It's big news that the Democratic Party task force that is studying changes to the presidential nomination process has approved the idea of adding one or two caucuses between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. That's good because it has obviously hurt the party to let two primarily rural, overwhelmingly white states have so much weight in the process. Heck, those two states practically nominated John Kerry by themselves last time. Commission member Michael Stratton of Colorado says Nevada is the early frontrunner but the consensus is that the additional state should definitely be from the West -- if not Nevada or Colorado, then Arizona or New Mexico, or maybe two of the four.
New Mexico probably isn't a great choice only because they are likely to have their own Governor Bill Richardson on the ballot. Any of the other three would be fine choices for several reasons. First and foremost, of course, is putting "Western issues" into the presidential campaign. I'm putting that term in quotes because most of what we consider "Western issues" are really national issues that are higher priorities in the West than elsewhere -- the environment, energy and public lands, keeping religion out of government, and yes even immigration. Having a Western state go early will not only help pick a candidate that will be more appealing to this region, it will also help raise the profile of these issues (all of which except for immigration, on which there is no consensus, I think people favor the Dems) nationally.
The early Western caucus would also force Democratic candidates to campaign early in urban areas. I think Colorado is the best choice on that criterion, because Denver is more like cities in the rest of the country while Las Vegas and Phoenix are more like giant suburban sprawl regions. Forcing candidates to appeal to city dwellers early will help them adopt positions that will keep city dwellers motivated in the general election. I'm not using "city dwellers" as code for Latinos and Blacks, either, although that is part of it -- addressing (for example) problems in public schools is something that will appeal strongly, but not exclusively, to urban voters of color. (Besides, there are a ton of rural Latinos in CO, AZ and NM.)
The only downside I can see is further frontloading of the process. The risk is that instead of engaging in retail campaigning on the streets of Denver, Las Vegas or Phoenix, the campaigns will just pour money into big TV buys and that the well-financed Eastern campaigns would actually have an advantage. Fortunately, the Dem commission is also proposing limits on how many states can have primaries or caucuses within a given week, which should avoid the front loading problem and allow the West to finally have a say in who represents the Democratic Party.