DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting - June 17, 2026

[00:08:26]Okay.

[00:08:42]>> Okay. Co-chairs. Um we can begin.

[00:08:47]>> All right. Good evening everyone.

[00:08:51]Thank you for joining today's virtual meeting of the DNC rules and bylaws committee. I am Jim Roosevelt and I serve as co-chair of this committee along with my good friend and co-chair Minan Moore who is here with us today.

[00:09:06]Before we begin our work today, please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance.

[00:09:13]>> I pledge allegiance to the flag >> of the United States of America. and to the republic for which it stands.

[00:09:21]>> It stands. One nation under God indivisible. Indivisible indivice for all.

[00:09:33]>> Thank you, Jim. The next item on our agenda is to call the role. As always, I would like to note for the record that this meeting is live streamed. Please be sure to state your name and state before speaking for our court reporter. I'll now ask our parliamentarian, Helen McFaden, to call the role.

[00:09:55]>> Thank you, Madam Chair.

[00:09:59]Chris Alex, >> present.

[00:10:04]>> Thank you. Alicia Andrews, >> present.

[00:10:09]Steuart Applebomb has I'm sorry Stuart Applebomb has given his proxy to Jason Ray Arty Blanco >> Donna Brazil here along with Zora >> Roxanne Brown.

[00:10:40]Miss Bram Raymond Buckley >> here.

[00:10:50]>> Stephanie Compana. Weather was that >> Miss Weaten >> Maria Cardona >> Russ Carneahan >> here.

[00:11:09]>> Conrad >> here.

[00:11:13]>> Leah Dore >> here. Luis Davilla Penz.

[00:11:25]I did not hear that gentleman respond.

[00:11:29]Wendy Davis >> here.

[00:11:33]Derek Deabunk has giell >> here.

[00:12:00]Miss Dugarella present.

[00:12:08]Coleman Eldridge >> here.

[00:12:12]>> Daryl Fowler >> here.

[00:12:15]>> Kayn Free >> present.

[00:12:19]>> Barry Goodman.

[00:12:25]I'm not hearing. Mr. Goodman >> here.

[00:12:29]>> Okay. Thank you, sir. Elizabeth Hernandez >> here from Illinois.

[00:12:36]>> Rusty Hicks, Mr. Hicks, >> Elaine Kark >> here.

[00:12:47]>> David W.

[00:12:55]I'm not hearing Mr. W.

[00:12:58]Michael Cap.

[00:13:04]>> I see Michael Cap.

[00:13:07]>> Steve Carrick.

[00:13:10]>> Shane Cle.

[00:13:15]Jane Cle.

[00:13:19]Frank Leone.

[00:13:25]Sorry. Here.

[00:13:28]Bet Lewis Lewis >> Melissa Lopez Franson >> present.

[00:13:45]>> David McDonald >> here.

[00:13:49]>> Danielle Monroe Moreno >> here.

[00:13:56]Miss Moreno, I see her.

[00:13:59]>> I am here.

[00:14:01]>> Thank you, ma'am.

[00:14:03]>> Henry Munz, >> I'm here.

[00:14:07]>> Marie has given his proxy to Miss Dugarala.

[00:14:16]Jason Ray >> here.

[00:14:19]>> Jamie Seltzer here.

[00:14:25]Mr. Seltzer, >> Gary Shay >> here.

[00:14:33]>> Crystal Spain >> here.

[00:14:36]>> Dennis Spate >> here.

[00:14:39]>> Susan Schweer >> here.

[00:14:42]>> Kenny Thompson.

[00:14:47]Mr. Thompson.

[00:14:50]Andre Triber >> here.

[00:14:57]>> I see him.

[00:14:59][clears throat] Keith Unimot.

[00:15:05]>> April Veret has given her proxy to Donna Brazil.

[00:15:11]Andre Washington.

[00:15:18]Mr. Washington.

[00:15:22]I'm not hearing Mr. Washington.

[00:15:30]>> Mr. Chairman, you certainly have a quorum.

[00:15:33]>> Uh, Ms. Mcpaden, I'm wondering, did you get Barry Goodman, Luis Davila, and Jamie Selzer?

[00:15:43]>> I had Mr. Goodman. I did not have Luis. And I did not have Mr. Seltzer. I will mark them as present at roll call.

[00:15:55]>> They they are uh they are in the chat that they're here. Yes. Okay.

[00:15:59]>> Can we also check uh the records to make sure Debbie did not uh send in a proxy.

[00:16:09]>> We can check it later, but I think she mentioned she might be doing a proxy.

[00:16:14]It is not recorded on the list provided to me, Madam Chair.

[00:16:19]>> Okay. Thank you.

[00:16:21]>> All right. Well, thank you. Uh thank you, Helen, and thank you, Minan.

[00:16:26]Uh and thank you to everyone who has joined us for tonight's call. We have a few meetings coming up over the coming weeks, so we'll be seeing a lot of each other this summer. We've been dedicated to a thorough and transparent process and that has meant many meetings. I deeply appreciate the commitment you've all made to participate in each step of this process.

[00:16:54]Today's agenda will be centered on this discussion of the proposed 2028 delegate selection rules. As you know, this will prepare us for our meeting in Pittsburgh uh at the end of the month next week where we will finish our review of the rules. During that meeting, we will also begin our review of the call for the 2028 convention.

[00:17:19]I'll now pass it back to Minan to provide an overview of our goals for today.

[00:17:26]>> Thank you, Jim. During our meeting in Washington DC, we covered rule 10 through rule 14. And today we're hoping to complete our review of rule 15 through rule 20. When we reconvene next week in Pittsburgh, we will review rules 21 and 22 before revisiting the postponed amendments and any other items that members would like to consider.

[00:17:52]Now, let's get started with our review of rule 15. Staff, please begin presenting the proposed 2028 delegate selection rules. Members, you may also access the document through the link provided to you in the email of the office of the secretary and party affairs sent they sent it to you earlier today and placed it in the chat. Jim, >> so before we begin our discussion on rule 15, Sean will provide a brief overview.

[00:18:25]Thank you, co-chairs. Rule 15 caps signature and fee requirements for presidential and delegate ballot access.

[00:18:33]It sets a minimum and maximum minimum maximum filing deadlines to ensure fairness and access to the ballot and it prohibits tying delegate filings to presidential ballot access requirements.

[00:18:46]Back to you two.

[00:18:48]>> So, a there you made the page bigger.

[00:18:51]That's just what I was going to ask for at the request of some members. So, uh, members, the floor is open for discussion. Thank you, Sham. Uh, and for amendments as we review the rules in chronological order. We'll begin our discussion of rule 15. Starting with rule 15A. Do members have any proposed amendments to rule 15A?

[00:19:20]co-chair.

[00:19:22]>> We have uh Ender Dugarala from Colorado.

[00:19:28]>> Uh thank you for recognizing me. I have a I don't have an amendment, but I've noticed a uh uh an issue with rule 15.

[00:19:37]There's no mention of the voters that would need to participate in um you know, in these uh petition requirements and filing deadlines. I think it may be a good idea to reference rule number two uh you know as a preface to this entire section um because it not only talks about the eligibility of voters, it also talks about um the presidential candidates can only um participate in one party. There's very nice uh explanations there and I would just request that rule number two be included or referenced in rule number 15.

[00:20:26]>> So are you proposing a specific amendment or making that reference?

[00:20:33]>> Yes, please.

