Primarily Politics

Emerson Lynn on Politics

Delay has a way of claiming its victims.

Last legislative session the Senate made the long-discussed move to change the date of the Vermont primary – always held the second Tuesday in September. But the House could not be bothered. It wasn’t a priority given the issues being considered.

That was then. When Gov. Jim Douglas announced he would not seek another term, the political world turned upside down, and with the flick of a political switch the issue has assumed stature beyond its importance.

The issues that prevailed last session are back. In spades. A huge budget deficit looms. The unemployment trust fund will be defunct. The state’s pension funds are drastically underfunded. And the state struggles to manage its affairs – at all levels.

But all of a sudden, legislative leaders see the need to spend some time debating the need to change the date set for the primary.

The reason, obviously, is that the Democrats have five candidates who want to be governor and they worry that the time spread from Sept. 14th to Nov. 2nd isn’t long enough to recover from a fractious primary. They are considering August 24th, instead.

To provide political cover, they are citing a new federal law that requires absentee ballots to be sent to oversea voters at least 45 days before the November election. Secretary of State Deb Markowitz advocates the change in the primary date to ensure that our troops get their ballots in time. “People can argue about the politics. But the bottom line is that our military is overseas fighting for our country. We have to make sure they have the opportunity to vote.”

Score one for Ms. Markowitz, who is an announced candidate for governor. It was a smart political move and in a field of five, every vote counts. But let’s not be confused. The impetus to move the date of the primary is about political advantage. Nothing else. The 45-day time line leaves a full week between Vermont’s Sept. 14th primary and the general election. If necessary, the state could also seek a federal waiver.

If the Legislature truly intends to change the date of the primary, it should do so openly and with no apologies. And it should not need to hide behind the fig leaf of a new federal law that’s easily dealt with.

To escape the stain of perceived political advantage, the change should only be considered if it’s employed in the 2012 election year, not this year. This would invite a more bipartisan approach to the issue since both parties would benefit equally. If legislative leaders insist on an immediate change, their motives are fully revealed, and if that is their intent, so be it. Just say so.

The irony, of course, is that had they done this last session, it wouldn’t be an issue today.

It’s also an issue not to be lightly considered. Vermonters have been conditioned to a September primary date. Changing it to August – when families are still on vacation and not paying attention to politics – is almost guaranteed to attract fewer voters. It’s hard to defend a change in the primary date if the chances are considerable that fewer people will vote.

And that likelihood isn’t something to be considered for this upcoming election alone. Given the fact that the Democrats have a crowded primary, there may be an increased interest in the outcome and voting totals may rise. And what about the following election? Are we to have a floating date set according to a party’s political advantage?

It’s entirely defensible to consider such a change. We’ve argued for years that we go without a voice in the presidential primaries because ours is so late. The advantages of twining with New Hampshire – or close to it – might be considerable.

But this is a big picture issue. If the Legislature intends to change the date of the primary, then let the debate include all options, and let’s step beyond the obvious political advantage being considered and consider the move for 2012, not 2010.

(Emerson Lynn is editor & publisher of the St. Albans Messenger where this essay first appeared.)

Comments

[Bill]

Isn't the primary currently scheduled on Tuesday, September 15, not on Monday, September 14? Ballots mailed overseas on September 19 would qualify for being mailed 45 days before the election. Suppose political winds were blowing in the Democrat's favor and suppose the GOP had five candidates running against a very popular Democrat who ran four successful campaigns for Lt. Governor. If such were the case we wouldn't hear peep about changing any date from any Democrat. Being true to themselves, Democrats always place party over principle. On the principle of payback is hell, I will be grabbing a Democrat ballot to help push the weaker Democrat into the jaws of victory. If the primary is held in August, with fewer voters, my vote will hold more weight.

[Vermont Woodchuck]

Bill, this is one time you might wish electoral success to the Jackass Party and the Progs.

They dug this hole; let them take ALL the *kudos* from the affected voters for getting out. They deserve every smidgen coming their way.

[Chris Roy]

I must confess, I'm going to depart with you on this.

Vermont was sued by the USDOJ last year for failing to conform with reporting requirements relating to the provision of timely absentee ballots to overseas servicemen and women. The disenfranchisement of military voters is a regrettable staple of elections news these days. It takes time to print general election ballots for each town after the primary is completed. Finally, a number of our fellow Vermonters have just been deployed to Afghanistan.

Moving the primary up 3-4 weeks to mid- to late August is not a radical change, primary voting levels are far from stupendous now, and early voting makes voting very convenient.

That being the case, there is much to be said for enacting such a change effective 2012, with a one-time waiver to be sought in 2010.

We have to disentangle ourselves from the endless loop of hyper-partisanship if we are going to accomplish anything productive in this state and get ourselves back on a sustainable economic and political track.

[Jim Condos]

I also think we need to put aside the partisan politics on this issue - it's unfortunate the Governor is trying to spin this as a partisan issue.

As a former Chair of Senate Government Operations, we have reviewed the primary day on several occasions.

And in my day job, over the last 10-12 years I have been involved in many different print projects in my role as a marketing and public affairs manager.

This is not about a set 45 days between Primary and Gen Election days - it is about the time to send and receive the ballots.
The Federal law says you have to provide 45 days to allow for overseas ballots to be mailed, received, and sent back to the town office.

There are , I believe 107 or so voting districts in VT - each one with a slightly different ballot.

Once the Sec of State receives the tallies from each of the districts, the information is then transferred to a form to be sent to the printer.

Before sending to the printer, the SoS must proof the data to insure accuracy.

After the printer receives the data, they must then transfer to the ballot form and THEN the proof must be approved by the SoS before printing.

After printing, the ballots then have to be delivered to each of the town offices for mailing to overseas locations - after the Town Clerk verifies the ballot is correct is correct for their town.

All of this proofing and verification is done to insure the accuracy of the ballots and the integrity of the election.

In 2010, I believe there are only 4 or 5 days outside of the 45 day window which is an incredibly short amount of time.

Please remember that the SoS office and the Town Clerks throughout VT due an incredible job of overseeing VT's elections.
They should all be commended for their hard work insuring that our democracy continues to be the best in the world.

[Mark Shepard]

Jim,

The case for moving the date is more than obvious. Any idea why the Government Operations Committees did not get to this last session?

[jch]

A number of ballots were emailed last year to voters overseas. Doesn't this take care of the timing problem for getting ballots to overseas voters, especially the military who are protecting our right to vote?

[Jim Condos]

Mark,

Senate Gov Ops did pass out S.117 which changed the date to the 4th Tuesday of August - it also passed the Senate with a 21 - 9 vote (Opposed: 6 Rs & 3 Ds) but the House never took it up.