In Our View: Washington, Weigh In

Now that the presidential horse race is finally out of the gate, it brings up a pressing question that arises every election cycle. No, not the one about why Iowa and New Hampshire always go first — confounding, indeed — but the one about how Washington can expand its influence during primary season.

For the record, Iowa and New Hampshire weigh in first because they insist upon it. Iowa has a state law saying the date of its caucuses will move forward if necessary to remain first, and New Hampshire has codified its place as the initial primary. But that is beside the point as we discuss Washington’s primary election.

That one might not be on your calendar yet, which is understandable. Washington’s presidential primary is scheduled for May 24 — nearly four months after the Iowa caucuses served as the starting bell for the race. Forty states hold presidential primaries to select the nominees from the major political parties, and 34 of those take place before Washington voters go to the polls.

This tends to diminish the impact that this corner of the country has on presidential politics — and that impact will be further curtailed this year for Democratic voters. While the Republicans have agreed to choose all their Washington delegates to the national convention based upon results of the primary, Democrats cling to the archaic method of using caucuses to apportion delegates. Those will take place March 26.

From an idealistic point of view, we agree with the thinking of Secretary of State Kim Wyman that primaries should be held on a regional basis, with all the states in one sector of the country voting on the same day. In promoting a desire to see candidates provide attention to the state, Wyman cites then-candidate Barack Obama’s visit to Oregon in 2008, when somebody asked him about the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: “He didn’t know about Hanford, didn’t know the significance of it, but his answer was, ‘I’ll know by 8 o’clock tonight.’ So that’s really the power of having a presidential primary.”

Recognizing that getting states to agree on dates for primaries is unrealistic, Wyman long has supported a next-best solution: Moving Washington’s primary to a more visible spot on the calendar. This year’s nominating process, which could have competitive races in both parties, further intensifies the desire for our state to be a player in the process. Instead, the nominations might be all but locked up by the time attention turns to Washington.

In the past, Wyman has promoted a bill to move the 2016 primary to March, but that failed to gain momentum. Similar bills appeared in the Legislature this year (House Bill 2139 and Senate Bill 5978), but they apparently have been buried for this year’s session. That’s OK, considering that it was too late to change this year’s primary date, but lawmakers should reconsider the legislation between now and the 2020 election.

Washington is the 13th most-populous state, containing 61 percent more residents than Iowa and New Hampshire combined — yet the region is a non-entity when it comes to the presidential election. In 2012, in fact, the state canceled its presidential primary because of a desire to save money and because it would have no impact on the race.

Lawmakers next year should continue efforts to ensure that Washington does, indeed, play a role in deciding the final two candidates for president. How best to do that remains a pressing question.