On February 4, Arkansas HB 1021 was signed into law by Governor Mike Beebe. It moves the presidential primary from February to May.
On February 4, Arkansas HB 1021 was signed into law by Governor Mike Beebe. It moves the presidential primary from February to May.
I don’t understand – what is the incentive to have a *later* primary? The prestige of choosing earlier is lost and they are unlikely to be a deciding force even in a close primary (e.g. Democrats in 2008.)
Does anyone have any perspective on this?
-JAK
The move saves money. In 2008 Arkansas taxpayers paid for a presidential primary in February and a primary for other office in May. But in the future, the taxpayers will only pay for a May primary that has both president and all other partisan office as well.
Genius. Thanks.
Just to put to put a number to what Richard has said, in 2008, Arkansas could have saved $1.7 million by holding its presidential primary concurrent with its primaries for state and local offices.
If you think of Arkansas’s 2008 primary in terms of a cost/benefit analysis, their benefits certainly took a hit with both Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee making the contests even more of a non-factor. But even if Clinton and Huckabee weren’t on the ballot in 2008, it is hard to imagine the Natural state getting enough of a return to overtake the nearly $2 million investment.
If we look at two similarly sized states (also on February 5, 2008) like Oklahoma and Utah, neither got much of a financial return for being as early as they were. However, each fell on or before the point at which the nominations were settled. Having a say in that matters and matters more in some states than others.
Actually, I believe the DNC has a policy of rewarding states that move primaries back from a certain window of dates into another window of dates later with extra convention delegates. So perhaps this was Arkansas’ motivation; that and saving money.