First in the Nation: An Exploration of the 2024 Democratic Primary Process

Announced on Tuesday, April 13th, the Democratic National Committee will officially begin the process of reviewing the order in which states will hold their primaries to nominate the Democratic candidate for president. Any potential changes will take effect beginning in 2024. This decision holds the potential to shake the grip that states like Iowa and New Hampshire have had on national politics for decades. In fact, this decision is so deeply baked into presidential politics that both Iowa and New Hampshire have passed laws that require their contests to be held first.

As the Democratic Party has grown, its base has become increasingly diverse, drawing support across a multi-racial coalition that sees itself less and less in states like Iowa and New Hampshire. The DNC is inviting every state to apply and make their case for why they should be first. States have until June 3rd to make their formal applications for consideration.

Priorities for the party include electoral diversity, population size, and electoral history. By evaluating each state’s diversity, size, and partisan lean, it’s possible to calculate which states might end up at the front of the pack for the 2024 primary cycle.

The unraveling of the established primary order began back in 2020 when the Iowa caucuses failed to declare a winner days after the contest had concluded. Iowa state Democratic Party Chairman Troy Prince resigned just a week later in lieu of the debacle. It didn’t help that multiple states had recently shifted away from caucusing, casting a dark shadow over the state’s nomination process.

Caucuses have been criticized as being a major time commitment, leaving much of the electorate out of the decision-making process. This especially affects those who can’t afford to pay for childcare, as caucuses can last for an hour or more. On the latter issue, however, Elizabeth Warren’s campaign notably provided free childcare for some caucus-goers in Iowa city.

For a state that is 85% White and that voted for Donald Trump by over 8% in 2020, its caucus problem only adds to an increasingly long list of reasons why Democratic voters, and now party insiders want to see it get booted from the top spot.

New Hampshire, on the other hand, is criticized for its smaller size and similarly white demographics. While it has historically held the first primary (not caucus), its status is similarly threatened if advocates for a diverse slate of states have their way.

If Iowa and New Hampshire have had their time in the coveted first spots, who should replace them? California and Texas come to the minds of many for their racial diversity, but running campaigns in large states is expensive and can drain a candidate of the funds necessary to go up against the Republican nominee in the general election. But, pick too small of a state and a handful of voters end up with an outsized voice in choosing the nominee.

If we had to guess what might be at the top of the list of priorities for the DNC, monetary concerns are certainly a strong contender. This means that the likelihood of seeing New York, Texas, or California at the beginning of the primary schedule is unlikely. Rather, it’s much more likely that mid-sized states will be going first in 2024.

So, which states could we see launching the 2024 primary cycle?

I took the time to evaluate each state based on a series of qualifications. Each state (plus Washington, D.C.) was evaluated on its population size, racial diversity, and electoral competitiveness. The demographic data comes from the US Census bureau following the 2020 census, while I measured electoral competitiveness using the results from the 2020 presidential election. I have to stress that my personal evaluation is rudimentary, and many states possess other characteristics that might make them a good option for an early primary state.

As I evaluated the states, I first looked at population size. An “ideal” zone exists where states are neither too big nor too small. States with a population between 2.5 and 6.9 million would be awarded six points toward their final score (more on that later). States whose populations were outside of the ideal range were awarded progressively fewer points (four, two, and zero, respectively).

The results from this first category look like this:

States like Alabama, Colorado, and Oregon fall within the ideal zone, while states like California, Vermont, New York, and Wyoming struck out with zero points in this category for being too big or too small.

Next, I looked at the racial diversity of each state. Racial and ethnic diversity will be a key quality for any state hoping to launch the primary calendar. In order to measure a state’s diversity, each state’s racial makeup was measured against the overall average. This meant that an “ideally diverse” state would be ~68% White, ~12% Black, ~12% Hispanic/Latino, ~5% Asian, and 2% Native American (or better). In this category, each state could earn up to 3* points for each demographic group for a total score of 15*.

*states that vastly exceeded the average of any demographic could earn one bonus point per demographic group, bringing the total potential score up to 20.

Here’s what the states’ scores in this category look like:

Unsurprisingly, states like California, Florida, Georgia, and New York scored very high in this category while Iowa and New Hampshire did not. The state with the highest score was New York, at 18 points.

It’s important to note that both Iowa and New Hampshire scored low on the racial diversity index, scoring 3 and 2 respectively. South Carolina fared better, scoring 9. Nevada performed the best, scoring 15 points.

Finally, I looked at how competitive each state was in the 2020 election. States that were won or lost by up to a 3% margin earned 3 points, while states that exceeded a 9% margin earned 0 points. States that were won or lost by more than 15% lost one point.

This is what electoral competitiveness looked like:

Now that each state has been evaluated in all three categories, their scores can be tallied up. This gives us an idea of which states might make the best early primary states. The maximum possible score was 29, however, anything at or above 24 is considered “perfect”. The states that scored the highest were:

1. Nevada (24 Points)
2. Arizona & Georgia(21 Points)
3. New Jersey, North Carolina, & Virginia (20 Points)
4. Maryland, Texas, & Washington (19 Points)

The states that scored the lowest were:

1. Vermont (0 Points)
2. North Dakota, South Dakota, & West Virginia (3 Points)
3. Wyoming (4 Points)
4. Maine & Montana (5 Points)

A map of every state’s final scores:

Needless to say, a primary calendar that includes the likes of Georgia and Arizona at its beginning would speak to the increasing power that diverse voters—especially Black voters, have within the Democratic Party. Should the Democratic Party shake off both Iowa and New Hampshire, it’s safe to say that this would energize voters in key states that are increasingly necessary for Democratic candidates to win the White House.

Each state is free to make its case to the DNC in the coming weeks, but based on these metrics, there are clearly some ideal choices and some less than ideal.

There’s a tough battle ahead if Democrats are serious about scrapping either Iowa or New Hampshire from the beginning of the calendar. Both states have been holding the first contests for decades. Iowa’s first year kicking off the calendar was in 1972, while New Hampshire has technically been first since 1920. Will New Hampshire’s hundredth year in the coveted first spot have been its last? Only time will tell.