The Concord Monitor has a great piece this morning looking at the thinking within both the Democratic and Republican Parties concerning the rules (RE: timing) for 2012 presidential delegate selection. The consensus seems to be that the Democratic Change Commission and Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee (meeting today) are both committed to closing the window (of time in which primaries and caucuses can be held) to exclude February from the equation. The Democrats are still willing to let Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina go in February and the Republicans are committed to same thing (with the exception of Nevada*). Still, the commitment appears to be there on the part of both parties to scale the length of the presidential primary process back with regard to timing.
Both groups making 2012 recommendations are committed to this, but will the actual decision-makers within the parties (the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee and the full RNC) who will sign off on this actually do that? That is the question of the moment. For the time being, though, the fact that the parties are working separately together on this speaks to the idea that both acknowledge the necessity of teamwork to change the system and avoid additional Florida and Michigan situations in either party.
NOTE: This article has also done a good job at looking at some of the rules changes from 1996 onward that brought the primary system to where it was in 2008. A good read.
*What will Nevada Republicans do if this comes to pass? It seems like they would have an incentive to shirk on this discrepancy if the penalty isn't just right to dissuade them. That will come up at some point.
As to timing, the discussion was relatively brief and consistent with prior discussions – Iowa/NH/SC/Nevada can go after Feb. 1, every other state goes after March 1, the rules should encourage regional clusters by offering incentives such as bonus delegates, the RBC will address enforcement procedures and sanctions, and the DNC will try to coordinate timing with the RNC rules committee. The RNC coordination process is ongoing.
Commission members recognized that the best hope for a spread out process lies with agreement with the RNC on starting date, both parties imposing the same penalties for going out of turn, incentives to states to move back and cluster, and the states recognition that frontloading is no longer the best way to get attention. One caveat – the Commission should consider the effect of offering bonus delegates both for moving back and for clustering – too many bonus delegates may distort the traditional delegate allocation which is typically based on Democratic vote and population.
Now the puzzle pieces are starting to come together in terms of both the Democratic Party and Republican Party coordinating their efforts to curb primary frontloading. Those efforts are certainly still in their formative stage, but as I have indicated, if reform of the nomination process is truly desired, the two major parties will have to work together to incentivize going later in the process and punish those states that go too early.
DemRulz also has in that post (linked above) a look at the prospects for change in terms of the caucus process and the folks formerly known as superdelegates.
ALSO: Commission member Suzi LeVine had this and more to say on the discussion regarding the timing of delegate selection events at today's Democratic Change Commission meeting in Washington:
#1: recommended encouraging regional primaries and spreading out the calendar – with incentives (ie – bonus delegates). RBC to determine incentives. (We did not address penalties or how to handle when a state’s legislature breaks the windows without the party’s permission).
The one big criticism I have of what I've read about the Democratic Change Commission meeting this weekend is that there still is no viable incentive structure in place to get states who have or will in the future want to frontload their presidential primaries and caucuses to move back or stay put. That's a thorny issue, though, at the intersection of state parties, national parties and state legislative jurisdiction, so I don't blame the 37 member group for not having gotten to that point yet. [Their recommendations won't come until after the group's December 5 meeting in Washington.]
However, what I can't forgive is one bit of misinformation that made its way out of the proceedings that is bad, bad, bad. Here's the Q&A exchange with North Carolina State Senator Dan Blue fielding the questions (from DCC member, Suzi LeVine's notes):
Q: what is the situation about states having separate state & presidential primaries? Ie – California did it.
A: expensive – but sense that California being so late is problematic. Last time California went early and they still didn’t get the attention. Very unsatisfactory then. State legislature seems to like moving it up. However, remember that incumbents benefit with an early primary ‘cause challengers haven’t been able to raise money and awareness and these positions are often chosen in the primaries.
Q: How would budget deficit in California affect 2012?
A: Bifurcating the 2 primaries is expensive. Usually have to stay unhitched to address local laws. Brought up the Affect of redistricting (will happen ‘cause of census)
Q: states with federal and state primaries on the same day?
