Changes to the 2024 Democratic presidential primary calendar
Date: November 5, 2024  |
2024 • 2020 • 2016 |
The Democratic National Committee's Rules Committee voted on December 2, 2022, to approve a proposal reordering the early presidential primary calendar. South Carolina was selected as the first primary state on February 3, 2024, followed by New Hampshire and Nevada on February 6, Georgia on February 13, and Michigan on February 27.
The proposal was approved by the full Democratic National Committee on February 4, 2023.[1] States selected for early primaries had an original deadline of January 5, 2023, to submit information to the Rules and Bylaws Committee about their plans to change their primary dates. Georgia and New Hampshire were given until June 2023 to submit that information.[2] New Hampshire's deadline was further extended to September 2023.[3] Under the proposal, it would still be possible for a state to hold an early primary on a day that does not match the committee’s calendar, but that state would lose half of its delegates at the Democratic National Convention per a rule in the proposal.[4]
In 2020, the first four states to hold primaries were Iowa on February 3, New Hampshire on February 11, Nevada on February 22, then South Carolina on February 29.
Click the links below to navigate to:
- Information on the Democratic National Committee's proposed plan
- A timeline of events related to the proposed plan
- Reponses to the proposal from politicians and party officers
- Commentary and analysis about the proposal
- Arguments made for changing the early primary schedule before the proposal was released
Background
The Democratic National Committee's Rules Committee voted on December 2, 2022, to approve a proposal reordering the early Democratic presidential primary calendar. South Carolina was selected as the first primary state on February 3, 2024, followed by New Hampshire and Nevada on February 6, Georgia on February 13, and Michigan on February 27. The states were required to provide information to the committee about moving their primaries by January 5, 2023. South Carolina, Nevada, and Michigan submitted information to the committee by the deadline. The deadline for submission was extended for New Hampshire and Georgia.[5]
The proposal was approved by the full Democratic National Committee on February 4, 2023.[1]
The committee's proposal also included rules that would require states to reapply for early presidential primary status again in 2026, and a provision that would allow the party to revoke half of a state's delegates at the national convention if they held an early primary in violation of the proposal's schedule.[4][6]
On April 13, 2022, the Rules Committee voted to establish a system by which state Democratic Parties would need to apply or reapply to secure an early primary date. The panel said letters of intent would be due by May 6, a formal application would be due on June 3, and states would make presentations to the committee in late June. The committee would then have six weeks to announce a recommendation on which states should be given waivers to hold their primaries first.[7] In July 2022, the committee announced it would delay the decision until after the 2022 midterm elections.[8]
On May 9, CBS News reported that 20 Democratic Party organizations had submitted letters of intent to apply for an early primary date, including the four states that held early primaries in the 2020 presidential elections.[9] The Democratic Party organizations that submitted letters of intent are listed below:
- Iowa
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- South Carolina
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Georgia
- Illinois
- Maryland
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Nebraska
- New Jersey
- New York
- Oklahoma
- Texas
- Washington
- Puerto Rico
- Democrats Abroad
On June 11, multiple outlets reported that the DNC had eliminated Democrats Abroad, Nebraska, and New York from consideration.[10]
Timeline
The section below provides a timeline of events related to the proposed changes to the 2024 Democratic presidential primary calendar.
- November 15, 2023: New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan (R) announced the state would hold its primary on January 23, 2024.[11]
- October 24, 2023: The Biden campaign said he would not file to run in New Hampshire's Democratic presidential primary since the state has not moved its primary date to comply with the Democratic National Committee's new early state primary calendar.[12]
- September 14, 2023: The Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee extended the deadline for New Hampshire to reschedule its primary after South Carolina's to October 14.[13]
- June 16, 2023: The Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to extend the deadline for New Hampshire to reschedule its primary after South Carolina's to September 1. The committee also rejected Iowa Democrats' mail-in caucus plan and gave the state party 30 days to change the plan.[3][14]
- May 4, 2023: The Georgia Secretary of State announced the state would hold its primary on March 12, 2024.[15]
- May 3, 2023:
- Iowa Democrats released a draft delegate selection plan.[16]
- Nevada Democrats released a draft delegate selection plan.[17]
- April 15, 2023: South Carolina Democrats released a draft delegate selection plan.[18]
- March 30, 2023: Michigan Democrats released a draft delegate selection plan.[19]
- March 20, 2023: New Hampshire Democrats released a draft delegate selection plan.[20]
- February 4, 2023: The calendar change proposal was approved by the full Democratic National Committee.[1]
- January 5, 2023: South Carolina, Michigan, and Nevada submitted letters explaining how they would change their primary dates to the committee. The committee extended Georgia and New Hampshire's deadlines.
