Yesterday, in Nuts & Bolts, I wrote about the Democratic National Committee Rules meeting to address proposals surrounding the Unity Reform Commission. Some questions were especially controversial — the questions regarding binding delegates as well as the nature of states with both a caucus and a primary.
While tweeting these events, I offered the opinions of those in the room, with little injection on my part, in hopes that we could have a discussion about what was being proposed, why, and we could have an open debate over policy to enfranchize voters and build the party.
Before we begin, I want to state: my official position is that Presidential Caucus is almost by design, a force which prevents full participation by the disabled, the poor, those who do not have the time or means and is not reflective of our Democratic core. When run by the party, it can be a party led method of disenfranchisement. That said, I base my opinion on my experiences over the years working with others in different states and advocacy groups. My opinion on binding delegates is that on one level it makes a lot of sense — but it may also carry unintended consequences we haven’t planned out yet, and we have to consider those consequences as we move forward.
So, today, I’m going to write a bit about both of these cases, and the arguments I have heard in the room as well as outside of the room by individuals impacted.
Can there be a “bad primary” ?
If there is an issue as contentious as Super Delegates, it is the nature of handling caucus. The big debate began in the last meeting, in Washington DC when David Huynh, Delegate Manager for the Hillary Clinton campaign and member of the Unity Commission, called upon the committee to ask states which held both a caucus and a primary to certify delegates from the primary, not the caucus. This proposal was voted down in the room, and since that meeting, organizations have grown around supporting this position make sure that the promotion of primaries — a duty of the Unity Reform Commission — included this as a variable.
The counter-argument made in the room at the time was that voter suppression methods in red states could make primaries undemocratic and outside of Democratic values. In the December URC meeting, Huynh questioned this, saying raw numbers suggested far more people participated in the primaries in comparison to the caucus, therefore, the caucus was the suppressive force and the primary should be respected.
This debate grew — with leaders on both sides fighting it out, and the formation of websites to lobby the party either way.
Exchanges like these went on all day in my twitter feed; between Unity commission members and advocates. The question was raised in the room regarding “poorly run primaries”. But, what, exactly would constitute a poorly run primary that would result in the party preferring a caucus? I’m going to be honest, in the room I couldn’t think of any off the top of my head. So, I spent yesterday and today talking to those who help protect election resources from entities like the ACLU and others what exactly could make a primary flow against our efforts? They gave two specific examples, so I’m going to highlight them here.
Post-Date Primary
Many states that do not have a primary conduct a caucus because the state is cheap. A proposal in a few states that has never succeeded, mostly red states, is called a “post date” primary. This is to merge a presidential primary with a local primary for state house races, and schedule it VERY late in the Calendar. For example, a caucus state could say: fine, you want a primary? We’ll list your presidential options on the ballot at the same time we do others, on the second week of July.
Why would this be bad: it would instantly disenfranchise basically every voter in the state. While they would have a say in the presidential race, the number who turnout would be irrelevant in almost all cases. Their states represent so few delegates that going so late into the season, and so close to convention would mean that they would be disregarded by candidates and the decision would almost always be made before their state could vote.
Single-County Polling Places
Also pointed out was an option called “single county polling place”. This would be a primary run also on the cheap, where each county was provided a single polling location, a county election office as an example. This would allow states to institute a cheap primary. The problem: it would drastically overpower rural counties and punish communities of color, cities, and larger counties. A county of 5,000 people would suddenly have far more weight than would be appropriate because they would be able to complete voting, whereas a county of 300,000 would find it impossible to get all of their residents to vote.
These cases have never, not once, actually happened — but that doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be possible, or that they have never been discussed. In a case where either of these situations were passed into law in a state legislature, that would be an example, argued voting rights advocates, where an alternate method would certainly be preferable.
