Democrats' 2024 Calendar Shake Up Hinges on Midterms

Of all of the things that are top of mind for those following the 2022 midterm elections set to conclude on Tuesday, November 8 -- much less those who have and will vote -- the 2024 presidential primary calendar is likely not one of them. Sure, the 2024 invisible primary has been going on since at least November 2020, but that does not mean that anyone earnestly wants to dig into the next election before the current one is even over. 

However, like a great many things, the 2024 presidential primary calendar will be affected by the outcomes of the midterm elections taking place across the United States. In a typical cycle, that would mean that gubernatorial and state legislative elections may impact where any given state may end up on subsequent presidential primary calendars. But this is not a typical cycle. In a typical cycle, FHQ would wait for the dust to settle on those state legislative elections, see where the out-party gained control and begin assessing where primary date changes are more likely. 

But again, unlike, say, the 2010 or 2014 or 2018 midterms, 2022 is not typical with respect to the formation and completion of the next presidential primary calendar. Yes, this midterm will impact state legislative control, and in turn, affect which states may or may not move as new sessions begin in 2023. But there is an added wrinkle in 2022 that has not been there in past cycles during the post-reform era. Unlike the half century of presidential nomination cycles before it, the 2024 cycle will push through the midterms without both major parties having completed their guidance for states to finalize their delegate selection processes. 

And the place where that guidance is lacking at the moment is on the Democratic side. The Republican National Committee long ago signaled that it would make no significant changes to its rules for 2024 and subsequently carried the bulk of their rules over to the current cycle when the September 30 (2022) deadline for making changes to the national rules came and went with little fanfare. And likewise, the Democratic National Committee -- through its Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC -- completed the bulk of its work on the party's 2024 nomination rules.

Yet, the DNCRBC punted on one facet of those rules, a part that has typically been in place before the midterms: the guidelines for which states are granted exemptions in order to go early on the presidential primary calendar.  Now, in typical cycles, the party would entertain discussions of changes to the early states, but would in the face of institutional challenges stick with Iowa and New Hampshire at the front of the queue. In some cycles those discussions are more rigorous than others, but the Iowa/New Hampshire question always comes up. 

The cycles that stand in contrast to that pattern are 2008 and 2024. During the aftermath of the 2004 election, the Price Commission took up the question of Iowa's and New Hampshire's positioning in the Democratic process, ultimately opting to recommend keeping the traditionally early pair among the early states but adding to the early window line up. The DNCRBC acting on those recommendations, then, heard pitches from a handful of states to fill those additional slots alongside Iowa and New Hampshire. Nevada and South Carolina emerged as those two states. 

And there was wisdom to the selection of those two. South Carolina was already positioned as an early state in the Republican process, the first-in-the-South contest that occurred third in the order on the heels of Iowa and New Hampshire. Nevada, on the other hand, was not a fixture in the early Republican calendar, but was a caucus state where the scheduling of the caucuses was not determined by state law. In other words, the two state parties did not have to conduct their caucuses on the same date. Even though Nevada Republicans ultimately forced the issue and joined the early calendar Republican states for 2008 and became normalized thereafter, DNC rules changes did not directly impact that outcome (not in the way that it would if the caucus dates for both parties were set by state law and on the same date).

Now fast forward to the 2024 cycle. Again, the Iowa and New Hampshire question was raised on the Democratic side. The same undercurrent was there -- questioning the wisdom in the same two states leading off the process and what impact that would have on the identity of the eventual nominee. But those typical questions were raised in the context of an error-laden 2020 caucus process in the Hawkeye state, a shrinking of the number of and preference for caucuses in the Democratic process and in the wake of the national conversation stemming from the murder of George Floyd. Basically...

1. Operational: If Iowa Democrats cannot even conduct seamless caucuses, then why should they continue to be first on the primary calendar? AND
2. Representational: If the Democratic coalition is as diverse as it is, then why are two overwhelmingly white states kicking off the process to determine the party's presidential nominee?

In that context, the DNCRBC -- and not a separate commission as in 2005-06 -- began to tackle the Iowa/New Hampshire question for the 2024 cycle. That the DNCRNC and not a separate commission led that charge was not the only difference between the 2024 cycle and its forebear from 2008. Unlike during the 2008 cycle, the DNCRBC did not grant a pass to Iowa and New Hampshire and entertain pitches from other would-be early states. Instead, the committee invited Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and any other willing state party to make their case for an early window exemption. Those 20 states would vie for up to five exempt slots on the early calendar with no guarantees for any of the four traditional carve-out states. 

And the handicapping had gone on for months leading up to the August window in which Democrats tend to finalize their delegate selection rules for the upcoming cycle. Obituaries were written for the Iowa caucuses, and possible replacements and/or early state additions -- Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota and Nevada -- emerged. But the same institutional questions that have dogged past efforts to rearrange the calendar came to the fore in the summer of 2022. That left the DNCRBC to finalize the 2024 rules the panel could finish and leave the calendar questions until after the midterms. 

But why? 

On the one hand, delaying the decision on which states receive early window exemptions cuts into planning time those states will need to prepare not only for 2024 primaries and caucuses but for submission of draft plans to the DNCRBC by next spring. Yes, it helps some that the DNC finalized all of its other rules, minimizing the uncertainty to the dates of contests and potentially moving them. 

But on the other hand, the DNCRBC also wants to finalize a set of rules that stand some chance to be fully implemented and implemented as seamlessly as possible while also reducing the potential for snags. And here, FHQ means institutional problems when it uses the word snags. 

Now, to this point I have vaguely used the term institutional roadblocks, but specifically, the DNCRBC wants to get through the midterms in order to have some certainty as to exactly who their state-level partners will be in bringing any idealized version of a new early calendar line up to fruition. 

The political climate in 2022 favors the Republican Party based on the typical fundamentals of presidential approval and various measures of the economy. And that, in turn, means that some of those partners may be Republicans who are unwilling or unable to aid Democrats in their pursuit of an altered early calendar. 

Take Michigan. Yes, newly commission-drawn state legislative lines may give Democrats a fighting chance to win one or both chambers in the legislature in the Great Lakes state. But the climate may completely or to some degree negate any gains state Democrats would have taken from redistricting. But even if Republicans retain control of the legislature, there may be some who are willing jump at the chance of holding an earlier primary. In theory, yes, but in practice, those Republican state legislators in control would run into RNC rules setting Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada first and a super penalty that would strip the Michigan delegation of more than three-quarters of its delegates. Perhaps those legislators gamble or perhaps they opt to exploit a loophole in RNC rules. It would not get Michigan to first, replacing Iowa, but it could get the state into the early calendar mix. 

Or how about Minnesota? In the Land of 10,000 Lakes the bar is set a bit differently. The state parties can bypass the legislature under state law. That circumvents the Michigan problem in a way. The date of the Minnesota primary is set for the first Tuesday in March, but the date can be changed if the two state parties can agree on an alternative. That alternative could be first, replacing neighboring Iowa atop the calendar. But again, the same super penalty that would stand in the way of a change in Michigan would also be a roadblock to Minnesota becoming an early state. And the Republican state party chair would have a slightly more difficult time in pleading ignorance of the RNC rules considering state party chairs are RNC members. 

