D.C. is debating when to hold its primary for the 2020 presidential contest. Right now, the District is slated to go in late June, last in the country.

Officials are hoping to move up the primary date so that candidates—and the national media—pay more attention to local issues like D.C. voting rights.

But settling on a date can be tricky.

Longtime D.C. political operative Chuck Thies says if city leaders are really serious about highlighting the District’s lack of voting rights in Congress, they’d vote to make the primary first in the nation, ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire.

“This garners attention,” Thies said. “And just as importantly, it puts the presidential candidates on the record as either supporting statehood or supporting voting rights.”

D.C. Has Tried To Schedule The First Primary Before

The idea, which Thies proposed in a recent Washington Post op-ed, isn’t far-fetched.

The District tried it in 2004. The D.C. Council voted to hold the contest in January, a week ahead of Iowa.

But national party leaders intervened and put the squeeze on local Democrats. They warned D.C. leaders that they wouldn’t sanction the election, and D.C. could lose its delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

Ultimately, the District settled on an unofficial, non-binding January primary.  It still ended up garnering a lot of attention, although some candidates skipped the event. (Howard Dean edged out Rev. Al Sharpton for the win.)

Looking back, Thies said the 2004 primary accomplished its main goal: raising awareness for D.C.’s lack of voting rights.

“There’s no question—there’s no debate—about the success the primary had in 2004,” Thies said. “So why not do it again?”

Democrats “Will Stop You Cold In Your Tracks”

This time around, however, there doesn’t appear to be the same appetite for a first-in-the-nation primary push.

“The Democratic Party will stop you cold in your tracks,” says Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans.

Evans was a strong supporter of the early primary move in 2004, but he says national party leaders will never sign off on letting D.C. leapfrog Iowa.

“What you do is you lose your delegates to the convention, ” Evans said. “I think they will strictly enforce that.”

Evans supports moving D.C.’s primary up in the calendar. He thinks April would be an ideal date.

He says the rules incentivize states to hold their primaries later in the contest because they’re awarded more delegates to the convention.

“It just makes sense to have the presidential primary in April because we get more delegates, and we get to participate,” Evans said.

But Thies says this would be a missed opportunity for D.C. He understands why local party leaders want to stay in the Democratic Party’s good graces and attend the convention.

“But what’s your priority: is it voting rights and inequality? Or is it wearing a funny hat, attending a buffet, getting in on some open bars?” Thies said.

D.C. Might Join The Acela Primary

Charles Wilson, chairman of the D.C. Democratic State Committee, says while he agrees with the spirit of Thies’s argument behind a first-in-the-nation primary, he says “it’s probably not the best approach to achieving our goal.”

Wilson says if D.C. is going to achieve voting rights in Congress or statehood, it is going to need support from the Democratic National Committee.

He also thinks an April primary date would be more effective.

“I still think we can achieve our goal of getting national attention … and still get those candidates that are in the race to say publicly that they support statehood,” Wilson said.

The D.C. Council is expected to vote on legislation moving the primary date up to April 28 to join the so-called “Acela” Primary, which will feature a handful of states along the Eastern seaboard.

This story originally appeared on WAMU.