In 2016, fourteen states and four territories used a caucus-based system to allocate pledged delegates to the candidates for president. This post is the third in a series on how the states that are choosing to retain a caucus-based system are proposing to respond to the DNC’s 2020 Delegate Selection Rules, particularly Rule 2.K, which have added emphasis to prior language encouraging state parties to take steps to make it easier for people who are unable to attend their local caucus meeting to participate and requiring that delegate allocation be based on the preferences in the initial round of caucuses (unlike the old rules which allowed the allocation to be made based on the preferences at the meeting that actually selected the delegates). The new rules also include a preference for a state-run primary. Of the fourteen states that had caucuses in 2016, four (Colorado, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Idaho) have already opted to switch to a state-run primary for 2020. In addition, at least two other states have primary bills either awaiting the Governor’s signature (Utah) or moving in the legislature (Maine — which has some weird features that may warrant a post if it passes and the Maine Democratic Party opts in). The first two posts covered Iowa which is sticking with a caucus system and Washington which put forward two plans (one primary-based and one caucus-based) with a final decision to come next month. That leaves six (or eight if you include Utah and Maine) states (and the four territories) to propose plans (all of which are supposed to be posted for public comment more than thirty days before approval by the state party with the state party supposed to submit the state party-approved plan to the Rules and By-laws Committee of the Democratic National Committee by May 3).
This week’s post covers the recent draft plan issued by North Dakota’s Democratic-NPL Party. In 2016, North Dakota had a caucus meeting at the legislative district-level and the allocation of state convention delegates from those meetings was used to allocate the national convention delegates. Additionally, there was no provision for “absentee” votes by those who could not attend the legislative district meeting.
Reflecting the DNC’s desire to improve participation in the caucus state, North Dakota is switching from caucus meetings to what is sometimes called a “firehouse” or party-run primary as its first step. In a traditional caucus system, voters must be present at the time scheduled for the start of the caucus with the vote taking place during the caucus. In a firehouse primary/caucus, the party opens polling places and voters can show up at any time during the voting period. In North Dakota, the proposal is to have local voting places which will be open for eight hours (from 11 a. m. to 7 p.m. on March 10). In addition, North Dakota will allow mail-in absentee voting.
It appears that the allocation of delegates will be by the raw vote totals from the March 10 election. However, there is some ambiguity in the language which is similar to the 2016 language. Thus, it is possible that the raw votes will be translated into state-convention equivalents before being reported by the North Dakota Party.
One thing that is true of all the plans (including primary plans that will not be discussed until the actual voting begins in 2020) is another change buried in the DNC’s rules. For years, the Democratic Party has required that the elected delegation be split 50-50 between men and women. The DNC’s rules (specifically Rule 6.C), and thus all of the state plans, make it clear that gender is a matter of the delegate candidate’s self-identification. Additionally, if a delegate does not use a binary gender-identification (i.e. identifies as something other than male or female) that delegate does not count toward the 50-50 requirement. The possibility of non-binary delegates is causing a new degree of complexity in the rules. In the past, many states, to assure the 50-50 at the state-level have specifically assigned the extra delegate in districts with an odd number of delegates to a gender allowing gender-based elections for delegate. In North Dakota, like in Iowa, the rules require a majority vote for any delegate to be elected and there is not a separate election for male delegates and female delegates.
Washington’s plans are more complex. In each district, a particular gender is designate as the “advantaged” gender (generally the one with the extra delegate in a district with an odd number of delegates but there is still one designated in the districts with an even number of delegates). The rules are ambiguous about the voting process but the bottom line is that an non-binary person wins a delegate slot if that person receives more votes than the person who would get the last delegate slot for the advantaged gender with the other gender then becoming the advantaged gender. (For example, if a delegation has seven delegates and the advantaged gender is male, the top non-binary candidate must get more votes than the fourth-placed male with that candidate effectively taking one of the male slots; the second-placed non-binary candidate must get more votes than the third-placed female candidate; the third-placed non-binary candidate must get more votes than the third-placed male candidate; etc.) As complex as these rules are in drafting, they are likely to become even more complex when delegates are being selected by candidate caucuses at the district and state-level conventions. Particularly in districts with an active LBGTQ community, I am seeing a great potential for questions about how these rules work in practice.
It is clear that the state parties are taking steps toward improving participation in the caucus process. And they are locking in delegate allocation based on the initial results. The key issues identified by the early states are: 1) raw votes vs. local delegates elected; 2) absentee voters being counted as a separate pool vs. part of their local vote; and 3) whether voters will get chance to have their vote reallocated to a second choice if their first candidate fails to get to 15% (very key for absentee voters in the states so far as voting may begin before the field narrows). We will see how the remaining 2016 caucus states deal with these issues as their plans are released. (Given the time table for the initial draft, I am not sure which states will be consolidated into one post and which states might be postponed until there is time to catch up.)
