Weekend open thread: Iowa Democratic Party caucus reform edition (updated)

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread.

Summer is passing quickly, with the National Balloon Classic wrapping up last night and the Iowa State Fair set to open on Thursday. The extended forecast is showing excellent weather for the first few days of the fair. Hope that holds.

After a few months of deliberations, the Iowa Democratic Party rolled out a set of proposals to make the Iowa caucuses more inclusive. On Friday, State Party Chair Scott Brennan presented five ideas to the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee. I’ve posted the full announcement below, explaining the proposals as well as why Iowa Democratic leaders rejected other ideas (notably absentee ballots).

Having long been concerned by how many active Iowa Democrats are excluded from caucuses through no fault of their own, I was encouraged to see these proposals. They would allow many more politically engaged Democrats to participate in the presidential nominating process. Unfortunately from my perspective, the Iowa Democratic Party is not looking to change other key aspects of the caucus system, notably the 15 percent threshold for viability, which can distort caucus-goer preferences during the realignment process (see also here). I understand why the party doesn’t want to move toward a “one person, one vote” system, for fear of making the caucuses too much like a primary (jeopardizing our first in the nation status). Still, I don’t see why caucus-goers’ initial preferences, before realignment, couldn’t be recorded and announced in addition to county delegate totals. The state of New Hampshire hasn’t objected to the Republican Party of Iowa’s practice of announcing raw vote totals for each presidential candidate.

UPDATE: Added below the Iowa GOP’s comment on the proposals.

I strongly disagree with John Deeth’s assertion that “very, very few people who REALLY wanted to caucus” in 2008 were excluded. In my precinct alone, I talked to lots of engaged Democrats who were unable to attend because of physical limitations, work schedules, or the need to take care of family members. Later in the winter, I came across many more people who had followed the campaign closely but were unable to get the night off from work.

Iowa Democratic Party Announces Proposals to Expand Caucus Participation

Posted by Christina | August 1, 2014

WASHINGTON – Iowa Democratic Party Chair Scott Brennan announced today the new proposals to expand participation in the Iowa Democratic Precinct Caucuses.  The proposals represent the latest step in a process begun earlier this year to examine the caucus process and determine what steps can be taken to give more people access to Iowa’s First in the Nation Presidential Caucus.

“The Iowa Caucuses are democracy in its purest form, and the ideas outlined will help make this great process even better,” said IDP Chair Brennan.  “We have engaged in an open and honest discussion with a wide cross-section of our grassroots and our Democratic leaders and activists, and these recommendations come directly from what we heard in more than 150 conversations.  I am proud to say that these proposals will create new opportunities for Iowans to participate, while ensuring the Iowa Caucuses will continue to be a neighborhood gathering where friends, neighbors and loved ones come together to have an open and honest discussion about the direction of our country.”

Below are the recommendations of the Iowa Democratic Party to expand participation in the Iowa Caucuses:

1.  Time-Off to Caucus Legislation – The Iowa Democratic Party will work with the legislature and Governor to pass legislation that will require employers to let non-essential workers take time off to attend their precinct caucus.  This step gives working men and women greater flexibility to participate.

2.  Caucus Accessibility Director – The Iowa Democratic Party will hire a Caucus Accessibility Director who will work directly with counties across the state to ensure that each caucus site is as accessible as possible, and to help implement the proposals outlined here.

3.  Supervised Activities for Children – Many county parties already provide some form of activity for children during the caucuses, allowing parents with children to participate. The Iowa Democratic Party will work with our county parties to expand these opportunities at caucus sites so that Iowans with limited access to childcare can participate.

4.  Satellite Caucuses – For those Iowa Democrats that cannot participate due to limitations of mobility, distance, or time, the Iowa Democratic Party will look to implement a satellite caucus system.  This option would be available to a group of Democrats who demonstrate a need to add an additional caucus site.  Those interested would have to meet certain yet-to-be-determined criteria, and petition the Iowa Democratic Party’s State Central Committee, which would have final approval.

