Op-Ed
Moving Up the Primary Won't Increase Influence
Austin American-Statesman, April 21, 2007
Sherri Greenberg, Lecturer and Fellow, Max Sherman Chair in State and Local Government, LBJ School of Public Affairs
The fact that "everyone else is doing it" does not make advancing the Texas primary election to early February a good idea. Having run for the Texas Legislature as an unknown in 1990, I can tell you that a March primary is hard enough, and an early February primary only would compound the problems.
Texas is part of Super Tuesday, the March primary created 20 years ago to give Southern states more say in presidential selection. Super Tuesday has been a bust for Texas and has not provided Texas more power in presidential races.
Forming a new "Supersized Tuesday" in February would not be productive. Texans would be forced to make decisions in primary elections without sufficient knowledge of the candidates. Their only perception of the candidates would come from an early media barrage.
The election season would become even longer, with nine months between a February primary and November general election. More time span between the primary and general would make elections even more expensive for new candidates and more difficult for citizens to get to know the candidates.
What effect would advancing the primary have on voter turnout? Based on history, I do not think that it would be positive. Instead, we could continue to see voter turnout decrease.
I found out firsthand that running in a primary election for Texas state representative, followed months later by a general election, indeed, is a very expensive and difficult proposition. Citizens have busy lives full of many pressing issues other than elections.
Therefore, with many months lapsing between the primary and general elections, fresh faces running for office must raise and spend considerable sums of money to fund two separate campaigns. The information that candidates provide and the issues that they discuss in the primary are no longer on people's minds when the general election rolls around.
The problems with running two completely separate primary and general campaigns are particularly acute with state and local races. The candidates running at the state and local level often have no name identification, very few resources and great difficulty raising money. Additionally, moving the primary to early February would require candidates to file for office during December.
What effect would advancing the primary have on entry-level candidates?
Based on my experience, I think that it would have a negative effect. New candidates, in particular, would suffer from the need to raise and spend even more money to get to know the voters over a very compressed primary season during the December and January holidays.
This situation has become worse and worse over the years. At one time the Texas primary was in July, then it moved to May, and in 1988 it moved to March with Super Tuesday. Where will this end? Are states just going to keep one upping each other until the situation truly is ludicrous?
As a member of the state House of Representatives in the 1990s, I tried more than once to pass a bill that would have moved the Texas primaries from Super Tuesday, the second Tuesday in March, back to May. My legislation would have moved the primary to the second Saturday in May, Super Saturday for Texans.
What are our goals? Do we want even less time to evaluate candidates and even more costly races?
I, for one, want more time to evaluate candidates, less costly elections, increased voter participation, and more people running for office.
Advancing the primary to February is not a good idea.
Leave the primary where it is, or better yet, make it later.
Greenberg represented Central and Northern Travis County in the Texas House of Representatives from 1991 to 2001.
Copyright 2007 Austin American-Statesman
