Email page to a friend
	Printer-friendly version

Secretary of State Bill Gardner 

The Victory NH Interview
 

As the fight to protect New Hampshire's First in the Nation Primary heats up, we thought it was time to hear from the man who has protected this great American tradition for over 30 years. We are
proud to be joined by the man who inspired Victory NH's Protect our Primary Campaign...
New Hampshire's Secretary of State, Bill Gardner...

VNH: Let’s begin at the beginning. How did New Hampshire become “first in the nation”?

Gardner: New Hampshire came by its first in the nation status sort of by default. It wasn’t planned to be first. We came to be first because a small farmer from a small town, back in 1913, felt that he ought to have the right to vote for who would represent him and others in his party at the national convention, and that he ought to be able to have the chance to be a candidate for delegate to the national convention. So he put a bill in the Legislature that was passed by the House and Senate which was signed into law in 1913. This created a presidential primary in New Hampshire so that registered voters could all participate in the process of selecting delegates.
He set the date for the primary to be in May. Then, at the next Legislature meeting in 1915, a member of the House decided that it would be better if the primary was in March, rather than in May, because on the second Tuesday of March, New Hampshire traditionally had its town meeting day. So, since the towns were going to be meeting anyway, why not
have it at the same time? It was a little bit of Yankee frugality.

We didn’t become first in the nation until 1920, and only did so because Indiana (that had a primary a week earlier than New Hampshire in 1916) moved its primary to May rather than March; and Minnesota (that had a primary the same day as New Hampshire) decided to go back to having a caucus rather than a primary. So, New Hampshire became first in the nation.

Then, in the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s, many states that had primaries went back to caucuses because there had always been the conflict between the party leaders (who really liked to have the authority to pick the delegates themselves) and the average voter. So, because the turnout in a lot of states wasn’t very high, they were successful in arguing that it cost too much to have a primary; and that if people didn’t participate in high numbers, then why not let the party leaders have the authority? One state after another began to go back to a caucus format and, by the 60’s, the number of states holding a primary was in the teens. New Hampshire, however, kept it all those decades because of the unique political tradition in the state.

Consequently, when something grows naturally like this did in New Hampshire, it’s much stronger, and it turned out to be something much greater than what anyone ever expected. This is because the roots took hold slowly, and because the participation levels by the voters of this state are so high. Now, however, other states wish to sort of claim some of the notoriety that comes with having the First in the Nation Primary. And so, by the 1960’s, states started looking at ways to have a primary ahead of us, or on the same day as us, and we have had to react now for several decades to maintain our tradition.

VNH: Why is it important to the presidential selection process that we stay first?

Gardner: Because it has served the country well. We have this idea, embedded in our history, that the more people who can share the authority
in government, the better; the more voices that are part of this, the better. We have this tradition that allows for more of the voters who live in New Hampshire to have the opportunity to hold a public office, whether it’s at
the state level, the county level, or the town and city level; and we have frequent elections. We’re sort of always in election mode. We elect the Governor and the full House and Senate every two years. We have more positions at the town level than any other place in the country. This means when candidates come into this state, it’s a much different environment, because when you have run for office (and most people in New Hampshire either have run for an office, have held
an office, or someone in their family has run for or held office) you know what it’s like.

And with our town meetings, when neighbors get up and debate whether the town should buy a new fire truck or put an addition onto the library, there’s often disagreement, but that’s democracy. This state, because of its structure, defines how a democracy works. We have 400 New Hampshire House members, by far bigger than any other state. California would have to have over 12,000 members of the House of Representatives to equal the kind of representation that we have in our House of Representatives. This all lends to this unique political culture. When a candidate comes in, the people have an opportunity to size up the person - not only the person’s character, but where the person stands and the honesty and forthrightness of that person’s speech.

VNH: What do you say to those who believe New Hampshire isn’t diverse enough to truly represent the country?

