Story highlights California's presidential primary could be on Super Tuesday in 2020

California's argument: The state has taken a leading role in the Democratic resistance

(CNN) California is poised to make a big move up in the primary calendar -- dramatically changing the dynamics of a 2020 race now in its earliest stages.

State lawmakers are expected to vote Friday on a bill that would move California's primary to the beginning of March -- right after Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina on the calendar.

That would likely put California's contest on Super Tuesday -- turning the date into a massive delegate haul that could effectively seal the Democratic presidential nomination.

Their argument: The state has taken a leading role in the Democratic resistance to President Donald Trump -- and it ought to have a similarly hefty role in selecting the nominee to face him in 2020.

"California is the most populous state in the nation, the most diverse state in the nation and has the largest economy of any state in the nation. And we ought to have a significant say in who the nominees for president are," said California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, a leading advocate of the change.

Read More</s>California Seeks More Influence In 2020 Presidential Race

Enlarge this image toggle caption Justin Sullivan/Getty Images Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

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>#Resist is not waiting for CalExit to get the 585,000 signatures to put the question on the 2018 ballot.

Hillary Clinton carried California by 4,269,000 votes in the 2016 presidential election; Donald Trump carried the rest of the country by 1,401,000 votes. Trump’s major initiatives on immigration and the environment are anathema to the drivers of the overwhelming success of the Democratic Party in California. It is no surprise that California Democrats are fighting back in every way possible.

Within their current power over state policy:

– When the Trump administration talked of relaxing the federal 2025 standard of cars and light trucks averaging 54 miles per gallon, the California Air Quality Board – which enjoys a waiver from the federal standards – unanimously adopted the requirement for California. Since 12 other states tie their requirements to the California standard, and the manufacturers need one standard, this was essentially “check”.

– With Attorney General Jeff Sessions threatening to punish “sanctuary cities”, California Senate Leader Kevin DeLeon has shepherded a bill making California a “sanctuary state” – limiting the ability of local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Less onerous than cities like San Francisco, the bill exempts the state Department of Corrections, and makes exceptions for various felonies.

For the last two presidential election cycles, under state legislation accepted by both parties, California has fallen late in the presidential primary calendar. The result: small states in the Midwest, the Northeast, and the South have a major impact in shaping the dynamics of the presidential campaigns – both the candidates and the issues – and California has functioned merely as an ATM. For all of its size, diversity, and economic leadership, California is an afterthought.

– No more. The legislature is on the cusp of moving the state’s presidential primary from June to March for 2020, immediately after the New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina contests. With expensive media markets and fully one tenth of the delegates needed for nomination, the heavyweights of both parties will compete here, and it will be immensely more difficult for the idiosyncratic voters of Waterloo, Dixon Notch, and Myrtle Beach to garner national attention and propel a candidate from obscurity in the anticipated crowded Democratic field.

– Self interest is also involved. As the Democratic legislature and governor contemplate the change, there has never been a Democratic presidential candidate from the West. At least two rising stars – Senator Kamala Harris and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti understand the benefit of being a “favorite son” (or “favorite daughter”) in the most important early primary. Visions of sugarplums dance in their heads.

By maximizing their monopoly on power in Sacramento:

In the 2016 legislative elections (with the Hillary landslide) the Democrats won enough seats to exceed the two-thirds majority needed in the Assembly and the Senate to pass tax increases or change legislative operating rules. And they have.

– In March they passed a $5.2 billion tax increase on gasoline, diesel, and vehicle fees- on top of what was already the second highest rate in the country. Proceeds are designated for state and local maintenance efforts, with a planned constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2018 to prevent the legislature from diverting the funds to other purposes – as they have with “cap and trade” funds.

– In July they extended Schwartznegger-era “cap and trade” legislation to 2030 with a commitment to reduce emissions by 40%, taxing utilities and manufacturers with the funds to be used for all sorts of projects loosely connected to carbon emission abatement. Support for the bill cost Republican Assembly leader Chad Mayes his job.

– In July the Senate even passed a $400 billion “single payer” healthcare plan with no deductibles, no co-pays, no lifetime caps, free dental, free vision, free long term care, and no allowance for private or federal government insurance. Fortunately, this was “a bridge too far”, and the Democratic Assembly leader refused to take up the bill which had not identified a revenue source. The Bernie Sanders wing of the party went crazy, but will have his national proposal to get behind.

And for those who do not believe the “power corrupts” adage, there is ample proof:

– The initiative passed by the voters in 2016 which requires that all legislation be published “in its final form” at least 72 hours in advance (to prevent the practice of last minute “gut and change”) has been ignored by the Assembly on at least 95 occasions. .