[00:20:35]I don't have language but yeah that's what I'm if someone wants to come up with it.

[00:20:49]So if you'd like to come back to us with language.

[00:20:54]>> Okay.

[00:20:55]>> We can consider that.

[00:20:59]Any further comments on rule 15A?

[00:21:11]All right. Any uh comments or amendments on rule 15B?

[00:21:23]>> We have Elaine Kark.

[00:21:27]>> Elaine.

[00:21:29]>> Yeah. Hi there. Um, this has been, I think, the same for several cycles now.

[00:21:36]And I'm just wondering if we shouldn't increase this maybe to 3500 um or even as high as 5,000 um you know to keep kind of um you know to keep kind of um vanity candidates out of the race. Um, and also it seems to me that the state parties, it costs them a lot of money to do things and to put on these things, just just putting just creating the sites for delegate selection meetings is is a huge burden. And it just seems to me if we can direct a little bit more money to the state parties um through this, that would be a good idea. And as I say, this is with inflation and everything, I think we could afford to raise this. Um I think serious presidential candidates can certainly afford, you know, another $1,000 or so for um for the uh filing fee. So, I'll put that out there as um I'll make a motion to increase this to um $3,500.

[00:22:47]Second, Dennis.

[00:22:50]>> Here you go.

[00:22:52]>> We have a motion and it's been seconded.

[00:22:55]>> Is there any further discussion of that motion?

[00:22:59]>> Um, we have Frank Leon in the >> hi uh Frank Leon from DC. This provision I think relates to uh only the process where there is payment of a fee is the sole method to get on the ballot. I know in many states you can pay a fee or you can collect signatures. It can be certified by the chair. Um other than South Carolina, are there do we know if there are any other states that have this as a sole method for getting on the ballot?

[00:23:31]>> I think New Hampshire um I think New Hampshire has has a filing fee, doesn't it? Uh >> it's one it's 1,000, but you can do petitions.

[00:23:42]>> You can do petitions. Okay.

[00:23:47]And in fact, the in place prior to 2018, I this whole thing is a South Carolina provision as I understand it.

[00:23:57]>> Do we have Carol? Do we have Carol on the in the meeting?

[00:24:01]>> Carol does have her hand raised. Carol, would you like to comment?

[00:24:07]Yeah, I think this pro I it probably is a South Carolina provision. When we had u a stateaterun uh I'm sorry, a party run process, we um we charged I guess the party charged $2,500 when the state took over our primaries.

[00:24:33]the uh the the law that um allowed that that provided for that required and still requires um a fee to the state from the party of $20,000 per candidate on the ballot. Um, each year since then, the the RBC has granted a waiver to South Carolina to allow us to charge that $20,000 filing fee to the candidates. Um, Elena is right that it keeps even 2500 keeps vanity candidates out and goodness knows there are a lot of them, a lot of vanity candidates wandering around. But the um the enormous fee that the state of South Carolina requires um of the party is, you know, we've just always gotten a waiver for that because the party if if the party had to pay for eight or 10 candidates um it would it that just would be prohibitive. Um so the the RBC has always kindly granted us that waiver. Now, we have each year since that was instituted, we have tried to get the law changed. We have made provable positive steps every single year. We've gotten legislation introduced, all of that, and it has not passed the Republican legislature. I will say that the Republican Party of South Carolina charges something like a 50,000 or $40,000 filing fee to each candidate to get on the ballot. They pay 20,000 to the state and keep the change.

[00:26:25]We we have not done that.

[00:26:29]I'm happy to answer questions about our our filing fee.

[00:26:34]So, do you have a view on on this amendment whether it whether the amount should be changed?

[00:26:40]>> Um, I I I certainly think that it won't hurt to change it. Um, I don't know what other states charge. Um, but and and how many other states do charge a filing fee? Um, I think it's fine. I think we should probably um do as Elaine said.

[00:27:00]Uh, and then we will we in South Carolina will hope once more to be granted a waiver. Um, but yes, I think we should go ahead and and raise what we permit under the rules.

[00:27:16]>> All right, Wendy Davis has her hand raised.

[00:27:27]Sorry, my phone didn't want to let me unmute. Um, if if I heard some one of our colleagues correctly, they were saying that South Carolina is the only state that has the um pay a fee only option.

[00:27:45]So, if South Carolina is the only one that this applies to, shouldn't we go ahead and raise it to what they have to charge so we don't have to go through them getting a waiver?

[00:28:00]So, so Wendy, you're suggesting we raise it to $20,000, which is what the party has to pay the the state.

[00:28:09]>> Yes, ma'am. It seems to me if the rule is only the only state it applies to is South Carolina, we shouldn't have a rule that we then ask them to get a waiver for.

[00:28:19]>> Yeah, it's a good it's a good point. And I mean it it makes me I I had no idea. I probably did and forgot, Carol, but um you guys still have to even with the $2500 um fee, you have to fork over another $17,500, right, to the state. That seems And believe me, if South Carolina ends up first or second or third or fourth, I don't think $20,000 is going to keep anybody out of the race.

[00:28:53]>> [laughter] >> the $20,000 has never kept a serious candidate out of the race.

[00:29:00]>> Um the it it has kept some vanity candidates out. It one we had somebody file one time and they assumed that the $20,000 put them on the ballot in all 50 states and the territories. Um, and we once once they figured out the problem, we just refunded the money and and left them off our ballot because that person was never going to see the inside of the White House. But, um, if if you raise it as Wendy suggested to to cover South Carolina's law and make it $20,000, that would be wonderful. If not, we will be coming back and asking for a waiver because it's just that's just an enormous amount of money for the state party. It's a little bit of money for a candidate.

[00:30:01]>> Um I think we have Dennis.

[00:30:06]Uh yeah, I I like the idea of of increasing it if for no other reason than it gives a state party a a a ceiling for their uh even if they allow petitions, it gives a ceiling uh for their fee. Um and I think that's I think that's good instruction to our state parties.

[00:30:29]So I I still think uh we should leave it at 3500.

[00:30:35]You're supporting the amendment of 3500.

[00:30:39]>> Indeed, I'm the one who seconded it, but I just wanted to make that point. It's like I still think I still think this amount uh is instruction to all state parties, not just to South Carolina because they are this, you know, that's the sole method.

[00:30:55]>> Okay. Thank you. Frank Leon has his hand raised.

[00:31:00]>> Yes. Uh Frank Leon, DC. Um, I'm okay with raising 3500, but I I don't think we should let the South Carolina legislaturator's uh decision that it should be 20,000 dictate what we say in our rules. The the point on the waiver issue is that South Carolina has to go back and try to change it, try to lower it. And I think they should and I think we should keep that requirement in place uh rather than just across the board allow 20,000. But you don't have a problem with uh with this amendment.

[00:31:32]>> Yeah, I'm I' I've been convinced that the uh inflation adjusted uh 3500 [snorts] is okay.

[00:31:39]>> Okay. Alicia Andrews.

[00:31:43]>> Alicia Andrews from Oklahoma. Um I'm I pulled up my state statute and I'll tell you that it's $5,000 for a candidate to get on our ballot. um $5,000 or 5,000 signatures. And I will tell you, nobody does these signatures. And so I just if you do 3500, I assure you that Oklahoma will be doing a uh waiver because it is set by state statute, >> but this provision applies only when when the filing fee is the sole method to go on the ballot.

[00:32:16]>> Okay. Thank you.

