tv Democratic National Cmte. Unity Reform Cmsn. Meeting CSPAN December 9, 2017 11:47pm-12:54am EST
speak up for you in the form of recommendation letters. you've clerked for one of a very small number of judges that routinely feed clerks to the court and so for a person of color, particularly african-american or latino to get into that pool, there are so many obstacles to that, that it is -- it becomes a real problem. the k it hurt, because perspective of the law clerks is so important. every one of my clerkships there was a case where i felt that i saw something because of my life experience someone else didn't see. >> q & a sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. the democratic party met over the past two days to consider changes to how delegates are chosen in the presidential candidate nomination process. here's the final day of the dnc unity reform commission meeting. it's just under three hours.
>> i came all the way from california to be here. i am sorry. i may have to leave in the middle of this but i do want to say, i certainly hope that going forward that this caucus that we're all part of undertaking here, including ourselves as participants, is improved upon. i profess being very disappointed with the out reach regarding this meeting. i was one of many people i'm -- rsvp'd to the meeting and no one got back us to. i understand all the language about participation and ncluesivity but sadly -- [indiscernible] as a case in point we finally received an e-mail less than 48 hours before meeting started to inform us and no one has ever
gotten back to me or anyone to that i know that rsvp'd the meeting. now that these recommendations are going to be going to the rules committee, i would hope that we can approve -- improve upon the image of, sorry to say, that is out there now all over social media being talked about. this is for all the talk about wanting to improve and reform and make this party more transparent, the exact opposite has happened. another case in point, i am also one of the coauthors of the autopsy report. it has been widely read. we tried to put just a summary, executive summary on everyone. we're not asking for time here. we're just simply trying to make this available to the commission members and yet, twice, it was picked up as though we were passing around
something offensive. we are loyal democratic party members. i am a party officer. i am an executive board director of my own state party. i would hope we could share this in a collegial manner. >> thank you so much for your thoughts. we have that and we're scanning it and e-mailing it to all the commission members. thank you. >> and all the other materials we received. >> and they will be scanned as well as we've done in every other meeting. >> we all got this. >> there is no reason why this can't be handed out. everyone should get them. it's not a problem. i appreciate it. we just had a miscommunication. we're handing them out and thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. ok. do we have the commission at heir seats please? if you could just hand them to maureen, can you take those
ok. good morning, everyone. thank you so much for joining us. i am the chair of the unity reform commission and i am joined by my friend vice chair larry cohen. and i here by call the final unity reform commission to order. i ask the members to stand and join us for the pledge of llegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you. i am now going to ask patrice aylor, i am now going to ask
elen mcfadon to call the roll. indiscernible] roll called] mr. newport? >> here. >> mr. roosevelt? >> here. >> ms. turner? >> here. >> mr. weaver? >> here. >> mr. webb? >> here. >> m zogby? >> here. >> and the chairs are both here. we certainly have a quorum. >> wonderful. thank you so much. all right. i am going to hand the floor over to vice chair cohen to give us a recap and an overview
of what we're doing today. >> ok. thanks. and let me say to all 21 of us and those here from the public, we set off on this journey formally in may. we came here from three ifferent nominees. makes this a struggle. everybody came exactly -- if everybody participates exactly where they came from it doesn't take a math genius to figure out the solution or the outcome. it's not a solution. so particularly because of where we came from, lots was accomplished yesterday. there were three main areas. unpledged delegates, primaries, and party reform.
