64 Comments - ivoted4judy - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:31 am: February is fine. Leave it alone. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:32 am: Explain, please. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:34 am: As long as we have an interest in having a voice in future presidential primaries, leave the February date alone. - lifer - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:35 am: September — campaigns would cost less (hopefully) less time would be needed to raise funds, campaign and more time would be left for doing the work of the people. - downstate dem - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:37 am: The primary was moved forward to February 1) to help Obama get momentum in his Presidential bid, and also to put Illinois ahead of the pack on primary dates to help garner more ad dollars to this state. I say move it to September, shorten the hole thing, so elections don’t cost as much here in the state and hopefully the campaigning will be easier to stomach - ChiGal - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:37 am: September - I am tired of paying our politicians to do fundraising and run campaigns while on our dime. Shorten the campaign period so they actually squeeze in some actual work! - Levois - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:37 am: Let’s be like Georgia who general holds their primaries, well statewide primaries in August or September. Why not have campaigns pursue petition signatures during the summer months and submit them in August. Perhaps make it difficult for campaigns to knock any their opponents off the ballot. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:38 am: February or March. Either one. A September primary screws up my business plan in a major way. - LouisXIV - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:39 am: I’ve always marveled at candidates having to campaign in Illinois’ worst weather for a March (and now February) primary. One would think options 3 or 4 above would be preferable to shaking hands at bus stops in 0 degree weather. On the other hand, unless the national parties get their acts together and figure out a more rational way to handle the presidential primaries, being early has some advantages. Would it be possible to have the primary in February in presidential election years and in June or September in years when the governor is up? - Tom B. - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:40 am: From experience, moving it to September will do nothing to shorten the campaign time. But it will let us pass petitions in warmer weather, so I’m all for it. - tanstaafl - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:42 am: May or June. This should reduce some of the campaign costs. Let’s face it, Illinois hasn’t played a part in presidential politics for years. How many times in the past 4 elections were the candidates in either party actually campaigning in Illinois? - WhateverhappenedtoKustra - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:44 am: Keep the politics to the fall (sept.). I think our governor has a point about the continuous campaigning. This may help keep the peoples attention since we will only have to pay full atention in the fall. In addition we will easily remember what the candidates say to their party at the general election. The candidates will not be able to be as two faced, one for the party and one to the general electorate. - Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:46 am: This is an essential reform because early primaries only benefit machine and well-funded candidates. It is not as important as campaign finance reform, but is nearly as important and infinitely easier. My assumption is that in Presidential election years, the primary would be bifurcated the way other states do it so we’d vote on president in a beauty contest in February and the rest of state offices in the fall. Moving the primary would help reduce the cost of elections and the influence of old-school machine candidates. - Phineas J. Whoopee - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:46 am: The boys from Illinois don’t want September because every goofball and independent running for office will be cruising around all summer at every festival and event getting free publicity. The Precinct captains don’t want February because it is really brutal out there. Late March would seem to make sense because you still have a possibility of decent weather. Illinoisans deserve summers free of politics. - Rufus - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:46 am: September, (maybe August) The Campaign time is just way too long, with TV and the internet we can learn all we need to know in just a few short weeks, let alone a couple of months. - shore - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:49 am: I say february so we stay relevant for national politics and don’t give career politicians an easy ride in the fall. 1. I don’t see how longer general elections hurt the voter. It’s good to see the candidates campaign, meet the voters, prove themselves. If December 9, 2008 taught us anything it’s that we need to get thorough looks at our leaders. 2. I’ve never met a state or national politician that wasn’t in perpetual campaign mode. To think that candidates would all of the sudden hire managers that day and then go for it is dead wrong. 3. I think this gives a major advantage to incumbents, as it gives new candidates 2 months basically to get voters to know who they are. 4. Early voting which has become popular now, shortens the campaign season even more. You could have a scenario where a guy wins a primary day after labor day and absentee ballots are sent in 2 or 3 weeks later meaning the guy who just exhausted himself beating a member of his own party has 7 days or less to make the case to the rest of the voters. 