Feb. Primary Will Happen: Time to Put Pressure on REAL Election Reform

It's increasingly apparent that the 2008 California Presidential primary will be moved to February 5. The Senate bill moved through the appropriate committee today unanimously, and the Assembly will move their version as well, which the Governor has indicated he will sign.

This bill says nothing about possible initiatives on redistricting or term limit relaxation that are rumored to be tied to the primary shift. But Fabian Nuñez, who under current law will be termed out in 2008, doesn't have $7.1 million in his campaign account for no reason. Last week he put forward a redistricting plan that was short on details. And Senate President Pro Tem Perata appeared cool on the idea, at least publicly. But it's clear that somebody is gearing up for something.

I would offer that if you REALLY wanted to change how we choose a President and how California can impact that, if you actually wanted to see candidates in this state both before and after Feb. 5, 2008, there are far more effective ways to do so beyond moving up a primary to the very moment when the nominee will have already been all but selected. Therefore I challenge everyone who supports this plan to also advocate full support for the National Popular Vote.

The real travesty with California's role in the Presidential process is not in the primary election, but in the general. By virtue of the antiquated electoral college system, a Californian's vote is about 3.6 times less valuable than a vote from a resident of the state of Wyoming. We've seen over the past two close elections that states like California are completely taken for granted in the general election, with all the money and all the focus going to a select few swing states. This state with the most voters really does have practically no effect on who gets elected.

The National Popular Vote would change all that. Under this legislation, every state pledges to deliver its slate of electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote. It would not kick in until states with a majority of electoral votes make it law, therefore essentially doing an end run around the electoral college. It is completely constitutional (apportionment of electors has always been left up to the states; Nebraska and Maine give them out be electoral district) and would mean that the winner of the popular vote could never be denied the Presidency.

The practical effect of this would be that Presidential hopefuls would not be able to concentrate their campaigns in one or two states. It would open up the playing field entirely, and we would see a number of new and innovative strategies to round up votes. Nobody's vote could be taken for granted, and therefore political participation nationwide would be widespread. Some think that candidates would just park themselves in major urban centers. They pretty much park themselves in a handful of states right now, so I don't see that as a fair or even coherent criticism.

46 states have introduced bills for the National Popular Vote. It has passed the Colorado State Senate, and has cleared committee in Montana and Hawaii with bipartisan backing. Last year both houses of the legislature in California passed the National Popular Vote bill, which was managed by then-State Senator Debra Bowen and then-Assemblyman Tom Umberg. But it was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger last September 30. It was vetoed because there was no public groundswell of support and no penalty for the Governor to veto the bill.

This is what baffles me about petitions and such for the date of the California Primary. Here is a common-sense solution that would make California count and literally change the way the Preisdent gets elected, making the system more fair and just. Why aren't the champions of reform (and, ahem, courage) pushing this bill? The LA Times and the Sacramento Bee editorialized in favor of this reform last year. Where is the grassroots and the netroots?

In fact, Carole Midgen is sponsoring SB 37, the National Popular Vote bill, in the 2007 session. I would love to see these people who are so wounded by California's lack of entry in the Presidential process to get behind this bill.