and today, the fourth area, caucuses, and we will be going back to some unfinished business in those three. but what are the big items that lift up from it? never been about perfection but what i call large steps if not giant steps in terms of voters first. voters first in terms of eliminating 400 super delegates out of 715 on the first ballot for the president, presidential nomination of the united states. voters first in saying loud and clear that in primaries this party stands behind same day registration, automatic voter registration, same day party registration. this party stands behind a
process in every state in terms of the election of the leadership of the democratic party that is transparent, that is open, that is clear, that is as simple as possible. so that activists can get involved in the party and run and not feel like they have no chance. and for those of us who are here, sister beranall who spoke earlier, i don't know if she is still here, and others, this will be about what we do in the states, not just what we do here or what the dnc does. at every level. it's not going to be about 447 people. it's going to be about millions of people and how they take up this challenge and this path. so i am proud to say that i have worked with this chair, appointed by hillary clinton,
myself appointed by bernie sanders. that in the year we have worked together since the four forums that were open to the public not just open but participation , that in that year we found lots of common ground and not just based on where the numbers on this commission. as i said yesterday we're governed by that resolution that had lots of specifics in it including the makeup here. no one was under any illusions when we agreed to put in for most of us here hundreds of hours. we're all volunteers just like the activists sitting here and watching. no difference. so today as we conclude, i say this to all of us. us, because we may not meet together again as 21. we are 20 today.
we should take it as a lesson that we do not have to do what we were told to do. we do not have to look at the rearview mirror and figure out that is what we are doing going forward, what we did in the past. we can, with that resolution, it is boundaries, start with a blank sheet of paper, what is good for the people, what is good for working families, what is good for this party if the party not only wants to win but stand for something that we can all be proud of. i would say to you, not rehearsed, not perfect, but i am proud to have been your vice chair and to have worked with you. i hope today we can finish in that spirit.
[applause] >> thank you, larry. we are ready to get to business. we still have work before us. important work. we are going to start this morning reviewing caucuses. we will then move to amendments that were tabled yesterday. we will then move to the process and next steps and we will then hear from the commission members. let's begin going through the caucuses and the recommendations that are before us. i will give a summary of what we have and then we will open for amendments from the commission members. the commission has been mandated to make recommendations to the caucuses focusing on making them less burdensome and more inclusive, transparent, and accessible. we have, over the course of the last months, heard from a lot of
different people about caucuses, everything from the unique perspective of those on the commission who have been part of caucuses or execute them, as well as from state parties and a number of large or small states. we have done a lot of work and a lot of thinking and so the recommendations i'm about to go through come from the work we have done over the last year. the key highlights that are currently in the recommendations around caucuses include the following. requiring absentee voting. making sure state parties have the financial and technical ability to run and execute the caucus. requiring same-day voter registration and party affiliation. a change at the caucus location. requiring public reporting of the total statewide vote counts. making sure votes are cast in writing.
provide for a recount. or a re-canvas. lock the allocation of delegates on the initial round of voting. limit the impact of any voter suppression or disenfranchisement imposed by the state. when a state has five or more congressional districts and holds a state run primary, the state party should use this primary to allocate delegates to presidential candidates. the dnc should institute a national training program specific to caucuses. the dnc should work with state parties to create guidelines for information dissemination and reporting, as well as supporting some of the new guidelines provided by these caucus recommendations, and then at the end of the day we should ensure that all caucus voters have the right to participate. those are the highest level. with that i open it up to the commission for amendments on the caucus section.
>> i had an amendment that i timely filed that i do not think should be controversial although you never know. with respect to 1d in the text. we are requiring caucuses to provide statewide headcounts. i know many on this commission are familiar with how the iowa caucus and other caucuses work. even on caucus night they are entered in process. there is an initial count of people in the room and then there is a process which we call realignment in which supporters of nonviable candidates then move to other candidates who are viable, and in some cases supporters of viable candidates can move around the room.
in making sure we do the statewide headcounts, we want to make sure we capture the first expression of voter sentiment for the candidates. in the caucus process, what is expressed at the end of the night is the number of delegates people want. that understates the support that lesser performing candidates have received. in the iowa caucus, you could receive 14% of the vote in every precinct in your state and your election return would be reported as zero on caucus night. i think that is unfair when we are looking at 2020 with a crowded field. there are going to be a lot of candidates introducing themselves for the first time to voters in iowa. and to the nation. i think it is important given iowa's first in the nation status of voters and subsequent states know candidate x got 13% of the vote in iowa and not 0%. this certainly impacted governor
o'malley's campaign, where his election night report of state delegate equivalents was far below what i believe was his overall percentage of the vote of the people coming to the caucus. i would replace the language in d, which currently says require the public reporting of the total statewide vote counts based on the first round of voting, which is a term we use elsewhere with a different meaning, with this language, which says requires the public reporting of the statewide vote count for each candidate based on the first expression of preference by caucus participants. when you do the first division and people go into their various groups, in iowa what they do is count people and put those numbers onto a match sheet. to determine viability. it is those numbers that would be used for reporting the statewide vote total. i think it is comfortable with the way iowa and other states already do it.
