ARTICLE
Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 568 last week which moves all of California’s primaries from June to the first week in March, in midterm years as well as presidential years. The legislation, “Prime Time Pri-mary Act” will also consolidate and move up congressional primary elections to the same day in March. It takes effect at the beginning of 2019, with the elections now falling "on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March," which will be March 3, 2020. Although much commentary about this bill has been published, there is little or no mention of the potential fact that a March primary for Congress and state office, in all election years, may likely render the current California’s Open Primary (top-two system) unconstitutional. For almost 50 years the federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, have ruled that states cannot shut down all methods for a candidate to get on the General Election (November) ballot in the spring and summer of election years. Now that SB 568 has been signed into law and assuming no legal challenges come forward, there will be no means for a candidate (for Congress or partisan state office) to get his or her name on the November ballot unless that candidate qualifies by December of the year before the election. That is because California doesn’t let anyone onto the November ballot who doesn’t place first or second in the primary, known as the Open Primary. A March primary means candidates must qualify in December of the odd year before the election. Election law professor, Derek Muller, from Pepperdine Law School noted this on his blog, “An Excess of Democracy” on September 21. He quoted from the Ninth Circuit decision that upheld Washington State’s top-two primary. Why is this so significant? California has long been a Presidential candidate’s "Money Stop" - where candidates from major parties come to our state to seek large campaign contributions early and often. And in fact, most national politicians don’t want California to move up, because campaigning in such a populous and sprawling state is hugely expensive and would make it even more of a money game. Moving the Primary, according to proponents of this legislation, is a move designed to increase the influence of the country's most populous state in deciding presidential candidates. "Candidates will not be able to ignore the largest, most diverse state in the nation as they seek our country's highest office," California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said in a statement about the bill called the Prime Time Primary Act. "California has been a leader time and time again on the most important issues facing our country - including immigration, education, and the environment. The Prime Time Primary Act will help ensure that “issues important to Californians are prioritized by presidential candidates from all political parties.” The practice of moving California’s primary up to March is not new. California moved its primary to February in the 2008 election, which resulted "in the highest voter turnout for a primary election since 1980," according to Secretary of State Padilla. It should be noted that there was no incumbent running in 2008 - and two very popular Democratic candidates were on the ballot - Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. That may have more to do with voter turn-out than an early election. California has periodically attempted to push the state into the presidential game by moving its primary to earlier in the year – March in 1994, 2000 and 2004 and February in 2008. Long-time Sacramento Bee political columnist and now independent writer for CalMatters, Dan Walters, sees it a different way. He is quoted as saying, “Actually, making California more relevant is not its true purpose. It’s really aimed at making California’s Democratic politicians more influential in choosing their party’s presidential nominees, and perhaps helping US Sen. Kamala Harris or Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti flirt with White House bids.” SB 568 passed both the state Senate (26 Yes 10 No and 4 Not vot-ing) and Assembly (55 Yes 21 No and 3 Not voting) with bipartisan support. The theory that California can be more than a cash stop for Presidential candidates may be tested in 2020, but it is yet to be seen how other states will react by moving up their primaries. It is also not clear if minor political parties will sue as suggested by Professor Muller. One thing is clear — the race to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is heating up and California may find itself in the driver’s seat.
Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 568 last week which moves all of California’s primaries from June to the first week in March, in midterm years as well as presidential years. The legislation, “Prime Time Pri-mary Act” will also consolidate and move up congressional primary elections to the same day in March. It takes effect at the beginning of 2019, with the elections now falling "on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March," which will be March 3, 2020.
Although much commentary about this bill has been published, there is little or no mention of the potential fact that a March primary for Congress and state office, in all election years, may likely render the current California’s Open Primary (top-two system) unconstitutional.
For almost 50 years the federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, have ruled that states cannot shut down all methods for a candidate to get on the General Election (November) ballot in the spring and summer of election years. Now that SB 568 has been signed into law and assuming no legal challenges come forward, there will be no means for a candidate (for Congress or partisan state office) to get his or her name on the November ballot unless that candidate qualifies by December of the year before the election. That is because California doesn’t let anyone onto the November ballot who doesn’t place first or second in the primary, known as the Open Primary. A March primary means candidates must qualify in December of the odd year before the election.
Election law professor, Derek Muller, from Pepperdine Law School noted this on his blog, “An Excess of Democracy” on September 21. He quoted from the Ninth Circuit decision that upheld Washington State’s top-two primary. Why is this so significant? California has long been a Presidential candidate’s "Money Stop" - where candidates from major parties come to our state to seek large campaign contributions early and often. And in fact, most national politicians don’t want California to move up, because campaigning in such a populous and sprawling state is hugely expensive and would make it even more of a money game.
Moving the Primary, according to proponents of this legislation, is a move designed to increase the influence of the country's most populous state in deciding presidential candidates. "Candidates will not be able to ignore the largest, most diverse state in the nation as they seek our country's highest office," California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said in a statement about the bill called the Prime Time Primary Act. "California has been a leader time and time again on the most important issues facing our country - including immigration, education, and the environment. The Prime Time Primary Act will help ensure that “issues important to Californians are prioritized by presidential candidates from all political parties.”
The practice of moving California’s primary up to March is not new. California moved its primary to February in the 2008 election, which resulted "in the highest voter turnout for a primary election since 1980," according to Secretary of State Padilla. It should be noted that there was no incumbent running in 2008 - and two very popular Democratic candidates were on the ballot - Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. That may have more to do with voter turn-out than an early election.
California has periodically attempted to push the state into the presidential game by moving its primary to earlier in the year – March in 1994, 2000 and 2004 and February in 2008.
Long-time Sacramento Bee political columnist and now independent writer for CalMatters, Dan Walters, sees it a different way. He is quoted as saying, “Actually, making California more relevant is not its true purpose. It’s really aimed at making California’s Democratic politicians more influential in choosing their party’s presidential nominees, and perhaps helping US Sen. Kamala Harris or Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti flirt with White House bids.”
SB 568 passed both the state Senate (26 Yes 10 No and 4 Not vot-ing) and Assembly (55 Yes 21 No and 3 Not voting) with bipartisan support. The theory that California can be more than a cash stop for Presidential candidates may be tested in 2020, but it is yet to be seen how other states will react by moving up their primaries. It is also not clear if minor political parties will sue as suggested by Professor Muller.
One thing is clear — the race to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is heating up and California may find itself in the driver’s seat.