Sununu veto threat imperils move to alter primary date

Jun. 21—CONCORD — A bipartisan legislative push to make the first change to the date of New Hampshire's state primary election in 111 years faces an almost certain veto, Gov. Chris Sununu said.

The strong statement from the popular governor raises the question whether a majority in the House of Representatives this Thursday will nonetheless embrace the compromise for an August primary, when they had wanted it bumped up to June.

In April, after the House endorsed a June primary, Sununu dismissed the idea saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Last week, House and Senate negotiators went ahead with a date change, moving the primary up five weeks to the first Tuesday in August, from the second Tuesday in September.

In response, Sununu only doubled down against the idea.

"The idea of moving it to August, (I'm) probably going to veto that, and I don't see the benefit of it. I really don't," Sununu began.

"If you were going to really move the primary, moving it (five) weeks doesn't achieve some of the goals that they were trying to achieve, which is giving more time for the general election, more time to integrate with independent voters or whatever it might be."

The governor said he was "very strongly leaning to vetoing it."

Secretary of State Bill Gardner, the longest-serving state elections chief in the country, said he's with Sununu.

The Republican Sununu and Democrat Gardner both raised concerns a primary on the first Tuesday in August in the middle of a hot, quiet summer could put at risk the state's long streak of strong voter turnout.

"The last two weeks of July and the first two weeks of August are usually the hottest times of the year here. It is a struggle to get people to vote," Gardner said.

"You want a primary that will have the average person engaged and participating. You would want a time that they would be paying a little bit of attention, and I sincerely doubt that early August is that opportune time."

Older than FITN

The September state primary dates back to 1910, six years before New Hampshire passed its vaunted law for a presidential primary that became the first-in the-nation contest.

Gardner said a two-term, progressive legislator from Cornish back then named Winston Churchill crusaded for the change, along with moderate Republican Gov. Perkins Bass, who signed it into law.

The goal of a primary was to bring an end to the ham-fisted, party convention process that selected nominees.

Back then, the barons of the state railroads dominated those picks, often by greasing the skids with cash or other favors given to lawmakers, Gardner said.

"We were at the dawn of a progressive reform that average Americans had been clamoring for," Gardner said.

Fast forward to last April, when the concept of a June primary in the House of Representatives was largely partisan, backed by a 195-174 vote.

Ten Republicans bucked their leadership to oppose that early date, and only six Democrats went on the other side to support it.

Senate leaders in both political parties solidly favored the August primary, which cleared on a voice vote (SB 98).

State Rep. Fenton Groen, R-Rochester, noted 13 states already have their primaries in August, and only two states in the country have a later primary than New Hampshire's.

Senate negotiators agreed to a House request to move it up a week.

The Senate originally wanted the primary on the second Tuesday in August.

"This gives another seven days when a winning candidate has time to consolidate their support after winning a primary," Groen said.

Rep. Ross Berry, R-Manchester, argued it was a matter of time before the federal government forced New Hampshire to move its primary to give more time for printed ballots to reach overseas voters ahead of the election.

"We are going to have to move up another date anyway," Berry said. "We barely comply with the federal law with regards to the overseas ballots."

Gardner disagrees

Gardner denied that was the case.

He said a few years ago New Hampshire was one of only three states not facing a federal Justice Department lawsuit on this issue, he said.

"That is absolutely not true. In fact, there hasn't even been a complaint on this issue ever brought against us," Gardner said.

"All elections bring challenges and we have faced those (about ballot-printing deadlines), but we always have made adjustments so that no potential voter was harmed or given any less ballot access," Gardner said.

The final draft of this compromise would give election officials one fewer week than they now have to complete printing the primary ballots, Gardner said.

That's because when negotiators agreed to move the primary date up one week from what the Senate passed, they didn't go into the Senate bill and move up any of the other trigger dates in the election process, including the candidate filing period.

The compromise would begin the filing period the first Wednesday in May.

Gardner said to give officials the time they have always had, the bill should have moved it up to the last Wednesday in April.

"The primary is harder and more work because you are running essentially two separate elections, unlike the general when there is one," Gardner said. "You've got 1,500 candidates running, you have to verify those and having less time for all that process would be problematic."

One legislative negotiator said other date changes could be made and passed by lawmakers in 2022 as part of a bill on the same topic that the House Election Laws Committee has held onto and will further study this fall.

This compromise would not change the primary date until the 2024 election, because of concerns about completing the process of redistricting or redrawing districts to account for population shifts.

House and Senate GOP leaders said if redistricting proceeds more smoothly than expected, then lawmakers could use the retained bill to make the primary date change apply to the 2022 election.

klandrigan@unionleader.com