South Carolina

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Jim Clyburn backs Biden all the way: ‘he’s delivered for this country’

      by

      InterviewJim Clyburn backs Biden all the way: ‘he’s delivered for this country’David Smith in WashingtonSouth Carolina congressman says Biden delivered for the country and put it back on track, making him a powerful contender for 2024 He was described as the most important politician of 2020. James Clyburn’s endorsement performed a political defibrillation on Joe Biden’s flatlining campaign, reversing his fortunes and sending him on his way to the White House.Joe Biden indicates he’ll run in 2024, following Democrats’ midterms winsRead moreMidway through Biden’s first term, the South Carolina congressman has no regrets. On the contrary, as America’s first octogenarian president spends the holidays deciding whether to run for re-election in 2024, Clyburn is backing him all the way.“I’m supporting him and I hope he makes that decision too,” he tells the Guardian by phone. “He’s delivered for this country. He’s put this country back on track towards a more perfect union. If you look at the production of his administration in this Congress he’s had to work with, we’ve been the most productive since 1965.”Biden’s roll call of legislative achievements includes coronavirus relief, infrastructure investment, historic climate spending, a boost for computer chip manufacturing and scientific research and measures on gun safety and military veterans’ benefits. And like a unicycle juggler on a tightrope, he did it with tenuous majorities in the House and Senate.Clyburn adds: “Joe Biden has delivered exactly what the country needs and that’s why we were rewarded the way we were on [midterm] election day. There were people predicting there was going be this ‘red wave’ and Democrats were going to lose by 60.”Why congressman James Clyburn was the most important politician of 2020Read moreThey lost only by nine, largely due to redistricting in California, Florida and New York.But doubts remain. While Biden often maintains a punishing schedule and grills his aides on minute policy details, there are moments when the 80-year-old mangles words and looks his age. Polls suggest many voters feel he is too old for the job. He is older than Ronald Reagan was when he completed his second term. If Biden serves a full second term, he will be 86 at the end.Clyburn is something of an expert on this issue: he is 82 and not slowing down. He speaks to the Guardian having attended a state dinner with the French president Emmanuel Macron that went well past midnight, then appeared on MSNBC at 8am. A couple of days later he will have a late night at the John F Kennedy Center for the performing arts honours ceremony. He also finds time to pump out a podcast, Clyburn Chronicles.Clyburn will remain in leadership when Democrats become the minority in the House next month. While the outgoing speaker, Nancy Pelosi, 82, and 83-year-old majority leader, Steny Hoyer, are making way for a new generation, Clyburn will serve as assistant Democratic leader, the number four position.He explains: “If we are going to regain the majority, we’re going to have to do so maintaining some stability in our caucus, being inclusive in our caucus and, if you look at the leadership table, the south is not represented there. Rural America is not represented there. I represent both.“The majority of Black people in this country still live in the south and for some strange reason every time people start talking about African Americans, they start talking about inner-city New York, Philadelphia, Chicago. That’s not where African Americans live. That’s where the media focus and one of the reasons our party is not doing as well as we should is because we have not developed the kind of rural policies that we need to develop.“That’s why I was so much of a stickler for broadband being in the infrastructure law. That’s why I’m always pushing for community health centres, because I can assure you where we have this kind of attention being paid to people’s healthcare needs, to their housing needs, is where we do better.”The new House Democratic leader will be Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the first Black person to head a party in Congress.Clyburn reflects: “The first, always you’ve got to be happy, but you want to make sure that the first performs in such a way there won’t be a problem getting the second.“When I was first elected to Congress, I was 52 years old. That’s the age Jeffries is today and getting elected leader of our caucus. That’s the way things work. My dad was not allowed to get a college degree because of state law and so I came here to Congress at 52. He’s the leader of our caucus at 52. That’s how things evolve.”Republicans will have the speaker’s gavel. Kevin McCarthy’s struggle to win election is indicative of a potentially bumpy ride as moderates clash with far-right members. