BILL ANALYSIS
SB 113
Page 1
Date of Hearing: February 22, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Curren Price, Chair
SB 113 (Calderon) - As Amended: February 9, 2007
SENATE VOTE : 31-5
SUBJECT : Elections: presidential primary elections.
SUMMARY : Moves California's presidential primary election from
June to February in presidential election years. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Makes the first Tuesday in February in each year evenly
divisible by the number four an established election date.
Provides that elections held on that date are statewide
elections.
2)Repeals a requirement that the presidential primary election
be consolidated with the statewide direct primary that is held
on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in each
year evenly divisible by four.
3)Requires the presidential primary to be held on the first
Tuesday in February in every year that is evenly divisible by
the number four, and prohibits the presidential primary from
being consolidated with the statewide direct primary.
4)Makes various findings and declarations about the importance
of California playing a meaningful role in choosing
presidential candidates.
5)Declares the intent of the Legislature to fully reimburse
counties for costs resulting from the presidential primary
elections added by this bill in an expeditious manner upon
certification of those costs.
EXISTING LAW requires the presidential primary to be held on the
first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in any year evenly
divisible by the number four, and requires that the presidential
primary be consolidated with the statewide direct primary held
on that date.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
SB 113
Page 2
Committee analysis, at least $60 million every four years in
statewide election expenses.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : 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)History of California's Presidential Primary : From 1946 to
1994, California's primary election was held in June of every
even-numbered year. Frustrated with the perceived lack of
importance and impact that California had on the presidential
nominating process, the state moved its presidential primary
to the fourth Tuesday in March for the 1996 election cycle.
The legislation that moved the 1996 presidential primary, AB
2196 (Costa), Chapter 828, Statutes of 1993, required the
statewide direct primary election to be moved as well, and to
remain consolidated with the presidential primary election.
At the time it was enacted, AB 2196 gave California one of the
earliest primaries in the nation. However, after AB 2196 was
enacted, several states moved their primaries or caucuses
ahead, and by the time that California voters cast their
ballots on March 26, 1996, 27 states had already held
presidential primaries or caucuses.
AB 2196 provided for a one-time-only change in the date of the
presidential primary, so without further action by the
Legislature, the 2000 primary would have been held in June.
However, SB 1999 (Costa), Chapter 913, Statutes of 1998, moved
the date for all future primary elections-not just
presidential primary elections-to the first Tuesday in March.
In 2000, California's March 7th presidential primary came after
9 other states held their primaries or caucuses, and was held
on the same day as 13 other state contests. Strong
performances by George W. Bush and Al Gore in California and
in the other states holding contests on March 7th helped them
SB 113
Page 3
clinch their respective party nominations.
However, after record low turnout at the March 2002 primary
election, the Legislature became concerned that the earlier
primary for legislative, congressional, and statewide offices
was depressing turnout and that the lengthened period of time
between the primary and general elections for those offices
was increasing the costs of campaigning by lengthening the
campaign season. In response, the Legislature passed SB 1975
(Johnson) of 2002, requiring that two primary elections be
held in every presidential election year - a presidential
primary on the first Tuesday in March, and a primary election
for legislative and congressional offices on the first Tuesday
after the first Monday in June. That bill was vetoed by
Governor Davis, who in his veto message expressed concern that
holding two primary elections in 90 days could hamper the
ability of county elections officials to effectively conduct
those elections. Additionally, Governor Davis worried that it
would be particularly problematic to hold an additional
primary election in 2004 because many counties would be
deploying new voting systems that year.
Without any further changes to its primary schedule,
California's primary election in 2004 was again held on the
first Tuesday in March. But once again, many states
leapfrogged ahead of California, and by the time the polls
opened in California on March 2, 2004, twenty other states had
already apportioned their delegates in primaries or caucuses
and California shared its March 2nd primary date with nine
other states.
Frustrated that the earlier primary date did not increase
California's clout in the presidential primary process and by
the extended time period between the primary and general
elections for legislative and congressional races, the
Legislature and Governor chose to move California's primary
election, including presidential primaries, back to June. SB
1730 (Johnson), Chapter 817, Statutes of 2004, requires
California's primary election to be held on the first Tuesday
after the first Monday in June in every even-numbered year.
As a result, the 2006 primary election was held in June, and
without further action by the Legislature and the Governor,
California's presidential primary in 2008 will be held on June
5th.
SB 113
Page 4
If this bill is passed and signed into law in its current form,
California's presidential primary in 2008 will be held four
months earlier, on February 5th.
3)Party Rules : Three states (Iowa, New Hampshire, and South
Carolina) are currently scheduled to hold Democratic and
Republican presidential contests prior to the February 5, 2008
date on which California would hold its primary under this
bill. In addition, Nevada is scheduled to hold its Democratic
presidential caucus prior to February 5th. Several other
states have scheduled or are expected to schedule their
presidential contests on February 5th.
When a state holds a presidential primary or caucus, it is
actually selecting delegates who are pledged to support a
specified presidential candidate to represent the state at the
political party conventions. Those delegates then vote at the
party convention to choose the party's presidential nominee.