5.  Military Tele-Caucus – The Iowa Democratic Party will create a statewide precinct for Iowans serving in the military and conduct a tele-caucus with those who participate.  This tele-caucus would be no different than a normal caucus.  Participants would still break into preference groups and allow for realignment.

These proposals were presented today during the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, which is currently looking at rules guiding the 2016 presidential selection process.

The IDP plans to build upon this framework to create concrete proposals that will be included in the IDP’s Delegate Selection Plan that will be presented to the DNC next year.

Below are Chairman Brennan’s Remarks as Prepared for Delivery:

Good Morning.

Thank you Chairs Miller and Roosevelt for giving me the opportunity to address this committee regarding the extensive work we have been doing in Iowa to propose expanding participation in the Iowa caucuses.  And, I would like to thank the members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee for their patience and support as we have embarked on this effort.

As many of you know, Iowans look at our caucuses as sacred events.  It doesn’t matter what your political persuasion, Iowans have always treated our caucuses with respect and there is nothing that we take more serious politically than our role in the presidential selection process.

That is why embarking on this work to examine ways we can expand participation in the caucuses was not a decision that we made lightly.  But, we recognize that the very nature of caucuses may prevent some Iowans from participating, and if there is a way that we remove some of these barriers and uphold our party’s long, proud tradition of expanding the franchise, then we should do it.

And so, since our last meeting, we have been hard at work.

We have had more than 150 conversations with individuals and groups of Iowans statewide.  We have talked with activists, former precinct chairs, county chairs, and just regular caucus goers.  We met with campaign operatives from previous presidential campaigns – both in state and throughout the country.  We talked with working men and women.  We have talked with young Iowans, and retired Iowans.  We have talked with representatives of many outside organizations.  We talked to journalists.

We have also talked with members of this esteemed committee – including Artie Blanco of Nevada who traveled to Iowa for some of these conversations.  We even talked to Republicans.  All to ensure that we got the largest cross-section of views on ways we can expand participation.

And, while we heard a lot of different ideas, I can tell you that there is one thing we heard from everyone – The Iowa Caucuses work, and work well.

In 2008, nearly 240,000 Iowans participated in the Democratic Precinct Caucuses. This is more people than who typically participate in a highly contested Democratic primary – 100,000 people more.  2008 demonstrated just how strong our caucuses are.  Even with such a high number of people participating, our plans to train and educate Iowans on our process, as well as the infrastructure we built, was able to quickly and efficiently determine the results without challenge.

But what’s more, our caucuses are really the root of Democratic strength in Iowa.  Every four years, Iowans gather in schools, churches, courthouses, and even peoples homes to come and discuss the future of our country.  Our great senator Tom Harkin has said that if it wasn’t for the organizing of the Iowa Caucuses, he never would have been elected to the US Senate.  Democrats and Republicans for decades have pointed to the organization that happens as a result of the caucuses for their success.  The caucuses have made our party into what it is today, and there is no doubt that the strength of Democrats in Iowa is a direct result of the work that happens through the Iowa Caucuses.

Iowans did not want us to take any steps that would change what our caucuses are at their core – neighborhood gatherings of concerned and interested Iowans who want a say in the future of our country.

Hearing that, we engaged in an open and honest dialogue.  People recognized that there may be some steps we can take to bring new people into the process.  And throughout the hundreds of hours of conversation, we discussed many ideas, such as:

Iowans were intrigued by expanded use of technology – would a Skype or Facetime-type system work?  After talking through the pros and cons – we determined that doing something like this just simply wouldn’t work.  One, we could not ensure adequate security for caucusgoers – was the person on the screen truly who they said they were; and two, while Iowa has made tremendous strides, the lack of strong broadband access in rural Iowa simply prohibits us from exploring such a system.  It is our hope that as broadband continues to reach new parts of the state that we may be able to look at this again in the future.

