Hot Topics 2007 | February Presidential Primary
UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies Library
Hot Topics 2007 | February Presidential Primary
UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies Library
On March 15, 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 113 into law, 
moving California's presidential primary from June to February. This move is highly significant in a number of ways. Many critics believe that California has previously had little influence on the nomination process for presidential elections, since a June primary makes California one of the last states to have votes count. While many believe the new February primary gives California more influence on the election landscape, some have objected to moving the primary, claiming that, at a cost of $80 million, the new election will be too expensive. Another argument in opposition is that three elections in one year will be too confusing and cumbersome for California voters.
The presidential primary will occur on February 5, 2008. A second June primary will occur for non-presidential candidates in June. The general election will happen in November. California joins a growing number of other states that have already scheduled February 5 primaries. California will be the fifth state to cast its votes, after the Iowa caucuses, the Nevada Democratic party caucuses, the New Hampshire primary and the South Carolina primary. Several other states — including Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Texas — are considering moving or have already moved their contests to the same day (see "Unintended Consequences" section below).
The California primary election is known as a nominating election. Voters of each political party choose the nominee who will run against other parties' candidates in the general election. 
California has a so-called modified closed primary system, which allows Republicans and Democrats to vote only in their own party's primary. The American Independent Party, California Democratic Party, and the California Republican Party have agreed to let unaffiliated voters vote for their candidates. The Democratic Party and the Republican party do not permit unaffiliated voters to vote for their county central committees. Unaffiliated ("decline to state") voters may, if they wish, choose to vote for one party's candidates.
California's direct primary first became law in 1909 as a Progressive Era reform, enacted by Republican legislators in an effort to decrease the influence of the Southern Pacific Railroad on the nomination process. The legislation created a closed primary system in which registered voters of a particular party received only the ballot of that party. Registered voters who declined to state a party preference received a ballot containing only non-partisan offices. After the reformers gained control of the governor's office and the legislature, further reforms were made. In 1910, the initiative and referendum processes were instituted. In 1913, in a further reform, cross-filing was begun. Cross-filing permitted a candidate to appear on more than one party ballot for the same office, and to become the nominee of more than one party. Cross-filing was eliminated in 1959.
A closed primary system governed California's primary elections until 1996. This was a similar system to today's except that unaffiliated ("decline to state") voters voted only on whatever measures and non-partisan candidates that were on the ballot. The provisions of the closed primary system were amended by the adoption of Proposition 198, an initiative statute approved by the voters at the March 26, 1996 primary election. Proposition 198 changed the closed primary system to what is known as a "blanket" or "open" primary, in which all registered voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of political affiliation.
The blanket primary system was in effect for the primary elections of June 1998 and March 2000. In June 2000 the United States Supreme Court declared Proposition 198 unconstitutional. In California Democratic Party, et. al. v. Jones, the high court invoked the First Amendment right of association and ruled that political parties in California have a constitutional right to exclude non-party members in primary elections.
In September 2000, in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision, California enacted SB 28 (Ch. 898, Stats. 2000), which established a modified closed primary. SB28 took effect on January 1, 2001 and is currently in force, pending the results of the November 2004 election. Under SB 28, registered voters of a particular party receive only the ballot of that party, as was the case with California's earlier closed primary law. However, unaffiliated ("decline to state") voters may choose a party ballot, but only if the party has authorized unaffiliated voters to participate in its primary. The Democratic and Republican parties allowed such participation in the 2002 and 2004 primaries. Critics of the current law find its provisions obscure and confusing, and note that many unaffiliated voters in the 2002 and 2004 primaries were unaware that they had a choice of party ballots.
When SB 113 was signed into law, California joined 11 states who will hold their primary on February 5, 2008. Colorado, Georgia, Connecticut, North Carolina, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas are also considering moving their primaries or caucuses to this date. California has 22,728,146 eligible voters and 15,682,358 registered voters. Persons who are currently registered in a political party can vote for candidates of another political party if they reregister in the other party by the deadline, which is 15 days before election day.
For a full list of primaries by state, see 2008 Presidential Primaries at a Glance.
We will post this information as soon as it becomes available.
See our page with a chart of candidates running for the February primary.
See our page listing propositions that will appear on the February ballot.
The creation of the February primary is expected to cost between $80 and $90 million. With most counties having already budgeted their June primaries, the introduction of the February 5 election is expected to be an additional cost. Many believe that counties will demand that the state reimburse them for election costs. The state has not released any details of reimbursement. Critics of the new election claim that the state may not make good on election costs, given that it took the state until August of last year to reimburse most counties for the November 2005 special election.
With only 119 days between the February 5 and June 3 primaries, counties will also face a greater demand on election workers and time spent organizing and administering the election.
