This weekend, the Unity Commission met for the fifth time, but for those of us who have attended most of the meetings — I’ve been at 4 of the 5 — the feeling in the room often came across as though this was the first time the group had met. Proposals and amendments came fast and furious, lively debate that was often missing at other meetings, and a run up to create a policy that the DNC could approve in a future meeting was underway.
The committee, tasked with helping to reform the party and provide new guidance for the future took on many issues, notably unpledged delegates, sometimes called “Super Delegates,” but also included within the discussion were deliberative bodies, expansion of transparency, appointment of members, elections within state parties, expansion of funding of state bodies, duties of the national party and the process of caucus and primaries.
Many proposals are needed and significant to help bring in members of the Democratic base who are concerned with making progress and bringing in younger voters. I fear, however, some proposals as they currently stand before RBC may find themselves to be unruly, sometimes unmanageable, and will have to be better fleshed out before the body as a whole is willing to give the stamp of a approval.
With that in mind, let’s talk about #URC (The Unity Commission)
Super delegates — the proposal that stands, and why no one went for zero Super Delegates
The proposal which passed the URC was the same proposal adopted at the Democratic convention, with some legs put underneath it. Super delegates would be reduced by 60%, and this would be done by binding party officers — like state chairs, vice chairs and committeemen and women to the proportional outcome of their state.
At large Super delegates would be bound by another procedure, which seemed to be by the breakdown of the national popular primary vote. This results in significant reduction of overall super delegates.
So, why not zero super delegates? Before some jump up and down that all super delegates are evil, when handled in this way, a rush to zero super delegates results in one thing, quickly: state chairs and vice chairs, along with state members, would feel compelled to be an active part of a campaign in order to make sure they went to the convention (period). While some contend, frequently, that those members should compete in a delegate election “the same as everyone else”, delegate elections in states are to send members who will vote FOR A CANDIDATE. If we want state leadership to be as neutral as possible, stripping them of delegates in all forms basically guarantees that neutrality will be gone, as they would be nearly forced to chose a candidate if they wanted to run for a slot, or they would be a state chair/vc/other officer who would be guaranteed to never be a delegate of the party under any normal condition, and we would be forced to carve out a new role for them.
Republicans, who do not have a measure such as Super Delegates, also have state chairs and party leaders who openly support or campaign for candidates in presidential races — ask Ted Cruz. Democratic members have been very negative on that as an idea of state officers campaigning for candidates, but if we want that, we will need compromise on the a way to reduce super delegates by just making them bound rather than saying they don’t have a delegate slot.
Primaries and Caucus
If you’ve been following twitter, you probably know that Daily Kos writer Armando and others have been very negative on the proposals that lay in wait for primary states. The proposal that passed asks that party officers in states featuring primaries work to allow for same day registration and same day party switching — to be clear, this will likely end up being Independent/unaffiliated to Democratic, not a Republican to Democratic switch — to participate in primaries. The proposal was added with a potential penalty for state party officers who do not work to promote such a policy, up to and including the potential loss of their delegate status to the national convention.
There was some thought this would strip delegates “at large” but from the reading of text review I have, it actually appears focused on party officers. This, however, will be interesting, considering under the PLEO reduction method, their votes are diluted and averaged proportionally by the outcome of the state, meaning how this reduction would actually play out would be very difficult to know, but would be far more likely to result in either all members have their votes fractionally diluted OR result a dispute over what exactly satisfies the clause of actively advocating for such a policy.
If a state party adds this statement to a party platform, or, if a state party advocates this position, is that enough? Members on Twitter wondered if a state like New York — often the target of URC member Nomi Konst, would suffer delegate punishments for failure to fulfill this guideline. That question will have to be better fleshed out through the Rules & Bylaws committee.
In terms of caucus, significant changes were made, including the promotion of Firehouse caucus — a proposal I and others advanced to the URC over the last year and even farther back, allowing individuals to drop a ballot and leave, rather than stay in a caucus for hours. Caucus will also allow for absentee or early voting; meaning people don’t need to show up and stay all day if they are unable, certainly a win for those who argued on behalf of the disabled, elderly, working poor and minority communities. However, unlike primary elements, there were no penalties enacted for states that did not implement these recommendations, and the subject of caucus became contentious late in the day.