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, once seen as fringe figure, is backing McCarthy and might soon be calling the shots. Some observers fear the party will give fresh impetus to white nationalism and political violence.Clyburn says: “I have no fears of that. These people are going to do what they want to do and I would hope that the Republicans would put the needs of the country above the partisanship of any one person in their party. If they go down that road, they are going to have to deal with failure. It’s just that simple.”Donald Trump’s influence over Republicans appears to be diminishing in the wake of the midterms, a series of self-inflicted wounds and a damning report by the House January 6 committee. But Clyburn, who has compared Trump to Benito Mussolini, is not writing him off yet.“Trumpism is still there. It’s still a big deal. Trump brought a lot of people out from under the rocks that they’d been hiding under and so long as he’s out there, these people are going to be out there. What we’ve got to do is be very careful. Thomas Jefferson is sometimes credited with having said: ‘ternal vigilance is the price of liberty.’”So what does he make of Trump’s most likely rival for the 2024 Republican nomination, Ron DeSantis of Florida?“He’s more moderate and just as dangerous because the policies are the same. Trumpism is Trumpism, no matter where it comes from. These -isms, you have to be careful with.”Some Democrats might be tempted to say better the devil you know. Trump has lost election after election. If he is the Republican standard bearer in 2024, polls suggest he will lose to Biden again. But Clyburn is not rooting for Trump to be the nominee.“We need to have a legitimate, serious discourse when we decide on the presidency,” he says. “I don’t want to win the presidency by default. I want to win the presidency by having the best proposals.”TopicsJoe BidenDemocratsUS politicsSouth CarolinaDonald TrumpinterviewsReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      How Democrats’ New Primary Calendar Changes the Chessboard

      by

      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.When a panel of Democratic Party insiders endorsed President Joseph R. Biden’s preferred lineup of early presidential nominating states on Friday, they didn’t just shatter the exalted status of Iowa and New Hampshire voters.They also formally aligned themselves with a demographic reckoning decades in the making, reflecting the growing clout of the racially diverse coalition that brought Mr. Biden to power — and implicitly rebuking two overwhelmingly white states that rejected him in 2020.According to the proposal recommended by Mr. Biden and adopted by the party’s Rules and Bylines Committee, South Carolina would now go first, holding its primary on Feb. 3, 2024. Three days later, Nevada and New Hampshire would follow. Georgians would vote next on Feb. 13, then Michiganders on Feb. 27.For political obsessives, the change — which must still be voted on by the whole committee — feels sweeping and swift.“For the .000001 percent of people who follow this stuff, this is equivalent to an earthquake,” said Julián Castro, the former secretary of housing and urban development who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. “For it to change this much in one cycle is both impressive and will be very impactful in the years to come.”Mr. Castro spent years arguing that Iowa should lose its spot at the front of his party’s presidential nominating calendar, even starting his primary campaign with an event in Puerto Rico — an intentional symbolic rejection of Iowa. He praised the new schedule, saying the broader diversity of states would offer opportunities to a wider range of candidates.Donna Brazile, former acting chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, said the changes would offer myriad benefits to the party, “from hearing the voices of people who tend not to matter to candidates until the end to lifting up those who also might need to be part of the process.”Mr. Biden’s recommendations were perhaps the most telling indicator that he planned to seek re-election, despite the prospect that he would be reaching well into his 80s by the end of a second term. His proposed reordering of the political map, noted Mike Murphy, a Republican consultant, happens to be “very Biden-friendly.”Representative Debbie Dingell of Michigan, right, has pushed for her state’s inclusion among the early states for years. Under Mr. Biden’s proposal, Michigan would hold the fifth primary in 2024.Doug Mills/The New York TimesRepresentative Debbie Dingell, a Michigan Democrat who has lobbied for her state’s inclusion in the early states since the 1990s, said that Mr. Biden’s choices also reflected a recognition that the party must resist the tug of its bicoastal centers of power.