– When the gas tax increase led to a successful recall petition against a junior Democratic senator in Orange County, the legislature retroactively changed the procedures for signature gathering to allow a 30 day right to rescind, require a cost estimate, and extend the effort necessary to validate signatures. Since a successful recall in the traditionally Republican district would cost them their two-thirds majority, the courts will decide when and if there will ever be an election.

Californians like to think of themselves as the harbingers of things to come. The California Democrats were on “single payer” before Bernie Sanders was. In 2020 they plan to take the lead in picking the first Democratic president from the West. Perhaps the other 49 states would be better off with CalExit.</s>(CNN) California is poised to make a big move up in the primary calendar -- dramatically changing the dynamics of a 2020 race now in its earliest stages.

State lawmakers are expected to vote Friday on a bill that would move California's primary to the beginning of March -- right after Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina on the calendar.

That would likely put California's contest on Super Tuesday -- turning the date into a massive delegate haul that could effectively seal the Democratic presidential nomination.

Their argument: The state has taken a leading role in the Democratic resistance to President Donald Trump -- and it ought to have a similarly hefty role in selecting the nominee to face him in 2020.

"California is the most populous state in the nation, the most diverse state in the nation and has the largest economy of any state in the nation. And we ought to have a significant say in who the nominees for president are," said California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, a leading advocate of the change.

Though the 2020 race is too far off to predict how California's move would alter the dynamics, Democratic operatives and party members in California said a few changes seem certain.

The issue set candidates must address would change -- with environmental issues, in particular, taking a more prominent role. And California's diverse set of voters -- the state is home to one-fourth of the nation's Latinos -- would heavily contrast the overwhelmingly white Iowa and New Hampshire.

"By having an earlier voice for candidates of all parties, for that matter, would make the candidates pay attention to issues that Californians care about, like health care access, like environmental protection, like diversity -- not just talking immigration issues but workforce issues," Padilla said.

Candidates' ability to raise huge sums of money in a hurry would also become much more important. Unlike the small-scale retail politics that dominate Iowa and New Hampshire, California requires massive investment in television ads in expensive markets.

Then, there's the slate of potential presidential candidates from California.

Sen. Kamala Harris and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti get most of the buzz. But Gov. Jerry Brown -- who'd be 82 in 2020, but is close in age to Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders and ran for president twice before -- is another figure to watch.

They would start with advantages that go beyond name ID. If California votes early in the process, the donor-rich state's biggest Democratic funders could wait to see how their home-state allies fare before backing other candidates.

One reason California Democrats are eager to make the primary move: There are few reasons not to.

Under the Democratic National Committee's 2016 rules -- which will be rewritten next year for the 2020 cycle -- California could make the move without any penalty.

But if the rules are largely unchanged, the state could lose its pool of "bonus" delegates.

California had 475 pledged delegates in 2016. Of those, 70 were "bonus" delegates awarded to states that held their primaries and caucuses toward the end of the calendar.

The pool of a total of 277 "bonus" delegates nationally was designed as an incentive for states to stagger their contests, rather than rushing to the front of the calendar. If the DNC opts to keep that bonus pool -- and the same goal of rewarding late-voting states -- California would no longer stand to benefit.

Still, DNC pledged delegates have traditionally been divvied up by population and by how well Democratic presidential nominees performed in each state in the last three presidential elections. Under those guidelines, California would remain -- by far -- the most delegate-rich state.

And the extra delegates didn't matter much when the nomination was already wrapped up by the time the race reached California in previous cycles, Padilla said.

There are important caveats. Unlike Republicans in some states, Democrats award delegates proportionately -- not on a winner-take-all basis. That means only a blowout in California and other Super Tuesday states would effectively end the race.

California also held an early primary in 2008. It voted in February -- and Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama by eight percentage points, showing the limitation of its influence.

Other than that race, though, California Democrats have had little influence on the Democratic nomination since Robert Kennedy was killed at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles following his 1968 Democratic primary victory there. And California Democrats say they are desperate to change that.

"The rules for 2020 haven't been written or rewritten yet, so all the more reason for California to make this move now -- and we'll see what the DNC decides to do later, if anything, in terms of changing the rules," Padilla said. "The current schedule, with the primary in June, practically makes us irrelevant in the nomination process. By moving it to March, we'll certainly increase the voice of California voters."</s>Californians have long complained that the nation’s most populous state has little direct influence on presidential elections. California rarely produces a candidate. Our primary usually is an afterthought.

