California may move presidential primary to March or earlier

April 11, 2017

California’s secretary of state and a Democratic lawmaker are pushing for the state’s presidential primary to move up three months in 2020 and enter the slot in the national election cycle behind Iowa and New Hampshire. [LA Times]

Senate Bill 568, introduced by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), would move California’s presidential primary up to the third Tuesday in March. The bill would also allow the governor to move the state’s primary even earlier if other states were to jump ahead of California. SB 568 would likewise move up California’s congressional and legislative primaries.

“A state as populous and diverse as California should not be an afterthought,” Secretary of State Alex Padilla said in a statement supporting SB 568. “By holding our primary earlier, we will ensure that issues important to Californians are prioritized by presidential candidates from all political parties.”

SB 568 is the second bill introduced in the Legislature this year that would move California’s presidential primary up to the third Tuesday in March.

California lawmakers previously moved up the presidential primary in 1996 and 2008. The 1996 presidential primary took place in March, and the 2008 one was held in February.

In 2008, California had its highest voter turnout in a presidential primary in nearly three decades. But, in 2012, lawmakers brought the vote back to June following complaints about the cost of standalone presidential primaries and California’s relatively little impact on the selection of Democratic and Republican nominees.


Loading...
Reality Check

This plan sounds expensive to the tax payers. Moving the primary to March will mean either doing a second primary in June for local and State races or moving the filing time to a much earlier date to allow for local and state races to have candidates entered and vetted by the voters prior to March. I believe the current filing dates close in mid-March.


Then we will also see 3 more long months months of campaigning. Yikes! For all those who talk about the money in politics, this will force an increase in all the money needed for candidates to keep their name out in the public eye between March and November.


If two primaries are held in presidential election years, taxpayers will be required to pay for a national primary in March and yet another local and state primary in June. EXPENSIVE! That has happened in the past and has put a tremendous burden on the election officials who must then run an additional election during an election season that is already very busy during presidential election years. Plus the added costs to accomplish two primaries.


OR some genius may decided that state and local elections not have any primary and the top vote getter in November wins. That will be a wild Mad Hatters Teacup Ride!


Slosum

If they keep moving it back…. it would eventually meet the schedule for the previous primary. At that point, it would simply be sucked into a big black hole along with Lara,and Padilla and we’d all be better off.


Ricky2

Oh goodie, something to extend the primary season a bit longer. Just what we need.


sloweb

The Dems in Sacramento just want to take advantage of the annual March surge in illegal immigration. See the quality of advice you get when you hire an ex-Attorney General?


paragon

California moves their date earlier, then other states will try to move their date ahead of California, and California reserves the right to move even earlier. Dumb. It’s just a race to the bottom.


ironyman2000

All for it. Should have happened decades ago. Where do I sign?


Rich in MB

The article doesn’t address how the States Open Primary system would play out on the Presidential Primary. So the top two vote getters are on the ballet for the House and Senate Seats, but the party system still is in play for the Presidency?


Ricky2

Doesn’t apply to presidential race.


The Identarian

If a bill is sponsored by Lara, Padilla, De Leon or any of the myriad left wing Hispanic ‘legislators” it is immediately suspect and should be regarded as dangerous to regular Californians.

The only reason Lara would suggest such a maneuver is he thinks California needs to throw around it weight a little more nationally. What he doesn’t know is the rest of the country thinks California has been taken over by the insane asylum, and Lara is the latest escapee.


Ricky2

Racist comment. Have you no shame?


copperhead

All political parties. What a joke. Why would any republican presidential candidate ever set his/her agenda by what californians want or ever set foot in California?


Ricky2

Hmn. Perhaps you forget history, like Nixon and Reagan? Maybe the problem is what current “Republicans” represent, not California? If Reps had to make a case in CA, the party might improve its standing.


copperhead

One party of cradle to grave government control is plenty.


Rich in MB

California is lost….and any Producer best be making plans to leave before the left builds a wall to keep us in.