The Senate Internal Affairs Committee held a public hearing on House Bill 1125 on Thursday afternoon, and afterward quickly unanimously approved a recommendation to the Senate that the bill should pass. The Senate is likely to vote on the bill next week.

Among other things, I pointed out that New Hampshire may have to jump ahead of the Iowa Caucus in 2008 if the Democratic National Committee continues trying to encourage one or two other states to hold early caucuses.

Speaking at the hearing, which lasted about 30 minutes, were myself, Secretary of State Bill Gardner, and former Congressperson Chuck Douglass. Chuck had been legal counsel for Governor Meldrim Thomson, who I worked with in 1975 on the original legislation -- I referred to him in my testimony, printed below. Governor Thomson signed the original legislation I sponsored, and Governor Jeanne Shaheen signed an update I sponsored in 1999.

House Bill 1125 is printed below. It will provide flexibility for setting the filing period for candidates for our Presidential Primary, allowing New Hampshire to more quickly respond to the schedules of other states. Both Secretary of State Bill Gardner and Governor John Lynch support the legislation.

The bill passed the House on February 15th.

I am including below my written testimony to the Senate, a copy of the bill, and an op-ed suggesting a "cease fire" on our lead-off status.

Please let me know if you need additional information. And please talk with State Senators you may know to let them know of the non-partisan importance of House Bill 1125.
Thank You,
Jim

Testimony To The State Senate In Favor Of House Bill 1125

AN ACT relative to the filing period for candidates at the presidential primary.
The analysis of this legislation states that this bill permits the Secretary of State to change the filing period for the NH Presidential Primary. That it does, but it does much more.

Currently, the filing period for candidates running in the New Hampshire Presidential Primary is set in law as between the first Monday in November, and the third Friday of that month. That provision has served well through the years.

House Bill 1125 reads:

1 Presidential Nominations; Declaration of Candidacy; Filing Period. Amend RSA 655:47, II to read as follows:
II. Declarations of candidacy shall be filed between the first Monday in November and the third Friday in November, or during such other time period as the secretary of state shall announce.

“… or during such other time period as the secretary of state shall announce.” is the new language to be added to current law.

First, a little history. New Hampshire has had a Presidential Primary that has been first in this nation since 1916. But it wasn’t until 1975 that a law was passed creating the “New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary.” Up until then, we had a Primary that came first by default - - no other state had an earlier one. Since 1975, we have had in our statute a process, applied and administered every four years by the Secretary of State, which keeps New Hampshire first. In fact, without passage of that law in 1975, I and others think we would have lost our lead-off status beginning in 1976.

The legislation in 1975 was necessary, and I think it has proved itself through time. Throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, our nation and its national politics was in upheaval. In 1968, New Hampshire Democrats and Republicans experienced a very divisive election season, especially in the Democratic Party where Senator Eugene McCarthy was contesting in New Hampshire against incumbent President Lyndon Johnson. President Johnson wasn’t on the New Hampshire ballot but the organizational structure of the NH Democratic Party was mostly supporting his reelection through a write-in campaign. Senator McCarthy exceeded all expectations, and we all know the results of that election on national politics.

In 1972, the Democrats continued to be a divided party, nationally and in-state. Competing in New Hampshire were Senators Edmund Muskie of Maine and George McGovern. McGovern did very well here against a “neighbor” who had much of the statewide Democratic establishment behind him.

With the continued national problems that Vietnam brought, plus the Watergate situation in 1973 and 1974, many New Hampshire Democrats and Republicans wanted to forego another divisive in-state battle, and there wasn’t the kind of unified “let’s-be-first” attitude about our lead-off status. In fact, many New Hampshire Democrats were hoping that Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts would run in 1976, so there was considerable thrust for a regional primary that would include at least Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine.

Passage of the 1975 law, which overcame considerable debate that year (and for which I was the only speaker in either the House or Senate public hearings), came as a result of minds coming together toward the end of the Session, with leadership working with me in large part from then-Governor Meldrim Thomson and State Senator Bob Monier.

