Georgia

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Findings in Georgia Trump report could be enough to bring criminal charges

      by

      AnalysisFindings in Georgia Trump report could be enough to bring criminal chargesCarlisa N. JohnsonThe partial release of the grand jury report signals the investigation already contains legitimate evidence of perjury The release of a portion of the Fulton county special purpose grand jury’s report marks a new step toward potential criminal charges holding Donald Trump and his allies accountable for election interference.Georgia was crucial in the 2020 presidential election, providing a key victory for Joe Biden and drawing the intense focus of Trump and his backers.Witnesses in Trump investigation may have lied, says Georgia grand jury reportRead more“I just want to find 11,780 votes,” Trump said on the now infamous phone call to the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger. During the call, Trump maintained that widespread voter fraud took place in Georgia, claiming that he had in fact won the state despite audits confirming the validity of election results.It was this call that sparked the initial Fulton county investigation and now fuels Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis’ ability to bring charges. Unlike other investigations into Trump’s legal and business matters, the case is meant to face the former president’s election meddling head-on.The report excerpt revealed today recommends that charges be filed against a majority of witnesses who lied under oath and concludes there was not widespread voter fraud in Georgia during the 2020 election. It illustrates Fulton county’s role in looking to reveal how Donald Trump and his allies sowed seeds of election interference and denialism during the 2020 presidential election.While these segments fall short of clear criminal charges, they signal that the investigation already contains legitimate evidence of perjury, which could be enough to bring criminal charges against those in Trump’s orbit.Anthony Kreis, Georgia State University College of Law professor and political scientist, said the meticulously curated release of the report points to the ever-growing potential that the Willis’ office is working to prepare indictment charges for Trump and his allies.“The most damning evidence against Trump is in Georgia,” Kreis said. “The phone call from former president Trump to the secretary of state’s office is exceedingly damning both in the sense that there seems to be an express demand for something that could be the solicitation of election fraud and the fact that it is all caught on tape and it’s much more than just an allegation.”Due to the clarity of Trump’s indiscretions in Georgia, the Fulton county district attorney’s office is likely ahead of ongoing federal investigations and closer to presenting charges, according to Georgia attorney Kurt Kastorf, a former US justice department prosecutor.“It is likely that if there are charges [in Fulton county], the charges are going to be in the near term,” said Kastorf.While the report did not reveal the range of these potential charges, the scope of the investigation has been comprehensive. The grand jury called at least 75 prominent witnesses, including many of Trump’s known allies. Attorneys Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis and Cleta Mitchell, Senator Lindsay Graham and newly elected Georgia lieutenant governor Burt Jones all appeared before the committee.Though the report does not name which witnesses it believes lied under oath, it does conclude that “perjury may have been committed by one or more witnesses.” It also recommends indictments for “such crimes where the evidence is compelling.”No matter the charges brought forth against Trump and those included in the investigation, state law presents a specific set of circumstances that are much different from any ongoing federal cases.According to Kastorf, there are two key elements that make Fulton county different for Trump and others who face potential indictment from the Fulton county district attorney’s office: the difference in the jury pool of Fulton county and the political considerations of a state-level case in comparison to a federal case.Fulton county is a predominantly Democratic region in the largely Republican state. This means that the jury pool could be comprised of largely Democratic leaning jurors who could be guided by partisan beliefs should a trial ensue. Furthermore, pardons and political immunity are much more difficult to obtain in Georgia.“The US president does not have pardon power in Georgia,” said Kastorf. “In fact, the governor doesn’t have pardon power in Georgia. It is significantly less likely that if Trump or someone associated with his campaign were convicted in Georgia, they would be able to obtain a pardon or have immunity based on holding political office.”Though there is not exactly legal precedence for this case that points to what happens when a sitting president attempts to influence and change the results of an election, according to Kreis, there is a parallel with another historical moment critical to democracy in the US.“We had election denialism run rampant in the United States at the end of the 19th century, and people who engaged in election denialism then decided that they were going to use that to dampen voting rights and disenfranchise people,” Kreis said.According to Kreis, this led to “democratic backsliding” that threatened the foundation of democracy in the US, similar to what we see today.“But the key difference is, nobody was ever really held accountable for engaging in actions of election denialism that led to acts of political violence back then,” said Kreis.TopicsDonald TrumpThe fight for democracyGeorgiaUS elections 2020US politicsanalysisReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Witnesses in Trump investigation may have lied, says Georgia grand jury report

