CE Week #12: “Michigan Court OKs Early Primary”
By KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN
The Associated Press
Wednesday, November 21, 2007; 12:47 PM
LANSING, Mich. — Michigan’s Jan. 15 presidential primary can go forward, the state Supreme Court decided Wednesday, keeping alive the state’s bid to be one of the 2008 campaign’s first contests.
The court decision should make it easier for New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner to schedule that state’s primary, which New Hampshire law requires to be the nation’s first. Gardner has been waiting to see what the Michigan courts would do.
The high court’s decision should clear the way for the Republican and Democratic parties to take part in the Jan. 15 primary. Both have already filed letters with the secretary of state saying that’s their plan.
However, by holding its primary so early _ in violation of the national parties’ rules _ Michigan stands to lose half of its delegates to the Republican National Convention, reducing the number to 30, and all of its 156 delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
The national parties have imposed similar penalties on other states as party leaders have struggled to regain control of a chaotic nominating calendar.
If Michigan has its primary on Jan. 15, that would put it behind only Iowa’s caucuses on Jan. 3, Wyoming’s caucuses on Jan. 5 and _ according to many expectations _ New Hampshire’s primary on Jan. 8.
Democrats in Michigan have kept open the possibility of picking their presidential favorite through a party caucus, even if the primary is held.
That could delay a decision on the New Hampshire date even further. Michigan Sen. Carl Levin has suggested holding the Michigan caucus the same day as the New Hampshire primary, so Gardner doesn’t want to make a decision until that issue is settled. A message seeking comment was left with his office. His deputy, David Scanlan, could not say when Gardner might set the New Hampshire date.
In its 4-3 decision Wednesday, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned lower court rulings that said the law setting up the primary was unconstitutional because it would let the state political parties keep track of voters’ names and whether they took Democratic or GOP primary ballots but withhold that information from the public.
Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis said he was pleased the primary would be held and said Republicans would participate even if Democrats switched to a caucus.
“This is good for Michigan, this is good for Republicans and it’s good for the process,” he said.
Anuzis would like to see state House Democrats next week pass a bill that would restore the names of four Democratic presidential candidates who have withdrawn from the ballot. Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson pulled their names because the state violated Democratic National Committee rules by moving up the election.
A state Senate-passed bill would require all candidates’ names to be on the ballot, although it also would give them the chance to withdraw again.
East Lansing political consultant Mark Grebner, one of several people who brought the suit arguing it was wrong to let only the political parties have access to the primary voter information, said he didn’t plan to take any additional action at this point.
He doesn’t object to the primary being held, but said other people should have access to the records because the information was obtained through an election paid for with public dollars. The circuit and appeals courts had agreed with his reasoning.
___
Associated Press Writer Joe Magruder in Concord, N.H., contributed to this story.
This is stupid. Why can’t the state just do it how they always do it and not fight with the parties about it. I think it is also stupid of those four democratic candidates that took their name off the ballots because then they don’t have an accuarte recording of what people want for the presidential nominee. People won’t all be smart enough to just write in their candidate.
I think it is weird that wyoming is before New Hampshire. I never though as Wyoming as anything really. I didn’t know they were so high up on the list politically. It seems like all this is really hurting the parties. hopefully (at least for me since I lean democratic) the Republican party is being hit the hardest. However I think that both parties are effected.
I don’t really understand how one day is more constitutional than the other. That part doesn’t make sense to me. Why would moving the primary or caucus up make it more or less constitutional. I think it is rediculous that they can even change the dates only a month and a week away. I think there should be a limit. You can only change the date once, and then it is permanent and then you have to have it set two months before. That sounds about right. Maybe I can write to Ross Perot and He’ll run and bring it up as his main focus…
I hope that the states can settle this in the way that makes democracy more possible… not take away the votes from the people or the parties.
January 15th seems very early for the presidential primary in Michigan. I guess it works because they want to have a huge impact on the race and makes the candidates campaign there. It now lets Gardner set the New Hampshire primary date i guess. It seems odd to me that Michigan is in the fight for anything, but basketball. I mean not many issues or events are seeing Michigan as a force to be looked at or even reckoned with. Until now. It seems that maybe the Democrats would be more crazed over this and try and get it changed. On the other hand i bet the Republicans are like no big deal. Well I guess they both are fighting back by highly reducing the number of delegates that go to the National Conventions. It seems like many states are trying to get the candidates to come to their state sooner. I am really not sure if this is a good idea since the parties are downsizing delegates for states that are doing this. Why can’t the states just have a set day every election year that is the same always. It would make like a lot easier on the candidates and on every state and the voters as well.
What is going on here? Michigan is at risk of losing all its delegates to the Democratic National Convention, but yet the Democrats want to hold a caucus? Isn’t that kind of pointless? They might pick people to go on to the national convention, but then they will be banned from even going. This would be a waste of taxpayer money and time just to hold a caucus that will go nowhere. Could it be that some sort of primary is required, whether or not, the state is represented at the national convention? I’m not sure.
Secondly, why exactly does Michigan want to front load? Is there any real advantage, other than creating a media event, and making the state seem more important? Also, what if this encouraged other states to do the same? If everyone started front loading, and if the democrats banned all delegates from that state, you’d have an empty convention I guess.
I’m not saying this is stupid, but what is stupid is how there’s a big battle over whether it’s constitutional or not and the battle between the parties and the state. If everyone just got along, things would work a lot smoother, and everyone could actually focus on the race for the White House, rather than the race for whose primary is first in the nation.
-Jason Wong
RE: Vanessa S.
“Why can’t the state just do it how they always do it and not fight with the parties about it[?]” I’d just like to say that every four years we get into this debacle. It’s not a new thing, the states are, in fact, doing what they’ve always done, and about what they’re nowadays expected to do. Iowa and New Hampshire are keeping their reign stable with an iron fist. This is a major issue when running for Senator in Iowa and New Hampshire. You may not remember last time, probably because you, like I at the time, was not interested.
Also, Wyoming isn’t before New Hampshire, it’s after (New Hampshire is first). What the article is saying is that it will still be before Michigan, even with Michigan’s drastic and ridiculous leap-frogging maneuver. (And, on a personal note: It saddens me to know that you didn’t think of Wyoming as anything really. We have feelings too. And, hey hey, we have the highest per Capita representation in the cumulative congress)
As for me, and the opinion that is, “my take:” This is a perpetual cycle that front-loads the process. It takes power away from Iowa and New Hampshire (maybe someday we won’t senselessly subsidize ethanol) but it also takes power away from the sitting president, who is, in a specific sense, a lame duck when everyone is thinking about who’s next.