Some states doing without primaries

Monday, 10 November 2003
By Robert Tanner

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Several states have moved to drop their presidential primaries next year, worried about costs in still-tight financial times and wondering if the political exercise would serve any purpose.

Some say they can't afford the millions of dollars it costs to put on an election. Others say the decisions reflect the lopsided nature of modern primaries: The front-runner gets anointed by the media and campaign donors after the first few state primaries, and the rest of the primaries are formalities.

The decisions add fuel to the argument that the primary system is in dire need of repairs. In most states forgoing a primary, party-run caucuses will be used instead to choose delegates to the national conventions.

"Fewer voters will participate because (caucuses) are more complex," said Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. State politicians are freezing out average voters, he said, because caucuses bring "lower turnout, and more advantage to whoever's organized."

Primaries usually don't get turnout much higher than 20 percent of registered voters, but they do better than caucuses. In Missouri, the 2000 primary brought 745,000 people to the polls, while the 1996 caucus brought 20,000, the state Democratic Party said.
So far, Kansas, Colorado and Utah - all with Republican-controlled legislatures - have canceled their state-run 2004 primaries. Republican legislatures tried unsuccessfully to drop primaries in Arizona and Missouri, but Democratic governors either vetoed the primary bill or restored the funding.

Some Democrats complain that cutting primaries hurts them especially, with their crowded field of candidates. President Bush has no challenger.
Other Democrats, however, are pushing to get rid of primaries. Maine dropped its presidential primary for next year, and New Mexico effectively did - it passed a law allowing parties to hold caucuses, and then Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson set an early Feb. 3 caucus (June primaries will go on for other elections).

Money worries have just exacerbated already existing doubts about the front-loaded nature of the primaries, officials and experts said.
In some states where the government has chosen not to hold the primary, the state Demo-cratic Party has decided to conduct one anyway and bear the cost itself.