Skip to main content

South Carolina picked by DNC panel to hold Democrats’ first 2028 presidential primary

(CNN) — South Carolina is poised to remain the first Democratic presidential primary state after securing a key panel’s recommendation, a move that will maintain Black voters’ prominent position on the calendar.

Friday’s vote capped off months of aggressive organizing by Nevada, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Iowa, all of which were seeking the coveted first-in-the-nation spot for 2028. The states’ party leaders and allies lobbied members of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws panel as it considered which states it would allow to hold primaries before Super Tuesday.

The panel voted to allow South Carolina to hold its primary first on January 22, followed by Nevada on February 1, New Hampshire on February 8, New Mexico on February 15, Michigan on February 22 and Virginia on February 29, before the other states are allowed to hold contests starting with Super Tuesday on March 7.

The full DNC will consider the RBC’s proposed slate at its August meeting.

In recent days it became clear that the panel was split between giving Nevada and South Carolina first billing. Members of the rules committee debated which state to make first at a Thursday evening dinner that stretched past midnight.

In the end, South Carolina won with 26 votes, out of 49 total, after the committee’s co-chairs voted for the southern state. Nevada, a close second, received 19 votes, and New Hampshire won four.

At the center of the debate was a question over how to balance acknowledging Black voters, the party’s most loyal members, while also reaching out to Latino voters, a bloc that drifted away from Democrats in 2024.

South Carolina’s allies argued that the party should reaffirm its commitment to Black voters at a time when their electoral power has been weakened by redistricting and a Supreme Court decision that weakened the Voting Rights Act. Members of the panel invoked Black Americans’ long struggle for voting rights and the need to build political power in the South.

“The South is not the past, it is the future,” said South Carolina Democratic Party chair Christale Spain, a member of the RBC. “And if we are serious about changing this country, Democrats have to start winning in the South.”

Nevada allies pointed to the diversity of the state’s electorate, which includes substantial populations of Black, Latino, Asian American and Pacific Islander, Native American and White working-class voters. The state is also a general election battleground unlike South Carolina.

“There’s a lot of riding on the decisions we make here today,” said Daniele Monroe-Moreno, the chair of the Nevada Democratic Party and an RBC member. “I personally believe, and I guess I’m biased, that that coalition that our presidential candidate will need to build to win the White House back in 2028 starts in Nevada.”

In addition to questions about representation, some members raised concerns about Nevada’s vote-by-mail rules, which allows the state to count late ballots postmarked by Election Day. South Carolina allies argued they’re better equipped to declare a winner on election night.

“Candidates, particularly candidates in early states, want to get those vote totals, spin those vote totals to their own advantage, and take some momentum to the next state,” said Carol Fowler, an RBC member from South Carolina.

Nevada’s delegation, however, stressed that the state’s voting rules are a bonus.

“We should not be penalized as a state for making it easier for working people to vote,” said Artie Blanco, an RBC member from Nevada.

After the 2020 presidential election, Democrats voted to require states to apply for waivers to hold early primaries ahead of each cycle. Ahead of the 2024 presidential election, the DNC voted to make South Carolina first at the behest of then-President Joe Biden. This time around, Democrats considered 12 states that applied for early window spots.

This story has been updated with additional information.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Trump declines to rule out declaring a national security emergency to control the 2026 election

(CNN) — President Donald Trump in a new interview declined to rule out declaring a national security emergency as a means to try to assert more control over the 2026 midterm elections.It’s merely the latest warning sign that Trump could try to mess with the election not just by baselessly claiming voter fraud and challenging the results afterward — as he did in 2020, leading to a violent riot at the US Capitol — but by trying to unilaterally take control before votes are cast.In the interview, Wayne Allyn Root of Real America’s Voice pitched such a scenario to Trump. He suggested it as an alternative, given the Senate has failed to pass Trump’s coveted elections bill, known as the “SAVE America Act.”“If they never get the SAVE America Act done, you have the right to declare a national security emergency for elections,” Root said. He added that “if you declare a national security emergency as the president of the United States, they can’t challenge it. It can only be overturned by a two-thirds vote by both houses of Congress. So if you do this in the next month, we will get photo ID, proof of citizenship (for voter registration) and a limit to mail-in ballots.”It’s at this point that Trump cut Root off and coyly suggested such an option was indeed in play.“Let me just say that stranger things have happened, OK?” Trump said. “I’ll leave it at that.”Despite Root’s comments, it’s far from clear such a gambit would even work. And CNN has asked the White House for more detail on what the president meant.Trump often responds to hypotheticals by declining to rule them out — no matter how extreme the proposal might be. So it’s possible to read too much into this.But as CNN’s Jake Tapper has noted, there are plenty of signals that Trump at least aspires to try to exert more control over elections. And these methods often appear transparently geared toward helping Republicans.A major one is the administration’s threat to have the US Postal Service not deliver mail ballots for states that don’t comply with its demand that they hand over their voter lists. This is a request that even many red states have rejected, citing privacy concerns.Democrats are much more likely to use mail ballots, which Trump has baselessly connected to widespread fraud. So curtailing them could greatly help Republicans.(Federal courts have blocked this Trump executive order, and the administration recently appealed to the Supreme Court.)Trump has also gone to great lengths to try to substantiate his still-baseless claims of widespread fraud. That includes the administration seizing 2020 ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, and Trump’s recent primetime address about election security that some read as a statement of intent — a pretext for more direct federal involvement in elections, which are run by states.Ty Cobb, who served as White House counsel in Trump’s first term, said he interpreted the speech last month as a “predicate that he needs to declare an emergency.”And Trump has occasionally said things, like he did in the new interview, suggesting he would like to take control of US elections.Back in February, he urged his party to “take over the voting in at least 15 places,” adding: “The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”The Washington Post also reported in March that pro-Trump activists were circulating a potential executive order that claimed Chinese interference in the 2020 election gave Trump emergency authorities over the 2026 election. And Trump’s primetime address focused on China, despite the tenuous evidence.Trump’s intense focus on the “SAVE America Act,” which has never appeared to have a chance to pass but Trump has said is vital, could also be read as part of building the case for more drastic action.But whether Trump could take over elections himself, as Root posits, is far from certain.As CNN’s Marshall Cohen and Michael Williams reported in February, the Constitution makes it difficult for Trump to truly “nationalize” elections. Courts have overwhelmingly upheld the principle that states are in charge of elections.Presidents generally have more authority to act unilaterally when national security is involved — hence the significance of invoking China — but some experts are skeptical that Trump’s effort would pass legal muster.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story