We were very intrigued by the ideas of proxies, and spent considerable time exploring this idea.  We liked the idea that this would be a simple way to expand participation by allowing someone who was going to attend to carry a proxy for someone who couldn’t.  But, as we discussed it further, we quickly saw flaws in this idea.  1) Proxies create super caucus goers – one persons vote would be worth more than another persons vote.  We felt that this idea took away from the very democratic nature of our caucuses.  2) We could not ensure the security surrounding these issues.  We determined that challenges would exist around proving that the proxy a person carried was gathered legitimately.  We also feared that some folks may choose to give their proxy to one person, but then participate in the Republican caucuses.  We felt that the risks surrounding proxies greatly outweighed the benefits, and passed on this idea.

We also explored the idea of having multiple caucuses throughout the day.  We liked the idea of giving folks a few different options to participate.  But again, we could not ensure that people did not choose to participate in our caucus, but then try to participate in the Republican caucuses later in the day.  The reward did not outweigh the risk.

Finally, we looked at the idea of absentee ballots.  While this would be an easy way to record someone’s preference on caucus night, we discovered some significant flaws.  1) the logistical challenges of using these ballots would be difficult in the room on caucus night.  2) these ballots take someone away from participating in the room, and erodes the sense of community that makes our caucuses so special.  As a result, we ultimately decided not to go forward with this idea.

So, while we rejected some ideas, we did discover some unique ideas that together represent a framework for greater participation in the caucus process.  We intend to:

1. Work with the state legislature and the Governor to pass legislation that will require employers to let non-essential workers take time off to attend their precinct caucus.  This will give shift workers and others greater flexibility to attend and make their voices heard.

2. Hire a caucus accessibility director.  The Iowa Caucus is not just one event, but in fact nearly 1700 events statewide, each one of which is planned by the county party – with of course guidance and support from the state party.  The Caucus Accessibility Director will work directly with the counties to ensure that each of their sites are as accessible as possible, including ADA compliant or located in a location that is easy for the public to attend.  In addition, this position will help implement the following ideas.

3. We know that child care issues can be a hindrance to participation for some.  That is why we will work with our county parties to expand supervised activities for children at caucus sites.  Many of our counties already do this.  This is a best practice that we would like to see throughout the state.  We know that this can be a logistical challenge, and that is why our Caucus Accessibility Director will work with the counties to develop these programs.

4. We want to explore the possibility of creating satellite caucus sites throughout the state.

For those Iowa Democrats that cannot participate due to either limitations of mobility, distance, or time, we would like to try and bring the caucuses to them.  These sites would be regulated by the state party.

Democrats who are interested in having a satellite caucus site would petition the State Central Committee, and have to meet certain requirements, such as:  1)would this site be open and accessible, 2) does the site manager approve, 3) is there a high density of potential democratic caucus goers, etc.

To give you an example, if a large number of Democrats at a factory in Waterloo would be interested in having a caucus at their facility, they would petition the Iowa Democratic Party, and if they meet some yet to be determined criteria, the party could then approve a site at that location.

We believe that this step would eliminate some of the barriers to participation for some, and allow shift workers, those in care facilities, and others a chance to participate.

5. Finally, there is another group that we believe should have the chance to participate- our men and women in uniform.  Because those who fight for our country should have their voices heard in our process.

We debated many ideas.  We looked at preference cards.  We looked at using technology to bring them into the caucus sites themselves.  But in the end, we decided that the way to expand participation to this group is in fact one of the simplest – we will hold a statewide Telecaucus.

This telecaucus would be open only to those who are in the military.  Our current thoughts are that this would be one statewide precinct for military personnel.  This telecaucus would be no different than a normal caucus.  We would have speeches from representatives of different campaigns, people would be able to form preference groups, and if a group is unviable, would be able to realign.

We have a lot of details to figure out on this proposal, but would work to make sure that proper security procedures are put in place to protect the integrity of the process, such as a pre-registration and pre-screening process.

The one caveat to this is that our plan would have to work within any parameters set by the Department of Defense, and subject to their approval.  Those are conversations that we will begin immediately.

These five ideas are what we believe will help us achieve our goal of expanded participation while preserving the very things that make our caucus process so unique to Iowa.