While a state is free to schedule its presidential primary
election or caucus whenever it wants, it may face sanctions at
the national convention if its election or caucus is held at a
time or in a manner that violates the national party rules.
The national Democratic and Republican party rules establish a
time period during which state parties are permitted to select
delegates to the national convention. That time period is
commonly referred to as the "window."
For the Democratic Party, the "window" opens on February 5,
2008, except that four states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire,
and South Carolina) are allowed to select delegates before the
"window" opens on February 5th. Any state that violates this
rule faces a loss of 50% of its pledged delegates and all of
its unpledged delegates to the national convention.
Additionally, a presidential candidate who campaigns in a
state that holds a primary or caucus at a time that violates
party rules is not allowed to receive delegate votes from that
state.
For the Republican Party, the "window" opens on February 5,
2008, and no exceptions to that window are provided to Iowa,
New Hampshire, or any other state. Any state that violates
this rule faces a loss of 50% or 90% of its delegates,
depending on when the selection of delegates is made.
In recent days, press reports have indicated that at least five
SB 113
Page 5
states (Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and South Dakota)
are considering scheduling primaries or caucuses prior to
February 5th. If those states move forward with their plans,
they may face a substantial loss of delegates at the
Democratic and Republican conventions. Additionally, since
the Republican delegate selection rules do not make an
exception to the "window" for any state, Iowa, New Hampshire,
and South Carolina may lose a significant number of delegates
to the Republican convention if they hold their contests as
scheduled.
4)Bonus Delegates : At its winter meeting held earlier this
month, the Democratic National Committee adopted a proposal to
award "bonus delegates" to states that hold their presidential
primaries or caucuses later in the 2008 than they did in 2004.
Under the proposal, California will be entitled to an
additional 97 delegates at the Democratic National Convention
if it holds its primary in June as currently scheduled.
However, if this bill is approved by the Legislature and
California's primary is moved to February, California will not
receive any additional delegates.
5)Presidential Primary Only : While this bill would move the
2008 presidential primary election in California to February
5th, it would not change the currently scheduled June 5, 2008
primary for all congressional and legislative races. However,
because the February 5, 2008 presidential primary election
would be a statewide election, state initiatives and other
ballot measures would be eligible to appear on the ballot at
that election. There is currently one initiative measure
dealing with transportation funding that has qualified for the
ballot which would appear on a February 5, 2008 presidential
primary ballot if this bill is approved.
6)County Concerns : While not taking a position on this bill,
the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), the
Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC), the City and County
of San Francisco, and Alameda and Ventura Counties have
expressed concern that the language in this bill declaring the
intent of the Legislature to fully reimburse counties for the
costs resulting from the presidential primary elections is
insufficient to ensure the prompt reimbursement for elections
costs incurred by the counties. Sacramento County has taken
an "oppose unless amended" position, seeking an amendment "to
assure that counties will be reimbursed up-front for February
SB 113
Page 6
Presidential Primary elections in a timely manner."
Additionally, while the California Association of Clerks and
Elections Officials (CACEO) has not taken a position on this
bill, they have expressed concern that requiring county
elections officials to conduct a third statewide election in
2008 "will jeopardize the state's electoral system unless
legislative and administrative relief is granted." In
addition to expressing a desire to have counties compensated
for the costs of the special election, CACEO recommends that
the Legislature consider allowing counties to conduct the
presidential primary by all-mail ballot and to create
precincts with up to 1,250 voters. Finally, CACEO asks that
implementation of any administrative actions taken by the
Secretary of State (SOS) relative to restructuring or
replacement of voting systems be delayed until after the
completion of the 2008 elections.
7)Arguments in Opposition : The Foundation for Taxpayer and
Consumer Rights (FTCR) takes an "oppose unless amended"
position, expressing concern that this bill will "force
Californians to go to the polls three times in a single year,"
and arguing that "the bill is unlikely to give Californians
the promised relevance in presidential primaries." FTCR says
it will drop its opposition to the bill if it is amended to
provide for only one statewide primary election in a
presidential year, regardless of whether that primary is in
February or June.
8)Previous Legislation : AB 2196 (Costa), Chapter 828, Statutes
of 1993, required the statewide direct primary election to be
moved to the fourth Tuesday in March, and to remain
consolidated with the presidential primary election, but only
for the 1996 election. SB 1999 (Costa), Chapter 913, Statutes
of 1998, required the statewide direct primary election to be
held on the first Tuesday in March, and to be consolidated
with the presidential primary in presidential election years.
SB 1730 (Johnson), Chapter 817, Statutes of 2004 moved
California's statewide direct primary election to the first
Tuesday after the first Monday in June and required it to be
consolidated with the presidential primary election in
presidential election years.
AB 2949 (Umberg) of 2006 would have required the SOS to schedule
SB 113
Page 7
California's presidential primary election before, or on the
same day as, the earliest presidential primary election held
in any other state. AB 2949 was held on the Assembly
Appropriations Committee's suspense file.
9)Related Legislation : AB 157 (Plescia), pending in this
committee, would require the presidential primary to be held
on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February of
each presidential election year. AB 157 has not yet been set
for hearing.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Opposition
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (unless amended)
Sacramento County (unless amended)
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094