A: most are together – but will find out exact number.
WRUH-ONG! [It is difficult to make something monosyllabic, have two syllables.] Find out why after the jump.
Frank Leone over at DemRulz is on the scene in Washington and has a rundown of the morning half of the Change Commission's meeting. The group picked up with what they were to have addressed during their August meeting (postponed due to Ted Kennedy's funeral): public comments on the issues the group is charged with examining.
Let's look at what was discussed on the issue of timing. From DemRulz:
"Curtis Gans, Director of the Study of the American Electorate at American University made a presentation. He criticized the 1988 Super Tuesday Southern primary for starting the race to early primaries; this resulted in a process based on “state selfishness.” It is more important to select the best person to be president than for a state to get more attention. He recommended a bipartisan, durable system with less frontloading and less moving around. He recommended starting with smaller, diverse, individual primaries, and a spread-out process – not regional primaries. Regional primaries may result in different candidates representing different regions and split the party. He opposes a rotation where it all changes every four years. He favors a long process which worked this year, allowing candidates flexibility to skip certain states, 20-day filing deadlines to allow new candidates to file. Spread out individual primaries will encourage grassroots and discourage negative campaigning – if you have 20 primaries on one day, you need to rely on negative TV. He would prefer to start the whole process in March, but is okay with IA, NH, SC, and NV going early — it worked well in 2008. In response to a question from Jeff Berman, he stated that there is an opportunity for cooperation with RNC in setting calendar and the GOP is likely to agree on starting date."
...and also...
"Hon. Dan Blue (Comm. Member, NC State Senator) – late primaries can be good. In 2008, NC linked the presidential primary with state office primaries, the late primary got a lot of attention, and Obama and Democratic candidates won in November. Grouping of 29 states on the same day is crazy – you need to break it up, spread out process."
The Democratic Change Commission, which is reviewing the Democratic Party presidential nomination process will meet on Saturday, October 24, 2009, at 9:30 (tentative) at the Capital Hilton, 1001 16th Street, NW, Washington DC. The Commission will continue to focus on state nomination process calender, superdelegates, and caucuses.
We will be scouring the web for updates and news and posting them here. Here are a few links I'll be keeping an eye on:
DCC Member Twitter feeds: Claire McCaskill Suzi LeVine (Oh, and here is her blog where she posted some great material following the first meeting. She's already alerted folks following her Twitter feed that she'll be posting updates on her site. Now, whether that happens tomorrow or later is yet to be determined, but this remains a great place for firsthand accounts from inside the process.) Rebecca Prozan Joan Garry
DemRulz (Frank Leone had a great live blog from the first meeting in Washington. He has already said he will reprise that role tomorrow. Here, too, is his Twitter feed.)
It is too bad that this story appeared over at The Hill on Saturday. It is something that got lost amid the distractions of a long holiday weekend.
To the victor goes the spoils.
DNC Chairman Tim Kaine last week appointed several new members to the Rules and Bylaws Committee (Remember them?) of the Democratic Party. To me, though, the interesting thing is not the inevitability that Clinton supporters in positions on the committee were replaced by Obama supporters (or New Hampshire's representation on the R&B), but the fact that there are at least three members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee that are simultaneously serving on the Democratic Change Commission. Jeff Berman, Minyon Moore and Randi Weingarten are all pulling double duty.
Why is this noteworthy?
Well, as things are set up for 2012 (presidential nomination) rules making, the Democratic Change Commission debates, formulates and recommends a plan to tweak and ultimately govern delegate selection for the 2012 nomination. That recommendation, though, is passed off to the Rules and Bylaws Committee for approval. The Change Commission is due to make said recommendation by January 1, 2010, and if history (the 2008 cycle) is any indication, the R&B will formalize those rules some time during the late summer of next year.
Still, what does the fact that several members are pulling the double matter? It means that the Rules and Bylaws Committee has representation (at least 3 of the 37 Democratic Change Commission members) on the Change Commission. Does that mean they can push through or prevent reform to some degree? Not really (with so many total members), but it does provide the committee with something of a symbolic footprint on the meetings this fall of the DCC. It also further bolsters the notion that real change to this process will be shunted off to be dealt with in the future and that the president (as so many presidential nominees of both parties before him) is attached to the status quo; the process though which he won the nomination.
