Senate Stalls on Feb 5th Primary

by: Matt Glazer

Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:48 PM CDT

Quorum Report has some news and speculation surrounding HB 2107, the bill that would move Texas to the National Primary on Feb 5th.

We are not sure why the air has gone out of the balloon but HB2017 by Helen Giddings is stalled in the Senate.
Speaking off the record, at least one senator indicated they were uncomfortable, complaining that the bill was an incumbent protection program that diminished the significance of the primary for non-presidential races.

The reason for the stall seems to be Republican ambition.

It's purely speculation, but should the 2010 gubernatorial primay campaign boil down to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison vs. Lt. Governor David Dewhurst, a short primary season would likely play to the Senator's advantage because of her higher name ID. The longer the campaign season, the more impact Dewhurst's presumed financial advantage would have.

HB 2107 found broad bipartisan support in committee and on the House floor. With time running out to pass legislation, it would be a shame for 20 Republicans in the Senate to ignore the will of the House and the deep support of both the Texas Democratic Party and Texas Republican Party.

Tags: Helen Giddings, Primary, Kay Bailey Hutchison, David Dewhurst, HB 2107, Texas Lege, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Senate Stalls on Feb 5th Primary | 4 comments

That's flawed reasoning (0.00 / 0)

If 20 Republicans in the Senate do not support the bill, then by definition it does not have deep support within the Republican Party.

As for within the Democratic Party, I have yet to meet anyone who wants to hit up for campaign donations, or even campaigning for that matter, during the holiday season.

by: Wanderer @ Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 18:56:33 PM CDT

Endorsements (0.00 / 0)

This plan was endorsed by the Texas Democratic Party and Texas Republican Party.

During Rep. Giddings' press conference March 28 everyone joked that this was the first time Tina Benkiser and Boyd Richie ever agreed on anything.

by: Matt Glazer @ Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 19:20:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of course they'd support it. (4.00 / 2)

The parties will always support this kind of thing. This plays well to machines over individuals. It's very easy for the machine to always inject a primary winner if there is no time for voters to vote based upon knowledge and have to rely on name recognition. Plus voting on name recognition ensures that party loyalty can be easily rewarded.

It's a better investment for them. How many candidates have seemed like a sure thing for election at the beginning of a race and spectacularly imploded before the primary was even held? You get a better ROI with a short primary season. On the other hand, the voters definitely come out better the longer the primary season. There is more time for the candidates to actually knock on doors and appear at civic events. This definitely favors third party and non party backed candidates. It also heavily favors national and state over local politics. Since with a long primary season a local candidate could theoretically talk to every one of their potential constituents.

by: tthomas48 @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:29:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree with Thomas 100%. (5.00 / 1)

Thomas is exactly right. The political machines love having an early primary during Christams because the party elites will control the outcome, not the grass-roots voters. An earlier primary would be a public policy disaster. Among other things an earlier Christmas primary will greatly reduce the numbers of talented people willing to run for public office. It would be nice if those legislators who think they are Gods would realize that those "little people" in local government are the ones who really govern us day to day and by hurting their ability to run for office we citizens are all hurt by having a less effective government.

by: Masset @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 13:08:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]