Editorial: A polarization fix? Try a June primary

Out of the legislative blue last week came something rare indeed: an election reform proposal with bipartisan backing that could ease -- maybe slightly, maybe more -- the partisan polarization that regularly impedes lawmaking at the statehouse.

The proposal would move the state primary election from the second Tuesday in August to the third Tuesday in June in future years. The Minnesota House approved the date change on April 4 by the narrowest of margins, 66-65, as an amendment to an absentee-voting bill already approved by the Senate. That action puts the primary date question in a conference committee, where its fate is uncertain.

This state's seasoned government watchers have seen this movie before. The advantages of a June primary have been touted for decades by would-be reformers and endorsed by the Star Tribune Editorial Board.

But resistance to an earlier primary date has always run deep among elected officials who have mastered the existing political course and are loath to change its contours. Many fear the possibility that they'll be stuck in St. Paul while a primary challenger is busy working the hometown hustings.

It took a shove from Congress two years ago, intended to ensure enough time for absentee voting by overseas military personnel, to convince legislators to move the primary to mid-August from its traditional spot, the second Tuesday in September.

The move to August was positive for election administrators and absentee voters. But it also has drawbacks. August is a vacation month in Minnesota. While primary turnout in 2010 was in line with the last several September showings at 15.9 percent, it was a less-than-robust democratic exercise.

The chance for higher turnout is one advantage touted by June primary advocates. We like another: A June primary would shorten the intraparty phase of the candidate selection process.

That's a calendar that empowers party insiders, many of whose views fall on the extreme ends of the nation's ideological spectrum. It allows an abundance of time for intraparty squabbles to play out, while affording less than three months for candidates to address all the voters, and for all the voters to know which candidates warrant their attention.

By comparison, a June primary would put endorsing conventions at about the midpoint of candidates' courtship of rank-and-file party voters. The temptation would fade for candidates to tailor one message for the insiders and a different one for primary voters.

Elected officials' concerns about incurring party insiders' wrath whenever they reach across partisan lines ought to lessen, at least a little. Candidates' focus on appealing to all the voters ought to intensify as the general election campaign grows longer.

But conventions and endorsements would still matter for the visibility they afford candidates, noted the House sponsor of the change, Rep. Kurt Daudt, R-Crown. A June primary would also give parties reason to spend more of their limited resources where they ought to matter most -- on the general-election campaign.

In 2007, a bipartisan majority in the state Senate voted in favor of voting in June, only to be foiled by the House. Now the House is ready to move to June, and Gov. Mark Dayton has long supported the idea. It may be the lawmaking stars are finally aligning for Minnesota to give this idea a try.