Putting The Puzzle Together For Choosing December Or January

First, a little explanation and history about something I've been hearing a lot lately...

WHY BILL GARDNER? Since I have been so close to the cause of preserving New Hampshire's First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary, dating back to the early 1970s even before Bill Gardner became Secretary of State, I've often been asked why he and he alone has the power to set our primary date. It is a lot of power, and he uses it with care and class.

That "one-call" authority goes back to the first bill about the primary that I introduced in 1975. Initially, I was thinking that a committee to select the primary date would be a good idea. I considered having the Governor, Senate President, House Speaker, and the State Democratic and Republican Party Chairs do it together -- set the New Hampshire date a week ahead of other primaries, and do it jointly by consensus or a vote.

I discussed that concept with then-Governor Meldrim Thomson, and he asked me whether that would remove politics from the decision, or make it worse. That was his somewhat diplomatic way of telling me, "don't be crazy." I gather he had some experience getting people to agree by consensus on things. There's a longer story to it all, but his question got me thinking that indeed if we did create a committee, as some people today would like to do, we'd have a lot of politics involved in the process. Setting the date of our primary shouldn't be based on which party might benefit or not, or which presidential candidate would have an advantage over another. Our Secretary of State cannot make a deal with any party, candidate, or state as he sets our primary date. And that's a good thing.

I decided on giving the sole authority to the Secretary of State, without even talking with the man then holding that job about taking it -- yes, in a galaxy long, long ago we did have a Secretary of State before Bill Gardner. Fact is, that process of a "one-call" primary date has worked very well since 1980 when Bill Gardner first used his authority. He sets our date by using his combination of patience, intelligence, great human skills, and did I mention patience?

A lot of pressure is on Bill Gardner right now. But can you just imagine what would happen if the decision was by a committee of individuals who would negotiate with the candidates they endorse and the powers-who-be of the national parties and other states? What a nightmare. Bill is handling the job well, although at times I bet he does have some nightmares of his own.

Back to the setting of the date for the 2008 election, a couple of weeks ago when I introduced the thought of a primary date on or about December 11th, I did so with the intention of encouraging some discussion about our options and alternatives. In that way, it sure has, and that's a good thing.

That thinking and discussion has to continue just a little longer, because right now New Hampshire is in quite a box, but we have the opportunity to get out of the box.

Here is "The New Hampshire Primary Dilemma Of 2007/2008:"

THE BOX WE'RE IN: If I had my preference, I'd like to see the NH Presidential Primary held in March, a week or more ahead of other states. Then the primaries and caucuses could go through to June or so. But that's not going to happen. It's a new world.

Other than looking at a December option, we're really limited to Tuesday, January 8th, Wednesday, January 9th, and Thursday, January 10th as the only possible dates that I can see. I'd like to hear alternatives, but really -- what are they?

Right now, we're looking at a "33 Day National Primary." There will essentially be a one month national primary and caucus system. Through no doing of our own, we are starting the process on January 3rd in Iowa, and ending it on February 5th in a bundle of states. It will start, and stop, within a time period of just 33 days. That's just about 800 hours, give or take a couple. Not good. Our primaries and caucuses used to be a "season" that began in February or March, and continued through June. Not this time.

"Backloading" remains a role that New Hampshire can fill if the Secretary of State moves into December. Consider that as a real reason for looking at a December option. Only he right now can add three weeks to the process -- making the election season from December 11th or so to February 5th, instead of January 3rd to February 5th. It should scare all of us to know that the national parties are trying to get this over so quickly.

THE PRIMARY/CAUCUS SCHEDULE: One cannot consider the need of a December option for New Hampshire without seeing the big picture of what is happening in January. Fortunately at the moment, part of the potential schedule of state primaries and caucuses is still in flux, so New Hampshire doesn't need to move into December unless forced to. All the tea leaves aren't sorted quite yet.

But here's the problem: As things have shaped up or shaken out, the Iowa Republicans have chosen a date of Thursday, January 3rd for their caucuses. Iowa Democrats are leaning toward that date or Saturday, January 5th, and may be considering Monday, January 14th. A lot of logistics have to be planned for a caucus so they require more lead-time than New Hampshire does. If Iowa Democrats go to Thursday, January 3rd with their Republican neighbors, and Michigan remains on Tuesday, January 15th, we end up having a good possibility of going to Tuesday, January 8th. Not an ideal situation, but not bad either.

But if Iowa Democrats go to Saturday, January 5th, that gives Democrat Presidential candidates just Sunday and Monday to campaign here if New Hampshire's Primary is on Tuesday, January 8th. And, we still don't know for sure what Michigan is planning. U.S. Senator Carl Levin of that state says he is committed to reducing New Hampshire's role in this process. I first met him in November of 1999 at a Washington meeting at the National Democratic Headquarters when he spoke against New Hampshire's status. I don't think he likes us much, but I bet he'd love our foliage this time of year.

