After two years of having plans for its 2024 presidential caucus rejected, the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) has succeeded in winning approval for its latest plan from national party leaders. Early Friday afternoon, the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) voted unanimously to declare the plan outlined by IDP representative Scott Brennan to be in “conditional compliance” with DNC rules for the 2024 election cycle.
“Before we move on the motion to move Iowa to conditional compliance, I’d like to take a moment of personal privilege,” RBC co-chair Minyan Moore said prior to the committee vote. “These have been lengthy and vigorous negotiations, and I’d like to commend Scott and the Iowa Democratic Party for transforming their caucuses to include an inclusive and accessible mail-in process.”
It’s that mail-in process that will allow Iowa to meet the DNC’s requirements and, the IDP believes, requirements in state law.
During the RBC meeting on Friday, Brennan read from a letter submitted by IDP chair Rita Hart, which outlined the state party’s plan for conducting a mail-in selection process for presidential candidates.
On Nov. 1, Iowa Democrats would be able to start registering to receive presidential preference cards — for all practical purposes they are mail-in absentee ballots, but that’s a term the IDP deliberately avoids — delivered through the mail.
”Presidential preference cards will be mailed starting Jan. 12, 2024,” Brennan said, reading from the letter. “Iowa Democrats will hold our in-person precinct caucus January 15, 2024. The last day to request a presidential preference card is Feb. 19. 2024.”
Democrats will have until Tuesday, March 5 to mail the cards. The results will be announced that evening.
March 5 is the beginning of the period during which any state can schedule a primary or caucus without special permission from the DNC. It’s also Super Tuesday, and Democratic parties in 13 other states will hold their primaries that day, including much more important in terms of delegates than Iowa, which has 46. Those states include California (497 delegates), Texas (272 delegates), North Carolina (132 delegates), Virginia (118 delegates), Massachusetts (116 delegates) and Minnesota (92 delegates).
Iowa state law requires political parties to hold precinct caucuses “not later than the fourth Monday in February of each even-numbered year” and “at least eight days earlier than the scheduled date” of any other state’s presidential primary or caucus.
Because IDP will hold its in-person precinct caucuses on Jan. 15, the same day Iowa Republicans will hold theirs, it will meet that legal requirement. Democrats attending those caucuses will make decisions on party business, leaving the choice of which presidential candidate to back to the mail-in process. But during this year’s legislative session, Republican lawmakers pushed through a bill that attempts to require party members participating in selecting delegates in a presidential nominating process to be “physically present” at caucus.
The bill was aimed at stopping Iowa Democrats from adding an absentee voting option to their caucus format, but it’s not clear from the way the bill was written that it actually prevents Democrats from using the mail-in option. Also, federal courts have consistently held that states cannot dictate how political parties conduct their internal business, so if the change does apply to the Democrat’s plans, it’s likely unenforceable.
Republican lawmakers said the bill was necessary, because New Hampshire might consider the addition of absentee voting made the IDP process too similar to a primary. In that case, New Hampshire might move its primary ahead of Iowa’s Jan. 15 caucus, leading to further scheduling problems.
On Friday, the New Hampshire secretary of state did not raise any objections to the IDP plan, even calling it “a positive development,” according to the Des Moines Register.
The plan does make token concessions to appease New Hampshire’s concerns. That’s why IDP uses the term “presidential preference cards” for the mail-in ballots, instead of using the word “ballots” like a state conducting a primary would.
Unsurprisingly, Iowa Republican Party Chair Jeff Kaufmann released a statement attacking the IDP plan.
In an online news conference before the RBC meeting on Friday, IDP chair Hart said she was optimistic that the new plan would improve Iowa’s position in the 2028 presidential nominating calendar.
“I have had repeated reassurance from the Rules and Bylaws Committee and its co-chairs that the presidential nominating calendar discussions will once again be opened up for 2028, where I expect Iowa will compete strongly for a significant voice in the selection of our Democratic nominee as we have for years,” Hart said. “I’ve also gotten a commitment that no state has a guaranteed spot in the pre-[Super Tuesday voting] window for 2028.”
While it’s true the mail-in voting options does address some of the problems the DNC cited when it moved Iowa out of its first-in-the-nation position, by making the process more accessible and inclusive, other problems remain.
Iowa’s population is older, whiter and more rural than the nationwide base of the Democratic Party, making the state unrepresentative of the party, according to the DNC. It’s also hard to demonstrate the importance of Iowa in the presidential selection process when examining the history of caucus results.
A non-incumbent who finishes first in the Iowa Democratic Caucus only occasionally goes on to win the nomination. And with the exception of Barack Obama in 2008, a non-incumbent Democratic caucus winner has never won the general election. (Jimmy Carter, who claimed victory in the 1976 caucus, finished in second place behind “uncommitted.”)
There remain outstanding questions about how the IDP’s new caucus format will work, such as how the presidential preference cards will be stored once they are returned, as well as who will count them. During the RBC meeting on Friday, a committee member asked Scott Brennan when IDP will present a finalized plan.
“We’re still working on that,” he replied. “Obviously, there’s been some staff issues we need to work through, but we have committed to coordinating with the RBC staff, and I’m confident we’ll have something before you all fairly soon.”