California has roughly 10% of the nation's voters, and with the new February primary date, the state has the potential to have a greater impact on the national election than in years past. Political observers are divided on the move, however. Some believe that candidates that usually spend money in less populated states will now devote more time and money to their races in California. Some speculate that candidates with more resources may pull ahead in the national race from winning over California voters. Others believe that races in the January primaries (see 2008 Presidential Primaries at a glance) will determine the front runners as people voting in February will have less time to assess the candidates. They think that the traditional leading primaries (Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary) will determine the actual frontrunners.
Background: Bibby, John, and Holbrook, Thomas. 2004. Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis (8th edition). Ed. Virginia Gray and Russell L. Hanson. Washington D.C.: CQ Press.
A number of term limits and redistricting bills are currently being debated in the legislature. These plans have been linked with the February primary in a number of ways. Some speculate that lawmakers are attempting to change California's term limits law in order to attempt seek re-election in June, 2008. Some believe that leaders in the Legislature will agree to overhaul redistricting in return for reform of legislative term limits to allow termed-out legislators to be able to run again in the next election. Governor Schwarzenegger has declared that he is willing to support term limits if redistricting reform is supported by the Legislature.
On September 4, a term limits initiative qualified for the ballot by 957 signatures. Current law allows state legislators up to 14 years in one post. Initiative Constitutional Amendment 1238 would cut the amount of time state legislators can spend in office down to 12 years. However, the initiative would allow legislators to choose to serve all their time in
either the Assembly or state Senate. The iniative was created by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez (D-Los Angeles) who will be able to run for re-election this June if the measure passes. Critics have accused backers of the bill of using political pressure to support a bill that serves their election year interests. Backers of the bill say that attacks on the amendment are unfounded.
Governor Schwarzenegger is in favor of redistricting overhaul. His previous redistricting plan, Proposition 77, was rejected during the special election of Nov. 2005 (See IGS Hot Topic, Proposition 77). However, the governor has released a new plan which would create an independent commission to draw new district lines. The commission would be made up of four Republicans, four Democrats and three independents. The Fair Political Practices Commission would pick the final members of the commission.
State Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Paramount) is sponsoring SCA 10, which would institute an 11-member citizens' commission that would draw new district lines. The commission would be made up of four Republicans, four Democrats and three independent or third-party members. A pool of 55 candidates would be picked by retired judges. Legislative leaders could then appoint two members each. The remaining members would be picked at random by the Fair Political Practices Commission.
State Senator Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) is the sponsor of SCA 9, which would develop an 11 member commission to draw new lines. A panel of retired judges would pick 55 potential members. Legislative leaders would then have the chance to strike four names off the list. Remaining candidates would be picked at random by the Fair Political Practices Commission. SCA 9 does not allow for change of congressional district boundaries making it unpopular with many Republicans. SCA 9 would also change term limits (see section below) and ban fundraising during the end of the legislative session and during budget negotiations.
ACA 1 is sponsored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and would mandate that 11 members of the Little Hoover Commission develop new district lines. The Little Hoover Commission is an independent think tank that analyzes state government. Little Hoover fellows would be selected by the governor, the Senate president and the Assembly speaker. Under ACA 1, political boundaries would be redrawn every 10 years, beginning in 2011. ACA 1 mandates changes to congressional boundaries, an unappealing stance for many Democrats.
SCA 9, in addition to altering district lines (see section above), would alter current term limits laws by allowing to serve up to 12 years in the Senate or Assembly. It would also tighten political fundraising rules.
The Term Limits and Legislative Reform Act would limit legislators to a total of 12 years in the legislature. A legislator could serve his/her time in either or both houses provided the total time is no more than 12 years. This act qualified for the ballot on September 4, 2007.
On March 22, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen proposed a comprehensive review of California voting machines. The secretary's draft criteria states that the review will be a top-to-bottom examination of voting machines to determine whether appropriate levels of security, accessibility and accuracy exist. The Secretary's office announced hopes that the review would be finished by early August and that it would eliminate any machines not meeting federal and state requirements for the three elections held in 2008.
On August 3, Brown withdrew approval of most major electronic voting systems in the state after reviewing the results of the “top-to-bottom” review of those systems. The decision will effectively bar at least 21 of California’s 58 counties from using already-purchased voting systems manufactured by Diebold and Sequoia in the February primary. They will instead have to switch to an “optical scan” balloting method (which uses electronic equipment to read paper ballots). Orange County will be allowed to continue using equipment manufactured by Hart InterCivic if it meets certain security benchmarks. The other counties will have to ensure that their voting systems meet a list of security standards before they are permitted to use them in another election, including implementing a “100% manual count” of all votes cast on the equipment and allowing the use of only one affected voting machine per polling place. This decision stops short of an all-out ban on using the voting systems, but many counties are likely to view the decision as an effective ban because it imposes conditions that they will be virtually unable to meet. County elections officials object that there is not enough optical scanning and ballot printing equipment available to meet the deadline for the February primary.
See the Top to Bottom Review page on Secretary of State's website.
One of the main intents of moving the California primary to February 5 has been to increase California's influence over the presidential election process. However, because so many other states have responded by moving their own primaries to dates in February or even in January, the move by California may have a number of unintended consequences. For instance: