UPDATE 4/22: Still haven’t gotten a response from Senator Ashe to my email asking him why he opposed this. I’ll let you know when I do.

UPDATE #2: Heh. Shortly after receiving email from a reader who is one of his constituents (stating, I think affectionately,  that Ashe “pretty much sucks at email”), the Senator got back to me to say that he hadn’t been checking his email and that I should give a call…which I will tomorrow (its too late tonight) and will report back. I’m genuinely baffled as to why a lefty like Ashe would vote against this, which a roomful of lefties at our activist meeting last year identified as a priority.

UPDATE #3 The good Senator took the time to email me and let me know how bent out of shape he is about my updates to this diary. Clearly, he’s not a reader – I don’t think the above quaifies as actual “criticism” at this site.

Of course, in the same amount of time and effort he took to bring me up-to-date on all his myriad good works in his email, he could have simply answered the question about his opposition to the primary bill, but I’m supposed to call him about that. Methinks the Senatorial learning curve has not quite been completed. I will call tonight and report back.

UPDATE #4: Very pleasant conversation with Senator Ashe. Basically, he voted the way he did because of a clear, strong distaste for the idea of a Primary in August. It was a distaste that was stronger than any positives he felt regarding an earlier Primary, which he rightfully feels would be better moved father up to some time like June. Told him I thought he was letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. At any rate, it was clear that there was nothing deeper about his vote. It occurs to me that as the only semi-sorta-Prog in the Senate, any such vote he casts that doesn’t seem to cleanly line up with what one would expect to be the left/liberal ideal will be greeted with eyebrow-raising. That probably won’t prove to be much fun for the guy.

---

As you’ve probably heard by now, the Senate approved a third reading vote for the Primary adjustment by a 21-9 vote. And yes, it was the barely-relevant 3 week shift, but that’s 3 weeks better than it was. After the pro forma final vote, which will come either tomorrow or the next day, the challenge will be in the House where, although there is interest in the House Gov Ops Committee, there seems to be little enthusiasm from leadership, as some seem to consider this a “tough” vote. Why it would be is strictly an issue for the Montpelier insider bubble, as its hard to imagine a public backlash on something so dry – given that we’re only talking three weeks, here.

The opposition was spearheaded by Sen. Doyle (R-Washington) and effectively countered by Senate Gov Ops Chair White (D-Windham). Basically, Doyle ran through a fairly silly laundry list, hoping something might stick; dismissing all legal concerns over the overseas ballots (downplaying – questionably to the point of misrepresentation – the pressure being brought to bear on other states as well as Vermont on this issue from the feds), and moaning about the irreparable harm three measly extra weeks would do to our “citizen legislature” because of all the folks that will be on fishing trips and how inconvenient it all is to candidates. It was not a particularly distinguished performance.

I’ll put the full roll call beneath the fold, but there are two points of interest. One – Republican Senator Illuzzi voting with the majority, while his Democratic seatmate Senator Starr voting with the Republicans. Sometimes I wonder if both these guys are just contrarians.

More interesting was D-P Senator Ashe of Chittenden County voting with the Republicans (shades of the Burlington City Council?). One wonders what exactly that is about, and I’ve sent an email asking him. Ashe has traditionally held office as – and identified as – a capital-P Progressive until he won the Senate by going through the Dem Primary (something I encouraged at the time and continue to today). Still, it’s an odd vote when you consider that the obvious little-p progressive stance would be to create the opportunity for healthy, meaningful primaries, to break out the calendar that institutionally shields incumbents from empowered challenges, and to therefore support the bill that overall enhances the democratic process.

So why the vote? A cynical person might see this as either a) relating to the smaller Progressive Party’s possible fear of dealing with non-hand-picked primary candidates, or b) simply an interest in making primaries more problematic (which could be simple self-interest). Am I that cynical? I’m a cynical guy, to be sure, but I’m gonna withhold any conclusions until I hear from him. Interesting, at any rate. Roll call follows…

The vote on the amendment to change the bill’s wording from the second Tuesday in August to the fourth was the same as the vote to approve a third reading:

Ashe no

Ayer yes

Bartlett yes

Brock no

Campbell yes

Carris yes

Choate yes

Cummings yes

Doyle no

Flanagan yes

Giard yes

Hartwell yes

Illuzzi yes

Kitchel yes

Kittell yes

Lyons yes

MacDonald yes

Maynard no

Mazza no

McCormack yes

Miller yes

Mullin no

Nitka yes

Racine yes

Scottn no

Searsy yes

Shumlin yes

Snelling no

Starr no

White yes