Munro’s Primary Goal Is Role For Voters

Give Secretary of State Ralph Munro points for trying.

Since taking office in 1981, Munro has tried to give Washington voters a meaningful role in presidential elections.

When he concluded that exit polling allowed the news media to declare the presidential winner well before West Coast polls had closed, he pushed legislation to restrict exit polling.

And he’s campaigned tirelessly to replace precinct caucuses with a primary as the method for voters to help nominate the candidates for president. A primary, Munro has argued, attracts far more voters than the neighborhood caucus meetings. And if properly timed, a primary can attract more candidates to the Northwest.

But if he gets the maximum score for trying, Munro gets far fewer points for succeeding. The federal courts tossed out the state’s exit-polling restrictions, leaving West Coast voters at the mercy of TV network anchors. And he has yet to come up with a formula for a presidential primary that gives Washington voters a real role in choosing the nominees for president.

Munro’s latest attempt to put together a workable primary - Senate Bill 5852 - survived Wednesday’s deadline for bill action. But it is far from a sure thing in the GOP House.

“I never give up,” Munro said. “We keep working it. For all of its problems, it’s a hell of a lot better than the caucuses.”

The bill is an attempt to resolve some of the problems that made the state’s first-ever presidential primary in 1992 a washout. Democrats, who were choosing from a large field for a nominee to face then-President George Bush, decided to ignore the primary results, opting instead for the caucuses.

Further detracting from the primary was the fact that Bill Clinton had the Democratic nomination all but assured by the time the May 19 primary was held. In addition, many of Washington’s fiercely independent voters objected to a requirement that they declare their party affiliation before voting.

Only 13 percent of the state’s 2.2 million registered voters bothered to show up at the polls. That was much higher than the typical caucus turnout of 1 to 3 percent. But it was well below the 30 percent average turnout for September primaries when state and local candidates are nominated.

This year’s bill tries to boost the 1996 primary in two ways:

The ‘96 primary would be held March 12 instead of May 21. Twenty-eight states have rushed to the early weeks of the process - including 17 of the 25 most populous. The nominations are now expected to be decided by the end of next March.

The rules will be changed to allow voters to take part without signing in as either Republicans or Democrats. Each party can decided whether to include such “non-affiliated” votes in the results used to distribute national delegates.

Paul Berendt, the chairman of the state Democratic Party, said he thinks Munro’s bill presents a workable compromise. He doubts, however, his party would count the votes of those who refuse to identify themselves as Democrats.

Todd Myers, communications director for the state Republican Party, said he doubts the GOP would count independent votes either.

“Previously they cut independents out altogether,” Myers said. “This gets them involved and gives us the opportunity to use them. But as our rules stand now, I don’t think we would.”

“If they’re smart they would,” Munro said of the party option to count independent votes. “I’d take the people’s choice into consideration if I ran the parties.”

Munro said he’s not exactly pleased having to move the primary to March but is responding to the national trend that began when California shifted its primary from early June to late March.

“Is the system flawed?” he asked. “The answer is in how many people have dropped out so far.” On the Republican side, former U.S. Rep. Jack Kemp, former vice president Dan Quayle and former education secretary William Bennett have all decided not to run for president.

“They’ve dropped out because it’s damn near an impossible dream to raise the money to compete in all of those primaries at once,” Munro said.

Which leaves us with some painfully pertinent questions: Will Washington forever be chasing the perfect solution, staying always one step behind the nearly constant changes in presidential primary procedures? And if the process is doing damage to the body politic - expanding the time for campaigning while contracting the time for governing - then why should we join such a ruinous competition?

xxxx

The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Peter Callaghan McClatchy News Service