Does Massachusetts Secretary of State, William Galvin (D) make some variation of this claim every four years?
The budget proposal from Governor Charlie Baker's (R) office is out and the cutbacks to elections administration have the Bay state's chief elections official, Galvin, doing what he did in 2011. Namely, he is arguing that smaller appropriations for elections in Massachusetts puts the first Tuesday in March presidential primary called for in state law first in line at the chopping block. Furthermore, he has suggested -- just as he did four years ago before a similar legislative hearing -- that the parties in the state consider state party-funded caucuses in lieu of a state-funded presidential primary.
Is this a boy who cried wolf situation or one where the difference in party identification of the governor now (Republican) versus then (Democratic) might matter?
UPDATE: Quotes from Secretary Galvin:
Via the Boston Globe:
“This country is scheduled to elect a new president next year. Apparently the governor only wants 49 states to vote, he doesn’t want this one.”
Via WWLP: “I simply cannot run a credible election with those kind of numbers,” he said.
Galvin acknowledged there are alternatives, such as a caucus or calling for parties to pay for the primary, as some states have done.
“If this were to be the final appropriation, I would suggest to you we cannot afford to have a presidential primary next year on March 1,” Galvin said.
But as Joshua Miller at the Globe said:
Budget season is always filled with leaders of many parts of state government loudly proclaiming doom, part of a strategy to encourage lawmakers to increase their funding.
Boy who cried wolf?
No comments:
Post a Comment