The Democrats have been trying to shuffle the order of primaries for some time now. The early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire give those states disproportionate clout in picking nominees. One of the biggest objections Democrats have to this is the states are "too white." Now they propose to penalize candidates who campaign in states (New Hampshire is the only one affected) who fail to follow the DNC schedule.

Jim Kuhnhenn reports on the flap for the Associated Press:

The Democratic Party is moving to enforce its rules in the battle between states over who goes first in the presidential primaries, taking aim at candidates in case the states themselves won't go along with the party's rejuggled 2008 schedule.

New Hampshire, with its traditional first-in-the-nation primary, says it's not going to worry about "a handful of Washington insiders."

A change recommended Friday by the party's rules and bylaws committee would deny national convention delegates to any presidential candidate who campaigns in a state that leapfrogs its primary over others.

The tough stance is part of a proposed overhaul of party rules to change the decades-long tradition of keeping Iowa and New Hampshire at the starting gate of presidential nomination voting. The new party plan would insert Nevada between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary and give South Carolina greater influence by scheduling its primary a week after New Hampshire.

Read it all at link above.

Since South Carolina is already next after NH, and is simply moving up a week, the ONLY real change is the insertion of Nevada caucuses ahead of the New Hampshire primary.

All this fuss to provide "more input for minorities"? Nevada isn't as "lily white" as Iowa and New Hampshire are - but it's close, with half the black population of the national average.

UPDATE - CORRECTION 11:46 p.m. 19 Aug 06: As reader kgb999 notes in the comments below, while their black population is below the national average, with nearly 20% Hispanics and 8% other races, the state exceeds national averages in those categories, so Nevada is indeed a "more diverse" population than either Iowa or New Hampshire, and does offer "more input for minorities." I stand corrected on the point.

The strong-arm tactics of penalizing candidates for campaigning seems a bit tough on First Amendment rights, but Democrats seldom worry about such niceties unless they can use them against political opponents. Perhaps the bullying by the DNC will be enough to tilt New Hampshire back into the Republican column.

UPDATE: It's apparently almost a done deal according to AP, check the link. I love this quote:

Others complain that the added contests in Nevada and South Carolina so front-load the nomination process that the party's nominee could be determined by the beginning of February, before most states even get a chance to vote.

"You're ceding authority to those four states," said Kathleen Sullivan, the chairman of the Democratic Party in New Hampshire and a member of the DNC's rules committee.

See, it was no problem when it was ONLY New Hampshire . . . but "sharing the power" is somehow undemocratic. Curious. The article also quotes Drake University Poli-Sci Prof. Dennis Goldford as speculating the new schedule might INCREASE Iowa's influence. Under the old rules, he suggests, candidates had a couple of weeks to recover from a gaffe or stumble in the campaign, whereas now the slightest miscue could derail them on the tightened docket.