Legislators opened a Pandora’s box of problems when they decided two years ago to tinker with North Carolina’s presidential primary date.
Their latest idea for a fix is anything but — although it might put the fix in for their own re-election.
Anticipating a highly contested Republican presidential primary campaign in 2016 and unhappy with North Carolina’s May date, lawmakers chose a new place on the calendar: the first Tuesday after South Carolina’s primary. That would be Feb. 23.
They thought that would give North Carolina voters a greater voice in the presidential selection process. Matters might be settled by May. Why should people in early decision states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina have more say? After all, North Carolina has a greater population than those three states combined.
Legislators should have asked the Republican National Committee first. It likes to control the primary schedule and wants to avoid a rush to the front. It warned North Carolina to back off or face a penalty: Most of its convention delegates would not be counted if it held its primary in February. If its delegates wouldn’t count, candidates wouldn’t bother campaigning in North Carolina and the state’s voters would have no role in picking a nominee.
All primaries on March 15?
So the legislature has picked a fallback date of March 15. That’s still early and would put North Carolina’s presidential primary on the same day as those in Florida, Ohio, Illinois and Missouri.
There’s still a problem: It could cost nearly $10 million to hold a separate primary. The expense is mostly carried by the counties, and some commissioners around the state aren’t sure the benefit is worth it.
So now legislators are considering moving up the state and local primaries from May 3 to March 15. There would be no need to pay for a separate primary.
What’s the problem with that? North Carolina has never held state and local primaries so early. For a May primary, candidate filing was to begin in early February, allowing three months for candidates to organize and run a campaign, if they’re in a contested primary.
For a March 15 primary, filing would have to open in December to allow as much time for campaigns. Who thinks about political campaigns over the holidays?
Advantage: incumbents
Such an early primary would put challengers at a big disadvantage. They need time to raise money, create an organization and meet voters. The winter just isn’t a good campaign season. But it’s just fine for incumbents, who are almost always better known and better funded than anyone who might run against them.
Of course, it’s only a primary. But, because of partisan gerrymandering at the state and local levels, the primary usually offers the best opportunity for a challenger to unseat an incumbent. Not many offices change from one party to the other in November.
Legislators may think they’ve found a clever solution to a problem by combining primaries on March 15, especially since doing so would give them a political edge over potential challengers. But they’re creating unfair problems for anyone who might want to run against them.
Several states, including California, don’t hold primaries until June. If the field of GOP candidates is whittled down to a handful by early spring, May and June may be decisive months. North Carolina should hold its fire until then. Having the last word, or close to it, may be better than having an early say.
Legislators should go back to the original schedule — May primaries — and close the Pandora’s box they unwisely opened.
