By WILLIAM MARCH The Tampa Tribune

Published: Sep 26, 2007

TAMPA - If you've been following the news about the Florida presidential primary, you may have asked yourself: How did we get in this mess?

The "mess" is that Florida's Democratic presidential primary may not count because the state may not be allowed any delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

Democratic candidates, meanwhile, said they plan to boycott Florida starting Saturday.

On the Republican side, the impact of primary votes may be diluted because Florida may lose half its delegates to the Republican National Convention.

Here are some answers as to how this came about.

Don't the Constitution or federal law control primaries?

No. They spell out how to elect a president, but not how to choose the nominees.

The result: A hodgepodge system that developed over the years based on tradition, political maneuvering, unintended consequences and sheer accident.

National political parties set their own rules for choosing nominees and running their national conventions, and state parties choose their delegates to the convention.

State governments decide whether or when they hold primary elections.

Usually, the outcome of the primary election determines how the state party chooses its delegates to the convention, and those delegates then vote at the convention for the winning candidate. But in some states, including Florida, the state party may instead choose delegates based on a caucus or some other method.

In any case, the delegates' convention votes actually pick the nominee.

Why are the political parties trying to tell Florida when it can hold its primary?

That's not exactly what they're doing, although it's close.

Both national parties have rules intended to discourage states from holding primaries before Feb. 5, 2008. But the parties don't control Florida's primary - the state Legislature voted last spring to hold it Jan. 29.

The parties' rules actually concern selection of national convention delegates. They apply penalties - loss of half of more of the delegates - if a state party chooses its delegates based on a primary or caucus held before Feb. 5.

The Democrats, but not the Republicans, allow exceptions for four "early states": Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

Why those four states?

Iowa and New Hampshire are the traditional early states, New Hampshire with the nation's first primary and Iowa with the first caucus. Both are small states where candidates campaign in person before small groups, instead of on TV. Some political experts say that results in better informed voters.

Nevada and South Carolina were added because they're also small, and the Democrats hoped to give more influence to minority voters - Hispanics in Nevada, blacks in South Carolina.

Why do the parties care about primary dates?

States have been moving their primary dates earlier and earlier, making the campaigns longer and more expensive. Many people don't like that.

Why do states want their primaries to be early?

Candidates who win early primaries get momentum. Therefore candidates cater to early states, promising them and their political leaders benefits.

One example often cited is the ethanol subsidy program, sustained by presidential candidates who support it in order to win favor in Iowa, a corn state.

Florida leaders want a national catastrophe fund for hurricanes, and limits on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and the Everglades. That's part of the reason the Legislature voted to move Florida's primary to Jan. 29.

How did Iowa and New Hampshire get to be the "traditional early states"?

By accident.

New Hampshire's early primary date originally was chosen to coincide with town meetings held in early March, when roads would still be frozen, not muddy, and farmers could get to town.

Iowa chose an early date for its precinct caucuses in 1972 because of its state convention schedule.

Both states found that the early dates made them the center of attention, and liked it.

They've since passed laws requiring that their events remain the earliest in the nation.

Couldn't the candidates just ignore the early primaries?

Yes, and sometimes they do, but it's a risk. A competing candidate may campaign hard, win, and get the momentum.

So what happened to Florida?

Florida Democrats could have avoided the national party's penalty by finding another way besides the primary to choose their convention delegates, such as a caucus or direct-mail ballot, as long as it was held on or after Feb. 5.

But the state party decided this week to stick with the primary. The reasons:

•The party doesn't have the millions a statewide caucus or mail ballot would cost. A small-scale caucus, involving only a few thousand party activists, would be affordable but undemocratic, state party leaders believe.

•The Jan. 29 primary vote will be held regardless of how delegates are chosen - the Legislature has said so. After the bitter controversy over uncounted votes in the 2000 presidential election, Florida Democrats don't want the Jan. 29 election to seem not to count.

State Republicans also are sticking by the primary.

As result, the national Democratic Party has voted to eliminate the Florida convention delegation, and Republicans face loss of half their delegation.

In addition, Democratic Party leaders in the four early states asked the Democratic candidates to sign a pledge to boycott any state that violates the national party rules. Not wanting to alienate the crucial early states - particularly Iowa, where the race is close - the leading candidates agreed.

Republican legislators who favored the Jan. 29 date said they're happy to accept the penalties in return for the increased influence of an early primary. Republican candidates are campaigning hard here, ardently seeking the favor of state party leaders.

What happens next?

Both national parties will issue final rulings on the state convention delegations - the Democrats on Saturday and the Republicans by Dec. 31.

Florida Republicans say they'll fight sanctions. But ultimately, the rulings may not matter.

Most experts think one candidate in each party will win enough delegates before the convention to become the clear winner - the "presumptive nominee." That candidate will take over convention planning, and probably will seat the Florida delegates.

Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates' boycott starts Saturday, with the national party ruling, and remains in effect until the Jan. 29 primary.

And the whole thing may go to court.

Florida's Democratic U.S. senator, Bill Nelson, who has been trying to find a compromise, said Tuesday that he's giving up and filing a lawsuit. Two Tampa Democrats have already filed a federal lawsuit claiming the sanctions violate their voting rights and asking a judge to straighten things out.

What if there's no "presumptive nominee" in one or both parties?

Convention floor fights and brokered nominations are possible.

At least five states, and probably six or more, face loss of Republican delegates - the four early states, plus Florida and Michigan, which has also voted to move its primary date to before Feb. 5. That could be enough to change the outcome.

Florida Republicans have announced they'll fight to seat their full delegation. If the other states do the same, a convention battle over credentials could decide the nomination.

Florida and Michigan face loss of their full Democratic delegations, which also could affect the nomination outcome.

Is anyone trying to fix this mess?

Yes. There have been many proposals over the years for federal laws establishing national primary systems, but some worry that reforms would bring problems or unintended consequences of their own.

One of the latest proposals is backed by Nelson: a system of regional primaries held on six election dates between March and June, with states rotating into the early spots.

Reporter William March can be reached at (813) 259-7761 or wmarch@tampatrib.com.

A few key dates in the development of the U.S. primary system:

Before the 1830s - Presidential candidates are chosen by caucuses of Congress members.

1824 - The congressional caucus nominating system breaks down in the hotly contested 1824 election. In the 1830s, a system of nomination by national party conventions evolves.

Late 1800s - Political bosses' domination of national conventions spurs calls for reform. The Progressive Movement presses for primary elections.

1901 - Florida passes the nation's first legislation allowing parties to elect delegates to their national conventions through primaries, but makes it optional.

1910 - Oregon becomes the first state to require party primaries to choose national convention delegates and require delegates to vote according to the primary outcome.

1912 - Theodore Roosevelt wins nine of 12 Republican primaries in a challenge to incumbent President William HowardTaft. Taft engineers a nomination win at the convention but loses the general election. This dramatizes the claim that primaries reflect the will of the people.

1916 - New Hampshire decides that its primary date will coincide with its statewide town meeting day, the second Tuesday in March, chosen so roads would still be frozen before mud season and farmers could get to town. This originates New Hampshire's "first-in-the-nation" presidential primary.

1917 - Twenty-five states now have laws allowing presidential primaries, but reform zeal dies during the Depression and World War era.

1952 - A New Hampshire primary win vaults Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower to GOP front-runner status, even though he is still posted in Europe. He eventually wins the hotly contested nomination and the presidency.

1960 - John F. Kennedy enters and wins seven Democratic primaries including New Hampshire, helping overcome questions about whether a Catholic is electable. This helps shape the modern campaign strategy of gathering momentum with early primary wins.

1968 - Anti-Vietnam War candidate Eugene McCarthy's close second place to sitting President Johnson in New Hampshire helps persuade Johnson not to seek another term. The acrimonious Democratic primary battle and convention, inflamed by the Vietnam War controversy, spurs more calls for reform. More states switch from caucuses to primaries.

1972 - Iowa keeps its caucus, but to comply with new Democratic Party reform rules, it must move the start of its caucus process, the precinct caucuses, to early January. Iowa thus joins the other "first-in-the-nation" state, New Hampshire.

1988 - Twenty states, mostly Southern and including Florida, set their primaries for March 8, then an early date, hoping they can force nomination of a moderate Democrat. It doesn't work; Al Gore and Jesse Jackson split the Southern vote, and Michael Dukakis gets the nomination. But it accelerates the trend of states moving up primary dates to influence the nominations.

1999 - Faced with an onslaught of states moving up, New Hampshire passes a law requiring that its primary be a week or more before any other primary. Iowa has similar laws.

2006 - Seeking to control the primary calendar, Democrats adopt rules saying no state can choose its 2008 national convention delegates based on a primary or caucus held before Feb. 5, 2008. Republicans already had adopted a similar rule. Democrats allow four exceptions: traditional early states Iowa and New Hampshire plus Nevada and South Carolina to increase minority influence.

May - The Florida Legislature moves up its presidential primary date to Jan. 29, setting the stage for conflicts with both national political parties.

September - Florida faces sanctions from both national parties because the state parties say they intend to choose national convention delegates based on the too-early Jan. 29 primary. U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., says he will sue to overturn the sanctions.

Compiled by Tribune research; Sources: "Presidential Primaries and the Caucus-Convention System," by James W. Davis; "Presidential Primaries and Nominations," by William Crotty and John S. Jackson III; New Hampshire Political Library ( www.politicallibrary.org); "A Brief History of the Iowa Caucuses," University of Iowa ( www.uiowa.edu/election/history); political scientist John Belohlavek, University of South Florida