- December 2, 2022: The DNC Rules Committee voted to approve a proposal for South Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Georgia, and Michigan to be early 2024 primary states.
- July 30, 2022: The DNC Rules Committee announced it would delay its decision on early primary states until after the 2022 midterm elections.
- June 3, 2022: Formal applications for an early primary date from state parties were due to the DNC.
- May 6, 2022: Letters of intent from state parties were due to the committee. Twenty Democratic Party organizations submitted letters of intent to apply for an early primary date.
- April 13, 2022: The DNC's Rules Committee voted to establish a system by which state Democratic Parties would need to apply or reapply to secure an early primary date.
Responses to the proposal
The section below provides quotes from parties and politicians supporting or opposing the December 2 proposal.
President Joe Biden (D)
Multiple outlets reported that Biden expressed support for the plan to the Rules Committee before its passage.[21] In a letter to the committee, Biden wrote in part:[22]
| “ |
As you gather to consider changes to the Democratic Party’s nominating calendar, I want to be clear about the principles I believe we as a party should allow to guide our process: 1) 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. [...] 2) Our party should no longer allow caucuses as part of our nominating process. We are a party dedicated to ensuring participation by all voters and for removing barriers to political participation. Caucuses – requiring voters to choose in public, to spend significant amounts of time to caucus, disadvantaging hourly workers and anyone who does not have the flexibility to go to a set location at a set time – are inherently anti-participatory. [...] 3) Our early states must reflect the overall diversity of our party and our nation – economically, geographically, demographically. [...] 4) There should continue to be strong representation from urban, suburban, and rural America, and from each region of the country, and states that prioritize making voting easier in both primary and general elections should represent their regions. 5) The Rules and Bylaws Committee should review the calendar every four years, to ensure that it continues to reflect the values and diversity of our party and our country.[23] |
” |
New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley
In a statement, Buckley said:[24]
| “ |
The DNC did not give New Hampshire the first-in-the-nation primary and it is not theirs to take away. This news is obviously disappointing, but we will be holding our primary first. We have survived past attempts over the decades and we will survive this. Our first-in-the-nation primary has been an integral part of our state’s history for over 100 years, and is enshrined in state law. We look forward to welcoming candidates to New Hampshire in 2024 and beyond. We will continue to do what we in New Hampshire do well - provide a level playing field for all candidates and ensure they are stronger and ready for the fights ahead.[23] |
” |
Democratic National Committee chairman Jaime Harrison
Harrison, who formerly chaired the South Carolina Democratic Party, said of the states selected in the proposal:[6]
| “ |
South Carolina is a state where 40% of enslaved people came through the Port of Charleston. Forty percent of enslaved people. You can go anywhere in this country, you talk to Black folks, and I guarantee you they got a cousin in South Carolina. This is a place where the Civil War was started. Nevada, where Latinos have been building their political power and lifting their voices. Michigan: the heartland, where unions built the middle class, not in just that state but in the nation. Georgia, where the phoenix of the new South has risen from the ashes of the old South — a new South that is bold, that is inclusive, that is diverse, reflecting all of our diverse and progressive values. And New Hampshire, continuing the tradition, a great tradition, here in America that small government is good government — small government by the people and for the people.[23] |
” |
Iowa Rules Committee representative Scott Brennan
Speaking to the Des Moines Register, Brennan said:[25]
| “ | As someone who has lived through a similar version of this process, I would be remiss if I did not say we are creating a situation of continued uncertainty that will continue to drag on throughout 2023. We can vote on this calendar. We can approve this calendar. But we will leave here with nothing settled.[23] | ” |
Commentary and analysis
The section below provides commentary and analysis on the December 2 proposal.
