The Iowa caucuses and political party leverage

The 2020 Democratic caucuses in Iowa ended with uncertainty, as an unvetted closed-source app from an undisclosed developer for reporting results was canned the night of the caucuses, and as some “inconsistencies” led to delayed reporting results. Already, obituaries for the Iowa caucuses are being written—even for the Republican caucuses, which were largely uncontested last night and have less of the dynamism and “realignment” of the Democratic caucuses.

As someone about to embark to the University of Iowa College of Law to teach election, I think about the Iowa caucuses a lot these days. And two common questions arise: why Iowa, and why caucuses? One shortcut answer is tradition—Iowa benefited from a first mover advantage after the disruption of the presidential selection process in the 1960s, and one can easily find plenty written on it.

But another answer is more complicated. Iowa benefits because the Democratic and Republican parties allow it to benefit—or, at least, have been unwilling to challenge the existing structure that has allowed it to benefit.

The Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee develop private sets of rules to decide how the party will choose its presidential nominee. It awards each state (and territory) a certain number of delegates to attend a presidential nominating convention. Those delegates must be chosen in each state pursuant to specific rules. And those rules are extensive.

Consider the Democratic Party rules. It includes timing, which includes Rule 12(a):

No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in March or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 29days before the first Tuesday in March;that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 21days before the first Tuesday in March; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 10days before the first Tuesday in March; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 3days before the first Tuesday in March.

These rules specifically privilege Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.

On top of this is New Hampshire, which has a statute that requires that its presidential preference primary happen before all other preference primaries. Because Iowa holds caucuses, it doesn’t run afoul of New Hampshire’s statute.

So why a caucus? Well, in part, (1) party rules privilege the Iowa caucuses in particular, and (2) caucuses allow it to precede New Hampshire.

Now, after last night, there will be deep soul searching in the Democratic Party (and, I think, the Republican Party) about whether such caucuses should remain. It would require not just to adjust Iowa, but to think about how New Hampshire and other states might react.

It has been deeply difficult for parties to get out of the traditional path-dependent practices of previous years. But this is a moment of leverage—never let a serious crisis go to waste.

And it’s worth reflecting on the leverage exerted by the Democratic Party in 2008. Then, Michigan and Florida attempted to defy party rules by holding early primaries. The Democratic Party rule said that delegates selected in this process would receive zero weight at the nominating convention. Very late in the process, they negotiated a half weighted process. Once Barack Obama was the apparent nominee despite losing Michigan and Florida, they were given full weight.

So, Michigan and Florida bucked the party’s rules—and, I think, in many sense, lost, only to “win” when it no longer mattered. And neither has attempted to buck party rules since.

I wonder if rules changes ahead of 2024 have this moment of leverage for the parties in the face of tradition or existing state rules. Maybe. There are many moving parties and vested interests, so time will tell how the aftermath of Iowa shakes out. But it will, I think, be primarily driven by a strong party desire and a strong willingness to adhere to whatever codification of that desire occurs. Whether that happens is an open question.