When David Huynh proposed an amendment calling on states that have both a primary and a caucus to respect their primary as the authority in regards to placing delegates, the committee came to a very heated moment; resulting in Jane Kleeb and Larry Cohen, along with Jan Bauer arguing that such an amendment would empower Republican states to wipe out caucus if they desire, including the Iowa Caucus. Jane Kleeb, chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, argued that if such a measure was put into place, the Iowa Republican legislature could enact a primary and “end” the Democratic caucus immediately; Larry Cohen argued that voter suppression efforts in states would allow state governments to instill oppressive methods that would make primaries difficult for independents or others to participate in.
There are some fair points here — but, I have to say, in the end, caucus is the one issue on which I have been, from the beginning, most strongly opposed and both of these arguments miss a key point — if the voter suppression effort is the government, state, local, or federal, we as Democratic advocates can announce our opposition and work to oppose. When the voter suppressive effort is one provided by our party in the form of caucus, it is impossible for us to be aggressive in our opposition of ourselves as those who are committing acts of voter suppression.
David Huynh pointed out that more people participate in primaries than caucus, as a matter of sheer numbers, and that if we stand for the expansion of participation, where possible we must back primaries. Unstated in the room was the impact of caucus on a way in which votes are clearly suppressed, especially among the disabled and elderly community. Not lost on me was the fact that Democratic Party national event was held again without supports available if anyone in the audience of the URC was disabled — there was no sign language interpreter, no assist for if someone would have needed easy wheelchair access, no available outlets for those who could have needed those resources.
We forget these things when we talk about the potential for caucus to be inclusive because of same day registration or party switching opportunities. That seems attractive, but the situation as a whole still prevents any easy participation of a great number of Democratic members who are structurally prevented from even participating in the process.
If the state government is the one oppressing votes, we can litigate. If the state party is the organization providing suppression, do we litigate ourselves? This is the question I have struggled with. While some are very concerned about Iowa losing their caucus — Nina Turner pointed out that caucus help bring people together and build excitement — my experience has also been that caucus brings out social anxiety, concerns, fear of being bullied, and economic hardships on those who cannot easily participate.
The inclusion of early and advanced voting in caucus significantly changes that; it will allow people to vote from home or drop a ballot and attend; but even in those situations, a caucus — because it is a privately held event, by a private organization — will never match the requirements that the government does with regards to ADA and Access for all. The Democratic Party should be prepared to acknowledge that sometimes, the government is the best proper method to handle things; and in the case of elections, that seems to be true.
Huynh’s amendment failed on a tie break by the Chair, but it is one area in which the vote was divided not on Hillary V Bernie, but often by small versus large states. Beyond that, though, it was often divided based on resistance to change and a commitment to tradition.
Ombudsmen panel & investigatory powers
Some have wondered about the role of the Rules and Bylaws committee. In some ways, the Rules & Bylaws committee must work to take these proposals and structure them into language that is actionable and could be voted upon by the members. Some statements provided are inspirational, and some have specific proposals.
Some specific proposals will need significant tweaking. A proposal put forward and passed with only one abstain on Saturday was the creation of an ombudsmen committee, elected by the members, which would be tasked with semi-investigative powers in regards to DNC members and potential conflicts with the national party. Nomi Konst highlighted this as a way to make sure that predatory consultants and lobbyists were not self-dealing in contracts with the party.
The mechanism, however, will need some significant fleshing out. As it stands in my notes and print outs, large amount of details are left out. Those details, which include the size of the body — currently linked at 7 with 4 being the district caucus chairs — and how they are to be elected, the grounds by which they could take up a claim, and their powers to research and act, will all need to be clarified by the Rules & Bylaws Committee.
If the group is tasked with a broad writ that provides them a free hand as to how to handle these powers, there is potential, in the wrong hands, of it turning into an ongoing witch hunt against members who may face claims by other angry members over any issue — and without proposals to make sure materials processed are done in a way that protects the privacy of those making the claims, it could also turn into a continuous stream of intra-party infighting gossip.