The Election Law Blog's Derek Muller wrote:[26]
| “ |
This will set off several complexities if the calendar is upended. If Democrats permit Michigan’s presidential primaries to move into February, for instance, Michigan could try to move everything into February, but risk running afoul of the Republican National Committee’s rules that forbid Michigan from holding a primary before March 1. Michigan could hold two separate presidential primaries, along with a later primary for other offices and a general election, an expensive four-election proposition. On the flip side, if Democrats displace Iowa or New Hampshire from their positions, but the states follow through with state law to the contrary, it would breach potential new Democratic rules.[23] |
” |
The Washington Post's Philip Bump wrote:[27]
| “ |
This is certainly a reflection of Biden’s own priorities, given what happened in 2020. But it is also a way to make the earliest Democratic voters look more like the Democratic Party. That Black Americans are so heavily Democratic and that the party has an advantage with Asian and Hispanic voters as well means that the Democratic Party is much less heavily White than the Republican Party. It has been for a long time, in fact. In 1996, the Democratic Party was more diverse than the Republican Party is today. As the years have passed, though, that has meant an increasing divergence between the composition of the electorate in the two earliest-voting primary states — Iowa and New Hampshire — and the party itself. In 1976, those two states (which voted first and fifth, respectively, according to useful history from Frontloading HQ) were between 6 points and 8 points Whiter than the party, as measured by the biennial General Social Survey. In 2020, they were between 18 points and 22 points Whiter.[23] |
” |
Vox's Ben Jacobs wrote:[28]
| “ |
This is a year in which conflict over the calendar has comparatively few consequences. If, as expected, Biden runs for reelection, he is unlikely to face a serious challenge for the nomination. This means that any conflict over the calendar will happen during an election that is likely to be a fait accompli. But what it does mean is that there is a precedent set in advance of 2028, which will be a wide-open field, to minimize the role of Iowa and New Hampshire. It will open the door for new fights, over exactly what states come first, that will happen with potential candidates posturing for the calendar to help them.[23] |
” |
Legislative and party action by state
Michigan
On February 1, 2023, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) signed SB 13 into law. The bill moved the state's 2024 presidential primary to February 27, and moved the primary to the fourth Tuesday in February for subsequent presidential election years.[29]
Since the bill did not receive a supermajority of support in the state senate, it did not immediately take effect. Frontloading HQ's Josh Putnam wrote, "That will likely force Democrats in control of the legislature to adjourn the session at least 90 days before February 27. Legislation passed without supermajority of support in the Senate does not become effective until a 90 buffer following an adjourned session has passed."[29]
Regarding the bill's impact on the Republican primary, Putnam wrote, "There is just one presidential primary for both parties, and a February 27 presidential primary is noncompliant with Republican National Committee rules. It falls too early -- before March 1 -- and would subject the Michigan Republican delegation to the super penalty in 2024 if the state party opts to allocate delegates based on the primary."[29]
State Senator Jeremy Moss (D) introduced the bill on January 12, 2023.[30] The bill passed the Michigan State Senate 20-18 on January 26, and passed the Michigan House of Representatives 56-53 on January 31.[30][31]
Nevada
The Associated Press reported in February 2021 that former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was working with Democratic operatives to lobby for Nevada to go first. He successfully campaigned for the state to be moved up on the calendar in 2008, where it took the third spot.[32]
Nevada Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson (D) introduced legislation in February 2021 to change Nevada from a caucus to primary and move it ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire. "Nevada has been a better barometer of where the country is going. And I think with the diversity that we have here in Nevada, it gives candidates a better opportunity to make their case before a really diverse population," Frierson said.[33]
On May 26, 2021, the Nevada State Assembly passed the bill by a vote of 30-11. The Nevada State Senate also voted to pass the bill on May 31, 2021, by a vote of 15-6.[34]
Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) signed the bill into law on June 11, 2021. The national party would need to accept this change to the calendar for the state to effectively move its primary ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire and still receive delegates to the national convention.[35]
New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner (D) said in July 2021 that he would do everything possible to retain New Hampshire's status. "Harry Reid for over half a century has been trying to find a way to get Nevada in front of New Hampshire," he said.[36]
Arguments for and against holding the first primary in Iowa (2021)
Since 1972, Iowa had held the first nominating event of each presidential election cycle in the United States. In 2020, the results of the state's caucuses were delayed by technological issues and tabulation errors, reviving the debate over whether Iowa should continue to hold the prime position on the presidential primary calendar.
Critics of Iowa said the state is not representative of the nation's demographic and geographic diversity. The electorate is older and less urban, and nine out of 10 residents are white. This unrepresentative sample of voters was given outsized importance in the election calendar, opponents said. This criticism extended to New Hampshire, which held the first-in-the-nation primary and mirrors Iowa in its demographics.[37][38][39]
Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said, "Well, if you look at Iowa and New Hampshire and you look at how Joe Biden did in those two states — he took fourth and fifth in those two states. Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of the country. There’s no diversity. So it’s unfair, in my opinion, to have those as the first two primary states because it really gives the wrong impression of what the country is all about."[40]
Supporters said that Iowa and New Hampshire benefit from being small. The size of the states allowed for democratic engagement between candidates and voters. These states were also testing grounds for the campaign organization and retail political skills candidates would need as they move along in the process.
