By springtime of 2016, it looked like California might have a decisive role in choosing the presidential nominee for a major party for the first time in several generations.

With the June primary approaching last year, Hillary Clinton toured the state, while Bernie Sanders spent nearly an entire month holding rallies and giving speeches. Meanwhile Donald Trump and his Republican rivals were building organizations in the state.

But by the time voters actually went to the polls, Clinton and Trump had already secured the nomination. For the sixth time in seven presidential campaigns, the nation's largest state wasn't relevant to the outcome of the primary.

"Our voters sit on the sidelines, almost every presidential election, and it's really disappointing," says Kim Alexander of the non-profit California Voter Foundation.

A proposal by Secretary of State Alex Padilla and authored by state Sen. Ricardo Lara, both Democrats, looks to change that. It would move California's primary from June to March, giving voters a head start in selecting nominees for president in 2020. It could also set off an arms race among states over which will vote earliest.

"We're the most populous state in the nation, the most diverse state in the nation, with the largest economy of any state in the nation," says Padilla. "We should have much more of a say in who the nominees for president are."

This is not a novel idea in California. The state has moved its primary to March, in 1996, 2000 and 2004, always for similar reasons. In 2008, the state held its presidential primary in February.

"It will encourage presidential candidates to campaign here and to debate and discuss issues and policies important to our people," former state Sen. Ron Calderon said in 2007, advocating for his bill to move the primary.

California Republican Party chair Jim Brulte says there are downsides to moving up—one reason the state has always come back to its traditional June election slot.

"Everything else gets backed up correspondingly," Brulte says. "Fundraising has to start earlier, organizational development has to start earlier. And then you have a huge gap from March until the November election."

Brulte also suggested moving the state's primary to March could benefit Sen. Kamala Harris, the state's junior U.S. senator who's been mentioned as a potential candidate.

Under the 2007 measure, California held two primaries the following year—the presidential primary in February, and then state races in June. Holding an extra election cost nearly $100 million more, and turnout in June was abysmal.

Still, on balance, Brulte also supports a single, consolidated early primary and as a member of the state legislature, he voted for it.

"You don't want a candidate just doing a drive by campaign in your state," Brulte says.

The last times California has moved its primaries, it did not have the effect lawmakers desired, says political scientist Josh Putnam, who writes the blog FrontloadingHQ about presidential party rules and primary elections.

"The times in the past where they have moved up, it's been a super-crowded week," Putnam says.

Smaller states have moved up their primaries so they don't get left behind —and then Putnam says candidates still avoid California.

"You know, it's not a situation where you can just drop-in on California in a week's time and campaign across a very big area, and a very diverse and populous state on top of that," Putnam says. "It's expensive to do that."

Should the California measure become law, Putnam expects a new round of jockeying among states for the right to go ahead.

Kim Alexander, the voter advocate, says even so, the state has little choice but to shift its primary.

"It's no guarantee, but if we keep our primary in June, we are guaranteed that we're not going to have a voice," she says.

The measure is expected to come up for final votes before the Legislature adjourns for the year on Friday.</s>By springtime of 2016, it looked like California might have a decisive role in choosing the presidential nominee for a major party for the first time in several generations.

With the June primary approaching last year, Hillary Clinton toured the state, while Bernie Sanders spent nearly an entire month holding rallies and giving speeches. Meanwhile Donald Trump and his Republican rivals were building organizations in the state.

But by the time voters actually went to the polls, Clinton and Trump had already secured the nomination. For the sixth time in seven presidential campaigns, the nation's largest state wasn't relevant to the outcome of the primary.

"Our voters sit on the sidelines, almost every presidential election, and it's really disappointing," says Kim Alexander of the non-profit California Voter Foundation.

A proposal by Secretary of State Alex Padilla and authored by state Sen. Ricardo Lara, both Democrats, looks to change that. It would move California's primary from June to March, giving voters a head start in selecting nominees for president in 2020. It could also set off an arms race among states over which will vote earliest.

"We're the most populous state in the nation, the most diverse state in the nation, with the largest economy of any state in the nation," says Padilla. "We should have much more of a say in who the nominees for president are."

