Handful of States Canceling Their Presidential Primaries

KATV ^ | 11/9/03 | AP

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Several states have moved to drop their presidential primaries next year, worried about costs in still-tight financial times and wondering if the political exercise would serve any purpose.

Some say they can't afford the millions of dollars it costs to put on an election. Others say the decisions reflect the lopsided nature of modern primaries: The front-runner gets anointed by the media and campaign donors after the first few state primaries and the rest of the primaries are formalities.

The decisions add fuel to the argument that the primary system is in dire need of repairs. In most states forgoing a primary, party-run caucuses will be used instead to choose delegates to the national conventions.

"Fewer voters will participate because (caucuses) are more complex," said Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. State politicians are freezing out average voters, he said, because caucuses bring "lower turnout, and more advantage to whoever's organized."

Primaries usually don't get turnout much higher than 20 percent of registered voters, but they're better than caucuses. In Missouri, the 2000 primary brought 745,000 people to the polls, while the 1996 caucus brought 20,000, the state Democratic Party said.

So far, Kansas, Colorado and Utah - all with Republican-controlled legislatures - have canceled their state-run 2004 primaries. Republican legislatures tried unsuccessfully to drop primaries in Arizona and Missouri, but Democratic governors either vetoed the primary bill or restored the funding.

Some Democrats complain that cutting primaries hurts them especially, with their crowded field of candidates. President Bush (website/newsbio) has no challenger.

Other Democrats, however, are pushing to get rid of primaries. Maine dropped its presidential primary for next year, and New Mexico effectively did - it passed a law allowing parties to hold caucuses, and then Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson set an early Feb. 3 caucus (June primaries will go on for other elections).

Washington Gov. Gary Locke, head of the Democratic Governors Association, is calling a special session to discuss scrapping his state's primary next year.

"Why waste $7 million of scarce state money?" Locke said. Democrats in Washington state are using precinct caucuses in February to allocate national convention delegates, making the March 2 primary pointless.

Money worries have just exacerbated already existing doubts about the front-loaded nature of the primaries, officials and experts said.

"It started to snowball," said Leslie Reynolds, executive director of the National Association of Secretaries of State. "We're spending all this money, we don't have an impact on the process, and people aren't coming because they don't feel they have an impact."

"Clearly, the process is flawed," said Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin. "The country is only now beginning to wake up to the fact that there's a primary. Active Democrats are only now focusing on it. Average voters aren't focused at all. And that's not good."

Gans said the changes aren't all bad. A turn to caucuses strengthens person-to-person politics, rather than the TV-driven, mass advertising campaigns that mark big primary days like Super Tuesday, when 11 states vote at once.

Galvin, a Democrat, worries instead that the anti-primary push in GOP-controlled states is an effort to stop any criticism of Bush from within his party. "They don't want a president on the ballot when people can come out and make a protest," he said.

But Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman at the Republican National Committee, said the decisions have been made by the states, not the national party, and for them cost is the main concern.

"There's no reason to spend the money when it isn't necessary," she said.

In some states where the government has chosen not to hold the primary, the state Democratic Party has decided to conduct one anyway and bear the cost itself.

South Carolina's Democrats are struggling to raise an estimated $500,000 for their Feb. 3 contest. Utah's Democrats also want their voters to have a say.

"We want to show the Utah Legislature they were wrong and the democratic process is alive in Utah," said state party chairman Donald Dunn.

[Tacis]

The dems want to do away with primaries because the media they don't own often want too much cash to NOT REPORT the crooked, devious, sleazy efforts they use to pick the guy they wanted. By selecting via caucus, the dems can do all their criminal, arbitrary, anti-American stuff without fear of publicity or the cost of surpressing it. The dem political caucuses will be as fair, open, and objective as their fully segregated, step-n-fetchit Congressional Black Caucus, guaranteed!

[mtbopfuyn]

Huh? What did I miss? Don't these events bring in tons of money to the host cities? Not to mention, your city is remembered by the party and elected candidate for future nods of perks.

[Congressman Billybob]

The cancellation of (Democratic) primaries plays into the strategy revealed by Dean this weekend. It makes sense for states to save the time and money otherwise put into meaningless primaries.

