The proposal radically reshapes the way the party picks its presidential nominees, putting more racially diverse states at the front of the line.
PHILADELPHIA — Upending decades of political tradition, the Democratic National Committee on Saturday approved a sweeping overhaul of the Democratic primary process, a critical step in President Biden’s effort to transform the way the party picks its presidential nominees.
For years, presidential nominating contests have begun with the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, a matter of immense pride in those states, and a source of political identity for many highly engaged residents.
But amid forceful calls for a calendar that better reflects the racial diversity of the Democratic Party and the country — and after Iowa’s 2020 meltdown led to a major delay in results — Democrats voted to endorse a proposal that starts the 2024 Democratic presidential primary circuit on Feb. 3 in South Carolina, the state that resuscitated Mr. Biden’s once-flailing candidacy. New Hampshire and Nevada are scheduled to follow on Feb. 6, Georgia on Feb. 13 and then Michigan on Feb. 27.
“This is a significant effort to make the presidential primary nominating process more reflective of the diversity of this country, and to have issues that will determine the outcome of the November election part of the early process,” said Representative Debbie Dingell, a Michigan Democrat who has vigorously pushed for moving up her state’s primary, in an interview.
It’s a calendar that in many ways rewards the racially diverse states that propelled Mr. Biden to the presidency in 2020.
But logistical challenges to fully enacting it still remain. And resistance to the proposal has been especially fierce in New Hampshire, where officials have vowed to hold the first primary anyway, whatever the consequences.
New Hampshire, a small state where voters are accustomed to cornering candidates in diners and intimate town hall settings, has long held the first primary as a matter of state law.
New Hampshire Republicans, who control the governor’s mansion and state legislature, have stressed that they have no interest in changing that law, and many Democrats in the state have been just as forceful and have argued that they cannot make changes unilaterally — points officials raised on Saturday ahead of the voice vote. Some have also warned that Mr. Biden could invite a primary challenge from someone camped out in the state, or stoke on-the-ground opposition to his expected re-election bid.
Mr. Biden has a rocky political history in the state — he placed fifth there in 2020 — but he also has longtime friends and allies in New Hampshire, some of whom wrote a letter expressing concerns about the proposal.
The D.N.C.’s Rules and Bylaws Committee has given New Hampshire until early June to work toward meeting the calendar requirements, but some Democrats in the state have made clear that their position is not changing.
“They could say June, they could say next week, they could say in five years, but it’s not going to matter,” said former Gov. John Lynch, who signed the letter to Mr. Biden. “It’s like asking New York to move the Statue of Liberty from New York to Florida. I mean, that’s not going to happen. And it’s not going to happen that we’re going to change state law.”
The Democrats’ Primary Calendar
Upending decades of political tradition, members of the Democratic National Committee have voted to approve a sweeping overhaul of the party’s primary process.
- Demoting Iowa: Democrats are moving to reorder the primaries by making South Carolina — instead of Iowa — the first nominating state, followed by Nevada and New Hampshire, Georgia and then Michigan.
- A New Chessboard: President Biden’s push to abandon Iowa for younger, racially diverse states is likely to reward candidates who connect with the party’s most loyal voters.
- Obstacles to the Plan: Reshuffling the early-state order could run into logistical issues, especially in Georgia and New Hampshire.
- An Existential Crisis: The push to dethrone Iowa has inspired a rush of wistful memories and soul-searching among Democrats there.
And in a statement from New Hampshire’s federal delegation, Democratic lawmakers declared that “while President Biden and the D.N.C. continue to push a plan of political convenience, they will not be successful in the end,” a comment that underscored the bitter nature of the intraparty debate.
But in a Philadelphia hotel ballroom ahead of the vote, a number of Democrats argued obliquely and explicitly that tradition and even state law are not reason enough to preserve a particular lineup.
“No one state should have a lock on going first,” Ms. Dingell said Saturday, to applause.
Leah D. Daughtry, a veteran member of the D.N.C., pointedly took issue with the idea that state law “somehow gives some people divine right of privilege.”
“None of that,” she said, “is more important than what the party says it wants in its process.”
Many prominent Democrats had been adamant that Mr. Biden’s preferences should prevail, reflecting his standing as the head of the party.
