Welcome back to a Saturday version of Nuts & Bolts. In most of the editions of this diary series we focus on campaign structure, campaign tools, and relations. This week, though, we are going to focus on changes coming to the Democratic party itself. This week, in Washington, DC, the Rules & Bylaws committee met to finalize the Unity Reform Commission report into actionable language that can be voted on in the August DNC meeting, scheduled to be held in Chicago.
The focus in most of the media, as well as the online community, has focused on unpledged delegates—sometimes called superdelegates, but the document as a whole made several significant changes to the way the party functions, the ease of access to our members, and the way in which the party will work moving forward.
Over the last year and a half, I’ve attended the meetings of Unity Reform Commission, Rules & Bylaws, and Executive Committee meetings to get a look at what Unity means to the party, and to provide a fair report on how this will impact our future.
So, are you ready to have a look at what is in store for the Democratic party process in 2020? Let’s talk Unity. Need to cut to the chase? There is a video explainer at the bottom!
Caucus & primary structure
While everyone wants to start the discussion with unpledged delegates, I think it is more fitting we start the discussion with the changes to the system. Part of the Unity Reform Commission was to encourage primaries over caucus, same day voter switching, and greater participation by voters in states that have legislatures that refuse to fund primaries.
The push for these changes, even prior to the ratification of the URC, has become a point within the DNC and is already seeing progress. States like Colorado have switched from a caucus to a primary, and most recently, Idaho elected to abandon their caucus in favor of a primary. The Idaho Press:
Idaho Democrats will switch to a presidential primary, rather than a caucus, for the next presidential election in 2020.
The party announced the change during its state party convention Saturday at the College of Idaho in Caldwell.
“We’re looking to move to a system that we have a primary, so that everybody can vote,” said Van Beechler, the party’s first vice chair.
Party Chairman Bert Marley said, “It’s been obvious the last couple presidential elections that the caucus system for us, in most parts of the state, is pretty unwieldy.”
These changes look to give more voters a chance to participate in the presidential selection process, making the results of our selection process easier to track and certify, and encouraging candidates to work for a whole state vote, altering campaign tactics. Party leaders believe that 2020 will feature 50 percent fewer caucus states—or more, and the caucus states that remain due to failure of their state legislatures, a matter beyond party control, will be made more credible by instituting firehouse guidelines, allowing people to “drop a ballot and leave,” absentee vote, vote by paper, or other means that offer early voting options. This makes the party run “caucus” much closer to a party run primary, hoping to grow the number of participants.
The path to leadership & transparency
Unity reforms also focused in part on path to leadership. Path to leadership is the way in which members of the Democratic Party can become leaders within the party, get involved in party structures, and have a say in the way the party operates. Much of this from the Unity proposal is aspirational, however, it encourages states to lower the time frames by which members can run for internal party offices, and works to help them by providing information on what our party offices actually do.
These changes are minor—on paper, very minor, but as a matter of how the party functions, they will help assist more Democratic party members in understanding what their party actually does and how they can participate. It is also a key step in helping get younger people opportunities at the table to represent and take an active role within the party. These changes also impact the broader goals of party transparency, both with DNC members and with the public.
Here we go, unpledged (super) delegates
The most controversial of all the changes will be the change to unpledged—sometimes called super—delegates. These delegates to the convention are automatic delegates that are not pledged to a presidential candidate through the primary or caucus process. Unpledged delegates represent state party chairs and vice chairs, DNC committee members, federal officers, governors, former party chairs, and dignitaries like past US presidents and US vice presidents.
In the 2016 election, concern was raised that these delegates influenced the outcome of primary and caucus votes by seemingly providing one candidate an on paper edge due to early support.
This is a “perception” edge. While there is no evidence introduced during any of the meetings of either the URC or the Rules & Bylaws Committee that would show that unpledged delegates altered the result, members of both the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Bernie Sanders campaign were open and clear that the early announcement of Hillary Clinton’s clinch of the nomination prior to the California primary by calculating in unpledged delegates harmed her overall campaign efforts. Clinton campaign members had made this clear during the URC that the announcement by the AP was “incredibly detrimental” to their overall campaign, while Sanders supporters believed it tilted the primary results.
This is not the first time these conclusions were reached, as reform of unpledged delegates was looked at after 2008. But with sides willing to look at solutions, the goal of maintaining both the history of the party as well as an important role for leadership had to be created.
To do this, in the end, three solutions were brought forward.
The first came from the convention and was sponsored by the Unity Commission with no changes. This solution, the first solution, would “bind” automatic delegates to the result of their state only for chairs, vice chairs and DNC members, while federal elected, DNC dignitaries and others would remain unbound.
This solution ran into several problems that kept it from moving forward within the DNC Rules & Bylaws committee. The first is that there are 75 at-large delegates who tend to largely come from the DC, Virginia, and Maryland areas, giving those states potentially more say—so at first, an option was made to have these members placed on the overall delegate returns post all caucus and primaries.