[00:32:17]>> Okay. Uh Bishop Dry.

[00:32:22]Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I I support raising the fee uh to $3500 or even 5,000. I don't know that we want our documents to reflect a $20,000 filing fee. Um, I'm I would I don't know that that's good messaging or good uh a good look right now. and I'm more I'm more comfortable um voting for a waiver if a waiver is required, but I'm I would be in support of raising this fee to of the of the motion as it's been presented.

[00:33:00]>> Thank you. Uh Carol Fowler, >> persuaded. I am persuaded by um by um Miss Daltry's argument. I think she's right um that it's not a good message uh that it's that we want it to be hard for candidates to u Carol, you're you're >> you've slipped into muting there.

[00:33:38]I don't Okay, my my thing is unmuted.

[00:33:43]>> Okay. Well, we can hear you now.

[00:33:45]>> Okay. What I said was I agree with Leah.

[00:33:47]I don't think it's a good message that we're trying to make it harder to get on the ballot. And in and in fact, in South Carolina, we try annually to to make it easier to get on the ballot. and and we you know if the 3500 is great and we'll come back for a waiver later early or late primary we're still going to have to come back for the waiver.

[00:34:12]>> All right. Uh Steph Kapana Huiten.

[00:34:15]>> Thank you Mr. Chair. Stephanie Gambi in New Jersey. Just wanted to share for folks who might be curious. There's about five or six other states that have a um filing fee only option. And I can see um top very quick research Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Wyoming, and I maybe one or two more, but the um they all charge $2,500 as the fee. So I think that raising a little bit might give those states a little bit more cushion. Um so thank you Toian for putting that out.

[00:34:47]>> Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to speak on this amendment?

[00:34:55]Okay. Hearing no one else. Uh Helen, shall we go ahead and take a vote on the amendment?

[00:35:01]>> Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, >> all those in favor, please say I.

[00:35:07]>> I.

[00:35:09]>> I.

[00:35:09]>> I.

[00:35:10]>> Oppose say no.

[00:35:13]And the amendment carries.

[00:35:16]All right. Uh let's go to uh 15C. Any comments or amendments on 15C?

[00:35:36]>> And is your hand up?

[00:35:38]>> Yeah. Um, I bring the same issue as I did at the uh beginning of this rule.

[00:35:44]Um, I think we do need some language referencing back to eligibility because this is also describing. I have the language ready to be added. So, as an amendment, if um I think I I believe I sent a text to Will, but I'm happy to read it. Um here to add as a new section to rule 15 um saying all participants, all participation by voters in this petition process or elections described in this rule shall be in accordance with rule two.

[00:36:20]>> You're proposing ending that or adding that at the end. Is that correct? Is an H.

[00:36:25]>> Yes, that's right.

[00:36:28]>> All right. We'll return to that when we've gone through the rest of this, but we've got we've got the language now. All right.

[00:36:37]>> Cool. Thanks.

[00:36:38]>> Okay. Anyone else on this section or subsection?

[00:36:46]Okay.

[00:36:50]want to move on down.

[00:36:53]Anyone on rule 15D?

[00:37:03]Hearing none, I'll ask if there's anyone with any comments or amendments on rule 15e.

[00:37:18]And moving on, rule 15F hearing and seeing no comments. 15G.

[00:37:44]All right. So I think that brings us uh to the proposed amendment uh from uh Indira which would be 15H.

[00:37:55]It's going up on the screen now I believe.

[00:38:00]I thought I saw it starting to go up but there it is. Okay.

[00:38:07]And is there a second uh to that proposed amendment?

[00:38:12]>> I sec second it.

[00:38:17]any uh I see some hands to comment on this. Uh and I'll start with David McDonald.

[00:38:26]>> Um I apologize if this comment is moot, but for some reason I can't see whatever is being posted on the screen. I do have my own copy of the rules, but my concern is rule two, if that's all that's specified, is a rule that's several pages long. Is there some actual part of it that [clears throat] um uh we want to consider interpreting?

[00:38:46]And I'm mildly concerned because in our state, the only way to get access to the ballot is by party rule. And our party rule has a requirement for petitions, but we don't have party registration and a few of the other accudants that many states have. And I just want to make sure we are not uh inadvertently imposing a requirement that our state can't meet.

[00:39:10]So that's a question.

[00:39:12]>> I can answer that really quick. So um the I understand that pe some uh states don't have party registration. Uh particularly in rule two we have prohibitions where no person may participate in the democratic presidential nominating process if they also participate in nominating process of another party um in the same election. That's one thing I would like to be included here. So that's why I was just saying rule two. Um and also um you know uh state parties also have different types of primaries and so there's no mention of it here and so that's the another uh the inclusivity part of it was also in rule two. So that's why I suggested just including the whole thing.

[00:40:04]I apologize for interrupting, but um in my state it would be impossible to comply with a condition that said they can't to participate in the nominating process of another party because we um require I think a thousand signatures by January 6 and we have no way to participating petitions for all we know they have an equivalent requirement that we can't cross check and I return to my original uh comment that rule two is three pages long. It can I mean it it has all kinds of participation standards including internet voting. Can we be a little bit more specific about what we're imposing?

[00:40:44]I'm not opposed to the concept but I think it needs more work.

[00:40:48]>> Yeah.

[00:40:50]Uh it's actually section E that I was referring to in terms of prohibitions in rule two.

[00:41:03]Uh, sorry. Section B. Sorry. No, no, no. Wait, wait, wait.

[00:41:09]I'm on the wrong page.

[00:41:12]>> And it was E.

[00:41:14]>> E.

[00:41:21]>> So, do you want to limit this amendment to shall be in accordance with rule 2B?

[00:41:29]>> 2e.

[00:41:30]>> 2e. Okay. All right. Uh, and I'll unless I hear otherwise, I'll assume your seconder consents to that.

[00:41:41]>> Yes.

[00:41:42]>> Elaine, did you have a comment?

[00:41:44]>> No, I was I was I I I seconded it because I thought it was an important point to discuss. Um, and I think this makes it much clearer. So, you just you just want to make sure that people who are um signing petitions, right, for a presidential candidate are not also doing that for the a Republican candidate. Is is that the is that what this seeks to achieve?

[00:42:13]>> Yeah.

[00:42:14]>> Okay. Well, then I think this is probably a good addition because that's what that's what TUI says and obviously this is pretty important and we can't have people signing everybody's petitions. I'm not sure we could actually check that. I'm not sure we would be able to do that, but um I think the intent is good.

[00:42:37]>> All right. Uh Frank, did you have a comment? Yeah, I'm I'm glad we've we've narrowed it to rule E, but the problem is that puts it in conflict with state laws which don't impose such requirements. And yes, you can sign everybody's petition. Um, you can sign everybody Democrats petition. You can sign Republican petitions as well. And I don't know how we would prevent that from happening. you know, in terms of 2E and participating in the process.

[00:43:07]Someone has voted in a Republican primary, um, you know, you can prevent them from joining in your your caucus or whatever where delegates are elected, there are ways to enforce it, but on the petition requirement, um, I I don't I don't see any any way to to enforce it, and thus I don't think we should impose it.

[00:43:29]>> All right. Uh, I'll call on Susan Swucker.

