DeVore: Early primary just an excuse to change term limits

Earlier Presidential Primary In California?
Republicans Suspect Hidden Agenda
ABC News Channel 30, San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland
ABC News Channel 7, Fresno

(Excerpted from a TV News transcript from a piece by Amy Hollyfield)

Feb. 13 - KGO - California is expected to take a big step closer today towards an earlier presidential primary. A state senate vote could give the state a bigger voice in choosing the next president.

Rudy Giuliani, Former New York City Mayor: "If you run in a California primary you have to say to yourself, 'I'm running in a country, I'm not running in a state.' Eight or 9 media markets, it will have a big impact. The short answer is you're going to have to spend a lot of time here and that's not so hard."

There are concerns about this plan. The earlier election could cost the state up to 90 million dollars and county leaders are worried the state will take too long to reimburse them.

But some Republicans suspect a hidden agenda is behind this proposal.

Assm. Chuck Devore, (R) Irvine: "This is an election we don't need with 90 million dollars we don't have, because the real object of this early and costly election is to put term limit extensions on the ballot and have it approved by the voters in time for certain termed out members of the legislature to file for reelection in the June election. That's the real reason."

This would definitely impact the workload for elections officials: in San Francisco, for example, this would mean four elections in one year.

(For the video feed, go here: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news&id=4833752)

Comments

[Question for Assemblyman Devore]

Assemblyman- are you for or against extending term limits for members of the legislature? I don't think we have heard from the OC delegation on their position on the proposal.

[DanC]

Funny, I don't recall you being opposed to the recall election on the same grounds. Not the special election called for by the governor. If I have missed a press release or two in that regard, please feel free to correct me.

I, for one, think California should have more influence over who should be the next president of the US. I also recall you mentioning how, with term limits, by the time you know your way around the Capitol, you're termed out.

[Chuck DeVore]

The Governor’s special election in November 2005 cost about $40 million to hold. It was a relative bargain because about half of the jurisdictions were already holding local elections (such as Los Angeles).

This proposed election would cost $90-100 million as there are NO, NADA, ZIPPO, elections in which to consolidate it. Furthermore, county registrars of voters all across the state are warning that their systems can’t handle the stacked up elections. San Francisco, for instance, will have four elections in 2008.

If the real purpose was to influence the presidential race, why not simply move the June primary to February?

As for term limits, this would change the current system in the wrong direction, moving from 6 years in the Assembly and 8 years in the Senate to 12 years overall in the Legislature. Without meaningful redistricting reform to cause competition, the majority of seats would be held by the same person for 12 years. Lastly, such a proposal would rob the Senate of the experience the upper house is supposed to have by design. Once a lawmaker was elected to an office, most would be loath to risk a jump to the other house in this proposed model, meaning most senators would likely lack legislative experience. Further, this plan would grandfather in existing senators, allowing them to serve an extra term.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

[Question for Assemblyman DeVore]

I am impressed with your stand against dismantling term limits. Obviously, you would personally benefit (as would your constituents) with a surefire 4th term. I wonder if your colleagues from the OC delegation feel the same way.

[anonymous]

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

[DanC]

Chuck -
you are missing the big picture. California would influence who runs for president in November. That is worth $100 million. Hell, it's worth $200 million.

And $40 million is not chump change. Again, $40 million we don't have to spend is OK but 90-100 million isn't?

I also think you guys forget we already have term limits; its called elections. You could lose next time.

[Term Limits]

The Current Term limits are terribly problematic essecially in the Assembly. We end up with junior members in leadership roles within their second term of office and they are termed out shortly there after. There is absolutely no continuity and a severe lack of institutional knowledge. Members just end up spending all of there time searching for their next opportunity to hold public office...i.e. Mimi Walters, Lou Correa, Tom Umberg, Todd Spitzer...the list goes on and on

[Fred Smoller]

Assemblyman DeVore,
Why not resuurect Loni Hancock's (14 A.D.) A.B. 707, and make this an all Absentee Voter election. That will cut down the cost considerably.

[Paul Lucas]

I would advocate moving elections to the weeknds. An election that took place on both Saturday and Sunday would give more people time to vote. The turnout would triple at the least.

[MrWhipple]

DanC wrote:

you are missing the big picture. California would influence who runs for president in November. That is worth $100 million. Hell, it's worth $200 million.

Really? I'd be interested to know how California would financially benefit from an additional, earlier primary. How, exactly, would we recover that $100 million?

