Remember that great political catastrophe of 2004 when Washington state didn’t have a presidential primary? No? Well, you’re not alone. There likely are many Washingtonians who forgot that our state didn’t have a presidential primary seven years ago (we couldn’t afford it then, either), and we all seemed to survive that awful deprivation.
It’s looking more and more like we won’t have a presidential primary next year, as well, and that’s a good thing. The state will save about $10 million, certainly not enough to balance a budget but no chump change when legislators are clawing frantically under every sofa pillow they can find. Even when we could afford a presidential primary, it was little more than a political beauty pageant. (Democrats ignore the presidential primary and use precinct caucuses to determine all delegates to the national nominating convention; Republicans use primary results to determine only half of those delegates.)
On Wednesday, the Senate voted by a more than 2-to-1 margin to suspend the 2012 presidential primary. Local state Sens. Craig Pridemore, D-Vancouver (and one of the bill’s sponsors), and Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, wisely supported the measure that drew 34-15 approval. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, voted against it. The House is expected to decide soon on a companion bill.
There are many less-than-compelling but still reasonable reasons to conduct a presidential primary during the best of financial times. Unfortunately, our state is mired in a quagmire of high unemployment and projected deficits in the state government topping $5.2 billion over the next biennium. Among the solid good reasons:
• High participation — The number of voters in a presidential primary has been estimated by The News Tribune in Tacoma to be about 10 times higher than the number of participants in local precinct caucuses.
• More accessibility — A presidential primary allows people whose schedules don’t permit attending precinct caucuses (certainly registered voters who are overseas) to participate in the selection process.
• Following the voters’ instructions — The primary was created by a citizen initiative in 1989.
• Interest, fun and state pride — Notwithstanding its low relevance, the state’s presidential primary is a good civics lesson that stimulates interest and draws national attention.
Again, though, these are not the best of times, financially. And during the worst of times, beauty pageants should be shelved. Perhaps not permanently. In fact, we share the sentiments of Gov. Chris Gregoire, who in December said, “I look forward to Washington resuming the presidential primary in 2016.” Still, in her budget proposal, she recommended canceling the primary in 2012, and on Wednesday the Senate concurred.
Here’s one thing to remember about voter participation. Even though it is 10 times higher in the presidential primary than in precinct caucuses, that level of involvement is still not particularly high. In the 2008 presidential primary, the statewide voter turnout on Feb. 19 was less than 43 percent. But later, in the general election on Nov. 4, participation almost doubled, increasing to 85.3 percent.
Members of the state House should follow the Senate’s lead on this matter. It’s kind of like the response any citizen would make to a salesman who presents a great but nonessential product: Come back when we’ve got more money.