[00:43:33]>> Susan Swucker, Virginia. Uh, we don't have party registration in Virginia. So, I am going to align myself with um Frank Leon's remarks, but um also have a question um for Indira. Is is there is there is there is there an exa is there something that has occurred that we that the reason you are suggesting this or just trying to be you know real proactive you know to take care of something and I'm just wondering where in you know in your state or somewhere did something happen that gives you gives you concern about it because I'm not sure we could abide by I mean it would conflict with state law in the Commonwealth. Yeah. So, it's not necessarily in Colorado, you know, unaffiliated voters get, you know, both the ballots and they get to choose and stuff like that. But, um, what I was referring this from was just simply reading the rule u on its face value, it was extremely confusing. Should somebody take this rule out of context, um they would not know um the eligibility criteria, the issues related to who can or cannot participate um and all of the inclusion laws, you know, rules that we have included, will they be part of it or not? And so for me, it created a confusion and um and I made notes specifically on that. And that's how I went back to, oh wait a minute, these are addressed in rule two. And that's how I came up with it.

[00:45:13]>> Okay, Gary Shay.

[00:45:15]>> Uh, yes. Um, it seems like to me that rule 2E applies to the entirety of this document. And so, um, putting it in 15 as a new H doesn't really accomplish anything. And to the extent that there are any problems, the problems are with rule 2E to begin with. And so if those are problems that have been pointed out, then we need to change rule 2E, don't we?

[00:45:43]>> Well, Gary, why would we need to change rule 2E?

[00:45:47]>> Well, it sort of >> brought up the idea that um they can't comply with it. It seems like to me 2E applies to the document whether you put it in 15H or not. So if there are any issues with rule 2e, then it's 2e that needs to be fixed, not you know, not simply not putting it as a 15h.

[00:46:08]>> In other words, it's already there.

[00:46:09]>> Yeah. Can I can I jump in on this for a minute?

[00:46:12]It it strikes me that there are when petitions are circulated for getting candidates on the ballot, there are many situations, they happen often in c certain states like New York where petitions are challenged. And it seems to me that you could in fact if if somebody had, you know, 180 Republicans signing their petition, known Republicans in a in a party registration state or in a state where they'd been recorded recently as voting in the Republican primary, um if if they had been if they had, you know, signed that petition, seems to me that could be grounds for a challenge and that that's what this rule um attempts to get to both in 2E and of course here in the petition question. I do not think a lot of these I mean I I would speak to the entirety of rule 2E. I think most of it is uninforceable. And in fact, one of the things that we talked about a couple meetings ago is how internally contradictory rule 2E is and how many states frankly are not um are not doing what rule two says they should do and we haven't really called them on it for a long time. So, um I think this is kind of a a sticky wicket here and um and I like the intent of it and I'm glad Indira broke brought it up, but I I don't I I think it could be enforcable in situations where people are challenging the petitions of an opponent and that that does happen often.

[00:47:59]>> Thank you, Andre.

[00:48:04]Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, one thing I have learned from this committee as we've gone through this process is that we are plenty happy to act regardless of what existing state law is and that we're agnostic to that if this is if we're considering good policy. And ultimately, I do think this is good policy to ensure that uh where applicable we are making sure it's Democrats that are signing petitions and not Republicans. Um, I'm also happy to immed, you know, for people to immediately reference this conversation later when we are when we are making sure that uh state delegate selection plans are either um in compliance or that we've got to grant a waiver for this. This seems like the kind of thing that could create waiverss, but ultimately um as we've done previously, we've been agnostic to what the existing state law is. And so that's that's how I'm treating this issue as well. So, um, while I understand it could create issues, that seems like the exact kind of thing that waivers are there for. And otherwise, this seems like a good, um, enforcement mechanism.

[00:49:08]Thank you, Andre. Anyone else who'd like to speak on this amendment?

[00:49:17]>> All right, I think we're ready to vote on this amendment.

[00:49:23]Uh Frank Leon of DC just raise his hand.

[00:49:25]>> Oh, Frank. Uh sorry.

[00:49:27]>> Yeah, I'm sorry. I just just to to follow up I to create a new provision which will require waiverss seems to me to be unnecessary and a bad idea.

[00:49:39][snorts] The issue of challenging voters or challenging petitions. You know, I come from Virginia where we don't do that, but I know they do do that in some states, but I think they do that under state law. That is, the person is not a registered voter in determining, especially in a state without party registration, whether the person is a Democrat or a Republican seems to me to put an extraordinary burden on either the state or the party who's ever in charge of reviewing those petitions. And you know I if somebody so the same candidate who got a few Republicans to sign his petition virtually every state can get on by paying a fee or by getting recognized by the party chair anyway. So it's it's I I don't think it's a problem. Um and the solution seems to me to create more complications than is necessary. Thanks.

[00:50:32]>> Thank you. And did you have a further comment?

[00:50:35]Yeah, I certainly don't want to add more bureaucracy than is necessary by introducing this. I simply noted an inconsistency. I'm happy to withdraw this amendment if it is complicated, but I'd like to hear uh what others have to say.

[00:50:52]>> All right. Uh David McDonald, >> I had one last comment. It seems to me that to some extent imposing a requirement that relates to how you voted in the last primary is inconsistent with our concept that you can vote Republican and show up and register Democratic on the day of the primary and participate in our primary.

[00:51:11]I mean, again, if if if the petition um indicates on its face in some fashion that you are a Democrat, uh or at least does not indicate anything inconsistent, it seems to me we under our rules would take it at face value that no matter what your past history was and no matter what your history was going to be the day after the primary, we were willing to let you vote on our nomination.

[00:51:35]This kind of same day registration, which we've always been in favor of.

[00:51:40]Right.

[00:51:42]Any other comments?

[00:51:46]So, do you want to go forward with the motion or >> No, I said I will withdraw the motion.

[00:51:52]>> All right, we'll do that. So that being done, I think we have completed our discussion of rule 15 and I will turn it back to minan uh for and staff uh well first I'll make sure point out that uh uh staff will uh update our materials as we've just done and then I'll turn it back to Minan for rule 16.

[00:52:22]>> Thanks Jim. Moving on to rule 16. Before we begin begin our discussion, Will will provide a brief overview of rule 16.

[00:52:33]>> Thank you, madam co-chair. Rule 16 covers quorum requirements. It's a minimum quorum of 40% and applies uniformally across party bodies involved in delegate selection.

[00:52:46]Members, the floor is open for discussion and amendments as we review rule 16.

[00:52:55]Looks like David has his hand up.

[00:52:57]>> I have a uh David McDonald Washington. I have a question. um now that we allow proxies to participate in the delegate selection process, is the quorum that's being referred to in 16 a quorum of people um present in person and by proxy or is it present in person? Um, I don't think that's clear under Roberts and I'm not I don't think we necessarily need to make a amendment here to this rule, but we should note it at least for the regulations that we need to clarify what how you get to be part of the 40%.

[00:53:32]And I assume it'll be the same standard as we use for rules committee meetings.

[00:53:38]>> Okay.

[00:53:41]Is there any further discussion?

[00:53:44]Hearing none, we will move on and we will make make sure we make a note of that David and we'll move on to Jim.

[00:53:58]>> Okay, turning to rule 17 and before we begin our discussion, Seam will provide a brief overview.

[00:54:07]>> Thank you, co-chair. Rule Yeah. Um, rule 17 allows proxy voting to increase participation at state parties discretion. Um, it limits individuals to holding only one proxy and requires proxies to be non-transferable and registered on site.

[00:54:28]>> Is there any uh any uh comments or amendments to rule 17?

[00:54:38]>> David.

