An Open Letter To Fellow Iowa Democrats

To: Johnson County Democratic Legislative delegation, Johnson County Democrats Executive Board, IDP Chair Rita Hart, and anyone reading this.

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee met today and voted on the early state calendar. While this is not final, it is important to note that Iowa did not receive even a single vote from the committee for the midwest slot in the early states, let alone for First In The Nation.

The likely order appears to be:

• South Carolina
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• Michigan
• New Mexico
• Virginia

I am mostly satisfied with this, except for New Hampshire. As you remember, when we lost our place in the early states for 2024, we followed both the state law and the DNC calendar by having an early caucus for party business only, followed by a later mail in vote for presidential preference. In contrast, New Hampshire defied the DNC and scheduled a rogue First primary after being assigned the third slot. They should have faced consequences for that.

I ask each of you to join me in publicly accepting this outcome. It is long past time for Iowa Democrats to let go of the idea that we will get "the caucuses" as we knew them back.

To our legislators: I encourage you to publicly state that First As We Knew It is over, and to introduce and support legislation for an Iowa presidential primary, as our JCDems platform has supported in 2024 and 2026. (A thank you to Dave Jacoby for introducing a primary bill in 2025.) I also urge you to fight hard against any Republican legislation that would prevent us from complying with the DNC calendar and having our national delegation seated, or that would keep us from using absentee ballots in our nomination process.

To my fellow JCDems: I urge you to continue to share the nightmare of our attendance crisis with your friends in other counties. Johnson County is always happy to help other counties, but we need help from the rest of the Democrats in the state on this. No matter what our schedule is for 2028, we MUST have a system to reduce our oversized crowds, by getting the people who only want to vote for president out of the rooms. That will make the caucuses once again the neighborly and deliberative meeting that it was long ago.

To Chair Hart: I ask you to accept this outcome and say so in public, to encourage our statewide candidates to do the same, and to stand firm against the forces in our party who want to defy the DNC. The penalties are strict and severe enough that, even if we do schedule a rogue early contest, the candidates will not come to Iowa. That will both defeat the purpose and will cost us our seats at the national convention. 

I hope this distraction will soon be behind us and we can focus on the more immediate task of winning this year. Thank you all for your support and friendship.

John Deeth

Caucus To Convention Chair, Johnson County Democrats

Caucus 2028: Just One Ask

I'm trying hard to keep my eyes on the prize for 2026 - though, to be 100% honest, my enthusiasm level is somewhat lower than it would have been had a couple primaries turned out differently.

But we all know that my biggest job within the party is caucus season, and despite the greater urgency of 2026, 2028 isn't far from people's minds.

A number of Iowa Dems are already pointing to visits by potential 2028 candidates Pete Buttigeig and Mark Kelly as a sign that "the caucuses are not going away." (By "the caucuses," they really mean the excitement of the First In The Nation year before, not the actual caucus meeting night.)

I'm glad that big names are coming in now to help our candidates. But there is no 2028 nomination calendar yet. Things will change once 1) there is a calendar and 2) if Iowa Democrats, as many in the party are pushing, decide to violate that calendar.

I've long made my thoughts clear: we should let go of First once and for all, comply with whatever calendar the Democratic National Committee determines, end caucuses and have a primary, and build a new organizing model that does not depend on outside speakers, organizers, and money.

But that doesn't appear to be a majority opinion yet within the Iowa Democratic Party, and the top of the ticket disagrees with me, so for today I'm going to make just one ask: Whatever nomination process we have for 2028, whether we follow the calendar or break it, we absolutely need unrestricted absentee ballots, counted at equal weight to in-person votes. We need that for the caucuses to function, even if that means we are Second and not Absolute First.

I shouldn't be wasting time on this just 104 days from Election Day 2026. But this conversation is likely to heat up again soon. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is meeting again this weekend and may be taking a preliminary vote in the 2028 calendar as soon as Friday. Calendar expert and RBC watcher Josh Putnam writes: "it is unlikely that the RBC reverses course on the Iowa's caucuses. Again, that is not really a surprise." 

(Putnam knows this stuff even better than me. he is my only paid subscription and well worth it.)

The penalties for states and candidates that break the rules are automatic, more severe than ever before, and unlike the era before 2024, the DNC seems likely to actually enforce them.  I hope that will be enough to make cooler heads prevail. If not, we will likely be in a situation of "we can build it, but they won't come." 

