Early California Presidential Primary Gets Final Legislative Approval on 46 to 29 vote in State Assembly: What This Means

In a press conference on the morning of the vote, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez laid out the arguments for the move of our state's primary: That as a large and diverse state, we should exercise our prerogative to move up the date of our primary so that our state's voters have a meaningful choice; so that our state's issues are dealt with by the candidates and voters get to see and hear the candidates rather than having the state just treated as an ATM for campaign contributions, and so that we will have a chance to better the 79 cents on the dollar we get back from the Federal government for every dollar we send them.

The rationale for moving the primary range from the national issues such as the Iraq war that Californians' votes will now matter about, to our state's approach on global warming and other issues, and the financial benefits for this $90 million or so spent.

This is what Speaker Nunez had to say earlier in the day:

Today the Assembly will empower Californians to once and for all play a real role in selecting the next Presidential candidates that ultimately on the Democratic and the Republican side of the aisle will be the nominees that will vie for the Presidency of the United States of America.

I think it’s a role that we clearly deserve. We deserve it because of our size. California, as you know, has 16 million voters who ought to get a first bite at that apple, not simply being the recipient of other states’ legislative and electoral leftovers.

We deserve it because of California’s diversity. No other state that goes on an early Presidential has the potential to offer the type of diversity that California has to offer.

And more importantly, we deserve, because of our issues. California is a world leader on the environment. We should have the right to pass early on, on the issues that are important to coastal protection, issues that disproportionately impact California. We believe that issues like immigration, for example, are issues that have an impact on California like no other state in the union. So we think we have the right to press candidates early on their view of what constitutes comprehensive immigration reform.

This weekend, I know that many of you heard that many neighborhoods in the Bay Area gathered to add new crosses to a hillside memorial to the men and women who died in Iraq. Those neighbors, I believe, should have the opportunity to look at he candidates square in the eye, and ask them what they think about the war in Iraq.

And so, by sending Senate Bill 113 to the Governor, and moving the Presidential primary to February, we will help make the system work better for all of us. We will inject into this Presidential primary battle the wealth and diversity of California, the issues that make this state the state that it is and give voters of this state the opportunity to get to know the candidates better. To offer up their thoughts on how to improve the quality of life of this state.

While there is enormous potential for California to benefit financially when both Presidential nominees have to understand and respect the issues that are clearly at the highest top level for our state. We will make sure that we do this with the utmost respect for all of the other states. States like Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina, and now we learn today, New York is pressing forward to add an early Presidential primary and many other states are looking at doing the same.

And so, we want to join in with all these other states to say, it’s time for our voice to be heard in that process. But we respect the right of every state to do what they believe is in the best interest of the voters of those particular states.

In answer to a question about whether California is trying to displace the role of other states, here is what the Speaker's had to say:

Well if you look at what other states are thinking, states like Florida and New Mexico or Michigan and other states that are considering moving their Presidential primary to February 5, long before California was even in play, other states are anticipating this. Because everybody knows that we haven’t had a competitive Presidential primary since 1992—at least on the Democratic side. So this is an opportunity for us to say, we want to play a role. We want our voters to be empowered, so that when they vote, when they deposit their primary vote, it means the same thing in California as it does anywhere in any other state in this nation. And I think we have an obligation to our voters to do that…

I believe that Californians are going to understand it at the end of the day when they go and vote their ballot that this is about them. They’ll know that this is about the 79 cents on the dollar that we get back from Washington, D.C. While South Carolina is now enjoying getting $1.35 back for every dollar they send to Washington, D.C. While Iowa is getting huge subsidies for ethanol production and other states benefit from being early primary states. We think we now, finally, are going to put California on the national map. And I will debate and argue that today, tomorrow and every day between now and February 5, 2008 because I think this issue stands on its own and it’s a solid issue and we have every right to do this and I’m very excited about the vote that is going to take place today.

About whether our role will be diluted if other states also move their primaries to February 5:

Well, other states clearly have the opportunity to do what they have decided to do. If they want to move the Presidential primary to February the 5th, it’s their prerogative. It’s just like it’s our prerogative. And we respect that. But California is clearly a big fish in this pond and if the pond gets bigger, we’re clearly a big fish. So either way whether there’s five states on that Superbowl Tuesday primary or whether there’s 20 states in the Superbowl Tuesday primary, February 5, we will be a big fish in that pond. So, I’m not the least concerned.

California State Democratic Party Chair Art Torres was ecstatic about the primary date's move, and said:

Today’s passage of SB 113 is a step forward for the people of California and a step forward for the Democratic process. During the 2004 election cycle candidates withdrew $182 million in campaign cash from the ‘California ATM,’ but not a penny of it came back to be spent here. An early primary changes that dynamic. We are already seeing White House hopefuls spending more time and resources here in the Golden State. California is the most culturally and ethnically diverse state in the nation and has always been at the forefront of innovation. With the candidates running campaigns responsive to California’s great diversity of ideas and needs, all Americans will benefit.

From the evidence I've seen so far with Democratic candidates already making appearances in our state--talking to voters, students, and potential volunteers--and from reports about Republican candidates for President, this is a win for the state. There are costs, monetary and otherwise, to moving the primary and having a separate election on June 5, 2008 for other matters, but I think we come out a winner on this one.