[00:54:39]>> David. Yes. Um I have another potential regulation issued. Um the rule is written currently requires the proxy to be transferred to a participant at the meeting and I think we may need to clarify what that means in context of meetings that are either hybrid or all virtual. Um at the time the rule was written you assumed that people had to be there in person but that's not necessarily the case as meetings evolved.

[00:55:04]>> So would you suggest amending this to say for that meeting?

[00:55:09]Um either that or participant in that meeting.

[00:55:14]Um >> okay, you pick.

[00:55:19]>> Uh I would say in the meeting and it's a little bit broader English and I think that's I closer to what the proxy rule itself says. You have to >> what I worry is that in sound could be interpreted to actually mean present.

[00:55:39]Well, yeah, but if if you're worried about that, then you have to deal with the first sentence, which is to ensure full participation in the meeting. The second sentence, which says that the accredited participant in a caucus or meeting can give the proxy that.

[00:55:53]>> All right. Is there a second to David's amendment?

[00:56:00]>> A second.

[00:56:02]>> All right.

[00:56:04]Any further discussion on that amendment?

[00:56:09]Carol Fowler, are you raising your hand to discuss that or something else?

[00:56:13]>> No, it was a purely an accident.

[00:56:16]>> Okay. All right, >> Gary Shay.

[00:56:24]>> I just want to be clear that I understand this. Um, this would still allow for someone to give a proxy in advance of the meeting. Is that correct?

[00:56:33]>> I believe it would because they they will then be a participant in the meeting.

[00:56:42]>> I I think the existing language might not allow that, but the amended language I think would.

[00:56:47]>> Yeah, I think so, too.

[00:56:52]Good clarification for the record.

[00:56:56]Any other comments on this amendment?

[00:57:01]All right, we'll take a vote on this amendment. Those in favor say I. I >> I >> I >> I >> and opposed. No.

[00:57:15]>> Okay, that amendment does carry. Any further discussion on rule 17?

[00:57:24]Hearing none, I'll turn it back to you, Minan.

[00:57:29]>> Thank you, Jim. Uh, moving on to rule 18. Before we begin our discussion, Will will provide a brief overview of rule 18.

[00:57:38]>> Thank you, madam co-chair. Rule 18 covers unit rule and slatem. Prohibits the unit rule at all stage of stages of delegate selection. Allows slates but prohibits preferential ballot placement.

[00:57:51]>> Okay. The floor is now open for any discussion on rule 18A.

[00:58:04]Seeing none, we will move on to 18B.

[00:58:11]David, >> the way this rule is written has always um troubled me because it technically it allows a party organization to create an official slate that is blessed by party leadership to advertise it on television to hand it out on flyers to say this is the official Democratic Party slate and put a very heavy thumb on the on the scale.

[00:58:39]The only thing they can't do is they can't mention it on the ballot. And that seems to me to allow for a lot of potential abuse. And I would propose to amend deleting the words on the ballot.

[00:58:51]Um so that the uh revised rule would allow anybody to create a slate that they want, but you can't call it an official party slate in the middle of a contest. I think that would be more consistent with our approach that the party tries to be neutral. Certainly um the approach that we have been adopting on our officers and otherwise >> um >> is that an amendment David?

[00:59:15]>> Yes. To delete the words on the ballot at line 95 I believe it is.

[00:59:21]>> Um Jim, correct me if I'm wrong.

[00:59:25]>> Was there a second for David's amendment?

[00:59:27]>> I'll second it.

[00:59:28]>> Okay.

[00:59:30]Open for discussion.

[00:59:32]>> Yeah. Yeah. Jim, correct me if I'm wrong, but is doesn't Massachusetts when a candidate wins the convention um is there something on the ballot indicating that they were the official um candidate of the of the Democratic party?

[00:59:53]>> There is not. There is not. They can use it in their campaigning, but it's not on the ballot.

[00:59:58]>> On the ballot. Okay. Okay.

[01:00:04]Is there any further discussion on David's amendment to rule 18B?

[01:00:16]>> If not, we can move to a vote. All in favor say I.

[01:00:21]>> I.

[01:00:21]>> I.

[01:00:22]>> I.

[01:00:22]>> I.

[01:00:23]>> I.

[01:00:24]>> I.

[01:00:24]>> I. I.

[01:00:26]>> Those opposed.

[01:00:28]The eyes have it. Jim, back to you. Room 19. All right, we will move then to rule 19 uh and ask Sham to give us a brief overview on rule 19.

[01:00:43]Rule 19 applies the same rules to alternates as to delegates with limited exceptions for filling vacancies. It establishes procedures for temporary and permanent replacements and requires replacements to match presidential preference, gender and geography where possible.

[01:00:59]So as we have been doing we will take rule 19 by its subsections. Uh are there any comments or amendments on rule 19A?

[01:01:15]Hearing none. Any comments or amendments on rule 19B?

[01:01:25]>> Yes. Ray Buckley.

[01:01:28]>> Um, thank you, Mr. Cocher. I just want to make sure I'm reading this correctly.

[01:01:33]Um, because I had never noticed it before, uh, just to put it in more plain English, I'm wondering does this, so New Hampshire's allotted two alternates, but it's very frequent that three uh, candidates make the 15% threshold. So, is this suggesting that I should obtain a third alternate? So, each one of those three people each have an alternate.

[01:02:02]Is that what this says or am I misreading this?

[01:02:07]I'm just rereading it myself, David, >> Frank, >> I I think what uh Ray that what it says it creates an impossible situation for you because I think what it says is that you have to give one of the existing alternate spots to the campaign that doesn't otherwise get an alternate, but that would leave another campaign in your situation without one. So, you've got this endless um circle. And uh uh we I don't have a revision off the top of my head, but I think we do need to deal with the impossible situation to say in that one limited circumstance like you're in >> um you need to be able to add an alternate position.

[01:03:08]Um or make some other accommodation that works out. It >> it's very frequent that we have three.

[01:03:15]Um more often than not, it's three.

[01:03:17]>> Yeah. For the early states, it will be.

[01:03:19]Yeah.

[01:03:20]>> Yeah. Sure. not prejudging your application, but just in the event that you manage to prevail to be upfront, it could be a problem.

[01:03:30]So, >> Carol, did you have a comment?

[01:03:34]>> I just have a question and maybe Rick is the one Rick Borland might be the only one who could answer this. Has this ever happened before that the circumstance that Raymond is describing? I can see when I read this, I thought, whoa, we need to make clear that we're not issuing another alternate to this state, but maybe we do have to give them another alternate.

[01:04:02]>> Um, I I'm happy to answer that. The there's a provision in the call which um is further provided that each state shall have the additional number of atlarge [snorts] alternates necessary to provide at least one alternate for each presidential candidate. So the standard practice has been if in New Hampshire three candidates meet the viability threshold that there would be an additional alternate given to the state of New Hampshire um in order to uh ensure that they were um able to provide each presidential candidate a um an additional alternate.

[01:04:36]>> Well that's that makes a lot more sense than some of the things we do.

[01:04:40]Excellent. [laughter] >> Raymond, does that >> so so the I did read it correctly according to shop that that we would get an additional um alternate.

[01:04:54]>> Yes. And it would be handled in the call.

[01:04:57]>> Okay. Because I mean I I know we that was the case in 2020 and 2008 2004 88 I mean on and on and on.

[01:05:05]>> So I think it was not just ad lib I think it was handled in the call. Okay, >> great.