“You cannot win the White House without the heartland of America,” she said.The panel’s decision is not the last word on the calendar. Democrats will need to somehow persuade Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to set the date of his state’s primaries according to the wishes of the Democratic National Committee, rather than those of his own party.The Biden PresidencyHere’s where the president stands after the midterm elections.A Defining Issue: The shape of Russia’s war in Ukraine — and its effects on global markets —  in the months and years to come could determine President Biden’s political fate.Beating the Odds: Mr. Biden had the best midterms of any president in 20 years, but he still faces the sobering reality of a Republican-controlled House for the next two years.2024 Questions: Mr. Biden feels buoyant after the better-than-expected midterms, but as he turns 80, he confronts a decision on whether to run again that has some Democrats uncomfortable.Legislative Agenda: The Times analyzed every detail of Mr. Biden’s major legislative victories and his foiled ambitions. Here’s what we found.Disgruntled Iowa and New Hampshire might stick to their first-in-the-nation guns, even if the party strips them of delegates in retaliation for their defiance. Democrats running in 2024 — assuming there are any candidates besides, or instead of, Mr. Biden — would then have to decide whether the resulting “beauty contests” were worth the bragging rights alone.If Mr. Biden runs again, a decision he has indicated is coming early in the new year, the state that set him on a path to the nomination in 2024 will offer a formidable first hurdle to any would-be challenger.“He’s created a firewall against any insurgency,” said David Axelrod, one of the architects of former President Barack Obama’s political rise. “It doesn’t mean he will run. But it certainly suggests he intends to.”Those seeking to unseat the president would need to connect with South Carolina’s majority Black primary electorate, which is more conservative than either Iowa’s prairie progressives or New Hampshire’s northeastern Brahmins. In the state’s 2020 primary, more than 60 percent of Black voters chose Mr. Biden over his rivals, according to exit polls.Mr. Biden’s triumph in South Carolina exposed not only the regional appeal of liberal candidates like Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, but also the limits of two billionaire candidates who sought to buy a grass-roots following: Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer. And it underscored the struggles Pete Buttigieg, then running as the whiz-kid mayor of South Bend, Ind., had in reaching Black voters in particular.Steve Phillips, a Democrat and author of several books on racial politics, said the changes would reward candidates who develop a deep bond with Black communities, rather than train them to appeal to rural Iowans who might not support them in November.“You want somebody who is going to inspire and understand Black voters to be your nominee,” he said.If Mr. Biden does not run, the new lineup is likely to scramble generations of electoral calculations.For decades, the Iowa caucuses were an early proving ground for upstart candidates, including starting Jimmy Carter and Mr. Obama on their roads to the White House. The state carried continued mystique as a kingmaker, even as it increasingly evolved to be older, whiter and more Republican than the Democratic Party. The chaotic counting of the state’s caucus voters in 2020, when final results took a week, marked its demise for many in the party.A number of party strategists argued the low costs of campaigning in South Carolina would allow underdogs to continue to surprise the country with a stronger-than-expected showing.“The state is not so expensive that you can’t go live there and get it done,” said Jeremy Bird, a Democratic strategist.Mr. Bird, who helped guide Mr. Obama to a nearly 30-point primary win in South Carolina in 2008, said the diversity of South Carolina would force candidates to spend more time in rural Black communities, historically Black colleges and universities and Southern cities, and less time in grange halls and the living rooms of caucus microinfluencers.Traditionally, skipping Iowa was viewed as a sign of weakness by pundits, donors and strategists. But the quick pace of the first three states, with Nevada and New Hampshire coming just three days after South Carolina, could reshape that calculation.“If it’s an open primary in the future, you could have lots of different strategies,” Mr. Bird said. “You could have someone that skips South Carolina altogether. You could have someone that skips Nevada. It will be fascinating to see.”The long-term impact of the changes is still very much to be determined. The party says it plans to revisit its lineup in four years, raising the prospect that the calendar itself has become less a function of tradition than political juice.For now, with Georgia’s fate uncertain and Iowa and New Hampshire in potential revolt, candidates will also have to learn how to run in a new entry to the early-state mix: Michigan, a state that has rarely been in serious contention in recent presidential primaries.Compared with pastoral, racially homogeneous Iowa, Michigan presents an emerging America in microcosm — an increasingly diverse state of 10 million people that boasts not just one of the country’s historical centers of Black culture, Detroit, but also one of the largest Arab American populations in the country, among other communities of color dotted in suburbs and smaller cities across the state, like Ann Arbor.Michigan, an increasingly diverse state with a mix of large and small cities, could scramble old ways of campaigning. Allison Farrand for The New York Times“It’s more like a jigsaw puzzle,” said Amy Chapman, a Democratic strategist in Michigan who ran Barack Obama’s campaign in the state in 2008.The state’s geographic diversity could allow candidates to essentially choose their own spending adventure, said Eric Hyers, who directed Mr. Biden’s campaign in Michigan in 2020.