In a few days, conscientious Illinois residents will bundle themselves up and trudge through midwinter weather to their nearest polling places, intent on doing their civic duty for the February 2 primary election.

Indeed, tens of thousands already have done so, taking advantage of an early voting period that opened before the Christmas lights were down and the decorations put away for another year.

One suspects many of them will be asking the same question: Why are we doing this NOW?

The answer is ... well, there’s really no good answer, other than a midwinter primary gives incumbents a huge advantage over any would-be challengers. Consider: The typical officeholder is better known among constituents than a newbie. The incumbent has been raising money to run again since the day he or she first took office, unlike someone who’s decided just lately to contest the seat. And if rotten weather keeps voters home, all the better for someone who has a seasoned team in place to get out a reliable base of support.

“I don’t see that there’s any benefit to the public in a February primary,” says Ron Michaelson, a political science professor at the University of Illinois Springfield. “The holidays are just getting over, people are just starting to get back in the swing with school and work, and they realize in four weeks, there’s a statewide primary. They’re not programmed to think about elections.”

Michaelson should know. Until he retired from the post in 2003, he was the first and only executive director of the Illinois State Board of Elections, a 29-year gig overseeing the state’s election machinery.

May or June would be a better time for the primary, he believes. Even later could work, as it does for more than a score of states. An August primary would compress the election timetable but still be doable, Michaelson says. “And two months for the general election campaign is more than enough for candidates to get their message out.”

The February primary “doesn’t just cause problems for voters, but also for the people administering the election,” adds Cook County Clerk David Orr, a strong advocate of a later primary.

Election officials have to recruit and train thousands of election judges, he notes, an effort complicated by the holidays and possible blizzard conditions. Similarly, harsh weather right before Election Day could interfere with authorities’ ability to deliver voting materials and equipment to more than 11,500 precincts throughout the state.

When lawmakers moved the primary to early February from mid-March two years ago, the switch was sold as an effort to provide an early boost to then-U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s quest for the Democratic presidential nomination and to enhance Illinois’ role in the nominating process. The Prairie State was not alone — 14 other states also held presidential primaries on February 5, 2008, and five others did so within the next two weeks.

But Illinois also chose to nominate party candidates for all offices in February, unlike 18 of the other 19 states, all of which filled out party slates in voting from mid-May through mid-September. Only Maryland used its February 2008 primary for all offices, but this year, the Maryland primary is set for September 14. 

Even New Hampshire, where its first-in-the-nation presidential primary is legendary, makes only out-of-staters tramp through the snowy woods in early January. Local candidates get to enjoy the fall foliage in September.

Indeed, after Illinois votes on February 2 and Texas casts its ballots a month later, no other state has a 2010 primary scheduled until early May, and 28 states are booked for June, July or August. Ten have September primaries.

After Labor Day is probably too late, Orr believes, given the complicated timetable built into the election law for dealing with contested primary results at the front end and getting absentee voting materials ready at the back end.

“I think anything works up to late August,” Orr says. “There’s nobody who would argue a February 2 primary is in the public interest.”

Illinois did have a September primary in the early 1900s, when the progressive idea of letting voters actually choose party nominees was just catching on. In fact, for a decade or so, the state held a presidential preference vote in April, then selected party nominees for other offices in September. The dual system ended in 1920, and from 1922 until 1964, April was the month.

The state switched to June in 1966 and 1968, then shifted to March for the 1970 primary. (Ironically, when the third Tuesday in March that year turned out to be St. Patrick’s Day, embarrassed legislators quickly repealed the election law provision that required saloons to be closed while the polls were open.) Lawmakers last year introduced half a dozen bills calling for a later primary, most of them opting for June. But the legislation went nowhere, feeding the suspicion that party leaders like an early primary, when challengers walking precincts are knocking on doors in sub-freezing temperatures and voters are distracted by seasonal TV specials and holiday shopping until the final few weeks of the primary season.

In 1970, when Illinois moved to March from June, critics complained the shift to an earlier primary was designed to help incumbents and handicap challengers and would lead to exhausted voters and exorbitant campaign spending.

If an eight-month campaign season was too long and too costly 40 years ago — and the record since suggests both predictions were on target — tacking on another month in perpetuity is hardly an improvement.

Instead, lawmakers should take a cue from our sister states and recognize the wisdom of their forebears of a century ago. Keep an early February presidential primary, but choose party nominees for other offices in the summer, perhaps mid-June, after the spring legislative session. A later primary might mean incumbents have to work harder to keep their jobs, but they’re sure to have the gratitude of all the folks shivering their way to the polls in coming days.

Charles N. Wheeler III is director of the Public Affairs Reporting program at the University of Illinois at Springfield. 

Illinois Issues, February 2010