4 ms·

one of the first? Don't they literally have laws requiring them to have the first presidential primary?

• empyrrhicist 3y ago
  First caucus, which is like a primary, but worse.
• amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  Who do you mean by “they” here? I believe the parties themselves choose when to have their primaries.
  • sseagull 3y ago
    Yep. And the Democrats are changing the order this year. The plan is South Carolina will be first. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/democrats-vote-to-change-order-of-2024-presidential-primary https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/democrats-vote-to-chan...
  • justin66 3y ago
    States can choose when their primaries happen by law, and the parties can choose when and where their primaries should happen. Entertaining things happen when they differ. The Democratic party cannot force Iowa and New Hampshire to not have their primary and caucus later in the year, but they can threaten not to count their delegates if they go at the wrong time. The sobering thing is, this is not nearly the dumbest part of the American electoral system.
    • parminya 3y ago
      How is this not a breach of the constitutional protection for the right to freedom of assembly? A caucus, in particular, is literally an assembly. Surely for elections to be free and fair, the private associations who put forth candidates should be able to freely determine who those candidates are.
      • DFHippie 3y ago
        Not counting the delegates isn't preventing the assembly. The constitution doesn't ensure free and fair elections, unfortunately, as is demonstrated by the fact that states can pass laws regarding primaries that are mutually inconsistent. States A and B can both pass laws saying they have to have the first primaries in an election.
        • lesuorac 3y ago
          Going a step further, the constitution doesn't require states to have their citizens vote on the delegates to the electoral college. The state (Legislature) could decide that the Electors are actually always for one party's candidate and that no state wide election is necessary. > [1] Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. [1]: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1...
          • sidewndr46 3y ago
            There was an attempt to do this at some point in Alabama. I can't find it right now but a group made up a bunch of "Who decides your X? The party or the people?" with hammer & sickle logos on it.
            • lesuorac 3y ago
              I'm always surprised there aren't troll billboards in the south of "Vote Red for Socialism" overlayed on a Soviet flag.
          • justin66 3y ago
            > The state (Legislature) could decide that the Electors are actually always for one party's candidate and that no state wide election is necessary. There is plenty in the constitution and in case law that would apply if a state effectively tried to prevent citizens from exercising the franchise. It's not like the topic has never come up before.
• rootusrootus 3y ago
  I think it is New Hampshire with the law, but they may not be alone now. Nevada passed a law of their own as I recall.