All four of the current early states can apply to retain their positions, but Iowa’s first status will be particularly threatened as the basically White state is no longer a battleground and is required by law. state to conduct parliamentary groups. The bill was approved by the party’s Rules and Statutes Committee at a meeting in Washington with only one dissent, by Scott Brennan of Iowa. The contracting states will now have until June 3 to submit their applications. The Rules Committee will then hear presentations from the States concerned and make a decision in July. After that, the committee proposal will have to be approved at the full DNC meeting in August or September. The committee will also look at the cost and difficulty of campaigning in a state, joining state unions and their ability to actually handle an early competition. Qualifying dates are generally set by law, so states wishing to hold early qualifying elections will need the cooperation of their legislatures and governors. “This process lays the foundation for the 2024 presidential nomination calendar that reflects our party’s values, builds trust in our institutions through transparent and sound processes, and puts us in a stronger position to maintain the White House in 2024.” committee chairman James Roosevelt said as he presented the resolution. “It was built around an idea put forward by members early on. It designs a framework for a pre-window that, as a whole, reflects our constituencies and our party’s values.” During the meeting, members supported ensuring that each region of the country is represented in the group of early states. “I think it’s important that the Midwest is not a country that goes beyond flights,” said Ken Martin of Minnesota. The committee members also discussed the importance of regular review of the early calendar. “I do not think it’s bad to send this message because it shows that we are a dynamic party that is constantly evaluating and that we are not going to stand on the status quo every four years,” said committee member Mo Elleithee. Senior Democrats have long criticized the party’s nomination schedule for focusing too much on less diverse states and less accessible community members. The committee discussed Wednesday its commitment to address diversity in the early states, not only in terms of racial and ethnic diversity, but also LGBTQ communities and people with disabilities. Iowa has come under particular pressure in recent years. In anticipation of 2020, the Democratic Party of Iowa has proposed the addition of “virtual meetings,” which would allow participants to attend without having to be in a physical meeting place on a traditional Monday afternoon. The plan was rejected by the DNC due to security concerns, although the party has held a series of satellite meetings for Iowa residents in various states or countries. The very night of the 2020 Parliamentary Assembly was surrounded by chaos. A new mobile app for reporting results from nearly 1,700 parliamentary group locations across the state did not work properly and telephone lines were set up as organizers tried to call up their results. The result has been confusion and delayed results, which mitigate the recovery that Iowa often gives to well-performing candidates. Concerns about the state of Iowa also emerged at Wednesday’s meeting. “Let us be absolutely clear. In my opinion, this means that there are no traditional Member States of the group in the original format, and I want to say this very clearly,” said commission member Elaine Kamarck. “I have been to many community bodies. I think it is a remarkable exercise in a small democracy. But I think the time is up.” After the meeting, Brennan said Iowa would apply, but acknowledged it would be a “challenge” for the state to maintain its position at the top of the line. “The process has yet to evolve. We have not yet applied. I will accept the reason that this is a fair and open process. Until it is,” he said. “It’s a challenge every four years. People did not like the process of the four early states for a long time and every four years it’s a battle. It’s a tough battle this time around.” Explaining his “no”, Brennan criticized the process that led to the resolution. “It was not a process as open and transparent as I would have hoped,” Brennan said. “I can not in good conscience vote for something for which I do not feel the committee was fully involved in the original draft.” This story has been updated with additional details.
