The Iowa Stranglehold

by Ari Melber

On July 16, 2005, Democratic Party leaders will gather in Washington, D.C. to debate how the next Democratic presidential nominee should be selected. It will not be an abstract discussion -- the party has established an official commission of 39 Democratic leaders to consider reforming the nomination process. The stakes could not be higher. After two consecutive presidential losses and a growing sentiment that Democratic campaigns are outsmarted even when they are right on the issues, many Democrats are eager to reform the process that selects the most visible and important Democrat in the country.

Beyond the electoral politics, the current system's inequitable distribution of power is attracting more scrutiny. The early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire play a huge role in selecting the nominee, which means an unrepresentative minority handicaps the race while Democrats across the country must watch and wait their turn.

Two prominent Michigan Democrats, Sen. Carl Levin and Debbie Dingell, a DNC member, General Motors executive and congressional spouse, have been blasting this system, calling for an end to the "distorting" supremacy of Iowa and New Hampshire in presidential politics. In 2003, they led a revolt that threatened to hold the Michigan caucus on the same day as New Hampshire's primary -- in violation of national party rules. New Hampshire hit back, demanding presidential candidates pledge not to even step foot in Michigan. Dingell called it "blackmail" for candidates. Michigan eventually settled on a later caucus date and the national party agreed to create the commission that is now studying primary reforms, including proposals by Levin and Dingell.

Josh Earnest, a spokesperson for the Democratic Party, said the commission's goal is to create a process that is fair to voters and candidates while producing the "strongest possible nominee."

At the commission's second meeting in May, Levin gave a fiery presentation calling for the abolition of Iowa and New Hampshire's "perpetual privilege." He advocated rotating regional primaries to involve more states, increase diversity and engage more voters. Levin declared, "what's at stake here is nothing less than a struggle for political equality."

One commission member said Levin's "effective and passionate" advocacy made reform more likely. Leaders from Iowa and New Hampshire counter that only small states can allow retail politics to compete with big money.

After the meeting, Dingell argued that Iowa and New Hampshire do not represent the party's diversity or its electoral ambitions: "two small states have a disproportionate impact on the nominating process. We need candidates in states that reflect issues across the country." Dingell added that most Democrats agree with this position. "We're not asking for Michigan to go first. We're asking for a system that allows all states to be relevant," she said. Besides these egalitarian goals, Dingell is also quick to argue that history is on her side. After Kerry's loss, she reminded Democrats, "Iowa and New Hampshire are not giving us national winners."

Of course, most people do not blame Iowa or New Hampshire for the Democrats' recent losses. But many grassroots Democrats question whether the 2004 primaries were too fast and too unrepresentative of the party's members. I served on the Kerry Campaign's staff in Iowa, so I was obviously happy with the outcome. After working in Des Moines for months, I also concluded that Iowa's grassroots Democratic traditions make it a great place to start the primaries. But Iowa's first-in-the nation role does not require a rushed or "front loaded" primary process, which effectively reduces the power of other states. Furthermore, as Levin is arguing, a political party that stands for political equality and civil rights must confront the racial components of this imbalance, even if they are entirely unintended.

In December, the commission will present its recommendations to DNC Chairman Howard Dean, who makes the final decision on party rules. Dean has criticized the primary system before -- he once said the Iowa caucus is "dominated by special interests" -- so he may be tempted to shake things up if the commission endorses major reform. Dean also remembers that his presidential campaign imploded in Iowa. In July 2004, he wistfully told a reporter that if the primary calendar "had started in California, I'd be the nominee." Reformers are hoping both Dean and the party faithful keep pondering such hypotheticals, because reform, like victory, usually requires imagination.