In Iowa, the first stop on the presidential campaign trail, finding a candidate is easy. Registering a preference for one is harder. Instead of casting ballots at primaries, Iowans attend precinct caucuses, which will be held this year at 7 p.m. on Monday, February 3. At these lengthy, crowded meetings, political party members gather to discuss platforms, elect local officials, and select delegates to represent the group’s candidate preferences at the county level.
Caucuses demand a voter’s in-person presence for a specific block of time, usually at least two hours. Historically, there have been no exceptions — Iowans not present at their caucuses when they begin were not allowed to participate. If they were able to get to their caucus sites, attendees then had to stand for several hours in an abrasively loud environment, among other requirements. Understandably, not all Iowans had the ability to do so.
So, at the urging of the Democratic National Committee, the Iowa Democratic Party developed a plan to make the 2020 nomination process more accessible with virtual caucuses, a form of absentee participation by phone. However, the DNC rejected the plan in late summer due to hacking concerns. As a replacement, the IDP expanded the role of satellite caucuses, meetings held at alternate times and locations to accommodate Iowans unable to attend a precinct caucus.
These confusing and little-researched satellite caucuses increase accessibility, but they do so insufficiently. Party resources should instead be spent supporting Democratic voters nationwide in primary systems the DNC already knows how to navigate, rather than narrowly focusing on new systems in a small, overwhelmingly white state. In order to live up to its democratic values, the IDP will eventually need to bite the bullet and transition to a presidential primary.
Understanding the Caucus Process
Iowa caucuses have been a fixture of presidential election cycles for well over a century. The rules which govern the little-known events are both arcane and somewhat archaic. Traditionally, Iowans had one day, one time, and one place to caucus. Although the introduction of satellite caucuses has expanded these options, the rules of caucusing remain largely the same. During the Democratic contests, attendees form groups in support of each candidate, hoping to exceed the viability threshold of 15 percent of those caucusing, which would then allow them to possibly send delegates to countywide meetings. Supporters then try to convince friends and neighbors, especially those whose first choices are not viable, to “realign” and switch to their team.
Not all Iowans have been able to participate, however. “Obviously, if a person is tremendously determined, they can probably find a way to caucus,” Rod Sullivan, former chair of the Johnson County Democratic Party and current county supervisor, explained to the HPR. “But it shouldn’t have to require extraordinary effort in our country to have your voice heard.” In Iowa, it often does. Second shift workers, elderly voters facing transportation difficulties, and families who cannot afford childcare are a few of the groups who struggle to attend caucuses. College students, too, are disproportionately affected. “That’s kind of a big money thing, to get a flight home just for that,” Allie Ollila, an Iowa native and current student at Washington University in St. Louis, told the HPR. These undue financial barriers limit civic engagement across many demographic groups.
State parties’ caucuses also often fail to adequately consider the needs of Iowans with disabilities. In an interview with the HPR, Executive Director of Disability Rights Iowa Jane Hudson cited limited handicapped parking, the lack of ASL interpreters or captioning, and the absence of seating as among the numerous challenges faced by the 20 percent of Iowans with a disability. In primary systems, by contrast, voters arriving at various times throughout the day keeps parking lots less full, accessible voting machines replace live interpreters, and voting does not require prolonged physical activity.
Hudson also pointed out caucus cacophony as a problem for people with psychiatric issues or autism. Her colleague, Voting Outreach Coordinator Anne Matte, explained to the HPR, “If you had PTSD or anxiety or sense issues, [caucusing] would have been extremely overwhelming.” The noise, crowds, and chaos are a problem that continues to worsen as overall voter turnout increases due to high enthusiasm in recent presidential cycles.
Logistical concerns make caucusing onerous, too. Unexpected obstacles like heavy snow or stomach flu can keep Iowans home. As Drake University political science professor Dr. Dennis J. Goldford told the HPR, “You have to hope that you’re not sick, the car starts, there’s no flat tire, the baby’s not sick, the babysitter shows up.” Whereas these spur-of-the-moment hurdles are difficult to plan around, day-long voting in primaries gives participants more flexibility to adapt to circumstances.
Combined, the challenges posed by the caucus system reduce participation in the nomination process, especially for specific demographics. Consequently, the exalted caucus results are not necessarily an accurate reflection of all eligible Iowans’ preferences.
The Rise and Fall of the Virtual Caucus
While it is unclear whether the IDP is legally obligated to ensure caucus accessibility, the DNC’s Unity Reform Commission and Rules and Bylaws Committee required caucus states to provide absentee participation options in 2020. Other caucus states used early voting and mailed ballots, but Iowa eschewed any such hallmarks of primary contests to avoid challenging New Hampshire’s legally protected first-in-the-nation primary.
Instead, the state planned virtual telephone caucuses. Voters would have called into any of six virtual caucuses in the days preceding February 3, entered PINs, and recorded preferences, without negotiation or realignment. Twenty-eight percent of likely voters expressed an intention to caucus virtually. The system would have promoted caucus participation for Iowans who are young and/or economically disadvantaged, lack a college education, do not speak English as their first language, and have disabilities, as well as many others unable to get to their precinct caucus.
Though virtual caucuses initially seemed an effective solution, the DNC determined that they were insufficiently secure after cybersecurity experts hacked a DNC conference call in August. A memo from Chief Security Officer Bob Lord and Chief Technology Officer Nellwynn Thomas stated, “We base our recommendation in significant part on the current cybersecurity climate,” referencing the 2016 Russian hack of DNC emails and recent warnings of further meddling from former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats.