And $40 million is not chump change. Again, $40 million we don't have to spend is OK but 90-100 million isn't?

It was worth spending $40 mil to 86 Gray Davis. Unfortunately, all we got was a more muscular, Austrian version of him. But if Ahnold had lived up to his promises, it would have been worth twice that much.

I also think you guys forget we already have term limits; its called elections. You could lose next time.

Except that in our highly gerrymandered districts, the odds of that happening are about as great as those of California's electoral votes going to the Republican candidate in 2008.

[Bladerunner]

Dan C's right Assemblyman---If you're against this because of the money then you're a hypocrite for not opposing the recall for the same reason. If you're against this because of term limits then thats fine. Just spare us the $$. If its wrong for 90, spending 50 less but still spending 40 is still wrong, just less painful.

I don't like term limits--Dan's right, we have elections. But your point about current districting and how that interrelates to term limits is well taken. However, I have no interest in redistricting "reform" on the congressional level until Texas, Georgia and some of the red states that make Phil Burton look like a piker get a dose of the same medicine.

[Woe is me]

It is so sad what the Legislature is doing. Even Tom McClintock is supporting this travesty. Say it ain't so.

[Dave Swanson]

Bladerunner and DanC...can you read? The point that is being made is that the 40 million was worth it because we got rid of a Governor that was costing us more, this February election is not worth it because it's redundant to have BOTH the February and June elections. Why not just have one and not the other if the point is purely to move up the primary and not extend term limits?

[Chuck DeVore]

Actually, Dave, there were two elections, the 2003 recall and the 2005 special featuring the reform agenda. The 2005 special was consolidated with local elections, saving money. The February 2008 election cannot be held with other elections, meaning more than double the cost. If the real reason for holding the election was simply to hold a Presidential primary, the solution would be to move the June primary to February.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

[Bladerunner]

Assemblyman--Most local elections are now consolidated--LA & Bagdhad by the Bay are on their own planet and their own thing. But most everything else is consolidated with even numbered elections. The recall was not consolidated and cost was a major argument against it. Having a mulligan was the other. I never saw a Republican say we shouldn't do it because of the cost. And please Mr. Swanson--Arnold is costing us as much as Davis. Republicans never went along with Davis but they have and will continue to bend over for Arnold. Just ask the Assemblyman about the structual defecit thats still there. Ask Tom McLintock about this Governor and fiscal austerity.

And Assemblyman, I do think most people would like to see California have more influence by moving the primary up. But easing term limits is what will drive this to happen, true enough. It would just be nice for people to be honest about it.

[A Glove in the Forest]

Chucky...

Term limits... good point.

Special Election...good point.

Gerrymandering... good point.

Paul L...

Weekends... great idea.

Others...

All absentee... awesome idea...

Also, it seems to me that if companies can use the internet everyday to move billions of dollars and commerce around the world securely, that we SHOULD be able to vote online from home in the next 5 years.

We could eliminate the need for a representative democracy all together and move towards a DIRECT democracy.

Does DIEBOLD make a internet browser? hehe...

Lil Glove Out

[Karl Rove]

"Bagdhad by the Bay"

That was a good one Bladerunner...

[DanC]

I pulled out some old documents from my legislative action work with Sierra Vista Middle School, and the special election costs were estimated at $50-$80 million. Was $40 million the final count.

Re; Gray Davis and the recall; you had the chance to displace him the year before. Arnold is actually following the Gray Davis playbook pretty closely. Like the new boss, same as the old one.

But Chuck, you continue to dogde the question on $40 million (your figure) for the 2005 special election was OK but moving the California primary up being not worth it. I support the idea of California having a significantly stronger voice in determining who is on the ballot for president in November.

[DanC]

Chuck --
per a study by Cal-Berkeley, the 2005 special election cost the state $54 billion
And on top of that, the state was behind on payments to the counties for the 2003 recall election. So that's $14 billion over your own estimate.

[Chuck DeVore]

DanC, the exact cost of the 2005 special election was $38,818,310. I just round up to $40 million. I know because I pay attention to numbers. The full reimbursement to the counties was contained in AB 1634 (McCarthy, R-Bakersfield). More information on this may be seen at http://www.imakenews.com/csac/e_article000607978.cfm?x=b6NjTrk,0,w .

