Presidential Nominating Process

1 and Vice President shall be selected by primary election or 2 by caucus, as provided by State law. Such State law shall 3 conform to the requirements of the national political execu4 tive committee and the national nominating convention of the 5 political party involved.

(b) TIMING OF PRIMARY ELECTIONS AND 7 CAUCUSES.

(1) IN GENERAL.-In each region described in subsection (c), the primary elections and caucuses (as the case may be) in 2 subregions (each comprised of a State or a group of States) shall be conducted on each

of the following days of each presidential election year: the second Tuesday in March, the first Tuesday in

April, the fourth Tuesday in April, the second Tuesday

in May, the fourth Tuesday in May, and the second Tuesday in June.

(2) INITIAL ORDER OF PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES. For the first presidential election with respect to

which this Act applies, the Federal Election Commis

sion shall determine by lot the order of subregions in

each region for conduct of primary elections and cau

cuses by the States under paragraph (1).

(3) ORDER OF PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES FOR ELECTIONS. The subregions deter

SUBSEQUENT

mined under paragraph (2) to be first in order for the

HR 4453 IH

1 first presidential election to which this Act applies,

order accordingly. The order shall change with respect

shall be last in order with respect to the next such

election and the other subregions shall advance in the

to subsequent elections in a like manner.

(4) SPECIAL RULES.-Any primary election or caucus for the District of Columbia shall be conducted on the same day as a primary election or caucus for the State of Maryland. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and any territory, possession, or other entity entitled under the rules of a political party to delegate representation at the national convention of that party may conduct a presidential primary or caucus on any day specified in paragraph (1).

17 referred to in subsection (b) are as follows:

Region 1. (A) Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont;

(B) Massachusetts; (C) Connecticut, Rhode Island; (D) Delaware, New Jersey; (E) New York; (F) Pennsylvania.

Region 2. (A) Maryland; (B) West Virginia; (C) Missouri; (D) Indiana; (E) Kentucky; (F) Tennessee.

Region 3. (A) Ohio; (B) Illinois; (C) Michigan; (D) Wisconsin; (E) Iowa; (F) Minnesota.

HR 4453 IH

Region 4. (A) Texas; (B) Louisiana; (C) Arkansas, Oklahoma; (D) Colorado; (E) Kansas, Nebraska; (F)

Arizona, New Mexico.

Region 5. (A) Virginia; (B) North Carolina; (C) South Carolina; (D) Florida; (E) Georgia; (F) Mississippi, Alabama.

Region 6. (A) California; (B) Washington; (C) Oregon; (D) Idaho, Nevada, Utah; (E) Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming; (F) Hawaii, Alaska.

10 SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT.

The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any 12 appropriate United States district court for such declaratory 13 or injunctive relief as may be necessary to carry out this Act. 14 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

The Federal Election Commission shall prescribe such 16 regulations as may be necessary to carry out this Act. 17 SEC. 5. DEFINITION.

As used in this Act, the term "State law" means the 19 law of a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth 20 of Puerto Rico, or a territory or possession of the United 21 States.

22 SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall apply with respect to presidential elec

24 tions taking place more than 2 years after the date of the

25 enactment of this Act.

HR 4453 IH

Mr. SWIFT. The subcommittee will come to order.

Good morning and welcome to our hearing today on the Presidential nominating process. We are focusing on four bills. First is H.R. 251, a regional primary bill introduced by our good friend and colleague Charlie Bennett. The second is H.R. 1380, introduced by Mo Udall, H.R. 1380 would simply require all primaries and caucuses be scheduled between the second Tuesday in March and the second Tuesday in June.

The third bill before us is H.R. 3542, a different variation of the regional primary idea introduced by Bill Nelson. The fourth is a bill just introduced yesterday, I understand, by Sandy Levin. It is an interregional primary bill.

The Presidential nominating process is an important one. It has long been of interest to some of us on this subcommittee. I have supported regional primary proposals, and in addition Mr. Frenzel and I are both cosponsors of H.R. 1380, which the subcommittee held hearings on last Congress.

