The LA Times is reporting today (Jan 20) that a movement toward holding a Februrary 5 primary in California is gaining momentum in the state legislature. Under both DNC and RNC rules, February 5 is the opening of the "window", the earliest date that states not otherwise granted an exemption (i.e. IA, NV, NH, SC for us) may hold a binding primary or caucus.
The full text of the story is here: http://www.latimes.com/...
State aims for Feb. 5 primary to boost clout
The move from June 3 would give California more influence in the 2008 presidential race.
By Jordan Rau, Times Staff Writer
January 20, 2007
SACRAMENTO — With Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's backing, state lawmakers from both parties are moving rapidly to make California a player in choosing the nation's next president by holding the state's primary four months earlier.
A bipartisan group of state senators introduced legislation Friday to change the 2008 presidential primary from June 3 to Feb. 5. Another bill was introduced by an Assembly Republican on Thursday, the day after Schwarzenegger declared that moving up the primary date would make California "relevant" nationally and was "something to shoot for."
The February date — the earliest the state can choose under national party rules — would place California at the beginning of the election season, right after four states that have secured the most privileged spots in January for their Democratic caucuses or primaries: Iowa (Jan. 14), Nevada (Jan. 19), New Hampshire (Jan. 22) and South Carolina (Jan. 29). The Republican calendar has Iowa and New Hampshire first, with the rest of the schedule in flux.
While banned under Democratic rules, the article goes on to say that a winner-take-all primary may be in the works for the Republicans. If this takes place, it could significantly alter the dynamics of the GOP contest by placing a huge bloc of delegates in play quite early in the process, probably giving an edge to more moderate candidates. For both parties, the move to an early primary will play into the hands of candidates with large warchests since the state is hugely expensive to campaign in due to the importance of paid media. While the article refers to a figure of $6 to $8 million per candidate, my opinion is that the actual cost of a pivotal early California primary could be far higher.
It is also my opinion that an early primary could accelerate pressure in other states to hold early primaries since California has a high percentage of the overall delegates to the Democratic convention. Florida legislators are already discussing the possibility of moving that state's primary to the same date. Furthermore, should the state follow past practice and require pre-primary delegate slating caucuses in each Congressional district, campaigns will be required to put field organizations in place here much earlier than in prior years. The article states that while the primary will not include state races, discussions are occurring to place ballot initiatives affecting term limits in the Assembly and redisticting. Presumably, a second primary would be held on the traditional June date for Congressional and state races.