The study by Cal-Berkeley you cite shows a cost of $54 billion (I’m sure you meant “million”). Either the study is wrong, or it is referring to the cost of the recall election at $55 million. Since I voted for the bill which contained a detailed accounting from the counties as to their costs, I’ll stand by $38.8 million and say that the Berkeley study is flat wrong (wouldn’t be the first time).

With the issue of the costs out of the way, let us return to my original contention: having a stand-along additional election is a waste and is only being done to place a term limits proposal on the ballot so that termed-out lawmakers can file for reelection in the June primary. If influencing the presidential election was the pure motive, we’d be talking about moving the June election up to February – we are not.

Further, I disagree with your contention that the February 5, 2008 election will give us a stronger voice. It won’t at all. Every time California has moved its primary, other states do so as well. February 5, 2008 is the earliest that both national parties allow a primary to take place. As a result, Florida has already moved their primary to February 5th, and a number of other states have as well or will soon do so. Their delegate count will outweigh ours and their media markets are less costly too.

Shrinking the primary season has another impact too: it makes it impossible for anyone other than the frontrunner to win the nomination. Bill Clinton in 1992, for example, would not have won under this compressed timeline as he was a second-tier candidate who needed time to develop his following.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

[DanC]

yes, I meant Million, not Billion. And I knew you'd have the right number there. The study I saw from Berlkey was after the election so I am surprised that they didn't update that figure.

Sorry, Bill Clinton was well on his way in 92. I disagree with your premise there completely, but recognize that is an accepted mode of thought in GOP circles; it wasn't in Democratic circles though.

Florida has more delegrates than California? Since when? Last time I checked, California had the greatest sway of any state.

Sorry Chuck; I'd rather have a first say than a last say. I think your opposition to this is another good excuse for you to be on TV though...and you still can't justify the cost of the special election.

Have a great night. I promise to try and typoe more slowly and more carefully to keep my B's and M's straight ;)

[Chuck DeVore]

DanC, see story below. The question is, had the election been wrapped up with the first big round of primaries on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in February, would Clinton have been able to pull it out?

A compressed primary schedule is still not good for competition, I contend.

As for Feb. 5th, Florida and five other states already occupy that date. Add them up, they equal California -- and, they're cheaper to buy ads in. Once we move our primary, I predict several more state will too in the end. By the time they are done, we will be straining to have our voice heard and the taxpayers will be out $90-100 million.

Published on February 19, 1992. Article 1 of 1 found.
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS
Former Massachusetts Sen. Paul Tsongas won New Hampshire's Democratic primary Tuesday and promised to prove himself more than a regional wonder. Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton ran a strong second and proclaimed himself "the comeback kid" after weeks of controversy.

[DanC]

Chuck -- I was living in Boston at the time. Tsongas was from Lawrence, Mass., on the NH border. It was a given that he would win NH and in *Democratic* circles, all eyes were on who would finish second in NH. That was the presumptive nominee. Your argument about second tier candidates and your example of Bill Clinton does not hold water here.

California is still the top prize of all the states that jump in on 2/5/08..it will come down to who has the better organization and best fundraising in advance on 2/5. So if you're running for president, what would you rather win...California and some of the other 5 states? Or just some of the 5 states? It is also possible a candidate could win all of them, isn't it?

LA, SF and SD are among the top six media markets in the country; we will most certainly not be straining to have our voices heard.

And stop with your concern for the taxpayers being out 90-100 million; you didn't object to the $38 million spent on the special election or the $50 million spent on the recall election but of course, both of those were instigated by your party so I'm guessing it was OK with you.

[Bladerunner]

Interesting discussion. Chuck, I think DANC is right about the $$---you appear inconsistent and it allows people to attack your position on a collateral issue rather then deal with the substance. Dems used cost as an issue in 03 & 05 because they thought average voter cared. They were 1 for 2 on that issue.

On the substance, as I've said its term limits that is really driving this train and your point is well taken. I agree though with DANC that California usually bends over and coughs up money--by the time we have our elections its all over. Florida and other states may jump on the same date but we'd still be huge and would have impact as opposed to having none since 1972.

But your point about unintended consequences(the Bill CLinton issue) is whats most interesting about your argument. Dan, I think Chucks right that frontloading minimizes the chances of a second tier challenger(at least one poorly financed). So who does a Feb 5 primary help--Rudolph Giuliani, maybe John McCain. it hurts Romney and even more so Brownback, Hunter & others. On Dem side a February election would be a boon to Hillary, not too bad for Obama, but bad news for Edwards, worse for Vilsak & Richardson. They need more time to get a bump from an early win.