This is not a novel idea in California. The state has moved its primary to March, in 1996, 2000 and 2004, always for similar reasons. In 2008, the state held its presidential primary in February.

"It will encourage presidential candidates to campaign here and to debate and discuss issues and policies important to our people," former state Sen. Ron Calderon said in 2007, advocating for his bill to move the primary.

California Republican Party chair Jim Brulte says there are downsides to moving up—one reason the state has always come back to its traditional June election slot.

"Everything else gets backed up correspondingly," Brulte says. "Fundraising has to start earlier, organizational development has to start earlier. And then you have a huge gap from March until the November election."

Brulte also suggested moving the state's primary to March could benefit Sen. Kamala Harris, the state's junior U.S. senator who's been mentioned as a potential candidate.

Under the 2007 measure, California held two primaries the following year—the presidential primary in February, and then state races in June. Holding an extra election cost nearly $100 million more, and turnout in June was abysmal.

Still, on balance, Brulte also supports a single, consolidated early primary and as a member of the state legislature, he voted for it.

"You don't want a candidate just doing a drive by campaign in your state," Brulte says.

The last times California has moved its primaries, it did not have the effect lawmakers desired, says political scientist Josh Putnam, who writes the blog FrontloadingHQ about presidential party rules and primary elections.

"The times in the past where they have moved up, it's been a super-crowded week," Putnam says.

Smaller states have moved up their primaries so they don't get left behind —and then Putnam says candidates still avoid California.

"You know, it's not a situation where you can just drop-in on California in a week's time and campaign across a very big area, and a very diverse and populous state on top of that," Putnam says. "It's expensive to do that."

Should the California measure become law, Putnam expects a new round of jockeying among states for the right to go ahead.

Kim Alexander, the voter advocate, says even so, the state has little choice but to shift its primary.

"It's no guarantee, but if we keep our primary in June, we are guaranteed that we're not going to have a voice," she says.

The measure is expected to come up for final votes before the Legislature adjourns for the year on Friday.</s>By springtime of 2016, it looked like California might have a decisive role in choosing the presidential nominee for a major party for the first time in several generations.

With the June primary approaching last year, Hillary Clinton toured the state, while Bernie Sanders spent nearly an entire month holding rallies and giving speeches. Meanwhile Donald Trump and his Republican rivals were building organizations in the state.

But by the time voters actually went to the polls, Clinton and Trump had already secured the nomination. For the sixth time in seven presidential campaigns, the nation's largest state wasn't relevant to the outcome of the primary.

"Our voters sit on the sidelines, almost every presidential election, and it's really disappointing," says Kim Alexander of the non-profit California Voter Foundation.

A proposal by Secretary of State Alex Padilla and authored by state Sen. Ricardo Lara, both Democrats, looks to change that. It would move California's primary from June to March, giving voters a head start in selecting nominees for president in 2020. It could also set off an arms race among states over which will vote earliest.

"We're the most populous state in the nation, the most diverse state in the nation, with the largest economy of any state in the nation," says Padilla. "We should have much more of a say in who the nominees for president are."

This is not a novel idea in California. The state has moved its primary to March, in 1996, 2000 and 2004, always for similar reasons. In 2008, the state held its presidential primary in February.

"It will encourage presidential candidates to campaign here and to debate and discuss issues and policies important to our people," former state Sen. Ron Calderon said in 2007, advocating for his bill to move the primary.

California Republican Party chair Jim Brulte says there are downsides to moving up—one reason the state has always come back to its traditional June election slot.

"Everything else gets backed up correspondingly," Brulte says. "Fundraising has to start earlier, organizational development has to start earlier. And then you have a huge gap from March until the November election."

Brulte also suggested moving the state's primary to March could benefit Sen. Kamala Harris, the state's junior U.S. senator who's been mentioned as a potential candidate.

Under the 2007 measure, California held two primaries the following year—the presidential primary in February, and then state races in June. Holding an extra election cost nearly $100 million more, and turnout in June was abysmal.