The Screw The DNC And Go First Anyway crowd denies this, and that just becomes a Duck Season-Wabbit Season dialogue, so for the sake of the rest of my argument I will set that aside and work from a premise that a rogue First In The Nation Iowa will get the same level of voter interest that we saw in The Good Old Days.

My big concern is the overcrowding problem. To address that we need to talk about the absentee problem, which means we have to talk about the New Hampshire problem.

From the 1980s through 2020, Iowa and New Hampshire had an uneasy truce. Each state leaned on its First (what if 48 other states passed the same law) and split the difference. Iowa had the first caucus, followed by New Hampshire holding the first primary.

New Hampshire has historically held that absentee ballots turn a caucus into a primary, and if someone holds a "primary" before them, the New Hampshire Secretary of State has unique powers to move the date at the last minute. That's what they did in 2024, when they voted first, in defiance of the DNC. (Kinda sorta. It wasn't widely reported, but in order to get their national delegates seated, New Hampshire Democrats had to bend the knee to the DNC and hold a do-over party-run primary in April.)

For that reason, Iowa always resisted absentees - because First was considered more important than making sure everyone could vote. Other caucus states had absentees - but other caucus states were after New Hampshire, so New Hampshire didn't care. Only Iowans were left with zero early voting options. And no one in the Go First Anyway crowd has yet described an absentee process that will pass muster with New Hampshire.

Iowa's First In The Nation law does not actually say we vote for president first. It only requires that we elect precinct level party officers before other states vote for president. So Iowa Democrats were able to thread the needle in 2024 with a plan (first proposed in public by yours truly) that complied with both the DNC calendar and the actual wording of state law. We had an early caucus for party business only, followed by a mail-in party-run primary that was compliant with the DNC calendar. That's the approach I favor for 2028 - again, I would prefer a real, auditor-run primary, but that's only a long range goal as long as Republicans are in charge of any branch of state government.

Beginning with 2020, DNC rules have required an absentee voting process in presidential nominating contests. Iowa Democrats struggled with this in 2020. We invested months of planning in a phone-in "virtual caucus" system that was shot down by the DNC at the last minute, then we threw together a "satellite caucus" plan that still required attendance at an in-person meeting.

But in a 2028 scenario where we are already breaking the BIG rule about the date, will Iowa Democrats really have any qualms about breaking the rule requiring absentees?

The difference between the parties on absentee ballots for the caucuses is: Republicans pretty openly don't care if people who can't attend an in-person meeting get to vote. Democrats will say they care, but when it comes down to a choice between First and making sure everyone is able to vote, they will inevitably choose First and then pretend to feel bad about the voters who are excluded, saying things like "there's always next cycle."

It should go without saying - but too often doesn't - that making sure everyone can vote is more important than voting first or seeing presidential candidates in person. But let's again set that aside as I finally get to my real point.

In a scenario where we would have a caucus with the level of interest we have historically seen, absentee voting will be absolutely essential to making the caucuses in large precincts function.

I have written at great length about the overcrowding crisis in the past and don't need to repeat myself. And no, it is not "a good problem to have," as we are often told by activists from other counties. Once you get above about 200 people in the room, organization and deliberation is impossible.

Switching to an Iowa GOP style straw ballot vote, which seems to be a given at this point (absolutely no one wants to keep realignment and caucus math) would only make the Black Hole Of Calcutta a briefer experience. You would still need the gigantic rooms, you would just need them for a shorter time. You would still have to park just as far away and walk just as far - that is, if you're able to walk that far.

Saying it is only Johnson County's problem is both inaccurate - the problem is worst here, sure, but there are mega-precincts in at least a dozen counties - and does not solve the problem. 

This year has been all about the rural counties need to be seen and heard and shown up in. Well, this big blue county has some needs too. We need help with this. We are already using the largest physical spaces that exist in most precincts, often at great expense, and the rooms are still not big enough. And there are not more rooms available for splitting the largest precincts (the only idea anyone has offered us that, while it wouldn't work, at least acknowledges problem). The only way to fix the problem is to get a lot of the people who ONLY want to vote for president (roughly 90% of attendees) out of the room and at home with an absentee ballot. It'll make them happier and it'll make the handful of people who show up for the platform less miserable too.

My fear is that, in the pursuit of the bright shiny object of Absolute First, Iowa Democrats will once again throw the people who can't or don't want to attend in person under the bus, will cave to the Republicans and to New Hampshire, and once again require in person attendance to vote.

And at that point my community is not being treated as a team player, so I won't be an enabler anymore.

