National Democrats say that the new schedule — which also bumps up South Carolina’s primary to just one week after New Hampshire’s — is an attempt to add more geographic and ethnic diversity to early voting. They also contend that because the Nevada contest is a caucus and not a primary, it does not violate a 1975 New Hampshire law requiring its primary be held seven days before any “similar” election and giving New Hampshire’s secretary of state sole power to set the date. If Gardner determines that the Nevada caucus schedule violates his state’s law, he can ignore the DNC’s calendar and move the New Hampshire primary to an earlier date. Such a move would be risky, however: the party could opt not to recognize the state’s delegates at the national convention. The party made such a threat in 1984 but did not follow through; a Democratic spokesperson declined to say what will happen if New Hampshire flouts party rules this time.

David King, associate director of the Institute of Politics at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, says that refusing to seat the New Hampshire delegation could be disastrous for the Democrats. In stripping New Hampshire of its influence, says King, the DNC would also be negating the moderating influence of that swing state, increasing the likelihood that a nominee would be chosen by the “wing nuts” of the party. “Candidates in the Democratic Party would be less likely to win the general election,” King says.

New Hampshire officials clearly view the new schedule as a threat to their state’s status — and yes, power. James Splaine, the Democratic state representative who authored New Hampshire’s primary law, calls the DNC’s decision “stupid” and argues that Nevada’s spot on the calendar will lead to campaigns funded by gambling interests. “It creates a terrible image for the party,” he says.

Kathy Sullivan, chairwoman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party and a member of the DNC rules committee, says that some in the DNC want to “pick a fight” with New Hampshire and Iowa. She suggests that DNC chairman Howard Dean, who was considered a front-runner in 2004 but failed to win either state, has an ax to grind with the current process. “I think there’s been a real effort on the parts of some people around Governor Dean to lessen the influence of Iowa,” she says. A party spokesperson did not directly address the claim, saying only that Dean supports adding diversity to early voting.

ADVERTISEMENT

It is not clear that Sullivan’s argument holds water given that, under the new schedule, Iowa would continue to host the first nominating contest.

At this point, New Hampshire has an ally in Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, who says he also disagrees with Nevada’s placement between Iowa and New Hampshire. The two states have traditionally been allies in promoting their one-on-one, living-room style of presidential politics. If the DNC sticks to its schedule, though, they could find themselves at odds. That’s because New Hampshire might have to leapfrog Iowa to get ahead of Nevada, which would violate Iowa’s law requiring it to hold the nation’s first nominating contest.

Right now, it’s impossible to tell what will happen. Even if the DNC passes its new schedule on August 19, we likely won’t know when the contests will take place until shortly before they occur: Gardner declined to say what he might decide, except that he will not set the date until sometime in late 2007.

This much is certain, though: whatever the outcome, a lot of people are going to be unhappy about it.