THAT DECEMBER OPTION: All this is why "The December Option" has to be considered. The New Hampshire Legislature prepared for this eventuality. In 1999, I sponsored House Bill 399, which passed the House by a vote of 329 to 5, and was signed by Governor Jeanne Shaheen on June 29th of that year. The Legislature knew what it was voting for when it approved that bill. I said in my report to the House on June 9, 1999: "It gives greater flexibility to the Secretary of State by allowing the NH presidential primary to be held in 'the year previous' to the year in which the president is chosen."

The previous law in effect since the mid-1970s limited the primary to the year in which the president was elected. In my comments on the House floor during debate, I made it clear that the legislation would allow a move into December. At that time we felt we would do what was necessary to protect the importance and relevance of our "First-In-The-Nation" status and tradition in the then-upcoming election of 2000, when other states were jockeying -- which by the way reminds us that this year is nothing new. I believe most of us still feel that we should protect our primary role, and other states should understand that as well.

We want to be first, and we want to be relevant to the process. It's not about New Hampshire, it's about retaining a process where candidates have a chance to run for president without being independently wealthy or willing to sell out to special interests which are. It's about a form of democracy where one-to-one, person-to-person, face-to-face discussion with us matters.

The New Hampshire Legislature in 1999 felt that form of democracy was worth protecting. By giving our Secretary of State the tool to move into December, we were heading off being able to be squeezed by other states into irrelevancy. Note that the law does not say "in no case shall the primary be held in December." Instead, it specifically allows it.

AND WHY NOT A DECEMBER DATE? I'm not a jumping up-and-down cheerleader for it, but I understand the dilemma here. If Iowa Democrats choose Saturday, January 5th for their caucus, Democratic candidates and the media will spend only Sunday and Monday here -- about 48 hours -- then after a Tuesday, January 8th primary we won't see them again except for perhaps a drop-in next October.

By New Hampshire holding a primary on December 11th, we would not be making the presidential election any longer. Candidates announced or were on the campaign trail about a year ago. Candidates of both parties have been in New Hampshire for thousands of hours, so it's about time we go to the polls. Do we really want campaigning in the third and fourth week of December -- and campaign staffs AND VOTERS not to be able to enjoy their Holidays? Do we really expect the candidates will spend much time here during the week before Christmas and the week between Christmas and New Year's Day? They'll spend most of whatever time they have in Iowa. They'll drop in here for a visit for a day or two, but not much more. A lot of that up-close-and-personal democracy New Hampshire is known for will be lost, and that's a loss for our nation.

SETTING OUR DATE -- GETTING TO "YES" ON JANUARY: When will Iowa Democrats hold their caucus, and what will Michigan do? Those are the two pieces of the puzzle missing at this point. Find those two pieces and a January date for New Hampshire looks very good. It's not New Hampshire dragging its feet in setting our date; it's those states not letting us know what they will do, for sure. We haven't "moved" our primary date yet because none has been set, but other states have been moving around. Assemble that puzzle, put some tape on it, and then we'll know where we fit it. It's quite simple.

So, the New Hampshire Presidential Primary dilemma of 2007/2008 is how can we find the proverbial win-win that maintains New Hampshire's "first" status, keeps our traditional role so that we have real impact in the process, and makes it clear that we are determined to use all of the tools provided by law to our Secretary of State to stay first and relevant now and in the future. He has to select a date when people are likely to go to the polls in the numbers that New Hampshire is famous for, and that encourages the candidates to spend time talking with us eye-to-eye, instead of just relying on their commercials.

I think Bill Gardner is listening to and reading all the commentary offered by anyone who cares to give it. The role he is in as the one and only person who can set the date of the New Hampshire Primary is one he takes most seriously. He thoroughly analyzes what is happening in other states. And he's more than just a history buff about what has happened in past primaries; he's a visionary about the need to be sure that what he does today contributes to the cause of keeping New Hampshire first and relevant into the future.

Throughout the years, we have preserved our lead-off status by keeping the other states and the national parties off-guard, and giving our Secretary of State plenty of options -- including December -- so he will be unpredictable until he officially sets the date. It's worked. This time he has fewer options because of the early January crush, but he can still respond by keeping a December option open, while hoping for a January possibility.

I don't pretend to have an answer yet, and I think Bill Gardner is still thinking about what he has to do.

I trust New Hampshire to do what we need to do.

October 17, 2007

Jim Splaine
NH State Representative