Pacing the primaries

June 10, 1999

New Hampshire is in no danger of losing the first-in-the-nation presidential primary. The ingenuity and iron determination of the state's leaders, both Democrats and Republicans, guarantee it.

But the contortions they are having to go through provide new evidence of how pathetically ineffectual national party leaders have been at making sense of a presidential selection process that is out of control.

Yesterday, George W. Bush and Elizabeth Dole joined other Republicans, including John McCain and Pat Buchanan, in pledging to uphold New Hampshire's status by spurning any state that schedules a contest in the following seven days. Al Gore and Bill Bradley have also agreed.

New Hampshire is completely justified in insisting that the primary calendar have some pace to it, so that events don't tumble over each other into a meaningless jumble. The voters of New Hampshire have earned the right to host this crucial retail primary because they have proved over many years that person-to-person campaigning still matters in presidential politics.

The immediate problem is Delaware. A law there sets the primary four days after New Hampshire, conflicting directly with a New Hampshire law requiring that its primary be held a week before any other state's.

The Granite State response, passed overwhelmingly by the House yesterday: legislation that could move the primary back into the preceding year if necessary. The unsubtle threat is that, if New Hampshire moved its primary to a Tuesday in late December (this December), Delaware would be in a position of having its primary on Christmas or New Year's Day.

No one expects this to happen. But the fact that state legislatures are engaged in such senseless long-range warfare cries out for action by the Democratic and Republican national committees. Already they have watched helplessly as no fewer than 17 states set primaries for March 7. New Hampshire has been smart to defend itself and not rely on the national parties.