Early Primary Bill Hits a Snag in State Senate

Legislation aimed at restoring California as a major player in national presidential primaries foundered abruptly in the Senate on Thursday over, of all things, legislative and congressional reapportionment.

Senate leader David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) waved the caution flag at the steadily advancing presidential primary bill. He suggested that moving the state’s primary from June to March in presidential election years could collide with efforts to redraw district boundaries in accordance with the national census.

Senate Republican floor leader Ken Maddy of Fresno, a supporter of the bill, indicated that he also favors holding up action on it, perhaps until next year.

The legislation by Assemblyman Jim Costa (D-Fresno) was previously passed by the Assembly.

By advancing the presidential primary to the last Tuesday in March, California voters would be given a bigger voice in selecting party presidential nominees. The proposal is supported by Gov. George Deukmejian.

For the last four presidential primary elections, California, a rich source of campaign dollars for national candidates, has all but stood on the sidelines and watched as other states with earlier primaries selected, in effect, the nominees.

But Roberti, never an advocate of the advanced primary bill, said it appears that the way the 1990 Census will be conducted may not give the Legislature enough time to redraw legislative and congressional district lines for a March, 1992, ballot.

For the first time, the 1990 Census, on which reapportionment will be based, will include a second sampling of the population in big cities such as Los Angeles in an effort to find persons who may not have been counted in the first tabulation.

These include the “invisible population”--transients, the homeless, migrant laborers and many immigrants. It has been estimated that the 1980 Census overlooked as many as 600,000 California residents.

Roberti said the second sampling would be crucial for rapidly growing California, and to try to enact reapportionment plans without including figures from the post-census survey would be foolhardy.

For one thing, he said, such figures probably would not be available until mid-1991 and yet candidates who wanted to run in a March, 1992, primary would have to start official candidacy procedures in the fall, four months ahead of the usual time.

He expressed doubt that the Legislature could produce adequate reapportionment plans if the primary period were shortened by four months.

Roberti conceded that, “I may be misreading the case,” but “I think it is in error to proceed this fast (on the election bill) . . . because it will force us to proceed as if there is no data on an under-count.”

He said the potential of an under-count and subsequent second sampling that would find more Californians “is something we cannot ignore as if it doesn’t exist.”

‘Still Optimistic’

Costa, whose early presidential primary bill advanced further this session than at any other time in recent years, said he is “still optimistic” that the bill will be enacted before the Legislature adjourns Sept. 15.

Roberti, Costa and Maddy insisted that the bill has not snagged merely because of fears it would further complicate political fund-raising. An appellate court recently ordered enforcement of a voter-approved ban against raising campaign funds during non-election years.