DNC Panel: Florida's Primary Is Too Soon

By CBSNews.com's David Miller

The DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee, meeting Saturday in Washington, decided to sanction Florida after the state passed a law — approved by a Republican-led legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Charlie Crist — calling for both major parties to hold primaries on Jan. 29. At the time the law was signed, that would have put Florida's primaries before all others except Iowa and New Hampshire. DNC rules say that only those states, as well Nevada and South Carolina, can vote before Feb. 5, 2008 and have their delegates counted.

A three-person delegation representing Florida's Democratic Party said Republicans had forced the primary on them, despite their taking "provable, positive steps" to block the legislation.

"We're asking you for mercy, not judgment," Jon Ausman, one of Florida's DNC members, told the committee.

Florida Democrats have 30 days to come up with a plan that fits with the committee's rules — an unlikely prospect.

The DNC has suggested Florida Democrats make their primary a non-binding "beauty contest" and hold a caucus to select delegates at a later date. But, the Floridians argued that solution was not satisfactory, claiming that a caucus — which involves far fewer voting sites than a primary — in a state as large as Florida would effectively disenfranchise voters.

They also noted that the Jan. 29 ballot will feature a property tax initiative they believe would leave the state's schools, fire departments and other agencies underfunded. Were the Jan. 29 Democratic primary to be non-binding, voters who opposed the initiative would be less likely to turn out, they said.

"I am a person that believes in rules, and believes in procedures, because I don't believe in chaos," former U.S. Rep. Karen Thurman, chairwoman of the Florida Democratic Party, said after the vote. "But at the same time, I still believe the rules that were written, and the ones that we highlighted, specifically say that if you put [forth] provable and positive steps, and you can prove that, that in fact, there should be at least an obligation to look at what they can do instead of imposing."

But many members of the committee said Florida Democrats had not proven they did all they could to prevent the date change and, regardless, the DNC had to enforce the rules to preserve some sense of order to a process that has become increasingly front-loaded.

James Roosevelt Jr., the committee's co-chair, said the legislative record demonstrates their point. "It makes it clear that the Republicans were the moving force behind the selection of a date that violated both the Democratic and Republican rules, but the efforts to oppose that were form over substance," he said.

Donna Brazile, who sits on the committee and is most known for managing Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, said she sympathized with Florida, but couldn't back them.

"I understand how states crave to be first. I understand that they are envious of the role Iowa and New Hampshire have traditionally played," she said. "But the truth is that we have a process and, whether some of us are mum or some of us shout it, we uphold it."

Others on the committee noted that other, larger states resisted the urge to move up their primaries in violation of party rules. "Rules are rules, and California abided by them and I believe Florida should as well," said Garry Shay, a committee member from California who noted that his state decided against trying to hold a primary in early January.

California is among more than 20 states that have moved, or are likely to move, their nominating contests to Feb. 5, the earliest date allowed by both the Democratic and Republican parties. Florida's push into January, however, set off a scramble that could undo the parties' efforts to have an orderly nominating process. The South Carolina Republican Party has already said it would hold a primary on Jan. 19 to stay ahead of Florida. Michigan is in the process of moving its primary to Jan. 15.

With Iowa and New Hampshire determined to maintain their status as hosts of the nation's first caucuses and primary, respectively, it is possible that the first votes to pick the 2008 presidential nominees will be cast in late 2007, nearly 11 months before Election Day.

The DNC hopes that by strictly enforcing the rules against Florida, it can discourage other states from making similar moves — particularly Michigan, where the state Senate on Thursday passed legislation establishing a Jan. 15 primary. The state House and Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm are both expected to back the measure. Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer, who sits on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, remained silent during Saturday's debate but voted to sanction Florida. Only Floridian Allan Katz opposed the decision.

Should Florida ultimately hold a binding primary on Jan. 29, its significance is largely in the hands of the presidential campaigns. If they ignore the state, its results will likely be ignored as well. But if they actively try to win Florida, the primary becomes a measure of strength in one of the country's largest, most diverse states.

Roosevelt said the DNC is communicating with the candidates regarding Florida, but can't force them to skip the state. "There is no sanction on the campaigns since there would be no delegates at stake," he said.

While Saturday's meeting featured forceful argument on both sides, the ultimate question at hand — whether Florida's delegates should be seated at the 2008 Democratic National Convention — may not be settled until the eve of that gathering, which will take place in Denver. It's possible that the Democratic nominee, not wanting to see one of the country's premier battleground states go unheard, would persuade the convention's credentials committee to recognize the delegation.

"Everything that I've heard, my assumption is that the credentials committee gets made up of representatives of the presidential nominee, and they in fact would do that," Thurman said.

Alexis Herman, the co-chair of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, conceded that the credentials committee might end up making the final decision. "The credentials committee, which is the supreme authority at that point in the process, they can decide what they want to do," she said.