Some Campaign for Earlier N.C. Primary

Raleigh, N.C. — Voters in more than 40 states will have cast their ballots in presidential primaries before North Carolina voters head to the polls on May 6, prompting officials to revisit the idea of moving the state's primary up on the calendar.

The Republican and Democratic candidates will likely be decided before the North Carolina primary, which makes it difficult to attract candidates to come to the state to campaign. Observers say that deprives residents of meeting and listening to contenders in person and deprives the state of the national exposure and campaign spending that places like Iowa and New Hampshire receive.

"North Carolina is not a player on the national scene," said Gary Bartlett, executive director of the State Board of Elections.

"When it comes to presidential politics, there's no reason to show up to the polls. We are just completely cast out of that process," said Damon Circosta, acting executive director of the North Carolina Center For Voter Education.

Circosta's group backed a plan last year to move the state's primary from May to late January or early February, but the bill died in the General Assembly.

"There are several important people in this state who are running for statewide office, and they didn't want to move their election schedule up just to accommodate the presidency," he said.

Bartlett said it was "too late in the process going into the election year" to move up the 2008 primary.

He said the state could create a separate presidential primary that would preserve the traditional vetting process for state candidates. It would cost an additional $5 million, however, and it could erode voter turnout in May.

Complicating matters even more, several other states have already pushed toward the front of the line. Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, Hawaii, and Florida hold primaries over the next two weeks before the 24 state primaries scheduled for "Super Tuesday" on Feb. 5.

"We're going to need a national solution. That's going to require something like a rotating regional primary," Circosta said.

14 Comments

WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.

VIEW ALL 14 COMMENTS

This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Latest Comments

I think we should do away with primaries entirely, and go back to picking candidates at open conventions. The current system doesn't produce better candidates. You could even make a case that it produces worse (at least more extremist) candidates. It cost an obscene amount of money, and annoys the heck out of nearly everyone for almost two years out of four.

For the politically correct, I'm sure we could come up with filters for the smoke filled rooms.

Ken D.
January 8, 2008 9:56 a.m.

"Instead, other states should justify why they have to have a caucus or primary in the dim light of January. I'm voting whether it is early or late, but having it in May is reasonable to allow candidates for all offices to get their message out."

---

Nowadays, it's utterly irrelevant when the primaries are held, particularly for the Presidential race because that race starts the minute the previous one ends.

By the time it comes for us to cast our insignificant ballots, the message is already obvious (and frankly meaningless once elected to the office).

That's why I think the British system is much better...Parliament is dissolved, five weeks later is the General Election. Granted, we would need to scale up the time due to the fact that the US is a larger country/population than the UK but I'm thinking five months would be sufficient time to narrow the short list and pick the next buffoon to inhabit 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Or the governor's mansion, for that matter.

NeverSurrender
January 8, 2008 9:52 a.m.

Why are 'the parties' and the media so intent on REDUCING our options on candidates PRIOR to the actual election? The purpose of primaries is to eliminate 'lesser' candidates so 'We, the People...' don't mess up their hopes for the party preferred candidate to get the maximum possible votes in the actual election. Primaries, and a stagnate 2 party system, reduce our choices and actually limits the possibility of a '3rd party' candidate from competing in the actual election. This system is now doing all of us a disservice.

Slip Kid
January 8, 2008 7:07 a.m.

"There are several important people in this state who are running for statewide office, and they didn't want to move their election schedule up just to accommodate the presidency."

This is the best reason to not move it any earlier. That is attacking the problem from the wrong side. If so many states had not moved primaries so early, we would not have had a national campaign season begin last year.

Instead, other states should justify why they have to have a caucus or primary in the dim light of January. I'm voting whether it is early or late, but having it in May is reasonable to allow candidates for all offices to get their message out.