      by

      Witnesses in Trump investigation may have lied, says Georgia grand jury reportSections of report looking into whether Trump committed crime in attempt to overturn election released on Thursday Multiple witnesses who testified before a special purpose grand jury investigating Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election may have lied and committed perjury, according to a section of the grand jury’s report released on Thursday.The report offers the first insight into the work of the special purpose grand jury, which was convened in May last year. The 23 jurors and three alternates heard from 75 witnesses during the course of its investigation.The Georgia case, led by the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, is believed to be one of the most likely scenarios in which the former president, and some of his allies, could face charges for efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 US election.“A majority of the Grand Jury believes that perjury may have been committed by one or more witnesses testifying before it. The Grand Jury recommends that the District Attorney seek appropriate indictments for such crimes where the evidence is compelling,” the grand jurors wrote. The sections released on Thursday do not name the witnesses or provide any other details.A judge also released the introduction and conclusion to the report, neither of which provide substantive insight into whether Trump or allies will face criminal charges. The judge has declined to release the full report until Willis decides whether to bring charges.The introduction details the special grand jury’s process and says it ultimately unanimously concluded “no widespread fraud took place in the Georgia 2020 presidential election that could result in overturning that election”. It also says the grand jurors heard “extensive testimony on the subject of alleged election fraud from poll workers, investigators, technical experts, and State of Georgia employees and officials, as well as from persons still claiming that such fraud took place”.The conclusion acknowledges that Willis, the prosecutor, has discretion to seek charges outside of what the grand jury recommends.“If this report fails to include any potential violations of referenced statutes that were shown in the investigation, we acknowledge the discretion of the District Attorney to seek indictments where she finds sufficient cause,” the report says. “Furthermore this Grand Jury contained no election law experts or criminal lawyers. The majority of this Grand Jury used their collective best efforts, however, to attend every session, listen to every witness, and attempt to understand the facts as presented and the laws as explained.”The work of the special purpose grand jury is being closely watched because it ultimately could lead to the first criminal charges against Trump for his actions after the 2020 election. A special purpose grand jury is convened for an indefinite amount of time and can subpoena witnesses, but not issue indictments.The investigation is meant to determine whether Donald Trump and allies violated Georgia state law in their efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Trump infamously called the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, and requested that he “find” votes in his favor. “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more that we have because we won the state,” he said in a January 2021 phone call.Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer, has also been informed he is a target of the investigation. Sixteen people who served as fake electors from Georgia are also reportedly targets of the investigation.The decision over whether to bring charges is ultimately up to Willis, a Democrat in her first term as the Fulton county district attorney. Willis said at a court hearing last month that a decision on whether to bring charges was “imminent”.Trump and allies could face a range of criminal charges under Georgia law. It is a crime in Georgia to solicit someone to commit election fraud or to interfere with the performance of official election duties. Willis could also bring charges under the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (Rico) Act to charge Trump’s confidantes with crimes as part of a broader conspiracy to overturn the election. Willis hired a lawyer who specializes in Rico to assist her with the investigation.TopicsDonald TrumpGeorgiaUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Here’s a Timeline of the Trump Georgia Investigation

      by

      The criminal investigation of former President Donald J. Trump and his allies in Georgia has its roots in activities that began shortly after he lost the 2020 election. So far, there have been two key investigatory threads: a plan to send an alternate slate of electors from states that Mr. Trump lost, including Georgia, and Mr. Trump’s request that Georgia’s secretary of state find the votes he needed to flip the state’s 16 electoral votes to him instead of Joseph R. Biden Jr.Here’s a look at some of the key events connected to the investigation.Nov. 18, 2020: Just over two weeks after Election Day, an outside adviser to the Trump campaign, Kenneth Chesebro, sends the first of three memos laying the groundwork for using the Electoral College system to affect the outcome of the race.Dec. 5: Mr. Trump calls Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, and urges him to circumvent the normal process for awarding electoral votes and allow Georgia’s lawmakers to do it instead.Dec. 6: Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, shares one of those memos with Jason Miller, a senior adviser on the Trump campaign. In the next few days, Mr. Trump decides to pursue the plan to offer alternate electors, according to the findings of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.Dec. 7: Georgia elections officials recertified the results of the state’s presidential race after a recount reaffirmed Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory over President Trump, the third time that results showed that Mr. Trump had lost the state.Understand Georgia’s Investigation of Election InterferenceCard 1 of 5A legal threat to Trump. More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Georgia officials to release grand jury report on Trump bid to overturn election – live

