Ignoring threatened sanctions by the national Democratic Party, Florida jumped their primary forward to January 29th in a move which could reignite the rush to earlier dates, which states perceive as increasing their influence on the eventual nominees. Rachel Kapochunas of Congressional Quarterly has the story:

Florida officials are going ahead with their plans to jump the line in the already front-loaded presidential nominating process, moving legislation that will set Jan. 29 as its 2008 primary date -- and daring penalties threatened by national Democratic and Republican party officials who are trying to restrain all but a small handful of states from holding their events before Feb. 5.

The bill rescheduling the Florida primary from its original date in March, cleared by the state legislature Thursday, now awaits a promised signature from Republican Gov. Charlie Crist.

"With an earlier presidential primary, Florida will now take its rightful place near the front of the line in determining the next leader of the free world," Crist said in a statement Thursday.

The rush of states to the front of the primary and caucus calendar has been occurring in stages over a couple of decades, but has accelerated as the nation approaches a rare presidential election in 2008 that is void of an heir apparent for either party's nomination.

Read the whole article at the above link.

The only solution to this must be compromise, else competing states will simply keep moving their own contests earlier and earlier. As the article notes, New Hampshire and Iowa are already making contingency plans to move their contests to December of 2007 if necessary.

The parties threaten sanctions - the current Democratic punishments are the most drastic ever - but they are NEVER enforced, so states properly view such empty bluster for what it is. The national parties aren't going to risk losing a key state over something so picayune.

My proposal is: allow NH, Iowa, South Carolina, and Nevada to keep their early dates. For the rest, rotate them every cycle. Every other state will then have some years when they vote early and have what is now considered to be disproportionate influence on the race, some years when they vote a little later or very much later, and some years when they vote near the last. Over time, every state except the first four will come out exactly even.

So, then, why should those four be special?

Remember, this is a proposed compromise. No compromise which doesn't protect New Hampshire's "first in the nation primary" will be accepted there - PERIOD - and likewise for Iowa's caucuses. South Carolina's primary has been early for a long time now, too, and adding Nevada gives us one state in each of four regions of the country, each of which has a smaller population and cheaper media market than the larger states. Candidates actually have to meet the voters and attend small events in those states. We entrust those voters with helping us winnow out those who don't live up to their resumes, and finding those "dark horse" candidates who could never be heard in a big state.

If the rest of the states accepted the rotation principle, the problem would be solved. If they won't, it is difficult to imagine what sort of compromise would ever prove acceptable to all.