http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060331/ap_on_el_pr/western_primaryUtah is fed up with presidential candidates who get no closer than 30,000 feet as they fly over the state. The state isn't necessarily blaming the candidates, but rather a primary calendar that puts it months behind Iowa, New Hampshire and states that typically settle the Democratic and Republican nominations long before the Utah even writes its ballot.
Determined to change the status quo, Utah wants to hold a 2008 presidential primary the first week in February, which would put it on par with about a half dozen states that trail Iowa and New Hampshire, but still are in the thick of the contest.
"If Utah goes on February 5th, all these candidates have to come to Utah early in the schedule," said Mike Stratton, a Democratic strategist who also serves on the party's presidential nomination commission.
Separate from Utah's effort, the Democratic Party is weighing a change in its calendar that would put two caucuses between Iowa and New Hampshire, preferably one from the South and the other from the West.
More at link
When I first saw the headline, I thought they wanted to change the regular calendar and thought "those wacky Mormons!". That's not the case. I've often wondered why Iowa, New Hampshire, etc get to essentially choose the presidential candidates each year.I once read a suggestion that I thought was very well thought out. Have rolling primaries every 4 years by region of the country. For example, break it up into 5 sections, such as the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Northwest, Southwest, with 10 states in each section. Then, every 4 years, the order in which primaries are held moves to a different section of the country so that every region of the country gets to be first in primaries every 5th election cycle. Just a thought.
edited for clarity