Gardner: First of all, I’m not sure there is any state that represents the country, and there are a lot of categories that you can look at to determine whether a state represents the country or not. What is offensive to me is when we are told, somehow, we in New Hampshire are insensitive to the views of certain segments of the population of the country as a whole. I don’t agree with that. Our voters are not insensitive. The rap on New Hampshire is that our population is predominately white, and that is true. We have a very high percentage of white residents here, but that doesn’t mean that the people here are insensitive to the views of minority populations that are in this country, and that are in New Hampshire.

The first abolitionist U.S. senator to speak against slavery on the Senate floor was from New Hampshire. Several decades ago, Don Newcomb and Roy Campanella played minor league baseball for a team in Nashua. They had tried to play in the Illinois league, and were not allowed to, but came and played in New Hampshire. When Don Newcomb spoke in New Hampshire last year, he pointed out that Branch Rickey of the Brooklyn Dodgers used the precedent of both Newcomb and Campanella playing in New Hampshire as the basis for his decision to let Jackie Robinson play for the Dodgers. The way that people in New Hampshire treated those two individuals, and their experience playing ball, gave Branch Rickey the courage to say he was going to give Jackie Robinson a chance to play Major League Baseball. So, sometimes a state like New Hampshire can have a major influence, or any other state can have a major influence in someone else’s decision, based on an experience there.

I just don’t think that it’s right to say that we can justify eliminating a long standing tradition in a state because we don’t think the voters there are sensitive enough to the issues and concerns of the minority population. I don’t think that’s fair, and it goes against our own tradition of how we have responded to issues like that in the past.

VNH: Victory NH’s Protect Our Primary campaign began with the letter from you and Michael Chaney of the New Hampshire Political Library detailing the discussions between the staffs of the DNC and the RNC about working together to change the Primary calendar. Briefly tell our readers what your concern is about these discussions.

Gardner: Well in 2004, at the Democratic National Convention, the delegates passed a resolution establishing a commission to look into the nominating process schedule for the 2008 election. The report issued by that commission, contained statements that the staff of the DNC had been having discussions with staff members of the Republican National Committee, and that the RNC staff members were in basic agreement. Now, I’m paraphrasing what the report said, but that report is available, and it’s a matter of record that they were having these discussions and that there was sympathy being extended - sort of an agreement, in some regards, to what was being proposed by the commission that had been established by the Democrats.

VNH: And so if the two committees work together, what does that mean to New Hampshire’s position in the process?

Gardner: Well, I think it was more that it sort of gave cover to the DNC, that it wasn’t just going to be one Party taking a position that would be controversial because the other Party was also in some agreement with it. The position was that the tradition of New Hampshire and Iowa would be altered by diminishing their value.

VNH: The DNC also voted to punish any candidate who competes in states that violate the National Party’s calendar, by stripping them of some delegates won in those states. Some said that this is a violation of civil rights. Others have suggested it’s a violation of the first amendment. What do you believe this means to the presidential selection process?

Gardner: The Supreme Court has said that the Parties do have the right to determine the delegate selection, and so the Parties also have the right to come up with rules about how the delegates will be selected. And there has been, over the years, a struggle there between who has the ultimate authority: the state or the Party. And, when it comes to delegate selection, the National Party has the right to decide. Ultimately it’s the delegates at the national convention that will decide who can be there and who can’t. So, even if the states pay for this nominating process, they might pay the bill for the ballots that get viewed; but, if the Party is in disagreement with that, the delegates may not be honored. And we’ve had situations in the past where one party did not agree with the date of a primary and threatened to not let the delegates from New Hampshire be part of the national convention. However, before the convention took place, cooler heads prevailed, and the delegates were allowed to be part of the convention.

VNH: Many folks seem to think that now that the DNC has voted to place a caucus in Nevada between the New Hampshire Primary and the Iowa Caucus, the battle is over. As you’ve explained, we now have to wait to see how other states react. What happens next with the Legislatures in each state, and how do their decisions effect your decision in enforcing our state law?

Gardner: In some states, it’s the State Legislature that decides if there will be a primary and when it will be; and the state pays for the cost of the primary. In some states, it’s the Party that makes the decision (and the primary is run by and paid for by the party, not the state). In those states, sometimes it’s the Party Chairs that pick the date, or it’s the committee that picks the date. In some states, where the Legislature has decided the issue, it could be the Governor, or it could be the Secretary of State that picks when it will be. In some cases, the Secretary of State picks who gets on the ballot and who doesn’t get on the ballot.

