Only hours after the governor signed legislation bumping forward the 2016 primary elections to March 1, lawmakers and experts differed over how an earlier primary, one shared with a handful of other Southern states, will affect Arkansans.
Those who beat the drum for joining the "SEC Primary," a reference to the Southeastern Athletic Conference, argued that the moved-up primary would mean Arkansas and other Southern states will play a bigger role in shaping the national presidential debate, as well as selecting the presidential nominees.
Further still, Arkansas lawmakers who support the new primary date said the excitement over a contested presidential primary will improve voter turnout, meaning more Arkansans will vote in down-ticket races.
But some think that the hype over a presidential primary will be just that -- hype -- and that the earlier primary date will extend the election year in Arkansas, making candidates file and campaign earlier.
Asked who was right, and how an earlier primary and earlier election season will shake up things in Arkansas, Ouachita Baptist University political science professor Hal Bass said he could only guess.
"The easy answer is: I don't know," Bass said. "Primaries are notoriously difficult to predict."
In 2012, Arkansas' primaries were in May. By that point, Republican Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama had locked up the party nominations.
"The average Arkansas voter didn't feel they were playing a big role in the primary at that point," said Rep. Andy Davis, R-Little Rock, who sponsored the SEC primary legislation.
"If we could move all the primaries up so that there was no additional cost to the state and so that Arkansas voters felt like they were voting at a time where they played a more prominent role in the national election, then that was a good thing," Davis said.
Gov. Asa Hutchinson also supported synchronizing Arkansas' primary election with those of Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Virginia and Tennessee.
The earlier date increases the likelihood that two candidates with Arkansas ties will still be in the race when Arkansans vote -- former Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee, and former Arkansas and U.S. first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.
But it's unlikely that there will be a stream of presidential hopefuls making campaign swings through Arkansas, political scientists say. In 2008, the last time Clinton and Huckabee ran for president, Clinton captured 70 percent of the state's Democratic primary vote. Huckabee took 60 percent of the Republican votes.
If it looks like both candidates are unbeatable in Arkansas, the state will be bypassed, political scientists say.
And since Arkansas has the smallest population of those March 1 primary states and has fewer delegates, candidates trying to conserve their money and time will focus elsewhere, said University of Arkansas political science professor Janine Parry.
"The fact is we're small, and it's difficult to be consequential," Parry said. With the SEC primary in place, "there may be a hair more attention [paid] to the South, but that doesn't necessarily translate to more attention to Arkansas."
Arkansas Sen. Jeremy Hutchinson, R-Little Rock, said he doubts that candidates will ignore Arkansas.
"It may be only a few staffers, but I think they'll buy TV time and have some organization here," he said. "It won't be Iowa or New Hampshire or South Carolina, but I think we'll see some media action, and certainly the media outlets will enjoy some immediate ad revenue."
Robert McLarty, a partner at the left-leaning consultancy The Markham Group, pointed out that in 2008, the last time Arkansas had a presidential primary in March, there was no serious effort by other candidates to top Clinton and Huckabee.
"A seat at the table sometimes is at the end," McLarty said.
For Davis, though, the move isn't about attracting political personalities to the state but about giving the state's voters "meaning" and "prominence."
Critics say "candidates aren't going to come to Arkansas if we move our primary," Davis said. "That's great. We didn't run this for them to come here."
An earlier but ultimately unsuccessful attempt at the "SEC primary" during the legislative session would have moved up only the presidential primary, leaving primary elections for state office in May, similar to what was done in 2008.
Davis and Jeremy Hutchinson are optimistic that not cleaving the elections as was done in 2008 will turn out more voters.
In 2008's presidential primary, which was held in early February along with contests in 24 other states, nearly 35 percent of the state's 1.7 million registered voters cast ballots.
Three months later, when other candidates had their primaries, voter turnout dropped to 18 percent.
In 2012, when state and national primaries were on the same day in May, but the presidential contest was effectively over, turnout was about 22 percent of the state's 1.54 million registered voters.
Officials from the office of Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin, who supported the SEC primary switch, said they don't expect to see an increase in turnout because of a competitive presidential contest at the top of the ticket.
But McLarty, Parry and Bass say having a top-ticket contest for president will attract more voters to the primaries and could mean more competition for incumbents.
It's relatively easy for incumbents to target the die-hard primary voters, McLarty said. But an increase in voters drawn by the chance to cast ballots in competitive presidential campaigns could change that.
"You [incumbents] are talking to a wider group of voters and an audience you may not be as familiar with," McLarty said.
Parry said the additional voters could shake up the established order and affect down-ticket races.
The additional voters "are less reliable news consumers," according to Parry, so they won't know as much about the candidates.
"So parties and candidates are going to have to figure out how to appeal to them," Parry said.
Critics say requiring an earlier candidate-filing date of Nov. 1 creates a year-long campaign season, which will start before Thanksgiving and could end in the middle of a snowstorm.
And several lawmakers said earlier primaries will give incumbents an advantage in races because challengers will have less time to raise money and introduce themselves to voters.
That view is shared by some experts.
"It's going to force [primary challengers] to try to develop a campaign identity under more difficult circumstances," Bass said. "That will put a challenger at a disadvantage."
Jeremy Hutchinson conceded that the ramped-up timetable could help established incumbents retain their party's nominations, but he said the increase in primary voters should level the playing field.
"I think it's a wash," Jeremy Hutchinson said. "If you have a small audience, the incumbents have worked that audience for years, and it will be much tougher to break into, but with a broad audience, that could favor challengers."
He added: "Challengers are going to have to be more determined and plan earlier."
Arkansas Sen. Linda Chesterfield, D-Little Rock, said lawmakers are gambling by shifting the primaries to March.
There could be snow, she said, or sleet or ice that time of year.
"It's not unusual weather in Arkansas. Why, then, would this be a good time to have an election?" Chesterfield said. "I don't think it's good government. ... I don't think it facilitates a participatory democracy in this state."
But Davis, the House bill's sponsor, said it's too early to issue a weather forecast.
"It could also be 80 degrees [on primary day]," Davis said. "It's March. You never know what it's going to be."
Metro on 06/01/2015