Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RandySF

(58,659 posts)
Sat Sep 16, 2017, 01:55 AM Sep 2017

California Assembly approves presidential primary in March

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California Assembly has voted to move the 2020 presidential primary to March to give the nation’s most populous state more influence in choosing nominees.

The bill approved Friday will now go to the state Senate where it’s expected to pass. Gov. Jerry Brown has not said whether he’ll sign it.

The bill would move the presidential primary to the Tuesday after the first Monday in March — three months earlier than the June contest held in 2016, when Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were already the presumptive nominees.


http://kron4.com/ap/california-assembly-approves-presidential-primary-in-march/

30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
California Assembly approves presidential primary in March (Original Post) RandySF Sep 2017 OP
YEAH! Bitching about this for 30 years has finally come to an end. BigmanPigman Sep 2017 #1
About damn time! zentrum Sep 2017 #2
Good. Ken Burch Sep 2017 #3
Hooray stuffmatters Sep 2017 #4
K&R Jamaal510 Sep 2017 #5
This March? Hooray!! C Moon Sep 2017 #6
"the 2020 presidential primary to March" left-of-center2012 Sep 2017 #9
I was being silly. C Moon Sep 2017 #19
Good, but also make it on a Saturday n/t greeny2323 Sep 2017 #7
Why? We already have early voting Retrograde Sep 2017 #28
Great to hear. jalan48 Sep 2017 #8
Excellent idea. dalton99a Sep 2017 #10
As the most populous and most diverse state we should be first. DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2017 #11
+1 oasis Sep 2017 #17
Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2017 #12
This will help to separate the kooks and loons and other assorted time-wasters... NurseJackie Sep 2017 #13
No more caucuses in Minnesota. MineralMan Sep 2017 #15
Good. I didn't know that!! boston bean Sep 2017 #20
Yes. The MN state legislature passed that MineralMan Sep 2017 #21
Nice! ismnotwasm Sep 2017 #23
Oddly enough, the decision to dump the caucus system MineralMan Sep 2017 #24
well as much as I liked the idea at first, you're right, starting in a very rich and large state JCanete Sep 2017 #22
Well the only reason we had caucuses here was because the state REFUSED to pay for primaries Turn CO Blue Sep 2017 #25
I hadn't heard that before. Thanks for the info. That's got to be very frustrating. NurseJackie Sep 2017 #27
We are one of the mail-in states but we also have early voting super stations and Turn CO Blue Sep 2017 #30
Well, that will be a game-changer. MineralMan Sep 2017 #14
Not really RandySF Sep 2017 #16
I think the oft-criticized draw-out primaries generally do a very good job... Expecting Rain Sep 2017 #18
Good.... Adrahil Sep 2017 #26
We had an early primary in 2008 Retrograde Sep 2017 #29

BigmanPigman

(51,582 posts)
1. YEAH! Bitching about this for 30 years has finally come to an end.
Sat Sep 16, 2017, 02:33 AM
Sep 2017

My family will be grateful too, for the bill passing and for me not bitching about it anymore.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
3. Good.
Sat Sep 16, 2017, 03:52 AM
Sep 2017

There's no good reason for any state's primary or caucus to be scheduled so late in the cycle that the voters of that state have no real say in the nominating process.

Retrograde

(10,132 posts)
28. Why? We already have early voting
Sat Sep 16, 2017, 05:42 PM
Sep 2017

and mail-in ballots are available to anyone on request - and anyone can sign up to be a permanent mail-in voter.

I've heard the arguments for weekend voting. I don't think changing the day will make a difference in a state that makes it easier to vote than most - the people who don't bother to vote anyway will complain that Saturday is the only day they can spend with their families etc. Besides, there are religions that consider Saturday the Sabbath and limit their activities.

Response to RandySF (Original post)

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
13. This will help to separate the kooks and loons and other assorted time-wasters...
Sat Sep 16, 2017, 10:01 AM
Sep 2017

... from the viable candidates much earlier in the process. Still need to eliminate the caucuses. With luck that will come too.

MineralMan

(146,281 posts)
21. Yes. The MN state legislature passed that
Sat Sep 16, 2017, 01:31 PM
Sep 2017

after the election, and it was signed by the Governor. We will have primary elections for Presidential candidates, as we do for all other offices hereafter. Caucuses simply sample too small a percentage of voters to convey the wishes of the people of Minnesota.

While I enjoyed the caucus system, personally, I was always skeptical of its fairness, since so few people show up. It makes it all too easy for a dedicated contingent that supports a particular candidate to dominate the caucus vote.

I'll miss the activity, but not the method.

MineralMan

(146,281 posts)
24. Oddly enough, the decision to dump the caucus system
Sat Sep 16, 2017, 01:57 PM
Sep 2017

in Minnesota was made on a bi-partisan basis. I found that very interesting. Clearly, it was seen that the caucus system produced an erroneous opinion for both parties in 2016.

