Last week the Iowa Democratic Party rolled out a long-promised "Family Conversation" about the future of Iowa's role in the presidential nomination process. I've been having that conversation for several years, of course, and it's been blowing up on social media lately like a holiday get together with the sketchy relatives and too much booze. My role seems to be the bratty stepchild who doesn't know his place and says a lot of rude stuff that isn't supposed to be said.
The "conversation" takes the form of an online survey ("share widely," Rita Hart says, and so I have) that requires a Google login, presumably to weed out ringers and trolls. It's similar to a survey taken in May 2022 prior to Iowa's failed application to the DNC for continued early state status. That gathered some valuable information, most notably the fact that everyone hated realignment and delegate math, and led to the development of the mail-in party run primary plan that Iowa Democrats used in 2024.
It took me a few days to respond for personal reasons, but no need to hurry, it will be available for three months or so. Below is what's getting asked, so you can think it through ahead of time. I've also included my responses. Each section has an open comments field that does not appear to have a length limit, as I'm more verbose on this subject than anyone and I didn't run out of space.
DNC is meeting this weekend to begin the process of the 2028 nomination calendar, so now is as good a time as any to talk about it.
Dear Iowa Democrats,
Iowa Democrats have a lot of work to do before the 2028 presidential election. Namely, we need to win elections in 2026. However, discussions about the 2028 nominating process have begun. Without an incumbent president on the ballot, we are likely to have one of the deepest and longest nominating campaigns in history.
Unlike 2024, the outcome of the presidential nominating process will be in doubt. As Iowa Democrats, we have choices to make about how to proceed. Since the certification of our 2024 process by the State Central Committee, I have promised that Iowa Democrats will have a “family conversation” about what comes next.
In January, Ken Martin was elected to lead the DNC for the next four years and has promised an “open process.” It’s unfortunate, despite that promise, Chair Martin began the process by removing several members of the Rules and By-laws Committee (RBC) who chose to support Ben Wikler for Chair - including our own Scott Brennan. The new RBC will be seated at the DNC meeting in August. From there, we expect the earliest there will be an approved process determining the nominating calendar will be the December meeting of the DNC.
(Deeth notes: it's interesting that Brennan's removal from Rules And Bylaws is attributed to Iowa's support for Wikler, rather than to the overall anti-Iowa mood we saw in the 2022 early state window application process. I think it's a little of both.)
I know that many Iowa Democrats have deeply held beliefs about the caucus and nominating process. Having been through the 2024 cycle, I can tell you the devil is in the details. There are going to be disagreements about specifics and logistical challenges to any plan. My goal in this process is unity around our shared values - and that’s why I am asking you to complete this survey today. Your voice will help us prioritize our options as we navigate the upcoming process.
Democratically yours,
Rita Hart
Chair, Iowa Democratic Party
Identification questions
Required fields
Google account login
Name
ZIP (this flags you as an Iowan or not)
Email
Phone ("By submitting your cell phone number you are agreeing to receive
periodic text messages from this organization. Message and data rates
may apply. Text HELP for more information. Text STOP to stop receiving
messages." This is, again, a required field, so if they get nothing else out of this they get contact data.)
- First
- Early Window
- Super Tuesday or later
- Don't Care (my answer)
Comments
"Our party should no longer allow caucuses as part of our nominating process" - President Biden, December 2022
No state with a caucus process should be considered for early state status. My hope is that DNC bans caucuses entirely.
- IDP should focus the nominating process on maximizing participation measured by the total number of voters or caucus goers. (my answer)
- IDP should figure out accommodations for voters that cannot participate on Caucus Night and to alleviate overcrowding in urban precincts, but generally needs to maintain the historical “in-the-room” caucus process.
- IDP should focus the nominating process on candidates' ability to organize in all 99 counties and 1600 precincts to win.
- IDP should focus the process on maintaining its alliance with New Hampshire.