I have supported these kinds of reforms because I have been concerned with some aspects of the current nominating process. In particular, with all due respect to the citizens of the great States of Iowa and New Hampshire, I firmly believe that the early contests and the media attention focused on them distort the nominating process. Recent elections have demonstrated that too many candidates are eliminated too early in the process. After a handful of early contests in which a tiny fraction of the electorate has participated, most of the Presidential candidates who spent millions of dollars and months of their time preparing for the race have been eliminated from the field. The vast majority of citizens in this country have little meaningful opportunity to participate in choosing our Presidential nominees.

Party efforts have been made to try to correct this situation. They have failed. Now individual States are seeking to solve the problem by moving their primary dates forward. I am in complete sympathy with their goal, but I am not certain if it is within their power to achieve that goal. Other States cannot move their primaries ahead of or even to the same day as, say, New Hampshire because New Hampshire law requires that their primary be 1 week before the primary of any other State, regardless of when that State might schedule its primary. The best other States can do then is to get close.

And yet, getting close may magnify the outcome of the New Hampshire primary rather than dilute it. As a press story on this issue pointed out just the other day, and I quote:

Ironically, New Hampshire party leaders and independent observers say that the southern primary could enhance the status of New Hampshire which, one week earlier, will elect 0.1 percent of the Nation's delegates as host of the Nation's premier primary.

Under their scenario the candidates who fare best in the Iowa precinct caucuses and, a week later, in New Hampshire, could ride a timely tidal wave of favorable media exposure and swiftly clinch the nomination.

"It could be all over in barely a month," says George Bruno, New Hampshire's Democratic chairman.

In addition to focusing on the disproportionate influence a few early contests have, these news articles highlight another increas

ingly serious problem, namely the front-loading of the nomination process.

I think it's time we gave careful thought to how we might provide more citizens of all States with the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the Presidential nominating process. I agree with the distinguished former chairman of the Democratic Party, Chuck Manatt, who wrote last year:

I reject the argument that what we now have is good enough and that it cannot or should not be improved. Revisions in the Presidential nominating process will not cure all that ails the Democratic Party or alter the underlying factors that could undermine the present Republican success. But revisions can make the system more rational, less beholden to separate groups and more reflective of the national will.

A thorough examination of this important issue is the purpose of our being here today. To assist us in that effort, we have with us, along with Charlie Bennett-we may be visited by Mo Udall-we have Bill Nelson and Sandy Levin, and our colleague Judd Gregg. In addition, we are fortunate to have with us two distinguished individuals who have been influential in the effort to organize the southern primary. They are Senator Joseph Prather, President pro tem of the Kentucky State Senate; and Max Cleland, Secretary of State of Georgia.

Finally, we welcome Dr. Stephen J. Wayne, political science professor from George Washington University, and author of "The Road to the White House: The Politics of Presidential Elections." Before I close, let me mention that we do anticipate another hearing on this subject, or possibly two, within the next few weeks. Also, if there is no objection, we will hold the record of this hearing open for 1 month to receive written statements, particularly from members of Congress.

With that, let me defer to the other members of the panel for any statements they might care to make. I recognize the gentleman from California.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think as we begin to examine this question of primaries in States, I think we should keep in focus the fact that Presidential candidates are nominated at national party conventions and that the State primary system is a twentieth century phenomenon and really did not begin to spread significantly until after World War II. In fact, the delegates selected by the primaries in particular States may or may not be bound to particular candidates.

As we focus on the primaries and the potential of moving them into bound regions or within time frames, I think we should realize that we are going to focus narrowly on State versus State in terms of perceived advantages, candidate versus candidate in terms of perceived advantage, and that what we ought to keep in mind is the fact that the national party convention was a nineteenth century invention which was an attempt to democratize the selection of the party's nominee away from the old king caucus. And we ought to ask ourselves the question whether or not the national party convention serves a useful purpose. I think to the degree we begin moving toward organized and structured regional primaries, the clear next goal is a national primary. We will have superseded the national convention's reason for existence.

« Previous Continue »

Books

Presidential Nominating Process: Hearings Held Before the Subcommittee on ...