WASHINGTON -- Nevada was selected Saturday to host an early Democratic presidential caucus in mid-January 2008 between the influential Iowa and New Hampshire nominating events, greatly increasing the Silver State's clout in selecting the party's nominee.

Nevada's Democratic caucuses were shifted to the forefront of the selection process in a vote by the Democratic National Committee's rules and bylaws panel. The target date is Jan. 19, 2008.

State Democrats held 2004 caucuses on Feb. 14 and 2000 caucuses on March 12.

"The Nevada Democratic Party is very strong, in a solid position (to run a presidential caucus) as evidenced by an overwhelming vote," said Rebecca Lambe, Southern Nevada director for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and a senior adviser to the state Democratic Party.

Democrats also selected South Carolina for a primary no earlier than Jan. 29.

The party is revising its calendar in a bid to inject diversity into its process of picking presidential nominees.

The actions by the Rules and Bylaws Committee must be ratified by the entire Democratic National Committee meeting next month in Chicago, but the decisions were expected to stick.

Because presidential candidates tend to gain momentum early in the process, Iowa, which holds the first caucus, and New Hampshire, which long has sponsored the first primary, essentially have made the Democrats' choices in recent elections.

Party members seeking change pointed out that those states have a large percentage of affluent voters and have majority white populations, factors not representative of the Democrats' larger voting pool.

Nevada attained 20 of 28 votes among committee members. Arizona received five votes, the District of Columbia two and Michigan one.

Nevada's large Hispanic population and its strong organized labor force, two key Democratic constituencies, propelled the state to the front of the calendar, several party leaders said Saturday.

"I think Nevada in some sense is a real two-for," said veteran Democratic strategist Harold Ickes of the District of Columbia. "You get a large Hispanic population, and you get a large labor component."

Nevada has a 6.9 percent black population and a 22.9 percent Hispanic population, according to Democratic National Committee figures. Arizona's population is 3 percent black and 28.1 percent Hispanic.

"Arizona's just a lot bigger, and I think the caucus process is therefore more difficult to manage in a larger state," Ickes said. "Arizona has used caucuses, but essentially they have a primary state. Nevada has been using the caucus system since 1960."

In a true caucus, voters attend lengthy meetings at specified locations; such gatherings tend to attract party activists. Primaries are more like general elections, with a much broader voting population casting ballots at many polling places.

Danny Thompson, the secretary/treasurer of the Nevada AFL-CIO, said Nevada's labor presence was a big factor in the state's favor. Nevada has a union work force of nearly 14 percent, compared with Arizona's 6.1 percent.

It didn't hurt that Reid is the Senate Democratic leader. Reid contributed an introduction to the state party's official application and "worked hard" contacting party leaders, spokesman Jon Summers said.

"Nevada has always been a battleground state and by positioning our caucuses at the early stages of the process, Nevada voters will have a much stronger voice in determining who the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee will be," Reid said in a prepared statement. "I am pleased that the members of the Democratic National Committee recognized our state and its people who are as diverse as our country itself and reflect the attitudes and values of working America."

Nevada's five electoral votes went to President Bush by relatively small margins in 2000 and 2004.

Because of the change, presidential hopefuls will be a common sight in Nevada over the next two years, said Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.

"The eyes of the nation will be on the Silver State's voters as never before in 2008, and those seeking the presidency of the United States will surely be spending ample time in Nevada getting out their message and securing support," Berkley said.

Nevada state Sen. Steven Horsford, D-Las Vegas, said the early caucus will benefit Nevada and the West in general by bringing Western states' concerns to the attention of presidential contenders. "Nevada is representative of other Western states, with concerns about water, national security and land management that are not the same as New Hampshire or Iowa."

An Arizona supporter, Mame Reilly of Virginia, reminded the committee that the Grand Canyon State's large American Indian population also should be considered an important demographic. American Indians make up 4.8 of Arizona's population, compared to 1.3 percent of Nevada's.

The South Carolina and Nevada designations will be effective for 2008, after which they will be reviewed, said committee Co-chairman Jim Roosevelt of Massachusetts. Other states could be picked in the future, he said.

As Democrats set out to rearrange their calendar, support grew to choose a Western state and a Southern state to promote geographic, racial and economic diversity. Ten states had joined the District of Columbia in applying for the openings: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, South Carolina and West Virginia.

While noting an "almost moral imperative" to push states sooner, Ickes questioned the entire nominating system.

"Will moving up a caucus state and a primary state have any material affect on who we nominate? The fact is we don't know. We think it will, we hope it will, but we don't know," Ickes said. "The whole system is just nuts. It is a preposterous proposition that we enter into an eight-month election."

On Saturday, the only votes cast against formally designating Nevada and South Carolina for earlier dates were by Kathleen Sullivan of New Hampshire and Sally Pederson of Iowa. Nevada was not represented on the panel.

Selecting the dates for the 2008 primaries seemed to be more contentious than where they would be held.

Some committee members argued for respecting the laws of New Hampshire, which says it must hold the first primary by seven days, and Iowa, which stipulates that its caucus be first by eight days. Others argued that the rest of the country shouldn't be bound by the laws of two states.

Calendar constraints were also in play as Democrats didn't want to start the race too close to the holiday season but sought to provide plenty of campaigning time for each of the early states.

The committee voted to recommend that the Iowa caucus take place no sooner than Jan. 14, 2008, allowing five days before Nevada's suggested caucus date of Jan. 19. The New Hampshire primary couldn't be held before Jan. 22. South Carolina's primary would be no earlier than Jan. 29. Each state's secretary of state must formalize the date.

The next group of states could begin holding primaries Feb. 5, 2008.

Review-Journal writer Molly Ball and The Associated Press contributed to this story.