Maybe Georgia could easily fit into one of those early slots? The process for setting the date of the presidential primary is different than the two states described immediately above. But again, the reliability of partners matters. The secretary of state and not the state legislature schedules the presidential primary in the Peach state. 

If Democrat, Bee Nguyen upends incumbent Brad Raffensperger in the Georgia secretary of state race, then national Democrats may have a path to adding the Peach state to the early calendar. Of course, adding a state neighboring another early state, South Carolina, would be unconventional. Georgia is a more competitive state in general elections than South Carolina, but the Palmetto state was instrumental to President Biden's road to the 2020 Democratic nomination and some of his South Carolina surrogates may take umbrage to the first-in-the-South state either sharing the spotlight in the early window or being outright replaced. 

And those are roadblocks with a Democrat as Georgia secretary of state. With Secretary Raffensperger back in Atlanta enforcing state election law, he and the Georgia Republican Party would run into the very same RNC rules that Republican actors in Michigan and Minnesota would face. In other words, there is not necessarily a reliable partner for national Democrats to lean on in Georgia either. 

How about Nevada? The Silver state is already an early state and switched from a caucus to a primary since 2020. Moving Nevada would not necessarily change the early states, but could shake up the order of those early states. It is possible. But again, even that hinges on the midterms. Nevada is currently a state where Democrats have unified control of state government. Should the party retain control of the governor's mansion and the state legislature, then the same Democrats that pushed for the switch to a primary after 2020 and scheduled it for the Tuesday in February immediately after where Iowa has ended up on the calendar in the last two cycles, may make changes to suit the DNCRBC directives (if necessary). 

But Nevada is competitive and while that is an attractive quality to the DNC in terms of the states to slot into the early window, it may also mean that Republicans sweeping to victory in the midterms could spoil any of those plans. Silver state Republicans were not exactly supportive of the switch to a primary and the early February date could run afoul of RNC rules by pushing Iowa and New Hampshire into January. Republicans in power in Nevada after 2022 may reschedule the newly established presidential primary or they could revert the state to a caucus system and leave Democrats there and nationally in the lurch. Regardless, Republicans winning control in Nevada in any way shape or form means that national Democrats will not have partners that could assist them arriving at a calendar that best or better meets the goals set out by the DNCRBC.

But that is how this process goes. If the calendar was so easy to change then it maybe would have been over the course of the last half century. It is not for lack of trying. It is a function of the multitude of roadblocks that stand in the way of change. Big changes to the nomination system come when 1) both parties can agree on them (to some extent) or 2) when one party controls the vast majority of state governments across the country. Look at the 2008 calendar changes as an example of the former and the McGovern-Fraser reforms that ushered in the current system at a time when Democrats lost the presidency but controlled vast swaths of the country on the state level as the major example of the latter.

Look, FHQ is not saying that the status quo will carry over to 2024. It will on the Republican side. But the Democrats' chances of altering the beginning of their calendar depend almost entirely on what happens in the midterm elections. If Republicans sweep the states above, then look for the front of the 2024 primary calendar to look a lot like 2020. Any deviation from that scenario may open the door to some type of change even if it is not the idealized one envisioned by the Democratic Party coalition. Otherwise, the party may get a change, but it may amount to a fifth state being added to the end of the early window in a creative way that state Republicans can stomach (ie: exploiting loopholes in Republican rules).

--

Recent posts:

2024 Democratic Party Rules Changes: May versus Shall in Rule 21

A Loophole in Republican Rules That May Help Democrats in Their Calendar Shuffle

Let's Talk About Iowa

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.

A Loophole in Republican Rules That May Help Democrats in Their Calendar Shuffle

The DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) convened in Washington this last week to hear presentations from 16 state delegations and Puerto Rico pitching the value in putting their respective contests in the early presidential primary calendar window for 2024. 

There has been persistent chatter since 2020 -- and before that, if we are being honest -- about how or whether Iowa should still fit into the early part of the Democrats' process. And that was not different in the nation's capital this past week. Heading into the event even, the focus seemed to be on midwestern states -- Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota -- that might ideally replace the Hawkeye state as a regional representative among the early slate of states. But it is not clear that any of those potential replacements is an ideal, much less feasible, stand-in for the quadrennial lead-off contests the state parties in Iowa conduct. 

Each has a conflict with what it is the DNCRBC set as its guidelines for building an early window group of contests. Sure, Iowa Democrats have had its issues with competitive caucuses in the recent past, but there is no perfect candidate that can easily move in and assume an early calendar slot. Illinois convcievably can move to an earlier spot -- Democrats there control the state government. -- but the Prairie state has hardly been a battleground in the presidential races of the last generation. [There are campaign expense issues that candidates would have to contend with in Illinois that are not present in Iowa as well.] 

And both Michigan and Minnesota have Republicans standing in the way of any prospective shift to an earlier primary date. In the Great Lakes state, Republicans in control of the state legislature would have to relent to any change. Further west in Minnesota, the Republican barriers are different. There is no immediate need for change that would require state legislative action. Rather, both state party chairs, as described in current state law, would have to agree to a change of date for the presidential primary. Admittedly, there is less institutional resistance in Minnesota, but it remains a barrier to any alteration in the presidential primary date in the Land of 10,000 Lakes. 

It should also be noted that both the Michigan and Minnesota delegations indicated in their presentations to the DNCRBC that conversations with Republicans in their respective states had been started and were ongoing. And both came with endorsements of primary moves from former state Republican Party chairs and other former elected officials. But neither delegation was particularly forthcoming about just how feasible a date change was. Neither was willing to go public with any of those discussions for obvious reasons. The fear is that it might blow up those discussions on the Republican end and derail any movement toward a change. 

Those discussions -- that they are happening at all! -- are all well and good. But they obscure a major institutional obstacle to anything happening in either state in the Democratic process. Again, both delegations said discussions with Republicans were happening and ostensibly moving in positive directions. Furthermore, both added that they would keep the DNCRBC abreast of any relevant changes. 

Neither, however, noted the grim reality of just how unlikely it is that state Republicans could ultimately come to the table in a meaningful way. 

And it all is kind of ironic. Here they were, these two delegations among 15 others, pitching to the national party the virtues of their states being viable early, if not leading contests. Each was asking the DNC to add or keep them in to the early calendar window. But there was nary a mention of Republican National Committee rules guiding -- or CONSTRAINING -- Republican state parties in setting their rules for delegation selection (primary dates among them) and what impact that would have on the Democratic process.¹

Namely, there was no mention of Rule 17 in the Rules of the Republican Party. As has been widely reported, especially in the context of these discussions of Democrats potentially shaking up their calendar for 2024, the RNC has already decided to carry over its early slate of states from 2020. In other words, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada (in that order) are protected in their early positions in the Republican rules for 2024, and other states are vulnerable to sanction if they try to encroach on the territory -- February -- set aside for those early states' contests. If the DNC opted to make Michigan or Minnesota the first state, or even a February state, then any subsequent primary move into that territory would reduce a delegation the size of Michigan or Minnesota -- 30 delegates or more -- to just 12 total delegates including RNC members. Republicans may be open to Democratic entreaties about a move in the abstract, but are significantly less likely to sign on to any deal that will have their own voices in the Republican nomination process greatly curtailed. This so-called super penalty has been incredibly effective in keeping Republican-controlled (to any degree) states in line since it was put in place after the 2012 election cycle. The potential hit has proven too prohibitive for state-level Republican decision-makers. 

