October 4, 2011 12:06 PM

New Hampshire Republican: Nevada primary plan violates Granite state law

By
Robert Hendin
Topics
Campaign 2012

Harriet Boylan heads into a voting booth to cast her vote in the New Hampshire presidential primary on January 8, 2008.

(Credit: Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Adding more uncertainty to the already uncertain 2012 primary calendar, the New Hampshire Secretary of State yesterday declared that the plans for the Nevada GOP caucus violates Granite state law.

He decided that the caucus is a "similar election" under New Hampshire state law -- meaning that the Nevada Republican Party's plan to hold its caucus four days after the New Hampshire primary violates the clause in New Hampshire state law that its primary occur at least a week before another election.

"I don't know the date of the New Hampshire primary," said New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, calling into the Nevada political talk show "Face to Face."

He said the New Hampshire law goes back to 1975 and he declared that he will wait until Nevada sets its date before selecting the date for the New Hampshire primary. "I have to wait," he said. New Hampshire historically is the nation's first primary, a role it takes very seriously.

The Nevada Republican party had previously stated that its caucus would be held the Saturday after whatever date New Hampshire chose.

"Because the date of Nevada's caucus is, by rule, four days after New Hampshire's, we will move Nevada's first-in-the-West caucus if the New Hampshire GOP moves theirs," said Nevada Republican Party Chair Amy Tarkanian in an earlier statement.

"I do believe" that the two states' events would be at least a week apart when all is said and done, Gardner said. When the schedule gets settled is now anyone's guess.

Gardner said in previous years he's waited until the third week of December to set the date.

"It is a possibility that the primary could be this year, before the end of this year, if need be," he said.

Holding the primary in 2011 is only a possibility because of the move by Florida last week to holds its primary on January 31, 2012, leapfrogging the schedule pushed by the Republican National Committee to have only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina occur in February of 2012, with other states not holding most contests until March or April.

But even the threat of losing half of their delegates at the Tampa Republican convention did not deter states from jumping the calendar to get the biggest role, and therefore the most attention, in the nomination process they could get.

After Florida's move, South Carolina announced it will hold its primary on January 21. That suggests that Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada would all occur in the first three weeks of January, a schedule similar to 2008, when the first event, the Iowa Caucus, was held on January 3rd.

The hope was this year that the contests would start later to avoid such an early start. But the move from Florida, and the subsequent jockeying, has made campaigning through the Christmas and New Year's holidays all but a certainty.


  • Robert Hendin

    Robert Hendin is senior producer for "Face the Nation" and a CBS News senior political producer.

Add a Comment
by nikoskay October 4, 2011 3:40 PM EDT
Get rid of the primaries altogether. Let anyone who wants to run, run. Let their names be on the ballot, on national election date and let the best man/woman win. That is how democracies work.
Reply to this comment
by RogerInHawaii October 4, 2011 2:27 PM EDT
It is utterly absurd that New Hampshire has a law requiring it to be the first primary in the nation. That law is completely unenforceable since no state can apply their own state laws to other states.
Reply to this comment
by mjlewis6 October 4, 2011 1:56 PM EDT
It is well we do not have to resort to violence to remove an elective aristocracy, but we are well advised to look behind them to know what business 'princes' pick their representatives to run and what biases and policies they promote to disseminate as 'truth' for elections.

So far, we suffer idiots needlessly looking for a real candidate as an alternative and an enormous amount of racist bigotry and lies in the media as if our President was responsible for their lies and misdeeds. God Bless America and push these ugly liars and intellectual comedians from the front page. Candidates need to talk about REAL facts and issues and not pander to special interests.
Reply to this comment
by slatep October 4, 2011 1:40 PM EDT
Laws pertaining to voting should be uniform in every state.

Then there wouldn't be all this crap currently taking place in five different states, controled by Republican governers who have changed the voting laws in these five states that could possibly dis-enfranchise as many as 5 MILLION voters.

These laws were changed at the behest of the Repulican Party.

It looks like they MIGHT have gotten just a glimmer (it took them long enough) of the fact that the American people are just as disgusted with them as they are by other so-called leaders in Washington.

These changes in the law basically affect those people who would most likely vote Democratic in the next election.

Bi-partisanship is destroying this country.!!

Can anybody tell me when members of Congress decided it was OK and legal to blackmail the rest of Congress into doing things their way.?

In 2012; I do not plan to vote for one incumbent.

It's just too bad we have to wait that long to try and get the US back on it's feet.
Reply to this comment
by illcountryboy October 4, 2011 1:38 PM EDT
Sorry - drooped the 'g' should be 3rd graders
Reply to this comment
by illcountryboy October 4, 2011 1:37 PM EDT
Really - Nevada cares about New Hampshire law? Who's first at the drinking fountain is obviously important - for 3rd raders.
Reply to this comment
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook