The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meets to establish and refine the rules governing delegate selection for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination process. The committee reviews proposed rules covering delegate allocation methods, including population-based and democratic strength-based approaches, with a 15% viability threshold for delegate allocation. The committee also addresses issues such as gender balance requirements, affirmative action goals, and the treatment of rank choice voting systems in delegate selection. The committee's work ensures that delegate selection processes are fair, transparent, and consistent with the party's principles of inclusivity and democratic participation.
拡張機能をインストールして、あらゆる動画内を即座に検索しましょう
DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting - May 29, 2026追加:
Good morning everyone.
>> Good morning.
>> How is everybody's evening?
>> Fantastic.
Our recess time, guess what, has expired.
So I am So I will now call this meeting of the DNC rules and bylaws committee back to order. Before we begin today, please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance.
>> 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.
Okay. Thank you, Minan.
>> Thank you. The next item on our agenda is to call the role. As a reminder, I do want to note for the record that this meeting is open to the public and will be live streamed today. Please be sure to state your name and uh and your state before speaking. for those listening remotely and for our court reporter. We are glad to once again be joined by Helen McFaden, our parliamentarian.
Helen, will you call the role?
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Alex, >> present.
>> Miss Andrews, >> present.
>> Mr. Applebomb, >> I'm here.
Miss Blanco, >> Miss Brazil >> here, >> Miss Brown, >> Mr. Buckley >> here, >> Miss Compana Weaten >> here, >> Miss Cardona has given her proxy to Miss Kmart. She's expected to come later.
Mr. Carneahan has given his proxy to Mr. Ray.
Miss Conrad has given her proxy to Mr. McDonald. Miss Dory.
>> She's here.
>> She's upstairs.
>> Mr. Devilla Perez >> present.
>> Miss Davis >> here.
>> Mr. Demmont has given his proxy to Mr. Sheay. Miss Dingle.
Miss Daell >> present. Miss Durala >> present.
>> Mr. Eldridge.
>> Miss Fowler here.
>> Miss Free has given her proxy to Miss Fowler. Mr. Goodman.
>> Miss Herdendez has given her proxy to Mr. Buckley. Mr. Hicks has given his proxy to Mr. Marie.
Mr. We sorry, Mr. Win >> here.
>> Miss Kmart >> here.
>> Mr. Cap >> here.
>> Mr. Kirigan has given his proxy to Miss Daell.
Miss Cleb has given her proxy to Mr. Eldridge.
Mr. Leon >> here.
>> Miss Lewis.
>> Miss Lopez Franson.
>> I'm sorry. She has given her proxy to Mr. Cap.
Mr. McDonald >> here.
>> Miss Monroe Moreno.
>> Okay. Mr. Munes.
>> Mr. Marie >> here.
>> Mr. Ray >> here.
>> Mr. Seltzer >> here.
>> Mr. Shay here.
>> Miss Spain has given her proxy to Miss Dugarala.
Mr. Spate >> here.
>> Miss Schwicker >> here.
>> Mr. Thompson has given his proxy to Miss Dory. Mr. Triber >> present.
>> Mr. Unamoto >> here.
>> Mr. Ver Miss Verrett.
>> Mr. Washington >> here.
You certainly have a quorum of more than 20.
>> Thank you, Helen. Uh members, uh according to our charter and bylaws, the quorum is 40% or 20 members in person or by proxy. And as Helen has reported, we definitely have a quorum. And I'll turn it over to uh my co-chair to kick us off here.
>> Thank you, Jim. As we as we get into our business today, I'd like us to discuss the process moving forward ahead of the August DNC meeting. Our work began in October when this committee adopted the resolution on principles and procedures for review of the 2028 Democratic Party presidential nominating calendar and request for proposal to hold pre-wind nominating contests.
So far, the rules and bylaws committee has reviewed 12 state party applications.
After considering their written applications, we hosted each of these state parties who spent countless hours demonstrating how they reflect the specified qualifications, also showing Democrats just how strong and diverse our party is across the country. To refresh everyone watching online, the 12 states for consideration are as follows.
Delaware, New Hampshire, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Nevada, and New Mexico.
Our commitment has always been to conduct a fair and transparent process resulting in a calendar that produces the strongest general election candidate for the Democratic Party. This isn't a responsibility we take lightly. To that end, our deliberation of the early window, the delegate selection rules, and the call for the 2028 Democratic National Convention will continue over the coming weeks and months. The rules and bylaws committee will gather in person on June 25th and June 26.
The committee will meet again in person on July 23rd and 24th.
My co-chair and I also anticipate another virtual meeting of the committee. Staff of the office of the secretary and party affairs will work to confirm a date for this gathering of the body.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Minan. Our next item of business is to continue discussion of the proposed 2028 delegate selection rules. With that in mind, today we are hoping to complete our review of rules 10 through 14.
During our virtual meeting earlier this month, the committee continued its review of the proposed rules. During the meeting, the committee reviewed rule five covering non-discrimination.
Rule five was adopted without amendment.
The committee also reviewed rule six covering affirmative action. Rule 6A and 6B were adopted without amendment. Rule 6 C was amended to clarify how non-binary delegates will be counted for gender balance purposes. 6C was also amended to clarify that the state party chair completes the certification of the states at large delegates and alternates.
Rule 6D through rule 6i were also adopted without amendment. Rule seven covering outreach and inclusion programs was also reviewed. Rule seven was amended to remove the line quote as is already the practice in most states end quote in order to eliminate possible confusion. Rule eight covering national convention delegate aortionment was also reviewed and was adopted without amendment. Rule nine covering automatic party leader leaders and elected official delegates was also reviewed and adopted without amendment. Last meeting, we also began our review of rule 10 covering party leaders, pledged party leaders and elected official delegates.
Rule 10 A was amended to include elected officials from federally recognized tribal nations in consideration for pledged party leaders and elected official delegates. Since we did not complete our review of rule 10, we will begin picking back up with our review of that rule. Would staff please begin presenting the proposed 2028 delegate selection rules.
>> Moving on to rule 10. As a refresher, before we begin our discussion, we will provide a brief overview of rule 10.
We'll deliver will you deliver an overview of rule 10, please?
Thank you, co-chair. Rule 10 is on pledge party leaders and elected official delegates. Sets priority order for selecting pledge party leaders and elected officials. Requires pleos to be allocated proportionally like at large delegates. Limits who may select pleos and under what governance conditions.
>> Thank you, Will. Members, the floor is open for discussion and amendments as we review the rule in chronological order.
We will now begin our discussion of rule 10, starting with rule 10A. Do members have any additional proposed amendments to rule 10A?
>> Oh, Andre T.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I believe where our discussion had left off, we uh we were in the middle of discussing the prioritization that happens in A1 right after we had added um elected officials from tribes. Uh my my question I I have a question then that stems from this. So is is this list right here the the ordering of the prioritization or is there other guidance that gives the prioritization? I know that in my state when we are doing our pleos we we follow the prioritization exactly as is and and so if so if this is the case if this is the list and there's not going to be it spelled out anywhere else I would like for us to amend this list but if this is not where the formal finalized prioritization comes from I'm happy to move the discussion to that point at that timeification >> I mean this is the list that we've discussed did you have some clarifications that you >> um then in that case Yes, I uh I would like to >> I would like to amend this list uh in such a way that in my opinion the way it was written before kind of prioritized by population the number of constituents that these elected officials held. For instance, by starting with big city mayors, you know, that's 250,000 or more statewide elected officials and so on. Um, so I uh I guess then my question would be is it possible to get information about the number of constituents that these elected leaders from tribal nations would represent?
Because I would then like to make sure they're appropriately within the um the ranking in in terms of population they represent.
>> So you're asking if we can get numbers.
>> Yes. And maybe that's and and so maybe the appropriate motions to, you know, to bring this back at a future time. But I I would just want to make sure that they are um just appropriately uh appropriately represented within the rules based on the the number of folks they represent. You know, for instance, are they do those tribes have more people than a legislative district? Do they have fewer than a a major city? You know, that kind of thing. Just making sure they're they're given their proper due.
Uh, Andre, my recollection from the last meeting um was the the member from Oklahoma said that the tribal nation size varies from anywhere from a few hundred to a few hundred thousand.
Um, >> do you have a do you have a specific amendment that you want to offer?
>> I uh I will need to think on that, but I I see other people have their hands raised, so I'm happy to yield to them and let the discussion continue.
>> Wendy, >> thank you. This is Wendy Davis from Georgia. So, um, circling back to the previous conversation we had about this, it seems to me that some states are taking this as three different buckets, if you'll allow the analogy, and that if they have enough people who have applied in bucket one, uh, people who would be in bucket two or three are not considered. That and that's how they have interpreted prioritized. In Georgia, we have just said um all of these categories are people who are free to apply for a PO and from that all three buckets together of our members have picked from all of those. And I just think if we really mean >> a big city mayor should be picked and a 30-year member of your state executive committee should not be in the pool yet.
It hasn't been clear to us in Georgia that that's what we meant. And if that's what we mean, I think we maybe need to have A, B, and C and make it clear that you don't get to B and C if A takes up everything. But I personally think that allowing all of these levels of people who have shown a dedication to the party to be in this pleo and have one bucket instead of three buckets is what I would prefer. But I just wanted to make sure if if we've got the rule and the rule is that it's supposed to be one, two, three, then we need to be explicit about that. But if that's not what we mean, then let's take it out.
>> Okay.
Um Alicia, >> thank you, Madam Co-chair. Um Alicia Andrews from Oklahoma. I wanted to circle back on the um tribal leaders conversation. Um, I don't propose I don't purport to speak for tribal nations except to say that tribal nations are considered sovereign governments. And so even if a tribe has, you know, less than 300,000, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are tantamount to a city council because they are uh a sovereign government. And um and I I will circle back and talk to folks uh from the native uh community to make sure that we're we are talking about this in the right way because I don't think it's about numbers. Um but I just wanted to put that out there for consideration.
>> Okay. Um Evette, >> thank you. I Lewis, Maryland. Um why don't we just take out the word priority? I mean and then that way every state can determine you know prioritize why why can't we just say categories knowing that those are the categories that we're talking about since because I think if we start arranging priorities according to my state in Maryland would be completely different than than your state what is considered a priority but if we make it that these are the categories that can that can be considered that would seem to make more sense to me and then we're not going through each individual state trying to pick can choose the what's first, what's second, and what's third. We just know that these people would be included.
>> Is that a motion?
>> Yes.
>> Second.
>> Second.
>> Is there any objection?
>> I like that one.
>> Sorry. Without objection, the amendment is included.
>> Okay. I bet. Oh, we got Evette. Elaine.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
>> We're busy doing a little research here.
Um, >> what did you just do?
>> Well, I was just going to say we'll just have them we'll just have them go back.
>> Basically, >> why don't you go back and explain?
>> Okay. So, we take we've taken out priority.
>> That's all.
>> Okay. That's that's very good because in in fact we just were looking up some stuff and the average top the average of the largest American cities is 992,000 and the largest um tribe is Navajo with 425,000 and it goes down from there. So if you'd wanted to if you'd wanted to leave in priority, I think we've got the priority right. But I think there's different politics in different places and we might as well just take out the term priority.
The problem with using priority that I think has been highlighted here is that as a vet points out different states use different categories for their uh municipalities and subdivisions and so on. For example, in our state, we abolished half the counties but only half of them, you know, and and so on.
How do you sort that out? Much better to leave that to the state to figure out.
>> Elaine, did you have further?
>> Yeah, I just was doing this in the meantime.
>> Okay.
>> Your vet fixed it.
>> Okay.
>> David.
>> Uh thank you David McDonald Washington.
Um, first, if we are taking out the word priority, I think we probably also need to take out the semicolon that was in there, separating the executive branch and the legislative branch, because otherwise it's going to be confusing as to why they're two categories. But on the the bigger point, um when uh I first encountered this rule before I was on the RBC, but it at least in my state, it was interpreted as Wendy is talking about that even if you were a a precinct committee officer, as long as you were elected by voters to represent them somewhere in the Democratic party, you were eligible to be elected in this category. you might have trouble getting votes sufficient to win the election, but you were given the privilege of in recognition of your service to the party of being eligible to be um considered.
And I think that that was a good thing to do when you're trying to recruit volunteers. And it also gave um our state party and I think other state chairs the flexibility to work with the various interest groups to say what politically works to put this delegation together. Who has been elected already?
Who can get elected in the when I was a county chair of the largest county in uh Washington um and and geographically larger than many states and one of the largest counties in the country. I was told, "Sorry, you cannot make the atlarge list because we, you know, you need to you can get elected in your county." And that was the proper thing to do to save space for people who couldn't get elected in their county, who might have been volunteering in the state office for 30 or 40 years, never seen a a convention or whatever, could not necessarily get elected uh uh with campaign approvals and everything down with the other volunteers, but to make the system work to give chairs that flexibility. And then at some point we put in this priority which as it read before the taking out of the word priority would mean for example in my state that the mayor of Spokane would get elected and the majority leader in the state senate would be told sorry you're in the second bucket and there's no space for you. Something that would would be politically uh difficult at best. So I I think we should get rid of the concept of priority. Go with what Wendy is suggesting. You know, if you are an elected official of one of our recognized entities, state government, tribal government, federal government, or in the party structure itself, that you're eligible to be considered. You're not you're you're not necessarily going to get elected, but you're eligible um to be considered in this category and at least given the recognition of your service um to do it. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Andira.
Thank you. This is Indira Deerella from Colorado. Um, as it reads right now, elected officials from executive branches of federally recognized tribal nations. So, tribal nations span multiple states. And so would it be better to state um if they have residents in any given state and in and that state should be um they should be considered in that state versus a different state. Like if a tribal nation is spans four different states and the elected official lives in one state of that tribal nation within those borders, should they be given um allocation in that state where they are recognized by the state boundary?
>> Because I think it leads to some confusion as to >> which state. If we're talking about delegates, a delegate can only represent a state. So >> you have to be registered in the state.
>> Yeah, you have to be registered in that state.
>> You have to reside in that state. Okay.
All right. That's the clarity I was seeking. Thank you.
>> Gary, >> um, building on what uh, David said, uh, Gary Shay California, past chair of the LA County Democratic Party. I just want to point out that LA County is at the end of the list and it has like it'd be the seventh largest state if it uh by population and so I also agree with changing it to categories as opposed to prioritiz prioritization.
Thank you.
>> Thank you Frank.
>> Yeah, frankly on DC um I think I've become convinced that it makes sense to get rid of the priority language. I it's been in there for quite some time, but I think having a broader uh opportunity for people and then, you know, letting them run and then letting the candidates, frankly, in my experience, put the slates together is typically what what happens in in states that I'm I'm familiar with. So, I think it makes sense. I'd ask about another clause that's in here where it says that um elected officials from the executive branches of federally recognized tribal nations to be given equal consideration.
And that seems to be again sort of setting a priority that you have the first bucket that's to be given equal consideration. And so if we're taking out priority, we might want to take out the to be given equal consideration language. Um, and then I was looking up the regulations which provide a little clarity about what's a big city. But when we come to the regulations, I think we could probably just eliminate that because we're we're getting rid of the priorities and and allowing more flexibility.
>> So, I' I'd move that we delete um to be given equal consideration as well. So, there's just a line of >> Oh, >> okay.
>> Can you get rid of my >> Did everybody understand what Frank said so that we don't have to So, we're voting.
>> He's doing me a solid. Get rid of the semicolon. So, >> pardon me.
>> He's adding getting rid of the semicolon in to doing me a solid. So, >> so Frank, you're suggesting that to get to get rid of equal consideration though, right? Is that >> is that your motion or >> equal consideration?
>> Okay, >> Frank, is that right on the screen?
>> Hey, is that correct on the screen?
>> Correct.
Should we get rid of that and as well the first and that says officials and elected officials if we're just doing a listing now you know what I'm talking about line 22.
Yeah.
>> Okay. So an amendment has been offered.
Is there any objection to this?
Seeing none, we'll include the amendment.
So we can move on to any more on 10 A.
Okay, we can move on to 10B.
Um David, >> I um raised during our virtual meeting um the same issue I'm about to raise uh in connection with 10B but I raised it in connection with 8B where the same language um is used and I'm referring to the uh language and I think it's 10B1 where it says on the basis of population andor some measure of democratic strength Um, the reason I'm raising it again is that the discussion in the virtual meeting was hard to get back onto the track of what I was actually first asking about. Um, and we never got back to it. Um, so let me first clarify the question and then talk about the second point. Um, is it our intention both in rule 8b and 10b where the language is the same to say if you want to um select delegates to your state convention or to your state committee based solely on population one person one vote that's okay >> which I think does make sense with respect to the state committees it may or may not make sense with respect to state conventions or alternatively if you want to um select to these bodies based solely on any measure of democratic strength without regard to population without regard to what the measure is. Is that um okay? Can you do it based on members in your LPO? Can you do it based on um contributors per zip code? Can you on any basis? Um, and I I want answers to the two questions separately because I I need to clarify in my state that it's okay to select people for the state for to allocate delegates to a state convention solely on the basis of population if that's what we're saying. That issue has come up and was controversial in my state. And then as long as we're looking at it, um I think we should clarify that we actually mean some form of electoral strength, not just the vaguest of they got a good poll result in that district.
But I I in in that latter question, I'm not really interested in rearguing something that that the committee has already decided unless somebody else wants to do it. But I am interested in getting an answer to the >> to be clear on the record that it is okay. um to uh allocate delegates to a state convention solely on population without regard to um the democratic strength in the jurisdiction sending delegates.
>> So David, do you have a specific amendment or >> as to the first question? No, I just need the chairs to to confirm what the intent is on the record and make sure that that it it exists. As to the second, I would again submit inserting the word voting strength, democratic voting strength, but electoral >> yeah or electoral strength either one uh in that regard but um again having argued the point I don't want to waste the committee's time arguing the same thing over and over again I'm just raising it because I couldn't get the discussion back on the track in the virtual meeting >> okay so are so you're offering the language electoral strength as an amendment >> but uh sorry I'm I'm I myself am confusing things a bit can we Can we just stop and get an answer to the question? Is it okay to allocate? Is it the intent of the rules that there is perfectly proper to say for a state convention where the delegates to the state convention will end up electing delegates to the national convention >> that the delegates can be allocated solely on the basis of democratic of of voting strength as long as they meet the presidential preference but solely on the basis of population without regard to democratic voting strength. Um, I I think the way the language reads, the answer should be yes, but there was an argument that was fairly testy in my state. So, I'd like to get on the record that the answer is either yes or no.
>> I think Jim might have a point of view on that.
>> Well, it's not so much point of view as a query. Does any any state based on any anybody based on their state experience object to this amendment?
>> Well, it's not an amendment. At this point it's a clarif >> okay want to >> ruling it's basically asking for a point of ruling on on what it means but >> the question is >> yeah go ahead >> can you allocate state delegates solely based on population can you allocate there's a few questions can you allocate solely based on population can you allocate solely based on democratic performance or do you have some >> done in the past >> I guess it would probably vary by >> why don't state state that >> okay go ahead >> so David just to make sure there's a couple of questions here um question one being can a state in their body that elects national delegates solely allocate those delegates by population and then question two would be >> the delegates to the body not the not the national delegate yes and I want to be clear they still have to meet presidential preference requirements if those are involved it's not correct the proportions have to be right Correct. Um the second question would be could they solely >> of information. I I'm sorry. I'm still don't understand the clarifying question.
>> Can I think you were explaining it but I I'm still not following. I'm sorry.
>> Is anybody else not following >> to clarify that? Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. I'm I'm sorry for interrupting you, but I'm just >> if you give him a second, I think I think that he'll string it together and it might make just a little bit more sense. And if it doesn't, we'll keep trying.
>> Yeah.
>> So, there's a few questions, right?
Could that body solely be um could you solely use population to aortion those delegates? Question two would be, could you solely use democratic strength? And then question three would be, do you need to use some combination of the two?
And so you're asking is it acceptable to solely aortion them based on population?
And so let's just I feel like it's worth it getting an answer to that question first and then moving to the second one.
So could you not take into account democratic strength and solely aortion those delegates based on or the state committee members based on population?
>> I don't know. Wait, Frank, did you did you want to move?
>> Yeah, I think I think we've got two things that are getting a little bit confused here >> at least. Um, under eight, section eight, it talks about the formula for allocating delegates and that's that's based on on population, democratic strength, some combination.
It gives you three things. Section 10B talks about the election of the pleos and then 11 talks about the election of the atlarges. And the question is can the state central committee, your party state um state party committee, can that body choose those uh at large and pleo delegates even though it's just based on population. For example, in Virginia, the state central committee is based on population. each congressional district gets representation doesn't take into account democratic vote. So I think the answer is yes. If your state central committee is based on population that c that body can elect the atlarge and the pleo delegates >> right >> I think >> yeah Frank is correct and but that also means as far as I'm concerned and this is what I want to clarify that um you can allocate the delegates to your state convention say on the basis of every legislative district gets the same number of delegates to the state convention versus uh saying um uh a legislative district that votes 90% Democratic gets twice as many delegates to the state convention as the same populations size jurisdiction that's in a red zone. Um I'm not advocating for either one. I just want to know if if that's a political choice that can be made or if uh it can't. And I think the answer is it can be be made for exactly the reasons that we we've stated. But that was why I was raising it. There was a big big argument um in our state when we tried successfully I think to experiment with were there better ways to force outreach in red areas to people of color and minorities uh in that when we shifted to equal population. increase the need for people in red areas to actually reach out to the communities of color in their areas to meet the statewide goals as opposed to simply saying, "Well, the city of Seattle will, you know, take care of it. We don't need to worry about it." We wanted to experiment with that and then we got into an argument about whether we could do it by population.
That's what led to this question.
>> Okay.
>> Rick, did you want to add to this discussion right quick?
>> Sure. Um so there are three ways according to rule 10b that you can choose the um state uh statewide selected delegates. Uh you can use a state convention, you can use a quorum of district level delegates or can you can use your state party and uh one two three four five only talk about if you're going to use your state party that you have to explain more information. uh in your delegate selection plan about your state party, including how you aortion membership on the state party, if you're going to use that party and uh whether um you aortion them by population or democratic voting strength. Um but it but if you use a state convention um we aren't asking for that information on aortionment, >> right? But but we do have a rule at 8B that sets that requires the put imposes certain requirements on how you allocate delegates to a lesser level state or county level convention. And that I want to make sure the same standard applies that if you want to do it solely based on population, that's fine. If you want to do it solely based on some measure of democratic strength, that's fine. Or if you want to do a combination, that's fine.
>> Yes.
>> That that that's all I want clarified on that point. Thank >> agree.
Just I know we have a couple of Okay, we have a couple of people in the queue, but can we go back for those because I can see the the blank stairs in the room and Rick maybe since you might have given Tom David his answer. Can you repeat the discussion and maybe make it a little plainer for people to understand it so that they won't especially for some of the newer members?
Well, so very basically district level delegates are selected within each district um by a process used in each congressional district. But when you get to the statewide delegates, the party leader and elected officials and the at large, you um have three options that you can use for selecting those delegates. One is you can select them at a state convention. The second is you can use quorum of district level delegates to select those people or third is you can use your state party but only if it meets those five requirements uh listed in rule 10b. Um, and you have to explain in your delegate selection plan how the state party meets those five requirements.
Um, and one of those requirements is the aortionment of members on the state party. And I can use Florida as an example. We could not use uh our state party to select delegates because our portionment uh of members was just two members per county and we aortion votes which is different than what this rule requires. So um we've changed our rules uh to now aortion membership based on uh population and democratic voting strength. And so now our state committee could conceivably be used for making that selection since it meets the requirement of rule 10b1. Does that help explain for those that don't understand? We'll maybe do some sidebars on this so that you can get it. So So David, do you have a motion that you want to offer or are you satisfied with the answer?
Well, let me state my understanding because I don't think I need a motion.
It's just my understanding is that under both rule 8B and 10B, um, a state has the option to allocate delegates to the body >> on the basis of population alone or on the basis of democratic strength alone >> or a combination of them.
>> Um, and unless there is disagreement with that proposition, I don't need to make a motion. Okay. uh in that respect.
Uh and then the other then and I would then shift to the other question which is a little bit uh may also be equally clarified I suppose at some point but does the measure of democratic strength have to have some relationship to how people vote or can it be related to um membership lists or contributor lists or anything else? I personally would make a motion that we need either to insert the word uh voting or electoral and I'll let Elaine make it make the choice for me as to which one to to insert that in term between the words democratic and strength. So >> yeah, I I move that we insert the word electoral um between democratic and strength. I think that would clarify that because I also think that any other sort of way of assessing this is likely to be um not very reliable and people would play games with it. You can see people playing games with it. So I think that's a good addition and so I move.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Amendment has been offered. If you look at the screen, she added electoral strength. Is there any objection to the amendment?
Without objection.
>> Shouldn't that be updated?
>> Well, I guess we do want to uh Sham is asking, do you want us to go back to 8B and clarify as well?
>> Yeah, >> that was going to be the next next thing would be to Elaine, can you make that amendment with respect to both uh 10B and 8B?
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. Thank you.
>> Yeah. Yes, I can.
>> That's my question. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you.
So is there so that's the amendment. Is there any objection?
Without objection.
>> Oh Wendy, you have a question.
>> Okay. She has a different question.
Without objection, the amendment is included in 8B and 10 10B electoral strength.
>> Okay. Wendy.
Thank you, Wendy Davis from Georgia. I have to sort through my layer of questions that some of which have been answered now. Um, but again, just looking ahead without having looked ahead yet, um, from what Mr. Boland just said, if this same criteria holds for at large, then my state committee probably shouldn't have been picking at large people. Are we going to have that same criteria in the next section?
So, our rules um say that if you you can use the the groups in rule 10b um you can use that process for electing party leaders and elected officials uh and at large or um you can use uh a different process uh for selecting your atlarge than you do your party leaders and elected officials.
The only thing you can't change is the requirement of how many um uh delegates the presidential candidate has has the right to strike down to. Um you can if you use two for one or one for one, you have to use the same on both systems.
>> But if you're saying that rule 10b those five criteria have to apply. Yes.
>> And my state committee is not aortioned.
It's a portion the way you said yours was before like every county gets at least a certain number is the fact that some counties get >> more close enough to being populationish.
>> So that's up to this committee to decide uh when we review the delegates when when you review the delegate selection plan. But um uh yes um uh that's why we ask that if you're going to use your state committee um that you have to explain how you aortion the membership on your state committees to see if in this committee's opinion it meets that requirement >> that requirement. Okay. And then one one more thing about uh B 10 B4.
Um help me understand what we're trying to say. They shall have been elected no earlier.
That means that you had to have election since the last convention. Is that what we're trying to say there?
>> But I mean somebody could have been elected previously other times. You're just saying we have to have freshened it up since the last commission.
>> Yes. And and this is a part of the McGover Frasier Commission reforms where um basically state parties were selecting delegates that had been chosen years before and had not had any like reelection that kind of freshened them up as you said. Uh, and so the McGovern Frasier Commission inserted this requirement to make sure that um the body that was doing the election was more current.
>> Thank you, Steph. Thank you, Wendy.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Stephi in New Jersey. Um, I apologize for this very dumb question, but basis of population, is that just determined by the census?
>> Yes.
>> Thank you.
I just want to clarify what Rick said that that what the McGovern Frasier Commission said was those old white guys can't do it all anymore. Is that what they were saying?
>> Okay, I think this concludes our discussion on rules 10 A and B. We will now move to rule 11, Jim.
>> And so before we begin our discussion of rule 11, uh Sean will provide Sean will provide a brief overview of rule 11.
>> Thank you, co-chairs. Rule 11 govern uh covers the selection of ATL large delegates um and effectively states that you can use at large delegates to achieve gender balance and affirmative action goals. It requires proportional allocation based on statewide results or the the first determining step. Um and then also applies to equal division and representation requirements for the for the full delegation.
>> Thank you. Any questions for Sham about that?
All right. Uh >> yes, David, >> I have a question about the rule or a proposed amendment. I don't have a question of Sham. I didn't know.
>> That's all right. Go ahead.
whether I'm at have my card up at the proper time or whether you had more to do before you got there.
>> Go ahead.
>> Um in in sorry David McDonald Washington in um rule 11A partway down it says um delegates and alternate shall shall each as a group be equally divided and to the extent possible it goes on. Um, do we have um a similar requirement for uh equal division within presidential preferences?
Uh, and if if so, where is it? Uh, and if not, then I would propose to uh add into this sentence uh language so that it would read delegates and alternates uh shall each as a group and within each presidential preference be equally divided to the extent possible. So, >> but I don't want to add redundant language if it exists elsewhere. So, I just flagged it.
>> Thank you.
>> I think Rick is trying to see if it's added anywhere else before we move.
>> It is.
>> It is.
>> Okay.
>> It is not a requirement. Um uh because um depending on your automatic delegates uh the um at large category may be predominantly male or female. Uh and so you can't require the presidential candidates to give you give you a equally divided list because you may not be able to elect an equally divided list.
Well, I would think that's the point of the to the extent practicable language that we always use if but um yeah, I I just want to be clear whether whether we have a requirement that presidential campaigns are expected to try to meet equal division um or have a good explanation for why they can't as opposed to doing some type of a deal between them that I have a huge number of male donors that I couldn't get elected so I need to put them on this slate and I'll do that and I'll give you a bunch of female to put on your side or something that that screws up the allocation of influence within presidential delegations. I think we want to keep that equally divided as well.
>> Jason, would you like to speak to that?
>> I mean, I can just speak from my own personal perspective as as we've balanced the Wisconsin delegation over a number of years. It was the campaigns negotiating between the remaining at large delegates and deciding, you know, you know, negotiating, hey, I need this person, I need this person. And it wasn't equally divided by gender, but it was equally divided within the affirmative action goals to meet the criteria. But at one campaign saying, "Oh, I really need this person on this.
Can I have this?" And gender- wise, it it did not necessarily balance between the presidential preference, but it balanced overall in the atlarge portion, >> right? And there's a difference between goals, which are flexible to to you want to meet them however you can, and the fairly mandatory equal division requirement. And that's why I want I wanted to find out if if it's in there or not. And if not, I would suggest that we put it in um to make it clear that equal division is a responsibility of presidential campaigns as well as state parties.
>> All right, David.
>> Hi, Dave Gwen, New York. Um I've done slating for presidential campaigns since I think 2008 now. And I would say it's quite difficult already on presidential campaigns. Um they work with the other camp presidential preferences to make sure we're equally divided across the state. But once you na get it even clo if you're going to make another mandate on presidential campaigns that you have to make sure your delegations equally divided it becomes really difficult because there are moments where there are really important people that one presidential campaign has to have but they just don't have enough they may have won only one candidate right or two candidates I mean two delegates and it just becomes virtually impossible for them to be able to slate both of those individuals. So, I actually think keeping it the way it is is probably the best way. It's it's most helpful not only for presidential campaigns, but I think in many ways for state parties, too, to be able to take care of folks who are really important that make sure that they meet the diversity requirements, uh the affirmative goals that are put in place. So >> those are my thoughts.
>> Andre Andre.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh Andre Triber from Texas. Um I I guess I just want to be direct. This this is a question for the um author of the amendment. Is is the intention of this ultimately to to to ban uh the horse trading between um different presidential campaigns?
because I can I can give an example for instance of of one that I've witnessed that's you know naming a group I'm part of um in a in a primary that has happened within the past couple decades there was one candidate in my state uh that had many more young delegates behind them compared to the other candidate and so there was an example where one campaign was trading quote young spots over to that campaign to be able to fill those and so our whole delegation had the proper amount of young delegates to towards was our goal, but it was not equally equal amounts of young delegates between the two presidential campaigns. So, that's that's one example, but is that is that the kind of behavior that this amendment would stop from being able to uh occur moving forward? A >> as the author of the amendment, it has nothing to do with that. It has solely to do with equal division. It has nothing to do with affirmative action goals, nothing to do with diversity goals. It is purely a question of whether in their allocation of influence in their delegations, presidential campaigns are expected to give men and women equal treatment the same way that state parties are required to. But it doesn't have anything to do with how they may have to horse trade to meet um affirmative action goals.
Alicia, >> thank you. Uh Alicia Andrews from Oklahoma. I'd like to speak to this. Um I agree with what uh David is saying. Um but we have had presidential candidates uh in my state try to give me a list that wasn't anywhere near uh equally gender divided. And you know it's a matter of having the discussion but I agree with Andre T here that we don't want to prohibit the horse trading because it doesn't get adversarial and what we are most trying to do is work well with the campaigns and make sure that we have a delegation that works together and feels like there there's representation and I fear if we put too many rules and restrictions um we're inviting um um confrontation with the campaigns that I don't think we necessarily want.
Gary >> Gary Shay California. Um I'd like to point out that at least the way I understand this is that the entire uh delegation is supposed to be balanced in the at large uh by gender. But if we were to change this to also do it um by presidential candidate. Let's suppose that you had three or four candidates who got delegates. Each one could be off by one thereby creating an imbalance within the whole delegation.
Yes, Carol.
Well, it seems to me that what happens what happens in a small state, just like retail politics is what happens in a smaller state, in a small state, you get a back room with the state chair and the representatives of the of the presidential candidates like Dave. And the state chair says, "Okay, coming out of this at large, we've got to have 14 men and seven women or whatever it takes to balance the delegation. how are you folks going to help me do this or do I have to order you what to do? And it it gets worked out. Um we I don't think we've ever ended up with, you know, with a problem when they get to the convention. So, you know, some sometime you just have to let people work it out for themselves.
>> So, Carol, are you arguing that there is no need for an amendment here then? I >> I think it's worked so far, but you know if um >> All right, back to >> sometime we sometime we nitpick things to death.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> I mean, >> could I >> um let me make one comment and then um I'll simplify this because unless somebody seconds my motion after this, you will not need to take a vote because I have not heard a second for my my motion in the speech. Um I've been in those those back rooms in the negotiation that you're talking about over the years. Um, and what has been missing, but we uh in most years had state chairs with the strength to do this, is the ability to tell presidential campaigns that at the congressional district level, they need to start balancing their delegations by gender so that they don't deliver to the back room a situation where they have set up that uh one campaign is just managed to get like 75% males out of all the congressional districts and now they're going to lean on the other campaign. I mean with whom they may be adversarial able to say you need to to do something but we were always able to uh sometimes um with some confrontational aspects is say the presidential campaigns have got to minimize the problem that they're going to deliver to the state party when we go to do the at large and we know going into it our atlarges because the pleos are going to be overwhelmingly male. So you campaigns need to, you know, where you had the option in your approval list to make sure you've got enough women appointed and so on so forth. It was to reduce the problem. But as I said, I'm just articulating an experience and trying to give some extra leverage and if nobody seconds it, we don't need to have the vote. I'm I do talk a lot, but I don't try to beat things to death. So if there's no reason to go on, then let's not.
>> All right, Elaine. Yeah, I was just I was I was just gonna say listening to this and listening to everybody's experience. I I'm not sure we need a a rule on this. I think that there's Yes, sometimes there could be pro difficult, but I'm not sure we need to complicate this with with a rule. Um, as far as I can tell, we've had pretty good equal division in our last couple of conventions. I mean, it's not like we're people are using this to get around equal division. So, I I'm just I'm just worried sometimes, you know, you get too complicated in these things.
And um the states are they're smart.
They can work it out. And it sounds to me like most of them do, even though granted, I'm sure it's difficult at times. So, I I would just I would just say let's not um let's not pursue this as as a rule if that's okay, David.
Do I hear a second? No, I don't. So, we are going to move on. But I think we've explored this thoroughly. Carol, >> uh, just one question. If if we leave it as it is, could a state party put something in their delegate selection rules that would help them? Say Washington state wants has struggled with this and they want to specify some things in their rules that are not necessarily in the delegate selection rules. Could they do that?
>> As long as it doesn't conflict with these rules, yes.
>> If it if it supplements these rules, yes. If it conflicts with these rules, no. sort of like the Supreme Court standard on state parties making rules that are different from state law.
>> Uh Wendy, >> thank you. Wendy Davis from Georgia. I we have in again my experience is just in Georgia not in fully digesting all the elements here yet being new to this committee but we have always had each level of delegate selection had to be gender balanced and so is that just like something we made up or is it just a healthy standard and it's not in the rules >> that is the rules >> that that is rules rule.
>> Okay. Cuz I just heard my colleague say that they have ungenderbalanced congressional district delegations.
>> Rick, >> your district level delegates have to be balanced uh within each district and by presidential candidate uh and as a whole among all district level delegates.
Um, but when you get to the statewide delegates, you factor in the automatic delegates. So, you may not uh be able to do equal division. Um, you may have to have all of your ATL large delegates, as the rule says, you may have to dedicate all the atlarge delegates to one gender in order to be able to ensure that at the end of the day, all of your delegates are equally divided, all of your alternates are equally divided. So that that is not a requirement but it's basically the particular state's math of how they have to do that based on if there was maybe an imbalance of one uh for your district level delegates plus your automatic delegates and then who you elected as your party leader and elected official delegates.
um you may have to um then you know uh adjust your atlarge delegates.
>> Makes perfect sense. I just heard that other states were had wildly imbalanced district level and it confused me. So never mind.
>> Nope.
>> No. Well, they we uh the DNC uh will not uh approve your district level delegates if they are not equally divided. Um they won't they won't uh certify them. They'll send them back. Uh and if the delegates um uh as a whole once you've elected your atlarge delegates, if you certify um your statewide delegates and your um overall delegates are not equally invited, uh the DNC won't certify those. They'll tell you you have to go back and fix it.
Um and as as same applies to your uh alternates.
>> All right.
Anybody else on this rule?
>> Yes, Donald.
>> You know, some days I get deja vu. Uh, I'm laughing because I can tell I can attest that the DNC has always been very uh diligent in protecting this role with presidential campaigns. And I was laughing when when uh Dave otherwise known also known as delegate Dave. Uh but back in the day before many of you were born and know I'm just not referring to you Stephanie to some other young people in the room. Uh, I remember when Arizona would tell us that they could not find Native Americans, and I would laugh and say, "Seriously?" And Connecticut could not find women and California had a problem finding lesbians. So, we've come a long way uh as a party, but also our presidential candidates take this very seriously and and the the the folks who must comply with the rules, whether it's a political director, delegate person, etc. So this has been a strong rule and I I've seen over the years especially since 2000 I've seen this party and and all of the state parties really comply with it. So I don't think we need to make any changes >> any further discussion on this rule >> David but not on the not on the subject we were just discussing but on this rule I have two other u uh issues to raise one of which I think is just editorial um partway down in uh rule 11c uh we refer to the fourth line up the time at large delegates are selected his slur allocation. Um, can we change that his slur to a there um to remove the gender uh exclusion that's there? I think that's editorial. And then my other my other point um is a little bit more um substantive.
>> So is there any objection to that change?
Without objection. So we're here >> then in the line preceding it and we we've had this discussion years past. We say if a presidential candidate entitled to an allocation under the rule is no longer a candidate um and then it goes on and we I believe last time ended up trying to clarify what it meant to be no longer a candidate in the regulations.
But I'm wondering if we should now move that into the rules so that um people know going in that if their candidate withdraws what happens to the atlarge seats that they might have had or what more realistically happens there they don't withdraw they're still candidate for contribution purposes and everything else. Um, and so this becomes ambiguous.
And I think what we ended up doing in the regs last time was something along the lines of if they're no longer actively seeking delegates towards the nomination that they're deemed to be no longer a candidate, but in the rule itself, no, it's still ambiguous.
>> Can I can I can I add to that?
Um, it also I I never sort of realized this before, but I always assumed when a candidate withdrew their delegates were uncommitted and other candidates went after that they were formally uncommitted. Here it says shall be proportionally divided among the other preferences entitled to an allocation.
So, does that mean that uncommitted has to break the 15% threshold on the ballot and get So, so that's what that's what you're shaking your head yes on that.
Okay. Because I you know I I think in past years I mean I remember in the Montdale campaign we spent days going after uncommitted delegates who were not uncommitted because of the ballot. they were uncommitted because other candidates had dropped out. And in a big big when you have an o a wide open system like we're like we have um you're going to have a lot of candidates who get win one or two delegates and then they're gone. I don't know I don't know that we want to divide them among the other um why wouldn't they become free agents then?
>> I didn't write that part of the rule. I just raised the question a couple cycles ago uh when it came up because of I I think it was the year that Buddha Judge and everybody kind of the day after Iowa decided to withdraw but had already earned delegates and then there was an argument over what happened with their committee slots because they weren't actually out of the race. In some cases they were still on the ballot because they couldn't get their name off and they still needed to pay their debt so they were still fundraising. So technically there were still candidates and um I think at that point we did something um to the extent practicable that chair Roosevelt came up with and then we later embedded it into the to the rules. Um but we have it hanging out and we're going into a year where we could have a lot of starts small numbers of delegates accumulated and then um suspensions of campaigns going in and have the problem come up and arguably come up in a close election where it might make a difference. So I do think it needs to be discussed and potentially clarified in the rules. It may not be something we can do on the fly today. It may be that we need to revisit it and just when you put it on the table, it's an issue that you need to think about and maybe come back.
>> That's right. And and the the if you suspend your campaign, >> Yeah. that's if you suspend your campaign, the the in meaning is you might pick it up at some time down the road. So if you automatically are giving away delegates, right? um then you've given away delegates that somebody has won.
>> And I think people I think a lot of presidential candidates even if they know they're losing still want to keep their delegates. Um and you know there's there's the issue of do we have do we ask them to formally release their delegates for instance if they get out do we ask them to release their delegates and let them go to another campaign or let them go to uncommitted I mean I think this is a sort of we we haven't had to deal with this for a while. I think we're going to have to deal with it this time.
Raymond, >> it's Gary.
>> Oh, Gary first. I'm sorry.
>> Okay. This particular Gary Shay California. This particular section only deals with the at large. So, these are determined after they have dropped out.
I This is not talking about the reallocation of the district level delegates that might be able to be dealt with in a different section, but I think we've kind of jumped ahead and mixed the two together here.
Well, >> I I I mean, Gary, I think you're right because I I I just think we have a big question about campaigns suspend. What does it mean when they suspend and what do we do with their delegates? And it seems to me that aortioning them to the winners may not be in fact what the voters intended and that we may want to revive an uncommitted, you know, opportunity.
>> If I could, Gary, that's not right. But what this does say is if you go through this congressional district level and you had 15% of the congressional um district delegates um but then you suspend your campaign because you have just gotten a cancer diagnosis or something that um and so you suspend the campaign. This rule says, okay, you lose all your atlarge delegates that you would otherwise have been and they're given away. And then the doctor calls back and says, "Whoops, clerical error in the back office. That was somebody else's diagnosis." And you say, "Time to restart the campaign." And you say, "Wait a minute. Well, I wasn't looking. I lost, you know, five delegates." That that's the situation we're talking about, which is a bit of an elaboration on what that's >> We're talking about the atlarge here.
>> Yeah. at large and pleos everything up upstream >> and not the not the district level which is what the conversation seem to be talking about.
>> No, it's Yeah, >> thank you Raymond.
This was all very much a very very real nightmare uh for us in 2020. Um because our atlarge and pleo uh occurs in April and the uh presidential candidates at that point uh were significantly different than they were uh when the New Hampshire primary occurred.
Um, just since everyone's just kind of throwing stuff out, I I received a phone call from the Biden campaign saying, "Here are nine candidates for for polo and at large."
And I said, "But you didn't get 15%.
You're not I can't consider you," which, you know, nobody's campaign likes having a state chair telling you they're wrong. Um but it ended up being because the other candidates had suspended but not ended and so Pete was allowed to have extra delegates. Amy Cloloar received other delegates and Senator Sanders received other delegates. Now, subsequently, everyone voted for Biden anyways, but um we still don't really have that conundrum of what if the person who is the presumed nominee doesn't what if something happens? Let's just not even take a something happens between those two periods where suddenly somebody's our nominee that wasn't on the ballot in earlier states. do are are they eligible to get those b those delegates or not? I know this we're getting to into the weeds. Sorry, Wendy.
I can see your face, but it was it was um you know, it was pretty intense with I'm not a lawyer, but I thought I could clearly read what this says and trying to fight back uh against all of them.
And eventually that's what uh we did.
Um, and with without our presumed nominee having received 15%, I I just could not read where they would be eligible um in that next round.
>> Can I can I add to that? That to me is the attraction of uncommitted >> because you you've got you've got a delegate duly elected, right, in an early state. their candidate drops out.
If they're given to another given to somebody else, right? Then that somebody else says, "Yes, I got another one." But if they're uncommitted, then guess what?
You know, eventually they'll probably all go to the winner. But, you know, if the candidate comes back in, has a win down the road, or somebody else drops out, and they say, "I'm going to start my campaign again," that person is still there who was elected to represent them.
So I just think that given all the various permutations you can have especially in a multicandidate field um that if we allow um if we allow them to be uncommitted allow the candidates the delegates to be uncommitted if their candidate has dropped out then it takes care of all of these problems right they're still there they were still elected the candidate changes his mind the cancer diagnosis comes back as as negative. Um, you know, the the person's still there and they can at at that point, of course, they may want to abandon their candidate, but, you know, um I I just think the uncommitted gives us a flexibility that we may need this time around.
>> Frank, >> yeah, quickly, if we're going to postpone the discussion of this, I think we should probably do that because we've got limited time today. But I would would say that the the district level delegates remain committed. I think this is the point Gary was trying to get at.
Even if the candidate is no longer a candidate, he or she still keeps their district level delegates. So the question is what happens to the atlarge?
And um the problem of a presumed nominee, for example, dropping out before the atlarge are selected uh and no one no candidate getting 15% is is a challenge. So, that's one thing that we should consider. In terms of what no longer a candidate means, I'm fine with leaving it up to the candidate. Um, I I don't think we should um spend a lot of time trying to micromanage that. The the at the district level, the candidate keeps their delegates. If they've suspended their campaign and they want to keep their delegates, they should keep their delegates.
>> Okay? And by the way, if they keep their delegates, but their name is not put into nomination at the convention, the delegates have in fact become uncommitted and they get to choose who they're going to vote for. So, I mean, it it all it all works itself out.
>> So, I think we've surfaced a lot of issues here. Uh, I think we want to suspend this and think overink it over a little more and come back to it.
So, I'm going to Does anyone have any further comments on rule 11?
>> I'm going to turn it over to you.
>> Okay.
>> And I'm going to step up for a minute.
>> Okay.
>> Sorry. Moving on to rule 12.
Um will will you give a quick overview?
Yes, thank you co-chair. Rule 12 is timing of the delegate selection process. It establishes the permissible window for the first determining steps.
Requires all other delegate selection steps to occur within the convention year and allows limited waivers subject to DNC approval.
Okay, members, the floor is open for discussion and amendments as we review the rule in chronological order.
Um 12A.
Is there any amendments to 12A?
>> Steph, >> not an amendment. Just a question. Um do we limit it to second Tuesday in June just for logistics purposes for planning convention or anything like that?
>> I'm sorry. What was I?
>> Um why do we limit it to the second Tuesday in June? Is it just for planning purposes for for convention?
Yes, part of that.
>> Any further discussion on 12 A?
Seeing none, we can move on to 12B.
Any questions or amendments to 12B?
Okay. Well, maybe we can take a five minute break. If there's no questions on 12 A or B, those are good to go.
We will move on to 13. Take a five minute break. Give Jim chance to get back.
is 14.
>> All right, we're turning to rule 13 >> references >> and Seam, would you give us a brief overview?
>> Do we have everybody?
>> Um, pretty much >> we have a quorum.
We have a All right. Rule 13 covers presidential preference. Um, it requires all delegate candidates to declare a single presidential preference or uncommitted status. Grants presidential campaigns a defined right of approval over pledged delegate slates and protects delegates from being forced to vote against their stated preference.
>> Okay. Thank you, Sham. Uh the floor is open for discussion and amendments as we review the rule.
Starting with rule 13A. Do members have any proposed amendments?
Hearing none. Let's move to 13B.
Ms. Fowler.
I'm sorry. Back to A. We just need a comma after including uncommitted.
And then in line 48.
Okay. Need a comma after >> after after uncommitted.
Without objection. So ordered.
Okay. On 13B, does anyone have anything?
13 C.
Any proposed amendments?
>> Which?
>> Sh. would you explain that and then we'll get some movement.
>> Yeah, sorry. Just to remind folks, rule 13B, there was an amendment in the proposed draft to strike the last sentence um which says persons wishing to be elected as pledged party leader and elected official delegates shall comply with rule 10B3 um just a reminder that rule 10B3 um just says such delegates are elected at a public meeting subsequent to the election of district level delegates.
It's already in there and we recommended striking it because it's redundant.
>> So that's for consistency basically.
Uh any objection?
No. Okay. Hearing none. None. Then we'll go back to 13 C. Any amendments?
13D. Any amendments?
>> David.
Um David McDonald Washington 13D um addresses the presidential right of approval um the ability to uh declare people ineligible to run um uh and be elected as a delegate pledge to that candidate. And it what I want to clarify is as the rule is written, I would read it to say the only basis on which a presidential candidate can decline to let somebody run is that that person is not a bonafide supporter of the candidate. But it does it it it does require the candidate to let somebody run who disagrees with them on issues, thinks that they're the best person to be president, but doesn't agree with them 100% on the issues. and may and or whether the candidate can go through and strike people who might disagree with them on issues even though they've contributed and volunteered and everything else for the c for the campaign. It says it says as I read it I think it says the only basis is bonafide but again I'd like to be clear that if there's any other basis that they can can strike somebody on we should write it in the rules and give people notice.
A related question will come up under 13K as to what it means to say that a delegate um shall represent in good conscience the sentiments of those who elected them. Um clearly that that applies to you should vote for the for the nominee that you're pledged to unless there's a really good reason not to. But does it also mean that you should reflect the issues positions of the people that elected you? Particularly if you ran for election on the basis that as a delegate you were going to advocate for an issue and then you get into that box.
>> Did someone else want to speak on that issue?
>> Yes, Alicia.
>> I want to make sure. Um, thank you Alicia Andrews from Oklahoma. Um, >> okay.
>> In this last cycle, we had um the campaign, right? Um, reject a candidate for consideration because in 2024, that candidate was pledged for a candidate that then they turned out to not support publicly and so they were rejected outright for that reason. I don't know how you would word something like that, David, but I think we need to allow the flexibility for um a campaign to say this person's a bad actor. I don't want him.
>> No, I um to answer the question, I think that's perfectly valid that somebody pretends to be pledged to a candidate, but they're out campaigning for another candidate or whatever that that's not a bonafide supporter. the the the more crystallin um issue is um I support candidate A because I think they're the best candidate, but they're really wrong on this one issue. Um pick something from the Middle East, for example. Um and I want to advocate for something different in the platform and continue to push it. But I clearly am going to advocate that people vote for them. Can they be stricken because they may disagree with the candidate downstream based on the platform even though they support the candidate? I read this to say they couldn't be. But if the campaigns think that they can exclude people based on disagreements on issues even though they're they really are uh bonafide maybe even longtime supporters then we should make it clear that they can be stricken on that basis.
And I think this is likely to be an issue in a multicandidate field much more than it is when we had an incumbent. So >> Carol, >> the when when we have had candidates strike delegate candidates, we do almost every time, but in most of the time it is because that, you know, they've got a criminal record and they or or something like that or that the candidate is trying to achieve affirmative action goals and trying to um trying to make trying to skew the ballot in a way that they meet the affirmative action goals or the um equal division. Um I mean that's the most common reason we have for people to be struck. Um and and I don't know if we want to spell that out.
Frank oh Gary I'm sorry. Gary and then Frank >> Gary Shay California. Um whether or not we allow it is a different question. Um but I will say uh is just a matter of evidence for the committee that it did happen in California where people were struck for their views as opposed to what candidate they supported. Thank you.
>> I have seen a whole variety of reasons people have been struck. Some of which candidates want to explain and some of which they don't.
>> Yeah.
Sorry, >> Frank.
>> Yeah, the the candidate may has to leave at least three uh candidates for each district level position, and he just may want to get rid of everybody else. I mean, I I'm not aware of a process that we have to examine campaigns, we being state party or anybody else to examine campaigns and look within their souls to identify the real reasons why they're taking actions. I mean, they're allowed.
they can they can determine what is what is bonafide and I I don't I don't see a process nor do I think there should be a process of the state party interfering with that selection >> yeah um I I I agree with Frank on on this and and I I just think it's in it's I think it's impossible to figure out right and we there's not time for everybody to go asking the candidate well why why did you strike this person?
Why didn't you, etc. But I do think David, there's a point later on in three in K where we But I think here I I think just David's got two issues here and I think we should leave this one alone, but the the K issue is a is a different story.
David.
>> So, um I don't think we should leave it alone, but I I'm not advocating for uh a strict interpretation. I think to avoid confusion, what we should do is change the language to say shall be considered eligible to be elected unless the candidate signifies otherwise. And just make it clear, it's an absolute right of approval. they can can pick them or not, but don't create a potential challenge down the road that I was a bonafide supporter, but so and so didn't like my view and now I'm being discriminated and so on and so forth. It it opens the door to some messy stuff. So, let's just take the bonafide language out.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Just so I would I would propose to I would propose to change the language to read all such delegate and alternate candidates shall be considered eligible for election.
um pledge to that presidential candidate or election as a a supporter of the presidential candidate uh whom they have pledged to support unless the presidential candidate signifies otherwise. Just get rid of the bonafide concept and say either the presidential campaign wants them there or doesn't.
That's what the reality is.
>> Yeah. And there are lots of reasons why they wouldn't wouldn't want them to be there. There's all these balancing issues. Let's get rid of the confusion.
Okay. Is there a second for that amendment?
>> I second that.
>> Have a second.
>> Anyone else like to speak on that?
Any objection to that?
>> It's on the screen.
Go ahead. Read it.
>> Okay.
>> All right. Chair. Okay. All right. So, without objection, that amendment is added.
All right.
Then we'll move on to that's 13D 13E.
Anyone have any comment? 13F.
>> Sorry.
There's the language.
Do we need to clarify >> in what? 13E.
>> Yeah.
>> Yes. So 13E needs to be made consistent by striking the words bonafide >> without objection.
>> Are we just striking the word bonafide or putting eligible here?
>> All right, David >> Frank, I'm sorry.
Frankly, I do see 13 13F also has a bonafide >> in the uh uh last two lines.
>> And it has a his her.
>> Wow, that that really slipped through it. 13F. Um >> the second to the last line, change his to there.
>> Yeah.
>> And change bonafide to eligible.
Okay.
>> There's a there's a number of places.
Just do you want to just ask if anyone objects to us conforming?
>> Yeah.
>> Is there any objection to conforming with regard to the word bonafide throughout this rule?
>> Jason, >> I I get changing all of them. I just when we say H I I actually think we may want to look at different language because H is not around a bonafide supporters of a candidate. H is around must be a bonafide Democrat to get elected which is a very different >> type of thing in H than it is saying >> correct that should be maintained and let the record show that >> okay I'm sorry >> um on on F and maybe somewhere else too.
I can't read as fast as y'all can. Um, but to to to remove from that list person's not confirmed by the presidential candidate or his representatives, can we not just put a period there and rather than saying as supporters of the presidential candidate, they may be supporters of that presidential candidate, but they're >> they're removed for another reason and you you don't necessarily want to have to say, "I'm taking you off because you're not a supporter. I'm taking you off."
>> Seen those happen. Yes.
>> Mhm.
>> I've seen that happen.
>> Yeah. I mean, well, I'm taking you off cuz you're >> a criminal or you're a man or whatever reason you're taking them off. Just you're taking them off, >> right?
>> So, any objection to that amendment?
>> Which section are we talking about and where?
Thank you.
>> Presidential candidates may remove any candidate for ATL large and party leader from the list.
How about just from the list as long as at a minimum just take out of bonafide supporters.
Um and then there's somewhere else.
>> I think >> I'm sorry, Carol. Do you mind if we actually go back to E because in E2 we have the word for E1 we have bonafide.
E2 we have bonafide and just make sure that we get the language the committee wants here and we can go sequentially.
>> Yep. Yeah.
So in E1 I I've switched bonafide to eligible from the list of eligible supporters.
>> Yeah. Good.
>> All right. And then E2 um is pledge fire leader >> from the list of eligible >> 5051.
>> Yeah.
>> All right. So now we're through Then we're going down from the list of eligible >> again.
>> All right. And now we can go to >> screen.
>> Um >> yeah.
>> All right. Sorry, Carol. Can you go back to back to F?
Oh, on on 75 and 76 I think may and to remove from that list person's not confirmed by the presidential candidate or his representatives period.
>> Yes, >> you can't just agree to that. Yeah.
>> Yeah. on the screen right >> when she wants >> um >> Carol are we all set?
>> I think that's Jason tells me it's right. I'm struggling with reading that screen but >> it matches much we haven't paid for the chance.
>> Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Sorry y'all.
>> Except the G's deleted. So without objection, those changes are ordered.
Okay.
>> So that's E 13 E 13F.
>> That was 13.
>> That was 13.
>> That was F.
>> That was F. I'm sorry. 13H. No, >> no. 13 Gendy.
>> And Wendy.
>> Wendy Davis, Georgia. Are we still working on bonafides or are we talking about the sections now?
>> I think we've dealt dealt with bonafide.
Yeah.
>> Okay. So, um if if I'm reading section E correctly, it says that district level the campaigns have to leave at least three names per slot.
But for at large and pleo, they can leave one or two depending on what the state party puts in their delegate selection plan. I just want to make sure I'm reading that right.
>> Yes.
>> Carol, would you want to comment on that?
>> No. I I just wanted to be clear that they can leave as many as they want to.
It just can't strike below that minimum.
So, if they want to leave a dozen people on there, it's okay, which they frequently do because they don't want to pick and choose.
>> But this is a minimum.
>> Okay. But but I'm I'm particularly that E2 I'm reading correctly that whether they can strike all the way down to just one person per slot.
>> It would be up to the state to make that determination. We're not >> that's not like a recommendation from us.
>> It's not a recommendation. It's not a requirement.
>> Right.
And >> thank you. Just wanted to have done it differently. Right.
>> Okay. Anything else in E, F, or G?
All right. Anybody have anything in H?
or I or J >> David >> David >> David McDonald Washington I uh misspoke earlier when I said it was 13K I wanted to talk about turns out to be 13 um J.
13J is the is uh the rule that says that delegates elected to the national convention um are to represent the sentiments of those who elected them.
Um, and it's significant that it follows 13I, which specifically says that they are uh can't be compelled to vote for anyone other than the presidential preference that they have. Um, which includes pledging, but Jay is potentially a little bit broader and I want to highlight that and make sure we all have the same understanding. I I I don't know how many other people have had this experience. I' I've had to work with delegations where um the delegates come from either states or districts that have very strong views on certain issues and during the convention their presidential candidate does a deal with the other candidate to water down a platform or whatever and then you have to convince the delegates to to vote for it. Um and in my mind it's not an acceptable argument to say the candidate wants this. It doesn't matter what your district thinks. It is an acceptable argument to say as a delegate, you need to balance whether the sentiments of the people who elected you are it's more important to get the candidate elected or it's more important to make this this point. Um and uh if there's a contrary view that this only applies to um the question of if you're uh presidential candidate turns out to be an axe murderer in June and you thought they were a great person in January, do you still have to vote for them? If that's all it applies to, then we should be clear about that. But if it has the broader meaning that I attribute to it, then I I think we should be clear about that as well.
Jim >> Elaine >> um I think this is a very very powerful clause or very very powerful rule. This was the rule that got us out of an enormous mess um in 2024 and I think we did the best we could frankly after that and thank God for this rule. I don't think I I don't think it was ever intended to mandate that every single vote in the convention be determined be locked in according to your presidential preference. And I think I mean I can actually remember when the Hunt Commission wrote this rule. They wrote it as a result of the 19 very tempestuous 1980 convention. And I don't think anybody ever thought that the presidential preference would be binding on a platform or a credentials vote or anything like that. So I think the rule stands as it is and I think you're right um that it should reflect the sentiments of those who elected them. So, a situation where a a um a c a congressional congressional district goes for one candidate, but they've got very strong views about some issue. I mean, I think though that that's the that's the presidential candidates's problem, not our problem. Um if if they can't figure out if they can't figure out how to convince their delegates to go where they are or to understand or understand the you know the context of a compromise. Okay? because that because that could happen too. Then again, that's their problem and I don't think it's our problem.
>> Wendy, >> okay.
>> All right. So, David, >> um, in light of Elaine's comments, unless there's some disagreement inside the committee, I'm happy to simply have the legislative history that we had the discussion and not propose any changes to the language, we now know what it means and have a record of what it means.
>> I was going to suggest >> I agree. Yeah, I I think that's >> anything further on 13 K >> 13 >> J rather. Yeah, >> Michael Cap.
>> Uh thank you, Mr. Co-chair. Michael Cap from California. I had an amendment for after 13J. Uh but uh if anyone has anything more on 13J, I'll have anything more.
>> I'll defer. Okay, great. Um, but before I get to uh my amendment, I want to acknowledge the conversations that I've had with many of my colleagues here uh especially uh Secretary Ray uh who gave me their time and their cander. Uh those conversations helped uh shape where I landed. Uh the goal of my original amendment uh was straightforward. After delegates are selected, the public should be able to see who they are, uh, how they were elected, and which candidate they're pledged to. I believe that information should be accessible and machine readable. And aggregate demographic data on our convention uh, participants should not go unused, but instead it should help inform our work in setting meaningful and achievable diversity goals. But after discussion with Secretary Ray, uh this subject more properly falls uh within the call uh not the rules that we're acting on today. Uh so I am withdrawing my amendment and I'll bring an updated version at a more appropriate time. I very much appreciate uh my colleagues uh engagement and look forward to continuing this work. Thank you.
>> Appreciate your explanation. Thank you.
>> Anything else on 13?
Okay. Elaine >> um Ela Kark, Virginia. Um K2.
Okay. K2. It is further determined that these requirements are in addition to the requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States. Uh where' that come from?
I mean and and the reason I bring it up is that the Supreme Court has given us the right under the first amendment freedom of association many many times.
Okay. in many different decisions to say that the state party because we have we are under the freedom of association a party um can do make any rules it wants to even if it is in contradiction to laws of the United States that goes all the way back to the to the Illinois.
It's frequently brought up in terms of our authority to set the time even though New Hampshire has a law. I mean it's it's there. Um, why is this here?
>> I think this was intentionally phrased as that these are in addition to requirements set forth and the constitution of laws and that's what the Supreme Court decision allows.
>> Oh, I see.
>> Yes.
>> I see. That's why it's that's why it's in here. It's kind of weird. I I'm not I I don't know that we even >> It's weird because of that Supreme Court decision, right?
>> Okay.
>> All right. Well, that that's fine.
>> But it just did strike me as kind of contradictory.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Okay.
>> Anything else on Oh, uh, we have Barry, Steph, and Gary. And I have to apologize. I have to go be parliamentarian at our state convention.
I'm going to miss my plane if I don't leave now. So, I'm going to turn it back to my co-chair. Thank you all for some really good discussion as well as attention to the presentations.
>> Thank you.
>> That's the goal.
>> You good?
>> You want to move it down?
Yeah.
We only have 14 left, right?
>> So, do we want to go ahead with Barry's?
>> Yeah.
>> Barry, did you want to go ahead?
>> Yeah. Just quickly in response to Elaine which I was talking about I mean to me >> two in covers like you're 35 you're a citizen you're all these laws that we don't have in 1AB that in theory if we took that out to me that would give you know DNC blessing to somebody 21 who wants to run for president it's okay with us but so you just to me I I just saw that as encompassing things that we don't have to cover in a long list.
>> Right.
>> Steph.
>> Um, thank you, Madam Coach. Steph complain in New Jersey. Um, I think this might be more of a question on the history of this, but in K1A, we say that to be a candidate, you must be registered to vote and shall have been registered to vote in the last election.
But we don't explicitly say that you have to have voted in the last election.
Is there any reason why we don't have that you must have voted in the last election?
>> Just >> I don't know if there was some >> committee or act or people >> that decided this a while ago and I just didn't know the context.
>> Well that let let me let me >> I was asking mostly. Yeah.
going to Carol. I mean, did Lyndon Larouche did Lyndon Larouche actually vote >> in the Democratic front?
>> I I don't remember. I I remember having to have extra security >> from his supporters.
>> Yeah, he drove us crazy.
>> I I don't I don't remember that.
>> Yeah.
>> Um >> I don't know.
Um, >> I'm not sure I follow the question. Can you repeat the question again, Steph?
>> We say that you must be registered to vote and shall have been registered to vote, but we don't say that you had to have voted like you didn't have to cast a ballot. You just have to be a voter.
So, I think voting, the act of voting is the bare minimum for when you're seeking the office of president or vice president.
>> Uh, Helen, she has a question. Um, in all states, the identity of the registered voters is public information.
Not every state records and makes public who actually went to the polls and voted.
So if that becomes a requirement here and it's not recorded or made accessible by the specific state of residence, it becomes a disqualifier.
>> Perfect. That's all I I wanted to know.
I was like there's probably a reason.
Thank you, Helen. Thank you, Elaine.
>> Thank you, Gary.
>> A question and a statement. um in any part of these rules or the call or or whatever um do we in any way talk about electors, presidential electors?
>> He brought them up.
>> Go ahead.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, that's what I think this clause is really about. It may have been about something else, but it also can cover that because we have to follow the constitution with regard to electors. We can't come up with some other system.
Um, and then finally, I would just say that when it says any law of the United States, there's both statutory and case law. So, case law would be incorporated into this. Thank you, >> thank you, Wendy, >> Wendy.
>> Wendy Davis, Georgia. Um, this K1 B gives the chairperson of the DNC the opportunity to say someone isn't a bonafide Democrat, but where are we telling them how to transmit that information?
Because again in Georgia, our executive committee basically if somebody sends a letter and asks to be on the ballot, we can accept those people. And it would be helpful to us to know if there's somebody who's running for president who the chair doesn't consider a bonafide candidate because then we would that would be a nice criteria for us to say so they're not going to be on our ballot.
>> I'm trying to figure out if there's any history. Elaine, do you have any >> Oh, >> I don't have any I don't have any background in this. I mean, >> you know, obviously this is this has been used.
>> Um I Well, I I can tell you this that this helped. Um the esteemed chairman Fowler, >> okay, did in fact throw Lyndon LaRouche off the ballot.
>> Yeah.
>> In New Hampshire. Correct. And um the case went all the way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said yes, the party chairman has the right to do that. Um interestingly enough um the party chairman in Wisconsin who later became the governor threw the white who is the white supremacist from Louis David Duke. threw David Duke off the Wisconsin Republican primary ballot and the Supreme Court said that. Yeah, that's that or I don't know if the court said it, but it it was it was fine. It was legal. So, party chairman I mean this this has been used and party chairman do use it to you know basically get rid of wackados. Um and that's bad >> bad actors. Yeah. So, I don't know if that answers the question, Wendy.
That tells me what it says here, which is helpful. But my question, my question really was how do I know that like do we need to say something in >> in here that says the chair should share that determination with the state parties or something like that.
>> Well, you usually happens that it the I think what they did in New Hampshire and correct Ry, you were around, right? I think what Don did in New Hampshire is technically it's we can't tell you not to be on the ballot if you've gotten on the ballot, but we can say that you will receive no delegates to the convention as a result of being on the ballot and winning.
>> So So that's that's the that's the way we get into it. And it's it's very public. I mean, I don't I mean, when this happens, it's a big deal. I don't know that you have to really tell anybody. I think Jason had something he wanted to add to it.
>> The bishop and I want to clarify. I think this was language that she wrote in 2017 2018. Like this was very specific language after the 2016 presidential election around saying who is a Democrat and allowed on the Democratic ballot.
>> Yeah. We had no language before 2017 that required >> you put your uh speaker.
>> I'm sorry.
>> Okay. We can't hear I was I was saying that prior to 2017, our documents had no language that required our presidential candidates to be Democrats.
>> So we added it in 2017 just to make that explicitly clear that if you want to be the Democratic presidential nominee, you should be a Democrat. Now, there was a lot of discussion around the what the if there are folks where there's open registration, you're from a state where there's no party registration requirement, then how do how would you determine >> if someone was a Democrat? And that's why we left the chairperson discretion there to say and all of this other language around public service and AC record of accomplishment, etc. to allow for the possibility that someone is from a state where party registration is not required and so you would not have a record that they are a registered Democrat because that's not what their state allows. And Jason remembers more.
>> No, that's that's I remember I I mean I remember that discussion we had a lot of time in 2017 2018.
>> Yeah.
>> After the unity reform commission it was part of the >> Yeah.
>> Thank you for that. Bishop is there Carol.
>> Um in in before the 2008 primary in South Carolina, we had someone who wanted to be a favorite son candidate.
Um and it was Steven Cobear.
Um we we um I called in my state committee and said, you know, the other the other candidates, the real candidates are are we don't use the word apehit in formal meetings, but we can't we've got to not put him on the ballot. And of course I had Joe Sandler was our attorney then and we were just on the phone with him all the time and we ruled and then I had to go on the show and say you can't be on the South Carolina ballot but um we have since put in language in our delegate selection plan that this committee has always approved specifying some rules about who can be our candidate and one of them is you have to be running in more than one state. Um, so the this committee has been flexible about allowing state parties to to put some criteria in their own plans. Um, just to because if you've had one bad experience, you want to not have another one.
>> Does this mean we can look you up on YouTube on the Colar Show?
>> I don't know. I never thought of that.
Almost >> It was actually long distance, you know.
I was not actually in the room with Stephen Cobear, but it was a terrible experience because all college students in America called me and wrote me letters telling me that I was going to burn in hell for keeping him off the ballot. It was it was awful. But um >> come to Monroe, Michigan for the show.
>> But I did make Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton happy by keeping him off.
Raymond, >> I I just want to underscore the importance of this piece. um prior when as has not been noted it was silent prior to that and we had a very real uh situation um in 2015 when um a group of Republicans decided to uh sue the state to keep um a certain senator from a neighboring state off the ballot. Um, and I didn't have anything to back me up in determining. And so I had to sort of create uh by saying that the DNC uh acknowledges that person as a senator enough to be a delegate to the national convention that the caucus a lot. He's a member of the Democratic caucus. And so by a lot making this much more clear, it would have made it a lot easier uh for me um and all of the lawyers that were involved uh to to be able to just quickly dispense with the challenge um which um as many of you might remember received a lot of publicity.
you know, when we I don't know if we'll talk about this in the course of our upcoming meetings, but um criteria for being part of the debates and this this language here, which we worked over a lot might be very useful for criteria for for being in the debates. Um and allow maybe allow us a little bit of room to to get these debates down to you know sort of serious people as opposed to people who want to sell books or you know get on television or whatever.
>> Oh yeah.
>> Okay. Is there any further discussion on rule 13?
Wendy, I think Sham has he wants to answer your specific question.
Yeah, I think in the case of each state notifying the states of who isn't a bonafide Democratic candidate, like in the case of New Hampshire, there's going to be specific situations and prescribing that and and for a specific method isn't necessarily the most uh it doesn't make the most sense in the rules, but that as situations come up that that will be communicated to whoever needs to know, whether it's by press release or someone calling the chair. especially in states, I think in Georgia, you will determine ballot access by who is a indeed a bonafideed candidate. That's something that we would we would communicate if there's someone like clearly obviously like isn't um and also something that the the team is able to support the DPG in.
>> Okay. So, we can move on to rule 14.
Oh, and she put it down.
>> Oh, she put it down. Okay.
Okay. So, Will, would you like to go over rule 14?
>> Thank you, co-chair. Rule 14 is unfair reflection of presidential preferences, requires proportional allocation of delegates based on voter preference, establishes a uniform 15% viability threshold, um, and sets detailed uh, mathematical rules for allocating district level delegates and at large delegates.
>> So, we will begin I'm sorry, we will begin our discussion with rule 14A.
Is there Oops. Frank >> uh Frank Leon from DC. I have um suggested amendment to 14A and uh the committee has Oh, and there it is. Um it would add at the end of the uh sentence there um a statement that no ballot used for purposes of delegate selection shall permit voters to express more than one presidential preference where state law provides for multiple presidential preferences in a primary.
Only the first round will be considered for delegate alloc delegate allocation purposes. And this goes to the voting systems known as the rank choice voting or approval voting or uh other exotic voting methods. Um rank choice voting involves a voter having multiple votes for a candidate and ranking those votes one through five and then going through rounds until all the losing candidates are uh are dismissed. The lowest candidate is dismissed and gets to the point that there's one candidate left.
Um, now there personally I'm not really a fan of rank choice voting, but what this address this motion doesn't address rank choice voting in general. There there may be times when rank choice voting is appropriate. And in fact, if we had a winner take all system where you had to reduce a field to one person, it might make sense. Where where it doesn't make sense is in our delegate selection process. And there's been uh a national effort to get states to adopt rank choice voting for presidential primaries as well as everything else. Uh we discussed this issue two cycles ago. We discussed it last cycle and that that pressure is continuing. So I thought it made sense for this committee to go on record uh with its views on this process and we can look at Maine as an example of the problems with the process. And this is again putting aside the question of whether you know it even makes sense or whether it really gives you a majority or whether it's confusing to voters or whether the counting is opaque. That that's not the point. The point is there there really two provisions of the current main statute which cause problems. One is there is no 15% threshold and this party went through a long process to come up with a 15% threshold that drew the line between candidates who were serious and should be taken seriously and those who were who were not. And under the rank choice voting process uh as suggested it doesn't allow for that 15% threshold. So in the first vote you might have less than 15% but then on the second count second round you might get elevated above 15%. So that's in direct violation of our delegate selection rules. The other thing that's uh a concern is in in Maine this round of voting rounds of voting continue until there are only two candidates and two candidates get delegates. Well under our system up to seven candidates can get delegates.
anybody who gets over 15% is eligible to get delegates. So it actually limits the voters's choice because of our proportional representation system and that's why it doesn't make sense. So again, I'm not I could and I probably have talked at length about why I have a problem with rank choice voting, but what we're talking about here is just does it work with our process? And rather than just wait until state plans come up and tell them they can't do what state law tells them to do, I think it's helpful to provide guidance to states that say, you know, you can have rank choice voting for your Senate race and your governor's race and your congressional races. We're not opining on that at all. But for our presidential primary, the systems that you've set up are in conflict with our delegate selection rules, and we can't approve states that use those processes.
>> So, I'd move the amendment. And I second Dennis.
>> Is there any discussion? I see Elaine and David.
>> Yeah. Um I just want to go on record saying that I like rank choice voting. I think it's a very useful um way to go about things in however winner take all systems and we do not have a winner take all system for delegate selection in the Democratic party. In fact, we have explicitly rejected that many years ago and continue to do so. So, it simply doesn't fit our system. If we moved if we moved back and we allowed states to be winner take all, okay, then I think possibly this this would work because we've more and more people are getting familiar with it. But right now, if we're in this system with proportional representation, which is outlined in rule 14, I just don't think it works.
And remember that one of the reasons we have all these rules to begin with is that in conventions prior to the 19 real 72 and before um there were just one credentials challenge after another, one fight after another. Um some of them in ' 68 were actual fights on the floor of the convention. Um, and we do this to reduce the number of credentials challenges because if you play by these rules, then you can't be challenged. And so this the you trying to graft rank choice voting onto proportional representation guarantees guarantees one challenge after another after another.
And I don't I think we have better ways to spend our time. And so I support u this motion or this amendment.
>> Thank you, Steph. I'm sorry, David.
Um thank you, David. Excuse me. David McDonald, Washington. Um I do have some comments and uh opposed to the amendment substance. But before I get to them, I want to either clarify or suggest some changes to the proposed language. as written, it says no ballot used for the purposes of delegate selection shall permit voters. But I think what you're really talking about is no ballot used for the allocation of delegates among preferences. And there is a distinct difference because states have proposed and we have approved using rank choice voting in the process of selecting which delegates fill their slots. So I I would hope that you'll make an amendment to change that to no ballot used for the purposes of allocating delegates among preferences shall permit voters to >> David. Can you say that a little slower for me?
Frank, >> no ballot used for purposes of allocate of aortioning delegates or allocating delegates among presidential preferences shall permit voters to express more than one presidential preference. I think that's what you're driving at, isn't it?
>> Yeah. I I think um I mean I'm not a big fan of it for other purposes too, but but for the moment I'll I'll go along with that. I think it should be allocation rather than aortionment.
>> Yeah, I think that's probably right.
Yeah, I get those two words confused. Um and then um >> sorry, just does the language look right on the screen? It's and I'll remove the word delegate selection, >> but it's it's that preferences.
>> I guess delete delegate solution.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> The word. Yeah.
And then in the last um sentence in in the unusual circumstance where a state law mandates use of a caucus which could come up in Iowa um as written that would um say that in a caucus state mandated by state law you could not have a realignment um or a second allocation. And again, I don't quite think that's what was intended. I think you as to which of those two rounds of of >> ballots in a precinct caucus situation is the one that's to be used. I >> Well, it it does say um >> it says >> it does say in a in a primary.
>> Primary. Yep.
>> Um >> Okay. All right. And and Iowa, by the way, seems to have forsworn the second rounds anyway. And that's probably a smart thing to do, but but I think as written, I think it it's it doesn't specifically address caucuses.
>> Okay. Yeah. Um those were my my clarifications. and in in general um and like Frank, I've spoken on the subject in prior meetings and I'm not going to beat um the issue to death if there are people who haven't spoken before who want to speak on it. Um that's fine, but I I have not I just don't think this is the time and the place to say we're going to ban states from trying things that if a state legislature passes something, we want to have a confrontation.
um rather than deal with finding a problem with their implementation when the plan comes in or something, but to just blanket say, "We don't care what you come up with. We don't care what your argument is. We don't care if your voters pass it by initiative. We don't care if the legislature did at 7525.
We're going to have a fight with you and we're gonna take away your delegates.
are going to create a credentials challenge and we're going to have it in maybe the worst possible time which is in a contested convention. Um you know we have dealt with it on an ad hoc basis. I realize it's irritation to talk about it but you know you have to think about what happens when you flat out say something can't be done. what are you um inviting as opposed to it needs to be approved or you know we may object to it or something that that slows it down and that is my principal concern um with this I think there are places where rank choice voting should be used places where it shouldn't I think there may be other alternatives that a legislature might want to use more than one preference on a ballot that are not really rank choice voting but are giving people a second choice in early voting and this flatly prohibits everything.
And I just I think that's a bad idea, but I really don't want to redo my own previous comments. As I said, if there are other people who want to say something, that's fine, but I'm I'm not going to take up the time saying the same thing I've said in prior sessions.
>> Thank you, Madam Cochair. Stephanie Kanye in New Jersey. Um to David's point, I am very against a ban on rank choice voting. Uh I grew up with MySpace. I'm very used to ranking my friends. Big fan of it. But what I see as this is a ban is not what the Democratic party is about. We are the ones that stick up for people's like rights to choose. People deciding what is right for their states at a time when we are investing in state party infrastructure and saying states know better how to run elections, how to do the work in their states. I think that we need to be able to trust the states to say like this is what we want to do.
And in addition to that, if we're banning rank choice voting on in states that or and DC that requires it for the presidential that that is disenfranchising voters who actively selected to participate in rank choice voting for these contests. It it is not a mandate from God. Nobody is saying that you absolutely have to do RCV, but the voters that opt in should have their vote their voices heard. And I urge everyone to vote against this. Thank you so much. Andre T.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh Andre Triber from Texas. Um I'm opposed to this amendment. I uh do support rank choice voting for um a large variety of reasons which I you know won't enumerate for this committee because I I know we've um all heard the arguments but in my mind rank choice voting and other forms of approval voting have met that burden of proof showing that I think they're better than first pass the ver first pass the post voting for a variety of reasons. Um, but in particular, I I I do not like a ban here. I would be supportive of us coming up with some language to provide guidance or guard rails because I do believe some of the concerns about implementation are fair. Um, there's all sorts of ways you could go about that.
You could say, for instance, to fit it within our proportional representation system that um you only eliminate bottom vote getting candidates until everyone has at least 15%, in which case you can still then be awarding three, four, five candidates delegates. There's there's a variety of ways to do it, but um I think there is a there's a pretty strong movement within a lot of the grassroots of our party and a lot of places that are supportive of rank choice voting.
've seen more and more states adopt it.
My own personal state party, we've adopted it basically every single place that we're able to. Um, in the city I live, uh, Austin, which we're looking forward to having y'all, we adopted it and then the Republican legislature immediately came and preempted that. Um, so I am not a fan of replicating what happened to me where I live from the national level down to the states that do have this. Um, again, as I said, I'm I'm extremely open to to guard rails, but I think I think a flatout ban, especially when there are people that care so much about this voting system and have been able to speak so eloquently about how beneficial it has been for them, um, looking to those states that have implemented it or um, another recent example, you know, the New York City mayoral election. I think there's a lot of positivity that comes out about that. um especially when it has come to building coalitions between candidates that are that have less animosity and that's that's a big thing for me that I would not like to see um taken away. So I am in opposition to this amendment. Um I hope we can find some way to allow states to use rank choice voting that is otherwise uh congruent and works with the rest of our rules, but a a blanket ban is simply I think moving backwards for us. Thank you. Thank you, >> Michael.
Uh, thank you, Madam Co-chair. Uh, Michael Kapen. I represent California.
Rank choice voting has been used in my state for over 20 years. In a 2024 poll across San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and San Leandro, 70% of voters said that they want to keep using rank choice voting. Roondo Beach, the first city in LA County, just used it for the first time last year. My constituents support rank choice voting, and a lot of them do. But at its core, this isn't about rank choice voting. My deeper concern is about this body's overreach or potential overreach. Voters in Alaska, Maine, Wyoming didn't ask us for permission to use rank choice voting, and they shouldn't have to. Alaskans voted for it. Maine's legislature passed it. To sit here and tell these state parties that they can't use a system their own voters chose, that's not party rule.
That's a veto over the democratic will of millions of people. I can support narrow language that says states may use rank choice voting if their law allows it. What I can't support is this body substituting its judgment for the judgment of voters who already decided this question at the ballot box. We're not the party uh that's in the business of banning things, especially when the folks most affected are not in this room. banning things that our own voters like. Uh while the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 sponsors are pushing that same exact ban, that's not a message that I can uh carry back home.
The RBC should care uh should set guard rails, not pull the brake on reforms that are working in those states. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Michael Jamie.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh I'm speak Jamie Sler, North Dakota. speaking in opposition to the amendment. As Democrats, we obviously have concerns about the federal government telling states how to conduct elections. Uh we have extreme concerns about it and I think as a party we should not be saying what they're doing is bad but but when we do it it's okay by telling you how to conduct your elections. It is fair for us to determine rules for how do you allocate delegates based on the results of an election. How do you choose who those delegates are based on the allocation that you've come up with? But to substitute our judgment and tell states that we know better than you how to conduct elections is uh not in line with what we say we believe when it comes to the federal government. Uh we should allow states to have local control uh about how that how they do this. That's especially relevant for state parties or for state law. fair for us to give some guidelines to put some boundaries to ensure that uh that people's rights are being respected, but we shouldn't just step in and say we're not going to let you do what you think is best for how you conduct your own elections. So, I'm voting in opposition to it.
>> Thank you, Leah.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Leah Dory from New York. Um, I'm I'm I'm a little confused because I thought we were I was not reading this as a ban on rank choice voting. And I think Frank specifically said how you do your Senate races, your House races, whatever else you're doing, do it. But for the purposes of delegate selection, for the pres purposes of the presidential uh candidate race, which is a na which is what we administer, >> the allocation of delegates is what this rules and bylaws committee one of our major responsibilities.
I thought we were narrowly talking about that.
Uh and so for the purposes of that and saying when it comes to the process that we got to deal with in this party in this committee, we don't want rank choice voting. I think that's what I understood. Now, if you want to have it for all your down ballots, go right ahead. That's not a problem. Do what you want to do. But we dealing with thresholds. We're dealing with percentages. We're dealing with who gets what what candidate gets what delegates. And the ability to know that result in a timely fashion has an impact on the rest of the race and on subsequent races. You got to know who won in state A. The that impacts what the candidate does in state B, which may be the next day and not and uncertainty. And I'm from New York City where we had rank choice voting this last election.
And I will spare you my philosophical challenges with how we do rank choice voting in New York. That's another conversation for another time. But the the the recalculation and the revoting and the retallying and all of that does not lead to uh a result that is known when in a presidential calendar. you need to know as a candidate, did I win or did I not win? How many delegates do I have? Because in the end, it's all about the delegate math and who winds up being the nominee is a part is delegate math. And so knowing with certainty by time certain what I got and what I didn't get. I don't want to go to bed thinking I won and then the next day, and we saw a little bit of that last time, wake up the next day and I'm third.
It's it's a challenge. But again, I understand everybody's concern about, you know, what states vote on and all.
And I want to be clear and I want Frank to affirm that we're not talking about what you do with your Senate race in Alaska and Maine and all these and what you do with your House races or your marrow race or whatever other race. You want rank choice voting, that's what your people, fine. But for this narrow top of the ticket process that rules and bylaws has to administer and enforce at that level. We need there to be one ballot and the results of that one ballot be what stands.
Frank, did I understand you?
>> Yes. Yes, that's that's correct. And and the the reason why I brought this up is because there are advocacy groups who believe rank choice voting is the answer to everything and including our process.
And it doesn't work with our process.
And that's the narrow issue that I'm talking about. And that is the f that's what we do here. We tell states how to run their delegate selection processes within a framework that we all agree to and it's approved by the DNC. That's our job. But yes, I agree with everything Bishop said.
>> Wendy, >> thank you. Wendy Davis, Georgia. I happen to be a a a fan of rank choice voting and uh and how it does bring people together and um a lot of good things that the folks who are advocating for it think it does. Um but using the language we've been using in this room, the delegate math, we do not have a first pass the post situation with our delegate math. We have proportional representation with our delegate math. And to me, every place where I've seen rank choice voting utilized, it's about getting to a majority vote.
We aren't a winner take all states anymore. It's all proportional representation.
We, as we've said several times, there is the opportunity in some states for five, six, seven candidates to achieve delegates in that state. And so I I think that it's I I support this amendment. Thank you, >> Alicia.
>> Thank you, Alicia Andrews from Oklahoma.
I I'm sitting here listening to this and it feels like we've devolved into a proxy argument about rank choice voting versus what we are in this room to do.
Um, I am not going to speak for or against rank choice voting in principle because I don't think that that's what we're do. We're we're here to do. I've heard people say who are in a in opposition to this that um they are good for guard rails, but they're not good for banning rank choice voting. And as I read this, this is a guard rail that helps us do what it is that we are trying to do. It does not go into California or New York or Maine and say you can't do rank choice voting. What it says is for this process we have to make a decision and here is how we will make that decision. That's how I read it. Um so um as worded I think I would be voting uh for the language.
>> Thank you. Uh Steph, >> thank you Madam Chair. Steph Copi in New Jersey. Um, something I do want to address is to me that this is effectively a ban on rank choice voting.
Not just because that's what it rates like, but it's also because um it creates a lot of issues with voter confusion and voter education. It increases the cost. If states like Maid and Alaska and any other state that chooses to do rank choice voting, including DC, for the presidential primary, they have spent all of this time and energy explaining how to do rank choice voting and then it turning around and saying, "Oh, just kidding. Don't do that." It creates a lot more bad will and a time when the Democratic party truly cannot afford that. And we want to be open and honest with our voters and I think that it does create a lot more complications. Another thing that I do want to flag is that I do believe that it is still uh the standard for overseas voters, not that Democrats abroad, but military voters I believe do have the right to do instant runoff on their ballots. So would that change the right their right to do that?
Yeah, some military voters like overseas it's like you can select your second preference on the same ballot. It's uh something that they do in the stuff for instant runoff. I'm not sure if it's still applicable, but I am asking the question there.
I I don't I don't have the answer to that, but I think Helen said, do you have an an in primary elections held by the states where the state requires the candidate to get a majority and and therefore provides for a runoff two weeks later?
Those ballots offer instant runoff.
I can't tell you off the top of my head whether they simply offer a second spot on which to vote or whether it's using rank choice voting. In my state, what is offered is our primary is I think on the 9th.
We have a majority requirement. That ballot that went overseas also has a spot to vote again for on the 23rd.
And you can vote for the same person on the 23rd or a different person on the 23rd.
So for South Carolina's version of the military ballot, it is not rank choice.
Other states may have a different mechanism. We just offer the second vote, >> but that vote doesn't count unless there's a runoff.
>> Yeah, it doesn't get counted unless there's a runoff in that race.
>> Got it, Barry.
