vlog

Skip to content
NOWCAST vlog News at 5am Weekend Mornings
Live Now
Advertisement

State law at odds with DNC committee vote creates confusion for Iowa caucus fate

Iowa Democrats promise to "follow state law" which requires holding the first-in-the-nation caucus. That decision would likely defy DNC commands, resulting in

State law at odds with DNC committee vote creates confusion for Iowa caucus fate

Iowa Democrats promise to "follow state law" which requires holding the first-in-the-nation caucus. That decision would likely defy DNC commands, resulting in

MAKE. AMANDA. STEVE, THIS IS TOUGH FOR IOWA DEMOCRATS RIGHT NOW. THEY HAVE TWO OPTIONS. AND THOSE OPTIONS SEEM TO BE AT ODDS WITH EACH OTHER. THEY CAN EITHER FOLLOW STATE LAW AND BREAK DNC RULES OR THEY CAN FOLLOW THE DNC AND BREAK STATE LAW. AND THAT STATE LAW IS VERY CLEAR. YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE IOWA CODE RIGHT HERE. IT SAYS IOWA HAS TO HOLD ITS CAUCUSES EIGHT DAYS BEFORE ANY OTHER STATES NOMINATING PROCESS. THERE’S ALSO A DATE REQUIREMENT. IOWA HAS TO GO NO LATER THAN THE FOURTH MONDAY IN FEBRUARY. RIGHT NOW, IOWA DEMOCRATS SAY THEY WILL FOLLOW THIS STATE LAW IN A BIT OF A LIMBO. I MEAN, WE HAVE A STATE LAW THAT SAYS IF WE WILL GO FIRST, IOWA GOING FIRST MEANS DEFYING NATIONAL DEMOCRATS WHO PROMISE TO PUNISH ANY STATE THAT BREAKS THEIR RULES FIRST. AND ANY STATE THAT IS GOING OUTSIDE OF THE WINDOW AUTOMATICALLY LOSES HALF THEIR DELEGATES. AND THE DNC RULES AND BYLAWS COMMITTEE IS INCREASING THE STAKES, APPROVING EVEN HARSHER CONSEQUENCE. IS ANY CANDIDATE THAT VIOLATES THAT RULE AND PUTS THEIR NAME ON THE BALLOT OR CAMPAIGNS IN A STATE THAT IS VIOLATING THE WINDOWS, RECEIVES NO PLEDGED DELEGATES OR DELEGATE VOTES FROM THAT STATE? THE NATIONAL CHAIR IS ALSO EMPOWERED TO TAKE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE STEPS TO ENFORCE THESE RULES. BUT RIGHT NOW, IOWA DEMOCRATS SAY THEY WILL FOLLOW STATE LAW, IGNORE THE DNC AND GOING FIRST ANYWAYS. IT’S NOT A MATTER OF FIGHTING. I MEAN, OUR LAW SAYS HERE’S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO AND WE WILL DO THAT. SOME IOWANS SAY THAT’S THE WRONG CHOICE. AND IT’S SAD THAT IOWA THINKS THAT SHOULD DESERVE TO BE FIRST, BECAUSE REALLY, I DON’T THEY’RE NOT REALLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OF OUR CITIZENSHIP. YOU KNOW WHAT NATIONAL CANDIDATE WOULD BOTHER TO COME TO IOWA OR BOTHER TO CAUCUS OR WANT TO HAVE CAUCUSES IN IOWA FIRST IF THEY’RE NOT FOLLOWING THE DNC. I MEAN, THE DNC REPRESENTS THE, YOU KNOW, THE NATIONAL POLITICS. IF IOWA DEMOCRATS DO WHAT THE DNC WANTS, THEY’LL BREAK A STATE LAW, A LAW THAT’S UNLIKELY TO CHANGE WITH A REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED LEGISLATURE AND REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR WHO BOTH WANT IOWA TO KEEP ITS FIRST IN THE NATION SPOT. WELL, THAT ONE’S GOING TO FALL UNDER THE NEW ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SHE WILL BE THE ONE WHO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THAT. IF THAT HAPPENS, WE ASKED BYRD’S OFFICE WHAT SHE WOULD DO, BUT THEY DID NOT RETURN OUR REQUEST FOR COMMENT. IOWA’S CURRENT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEMOCRAT TOM MILLER, GAVE HIS OPINION IN 1996 ON WHETHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN EVEN ENFORCE THAT STATE LAW. YOU CAN SEE THAT OPINION RIGHT HERE. MILLER ARGUED IT WOULD LIKELY BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO FORCE POLITICAL PARTIES TO FOLLOW THE IOWA STATE LAW AND CHANGE THE DATE OF THEIR CAUCUSES. NOW, IT’S UNCLEAR IF REPUBLICAN BRENNA BIRD, WHO WIL
Advertisement
State law at odds with DNC committee vote creates confusion for Iowa caucus fate

Iowa Democrats promise to "follow state law" which requires holding the first-in-the-nation caucus. That decision would likely defy DNC commands, resulting in