Still, on balance, Brulte also supports a single, consolidated early primary and as a member of the state legislature, he voted for it.

"You don't want a candidate just doing a drive by campaign in your state," Brulte says.

The last times California has moved its primaries, it did not have the effect lawmakers desired, says political scientist Josh Putnam, who writes the blog FrontloadingHQ about presidential party rules and primary elections.

"The times in the past where they have moved up, it's been a super-crowded week," Putnam says.

Smaller states have moved up their primaries so they don't get left behind —and then Putnam says candidates still avoid California.

"You know, it's not a situation where you can just drop-in on California in a week's time and campaign across a very big area, and a very diverse and populous state on top of that," Putnam says. "It's expensive to do that."

Should the California measure become law, Putnam expects a new round of jockeying among states for the right to go ahead.

Kim Alexander, the voter advocate, says even so, the state has little choice but to shift its primary.

"It's no guarantee, but if we keep our primary in June, we are guaranteed that we're not going to have a voice," she says.

The measure is expected to come up for final votes before the Legislature adjourns for the year on Friday.</s>By springtime of 2016, it looked like California might have a decisive role in choosing the presidential nominee for a major party for the first time in several generations.

With the June primary approaching last year, Hillary Clinton toured the state, while Bernie Sanders spent nearly an entire month holding rallies and giving speeches. Meanwhile Donald Trump and his Republican rivals were building organizations in the state.

But by the time voters actually went to the polls, Clinton and Trump had already secured the nomination. For the sixth time in seven presidential campaigns, the nation's largest state wasn't relevant to the outcome of the primary.

"Our voters sit on the sidelines, almost every presidential election, and it's really disappointing," says Kim Alexander of the non-profit California Voter Foundation.

A proposal by Secretary of State Alex Padilla and authored by state Sen. Ricardo Lara, both Democrats, looks to change that. It would move California's primary from June to March, giving voters a head start in selecting nominees for president in 2020. It could also set off an arms race among states over which will vote earliest.

"We're the most populous state in the nation, the most diverse state in the nation, with the largest economy of any state in the nation," says Padilla. "We should have much more of a say in who the nominees for president are."

This is not a novel idea in California. The state has moved its primary to March, in 1996, 2000 and 2004, always for similar reasons. In 2008, the state held its presidential primary in February.

"It will encourage presidential candidates to campaign here and to debate and discuss issues and policies important to our people," former state Sen. Ron Calderon said in 2007, advocating for his bill to move the primary.

California Republican Party chair Jim Brulte says there are downsides to moving up—one reason the state has always come back to its traditional June election slot.

"Everything else gets backed up correspondingly," Brulte says. "Fundraising has to start earlier, organizational development has to start earlier. And then you have a huge gap from March until the November election."

Brulte also suggested moving the state's primary to March could benefit Sen. Kamala Harris, the state's junior U.S. senator who's been mentioned as a potential candidate.

Under the 2007 measure, California held two primaries the following year—the presidential primary in February, and then state races in June. Holding an extra election cost nearly $100 million more, and turnout in June was abysmal.

Still, on balance, Brulte also supports a single, consolidated early primary and as a member of the state legislature, he voted for it.

"You don't want a candidate just doing a drive by campaign in your state," Brulte says.

The last times California has moved its primaries, it did not have the effect lawmakers desired, says political scientist Josh Putnam, who writes the blog FrontloadingHQ about presidential party rules and primary elections.

"The times in the past where they have moved up, it's been a super-crowded week," Putnam says.

Smaller states have moved up their primaries so they don't get left behind —and then Putnam says candidates still avoid California.

"You know, it's not a situation where you can just drop-in on California in a week's time and campaign across a very big area, and a very diverse and populous state on top of that," Putnam says. "It's expensive to do that."

Should the California measure become law, Putnam expects a new round of jockeying among states for the right to go ahead.

Kim Alexander, the voter advocate, says even so, the state has little choice but to shift its primary.

"It's no guarantee, but if we keep our primary in June, we are guaranteed that we're not going to have a voice," she says.

