We have never understood the appeal of so-called early voting.
It seems to us that elections often come down to how a candidate handles either a last-minute issue or a loaded question in a closing debate.
Someone who has cast his or her vote a month in advance of election day is doing so without a complete picture.
“Convenience’’ is not a good enough reason for early voting.
Unless one is overseas in the military or away on a business or vacation trip, one who wants to participate in one of America’s most precious rights ought to be able to do so on election day.
It also seems to us that the process introduces more chances for uncertainty and hanky-panky. (Witness the questions in North Carolina about alleged tampering with mailed-in ballots.)
Now comes California, which apparently wants a bigger role in presidential primary politics. It has moved up the date of its 2020 primary to March 3, 2020. And it will allow early voting a full 30 days before that election date.
This has raised some concern in New Hampshire, where the Secretary of State sets the first-in-the-nation primary to be at least one week in advance of any similar election.
Does that mean Secretary Bill Gardner will have to be looking at early February of 2020? Is early voting in California a legitimate concern?
Perhaps. But those votes there will still not be announced until California election day, so it’s hard to see just what kind of effect this will have.
The one thing New Hampshire can count on is that Bill Gardner, who makes the call on when we will vote, is pretty experienced in these things. Stay well, Mr. Gardner.
You are going to be needed.