That could change in 2020.

At least a couple of California Democrats, U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, are showing interest in the race. Either could be the first serious contender from the state for a major party’s nomination since 1992, the last time Jerry Brown ran for the White House.

Of more immediate interest, this week the California Legislature is poised to pass a bill that would change the date of the state’s primary, starting in 2020, from June to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. If Senate Bill 568 is approved by the Assembly, it would need Gov. Brown’s signature to become law.

The switch would apply, also, to congressional, state legislative and statewide races.

It’s unclear if the Democratic majority in Sacramento has thought through the potential effects of moving California’s Democratic and Republican primaries from late in the election calendar to right after Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

For one thing, it’s no sure thing that it would expand California’s power. Other states could move up their primaries too. The last time California went early — when it was one of many states holding primaries on Feb. 5, 2008 — Hillary Clinton won here but lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama.

The most important impact of more prominent timing is that it would make California the focus of campaign spending and effort. Good for this state, maybe, but not good for competition and wide-open debate. Candidates who aren’t well-funded from the start would have less chance at their party’s nomination.

Democrats should worry that a promising but less-rich, less-known Democratic candidate could be overlooked, and that a serious challenge to President Trump on the GOP side could be blunted.

There are other ways a California primary date change could backfire on Democrats and the election process — some of which nobody, perhaps, has thought of yet. Lawmakers should look out for unintended consequences.</s>For decades, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has been California’s most popular national politician. But a new poll shows that newbie Kamala Harris, who has become an outspoken leader of the Trump “resistance” in her first eight months in office, is starting to eclipse the grand dame.

“Feinstein is being upstaged by this young upstart,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of UC Berkeley’s Institute of Government Studies.

In this historically divisive political climate in the era of President Donald Trump, young voters in particular are finding Harris’ newfound role as a tough talking fighter more alluring than Feinstein’s long held reputation as a practical deal maker.

Harris has become so popular so fast that many national pundits are floating the name of the first year senator and former California attorney general as a possible presidential contender in 2020.

But most California voters say that, for now at least, they want her to stay where she is, according to the Berkeley IGS Poll.

Twenty-two percent of respondents said they want her to run for president, compared to 49 percent who want her to remain in the Senate. Twenty-nine percent had no opinion.

While Democrats in general remain loyal to Feinstein, only 45 percent of California voters are inclined to support her if she decides to run for a fifth term next year, while 41 percent are not.

“That’s not a great position for a politician to be in,” said Jack Pitney, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. “You want people to focus on your plans and your accomplishments, not your retirement scenario.”

That the 84-year-old Feinstein, who took office in 1992 after serving as San Francisco mayor, still remains popular among her California electorate — with a 50 percent approval rating — “is no small feat,” DiCamillo said. But it’s a dip from 59 percent approval in March — and comes after two events in San Francisco when she was greeted by a standing ovation in one but booed at both when she essentially said Trump should be given a chance to redeem himself.

“She’s always been a moderate and she is speaking to a liberal Bay Area audience and they weren’t happy with her point of view, which is get along when you can and resist when you must,” said Barbara O’Connor, director emeritus of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at Sacramento State.

The job performance rating between the two senators — 50 percent approval for Feinstein to Harris’s 52 percent — is within the margin of error. But Feinstein’s disapproval rate was substantially higher than Harris’ — 36 percent compared with 29 percent.

Harris is gaining traction among California voters under 30 especially, who are nearly twice as likely to support a Harris presidential bid than voters over 65 .

Among voters under 30, 34 percent approve of Feinstein, compared with 35 percent who disapprove of the veteran senator.

“It’s inevitable that younger voters will find Kamala Harris attractive. It’s just a generational inevitability,” said longtime Democratic strategist Darry Sragow, who ran Feinstein’s 1990 campaign for governor. “The question on the whole is what the people voting want in a senator, and some clearly want a fighter. But there are plenty of voters who aren’t interested in a fighter. They’re interested in a problem solver and pragmatist.”

Harris, a former San Francisco district attorney, made news during congressional hearings in June for her relentless questioning of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein. These CNN headlines followed: “Senators try to quiet Kamala Harris, but she doesn’t back down,” and “Kamala Harris rips up the script.”

The online survey of 1,200 registered voters, done in conjunction with YouGov — an international market research firm — was completed Aug. 27 through Sept. 5 in English and Spanish.