One possible workaround was raised at the DNCRBC meetings in Washington this past week, albeit without acknowledging the Republican super penalty. Minnesota Democrats presenting before the DNCRBC noted that their state law says there needs to be bipartisan agreement on an alternate primary date, but not that there could not also be a second date for a second, later and compliant Republican primary. Minnesota does not have a recent history of presidential primaries split by party (on different dates). Michigan does, but the catch for either or both attempting to push things down that path is that it costs money. Perhaps there will be enough money in state coffers to allow for that, but that certainly is not guaranteed. 

There is also the prospect of Republicans opting for a state party-run and funded contest -- either primary or caucus -- while Democrats use the state government-run and funded primary in the first (or just an early) slot. Depending on the dynamics of the Republican race at the time a decision needs to be made (some time next year after the DNC will have to make a decision on its early slate of contests), Republicans may be open to a lower turnout, state party-run process. But there, too, it is not clear that state Republicans would go along with a plan that would allow state Democrats to have an early contest alone. 

And bear in mind that the DNCRBC is going to finalize its decision on the states that will be codified into the 2024 rules as the early states in early August. It is one thing to come to some tentative deal with state Republicans by then, but another to trust that it will hold over time and not hurt Democrats after that. That is not about anything underhanded Republicans may do in the meantime. Instead, it is an acknowledgment that these decisions have to be made early in order to insure that they can be effectively implemented on the state level. Dynamics may change in the Republican race that may provoke a change of heart from state-level Republicans. 

It very simply is a tough agreement to come to (and that is without considering how much emphasis both parties will place on 2024 and how much tension that may create).

Great. Thanks FHQ. You have once again thrown cold water the parties' reform plans. What else is new? 

Look, these are difficult changes to make because of the variety of interested actors and vested interests involved. If it was easy to change, then these things -- like some state other than Iowa being first -- would have been dealt with long ago. But they are not easy changes. It is easy to say, "Hey, put some other state in there," but it is an entirely different thing to actually do it. 

--

But all is not lost. Michigan or Minnesota going first as the sole midwestern representative may be, but not adding either one or the other as a minor tweak to the early state lineup. 

Let me walk through the steps because, again, the Republican rules constrain just how much latitude any decision-makers have in this at the state level. No one is likely to willingly walk into that super penalty. But there is a way to potentially work around it that could add a state like Michigan or Minnesota to the end of the early window (if the DNC so desires). 

Back in 2014 when Republicans made changes to the rules that were adopted at the 2012 national convention in Tampa, rules makers set March 1 as one of two lines of demarcation. No state not named Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada could hold a contest before that point on the calendar in 2016. The other line was March 15, on or after which states were allowed to allocate delegates in any fashion. [Before that point, states were mandated to use a proportional method.]

And that was fine. 

In 2016. 

In 2016, both March 1 and March 15 fell on the traditional days on which most nomination contests are held, Tuesday. But here's the thing: the party never tweaked those lines of demarcation in the rules timeline after 2016. Those rules -- that specific language -- carried over to 2020, but were not all that consequential then with the Republican presidential nomination largely (or meaningfully) uncontested. 

Now, however, as 2024 approaches, the Republican National Committee has chosen to once again carry the bulk of those rules over to a third consecutive cycle. The guidelines continue to prohibit February on the calendar to non-carve-out states and sets a proportionality window that closes as the clock strikes midnight to usher in March 15. Only, neither March 1 nor March 15 are on Tuesday in 2024. They both fall on Friday. 

By now, one can no doubt see where I am going with this. Democratic rules set the beginning of what they call the window -- the period after traditionally exempt states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina hold their contests -- as the first Tuesday in March. In 2024, that first Tuesday in March is March 5, the date that is very likely to be deemed Super Tuesday in the next cycle. But under Republican rules there is a four day window before that point in which states could schedule contests and not be subjected to the super penalty. You know, states like Michigan or Minnesota where state Republicans would not necessarily be inclined to agree with Democrats on a primary move if it meant opening themselves up to losing around three-quarters of their delegation to the national convention. 

Again, that helps neither state slide into the first slot, replacing Iowa, but it does open the door to one or the other of Michigan or Minnesota being added to the early part of the 2024 calendar. 

--

However, even that novel approach to shuffling the calendar is not foolproof for Democrats as their August decision on the early calendar approaches. There are a couple of issues, one on each side of the aisle, that may cause some problems. The first is easy enough. The RNC may change its rules to close that loophole. Rule 12 allows the party to change certain rules -- those pertaining to delegate selection -- up to September 30 of the midterm year ahead of any presidential election. [And after tens of people read this post, it could happen!]

Secondly, presumably adding a fifth state into the mix in the Democratic presidential nomination process really creates a time crunch for the party and those five states. If there is only a window from the first Monday in February to Super Tuesday in early March in which to schedule those contests, then things get dicey.  That is more true in light of state-level scheduling laws. Iowa's law calls for its caucuses (or "caucuses" now that they are likely to more caucus-in-name-only on the Democratic side) to be eight (8) days before any other contest. In New Hampshire that lead time is seven (7) day before any other "similar contest." Oh, and Nevada's new law that established a stand-alone presidential primary starting with the 2024 cycle schedules the date of that contest for the first Tuesday in February, a day after the Iowa caucuses have been in recent cycles. In other words, there some tension there that needs to be ironed out. 

And let us not leave South Carolina out of this discussion either. While the above three traditionally early states have some conflicts to fix at the beginning of the pre-window period, Palmetto state Democrats may take issue with any contest that may slip into the end of that period. For starters, if South Carolina retains an early spot on the calendar, then its recent Saturday before Super Tuesday date would fit into that Republican rule loophole window described above as well. Now, South Carolina Democrats may not mind shifting to a slightly earlier date, but that may also disrupt the regular rhythms of the overall South Carolina presidential nomination process and the perceived impact the state has on the course of a Democratic nomination. 

Typically, South Carolina Democrats and Republicans have not held simultaneous presidential primaries. That is partly a throwback to the not-so-distant past practice of the state parties funding and administering those contests and partly a function of Republicans slotting South Carolina into the third position on their calendar and Democrats scheduling them fourth. For the DNC to keep South Carolina fourth and add a fifth state into the pre-window would likely mean moving South Carolina up a Saturday in February and onto the likely Saturday of the Republican primary in the state. That would mean a lesser expenditure for the state now that it funds and runs the primaries, but again it breaks with the traditional pattern in the state and may not win buy-in from both state parties. 

Additionally, South Carolina Democrats may not want to give up that prime spot on the Saturday before Super Tuesday. Rep. Jim Clyburn's endorsement of Joe Biden was seen as a turning in the Democratic race in 2020. [Some of us would argue that turning point happened the week before in Nevada when Biden placed second, but that view is not as widely adopted.] Biden's subsequent win in the Palmetto state was a springboard into the Super Tuesday states that had more diverse constituencies on a day that had a decidedly southern flavor and emphasized the black electorate. South Carolina may or may not have played a direct role in Biden's subsequent success on Super Tuesday, but if Democratic leaders in the state think it did, then they may prove stubborn when confronted with possibly giving that slot up to another state. 

