PHILADELPHIA — Upending decades of political tradition, members of the Democratic National Committee voted on Saturday to approve a sweeping overhaul of the Democratic primary process, a critical step in President Biden’s effort to transform the way the party picks its presidential nominees.
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 the country — and after Iowa’s 2020 meltdown led to a major delay in results — Democrats endorsed a proposal that would start the 2024 Democratic presidential primary circuit on Feb. 3 in South Carolina, the state that resuscitated Mr. Biden’s once-flailing candidacy. 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.
It’s a 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 still remain. 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.
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 and have argued 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.
The 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.”
The Democrats’ Primary Calendar
Upending decades of political tradition, members of the Democratic National Committee have voted to approve a sweeping overhaul of the party’s primary 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 pre-primary 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.
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.
D.N.C. rules demand consequences for any state that operates outside the committee-approved early lineup. That state would risk losing delegates in the nomination process — New Hampshire, for instance, could go from 32 delegates to just 16 should it buck the lineup, which could make delegate-hunting contenders question the time investment.
Certainly, the New Hampshire primary has historically been more about building momentum and media attention than securing a large delegate prize. Even so, 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 for candidates 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 would 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.
Iowa Democrats argue that with significant hurdles still facing the new calendar, their state should be regarded as a safer bet to host an early contest.
“We now have a process with a whole lot of uncertainty and probably no clarity — no chance to even achieve some clarity — until June,” said Scott Brennan, a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee from Iowa. “You’ve turned the Mountain and Central time zones into flyover country for purposes of a presidential nominating calendar, and that’s just wrong.”
Iowa’s caucuses are deeply ingrained in the state’s political culture and even its dining culture, and voters are seasoned at probing politicians over fried treats at the state fair. But officials have acknowledged significant missteps with the caucus process last time and promised changes. Iowa Democrats have been more muted in their public pushback than their New Hampshire counterparts, but how they may proceed with the timing of their caucuses is an open question, Mr. Brennan said.
Meantime, Nevada, South Carolina and Michigan have met the committee’s requirements for holding early primaries, according to a letter from the leaders of the Rules and Bylaws Committee.
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 there 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 stepsto get that process underway.
Some Democrats have taken Mr. Biden’s hands-on interest in the calendar lineup as a sign that he plans to run for president again.
Mr. Clyburn said that recently, “I made it very clear to him that I’m very hopeful that he will run for re-election.”
Asked about Mr. Biden’s response, Mr. Clyburn replied, “he smiled.”
