On presidential primary date shift, interests converge

Sacramento —  When politicians act in their own self-interests, it often serves the public’s interest. A prime example is the current enthusiasm in Sacramento for returning to an early presidential primary.

As with much back-scratching politics, the maneuver is a little convoluted, but this is the route to relevance in the 2008 presidential nominating process:

* Democrats want to tweak term limits to make them more flexible and allow lawmakers to spend all their allotted time in one house. Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) particularly is anxious for this, because he’s termed out of the Assembly next year and would really love to retain his powerful, fun leadership post.

Regardless of any personal motivation, however, term limits badly need to be retooled.

“Term limits has been a disaster, and I say that as one who originally thought it was a good idea,” asserts Republican Steve Merksamer, who heads a political law and lobbying firm and was former Gov. George Deukmejian’s chief of staff. “We’ve lost some very good people -- people with knowledge of our intractable problems and who knew how to make the system work.”

* Republicans long have clamored for snatching political redistricting from the Legislature, which almost always is controlled by Democrats, and handing it to an independent commission. Democrats probably would acquiesce reluctantly if Republicans agreed to change term limits. In truth, there’s increasing GOP opposition to these limits anyway.

Again, regardless of any cynical deal-making, redistricting reform makes good sense. It’s indefensible that legislators draw their own district lines and, thus, choose their own voters.

* So Democratic and Republican leaders are talking seriously about packaging term limits and redistricting into separate bipartisan ballot measures and offering them to voters. But to prolong Nunez’s speakership, the term limit tweak would need to be approved by the electorate early next year.

The solution: A California presidential primary at the earliest possible date, Feb. 5.

And who would benefit the most from that? California voters. They’d be allowed to play in the presidential nominating process.

Under current law, California’s primary won’t be held until June 3. And by that time nobody will care what voters out here think. The nominations will have been locked up for months -- probably since February.

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein put it this way Wednesday in endorsing an early primary:

“California is the largest state in the nation and has 55 electoral votes, far more than any other state. But California is little more than an afterthought in presidential politics.... California deserves to have a strong voice in selecting presidential nominees.”

That’s what Californians thought they were getting in 1996, when our primary was moved to late March from June. In subsequent elections, the date was nudged up even further, to early March. None of it mattered. California’s voice was muted when other states -- including pampered peewees Iowa and New Hampshire -- leapfrogged ahead of us.

Much worse, California moved not only its presidential primary but also its regular state primary to March, an awkward fit that mucked up the state’s election process. There also was political self-interest in that move. But this one wasn’t in the public’s interest.

Democrats wanted an early state primary in March 2002 so Republicans wouldn’t have enough time to file a ballot measure repealing an expected 2001 partisan gerrymandering of districts. Blocked from launching a referendum, Republicans compromised with Democrats on an infamous party-protection scheme that basically ensured the status quo through 2010 and made almost every seat noncompetitive.

And that blatant act of bipartisan self-interest launched a new crusade by outsiders to reform redistricting. Unfortunately, the initiative -- backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at the depth of his unpopularity -- was fatally flawed and rejected by voters in 2005.

But Nunez and Senate leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) had promised that if the measure failed, they’d offer their own redistricting reforms. And that’s where we still are -- waiting for the Democrats to keep their word and agree on a reform.

Sen. Ron Calderon (D-Montebello), Perata’s handpicked chairman of the Senate elections committee, says he won’t support redistricting reform without term limit changes. “I don’t think it would be equitable.”

The limits now are three two-year terms in the Assembly and two four-year stints in the Senate -- a total of 14 years. The most discussed modification would be to reduce the total years to 12, but allow them all to be served in one house. Even that could be a hard sell to cynical voters, based on polls.

“The current system is not working like everyone thought it would,” says Senate GOP leader Dick Ackerman of Irvine, an original term limits supporter.

He complains that new legislators immediately start “looking around for their next office” and says that “it’s getting worse.”

But he’s optimistic a deal can be crafted. “The stars are aligning,” he says. “The governor is willing to get engaged.”

Schwarzenegger is ready to alter term limits, having reversed his position from when he first ran for governor. Under term limits, he has said, “the special interests are becoming more powerful ... than the legislators.”

When the governor called for an early presidential primary last month -- “We want to make California relevant” -- he got legislative leaders excited.

This time, the regular state primary would remain in June. The extra cost for a presidential-only contest is variously estimated at between $45 million and $90 million. Take a mid-range number and call it the cost of democracy.

It’s a good investment and in everybody’s self-interest. The popular governor could be a powerful player in a meaningful primary. Legislators could acquire a fair redistricting system and more practical term limits. The people could help choose the next president.

George Skelton writes Monday and Thursday. Reach him at george.skelton@latimes.com.