Iowa Democrats pushed back against the memo, claiming that their partially developed system was different from that of the hacked call and in some cases accusing the DNC of purposely sabotaging caucus accessibility to encourage Iowa to switch to a better-attended primary contest. However, Dr. Herb Lin, a cybersecurity fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, noted in an interview with the HPR that if hacking concerns weaken faith in caucus results, they have already made the system unviable: “The purpose of an election is to persuade the loser that he lost fair and square,” said Lin. “People are saying, ‘No, no, it’s not realistic, it’s not a fair test,’ and so on, but that still doesn’t inspire confidence.” The concerns’ validity, then, matters less than their psychological effect on the electorate.
While the IDP promises to rectify its plan in 2024, experts doubt that four years will be enough time to secure virtual caucuses. As Princeton University computer science professor Dr. Jonathan Mayer, a former technological advisor to Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), told the HPR in an emailed statement, “There is, at present, no technical means of adequately addressing the security risks associated with remote electronic voting. There would need to be breakthroughs in multiple areas of information security [which] do not appear to be forthcoming.” Even if Democrats succeed, Hudson doubts that virtual caucuses are a silver bullet: “People with dexterity impairments may not be able to use their phones to vote. People with short-term memories may not be able to go through all [the] steps [of a caucus].” For now, at least, the IDP and DNC must develop alternatives for caucus accessibility.
Shortcomings of the Satellite Caucuses
To meet DNC requirements by a September deadline, the IDP replaced virtual caucuses with a plan for satellite caucuses, official meetings run with standard procedures but held at alternate times and/or locations for workers, students, and other Iowans unable to attend their precinct caucuses. Democrats first tested the system in 2016 for four locations with “a clear need” for satellite sites. They expanded it this cycle, approving 99 satellites including more than 20 out-of-state sites and three international sites.
Yet satellites are far from a complete solution. “Color me skeptical,” Goldford said of the idea that these changes will significantly impact voter turnout. Insufficient follow-through on accessibility measures from the IDP is an exacerbating factor. The IDP and DNC announced this fall that they would bring in an accessibility director and two accessibility organizers. However, these positions remained unfulfilled until roughly a month before caucus day. Also, according to Matte and Hudson, site applicants needed to measure their proposed location’s dimensions, a task impossible for some Iowans with physical disabilities. If the IDP wants to improve accessibility, Matte said, “they have to talk to the community … and not just be like, ‘Well, we’re trying.’ Well, you could reach out to us.”
The release of satellite locations in late December also reduced the chance of a meaningful increase in voter turnout because it provided limited time to publicize the new system. Iowa resident and frequent caucus-goer Nikki Herbst, who spends half the year in Florida for mental health reasons and was unable to travel home to caucus, told the HPR that she contacted Florida’s Democratic Party and asked for updates about remote caucusing. Herbst reported that no one followed up with her. “I haven’t seen anything in the media about it recently,” she added, unaware that by that time, the four satellite locations in Florida had been announced more than a week earlier.
Timing was also a challenge for Kevin Drahos, a first-year student at the University of Iowa and executive team member for its civic engagement initiative Hawk the Vote, which organized a campus satellite caucus. “The Democratic Party, to be honest, is taking a while to release details,” he explained to the HPR. “We’re still trying to hash out … how we’re going to market this [caucus] when we only have two weeks once school starts to let students know about [it].” Drahos and other organizers feel that they lack adequate time to implement the voter education needed to make the complicated system accessible to youth.
Notably, some groups’ caucus woes are not addressed by the satellite system at all. Offering more caucusing time and location options does not necessarily help families who are unable to secure childcare or workers who cannot afford to find a few hours of free time in their schedules. Undoubtedly, satellites are a step in the right direction, but they fall short of making voting accessible to all Iowa voters.
The Accessible Path Forward
Despite the difficulties, Iowans like their caucuses. “I don’t think Iowans are somehow ordained by God to have to be first,” Sullivan admitted. “I do, however, feel like Iowa does a very good job.” The need for grassroots organizing and the affordability of campaigning in the Hawkeye State allow relatively unknown candidates to make an impression. Additionally, the caucuses are crucial for Iowa’s economy, with campaign workers and political tourists spending large amounts on transportation, lodging, food, media, and more. “I’ve heard figures of up to thirty million dollars,” said Goldford of this spending. He also noted that the caucuses give Iowa national relevance. “The day after the caucuses, Iowa falls off the face of the earth, as far as the rest of the country is concerned,” he declared.
Still, the caucuses limit opportunity for civic engagement for many disadvantaged groups in Iowa. Attempting to design an accessible caucus system with uncertain results would sap the DNC of resources; moving to a primary system is a quicker, cheaper, and surer way to make Iowa’s stage of the nomination process inclusive. Primaries allow for absentee, early, and all-day voting, require only a few minutes of time, and have well-researched strategies for accessibility.
While a plurality — 43 percent — of Iowans would be disappointed, 39 percent would be in support of the switch to a primary, according to polling by the Des Moines Register. Perhaps this substantial support reflects the understanding that a primary system would be more representative of the will of the people. As of now, the caucuses’ outcomes, which shape the rest of the nomination process, are determined by only 20 percent of eligible Iowans, according to Goldford. “Americans talk a lot about the right to vote, but we don’t really mean it,” he said. If the IDP finds the courage to move to a system in which more Iowans can make their voices heard, it has the opportunity to “mean it” just a little bit more.
Image Credit 1: Unsplash / Tanner Van Dera
Image Credit 2: Unsplash / Element5 Digital