- IDP should return the Caucuses to their historical “in-the-room” format for expression of presidential preference.
Comments
The overwhelming percentage of people attending a caucus do not want to be at a "party organizing meeting." (90%+ leave as soon as realignment is locked in.) They simply want to vote for president. We should give them that.
- The caucuses help build the Party organization. It is ok for the IDP to devote resources it might otherwise spend on organizing and communicating with unreliable Democrats and swing voters, on the Caucus because the national attention of the Caucuses is valuable and sets the stage to do the necessary organizing work to win.
- The caucuses divert attention from winning elections. It should not spend money that might otherwise go to organizing and communications, even if that means presidential candidates will not come to Iowa. (my answer)
Caucuses with hundreds of people that take three or more hours to complete do ACTIVE DAMAGE to our organizing efforts.
Over and over I have heard: "The caucuses were so crowded and disorganized! I'm never going to anything for the Johnson County Democrats again." Never "the Iowa Democratic Party." Never "the DNC." Unhappy people always blame the local party and the volunteers in the room, even though we aren't the ones who made the rules.
We don't lose Democratic votes over it in the fall, and eventually they caucus again, only because they have no choice. But we lose PEOPLE. People who might be donors or volunteers instead sit on the sidelines because they are convinced the local Democrats are a shit show - because their first experience when they try to join is getting told "stand in line for 45 minutes to sign in, then go stand in the corner for three hours to vote."
And the much overhyped candidate appearances do little to help. Most people at those events are either a) selfie collectors or b) people who feel a strong commitment to that one candidate - and if their candidate is not the nominee, we never see them again.
- IDP should work within the DNC process and accept the outcome, even if it means Iowa is not in the early window. (my answer)
- IDP should work within the DNC process, but ignore the outcome if Iowa’s plan is not accepted, like New Hampshire in 2024.
- IDP should give no consideration to the DNC process.
Comments
We should not even apply for early state status.
Every minute spent pursuing early state status with (or without) DNC is time wasted that could be better spent rebuilding our party and our state. DNC doesn’t like that Iowa is red and getting redder, they don’t like our lack of diversity, they rightly disapprove of caucuses as a process, they don’t like our arrogant sense of entitlement that First is our natural right, and they don’t think we’ve really been punished yet for the 2020 results meltdown. And we have zero elected federal Democrats to stand up for us.
It is foolish to believe that we can defy a DNC decision and still get the benefits of First In The Nation. See my article at Bleeding Heartland, "We Can Build It, But They Won't Come." I can very easily see the DNC tossing Iowa’s ENTIRE delegation to send a message.
Some are already saying we could live with no delegates, if it meant we would get the in-person visits and other privileges of First. But we won't. The rules against campaigning in non-compliant states are extremely strict. During the summer of 2023 when we were in non-compliance, we were unable to even get a call from Wilmington to discuss our efforts to start a volunteer Biden group - acknowledging us was against the rules!
All DNC has to do is 1) toss candidates who come here out of debates and more importantly 2) lock them out of VAN. If we go rogue we won't see a single credible candidates and our votes won't count.
- IDP should avoid being sued by the state, even if it disagrees with the interpretation of state law.
- IDP should be willing to go to Court if it disagrees with an interpretation of state law, even if litigation is time consuming and expensive. (my answer but see comments)
We are supposed to be the party of voting rights. Each fall we push people to vote early. We want to make it easier to vote and we fight vote suppression...
...except in February of leap years. Then we tell people they have to attend an all evening meeting and if they can't, in the immortal words of Scott Brennan, "you can always caucus next cycle."
I think IDP should take legal action if a Republican legislature tries to make us abandon the mail-in reforms of 2024 and force us back into an in-person system with no absentee voting - a move that I think is likely.
I hope that individual Iowa Democrats take legal action against the state and/or IDP if we are prevented from casting a vote that counts toward a national convention delegate that is seated at full voting strength, or if we are prevented from casting absentee ballots (there is considerable ADA vulnerability on that point).
