There are plenty of public policy reasons to question the move of California’s Presidential Primary to February 5, 2008. But it seems to me that the opposition based on the fact that it would allow a term limit initiative to be on the ballot misses the public policy points that need to be considered and is, in fact, a cheap shot.
This carping ignores the fact that many other states are moving up their primaries–for reasons that have nothing to do with whatever else might be on the ballot. They want to remain relevant, and that is why New Hampshire takes such pride in being the first primary in the nation, Iowa in being the first caucus, and Nevada and South Carolina are basking in the glory of their earlier dates. February 5 is the earliest date allowed and so many states may move their primaries to it that it is now called “Super Duper Tuesday” by some.
It fails to account for the enthusiastic support of moving the primary by Governor Schwarzenegger, many legislators, and others who are not proponents of changing term limits.
It also fails the test of history. Frustrated by the fact that the late date of our regular primary has meant that our votes for the nominees for President have usually been meaningless despite the fact that California is the largest state, we have been toying with this since at least 1994. It’s not like this was invented yesterday.
SB 113, the bill to move the primary, will be heard in the Assembly Elections Committee this morning at about 9 a.m. Consider these facts from the Committee Analysis, which are interesting as well:
History of California’s Presidential Primary: From 1946 to 1994, California’s primary election was held in June of every even-numbered year. Frustrated with the perceived lack of importance and impact that California had on the presidential nominating process, the state moved its presidential primary to the fourth Tuesday in March for the 1996 election cycle. The legislation that moved the 1996 presidential primary, AB 2196 (Costa), Chapter 828, Statutes of 1993, required the statewide direct primary election to be moved as well, and to remain consolidated with the presidential primary election.
At the time it was enacted, AB 2196 gave California one of the earliest primaries in the nation. However, after AB 2196 was enacted, several states moved their primaries or caucuses ahead, and by the time that California voters cast their ballots on March 26, 1996, 27 states had already held presidential primaries or caucuses.
AB 2196 provided for a one-time-only change in the date of the presidential primary, so without further action by the Legislature, the 2000 primary would have been held in June. However, SB 1999 (Costa), Chapter 913, Statutes of 1998, moved the date for all future primary elections-not just presidential primary elections-to the first Tuesday in March.
In 2000, California’s March 7th presidential primary came after 9 other states held their primaries or caucuses, and was held on the same day as 13 other state contests. Strong performances by George W. Bush and Al Gore in California and in the other states holding contests on March 7th helped them clinch their respective party nominations.
However, after record low turnout at the March 2002 primary election, the Legislature became concerned that the earlier primary for legislative, congressional, and statewide offices was depressing turnout and that the lengthened period of time between the primary and general elections for those offices was increasing the costs of campaigning by lengthening the campaign season. In response, the Legislature passed SB 1975 (Johnson) of 2002, requiring that two primary elections be held in every presidential election year – a presidential primary on the first Tuesday in March, and a primary election for legislative and congressional offices on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June. That bill was vetoed by Governor Davis, who in his veto message expressed concern that holding two primary elections in 90 days could hamper the ability of county elections officials to effectively conduct those elections. Additionally, Governor Davis worried that it would be particularly problematic to hold an additional primary election in 2004 because many counties would be deploying new voting systems that year.
Without any further changes to its primary schedule, California’s primary election in 2004 was again held on the first Tuesday in March. But once again, many states leapfrogged ahead of California, and by the time the polls opened in California on March 2, 2004, twenty other states had already apportioned their delegates in primaries or caucuses and California shared its March 2nd primary date with nine other states.
Frustrated that the earlier primary date did not increase California’s clout in the presidential primary process and by the extended time period between the primary and general elections for legislative and congressional races, the Legislature and Governor chose to move California’s primary election, including presidential primaries, back to June. SB 1730 (Johnson), Chapter 817, Statutes of 2004, requires California’s primary election to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in every even-numbered year. As a result, the 2006 primary election was held in June, and without further action by the Legislature and the Governor, California’s presidential primary in 2008 will be held on June 5th.
Besides, what is wrong with allowing the people to vote on term limits before many of our experienced legislators are forced into mandatory early retirement? It seems to me like taking some of your best players out in the middle of the game. If the voters agree, and want to give the current leadership more time rather than having a revolving door of inexperienced leaders, why should they not be allowed to vote on this? There already is a transportation initiative qualified for the February ballot and may be others–maybe even redistricting reforms. What’s wrong with the people voting?