it is not particularly burdensome, it does not require them to do any extra steps, it just ensures that numbers they are collecting in the first instances are the ones that are used for these statewide vote totals. so that voters know, when voters came to the caucus, who they supported when they first got there before the realignment process. in terms of delegate allegation, -- delegate allocation, they can continue to do it in the way they currently do it. >> thank you. second. >> i have a question as to how that might or might not square with the notion of having a written record of each vote and for the availability of a recount because if there is a realignment so that the votes that are used to mathematically compute the delegates would not necessarily be the same as the
votes that would be cast at the first expression that jeff is talking about. you actually might have an inconsistency between the recount methods and whatever it is you are reporting. you might want to still have the flexibility to report the first tier votes as completed, and that would be the record and then that would be available for the recount and you would use that information to confirm the delegate allocations were correct. >> as much as possible, we would like to leave the actual implementation of the policies to the states themselves. the only principle we are trying to protect is that voters know, in the first instance, who voted
whom prior tor realignment. whether iowa collects writing at that point or collects it later, i think is something that. left to them. the recount, for purposes of the popular vote, people are not going to have a recount for a popular vote that does not result in a delegate allocation. no one i know will say i want a recount of the first impression. >> the reality is, in the instance of a state that is tracking their first vote and then will have a realignment, and that realignment, wherever they end up, that next set of votes would determine delegate allocation. it would make sense to keep track of both counts. by doing it this way and having realignment you're going to be in that situation. >> you're going to have two sets
of popular votes plus the delegate count. you're going to have three sources of information as to what happened. not even two, but three. i know iowa has traditionally had one. that is the state delegate equivalent. we would be going not from one to two, but from one to two to three potentially. >> we are taking out the third one you're talking about. >> we have been talking about ways to track the different levels of the alignment process already, as a result of the ongoing review we have been having in iowa. we are talking about methods and how we can best track those levels of alignment.
we are going to have to have an audit process and we want to make sure it is fair to all candidates. >> mayor webb? >> you anticipated half of my question, i wanted to know what jan's position was because she was from iowa. >> thank you. in the past, we have a tradition of reporting delegate numbers. we were preparing for the possibility of having to provide the audit numbers. we want to make sure this is fair to all. an improved process is a better caucus for all of us. while we prefer to do the counts
based on delegates, the result of a true caucus, we can deal with whatever the commission decides upon. we are flexible and open to suggestions. we want make sure this is the best process for the candidates. >> in the state of nebraska we have caucus-goers write down their preference, so it is already written on a piece of paper that is recorded and kept so weand would be able to abide by this. >> one other thing i want to make a note of, further down in the recommendations, it does have a number five but it highlights that the dnc will work with state parties to create consistent standards and guidelines across caucuses. the dnc should explore technology resources available to exploit state party resources
in create a tracking and reporting system that states can use. i bring that up to say that this in my mind captures the fact that we knowledge these recommendations are making changes and making it more complicated. we recommend the national party is supporting that whether it is from coming up with a system that works for folks in conjunction with the states that have caucuses to helping with the technology side of tracking. i wanted to highlight that since i think it is complementary to the point you're bringing up, jeff. any additional discussion on that? >> by have a question. >> ok. we are going to go to a vote on an amendment for the vote for d , which changes round of voting to expression of caucus participants. >> first expression.
