Those who follow this journal may recall that I presented to Texas Democratic Party leaders a plan told to me by two congressmen interested in having Texas play a bigger role in national polititcs by adding Texas to the list of early caucuses,now dominated by Iowa and New Hampshire, in the presidential nominating season. Rep. Roberto Alonzo joined me in the effort. I'm not quite sure if Texas officials followed up on our request, but those who sat on the national party's select committee who originally informed me of their plan have not given up and have moved forward with their plan.
The New York Times reports that on Saturday the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee endorsed the idea of adding as many as four state primaries and caucuses to the early presidential nominating season. Only the representative from New Hampshire, which has long guarded its place in the calendar, voted against the plan, which was recommended by a party commission in December.
The goal of those seeking the change was to add more racial, ethnic, regional and economic diversity to the process of choosing a Democratic nominee. Iowa, whose caucus marks the opening of the nominating season, and New Hampshire, which holds the first primary, have long been criticized as far too homogeneous and not typical to exercise such a powerful influence over the process. Back-to-back victories in those states can set a candidate on a glide path to the nomination — as they did for Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts in 2004 — before the bigger and more diverse states weigh in.
The Times articles describes the plan:
"Under the plan, Iowa and New Hampshire would still hold their traditional places as the first caucus and primary. But up to two states would be allowed to hold caucuses after Iowa but before New Hampshire. And one or two other states would be allowed to hold primaries after New Hampshire, but before Feb. 5, the formal start of the season for the rest of the nation. Committee officials said they would seek applications from states interested in these slots.
In addition to seeking diversity, officials seemed to be looking for smallish states with the kind of "retail politics" found in Iowa and New Hampshire. Such states allow more candidates to compete, including those without the financial resources to hold their own in a larger state that can be reached only by extensive advertising.
The plan's architects also seemed interested in giving more of a voice to states in the West, considered a growth area for Democrats."
If Texas wants to be a part of this we will need to get moving because things are moving fast..
8 comments:
Given the Gov's reluctance to be anything except ultra-specific about the upcoming special session, I don't suppose there is any chance at all that a change in presidential primary dates could end up before the Lege? Do you have any thoughts on that? Is it not correct that in Texas those dates may be changed only by the Legislature?
Primaries can only be changed by the legislature. Your assessment is correct. However, a caucus is a private matter and an early caucus can be accomplished if the party rules are changed. This is being suggested.
Would the change offer Democratic candidates more exposure? I would guess they could spread their wings better, since they're not all crowded together in New Hampshire at the same time.
Thanks for clearing that up. To make sure I understand things correctly, would the caucuses take the place of primaries?
Also, are you going to reintroduce the sheild law proposal you made during the last session?
I'm not sure how I feel about this. This surely would add some diversity to the early part of primary season, but I've long been a proponent of spreading the primary season out and pushing the national convention back. I would like for candidates to have more time to get to know voters, not front-load the whole process so that they have to visit 5 states in one week instead of 2.
I think moving the national convention back to a later date would also help with any candidate that doesn't opt out of public financing so that they don't run out of money before November.
Having an early caucus to pick delegates to the Democratic Convention could be a disaster.
We have no party registration and entry into the caucus system in Texas has been limited to those who vote in the primary. Without a primary to precede the caucuses, we would be unable to limit participation to Democrats.
Up until implementation of the McGovern reforms of 1972, we allowed our delegates to be named and apportioned by presidential preference solely through a caucus system which effectively disenfranchised the overwhelming majority of Democrats who were either unwilling or unable to attend caucuses (note the abysmal turnout at Hidalgo County's most recent precinct and county conventions). We were chastised by the national party and rump conventions and delegations were all too common before the reforms.
Today, the majority of Texas's national delegates are apportioned based on the presidential preference of ALL Democratic primary voters and any dilution of that voice of the people should be abhorrent to a representative of the people.
The only reasonable way to have an earlier voice in the presidential race would be to have an earlier primary (we moved our primary from June to March for that very purpose). One way to accomplish that without disturbing our whole election cycle here in Texas could be to have a Presidential primary independent of our state primary (an idea that was rejected when we moved to "super Tuesday" but might be reconsidered now). That would allow us to go back to our old June primary for state and county races and would remove the effect presidential races have on our state and county races.
States like Texas, California & Florida would provide a better reflection of national tendencies. Texas, specifically, is an example of the way U.S. demographics will look in the next 50 years. It is time the voice of the upwardly mobile states is heard louder and clearer and with a full slate of candidates. Maybe they could rotate by economic weight.
Electoral reform, however it ends up specifically, is sorely needed in the dem primary/caucus system.
it boggles me that iowa and new hampshire speak so loudly for a party which, statistically, they dont accurately represent.
i know this would be next to impossible, but i would love at least an embargo on the results of the early states, if we cannot get more representation, via more states, sooner in the schedule.
Post a Comment