Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

About Us

David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.

About California Progress Report.

Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).

Sponsors

Books

California Primary Move to the Assembly Floor for Final Passage on Thursday--Cost Estimated at $51 Million

Calderon-SB-113-Assembly-Ap.gif
Jesse Unruh's picture beamed a smile as Senator Calderon presented his bill to move the primary to the Assembly Appropriations Committee

By Frank D. Russo

The bill to move the California Presidential Primary up to February 5, 2008 passed it's final committee hurdle yesterday and is expected to be voted on by the full Assembly before arriving on the Governor's desk.

The California Assembly Appropriations Committee passed SB 113 (Calderon) on a partisan vote of 11 to 5 with all Republicans on the committee voting against and all Democrats voting for the measure.

Republican opposition was largely based on the lack of appropriations in the bill to reimburse counties and not on opposition to the substance of the bill--moving the primary--or even the cost to the state. Republican Assemblymember Doug La Malfa, an appropriations committee member said "This bill would have a lot more Republican votes if we had an ironclad reassurance of reimbursement to the counties." He said some Republicans, however, would oppose the bill even with that.

The Chair of the Appropriations Committee, Democrat Assemblymember Mark Leno, however, noted that the bill could not be amended to appropriate funds to reimburse counties because the exact cost of the election is not known and the legislature is not allowed to pass bills with blank appropriations. Republican Assemblymember Bill Emmerson also noted that the language in the bill is the same or better as that in any bill dealing with elections, saying "I don't know that we have any language as to how we pay for elections."

The only opposition to the bill unless it was amended came from counties concerned about reimbursement of the expenses of the election, although some of the speakers on that point indicated they were not in opposition but expressed concerns.

The author, Senator Ron Calderon stated to the committee that the actual cost of the bill is approximately $51 million according to the Secretary of State. He said that "You'll hear all sorts of figures," but that when the dust settled that would be where the figure will end up. The committee analysis noted $1.3 million in costs for each ballot proposition and overall reimbursable costs to the counties of $48 million to $80 million.

The only opposition to the bill on the merits is from the Foundation for Consumer and Taxpayer Rights and they have been the sole witness to speak against it aside from the reimbursement issue in any of the hearings.

The bill has language that was amended in before it passed the Senate that states: "It is the intent of the Legislature to fully reimburse counties for costs resulting from the presidential primary elections added by this act in an expeditious manner upon certification of those costs."

The county clerk's and registrar of voter representatives indicated that they will probably be back with legislation on precinct sizes and on absentee balloting in an effort to hold down the costs and deal with concerns they have.

Because this bill only requires a majority vote in the Assembly, it is assured of passage and barring unforeseen events that will happen on Thursday. The Governor has already indicated he will sign the bill.

Posted on February 27, 2007

Comments

I can think of a number of reasons why moving up the California primary is a bad idea. The premise that increasing our influence on out-of-state voters is the reason for the move is weak to begin with. I think our influence is first based on the significant number of delegates we send to the convention. If we are not choosing the next president it is probably because we learned something about the candidates after New Hampshire and Iowa. Moving the primary primarily increases the chance for the candidate with early name recognition in the sate. There is a logical argument for having the small states go first. If they choose poorly their influence is not indelible. The larger states should be better informed before they commit to a candidate. By the way, I really do not think any state citizen is going to say, "mmm, California voted for him, maybe I should too." Neither do I think some voters will switch their vote so that the candidate they vote for wins regardless of that candidate's positions. I think this is a red herring and Hillery is the winner. Dumbing down the California voter seems like a bad idea.

Posted by: Ron Hinchley at December 16, 2007 07:22 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Commenters: You must preview your comment before posting. And please only hit "Post" once; it may take a while, but your comment is being processed. Thanks.

Get email updates!

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.



© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.

RSS

Stat tracker