Um, I am in favor of Frank's motion for a lot of reasons that have already been here and I'm doing this as a uh, you know, agreeing to it even though it's against my personal interest as litigator because I'd like to have so many more lawsuits happen as a result of this. And as Elaine said, we're eliminating that possibility. So, you know, it it's painful to me, but um I I believe is and I Wendy also, you know, stated around what we're trying to do is not reach that majority, but get the delegate the delegate may. Um to me, the timely reporting, I mean, candidates want instant, it's like an instant lottery ticket. They want to know, move on to the next state. Our primary season is not that big. If you start doing this and all of a sudden other states say, "Oh, this look, let's do this too." We're not having results uh very quickly. And I think that's totally opposite what we need. Um I know we said out there, this is our job regarding delegate selection and it's not our job to deal with it um for the Senate and the House and every state race and every if they all want it. It's one piece that's pulled out for presidential primaries to make it Right.
And uh uh I I just strongly believe that this is our job and you know it's not necessar you know apples to apples but there's plenty of rules that we have.
You know we know it's Alabama you know you can't do this and you know it's the same kind of thing. We want to make sure that our rules are followed and and uh I don't think it's disenfranchising anyone. Everyone has the right to vote.
Everyone has the right to pick and choose. Um, and I think that that the motion should pass.
>> Thank you, Michael.
>> Thank you, Barry.
>> Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Michael Cap, California. Uh, this is a ban on rank choice voting for states that already require it for their presidential primary. It's state law in both Maine and DC that they must use rank choice voting in their presidential primary.
I'm also deeply uncomfortable having this conversation with the ASC president not here and without proper notice to those states most impacted by this proposed ban of rank choice voting.
There are a lot of stakeholders who should have the opportunity to be consulted and voice their perspective to this committee and I want to hear from them before we move any further. Uh we're now past noon and I thought we were ending this meeting at noon. So, I'd like to make a motion to table this discussion to a future meeting after we receive appropriate input.
>> Support.
>> Okay, there's a motion on the floor to table. Uh, all in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Those opposed.
>> I think we're going to need to do a quick count.
>> Can you raise your hand for I?
and the proxies >> and we and Sean restate.
>> I'm sorry. So, Michael, the the motion on the floor is to table until a later date >> just like we've done with numerous uh provisions uh previously. Correct.
>> Y >> we None >> is a debatable motion.
>> Okay. So those for tableabling raise your hand please.
>> Postpone >> postponing rather.
>> Yes.
We haven't gotten to that yet.
Can you raise your hand for moving forward?
Yes.
>> Did Jim proxy for >> Do you have de David's proxy?
>> Okay. You got >> Can we count moving forward again, please?
>> Yeah. Not table. Yeah.
>> Yep.
and I'm voting.
>> I'm voting.
>> Okay. I have Jim, so I got two.
>> Okay.
>> So, we're moving forward.
Okay. Vote is 24 to 22. We're going to move forward.
>> Yeah.
>> Keep keep the discussion going. 24-22.
Yes.
>> We voted >> to move forward. That's correct.
Uh, Michael, I think you had Oh, so so Luis, we're going to continue with the discussion.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, as a lifelong disenfranchised voter from Puerto Rico, that word uh carries a lot of meaning uh to me. And quite frankly, I I don't have a firm position as to rank choice voting, but I do have concerns. I remember Frank was mentioning how um in the first round you could get a candidate could get less than 15% but perhaps in a second round uh would be higher than 15%. But it could also go the other way around. A candidate could have 20% in the first round and then fall below the threshold in a second round. Then so aren't we disenfranchising those delegates? That's a question that that I have regarding um using this uh procedure for for allocation of delegates. And then I also have another question and and I think it's not clear to me how states that actually have this in their laws, how does it work? Because if we are going to according to this amendment, if we're only going to allocate delegates according to the first round, then how does the messaging work out there?
because we could end up in a situation where a candidate may place fourth in a first round result, but that end up winning the whole thing if that's how the state carries the the primary. How does that affect the race? Who is declared a winner? Um, we're talking about early states or, you know, Super Tuesday. I mean, how does that who is the winner of that of that primary? That is not not clear to me. And I do believe that rank choice vote does work when you're considering a winner take all uh contest. But if we're going to continue with our threshold section, then it's it it doesn't it's not applicable.
Um it's it it's it's inconsistent. So either we change the threshold and we take it back to win or take all, which I don't think that's what we're trying to do here. um or or or we we we approve this amendment. Um now I don't have a position at the moment. That's why I wanted to table this uh just to have more discussion, but that you know the body thought different. Um but that's that's my question, right? How does this work where where a state moves forward with the rank choice voting primary and we then say we're just going to allocate delegates according to the first round.
Isn't wouldn't that be or affect the the race and the the actual result of what what comes out of that state? That's my question.
>> Okay. I think Frank wanted to speak to that. Go ahead.
>> Okay. Yeah. Thank you. That's that's a fair question. I mean, the the reason why again I've proposed this is to head off other states who think that they can just come up with a system and we'll go along with it because we can't. Maine is the only state that has it in the presidential race. And as I indicated, they provide that they don't recognize a 15% threshold and they keep calculating until they're two winners. The top two vote getters are the only people who get delegates under the main system. So this committee will be faced with a question.
Do we accept that and give them an exception from our rules? So where everybody else has a 15% threshold and they don't, everybody else gets delegates if they're over 15% but in Maine only two candidates get delegates.
Or do we do this solution and basically say, "Look, Maine, you're you're going to let your voters vote and the first round is the only one that we're going to consider because that's consistent with our rules. our rules trump their state statutes and they shouldn't be um I want to word this appropriately they shouldn't be trying to involve themselves in the details of our delegate selection process and suggest solutions and approaches which are completely inconsistent with our delegate selection plan. So that's why I am bringing this up now is right now we're only dealing with one state.
Alaska doesn't do in the presidential race. Rodondo Beach doesn't do it in the presidential race. They everybody who's doing rank choice voting can continue to do it except for when it comes to our delegate selection process. The state law has to be consistent with our rules or else our rules govern. But that's that's a fair question. I hope I answered it.
>> Jason, >> thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I want to start by saying that I'm not opposed to rank choice voting as a general matter and I understand why many people support it and I really respect the goals behind it. But I think in this specific process, we're not debating whether rank choice voting is good or bad. We're deciding how the Democratic Party allocates delegates to our national convention. Um, and for that purpose, I believe the clearest and fairest standard that we have is that voters first express presidential preferences, which we have in this language here, which is why I support this language. I don't think it, in my opinion, I don't think this language bans rank choice voting. It doesn't tell the state necessarily how it has to conduct an election. What it simply says is that second line there, um, that when we're allocating delegates under our rules, only that first round vote is going to be used. And I think that really matters because our delegation, our delegate allocation system really depends on consistency, proportionality and transparency. We have viability thresholds, we have proportional allocation. Um, and I think we have rules that need to be applied evenly across every single state and territory.
Um, using that first preference gives voters, campaigns, state parties, and this committee a clear and audible and understandable number. It ensures that voters in one state are not treated any differently from voters in another because of how later rounds of tabulation may operate. So again, this isn't a statement against rank choice voting. It's a practical rule for a very specific purpose, allocating Democratic delegates in a way that fairly reflects presidential preference. And for that reason, I support the language that Frank has introduced here.
I just have a question uh for those of you and I don't have u an opinion about rank right choice voting um yet either because I don't know enough and I want to I want to understand I want to see states where it's actually been implemented and how it works and for example to see how that would translate to my state to my state of Maryland. So, I don't want to make a a blanket decision about something that I truly don't know and don't understand. But what I do want to know is from you based on what you know, how would this work in a presidential primary? Take a state and tell me how it would work. Explain it to me like I'm five. Um, and how if we're going to do uh proportional for example, explain to me how just explain to me how it works. If one of you just just help me know.
>> Well, we'll we'll get to to that question. Um, unless someone from the rank choice side want to answer it right quick, Michael or Gary?
>> Well, I wanted to suggest um that it depends upon how it's actually written.
You know, you can do it multiple ways.
And the way that I was conceiving that this would take place if a state were to do it. And by the way, I think it's not just Maine. I thought I heard that DC also requires it. But anyway, um what you could do was write a system so that it locks in the people who received over 15% and you're only talking about the people under and when you redistribute those perhaps one of those candidates happen to come up to the 15%. That's the way I would conceive of it anyway. But I'm I suppose there are multiple ways of doing it.
>> And that's where I have that's what causes me some confusion because if there are multiple ways to do it and there's no onesizefits all, I'm wondering what does that do to the counting to the, you know, to the to the recording at at the end of the night when, as we've said over and over again, people want to know right away what the results are. So, if we've locked in this group, but then we've got this group that we still have to account for. And that's that's why I said I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I'm asking to be educated. And already I'm just wondering what that's going to do to to my state of Maryland. Um, never having done this before. And we're talking about implementing this in the upcoming cycle, not skipping a cycle where we can have time to educate people and get people prepared, but like in a minute.
And so that's why I'm asking the question.
>> I would just add that um which I wanted to say before was that we would I would want to um do guard rails as Mr. Triber has suggested so that there is some you know consistency about how it is done if we're if a state wants to do it.
>> Michael Cap from California I definitely hear you about the need to and want to be educated. That was maybe I wasn't clear. That was my purpose of my motion to table so we can have time bring in uh the the folks from these states from uh from Maine and DC where it is required by their state law uh to hold uh rank choice voting for the presidential primary so we can hear directly from them as well as others what this could look like. I think we're moving too fast and I think you just made my point.
>> Exactly. So, Michael, but I guess my question is and they've done they they've actually done this before or are they planning to do it?
>> I'm I'm not here to purport to speak for them, which is why I think they need to be here in the room and they were not told to be here so they're not here.
>> So, we're going to we're going to move the discussion on because we don't have representatives here. If >> Madam Chair, yes, >> can I just note this is not the first time we've discussed this. We discussed it in the last cycle as well, but we did not do it. And and so we're back to add more specificity. This is there's no shock to anybody that this has been an ongoing discussion since at least the last I don't even know what year it is anymore. Two at least two cycles. And so we keep punting the ball on pro on providing specificity. But this this is shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that we've been discussing because we've been discussing it for the last eight years at least.
Well, and I I just want to add we we notified the full DNC membership of this meeting. We've been working our way through each rule consistently, one by one, and they knew like individuals knew this was happening. We received outreach from some of those state parties. I think we need to continue this conversation and settle this vote on this and continue moving forward today so we can continue getting rules done.
>> If we can finish our discussion, Alicia, >> thank you. Um, this is a very heated conversation and I am sensitive to uh the folks in the room who feel like this is a ban and that is not the um message that we want to send. I'm wondering if it might be useful for us to move on with the conversation for the folks who feel like it's a ban to propose alternate language for us to consider um that would I think educate us um because I'm not seeing this as a ban um but they feel very strongly about it. Maybe they should offer alternate language so that we can kind of get off the dime.
Okay, David.
>> David McDonald Washington. Consistent with um my earlier statement that I was not going to repeat things I'd said to the committee before and I'm not advocating one way or the other for rank choice voting in context of this amendment. I do want to um draw everybody's attention to the potential side effects of this amendment. Maine has a statute.
Maine has a statute that says that they will keep counting.
We have a rule 14H that says the non-binding portion of a presidential primary is not uh a step in the delegate selection process and is considered detrimental. State parties must take steps to educate the public that a non prebinding presidential preference event is meaningless and state parties and presidential candidates should take all steps possible not to participate. If Maine says it's going to keep counting, but it, you know, if we just want to use the first round, that's up to the party.
But Maine is going to keep counting and publish the results. 14H requires the main party to say nobody campaign in Maine. Presidential candidates stay out of Maine because it's got this uh straw contest. It's one of the reasons I think a ban is a problem as opposed to trying to address this when it comes up. If another state says, you know, our state, we don't want to change our our counting mechanisms for you. We'll give you the results of all the rounds. You decide, you know, stop at the first round. That's your business. But we're going to publish the rest. Then we have to deal with 14H and the affirmative requirement that pres that presidential candidates be urged not to participate in some of these states. just doing a flatout ban, you know, uh creates all these risks of of confrontation um or confusion that are different than the risk when you're you're talking about what's the specific implementation. And that's why I oppose this amendment irrespective of where you stand on rank choice choice voting. I I know there are lots of, you know, flavors and other things. It's got benefits. It's got negatives. It's confusing. It's this that. We've heard all that. But a flatout ban um is convenient. It makes everybody go home and think we're never going to talk about this again. But I don't think that's the reality. And I think the next time we talk about it could be in a much messier situation. And I would vote against it. But yeah, I've said my piece. We'll move on.
>> Joanne.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. Joan Daell, New Hampshire. I am confused. I will admit that about rank choice voting. So my question is, what is the harm if this language is not included?
What problem did we have?
Or is this an anticipation of a problem?
I think we heard the bishop recount the last two cycles of this being discussed and discussed and there had been no resolution to rank choice voting or not and I think it was our member Frank who decided to offer some language and we have not voted on that language yet. So I mean I think everybody has had the opportunity to provide their input to rank choice voting and it is as we can see a very robust conversation but it is not like this conversation is going away. I mean I applaud Frank for at least attempting to get us to a resolution.
And I hear some of the language banned and all of this, but I I specifically and I will before we vote on this, I will ask this for for this rule to be read again so that people can understand and be clear about the language in which they are passing or not passing. But this conversation has to come to some conclusion. The plane has to land somewhere. under I completely understand and I actually agree with that. Um and I have been part of those many of those discussions in the past. But I guess my quest my question is if if this language is solving for something that happened and this is our remedy for that as opposed to is this anticipating what could occur.
>> I will the author to speak to that.
>> Thank you. It's a fair question. The answer is both. I mean, four years ago, we looked at Maine. Maine said, "We want to ignore your threshold that's been in your rules for 30 years, and we were going to go and count." So, only the top two um uh candidates get delegates. Then what happened was there was only one candidate. He got over 50%. So, the rank choice didn't apply. But Maine is one state where we will have to deal with that issue. and this suggested solution of dealing with that issue and that is just counting the first pass only, the first round only. And I I just I disagree with my good friend David. I don't think that makes the whole thing uh a beauty contest or a straw poll. The the first count is effective. The other counts are not. And so state party should tell people when when the state board of elections says that only two candidates got delegates, they're wrong.
that the party's process of allocating delegates according to the first round applies. Then the second question, are we also trying to plan ahead? Yes, because I think I I think many state legislators don't understand the details of our delegate selection process and it's an effort to get out ahead of it and let states know that this will that again you can do rank choice voting for dog catcher or whatever but is this doesn't uh fit with our system and it's going to create a problem with getting your state delegate selection plan accepted by the DNC and this provides notice in advance given the efforts to get state legislators to adopt similar bills. So the answer to the question is both. We're trying to it addresses how to deal with a state like Maine and it tries to discourage states like Maine so we don't have to deal with them in the future.
Um Steph come in from New Jersey. For what it's worth, I do have language that would provide the guardrails. I just wasn't sure of the appropriate time to bring it up. It is very extensive and I'd be happy to send that to party affairs, but it it would take a long time to go through.
I'd be happy to I'll send it over to you, but it is long, so I do think tableling might still be in our best interest.
