California moves its presidential primary to March in push for electoral relevance

[diva77]

Source: Los Angeles Times

Backing an effort for California to claim a bigger share of the attention from presidential candidates, Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill moving the state's primary elections to early March.

Brown's decision, announced without fanfare on Wednesday, means the state will hold its presidential primary on March 3, 2020. It's a reversal from a decision he and Democratic lawmakers made in 2011 to push the state's primary elections back until June, after years of trying — and failing — to entice major candidates to bring their campaigns to California instead of smaller, more rural states.

Democrats who embraced the push for an early primary said they were motivated in part by the election of President Trump, whose successful bid for the Republican Party nomination was well on its way to reality by the time California voters cast ballots on June 7, 2016.

"We have a greater responsibility and a greater role to promote a different sort of agenda at the national level," said state Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), the author of the bill. "We need to have a greater influence at the national level."

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-california-moves-its-2020-presidential-1506545303-htmlstory.html

---

I like it! I like it!!

[FarPoint]

1. It's all good....

I like change ups.

[leftofcool]

2. Fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[C Moon]

3. Great. More ads.

[diva77]

5. Actually, my concern is how elections officials will behave - we need to hold them accountable

and ensure that they do not allow voter suppression; it's gonna be an uphill battle along with the effort to get rid of computerized voting and tabulation.

Yah, the ads will be annoying - but worth it for the earlier primary slot!!

[C Moon]

11. I shouldn't be so negative. I think it is a good thing.

Nix that. This is for the primary. Ne're mind. Der. (comment edited).

[brooklynite]

30. So you're worried that the Democratic State Government will engage in voter suppression?

[diva77]

32. Elections officials & voting equipment not necesssarily in synch with other government officials

i.e. just because we have a democratic majority in CA does not guarantee that votes will be counted as cast as long as we have DREs, Optiscans, computerized Central Tabulators, etc. And with consolidation of precincts and early voting as well, there are many ways to manipulate elections independent of the Democratic State Gov't.

The good news is that we will probably have enough votes to qualify as a landslide - which is what is necessary to overcome the other underhanded tactics.

[still_one]

4. Good

[bucolic_frolic]

6. I like it too

Maybe it will help.

I do see other things as in a mess. Democracy is hurting? I don't wonder. Candidates are elected not by smart people, but by party and psychology of the marginal voters who are easily swayed, exactly what the Founders wanted to avoid. Senators are not men or women of wisdom, elected by the state legislators, but candidates pandering to raise money to perpetuate their nice officialdom.
President is going good? Throw them out after 2 terms. Eisenhower, Obama, and even Reagan would have been stable 3rd term Presidents. Just when things get good, we toss them out of office. Notice there are no term limits for Senate or House, or Judges. Courts should be revolving rather than permanent. Retirement age, or at least term of office, even if it's 25 years is better than what we've got. Each elected President should appoint a Supreme Court Justice, but not more than 2, or 3 for a 12 year officeholder.
We're bruised because parties have made mistakes. Presidential term limits are Republicans' making, who never wanted another FDR. Citizens United is a Republican plan. Gerrymandering is at this point for all intents and purposes, a Republican institution. Meanwhile, we're reduced to begging for healthcare. We are marginalized.

[ret5hd]

8. Practically every position you have put forward I disagree with.

-1

[lastlib]

61. Reagan was senile before his second term started.

and I think Ike was getting a bit feeble by the end of term #2.

[PoliticAverse]

7. "the Democratic National Committee may not like the state moving its election up"

One state in actually got disenfranchised by the DNC in 2008 for moving their primary. California
is likely too big to ignore though.

[temporary311]

10. Didn't they move it during the actual primary season?

That probably didn't do em any favors.

[PoliticAverse]

13. Ok, I've refreshed my memory with the details. It was actually 2 states (Florida and Michigan)..

Last edited Wed Sep 27, 2017, 08:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Florida made the change in May 2007, Michigan in Sept 2007 (Republicans were behind
both moves).

I specifically remembered Michigan because Obama didn't have his name on the Democratic primary ballot there.

Eventually the DNC agreed to count awarded delegates from each state as 1/2 a delegate.

Edited to add:
DUer MichMan pointed out that the DNC eventually agreed to count the full votes of Florida and Michigan at the convention.