It was time for it to be replaced with a more accurate way to measure voter sentiment.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
22. well as much as I liked the idea at first, you're right, starting in a very rich and large state
Sat Sep 16, 2017, 01:34 PM
Sep 2017

means candidates without heavy financial backing out the gate might not be viable at all because this certainly won't be a shake hands and ring doorbells campaign. You see the good of that, while I'm suddenly more cynical. That said, I would rather California actually have some influence over who our candidates are, and hopefully, in-spite of my reservations, this still opens the door for more progressive candidates who can attempt to appeal to voters who sympathetic to their message.

Turn CO Blue

(4,221 posts)
25. Well the only reason we had caucuses here was because the state REFUSED to pay for primaries
Sat Sep 16, 2017, 02:59 PM
Sep 2017

so it was up to the state Democratic party organization to fundraise and pay for any participation in the primary process, with caucuses being the least expensive option. Even caucuses cost the party over $50K in funds (the schools and facilities have a low cost, but you need one for every 2-6 precincts, and hold county conventions and they have a fixed cost of the janitorial and cleanup fee).

To be clear, the DNC does not provide or offer even one thin dime toward our primary process (in our case caucuses) and IN FACT, insists on getting any money raised above the $50K sent to the DNC, even if it's only a penny even though the CO Dems could use any funds we can get.

But there was a ballot initiative to bring back primary election (which passed by a good margin).

I haven't followed up to see how the state is going to pay for the primary next time in 2020 -- but I do know it was originally a fiscal Repuke Secretary of State that removed primaries from the state's election budget -- to save money and that NEITHER party liked that.

The Republican party didn't even hold a real caucus in Colorado last time. Repuke party insiders felt that there was overwhelming support for Ted Cruz (ugh) and the state party insiders wanted Trump to win the caucus, so they just didn't schedule a caucus and GAVE Trump the votes (double ugh) through a county convention process where the fix was in. To this day, most of our Republican acquaintances are still #neverTrump even though they're still Republicans for some unfathomable reason.

I can guarantee you before I even do my research, that the current Repuke SOS and Repuke held legislature seats are trying to find a way to get out of paying for the primary.

There is absolutely no way the State Dem party could follow the new law and pay for ballots and election in a real primary - - would need well over a million dollars, and I've heard some estimates of as high as $8 million. The DNC won't help us.

So I guess I wrote all that to provide background for this -- I really wish all the people who gripe so much about caucuses had the background knowledge state by state to understand how and why that is the process. It's easy to paint with a broad brush, but as local Dem here in the trenches, doing actual grunt work --- we LITERALLY pass fucking buckets asking for dollars and checks -- I get a little tired of those ideological diatribes against caucuses -- when the process here is really dictated by funds and infrastructure (or lack thereof, not tradition or ideology or a marriage to some preference of primary process or type of debate or democratic representation).

That is just how I feel, but thanks for reading.


edited to add expensive county conventions included in process.


NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
27. I hadn't heard that before. Thanks for the info. That's got to be very frustrating.
Sat Sep 16, 2017, 04:53 PM
Sep 2017

I wonder if there's anything to be gained (or costs saved) by duplicating the mail-in voting procedures that other states have. From what I remember, when it's 100% mail-in, the participation is much greater than average nationwide.

Turn CO Blue

(4,221 posts)
30. We are one of the mail-in states but we also have early voting super stations and
Sat Sep 16, 2017, 08:58 PM
Sep 2017

same day voting and absentee voting. We really do have one of the most open and longest voting processes and that is why our general elections (not off-year or midterms) have such high turnout - over 56%. That is with successive Republican SOSs. Can you imagine if we'd had Democrats in the SOS positions?!!

But maybe they will just do the mail-in for 2018 to save $$ on the primary process.

Another thing we have here is automatic voter registration when you get a driver's license or state ID. But most people register as Independent (it's the wild west still after all) but it was still heavily a Hillary state.

MineralMan

(146,281 posts)
14. Well, that will be a game-changer.
Sat Sep 16, 2017, 10:17 AM
Sep 2017

If a couple of other states, like New York and Texas do the same, the primary season would end in March, really. Maybe we should just move all primaries to a fixed date and leave it at that. I'd be glad to see that happen, frankly.

 

Expecting Rain

(811 posts)
18. I think the oft-criticized draw-out primaries generally do a very good job...
Sat Sep 16, 2017, 01:12 PM
Sep 2017

weeding out candidates who might look good on first-blush, but who fade in the harsh light of an extended contest.

Speedy conclusions are not a virtue in my estimation.

Retrograde

(10,132 posts)
29. We had an early primary in 2008
Sat Sep 16, 2017, 05:51 PM
Sep 2017

One of the earlier ones in the country, IIRC. California went strongly for Clinton, and we were pretty much lost in the Super Tuesday circus.

I would like my state to have more of an impact, but I don't know if this is the answer (and sadly there's no foreseeable way we're going to see an election based on the national popular vote any time soon). Will this be a primary for all the other offices as well, or will we still have the normal June primaries for senator, representative, etc.? Will this be a one issue election, or will California do the usual and stick a bunch of propositions on the ballot?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»California Assembly appro...