The U.S. Senate Rules Committee held a hearing on S1905 on September 19. One can read the statements of the 4 witnesses at this link. Three witnesses testified in favor of S1905, which tells the states and the major parties when to hold their presidential primaries and caucuses. One witness, Political Science Professor William Mayer, testified against it. The most interesting part of the Mayer testimony is the last third, which documents that the random selection of which region of the country goes first, would have a big impact on which individual is nominated. For example, he makes a strong case that Bill Clinton would not have been nominated by the Democratic Party in 1992 if S1905 had been in existence at that time, and if the random drawing of regions put the South last.
The Rules Committee link to the actual verbal transcript of the hearing itself (which would include questions and comments by the Senators) should be posted in a week. The existing link to the transcript actually refers to a completely different hearing on another subject, held in June 2007. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.
S1905 is a bad bill. It enshrines Iowa and New Hampshire’s self-appointed stranglehold on the nomination process in Federal law. Why is everyone so afraid of offending these two states?
It’s not afraid or offending. It’s recognizing the American political tradition of having Iowa and New Hampshire go first!!
The “tradition” of Iowa going first didn’t start until 1972 and not all traditions are good ideas anyway. Only 21% of Americans want Iowa to always go first and 22% want New Hampshire to always go first.
The media frenzy surrounding Iowa and New Hampshire gives these states vastly disproportionate power. Candidates who do not finish in the top three or perrform poorly in the media’s “expectations game” are effectively crossed off the ballot in states that hold their primaries later. The later a state has its primary, the more its voters are disenfranchised.
Why can’t the Republicrats just use conventions the same way the “minor” parties do; without using tax-payer funded primaries?