So, friends in the Screw The DNC camp, please at least give us early ballots, even if that means Screw The DNC And Go Second. I still believe we will get punished hard and that candidates won't come, but at least us volunteers on the ground will be able to run a functional event.

Now, can we get back to 2026 please?

Call me when this primary is over

Despite this being the ugliest local election cycle in my memory, I'm actually feeling pretty mellow.

Actual footage of 
Johnson County primary

For one thing, my perspective is different. When you measure events on a scale of Zero to My Wife Died, everything is very close to zero. What's the worst that can happen when the worst has already happened?

I'm also making aggressive use of the block button. If you're seeing this, you haven't pissed me off (yet). But If you are caricaturing my closest friends beyond recognition, I don't really need you. If you annoy me enough that my gears keep turning at night and I lose sleep, I would rather take care of myself. And if you are dismissing my knowledge and experience as Old And Out Of Touch, well, then, you don't deserve to hear my insights and probably won't miss them anyway.

I will note that I have had far more hassle in my life from the far left than I ever have from the right. So maybe I'm a "bad Democrat" because I can get along with, work with, and be friends with Republicans. (Those flowers from the JC Republicans at Koni's funeral meant a lot.)

Also my meds are better - and I don't owe enemies any apologies or explanations for my mental health. 

The other silver lining to this cloud is I am down 25 pounds thanks to Teddy getting more walks. 

I know the risks of living in a bubble, but maybe that's what I deserve for myself right now. Monitoring the opposition isn't worth the stress of toxic people.

 

The loudest voices are not necessarily the most numerous voices. The more people that vote, the more the true voice of the people is heard. And I'm proud of the work I do to make that voice heard.

I Don't Vote But Vote For Me

The personal drama and online cruelty of the June 2 primary is getting to me, and I am about to get a lot more busy, so I'm checking out of some things and doing some selective blocking. I don't want to live in a bubble but there's people who aren't worth the stress.

But before I back off I do want to address one race and an issue that I think is important. I spent five bucks on a document and reached out for a response, so I'm gonna write the post.

As we all remember, the 2020 congressional race in (a slightly different version of) this district was decided by a mere six votes - painful proof that every vote counts.

Yet despite that narrow margin, the narrowest in the nation in 40 years, 2026 congressional candidate Travis Terrell did not bother to vote in the 2022 or 2024 primary or general elections.

Records from the statewide voter system indicate that Terrell, who turns 41 a few days before the primary, first registered a few days after his 18th birthday, a good start, and cast his first vote in the 2004 presidential election. 

Terrell moved a few times between then and now between Wapello, Muscatine and Johnson counties, nothing wrong with that, and through 2021 had a fairly typical voter record for a young person. He voted mostly in general elections in presidential and governor years (missing 2010) and in four non-general elections: one city election (2005), one school election (2013), one primary (2018), and one combined city and school election (2021; state law combined the two elections beginning in 2019).

But after voting in the 2021 West Liberty city and school board election, Terrell drops off the chart. There is no "voter initiated" activity on his record until the summer of 2025 when he re-registered in Johnson County, a few months after he announced his congressional candidacy and also well after the Johnson County Democrats elected him to the county central committee (at a monthly meeting, not at the caucus). He then voted in the 2025 election for Tiffin city council and Clear Creek Amana school board.

During those four years, there were five elections where anyone in the state was able to vote: the 2022 primary and general election, the 2023 city/school board election, and the 2024 primary and general election.

There were a lot of important things on those ballots.  A US Senate race between Chuck Grassley and Mike Franken that at least briefly looked competitive. The opportunity to vote against Donald Trump - yes, I know the Selzer poll was way wrong, but for a moment we thought that was competitive, too. And of course the congressional seat, the one Terrell is running for now, the one that was decided by six votes in 2020. 

There's still enough journalist left in me that I decided to reach out to the Terrell campaign and try to get an explanation. I did not hear from the candidate but, in something that seems to be a pattern from this campaign, heard back instead from campaign manager Eric Kusiak (who was also a surrogate speaker for Terrell and the 2nd District Democratic convention on May 2).

"Like so many, Travis has struggled to have faith in the electoral system. He's the kind of voter Democrats have lost in the millions. What's been happening has woken him up to the failures of this party, like so many who support him that we left behind. His opponent has shown up to vote but still can't bring herself to defend the people in her district most in need or stand up to the corruption of either political party." 