A Democratic National Committee group focused on rules and bylaws voted last Friday to strip Iowa of its first-in-the-nation caucus status and drop it from the early window entirely. Following a recommendation from President Joe Biden, the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee approved a plan to rearrange the presidential nominating calendar, giving South Carolina the top spot. Following that, New Hampshire and Nevada will hold their primaries on the same day. Georgia goes next and Michigan is set to clinch the final spot in the early window. The decision leaves Iowa Democrats with two options that seem to be at odds: follow state law and defy DNC rules or follow the DNC's decision and break state law. Iowa code requires the state to hold caucuses "not later than the fourth Monday in February of each even-numbered year." It also requires Iowa to hold its caucuses "at least eight days earlier" than any other state's nominating process. "We're in a bit of a limbo," said Scott Brennan, the only Iowan on the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. "We have a state law that says that we will go first."Iowa going first means defying national Democrats who promise to punish any state that breaks their rules. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee established that any state that chooses to go earlier than they're supposed to will automatically lose half their delegates to the national convention. The committee approved changes to those rules, strengthening the DNC's power to keep state parties from falling out of line. "Any candidate that violates that rule and puts their name on the ballot or campaigns in a state that goes outside the window receives no pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state," said Graham Wilson, general counsel to the DNC. "The national chair is also empowered to take any national steps to enforce these rules," Wislon added. Iowa Democratic leadership promises to follow state law, ignoring the DNC's new state lineup and going first anyways. "It's not a matter of fighting," Iowa Democratic Party Chair Ross Wilburn said. "We have to comply with Iowa state legal requirements."If Iowa Democrats follow DNC guidance and move to the middle or back of the line, they'll break state law. The Republican-controlled legislature and Republican governor are unlikely to change Iowa's law, allowing Iowa Democrats to comply with DNC orders. Republicans are committed to keeping Iowa first."I don't think it was ever intended, when we passed that law, to put our either political party in Iowa in an awkward position," Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate said. "It was really to keep the National Party focused on not splitting this up."Pate said Iowa's Attorney General Elect, Republican Brenna Bird, could sue Iowa Democrats for breaking the law if they choose not to hold first-in-the-nation caucuses. "That one's going to fall under the new attorney general and she will be the one who will have a hard look at that," Pate said. In 1996, the Iowa Attorney General's office issued a statement on whether the state could legally require state parties to change the dates of their caucuses in order to comply with state law. "We believe that a court likely would rule that applying section 43.4 to require the Party to move its caucuses at this time is unconstitutional," the opinion found.It's unclear whether Bird holds the same opinion. vlog reached out to Bird's team, but they did not respond to the request for comment.

A Democratic National Committee group focused on rules and bylaws voted last Friday to strip Iowa of its first-in-the-nation caucus status and drop it from the early window entirely.

Following a recommendation from President Joe Biden, the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee approved a plan to rearrange the presidential nominating calendar, giving South Carolina the top spot. Following that, New Hampshire and Nevada will hold their primaries on the same day. Georgia goes next and Michigan is set to clinch the final spot in the early window.

Advertisement

The decision leaves Iowa Democrats with two options that seem to be at odds: follow state law and defy DNC rules or follow the DNC's decision and break state law.

Iowa code requires the state to hold caucuses "not later than the fourth Monday in February of each even-numbered year." It also requires Iowa to hold its caucuses "at least eight days earlier" than any other state's nominating process.

iowa code 43.4 requires iowa to hold first-in-the-nation caucuses.
Hearst Owned
Iowa code 43.4 requires Iowa to hold first-in-the-nation caucuses.

"We're in a bit of a limbo," said Scott Brennan, the only Iowan on the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. "We have a state law that says that we will go first."

Iowa going first means defying national Democrats who promise to punish any state that breaks their rules. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee established that any state that chooses to go earlier than they're supposed to will automatically lose half their delegates to the national convention.

The committee approved changes to those rules, strengthening the DNC's power to keep state parties from falling out of line.

"Any candidate that violates that rule and puts their name on the ballot or campaigns in a state that goes outside the window receives no pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state," said Graham Wilson, general counsel to the DNC.

"The national chair is also empowered to take any national steps to enforce these rules," Wislon added.

Iowa Democratic leadership promises to follow state law, ignoring the DNC's new state lineup and going first anyways. "It's not a matter of fighting," Iowa Democratic Party Chair Ross Wilburn said. "We have to comply with Iowa state legal requirements."

If Iowa Democrats follow DNC guidance and move to the middle or back of the line, they'll break state law.

The Republican-controlled legislature and Republican governor are unlikely to change Iowa's law, allowing Iowa Democrats to comply with DNC orders. Republicans are committed to keeping Iowa first.

"I don't think it was ever intended, when we passed that law, to put our either political party in Iowa in an awkward position," Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate said. "It was really to keep the National Party focused on not splitting this up."

Pate said Iowa's Attorney General Elect, Republican Brenna Bird, could sue Iowa Democrats for breaking the law if they choose not to hold first-in-the-nation caucuses.

"That one's going to fall under the new attorney general and she will be the one who will have a hard look at that," Pate said.

In 1996, the Iowa Attorney General's office issued a statement on whether the state could legally require state parties to change the dates of their caucuses in order to comply with state law.

"We believe that a court likely would rule that applying section 43.4 to require the Party to move its caucuses at this time is unconstitutional," the opinion found.

It's unclear whether Bird holds the same opinion. vlog reached out to Bird's team, but they did not respond to the request for comment.