>> right. first is in there, it is not being switched. thank you very much. all those in favor of the amendment, please raise your hand. we are unanimous. the amendment passes. thank you. we are going to move to any additional amendments on caucuses. >> i have an amendment. amendment 34. it changes page 20, line 12 and 13. the mandate currently asks us to make recommendations on expanding the use of primaries. this is what my amendment does. currently the language reads in states with five or more congressional districts that hold a state run democratic presidential primary there should be presumption that the state delegate selection uses
the outcome of the primary to allocate delegates rather than a caucus. my amendment removes the exception and begins with, there shall be a presumption that state delegate selection plans to use the outcome of the state run presidential primaries to allocate delegates for their respective presidential candidates rather than a caucus. my amendment does not require states that do not have primaries to hold primaries. it simply says that states that already have both a state-sponsored primary and a caucus that they use the state primary to allocate their delegates. in 2016 there were only two states that had both state run primaries and use their caucuses instead to allocate delegates.
that was nebraska and washington state. in nebraska in 2016 only 22,000 people participated in the caucuses despite campaign spending hundreds of millions of dollars to turn out votes in the nebraska caucuses. in the state run primaries, no money was spent in organizing anything, 80,000 participants participated. that is almost four times the amount. if we are looking to include more people in the process, we have to use primaries over caucuses. that is my amendment. happy to hear any questions. >> do we have a second?
>> second. >> i'm emotional from this and i apologize in advance. i read from the aclu report on nebraska. in nebraska a tax on voting rights happened year after year. nebraska is a solidly red state. they have voter suppression year after year after year. many of us here, not only me, many can get ahead of me in terms of a lifetime fighting for voting rights. the premise for these red states, one of the reasons why many of us are so passionate about letting the state decide whether they have a caucus or not is the absolute trashing of voter rights that has occurred in every one of those states. that is why we lose these elections. for us to say we're going to strip nebraska of the caucus for some reason i do not even understand, when they have to fight that year after year, i am
quite upset and quite passionate about defending the right of the people in nebraska to decide that issue, not this commission. >> i have a similar but opposite concern. in washington state when we heard the presentation, i do not remember the exact figures, but about one third of the total number of voters that voted in the primary, not the same people but the quantity, those hundreds of thousands of voters that voted in the washington primary had no voice. they were not able to run for delegates, their vote went uncounted. completely uncounted. i think that is problematic, too.
>> nursing washington should go to a primary. -- you are saying washington to go to a primary. you are saying people are disenfranchised. to me this is another way of how they have been disenfranchised. you are looking at nebraska but i'm talking about washington. it is still disenfranchisement. i think in creating the opportunity, it is important that we also take a look at how we can engage and enfranchise people and make sure it is helping party building. i do not want to get into this, but i think we all can agree that the caucuses can feel disenfranchising at times because they are not accessible always to communities of color, to disabilities, to those who might have to work. i will be voting in support of you. the washington story stuck out to me in terms of the hundreds of thousands of washingtonians who participated in the primary and their votes were not counted.
many more participated in the primary than in the caucus. >> i have a couple questions for those in the room who come from caucus states. maybe jeff can explain it, jeff weaver. either jeff. am i correct to say every single district in a caucus state must be represented, so there is a district that would be a primary community of color they would be represented? i believe we heard this in the testimony. >> the precincts are geographically organized in a caucus so, if you have communities of color, there tend to be precincts that are dominated by people of color just because of the way the precincts are done geographically. >> there is representation. it is not like they are leaving
out an entire community. based on what was said, it did not make sense to me that there are some communities that are not represented. the other question i have is why would we throw the baby out with the bathwater? just because washington has a system which, by the way we are addressing with our previous amendment in reforming the caucuses, why would we throw out a system for every other state just because washington, which we have recommended, reform their system? i'm just asking the question. >> to respond quickly. i think the reason why is the numbers we saw on 2016. 80,000 people voted in the primary and 20,000 voted in the nebraska caucuses. i am saying that if we want more people involved in the process then let's use the process that includes the most amount of people, that has enfranchised the most amount of people.
