Illinois has crazy election schedule

The politicians may like the idea of a Feb. 2 primary, but it's not in the voters' interests.

The aspiring candidates were out in force Monday, showing up to file their petitions for offices ranging from the U.S. Senate and governor all the way down to county board.

The filing period runs until Nov. 2, and the primary election will be held Feb. 2. Primary winners will compete in the Nov. 2, 2010, general election.

That schedule borders on the bizarre. What's the rush?

It was adopted by Illinois Democrats for the 2008 primary election to give a boost to the presidential campaign of then-U.S. Sen. Barack Obama. They thought moving the primary election up from mid-March, where it had been for years, to early February would boost Obama's prospects in the presidential primaries and give Illinois more influence in selecting a presidential nominee in both parties in the heavily front-loaded presidential primary elections.

To a certain extent, they were right. After all, Obama is living in the White House.

But what was good for Obama's presidential prospects is bad for Illinois voters and, consequently, bad for Illinois government. Illinois' March primary election already was too early. Now the situation is even worse.

Considering the state's long-standing dysfunctional government, did Illinois really need to establish another impediment to an open democratic process that encourages wider participation not only by the voters but by candidates as well?

Champaign County Clerk Mark Shelden notes that under state law he is required to start absentee voting for the Feb. 2 primary election on Christmas Eve, Dec. 24. His office is closed that day because of the holiday season, so absentee voting won't start until Dec. 27. But doesn't that sound ridiculously early?

Here's another problem – candidate recruitment.

Because of the even earlier primary, party leaders needed to start looking for candidates to run in the November 2010 general election during the summer of 2009.

When it comes to politics, a lot can happen in a short time. How many people are willing to commit to a campaign 14 to 15 months in advance? But a person unwilling to consider a run for office in August might reconsider by January or February, depending on the intervening events, either political or personal. Voters are denied the opportunity of a wider selection of candidates because the filing period ends Nov. 2.

Then there's the weather. Why hold a primary Feb. 2, when the chances for snow and cold that would hold down voter turnout are very good? Shelden said it's only a matter of time before the weather on primary day will be so bad that it's going to make "most of us wish we didn't have (the primary) this early."

The earlier the primary, the lower the voter turnouts. That's good for the bosses in both parties because they'll turn out their people with the comfortable knowledge that many ordinary citizens haven't been paying attention and won't get out to vote. People certainly are responsible for deciding whether to cast a ballot, but isn't it also a responsibility of government officials not to schedule elections when they know turnout will be poor? Once again, the political insiders benefit at the expense of the public.

Our legislators ought to press for a return to the March primary date or one even later. What would be wrong with a May primary election or even one in September? It would shorten the election season, cut campaign costs and generally reduce the amount of distracting noise that goes along with every campaign. There is simply no good reason for making campaigns that should be shorter even longer, at least not one that serves the interests of the public.

Comments