(Last week, we asked readers this question: “Do you believe New Hampshire deserves its cherished place on the primary calendar?” Here are the responses we received.)
Why we’re first
Absent a national primary, which would be a very bad idea, somebody has to go first. Starting off in a big state would cause the same problems as a national primary – only the rich or famous could successfully run. Of the smaller states, New Hampshire is urban and rural, compact in size, and readily accessible to political media headquartered in New York and Washington. It takes only a one-page form and $1,000 to get on the ballot so we keep alive the American dream that any citizen can grow up and run for president. Our state is a good place for candidates to build their campaigns and try out their messages with real voters keenly interested in politics. In that way we are like spring training, not the World Series. Indeed, three of the last four presidents did not win our primary in their first run.
It should be noted that neither Congress nor the national parties bestowed this place in the calendar on us. 2020 is the 100th anniversary of our state being the first primary, so history also supports our role. When some states adopted presidential primaries in the early 1900s, New Hampshire was among them. But in 1916 it was not first, Indiana was, and Minnesota was on the same day. In 1920 those states decided not to hold a primary, and we have been first ever since.
As Secretary of State Gardner is fond of saying, we just came into being first – and didn’t take it away from anyone else. The Kentucky Derby is not in Virginia and the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor not Boston because of history. Our primary is no different, and it has worked well for a century thanks to many here.
I have heard all the diversity arguments like those recently advanced by Julian Castro, and respectfully disagree. He wasn’t doing well here because he rarely campaigned here, not because of his heritage. An African American has won our primary as has a woman and a Mormon. Jesse Jackson ran competitively here in the 1980s. He didn’t blame not winning on the voters. As Bill Clinton said, Granite Staters are “determined to give everyone a good listen.” Perhaps the best response to this unfounded criticism was offered by Montana Gov. Steve Bullock when he filed his candidacy papers last week – you have to look at the four early states together as in the aggregate they are very diverse.
TERRY SHUMAKER
Concord
(The writer served on the 2005 DNC Primary Calendar Commission, which added Nevada and South Carolina as early states.)
While I appreciate New Hampshire’s deep history as the first-in-the-nation primary state, and while I appreciate New Hampshire’s constitutional responsibilities, it’s time for New Hampshire to move aside.
The honor of the first-in-the-nation primary state should be earned. This honor should go to the state that had the highest percentage of voter turnout during the previous presidential election. That would encourage states to rally more voters to vote, and that would reward those states and voters who are most engaged. That could also lead to revolving first-in-the-nation primary states, which could become a new productive and constructive model.
Using this criteria, it appears as though Minnesota would be this year’s first in the nation primary state. New Hampshire is up there and is close, but this would encourage New Hampshire powers that be, and those who want to retain the first-in-the-nation primary status, to work harder to encourage the populous to vote.
BRUCE JOHNSON
Webster
I love having a front-row seat in America’s first-in-the-nation primary. This year, as a retiree, I can actually give my job more of the attention it deserves. I meet as many candidates as I can, read and listen as much as I can, and think hard about the relative merits and drawbacks of this virtual tidal wave of men and women vying for the Oval Office. By the time the primary rolls around, I hope I will be able to make an informed decision, and perhaps help shape the election to come.
I like the feeling that New Hampshire gets to experience grassroots democracy in a way few other places on Earth do. And I know the state of New Hampshire banks on this every four years, literally as well as figuratively. But it is this literal “banking” that I find hard to justify. Why should a state with one of the least diverse of electorates play an outsize role in the vetting of the next president of the United States?
Right now, I think the most valuable things our state has to offer candidates are our engaged electorate willing to take time and effort to get to know them and understand their positions, and our manageable size, where town halls, backyard talks and living-room coffees can actually offer a forum for a representative slice of our citizenry. From the voters’ perspective, this is better than watching the elbowing and parrying that happens on a crowded debate stage, when a candidate may or may not be able to deliver that “gotcha!” moment in the two minutes allotted. And it is vastly superior to trying to make a considered choice relying on the slick sound bites that stream over our screens and radios closer to election time.
So these are what New Hampshire has to offer that other states haven’t: an engaged electorate and a manageable size. It is our job to uphold our end of the bargain and deliver those to the candidates. Otherwise, maintaining our position simply because it’s tradition (and the state wants the money) will never cut it.
MILLIE LaFONTAINE
Concord