Tag Archives: 2020 Delegate Selection Plans

Delegate Selection Rules — Hawaii

This week we continue our review of the draft delegate selection plans from the 2016 caucus states with Hawaii.  The focus of this on-going review has been how these states are implementing the new provisions for state parties that do not have the option of or choose not to use a state-run primary.  Under Rule 2.K of the DNC’s Delegate Selection Rules, such state parties must make efforts to increase participation in these party-run processes and (just like states that use a state-run primary) the state must use the vote at the “first-determining step” to allocate its pledged delegates to candidates.  Of course, the simple way to comply with these rules is to follow the suggestion to use a state-run primary which is what this week’s draft plan from Nebraska does (like prior draft plans from Colorado and Idaho and one of the two draft plans from Washington). 

For states that do not have a state-run primary in the Spring of 2020 that they can use, however, the only option is to use a party-run process.  In 2016, Hawaii used a traditional precinct caucus.  The individuals present at those caucuses cast a presidential-preference vote.  The results of that preference vote from the individual precincts were totaled and used to determine the allocation of district-level and state-level (party leader and at-large) delegates.

Since the allocation of delegates in Hawaii already complies with Rule 2.K, the issue for Hawaii was what steps to take to make it easier for Democrats to participate in the caucus process.  For 2020, Hawaii has opted to use a party-run primary (sometimes called a firehouse primary) instead of a traditional caucus.  Under this system, there will be two ways that voters can participate in this primary.  First, a person can vote absentee by mail.  Apparently, all individuals registered as Democrats by February 18 will receive a mail-in ballot by March 3.  If the voter would rather vote absentee, they can mail in that ballot at any time before March 28.  Second, a person can vote in person on April 4 during the eight-hour voting period.  Individuals choosing to use the in-person option apparently will be able to vote at any location even if it is not their “home precinct.”  (For the most part, there should not be much of an issue in making sure that a ballot is counted in the right congressional district.  The only island that is in the First Congressional District is Oahu.  Only a small number of voters from the First Congressional District will be on another island on April 4 and likewise only a small number of voters from the other islands will be on Oahu on April 4.  The issue is most likely to be voters from Oahu casting votes in the part of Oahu that is in the “other” district.) Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 Convention, Delegates, Democratic Party | Also tagged , Comments Off on Delegate Selection Rules — Hawaii

Delegate Selection Rules — Nevada

The tour of the draft plans from 2020 caucus states continues this week with Nevada’s draft plan.  For 2020, as it has been for the last several cycles, Nevada — along with Iowa — is one of the two caucus states in the “carve-out period” prior to Super Tuesday.  Most of the caucus states — other than potentially Washington — are small states which means that, after Super Tuesday, their influence is at the margin with most of the attention going to the large primary states.  However, the four carve-out states each have about a week of national attention giving them a significant role in narrowing the field. 

In looking at the draft plans for the caucus states, there have been two major issues that the states have had to address in light of changes to Rule 2.K of the DNC Delegate Selection Rules.  First, what procedures does the state intend to take to increase participation in the caucuses?  Second, how are the votes at the caucuses translated into the allocation of delegates? 

As to the first issue, the 2016 plan in Nevada — recognizing that casino and hotel employees in Las Vegas form a significant bloc of potential caucus participants and that the 24-7 nature of that business would mean that some would-be participants would be working during the time set for the precinct caucuses — also scheduled at-large caucuses at a different time from the regular caucuses to allow shift workers to attend a caucus at a time that did not conflict with their job along with tele-caucuses for those in the military.  The plan assigned each of the at-large caucuses a number of delegates based on expected participation at that location and two delegates to the tele-caucus.  Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 Convention, Delegates, Primary Elections | Also tagged , , Comments Off on Delegate Selection Rules — Nevada

Delegate Selection Rules for Washington — Primary or Caucus

Under the current national rules, the state Democratic parties are encouraged to use a state-run election when available as the “first binding step” in the delegate selection process.  Since 2016, the legislatures in several of the states that had a caucus in 2016 had authorized a primary for 2020.  In Colorado and Idaho, the draft delegate selection rules reflect that the party will use the primary instead of the caucus to select delegates.  The other caucus states and territories fit into one of several categories:  1) primary authorized but state party has yet to release its delegate selection plan (Minnesota and Nebraska); 2) no primary authorized and delegate selection plan released (Iowa); 3) no primary authorized and no legislation pending but no delegate selection plan released (Nevada); 4) legislation related to primary but no delegate selection plan released; and 5) legislation pending but tentative delegate selection plan released.   