[01:05:11]>> And I would say >> I I would call this a first state problem.

[01:05:16][laughter] >> I I gladly accept the problem.

[01:05:20]>> Okay.

[01:05:22]>> And Jim, I I I would also just add process-wise, the the um second clause of that sentence says if the rules the DNC rules and bylaws committee determines that the number of alternates allocated to the state is not sufficient for each presidential candidate to have at least one alternate. So, I would say process-wise, once you've gotten past [clears throat] your first step, if you end up in that situation, you should reach out to um to our team and and we can put it on the agenda for an RBC meeting.

[01:05:52]>> Okay.

[01:05:54]All right. Uh any further discussion on 19B?

[01:06:00]Moving then to 19 C. Any comments or amendments there? Hearing none. Rule 19 D.

[01:06:20]Chairman Buckley.

[01:06:26]You are muted.

[01:06:30]Um, sorry. If anyone has a comment about D1, because mine is about D2. Um, I'd gladly let the conversation about D1 occur first.

[01:06:43]>> I'm D3, so I'm not >> okay.

[01:06:45]>> Uh, it doesn't look like it. So, uh, in D2, uh, the last sentence um is says that the presidential candidate, uh, chooses, um, the replacement U alternate. Um, They've but they've already uh okayed all of the other list. Um you know of the only people that would have appeared on their list was were were the people that they had already approved. So um I I'm I don't know what other people think.

[01:07:26]Maybe it's a early state problem again.

[01:07:28]I don't know. Um, but it is seems awkward that we have to go back to the presidential candidate to get a second approval.

[01:07:38]And if I'm reading it correctly, >> David, did you have a comment on this rule?

[01:07:48]>> I I have a comment on the rule, but yet another section not in the section of hold that for a few minutes.

[01:07:53]>> Yeah.

[01:07:54]>> Indereo, did you have a comment on this section?

[01:07:57]Um actually I have a comment on the entirety of D. Uh the you know most of this work might actually have a very short interval of time. Um but it I feel like this is something that I've kind of took a note in from prior meetings where we made a change to 3E in our delegate selection. Um it uh rule 3 sorry rule 3C scheduling of delegates and selection meetings. Uh we made an amendment I believe in New Orleans about the 14-day notice in advance. I don't know if that would appropriately apply to this rule especially D. uh and and most of by this point most of the delegates and their alternate candidates are all uh in notice and they would have known that.

[01:08:57]Um so I'm a little bit worried that that rule um can become a litigation problem and difficult to enforce for the states.

[01:09:12]>> All right. Uh Steph, >> oh mine was an amendment to rule D uh D3 um Brig Magnus, but when I read it for the first time, the term political subdivision, I thought it referred to an ideological standpoint rather than a geographic standpoint. So my amendment would be to change it from subdivision to jurisdiction. And that's in rules D3 and D4.

[01:09:51]Is there a second to that change?

[01:09:54]>> Second.

[01:09:56]>> Any uh dis further discussion on that issue.

[01:10:08]>> Several hands are up. Is it in reference to Steph's amendment?

[01:10:14]>> Yes.

[01:10:20]Here.

[01:10:20]>> Uh I'm I I mean I I this is just a question. Is a political subdivision, which I think of as a congressional district or a state house district, the same thing as a jurisdiction?

[01:10:38]To my knowledge, it is when David and I looked it up.

[01:10:45]>> I don't have any objection to the change. If it means the same thing, >> it means the Yeah. the geographic location rather than anything else.

[01:11:00]Well, when we say political subdivision, do we I mean, is that a county? Is it a can it can a political subdivision be a county or a state senate district or any of those things? I mean, that's how I've always interpreted >> when we looked at it. Um, Carol, a political subdivision could be a school board, um, could be a city council, could be a municipal court, um, whereas a jurisdiction is a geographic area that has a government that can pass laws to enforce things um, on you or has a representative, you know. So, it applies to legislative districts, congressional districts, but um, it is not a school board. Um, so it it uh I think technically they the two terms may mean roughly the same, but optically uh what Stephanie was saying um is probably correct. Jurisdiction sounds a lot more like it's a legal boundary than subdivision might.

[01:12:07]>> Okay, >> Carol, I put the the exact definition in the chat.

[01:12:12]>> That's fine. I'm not arguing against it.

[01:12:14]I just um am not smart enough to know what it all means. So um that's fine.

[01:12:23]>> All right, Alicia Andrews.

[01:12:27]>> Um I think that Carol and Steph may have cleared it up for me because it felt like just a sem Oh, Alicia Andrews, Oklahoma. Felt like a semantic issue. Um I I don't I guess I don't care either way as long as it means the same thing.

[01:12:43]Okay. All right, Louise.

[01:12:48]>> Um, wouldn't that be fixed by adding the word geographic before subdivision? So, have it read political geographic subdivision and then you don't have to change it to jurisdiction.

[01:13:00]That may cause confusion.

[01:13:07]If I may, I think technically because there is a term for political subdivision, I think that adding geographic subdivision will change the term itself. I think jurisdiction means pretty much the same thing and I think it's a a cleaner solution. Um, it's just the way that I read it.

[01:13:32]>> I agree. It's fine.

[01:13:34]Okay. All right. Uh, anyone else have their hand up?

[01:13:41]I don't see anyone else at this point.

[01:13:43]So, the prop proposal is to change the word jurisdiction, change the word subdivision to jurisdiction.

[01:13:53]And I believe it was seconded.

[01:13:55]So, all those in favor say I.

[01:13:58]>> I.

[01:13:59]>> I.

[01:13:59]>> I.

[01:14:00]>> I.

[01:14:00]>> I. I.

[01:14:02]>> I.

[01:14:02]>> I. oppose say no.

[01:14:07]>> And I don't hear any nos. So all right.

[01:14:13]>> And that's for three and four. Correct.

[01:14:17]>> Yes, >> Mr. Chairman. We also made that addition to um section E of rule 19.

[01:14:25]>> Okay.

[01:14:33]All right.

[01:14:35]So, moving then I think to 19E. Is that correct, Ch?

[01:14:42]>> No. Uh, Jim, excuse me for interrupting.

[01:14:46]I I can't get my hand function up on the screen now, but I I had a different question about D3. I was not my hand originally was not up in connection with Stephanie's. It was in connection with something else.

[01:14:58]>> Okay. Go ahead.

[01:14:59]uh in both uh 19D3 and 19E we refer to um a replacement having to be of the gender of the delegate they replace. But in a situation um such as we just were discussing uh in connection with Ray's hypothetical or Ray's actuality um if if you have one alternate and you have one delegate are is our philosophy that the delegate and alternate should be of differing genders or is our philosophy that um the alternate has to be of the same gender as the delegate in order to facilitate there being able to replace them. Um and what I would suggest is we um maybe add the words um to the extent possible after gender of the delegate they replace. Um we say that with respect to the requirement that they be from the same jurisdiction.

[01:15:59]>> Oh I see. Okay.

[01:16:02]>> All right. So uh is is that a proposed amendment then?

[01:16:07]>> Yes. Is there a second for that?

[01:16:11]>> Second.

[01:16:12]>> Second.

[01:16:13]>> All right. And Frank Leon, you have your hand raised.

[01:16:16]>> Yeah. I just just uh grammatically I wouldn't use to the extent possible twice in that sentence. I think you can combine it. So the same presidential preference um of the delegate and to the extent possible, the same gender and from the same jurisdiction.