The unique “one-call” part of the law, which assigns the final determination of the date of the Primary to the Secretary of State alone and by no one else (the Secretary is not required to consult with any party officials about formally setting the date of the Primary, in or out of the state, or with any other elected officials), has made it especially difficult for any other state to piggyback on New Hampshire, or to pre-date us.

That provision came out of a long discussion I had with Mel Thomson, who thought that any “committee” in the process would just bring politics into the setting of the date. Most good ideas are collaborative, and Mel Thomson had a sharp political mind, and though I disagreed with him on many issues I appreciated his input on this matter.

What we do know is that since 1975, when I sponsored that first law setting our Presidential Primary a week before other states - - first preventing other New England states from pre-dating us, then the rest of the states - - no other state and no political party has been able to figure out how to either piggyback on us, or pre-date us. When you think about it, if another state had beaten us to the punch and put it in their law that they would be first by a week, it would have been difficult for us to have the “first” status. Add to that our tradition of having a Primary that has come first since 1916, and it’s clear that New Hampshire is now hard to beat.

We have retain our lead-off status through many years of threats, however, not just because of our law but because of the way it is administered by the Secretary of State. The law gives the Secretary the “tools” to do the job - - the hammer and the nails. But Bill Gardner, though the years, has used those tools well.

My contention for decades has been that we have successfully maintained our lead-off status against any and all challenges through the years because of the unpredictability of the NH Presidential Primary date. No one knows for sure when our date will be until a short time before it is set. In fact, the Secretary of State CANNOT make an early agreement with anyone about when the date will be - - it is his job, under the statute, to wait until all the other states have set their dates for the election events. It doesn’t matter what the national parties may say, the NH Primary is not a “gift” from them.

The Secretary must wait until late in the Fall of the year preceding the selection of President, then look at the schedule in all the other states, then apply the law’s requirements.

Our state law mandates - - requires - - our Secretary of State to set the date of the NH Presidential Primary “…7 days or more…”* before any other similar election. In 1999 I sponsored a bill, signed by then-Governor Jeanne Shaheen, to add the words “…or more…”* thus giving the Secretary of State full flexibility to set the date ahead of any other “similar election” OR any other election.

For example, even if the only other primary in the nation was held in June of a Presidential Election Year, and all other states had caucuses or other events not called “primaries,” the Secretary of State would be empowered by our current state law to set the date of New Hampshire’s Primary before any of those caucuses. That’s a subtlety in the current law sometimes missed by the leaders and schedulers of the national parties and other states, but it is an important part of our statute that guarantees our “first” status.
What that mandate requiring the Secretary of State to set the date for New Hampshire’s Primary “…7 days or more…”* actually means is that the Secretary has no choice but to wait until late Fall of 2007, in the case of the next Presidential election, before setting the date.

It’s not what the national parties schedule as events that matters, it’s what the other states do to their own election schedules that matter. The actual wording of the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary Law states that: “The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a Tuesday selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous.”*

House Bill 1125 will allow the last element of flexibility for the Secretary of State in the setting of the date of the Presidential Primary. By passing this bill, we considerably enhance our First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary Law and make it even more difficult for either of the national political parties, or any of the other states, to reduce the importance, relevance, or status of our lead-off position.

Through my years of studying how our New Hampshire Primary remains first, and how other states could eventually end it, I’ve come to believe that there are only three ways we can lose it:

*
(1) The Congress could act. It could create a national Presidential Election system. However, the states’ rights arguments that always arise when that is considered will, I believe, always prevent that. Each Senator and Congressperson comes from a state, and all politics is local, so they won’t take their state’s rights away.
*
(2) Both major political parties could somehow team up and effectively boycott New Hampshire, discouraging any candidates from running in our state. I don’t ever see both parties teaming up because one or the other will always want to be sure to win New Hampshire in November. Candidates come here not for convention delegates, but for Wednesday's headlines.
*
(3) Front-running and up-start candidates will just stop coming to New Hampshire. This too, I don’t think will happen as long as we, as voters, remain as active as we are in the process, and never give candidates of diverse political philosophies reason not to run here. To continue to be relevant to the Presidential selection process, however, we must maintain our interest. I think we will. AND, those Wednesday headlines can be powerful political tools.