Washington fits into this last category.   In 2016, Washington had a primary authorized but it was set for May.  Wanting earlier input, Washington opted for a March caucus.  However, the Washington legislature has passed a bill moving the primary to the second Tuesday in March but allowing the Washington Secretary of State to reschedule the primary to another date in March to be part of a regional cluster.  As California is on the list of potential partners, Washington could hold its primary on Super Tuesday.  This bill is waiting for the governor’s signature.  Given that the current governor is currently running for President, it is highly likely that this bill will become law.  Given the requirements of the national rules, the Washington Democratic Party has released two alternative plans.  One plan would use the primary to allocate the delegates.   Like many states, while delegates are allocated based on the results of the primary, Washington would retain its caucus system for the purpose of selecting the actual delegates.  (This plan would get rid of the precinct caucuses and start the process at the legislative district level.)

The other plan would keep the primary as non-binding and use the caucus system to allocate the delegates.  Under this plan, Washington would keep the precinct caucuses which would be scheduled for March 21.  In keeping with the language in the national rules requiring states to take steps to increase participation in the caucuses, the plan pledges to set up a system to allow absentee voting by those who are unable to attend.  However, the current draft does not include any details of this system.  Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 Convention, Delegates, Democratic Party, Primary Elections | Also tagged , , Comments Off on Delegate Selection Rules for Washington — Primary or Caucus

Iowa Caucus 2020 Rules — First Look

Part of the changes in the DNC Call for the 2020 Convention and National Delegate Selection Rules were provisions governing the caucus states.  In past cycles, the results in states which used caucuses as their delegate selection process but also used a later non-binding primary showed two things.  First, significantly more people participated in the non-binding primary.  Second, the voters in the non-binding primary had different preferences than those who attended the caucuses.  Additionally, the rules in some of the caucus states created an opportunity for “mischief” at the later levels of the delegate selection process permitting a well-organized campaign to win additional delegates at those later levels and costing a poorly-organized campaigns delegates that they had apparently won on caucus nights.  The new rules attempted to address these “problems”  In particular, Rule 2.K of the Delegate Selection Rules includes requirements that caucus state have a procedure for early or absentee votes in the caucus, have a mechanism to allow participation by those who are unable to attend their local caucus at the time and location set for the local caucus, a means for reporting the “statewide and district level results for each candidate based on the first expression of preference by the participants” in the first level of caucuses; and require that “the allocation of all national delegates, be locked in at the final expression of preference” in the first level of caucuses.  However, Rule 14.B and Rule 14.E seem to suggest that caucus states might still be able a later level as the determining step.  (In primary states, these same rules require using the primary vote.)

In 2016, the Iowa Caucus (held under the old rules) did have a process by which voters could vote absentee via satellite and tele-caucuses but the satellite caucuses only elected three state convention delegates and the tele-caucuses only selected two state convention delegates.  Voters participating in either of these alternative caucuses had no role in the selecting delegates at the district level.  For those who could attend the precinct caucuses, at the precinct caucus, attendees would divide into an initial preference and determine which groups were viable (with a general 15% threshold unless the precinct was electing three or fewer delegates to the county convention).  After the initial count, attendees would have the opportunity (based on which preferences were viable or close to viable) to change their preference.  The precinct chair would report the results of this second count to the state party in terms of “state delegate equivalents” and would not result raw votes.  The delegates selected at the precinct caucuses would attend the county conventions where a similar process would occur to select the delegates who would be attending the congressional district convention and the state convention.  A similar process would again occur at the congressional district conventions and the state convention to determine the allocation of the national convention delegates selected at those conventions.  For multiple reasons (the possibility of delegates elected at precinct caucuses and county conventions not attending later conventions, the possibility of changes in preference of such delegates, delegates pledged to withdrawn candidates choosing between the remaining candidates, and the fact that each delegate chosen at a precinct meeting was a fraction of a state delegate and those fractions would be converted to whole numbers at the county convention), the report of the state delegate equivalent only provided a rough estimate of the national delegates that each candidate was likely to receive from Iowa.

We now have a draft of the 2020 Delegate Selection Rules for Iowa.  (Of course, these rules still have to go through a public comment period, be finally approved by the Iowa Democratic Party, and by approved by the Rules and By-laws Committee of the Democratic National Committee before becoming final.)  This draft gives us a first look at how the caucus states might change their state rules to comply with the new national rules.  Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 Convention, Delegates, Democratic Party, Elections | Also tagged Comments Off on Iowa Caucus 2020 Rules — First Look