“It’s not like there’s just one media market and it’s wicked expensive,” Mr. Hyers said. Campaigning in Nevada means spending heavily in the costly Las Vegas market, and New Hampshire candidates must buy airtime in pricey Boston.Jeff Link, a Des Moines operative who served as a local guide for Bill Clinton and Mr. Obama, said that even Mr. Obama, who forever altered how presidential candidates raise money, might not have won the nomination in Mr. Biden’s proposed calendar. And yet, even as much of Iowa’s Democratic political world spent Friday wallowing in the loss of what many considered a birthright, Mr. Link predicted that as long as Republicans maintained Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status, Democrats would come to the state too, even if the state’s caucuses no longer officially mattered. That is, after all, where the media will be.“If you guys are in town covering the other side, candidates are going to show up because you can’t help yourself,” he said.Reid J. Epstein More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      DNC Panel Supports Biden’s Plan to Make South Carolina First Primary in 2024

      by

      A key panel supported President Biden’s plan, which would remove Iowa as the first presidential nominating state. States with more diverse, working-class and in some cases more moderate constituencies are being elevated.WASHINGTON — Over objections from some Democratic state leaders, the Democratic National Committee on Friday moved one step closer to enacting President Biden’s vision for drastically overhauling the party’s 2024 presidential primary process, as a key committee voted to recommend sweeping changes to the calendar.At a daylong gathering of the D.N.C.’s Rules and Bylaws Committee in a Washington hotel ballroom, members voted to recommend supporting a 2024 Democratic presidential primary calendar that would begin in South Carolina on Feb. 3, followed by New Hampshire and Nevada on Feb. 6, Georgia on Feb. 13 and then Michigan on Feb. 27. That plan reflected a framework Mr. Biden delivered to the committee on Thursday that emphasized racial and geographic diversity. Representatives from Iowa and New Hampshire voted against the proposal, and officials emphasized that the move by the Rules Committee was one step in what might still be a prolonged and contentious process. The proposed early states have until Jan. 5 to confirm that they can hold a primary on their assigned date.The recommendation, which upends the traditional Democratic order of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, must be affirmed by the full D.N.C. at a meeting in early February, but Mr. Biden’s preferences carry enormous weight with the party committee. The proposed new order rewards some of the states that powered his political rise in 2020, elevating diverse, working-class and in some cases more moderate constituencies that were vital to Mr. Biden’s primary victory. At the same time, smaller states that have long emphasized retail politics — Iowa and New Hampshire — would be diminished. “Given the president’s strong interest in the design of the 2024 primaries, and the dates for them, I think it’s clear that he’s running,” said James Roosevelt Jr., a co-chairman of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, who said he had spoken with Mr. Biden this week about the early-state order.Mr. Biden has said that he intends to run again but plans to discuss the race with his family. If he does not run, the schedule, if adopted, would help other candidates with strong support from the voters of color who make up the backbone of the Democratic Party.Black voters accounted for more than half of the Democrats who voted in the South Carolina primary in 2020, according to exit polling. And they make up a significant share of the primary electorates in Georgia and Michigan. Latino voters play an especially central role in Nevada.But the shift could also hurt candidates without the campaign cash to compete quickly in early states with expensive media markets — like Nevada, Georgia and even New Hampshire, where Boston television stations drive up rates. The fast pacing of the proposed calendar could force contenders with smaller bank accounts to choose to compete in just one or two of the first three states. Scott Brennan and other Iowa Democrats criticized the proposed changes and suggested that the state party would challenge them.Shuran