Joseph F. Keefe
November 16, 2005
Hon. Alexis Herman
Co-Chair
Hon. David Price
Co-Chair
Commission on
Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling
Democratic National
Committee
VIA FASCIMILE:
202.572.7871
Dear Secretary Herman and
Congressman Price:
As a former Chair of the
New Hampshire Democratic Party and Member of the DNC Rules & By-Laws
Committee, I have read with growing dismay some of the recent news reports
about the apparent direction (or drift) of the Commission on Presidential
Nomination Timing and Scheduling. I had
hoped that the Commission would focus on improving the Democratic Party’s
nominating calendar by taking up two critical challenges: (1) enabling more
diverse states to play a larger role in the process; and (2) addressing the
problem of frontloading, which threatens to completely undermine any sort of
rational nominating calendar. Instead,
the Commission’s focus, perhaps in deference to Senator Levin, seems to have
devolved into a concentrated effort to undermine
Please know that, as far
as I am concerned, there is no acceptable compromise the effect of which would
be to undermine
The Commissioners should
understand that the New Hampshire Presidential Primary not only plays an
important and positive role in the presidential nominating process – for
reasons you are well familiar with – but also is fundamental to
Commissions may come and
go – perhaps every four years if some people have their way – and
well-intentioned people can tinker each election cycle, thinking they have
invented a better mouse trap. In fact, it
is in the nature of such things that those involved are always fighting the
last war, and usually end up unleashing unforeseen and unintended consequences that
further de-stabilize the process. Still,
if the Democratic National Committee thinks it can improve the process, I am
all for that, particularly if it means addressing diversity and
frontloading. Perhaps the Commission
will find its way back to these issues.
In the meantime, the New Hampshire Presidential Primary, which history
has established as first-in-the-nation, and which has endured the test of time,
is not something that is negotiable every four years.
I understand that
political parties have a right to determine their nominating processes, but I
also believe they should do so within the context of history and tradition, and
should not do so simply for purposes of rewarding one or more states at the
expense of others. That’s what you would
be doing should you decide to challenge
I would urge the
Commission to return to the issues of diversity and frontloading, as it is by
addressing these challenges, rather than challenging
The lack of diversity at the front end of the
process could be addressed by adding a state or states to an early, prominent
position in the presidential nominating calendar after
The influence of states
with diverse electorates could also be augmented by addressing the most serious
problem with the current nominating calendar: the problem of frontloading. As the Hunt Commission warned in 1982,
frontloading trends then evident (and now much more pronounced):
“…threaten to ‘lock up’ the nomination prematurely,
fore-shortening the period during which candidates may be developed and issues
may emerge. They make the party and its
convention less able to respond to a changing political environment. And they devalue states whose primaries and
caucuses come late, reducing the prospects of a meaningful showdown between
major candidates at the end of the window period.”
Ironically, frontloading
– where states march to the front of the process in order to gain influence – results in many states
being bunched up on the same dates, whereby each state actually loses influence over the nominating
process. It is frontloading – not
The best antidote to
frontloading is to spread out the
calendar over a 3-4 month period of party-sanctioned primary and caucus dates,
beginning in February and ending in June, whereby individual states would be
allowed to schedule their primaries or caucuses on dates that they can occupy
alone, or share with only one or two other states. DNC Rules could delimit the
number of delegates that can be chosen (and therefore the number of states that
could hold contests) on each sanctioned date.
A lengthened calendar,
with a limited number of states holding contests on each sanctioned date, would
give individual states, including states with diverse electorates, more
influence; allow candidates to compete for a longer period of time without
dropping out; give the Democratic Party and Democratic voters across the
country more opportunity to assess the candidates; increase voter interest,
participation and turnout; strengthen state parties and energize voters at the
grassroots level; and contribute to the selection of a nominee who has
demonstrated sustained, broad-based support and is therefore more likely to be
elected in November.
Should the Commission
propose positive solutions on diversity and frontloading, I am sure that
Democrats everywhere – save perhaps a small number of party insiders in
Ironically,
I cannot stress how
unwise it would be to undermine New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation status, nor
how strongly New Hampshire Democrats will fight against the Commission’s
recommendations. Stripping
I hope the press reports
I have read turn out to be inaccurate, and that the Commission will address the
real issues confronting the nominating calendar – diversity and frontloading – rather
than using its mandate to undermine
Very truly yours,
Joseph F. Keefe