[01:16:35]>> I'm fine with that.

[01:16:37]Okay, we'll accept that. Assuming your secondary will also accept that.

[01:16:45]>> Yes. How would it read, please?

[01:17:01]>> Okay.

[01:17:04]Any further discussion of this amendment?

[01:17:10]Hearing none. All those in favor say.

[01:17:12]>> Sorry, M. Mr. Chairman, one one sec. Can I David, do you mind if I read this for you to make sure we have the language right?

[01:17:18]>> Yep. Um, >> they shall be of the same presidential preference including uncommitted status and to the extent possible the same gender and from the same political jurisdiction within the state as the del.

[01:17:33]>> Okay.

[01:17:34]>> Yes.

[01:17:34]>> Thank you.

[01:17:36]>> All right. With that clarification, all those in favor say I.

[01:17:41]>> I.

[01:17:41]>> I. I.

[01:17:43]>> I.

[01:17:44]>> I.

[01:17:48]And I think the eyes have it.

[01:17:54]All right.

[01:17:57]So I think that sham correct me if I'm wrong. That concludes our discussion of 19 D. And then the question then is are there any comments on 19E?

[01:18:12]David, we we can make the same conforming amendment to >> different different subject. I assumed you make the conforming.

[01:18:20]>> Okay. All right. So, we'll accept the conforming amendment uh if there's no objection, but we'll return to your other question, David.

[01:18:33]>> Yeah. The very first sentence of 19E um says a v a vacant alternate position shall be filled by the delegation. Does that mean that the alternates and delegates vote on the replacement or does it mean the delegates only? And we use the word delegation about 43 times in the rules and we have varying meanings for it. This question has come up in my state recently. That's why it was on my mind.

[01:19:04]>> What are you proposing it? How are you proposing it should be read? I I I don't have a a strong feeling. I guess I would say the delegates should probably be the ones who pick the alternates, but um pick which alternate does it if we don't have a priority system to start with. Um if a state plan specifies a priority system, that's a different question. But um I would change in light of your question, I guess, let me formally propose to amend 19E first sentence to change the word delegation to um by the delegates in the delegation.

[01:19:51]Is there a second for that?

[01:19:55]Second.

[01:19:57]>> All right. Barry Goodman seconds.

[01:19:59]Elaine, did you have a comment?

[01:20:02]>> Yeah. My my only comment is that I always assumed that the delegation was simply the delegates. I mean, I know this appears throughout um and that I I can't I don't know of a situation where alternates, unless they were replacing a delegate, got to vote on things. So, I'm I'm just wondering is how much of a problem is this? Do the alternates, David, in your state, did the alternates try to vote?

[01:20:33]>> Yes, >> they the alternates tried to vote.

[01:20:36]>> Yeah. Yeah. The alternates tried to vote and probably related to some type of faction issue going on in the local jurisdiction. But to the to the bigger point, we require the delegation to be balanced. And when we require the delegation to be equally divided, I think we're talking about delegates and alternates together plus delegates separately and and alternates separately. But um and there are other places where I think we we treat the alternates as being part of the delegation. So it >> Oh, I I see what you mean. So we should >> we should just clarify. I'm not advocating one way or the other. It's >> okay. I I think that in uh sort of common discussion, people talk about the delegation and they mean the I mean everybody who's there from the state for the convention, whereas I do think the intention here was that the delegates would fill the uh fill the vacancy. So this clarification makes some sense. Carol, did you have a comment? I I just wanted to say that the this is one of the the earliest things I remember from delegation meetings. The Don Fowler method was how could that be wrong was um was always at the first delegation meeting where you elected the chair and all of that. The first motion would be uh from somebody Don put up to doing this that the alternates uh be treated as full voting members of the delegation and that always passed and we always did it that way.

[01:22:13]>> So I do think that that was is the custom at least in some states.

[01:22:19]So this new language would indicate that that's not the intention in this section.

[01:22:31]>> Jim, if I could jump in, I would be amendable to to adding an additional clause to my amendment to say unless otherwise specified in the delegate selection plan, that would allow the states the option to do um the fowler approach or to limit it to delegates. that but the default would be delegates.

[01:22:55]>> So you are changing your proposed amendment.

[01:23:01]>> I I'm certainly would be willing to I'm not I think I need a second. So and I don't really want to deprive states that have been doing it that way of the right to do it. I'm not looking for an unnecessary confrontation with states over >> second Andre Triber.

[01:23:20]>> Yeah.

[01:23:22]>> Okay. So, we have a second uh second for the revised amendment here.

[01:23:31]>> David, could you say the language out loud again?

[01:23:35]>> Uh unless um specified to the contrary in Oh, excuse me. unless otherwise specified in the state's delegate selection plan.

[01:23:55]So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on this?

[01:24:05]All right. Uh so uh those uh who wish to say who wish to adopt this please say I >> I >> post say no.

[01:24:18]>> I oppose say no.

[01:24:28]All right.

[01:24:33]And having gone then through 19E uh I think we've discussed we've concluded our review of rule 19 and the materials are being updated.

[01:24:48]>> Looks like back to you.

[01:24:51]>> It looks like >> excuse me I'm I'm not quite done with 19. Um, [laughter] >> I don't have I don't have an amendment, but I do want to I I want to flag for us to go back um when I believe it was Indira a few minutes ago pointed out that we now have a 14-day notice requirement on meetings that we may want to make sure that that doesn't apply to meetings of the delegation at the convention or some of these other circumstances where meetings happen. I don't have language today, but just when we do the eventual is there anything we missed in connection with these rules, we might go back and look at that particular intersection.

[01:25:29]>> So, I'm going to ask you to work with staff to review >> our existing language uh to straighten out any ambiguities. Uh but for the moment, we'll leave it as it is.

[01:25:40]>> Yep. Yep. Thanks.

[01:25:43]>> All right. And now I'll turn it back to Minan.

[01:25:46]>> Thanks, Jim. Now let's move on to rule 20. Before we begin our discussion, Will will provide a brief overview of rule 20.

[01:25:55]>> Thank you, madam co-chair. Rule 20 covers the DNC rules and bylaws committee. It assigns oversight, enforcement, and technical assistance responsibilities. It grants continuing jurisdiction over plan approval and compliance. It requires the DNC to provide resources, model plans, and guidance to state parties.

[01:26:14]>> Thank you. So, we'll move on to rule 20A. Is there any amendments, proposed amendments to rule 2A?

[01:26:28]Any discussion?

[01:26:31]Moving on to rule 20B.

[01:26:41]See nothing. Rule 20 C.

[01:26:52]Rule 20D Steph in New Jersey. Um, sorry, Madam Chair.

[01:26:59]Just wanted a quick thing on 2D just adding plurals because it >> add >> um so on affirmative action plans I reach inclusion programs and an Oxford comma if you feel fancy but >> so these are just grammatical.

[01:27:19]>> Yes ma'am.

[01:27:20]>> Okay.

[01:27:24]Not amendments just grammatical. Okay.

[01:27:26]And that's uh Ry >> uh under 2D2 it says that um the rules and bylaws committee shall conduct periodic evaluations and provide technical assistance to state parties on affirmative action plan outreach and inclusion program and delegate selection implementation.

[01:27:46]Have we ever has this committee ever conducted periodic evaluations of any state party to make sure that they're during I thought we had already had that discussion that we didn't do that?

[01:28:01]>> No, >> I would ask the the staff if they've ever done any. I know the committee [laughter] does a lot of evaluations on these plans.