And even if South Carolina Democrats prefer being fifth in the order to keep that springboard position prior to Super Tuesday, that does not leave a lot of wiggle room to fit in a state like Michigan or Minnesota (if they want to get state Republicans to the table). In fact, it leaves only Friday, March 1. Back-to-back contests may not be workable for either state if that emerges as the only option to DNC-level decision makers.

--

Great. Thanks again, FHQ. You have now provided a solution to the initial problem and have even thrown some cold water on it. 

Yeah, I have. 

But that is indicative of the thicket into which rules makers wade when they set out to tweak their rules every cycle. It just is not that easy. States and state laws are involved. State parties of all stripes and their rules are involved. Voters' interests are involved. The national parties' rules are also at the confluence of all of those actors. It is an intricate jigsaw puzzle that requires a deft touch to alter and sometimes that does not wed well with consensus building. 

So, as the DNCRBC continues to tackle this issue it has set before its members, bear all of this in mind. Change may be forthcoming -- even big changes to the early window -- but do not be surprised if those tweaks are minor and/or incremental. That is just the nature of the process. 

--

¹ There was a mention of the RNC rules, but that came early on the proceedings before the state presentations began. During a discussion of Rule 21 -- the challenge rule that describes the penalties for delegate selection rules violations in the Democratic process -- DNCRBC member, Elaine Kamarck, noted a convention stage Republican mechanism that basically prevents a state party from using (in the case of this discussion) a non-compliant method of delegate allocation. States can set non-compliant rules, but cannot effectively employ them at the convention on the roll call vote for the presidential nomination. 

Recent posts:

Let's Talk About Iowa

FHQ Turns 14

Oregon Bill Would Shift Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.   

If It Was So Easy to Change Then It Would Have Changed By Now

FHQ read with some interest the latest editorial from Michelle Cottle at The New York Times before the weekend hit. It was one of a genre the vintage of which one sees in the seemingly lazy days between presidential nomination cycles. One can call those of that ilk the "it's time for a change (to the presidential nomination process)." Sure, they are around every cycle, but they tend to most often arise in the midst of (or perhaps just before) a new round of presidential primaries and caucuses. 

In other words, they often come too late. So in Cottle's defense, at least her call for reform is coming at a time in which it may actually matter: before the national parties set their rules for the upcoming cycle. Granted, FHQ's defense of the piece only goes about that far. Much of it leans on a sort of Green Lantern theory of presidential nomination reform. If only the interested players tried a bit harder, then all the ills of the process would be gone. But that theory and this piece ignore the realities of reform. 

If it was as easy to change the process as it is made out there, then certainly things would have changed by now, nearly half a century into the post-reform era. But those rules do not change with ease. They are and the presidential nomination process is a tremendous collective action problem for the parties. And while consensus may (or may not) exist to make changes, agreeing to what those tweaks will be is a much more difficult enterprise when considering the mix of interests involved: the national parties, the state parties, the state governments, the candidates and their proxies on rules-making bodies. Getting enough of those groups on the same page is tough enough in the abstract, but the climb is steeper still when the politics of any given moment intersect with the process. 

Now may be one of those times when the moment is right for change. Iowa Democrats bungled their caucuses in 2020. Neither primary or caucus electorate in Iowa nor New Hampshire matches well with the current constituency of the broader Democratic Party coalition of the moment. And there seems to be a willing candidate to fill their void on the primary calendar. Maybe the stars will align. However, missteps may scuttle any potential for change. Nevada Democrats may be at some risk of overplaying their hand. The conditions are right, but the provocative nature of their January primary bill may complicate its efforts, riling up not only New Hampshire as Cottle points out, but also the national party.

And that is what often gets lost in these primary reform prescriptions that pop up every four years. They can raise the ills of any given process, but often fail in considering the process for bringing about such a change. 

Take Cottle's consideration of caucuses in 2020. Caucuses are not new, nor are the problems associated with them. She notes that "caucuses are a convoluted, vaguely anti-democratic way to pick a nominee," and that "the Democratic National Committee urged the state parties to shift to primaries." The DNC did and as Cottle mentioned, most states responded. This was quietly a big deal for the DNC. It was a rules change that worked and worked really well. It was not a new directive from the national party to hold primaries because some states -- Kansas, for example -- are controlled by the Republican Party on the state level and were not open to establishing a primary. In fact, after years of caucusing in the face of unfunded (and ultimately cancelled) primaries, Republicans in the Sunflower states eliminated the primary option once and for all in 2015.

But even most states in that bind adapted. Most adopted party-run primary systems that had early and mail-in options for those seeking to participate in the process. Sure, the national party would prefer state government-run primaries, but lacking that alternative in some states produced something of a laboratory for innovative party-run primary plans. Best practices derived from those states may serve as a call to action in states like Iowa where there, for now, continue to be caucuses. But Iowa is also a state where the Republican Party is calling the shots in state government. There is the delicate balance to tread with New Hampshire, but there are some success stories from the 2020 cycle that should be celebrated rather than barely mentioned. Often it is those incremental changes that prove the most consequential. 

 

In the end, however, other changes -- like those to the beginning of calendar -- are tougher. Not impossible, but difficult. And it will take more than "the national party seiz[ing] the opportunity to shake even harder, reforming a system that’s increasingly out of touch with voters." It will take the national party working with interests on the ground in the states to make it happen. And as the last fifty years have shown, that is easier said than done. 

Recent posts: 

The Week the Calendar Wars Heated Up

Early Signs: Nebraska Electoral Vote Allocation Likely to Stay the Same

Why Can't Nevada Just Replicate New Hampshire's Calendar Strategy?

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.    

Iowa Will Not Go Gentle into That Good Night for 2024

Another Monday and another Iowa and 2024 story that lingered over the weekend. This time, John McCormick at the Wall Street Journal has more from on the ground in the Hawkeye state about the efforts to save the caucuses one more time.

One thing that FHQ touched on last week was that if a change was to be made to the early part of the presidential primary calendar in 2024, then it would be in the national parties' interests to come to some formal or informal agreement about what that might look like. Things are much more likely to stick long term that way. And that stability -- certainty, as FHQ tends to call it -- is something that not only both major parties typically like in these nominations processes, but those playing the game -- the candidates and their campaigns -- do too. 

Lack of agreement at the national party level is something that could be potentially exploited by state political parties, especially those attempting to protect the status quo. If national Democrats opt to drop the Iowa caucuses and the Republican National Committee decides to stick it out one more cycle (or even indefinitely), then the two state parties in the Hawkeye state can use that "disagreement" to their advantage by sticking together. 

And that is exactly what the two Iowa parties are going to do. It is what McCormick describes in his reporting and what Iowa state parties have done with consistency in the efforts to save their position when threatened throughout the post-reform era. 

What is more, that sort of cohesion exists not only in Iowa but across the four carve-out states. As Republican Party of Iowa chair, Jeff Kaufmann said to McCormick:

"...the four early states -- sometimes referred to as carve-out states because of their special status on the party calendars -- are unified in their commitment to maintaining the status quo, at least on the Republican side."

Whether that extends to the Democratic deliberations for 2024 remains to be seen. But newly elected DNC  chair, Jaime Harrison does hail from South Carolina. That could mean an effort to strip out contests that were not representative to the broader party (like the three states that preceded South Carolina on the 2020 Democratic primary calendar). But it could also translate to a maintenance of the status quo if the delegations from each carve-out state's party to the DNC sees benefit in coalescing. 

