By Daniel Kemmis
for Headwaters News

Headwaters News has carried a number of stories and opinion pieces over the past few months about a plan to coordinate the presidential primaries or caucuses of several Rocky Mountain states.

The most talked-about plan is for an eight-state primary or caucus, encompassing Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Recently, Utah’s Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. was quoted in the Deseret News as saying that as few as three Rocky Mountain states might end up participating, but that “If we could get four states – even three – it’s certainly worth doing.”

While the road to a full-fledged regional primary is certainly a challenging one, Huntsman's faintheartedness seems seriously premature. But to understand what’s at stake and what the options are, we need a quick review of recent developments.

In this case, “recent” begins in the late ’90’s when then-Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt (now Secretary of Health and Human Services) began trying to pull together a coordinated Western primary for the 2000 election cycle.

Leavitt, a Republican, worked valiantly with Montana’s Democratic Secretary of State Mike Cooney to persuade western states to sign on. In the end, only Utah, Colorado and Wyoming participated in what most observers considered a failed effort at regional cooperation.

The idea might have died there, but in 2003, New Mexico’s Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson revived the concept when he took over as chair of the Western Governors' Association (WGA). Gov. Richardson persuaded the WGA to adopt a resolution supporting a Western primary and pledged WGA staff to help any state or group of states pursuing the idea.

The WGA resolution stated in part that “Western Governors urge the major political parties to examine reforms to the nominating process rules that will encourage voter participation and encourage a discussion among the candidates for the parties’ nomination of issues unique to each region of the country.”

At least on the Democratic side, this call for action from the political parties has proven to be timely. The national Democratic Party, following its setbacks in the 2004 election, has convened a "Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling" (DNC Commission) to determine whether changes in the primary schedule could improve the chances of Democrats nominating candidates with wide popular appeal.

One member of that commission, Mike Stratton, had played a big role in getting Democrat Ken Salazar elected to the U.S. Senate from Colorado in 2004. Stratton called the DNC Commission’s attention to the WGA resolution, and urged the Democratic Party to endorse a Western regional primary.

When the DNC Commission held a hearing in Chicago in May 2005, Western Democrats turned out in force to back Stratton’s plea. U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar endorsed it, as did Colorado Congressman Mark Udall and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

A group called Democrats for the West pointed to the rapidly growing Rockies as the region where Democrats are best positioned to make electoral college gains in 2008, a prospect that could only be enhanced by a regional primary or caucus.

Whether or not Western Democrats are right in thinking that a Western primary would enhance their party’s chances is an interesting question, but this idea is (and has to remain) bigger than any one party. Because moving primaries around on the calendar usually requires legislative action, a Western primary can only be created by a bipartisan effort across the region.

The Western Governors' Association has provided that kind of bipartisan backing in adopting its resolution, and that bipartisan backing has endured as Republican Huntsman has joined Democrat Richardson in providing regional leadership for the idea.

Richardson himself would certainly benefit from a Western primary if he makes a bid -- as expected -- for the presidency in 2008. But as Richardson has clearly understood from the outset, a regional primary is too big and important an idea to be narrowly focused around the interest of any one individual or party.

One reason Richardson might expect to garner delegates from a regional primary, or electoral votes from the region if he were the Democratic nominee, is simply because he understands the West as a region.

When he was elected Chairman of the WGA, he said that he wanted to make the West “a force on policy and politics.” Richardson argued then that “if we unite on a series of issues, the West acquires more clout.” His support of a western primary is consistent with that objective, whether he runs for President or not.

And it is for the sake of acquiring more regional clout that Westerners should make a coordinated regional primary or caucus a reality. We won’t acquire that kind of clout if we settle for a three-or-four state primary, and we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that we will.

We should keep our eye on the original goal of an eight-state primary or caucus, and we should get as close to that goal as we possibly can.

Residents of any given state can produce perfectly sound reasons for their state not to participate in a regional primary or caucus. A recent editorial in Utah’s Standard-Examiner, for example, called on Huntsman to back away from the regional primary idea because of cost and the possibility of Utah losing delegate strength at the national conventions. These and similar arguments can, have, and will be made in other Western states.

But this is where those of us who believe that the West should be consolidating its regional power have failed to make our case. Any state that is thinking of opting out should be reminded of why it is to our mutual advantage as Westerners to stay together on this.

The widespread support for a Western primary comes from a basic instinct for democratic self-determination, coupled with a sense of identity.

What it boils down to is that Westerners want the West to be heard. That is far more likely to happen if the successful presidential candidate from at least one party has earned Western support by addressing Western issues in Western terms. And as Western leaders in both parties understand, candidates are far more likely to address Western issues if they have to address the West as a whole, rather than aiming their message at swing constituencies in individual states.