There is, however, a dark side to this practicality. Less primaries means less delegates to the Democratic convention who are committed by law in their votes to nominate. It opens the door a little for Lady MacBeth (excuse me, Hillary!) to jump in at the last minute and steal the nomination from Dean.

That will not, however, change the final result. Click below for more on this.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "The 2004 Election is Over, Now," discussion thread. IF YOU WANT A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

[holymoly]

Huh? What did I miss? Don't these events bring in tons of money to the host cities?

I think you're confusing primaries with conventions.

Voting in primaries (at least here in Michigan) is done locally. There is no "host" city.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

There is, however, a dark side to this practicality. Less primaries means less delegates to the Democratic convention who are committed by law in their votes to nominate.

That was my question. If he doesn't have enough delegates to be nominated, what are the "alternatives"?

[mtbopfuyn]

Oops, you're right. In Texas we only have the RAT primary. I'm always torn between voting for the lesser evil or the worst just for fun.

[Jack Black]

Personally I don't believe that state government should have any role in primary elections. It should be 100% up to the parties to decide if, when and how they select delegates to their convention. Getting the state out of the process would end abuses like the McCain fiasco, where he tried to steal the nomination by getting Democrats to vote for him in so-called "open primary" states. I believe that the only time the "open primary" laws went to the Supremes they were found unconstitutional. Therefore I think any state party could, should it decide to, drop out of the state sanctioned primary system.

[ladyinred]

Thanks, I was wondering what in the heck this is all about. Your post makes sense to me. Prigs.

[Jack Black]

Less primaries means less delegates to the Democratic convention who are committed by law in their votes to nominate.

Probably true, though I don't know the law in every state. Party rules probalby bind almost as effectively as state laws. Don't all these caucus decided delages vote as promised?

If he doesn't have enough delegates to be nominated, what are the "alternatives"?

Obviously if, through whatever process, there is not a clear winner at the time of the convention two things are going to happen. 1. A Political Convention will be interesting to watch for the first time since 1968. 2. Hillary or Gore will probably get the nomination.

[NovemberCharlie]

Less primaries means less delegates to the Democratic convention who are committed by law in their votes to nominate.

Not true; caucuses choose delegates too.

[Jack Black]

Who cares? Let the Dems pick Al Sharpton using a Ouije Board. I don't see what, as a taxpayer, I should pay for this one groups internal processes. I agree, caucus's are rife with back room shennanigans. Still it worked pretty well for the first hundred years. The "smoke filled back rooms" yeilded some decent Presidents. The primary system has not been kind to the Dems. Dukakis, McGovern were clearly unelectable. Ditto Mondale. Carter was a weak candidate in an election that was sure to go to the D's. Had a stronger man won the D's might have held the white house for a long time in the post-Nixon era. Instead it was a brief interlude between Republican administration. One can almost sympathize with the D's wanting the eliminate primaries. Their voters are too dumb to reliabley pick a viable candidate.

[Imal]

I'd be glad to see the primary system go. Political parties can select their own candidates on their own dime. I don't want to see my tax dollars wasted any longer to support the activities of political parties I never vote for anyway.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Iowa Poll says Gephardt edges ahead of Dean
Newsday

[BlueNgold]

By holding a party only caucus the state party can commit it's state's delagates to a candidate. I would like to see some reference material indicating that a party caucus has any less binding effect on the delegates than a state funded primary election.

[rwfromkansas]

But they said that delegates will generally be determined by caucuses anyway. The lack of a primary won't have that much of an effect it sounds like.

[BlueNgold]

DNC 1992 Rules: In 1990, the DNC made two changes that affected 1992 process. The presidential primary season was moved forward by one week, from the second Tuesday in March to the first. The second change banned winner-reward systems, which gave extra delegates to the winner of a primary or caucus. All states were required to divide their publicly elected delegates proportionally among candidates who drew at least 15% of the primary/caucus vote. The number of super delegates also was expanded.

[Theodore R.]

Is there no longer a Republican presidential primary in TX? I would assume that a couple of unknowns will put their names on the ballot. We will have congressional primaries at the same time, and there will be some judicial primaries too.