Moving California’s presidential primary in 2008 from June to
early February makes good sense. But the change would create some
local wrinkles that warrant attention now.
Moving California’s presidential primary in 2008 from June to early February makes good sense. But the change would create some local wrinkles that warrant attention now.
A June presidential primary leaves the country’s most populous state with little say in the nominating process. States such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina presently have much greater influence in choosing the major-party presidential candidates. California, then, is only a place for the nominees to raise money and run their victory laps after they have locked up their party’s nod.
A Feb. 5 vote – the earliest date the state can choose under national party rules – would place California’s primary at the beginning of the election season. Candidates who now bypass us (except to hold fundraisers) would be forced to establish real campaign presences here and talk about issues that matter most to Californians.
But as some have pointed out, moving the presidential primary to February not only creates a costly extra election but would also likely steal some of the sizzle from the June election. That would undoubtedly hurt turnout in June’s local primary, when voters cast ballots for such offices as city council, board of supervisors and state Assembly.
The solution might be to line up all of California’s state and local primaries with the presidential vote in February. That would eliminate the cost of running an additional election – estimated to be as high as $90 million – and also allow local primary elections to benefit from the higher voter turnout that a presidential primary brings.
If the presidential vote alone moves to February, elections offices in all California counties would be faced with the prospect of running three major elections next year, in February, June and November. The added cost of the February presidential primary is supposed to be paid by the state, but smaller counties especially would be pinched hard by the simple manpower demands of staffing back-to-back-to-back elections.
With a huge population that is much more representative of the nation than states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, California needs a a larger voice in determining the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees.
Elevating the clout of California’s primary could change the dynamics of the race by pushing to the forefront issues such as immigration and global warming that might seem more important here than in other regions of the country.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California’s legislative leaders appear to agree on the importance of an early primary, which they hope will make the presidential contenders pay attention to California and give our state of 36 million people the political influence it deserves in Washington, D.C.
And Californians deserve an opportunity to cast their votes when those votes still matter. As Sen. Diane Feinstein said, “Because of the front-loaded presidential primaries, by the time Californians go to the polls in June, the decision has already been made.” That needs to change.
Lawmakers should approve the move of California’s presidential primary from June to February. But state and local officials must be mindful of the cost of making the change, as well as the importance of the primaries involving city, county, legislative and congressional candidates.