Now, I want to be clear, these steps will not ensure that everyone can participate. But, it does move us closer towards the goal of expanding participation.

Going forward, our plan is to continue to expand upon these ideas and turn them into concrete proposals.  You will see these proposals in our Delegate Selection Plan early next year.

In closing, I want to say this.

For anyone who has questions about the Iowa Caucuses –  come to Iowa and see the caucuses for yourself.  The Iowa Caucuses have never held themselves out to be a primary.  No, they are a gathering of friends and neighbors, loved ones, the man you see in the grocery store or the woman you see at the bank.  These meetings are one of the few places in this country where it doesn’t matter who you are or what your background is, you can come and have an open and honest discussion about the direction of our country and who you think is the best person to lead for the next four years.  The Iowa Caucuses are democracy in its purest form, and these ideas I outlined today will help make this great process even better.

Thank you again for giving me this opportunity today.

Iowa GOP comment:

DES MOINES-Republican Party of Iowa chairman Jeff Kaufmann released the following statement today in response to the Iowa Democratic Party proposals to the Democratic National Committee today on changes to the Iowa caucuses.

“I recently had a productive phone conversation with Iowa Democratic Party chairman Scott Brennan,” Kaufmann said. “We agreed that there will be strong, bipartisan cooperation to do anything it takes to protect Iowa’s first in the nation caucuses.”

“Chairman Brennan and I have agreed to sit down as soon as possible this month to have in-depth, face-to-face conversations about the Democrats’ proposals and Republican ideas to strengthen the caucuses. In the spirit of good faith negotiations, I will withhold any specific comments on the Iowa Democrats’ proposals on the caucuses,” Kaufmann said.

About the Author(s)

desmoinesdem

  • Grassley Hypothetical

    Fun Hypothetical Question:  If Chuck Grassley were to face a primary challenge in 2016, who would be most likely to challenge him?  Ed Failor?  Bill Salier?  Merlin Bartz?, David Hartsuch? Kim Pearson would be an interesting opponent.

    The argument could be made that Grassley is to the left of Pat Roberts and to the left of Thad Cochran on several issues.  If those two faced primaries, then surely someone may think about challenging Grassley.  I think Grassley is more attentive than Roberts, but it is still a fun hypothetical question.  

    Who would do best against Grassley in a primary? It would have to be someone with the guts to challenge him, not someone within the mainstream of the Iowa GOP.

     

    • if he didn't get a primary challenger in 2010

      when a bunch of wingnuts were mad at him, he’s not getting one in 2016. I can’t think of anyone who might challenge him.  

    • Grassley ain't Roberts

      The problem for Roberts and Cochran, and Lugar before them, is they lost touch with Back Home. The Full Grassley is the very definition of keeping in touch.

      If anyone challenges Grassley it’ll be someone like the Some Dude who challenged Branstad whose name I’ve already forgotten, and with a similar result.

  • Lake Erie drinking water crisis

    Gimminy, an awful lot of people depend on The Great Lakes for their everyday source of water and if every television station serving every one of those markets would make a big deal out of the green horrid looking, toxic water coming out of Mrs Ohio Housewife’s kitchen faucet (especially if young tot curly haired daughter of Mrs Ohio Housewife is the one in the video who is filling her glass with that green water), we may yet be able to get some meaningful water protection legislation.

    I trust everyone reading this is up to speed on the news from Toledo, Ohio.

  • Raw number

    Attended a caucus listening session and my mention that “the national press wants raw, walk in the door numbers” was quite clearly a non-starter. I assume there’s been some word that a raw number **connected to a delegate result** is unacceptable to New Hampshire.

    The Republican raw number, as Ron Paul knew ahead of time and as we all learned later, is meaningless to the delegate numbers.  

    • but it doesn't have to be connected to a delegate result

      I think it would be valuable to know how many Iowa Democrats selected each presidential candidate as the first choice, even if delegates continues to be awarded through the current system (with supporters of non-viable candidates realigning).