Huang for The New York TimesJoanne Dowdell, a D.N.C. member from New Hampshire, opposed the proposal.Shuran Huang for The New York Times“One of the things that New Hampshire is known for is our retail politics, and candidates having the opportunity to engage the electorate face to face,” said Joanne Dowdell, a D.N.C. member from New Hampshire who opposed the proposal. “By having three states, one on top of the other, I think causes a little bit of conflict for candidates trying to vie for the attention, get name recognition and also raise money.”The Biden PresidencyHere’s where the president stands after the midterm elections.A Defining Issue: The shape of Russia’s war in Ukraine — and its effects on global markets —  in the months and years to come could determine President Biden’s political fate.Beating the Odds: Mr. Biden had the best midterms of any president in 20 years, but he still faces the sobering reality of a Republican-controlled House for the next two years.2024 Questions: Mr. Biden feels buoyant after the better-than-expected midterms, but as he turns 80, he confronts a decision on whether to run again that has some Democrats uncomfortable.Legislative Agenda: The Times analyzed every detail of Mr. Biden’s major legislative victories and his foiled ambitions. Here’s what we found.Jeff Link, a longtime Des Moines operative, said cutting Iowa’s caucuses out of the Democratic presidential nominating process would diminish the importance of organizing, which is central to the state’s political culture.That could prove detrimental to the party nationally, he said, by eliminating a critical proving ground for Democratic field operatives.“Rather than having a big field operation, they’re going to have a big social media operation,” Mr. Link said. “There’s going to be less people talking to other people in the campaign. One of the benefits of having a caucus early is that for three decades, we’ve trained campaign staff on how to organize person to person.”Other objections have been far louder, especially from the two states accustomed to being at the front of the line. New Hampshire has long held the nation’s first primary as a matter of state law, and state officials have said they intend to follow that law rather than any party decision. And the chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party noted in a statement that the country’s longtime leadoff caucus state has a law that “requires us to hold a caucus before the last Tuesday in February, and before any other contest.” The decision on timing would be up to the state central committee and elected officials, said Scott Brennan, a member of the Rules Committee from Iowa.More than political clout and bragging rights is at stake: Studies of the economic impact of past caucuses in Iowa and New Hampshire primaries have found that spending was in the hundreds of millions of dollars, much of that on TV ads, though the figures were a drop in the bucket of each state’s annual economic activity.The party has powerful tools with which to compel states to fall in line.D.N.C. rules agreed upon earlier this year stipulated notable consequences for any state that jumps ahead to operate outside the party’s agreed-upon early window, including cuts to the number of pledged delegates and alternates for the state in question. Significantly, candidates who campaign in such states would face repercussions as well. “If a candidate chose to campaign in a state that operated outside the window, they would lose the delegates from that state,” Mr. Roosevelt said. “They could have other penalties, because the chair is empowered to go beyond that.”Some officials have suggested they are willing to take those risks.The D.N.C.’s Rules and Bylaws Committee gathered in Washington on Friday.Shuran Huang for The New York Times“For decades we have said we will bear any sanctions,” said Raymond Buckley, the chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party.Republican willingness, or lack thereof, to change dates may also be relevant in several states, including in Republican-controlled Georgia. A spokesman for Gov. Brian Kemp did not respond to a question on Friday afternoon about his reaction to the Democratic proposal. The primary date is set by Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, who declined to comment on the Democrats’ process on Friday. “Our focus is on the security and integrity of the election that’s currently underway, and we will be looking at the entire process for possible improvements once this one is successfully complete,” said Jordan Fuchs, the deputy secretary of state, as Georgia hosts a Senate runoff. But, she noted in a statement, “Our legal team has continuously stated that both parties’ primaries must be on the same day and must not cost anyone any delegates.”Republicans have already agreed to their own early-state lineup of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.The Rules and Bylaws committee’s vote came a day after Mr. Biden sent a letter to members laying out his criteria for the early-voting window. In it, he rejected caucuses — effectively dealing a mortal blow to the troubled Iowa caucuses, which struggled for days to deliver results in 2020.After Mr. Biden came in fourth place in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire, two states with high percentages of white voters, he showed new signs of political life in Nevada. And it was South Carolina’s primary, with large numbers of Black voters, that revived his candidacy and propelled him through Super Tuesday and to the nomination.