>> a couple of things, since this is directed at the state i am the party chair of. there could be clear, unintended consequences by your amendment and the caucus working group worked very hard across both wings of our party to put forward to this commission very reasonable and strong recommendations to reform the caucus process, to make them more fair and transparent, and to allow states the right to choose to caucus if that state central committee body chooses to go in that direction. i think it is inappropriate for you to tell nebraska what type of choice we should be making. we have smart and intelligent people on the state central committee who are currently debating and deliberating this issue. the individual who created our
caucus system is an african-american woman, she is a veteran. her mother is the reason we do not have a poll tax in virginia. she is the first person to tell you that she wants to make sure our caucuses are transparent and accessible. my task as a party chair is to build our party. caucuses are empowering for individuals when they are run properly. the only reason i have the diverse, grassroots, state central committee is because they rose through the caucus system. there are problems with the caucus system, we have acknowledged that. but it is not our role as a unity commission to tell a state that they have to choose one or the other. i am not finished. >> i did not say anything.
>> i am asking my fellow unity commission members to vote down this amendment. there are already very strong conditions in here to reform caucuses. many states are already choosing in their process to move from a caucus to a primary because of some of the obstacles caucuses put up. but the big unintended consequence you could put forward with this type of amendment is in a gop led iowa, they could decide they are moving to a primary. then that would wipe out iowa's caucus with your amendment. i think we, as the democratic party, it is the one time april state actually has a platform in -- platform
>> the currently which requires a state to do something they do not choose to do. and something taking out the exception from nebraska, that's all i am doing. and also to clarify, this has no nevada orinst iowa or any other caucus state that does not have a state run primary. havely affects states that state run primary, and right now, the only two states that statement primaries and caucuses is nebraska and washington state. the current language already requires washington state to switch from a caucus to a primary. there is an exception for nebraska and i think it is unfair to have an exception for just one state.
>> to be clear, unintended ansequences, there could be primary in the next legislative session, you wipe out the caucus with it. >> this would be moving for it. anything that was adjusted, while there might be a case for adjusting nebraska right now, it would be the case for other states that could end up in this situation and certainly the iowa example is true. we have a line here, it is larry, jan and then jeff weaver and the mayor. what we are saying here in the caucus language is that caucuses must have same-day registration, they must have seemed a party registration. they must have absentee voting. only caucus where there are primaries, caucuses will only exist in states with not exist,e -- will
sorry come in states with five or more congressional districts. we have already taking care of the washington issue. this is the democratic party. this is the democratic party. we are trying to say. her democrats struggling in these states, the caucuses there left will all be states like utah -- statesc like you talk about being a democrat is almost an act of courage. those states will have to have rules that make it easy and inclusive to join the democratic party, which is a way to change the situation in those states. the rest that is not a blank sheet of paper. they have one of the worst governors in the country. it is hard to prepare some of them. that is what we're dealing with here. we are not dealing in the abstract. we dealing with the concrete.
that is what they think, that is what they face in nebraska and iowa. that is what we are doing here. we're taking care already of washington and colorado and minnesota to care of themselves. we are saying to run a caucus, , that they must have same-day voter registration. that is never going to occur in the remaining caucus states unless we flip the government in the states. they will never agree to same-day registration. we are also saying same-day party registration and we're also saying absentee voting. numberot just the total of people who vote, it's what kind of people, what do they look like, are they working class, what happens to people in those states in terms of voter registration when we turn it over to the republican party to run it? that is what we're trying to protect. >> thank you.
jan is next. >> i agree with larry. we're talking about small, rural state. they are faced with photo rights being eroded every day. the republican secretary of state has aggressive voter id bill. friendly, the caucuses are our needs to build the party in these small, rural states. washington state is very blue and a larger state. i understand. us, it is the party, if the only way we can build and grow our party and have an open and inclusive process. hands off, david. >> next is jeff weaver. >> i have a couple of concerns. i was under the impression we
are pre-negotiating. i have concern on that level. what is problematic here, if want have aople who vote on caucuses, if that is really what the position is, but why we would turn over essentially the decision about whether the democratic party in a certain state has a caucus or primary to a republican administration, why are we turning over our party nominating process to republican governors, i think it is a bad move. next, emmy. quick, washington has the appearance of a blue state. think if we spend more time there got to know the legislature better, i think we would all be in agreement it is one of the states that have a lot of room for growth. say --uses, i would well, blue in appearance, but we
have members from washington state here who can tell us more about it. in terms of caucuses, i want to say some was raised by caucuses in nevada, i have seen them there, i think that's a big others were so successful there last november. i think both sides of the coin. i would like clarification of the language. as it stands right now, and nebraska is the exception, technically, the way it is written right now, i look is to be impacted by a republican primary. not your amendment david, the way it is written is the report. >> no. >> so this is nothing new to iowa, because those are in there. >> it is five or more. iowa has how many?