>> Well, that was voted down. Carol, >> thank you. Um, a couple of things. When we get to 14H, perhaps we should make clear that 14H applies to straw polls and and not to uh to what we're talking about today. I I wish that my state had rank choice voting instead of runoffs in our legislative elections, our county council elections, our statewide elections. It would make it it would make everybody's life easier if we had that. But in this context, the the the real thing I want to say is I've I've heard a couple of people say that we're trying to disenfranchise voters in places where they use rank choice voting. Disenfranchise is a really strong word in the southern states. Um, we're not disenfranchising anybody who whose state normally uses rank choice voting. You still get one vote. That's all I get in my state without rank choice voting. One vote in the delegate selection process. Um, and and you know, disenfranchise. We used to do that to people, but but we're not doing that here. We're giving you just what every other state has, one vote in a presidential primary. So, um the let's don't use that word again, but it it just seems to me that this election this this language just it doesn't ban anything. It just says we're only counting the first ballot and you're only counting my first ballot. Thank you, >> Donna.
I I just want to clarify for uh this conversation that DC residents uh voted overwhelmingly in a presidential year in November 24 to um allow rank choice voting. This is the first election where rank choice voting will be conducted. uh initiative 83 which essentially opens up our primary to independents and others is the first time that we've had this system in place. Um so I don't know how much we can learn from it until we actually we're in the process of going through it. But I do know that the DC Democratic Party and most of the DC Democratic officials opposed it. Um, I don't want to get into the weeds of all of the minations back and forth. The DC council, as you all know, uh, by law had to submit it. Congress reviewed it.
Congress did not oppose it. So, as of March of, uh, last year, um, it it it is to be implemented in this first ever election where we have an open mayoral seat, a open uh, uh, seat for delegate or member of Congress. Uh, and this is the first of our of its kind in Washington DC. And I'll allow Mr. Wilson and others from the DC Democratic Party uh, at some point to give you the results after we've had our election this in a couple of weeks.
>> Okay. So, it appears that Donna is the last person.
I'm sorry.
Arty.
>> Thank you, Madam Co-chair. Um, Arty Blanco, Nevada. Um, I think we have heard from members of this committee, Bishop Dory, Miss Fowler, and others that have really pinpointed key con key reasons why we need and we we should move forward with this language that Mr. Leon has presented to this committee.
This has been a discussion for at least two cycles that I've been a member of the RBC.
We've continued to punt and punt. And the more I hear this, I'm not sure if it's really about the voters at times.
That's how, you know, challenging it is to to be in this discussion here. But I appreciate that we're having this discussion and I am appreciating that new members of this committee are now able to voice their positions as well. So I appreciate that and we've had the time for me as someone from Nevada.
We Neadans have made this decision for us in our state.
But we have a lot of work to do. This is about our presidential primary nominating process, delegate selection process. We need to move forward because we have a lot of work to do to continue to do on this committee when others, you know, some of us we feel we've got a voice. We're going to have conference calls, online calls, Zoom calls for meetings. We're going to have two more meetings in June and in July. We know we have a lot of work. I feel that now is the time to just pass this motion so that we can then move forward and be ready for the rest of this process. We have to keep our eyes on the prize which is the general election of 2028 and how we are setting ourselves up for success as a party in our nominating process that we set as a committee. So thank you.
>> Thank you Arty.
Seeing no further discussion, we're going to move Oh, Gary.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, the chair had solicited uh alternative language and it has been given to staff and I think that to be fully informed on a vote for this that we should see the alternative language first. Thank you.
>> You guys get the language and what would be Yeah. Sure.
>> Give us a second. They're trying to work out the technical, but we still have a motion that is on the floor that we're going to move to vote on even with seeing the language because it was not in addition to a replacement of.
>> So, we'll go ahead and vote on 14A.
all those.
>> Madam Chair, um just a clarification. So are you asking because nobody made a motion for Stephanie's um language that she submitted that we're moving forward, but to make to support to put the motion on, wouldn't we have to see it? Is there a reason why um you we just can't pause for a second?
>> Did you want to make a motion? Was it a motion or you just wanted to sub you submitted language? You did not clarify.
Okay, >> we got >> we substitute.
>> So is this a substitute?
>> Yeah, but >> point of clarification.
>> Um, madame chair.
>> Yes, >> I um >> give us a second. Andre, just give us one second.
>> Yes.
Yeah, we don't know.
>> Yeah.
>> No language in here that changes 14A.
>> Oh, so Steph since Well, we're we're working on getting the language up. Is this a substitute? Is this in addition to what what exactly does your language because we have not seen it. No, >> it's a motion to substitute. Madam Chair, >> it's a substitute.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> If the motion is to amend 14A and this is to 14 instead.
>> Oh, so she's on 14B.
>> Well, we Okay, this is 14B. This is not even 14A.
I think it's still in spirit of the rule like it's still part of it. So I think that it would be to substitute so that it's not the first part. It would be clarification for this like for the rest of the >> vote on the first one.
>> I did say it was very long. I did warn everyone.
>> Say that. Why don't you just say it out loud? You can just Give us a second step.
There should be more.
>> It goes into D steps one and two and then E as well.
>> Oh, wait. There's more.
Helen's going to give a parliamentary procedure on this on how we're going to move forward.
>> The discussion with the chair is as follows.
You have a pending amendment which has been discussed to 14A.
you have a proposed amendment which we would we assume based on the discussion would get a second. Okay.
So the determination of the chair has is that if the proposed amendment to A is adopted then the proposed amendment currently showing on the screen would be out of order because it's completely inconsistent with the adoption of A. If if A is rejected, then you would have an opportunity to consider what is on the screen.
May I have a a point of uh I guess it's uh it's either information or inquiry, but um given that the chair's ruling would be that if Frank's amendment passes um the language that Stephanie submitted would be out of order. Um, is it uh still the case that um someone who votes in favor of Frank's amendment could later move to reconsider that vote in order to allow Stephanie's amendment to be considered at the next session or meeting.
Excuse my smile, but as you know, that's what I refer to as the Robert Dole rule in the United States Senate, where when his folk were missing, he voted with the majority in order, and he did it on a regular basis in order to move to reconsider the next day.
We're going to move to vote on rule 14A as submitted by Frank Leon.
>> Um, sorry, can we switch back to the delegate selection rules on the screen share >> 14A. So we will have Sham reread this so people are clear.
14A scroll up. So the amendment is to add the language no ballot used for purposes of allocation of delegates among presidential preference shall permit voters to express more than one presidential preference. Where state law provides for multiple presidential preferences in a primary. Only the first round will be considered for delegate allocation purposes.
All those in favor of rule 14A say I.
>> I.
>> Those opposed say nay.
>> Nay.
>> It appears the eyes have it. But if we want to be clear, we can ask everyone that said I to raise their hands and we can count.
So we have 28 nays.
28 to 50. It looks like the eyes have it for 14A.
>> Madam chair, before you move on, to avoid confusion since I raised my hand in both instances. My proxy voted one way and I voted the other. We are on both sides of the issue and if necessary that to make a motion for reconsideration, we're eligible on either side.
>> Very honest of him. That's very nice.
>> Madam Chair, what was the total please?
Again, >> the total vote >> 28.
>> I'm sorry. 28 yes and 14 nay.
>> David, it was your vote though that prevailed. Was on the prevailing side.
>> Yeah.
>> But for the best meeting of my life, I actually won one. You know, didn't matter which one.
>> He went either way.
It's called a win-win.
>> We're going to move to 14B >> Gary Gary Shay California. I had a minor amendment to this one and it's about um the last sentence. I would like to uh change that last sentence so that it reads um in accordance with section F comma state shall have a threshold of 15%. Instead of this not greater than not less than you know consolidate the language there >> and I gave that language to Sham earlier.
>> Okay.
>> Any discussion around that hearing? No discussion.
Accept it.
14 C.
>> I'm sorry. Okay, Wendy, >> I apologize. Um, so B is to my recollection in the first instance, we've talked about the 15% threshold.
um just for >> talking about it quite a bit today.
>> I mean, is this a but would this be the place for us to discuss whether we wanted to maintain a 15% rule or potentially lower the threshold since there going to be so many candidates?
>> Is that is that a motion or is that the discussion? Are you just making a point?
>> I'm just I'm asking >> um >> for us to inquiry >> Sure. parliamentary inquiry then.
>> Yeah. Does anybody want to >> discuss the history of the 15% threshold?
>> Sure.
>> It seems pretty high to me when we're gonna the early states will have >> No, she she just wants to discuss.
>> Um I can I can talk a little bit about that. I mean we've had thresholds as high as 25%.
At some point there was a lot of support along for 20% threshold which I personally would favor a slightly higher threshold. Here's the problem I see with the 15% threshold. I want to go right to the cont content of this. Um there are many delegate districts that have only three delegates.
Okay, four delegates. That's because there's a lot of congressional districts that are Republican districts and they just never, you know, they just don't have enough of a Democratic vote to get a lot of delegates. And in those districts, nobody with 16% ever gets a delegate.
>> So we we have this idea that somehow if you get 15%, you're going to get a delegate. It just doesn't happen. you know, it just doesn't happen mathematically unless you're maybe in the handful of districts that get nine delegates, and those are almost all majority minority districts, which thank you Republican party. Um, they've now bust busted up. So, um, the the illusion of a 15% is I mean, it is just an illusion. It it just is never never happens. So, I think it is much more realistic to move it to say a 20% threshold, particularly in when we're looking at races that there's going to be just a ton of candidates. Um, and so I I like this. It has always been argued that this would be greater inclusion, right? And that was the rationale for 15%. The problem is that nobody ever nobody ever gets included under a 15% in a multicandidate race anyway.
>> Um, no, it doesn't even work out at that large, but at the district level, it really doesn't work out. Yeah. So, I I mean, I would love to have I would love to see a 20% threshold. I think of all the years when we should do it, this is this is the time. So, I thank you for bringing it up.
I'm sorry. We can move on to C.
>> Yes.
>> No.
>> No. Because she was just she wanted to discuss. Yes. No motion.
Um, for section C, it there isn't a change. C used to be um at the end of rule 14 and um in reviewing just the the sequential nature of this rule, it felt like this language made more sense um to include here and not after we start going through the tabulation process.
There's no substantive change.
Any discussion around C D step >> um just Steph complain we in New Jersey just another his her just switching to their in line 77.
>> Well >> which >> sorry uh D the first line of D um presidential candidate or his her should switch to there just to be consistent.
Okay.
Grammatical change.
Anything else? E has a lots of parts to it.
Okay.
F Any discussion on FG uh Carol?
>> Oh, I anticipated H with the scroll polls. Okay.
So, we'll go on to H.
>> Okay. Um, when when we talked about this before, um, that there was a little bit of confusion and and I believe I'm pretty sure that H was put in here to to prevent state parties from holding straw polls um, and from because the candidates, the campaigns despise straw polls. Um, a couple of question, a couple of maybe clarifications when we say the non-binding advisable advisory presidential preference portion of primaries, should we say of state primaries or of state and local? Isn't that what we're talking about? That you tack a straw pole onto your regular primary? Is that what this is? What is the nonbinding advisory portion of a primary?
uh the in the first >> historian Rick doesn't have >> line 47 and 48 I don't know what an advisory portion of a primary is >> David did you have were you >> and should we clarify just by putting in this whole section we don't like straw polloles or or something to make it clear that we are talking about straw polls and not >> rank choice voting.
>> Yeah. Okay. We will receive this not please. So Frank I mean David did you want to >> Yeah. So um Frank David McDonald Washington um two things. Uh and I after I answered the question and give my comment I'm going to move to table this particular section for discussion when people have had time to understand it um to the next session. But I do do want to get an answer to your question. I have always interpreted it. I was not here when it was put in, but understood it to mean we do not want straw holes or advisory ballots or anything that impeaches the result that we have. So, we don't we we do not want um a circumstance where we have a 15% threshold and the campaigns issue a press release that candidate A won a narrowly contested content contest in Iowa and has the momentum going on to the next state and then the Iowa newspapers say, "Yeah, yeah, that's just the party rules, but actually the citizens of Iowa strongly prefer candidate B because you know whatever."
And so it it it more generally applies than I think you're speaking about. And there is a risk in connection with a state that is using rank choice voting and continues to count that we the campaigns issue a press release um that says so and so won the the delegates and then at the same time the state is indicating um that the public actually prefers something different. I've seen a variant of this in uh Washington in connection with Sanders and Clinton where we were still a precinct caucus state. Sanders overwhelmingly won um the precinct caucuses and the delegates. He he won 70%. It wasn't clear to me that night that Clinton was going to get any delegates, but then a week later they had a presidential preference primary that the party would not recognize and Clinton won overwhelmingly 55. And so you get into that dynamic. There's not necessarily a a good answer to this and we did raise it with with Maine that last time I think from our point of view they needed to stop counting at the first round. It wasn't it it wasn't that they could keep counting it uh and just tell us to use what we wanted. They needed to stop counting but it's way too late in the day and people rushing for planes I think for us to try to make a decision on how to address this issue.
And therefore I would move to table it to the >> this this portion of 14. I'm not moving to table 14 in general.
>> Clarify some definitions in this. Um I don't know. I mean I I get why we don't want to have straw polls, but in in South Carolina, the Republicans have straw poles all the time. Their county parties will have a a barbecue and straw poll and the um and the presidential candidates all buy lots of tickets and come so they can, you know, so people will vote in their straw poll. Well, that's what I thought we were trying to do and our county parties will sometimes say, "Oh, we're going to have a straw poll and we're going to charge everybody $15." And we have to go in and say, "Stop. You can't do that." So, but I do think some clearer language. Um, >> so are you seconding David's motion to table?
>> Okay. All in favor of tableabling 14H?
Those opposed.
I think the eyes have it. So 14H will be tabled.
Well, this concludes our meeting. So maybe >> yes. So with that, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn.
>> All in favor say I.
>> Those opposed? I'm sure nobody will. And thank you all again. I know this has been a long three days, but you have been spectacular and thank you very much for everything.
Okay.
関連おすすめ
Guess Which Country Trump Is Threatening To Bomb Next! w/ Chris Hedges
thejimmydoreshow
5K views•2026-05-30
Russia Clashes With Romania, U.S. And EU At Security Council Meeting | DWS News | AC1F
dwsofficial
344 views•2026-06-02
Independence Calendar (Episode #25) - With Cory Morgan & Keith Wilson
JohnBoltonAB
3K views•2026-05-31
BREAKING: TRUMP ADMITS HE LIED ON CIA
DarrenMonroePolitics
10K views•2026-06-01
Why Reynosa Is Burning Now: The Truth Explained
THEFACTFACTORYF
560 views•2026-05-30
भिंत #rohitpawar#sharadpawar#ajitpawar#supriyasule#baramati #supriyasulefc#baramatikar#ncp#ncpsp
Aapla_Maharashtraa
9K views•2026-06-02
Bengal News | Another TMC MP Attacked In Bengal A Day After Assault On Abhishek Banerjee
NDTV
80K views•2026-05-31
Karnataka's Biggest Leadership Shift! What Changes Under DK Shivakumar? | South Central | ET Now
ETNow
205 views•2026-06-01