The Rules & Bylaws Committee will have to look at how to make this process both accountable to Democratic party members as a whole, but also not one that becomes a political axe which would be wielded against perceived enemies.
I mentioned this to members of the URC, highlighting that several of them, on both sides of the issues certainly have enemies within their own party of a sort. Jeff Weaver, who is not a standing member, acknowledged this, saying “I’m sure there will be fights again” in a statement on camera. But the fights again could be political malice if not handled correctly. Hon. Marcia Fudge seemed to recognize this, saying “We have to think about this,”.
In my time writing for Daily Kos, members all over the country send me story ideas; and often they include concerns of claimed corruption. During the URC meeting, we were interrupted multiple times by claims that some members on the committee — on both sides — were corrupt.
Would those Democratic registered members, or in one case, the chair of the California State Progressive Caucus — have standing to launch an investigation in the DNC of DNC members? As it stands, those issues will need to be defined.
We need better knowledge of the party inner workings
The most troubling element of the weekend was that many members on the panel, on both sides, had issues with party history. Elaine Kamarck, one of the most knowledgeable members regarding party history available, and Rep. Marcia Fudge, often found themselves exasperated by dealing with issues raised when it appeared as though members were not aware of the party structure as it stands right now.
This is not a matter of sides, it is not a matter of Bernie/Hillary, it is the fact that a lot of the history of the party is either being forgotten or we get so caught up in the moment that we forget things currently in process.
The Committee proposed items at many points that are either already happening within the party, or have been happening for years. In some cases, members were not aware of the means by which election processes are handled.
It will be easy for some to demand this is true of all Bernie Sanders appointees or all Hillary appointees; but some of these errors occurred on both sides and were baffling to some of us in the audience who were unsure of how the information came across wrong.
I felt especially bad for Jaime Harrison, a member of the DNC and former chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party. Harrison was one of the members who helped launch the Democratic Care Agenda, something we’ve profiled here on Daily Kos. The reason I mention this is because more than once we had a call for the creation of a new outreach effort.. which would be EXACTLY what the Democratic Care Agenda is already doing. At another point, a call for a voter action hotline for suppression — a service the party has offered for a significant amount of time already.
But the errors weren’t just on the proposal side, but also on the debate side, where we lost track of the difference between elections and ratification, a distinction that according to others was made clear in 1993, but we can easily document was in place since 2005.
What happens next?
The URC will prepare and submit their document to the Rules and Bylaws committee, which will have six months to mark up, review, and approve segments. The measure will then be voted upon at the following DNC meeting.
While the Rules & Bylaws Committee could technically finish by the March Meeting of the DNC, I find the likelihood of that very low. They are specifically provided six months, and I expect they take the time provided. This means that the proposals will come before the DNC body in the Fall (or late summer) of 2018.
While there are concerns of the Rules & Bylaws Committee “watering down” or “sabotaging” the agreement, most of the work by the Rules & Bylaws Committee will be in creating a framework for these proposals to actually work. Because the document contains many aspirational proposals, as well as segments which need structure, the Rules & Bylaws will have a lot of questions they will need to answer. The creation of new bodies and guidelines for the election of them will mean that they will have to create procedures, voting mechanisms, and charter changes that are not addressed by the Unity Reform Commission. They will also need to set boundaries and, yes, some limits on the way in which new structures can work.
There are a lot of other elements, including proposals regarding state level endorsement practices and the handling of candidate recruitment which are not fully developed by the Unity Reform Commission that will have to be dealt with before the body is prepared to vote.
While there are some who will say we must pass the document whole in order to be true to the “progressive movement” and some who will contend we should “reject it all”, I would counter that what we have now is a framework to try and develop something workable and it offers the opportunity to get progress on several issues, for me, specifically, the changes in the caucus procedure for states that do not have state funded primaries, are significant and should be welcomed.
I will not speak as to whether I will vote for the Unity Commission Proposal, as I will wait until I can see the final outcome of the Rules & Bylaws Committee, but I am certainly open to discuss the pros & cons.
Thanks,