BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, REAPPORTIONMENT AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Ron Calderon, Chair
BILL NO: SB 113 HEARING DATE:2/7/07
AUTHOR: CALDERON ANALYSIS
BY:Darren Chesin
AMENDED: AS INTRODUCED
FISCAL: YES
DESCRIPTION
Existing law requires the statewide direct primary election
to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in
June each even numbered year and requires that the
presidential primary election be consolidated with that
June election in any year evenly divisible by the number 4.
This bill would instead require that the presidential
primary election be held on the first Tuesday in February
in any year evenly divisible by the number 4 while
maintaining the statewide direct primary election on its
current June date. This bill would result in holding three
separate statewide elections during presidential election
years, i.e., a presidential primary in February, a state
primary in June, and the general election in November.
This bill also makes various findings and declarations
regarding California's role in the presidential nominating
process.
BACKGROUND
Shifting Primary Dates . Since 1993, California has moved
its presidential primary date three times. In 1993, the
Legislature moved the presidential primary election for
1996 from June to late March in an attempt to gain greater
influence in selecting the political parties' nominees for
President. At the time, the late-March election would have
been one of the earliest primary elections in the nation.
Subsequently, a number of other states moved up their
primary elections as well, and California still had little
influence in the presidential nominating process.
For 2000 and 2004, California held its primary on the first
Tuesday in March, again hoping to leapfrog in front of
other states and to play a major role in choosing the
Presidential nominees. But again other states jumped ahead
of California. Prior to California's March 2, 2004
Primary, 20 other states had already apportioned their
delegates in primaries or caucuses. California shared its
March 2, 2004 Primary date with nine other states.
Later in 2004, frustrated by declining turnout in the
state's March primary election, and by a lengthened
campaign season for state and local races, the Legislature
moved the primary election for both Presidential and
non-Presidential elections back to June.
COMMENTS
1.According to the author , California is the biggest and
most influential state in the union yet its current June
presidential primary virtually ensures that the major
party nominees will be determined long before our voters
cast their ballots. A February presidential primary will
encourage presidential candidates to campaign here and to
debate and discuss issues and policies important to our
people. California voters deserve to play a major role
in deciding the presidential nominees.
2.Who's on First ? Assuming no further changes by other
states, a February 5, 2008 presidential primary will
place California fifth in the nation behind only the Iowa
caucuses (January 14), the Nevada Democratic party
caucuses (January 19), the New Hampshire primary (January
22) and the South Carolina primary (January 29).
However, several other states either have scheduled, or
are anticipated to schedule, their presidential primary
for February 5. If this bill is chaptered, it may
encourage even more states to follow suit.
3.June Swoon ? It is unknown whether or not a February
presidential primary will negatively affect voter turnout
in the June statewide primary. While one could argue
that deleting the presidential candidates from the June
ballot removes an incentive to vote. On the other hand,
since the major party nominees will have long been
decided, keeping the moot presidential primary in June
SB 113 (CALDERON) Page
2
may only serve to frustrate voters which could arguably
hurt turnout even more.
4.DNC Rules Changes . The Democratic National Committee
(DNC) is considering a rule change which will award
"bonus delegates" to states that either do not change the
date of their primary or change it to a later, rather
than earlier, date. Senator Perata and Speaker Nunez
jointly authored a letter to DNC Chairman Howard Dean
urging the DNC to reject that proposal.
5.Related Legislation . AB 157 (Plescia), which has not yet
been referred to Assembly policy committee, is similar in
intent to this bill.
6.Prior Legislation . AB 2196 (Costa), Chapter 828 of 1993,
required the presidential primary election to be held on
the fourth Tuesday in March, and to be consolidated with
the statewide direct primary election, but only for the
1996 election.
SB 1999 (Costa), Chapter 913 of 1998, required the
statewide direct primary election to be moved to the
first Tuesday in March, and to be consolidated with the
presidential primary election in presidential election
years.
SB 1730 (Johnson), Chapter 817 of 2004, requires the
statewide direct primary election to be held on the first
Tuesday after the first Monday in June, and to be
consolidated with the presidential primary election in
presidential election years.
AB 2949 (Umberg) of 2006, which was held on the Assembly
Appropriations Committee suspense file, would have
required the Secretary of State (SOS) to schedule
California's presidential primary election before, or on
the same day as, the earliest presidential primary
election held in any other state.
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
SB 113 (CALDERON) Page
3
Support: None received
Oppose: None received
SB 113 (CALDERON) Page
4