The 2008 presidential race will be shaped, in unpredictable ways, by a parallel competition among states leapfrogging one another in pursuit of a greater voice in the nominating process.

	More on the story Pennsylvania's primary unchanged

The maneuvering threatens the traditional roles of Iowa and New Hampshire as gatekeepers of the White House competition. It has the potential to change the dynamics of the battle among the candidates and significantly alter its terrain of issues.

Measures now poised for consideration in legislatures across the county would mean that voters in some of the largest states would be able to cast primary ballots weeks before the first Iowan enters a precinct caucus.

The currently anticipated nominating schedule puts the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 14, and the New Hampshire contest eight days later on Jan 22. But the competition elsewhere raises doubt about that schedule.

New Hampshire officials, jealous guardians of their state's nominating tradition, are considering moving their primary to an earlier date, a move that would have a ripple effect among other states.

The Democratic National Committee has issued a nominating schedule suggesting the Jan. 14 and Jan. 22 dates for the Iowa and New Hampshire events, along with a caucus in Nevada on Jan. 19. But state law empowers William M. Gardner, the New Hampshire secretary of state, to choose a primary date on his own. In an interview last week, he made clear that he does not feel bound by the DNC edict.

Mr. Gardner declined to say when he would officially choose a date, although he noted that in past election cycles he has delayed making a decision until as late as December.

While accepting the earlier timing of the Iowa caucus, the New Hampshire law directs Mr. Gardner to set the date at least seven days before any other state's primary or similar nominating event. Mr. Gardner declined to comment on whether the new Nevada caucus would trigger a change in the New Hampshire date, but he said that he anticipated that some other state's action might force New Hampshire's hand.

"Almost every four years there has been an attempt in one way or another," he said, while pledging to frustrate similar moves next year.

Florida's legislature is about to consider a bill that would set its primary for the first Tuesday in February or seven days after the New Hampshire primary -- whichever comes earlier.

State Rep. David Rivera, who is a chief proponent of the bill, predicts that it will pass overwhelmingly within the next two months.

"Florida, I think, is an easy sell to the candidates because they all come here to raise money," he said. "If they are going to be coming to Florida anyway to use Florida like a presidential campaign ATM, then certainly they shouldn't mind speaking about the issues we care about."

Next year, under the current schedule, the bill would put the Sunshine State primary on Jan. 29, which would not automatically force a move by New Hampshire. But the Florida plan doesn't sit well with the South Carolina Republican Party, which is determined that its primary be the first in the South. It is a party-run rather than state-run process, and the GOP chairman has the flexibility to set or move its date. A spokesman for the state party said last week that the chairman anticipates making the scheduling decision in September.

To make good on its pledge of being first in the South, the Palmetto State GOP would have to move ahead of Florida, meaning that its date could be seen as a trigger to the New Hampshire requirement that its primary take place seven days before any other.

Something has to give. The dictates of the two state laws and the South Carolina vow can't all be reconciled. A move by New Hampshire would trigger a move by Florida, which would in turn prompt a move by the South Carolina Republicans.

Quick out of the gate
No presidential election cycle has seen so many candidates declare so early. Former President Bill Clinton, elected in 1992, didn't formally announce his candidacy until the late fall of 1991. This time around, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack declared his candidacy almost a year earlier than that and nearly two years before the 2008 election. Whatever happens with the early state maneuvering, it already seems clear that more voters will be casting presidential primary votes earlier than ever before.

While the anticipated date of Florida's primary is a week after the tentative New Hampshire date, Florida allows two weeks of early voting, meaning that thousand of Florida votes would be cast before the Granite State polls open.

The California Assembly, meanwhile, is expected to join a growing list of states that have or are planning to hold their primaries on Feb. 5. They include Michigan, Illinois and New Jersey. California has an even more liberal early, or absentee, voting process than Florida, along with an established culture of early voting. Ballots are made available 29 days before the election, meaning that Californians could be casting their presidential votes well before the Iowa caucuses. In addition, overseas and military ballots are sent out 60 days before the election -- in this case, that is well before Christmas.

Richard Stapler, press secretary to California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, said that in the last statewide election, 41 percent of the state's ballots were cast through some form of early voting.

How these logistical shifts will affect the substance of the campaign is a subject of heated debate.

"It's a serious problem; it's a significant deterioration of a process that wasn't good to begin with," said William Francis Galvin, the Massachusetts secretary of state and co-chairman of the National Association of Secretaries of State. The group has long recommend a system of rotating regional primaries designed to extend the nominating season through the spring. Instead, he said, both parties' presidential nominees are likely to be clear after the Feb. 5 voting.

"It will be a national primary," he said. "In the past, we've had a March Super Tuesday. This will be the first week of February."

Mr. Galvin sketches a scenario in which the effective primary competition would be over in less than a month.

"If you go back 30 years, the process lasted well into the spring,'' he said. "You had more time for people to get interested in the process. It was good for the country. This process is so short-circuited; it's not good for the country; it's not civically healthy."

Uncertain consequences
It's possible all of this will detract from the traditional influence of Iowa and New Hampshire with well-funded candidates concentrating instead on the bigger states whose balloting will have begun early in January.

Alternatively, the Feb. 5 mega-primary could have the unintended consequence of enhancing the roles of the traditional gatekeepers. In 2004 for example, Sen. John F. Kerry's come-from-behind victory in Iowa gave him the national media attention and fund-raising momentum to fuel a near sweep of the subsequent Democratic contests, starting with New Hampshire a week later.

Trailing in early polls, Mr. Kerry had, in fact, pulled much of his campaign resources from New Hampshire the previous December to place all his chips on Iowa.

"When we won Iowa, it brought us a lot of money and it brought us New Hampshire," said David Morehouse, Mr. Kerry's communications director during the 2004 campaign.

A similar dynamic is possible next year. The likely Feb. 5 states are so far-flung and their media markets so expensive, even for the best funded campaigns, that media attention born of earlier victories could be the most important springboard to nomination and, possibly, the political version of buyers' remorse.

An equally plausible argument can be made that the altered calendar, including the Feb. 5 lineup, would prolong the process as different campaigns concentrate on different primaries.

Mr. Galvin doubts that scenario.

"It'll be a national primary ... it will be over early," he said of the February date.

The rationale of each individual state in moving up its primary is to gain more attention to their state from the candidates. The actual effect could be the opposite. With so many states clustered on Feb. 5, no campaign would be likely to be able to devote significant attention to all of them.

"An extended primary process tests the candidates; it sharpens their skills and gives the voters a chance to get to know them,'' said Mr. Galvin. "That's not going to happen.''