As Doc Jess noted yesterday, the Rules and By-Laws Committee (the party entity with responsibility for reviewing state party delegate selection plans) has found problems with the virtual caucus proposed by Iowa. The concerns, however, extend beyond Iowa. According to news reports, the RBC has also made a similar decision concerning Nevada’s delegate selection rules.
As I noted several weeks ago, there are now seven states left that do not use a state-run primary with Iowa, Nevada, and Wyoming being the last pure caucus states and Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, and North Dakota using party-run primaries. In the revised delegate selection rules, Rule 2.G suggested that the RBC would consider plans that allowed internet voting as a form of absentee voting if the proposed plan included sufficient security assurances. In its recent decision, the RBC apparently decided that — under current conditions — such assurances are not possible. It is, however, understandable why Iowa and Nevada put forth proposals that relied on internet voting. Rule 2.K.8 requires that parties using a party-run process create some alternative means of voting for those who are unable to participate in person on the day established for the caucus/party-run primary.
In light of these two provisions in the national rules, it’s not just Iowa that has included the possibility of electronic voting. The draft plans in Alaska, Iowa, and Nevada include provisions for electronic voting. The plans in Hawaii and North Dakota opted to use mail-in voting instead of electronic voting. (Alaska’s plan also includes absentee voting, so they might just need to eliminate the electronic voting.) The plan in Kansas notes absentee/advanced voting as a possibility without further details. If I am reading their plan correctly, Wyoming permits surrogate voting (which looks to be a proxy vote permitted in limited circumstances). (I am not sure that proxy voting is allowed by the national rules — although it looks like Wyoming has used it previously from the comments submitted on their plan. However, Wyoming’s plan has other problems that will probably require them to redraft their plans.)
The RBC’s decision points to two things. First, as much as some would like to move to internet voting, the effort it takes to create adequate security probably exceeds the ability of many state parties at the present time (and will probably do so for some time). Second, there is an inherent conflict between having a caucus as the “first step” of a state plan and trying to increase participation by those who are unable to attend a caucus. Using mail-in votes (even with ranked voting) makes the caucus more like a primary.
In the long-run, the seven states without a state-run primary could all move to a party-run primary in-lieu of a caucus. For encouraging participation by ordinary voters, that is probably the best solution. However, as Doc Jess noted, Iowa likes being first but New Hampshire insists on being the first “primary.” The long term question will be whether Iowa limits advance voting (whether mail-in or via a telecaucus) in such a way that New Hampshire is willing to treat the Iowa process as a caucus rather than a primary. As a figleaf, the fact that those who actually attend the meetings will be know the results of the “first preference” votes before deciding their second choice makes a caucus different from the pure primary in which even those who deposit their ballots on the day of the event are blind as to the candidate standings when they record their second, third, etc. preference. And, at least for now, Iowa’s practice (not followed by Nevada) of awarding separate delegates to the pre-caucus vote is another potential distinction that might satisfy New Hampshire.
From news reports, some of the individuals in Iowa and Nevada feel blindsided by the RBC decision. They feel that they should have gotten more notice about the problem earlier in the process. On the other hand, the national rules did indicate the need for adequate security, and it is understandable why the RBC was looking into the issue and waiting to see what the state parties put together before making a decision. As the party of science and technology standing against the Luddites that control the Republican Party, many in the Democratic Party want to see electronic voting work.
Iowa and Nevada now have to modify their plans to comply with this decision. It will be interesting to see what they come up with as a solution.
