“First in the Nation”: An Analysis of New Hampshire’s Role in the Presidential Primary

• In Event: State and Local Politics

Abstract

Since 1979, the State of New Hampshire has required by law that both major political parties hold their presidential primaries at least one week before any other state in the nation. In 2023, that law was challenged by a decision of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to make South Carolina “first in the nation.” This decision created logistical and legal challenges for New Hampshire and for the Democratic Party, drew significant input from the media and public, and begged that we consider whether New Hampshire is the best place to officially begin a presidential campaign (notwithstanding the Iowa caucus). So, in this paper, we ask the following question: Moving forward, should New Hampshire keep its “first in the nation” status? Prior to conducting our research in full and based in media coverage, we believed that New Hampshire demographics lacked enough diversity to warrant its status as “the state that picks the presidential candidate.” Therefore, our hypothesis was that the Granite State was not the best place for the presidential primaries to begin. Upon an examination of the history of New Hampshire’s role in presidential primaries, an assessment of party politics, an exploration of the state’s political culture, a comparison of its political climate to other states that hold early primaries, and an evaluation of the statistics of those 2024 primaries, we conclude that New Hampshire should remain the first state to hold presidential primary elections.

Author

• Jillian Auditori, Elon University