Kusiak, in another pattern for the campaign, then offered several attacks on Christina Bohannan, Terrell's primary opponent and the Democratic nominee in the two general elections that Terrell skipped. He also argued that attendance at No Kings rallies is a more appropriate measure than a person's voting record. 

Every vote matters. Voting rights are the right from which all other rights are enabled. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Travis Terrell does not appear to believe these things. Instead, his campaign manager excuses him for "losing faith" when there isn't a Bernie Bro candidate on the ballot, and the campaign's attacks on Bohannan are more vitriolic than the attacks on Republican incumbent Mariannette Miller-Meeks.

At a time when voting rights are under bitter attack at the federal level, it is critical that our next member of Congress values those rights. Travis Terrell doesn't even value the right to vote enough to use it.

Disclaimer 1: As many people are aware, I work at the auditor's office. From time to time journalists, campaigns, and political researchers request voter records. Other people in our office do that work. I purchased Terrell's record under the same conditions and at the same rate as any other researcher and I have a receipt.

Disclaimer 2: I did not consult the Bohannan campaign about this post.

Disclaimer 3: I did not vote in the 1992 Iowa City school board election, which was uncontested. I regret missing that election. Other than that I have voted in every election in which I was eligible since moving to Iowa in August 1990. 

Relationships Matter

I'm an Old Straight White Guy (and feeling a lot older than I did a year and a half ago). I get that we have more than had "our turn."

 

But the faction that is most loudly arguing that the Old Straight White Guy should have simply stood down in the name of diversity is also the faction that systematically hounded the first and only Black supervisor out of office, and that chanted "racist" at the City Council when they re-elected the black gay mayor.

 

Johnson County has got enough of a history at electoral diversity that we can afford to look at candidates as individuals. No matter what happens, it's not going to be all Old Straight White Guys at the table.

Tip O'Neill was very much an Old Straight White Guy, but a lot of his lessons are timeless.

 

He loved to tell a story from his first election, running for city council when he was still a student at Boston College. His neighbor Mrs. O’Brien said: "Tom, I'm going to vote for you tomorrow even though you didn't ask me."

 

“Mrs. O'Brien, I’ve lived across the street from you for 18 years. “I cut your grass in the summer and shovel your walk in the winter. I didn’t think I had to ask for your vote.”

Mrs. O’Brien’s response: “Tom, people like to be asked.”

 

He lost that election. He never lost another one. 

 

You're not going to get someone's support if you don't ask. You might not get it even then, but at least you've begun to build a relationship.

 Relationships matter in politics and in government as well. I'm not special. I'm not a big deal. But I am one of the senior rank and file county employees, and I'm one of the more experienced party leaders. I give people straight answers, and I think I'm worth talking to.

 

I understand not everyone wants to waste their time on me. There's no way I was going to support anyone but Rod Sullivan in the District 4 race. He is one of my closest friends and has been for 30 years. He's stuck by me through literally the darkest hours of my life, including the one I'm living through now.

 

I supported V in 2022. I volunteered for their campaign and was in on several planning meetings. My thoughts and judgement were taken seriously.

 

But something seems to have happened afterwards. Because I have not had a substantive conversation about policy or politics with V since that primary. (That was long before the district bill and the map that paired V and Rod.) Did I reach out? No, I didn't. If you're the candidate, I think it's on you to reach out. (V did offer appropriate condolences after my wife's death, and I appreciated that kindness - but that's been about it.)

 

I've also been disappointed in V on some policy matters, most notably the much needed new jail. (ALL of this personality stuff is going to seem like insider trivia after that jail vote.) I am not a police abolitionist and I have family working in law enforcement. That doesn't make me a "fascist" or even a "conservative." It makes me a pragmatist. I can't look at this in any sort of "leaving my friendship aside" manner, but Rod's vision of governing is closer to my own.

 

I also got to know Guillermo during V's campaign, and then he came to work for the county. And again, something seems to have happened, because when we passed in the hallways he barely said hello. His two predecessors, Andy Johnson and Mike Hensch, regularly talked with me and with a lot of other rank and file staffers. They built relationships, not just in one office or with higher ranking staff, but across the county.

 

Relationships matter. If V and Guilllermo had maintained a relationship with me after June 2022, would it have changed my "vote?" (I live in District 5.) No, but I would have been honest about it AND I would have been less likely to write all of this.

