Rules Committee at the 2016 DNC ran long.. very long. With members encouraged to arrive at 10:30 for meetings with their chosen campaign and being dismissed at 9:35, and understatement would be that this represented a long day’s work. To those watching on the internet, the procedure at times looked unruly and contentious. Inside, however, good faith negotiations and for the most part fairly good will and a willingness to listen dominated.
I was glad to serve as the representative of Kansas on the rules committee this year, and reading much of what has written about what happened inside the room (by people who don’t seem to have been there), it seems time to go through what happened at the 2016 DNC rules — and what was accomplished through partnership.
First, let us begin at the very beginning. The rules committee began with the consideration of convention and meeting rules, which were both adopted quickly, as well as chairs for the convention — another vote which was held with no dissent. While those outside of the room complained that no roll vote was taken, not a single Bernie rules person voted against either of these proposals, there were no “nay” votes, and the Sanders campaign seemed to flash the green card (a signal to Sanders committee members support) and as a result, these provisions sailed.
Due to a printing problem, the meeting then broke for a short bit while printouts of proposals could be prepared for committee members. During this break, we were allowed to take bathroom breaks, go get water, etc. This is the first time we exited the room to see the large number of people outside preparing to protest.
I will address this again later, but let me note something out loud: the room we were in was filled early by committee members, and an audience that was, for the most part, overwhelmingly in support of the Sanders position. The audience, while respectful for the most part, came into play later, and the room, stacked with people lining the walls on both ends and filling seats reserved for the press as well, kept members on their toes.
Those outside began to tweet and share that the people inside were all Hillary campaign holders. Having walked the room repeatedly, I can tell you that is absolutely false.
Many in the audience, like Emily above, took time to talk to other Bernie rules committee members and voice their thoughts. Out of all the audience members inside the room, a mere handful were Hillary supporters, whereas chairs and laptops and the walls were lined with those there to support Senator Sanders team.
The room, as security noted to us, was simply at capacity. There was no way to put more people in the room. Others had asked about moving the meeting to a larger room; however, in order to protect the vote, we used electronic clickers and vote registration mechanism, which had been setup in this room some time before, and per members of the Sr. Committee, moving that setup and configuration was simply not something that could be made possible. This is important because the desire of recorded votes would matter.
Let’s Talk Super Delegates
High on the mind of Bernie Sanders rules committee members was the elimination or alteration of Super Delegates. The first proposal, offered by Aaron Regunberg, a state house representative in Rhode Island, offered to strip all super delegates entirely, and would remove section 4, sub h, of the Democratic charter.
This motion had a great number of backing supporters from numerous states who voiced their support. It also had 50 co-sponsors, enough to generate a minority report at the onset.
It would be the first of 7 proposals by my count that were offered. The vote on this proposal was lopsided, with more than 100 opposed, 51 in favor.
I would like to note, for clarity sake, while a Bernie rules committee member, I did not vote in favor of this proposal. The problem I have with stripping, entirely, super credentials is I found it the most crude way to accomplish the goal. if the goal is to make sure that the candidate is selected by the will of the Democratic voters entirely, there seems to be a better way to conduct this — with the exact same end result — then removing state party chairs and dignitaries from having credentials at a convention, and I will get to that solution later.
After a series of other proposals, which reflected different ideas of how to handle this matter, which included removing former democratic chairs and fractionalizing super delegates, all went down by similar margins.
I offered my proposal, which I felt the best compromise that could be offered: all super delegates would remain. They would be credentialed for every convention. They simply wouldn’t have a first round vote on president/vice president. This would allow party officials full participation on all matters of party business, and would limit only in one way, one round. More importantly, it would, in my mind, create complete democratic response to the presidential selection. While this proposal achieved more votes than others (61), it still fell far short.
After a break, the Clinton and Sanders campaigns met at length in order to reach an agreement. Over the past few weeks, negotiations had been ongoing, and it would appear that those negotiations would succeed, though it left Rules committee members sitting in the hall for hours while we found that solution.
