Editorial: Voters will be the real losers

CALIFORNIA has entered the gold rush, joining other states that have moved up their presidential primaries so that their voices are heard before the nominations already are sewn up.

It's tough to blame California. Its presidential primary is held in June, at the tail end of the nominating process. California doesn't even merit serious attention from the candidates during the primary season because the nominee already has enough delegates to get the nomination.

But this trend of states holding their primary elections ever earlier could be disastrous. Instead of having a campaign stretched out over several months, with the candidates' views and character being tested, there will essentially be a single national primary day where the nominees are selected.

It also will be necessary to push up the beginning of the campaign season sooner as candidates will have to start even earlier to get recognized and raise money. Lesser-known candidates without a large campaign war chest will be especially disadvantaged.

For the 1996 elections, California moved its primary from June to March 26. But that didn't work because other states simply moved their primaries ahead of the Golden State. Under the bill signed into law by Gov. Pete Wilson, who has been mentioned as a presidential aspirant in the year 2000, California will hold its primary on March 7, just one week after New Hampshire holds its primary, the first in the nation.

California isn't alone. As many as 11 other Western states, including Nevada, are considering holding their primaries on the same day early in the process, trying to attract more attention from presidential hopefuls. Despite the rush to start early, all states -- including those in the West -- instead should be pushing to have a more reasonable primary system that has been suggested by state election officials.

Under that proposal, Iowa would still hold the first caucus and New Hampshire would maintain the nation's first primary. But there would be five regional primaries, each taking place one month apart. In order to preserve fairness, the plan would make sure that no region has a permanent advantage in going first, as the order of each region's primary would be rotated every presidential election.

It's probably too late already to put in place this reasonable idea for the 2000 election because it would require all 50 states to reach an agreement. But the states and political parties should start working now to put a more sensible plan in place for the 2004 election.

Earlier primaries bunched together will guarantee that the public will be less educated when selecting a party's presidential nominee. No state wants to be last. But in their bids to be first, the states will only ensure that the voters are the losers.

archive