Janet NapolitanoGov. Janet Napolitano’s decision to move Arizona’s presidential primaries up to Feb. 5 sparked a debate among the Tribune Editorial Board that I suspect already had taken place in Napolitano’s ninth floor office at the state Capitol.With a lot of states seeking to move earlier in the process, some 22 states have now selected or are looking at Feb. 5 for the parties to vote for their candidates. With some of the most populous states included such as California, New York and Illinois, Feb. 5 is likely to be last day of any meaningful primary competition and has picked up the awful nickname of "Super Duper Tuesday."Napolitano made the easy, safe choice by adding Arizona’s name to the list (state law says the presidential primaries will held on the last Tuesday in February unless the governor picks another date). The Grand Canyon state is almost guaranteed to be in the mix of states targeted by a large number of the campaigns, which means will see some more personal visits and some TV and Web advertising.But our slice of national attention is naturally going to be much smaller than in 2004, when our Feb. 3 primary election was held with only six other states, the biggest of which were Missouri and South Carolina.Some of us on the editorial board argued for the risky, but more interesting, gamble to leave Arizona’s primary for later in February. Sure, a Feb. 19 or Feb. 26 election would be a meaningless exercise if the Democrat and Republican nominees are essentially picked by Feb. 5. But if one or both races aren’t settled by then, just image the intense attention Arizona would get for a couple of weeks with many other states out of the way.Others on the editorial board contend an even bolder move would have been to jump into January, which South Carolina and Florida are angling to do. Why should Iowa, New Hampshire or Nevada be the only kingmakers? Arizona has supplied an actual presidential nominee and plenty of other contenders. We’re the nation’s fastest growing state with a diverse population. We deserve to play a more influential role in the process.The two national parties are threatening to take away half of a state’s delegates to the 2008 conventions if anyone moves into January without permission. That’s why Napolitano rejected a January election.But what does the average voter care about how many delegates get to attend the big, scripted gabfests in late summer? States have an impact on the presidential race with elections that give us insights into the status of individual campaigns and/or create momentum for particular candidates. Standing out from the crowd with a January election is far more likely to accomplish that, so the argument went.We know what Napolitano decided to do, but which argument was the winner at the Tribune? Check out Thursday’s Opinion page to find out…

Posted in: Uncategorized |

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.