With that in mind, House Bill 1125 does more than just giving the Secretary of State more flexibility. Essentially, this change will allow candidates to avoid the pressures of other states, or the national parties, from boycotting or not participating in New Hampshire, because well before the date of the NH Primary is actually set, the Secretary of State can accept filings.

For example, instead of having to wait until the first Monday of November preceding the year during which the President is elected, the Secretary of State can set the filing date for, say, May 15th through September 15th. All the likely Presidential candidates will have ample time to file in New Hampshire during that time period, and by September 15th the ballot would be set, although the firm date for the NH Primary may not have yet been announced by the Secretary of State, following our statute.

Essentially, candidates will have signed up and made the obligation to run in New Hampshire, no matter when the date is. Any party rule or “pledge” in another state designed to encourage candidates not to run in New Hampshire if the New Hampshire Primary date is set too early or out of party “windows” or “schedules ” will effectively be negated by the earlier filing commitment of the candidates.

New Hampshire’s First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary has been a tradition in this country since 1916. Until 1975 we had a Primary that came first by default because no other state and none of the political parties tried to pre-date our Primary. Since 1975, when we became the first state to put into our statute our “first” status, no other state and neither of the political parties has been able to figure out a way around our state law.

We saw the dilemma that the National Democratic Commission on Scheduling found itself in this past December, and we’ve seen the National Republican Party have to deal with this dilemma before. While many of the political activists of both parties and most of the other states outside of New Hampshire might not like the lead-off status of New Hampshire, our 1975 law, updated in 1999, is very difficult to maneuver around and negate.

House Bill 1125 will preserve our First-In-The-Nation status, as well as the relevance and importance of our Primary, in 2008, 2012, 2016 and beyond. The Secretary of State is joining me in support of this legislation.

Thank You,
Jim Splaine
---------------------------------------------------------------
*Background Explanation: In 1999, the bill I sponsored, signed by then-Governor Jeanne Shaheen, gave additional flexibility to the Secretary of State to move the NH Presidential Primary date "...one week or more..." ahead of any other state, thus allowing the trigger to be used to move ahead of any caucus or other threat, if necessary. The original law I sponsored in 1975 provided for "...one week before..." For additional references, see "Why New Hampshire?" written by Former Governor Hugh Gregg and Secretary of State Bill Gardner.

From 1916 through the early 1970s, New Hampshire had a primary that came first because no other state tried to set theirs ahead of ours. With the passage of my legislation in 1975, signed into law by then-Governor Meldrim Thompson, we made it clear as part of our statutes that we would continue to be first, but we did not take anything away from any other state by doing so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The NH First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary Law:
*TITLE LXIII - ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 653
ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND DELEGATES
Election Dates - Section 653:9

653:9 Presidential Primary Election. – The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a Tuesday selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous. Said primary shall be held in connection with the regular March town meeting or election or, if held on any other day, at a special election called by the secretary of state for that purpose.
House Bill 1125
2006 SESSION - 06-2942 - 03/10

AN ACT relative to the filing period for candidates at the presidential primary.
SPONSOR: Rep. Jim Splaine, Rockingham 16
REFERRED TO: Senate Committee On Internal Affairs

ANALYSIS
This bill permits the secretary of state to change the filing period for
candidates at the presidential primary.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears in brackets and struckthrough.
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
06-2942 - 03/10

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Six
AN ACT relative to the filing period for candidates at the presidential primary.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Presidential Nominations; Declaration of Candidacy; Filing Period. Amend RSA 655:47, II to read as follows:
II. Declarations of candidacy shall be filed between the first Monday in November and the third Friday in November, or during such other time period as the secretary of state shall announce.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
------------------------------------------------
Op-Ed
A Call For A National Cease Fire
On The NH Primary

Could New Hampshire Be Before Iowa In 2008?
.
New Hampshire has had a primary that has come first since 1916. Iowa has had a caucus that has been first since 1972. Beginning in 1975, the NH First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary Law has assured that our state would have the first primary no matter what any other state does.