The second problem revolved around rules within the party that prevent forcing someone from voting against their own conscience. Let’s say George Wallace returns and wins your state. Under this proposal, members would be forced to have a vote registered to their name of “DNC Member XYZ, George Wallace” which would be recorded permanently for all history. There are already charter rules that prevent forcing someone to vote against their own conscience, creating more rules that would have to be changed to implement this method.
Finally, these changes would require a 2/3 majority vote for a charter amendment, and, also noted was that it may, in fact, require more than 1 vote of a 2/3 majority in order to implement. Because changes would have to be made within both the rules and the call of the convention document, impacting different segments, an argument was made by Former Chair Don Fowler in an early meeting that such a proposal would be a “serious undertaking” and “could strand us with absolutely nothing.”
Whether or not Fowler was right on his assertion was not tested by legal counsel, but the potential of running a vote which would require multiple 2/3 votes of approval—or even 1 vote of 2/3 approval, was viewed by the committee as a problem that could not be surmounted.
This proposal was followed by another option, offered by DNC Member Frank Leone, of Virginia. This option called the “Pooled option” would cast votes by state, rather than by person, at the convention. So, let’s say Kansas. Rather than say “Chair votes X, Vice Chair votes X, DNC Commiteeman votes Y” “DNC Committeewoman votes X” the vote instead would be delivered as a pool “Kansas Votes 3/1.” Objections to this system were that it would completely remove the place of DNC members from having their vote registered in any way at all, and that pooling would also violate other rules, again taking us back to earlier objections that this would take multiple votes.
A third option put forward to the group came from the convention. This proposal was a bit simpler, in that it would not require a 2/3 vote, but rather a simple majority as a rule and not a charter change. This proposal would impact ALL unpledged delegates, of all forms, in a way that simplifies the process of selecting a president, by honoring the majority will of the pledged delegates first. That option is that unpledged delegates (Super Delegates) do not vote on the first round ballot.
Tom Perez, speaking in favor of this proposal in an earlier meeting in Washington, DC, spoke about this resolution promoting that our party respects the voter as the “most important” voice in our process by expanding primaries, and implementing this change,
Ken Martin, speaking on this proposal believed it could be the right idea, with two key changes. The first is a guarantee that unpledged delegates votes count in any round upon acclamation. So, if the vote is taken and a clear nominee is chosen, all votes are presented on the roles for history’s sake as supporting our nominee. Yvette Lewis echoed this sentiment, noting that as a matter of history it was important for many persons of color who are DNC members to look back at history and see his or her name “Yvette Lewis—Barack Obama” as an official document from the 2008 convention.
This add-on was quickly adopted. The other addition is a pre-acclamation note. What this says is, should a candidate reach 60 percent of all pledged delegates upon certification of the delegates by the party secretary after all primaries and caucuses are concluded, then the party officially has a nominee, and unpledged delegates are free to vote in the first round as well.
These add-ons to the third option became known as “Third Way Plus.” I would like to note, I repeatedly suggested we stop using the term “Third Way” anything, due to confusion with that political advocacy group, but as the third option presented, it was already too ingrained in the group as the way to speak about the resolution.
This proposal has, unfortunately, been maligned a few times by those who often misunderstand or who do not agree with any changes, period to the system as currently proposed. So, I want to go through a few of the fallacies that have been shared, as well as some of the benefits received as a part of this proposal.
Fallacies
- Some members believe this proposal would strip their right to floor access, delegate access, or remove them from the convention. This is categorically untrue. Unpledged delegates would remain delegates, with full voting rights on the rules, platform, and call of the convention. They would also vote for president on the first round in case of acclamation or in the second round if the convention fails to reach a nominee by the first ballot.
- The proposal is not aimed to demean or belittle members. Some members have made caustic remarks at any changes, saying it demeans their work. Admittedly, asking someone to give up a vote is difficult. In order to put some salve on this, the committee expanded options, allowing unpledged delegates to run as pledged delegates should they desire, a right they did not have prior to this guideline. So, if you really support a candidate in 2020, and you want to vote in the first round, you can run as a pledged delegate by surrendering your unpledged at the convention.
Benefits
- When unpledged delegates were created, as noted by Elaine Kamarck, we lived in a different world. No internet. No real 24 hour news. No constant media. Today, all of these things are true. This is why the most important element to these proposals is the one of perception—how does the public perceive the Democratic Party efforts to reach a nominee. It is simply too difficult to explain unpledged delegates as "not having an impact" while arguing at the same time is imperative we keep them because they might have an impact, she contended. Frank Leone, of Virginia, noted in Washington, DC, in an earlier meeting, "It could be like arguing for the importance of your appendix."