The measure is expected to come up for final votes before the Legislature adjourns for the year on Friday.</s>“If we want to assert our values and the issues that we think are important, I think it behooves California to assert its authority and its values much earlier on in the process,” said Democratic state Sen. Ricardo Lara (left), the bill’s author. | Rich Pedronecelli/AP California lawmakers greenlight early primary in 2020

SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers, bidding to exert greater influence on the next presidential nominating contest, sent Gov. Jerry Brown a bill early Saturday that would move the state’s 2020 primary election up three months to March.

If signed into law by Brown, the early primary could dramatically alter the shape of the next presidential race, forcing primary candidates to compete in a state that has long languished as an afterthought in national elections.

Story Continued Below

California would allocate its delegates just after early nominating contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

“If we want to assert our values and the issues that we think are important, I think it behooves California to assert its authority and its values much earlier on in the process,” Democratic state Sen. Ricardo Lara, the bill’s author, said after the legislation passed. “The candidates are going to be forced to campaign in California.”

The effect of California moving its primary from June remains uncertain. The nation’s most populous state is also one of the most expensive to campaign in, and California has been marginalized in previous elections even when it held earlier primaries, including in 2008.

POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

But the Democratic field in 2020 appears wide open, and a March contest in California could provide an opportunity for candidates able to raise enough early money to campaign in the state’s expensive media markets.

The early primary could also help two prospective presidential candidates from California — U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti.

The measure, backed by California’s majority Democrats and endorsed by Secretary of State Alex Padilla, passed the state Senate on the final night of the year’s legislative session. Its approval came over the objection of lawmakers who warned an early primary would needlessly extend the length of down-ballot campaigns, forcing legislative and local candidates to begin running for office earlier in the election cycle.

</s>By springtime of 2016, it looked like California might have a decisive role in choosing the presidential nominee for a major party for the first time in several generations.

With the June primary approaching last year, Hillary Clinton toured the state, while Bernie Sanders spent nearly an entire month holding rallies and giving speeches. Meanwhile Donald Trump and his Republican rivals were building organizations in the state.

But by the time voters actually went to the polls, Clinton and Trump had already secured the nomination. For the sixth time in seven presidential campaigns, the nation's largest state wasn't relevant to the outcome of the primary.

"Our voters sit on the sidelines, almost every presidential election, and it's really disappointing," says Kim Alexander of the non-profit California Voter Foundation.

A proposal by Secretary of State Alex Padilla and authored by state Sen. Ricardo Lara, both Democrats, looks to change that. It would move California's primary from June to March, giving voters a head start in selecting nominees for president in 2020. It could also set off an arms race among states over which will vote earliest.

"We're the most populous state in the nation, the most diverse state in the nation, with the largest economy of any state in the nation," says Padilla. "We should have much more of a say in who the nominees for president are."

This is not a novel idea in California. The state has moved its primary to March, in 1996, 2000 and 2004, always for similar reasons. In 2008, the state held its presidential primary in February.

"It will encourage presidential candidates to campaign here and to debate and discuss issues and policies important to our people," former state Sen. Ron Calderon said in 2007, advocating for his bill to move the primary.

California Republican Party chair Jim Brulte says there are downsides to moving up—one reason the state has always come back to its traditional June election slot.

"Everything else gets backed up correspondingly," Brulte says. "Fundraising has to start earlier, organizational development has to start earlier. And then you have a huge gap from March until the November election."

Brulte also suggested moving the state's primary to March could benefit Sen. Kamala Harris, the state's junior U.S. senator who's been mentioned as a potential candidate.

Under the 2007 measure, California held two primaries the following year—the presidential primary in February, and then state races in June. Holding an extra election cost nearly $100 million more, and turnout in June was abysmal.

Still, on balance, Brulte also supports a single, consolidated early primary and as a member of the state legislature, he voted for it.

"You don't want a candidate just doing a drive by campaign in your state," Brulte says.

The last times California has moved its primaries, it did not have the effect lawmakers desired, says political scientist Josh Putnam, who writes the blog FrontloadingHQ about presidential party rules and primary elections.

