Oxford Analytica 08.31.07, 6:00 AM ET
State governments that unilaterally moved their 2008 presidential primaries to earlier dates will be penalized, the Republican National Committee has announced.
While the 2008 presidential contest is a federal election, the process is implemented at the state level and is monitored by state officials. This arrangement has been increasingly fraught, as states jockey to maximize their political influence through primary scheduling, and concerns about partisan bias in state election administration increase.
Global media outlets overwhelmingly focus on the national implications of U.S. elections, particularly during presidential campaign cycles. However, the constitutional structure of the U.S. federal system means that the individual states are responsible for administering elections and are the main venues for the presidential campaign.
Presidential hopefuls from the two major parties must gain nomination through a grueling primary and caucus process at the state level.
Rules vary widely form state to state, concerning almost every aspect of the process (apart from certain campaign finance rules regulated by the Federal Election Commission), including voter eligibility, filing deadlines, nomination rules and laws on advertising and political contributions.
The U.S. Constitution's Electoral College system, which ultimately determines the outcome of presidential elections, is state-based.
States may alter the dates of their primaries and caucus votes to increase their influence over the presidential nomination process. Therefore, idiosyncratic state regulations and administrations can have a decisive impact on the outcome of presidential elections--as the 2000 Florida debacle illustrated.
This state-based system has become increasingly controversial. State officials, "secretaries of state," who administer elections often have conflicts of interest. They are usually permitted to assume active political roles and party affiliations, such as chairing a national candidate's state election campaign organization, despite their concurrent responsibility to ensure electoral probity.
Time limits seldom dictate when these state officials may accept positions with lobbying firms. Moreover, the "revolving door" between the voting-machinery industry and the election administration sector, now much diluted at the federal level, thrives in the states.
These problematic issues cannot be easily disentangled from the U.S. constitutional framework. In the federal system it embodies, states predominate on policymaking where appropriate.
The Constitution dictates that power resides with state governments unless explicitly stated otherwise. Both the political activity of state election officials and the Electoral College are a consequence of this arrangement.
Perhaps the most important expression of state influence over the national parties' presidential nominations is the power to set the date for their own primaries and caucuses. This power has become increasingly significant, as states' efforts to maximize their influence over presidential candidate selection often leads to revised primary dates.
The 2008 election now faces a new federal restriction, in which many of the most populous and influential states will hold primaries over a two-week period in late January and early February. These first primaries may decide the nomination.
South Carolina Republicans have just moved the date of their primary forward from February 2008 to mid-January in order to preserve its status as the ''first in the South." New Hampshire and Iowa are considering similar moves.
Increasingly fractious state attempts to compete for influence over the nomination process, and the resultant public uneasiness, have spurred proposals to modify the way such votes are conducted. There is widespread discontent with the rules of an electoral game that often privileges relatively small numbers of voters in certain key states.
Several states have enacted laws imposing certain limits on the political activity of election officials. Such legislation has passed in Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado and Ohio.
To read an extended version of this article, log on to Oxford Analytica's Web site.
Oxford Analytica is an independent strategic-consulting firm drawing on a network of more than 1,000 scholar experts at Oxford and other leading universities and research institutions around the world. For more information, please visit www.oxan.com. To find out how to subscribe to the firm's Daily Brief Service, click here. 
2008 Race Comes Down To The States