“Defense, education, agriculture, manufacturing — South Carolina is a perfect laboratory,” said Representative James E. Clyburn, the South Carolina Democrat whose endorsement of Mr. Biden in 2020 played a vital role in the president’s victory in the state. “That’s why the people who do well in South Carolina end up doing pretty good in the general.”Mr. Clyburn said that he had urged Mr. Biden to keep South Carolina in the early-state window — “first, second, third or fourth, didn’t matter to me” — but that he had learned of the state’s possible elevation to the kickoff primary on Thursday from the president.Jaime Harrison, the chairman of the D.N.C., who is also from South Carolina, said he had found out at Thursday night’s state dinner.Mr. Biden has urged the Rules and Bylaws Committee to review the calendar every four years, and the committee embraced an amendment to get that process underway.“Nevada still has the strongest argument for being the first-in-the-nation primary,” Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen, the state’s senators, said in a joint statement. “We will keep making our case for 2028.”Reid J. Epstein More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Wants South Carolina as First Primary State in 2024, Demoting Iowa

      by

      Michigan would become the fifth primary. The plan came as the president asked that “voters of color have a voice in choosing our nominee much earlier in the process.”WASHINGTON — President Biden and the Democratic National Committee are moving to radically reorder the party’s presidential process by making South Carolina the first primary state in 2024, followed in order by Nevada and New Hampshire, Georgia and then Michigan.The plan, announced by party officials at a dinner Thursday in Washington, signals the end of Iowa’s long tenure as the Democrats’ first nominating contest, and it represents an effort to elevate the diverse, working-class constituencies that powered Mr. Biden’s primary victory in 2020. The move would also be an unmistakable reward for South Carolina, the state that saved Mr. Biden’s candidacy two years ago after he came in fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire, both of which are smaller and have a higher percentage of white voters. “We must ensure that voters of color have a voice in choosing our nominee much earlier in the process and throughout the entire early window,” Mr. Biden wrote in a letter Thursday to members of the D.N.C.’s Rules and Bylaws Committee. “Black voters in particular have been the backbone of the Democratic Party but have been pushed to the back of the early primary process,” he said. “We rely on these voters in elections but have not recognized their importance in our nominating calendar. It is time to stop taking these voters for granted, and time to give them a louder and earlier voice in the process.”The letter went on to note bluntly, “Our party should no longer allow caucuses as part of our nominating process.” Iowa is a caucus state and does not hold a primary. Iowa is still expected to remain the leadoff contest for Republicans, who have agreed to maintain the usual early-state order of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.The Biden PresidencyHere’s where the president stands after the midterm elections.A Defining Issue: The shape of Russia’s war in Ukraine — and its effects on global markets —  in the months and years to come could determine President Biden’s political fate.Beating the Odds: Mr. Biden had the best midterms of any president in 20 years, but he still faces the sobering reality of a Republican-controlled House for the next two years.2024 Questions: Mr. Biden feels buoyant after the better-than-expected midterms, but as he turns 80, he confronts a decision on whether to run again that has some Democrats uncomfortable.Legislative Agenda: The Times analyzed every detail of Mr. Biden’s major legislative victories and his foiled ambitions. Here’s what we found.Both Iowa and New Hampshire, whose famed diners and town commons are routinely overrun by candidates leading up to their nominating contests, have long promoted themselves as providing demanding tests of a candidate’s authenticity, preparedness and ability to connect in small gatherings with highly discerning voters.The new Democratic plan, by elevating several larger states, could reduce those opportunities and lead candidates instead to emphasize expensive advertising campaigns aimed at the broadest possible audiences.The proposal, reported first by The Washington Post, is subject to approval by the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee and then by the full D.N.C. early next year, and there may be technical and legal considerations for some of the states. The plan met furious pushback from New Hampshire, long accustomed to hosting the first primary as a matter of state law. Statements from several officials suggested a coming clash with the D.N.C., raising questions about how the party will enforce its final order should states try to jump the line.