four. to your question, in terms of how it is currently addressed, five was the number to protect for the smaller states, which included iowa and nevada. that is true. six for thatopose reason. i originally proposed fix for that reason, to protect iowa. >> ok, thanks. that was my question. >> we have a list, i have a question for jane. terms, if this amendment moves forward, nebraska, which is still have a caucus for the party building side or would you as a party not have it because it is not connected to delegate allocation numbers? >> anybody from the state of
nebraska would tell you this, i don't make decisions as chair unilaterally. we have a very robust debate and discussion currently happening in the state of nebraska. i don't know if we are going to do a caucus. there are really good arguments on both side about our state right now. we can have a primary. we can have a caucus. for me, putting a restriction on this takes that right away as our state to have that discussion and debate your -- debate. >> mayor webb. >> think it is a difficult issue , and larry and the aclu is not always right. a lot of times, not always. i think sometimes we have conflicting values. one of the values we have always talked about is encouraging the use of primaries. having as many people vote as possible. and for us to defend, if you have 22,000 people as opposed to
80,000 people, it goes against the grain on that debate. the second part is we all want to give jane and jan and others from small states the opportunity to administer the desire of the people in those days, but at the same time we're also encouraging people in those states to go to a primary because we have more people voting. jane and i worked as cochairs on -- i thinkt this this may be the only time we have the disagreement. the over arching where we fall in the long-term. how weg-term issue is get more people purchase of any of the party, and we get more people participating in the party and we use primaries as opposed to caucuses. jorge, lucy, a vet, jan, senator turner. on that point. we spent the day yesterday, i think someone, i can't remember who said, we were not here trying to advocate for states
rights or something. and yet, a lot of the stuff we have done has mandated parties puto things and has really a burden on parties now because of things we have come up with year. we cannot just pick and choose. ultimately. i think ultimately, you have 20,000 people that participate. 80,000 people to participate, and we are not doing a good job playing by the currently have. and thus we start getting big winds in kansas, we need to learn to play by these rules, we will have to registry these voters, educate them about a vote in the primary process and deal with this -- these bad voter suppression was. if we do that early and start helping people understand there is one process, whether it is a primary, and educate people early on that, instead of, but
then you have to vote in a primary, but then it doesn't count, accounts for other things i think that can be confusing. streamlining it, making sure it works, educating folks about the rules in this state so we can effectively change it when we come to power. unless something happens in kansas or other smaller states, that is not happen. good education program we are focused on an primaries early, i think ultimately that is that we have to play by. >> lucy. >> thank you. after listening to all of these comments, couple of things. -- one, friendly, this isn't ever a discussion of caucus versus primary. i think the discussion is always about what is going to work best moving forward. frankly, i find all of the information and arguments very compelling around the future. as a former legislator in
nevada, i can certainly attest dysfunctiondible that could be caucuses, but i can also attest to the incredible party feeling -- party building that occurred in caucuses. majority inmocratic the legislature and were always covered by -- governed by a republican governor. we could not get same-day registration. there are pros and cons. what i am most concerned about and why i cannot support this amendment is because moving , 10, 15 years ago, none of us would have anticipated that we would have lost almost the super majority of our legislatures in this country to republican control. i don't know what the future holds for us. clearly we are trying to ensure we get that back. and that we can switch that over to democratic control of most of
