WASHINGTON — Gov. Tim Walz has made a last-minute pitch for Minnesota to become an early primary state as a key panel of the Democratic National Committee is set to make recommendations on a new presidential primary calendar later this week.
[image_credit]REUTERS/Eric Miller[/image_credit][image_caption]Gov. Tim Walz[/image_caption]
“We are now writing to inform the Committee that if Minnesota is chosen as an early primary state, we are committed to passing legislation that would move the date of the DFL’s presidential primary to coincide with the DNC’s early state schedule,” the letter said.
Minnesota’s DFL is in a pitched battle with Michigan Democrats to replace Iowa, which has held the first presidential primary contest since 1971. The competition between the states is intense, with both arguing their urban/rural makeups and geographical position in the nation’s heartland should give them early primary status.
But Michigan and Minnesota share a problem. The Republican National Committee has said it will not support any change to the Republican presidential primary schedule.
“Our 2024 calendar for the presidential primary is set, so it’s going to be Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina,” RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said during a visit to Minnesota before this month’s general election.
Like the DNC, the RNC imposes sanctions – a reduction in the number of delegates to the nominating conventions – against states that try to cut ahead of their predetermined positions in the calendar.
Under current state law, the heads of the DFL and Republican state party must agree to change the date of the state’s presidential primary. State law also requires other “major parties,” or those that who have received 5% or more in at least one statewide election, to agree to the date change. Minnesota’s marijuana legalization parties are considered major parties.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan[/image_credit][image_caption]“Our 2024 calendar for the presidential primary is set, so it’s going to be Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina,” RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, left, said during a visit to Minnesota before this month’s general election.[/image_caption]
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Tony Nelson[/image_credit][image_caption]Minnesota Republican Party Chair David Hann[/image_caption]
So, in their letter, Walz and the DFL leaders of the state legislature assured the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee that “as Governor and incoming leaders of the Minnesota Senate and House of Representatives, we are committed to swiftly passing and signing into law legislation” that would allow Minnesota to vie for “first in the nation,” or at least “one of the first in the nation,” primary slots.
The DNC scrapped its early primary calendar this year, opening up the process so all states could apply to hold early contests. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee whittled down the list of eligible applicants to 16 states and Puerto Rico and the panel will announce its recommendations during a three-day meeting beginning on Thursday.
Those recommendations would be voted on by all DNC member early next year, a process that’s considered a formality.
The early presidential primaries, held in February in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina after Iowa’s caucuses, have given those states a disproportionate ability to narrow the field of candidates for the White House. The early primary states also receive national attention to their issues and an economic boost since they are flooded with advertising dollars and on-the-ground campaign organizing.
Minnesota’s presidential primary has been held on Super Tuesday, usually the first Tuesday in March, a date that attracts the greatest number of states holding primaries or caucuses. Now it has a chance to break away from that pack.
But the competition is fierce and Michigan is seen by many as a front-runner.
Diversity vs. an engaged and loyally Democratic electorate
There were several reasons the DNC wanted to scrap their old primary calendar and start anew.
Iowa bungled its 2020 caucuses after a new reporting app suffered technical problems, delaying results and producing no clear winner. Nevada also had problems determining the winner of its 2020 presidential primary caucuses.
There is also concern among some Democratic leaders that Iowa’s lack of a racially and ethnically diverse population does not reflect the nation as a whole, a concern that is also held about New Hampshire. Iowa is 90.1% white according to the 2020 U.S. Census and just 4.3% Black, 6.7% Hispanic/Latino and 2.8% Asian. New Hampshire is even less diverse at 92.8% white.
Meanwhile, Iowa has become “redder,” and some party leaders believe Democrats should invest the millions of dollars spent in early primary states in battleground states instead.
That preference to hold early primaries in battleground states could hurt Minnesota’s application and boost Michigan’s chances. Minnesota has loyally voted for a Democrat for president for decades. Michigan, however, has been a much more “purple” state.
Minnesota is also much less racially and ethnically diverse than Michigan. With only 7.4% Black residents and 5.8% Latino residents, Minnesota is much less diverse than the nation as a whole. About 37% of the nation’s population identifies as Black, Latino or Asian, the U.S. Census says. A 2020 Pew Research report said four in 10 Democratic voters identified as nonwhite.