Registration management
There is a third reason cited, though I found no voting rights expert who would say this was currently more likely to disenfranchise than a caucus. One of the key components of the Unity Reform Commission was to advocate for easier party switching. An argument those make against primaries in dual format states is that the states can make registering with a party difficult by extending the timeline by which you have to do it, through voter ID systems, and therefore you end up with a much older Democratic turnout sample that disenfranchises the youth and prevents independent involvement in a primary because they cannot switch same day.
Now, voter suppression methods are certainly significant in many of these states — I live in a state where Kris Kobach is Secretary of State, so I understand that — however, the real question here is, would a lower turnout that allows for an easier switch of party affiliation to participate benefit the Democratic party versus a primary?
David Huynh argued that if it is known to a campaign about voter disenfranchisement in a state, campaigns are more likely to work early in the primary to help make sure voters are aware and have the materials they need to participate. Adam Parkhomenko largely agreed with this, and stood behind a website: StrongDNC.com, advocating the committee reconsider Huynh’s proposal.
The question I have always come down to is this: campaigning against voter disenfranchisement propelled by a government is something the party and our candidates can take on, head on. But caucus presents a means by which we know we will disenfranchise voters through difficulty to participate, problems for the poor and disabled especially. Would there be a substantial understanding that the weight is on the side of more dangerous disenfranchisement being done by a state versus by a party?
In discussing with voting rights advocates, including several who offered their testimony to the committee over the year, I clearly understand the case for why a caucus would be preferable in state primary plans that would disenfranchise all voters like a late primary, or a plan to county primary, which would create a sampling problem that couldn’t be rectified.
But is the lack of same day party switching or registration issue significant enough to warrant a respecting the caucus over the primary?
The solution to this, I advocated, was to create a system for waivers; where a state if faced with a dangerous primary — like the top two, or a potential problem we haven’t forseen, could make a request of the DNC in a public meeting and express their concerns over the nature of the primary being held.
This would inform the body of the specific issues in their state, highlight voter disenfranchisement plans by Republicans, and help us better organize resistance.
For states where a primary will never happen due to budgetary reasons, it is imperative we continue to work to make sure more people can participate in a primary. Some of these proposals are provided for in the Unity Proposal — like firehouse caucus, where voters can drop a ballot and leave; absentee/early voting, and ranked choice voting plans that will help people vote from home, rather than have to stand around all day. It isn’t perfect, but it is an improvement for those Republican states without an option. If you have an opinion, express below or send me some feedback.
Binding Delegates
The other issue with a lot of contentious debate surrounds binding delegates. The method by which the Democratic Party will reduce super delegates, under the Unity Reform Commission proposal is to bind their state party chairs and elected DNC members to the proportional outcome of their state. This is by and large OK, however, rules committee members pointed out that there have to be off-ramps to this proposal. These off-ramps are reflected in the points below:
- We cannot compel a voter to vote against their own beliefs. Example: George Wallace wins a southern state. A wild-eyed racist runs in the Democratic primary or caucus and loses, but gets a delate. Can someone abstain?
- A candidate drops out or leaves the race due to scandal — John Edwards was mentioned here — would these delegates still be bound to a scandal-ridden candidate, forced to cast a ballot on the record for a candidate they no longer believed represented the good of the party, despite their performance in state?
- A candidate drops out of the race for any reason, would the unpledged delegate be released?
- A candidate joins the ticket as a Vice Presidential candidate, would the delegates be transferrable?
- Calls for acclamation at a convention?
These questions are significant and will take time to sort out. What is important isn’t that we rush to reach a proposal, but that we make sure that the proposal presented to the body will be something that can be accepted and will receive the votes required to pass.
Binding of delegates also has another add on, that the delegates may not advocate for candidates. Many unpledged delegates became unpledged delegates through their leadership in the party as advocates for campaigns. Donna Brazille also raised the question that it is often the duty of state party chairs or members to sign off or to help collect signatures for candidates, and while that may not be a sign of support, they do not want to have to tell candidates “oh, we can’t do that for you or say anything for fear of being biased.” Crafting a policy of reasonable limits is something we will have to develop together, involving the state and national party.
Have thoughts? Concerns? Questions? Feel free to ask!