      by

      “Hell, yes.” “100%.” Those were the replies of some Republican state legislators in Georgia to a last-ditch attempt by Donald Trump’s campaign to stop Joe Biden’s election win in the state, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports, citing newly released congressional records.The Trump campaign wanted the group to appoint presidential electors who would vote for Trump, not Joe Biden – even though he’d won the state’s 16 electoral votes, the first time a Democrat has done so since Bill Clinton in 1992.The publication contacted the approximately 30 lawmakers who said they would participate in the effort, which was ultimately unsuccessful. Seventeen couldn’t be reached, or didn’t respond to a request for comment. But others appeared to deny they’d ever signed on.“I do think there were some issues with the election. But that was not the way to go,” Republican state representative Kasey Carpenter told the Journal-Constitution.You can read the rest of the story here.Let’s say Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis does decide bring charges against Donald Trump based on the grand jury’s report. What would be the alleged crime? As the Guardian’s Carlisa N. Johnson reported last month, the answer could be racketeering:An Atlanta prosecutor appears ready to use the same Georgia statute to prosecute Donald Trump that she used last year to charge dozens of gang members and well-known rappers who allegedly conspired to commit violent crime.Fani Willis was elected Fulton county district attorney just days before the conclusion of the 2020 presidential election. But as she celebrated her promotion, Trump and his allies set in motion a flurry of unfounded claims of voter fraud in Georgia, the state long hailed as a Republican stronghold for local and national elections.Willis assumed office on 1 January 2021, becoming the first Black woman in the position. The next day, according to reports, Trump called rad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, urging him to “find” the nearly 12,000 votes he needed to secure a victory and overturn the election results.The following month, Willis launched an investigation into Trump’s interference in the state’s general election. Now, in a hearing on Tuesday, the special purpose grand jury and the presiding judge will decide whether to release to the public the final report and findings of the grand jury that was seated to investigate Trump and his allies.Willis, who has not shied away from high-profile cases, has made headlines for her aggressive style of prosecution. Willis was a lead prosecutor in the 2013 prosecution of educators in Atlanta accused of inflating students’ scores on standardized tests. More recently, Willis brought a case against a supposed Georgia gang known as YSL, including charges against rappers Yung Thug and Gunna.Could Trump be charged for racketeering? A Georgia prosecutor thinks soRead moreGot questions about the special grand jury’s report in Georgia? The Guardian’s Sam Levine has answers in this piece published just before a hearing in which a judge ultimately opted to allow its partial release:A court hearing on Tuesday will mark one of the most significant developments in a Georgia investigation examining whether Donald Trump and allies committed a crime in their efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Here’s all you need to know about that hearing and what to expect next.What exactly is happening on Tuesday?Since May of last year, a special purpose grand jury in Fulton county, Georgia has been investigating whether Donald Trump committed a crime under state law when he tried to overturn the 2020 election by pressuring state officials to try and overturn Joe Biden’s victory in the state.The grand jury concluded its work earlier this month. On Tuesday, there will be a hearing to determine whether the grand jury’s report should be made public. The special grand jury – which consisted of 23 jurors and three alternates – has recommended its report be made public.Why is this investigation such a big deal?Trump and allies have yet to face any criminal consequences for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The Fulton county probe could be the first time that charges are filed against Trump and allies for those efforts. The US House committee that investigated the January 6 attacks also made a criminal referral to the justice department, which is also investigating Trump’s actions after the 2020 election.What is Georgia’s Trump election inquiry and will it lead to charges?Read moreShould Donald Trump face criminal charges?That’s the big question the report authored by a special grand jury in Georgia’s Fulton county might answer. We won’t be seeing all of it today, but what’s released could shed light on what the jurors came to believe after spending months hearing from former Trump officials, state lawmakers and others with knowledge of his attempt to stop Joe Biden from carrying the state’s electoral votes.The answer to that question could very well be no – at least in the eyes of the jurors. But they might recommend charges against other officials who appeared before them. Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani was, for instance, told that he was a target of the investigation, as was reportedly the state’s lieutenant governor Burt Jones and David Shafer, chair of the Georgia GOP.But even if the jurors want to bring the hammer down, it’s not their decision to make. That’s up to Fani Willis, the district attorney for the Atlanta-area county, who will have to decide whether to accept their recommendations and move forward with prosecutions.Good morning, US politics blog readers. Today, we may get a sense of which direction one of the many investigations into Donald Trump is heading, when parts of a special grand jury’s report into his attempt to undo Joe Biden’s 2020 election win in Georgia are made public. A judge earlier this week ordered the release of the document’s introduction, conclusion and a chapter on jurors’ concerns that some witnesses were lying, while withholding the rest, at least for now. Fani Willis, the district attorney in Georgia’s Atlanta-area Fulton county, is expected to use the report to determine whether to bring charges in the investigations – and against who. This blog will dig into the document as soon as it’s released.Here’s what else is going on:
      Joe Biden may as soon as today give a public address about the Chinese spy balloon and three UFOs shot down by American jets over North America, the Washington Post reports, in a response to pressure from lawmakers who want more transparency on the unusual events.
      Barbara Lee, a progressive House Democrat known for her anti-war bona fides, has filed the paperwork to compete in the California Senate race, according to Politico.
      Special counsel Jack Smith wants to hear from Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff for his final days in the White House, CNN reports. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Georgia Judge to Release Grand Jury Findings in Trump Election Inquiry

