Arkansas is trying, yet again, to become a power player in the game known as presidential politics. When all is said and done, the state will spend an extra $1.5 million to position itself to be largely ignored early in the 2016 primary season rather than largely ignored late in the 2016 primary season.
Imagine what kind of meaningful, substantive projects or programs in state or local government could use that $1.5 million. Yet Arkansas is apparently so flush with funding it can afford to throw money at changing the primary for no appreciable purpose.
What’s the point?
Other than spending more Arkansas tax dollars, nobody has given any significant reason to justify a proposed shift from May to March of Arkansas presidential primary.
Gov. Asa Hutchinson said this week he supports legislation that would shift Arkansas presidential primary from May to March. The Legislature has completed its work for this year's regular session, but Hutchinson said he'd back a bill's inclusion in any future special session. And since he's the guy authorized to set the parameters of any such session, look for it to be included. A spokesman said he won't call a special session for the primary issue along. Thank goodness for that.
It seems politicos, namely Republicans, are enamored of the idea of joining several other Southern states to create a regional presidential primary the likes of which would require Wolf Blitzer to work late. The push came in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and Virginia. Some folks are referring to it as the SEC Primary, because everything in the south has to have some connection to sports.
Arkansas' presidential primary now happens at the same time as primary voting for state and local races. The proposal for the early presidential voting would separate the two, leading to the added costs of an extra statewide Election Day.
The effort in Mississippi died after a bill to make the change died in the Legislature. "It did not make any political sense for Mississippi, and it did not make any economic sense," said Pamela Weaver, a spokesman for Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann.
Oh, if only someone in Arkansas could be concerned with making sense. But the Republican mantra so far appears to be "The money is in the budget, so why not?" How did that money get there, by the way?
This isn't the first time Arkansas has tried to boost the relevance of its six electoral votes in presidential politics. For 2008, Arkansas pushed for an earlier presidential primary, back by Republicans but led by Democrats, with this jewel of a quote from party Chairman Jason Willett of Jonesboro in the application to move the Democratic primary.
"Arkansas has been a Democratic stronghold in the American South," Willett wrote. "Arkansas continues to confound the emerging notion that the South belongs to the Republican Party."
Now who's confounded?
Janine Parry, a professor of politic science at the University of Arkansas, suggests that 2008 shift actually boosted Republican strength in Arkansas. By separating the presidential primary from the ballots for state and local races, it allowed a large proportion of Arkansas voters who had previously stuck with the Democratic ballot -- including all those state and local races -- to switch to the Republicans just for a presidential vote. They still got to preserve their participation as Democrats in their local and state races later in the year. That, Parry said, gave Republican Party of Arkansas officials a public list -- the list of voters from that early primary -- of people willing to vote Republican. That's political campaign gold, and it helped build momentum for Republicans. And today, who's in charge? The governor and other state constitutional officers are Republican, as are the six members of Congress from the state.
It was money well spent for the GOP.
But why do it for 2016? State Rep. Nate Bell of Mena in February responded to a bill to move the primary earlier by commenting on Twitter. He said he opposed it, then asked "Will it be listed as a donation for Huck?," an apparent reference to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. He's considering another run for president in 2016 as he did in 2008.
We won't pretend to know all the sneaky ways of state policy-makers, but the serious question to be answered with the switch is this: Who benefits? To our way of thinking, Arkansans in general don't get $1.5 million of value out of the deal.
Here's an idea: Let's put the primary wherever it best suits our election process for state and local races, and keep the presidential primary as part of it. Let's not spend $1.5 million needlessly. Whose ego is being stroked with visions of national relevance in presidential politics?
If our small state is going to be largely ignored by presidential candidates anyway -- and it will be -- why spend more money for the privilege.
Commentary on 04/18/2015