Spring forward the Bay State primary

IF THERE'S one single step that would quickly render Massachusetts elections more voter-friendly, it's changing the date of the state's primary from mid-September to late spring.

ADVERTISEMENT

That idea, which has been pushed in this column in the past, is now gaining some traction, so it's time to look at why voters of all stripes should get behind it.

With the current calendar, candidates have long months -- years, even -- to mount a campaign against hopefuls of the same party, where the differences are usually nuanced, if not nominal.

But once the September primary is finally over, they have only about seven weeks to run against members of the opposition, where the ideological contrasts are far more acute.

Consider for a moment: Even now, more than 18 months before the 2006 primary, gubernatorial candidates are already emerging. Attorney General Thomas Reilly is gearing up, former Clinton administration assistant attorney general Deval Patrick is exploring a candidacy, and Secretary of State William Galvin is eying the field with keen interest.

On the Republican side, if Mitt Romney doesn't seek reelection, there are at least two candidates -- Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey and Charles D. Baker, chief executive of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care -- who want to run.

Now, no doubt there are contrasting philosophies, accomplishments, and temperaments among the two or three people who will emerge as serious candidates on each side.

But even if the gubernatorial campaign didn't begin in earnest until January of next year, those contrasts could certainly be explored to a fare-thee-well by mid-May or early June of 2006.

The more important differences, certainly, will be between the Republican candidate and the Democratic nominee. And those are issues that voters deserve a longer period to have debated and explored.

Among top Democrats, ''there is a near unanimous view that this would be a wise thing to do,'' says Phil Johnston, the Democratic State Committee chairman.

With several important exceptions. One is Reilly.

''I don't think you should change the rules in the middle of an election cycle,'' he says. ''If you want to look at it down the road, that is another matter. But I think it is important that with an election less than two years away, that the rules remain the same.''

Certainly Reilly's argument would be compelling if this were March of 2006. But the fact that we're still more than nine months away from the actual election year renders them mostly academic.

The other objector is Secretary of State Galvin.

''I think it is probably going to reduce turnout,'' Galvin says.

His reasoning: The Massachusetts electorate is now composed mostly of independent voters, and independents, who often tune in late to the process, won't be as interested if the primary is held in the spring.   Continued...