Yesterday (1/16/2026) was the deadline for state parties to file applications with the Democratic National Committee for an early date in the 2028 nomination calendar.
As expected, the Iowa Democratic Party filed for an early date, as they did in 2024 without success. Earlier in the week, IDP solicited statements of support from party leaders to include with the application. I replied with a statement of opposition. Since I'm skeptical that IDP passed along my thoughts, I'll share them here.
As of Friday, no bill for a presidential primary has been filed in the Iowa Legislature. I understand that Democrats are on defense and that there are many priorities. However, Democrats found time to introduce several other no-chance messaging bills in the opening week of the session.
My statement of opposition:
Dear Rules and Bylaws Committee members:
I strongly oppose the Iowa Democratic Party's application for inclusion in the carveout window. No state with a caucus process should be considered for an early date. I encourage RBC to follow the position of former President Biden, who in December 2022 said "our party should no longer allow caucuses as part of our nominating process," and enact a ban on caucuses for presidential preference effective immediately for the 2028 cycle.
I have volunteered for the Johnson County, Iowa Democratic Party since my move to the state 35 years ago. I have worked professionally in election administration for our local election office for 28 years. I have assisted with the logistics of caucus organizing since the 2004 cycle, and in 2016, 2020, and 2024, I was the county party's lead organizer for the presidential caucuses. I oppose caucuses in a way that only someone who has done the work on the ground can. I have written extensively on the subject for many years and I can provide more information at whatever level of detail you wish.
There are many problems with caucuses as a process.
You are well familiar with the problems caucuses have with the inclusion of voters who cannot attend a long meeting at one time and in one place. But you may be less familiar with the severe overcrowding issues we have had in our largest and most Democratic precincts.
Instead of spreading turnout across a whole day as in an election, caucuses require all voters to be present at the same time. The number of people who want to attend a First In The Nation Caucus is larger than the capacity of the largest available public buildings. We began to exceed building capacity as long ago as 2004. The average caucus attendee in 2020 was in a caucus of 191 people, straining the capacity of a grade school gym, the largest commonly available public space. Some caucuses had turnout of 500, 700, even 900. Dividing into smaller precincts does not help, as it does not create additional public spaces.
As lead caucus organizer for our county, I can recruit more volunteers. I can train them better. What I cannot do is build buildings.
When confronted by these numbers, Iowa activists from smaller counties either a) scoff in disbelief; b) don't care, because it's OK for urban counties to suffer as long as presidential candidates visit the smallest towns; c) dismiss it as "it's only a problem in the college counties" which does not solve the problem; or d) say "high attendance is a good problem to have."
It is not a good problem to have. A three hour, 700 person caucus does active damage to our organizing efforts. You can't do "organizing" in a crowd of 700. All you can do is crowd control and anger management. People leave in disgust, and never attend a party event again until the next caucus comes around and they are forced to if they want to vote. And they invariably blame the local volunteers, who did not make the rules.
While Iowa Democrats have made some good efforts at reform, the problem of building capacity cannot be solved without a complete change to a primary election.
Chair Hart is correct when she notes: "As a practical matter, it’s important to emphasize that any change to Iowa law with respect to a state-run primary or caucus is a non-starter at the Iowa statehouse. Iowa Democrats are compelled by state law to conduct an in-person party-run presidential delegate selection process. "
However, that rings very hollow without some indication that Iowa Democrats actually WANT to move to a primary. Unfortunately, there is no solid evidence of that. The in-state discussion continues to focus on First In The Nation and not on reform.
The first ever bill for an Iowa presidential primary was introduced only in 2025, and attracted no co-sponsors. Frankly, such a bill should be supported by every Democratic legislator. Instead, our state House Minority Leader urged on statewide television that we should openly defy the DNC if we are not rewarded with an early date. (If this should happen, I urge RBC to impose the strictest possible penalties on our state, and on New Hampshire as well.)
Additionally, our platform process will also be completed this year before RBC makes its final decision. I had hoped to get our state party platform to include support for a presidential primary; instead, it says the opposite (page 15).
Given the limits of state law, Hart and IDP are to be commended for the program they developed for the 2024 cycle: 1) a caucus for party business only on a First In The Nation night. This meets the requirements of state law, which does not require a presidential vote. It only requires election of party officers. Indeed, Iowa Republicans did not have a presidential vote in the 1984, 1992 or 2004 cycles. 2) A mail in party run primary at a calendar compliant date. That process could use some improvement, but was a good first effort in what was at the time a relatively uncontested nomination contest. My hope is that IDP has a similar process for 2028.
However, such a party-run process should not be rewarded or encouraged with early state status, at least not until and unless Iowa Democrats start to show serious support for a state-run primary election.
The Democratic Party is the party of voting rights. It is time our nomination rules fully reflect this, with a ban on caucuses.
I am happy to discuss this issue in more detail with the committee members.
Sincerely,
John Deeth
Iowa City, Iowa
