Move up Washington’s presidential primary
Complaints about last year’s presidential primary in Washington state were widespread, and for good reason. Voters felt like the process wasn’t working for them. And they were angry that they weren’t able to maintain their independence.
By the time the primary was held, on May 24, the crowded Republican field was thinned to one viable candidate, Donald Trump. Gone were Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and a long list of others that Washingtonians might have supported.
Meanwhile, Democrats had already determined the fate of their electoral votes at March caucuses. Bernie Sanders won in March. Hillary Clinton won a meaningless primary two months later.
Voters who didn’t want to declare an affiliation with either party were forced to do so, and their choice was visible on the outside of the ballot envelope. Upon seeing that, some people deposited them into the garbage, rather than the mailbox.
Secretary of State Kim Wyman has tried to get the presidential primary moved up, but to no avail. She is trying again, with a worthwhile bill that addresses some of the issues.
House Bill 1469 and Senate Bill 5333 would move the presidential primary up to the second Tuesday in March, ahead of Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Holding the vote when there are more candidates and the winner is still in doubt would boost participation and relevance. Candidates would have to study up on Northwest issues such as the Hanford cleanup, dams, Pacific Rim trade, forest health and the Export-Import Bank.
The issues themselves would take center stage and perhaps garner more post-election attention. The past few presidents had to play catch-up, because they spent little time in Washington state, outside of seeking donations from wealthy West Siders.
Look at the attention the Midwest has gotten since the election.
The bill would also allow voters to participate in the primary without signing a party oath. The votes would be tabulated, but parties could still choose not to include those ballots. At the crux of this issue is the desire of parties to control their nomination processes. They fear crossover votes could taint the results.
On the other hand, these elections are paid for by taxpayers ($11.5 million last year), so allowing parties to reject certain ballots is a problem. We respect that these are party affairs, but if they want total control, they should pick up the entire tab.
A final change would allow the secretary of state to remove candidates from the ballot once they’ve dropped out. Under current law, candidates must file an affidavit to that effect. For instance, Ben Carson remained on the ballot after he dropped out.
In the past, the Republican Party has supported moving up the primary date. Democrats have not, because they prefer to hold caucuses, where loyalists can exert more control. We hope they listen to the complaints from last year and remember that seven times as many people participated in the primary than the caucus.
Both parties should take note of the high participation rate in the primaries even though the outcome didn’t mean much in the grand scheme. People want their voices heard.
Though the next primary won’t be until 2020, lawmakers should act this session while the issue is still fresh in everyone’s minds.
To respond to this editorial online, go to www.spokesman.com and click on “Opinion.”