We typically see (in the Winter before a presidential election year) states jockeying for position. Sometimes a group of states will decide to hold either caucuses or primaries or both on the same day; or a state will just do it independently of other states. If it’s not the Legislature, a Party Chair will just pick when the state will have its nominating event. So it’s different all across the country. What happens in New Hampshire is that we will wait and see what the other states decide to do, and then we will decide what needs to be done to preserve our tradition.

VNH: One question we’ve been getting from folks outside New Hampshire is: since there is already a caucus before our primary, why does it matter if they add another caucus?

Gardner: The decision about that will be made later in 2007. It is pretty likely there will be one or more states involved in this frontloading. It’s
not just the DNC placing a state within a few days of us (before or after), but the action of other states. New Hampshire has had its tradition now since 1920, and never took it from anyone else. We’re absolutely determined to protect it, and we will. So if that means having our primary on a date other than the date the DNC would like us to, we’re going to have it at a time that does protect the tradition — even if that means it happens in 2007. This has happened before, and we’re going to honor the tradition, and that’s the way it’s going to be.

VNH: So it’s not the kind of event, it’s any event that dishonors our tradition? It doesn’t matter if it’s a primary or a caucus?

Gardner: It’s not that we demand to have the first event, whatever that might be. It’s that we are going to have our primary, according to Representative Jim Splaine’s law, seven or more days ahead of any other state that has a similar election. And, at the time we need to set the date, it will be determined if there will be a similar election that will trigger our law to move ahead so that we comply with the required seven or more days, and keep our tradition.

VNH: It seems that with every election cycle there is more and more frontloading of the process. How did this begin and what has it led to?

Gardner: The invention of television is what led other states to notice what New Hampshire had been doing for over half a century. With more and more people watching the candidates coming here, they started asking, “Why can’t we sort of be like them?” “Why can’t we have something like what they’ve had all these years?” That led to New Hampshire further being a victim of its own success. A lot of other states wanted to do something the way New Hampshire did, and that led to the beginning of frontloading.

In 1971, the Legislature in Florida passed a law that said the Florida Primary would be on the same day as New Hampshire. The representatives in Florida at the time were saying, “Where do you think the candidates would rather be in December, January and February?” They figured this would be a good way to steal some of New Hampshire’s thunder and get some of the attention that we get. And ever since then more and more states have moved up. In 1984, there was a southern regional primary and you had a lot of states then moving up to early March. Then between 1996 and 2000, a lot of states moved up into February for the first time.

The Republicans, at their convention in 1996, tried to spread out the process by moving the beginning date earlier. Though the Republicans have never had a beginning date until the 1996 Convention, the Democrats had a beginning date in early March, except for Iowa and New Hampshire. In 1996, at the Republican Convention, Republicans, for the first time, set a
starting date for caucuses and primaries, and they set it for the first week of February. They said, however, that any state that had a long standing tradition would not be asked to forgo its tradition and move the date. So, between 1996 and 2000, a number of states had just Republican events in February, and this made Democrats in those states feel that they had lost out. They didn’t get the kind of attention that the other Party had gotten. They asked that the DNC go along with moving the starting date for the Democrats to early February, and that’s what happened for the Democrats after 2000. That’s why, in 2004, there were a number of Democratic Party Primaries in February.

The Republicans were trying to elongate the time, so that it could be spread out more and you wouldn’t have 10 or 15 events all on the same day. The candidates would have a chance to get to a place, campaign, meet with people; but it didn’t quite end up working that way. Often times when you make these kinds of changes, you have unintended consequences. What happened is that by moving it up by a month instead of spreading it out, it actually got more states to move up early. That’s frontloading, and that’s what’s been going on now for 3 decades. And every cycle, it seems like they’re attempting to spread it out and get rid of some of the frontloading, but you
end up with just the opposite.

