The idea was to be early in the presidential primary campaign season and thus have more influence on the outcome. You can read all about that idea – and whether it worked in practice - at http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/29/3802418/california-set-to-move-its-presidential.html
Where this matters for UC is in the initiative process. As has been noted in prior blog posts, there may be public pension initiatives out there which could draw enough campaign funding to get the needed signatures and be on the ballot.
So the question then becomes when that balloting would take place and who will be voting. Once an initiative qualifies, it goes on the ballot of the next statewide election. Absent a change, that would be the February 2012 presidential primary. (Two initiatives, unrelated to pensions, have so far qualified: a tobacco tax for cancer research and a relaxation of term limits. There is also a proposition voted by the legislature – so not an “initiative” - dealing with rainy day funds and budgeting.)
Since Obama is sure to be the Democratic nominee, a February presidential primary would attract mainly Republican voters since there will be contending candidates. You can draw your own conclusions about what that voter mix might mean for a pension initiative that was also on that ballot and which could override the Regents’ decision on the UC pension of last December.
But it looks as if California is going to move its presidential primary back to June to coincide with the state-level primary. You would get a more balanced mix of voters under those circumstances. Of course, at this point no one knows what pension initiatives, if any, might end up on the ballot. And if the date is June, there would be more time for some group to pull together funding for a pension initiative. But on balance, from the UC perspective, June is likely to be better than February because of the voter mix.
No comments:
Post a Comment