those legislatures. until one of us figures out how to tell the future, i think we have to be very concerned about the unintended consequences, particularly as it relates to legislative control. we cannot assure that is not what happened. therefore, i cannot support this amendment. >> thank you. ivette? >> i have a question as someone who doesn't come from a caucus state. i have no point of reference. this is for information purposes, and i don't want the answer to be just because that is the way it has been done or that's what people know or we are comfortable with. i'm going to take that off the table. i do want to ask, is there a way, because all i am hearing is 22,000 votes and 88,000 it. that is what is sticking up for me. that is the only thing i hear right now. as someone who has experienced through my history, voter
suppression at the highest level , that always makes my skin rise. i don't want to be unfair and wrong -- and jump to the conclusion. that's what i'd really need answers. my main question is, is there anything that can be done to reconcile the disparity in the numbers? is that something that can be looked at first to bring the 22,000 and 88,000 closer together without blowing up the system you are comfortable with? and if we can't come up with that solution, maybe we need to look at changing the system. but under no circumstances should that many votes be part of ourver as democratic process. so if somebody could answer that for me, i would feel better. i will answer this as a chair quickly, based on the recommendations in the caucus section. we are requiring absentee
voting. that is answer number one. we are requiring same-day voter registration and party affiliation changes at the location. that gets at number two. obviously, there are a lot of other things at play here. just in terms of the very specific recommendations before the commission, i wanted to highlight those are two areas that regardless of where we end up on this, are already part of the recommendation that would increase participation in caucuses. >> on the list, we have dan and then senator turner. >> to your question, and iowa, our turnout for caucuses, the last one was 30% of all registered democrats turned out. the primary turnout was 19%.
our last caucus also surpassed the last two statewide primaries. in terms of turnout. folks., we get a lot of that grows our turnout. with the provisions in the resolution, we will see the numbers grow even more. >> senator turner and then the congresswoman. >> thank you, madam chair. caucuses are communal. they do bring people together. if we only look at it in the light of a lipitor poorly, what is in the best interest of the democratic party, we need to flip that and look at the best interest of the people in those states is in the best interest of the democratic party. pinging -- bringing people together. i don't come from a caucus
state. i did see horror, but i also saw people coming together and talking to their neighbors and friends in ways that don't happen in the primary process. the revision or the complement we are making to try to make the caucus process fairer, because people there -- people are there all day. they do stand in long lines. we are trying to correct that. it's not fair to the caucus states to take this away. i don't think it is right to say to our sisters and brothers in smaller states and rural communities that you don't really count. because that had been the pattern of the democratic party. we should not leave them behind. in terms of voter suppression, and it is correct that most of the voter suppression bills that have been passed throughout this country since the election of president obama have been vile at the hands of
the gop, but at the same time, democrats don't have clean hands in states like new york. we have to about it across the board. i agree with the chairwoman and jan that we need to allow the caucus process to work to clean up the process and be cognizant that it is not perfect. we cannot only look at the caucus as pure votes. we need to look at the caucus process in terms of how it brings communities together in ways that don't happen in the primary process because you just coming to vote where during the caucuses, people have a chance to talk to their neighbors. and hopefully maybe want to join the democratic party and help the party build. there is a value to the caucus process. we have congresswoman fudge next. ok. we need a two thirds vote to call the question. all those in favor, please raise your hand.
