THAT’S DEBATABLE:Vote early, vote often

State Sen. Ron Calderon and Assemblyman George Plescia — a Democrat and a Republican, respectively — are proposing California’s presidential primary be moved from June to February. (June elections still would be held for state offices.) Is this a good idea, or will it simply cost taxpayers more money and increase voter fatigue?

There are two reasons some lawmakers want an early and extra election in February 2008.

The first reason is to affect the presidential nominee selection process. California has always been too late and too expensive to campaign in so we are universally ignored by presidential candidates (except when they want to raise money from Californians).

The second reason some lawmakers want this election is to place a term-limit-extension proposal on the ballot so that, if the voters approve it, they can file for reelection in the regular June primary.

An extra election will cost the taxpayers about $90 million. This is more than double the cost of the special election Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called in November 2005 because that election was consolidated with other, regularly scheduled elections, while a February 2008 presidential primary election would stand by itself. The rich irony here is that legislative Democrats heavily criticized the governor for calling his reform agenda special election.

I will soon introduce a bill allowing California to have a voice in presidential politics without costing the taxpayers one penny. My bill would award only half of the delegates at the regularly scheduled June primary election with the other half being awarded at state party conventions in February of a presidential election year. Half of California’s delegates amount to five times the delegates awarded at the Iowa caucuses in February, and about 10 times those awarded in the New Hampshire primary. Presidential candidates will campaign in California if my bill becomes law.

Chuck DeVore

Assemblyman (R-Newport Beach)

Presidential primaries have been unduly dependent on small states for too long. States like Iowa and New Hampshire aren’t representative of the diversity of our nation and have concerns dramatically different from states like California, Texas and New York. Yet their instrumental status in presidential selection gives undue influence to the concerns of a select few.

Moving up California’s presidential primary will be an important part of amplifying our voice and ensuring that California’s concerns are considered in Washington, D.C. Even while California’s congressional delegation has had many leaders in the House of Representatives, we have continued to be a donor state that is ignored when it comes to federal issues that directly affect us like illegal immigration and traffic relief.

One in eight Americans lives in California; an earlier primary will give California the opportunity to be heard and guarantee our concerns receive the priority they deserve.

Van Tran

Assemblyman (R-Costa Mesa)

While I am in favor of a proposal that boosts California’s role in the presidential primary, I am deeply concerned with the costs associated with establishing a third election for 2008. I’m eager to see how these two proposals play out because Californians must and should have a voice. It seems to me that candidates should be discussing important issues in this state, not just coming here to pick our pockets for campaign contributions. It is wrong for the candidates of both parties to treat California like an ATM.

Tom Harman

Senator (R-Huntington Beach)