      by

      The judge ordered the report’s introduction and conclusion to be made public, along with a section detailing the special grand jury’s concerns about witnesses lying under oath.A judge in Atlanta is expected to release portions of a report on Thursday detailing the findings of a special purpose grand jury that examined whether former President Donald J. Trump and some of his allies violated Georgia law in their efforts to overturn Mr. Trump’s 2020 election loss in the state.Special grand juries cannot issue indictments, but they can recommend whether criminal charges should be sought. Earlier this week, Judge Robert C.I. McBurney of Fulton County Superior Court ruled that much of the jury’s final report should not be disclosed until after Fani T. Willis, the local district attorney, makes her own charging decisions.Still, he ordered the report’s introduction and conclusion to be made public, along with a section detailing the special grand jury’s concerns about witnesses lying under oath. Judge McBurney wrote that revealing the grand jury’s specific recommendations now would create “due process deficiencies” that would be unfair to anyone who might be “named as indictment-worthy in the final report.” But legal experts say the judge’s decision to keep much of the report secret strongly suggests that the special grand jury determined that someone deserves to be indicted.“We’re at the cusp of something consequential, I think,” said Clark D. Cunningham, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law, who has been following the case closely.Understand Georgia’s Investigation of Election InterferenceCard 1 of 5A legal threat to Trump. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Georgia Judge Will Release Parts of Report on Trump Election Inquiry

      by

      Releasing the introduction and conclusion of a special grand jury report could shed light on the extent to which Mr. Trump and others might face legal jeopardy in the case.ATLANTA — A Georgia judge said on Monday that he would disclose parts of a grand jury report later this week that details an investigation into election interference by former President Donald J. Trump and his allies, though he would keep the jury’s specific recommendations secret for now.In making his ruling, the judge, Robert C.I. McBurney of Fulton County Superior Court, said the special grand jury raised concerns in its report “that some witnesses may have lied under oath during their testimony.” But the eight-page ruling included few other revelations about the report, the contents of which have been carefully guarded, with the only physical copy in the possession of the district attorney’s office.The ruling does, however, indicate that the special grand jury’s findings are serious. The report includes “a roster of who should (or should not) be indicted, and for what, in relation to the conduct (and aftermath) of the 2020 general election in Georgia,” Judge McBurney wrote.For the last two years, prosecutors in Atlanta have been conducting a criminal investigation into whether Mr. Trump and his allies interfered in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia, which he narrowly lost to President Biden. Much of the inquiry — including interviewing dozens of witnesses — was conducted before the special grand jury, which under Georgia law had to issue a final report on its findings, which in this case includes charging recommendations. Special grand juries do not have the power to issue indictments.It will be up to Fani T. Willis, the local district attorney, to decide what, if any, charges she will bring to a regular grand jury.Understand Georgia’s Investigation of Election InterferenceCard 1 of 5A legal threat to Trump. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Georgia grand jury report on Trump election pressure to be partially released