While either party may reasonably hope for partisan gain from a regional primary, the real winner will be the Mountain West itself.

A regional primary would motivate Westerners to identify the most important regional issues facing us and the most promising responses to those issues. Do we want to focus the candidates' attention on water or energy issues, on public lands or transportation or tribal issues?

A full-scale regional primary or caucus would force candidates for president to stake out clear and convincing positions on the issues we in the region care most about.

A candidate who wins a substantial number of Western primaries because of his or her stand on energy or immigration or conservation issues, will have little choice but to follow through on those positions with West-friendly policies once elected.

That's the kind of leverage a maturing West needs. One big step toward aggregating that kind of regional power is for the enitre Mountain West to work together across state and party lines to initiate a regional caucus or primary.

Daniel Kemmis Responds to Readers' Comments

My colleague here at the Center for the Rocky Mountain West, Pat Williams, took exception to my earlier suggestion that "we probably won't get a Western primary without the motive power" of some "parochial or selfish interests."

Perhaps what pushed Pat over the edge was my further suggestion that "There's nothing wrong with such political motivations playing a role in the creation of a Western primary. It's not going to happen without politics."

I still think that's true, but I also think that Pat is correct when he warns against the dangers that can come with those selfish or parochial interests.

He's absolutely right when he suggests that, if a Mountain West primary came to be seen by the rest of the country, and especially by non-western presidential candidates, as simply a set-up for presidential candidates from this region, the value of a regional primary would be seriously diminished.

So how can I say that Pat is right, and still maintain my position? I think it's just a matter of degree. If we allow narrow interests to capture and define a regional primary, we may as well not have done it. But to try to keep such interests out of so political a process would be just as big a waste of time.

The trick, it seems to me, is to be realistic about the inevitability of some personal or parochial agendas, but to do everything in our power to surround them with broader, genuinely regional interests which it will be to the nation's advantage to hear about and attend to.

And to their credit, I think both Govs. Huntsman and Richardson see it that way, too. They know this is too big an idea to belong to any one person, or to any one party. I give them credit for regional statesmanship, even while trying to be realistic about somewhat narrower motivations.

I think the question is whether the region has enough sense of its own identity and its own enlightened self-interest to bring those genuinely regional concerns to the forefront of this process.

That's where our other recent responder, George, has raised some very valid concerns. "Is the Mountain West really a region at all?" he seems to be asking. That's so important a question that I'm going to make it the topic of the next Western Perspective.

For the last ten days or so, I’ve been driving through a good chunk of the Rocky Mountain West, visiting with people about the prospects for and the pros and cons of a Western primary.

The conversations have been stimulating and informative, but they’ve taken on a special significance for me because of the long hours on the road in between the conversations. Driving through these Western landscapes has reminded me as nothing else could why it matters for the West to have its own voice.

From the Snake River Plain to the Great Basin, from the Wasatch Front to the Book Cliffs, from the autumn splendor of aspen on Independence Pass to the Flatirons and the Tetons, these Western landscapes never cease to inspire us, to humble us, to make us feel lucky to be living here and obliged, somehow, to live up to the place we call home.

Wallace Stegner’s famous call for the West to create “a society to match its scenery” is always in danger of getting worn out by overuse, and yet it’s impossible to make the kind of journey I’ve been on without asking, once again: What we can do to move the West a step closer to that goal?

A Western primary would be only a step, and not necessarily even the most important step in that direction. But it is a test of our capacity to raise our sights above our most parochial horizons, to see the region whole, and to act on the whole region’s behalf.

Parochial or selfish interests abound in this arena, and the fact is that we probably wouldn’t get a Western primary without the motive power of some of those narrower interests.

The most obvious, and the one I hear mentioned most often, is the fact that New Mexico’s Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, a leading proponent of a regional primary, is also a likely presidential candidate whose candidacy could only be helped by a regional primary.

But there’s also a widespread inference that Utah’s Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. is motivated in part by a desire to provide Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (a former Utahan) with as broad as possible a western stage if Romney makes a presidential bid.

There’s nothing wrong with such political motivations playing a role in the creation of a Western primary. It’s not going to happen without politics.

On the other hand, some of the politics work against a regional primary. It’s always possible, for example, to make a political issue of the cost of such an initiative – and cost is a legitimate concern. Some Western Democrats would rather not have Democratic presidential candidates spend too much time in the region, fearing that it will only tar them with unwanted national Democratic colors.

Some Republicans think that their party’s dominance in the region could only be threatened by any new initiative like a regional primary.

These are all legitimate concerns, and all of them will be part of the mix as this discussion unfolds. But the challenge will be for at least some Westerners to raise their sights above narrow or parochial concerns and keep the far horizons of the entire region in focus.