Contact -Jim Splaine
NH State Representative
201 Oriental Gardens
Portsmouth, NH 03801
Telephone & FAX: (603) 436-0718
E-Mail: JimSplaine@aol.com
News Release
Friday, April 7, 2006
New Presidential Primary Law Best "Pledge" Of All
The sponsor of legislation approved by the State Senate on Thursday says that
the new law is better and more effective than any pledge a candidate could make,
because it will allow for an earlier filing period for the 2008 NH Presidential
Primary.
State Rep. Jim Splaine (D-Portsmouth) sponsored other laws protecting the First-In-The-Nation
Presidential Primary in 1975 and 1999. Today he said, "House Bill 1125 is
essentially a pledge-in-law because the earlier filing period allowed by the
legislation will encourage an early commitment from candidates to run in New
Hampshire. They will have signed up before the date of the NH Presidential Primary
is even announced by the Secretary of State. That's better, more effective, and
more permanent than any pledge that a candidate could otherwise make, because
it's a legal commitment - - they will have already officially filed."
Splaine added, "What we need of the candidates is that they actually file
to run here, not just a pledge that they support New Hampshire being first. When
Governor John Lynch signs this bill, which he testified in favor of three months
ago when I introduced it, we will be giving the Secretary of State the flexibility
he needs to be sure candidates sign up and officially commit to run in New Hampshire."
Splaine concluded, "The most important aspect of this legislation is that
it prevents other states or any of the national parties from getting candidates
to agree to boycott New Hampshire if we have to move our 2008 Presidential Primary
ahead of other events, including Iowa. Passage of this law should encourage both
the Democratic and Republican parties to agree to respect New Hampshire's lead-off
status, and call off any further efforts to discourage candidates from running
here in 2008, 2012, or beyond."
--------------------------------------------------
A copy of the law appears below, preceded by my written testimony that I presented
to the State Senate Committee that held a hearing on the bill two weeks ago.
HB 1125 passed the House on February 15th following my comments on the floor
when I offered my Majority Report (I also reprint below the Minority Report that
had been offered by a Republican member of the House Election Law Committee.
The Senate voted 23-0 in favor of the bill on April 6th.
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 which I sponsored 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: House Election Law Committee; 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
What follows were the House Election Law Committee Majority and Minority Reports
on House Bill 1125, when it was up for approval in the House on February 15th.
The Majority Report was adopted by the House.
HB 1125, relative to the filing period for candidates in the presidential
primary. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. James R. Splaine for the Majority of Election Law: This legislation permits
the secretary of state to change the filing period for candidates running in
the New Hampshire presidential primary at a time that he decides is necessary
to ensure our lead-off status. Current law requires the secretary of state
to accept fillings during a period of the first Monday in November through
the third Friday in November. To provide more flexibility to the secretary
of state in administering our First In the Nation Presidential Primary Law,
this bill allows that filing period to be moved earlier, or later, as he may
decide is necessary to respond to any threat to our lead-off status from other
states or by any of the national political parties. The amendment clarifies
the language of the statute. It is the belief of the committee that passage
of this legislation will greatly enhance our protection of the importance,
relevance, and “first” status which New Hampshire has had since
1916 in the national presidential selection process. With approval of this
bill, all states and the national political parties should be put on notice
that New Hampshire will do what is necessary to preserve our tradition. The
governor and the secretary of state also strongly endorse this legislation.
Vote 15-2.
Rep. William L. O'Brien for the Minority of Election Law: This bill seeks
to address a situation created by a national democrat commission having voted
to do away with New Hampshire’s first in the nation primary status. During
committee hearings and work sessions on this bill, the sponsor and democratic
leadership were asked if they were confident that this bill will solve the
problems and if the impression on when presidential candidates are to file
would not be cited by democrat presidential candidates as being so arbitrary
and capricious that they could award New Hampshire presidential primary. The
response we received was that they are confident that the legislation “does
a job” and “sends a message,” but they did not say either
that the legislation would solve the problem created by the Democrat Commission
or the legislation would not be used by democrat candidates for not participating
in New Hampshire’s presidential primary. Before we change New Hampshire
laws to accommodate national party assaults on New Hampshire’s presidential
primary, we ought to be assured that the change will defend out state against
the assault and not be used against the state.