5. After 30 years in politics Mr. Quinn should be able to govern and run a re-election campaign at the same time. - muon - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:51 am: A September primary gives too little time for certification of provisional ballots, challenges and then the start of absentee and early voting. A late August primary is a better choice and could leave at least a couple weeks for the clerks to have finished processing the primary before they move into the general election. The late August date still keeps the general campaign confined to the fall. - Will - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:52 am: The problem with June is that it effectively disenfranchises college students in the town where they spend most of the year. Early voting helps but it makes election day GOTV on campuses pointless. I’m sure some local officials in Champaign, McLean and Jackson counties would like it. April or September. The current filing deadlines force candidates to start campaigning for the next election as soon as the last one is over. Give them a few months to govern. - Undercover - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:53 am: I’m for a May/June primary. The weather is better, which is good for turnout, and the general election would require less resources if it was 5-6 months long rather than 7-8 months. The political junkie in me likes extended campaign seasons. But the democrat (intentional little ‘d’) in me recognizes that a slightly shorter time frame is better. - TominChicago - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:57 am: The answer to that question really depends on perspective of the person asking it. From Mike Madigan’s perspective, February or March primaries are the best because bad weather suppresses turn out somewhat, increasing the likelihood that party-backed candidates win. From Quinn’s perspective, a later primary helps because it gives him the opportunity to magnify the benefits of incumbency. From the average voters perspective, I am not sure that any date is better. An early primary gives the voters time to focus on the general and learn about the candidates from each party. If you put the primary to close to the general, those distinctions can get lost in the clutter. A summer election may interfere with vacations etc. A spring primary does suppress turnout but it may magnify the power of motivated voters. In the end, I don’t think that there is a normative best date for an election. - Windy City-zen - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:57 am: 3) - May or June. Better weather and more time for non-machine candidates to set up shop for a more competative primary. Plus plenty of time in between for the general election in November - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 11:58 am: ===The answer to that question really depends on perspective of the person asking it.=== OK, granted, as does every question. So, how about answering the question? - babs - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:09 pm: I’m for February or March. However, we used to have basic campaigning during the summer (candidates showing up at events but NO commercials). If we could - and I know we can’t - block any paid advertising between Memorial Day and Labor Day the whole system would work a lot better. Candidates should have to do the work of meeting voters in person if they have that much time. - TominChicago - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:09 pm: ====OK, granted, as does every question. So, how about answering the question?==== Ok from my perspective, I’ll go with the third Tuesday in March because I am a traditionalist. - Vote Quimby! - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:11 pm: I say March. As we saw last spring, even the “best laid schemes o’ mice and men” sometimes go awry, and Barack could have used some help in March when it was previously scheduled. You can’t predict what will happen, so I say go back to March. Just a few months after I moved to the ‘patch, I went to hear Paul Tsongas at the Old State Capitol just before the 1992 primary–he was one of 3 people at the time who would become president. (IL and MI knocked Tsongas out, and Slick Willie won against #41.) As I went back to work (non-state job) that day I was wearing a pin I got (and still have) and my boss says “you’re not one of those politicos, are you?” It was that day I learned about the great divide in Springfield: those in politics, and those who just happen to live there. So, short story long I say move it back to March. - 4less$ - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:14 pm: Sept would be grand except for presidential election. - Lefty Lefty - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:15 pm: The primary should be in May for reasons of climate and campaign length. Did Obama really get a bounce by having the IL primary in February? As I recall we didn’t have a winner until June. The race to the beginning of the election year for primaries is anti-democratic and costly. Actually the best answer is a national primary on a Saturday for national office (pick one), and a May date for state and local offices. - ArchPundit - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:17 pm: May would be best. It’s before the summer when no one pays attention, gives enough time for an independent candidate to get out there, and still gives time for a candidate to work the district. - Niles Township - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:20 pm: May/June actually make the most sense. A shortened season is called for, but September is just too short of a time to adequately vet the candidates. - Merit Comp Slave - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:20 pm: I originally thought September but see clerks’ issues with paperwork so would compromise with May or June. I agree with others that less time for campaigning and more time to get some work done-much needed in Illinois, lots of catching up to do. - Anon - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:21 pm: I think May would be perfect. It’s not too cold outside and people haven’t started traveling for summer, or dealing with their kids being out of school yet. And it still gives several months before the general election. - May/June - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:24 pm: May/June. I read about the fact that Winter primaries discourage outsiders from participating in that it is hard to go door to door in Winter. I don’t know if that is a fact, but I would like to see more outsiders run for office. I always thought having a primary im March left too much down time until the general election. It was moved to February for Obama. Ok, he is in. September would be choice #2 but a campaign season that short may not allow enough time to hear ALL about the candidates. - He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:25 pm: September is too short, February is way too long. Split the difference. