New Hampshire will hold its 2012 general election primary on Jan. 10, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner announced Wednesday in a press conference at the state capitol building. Because Florida moved up its primary to Jan. 31, the New Hampshire date change allows the Granite State whose primary was originally scheduled for Feb. 14 to retain its prized status as the host of the nation's first presidential primary, WMUR reported.
The New Hampshire primary will now be held seven days after the Iowa caucus, and will be followed by the South Carolina primary on Jan. 21. The date choice was made possible by Nevada's decision to push its caucus to Feb. 4 amid pressure from candidates and other Republican leaders, according to CBS News. New Hampshire state law mandates that a primary occurs at least seven days before the next nominating contest, CBS News reported.
Gardner's announcement elicited general relief and enthusiasm from New Hampshire citizens and politicians, according to those interviewed by The Dartmouth.
"Overall, maintaining the history of New Hampshire as first in the nation is of huge value, and once again the secretary of state has protected that status, which is good for us and good for the nation," State Senator Sylvia Larsen, D-Concord, said in an interview with The Dartmouth.
Shifting the date to early January has definite implications for New Hampshire politics and specific Republican presidential candidates such as Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas, and businessman Herman Cain who entered the presidential race later than their competitors, according to government professor Linda Fowler.
"They just have one less month to raise money and campaign, something that's particularly meaningful in New Hampshire where retail politics are very important," Fowler said.
The Jan. 10 date is less controversial than earlier proposals to hold the primary in mid-December, which would have represented a major timeline shift and could have had serious ramifications for New Hampshire in future, according to Fowler.
"Mid-December would have been catastrophic for the state because it would mean that the candidates would just not be able to come to New Hampshire," Fowler said. "Maybe it wouldn't matter as much for this year because they've already been here, but in future years they may neglect it, and the primary would become an event that is newsworthy but not a major event."
Maintaining the first primary is also crucial for New Hampshire in terms of national recognition, tradition, voters' involvement and the financial impact on the hospitality and public relations industries, according to Fowler.
Despite the obstacles it would have posed for candidates and businesses, a December primary date would still have been beneficial for the state, according to Larsen.
"I think it's always worth it to be first in the nation," she said. "It would make it tougher on our state and it would be really unfortunate, but it would be worth it because in New Hampshire, politics is what we enjoy first."
Although New Hampshire has finalized its primary date for this election cycle, the date will likely remain "in the air" in the future as states continue to vie for their primary to be first in the nation in hopes of exerting more influence on election outcomes, both Larsen and Fowler said.
"Part of the problem is that national parties can't really impose penalties on states like Florida, because it is such a swing state that they never bring down the full sanctions," she said. "It's also an example of federalism, in that a national event like this is subject to the rivalries and jealousies of the individual state."
The decision to move up the primary date echoes a similar move in 2008, when New Hampshire shifted the date of its primary by nearly one month in response to several states' decisions to advance the dates of their respective nominating contests, according to The Eagle Tribune, which serves Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