According to YouGov, the survey results have a margin or error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

In the Bay Area, Feinstein carries a 61 percent approval rating compared with Harris’ 59 percent. In Los Angeles, where Harris recently moved to be with her new husband, she has a slight advantage in popularity, 58 percent to 55 percent. In the conservative Central Valley, both senators have approval ratings of 44 percent.

Sragow said the numbers show both candidates are in good shape politically. And because they’re not running against each other, the numbers don’t really carry much weight.

“Kamala Harris is off to a good start, and Dianne Feinstein is in solid position for someone who’s been around 25 years and weathered all kinds of storms,” Sragow said.</s>OAKLAND, Calif. — In a robust defense of Dianne Feinstein, her embattled Democratic colleague, Sen. Kamala Harris said Thursday that she would back the state’s senior U.S. senator “100 percent” should Feinstein decide to run again in 2018, calling her a tireless fighter for “California values.”

“I am a strong supporter of Dianne, and if she decides to run again I will be front and center in supporting her — and for lots of good reasons,’’ Harris told POLITICO on Thursday. “I may not agree with her on everything. But I admire and respect her. … I do strongly believe that she is one of the greatest public servants that California has had.”

Harris’ impassioned defense came a day after a new poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies indicated that Feinstein’s job approval rating had fallen 9 points in recent months to 50 percent, with 36 percent now disapproving of her job performance. The poll also found that only 45 percent of Democrats were inclined to re-elect Feinstein should she run for a fifth term, down from 56 percent in April.

By contrast, the IGS poll showed approval numbers for Harris — a darling of progressives and increasingly talked about as a potential presidential candidate in 2020 — were at 52 percent, with just 29 percent disapproval.

The differences prompted some political observers, including IGS pollster Mark Di Camillo, to suggest that Feinstein, a political powerhouse in the Golden State for more than a quarter-century, may be losing appeal to a younger Democratic base that has increasingly tilted left.

The declining poll numbers come at the close of a few rough weeks for Feinstein, who was booed and battered by critics after she told a Commonwealth Club audience that the possibility existed that Donald Trump could be “a good president,” given time and people’s patience. Feinstein’s critics again ramped up after they said she suggested that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, might be on “shaky” ground.

Feinstein has countered that she has never been shy about criticizing Trump, and aides said that the DACA reference was misunderstood and that she was characterizing the Trump administration’s actions and resulting numerous legal challenges.

But Harris, speaking to POLITICO, ticked off what she said were a litany of reasons why Democrats, including progressives, should value — and back — what she called Feinstein’s advocacy on a range of key issues critical to California voters.

“There are so many people in elected office who make decisions only after they put their finger up in the wind,” Harris said “Dianne is not that person.’’

“What we get from Dianne … is the singular leader on passing the assault weapons ban through the U.S. Congress, when she was taking so much heat for doing it — up against huge opponents including” National Rifle Association), she said.

“And what we get … is the first-ever exposure about what was doing on around this CIA detention and interrogation program,’’ Harris said. “Let’s not forget that. She was going up against powerful forces … making the very important point that there should be transparency and not secrecy about how the United States conducts itself.”

Still, critics like longtime Democratic strategist Garry South suggested that Feinstein’s more centrist brand of politics was taking a toll. They cite her skeptical view of single-payer health care — especially in contrast to Sen. Bernie Sanders’ bill, which was quickly endorsed by Harris — and point out that support for some of the president’s earliest nominees has drawn the ire of progressives and made her vulnerable to a primary challenge from the left.

Among those being talked about as possible challengers are the California Senate president pro tem, Kevin de Leon, and Joseph Sanberg, a wealthy Orange County progressive activist.

Harris on Thursday disputed suggestions of a weakened Feinstein, and said the former San Francisco Mayor — at 84, now the oldest member of the U.S. Senate — remained a formidable and effective presence in Washington.

“She and I are on the Intelligence Committee together … and she is forceful and clear-thinking,” Harris said. “And the way I see her conduct herself … definitely reflects California’s values. She fights in those committee hearings and behind closed doors.”

Harris told POLITICO that Feinstein had been a tireless advocate on Capitol Hill for DACA and so called Dreamers, calling her “a forceful fighter for those kids.’’

Harris said she and Feinstein had not discussed whether the Feinstein would run for a fifth term. But if that happens, she predicted, Feinstein will continue to be “an incredible fighter for California.”

“Anyone who knows Dianne knows she takes the job very seriously,” Harris said. "And if she runs, I am supporting her 100 percent.”
California wants to schedule its primaries earlier than usual, possibly on March or Super Tuesday, to have much more influence in comparison to its weight and diversity and to help Californian candidates, such as Eric Garcetti and Kamala Harris.