"The times in the past where they have moved up, it's been a super-crowded week," Putnam says.

Smaller states have moved up their primaries so they don't get left behind —and then Putnam says candidates still avoid California.

"You know, it's not a situation where you can just drop-in on California in a week's time and campaign across a very big area, and a very diverse and populous state on top of that," Putnam says. "It's expensive to do that."

Should the California measure become law, Putnam expects a new round of jockeying among states for the right to go ahead.

Kim Alexander, the voter advocate, says even so, the state has little choice but to shift its primary.

"It's no guarantee, but if we keep our primary in June, we are guaranteed that we're not going to have a voice," she says.

The measure is expected to come up for final votes before the Legislature adjourns for the year on Friday.</s>SAN FRANCISCO, March 17 (Reuters) - California’s February carbon permit auction raised $629.5 million, bringing the state’s total from the program’s 10 quarterly auctions almost to $1.6 billion, state officials said on Tuesday.

Funds raised by the sale of the permits to large emitting businesses like oil refineries and cement manufacturers are deposited into a state account dedicated to funding clean energy programs including California’s ambitious high speed rail project.

In 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown borrowed $500 million from the account to help plug holes in the state budget, $100 million of which has been repaid. The remaining $400 million from the loan is dedicated to the bullet train project.

California’s over two-year-old carbon cap and trade program is a key component of the state’s goal of reducing output of heat-trapping greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the end of the decade, or about 15 percent below a business-as-usual scenario. The state is currently on track to meet that target, officials said.

By 2050, the state plans to ultimately cut greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The February auction was the state’s largest to date and its first since the program expanded in January to cover transportation fuels like gasoline and diesel and home heating fuels like natural gas.

California’s cap-and-trade program operates in conjunction with the Canadian province of Quebec, which has similar environmental goals. California officials hope to expand the program to other U.S. states but the near-term prospects of that are dim given a lack of enthusiasm in other state legislatures.

California and Quebec’s next carbon permit auction will be held in May. (Reporting by Rory Carroll; Editing by David Gregorio)</s>SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The California Assembly has voted to move the 2020 presidential primary to March to give the nation’s most populous state more influence in choosing nominees.

The bill approved Friday will now go to the state Senate where it’s expected to pass.

California’s 2016 primary fell in June after Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were already the presumptive nominees.

The new bill would move the contests to the Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

In the 2016 contest, that would have fallen on “Super Tuesday,” the first major day of nominating contests following early primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

California awards more delegates in the Democratic and Republican primaries than any other state.</s>The Latest on a bill moving California's presidential primary to March (all times local):

California lawmakers have voted to move the 2020 presidential primary to March to give the nation's most populous state more influence in choosing nominees.

The bill approved early Saturday will now go to Gov. Jerry Brown for consideration. He has not said if he will sign it.

California's 2016 primary fell in June after Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were already the presumptive nominees.

The new bill would move the contests to the Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

In the 2016 contest, that would have fallen on "Super Tuesday," the first major day of nominating contests following early primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

California awards more delegates in the Democratic and Republican primaries than any other state.

The California Assembly has voted to move the 2020 presidential primary to March to give the nation's most populous state more influence in choosing nominees.

The bill approved Friday will now go to the state Senate where it's expected to pass.

California's 2016 primary fell in June after Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were already the presumptive nominees.

The new bill would move the contests to the Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

In the 2016 contest, that would have fallen on "Super Tuesday," the first major day of nominating contests following early primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

California awards more delegates in the Democratic and Republican primaries than any other state.</s>California politicians have voted to move the 2020 presidential primary to March to give the US’s most populous state more influence in choosing nominees.

The bill approved early on Saturday will now go to Governor Jerry Brown for consideration. He has not said if he will sign it.

California’s 2016 primary fell in June after Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were already the presumptive nominees.

The new bill would move the contests to the Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

In the 2016 contest, that would have fallen on “Super Tuesday”, the first major day of nominating contests following early primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

California awards more delegates in the Democratic and Republican primaries than any other state.
California passes a bill that will move the primaries to March near Super Tuesday.