That the state parties are on the same page in Iowa is typical. That the four carve-out states have begun to seek some strength in numbers is a more recent development. But both are meaningful to the discussions that will decide what the 2024 presidential primary calendar ultimately looks like. 

Recent posts: 

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Actions versus Words

Missouri House Bill Would Eliminate Presidential Primary

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- RNC Neutrality in 2024

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Iowa, Democrats and 2024

Yes, it is still true that no one really wants to talk about 2024 right now. Yet, there was NPR, in the wake of Jaime Harrison's election as DNC chair, with a story over the weekend discussing Iowa's chances of retaining the first-in-the-nation caucuses in the next cycle. 

And while FHQ will agree that it is probably too early for most, it is also true that this question is not new. Iowa's place at the front of the primary and caucus queue comes up to varying degrees every four years. And with each passing cycle, Iowa, not to mention New Hampshire (and since 2008, Nevada and South Carolina), continue to hold down their privileged positions. But the Iowa-in-2024 question specifically is not new either. That question was agitated into prominence before the results were even clear in the 2020 caucuses. In fact, the world continues to wait for an AP call in the race that never came. 

Those snafus understandably brought out caucus opponents and small-d democracy advocates, but there was enough blame to go around. It was not just Iowa. Nor was it specifically the caucus system. The DNC also played a role in doing its (continued) due diligence around the security of the problematic smartphone app that fueled the issues. However, the confluence of issues, in the abstract, seems like a potential inflection point in the generation-plus long history of the caucuses in the Hawkeye state. And if not that, then a fitting bookend to a process that has come to be seen as outdated in a state, the Democratic electorate of which does not exactly conform to the current make-up of the broader Democratic Party.

But as an exhausted electorate shies away from talk of another electoral cycle on the heels of a marathon 2020 blitzkrieg, the question remains: What will come of Iowa's caucuses in 2024? Fitting though the bookend may have been after 2020 and however outdated the caucus process may seem, there still remain some institutional factors that will help Iowa maintain its position or make it more of an uphill climb to replace than some think. Again, it is more complex than: 

Step 1: the caucuses are bad 

Step 2: ???? 

Step 3: Iowa suddenly has a primary and/or it is later in the primary order.

In the days in early February 2020 after the caucusing had stopped in Iowa and the count continued, FHQ penned a piece at the Monkey Cage outlining some of the institutional barriers to changing the early calendar. While most of it holds up reasonably well, things have obviously changed in the months since those Iowa caucuses that may or may not influence that previous outlook. But first things first: a quick review of those institutional barriers. 

First, Iowa Democrats are not likely to go quiet into that good night. The party is likely to argue that the DNC is better with the devil they know than the one they do not. In other words, even with its supposed warts, Iowa is still a safer or more certain alternative than some other state. A cost-benefit analysis version of that argument would be something along the lines of, "The start up costs elsewhere are potentially more 'expensive' than dealing with the 'tweaks' Iowa Democrats would employ to improve their system." Yes, one's mileage may vary on the true balance between those two ends of the ledger. 

Second, the DNC plays a role in all of this as well. In fact, the national party is the group to whom Iowa Democrats would be pitching the argument above. And it is there -- at the national party level -- where things have evolved the most over the last eleven months. While it is clear that there will be a robust discussion over the next two years around Iowa and the others among the early state group, it is not yet clear where things will end up. 

National parties like certainty, but they also want to at least appear sometimes to be responsive to needs if not problems within the presidential nomination process. It was, after all, inter-cycle commissions that both created and eliminated superdelegates in the nomination process. In a global sense, both moves were made by a party sensitive to the balance between the interests of the party elites and those of the grassroots in the nomination process. But a more narrow view holds that the party was merely righting a perceived wrong from the previous cycle. 

The perception of an Iowa problem is very real at the outset of the 2024 invisible primary and there will definitely be pressure to make a change based on 2020. But long term, the DNC will again look to what the proper balance should be and whether a change is prudent. 

Third, part of that calculus will hinge on what Republicans do with their own early calendar line up. No, there is nothing -- no law or rule whether formal or informal -- that says both parties should have the same early calendar. In fact, they already do not. Democrats place Nevada third in the order and South Carolina fourth while Republicans flip them on their early calendar. Yet, breaking up those first two states in the order across both parties is potentially fraught with disruptions to the current incentive structure. For Democrats to drop Iowa from its current perch while Iowa Republicans retain their position is to give incentive to Iowa Democrats to not only band together with their Hawkeye brethren but to possibly go rogue in 2024 as well. The national parties -- especially the DNC in this case -- would rather deal (relatively) quietly with this now rather than invite trouble later that is amplified in the lead up to primary season later. Of course, dealing with it quietly outside of the spotlight could mean keeping Iowa where it is under the condition that changes are made -- preserving the status quo -- or making a change while threatening to penalize the state party back to the stone age should it go rogue. The former upsets a lot of vocal critics while the latter does not necessarily guarantee compliance. 

But that incentive structure remains more intact if the two major parties can agree, formally or otherwise, to an early calendar order. If both were to hypothetically remove Iowa, then one state party would not have the opening to resist if just one party did. FHQ would not count this as a huge concern -- partisans will argue that no party should listen to or wait on the actions of the other -- but it is a part of the overall calculus on this question. 

Finally, if not Iowa then whom? Who takes the Hawkeye state's place atop the calendar should one or both parties move to replace the caucuses? Again, Iowa will fight for its position and argue that even with the problems, it is a safer bet than some unknown alternative. If the line is long to replace Iowa and the arguments for a replacement are diffuse (other than a not Iowa thread), then the case may be harder to make. Then it becomes a discussion of what the party wants represented at that beginning of the calendar. Defining those goals is no small task for either the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee or the full DNC for that matter. If keeping Iowa (with tweaks) is easier than that task -- and often persisting with the status quo ante is -- then that may go a long way toward answering this question. 

But allow FHQ to close by focusing on the one thing that has changed since last February. Joe Biden is now president. 

Typically those are times when a party will more or less rest on its laurels, carrying over the rules from the previous cycle. But it is not clear that that is what will happen in this case. What tends to gum up the works on primary rules changes in those instances is that the party of a newly-elected, first time president often maintains the rules that got that president to the nomination. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But Biden, as many have noted, did not benefit from either Iowa or New Hampshire. Neither was instrumental in his ascent to the nomination. 

While neither may have been instrumental to Biden's nomination victory, it may be more of a fight (see above) than the party or the president wants to take on. And some of this will be colored by the intentions of the president himself. If Biden opts to run again and the field look clear otherwise, then it could honestly go either way (pending some of the other considerations). The DNC could pull the trigger on a change in a cycle with little to nothing on the line and usher in a new era. Alternatively, it could just leave well enough alone and leave that battle for a time ahead of a more active nomination race. And without regard to how active a forthcoming nomination race will be, the party could also opt to punt on the question. 

But punting may not be an easy option if Biden signals that he will not run for renomination, opening the door to prospective candidates and their surrogates pithing the DNC/DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee lobbying for change. No such overt signal, however, is likely to come before the midterm elections and thus will come after the 2024 rules (including the calendar order) are in place. 