those opposed to tabling, please raise your hands. nine. i vote to table. the chairs are breaking the tie to table the amendment. do we have any -- >> when does it come back? this is our last meeting. >> only with the majority. as a commission, we have all day that we can go. we can come back and work through that as well. yes, jim? >> i understand that we may have to work on this. i want to make a point about this issue going to the rules and bylaws committee. as i noted the vote around the table, those who voted to not
table, many of them will be members of the rules and bylaws committee. most of those who voted to table are not members of the rules and bylaws committee. therefore, there's a question of equity when it comes before the rules and bylaws committee. as to whether or not those who actually voted on the issue ought to be asked to recuse themselves from any consideration of this as it comes to the rules and bylaws committee. >> ok. do we have any additional amendments? >> can i ask jim to comment on that? >> cautious going to say, later in the meeting, i will speak to the process in the rules and bylaws committee and how we hope to hear from the various points of view at this commission. i will say that rules with
respect to caucuses are a core rules and bylaws committee issue. one way or another, it will come to the committee. >> i know it will, but the question of whether or not you can have a fair vote on the rules and bylaws committee when people on one side of the issue are voting on it here and people on the other side of this issue are not present on the rules and bylaws committee -- yes, we can go and speak to it, but there's a double dipping going on here that i think is important to deal with. therefore, i would ask for a recommendation that people recuse themselves from consideration of issues that have come before this body when it comes before the rules and bylaws committee. i feel that is a critical concern. >> i appreciate your remarks on this. this is the focus of what we are talking about right now as
caucuses. that is not a recommendation that has been brought up previously. in terms of the draft we are going through in the specifics for recommendations for caucuses. what i would like to do is move to voting on caucuses, unless there's any other amendments. we are going to bring forth for the caucus section. >> can i respond to your statement? our commission started before the rules and bylaws committee was appointed. we weren't able to put that on the table or have any say on that. the current committee was appointed a month and a half ago. >> appreciate that, but we are focused at this moment on the caucuses. i want to agree -- to bring a vote on the caucuses and stay in order with the protocol we have here on this section. unless there are any other amendments, we will move to a vote. i will read -- we will vote section by section. as a reminder, we have table number three here.
we will not vote on that. we will vote one by one on the rest. i will go through as we did yesterday. the protocol we have used for every other standard is we table both, the amendment and the recommendation. ok. i will read through and we will come back and vote on each section. ok. the commission is making the following recommendations. number one, a caucus state delegation selection plan shall only be approved if it requires absentee voting, demonstrates the submitting state party has the financial and technical ability to successfully run the caucus, require same day but a -- same-day voter registration and party affiliation changes at
the caucus location, the amended version requires the public reporting of the total statewide vote count for each candidate based on the first expression of preference by caucus participants, requires votes to be cast in writing and a method to be determined in each plan to ensure an accurate recast or re-canvas is available. one model option could be the adoption of the firehouse caucus. includes the standard and procedure by which a recount or re-canvas can be requested by a presidential candidate and carried out in a timely manner, locked allocation of all national delegates based on the initial round of voting. recommendation number two -- i forgot. i would like to move that we vote as a block for number one.
all those in favor of recommendation number one, please raise your hand. one abstention. number one passes. number two, state delegate selection plan for presidential nominating caucus must include a narrative of the specific actions a state party is taking to limit the impact of any voter suppression or disenfranchisement being imposed on the electoral process by the state. all those in favor of number two, please raise your hands. one abstention. number two passes.
number three is tabled. number four, the commission further recommends the dnc institute a national training program and convening that provides best practices, guidance on selecting accessible caucus locations, ideas on making caucuses a positive and inclusive experience for voters and outlines rules the dnc has provided to ensure that caucuses are open and transparent. all those in favor, please raise your hands. looks like we have an abstention. ok. 18. >> 17, i'm sorry. >> gotcha. which way do you want it? number five, the commission
recommends the dnc work with the parties to create consistent standards and guidelines across all caucuses that allow the implementation of best practices for information dissemination. the dnc should explore technology resources available to support state parties in creating a tracking and reporting system that states can use to streamline the registration and reporting process. all those in favor of recommendation five, please raise your hands. we are unanimous with one abstention. jim roosevelt, for the record. number six, finally, the commission recommends that the appropriate steps be taken to ensure caucus voters like those in primary states have a right to participate in the caucus process. these steps should include any required rule changes and the proper education and outreach to ensure the rights of caucuses are enshrined in our process at every level. all those in favor of recommendation number six,
please raise your hands. it is unanimous. with one abstention. jim roosevelt. with that, we are through the caucus section. we are going to move immediately to -- >> madam chair? i want to take this opportunity to thank the outstanding work of the cochair of the caucus section, and the outstanding chairwoman from nebraska. we reached agreement on all of our issues, except the last one. i want to take this opportunity for the general public to also see that we are able to work together as a team. we had both clinton and sanders people on the team. we agreed on 19 of 20 issues. >> thank you. well said. thank you.