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:25 pm: February or March is ok with me, since there are relatively few evergreen activities to compete for attention. In June, students are getting out of school. In September, they’re getting back in school. I know the theory is that the early primary favors the organizations because people won’t come out in the weather or aren’t tuned in yet, but I say fine. Voting now is easier than ever and technology is only going to make it easier in the future. If you can’t roust yourself to participate because it might rain, I’m happy that you’re not. Same thing if you haven’t been paying attention. - May/June - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:27 pm: …Illinoisans deserve summers free of politics… No matter when the primary is, summers will always be filled with politics during election years. - muon - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:28 pm: I think that some of the comments assume that the primary for presidential delegates must match the primary for the candidates for other offices. The majority of the states separate those two events, and half the states hold their state primary after mid-July. Separating the events also allows states to adapt to national decisions that can affect the presidential delegate selection calendar. There have been proposals from both parties to predetermine their presidential calendars. Illinois is not suited to participate without penalty should any of those proposals become reality because of the linkage we impose on the two events. - fedup dem - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:28 pm: I would suggst the first Tuesday in May. that would place the Illinois Primary on the same day as the Primary in neighboring Indiana, so farmers couldn’t really complain. Virtually all colleges would still be in session, so younger voters would not be disenfranchised. furthermore, you would still have more than three weeks ;eft in the month for the General Assembly to do the bulk of its work after the Primary, during the same three weeks that they currently get their work done anyway! - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:29 pm: I’ll change the answer a bit: Late April/Early May September is too late for candidates (esp. new ones) to consolidate support and get their names out as the party choice. The summer is a great time to build name recognition and collect supports for the big push in the fall. June is a bit too late, too many people on vacation. Feb & March have little benefit, even in presidential campaign years. We’d get a couple of visits, tops; there are too many states that go early to expect special attention. Better to be later and get the kind of attention Pennsylvania and other late states got this year. Late April/early May would work well. It’s before summer vacation, college students get to vote in the college town where they live most of the year, campaigning is in Spring when the weather is nice, petitioning is during basketball season (a good venue for passing the clipboard), party choices are in place for the summer parade/festival season where they can campaign to their heart’s content and recruit help for the fall. - clj - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:31 pm: May/June would be nice. The weather is better and there is still time to hit all the summer events and parades as the nominee. Anyone who supports the February primary clearly did not stand outside on election day for 12 hours in the cold and freezing rain. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:34 pm: the WORST thing from a “good government” perspective about moving primaries to June or September is that the entire Jan - May legislative session then takes place under the shadow of the looming primaries, making it almost impossible to pass bipartisan legislation because too many lawmakers are worried about a primary challenge. Think you’ll ever get Beth Coulson or Susie Bassi to vote for pro-choice, gun control or gay rights legislation again, knowing they run the risk of being beat up by some whackjob all summer long? Think Chicago Democrats are going to vote to expand charter public schools, pass an ethics bill that ends pay-to-play in the City, or shore up the downstate teacher’s pension? Guess again. Compressing the General election calendar by moving the primary back also makes it harder, not easier, for grassroots candidates to emerge. Fred Crespo never would have beaten Terry Parke in a nine-week campaign. Tom Kilbride never would have beaten Carl Hamwkinson. On the flipside, Aaron Schock never would have beaten Ricca Slone. And, despite the claims of proponents, shortening the general election cycle won’t reduce the need to raise money nor the odds of corruption, it will increase it. Eight weeks of t.v. is eight weeks of t.v., but with no opportunity to really get a ground game going for the general election, canidates will be forced to increase the size of their buys. And with everyone increasing the size of their buys, they’ll have to increase them even more just to break through the clutter. And do me a favor, and quit whining about the February primary and how cold it is, and how it suppresses turnout. If you’re worried about the weather, extend early voting hours, lobby for voting by mail or internet. But the weather? Really?!? Iowa, Michigan, Wyoming and New Hampshire all have earlier primaries, and the first Tuesday in February is also Primary Day for Alaska, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, New York, North Dakota and Utah. If