One thing that FHQ is particularly keen to see is how Iowa argues on its behalf. Yes, they will make the obvious play as described above (years of trial and error here are better than going with something uncertain elsewhere). But that may not be where things stop. How much do Iowa Democrats raise the heavy hand of the DNC in the problems of 2020? "But for the issues the national party (rightly or wrongly) raised, we (Iowa) could have pulled off a more seamless set of caucuses across the state." How effective Iowa Democrats are at making that argument and leveraging that against the DNC may go some way toward answering this quadrennial question for the 2024 cycle. 

Regardless, one thing is for certain: There will be a thorough discussion of Iowa's place among the early states and the early line up as well in the months ahead. Whether change is imminent there depends on the desire for change on one hand and the institutional barrier in place on the other. It is easy to call on Iowa to be replaced, but another to actually do it. But as was the case in the time after 2016, the same things were said about reducing the influence of superdelegates. Change happened on that front, but the conditions are different heading into 2024 than they were ahead of 2020. 

Recent posts: 

The 2020 Electoral College Spectrum 

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Biden Running for Re-election

A Few Notes on the 2024 Presidential Primary Calendar

Draft Resolution Would Largely Extend 2020 Democratic Nomination Rules to 2024

The Democratic National Convention is not set to gavel in for another 18 days, but the work of the convention itself is already well underway. The convention Platform Committee met earlier this week, and the convention Rules Committee will hold its first session today at 2pm.

But the work of the 2024 Democratic delegate selection rules will not begin there. In fact, a resolution has already been drafted to be shared with and considered by the 180 delegate member Rules committee.¹ However, unlike past cycles, Democrats do not have a laundry list of primary phase grievances to bring into the quadrennial confab. For starters, despite all the hype given the large and diverse field of candidates, neither chaos nor widespread division among party factions took hold in the lead up to and during primary season. It is those divisions that often put the rules of the nomination process in the crosshairs, making them fertile ground for potential convention compromise.

The fallout from the tight 2008 Clinton-Obama battle, for example, produced the Democratic Change Commission that further codified the addition of Nevada and South Carolina to the early primary calendar, reduced the share of superdelegates, and committed to developing best practices for states with caucuses in lieu of primaries.

And obviously, the friction from the 2016 nomination race between Clinton and Sanders led to the compromise in Philadelphia between the two camps that yielded the Unity Reform Commission. Both sides had their quibbles with various aspects of the process and that created a commission with a clear cut agenda to examine the possibilities of opening the process up to an increased number of voters and transitioning more states from caucuses to primaries. It also set a concrete reduction of superdelegates that was later revised by the Rules and Bylaws Committee before it was adopted by the full DNC in August 2018.

But in 2020, that sort of animosity just never materialized among those vying for the Democratic presidential nomination. And now that the virtual national convention to formally nominate Joe Biden is on the horizon, the early signals for what the rules discussion will entail show it. Early reporting indicated that the draft resolution to be considered would include language creating a Build the Party Commission, but that language is not included in the draft made public. Instead, the process of reviewing the 2020 process and creating rules for 2024 would, under the resolution, skip that step and go straight the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC). That body, as it was after the 2012 cycle, would be tasked with the rules review. Recall that the Unity Reform Commission met throughout 2017 and was required to present a report to the RBC by the beginning of 2018. The RBC then had to take those recommendations and turn them into actionable rules changes by the summer of 2018 in order for them to be adopted by the full DNC with enough lead time for 2020.

If this resolution is ultimately adopted by the convention Rules Committee and then by the full convention, then the RBC would review the 2020 process and draft a report by the end of March 2021. That would give the group ample time to craft 2024 rules ahead of a likely late summer 2022 DNC meeting that would adopt rules for 2024 (if the past model of rules adoption is followed for the next cycle).

But that is the structural piece of the 2024 rules puzzle. There is also a substantive portion embedded in this draft resolution. Again, however, if one is here for the flash of potential reforms, then the substance may be lacking compared to past cycles. Basically, the proposed resolution would carry over much of the 2020 rules to 2024. They would continue the commitment to a more open nomination process; the changes layered into Rule 2 for 2020. Caucuses, through state-level rules changes or necessity given the coronavirus pandemic, were already reduced to the lowest number ever on the Democratic side during the post-reform era.

The resolution would also see the barring of superdelegates from voting on the first ballot at the national convention extended to 2024. No, superdelegates could not overturn the will of voters (through primaries and caucuses) at the convention, but that was never really a threat in 2020. Biden established a large enough lead on and in the weeks after Super Tuesday to eliminate that prospect. However, superdelegates retained the ability to line up behind candidates before and during primary season. And the ones who did overwhelmingly preferred Joe Biden. And while that role was extended to 2020, the number of superdelegates weighing in and endorsing before or during primary season was greatly reduced compared to 2016. But that should not have come as a surprise with the field as large as it was and support as varied as it was. The true comparison, then, would be a competitive cycle with multiple candidates involved and not the sort of one-on-one contest that 2008 or 2016 quickly offered during primary season. In other words, the winnowing of the field was different in 2020. But superdelegates still played a role in determining who stuck around.

Despite that reality, the superdelegates rules change enacted for 2020 will very likely be extended to 2024 and very likely without much controversy. There may be pockets of dissension, but there will not be controversy.

The one new thing added in this draft resolution to the list of items to be carried over to 2024 is the one thing that was universally controversial about the 2020 Democratic nominating process: the chaos in Iowa at the beginning of the primary calendar. That raised anew the Iowa and New Hampshire question, one that has been fought to varying degrees for cycle after cycle in the post-reform era.

Is this the time that that change will finally come to the early calendar? On some level, it seems the perfect time. The strengthening of the Black Lives Matter movement in the wake of George Floyd's killing over Memorial Day weekend brings into even starker contrast the misalignment of the two earliest states' demography with the membership of the broader Democratic Party. And that is after that was already a complaint of at least one candidate for the 2020 nomination.

That may be. However, those contests only minimally affected the winnowing of the field of candidates and weeded out those that likely should have bowed out earlier in the invisible primary campaign. It was when the calendar brought in more diverse electorates that the true winnowing took shape. It was the more diverse electorate in Nevada that indicated a two person race between Sanders and Biden and an even more diverse electorate in South Carolina (if not the important endorsement of Jim Clyburn) that catapulted Biden into Super Tuesday and the nomination.

Given that timeline, it would seem that the Democratic Party -- and this is excluding the important work the Republican National Committee will do on its own 2024 rules -- has a choice to make. Jettison Iowa and New Hampshire from the early calendar and risk the potential for backlash from those two states or basically ignore them and let Nevada, South Carolina and states immediately on their heels on Super Tuesday continue to do the heavy lifting.

Many will downplay the possibility of backlash from Iowa and New Hampshire. The DNC, after all, can follow its 2008 model, and penalize any states that seek to break the rules on primary and caucus timing. But would the party be willing to do so with a couple of states that are often competitive in the general election? They were with Florida and Michigan in 2008 (and they had more electoral votes at stake). But would that be worth it to potentially negatively affect the relationships between the national party and state parties in Iowa and New Hampshire with a competitive 2024 general election in which those states may be pivotal? That is an open question.

Look, the symbolism of the early calendar change alone is going to exert a degree of pressure on the RNC and DNC to make the above questions almost moot. But that does not mean that they are not worth considering or will not be between now and summer 2022. But those are the trade-offs that are involved in complex party decision making.

