Uncontested Primary Elections - Needful or Wasteful?

Perhaps you noticed that the primary ballots for Republicans did not have any contested seats. As a result, your choice in voting for "one" was to vote for the name on the ballot or not to vote. Is this really necessary or is it just a waste of time and money for both government and taxpayers?

First of all, current state law requires that an election be held for all offices whether contested or not. For those who like to have a "perfect" voting record meaning that you vote in every election, it is important to complete your ballot and mail it in, or go to the polls on primary election day.

Some feel it is good exposure for the candidate to have their name on the primary election ballot, even if the race is uncontested. As I have visited voters, I tell them, checking my name is good practice for them in preparation for the November general election. There is also a concern for voter confusion. Primary elections are party elections.

It is possible, as in this year, for one party to have a contested election and the other not to. If a neighbor gets a ballot and I don’t does that mean that I was missed? Does it just mean that their political party has a contest election and mine does not? If I vote at the polling place, how do I know if I go to vote on the day of election or not?

This issue is one that is likely to be addressed even in this next session with some proposed legislation. It would seem that there would be some significant cost savings; however, it may not be as great as one would believe on first consideration. There is still cost involved in communicating with voters to ensure they understand if they need to vote at the polls or not, and to make sure they have not been overlooked in receiving their ballot in the mail.