Tradition still has a lot to be said for it, but sometimes it must yield to altered realities. This appears to be the case with New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary, which every four years for decades has conferred exalted status on Granite State voters while pouring millions of dollars into the state economy.
Now comes a legitimate challenge to the established order. The rules panel of the Democratic National Committee has endorsed President Biden’s recommendation to reshuffle the early primary lineup. South Carolina would go first on Feb. 3, 2024, followed by New Hampshire and Nevada three days later. Georgia would follow on Feb. 13 and Michigan would round out the big five on Feb. 27. The Iowa caucuses apparently would be consigned to history’s dustbin, which is probably where they belong.
New Hampshire, of course, is not about to take this demotion lying down. Officials are emphasizing that state law requires New Hampshire’s presidential primary to be held at least seven days before any other, and they appear intent on defying the new mandate (which still needs approval by the full DNC early next year before going into effect). Republicans, who control state government, have resolved not to repeal the 1975 going-first law and to ignore the DNC’s demand that access to early voting be expanded for the state to be included in the early lineup.
New Hampshire thus risks incurring penalties if it runs an unsanctioned primary, including that Democratic presidential candidates who participate might be barred from national debates and state delegates might not be seated at the national convention. Moreover, it risks national embarrassment if it holds a Democratic primary and no one comes. And holding separate Republican and Democratic primaries shapes up as a logistical nightmare.
While it is certainly true that Valley News editors and reporters have enjoyed — and, candidly, been flattered by — the ready access to presidential candidates that the New Hampshire primary has afforded over the years, we do think that the time has passed when the state could justify exercising outsized influence on the nominating process.
The state is far older (19% of the population is 65 or older, and its median age of 43 ranks it second oldest in the nation); whiter (bordering on 90%); and richer (median household income of $88,465) than the Democratic Party’s national constituency or the nation as a whole.
And the traditional argument that Granite State voters are uniquely engaged and discerning when it comes to vetting candidates must be contrasted with the reality that 44% of them voted this fall for Donald Bolduc, perhaps the most radically unqualified candidate for the U.S. Senate that the state has even seen. Not to mention that Maggie Hassan, the incumbent Democrat, had to spend on the order of $36 million to retain her Senate seat.
The much-touted “retail politics” on which New Hampshire’s claim to exceptionalism rests is also not what it used to be; in fact, the days when unknown and under-financed candidates could break from the pack with an early New Hampshire victory appear increasingly remote.
Biden, of course, was left for dead after finishing fifth in the 2020 New Hampshire primary, only to be restored to political life in South Carolina, which no doubt explains in part his partiality to that state and his indifference to New Hampshire’s claim to precedence.
But apart from that, the president has an unanswerable argument. In his letter to the rules committee proposing the changes, Biden wrote: “We must ensure that voters of color have a voice in choosing our nominee much earlier in the process and throughout the entire early window. As I said in February 2020, you cannot be the Democratic nominee and win a general election unless you have overwhelming support from voters of color.”
That perspective no doubt was key to shaping his proposal; the more diverse demographics of South Carolina, Georgia and Michigan are in keeping with it. As The New York Times observed, this reordering of the primary calendar was a “demographic reckoning decades in the making.”
More than that, no state deserves a permanent advantage in shaping presidential races. And even if New Hampshire votes second, it will retain a good measure of influence despite its wounded vanity. Home of the second-in-the-nation primary is no small thing.