A way to make voting a bit better

California voters set two dubious records last year: the lowest voter

turnout ever in a primary election and the lowest voter turnout ever

in a general election. Clearly, voter participation and enthusiasm

continue to decline. One reason? California’s early March primary

election, which has resulted in our state having the longest campaign

season in the nation.

Last year, I authored Senate Bill 1975, which sought to split the

presidential and state primaries. As you may remember, that

legislation would have kept a stand-alone presidential primary in

March and moved the state primary to later in the year. Despite

bipartisan legislative approval of SB 1975, Gov. Gray Davis vetoed

the legislation for the stated reason that election officials were

already facing challenges in 2004 because new voting systems will be

in place and thus they could not deal with separate presidential and

state primaries.

The governor’s argument in his veto message, frankly, doesn’t hold

water. Holding a separate presidential primary in 2004 would allow

election officials to test the new voting machines with the least

complicated ballot -- one that would only include the presidential

nominees rather than a ballot with numerous legislative,

congressional and local elections, state and local propositions, and

presidential nominees. A separate presidential primary would have

allowed the election officials to shake the kinks out of the system

before putting a more complex ballot before the voters.

I have reintroduced legislation this year to split the

presidential and state primaries -- with the presidential primary

remaining in March and the state primary being held in September.

Once again, the legislation has strong bipartisan support.

If 27 states, including New York, Georgia and Michigan, are able

to hold separate primaries for president and state and local

candidates, then California can, as well. For roughly 30 years,

California held bifurcated primaries, with the presidential in May

and the statewide in August.

There is certain to be much discussion about a September state

primary. There are many reasons for making such a move, including

keeping down the cost of running for office because the overall

campaign cycle would be shortened.

But more important is the fact that a March state primary has a

negative impact on the effectiveness of the California Legislature.

It is just a little over a year until the next state primary --

scheduled for March 2, 2004. That means the filing deadline to run

for office in 2004 is in early November of 2003.

Already, lawmakers who were just sworn in a little over two months

ago are working on their re-election campaigns or have announced

plans to run for higher office. This at a time when California is

facing a multi-billion dollar deficit that should command

legislators’ undivided attention.

By moving the state primary to September of 2004, the filing

deadline to run for office would not be until May of 2004. Thus,

potential candidates would have more time to decide if they want to

run for office. Currently, we are losing many qualified candidates

because they must decide more than a year before the general election

if they are going to run for office.

Last year’s proposal was supported by the League of Women Voters,

Common Cause, the secretary of State, the California Chamber of

Commerce, the Business Roundtable and numerous newspapers throughout

the state.

Once again, I would like to ask for your support of this important

legislation. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me

at (916) 445-4961. Thank you for your consideration.

* EDITOR’S NOTE: Ross Johnson is the state senator for the 35th

District covering Newport Beach and Costa Mesa.