Sanderson practices political law at Caplin & Drysdale and is an expert on political front-loading. Multiple states recently approved earlier primary dates, setting off a wave of presidential nominating contests at the start of next year. For the political neophytes, what is front-loading?
It refers to the way in which states schedule primaries. Think of an evenly distributed schedule where a couple happen each month. In a front-loaded schedule, the bulk happens towards the beginning of the whole process.
Why the trend?
States have figured out that being earlier in the process is valuable. You have a fuller slate of candidates and get more attention from media and to your pet issues. Last time, almost all of the meaningful primaries — at least on the Republican side — were held before Feb. 6.
What’s the problem?
I guess there are two things. It’ll affect the race, and the sequence of the states really matters in determining the Republican nominee. … It [also] elongates the overall process and makes it more costly. Rather than having a 10-month election, it’s constant.
How does this affect governing?
It’s gotten so long that it distracts from governing; it’s a two-year job interview. And when you get the job, you only spend a few years doing it before the campaign season kicks into gear.
What is to stop states from doing this?
The only leverage that would cause them to delay their primaries would be if they could maximize the influence for their state. If the parties could motivate candidates to not participate in early primaries or caucuses, that would take away that advantage — if a candidate said, “I’m not going to campaign in New Hampshire or Iowa if they move their contests up to December.”
– Brian Hughes
