BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 80|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 80
Author: Fong (D), et al.
Amended: 3/3/11 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & CONST. AMENDMENTS COMM. : 5-0, 6/8/11
AYES: Correa, La Malfa, De Le�n, Gaines, Lieu
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 4/11/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Presidential primary: election date
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill moves the presidential primary
election from February to June in presidential election
years and consolidates it with the statewide direct primary
election.
ANALYSIS : Existing law requires the presidential primary
to be held on the first Tuesday in February in any year
that is evenly divisible by the number four, and prohibits
the consolidation of the presidential primary with the
statewide direct primary held in that year.
This bill:
1. Requires the presidential primary to be held on the
first Tuesday after the first Monday in June in any year
that is evenly divisible by the number four.
CONTINUED
AB 80
Page
2
2. Eliminates the first Tuesday in February of each year
evenly divisible by the number four as an established
election date and as a date in which statewide elections
are held.
3. Requires the presidential primary to be consolidated
with the statewide direct primary held in that year.
Background
History of California's Primary Elections . From 1946 to
1994, California's primary elections were held in June of
every even-numbered year. Frustrated, however, with the
perceived lack of importance and impact that California had
on the presidential nominating process, the state passed
several pieces of legislation to move up the presidential
primary election. In 1996, California's presidential
primary was held on the fourth Tuesday in March. In 2000,
the presidential primary was held on the first Tuesday in
March.
Regardless of the earlier primary dates, California
struggled to gain influence on the selection of
presidential candidates as other states also moved up their
primaries. In 2000, California's March 7th presidential
primary came after nine other states held their primaries
or caucuses and was held on the same day as 13 other state
contests.
The legislation that permanently moved the primary to the
first Tuesday in March, SB 1999 (Costa), Chapter 913,
Statutes of 1998, did so for all future primary elections -
not just presidential primary elections. Discouraged from
the perceived lack of clout California was having in the
presidential primary process, even with the earlier primary
date, and concerned that the earlier primary for
legislative, congressional, and statewide offices was
increasing the costs of campaigning by lengthening the
campaign season, the Legislature and Governor chose to move
California's primary election, including presidential
primaries, back to June. SB 1730 (Johnson), Chapter 817,
Statues of 2005, required California's primary election to
be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June
CONTINUED
AB 80
Page
3
in every even-numbered year.
For 2008, the Legislature and Governor again attempted to
increase California's influence in the presidential
campaign and encourage candidates to discuss and debate
issues relevant to this state. SB 113 (Calderon), Chapter
2, Statutes of 2007, moved California's presidential
primary to February 5th - the earliest vote in state
history. In addition to moving up the presidential
primary, SB 113 required a separate primary election for
legislative and congressional offices to be held in June.
By the time California voters went to the polls on election
day, 33 other states had also moved up their presidential
primaries and 15 states held their primary on the same day
as California - giving February 5th the title of 'Super
Tuesday.' As a result of the primary date change,
California conducted three separate statewide elections in
2008. This bill proposes to eliminate the stand-alone
presidential primary and consolidate it with the statewide
direct primary in June.
Party Rules . 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."
Historically, the parties have allowed certain states,
including Iowa and New Hampshire, to schedule their
presidential contests prior to the designated window
without penalty.
In response to the 2008 'Super Tuesday' where several
states shared the same primary date, both national
political parties adopted new rules in August 2010 to
extend the primary season and encourage states to hold
their presidential primaries or caucuses later in the year.
CONTINUED
AB 80
Page
4
Though both parties begin the window on the first Tuesday
in March, they take different approaches to encourage
states to hold later primary elections. The Democratic
National Committee will be awarding states who schedule
their primaries later than March 6th a specific percentage
of bonus delegates, allotting more delegates the later the
primary or caucus. The Republican National Committee will
penalize states that choose to schedule their presidential
contests prior to the first day of April by reducing the
number of delegates awarded to an offending state by 50
percent. Absent a change to current law, which sets
California's presidential primary for February, California
will be out of compliance with the national party rules.
Several states have introduced legislation to comply with
the new political party rules. This bill's proposed
timeframe for the presidential primary would be consistent
with national party rules.
Consolidation . The presidential primary election in 2008
marked the first time in recent history that California did
not consolidate its presidential primary with the statewide
direct primary election, and as a result California held
three separate statewide elections that year. According to
information provided by the State Controller's Office and
the Secretary of State's Office, California spent
approximately $96,980,195 on the stand-alone presidential
primary election in 2008. This bill proposes to
consolidate all future presidential primary elections with
statewide direct primaries.
Prior Legislation
SB 113 (Calderon), Chapter 2, Statues of 2007, moved
California's presidential primary election from June to
February in presidential election years and prohibited it
from being consolidated with the statewide direct primary.
AB 2949 (Umberg), 2005-06 Session, would have required the
Secretary of State to schedule California's presidential
primary election before, or on the same day as, the
earliest presidential primary election held in any other
state. The bill was held on the Assembly Appropriations
Committee's suspense file.
CONTINUED
AB 80
Page
5
AB 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/8/11)
Butte County Clerk-Recorder
California Association of Clerks and Election Officials
California State Association of Counties
California Teachers Association
County of San Bernardino
County of San Mateo
Secretary of State Debra Bowen
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "Current
law is out of compliance with national party rules and
requires California to hold three separate statewide
elections in 2012, imposing a huge cost on the state and
local governments at a time when our fiscal situation is in
crisis. Eliminating the state's stand-alone presidential
primary election and consolidating it with other statewide
elections will save millions of dollars, increase voter
turnout, and ensure that California's primary is held in
accordance with national party rules."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Cook, Davis, Dickinson, Eng,
Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto,
Gordon, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi,
Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries,
Jones, Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,
Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell,
Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel
P�rez, Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio,
CONTINUED
AB 80
Page
6
Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams,
Yamada, John A. P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Conway, Donnelly, Fletcher, Gorell,
Vacancy
DLW:mw 6/9/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED