I Agree With Greg Lavelle–

Or, to be more precise, Greg Lavelle agrees with me.  The issue is when should parties hold their primaries for statewide, legislative, and local offices.  Back in 2016, I wrote the following:

Let’s start with (what I think is) the most interesting bill on today’s docket, and see what you think about it.  HB 375 (Bolden)  changes the date of Delaware’s primaries from September to the ‘fourth Tuesday in April’.  I used to strongly support making the primaries earlier, thought September was too late, but now, I’m not so sure.  I think that April is too early.  The reason the April date has been chosen is because that’s the date of Delaware’s presidential primary.  For now. But that date has floated around for years (remember when Delaware wanted to go head-to-head with New Hampshire?), and there is nothing to guarantee that won’t happen again. Especially since the rules of the respective parties at the national level can and generally do change every four years.

Here’s what’s even worse, IMHO. With an April primary, the filing deadline would be pushed into late February.  Meaning, assuming that an incumbent files and isn’t challenged, then announces that they won’t run after the primary date has passed, the party voters would be shut out of the nomination process. It would be done by the district committee and/or county party.  It would circumvent democracy, much like Rebecca Walker did in the 9th RD by delaying her announcement until after the July filing deadline.  Only it would be in February.  

I understand the mantra that campaigns are too long, and they are. However, this bill essentially makes campaign primaries shorter and general election campaigns longer.  Except that, in many races, the primary election is the general election.  Would we be better off if, say, the primary for US Congress and Mayor of Wilmington were decided in April? I think the advantage would invariably shift to the ‘established’ candidates at the expense of insurgent candidates.

While I think that June would be a desirable alternative, legislators are not gonna support that with the current legislative calendar. As written, I think that the bill protects incumbents and the parties at the expense of challengers, so I don’t support it.  But, what do YOU think?

If anything, my position has solidified since then.  What was a bit more theoretical back in 2016 would now have the practical implication of making it exceedingly difficult for insurgent candidacies.  That may have been what the two major parties (who pushed, and continue to push this bill) wanted back in 2016, but I would hope that the Democratic Party, at least, would revisit this issue.  After all, can you imagine how different the primary results might have looked had this April primary been in effect in 2020?

As to Greg Lavelle?  He wrote this piece this week in the Delaware State News.  Yes, the bill has been introduced again. (Sarah? Why are you on this bill?)  Here’s part of what Lavelle writes:

An April primary would essentially require a challenger to start campaigning the prior fall.

Knocking on doors when it is dark out — cold weather aside — would not be well-received by voters. Except for some limited hours on the weekends, December is out, as is January, February and most of March. The change to April makes is almost impossible to effectively campaign, as newly elected lawmakers did over the spring and summer of 2020. Money will matter even more, as the impact of voter interactions are significantly reduced.

Candidates currently make the decision to run in primaries in the early spring or sometimes later. An April primary will force this decision to the previous fall and considerably lengthen the election cycle. This will reduce the pool of candidates willing and able to run, given the work involved and the impact on families and professions.

Election results confirm that incumbents are difficult to defeat in primaries. Many legislators now announce their retirements in the spring, and an open seat can draw in numerous candidates and offer voters a choice. If an incumbent were to announce his/her retirement after the April primary, the party, not the voters, would select the candidates to run in November. Political insiders picking the candidates is hardly a good idea.

Not to mention, oftentimes there is virtually no Presidential primary if an incumbent is seeking election.  So there’s not even a guaranteed boost in turnout.

Other than incumbency protection, I can think of no good reason for this bill.  Now, let the speculation begin as to what office Lavelle is seeking…my bet is State Auditor, since he’d be (presumably) running against someone merely playing the role of Auditor.  Of course, a September primary might well change that.