From a pragmatic standpoint, closing the window in which delegate selection contests can be held is probably the mostly easily attainable goal. One thing that I haven’t seen discussed anywhere is that this first week in March mandate by the DNC (from last year’s convention) is basically reversing the party’s actions ahead of the 2004 campaign — when February contests were allowed for the first time. Now granted, we need to provide some context there. The RNC had over the course of the 1996 and 2000 cycles opened their window to include February primaries and caucuses. The DNC’s move in 2004, then, was simply a reaction to that. But both parties have reaped what they sowed over the last 10-15 years.

The Change Commission, provided the mandate called for in the rules, will likely move forward with March beginning point for all non-exempt states (all except IA, NH, NV, SC). How big a problem will the DNC have with compliance if they don’t hammer out some sort of compromise with the RNC on this point? You mentioned the conflict in Virginia, but what other states fall into that same or a similar category? Currently, there are eight states that would potentially stand as obstacles to any action by the DNC not matched by the Republican Party. That is a significant potential roadblock and on something that seems rather a simple change on its face.

The initial frontloading moves in the 1996-2008 period were easy. There has always been an incentive to move forward, but getting states to move back when others will be allowed to stay where they are, it certainly easier said than done. [And I'm not saying you've said it will be easy.] What are the carrots? What are the sticks? You’ve got them laid out here, but I have one thing to add to your Florida/Michigan penalty point. The DNC rule initially was exactly like the RNC’s (a 50% delegate loss) in terms of the states (The DNC added an extra penalty to candidates campaigning in those states that the RNC didn’t have.). When Florida changed their date, the Rules and Bylaws Committee decided to make an example of them (one that was so effective Michigan ignored it) by stripping the state of all of its delegates. The problem wasn’t the stripping of all of Michigan’s or Florida’s delegates, but the midstream rules changing that took place (50% reduction to 100% loss to the allowance of a full delegation).

Oh, and I count 37 states that had contests before March 1 in 2008. But that’s just nitpicky.

I agree with you on your point about congressional intervention — they’re sidetracked — but for a wider discussion of whether Congress even has the ability to intervene see Dan Lowenstein’s chapter (or an abstract of it) here.

Thanks again, Frank. Great post.

Prior to February 5, 2008, West Virginia, Iowa, Nevada, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Maine elected delegates to the next step. However, no penalties were applied since no National Convention Delegates were actually allocated.