And to close on this subject, what happens on the Republican side with respect to Iowa and New Hampshire matters too. If Republicans hold pat, then that adds to the friction between the state parties in those respective states and the national party. That is negative momentum that the DNC in this case would probably want to avoid. And no, that is not the RNC dictating what is occurring on the Democratic side. It is just another variable in the decision-making process cited above. On the other hand, the RNC could take any potential change to the calendar on the Democratic side and run with it. This is more positive or reinforcing momentum. It is not as if the Republicans have not considered calendar changes of their own. But would the RNC willing follow the DNC into that change? That, too, is an open question.

Regardless, those are all questions and considerations for the time after November's election. But the rules discussions for 2024 start now at the conventions.


--
¹ Draft resolution text (via HuffPost):
"WHEREAS, following the 2016 election, the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”), under the leadership of Chair Tom Perez, took substantial steps to ensure a more accessible, transparent, and inclusive 2020 Democratic presidential nominating process;

WHEREAS, these reforms, which encouraged many states to move from caucuses to more inclusive primaries, led to an unprecedented level of voter participation in presidential primary contests across the country, allowing more Democratic voters to make their voices heard and increasing voter confidence in our nominating system;

WHEREAS, these reforms helped inspire the largest and most diverse field in our Party’s history to seek the Democratic Party’s nomination for President;

WHEREAS, the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC (“RBC”) was instrumental in adopting and implementing the reforms that made the 2020 presidential nominating process the most dynamic and successful in our Party’s history;

WHEREAS, the Democratic Party needs to continue to build off the successes of the 2020 primary reforms in creating the rules of the 2024 primary process and Democratic National Convention;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the RBC must protect and continue the work started in 2017 to make improvements to the 2024 nominating process and Democratic National Convention and build on the successes achieved this cycle. With the purpose and the goals of continuing to further accessibility, transparency, and inclusion in our Party, the RBC shall conduct a comprehensive and structured review of the presidential nominating reforms adopted by the DNC for the 2020 primaries to evaluate where even further reforms are needed, while maintaining the advances that have been made. This review should include considerations of the successes of each of the reforms adopted in 2018 in achieving the DNC’s goals, empowering rank and file Democrats, and strengthening and unifying the Democratic Party in the lead up to the general election. In conducting this review, the RBC should take steps to ensure public and stakeholder engagement in the process, including at least one public hearing and an opportunity to submit comments. This review and accounting should be completed by March 31, 2021."


--
Recent posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/29/20)

The Electoral College Map (7/28/20)

The Electoral College Map (7/27/20)


Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

When Will Biden Clinch? It Depends.

Any guess on what date he pushes it over the finish line, @FHQ? My guess is Georgia and West Virginia on June 9th.

— Matt Cypher (@MLCypher) May 15, 2020

There is certainly an argument out there that Biden wrapped up the Democratic presidential nomination back on April 8 -- the day after the Wisconsin primary -- when Bernie Sanders suspended his campaign. The former vice president shifted from being the presumptive presumptive nominee to the presumptive nominee then.

And an argument can be made that the trajectory of Biden's delegate math made that obvious on many of the Tuesdays throughout March. But trajectory is one thing as is the fact that all of the remaining viable candidates other than Biden pulled out of the race for the Democratic nomination. However, crossing over the requisite 1991 pledged delegates to become the nominee is another thing altogether. As of now, Biden is just shy of 1500 delegates and needs around 38 percent of the delegates available in the remaining states with contests to surpass that threshold. Given how the primaries and caucuses have gone since Sanders dropped out of the race and endorsed Biden, that will not prove to be too heavy a lift.

But when will Biden hit and pass 1991?

It depends.

One thing that can be said is that it will not be in May. There are just two more contests -- Oregon and Hawaii next week -- and just 95 delegates to be allocated before the end of the month. June 2 offers both more contests and 479 more delegates. But even then, it would be a bit of a stretch for Biden to get to 1991 by then.

Again, it depends. If one looks at the contests that there are results for since April 8 when Sanders suspended his campaign -- Alaska, Wyoming, Ohio, Kansas and Nebraska -- they paint a certain picture, one where Biden gets almost 74 percent of the qualified vote on average. And if Biden receives around three-quarters of the delegates in future primaries and caucuses, then he will just barely eclipse the 1991 delegate barrier on June 9 when Georgia and West Virginia hold primaries.

Yet, that is something of a rough estimate. It assumes that congressional district delegate allocation will mirror statewide delegate allocation and that may or may not be the case. But that potential variation across congressional districts may end up pushing Biden's magic number clinching point deeper into the delayed primary calendar.

Another variable that may influence when that point occurs is the nature of the small sample of contests that have happened since Sanders's exit from the race. Three of those five contests were in party-run primary or caucus states (Alaska, Wyoming and Kansas). No, that party-run part does not matter to the math going forward, but that all three used ranked-choice voting does. The redistribution of votes in those contests inflates the qualified share of support that both Biden and Sanders received. As a result, the average qualified share used in arriving at the June 9 target date for clinching cited above may be a bit more generous to Sanders than to Biden. After all, much of the voting in the April 10 Alaska party-run primary took place by mail before Sanders dropped out on April 8. The 45 percent Sanders received may not exactly be representative of the share he has gotten and will get in future contests.

If one looks at the other two contests -- Ohio and Nebraska -- then it is clear that Sanders is very much flirting with the threshold to qualify for delegates. And if Nebraska is the new normal -- a state where Sanders failed to qualify for delegates either statewide or in any of the three congressional districts -- then that would speed up Biden's journey to 1991. Were Biden to receive all of the delegates available -- assuming he is the only candidate qualifying for delegates -- then he would easily surpass 1991 on Super Junesday, June 2.

But how the allocation goes between now and the end of primary season will likely be something in between those two extremes: 1) Sanders receiving about a quarter of the qualified vote and 2) Biden being the only qualifying candidate. Of course, there are not that many contests nor delegates at stake between June 2 and June 9. The caucuses in the Virgin Islands fall on June 6, but there are just seven delegates on the line there.

Look, the bottom line is the one where this discussion started: Biden will be the nominee. The question is when he more officially becomes the presumptive nominee in the delegate count. The above is a rough guide. One thing that can be said is that even if one follows the Sanders-generous extreme above -- the one where the Vermont senator receives about a quarter of the delegates -- then Biden will by the end of primary season have enough pledged delegates in his column to allow superdelegates participate on the first ballot roll call vote at the national convention. That is, of course, assuming the current rules remain the same when the convention Rules Committee adopts rules for the convention.

DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Moves Toward Taking the National Convention Virtual

The Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) met via conference call on Tuesday, May 12 to consider a number of issues raised by coronavirus pandemic.

Most of the actions taken had been telegraphed before the meeting, but there remained some interesting questions brought up during the meeting in response to some of the agenda items. The easiest hurdles to clear came from state parties' reactions to the public health crisis and its impact on the electoral and delegate selection processes there.

Several states have moved since mid-March to points on the primary calendar beyond what is allowed under DNC rules. Decision makers in Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey and New York all settled on dates beyond the June 9 cut off established in the rules.¹ And all of those states but Connecticut had waiver requests before the RBC today. All were unanimously approved.