If the Democratic National Committee tries to squeeze in one or two additional caucuses between the Iowa Caucus and the anticipated date of the NH Presidential Primary in 2008, what happens?

Here's an educated guess that I can make, since I've been involved in the strategy on this matter for more than 30 years:

Our state law says the NH Primary will be "...7 days or more..." before a similar election. Our Secretary of State is required by that law to examine the election events of all the other states in late 2007. He looks at the schedules in the states, not what the political parties have proposed - - those are just guidelines. Then he must set our primary seven days prior to a "similar election," which he has usually interpreted to be another primary.

However, our law has given him new flexibility, resulting from a change in a bill I sponsored in 1999. It allows him to move the NH Primary "...7 days or more..." prior to a similar election, which means he can move ahead of any caucus as well as any other primary. Further, the legislation I'm sponsoring this year which has already passed the House will let candidates file earlier in 2007 than they have in the past, allowing us to assemble the ballot in an earlier time frame.

Here's the challenge for our Secretary of State: If the Iowa Caucus is held as expected on a Monday, tentatively in mid or late January of 2008, the NH Presidential Primary would normally be scheduled on a Tuesday, eight days after Iowa. But if squeezed in between them are one or two new caucuses set up by the Democratic National Committee, our Secretary of State might have to set our primary on the Tuesday the day after Iowa, OR the Tuesday of the week before Iowa.

Our Secretary of State has said he wants to use our state law to protect the tradition of our lead-off status. If there are a couple of new caucuses before New Hampshire in 2008, our impact would be considerably diluted, because we'd be the fourth major election event of the cycle, and the candidates would likely be spending most of the week between Iowa and New Hampshire visiting the other caucus states. We can't let that happen.

Further, if we were to allow this precedent to occur without response, it is likely we would see further erosion of our "first" status in 2012. That's why we have to offset their effort, and we will.

We won't know what our Secretary of State does until perhaps late November or early December of 2007. It's his call. Since New Hampshire pays for the election, we don't need permission of the national or the state political parties as to when we will have our primary. It's never been a "gift" by them to us; it has been our tradition, now protected by state law.

However, the uncertainty and unpredictability of when New Hampshire's primary will be held is going to result in a confusing schedule for our candidates, and is one overriding reason why the Democratic National Committee should withdraw its objections to New Hampshire's lead-off tradition and status. It's also a reason why the Republican National Committee should also avoid getting into revamping schedules, either now for 2008, or later for 2012.

" Unpredictability" has been our secret weapon all along. The fact that in 2008, New Hampshire COULD come the day after or the week before Iowa adds to that equation, and I don't think the national democrats have thought that though yet. They need to become aware of the possibilities of the results of their maneuvers.

There is no need for this battle. There are many ways that other states already do get involved in the early part of the presidential selection process, short of holding a primary or caucus. They do and can continue to hold events such as conventions, regional conferences, candidate debates, group endorsements - - all the things that include and involve the varied interest groups and voters of other states. None of those events will trigger New Hampshire law and force us to jump further ahead in the election schedule.

Hopefully, cooler heads among the national democrats will prevail. I don't think we in our state want to jump ahead of Iowa, but to prevent additional caucuses diluting the tradition of our lead-off status, that might be necessary. The Republicans nationally haven't always been fans of New Hampshire through the years, but I think they've seen the dilemma they have with our state law, so they've backed off in the past. The Democratic National Committee should too.

What we need is a national cease fire on the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary. Because our state law guarantees that we will be first, we will be.

Jim Splaine
NH State Representative
Portsmouth & Newington
201 Oriental Gardens
Portsmouth, NH 03801
Telephone & FAX: (603) 436-0718
E-Mail: JimSplaine@aol.com