Arguments for replacing Iowa and New Hampshire
| “ |
A diverse state or states need to be first. The difference between going first and going third is really important. We know the importance of momentum in Democratic primaries.[23] |
” |
| —Tom Perez, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee (February 2021)[41] | ||
| “ | Racial diversity, of course, is one thing. Union membership is another thing we have in Nevada. Number three, the population center of America is moving west. It used to be that a majority of people in America were east of the Mississippi River. Now it’s just the opposite. So I think it’s important that people understand that the West is now heavily populated and is taking over being the center of our country.[23] | ” |
| —Harry Reid, former Senate majority leader (February 2021)[40] | ||
| “ |
Being first in the nation is bad for Iowa. For the Democratic Party to reach Iowa voters, win Iowa elections, make Iowa policy and improve the lives of Iowans, it must give up its privileged place on the national nominating calendar.[23] |
” |
| —Jason Noble, 2020 Warren presidential campaign (February 2021)[42] | ||
| “ | Candidates who can win here in Nevada will show real viability around the country. You win in New Hampshire—that doesn't show you're going to win any place else.[23] | ” |
| —Harry Reid, former Senate majority leader (February 2021)[42] | ||
| “ |
There is a discussion about the nomination calendar every cycle. The results of the 2020 cycle only heightened this as Biden did quite poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire before turning things around in South Carolina. That makes it harder for the first two states to effectively argue that they should stay the first in the nation. ... Iowa faces other challenges because the caucus system is somewhat archaic and can limit participation.[23] |
” |
| —Dave Peterson, political science professor at Iowa State University (February 2021)[43] | ||
| “ | We put a lot of effort into history, particularly in Iowa, suggesting it will pick the nominee … [Biden] started a new history. Don't dilute the value that South Carolina has and don't dilute the value that the South has or the diversity of the Democratic Party.[23] | ” |
| —Clay Midddleton, Democratic National Committee senior advisor (February 2021)[42] | ||
| “ | Joe Biden was not doing very well, he didn’t do very well in Iowa, New Hampshire, but he ends up winning South Carolina, and that propelled him to the nomination and ultimately to the presidency. I think that’s just such a good illustration of how important South Carolina is.[23] | ” |
| —Gibbs Knotts, political science professor at the College of Charleston (February 2021)[44] | ||
Arguments for keeping Iowa and New Hampshire first
| “ |
Folks could still argue that Iowa and New Hampshire aren’t racially representative enough to warrant any preferential treatment, regardless of South Carolina’s influence. But both states still provide two benefits. One is regional diversity; Democrats start the process with a Midwestern state and a Northeastern state before moving to the Southwest and Southeast. As the eventual nominee has to compete nationwide, hitting every region of the country early is a worthwhile exercise, even though some of those regions are heavily white.[23] |
” |
| —Bill Scher, Washington Monthly (February 2021)[45] | ||
| “ | What I don't think folks fully recognize is the different elements that go into this process — the balance that exists between us [Iowa] and New Hampshire, us and the DNC, us and the two other early states beyond New Hampshire, the laws that we are under here in Iowa. There are a lot of pieces here that go into this, and you start tugging at a thread and the whole thing comes crashing down.[23] | ” |
| —Troy Price, former Iowa Democratic Party chairman (February 2021)[46] | ||
| “ | What little up-close contact that remains in the presidential primary process is found in those two lightly populated states. And since they have had the first contests for so long, they have hyper-informed primary electorates. That doesn’t make them representative of the country, but it does mean they take their responsibility seriously.[23] | ” |
| —Bill Scher, Washington Monthly (February 2021)[45] | ||
| “ | Only the self funders or celebrity candidates would be able to compete. Without question, that plan would have prevented JFK, Carter, Clinton, Obama and Biden from ever being nominated. It would make having hundreds of millions for slick TV ads more important than one-on-one conversations with people. That idea should stay in the trash can of discarded ideas.[23] | ” |
| —Raymond Buckley, chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party[47] | ||
See also
- 2024 election dates and deadlines
- Presidential candidates, 2024
- Presidential election in Iowa, 2020
- Presidential election, 2020
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 USA Today, "Democrats approve 2024 primary calendar that demotes Iowa, boosts South Carolina," February 4, 2024