Even so, Minnesota is more diverse than Iowa and New Hampshire and its number of ethnically diverse residents is growing.
While Walz has bragged about Minnesota’s huge Democratic election wins, Michigan Democrats also had impressive gains, including – like Minnesota – the seizure of control of both chambers of the state legislature.
Minnesota, however, has attributes that make it attractive, including a relatively cheap media market, high union membership and a large LGBTQ community. The state’s high civic engagement and voter turnout is also a plus.
“Minnesota is one of the fastest-growing Midwest states, has a capable and competent state party, a highly engaged electorate, and a logistical and financial advantage for campaigns,” said a letter signed by the Democratic members of Minnesota’s congressional delegation.
The DNC rules and bylaws committee had hoped President Biden would weigh in. But it seems the president has yet to put his finger on the scale.
Biden has, however made several visits to Michigan before and after this month’s election, touting the state’s auto industry, especially it production of electric vehicles, and other manufacturing in the state. The president’s frequent visits to Michigan has encouraged Democrats in the state seeking to move up their presidential primary.
Besides Minnesota and Michigan, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas and Washington state have all made bids to be early presidential primary states.
I hope Michigan wins. I really don’t want to endure more months of political campaigning in Minnesota.
The inability of the major parties to do simple, common sense, agreeable to a vast majority of folks, things is a curse.
Five regional, common voting day, super primaries beginning in February thru June.
East coast, West coast, Central, Southeast and Southwest.
Rotated in sequence from first to last each election.
Fair and balanced. Now, that’s not so hard, is it??
Not a bad idea OR, divide into the 5 regions 10 states per region and have 2 states per region primaries for a total of 5 primaries. Have rural red and urban blue states mixed on the same day
Dilute one region from giving momentum.
Make the early campaign be wider focused, stop pandering to a small segment of electorate.
Would it work, probably not, but ….
Not commenting pro or con, but if Minnesota moves ahead on the Democratic calendar and the Republicans can’t/won’t change their presidential primary date, that would make 4 elections in 2024. Election officials will have a full year of fun on their hands for sure with that calendar. That early date for Democrats would open early voting in late December, 2023.
I would put primaries in order of the number of representatives each state has from least to most. Start with those with only one or two reps, bundled all on the same day, then move on to the ones with three or four, maybe five then continue on until you have California during the last week. States could move their primaries to later dates if they wish but not any earlier. Having several primaries during the first week would not give any one state outsize influence and by putting the big states last would keep the contest from being decided early and leaving later states with little say in the outcome.
I hope we don’t get it.
I have a relative that was a county sherrif in Iowa. It’s a big burden for cities and counties to provide security and services to the campaigns.
If the event is for an incumbant President, their campaign gets many events for “free” because they can call it an offical event. The Feds pay for some of it, but not all of it. The city/county is left holding the bag on the rest.
If the event is for a non-incumbant, their campaign has to cover all these costs. The campaigns take forever to pay, both parties. At some point the city/county has to tell the campaign, both parties, “If you don’t pay us by this date, we are issuing a press release saying you wont pay your bill”. Then they get paid right away.
Yes, i hope Michigan gets it.
Then why is Iowa gong to fight to the last breath to keep it?
It is a net moneymaker for the state, that’s why.
Governor Walz is correct in that Minnesota does rank 19th in national growth (behind North Dakota 4th and South Dakota 16th) making it one of the fastest growing Midwest states. Having been the only State to choose Walter Mondale the State could be a bellwether state for Democrats nationally being solidly Blue. Correctly choosing President Biden 38% to 30% for Bernie and 15% for Warren means that the State is on the pulse nationally.
As an aside, being near the top of the Midwest (after North and South Dakota) doesn’t seem as impressive when Ohio, Michigan, and Illinois are 45th, 46th, and 48th in growth…
And if you drive along the I29 corridor on the East side of SD and ND you can see the vast majority of the growth within 60 miles of the MN border.
