Primary shift boosts state's status

Being irrelevant in presidential elections is getting old, and most Montana lawmakers have the good sense to know it.

The Montana House this week endorsed on a 74-25 vote a measure that would allow the state's primary elections to be held early next year. Technically, it would allow Secretary of State Brad Johnson to pick a precise date - possibly some time in February - based on primary election dates picked by other Western states.

The idea behind the measure is simple as pie: The current practice of holding a presidential primary election in June has rendered Montana to the remotest of hinterlands in presidential politics.

Candidates don't bother campaigning in Montana, and why should they, when the parties have already picked their candidates well before June?

Some skeptics think that Montana wouldn't be any less irrelevant even if its primary were held sooner. But that depends.

If Montana were aligned with a coalition of Western states holding primary elections on the same day, it would gain considerable influence - kind of like a county in a state election that can't be taken for granted.

Arizona, New Mexico and Utah have already decided to band together for a joint presidential primary election. If Montana piles on with that group and other states like Colorado join in, the Rocky Mountain coalition will be a force to be reckoned with for presidential contenders.

Western issues will become a topic of discussion. When was the last time a presidential candidate discussed federal land management on the campaign trail? We can't recall. But that would likely change with a Rocky Mountain states primary election in February.

Even if candidates did not feel compelled to stump in Montana, the state's voters would have the satisfaction of knowing their votes played a part in a primary election, simply by virtue of timing.

And that's far more preferable to having no influence at all.