By AMANDA KNOWLES
Observer Staff
Jan. 23, 2008

The 2008 presidential primary season is shaping up to be the most chaotic in history, experts say. States are taking part in a mad dash to the front of the schedule in an effort to maximize their influence, breaking party rules and facing penalties along the way. In response, Congress has taken the matter into its own hands, proposing reform legislation and leaving some questioning whether government intervention is constitutional.

Observer photo by JODI WESTRICK.
Barack Obama greets local supporters on stage at a rally Jan. 6 at the historic Palace Theatre in Manchester, N.H. The event was the first of five Obama would attend that day. Critics of primary reform have raised concerns that some new plans would eliminate the opportunity for retail politicking, which many regard as essential to the campaign process.

“The major problem with the current system is the stranglehold that a small number of states have on the selection of our presidential candidates,” said Libby Benton, legislative assistant to Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich. “This year especially is a good example of how frontloaded, frantic and disorganized the primary system can be.”

In March, Levin introduced the Interregional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act of 2007, one of two legislative reform proposals currently moving through Congress seeking to regulate the primary election system in future cycles.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., introduced the Regional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act of 2007 in July.

While both bills aim to correct what the representatives see as fundamental flaws in the primary election system, they differ in method; Levin’s plan would have states from each of six specified regions vote on the same day, while Klobuchar proposes that each of four specified regions hold their own election.

“Primaries were not intended to be an arms race,” Klobuchar said in a press release following her testimony before the Senate Rules Committee. “We seek to give order to this chaotic, messy and unrepresentative process.”

However, there are those who say Congress has no right to regulate the primary system. The Republican and Democratic parties have raised questions about constitutional authority, and some members of Congress have echoed those concerns.

“How do we justify, under the Constitution, congressional interference in a system that the Constitution does not contemplate?” asked committee ranking member Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, according to the transcript of the Senate hearing on Klobuchar’s regional plan.

Nonetheless, Klobuchar maintains that the Supreme Court has recognized such authority, empowering Congress to bring order to the system and give each state an equal voice.

FairVote.org, a nonpartisan organization working to improve elections in the United States, has a particular interest in achieving primary election reform. The organization publishes a Web site in cooperation with the Century Foundation and the Advancement Project, www.fixtheprimaries.com, which seeks to find a solution for the “broken” presidential primary system.

Ryan O’Donnell, director of FairVote’s presidential elections reform program, believes it doesn’t matter if reform is accomplished by the parties or by Congress, as long as something is done, and soon.

How did we get here?

According to O’Donnell, the overarching problem is that there is no real policy for conducting presidential nominations. The Constitution does not address the issue because, he said, the government was not originally structured with parties in mind.

“Our system was set up without parties, and as soon as they became real, it was a real struggle to figure out how to set rules to regulate them,” O’Donnell said. “It’s changed over the years. It used to be party leaders in smoke-filled rooms who decided who the candidates would be. People didn’t vote at all. In the 1960s and ‘70s, that changed.”

Observer photo by JODI WESTRICK.
Hillary Clinton speaks to a crowd of supporters at her New Hampshire headquarters following CNN’s announcement that she had won the state’s Democratic primary. New Hampshire, along with Iowa, has enjoyed a “first in the nation” status in the primary schedule for many years, which some reform advocates wish to do away with, saying the states have disproportionate control over who wins the presidential nomination.

Presidential primaries were first held in the early 20th century, but by 1968 fewer than 15 states held them. In that year, a chaotic Democratic National Convention yielded a nominee that did not have popular support, moving the national party to reorganize the selection process, resulting in today’s state-by-state system.

Since then, states have sought to increase their influence in a variety of ways. Individual states have moved their primaries up, forcing Iowa and New Hampshire to move from March to January to maintain their “first in the nation” status. States lumped themselves together, initiating Super Tuesday in March 1988, when nine Southern states joined in an attempt to create a regional force in the candidate selection.

These trends have resulted in the current situation, with a frontloaded schedule and what O’Donnell called “Tsunami Tuesday,” in which 22 states have scheduled primaries or caucuses for Feb. 5.

The time is ripe for reform, O’Donnell said.

“Like everything else in our democracy, it is a question of whether we’re going to move forward by expanding our voting policies,” he said, comparing the situation to women’s suffrage and the movement to win blacks the right to vote. He said the current system effectively shuts out portions of the country with later primaries from having any voice. “This is discrimination based on geography, and in the most important election we have.”

Competing proposals

Numerous reform proposals have been made over the years, but as of yet, none have been seriously considered. Responding to the current situation, however, legislators, national parties, and the public are speaking out for change. The problem is they can’t seem to agree on how best to go about it.

“Everyone is unhappy, but no one state can do anything about it,” said Jonathan Siegel, senior legislation fellow for Klobuchar.

