Michigan Supreme Court Allows Jan.15th Primary
EmailABC News’ Karen Travers Reports: The Michigan State Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the state’s Jan. 15 presidential primary may go forward — paving the way for New Hampshire to finally settle on a primary date.
The most likely date for the New Hampshire primary is Tuesday Jan. 8 — but reporters are actively seeking the official word from New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner.
Gardner has been waiting patiently until Michigan sorts out its primary because he wants to preserve New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation status. New Hampshire state law states that their primary must be at least seven days before the next primary.
The Michigan state law establishing the Jan. 15 date had previously been ruled unconstitutional by two lower courts in Michigan because it allowed the state’s political parties to keep track of voters and whether they took a Democratic or Republican primary ballot — but the public had no access to that information.
However, today’s Michigan Supreme Court decision allows the state’s Jan.15th date to go forward.
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
I think the national committees and the State Governments are going to have to find someway of working together to work out a primary schedule for the future, possibly even delaying the start of the whole process until feb/march. It seems a bit like the primaries are getting earlier and earlier and the conventions are creeping later and later back to late August/september. I think both parties should try to get states to agree to a rotation maybe after the traditional openers in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Posted by: saintlymark | November 21, 2007, 4:48 pm 4:48 pm
I think they should run the primarys by the date that they became a state.. it’s the only fair way to do it…
Posted by: FidoNY55 | November 21, 2007, 7:32 pm 7:32 pm
I think all primaries/caucuses in every state should be the same day. No good reason to stagger them anymore. This would eliminate the unbalanced effect of early results in states like Iowa and NH. IMHO.
Posted by: bob | November 21, 2007, 8:07 pm 8:07 pm
I heard a while back someone was lobbying to divide the country into 4 blocks and having 4 primary dates. Then the blocks would rotate who would go first on years of Presidential election. That is fair. I’m tired as a voter in PA of always being out of the loop as to having a voice in choosing a nominee. I always question why Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina voters get to choose our candidates? Esentially by then everyone else drops out so the rest of the country gets no voice.
Posted by: dk | November 22, 2007, 12:58 am 12:58 am
I agree. The system is almost as archaic and broken as the electoral college.
Posted by: skip | November 22, 2007, 5:25 am 5:25 am
I am also confused why Iowa must go first every year. It’s not one of the original 13 colonies that became the first 13 states of United States of America, it was the 29th state in 1846, so why is it first to vote.
Posted by: Kardasia_Prime | November 25, 2007, 11:56 am 11:56 am