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 urges Supreme Court to overturn E. Jean Carroll’s $83M defamation verdict

(CNN) — President Donald Trump on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to once again step into his messy legal brawl with magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll, appealing an $83.3 million jury verdict for defamation on the grounds that, as president, he is immune from the litigation.The appeal, which has not yet been docketed at the high court, relies heavily on the court’s 2024 decision granting the president wide immunity for actions taken in office.“This is the first case in our nation’s history in which a court has imposed damages liability on a president for his conduct in office,” Trump’s attorneys told the high court, according to a copy of the appeal reviewed by CNN. “Yet, in upholding the exorbitant $83.3 million defamation judgment here, the Second Circuit never even decided whether presidential immunity applies.”Trump told the justices that an appeals court decision in Carroll’s favor would “cause significant damage, not only to this president and future presidents” but also the nation.In addition to raising the prospect that Trump should be immune from the litigation, Trump is also asking the court to review whether the United States government should be the defendant rather than the president.“Here, the president of the United States has been ordered to pay nearly $100 million in damages…for issuing a press release and answering reporters’ questions, from the White House, defending against attacks on his fitness for office,” his attorneys told the court.The latest appeal comes days after the Supreme Court declined to take up a separate case from Trump in which the president is seeking to unwind a $5 million civil verdict that found he sexually abused and defamed Carroll at a Bergdorf Goodman department store in the 1990s.Trump has denied wrongdoing in both cases.The new appeal involves statements Trump made against Carroll in 2019, when he was president, that a jury found were defamatory and ordered him to pay $83 million in damages. A federal appeals court panel affirmed the damages award, finding it “reasonable in light of the extraordinary and egregious facts” and rejected several of Trump’s legal challenges. Among them, the appeals court found that Trump had previously waived any claim of presidential immunity and said the Supreme Court’s decision in 2024 involving presidential immunity did not alter their view.The full 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to revisit that decision in late April.Both Trump and the Department of Justice signaled at that time that they would appeal to the Supreme Court. The president said he would raise claims of immunity from civil claims for “official acts” as president.The Justice Department said that it intends to intervene to effectively take over the case under the Westfall Act, which shields individual federal employees from tort suits for actions taken while they were engaged with their official duties. Normally, that might put federal taxpayers on the hook for an employee’s actions, though in this case it would almost certainly mean the end of Carroll’s defamation case.Carroll claims Trump defamed her when, in 2019, he denied the assault, said she wasn’t his type, and claimed she made it up to boost sales of a book.“There were no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation,” Trump told the Supreme Court in the appeal he filed last year in the case involving the $5 million verdict. “Instead, Carroll waited more than 20 years to falsely accuse Donald Trump, who she politically opposes, until after he became the 45th president, when she could maximize political injury to him and profit for herself.”Trump, meanwhile, is continuing to fight a separate, $5 million case involving Carroll. After sitting on Trump’s appeal in that matter for months, the court denied it during the final days of its term last month. Trump has made a long-shot request for the high court to reconsider that decision but a federal judge ordered the release of the money to Carroll.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story