On its own, the Nevada encroachment would mean little. For years, Iowa and New Hampshire have successfully defended their one-two position from states eager to jump ahead. But the combination of Iowa\u2019s botched 2020 caucus and increasing diversity in the Democratic Party\u2019s ranks has made the whiteness of Iowa and New Hampshire all the more conspicuous, putting the two states on their heels and throwing the 2024 calendar into turmoil.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s no reason in the world that those states should go forward so early, because they\u2019re not representative of what 90 percent of the country\u2019s all about,\u201d said former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat who remains influential in party politics. \u201cAmerica looks different than it did 50 years ago, when these traditions were put in place, and the Democratic electorate looks really different.\u201d<\/p>\n
He added, \u201cIt\u2019s no longer palatable, as far as I\u2019m concerned, for those states to take precedence over states like South Carolina and Nevada.\u201d<\/p>\n
The legislation marked the first real offensive in what is likely to be a drawn-out war over the outline of the 2024 presidential nominating process. In Iowa, the state\u2019s Democratic Party chair, state Rep. Ross Wilburn, said he is \u201cprepared to do whatever it takes to keep Iowa first in the nation.\u201d And in New Hampshire, Bill Gardner, the longtime secretary of state, said neither the Democratic National Committee nor the Republican National Committee will dictate to his state when it can vote.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe status of the primary was not given to New Hampshire by the parties,\u201d Gardner said, referring to the state law that requires New Hampshire to hold its primary at least seven days before any \u201csimilar election\u201d in another state. \u201cWe have a law, and we\u2019ll comply with our law.\u201d <\/p>\n
![\"NASHUA,](\"https:\/\/static.politico.com\/29\/91\/51a3fcb8411e91f9740fb4311cea\/gettyimages-1205660296-c.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Iowa has a similar law on its books, stating that it must hold its caucuses at least eight days before any other nominating contest.<\/p>\n
Nevada\u2019s move this week intensified conversations among top Iowa and New Hampshire operatives and activists eager to prepare their defense, and privately, several Iowa Democrats acknowledged that their status was in serious jeopardy. But changing the presidential nominating calendar \u2014 bound up by state laws, party committee rules and an interest in syncing it up with Republicans \u2014 isn\u2019t an easy or straightforward process. And key players, like the White House and DNC Chair Jaime Harrison, haven\u2019t weighed in on it yet.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere have been attempts to replace Iowa from both sides, and we\u2019ve been able to stay together [with Iowa Republicans] and work through these challenges,\u201d said Jeff Link, an Iowa-based Demcoratic consultant. \u201cWe\u2019re going to have to do it again because there\u2019s a very real threat.\u201d<\/p>\n
This time, though, the fallout may be fatal. Tom Perez, the former DNC chair, has blasted the tradition of Iowa and New Hampshire going first<\/a>. In Nevada, Reid has been calling since last year for his state to both do away with its caucus system \u2014 which would appease national Democrats \u2014 and go first in the nominating process. The bill introduced this week, in addition to switching the state\u2019s caucus to a primary, would set the date for the second-to-last Tuesday in January.<\/p>\n Nevada\u2019s Democratic Assembly Speaker, Jason Frierson, suggested the bill was a starting point for a \u201cnational conversation about what makes sense.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt would not be ideal to just have a back-and-forth and just have a leapfrog exercise,\u201d he said, \u201cso the hope is that we can coordinate with the national party as well as our states, and work something out.\u201d Frierson said he \u201ccertainly [is] not trying to start some dispute between states,\u201d adding that \u201cthis is the beginning of the conversation.\u201d<\/p>\n But Frierson, like many other Democrats outside of Iowa and New Hampshire, suggested that instead of presidential candidates focusing for a year or more on Iowa and New Hampshire \u2014 two heavily white states \u2014 it would \u201cbehoove\u201d them \u201cto be speaking to a diverse population\u201d more reflective of the electorate at large.<\/p>\n Nevada, in addition to fitting that bill with its sizable Hispanic population, also shares an advantage that Iowa and New Hampshire have \u2014 being small enough in population that a candidate without massive resources can compete there. So, too, does South Carolina, the fourth state in the \u201cearly carve-out\u201d states before Super Tuesday.<\/p>\n It\u2019s unclear when the Democratic National Committee will formally take up the calendar issue. David Bergstein, a DNC spokesperson, said in an email that \u201cthe DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee will continue to evaluate all areas of our nominating process and make recommendations for any changes.” No meeting has been set, though, and Wilburn said he has been told the Rules and Bylaws Committee will likely meet in August.<\/p>\n Wilburn, who was recently elected as the state party\u2019s first Black chair, expressed confidence in Iowa\u2019s standing. Every four years, he said, \u201cthe threats, the jockeying for position occurs when the calendar is set. … I\u2019m confident we can make our case.\u201d <\/p>\n Like other Iowa loyalists, Wilburn points to the face-to-face campaigning that candidates can do with a spectrum of constituencies in his small state, and to the geographic and demographic diversity achieved by the first four nominating states together.<\/p>\n President Joe Biden \u2014 who, as the head of the party, will have enormous influence over the 2024 calendar \u2014 has not yet signaled his preference. Earlier this month, Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said it was \u201ctoo soon\u201d to talk about the lineup of states for the next election.<\/p>\n Psaki, while noting that \u201cNevada is a little warmer,\u201d said they are \u201call great states\u201d and that the White House is \u201cnot focused on \u2014 on the next political campaign here quite yet.\u201d<\/p>\n Notably, though, Biden\u2019s path to the presidential nomination didn\u2019t include Iowa or New Hampshire, where he landed in fourth and fifth place, respectively. Instead, \u201cthe only place I\u2019d guess that\u2019s absolutely safe in its early-status position is South Carolina,\u201d said one national Democratic operative, highlighting Rep. Jim Clyburn as a key champion for the state that delivered Biden to the White House.<\/p>\n But in Iowa and New Hampshire, the shadowboxing has already begun. In Iowa, the release of a report in December<\/a> that apportioned blame for the state\u2019s chaotic caucus at least partly on meddling from the DNC was widely viewed as an effort to defend itself from the coming onslaught. And in New Hampshire, the Nevada legislation was taken as an affront.<\/p>\n