In 2004, Parties May Focus on Matters of Primary Importance

They haven’t even officially named their nominees for 2000, but already the Democrats and Republicans are thinking about how to pick a president in 2004.

Out of concern that the presidential campaign trail has become overgrown with early primaries, which only deep-pocketed candidates can navigate, two plans have been put forth to stretch out the primary schedule. Doing so, say supporters of the plans, wouldadd drama and deliberation to America’s electoral process while also making sure that more states have a say in selecting the nation’s next chief executive.

One proposal, favored by a Republican panel, has the nation’s least-populated states kicking off the primary season and its most populated wrapping things up three months later. The other plan, which is favored by the state officials who administer primaries, groups the nation into four regions, which would rotate the order of their primaries every presidential election.

For any significant overhaul, Republican and Democratic leaders would have to agree among themselves, with each other and with the 50 states. In politics, that’s a tall order.

“This will never be changed unless both parties agree,” said California Secretary of State Bill Jones, a Republican. “If the goal is to encourage more people to participate and treat everyone fairly over time . . . then it has to be done on a bipartisan basis.”

In their favor, the two political parties begin this negotiation from common ground: Both agree that unless something is done to change how their presidential nominees are selected, eventually there will be just one day--a national primary, probably nine months before the general election--when the two candidates will be chosen. In that scenario, they predict, small states will be ignored, as the candidates will campaign only in major media markets where they are likely to reach the most voters. Neither party wants that.

‘Delaware Plan’ Would Benefit Smallest States

There used to be fewer primaries and caucuses spread out over several months. But several states, hoping to increase their clout, started holding primaries or moved their contests up. California, for example, switched its primary from June to March.

Even New Hampshire--the first primary state by tradition--this year switched its primary to Feb. 1, nearly three weeks earlier than in ’96. Within six weeks, Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore had won enough delegates to be voted their party’s candidate at this summer’s conventions. Primaries and caucuses in 21 remaining states meant nothing.

Under what is being called the “Delaware Plan,” after the tiny state that proposed it, the 12 states with the fewest people (and, therefore, the fewest convention delegates) would vote first, on the first Tuesday in February. Each month thereafter, another group of states would weigh in, ending with the biggest fish, including California, voting in May.

“There never has been a perfect system. There never will be,” said former Tennessee Sen. Bill Brock, who led the commission that advised Republicans to pick the Delaware Plan. “What we’re trying to respond to with the best plan that we could devise is the double whammy of money and media being so absolutely dominant in this front-loaded primary system.”

Large States Fear Loss of Clout

The Republican rules committee has endorsed the Delaware Plan, against the opposition of the largest states, who worry that the nominations will be secure before they have a chance to vote. At the GOP’s convention, starting next month in Philadelphia, when party rules say Republicans must determine their basic structure for the 2004 primaries, the party as a whole will vote on the Delaware proposal. With the large states’ delegations firmly against it, the plan could easily fail.

More likely, the Republicans would amend their party rules to allow changes of the primary calendar to be made sometime after November, when the party hopes Texas Gov. Bush will win the White House. Postponing the debate prevents a nasty and distracting convention squabble.

“I don’t think we want to go to the floor of our convention with a big-state, small-state fight,” said Jones, who is lobbying against the Delaware Plan.

Instead, Jones favors the “Rotating Regional” plan, which carves the country into four sections, roughly equal in population. Each region would have the honor of voting first every fourth presidential election.

The bipartisan National Assn. of Secretaries of State endorses this plan, variations of which have been offered for 25 years. The Republicans will consider the regional model if the Delaware Plan is voted down but have problems with that plan too.

“Somebody is always going to be left out of the decision,” Brock said.

In the rotating regional scenario, Iowa and New Hampshire are exceptions. Awarding first dibs at picking presidential candidates to those two states is sacrosanct in American politics, even though both are unrepresentative of the nation in demographics and in political participation. In endorsing the Delaware Plan, Brock’s commission avoided saying whether Iowa and New Hampshire’s tradition should continue.

Democrats Like System Just the Way It Is

Democrats, who support Iowa and New Hampshire going first, studied the same alternatives that Republicans evaluated but concluded that their own system--which led to Bill Clinton’s election and reelection--works just fine.

“While we do see problems with the front-loading, nobody has come up with a plan not fraught with its own problems,” said James Roosevelt Jr., co-chairman of the Democrats’ rules committee and grandson of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. With the Delaware Plan in particular, the Democrats worry that the smaller states that would kick off the primary season are not demographically representative of the whole nation.

Under Democratic Party rules, states can schedule their primaries any time within a March-to-June window. The Democrats would like the Republicans to adopt the same calendar so that both parties could hold their contests together.

So, with both parties having their own ideas for how the political season of 2004 should progress, there will be haggling. If the Republicans agree at their convention to put off a decision, the two national parties will wait until after November’s presidential election to negotiate a new system--or stick with what they have.

“If they can get the flexibility to negotiate with us off-season,” Roosevelt said, “we can talk about a range of issues. . . . Neither party is going to want to take a risk of offending anybody during this period.”