news-record.com

In 2004, Democratic candidate for state superintendent Marshall Stewart pulled 135,348 votes in the primary and didn’t win. Rival June Atkinson received 44,175 votes and did win.

The difference was that Stewart’s total was registered in the first primary, while Atkinson’s came in the second and decisive primary.

Stewart led a field of three candidates in the first primary but didn’t reach 40 percent, the threshold needed to avoid a runoff. Atkinson was second, which earned her a second chance. She made the most of it, reversing the outcome in a runoff where the overall voter turnout was only a fraction of what it had been the first time.

Something similar could happen June 22 in a runoff primary between Democratic U.S. Senate hopefuls Elaine Marshall and Cal Cunningham. Her “victory” in the first primary last month could be undone by low voter participation the next time.

North Carolina’s second primary generally doesn’t work well. Few voters are interested in a do-over. That lets a relative handful determine the final result and costs the taxpayers much more than the process is worth.

Other second primaries this month include Republican contests in the 8th, 12th and 13th congressional districts and the race between C.B. Goins and Phil Wadsworth, Democratic candidates for Guilford County sheriff.

Marshall and Cunningham are engaged in the only statewide runoff. It’s happening because Marshall received only 36 percent of the vote in a six-candidate field May 4, not enough to win outright. Cunningham was a distant second at 27 percent.

Some reformers suggest lowering the 40 percent goal line or simply eliminating runoffs. That could allow a candidate to win with a very low vote total in a crowded field. It would be better to set a margin-of-victory standard — perhaps 10 percentage points. A second-place finisher who was further behind than that should not be entitled to a second chance.

Cunningham would have beaten that yardstick this year, barely, as would have Atkinson in 2004.

State legislators should study the issue and propose remedies. When voter turnout falls below 5 percent, which is typical for a runoff, it’s clear the public doesn’t want it. Yet taxpayers have to bear the expense, which adds up to millions of dollars for a statewide election. There are better ways to spend that money. One way to address that might be to require the political parties to pay for a second primary. Taxpayers can give them one primary but not two.

A runoff is costly, unpopular and likely to produce a skewed outcome. That’s not a recommendation for keeping the current system.