- Timing of caucuses (5)
- Tradition, Inclusion & Accessibility (1)
- Resource trade-offs - potential costs and benefit (4)
- DNC Compliance (2)
- State law compliance (3)
I appreciate the opportunity. My thoughts on this subject are of course very public and well known, and widely available, and I'm sure you've read some version of this before. I've been writing it since 2016.
We need to let First go.
I understand the political disadvantage this puts us in. But voting rights are more important than political advantage.
My frustration is that I, a mere county level volunteer, appear to be the highest ranking official in the party who is willing to openly say what needs to be said - that First As We Knew It is over forever and that we need to build a new way of organizing that does not depend on magic outside speakers, organizers, and money. Frankly, that should have been the first thing Ross Wilburn said in December 2022, and our leadership should have been telling activists that for the last three years. Instead we remain in denial. We have wasted three years on letting people have false hopes.
Iowa Democrats set unrealistic expectations for 50 years and now we are paying for it as our rural counties think "Democrats don't care" because presidential candidates didn't come to Mt. Ayr last year. Guess what - 48 other states don't get that! Why are we not saying that? Instead our legislative leaders are saying "Fuck the DNC, go first anyway." That is not leadership and it will not work. We need to be willing to tell people the truth even if they don't want to hear it, and maybe give up a few donations.
My fear as we move forward is that rural counties and the donor class are going to force us back into the old Stand In The Corner To Vote system. This is simply unworkable in urban areas - it's not "just Johnson County." The average caucus goer in 2020 was at a caucus of 191 people or more, and 17 counties had a caucus at least that large. Those are our best Democratic precincts. Those are the places we need to run up the score in November - and we are turning people off with a long and difficult process in an overcrowded room. (A "Republican style caucus" won't help the overcrowding - you still have to park and sign in all those people and get them in the room.)
As the lead organizer for Johnson County's caucuses in 2016, 2020 and 2024, I believe I did the best I could with the resources I had available. And our volunteers did their best within the rules and within the spaces we had. But all we accomplished in 2016 and 2020 was making a bad situation a little less bad - and we locals got the blame for a system we do not like and do not want.
I can recruit better. I can train better. I can plan better. I can't build buildings.
In our urban precincts there are simply not enough rooms that are large enough to hold the crowds that want to attend. I've been pointing this out since the 2016 cycle and no one has ever offered a realistic response. No one has yet offered to build us a dozen 1000 seat meeting halls with 800 parking spaces each on the east side of Iowa City and in north Coralville. No one has offered to repay the thousands of dollars it cost us to rent the largest privately owned meeting spaces. You just set the rules and force us to deal with it even when they don't work for us. It's not fair to ask our county to run three dozen simultaneous congressional district conventions. Personally, I'm not willing to go back to that. I'm not willing to enable it. If we have to go back to in person with no absentees in 2028, I'll call the fire marshal myself.
The only way to solve this problem is to get people out of the rooms while still letting them participate. There's not a way to do that without real absentees, and there's not an absentee system I can imagine that New Hampshire will not subvert.
The problem can't any more be that people are not aware of the issue - it has to be that they simply don't care. The attitude I'm getting is that Johnson County and Grinnell and Beaverdale just have to suffer through 900 person caucuses so that donors can have Pete and Kamala's cell numbers and so that small county chairs can get quoted in the New York Times.
Johnson County has shipped a great deal of resources, both people and money, to IDP and to weaker counties. And we MORE than do our part with our own results - 15 points better than any other county in the state, across the board. We ask little in return except for some wins. Well, this is something Johnson County and the other blue counties need. We need a voting system that gets people out of the overcrowded rooms, and lets everyone vote, and that is more important than First.
I look forward to continuing this family conversation and will be happy to talk with any Democrat in the state with any questions.
John Deeth
Caucus and Convention Organizer, Johnson County Democrats
