Endorsements and editorials are made solely by the ownership of this newspaper. As is the case at most newspapers across the nation, The Spokesman-Review newsroom and its editors are not a part of this endorsement process. (Learn more.)

Let’s make our primary matter by year 2020

Wed., May 11, 2016

The last day to vote in Washington state’s presidential primary is May 24, but we already know the winners: Bernie Sanders for the Democrats and Donald Trump for the Republicans.

As reality set in, many voters became perplexed. Why even hold a primary?

It’s important to note that this outcome wasn’t assured, though it was feared by those who wanted to change the state’s often irrelevant presidential primary.

Secretary of State Kim Wyman tried to get both parties to back a plan to move the primary to March 8, just after Super Tuesday. She also tried to get them to change their rules so that the results would matter.

She was unable to get the date pushed back, and the Democratic Party refused to drop its rule that a caucus, not the primary, would determine its delegates. It held its caucuses on March 26. The Republican Party did embrace the primary, but when Ted Cruz and John Kasich dropped out last week, it was severely undercut.

There would’ve been four viable Republican choices, including Marco Rubio, had the primary been moved to March 8. That would’ve been the same day as Republican primaries in Michigan, Idaho, Mississippi and Hawaii, and Democratic primaries in Michigan and Mississippi.

Candidates in both parties would’ve showered the state with more attention. Voters would’ve felt like they were making a difference. Instead, both contests were wrapped up before voters in Washington, Oregon and California cast a single primary vote.

The state has spent most of the $11.5 million budgeted to hold the election, so canceling it wouldn’t save much. The ballots were printed well in advance because military voters are supposed to have them 45 days before election day.

Clearly, the state must do something to avoid this scenario again. The status quo simply foments frustration.

It could drop the primary altogether. The state Legislature canceled it in 2004 and 2012 due to budget concerns. Those cancellations saved money, but they also made the contests seem insignificant. And since voters have only participated in one presidential primary over the past dozen years, many have forgotten how it all works.

A better idea might be rotating regional primaries, where several neighboring states hold their elections around the same time. The four regions would take turns going first. The National Association of Secretaries of State introduced the idea in 1999.

Froma Harrop wrote about it in a March 19 column (“West Coast shunned in primaries”), noting the current irrelevance of Washington, Oregon and California, where about 50 million Americans reside: “When these states go through the motions of expressing their preference for the next president, they will have done so without months of public agony over matters of regional concern.”

Instead, Bernie Sanders was chosen in caucuses involving far fewer participants than a primary, and Donald Trump visited Spokane in what amounted to a victory lap.

By 2020, we either need a primary that makes the state relevant, or we need to dump it.