In the March 2024 California primary election, everybody lost big. Here is why | Opinion
The historically low turnout of this California presidential primary is nothing short of a breakdown in our democratic process. It will merit considerable attention long after the final votes are counted.
In 2017, California’s then Secretary of State Alex Padilla thought it was a great idea to move the state’s presidential primary in 2020 from June to March. A March primary — as opposed to June — would make California more influential in the presidential nominating process. The Legislature agreed and went along with the idea.
In 2020, about 38% of eligible voters cast their ballots by mail or in person — a not-too-bad turnout. The final number this March will be nowhere near that level. As election day neared, only 12% of registered voters had turned in their ballots in eight counties monitored by political analyst Paul Mitchell of Political Data, Inc., a bipartisan voter data firm.
Such a dismal turnout erodes the democracy this election was seeking to advance. In the city of Sacramento, two candidates are destined to emerge as finalists in a November runoff for mayor. It’s possible that only 10% of eligible voters supported one of the two “winning” candidates from this primary. How is that good for Sacramento?
California has voluntarily subjected itself to minority rule by the majority failing to engage. Voters determining this election are disproportionately Republican and on Medicare, based on Mitchell’s analysis. The youth, those voters 35 and under, had barely showed up in single-digit percentages in mailed-in ballots coming into election week.
In California’s hybrid voting system, all eligible voters get ballots in the mail. They can mail the ballot, drop it off at a precinct or vote on-site. Four years ago, about 28% of ballots tallied from precincts, 72% from mail. Recent history suggests no massive last-minute rush to the polls to rescue the turnout from historically low proportions.
Yes, there are reasons for voter apathy. The March primary is so close to the end of the December holidays and there was little time to get to know the candidates. The presidential race is a battle among geriatrics, and the voting public is frustrated and uninspired with their choices.
There is only one statewide measure on the ballot on mental health that was hand-selected by the governor for this primary so it would not face competition. Given this low and skewed turnout, it remains to be seen whether Newsom was wise or whether he outsmarted himself.
Moving back the presidential primary to June (or at least all the non-presidential races) would produce a saner schedule and more time for candidates to make their pitch in the election year. The logistical problem would be solved. But a deeper and more worrisome trend may be setting in: Californians are simply checking out. They are tired of the culture wars, of the political bickering and of the sanctimonious spin. Only a quarter or so of Sacramentans can afford to buy a home. The economy and the political system have failed them. So they are voting no by not voting at all.
Voter turnout this November will likely be better as initiatives on financial and cultural matters appear destined to qualify for the ballot, even if the presidential election is not inspiring voters. But this March turnout should not be forgotten.
Never has it been so easy to vote in California. Never have so few chosen to do so in modern history. That’s a sign that something is desperately wrong. There were no real winners in this election.
This story was originally published March 5, 2024 at 9:54 PM.