Why? A capable and educated MN population to work in this band and MN companies looking for a tax break while keeping the MN workforce advantage and without having to go to Mississippi. And finding oil is also not a bad deal too…
America does not elect its presidents well. The process as created by the founders was found to be unworkable from the moment George Washington chose not to run for a third term. It has been frequently tinkered with over the centuries, and it is not clear if things have improved at all. Twice in this century, a candidate who lost the popular vote was elected, in each both cases, with disastrous results. The safeguards instituted by the founders such as the electoral college have been proven to be ineffective to the extent that they are relevant at all.
Now there are proposals on the table to rearrange some of its most minor features. The problem, according to our leaders, is that the nation at large has been deprived of the collective wisdom of Minnesota voters. If somehow an excessively front loaded process could be front loaded just a little more, maybe that would make a significant contribution it would make this extraordinarily troubled process, just a little less troubled. I have my doubts.
I know it seems a lot to ask, but instead of addressing our issues on a superficial level, maybe we should begin to make a serious effort to address the real problems afflicting our political culture. Maybe, just maybe, it is not too late.
Well…
List of the Pros of a Parliamentary System
1. It offers checks and balances.
Each branch of government in a parliamentary system is governed by a system of checks and balances. That reduces the chances of one branch being able to overpower others when pursuing legislation.
2. It supports a diverse range of opinions.
A true majority within a parliamentary system is rare. That is because anyone can form their own political party to run for office. That means smaller parties tend to work together to form a coalition, which supports more opinions than a standard party platform would.
3. It allows for an election to be called.
Elections can be called within a parliamentary system by the people or those who were elected. That makes it easier for the people to call for a change if they feel like their elected officials are not performing as they should be.
List of the Cons of a Parliamentary System
1. It reduces the voice of minority parties.
Although anyone can form a political party, the large, established political parties have the most influence in a parliamentary system. Unless a coalition is necessary, those with large parties tend to ignore the needs of the smaller parties.
2. It reduces separation from the executive branch.
The executive branch is directly influenced by the legislative branch in this system of government. That means people may vote for the party because of who they think will be the leader of the country instead of who they think will be the best candidate.
Hmmm…
The pros are aro pros and the cons are pros too: Our minority parties could not be made more voicelsss than hey already are and it sometimes seems that we can sometimes have a runaway, lunatic, executive branch that needs a stable influence beyond the voice of the lunatic. Not to name any names.
We’re only a Constitutional Convention and 38 state approvals away from victory…
1. It offers checks and balances.
Not really. In the British parliamentary system, the government pretty much rules. Our checks and balances system was a reaction to their governmental system.
2. It supports a diverse range of opinions.
If anything, free speech is more limted in Britain than America. And the free speech rights we have here have rarely been protected by our supposedly checked and balanced of government when they come under stress.
It allows for an election to be called.
The British system provides that a parliament cannot last more than five years. It can be called sooner. We have elections every two years, which in practice means we are always close to an election. I don’t think we need more of them.
1. It reduces the voice of minority parties.
You mention coalitions. Sometimes there are coalition governments, sometimes not. Britain has had only one in my lifetime and I am getting pretty old. In other countries, they are almost always necessary, in Israel to name one example. Their experience is not encouraging.
2. It reduces separation from the executive branch.
It eliminates it altogether. This is both good and bad, and sometimes both at the same time. This can mean the executive is controlled by one party and the can be partially or totally controlled by the other seems absurd. I think it was intended to discourage parties but instead it made our system with parties largely unworkable. Most countries considering new constitutions reject this feature.
Our system is ineffective but I don’t blame the founders who tried to do their best and didn’t have a lot of constitutional models to go by. It works best when there is mutual respect between opposition parties, recognizing the commitment of both to the common good. I think those things have been missing from our politics for a while now.
If only Donald Trump had gotten the Liz Truss treatment after 7 weeks: You’re an idiot, you’re gone…
Except for president, in Minnesota we have both a caucus and primary system. Nerd that I am, I enjoy going to my political caucus. It gets me out of the house on dark February nights. But the fact is, in my party the nomination that down the road is the culmination of the caucus system is mostly worthless where races are contested. It has been decadeses since the Democratic Party endorsed a candidate for governor who wasn’t an incumbent who actually got elected. The endorsements of the other party have the opposite effect but curiously have the same result. Their endorsed candidates win primaries, but are unacceptable to the general election. The caucus seems to have explored all the possible ways it could go wrong in Minnesota.