SACRAMENTO >> California has the most people and more registered voters than any other state, the world’s sixth-largest economy and often, little influence over who Republicans and Democrats nominate for president.
State lawmakers want to change that. As the California State Legislature’s session wound down Friday, Sept. 15, the Assembly voted to move the state’s 2020 primary from June to early March, possibly on “Super Tuesday” when a number of states — 11 in 2016 — hold primaries.
Senate Bill 568 passed the Assembly 55-21 and now heads to Gov. Jerry Brown for his signature. In May, the Senate voted 32-6 in favor of the bill. A Brown spokesman declined to say whether the governor would sign the legislation, which would place California’s primary on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March.
A March primary here could have a major effect on the 2020 presidential race — that’s supporters’ goal, anyway.
“A state as populous and diverse as California should not be an afterthought,” California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, a Democrat, said in a statement.
“Moving California’s presidential primary to March from June means candidates in both parties can’t treat immigration, climate change, criminal justice reform and investing in jobs and innovation like afterthoughts, as they did too often in 2016,” the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, said in a news release.
Jack Pitney, a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College, was more reserved.
“It’s very hard to predict the impact of a date change,” Pitney said. “Everything will depend on the identity of the candidates and the competitiveness of the race.”
Most states’ primaries are over by the time California votes in June. By then, there’s usually a clear idea of who the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees will be, with candidates coming to California mainly to raise money from wealthy donors.
2016 primary
Last year’s primary featured vigorous campaigning in California by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
But it was largely symbolic. By staying in the race even though Clinton had enough delegates to win before California’s primary, Sanders sought to steer the Democratic Party left, while Clinton sought to avoid an embarrassing California loss en route to the Democratic National Convention in July.
California’s presidential primary hasn’t always been in June. The 1996, 2000 and 2004 primaries were in March, and the state held its 2008 presidential primary in February.
That primary had little effect on the nominating process. Clinton won California’s 2008 primary but lost the nomination to Barack Obama, while U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., won California’s GOP delegates and his party’s nomination.
Thirty-three states moved their 2008 presidential primaries ahead of California’s. Spencer Kimball, a professor of political communication at Emerson College in Boston, said it’s possible states would again move up their primaries to avoid being drowned out by California, which also could lose delegates from both parties by having an earlier primary.
A March 2020 primary would still come after the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, both of which have considerable sway who becomes a nominee.
SB 568 moves all the races on the primary ballot — local level to statewide offices — to March. An earlier primary “is a boon for advertisers, political consultants, and incumbents, but not so much for anyone else,” said Rob Pyers, research director for the nonpartisan California Target Book, which studies California legislative races.
“The move is certain to have an outsized impact on the down-ticket challengers,” Pyers said. “Campaigning for the primary essentially would have to start around Halloween of the previous year, so any would-be challengers are going to be faced with a campaign that has to sustain itself for a much greater length of time in an environment where broadcasting rates will have gone through the roof by virtue of the increased demand at the presidential level.
“Expect independent expenditure groups to be even more of a factor,” Pyers added. “As they’re the only ones who can raise money without limits to be able to afford to wage the kind of campaign that can break through the rest of the noise.”
Big-money boost?
Deep-pocketed candidates stand to benefit the most from an earlier California primary, Pitney said.
“We do know that it is extremely expensive to run in California,” he said. “Only the biggest names and best-funded candidates could compete here.”
“No matter the date of the California primary, Iowa and New Hampshire will still have outsized influence by virtue of going first. And in those states, outsider candidates at least have an outside chance.”
It’s easier for candidates with limited money to compete alongside financial heavy-hitters in early primary states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. In 2016, for example, John Kasich took second in New Hampshire with limited money, while Jeb Bush, who had more than $100 million, placed fourth.
“The cost of playing in California versus playing in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina is incredibly different,” said Mike Biundo, Republican Rick Santorum’s 2012 campaign manager, who later worked for Kasich and Donald Trump. “A Jeb Bush or a Hillary Clinton, I think, has the advantage if California is earlier.”
While Trump is presumably the GOP’s 2020 nominee, the field of Democrats aiming to unseat him could be large, much like the Republican field in 2016.
If so, the prospect of winning Iowa or New Hampshire, or at least finishing near the top, and hanging on to win California’s mother lode of delegates could be enticing, especially for rumored Democratic presidential contenders with California roots — U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti.
California also may become the first state to require presidential candidates to release their tax returns if they want to appear on the state ballot. Lawmakers sent the governor a bill Friday requiring candidates to publicly share five years of returns; Brown hasn’t said if he’ll sign it.
Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns during the 2016 campaign sparked similar legislation in dozens of states from New Jersey to Hawaii. The documents reveal income sources, tax exemptions, charitable donations and potential financial conflicts of interest. For decades, all major presidential candidates — except for Trump — have released their returns.