Beyond that thumbs up on the state-level changes before them today, RBC co-chair, Jim Roosevelt, also revealed that the delegate apportionment to states would remain the same. States will not receive any further bonus delegates for moves to later dates on the calendar, and as of now, the above states either have received waivers that allows them to skirt any penalties from rules violations or are in discussions with the RBC about their respective situations. Connecticut Democrats fall into the latter category and are between a rock and a hard place with the August 11 primary date state government decision makers landed on falling just a few days before the convention is set to start. That is another state party that will eventually have to bring delegate selection plan changes before the RBC in the near future. Puerto Rico Democrats face the same dilemma. The primary in the US territory was indefinitely postponed in April but the party is eyeing a July 5 or 12 primary date that would also require a waiver from the RBC.

But the bigger items on the RBC's agenda dealt with the national convention. The committee unanimously passed resolutions to allow state parties to use virtual means to complete their delegate selection processes as long as that did not include primaries or precinct caucuses. Then, however, the body moved on to a more encompassing resolution on convention procedure. There were a couple of main aims that the the RBC was targeting. First, given the public health crisis, the RBC members were concerned with the safety of delegates able to attend the convention in Milwaukee but also the citizens of the city as well. But second, the committee also sought to conduct the business of the convention under the circumstances that the coronavirus has created. Both meant that the RBC had to make changes to the rules where there is no contingency for such conditions.

The resolution attempts to address those twin issues. Procedurally, it allows the convention Rules and Credentials Committees to be the sole arbiters of their respective reports. They will not go before the full convention unless there is a minority report issued as well. That provision did raise some concerns with several members of the committee who were concerned about that (minority report) outlet and what would constitute a passing vote in the committee or on the floor. Would it be a simple majority of those present or a majority of all of the total number of delegates? The distinction matters, especially in the context of a convention that may see some delegates in person in an arena in Milwaukee and some at home. The tentative conclusion was that at past conventions, it had been the simple majority.

And while all of that may get too far into the weeds of convention process, it does matter. More broadly, the resolution also granted the DNC the flexibility to allow the participation of some delegates from afar.

That measure unanimously passed the RBC but has to go before the full DNC for approval before it takes effect.


--
¹ New York Democrats are in limbo to some extent with their primary. The decision to reinstate the June 23 Democratic presidential primary in the Empire state is being appealed to the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and any changes made in the wake of that decision could push the New York Democratic Party back before the RBC in the coming days if any cancelation forces further changes to the amended delegate selection plan.

How do you stage a convention in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic?

Jon Ward and Brittany Shepherd have the story at Yahoo News.

--
It will take some rules changes on the Democratic side to facilitate anything other than a traditional convention. But Republicans already have language in place in Rule 37(e) of their rules covering the scenario where the party is "unable to conduct its business either within the convention site or within the convention city." It defers to the Republican National Committee to develop an alternative method for handling the roll call votes for the presidential and vice presidential nominations.

Puerto Rico Democrats Indefinitely Postpone Presidential Primary

Puerto Rico Democratic Party President Charles Rodriguez on Thursday, April 2 announced that the newly scheduled April 26 presidential primary would be delayed indefinitely amid the growing threat posed by the coronavirus.

Late last month legislation to move the island territory's Democratic primary from the end of March to the end of April passed and was signed into law. But layered into that bill was a contingency to shift the primary later on the calendar if there was a need. The state elections commission was given the authority to make the change in consultation with the Democratic Party in Puerto Rico.

And it was that provision of the new law that was triggered by Rodriguez on Thursday, the same day that the Democratic National Convention was pushed back by more than a month. While that national party change may not exactly provide state-level actors like those in Puerto Rico some time, it does provide them some cover. And Puerto Rico Democrats are taking advantage of that. The indefinite postponement leaves hanging out there the scheduling of an election that was to have originally taken place on Sunday, March 29. But the mechanism in the new law allows the territorial party some time to assess the situation -- both with the pandemic and any additional decisions the national party makes on how it will treat states with primaries too late under national party rules -- and set a date that best protects public health and the Puerto Rico delegation to the national convention.

--
FHQ has moved the Puerto Rico Democratic primary to "no date" on the 2020 presidential primary calendar.



--
Related Posts:
3/25/20: Governor Vazquez's Signature Pushes Puerto Rico Democratic Presidential Primary Back a Month

3/19/20: Puerto Rico Legislation Would Shift Presidential Primary Back to April or Beyond

3/16/20: Puerto Rico Democrats Signal Presidential Primary Date Change

Democrats Delay National Convention by Five Weeks

The Democratic National Committee on Thursday, April 2 opted to push back the start of the national convention in Milwaukee from July 13 to August 17 amid increasing time constraints, not to mention public health issues, place on the party over the coronavirus pandemic.

Now the Democratic convention will begin just a week before the Republican National Convention in Charlotte. That reverts the convention timing to the model that has been in place since the 2008 cycle.  2020 was to be a break in that one-week-apart model and a return to the month-apart model for national convention timing that had dominated the post-reform era. However, the coronavirus has changed those plans.

The five week delay in the convention is consistent with the movement of primaries that has occurred on the state level in the wake of the outbreak. Among the states that have shifted delegate selection events back, they have moved on average almost 38 days, a little more than five weeks. The nearly equivalent move by the national convention will allow those states and others stuck between a rock and a hard place in completing their delegate selection in a timely and efficient manner ahead of the new convention's commencement.

What this leaves unanswered is how the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will handle states that have moved beyond the June 9 deadline by which states are to have held their primaries and caucuses under DNC rules. The rules call for a 50 percent reduction in a state's delegation as a penalty. But the convention move signals even more that the party is more likely than not to grant some latitude to state parties on this front.

Kansas Democrats Eliminate In-Person Voting in May 2 Party-Run Presidential Primary

The Kansas Democratic Party on Monday, March 30 made the decision to end in-person voting in its upcoming May 2 party-run primary.

That move comes less than two weeks after the party opted to push forward with their plans to carry out the election with both vote-by-mail and in-person voting. But Kansas Democrats arrived at the same conclusion other states with party-run contests recently have. Democrats in Alaska, Hawaii and Wyoming all chose to end their in-person voting on April 4 and completely lean on the mail-in option each had layered into their delegate selection plans from the start. That insurance policy -- the presence of and planning for a vote-by-mail system -- gave each state party something to fall back on given the threat the coronavirus now poses to in-person voting this spring.

Typically, state parties are at a disadvantage in implementing these types of party-run elections. Those parties just do not have the (funding) resources that state governments do. But in this case, careful planning ahead of time -- and in response to new DNC encouragements in Rule 2 to increase participation -- laid the groundwork for this unique alternative option. Now, states with primaries but no vote-by-mail infrastructure -- states like Delaware -- have had to change the dates of their primaries to hopefully shift out of the window of time in which the coronavirus may reach its peak.

But Kansas Democrats have not. They will press forward with plans to have an all-mail May 2 party-run primary. Voters will need to register as Democrats by April 7 in order to automatically be mailed a ballot for the race.

Voters already registered as Democrats were mailed a ballot on March 30, more newly registered voters have until April 7, and those who have not received a ballot by April 10 can still request a ballot until April 24.


--
Kansas Democratic Party press release on ending in-person voting archived here.


--
Related Posts:
Kansas Democrats Forge Ahead with May 2 Party-Run Presidential Primary, but...