Here’s yet another example of the political equivalent of “penny wise and pound foolish.”

During the last legislative session, there was a lot of talk on this site about moving the primary earlier in the year. In Vermont, the primary election is so late that it essentially acts as an incumbent protection scheme if the opposition party has multiple candidates for a statewide office. It’s the number one source of the disincentive for parties to have primaries, when primaries are so needed to refresh and reinvigorate what often becomes a stagnant debate and electoral system. Now that Jim Douglas isn’t running for re-election, the dynamics may be different, but the same reasoning still applies. Want healthy primaries? Don’t stack the deck against them by cramming them too close to the general election. It’s about making our democracy work as well as it can – regardless of one’s political party.

There was also a more blandly technical reason – the pinch of turning around absentee ballots to overseas voters in the time between the September primary and November general. She may be a candidate for Governor, but Secretary of State Markowitz was doing her job responsibly when she, too, asked the legislature to move the date earlier into the calendar.

All of these problems, of course, still exist – but it didn’t have to be this way. The Senate, led by Peter Shumlin, took the bull by the horns and made a change (if an only marginally adequate one) last session.

Speaker Smith and the House couldn’t be bothered to do their share.

But the problem hasn’t gone away

A new federal law will force Vermont lawmakers to consider changing the date of next year’s primary at a time when that primary is expected to be a hot one.

[…]House Speaker Shap Smith, D-Morristown, said the bill didn’t seem like a priority when it came over from the Senate late in the session, but the new federal law might change that. “That might spur us on,” he said.

So now they’re stuck with dealing with it in an election year, which will amplify the catcalls that its all a dirty trick to give Democrats (who, of course, have a gubernatorial primary, while the GOP likely won’t) a leg up. And coming, as they will, so close to the actual election, Dems have to be concerned that some of those charges might leave an impression.

Whereas, if they had just done their jobs when it counted – months ago – any furor would have long since passed.

I’ve heard folks at the Statehouse on more than one occasion comment that “good policy is good politics.” One wishes the House leadership had heeded that advice on this issue.