What is being proposed by the DNC now, is that there be four states in January that will be allowed on the Democratic side, and we haven’t heard how many individual states are going to want to move up and join those four states in January. The last time, in 2004, we were in January, and who knows where we’re going to end up this time. No one knows at this point. We have to continue moving up to preserve the tradition that we have here and to follow our state law. So that means that if another state is to move up, we’ll move up.

VNH: Over the years you have spoken to candidates who have both won and lost the New Hampshire Primary. What have they told you about their experience campaigning here?

Gardner: Many more candidates have lost than have won. We’ve had over
60 candidates in just one presidential primary cycle, and we typically have between 30 and 50 candidates on the ballot. So, one wins from each party, but many, many more lose. You would think that those who have lost would not be very fond of New Hampshire; that the voters here may not have been able to tell that they had more leadership potential, or a number of reasons that the voters missed not selecting them to be the winner of the primary. But the experience has been just the opposite. The candidates who have not won here are strong supporters of the tradition and the process, as much so as those who have won, and over and over talk about how the experience was so different than it was in other places once they left New Hampshire.

There are some things in life that you have to experience because you would tend never to believe them unless you experience them. And someone can tell you over and over, “Oh you know you should do this because of this, because of this, because of this.” But then when you experience something, you say to yourself, “Wow! Now I understand why.” It’s sort of that way with the Primary here. If you look at it from afar, and, sort of, in an academic sense, you’d just say, “Well this can’t be right because this is just a small state. Why do they have this over and over again? It isn’t fair.” But those who have been part of this, who have come here from afar and actually witnessed it, and experienced it, watched it, have been part of it; leave with a much different attitude about it, because it is all we say it is.

VNH: What makes this such a unique experience?

Gardner: New Hampshire is a unique place, and it’s because of the political culture that exists here. Those who come here see that it’s still that old-fashioned, traditional, grassroots style of campaigning — it’s looking a person in the eyes, shaking a person’s hand, having the ability to ask a question yourself. I’ve had people say to me, “We can just replicate it, you know. We’ll have a big turn out if you give us the opportunity to have what you have. We’ll be just like you.” I look at it a little differently, that, yes, they might be able to increase the turnout of theirs, but it’s like a tree that grows in a forest - that tree grew from a nut that fell from another tree. It grew slowly, and the roots developed over time, slowly, and it turned into something that was much bigger and better than what anyone had imagined; versus taking a twenty foot sapling and planting it on a main street, or a number of them along main street, because it’s artificial, and never grows the same because it’s not natural. The Primary is here because it’s natural that it be here, because of the way it was created many years ago, and the way that it grew. It was never planned to be first, it was never intended for the money. It was simply to let as many voices be part of this as possible, which is the way that the state began in the first place. That’s why we have a 400 member House, so more people have the opportunity to be part of the self-governing process. That is unique here and it makes it different. So that’s why it has worked, because it’s not artificial. And that’s why those who experience it and take part in it have a different feeling once they have experienced it.

VNH: Finally, you’ve been very helpful and supportive of our Protect Our Primary campaign. If there was one thing that activists around the state should communicate to the presidential candidates of both Parties who come here, what would it be?

Gardner: It would be that we care deeply about the tradition of our First in the Nation Primary, and that the structure of the way we govern ourselves in this state is such that it
lends itself to a lot of voices to share authority in government. We are going to do whatever needs to be done to protect the tradition and we would hope that the candidates would stand with us to honor that tradition.

To learn more about the fight to protect
New Hampshire's First in the Nation Primary...

Click here to watch John McCain Defend the NH Primary

Here to hear Newt Gingrich's National Radio Commentary

Here for an exclusive essay from John McCain

Here to watch Hillary Clinton Defend the NH Primary

Here for an exclusive essay from Rudy Giuliani

Here to join Victory NH's Primary Defenders

And here to visit The New Hampshire Political Library

Home | Join the Campaign | About Us | Donate | Photos & Videos

Victory NH — 497 Hooksett Road, #162, Manchester, NH 03104 — 603-624-8253 — VictoryNewHampshire@VictoryNH.com
Copyright © 2008 by Victory New Hampshire