PRIMARY SCRAMBLE The order in which states would vote under a primary election plan approved by a rules panel of the Republican National Committee. Group One: American Samoa, Guam, Virgin Islands, Wyoming, District of Columbia, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Puerto Rico. Group Two: Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, West Virginia, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Connecticut, Oregon, Oklahoma, South Carolina. Group Three: Kentucky, Colorado, Alabama, Louisiana, Arizona, Minnesota, Maryland, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Missouri, Washington, Indiana, Massachusetts. Group Four: Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, New Jersey, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Florida, New York, Texas, California.

The state leaders postponed a decision on whether to exempt Iowa and New Hampshire from the plan and allow them to retain their first-in-the-nation status. That question will be left for this summer's Republican National Convention, which also will consider the small-states-first primary plan.

The bigger states will have more clout at the Philadelphia convention.

The subject gained urgency this year after both parties' winners were decided by early March, before half the states had held primaries or caucuses.

Several of the large states' leaders warned that the change could lead to a floor fight at the convention and distract from the hoped-for show of solidarity behind the presidential nominee.

"I don't want the headlines to be about how we are going to elect a president in 2004, I want them to be about electing this president," said Susan Weddington of Texas, a member of the party's rules committee.

Committee member Robert Bennett of Ohio added, "Realistically, this is a big-state-versus-everyone-else battle, and we feel we are getting the short end of the stick,"

Bennett did win approval for setting up a subcommittee including both opponents and proponents to try to adjust the proposal so it will win the endorsement of more states.

Jim Nicholson, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said the proposal would make the primary process more meaningful.

"While the GOP is blessed with a great candidate in George W. Bush, that is more credit to his ability than the front-loaded, media-driven ... campaign process that disenfranchises so many states and so many voters," he said.

Democrats have decided to stay with their current system for now, allowing Iowa and New Hampshire to go first and restricting other states to a window from the first Tuesday in March to the second Tuesday in June.

Under the new GOP plan, the smallest states would vote no earlier than the first Tuesday in February, with three more clusters voting in subsequent months, ending in May. Large states won approval for moving the timeframe, originally March-June, up by one month.

Voting last would be the largest states, including California, Texas and New York, with 47 percent of the delegates.

The rules committee voted 36-13 for the plan after debate over two days. Each state and territory had one vote and most of the largest states opposed the plan, saying it would negate their strategic importance.

But former Sen. Bill Brock of Tennessee, who led an advisory group that recommended the plan, said, "We really have put a new emphasis on what we call retail politics, small states, grass-roots politics."

Brock he was not bothered by warnings of a convention battle.

"First of all I think fights are great. They give a lot of energy to the convention, otherwise it's a bunch of boring speeches," he said with a smile. But he also said the plan could be improved to the point where almost all states would support it.

Opponents suggested the Democrats would gain a tactical advantage by settling on their nominee before the Republicans.

"We cannot tie our hands while theirs may be able to choke us," Ohio's Bennett said.

Morton Blackwell of Virginia responded, "We shouldn't condition nomination of our delegates on anything the Democrats do."

Thomas Rath, a rules committee member from New Hampshire, made the motion to postpone consideration of an exemption for his state and Iowa.

He acknowledged the exemption might have been rejected and said, "This group is tired, and to put them through exhausting debate on another issue, I don't think this was the right time."