 

I have never had a substantial conversation with Mandi Remington about anything in my life. At some point before 2023, the self-described "progressive" faction decided that I was "too establishment" and no longer worth the time of day. They decided they could win with just their own people and didn't need to talk to anyone else. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, but it seems like that attitude has carried over from campaigning into governing. Only talking to your own people is something Trump and Reynolds and the legislative Republicans do. It should not be how Democrats of any faction operate.

 

I didn't know Josh Moe or Joe Reilly before they were candidates either - but they reached out and asked for my support. Mandi just wrote me off, apparently with no consideration. I don't "not like" Mandi - I just don't know her at all. There's no relationship TO damage.

 

This isn't an ideological thing. Jon Green talks to me often and I think we have a good relationship, even if we may not always be on the same side of every issue or primary. Laura Bergus was decent enough to reach out and tell me that she was changing races in 2023 and running against my friend Pauline Taylor, and I was honest and told her I was going to support Pauline. We have barely talked since, but at least we had enough of a relationship for an honest conversation, and I feel like we could still do that despite our differences.

 

Maybe I'll get called some names. Maybe some stuff from the distant past will get brought up. Maybe someone will point out my flaws again as if I don't already see them. I'm past the point of caring. Petty cruelty in a political fight on the internet can't hurt me after the year and a half I have been through. And one of the most valuable lessons of that year and a half for me has been: relationships matter.

What's A "Progressive"?

I grew up in Wisconsin and in school we learned about the Wisconsin Ideas and the Progressives. And we were proud of that.

The original progressives were reformers, not radicals. Teddy Roosevelt and Fighting Bob La Follette were not Marxists. Neither was Iowa's great progressive, Henry Wallace (though he accepted Communist support, which backfired and did him more harm than good). 

There were progressives in both major parties and in third parties, supporting a wide range of governmental reforms and business regulations - trust busting, but not Seizing The Means Of Production. There were lots of different kinds of progressives just as there were lots of different kinds of liberals and moderates and conservatives.

About ten years ago the word "progressive" got narrowly defined. If you did not support one particular presidential candidate in 2016 and 2020, and if you supported candidates other than his acolytes in other races, you were no longer allowed to call yourself a progressive.

That irks my Wisconsin born pride. I'd like to take the word "progressive" back from the extremists.

Running Against The Party

I consider myself a mainstream Democrat. If you want to measure me, my contested caucus track record this century is Bradley-Dean-Obama-Clinton-Warren.

I recognize that Mainstream Democrat is not the most popular thing to be these days. But I'm a voter too, and I don't really care for it when people run within a party by running against the party - whether that's Rob Sand's "parties are bad and we should all just work together" approach, or the clenched fist Well ACTually, What Socialism Means Is approach. I want to make the party better and stronger and I don't think attacking the party helps that.

Neither one of those approaches speaks to me. They're both assuming "mainstream Democrats will vote for the nominee." Which is what we do and what you're supposed to do. Buy into the process, accept the outcome. Sometimes YTIИU is a punch in the face.

But: of those two approaches, I believe Sand's approach is more likely to produce a general election win in Iowa.

We're Not On A Mission From God

Remember that scene in Big Bang Theory where Amy ruins Indiana Jones for the guys?

If you hated that, stop reading now. 

As an entire generation knows, the MacGuffin driving "The Blues Brothers" is the tax bill for the orphanage where they grew up. 

But it turns out The Penguin wasn't up shit creek after all.

According to the actual, real Cook County Assessor, "an institution used for religious purposes, as an orphanage or for school and religious purposes, may qualify for a property tax exemption if it is not used for profit."

I'm not the first to discover this gaping plot hole. In 2022, the current Cook County Assessor addressed the issue.

Assessor Fritz Kaegi took part in a live comedy sketch with actors Dan Aykroyd and Jim Belushi during the actors’ August 19 musical performance as The Blues Brothers at a fan convention in Joliet...

With Aykroyd looking on and nodding, Kaegi said: “St. Helen of the Blessed Shroud is an orphanage. It is a religious institution. It’s tax exempt.”

Then, Kaegi explained in assessor lingo: “We want to set this right. So, we’re going to issue the orphanage a certificate of error. No taxes are due for 1979 to 1981. And no taxes in the future.”

The plaque also retroactively grants “special assessment landmark status, as the childhood home of Jake and Elwood Blues, a.k.a The Blues Brothers, and is therefore exempt from any future assessment increases or taxes.”

No Mission From God. No Getting The Band Back Together. The only part that's real is the Illinois Nazis.

When Aykroyd accepted the plaque, he addressed the crowd and said: “Well, I guess the whole movie didn’t happen."