In a few months, seniors will have achieved a milestone: graduating high school. Many of them will also have become adults and, for the first time, be able to exercise the powerful right fundamental to a democracy: voting. With the 2016 elections coming up, they will soon experience their first moment of major political participation, making a difference in the presidential nomination…Or not.

  California schedules its primary in June. However, the delegate selection process starts on February 1 with the Iowa caucuses. According to AP US Government Teacher Michele Fournier, because they lose funding support, candidates tend to drop out following losses at early primaries. California has one of the last primaries. In fact, only the District of Columbia’s Democratic caucus selects delegates on a later date than California this year  (uspresidentialelectionnews.com). So by the time the California primary dillydallies around, only one viable candidate is typically left in each party.

   Political Science Professor Larry Gerston said, “California exerts tremendous influence on the nation’s economy, social policies and political discourse. And yet our presidential primary votes — coming on June 7 — rarely matter a whit….the races settle by early spring and the nominees are all but crowned” (latimes.com). California should consider moving its presidential primary to earlier in the year so that its votes can exert a fair influence.

  Candidates (and their funders) must determine their prospects of winning nominations prematurely based on the early primaries and caucuses, according to Fournier. However, the populations of “Early voting states like New Hampshire and Iowa …are anything but representative of the nation’s diversity” (latimes.com). In contrast, home to an eighth of all Americans, California is diverse in ideology and ethnicity, and is thus a more accurate representation of the US. The nominee should reflect the preference of America as a whole, and California can assist in its selection with an earlier primary. One writer for the Washington Post said, “Part of the reason the United States is gradually looking more like Texas and California is that Texas and California comprise so much of the population of the United States. Letting those citizens narrow down the pool of presidential contenders makes much, much more sense than letting Iowa and New Hampshire do it” (washintonpost.com). An early primary in California would seem to be a better indicator of how candidates will fare overall in the country.

  According to a Riverside newspaper, California sends 23 percent of the Democratic delegates required for a nomination and 14 percent for the Republicans (pe.com). California’s massive potential to impact the nomination should not be just dumped aside into democracy’s wastebasket. According to a political columnist, “California tried early primaries in four presidential elections starting in 1996….In 2008, California did rescue Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential candidacy by delivering a timely victory on Super Tuesday, that kept her breathing for three more months. In the Republican primary, California all but clinched the nomination for John McCain. In 2012, we went back to our historic June primary, and California played no role in the nominating process” (latimes.com). Although the earlier primary cost more money, California should revisit the idea.

  Also, an earlier primary would make votes more meaningful, which may encourage more citizens to vote. In our state, “Turnout among registered voters has…[been] sliding down ever since [1976]. There have been a few high points since then, when we moved our presidential primary to an earlier date to give Californians more say. In March 2000, 54 percent of registered voters participated, and in February 2008, 58 percent participated” (sacbee.com). This is a significant   boost, as the “overall, primary turnout, especially in nonpresidential elections, has hovered around 30 or 40 percent,” while non-presidential primaries have experienced the highest turnout in California (bipartisanpolicy.org).

   Lawmakers should move up our primary to afford their constituents more political power, attention and relevance.