In a summer of discontent this likely won't sit well with those on the left looking for change. And though, I'll admit that the Change Commission (at least some among its ranks) foresee the need to make some significant changes to the nomination system, that has always run against the notion that presidents stick with what got them there. Does that mean that the latter will outweigh the former in this instance? It does not, but it would be wise to consider both as the 2012 rules are being considered, crafted and certified.
I don't know how I missed this on Thursday (I suppose there are only so many times you can search "Democratic Change Commission" in Google News. At least the news broke after I wrote that all was quiet.), but in the wake of the Kennedy death and funeral, the DNC postponed the Change Commission's meeting "until further notice."
Here comes word of the latest cancellation out of respect for the passing of Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
A Democratic Party panel that is taking another look at the presidential nominating process -- likely including the timing of the early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire -- was scheduled to meet Saturday in St. Louis.
That will be the day of Kennedy's funeral in Boston, expected to draw many Democratic leaders.
The Democratic National Committee said the meeting of the Democratic Change Commission has been postponed until further notice. The panel, created last year, is to address "1) changing the window of time during which primaries and caucuses may be held 2) reducing the number of superdelegates and 3) improving the caucus system."
The commission must issue its report and recommendations to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee no later than Jan. 1.
There's really nothing new in there other than the delay of the meeting (That January 1, 2010 deadline looms, too though, I suppose). And with the third meeting scheduled for October 24, the panel has a bit of time during September for another meeting. But I wouldn't be surprised if they rolled the second and third meetings into one in October. And I'm going to throw this out there too: It would be nice if they would hold this meeting in the home state of the other commission co-chair, Jim Clyburn (This second meeting was in co-chair Claire McCaskill's home in the Show-Me state.). And yes, I say that for completely selfish reasons. It is far easier to go from North Carolina to South Carolina than it is to go from the Tarheel state to DC or Missouri.
On Friday, the Democratic Party announced the upcoming second meeting of its Democratic Change Commission. [The full press release is appended at the conclusion of the post.] The first meeting in June was a matter of fact-finding for the members of the group as opposed to a full-scale, reform-intensive discussion. And while new ground wasn't broken then, the next meeting on August 29 will take things one step further by incorporating the recommendations of those interested in weighing in on the presidential primary reform process.
Mark your calendars folks. Frank Leone, over at DemRulz, who was at yesterday's first Democratic Change Commission meeting, has the dates for remaining three meetings of the commission. Recall that the resolution that created the commission called for the group to make recommendations to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee by January 1, 2010. All of the following meetings are scheduled accordingly.
August 29 (meeting open to public comment)
October 24
December 5
The latter two are meetings to discuss and decide on proposals for recommendation.
*** Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’: Missing those daily superdelegate counts? The speculation about when states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan would hold their primaries/caucuses? Come on, admit it -- you miss it. Well, if you are, you can head over Saturday morning to the first meeting of the DNC’s Democratic Change Commission, which has been tasked with reforming 1) the primary calendar, 2) the number of superdelegates, and 3) the caucus system. Presiding over the meeting will be DNC chair Tim Kaine and commission co-chairs Jim Clyburn and Claire McCaskill, and there isn’t supposed to be any big news. The 37-member commission will listen to a presentation of Democratic Party presidential nominations by Rhodes Cook; a look at the superdelegates by Elaine Kamarck; and an examination of the caucus system by Organizing for America’s Mitch Stewart. This is all in the fact-gathering stage, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that this DNC would dramatically change a system that helped launch the president's campaign? Iowa and South Carolina are VERY safe. As for the superdelegate system, well that’s another story…
As I said earlier in the week, no decisions are going to be made tomorrow, but it is quite another thing to see how much listening the group will be doing tomorrow. That probably isn't the kind of action most people want. My hope? That the DNC posts the presentations as part of their coverage.