      • Cold shoulder to idea

        I brought it up and it got shot down out of hand immediately. Which tells me that the trial balloon was floated and Bill Gardner thinks it’s an election.

  • What if ...

    bill Stowe gave everyone at DMWW the week off and they just pass thru straight to your tap some of that good ol’ Raccoon River water in its “purest” form.  How long til Farm Bureau is on the run?

  • Mandatory time off

    Hopefully that’ll address some of the concerns. But it’s also clear that any sort of proxy or absentee is a non-starter. It was warmly greeted at my meeting but must have been shot down elsewhere (in other Iowa sessions, or in Concord?) for the same reason I was shooting down different nights: what keeps a Democratic proxy voter from attending a Republican caucus?

    We’ve been round this many times for many years. Your preference is for a primary with wide open early voting and a duly noted 0.5% for Chris Dodd. My assertion is that the price for that is never ever seeing a candidate again. And my prediction is, with President Clinton 45, that’s exactly what we get.

    • the Iowa House Rs

      will never pass a mandatory time off bill. “Bad for business”

      • You're probably right

        And maybe the point of including that is so Iowa Democrats can go to the DNC and say “we tried and the Republicans blocked it.” That’s been an effective excuse before (see: Florida’s calendar-violating primary, 2008).

        But. The parties fates are tied together. If the Republican’s other agendas came into play, and if keeping First In The Nation for themselves meant throwing Democrats a bone on a relatively non-substantive (as opposed to, say, a minimum wage hike) issue, it might be in play.

        My sense though, is that the military issue is the bigger one for DNC Rules and Bylaws, so mandatory time off is not likely to be the make or break issue.

  • another thought

    Depends on how you define “caucus participation” : the night of, or the year before? If we had a mid to late season primary we might have more day/night of participation, but we would lose virtually ALL of that year before participation in exchange for one or two rallies at the Des Moines airport. (Which, with Hillary Clinton, is what we’ll get.)

    • Deeth, fer gods sake. . .

      OK, so they’re fun – if one is a hobbyist about political process.

      I might even allow that they’re fun as a one-time something-to-do for the less-than-political-hobbyist – so long as the night wasn’t snowy or had 12ft deep piles of shoveled snow defining the parking lots or was on its way down to 10-20 below zero, etc.

      But the bottom line is that other than losing a hobby event and perhaps some folk perceiving some sort of a jingoistic insult at losing a “status”, a primary in June ain’t all bad.

  • Iowa/Florida

    People that work for the losing candidates in Iowa feel like their work isn’t even recognizedc in many cases under the IDP system.

    I understand John’s point, but I think we may need to lose that first in the nation status anyway.  People all around the country still look at Iowa as a backwards state, largely within the Democratic Party.  I never have understood why Florida doesn’t make a stronger case for first in the nation status, particularly if you are looking for a more diverse electorate.

    People complain about the price of the media market and the lack of one one campaigning in Florida, but that really comes down to a candidate’s strategy.  A lot of people in the Presidential get in the race just to advance an agenda.  Why wouldn’t to go all over the state of Florida in order to talk about climate change or vouchers for example?

    • Going all over Florida

      would make no difference. Because you can’t make a dent in Florida without buying a dozen large media markets. It’s a sure way to take the grass roots out and make nothing but money matter.

      • Progressives

        You’re right, but as states become more diverse they are going to request more political cloat.  Iowa is not going to be one of those states.  Which  small state is the most diverse in the nation?  Nevada maybe, but it is growing quite a bit.  

        People think Iowa is a backwards state.  Frankly, I was pleasantly surprised that the progressive community to Southeast Iowa’s defense over Stephen Bloom article in The Atlantic.  

        If progressives would stop poking fun at many rural states, maybe it would help Iowa make a better case for first in the nation status.  To constantly poke fun at rural America and then fretting about the caucus makes no sense to me John.  

        • Typos

          came to Southeast Iowa’s defense, over the Stephen article  My rant kind of makes Bloom’s point for him ehh?  

Comments