The Reform Plans
- The American Plan begins with contests in small-population states. The schedule consists of ten two-week intervals, during which randomly selected states may hold their primaries. States are grouped together based on the number of combined congressional districts: The first interval will include states with a combined total of eight congressional districts, and the number will increase with each successive primary. The later intervals, however, will be staggered, to maintain fairness for larger states like California. The number of congressional districts voting in each interval would be 8, 16, 24, 56, 32, 64, 50, 72, 48, and 80.
- The Regional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act (Sen. Klobuchar) establishes a rotating schedule of regional primaries and caucuses. The country would be divided into West, Midwest, South and East, with the schedule rotating between regions so each has the chance to go first in each four-election cycle. Primaries would be held the first Tuesday of each month between March and June. Iowa and New Hampshire would retain the right to go first. Has a companion bill in the House with the same name.
- The Interregional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act (Rep. Levin) establishes a rotating scheduled of interregional primaries and caucuses. The country would be divided into six regions, with a schedule of primaries every two weeks beginning in March and ending in June. For each primary, a larger state or group of smaller states from each region would vote, determined by a lottery and rotated each election cycle. Iowa and New Hampshire would not longer have a guaranteed starting position. Has a companion bill in the Senate titled the Fair and Representative Presidential Primaries Act.
Sources: www.fixtheprimaries.com, http://klobuchar.senate.gov, http://www.house.gov/levin.

Klobuchar’s regional primary bill has gone farthest in Congress. It has gone through a hearing with the Senate Rules Committee and is currently waiting to be scheduled for mark-up. The plan is tri-partisan, co-sponsored by Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn.

The major difference between the regional and interregional bills is the break-up of states voting in each scheduled primary. Klobuchar’s calendar schedules primaries by region, so candidates don’t have to campaign nationally. The order of regions would be chosen by a lottery, and would rotate with each election cycle. Levin’s bill would instead use a lottery to select a number of states from each region to vote in each primary, on a rotating basis, to ensure that no part of the country is left without fair influence.

Levin’s bill is in its third attempt to regulate the primaries. He first introduced the interregional plan in 1986, and again in 1999. But this year is different.

The bill “has gotten a lot of attention over the past months as more and more attention has been paid to primary reform, especially with the situations in Michigan Florida,” said Benton, referring to the penalties the states are facing for breaking party scheduling rules. “I think that interest will only continue to grow as we move through the primary schedule.”

In response to the constitutionality question, Benton noted that the Supreme Court has made no definitive ruling.

“Rep. Levin believes when it comes down to it, the Supreme Court will see a compelling interest in resolving the issue,” she said.

Klobuchar addressed the issue during the hearing of her bill. Siegel, who has a law background, said the cases are quite strong in recognizing congressional power in regulating federal elections, including primaries. “Anytime you try something new, people are going to say, ‘Wait a minute, can you do that?’ ” he said.

As the constitutionality of these legislative proposals is questioned, interest groups, activists and legislators have turned to the parties themselves to effect primary reform. Although the Democratic National Party can vote on changes at any time, time is an issue for the Republican National Party, which can only change its rules during its national convention.

“In January, the [Republican] rules committee is going to vote on a couple of reforms,” FairVote’s O’Donnell said. “If they don’t change in 2008, they can’t do it again until 2012.”

FairVote has elected to back a reform effort called the American Plan, which begins the primary schedule with small-population states, gradually working up to the largest states at the end, regardless of regions. According to O’Donnell, the plan’s strong points are a lottery element that treats small and large states fairly, a rational timeline with ten primaries spaced at even intervals, and the conservation of retail politicking.

The American Plan is just one option parties will consider as they vote on rules at their national conventions. Following the lead of Rep. Levin, Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis and Democratic activist Debbie Dingell have introduced their own proposal, hoping to appeal to the national parties. The proposal mirrors Levin’s bill, but suggests a lottery rather than a set rotation to decide the order in which groups of states will hold their primaries.

According to Levin’s office, if meaningful reform can be accomplished through the parties with a proposal such as the Anuzis-Dingell plan, the need for legislation would be erased, therefore avoiding the constitutionality question altogether.

Other options on the table include proposals similar to the regional and interregional plans, as well as two national primary plans: one would allow voters to cast ballots at any time between January and June during an election year; the other would select a single day in which all states would hold their primaries or caucuses.

The Democratic National Committee declined to comment. The Republican National Committees did not respond to calls for comment.

So, what now?

Each group or person who has proposed reform believes their plan best accomplishes the goals of primary reform. But, O’Donnell pointed out, nothing can be really accomplished until a consensus is reached.

“What I’d like to see is a bi-partisan commission to decide what to do,” he said. “It’s sort of putting the cart before the horse for different representatives to come up with their own plans. It’s kind of funny to start proceeding with legislation before airing the issue and weighing all the options.”

O’Donnell isn’t certain if reform could be achieved in time for the 2012 election cycle, but he is hopeful.

“If there is ever a time to do it, it’s now,” he said. “It’s never been more chaotic. … No plan is perfect. With this kind of thing it’s almost impossible to know what would be good and what would be bad. What we do know is that anything would be an improvement over what we have.”