( http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/24/full-voting-rights-restored-to-florida-and-michigan/ )

[NobodyHere]

51. Michigan was only added because the delegate count didn't make a difference

[Matthew28]

9. It will

give the candidate more wind at their back earlier that is more like the diversity of the rest of the country.

[Lucky Luciano]

12. This is sensible. nt

[Maven]

14. GOOD. I'm tired of blue states being an afterthought in the candidate selection process

[LisaM]

19. I don't think that blue states sould be an afterthought (I live in one)

and I certainly don't think Iowa and New Hampshire should continue to have a lock on things.

But last primary season, someone made an excellent point here that blue voters in red states need a voice, too. Helping select the candidate is one way to give them more of a voice. I hadn't considered it from that point of view before, and it really struck me.

[temporary311]

27. Yeah, they shoulnd't be left out,

which they aren't, but there's also another problem: how much say do you want people from a state where we won't get any electoral votes to have? Currently, it feels a little outsized with the number of southern states that go so early. On the other hand, you may not want to give "sure things" too much say, either. I'm not sure there's any one way that will be completely perfect.

[LisaM]

33. No (though I think most can agree that caucuses skew things)

If you look at the turnout in the caucus states, people are being significantly under-represented.

[csziggy]

44. As a blue voter in a purple state (Florida) I am FOR California doing this!

With red states having most of the early primaries, that gives far too much emphasis on the Republican primaries and reduces the attention given to the Democratic candidates.

Moving a predominately progressive/liberal state up in the contests gives all progressive/liberal voters more exposure and a better look at our candidates.

A while back the Republican controlled Florida legislature moved the primaries up, knowing that the DNC would not allow Florida to have an early primary and our full votes. Although the DNC eventually gave us the votes, it took major energy away from the Florida Democratic primaries.

California is too big for the DNC to punish the way they tried to punish Florida Democratic voters and I think it will bring Democratic and especially more progressive voters to the table.

[diva77]

16. uh oh

[VigilantG]

17. Great to hear!

[stevenleser]

18. Here is the downside to this in the Citizens United era

To compete in California requires a massive bank account.

This is going to really help the best funded candidates and really put less known candidates trying to get a foothold in the race at a bad disadvantage.

I am otherwise in favor of this but let’s understand all of the potential impact.

[JI7]

23. It would have helped Clinton in 2008

[Retrograde]

29. CA primary was in March in 2008

and Clinton won it. Still didn't get the party nomination

[JI7]

31. Then it won't make much difference other than

Maybe ending the primary earlier

[stevenleser]

53. The combined effect of California and Florida coming so early would be huge

In 2008 we had California but not Florida. If they had both been early Hillary Clinton would have been the Democratic nominee. So it would have changed a lot.

If California had been in March in 2016 Sanders would have been knocked out of the race shortly thereafter.

It’s a change that will have a big impact.

[Locrian]

54. a big negative impact

It guarantees that the candidate with more $$ has a huge advantage.

CA is a huge state - so only the one with enough name recognition or $$ can play in that state. And after that - pretty much game over.

CA will experience a tidal wave of cash - ads etc. It'll be a winner takes all type of event.

[stevenleser]

56. Potentially. I don't know why but few folks but you seems willing to engage on the subject.

It's a big deal that needs sober discussion beyond what we mostly have seen.

[diva77]

58. I agree - considering over $50 million was spent on the special election in GA earlier this yr.

it makes one wonder how much $$ it will cost to play in CA or anywhere else these days, with the advent of Citizens United.

[yuiyoshida]

21. K&R and Tweeted

[groundloop]

22. Now Texas moves to February, New York follows up by moving to January ........

[SunSeeker]

37. The primaries should be more compressed anyway. They drag on WAY too long. nt

[groundloop]

55. That's what I'm alluding to... this arms race of primaries will drag them out even more

[SunSeeker]

57. No, it looks to me that it will compress it, so that all the states will be done by March. nt

[calimary]

24. F.U.C.K.I.N.G. A.W.E.S.O.M.E.!!!!!!!

As I've seen some say, awesomeeeeeeeeeeeee! (How is that pronounced? Awesuuuuuum? Or awesome-meeeeeeeeeee? Sorry, I'm old...)