“I strongly oppose the president’s deeply misguided proposal, but make no mistake, New Hampshire’s law is clear, and our primary will continue to be First in the Nation,” Senator Maggie Hassan, Democrat of New Hampshire, said in a statement.Ray Buckley, the chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, declared that “we will be holding our primary first.”But the president’s preferences will carry enormous weight with the D.N.C., a group that often functions as the White House political arm. Mr. Biden urged the Rules and Bylaws Committee to review the calendar every four years “to ensure that it continues to reflect the values and diversity of our party and our country.”After Iowa’s disastrous 2020 Democratic caucuses, in which the state struggled for days to deliver results, the D.N.C. embarked on a protracted effort to reassess how the party picks its presidential candidates. It invited states to apply to host the kickoff primaries amid concerns that Iowa, and to some extent New Hampshire, did not reflect the Democratic Party’s diversity. The initiative led to an intense public and private lobbying effort involving high-ranking party and elected officials up and down the ballot.The current leadoff states are Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, in that order, chosen to represent the four major regions of the country: the Midwest, Northeast, West and South.Discussions throughout the process have involved several core questions: whether to replace Iowa, and if so, with either Michigan or Minnesota; the order of the early states, as Nevada sought to displace New Hampshire in the first primary; and whether a fifth state should be added to the early cluster.Earlier this year, the committee adopted a framework that emphasized racial, ethnic, geographic and economic diversity and labor representation; raised questions about feasibility; and stressed the importance of general election competitiveness.Some D.N.C. members worried — and Minnesota Democrats have argued — that having a large and expensive state like Michigan host a primary early in the nominating process could lead well-funded candidates to essentially camp out there and ignore the other states on the calendar.That concern is less urgent, though, if Mr. Biden seeks re-election. He has said that he intends to run but plans to discuss the race with his family over the holidays and could announce a decision early next year.Some Democrats have long been intrigued by the idea of promoting Michigan, a critical general election state that is home to diverse voter constituencies and a major labor presence, The Democratic sweep there in this year’s midterm elections helped bolster that idea. Earlier this week, the Michigan State Senate voted to move the primary from the second Tuesday in March to the second Tuesday in February. A senior Michigan Democratic official who spoke with the White House this week came away feeling that the Biden team was inclined toward Michigan’s bid to become an early presidential primary state.Lisa Lerer, Maggie Astor, Michael D. Shear and Blake Hounshell contributed reporting. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Mark Meadows Ordered to Testify in Trump Investigation

      by

      The South Carolina Supreme Court rejected an effort by the former White House chief of staff to avoid testifying in an investigation of election meddling.ATLANTA — The South Carolina Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered Mark Meadows, a White House chief of staff under Donald J. Trump, to testify in the criminal investigation into efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to overturn his November 2020 election loss in Georgia.In a three-paragraph written opinion, the court pointedly said Mr. Meadows’s legal efforts to avoid participating in the investigation were “manifestly without merit.”Mr. Meadows, 63, is one of three well-known Trump allies — in addition to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the former national security adviser Michael Flynn — who have been trying to fend off subpoenas ordering them to testify before a special grand jury in Atlanta. Those efforts are part of a broader endeavor by a number of Trump’s allies to avoid cooperating in the Georgia investigation. That attempt has been met with mixed results. Last week, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina testified after a protracted legal fight that was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.The special grand jury is considering whether Mr. Trump and others broke state laws by, among other actions, spreading falsehoods about election fraud and pressuring state officials to consider changing the results of Georgia’s presidential election, which Mr. Trump lost by fewer than 12,000 votes.Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Flynn were ordered to travel to Atlanta to testify by judges in their respective home states of Virginia and Florida, and they have appealed those decisions.Mr. Meadows, a former Republican representative from North Carolina, was deeply involved in efforts to keep Mr. Trump in power. Congressional hearings into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol showed that he repeatedly asked the Department of Justice to conduct investigations based on Mr. Trump’s unfounded theories about election improprieties around the country.Prosecutors say the special grand jury has evidence that Mr. Meadows set up and participated in the now infamous recorded phone call on Jan. 2, 2021, in which Mr. Trump can be heard telling Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, that he wanted to “find” the 11,780 votes that would allow him to win in Georgia. In December 2020, Mr. Meadows made a surprise visit to Cobb County, Ga., to try to view an election audit that was in progress there. He was told by local officials that he was not authorized to see it.Like Mr. Flynn and Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Meadows has argued that he does not have to testify on the grounds that the Georgia special grand jury should be considered civil, not criminal, in nature. That, he argues, makes the subpoena unenforceable under an agreement among states that allows them to secure the attendance of out-of-state witnesses for criminal investigations.This legal strategy was successfully employed in Texas, where it found favor with a majority of members of that state’s Court of Criminal Appeals, and that most likely explains why a number of Texas-based witnesses who received subpoenas in the Georgia case have not appeared in court.In South Carolina, however, a lower court judge rejected Mr. Meadows’s argument in late October. Later, a group of current and former prosecutors filed an amicus brief arguing that if the state’s Supreme Court accepted Mr. Meadows’s argument it would “undermine interstate comity and the effectiveness of law enforcement across state borders, not just between South Carolina and its neighbor Georgia, but nationwide.”Mr. Meadows was originally scheduled to testify on Wednesday, but that appointment will most likely be pushed back. A spokesman for Mr. Meadows’s lawyer declined to comment on Tuesday, as did a spokesman for Fani T. Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, Ga., who is heading up the investigation.Danny Hakim More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Senator Graham Asks Supreme Court to Spare Him From Testifying in Georgia

      by

      Mr. Graham has been fighting a subpoena requiring him to appear before a special grand jury examining efforts to overturn former President Donald J. Trump’s election loss.ATLANTA — Senator Lindsey Graham asked the Supreme Court on Friday to stay a lower court’s order that would force him to testify before a special grand jury investigating efforts to overturn former President Donald J. Trump’s election loss in Georgia.The appeal by Mr. Graham, the South Carolina Republican and Trump confidant, is the latest in a protracted legal fight that he has been waging to defy a subpoena requiring him to answer questions before the special grand jury in Atlanta. Dozens of witnesses have already testified in the secret proceedings. Some, including Rudolph W. Giuliani and several other lawyers aligned with Mr. Trump, have tried unsuccessfully to avoid traveling to Atlanta to do so.But none has fought as long or as hard as Mr. Graham, who was subpoenaed in July. Soon after, he had the matter moved to the federal court system, arguing that forcing him to testify would raise constitutional issues. He pointed to the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause, which says that members of Congress cannot be questioned on matters pertaining to their legislative duties.On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta rejected the argument that the Speech and Debate Clause fully shielded Mr. Graham from having to testify. Mr. Graham responded with an emergency application on Friday, asking the Supreme Court for a stay while he appeals the ruling, and, if necessary, a ruling enjoining the special grand jury from questioning him until the appeal is resolved. The filing notes that Mr. Graham was issued a fresh subpoena on Friday compelling him to testify on Nov. 17.“Without a stay, Senator Lindsey Graham will soon be questioned by a local Georgia prosecutor and her ad hoc investigative body about his protected ‘Speech or Debate’ related to the 2020 election,” Mr. Graham’s lawyers wrote in the filing. “This will occur despite the Constitution’s command that Senators ‘shall not be questioned’ about ‘any Speech or Debate.’”Understand Georgia’s Investigation of Election InterferenceCard 1 of 5An immediate legal threat to Trump. More