who is currently leading the polls in New Hampshire. The Union Leader in New Hampshire jumped on Romney, saying in an editorial that the former Massachusetts governor “is willing to sacrifice an institution beneficial to the republic (the New Hampshire primary) for his own political advantage.”

The Union Leader argued that Nevada’s move to Jan. 14 “weakens all 2012 candidates not named Romney and threatens all future New Hampshire primaries. Whether New Hampshire goes in December or in January with Nevada only a few days behind it, the tradition is broken, and other states will be emboldened to move in for the kill in 2016.”

New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation status is an article of faith in the state. To voters, it is what binds the political establishment, Republicans and Democrats alike, together. Voters have long taken seriously the responsibility that comes with their favored early status, putting candidates through rigors that few other states can match.

Gardner is in a tough spot. His state has played a valuable role in presidential politics over the years, but his fear of Nevada’s move may be overstated. It is a caucus, not a primary. More important, perhaps, is the likelihood that, among the first five contests next year, Nevada will rank fifth in significance.

From New Hampshire’s perspective, the easy fix would be for Nevada to move its date from Jan. 14 to Jan. 17. But from the perspective of many others, including some in New Hampshire, the wiser move would be for Gardner to set the primary for Jan. 10 to foster some goodwill that will be needed to protect the state’s franchise in the future.

More on PostPolitics

Is Perry on road to recovery?

Cain, Romney in hot seat

Romney no longer the Teflon candidate

Winners and losers

Newt finds his niche

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Show Comments
The Democrats debated Thursday night. Get caught up on the race.
The Post's Chris Cillizza on the Democratic debate...
On Clinton: She poked a series of holes in Sanders's health-care proposal and broadly cast him as someone who talks a big game but simply can't hope to achieve his goals.

On Sanders: If the challenge was to show that he could be a candidate for people other than those who already love him, he didn't make much progress toward that goal. But he did come across as more well-versed on foreign policy than in debates past.
The PBS debate in 3 minutes
We are in vigorous agreement here.
Hillary Clinton, during the PBS Democratic debate, a night in which she and Sanders shared many of the same positions on issues
South Carolina polling averages
Donald Trump leads in the polls as he faces rivals Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz heading into the S.C. GOP primary on Feb. 20.
South Carolina polling averages
The S.C. Democratic primary is Feb. 27. Clinton has a significant lead in the state, whose primary falls one week after the party's Nevada caucuses.
62% 33%
Fact Checker
Trump’s claim that his border wall would cost $8 billion
The billionaire's claim is highly dubious. Based on the costs of the Israeli security barrier (which is mostly fence) and the cost of the relatively simple fence already along the U.S.-Mexico border, an $8 billion price tag is simply not credible.
Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio
Upcoming debates
Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

March 3: GOP debate

on Fox News, in Detroit, Mich.

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands
Most Read


Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Close video player
Now Playing

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.