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.