Who cares! It's About Freakin' TIME!!! I'm sick and tired of having the biggest, most populous, and most highly-impacted DONOR state in the nation (because our population is the biggest: more people are affected by decisions in DC than those in any other state!) left behind and accepting the crumbs that fall from the table of other states, after all the biggest and most important decisions (in which we had NO voice) had already been made. I'm sorry, but I think the biggest state in the union should have a MUCH louder voice in a more timely fashion - BEFORE the nominee's been decided!

But, mind you, at the same time, they're all out here doing fundraisers, busily shaking us down for as much as they can get - so they can go campaign for votes EVERYWHERE ELSE.


It's

About

TIME.

[sarisataka]

25. I still think the most Fair Way

National primary day so no candidate gets eliminated by a poor showing in a single state.

Hopefully this change is helpful but I can easily see it backfire

[Delmette2.0]

26. What if we had 4 or 5 regional primaries?

Divide the country into 4 or 5 regions and rotate who votes first. The small population states almost never have a voice the way things are.

[skylucy]

28. Yay! It's about time!

[keithbvadu2]

34. Wasn't the RNC going to 'punish' states who jumped to the head of the line?

[PoliticAverse]

35. In 2008 the DNC punished Michigan and Florida for moving their primaries up...

(They ended up counting delegate votes from both states as 1/2 a regular delegate vote at the convention).

[MichMan]

40. The DNC told all the candidates to remove themselves from Michigan's ballot

The DNC asked all the candidates to remove themselves from the ballot in Michigan in 2008. Obama, Richardson, Biden, and Edwards all complied and withdrew. Clinton and Dodd refused and were the only names on the ballot with Clinton winning the state

The DNC initially refused to seat any of Michigan's delegates, but relented at the last minute once it was clear that they weren't going to change the outcome. They offered to count them as 1/2 vote, but ended up counting them as full votes once the convention started

[PoliticAverse]

41. Yes I see you are correct they eventually did count them as full votes...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/24/full-voting-rights-restored-to-florida-and-michigan/

[SunSeeker]

36. Fuck YES!

[MFM008]

38. Id like to see that

Bill saying if you dont release your taxes you dont get on the ballot in California.

[alp227]

39. I REALLY REALLY LIKE IT

[TheDebbieDee]

42. I don't blame them! California is the most populous state in the union...

Phuck Iowa!

[beaglelover]

43. YEAH!!!!

AWESOME FUCKING NEWS!!!!

[jcmaine72]

45. Fantastic! Until we're able to shitcan the EC altogether, this might be the next best thing.

[msongs]

47. nexy move all caucus states to the last day of the primary voting calendar. nt

[TeamPooka]

46. Yay for us in Cali!

[BigmanPigman]

48. YEAH!!!!! I have been bitching about this for uears.

[California_Republic]

49. Sweet! Excellent!

[LiberalFighter]

50. I would like the primary period to be shorten.

Such as maybe 8 sections of the country with each section holding their primary the same day.

[kimmylavin]

52. Good!

We're 12% of the population of this country!
That's 12% of the total amount of Americans, and yet we barely got to participate in the 2016 primary in any meaningful way.

[Gothmog]

59. How California yes, California just moved to make a Trump reelection more difficult

The change in the ballot access rules to require the tax return be provided to get on the ballot will hurt trump https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/18/how-california-yes-california-could-make-trumps-2020-reelection-more-difficult/?utm_term=.88124b926448

2. California could require presidential candidates to share their tax returns

Another bill sitting on Brown's desk would force any presidential candidate who wants to be on the ballot in California to release his or her tax returns to state officials.

How this could spell trouble for Trump: Well, this bill was singularly directed at him. He is the first major presidential candidate in more than 40 years to refuse to release his tax returns. If Brown signs this bill into law, Trump will face a choice: release his tax returns, or forgo running in California's general election and its 55 electoral votes.

[stevenleser]

60. Obviously this would be challenged by Trumps legal team but they would have a big hurdle

Namely Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution,

Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

[R B Garr]

62. Fantastic! And SHOW US YOUR TAXES! Love that requirement.

It's about time. If you want on the ballot, then be accountable. No more personal attacks and smearing someone's character without coming clean yourself.

Game changer here, love it.