How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.
“If he had called me and said, ‘Jim Clyburn, I’ve decided that South Carolina should not be in the pre-primary window,’ I would not have liked that at all, but I damn sure would not oppose,” said Representative James E. Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and close Biden ally. His state zooms into the most influential position on the primary calendar, though Mr. Clyburn said he had been agnostic on the early-state order as long as South Carolina was part of the window.
D.N.C. rules demand consequences for any state that operates outside the party-approved early lineup. That state would risk losing delegates in the nomination process, which could make delegate-hunting contenders question the time investment.
Certainly, the New Hampshire primary has historically been more about building momentum and media attention than securing a large delegate prize. Even so, New Hampshire Democrats have urged the D.N.C. not to punish the state, and party officials there hope the matter of sanctions is still up for some degree of discussion.
Candidates who campaign in a state that is flouting the party schedule could face repercussions as well, such as not receiving delegates from that particular state. Party rules define campaigning in a number of ways, including “placing a candidate’s name on the ballot.”
Such consequences for candidates would be far more relevant in a contested primary. Much of the drama around the calendar may effectively be moot if Mr. Biden runs again, as he has said he intends to do, and if he does not face a serious primary challenge.
It’s unclear how the president would approach spending time in New Hampshire if the state defies the D.N.C.-sanctioned calendar. Some Democrats have also questioned whether there would be an effort, if New Hampshire does not comply, to replace it with a different Northeastern state for regional representation.
Georgia Democrats, who are facing logistical hurdles in moving up their primary, have also received an extension until June to work toward meeting the new calendar lineup. Georgia is of personal interest to Mr. Biden; it helped propel him to the presidency and cemented the Democratic Senate majority. Atlanta is also vying to host the 2024 Democratic National Convention.
“We can proudly say that we sought to elevate the voices that have far too long been sidelined,” said Representative Nikema Williams, Democrat of Georgia and chair of the state party. “Georgia isn’t a blue state, y’all. But we’re not a red state, either. I’d like to think that we’re periwinkle. There’s still more work to be done. This is a fight that’s worth fighting for.”
But Georgia’s primary date is determined by the secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, and officials from his office have stressed that they have no interest in holding two primaries or in risking losing delegates. Republicans have already agreed to an early primary calendar, keeping the order of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, and Republican National Committee rules make clear that states that jump the order will lose delegates.
Iowa Democrats argue that, with significant hurdles still facing the new calendar, their state should be regarded as a safer bet to host an early contest.
“We now have a process with a whole lot of uncertainty and probably no clarity — no chance to even achieve some clarity — until June,” said Scott Brennan, a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee from Iowa. “You’ve turned the Mountain and Central time zones into flyover country for purposes of a presidential nominating calendar, and that’s just wrong.”
Iowa’s caucuses are deeply ingrained in the state’s political culture — and even its dining culture — and voters are seasoned at probing politicians over fried treats at the state fair. But officials have acknowledged a need to revamp the caucus process and have promised changes. Iowa Democrats have been more muted in their public pushback than their New Hampshire counterparts, but how they may proceed with the timing of their caucuses is an open question, Mr. Brennan said.
Meantime, Nevada, South Carolina and Michigan have met the committee’s requirements for holding early primaries, according to a letter from the leaders of the Rules and Bylaws Committee.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan this week signed a bill moving up the state’s primary to Feb. 27. There are still questions regarding how quickly that could take effect, and how Republicans in the state may respond, but Democrats there have voiced confidence that the vote can be held according to the D.N.C.’s new calendar.
There had also been some resistance to the idea of South Carolina — a Republican-tilted state that is not competitive in presidential general elections — serving as the leadoff state, while others strongly defended the idea of elevating it.
Regardless, the reshuffle may only be temporary: Mr. Biden has urged a review of the calendar every four years, and the party has embraced steps to get that process underway.
Some Democrats have taken Mr. Biden’s hands-on interest in the calendar lineup as a sign that he plans to run for president again.
Mr. Clyburn said that he recently “made it very clear to him that I’m very hopeful that he will run for re-election.”
Asked about Mr. Biden’s response, Mr. Clyburn replied, “He smiled.”