After several hours, a “Unity” proposal was reached. Near 7PM, the Sanders campaign called an immediate meeting. Jeff Weaver briefed the Bernie rules members and gave vocal, strong support of the proposal being suggested. A binding commission would be created. The results, contended Weaver, would result in a serious reduction of super delegates, down from 744 to ~250. It would also result in binding super delegates to the returns of their state.
I listened to this proposal and thought: damn, the Sanders campaign pulled off a much bigger “win” then I had thought. While this proposal was considered several days ago, it went much farther — much, much farther — than my own rules proposal. While the proposal I had offered would result in no members being unseated, this would effectively remove about 2/3 of the members who hold super delegates.
The proposal, we were assured, had wide support on all sides and should pass by near acclamation. “This is a win. This is a huge win for us.” contended Weaver, who also noted the proposal would handle IRV caucus, measured caucus counting, and other election reforms sought.
The bundled amendment was the result of ongoing negotiations and succeeded to pull the room together.
There were some who were not entirely happy with the proposal, despite agreeing to vote yes. Aaron Regunberg pointed out that he believed it would be important to still take the minority report to the floor to force a floor vote on overruling all super delegates. Weaver noted that he would not “bigfoot” that kind of action by putting a stop to it — but some members (like myself) in the room noted that this proposal, which failed in the rules committee by large margins, would now need huge success on the floor which seemed unlikely. More importantly, with an agreement in place, some wondered whether or not this was taking something the campaign had managed to “win” and turning it into a potential floor loss. Those on the side of the proposal, however, advocated that contesting it on the floor would only strengthen their position by showing broad desire for this kind of change.
As I did not sign onto that procedure, I did not attend that meeting, and we will find out later whether or not this goes to the floor for a vote or not.
Other Rules considered
The rules committee then quickly returned to the work at hand, and rules were quickly addressed and unity returned. Proposals offered were quickly adopted, including three technical LGBTQIA amendments, an inclusion amendment, union support, and several technical cleanups and corrections.
As a result, the rules committee managed to expand access to the Democratic party and clarify positions of statement in support of allies.
As the meeting wound to a close, the Sanders campaign and Clinton campaign dignitaries spoke to the work put in by the members, who took the day to discuss, debate, and consider proposals from all parties and work to advance the goals of the party.
Speaking to Sheila Jackson Lee during the process, I was informed that many of the motions made on behalf of many caused real consideration among those in the room… and even when proposals were not successful, the discussion helped shape and move the discussion that resulted not just in the Unity compromise, but also in the outlook of the campaigns as to which points to include in that discussion, which helped broaden the proposal.
Rep. Lee as well as others who had opposed initial Super Delegate changes, took time to discuss with several who had proposed the changes and work across the room to discuss their opinions with clarity, reason, and civility. While there could be disagreement, there was a willingness to work for a common solution in the room.
In the back of the room, where Bernie advocates and supporters sat late into the session, several rules members took time to talk to those in the room to explain as we walked through every proposal. I feel that not only did this keep the room from turning contentious, it also helped keep people in the room informed and feeling involved in the process.
Finally:
I would like to commend all who gave up a Saturday to accomplish the goals of the party. For Sanders supporters, this marked accomplishments on many fronts. Despite internet chatter, not a single member of the Sanders rules committee was “ejected” or “removed” from the room, at the end of the day we retained to my knowledge all members of the Sanders rules side, and Hillary committee members were similarly faithful in their commitment to stay.
For those who worked to tweak and edit the bylaws to make them more democratic and responsible to the people, Saturday 7/23 marked success for all involved, not just one side.
Later today, I will be reviewing this with the Kansas delegation as they prepare to vote on the floor for adoption. I’m glad to say that with the rules as presented, I believe members of both side can find the unity we found in that room and voice their full throated support.