      by

      Georgia grand jury report on Trump election pressure to be partially releasedJudge ruled certain sections will be made public this week, including one involving witnesses who may have lied under oath Portions of a Georgia grand jury’s report on whether Donald Trump and allies committed crimes when they tried to overturn the 2020 election will be made public this week, but the entirety of the report will remain secret until the Fulton county prosecutor decides whether to bring charges, a judge ruled on Monday.The sections that will be made public are the report’s introduction, conclusion and a section discussing whether some of the witnesses who testified before the special purpose grand jury lied under oath. The section does not identify which witnesses may have lied.Those sections will be made public on the court docket on 16 February, Robert McBurney, a Fulton county judge ruled on Monday.The decision is the latest development in a closely watched investigation opened by Fani Willis, the Fulton county district attorney, into efforts to overturn the results of the November 2020 election. Last month, Willis appeared in court to say she opposed releasing the report in full until she decided whether to file criminal charges, a decision she said at the time was “imminent”.Untouchable review: Trump as ‘lawless Houdini’ above US justiceRead moreTrump – who infamously pressed Georgia’s top election official to “find 11,780 votes” to overturn the election – and allies could face a range of criminal charges under Georgia law. It is a state crime to intentionally try to get someone to commit election fraud or to interfere with an official who is carrying out election duties. Willis is also reportedly considering bringing Rico racketeering charges against Trump.In an eight-page ruling, McBurney said he had reviewed the report and that the grand jury had fulfilled its purpose. But releasing the entirety of the report before Willis makes a decision on criminal charges could violate the due process rights of those named in the report, he wrote.“By all appearances, the special purpose grand jury did its work by the book. The problem here, in discussing public disclosure, is that that book’s rules do not allow for the objects of the District Attorney’s attention to be heard in the manner we require in a court of law,” he wrote.Trump was issued subpoena for folder marked ‘Classified Evening Briefing’ discovered at Mar-a-LagoRead more“The consequence of these due process deficiencies is not that the special purpose grand jury’s final report is forever suppressed or that its recommendations for or against indictment are in any way flawed or suspect. Rather, the consequence is that those recommendations are for the District Attorney’s eyes only – for now.”TopicsUS politicsDonald TrumpGeorgiaUS elections 2020newsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Set to Vote on Overhauling Party’s Primary Calendar

      by

      The proposal would radically reshape the way the party picks its presidential nominees, putting more racially diverse states at the front of the line.PHILADELPHIA — Members of the Democratic National Committee are expected to vote on Saturday on a major overhaul of the Democratic primary process, a critical step in President Biden’s effort to transform the way the party picks its presidential nominees, and one that would upend decades of American political tradition.For years, Democratic 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 of the country — and after Iowa struggled in 2020 to deliver results — Democrats are widely expected to endorse a proposal that would start the 2024 Democratic presidential primary circuit in South Carolina, the state that resuscitated Mr. Biden’s once-flailing candidacy, on Feb. 3. It would be followed by New Hampshire and Nevada 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.President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. Many prominent Democrats have been adamant that the committee should defer to Mr. Biden’s preference on the primary calendar changes.Al Drago for The New York TimesIt’s a proposed 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 will remain even if the committee signs off on the plan, a move that was recommended by a key party panel in December. 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.The Democrats’ Primary CalendarA plan spearheaded by President Biden could lead to a major overhaul of the party’s presidential primary process in 2024.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: Iowa’s likely dethronement has inspired a rush of wistful memories and soul-searching among Democrats there.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 in saying that they cannot make changes unilaterally. 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 had a rocky political history with the state — he placed fifth there in 2020 — but he also has longtime friends and allies in New Hampshire, some of whom have written a letter expressing concerns about the proposal.Attendees cheering after President Biden’s speech at the D.N.C.’s winter meeting. Georgia would move to Feb. 13 in the new primary calendar lineup.Al Drago for The New York TimesThe D.N.C.’s Rules and Bylaws Committee has given New Hampshire until early June to work toward meeting the requirements of the proposed calendar, 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.”.css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}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.Learn more about our process.But many prominent Democrats have been adamant that the committee should defer to Mr. Biden’s preference, reflecting his standing as the head of the party.“If he had called me and said, ‘Jim Clyburn, I’ve decided that South Carolina should not be in the preprimary 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, under the new proposal, would zoom into the most influential position on the primary calendar, though Mr. Clyburn said he had personally 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 committee-approved early lineup, including cuts to the number of pledged delegates and alternates for the state in question. 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 such states could face repercussions as well, such as not receiving delegates from that particular state.Such consequences 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.Whether the president would campaign in New Hampshire if the state defied a D.N.C.-sanctioned calendar is an open question. Some Democrats have also questioned whether there will be an effort, if New Hampshire does not comply, to replace it with a different Northeastern state for regional representation.Georgia Democrats have also received an extension until June to work toward hosting a primary under the new calendar lineup, but they face their own logistical hurdles.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.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.A Democratic National Committee meeting on Thursday in Philadelphia. Under the new plan, the 2024 Democratic presidential primary calendar would start in South Carolina.Timothy A. Clary/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAccording to a letter from the leaders of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, Nevada, South Carolina and Michigan have met the committee’s requirements for holding early primaries.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 in the state have voiced confidence that the vote can be held according to the D.N.C.’s proposed calendar.There has 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 have strongly defended the idea of elevating it.Regardless, the reshuffle may only be temporary: Mr. Biden has urged the Rules and Bylaws Committee to review the calendar every four years, and the committee has embraced steps to get that process underway. More