- ↑ Reuters, "Biden revamp of Democratic primary faces final vote at DNC convention," February 2, 2023
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Politico, "Democrats buy time in fight over New Hampshire primary," June 16, 2023
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Politico, "DNC moves forward with dramatic change to presidential primary calendar," December 2, 2022
- ↑ New York Times, "Democrats Face Obstacles in Plan to Reorder Presidential Primary Calendar," January 5, 2023
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Des Moines Register, "Iowa no longer first; Democrats reorder the presidential primary calendar for 2024," December 2, 2022
- ↑ Politico, "DNC sets off free-for-all to remake presidential calendar," April 13, 2022
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Democrats delay early state order decision for 2024 campaign," July 30, 2022
- ↑ CBS News, "Here are the states vying to hold the first presidential Democratic primary contests in 2024," May 9, 2022
- ↑ Politico, "DNC cuts 3 contenders as it chooses new early state presidential lineup," June 11, 2022
- ↑ The Hill, "New Hampshire bucks Democrats, announces Jan. 23 primary," November 15, 2023
- ↑ Reuters, "Biden won't appear on New Hampshire primary ballot," October 24, 2023
- ↑ CNN, "New Hampshire Democrats get another extension to comply with 2024 primary calendar," September 14, 2023
- ↑ Des Moines Register, "DNC panel says Iowa's mail-in caucus plan doesn't comply with party rules," June 16, 2023
- ↑ Mark Niesse on May 4, 2023," accessed May 5, 2023
- ↑ Iowa Democratic Party, "Delegate Selection Plan," May 3, 2023
- ↑ Nevada Democratic Party, "Nevada Delegate Selection Plan," May 3, 2023
- ↑ South Carolina Democratic Party, "2024 Draft Delegate Selection Plan," accessed May 12, 2023
- ↑ Michigan Democratic Party, "Michigan Delegate Selection Plan," accessed May 12, 2023
- ↑ New Hampshire Democratic Party, "NHDP Releases 2024 Delegate Selection Plan for Public Comment," March 20, 2023
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Biden pushes South Carolina as first primary state, elevates Georgia and Michigan," December 1, 2022
- ↑ Democratic National Committee, "President Biden’s Letter to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process," December 2, 2022
- ↑ 23.00 23.01 23.02 23.03 23.04 23.05 23.06 23.07 23.08 23.09 23.10 23.11 23.12 23.13 23.14 23.15 23.16 23.17 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ New Hampshire Democratic Party, "NHDP Statement on the White House's Decision to Change the Presidential Primary Calendar," December 1, 2022
- ↑ Des Moines Register, "How Democrats are boxing out Iowa, New Hampshire from trying to cut in front on primaries," December 5, 2022
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "The messy legal and practical issues behind a DNC primary calendar shuffle," December 2, 2022
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Biden seeks a Democratic primary that looks like the Democratic Party," December 2, 2022
- ↑ Vox, "Democrats go to war with Iowa and New Hampshire over 2024," December 2, 2022
- ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 Frontloading HQ, "Whitmer's Signature Sends Michigan Presidential Primary to February 27," February 1, 2023
- ↑ 30.0 30.1 Michigan Legislature, "SB 13," accessed February 1, 2023
- ↑ Frontloading HQ, "Michigan House Passes February Presidential Primary Bill," January 31, 2023
- ↑ Associated Press, "Nevada jockeys to be first on presidential primary calendar," February 2, 2021
- ↑ The Nevada Independent, "Assembly leader files bill to transition Nevada to a primary, become first presidential nominating state," February 15, 2021
- ↑ Nevada Legislature, "Revises provisions relating to elections. (BDR 24-99)," accessed June 1, 2021
- ↑ Associated Press, "Governor signs law giving Nevada 1st presidential primary," June 11, 2021
- ↑ The Conway Daily Sun, "Gardner vows to fend off Nevada's first-in-nation bid," July 23, 2021
- ↑ The New York Times, "Iowa Should Never Go First Again," January 26, 2020
- ↑ The Boston Globe, "Kill the tradition: N.H. and Iowa should not vote first," February 5, 2020
- ↑ Brookings Institution, "Just how demographically skewed are the early Democratic primary states?" January 31, 2020
- ↑ 40.0 40.1 The New York Times, "Nevada Is Moving to Vote Before Iowa in 2024. Harry Reid Makes the Case," February 22, 2021
- ↑ The New York Times, "Tom Perez on Democrats’ Mistakes and Why Iowa Shouldn’t Go First," February 14, 2021
- ↑ 42.0 42.1 42.2 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedABC - ↑ National Interest, "Nevada: Will they Have the First 2024 Primary?" February 22, 2021
- ↑ WNCT9, "South Carolina could get spot as first presidential primary," February 20, 2021
- ↑ 45.0 45.1 Washington Monthly, "Leave the Democratic Party Primary Schedule Alone," February 16, 2021
- ↑ Des Moines Register, "A year after Iowa caucus collapse, the stage is set for a bitter debate over the presidential nominating calendar," February 4, 2021
- ↑ Politico, "Dems could dethrone Iowa," March 31, 2021
| |||||||||||