Alaskans can campaign in January and make it to the polls in February, so can we. Heck, by the time June 1 rolls around, the only states that WON’T have voted are Puerto Rico, Montana, New Mexico and South Dakota. And if that doesn’t convince you, just let me remind you that if Illinois had waited until the first Tuesday of September this last time around, It would have been AFTER the Democratic National Convention and DURING the GOP Convention. Just how irrelevant would Pat Quinn (sorry, the honeymoon’s over) like Illinois to be on the national political scene? P.S. Just in case you’re thinking of a separate presidential primary/caucus, ask yourself two questions: who pays for it, who benefits from lower turnout when there’s no presidential candidates at the top of the ticket to drive voter turnout. A: taxpayers, machine candidates. - dr clean - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:49 pm: Keep it early, march would be good, otherwise there are too many advantages for incumbents, especially in down ballot races. Yes, incumbents would be able to save their money until later, but anyone with a primary would have a lasting affect from attack ads aginst them during primaries (incumbents could have positive ads about themselves running while challengers knock each other out) - Nearly Normal - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 12:54 pm: Back to March, the way it used to be is fine with me. Having served as an election judge, Sept is too late to do the paperwork. I live in a college town and doubt students would be involved in voting in May/June due to the end of the semester and moving home or to a summer job if they’re lucky enough to have one. - Lakefront Liberal - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 1:12 pm: I am tied between May (I would say June but the point about students being out of college is a good one) and September. I think one thing that is coloring people’s answers is if you see the main contest as the general election or the primary. For my area everything is decided in the primary, and having it the first Tuesday in February is horrible. I know from experience that grassroots/independent campaigns are at a dissadvantage by having to campaign in November/December/January. Normal people have these things called “holidays” that happen during that same time. The idea of not having to canvas, or try to cajole others into canvassing, when we are all busy doing Christmas shopping or celebrating Hannukah or traveling for Thanksgiving or what have you seems like a dream come true. For the love of God - literally - lets not stick with February. A September primary would give those of us for whom the primary is the election all of the summer months to, as others have pointed out, work the summer festivals and farmers markets and such. A May primary would give those for whom the general is the main thing that advantage. Personally I like the idea of candidates — both incumbents and challengers — out and about in the public being accessible, which you can do in the summer months. I would love to see my elected officials at public events, something they rarely do and seem to have no incentive to do unless they are trying to be re-elected. - Lakefront Liberal - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 1:18 pm: Regarding the point above that a May/June primary would cause legislators to not want to make controversial votes — it is my understanding that the only time to get things like campaign finance reform (or basically anything that is popular with the people but not populare with the powers that be) done is during election time when they know they might be held accountable at the ballot box. I don’t doubt that it would make some types of legislation more difficult to pass, but wouldn’t it make others types easier to pass? - Spiro T Agnew - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 1:31 pm: As long as we have reps elected to 2 year terms in this great state, there will be perpetual campaigning. Those guys (necessarily) spend more time raising money, walking parades, attending area functions and performing general campaigning than anyone else because the election cycle is so short. I’m all for moving it to August-September for the lone reason of giving our reps a breather. I do believe it will also allow for others who might be less adept at fundraising to enter the game as well. - anon - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 1:33 pm: - Rich Miller - February or March. Either one. A September primary screws up my business plan in a major way. now rich i’m a little upset with you choosing to prescribe to the individualistic culture that has so tainted Illinois politics for so long But so far as me I wouldnt have a problem with september but I doubt that it would have as pronounced affect as Quinn or others that support it would think but it would help reduce costs and time spent on the campaign trail - White Rabbit - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 1:38 pm: 2.) March The primaries should be held in the same time of year each election cycle. In presidential election years the national parties aren’t going to move their conventions to September. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 1:45 pm: ===now rich i’m a little upset with you choosing to prescribe to the individualistic culture that has so tainted Illinois politics for so long=== I started this company almost 16 years ago with the assumption that a March primary would provide enough fodder for me year-round. I’ll survive, whatever happens, but I don’t like negative changes to my business model. It’s all I got. - scoot - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 1:59 pm: May/June is very tempting, but for only one reason & thats better weather. Go back to the March primary, there was no problem with it before, and every voter was already used to it. It also allows the candidates/campaigns time to gear up for the general election. And personally, I enjoy having the elections during March Madness, just brings excitement from the long winter. - Heartless Libertarian - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 2:12 pm: I am in favor of a March primary. That is where it was, and for no other reason than this… I liked it in March. I guess May might make more sense because there doesn’t seem to be much of a primary season. September is too late, there wouldn’t be much of a general election campaign season. And who cares when we vote for a presidential primary? When was the last time Illinois really got to decide anyway? We moved it up to February and it still didn’t matter. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 2:16 pm: ===We moved it up to February and it still didn’t matter. === I’ve seen this posted in the past week and it’s wrong. Obama was able to claim a narrow, ten-delegate win during Super Tuesday. Without Illinois, he would not have had that lead. So, yes, moving the primary up was quite important to his campaign. - stones - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 2:28 pm: Move it back to September. There was a movement during the ’80s to do so on the basis that the primary season was too long and expensive. I think most average Joe’s (and the rest of us) get tired of the long election season. Hopefully, it might attract better quality candidates who don’t wish to spend their entire summer on the campaign trail. At least that would be my hope. - the Other Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 2:32 pm: Leave it February or March. There will be bruising primaries, and wounds need to heel, not just for the good of partisans. I think you get a higher level of debate without family squabbles. For those who are motivated by a short campaign to support a September primary, consider that a September primary means full scale campaigning begins in June and doesn’t stop until November. At least with an early primary, you get a break between March and the end of summer. The only date that significantly shortens full blown campaigning is February: you really can’t do anything effectively until January 2 because of the holidays, creating (effectively) a five-week campaign season. - Linda - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 2:51 pm: I think February would be a nice month. That is my birthday. That is also Valentines Day. It is also a short month which means less time for political ads. People are looking for a reason to get outside so why not let them vote in that month. - Ben S. - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 2:52 pm: May/June seems about right to me–September is too close to the general election and February/March is too far away. Plus, the weather is significantly better (trust me, canvassing in January is not fun). If we’re concerned about presidential primaries, we can be like New York and have the presidential primary separate from the other races. In 2008 they had their presidential primary the same day as ours but had their state and congressional primaries in September. - casual observer - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 3:08 pm: Until it’s an open primary, I can’t vote. If it’s open, have it in March and I’ll bring the whole family and neighborhood. - downstate demo - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 3:48 pm: So soon we forget Florida in 2000. Part of their problem with ballots was over a September primary and runoff election. Plus the Feds want election officials to have ballot overseas to military personnel in early Setember. - MikeintheSuburbs - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 4:07 pm: Let’s face it. Due to the dominance of the Democratic Party at the state level thanks in large part to Motor Voter, and the gerrymandering of the districts for everything else, the most important part of the election cycle is usually the primaries. Except for a few swing districts which no amount of creative line drawing could do away with, the eventual office holder usually winds up being the primary winner. Therefore,it makes the most sense to me to have the primaries under conditions where competition is possible, so I would be for a June date, or otherwise have a different date for Presidential versus non Presidential years. I just finished turning in my signatures for re-election and it was NO FUN out there! - there you go again - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 4:20 pm: to give illinois voters a break from politics, i would favor a september primary. - One-year man - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 4:27 pm: The key is to keep the primary and general election “campaigns” in the same calendar year, from the process of gathering signatures to filing, etc. That means the primary needs to be at least as late as June. Its also important to allow for most of the campaigning and voting to happen in warm weather, to maximize real voter contact and voting. - Jake from Elwood - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 4:30 pm: I for one liked the 3rd Tuesday in March date. Most of the candidates would make themselves available at the corned beef dinners and the South Side St. Patrick Day’s parade. Isn’t this part of the Madigan/Daley/Quinn/Burke etc. advantage? - Wheel 'n Deal - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 8:24 pm: May/June. The weather is better for turnout, and there is enough time for challengers to get their name out there. Early voting shortens the time available as it is, and September would make it nearly impossible for challengers to have a chance with only a few weeks. The amount of money spent will be too much no matter when it is. - Reformed - Tuesday, Feb 3, 09 @ 9:31 pm: September- both parties write off Illinois as a blue state anyway, so the “player in a Presidential race” arguement is out the window. No Presidential candidate has seriously campaigned in Illinois for years. - thirdgenerationchicagonative - Wednesday, Feb 4, 09 @ 8:00 am: September, so we are less wore out from all the campaigning/fighting/mudslinging etc. Also the weather will be better so maybe we can get more people out to vote, especially the Seniors who have more time to pay attention to the news, which makes for better voters. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.