June 25, 2022 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Next Gov Will be Key to Moved-Up Primary

By Tom Elias

 

If any measure now before state lawmakers should be a no-brainer, it’s the bill aiming to move California’s presidential primary up into the third position during the next primary season in early 2020.

If this comes off as sponsors plan, Californians would vote in mid-March less than three years from now, and have their votes actually count for something, unlike the pattern of most of the last 50 years.

That’s where one innovation in the latest iteration of the moved-up primary idea enters: When California previously tried moving its primary up as early as Feb. 5, other states hustled into even earlier dates in a sort of devil-take-the-hindmost approach.

The key innovation to cope with this “let’s keep California meaningless” movement is a provision allowing the next California governor to move the primary up as far as needed to keep it relevant. That could enable a vote here as early as late January if other states insist on trying to beat out California.

This could happen if 2020 sees the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses staged in very early January, as sometimes happens. New Hampshire could then vote as early as mid-January, even earlier than last year, while California goes later in the month or on Feb. 3. If that’s how the calendar plays out, there would likely be a very early Super Tuesday, many other states hop-scotching to the same day as California in order to stay relevant.

This is all really about giving Californians a voice in choosing their President. The last time California voted very early, on Feb. 5, 2008, several other states moved up into January to dilute its impact. This state got a voice, but not a veto as a heavy Democratic vote here for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama was the main reason their race extended all the way into May. The state’s impact was helped when turnout for that primary was higher than for any in the previous 30 years.

One thing the early date produced was awareness by all presidential candidates of what was important to voters in the most populous state. By contrast, when Californians voted in June last year, nominations in both major parties had long since been determined.

Another recent factor may also play a big role: If California moves far up on the calendar, its recent massive use of mail-in ballots could force candidates to give it priority over smaller places with earlier Election Days. Because ballots reach so many voters about a month before Election Day, we could see campaigning here even before the Iowa caucuses. The candidates and their strategists well know that ballots sent in weeks before the official date count as much as those cast on Election Day.

So campaign rallies in December, or even November, could become commonplace here.

A very early date will be likely if the next governor – to be determined next year – wants California to have a major voice.

Even though the current legislative proposal tentatively sets the primary for the third Tuesday in March, the 15th, it would be unwise for any governor to leave it there.

That’s because other states are already front-loading. Aside from Iowa and New Hampshire, guaranteed to vote first by both major parties, Nevada and South Carolina have tentatively set their votes for Feb. 20. Crammed into the first two weeks of March are Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Kansas, Michigan and others.

If California waits until March 15, it might as well keep the primary in June, for all the influence it would have. So the chances of the next governor moving the state into early February or even January are strong, with other states likely to follow suit to preserve some clout for themselves.

All this will be inconvenient for legislators, members of Congress and their prospective primary opponents, who will have to make decisions and raise money much earlier than usual because filing deadlines – coming in March when the primary falls in June – would now move to the latter part of 2019.

Too bad for them. The turnout in 2008 and the frustration of many Californians with the outcome in both parties last year assure that this state must move up or forget about having any input on vital issues for years to come.

Thomas B. Elias, Columnist

in Opinion
Related Posts

SMa.r.t. Column: The Mansionization of Santa Monica

June 17, 2022

June 17, 2022

Editor’s note: This column originally appeared in print in 2016.  In the 1980s, Santa Monica’s single family zoning code was...

OP-Ed Response to DTSM Board Chair Barry Snell and Plea to City Council Regarding Safety Ambassadors and Ambassador Program

June 14, 2022

June 14, 2022

I am responding to the OP-ED (dated June 7, 2022, Santa Monica Mirror) by City-appointed DTSM Board Member and now...

SMa.r.t. Column: Wheeling Electrically

June 9, 2022

June 9, 2022

A recent weekend visit to Dana Point, on the Orange County coastline, revealed a curious scene: dozens, if not hundreds...

Population Loss: New Era or Pandemic Glitch?

June 3, 2022

June 3, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist The numbers suggest a major change is underway in California. It would take a Nostradamus to...

SMa.r.t. Column: The Sound of Silence Is Big & Tall

June 3, 2022

June 3, 2022

All too often these days we find ourselves wondering how we could have been so correct about so many planning...

OP-Ed: DTSM Chair Barry Snell on Safety Ambassadors

June 2, 2022

June 2, 2022

By Barry Snell Chair, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. Board of Directors  The Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM) Board of Directors...

Affordable Spaces for Small Business

May 27, 2022

May 27, 2022

Los Angeles County recently proposed a program providing financial incentives for certain “Legacy” family businesses in their original historical location....

​​Doubt Removed: Oil Refiners Gouging Us

May 23, 2022

May 23, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist There was some room for doubt back in February, when gasoline prices rose precipitously: Until the...

Is the Big Housing Crunch Mostly Fiction?

May 20, 2022

May 20, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist In some parts of California, there is definitely a housing crunch: small supplies of homes for...

Is Gelson’s Our Future? Bigger Is Not Better & Not Necessary! – Part 2

May 20, 2022

May 20, 2022

The dream of our beachfront city is about to become a nightmare! Just imagine a tsunami of these projects washing...

Column From Santa Monica Mayor Himmelrich: We Walk the Talk

May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

By Sue Himmelrich, Santa Moncia Mayor  I like the SMa.r.t. architects. I often agree with them. But in allowing Mark...

Is Gelson’s Our Future? Bigger Is Not Better!

May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

It’s appalling to see what’s happening in our city – projects recently built or about to be approved – in...

Renting Your Second Home

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

If you are among the many Americans who own a second home that you occasionally use as a vacation getaway,...

Column: Cities Fight to Maintain Distinctive Characters

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist Anyone who knows California well will realize that Palo Alto does not look much like nearby...

SMa.r.t. Column: Gelson’s, Boxed-In

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

This week we are re-visiting an article from 2018 regarding the Miramar project, by simply replacing the word “Miramar” with...