A Republican state lawmaker wants to be sure Arizonans actually have a real voice in deciding who will run for president in 2016.
Legislation crafted by Rep. Phil Lovas of Peoria would automatically set the date for the state's presidential preference primary on the same day of the Iowa political caucus. That would force the Hawkeye State to share its current billing as the first political event of the season equally with the Grand Canyon State.
And it would not matter if Iowa tried to change its date in a bid to remain first: HB 2017 would have Arizona follow suit, automatically.
Lovas said the presidential field in his own Republican party started off with a broad set of choices: Nine contenders participated in Iowa's caucus just a year ago today (eds: jan. 3, 2012).
By the time of Arizona's Feb. 28 primary, not only Iowa had weighed in but so had voters in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri and Maine. And the field had been pared to just four.
Four years earlier, by the time Arizona had its primary, Republicans were essentially left with a two-way race between Mitt Romney and eventual nominee John McCain, with a weaker showing by Mike Huckabee. Democrats, with an open primary in 2008, got to choose between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, with a few votes for John Edwards.
"Quite frankly, for 40-plus years Iowa and New Hampshire have helped essentially determine who is or who is not the nominee for both parties,'' Lovas said Wednesday. "And I feel as though Arizona voters are being disenfranchised.''
Lovas said he's not being a sore loser. He said he was a supporter of Romney, the GOP's eventual 2012 nominee.
"But I would have liked to see a lot more of Tim Pawlenty,'' he said.
There already is some flexibility in Arizona law to do what Lovas wants without legislative action.
The law sets Arizona's election for the fourth Tuesday in February. But it gives the governor permission to schedule an earlier primary as long as she sets the date at least 150 days ahead of time.
In fact, Gov. Jan Brewer made some noise about doing just that last year, proposing a Jan. 31 vote. But that started a national ripple effect.
The chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party, the first state after Iowa and New Hampshire, said he has the unilateral power to set his state's GOP primary. And he said there was no way he was going to allow Arizona to get ahead -- or even vote on the same day.
New Hampshire law requires its presidential primary be at least a week before any other similar election. And Iowa started making noise that its party caucuses, a different process than a primary set by party rules, requires it to be ahead of New Hampshire.
In the end, Brewer backed down. And the Republican Party, in what officials insisted was not a payoff to Brewer for defusing a fight, agreed to have one of its debates in Arizona.
But there are ways for political parties to exert their will on Arizona and protect Iowa and New Hampshire: Those states which violate the rules can lose half the delegates to the national convention.
In fact, the state got just 29 Republican delegates last year, half of its allocation, after going ahead with the primary even on Feb. 28.
Lovas said he's not concerned.
"I don't think they're going to want to risk alienating Arizona,'' he said, saying this state is becoming far more representative of what both parties see as their future.
"Democrats want to turn this state a little bit more purple,'' he said, cutting into the edge Republicans have had for decades. "For Republicans, it's important to speak to Latino voters,'' Lovas continued, echoing a theme some GOP officials have stated since Romney's loss in November.
More to the point, Lovas said, even if the number of delegates is slashed, winning Arizona will still be a plum that early contenders want to pocket.
"We will get the candidates,'' he said.
Gubernatorial press aide Matthew Benson said Brewer, whose power to set the primary date would be overruled, had not seen the legislation and had no comment.
Politics aside, Lovas said there's an economic benefit to an early primary: More candidates mean more candidate visits, complete with meals and lodging for their staffs. There also would be more advertising and even more reporters coming here to spend money.
A study done last year by a researcher at the University of New Hampshire, just ahead of that state's primary, put the economic impact of the 2000 race there at about $260 million, though much of that was in media buys.
Lovas said he's willing to back down if the national parties come up with something more fair, perhaps on the order of regional primaries. That would mean one year the Northeast states would have their primaries first, then another year led by Southwest states and another where those in the South or Midwest go first.
mikedurham posted at 9:14 pm on Fri, Jan 4, 2013.
Az2008, best two questions I've read today.
az2008 posted at 10:34 am on Fri, Jan 4, 2013.
Mike, why does any state need to vote before another? In perpetuity?
mikedurham posted at 8:50 pm on Thu, Jan 3, 2013.
Uh, pardon me. Why does Arizona need to vote before Iowa and New Hampshire?
az2008 posted at 10:04 am on Thu, Jan 3, 2013.
d4, I wouldn't call any state piddly. I sort of agree with the system which balances states versus populace (i.e., the senate versus the house; and the electoral college). I think less populated states should have their turn at the early primary dates. I just don't like that any state has a permanent lock on any date. It should be rotated. Start out with random assignments, and every four years, each state advances forward toward the earlier dates. When a state is at the head of the line, it goes back to the end of the line.
When you consider how it would take 204 years for a state to rotate from the end to the beginning, it demonstrates the incredibly self-ingratiating position Iowa has put itself in.
I'd also say the 1st primary date isn't necessarily the most influential. There are 14 primary dates. The 2nd date (New Hampshire) gets to act on (and potentially veto) the 1st (Iowa). Super Tuesday (the 11th date) gets to make a big and less changeable impact. Every date makes its own contribution to the result. And also a contribution to the general election: the 14th date might have the least influence on the nomination process (unless it's a tie-breaker), but the earliest influence on the general election (campaigning in that last primary state could lead to gaffes, revelations, etc. that are unique to that state).
d4az posted at 8:11 am on Thu, Jan 3, 2013.
Hey downtownrodent: As a lifelong Arizonan, I take my state seriously. If you hate it here, why don't you leave?
Hey Datadonk: Do you have evidence of anyone proposing to give 1st graders any type of gun other than a water pistol? If not, it is you who is the idiot for that statement.
az2008: Your post is on the money. It is ridiculous that a piddly state like Iowa has so much influence on the national elections. Growing states like Arizona should have more influence, and if that means the end of the two-party system, all the better.
az2008 posted at 11:21 pm on Wed, Jan 2, 2013.
All you guys bashing Arizona. I think it's the height of corruption for Iowa and New Hampshire to have permanent influence on presidential primary elections. And for this to be maintained by the party power brokers.
I think states should rotate through the various election dates. But, that won't happen until a wrench is thrown into the existing system. That's what Lovas is trying to do. If we set our date, it would become absurd as everyone moves their date earlier. Ultimately it would force Congress to enact a rotating system. (The current system only exists because nobody challenges it.).
Fixing that problem might lead to other election reforms, like instant-runoff ballots, allowing us to vote our 1st through nth choice. That would be the end of the two-party monopoly.
DataMan posted at 8:04 pm on Wed, Jan 2, 2013.
THERE IS NO LEGISLATURE IN AZ RIGHT NOW. They get sworn in later this month.
Bill? Are these morons REALLY that stupid? Hey, this is the Grand (Wingnut) Canyon (filled with idiots) State! More guns for 1st graders!
tededitedit posted at 7:08 pm on Wed, Jan 2, 2013.
Our legislators need to prioritize the needs of our state a little better, don't you think?
gil the baker posted at 6:40 pm on Wed, Jan 2, 2013.
hey phil i think there are about 3plus million things a f of a lot more important that need attention then this piece of crud
downtownresident posted at 5:27 pm on Wed, Jan 2, 2013.
Why don't we just have perpetual elections.
Then the maggots in the legislature and congress could pander to the big corporations who are now able to purchase politicians at will.
The thought that anybody would take Arizona seriously is a joke.