proposal in circulation to add a fifth state to the early nominating window<\/a>, favor primaries over caucuses and require states to reapply for their early-state status. But the co-chairs of the subcommittee dismissed it, saying, \u201cthere is no prepared resolution floating around out there,\u201d describing it instead as a \u201cworking document.\u201d<\/p>\n\u201cThe substance of a resolution is coming out of the discussion at this committee, and we will be getting to that eventually, but not today,\u201d said James Roosevelt, co-chair of the committee.<\/p>\n
Instead of big changes, a half-dozen DNC members used the meeting to rehash their frustrations about Iowa both directly and indirectly, calling for greater diversity in the states that vote early in presidential nominating contests. The state has been under pressure since its disastrous caucuses in 2020, when problems counting the vote delayed results and led to a lengthy dispute.<\/p>\n
One DNC member suggested adding more battleground states to the mix, and another argued for rural representation in the early window. And while the meeting ended with no concrete plans or next steps to address the question, there\u2019s evident interest in changes \u2014 \u201cnot four years from now \u2014 now,\u201d said Mo Elleithee, a DNC member who\u2019s been a vocal proponent for reimagining the presidential contest, focusing the slate of early states on diversity, inclusivity and general election competitiveness.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think states like New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina can make a compelling argument as to how they fit into that picture,\u201d Elleithee said. \u201cI have a harder time seeing it with Iowa, but Iowa should have the right to make that case to us.\u201d<\/p>\n
A number of members made clear that Iowa\u2019s first-in-the-nation status shouldn\u2019t be kept out of habit. \u201cTradition is not a reason to keep doing something,\u201d said Maria Cardona, a DNC member.<\/p>\n
But inertia has helped Iowa before. Reordering the nominating calendar runs into a host of logistical and legislative headaches, tangled up by state laws and partisan legislatures. And Scott Brennan, a DNC member from Iowa, defended the status quo, arguing that the \u201cfour early state process worked.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI would like us as Democrats to focus on winning elections, not academic exercises,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Rethinking the presidential calendar gained new strength after 2020, but Iowa\u2019s come under harsh criticism among Democrats before for its lack of racial diversity, as the party built much of its national success around voters of color.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe cannot be righteous about a particular tradition or a particular state in the process because that righteousness is what turns off a new immigrant,\u201d said Luis Heredia, a DNC member. \u201cThey don\u2019t understand what Iowa means in this process.\u201d<\/p>\n
If the DNC does dethrone Iowa, the state will likely not go quietly. For more than a year, some party officials there have discussed the possibility of holding an unsanctioned caucus \u2014 daring candidates to skip Iowa on the bet they still will come.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s an entire ecosystem of event planners and consultants and four-year campaign staff and everybody else, and there\u2019s just so much of that, that I think they would hold it no matter what,\u201d said Sean Bagniewski, chair of the Polk County, Iowa Democrats.<\/p>\n
If future candidate fields are small, he said \u2014 or if only one, President Joe Biden, is running in 2024 \u2014 the caucuses might fold. But in a large field, Bagniewski said, \u201ca couple candidates show up, and then a couple more show up, and then all of a sudden it\u2019s the Iowa caucuses again.\u201d<\/p>\n
Iowa would not be the first state party to hold a nominating process in defiance of party rules. Florida and Michigan did so in 2008, running primaries earlier than called for by the DNC.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019ll just go anyway,\u201d said Dave Nagle, a former member of Congress and Iowa state Democratic Party chair. \u201cBeing unsanctioned is not a big thing \u2026 So, 50 people don\u2019t get to go to the national convention. Big deal.\u201d<\/p>\n
The more existential problem for Iowa Democrats, he said, is if they give up their position without a fight.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf we ever give it up,\u201d Nagle said, \u201cwe\u2019ll never get it back.\u201d<\/p>\n
Asked about the possibility of hosting an unsanctioned caucus, Iowa\u2019s Democratic Party chair, state Rep. Ross Wilburn, said simply, \u201cNothing has been decided.\u201d<\/p>\n