- Federal elected, who are automatic, also voiced concern over these changes. However, there is a huge benefit for federal elected. In the current configuration, federal elected who have endorsed or backed candidates have found themselves targets of primaries, 24-hour online criticism, and more for "being part that rigs a vote"—something I personally find unfair, but am not oblivious to the fact it is, and will continue to be said. In this configuration, federal elected are completely free to advocate vigorously for a candidate, because the case made against them doing so—that they are a vote in the convention—is removed. Their free speech right is maintained, and their ability to advocate is made greater without enduring pot shots from those offended by the system.
- This creates an easier to implement delegate selection plan for our state parties.
Could there be changes?
It is always possible this proposal could fail at the Chicago meeting, though early polling of DNC members indicates that is unlikely right now. Most DNC members believe that we must make a show of faith to the voters of the party by creating changes that are easy to understand and free up our state organizations from talking about these things. Frankly, we as a party organization need to be talking far less about these issues and far more about what matters: winning and helping the underserved Americans that are enduring serious problems at the hands of the Trump administration.
Because of the complexity of Unity proposals, which impact all three documents, traditional amendment proposals would be very difficult to accept. Instead, should someone want to make such a proposal, it would need to be a perfected proposal, submitted in time for a review by the committee to make sure it could actually be implemented and leave delegate selection plans intact. This is not abnormal in making changes that impact multiple documents and is considered fairly normal for those who have done these type of rule changes within unions and other bodies.
The changes created by the Rules & Bylaw committee will trickle across all party documents. What seems like a “simple change” on the floor, could alter any combination of the party Charter or Call of the Convention rules. Because all of these impact the delegate selection plan, if someone were to propose an amendment, it would need to be in a perfected format—the format used to make alterations in the party platform, as an example.
In order to accomplish this, I believe these amendments need to present a full “alternate proposal” a listing not only of a single change but all plan changes that would need to be made throughout all DNC main documents impacted. Because states must begin work on Delegate Selection Plans, passing an amendment that leaves contradictory instructions within these documents will be unacceptable.
Why change, why now?
Asking for change within a party is huge. And there will be strong opposition. I encourage them to reach out and talk to anyone involved in the process. This proposal passed the Rules committee unanimously, 26-0 with 2 abstaining. I have enjoyed a great number of the discussions we have had over these topics, and all provisions within the Unity.
Many are deeply passionate about this issue. I am too, but I am strongly passionate we need to push this issue behind us, and show some change. And that isn’t because of 2016, because that election is OVER. It is because we need a process in 2020 that gives our candidates strong advocates for them via our federal elected and governors and party leaders without the media buzz of how it weights in a convention. In the room in DC were reporters from the Associated Press, AP, and Washington Post, who all noted that this would likely mean a later call for the nominee than was possible currently, and asked if that was “okay.” My response was: I believe that is the greatest benefit.
I plan to vote yes on this proposal and would encourage my fellow members to do so as well. As party leaders, the time has come for us to lead—and we do so by reminding the party as a whole that party leadership isn't about status, it is about servitude. I serve as a DNC member. I do not dictate as a DNC member. I am responsible to all of those who have voted for me when I stood for election and all of those who hope the party does better. I've been to state meetings from South Dakota to Utah, Missouri to Hawai'i. At every one of these meetings, the member of the Democratic party wanted some changes, and most of the changes they wanted revolving around how to change the party for both transparency and to put the voter first.
Failure to recognize that would be detrimental for our party outreach. Maintaining the status quo, in the long term, will harm us. This change isn't about 2016. It is about building the party for 2020. It isn't about Senator Sanders or Hillary Clinton, it is about a state committee meeting anywhere in the country. Ken Martin, chair of ASDC, said it best in Providence: "Keep it simple and there will never be a doubt it is the vote of the people that matter."
There have been some progressive groups who have been unhappy with this, and want all unpledged delegates completely abolished. That solution, while sounding fine, would never reach the 2/3 vote threshold. We also have to respect the history of the party, and part of that is making sure that those who work hard for the party, in many states for no pay, receive something for their efforts and stewardship of the party. It is also possible that federal elected, who are not DNC voting members but would be impacted, will note or even appear to voice their displeasure with any such proposal.
I can understand and relate to these concerns. Any change to the party will result in significant heartburn; we are a country that loves the comfort of the status quo more than change. Times have changed, though, and the truth is, should we fail to make changes it will be the media story that dominates our party for the next two years. I would much prefer to talk about issues regarding Trump than party process—and I hope others feel the same.
No matter what happens in Chicago, for Kansas, I continue to work on behalf of the state, to raise attention, resources, and to put effort into improving our party for the voter. Through Unity, the party is working to allow that voter more impact, at primaries where possible, in better-informed leadership elections, through transparency and a statement of the nomination process.
Have questions? Ask away, I will answer as best as I can, or consult with a Rules or URC member to make sure that your question is heard. If you would like to meet me in Chicago to discuss any element, DNC meetings are open to the public and I will certainly be willing to meet or discuss any issue there.