[01:28:15]Are you familiar with any Sham?

[01:28:20]>> Um I guess to the extent that we work with the states in the development of their plans and we're able to support them throughout the entire process of their drafting and um ultimately submission and getting to full compliance. Um, we do work with them and and I don't know that I would call those periodic evaluations, but we we will be working with individual states and evaluating where they're at in terms of getting their plans to a place where they can get approved.

[01:28:50]>> I I guess my understanding periodic means random. Maybe maybe I that there's a different definition of what that means. I that's what I you know if you read it as random it's like conduct random evaluations and that doesn't you don't just all of a sudden oh let's check to see how uh you know Nebraska is doing with implementing their firmware of action plan today um there are different steps that we all have to prove that we've done all these different things but it's not random >> so are you are you just making a comment or an >> I'm I'm just making comments.

[01:29:32]>> Okay. Okay. [laughter] All right.

[01:29:36]>> I just want to prove that I'm actually paying attention.

[01:29:38]>> Okay.

[01:29:39]>> Madame co-chair, if I may weigh in uh to answer Mr. Buckley's uh chairman Buckley's comment coming from a stage that had a garbage delegate selection plan in 2020. I will tell you that along the way in 2020 in preparation for 2024, we got random calls all the freaking time because they wanted to make sure that we did not uh turn in another yucky plan. So, I imagine that there are states that get random calls just to ensure I didn't think that I was being checked up on. I thought that I was being offered assistance, but I got random calls out of nowhere uh to assist me with my plan.

[01:30:18]>> Okay, >> great.

[01:30:24]>> Anyone else have any further discussion?

[01:30:26]I think that's D2.

[01:30:31]Um, moving on to three. D3.

[01:30:41]Okay, we're moving on to now Eura.

[01:30:54]Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, this entire section feels extremely problematic. I would like to understand the history behind stating this. um to be to to say that we would change the rules even after uh we have we've selected the delegates and even after the convention credential committees assumes jurisdiction um feels shifty to me. Um, I I would request any of our members who've been here for a while to please explain to the us for those of us. It doesn't sound very fair. There's a lot of new members on this group.

[01:31:38]>> And are you specifically talking about E?

[01:31:41]>> Yes. Yes.

[01:31:43]>> So, I'll jump in on if I may, Minan, >> please. Yeah.

[01:31:47]>> So there's a specified date uh before the convention that the uh authority of this rules and bylaws committee is handed over to the convention uh >> credentials committee with respect to challenges uh to the credentials of de of delegates.

[01:32:09]uh and and actually the uh authority of the credentials committee takes place on that specific date.

[01:32:22]They do not have expertise in dealing with amendments to say delegate selection plans. So even when they have assumed all their other authority that says that if there's a need to amend a dele delegate selection plan and to review state delegate selection compliance with equal division requirements, it would come back to this committee >> and so we would change or update the amendments at that point.

[01:33:00]That's what's unclear.

[01:33:01]>> So the this really is to deal with the unusual situation uh where for some reason there is an a need to uh amend the delegate selection plan or to review state delegate uh compliance with equal division uh at a point closer to the convention. I don't think this has ever been invoked.

[01:33:28]for by individual states I'm assuming not for the entire delegate selection plan >> not for the for the overall delegate selection rules no >> yeah okay all right thank you >> just to deal with situations in individual states where let's say the state legislature suddenly changed the laws >> uh after this uh that deadline >> right okay that makes a lot of sense thank you for explaining >> Jim is correct Thank you, Donna.

[01:34:00]>> Donna, Brazil, DC. Sorry, I just I these are very important. This is a very important part of our process. So, thank you, Jim.

[01:34:10]>> Thank you for explaining. I appreciate that.

[01:34:12]>> Well, and Donna is is the voice of authority on unusual situations.

[01:34:18]So, >> I'm going to call on Wendy now.

[01:34:23]>> Thank y'all. Um I I it made perfect sense that um that this committee would handle something unusual or quirky, but I I don't understand how evaluating equal division is quirky or unusual or would require our specialtity.

[01:34:47]Again, I'm proposing something like a a situation or where a leg state legislature and I could see that happening in the current atmosphere suddenly said that there could no longer be any uh requirements uh with regard to equal division uh in any political process involving that state.

[01:35:17]or affirmative action. Let's just go there.

[01:35:21]>> Well, and I'm thinking particularly of the state of the states that have followed the lead of the current White House in doing away with diversity, equity, and inclusion.

[01:35:33]>> That's correct. Keep going.

[01:35:38]Uh >> Frank, did that answer your question, Wendy?

[01:35:44]or statement. Seems like you were making a statement, Frank.

[01:35:48]>> Oh, yeah.

[01:35:49]>> I was just trying to understand better.

[01:35:51]Thank you.

[01:35:52]>> Sure. And and another issue is for it's it's leaves to the rules and bylaws committee the um jurisdiction regarding compliance with equal division. So if a state for example doesn't have equal division and it still hasn't uh made those adjustments by the time of the transfer rules and bylaw still maintains authority over it um you know to to make sure that there is compliance.

[01:36:20]>> That's correct. Mhm.

[01:36:25]>> Is there any further discussion on rule E?

[01:36:31]>> Move on.

[01:36:32]>> So we will move on to F and the only thing that seems to be changing in F is the date. But is there any discussion?

[01:36:45]Uh rule G Ray, >> sorry again. It's just the are we are we talking about the DNC shall allocate sufficient financial resources and staff to implement this rule from the perspective of the DNC? or could a state party request financial assistance to um to al you know to implement the rule?

[01:37:21]>> I read this as the DNC.

[01:37:24]>> Okay.

[01:37:24]>> Do you have a different interpretation?

[01:37:26]>> Oh, I agree with you.

[01:37:31]>> Okay, >> Wendy.

[01:37:36]Wendy Davis, Georgia. Is so that is just rule 20.

[01:37:43]>> Rule 20G. Yes.

[01:37:46]>> We're just talking about money for rule 20.

[01:37:48]>> Correct.

[01:37:49]>> And that would be like if we had to call a special meeting or something. Is that what you envision there?

[01:37:55]>> That's that's what that's my interpretation of it.

[01:37:58]>> Thank you.

[01:38:04]I think that concludes uh rule 20. Jim, I'll turn it back over to you.

[01:38:10]>> So, members, uh with that conclusion, uh we uh uh have come to the end of our agenda for today's meeting. Our next meeting of this committee will be next week in person in Pittsburgh on June 25 and 26.

[01:38:31]And at that time, we will continue our review of the 2028 delegate selection rules. And if we complete that, I'll optimistically say when we complete that, we will start our review of the call for the 2028 convention.

[01:38:50]And I appreciate everybody's active participation as we've all seen and their thoughtfulness in the consideration of these rules and all the time that you've put in today.

[01:39:03]I'd like to thank the Office of the Secretary and Party Affairs staff, the IT department, our ASL interpreter, our court reporter, and our parliamentarian Helen McFaten for making today go smoothly.

[01:39:27]Is there a motion to adjurnn?

[01:39:30]So move >> second.

[01:39:33]>> Any opposition?

[01:39:36]We will see you in Pittsburgh.

[01:39:38]>> Thank you, Jim. Thank you, man. Thank you, staff.

[01:39:41]>> Thank you all next week. Bye.

[01:39:44]>> Bye.

[01:39:44]>> Bye.