Tuesday, Dec. 13, 2005 | 8:51 a.m.
The coveted status that Iowa and New Hampshire have long held by being the first and second states, respectively, in the presidential nominating process may be slipping away. A commission of influential Democrats recommended this weekend that the Democratic National Committee allow up to two states to hold a caucus following Iowa's in the 2008 presidential selection process.
Many states say it's unfair that Iowa and New Hampshire always get to go first. Because of the current system, the candidates virtually live in Iowa and New Hampshire in the months leading up to the elections -- pretty much ignoring the rest of the nation. Second, Iowa and New Hampshire are overwhelmingly white and don't reflect the nation's ethnic diversity, let alone that of the Democratic Party.
Some states being considered to follow Iowa include Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Arkansas and South Carolina. These states are ethnically diverse, and it's likely that one each from the South and the West will be chosen.
From our vantage point, another reason favoring a Western state early in the mix would be to draw attention to issues that often get ignored by presidential candidates -- water, public land use and nuclear waste disposal to name but a few.
We worry about the nominating process being moved up even further than it is now -- and that would be part of the fallout of including two states to go before New Hampshire. But continuing the old way of doing business is worse. Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't have a lock on going first.
One of the best reforms -- one advocated previously by the nation's state election officials -- would be a rotating primary system, which would have different groups of states taking turns every four years on when their primaries or caucuses are held. That would break the hold that Iowa and New Hampshire effectively have in monopolizing the attention of the presidential candidates, letting the rest of us be heard as well.
This reform doesn't seem likely to happen in time for 2008, but a rotating system is one Democrats and Republicans should embrace for 2012.
archive
