Final Final Change Commission Mtg: True Change – Goodbye Superdelegates!

On Wednesday, Dec 30^th, in a conference call, we finalized our change commission recommendations.  These recommendations address primary timing, caucuses and unpledged delegates.  Our recommendation now goes to the rules and bylaws committee (RBC) who will flesh out some of the implementation details and will then be voted on by the DNC body. 

Most significantly, I’m proud and honored to share with you that we’ve recommended eliminating the category of unpledged delegates (aka Superdelegates).  That’s right – no more superdelegates! 

In this post, I’ll share my thoughts and then, near the bottom, include links to other sections that have the details on the findings and recommendations – as well as the press release from the DNC.

I can still remember being completely frustrated that candidates were spending so much time courting these 900 or so individuals when they could be building up their support base for the general election – and wondering about this special status they had as unpledged delegates.

All that said – over the course of this commission (since June), I’ve come to better understand that superdelegates came about to provide seasoned supervision at the convention.  So – the question for the commission to solve was: how to eliminate the strange power that they had, but still have them at the convention.  Solution: give all of those who had previously been in that category (DNC members, democratic federal elected officials, democratic governors, past congressional leadership and past presidents/vice presidents) a choice either to be delegates in a new category called “National Party Leaders and Elected Officials” or to be a non-voting delegates.  The allocation of NPLEOs to the candidates will be based on the general delegate breakout.  Ie .  if 60% of the delegates in a state went for candidate A,  then 60% of the NPLEO slots would be allocated to that candidate.  If , however, 60% of those eligible to be NPLEOs do not want to pledge for the candidate, they can then become non-voting delegates. 

This raises plenty of questions – such as – how do you handle alternates for NPLEOs, for those who choose to be non-voting, do you backfill with other at-large delegates?  How will it differ for primary v. caucus states, etc…  Many of these details will still need to be ironed out by the Rules and Bylaws commission.  In fact, a number of these questions were posed during the final conf call session (see the raw notes here).  One question I know that folks will ask is: How does an NPLEO differ from a superdelegate?  In short, superdelegates could choose/designate their vote at any point during the nominating season – and change their minds at random.  NPLEOs will be allocated on a percentage basis after each state’s final breakout is known. 

And – how do you still make sure that there’s an insurance plan in place in case some wacky thing happens to make the candidate who comes out with the most delegates untenable as a general campaign candidate?  Basically – any pledged delegate still has the right to vote their conscience at the convention – so with those folks as delegates with voting rights, you’d still have that insurance plan in place.

So that’s Superdelegates.  As someone very involved in the caucuses, it’s also important I share a quick summary of the caucus recommendation.  In a nutshell – it’s to create a group who’ll identify and document best practices – and then have the RBC maintain those standards.  Fundamentally – it’s about respecting and maximize the value of the caucuses, while reducing the negatives.

Here are the findings and recommendations sections of the near final report (there were a couple of updates made from the last conf. call that’ll be submitted today – and I’ll post a link to that when it’s available)

• Primary & caucus timing
• Reducing unpledged (super) delegates
• Addressing caucus chaos and disenfranchisement

And here’s the press release from the DNC on the findings.

Here are links to my previous notes and analyses:

• Change commission meeting 1
• Change commission meeting 2
• Change commission meeting 3

I look forward to hearing/reading folks’ comments and thoughts – although the next steps are up to the RBC and then the DNC body in general.

(here’s a link to Frank Leonz’s posting on this as well)

Change Commission: Raw notes from final conf call

Under the plan – every category of unpledged delegate goes away.

Clyburn: What we’re doing is making a recommendation to the RBC for them to refine as appropriate.  Couple of areas for the Rules committee to look at closely:

Ie –  A state (ie SC) where it goes for candidate B, but a district goes for candidate A.  thus – the member representing that congressional district would need to pledge against their personal preference.  Therefore, what happens to that voting delegate’s seat?  Will it be vacant for someone else to fill?  Therefore, how will it get filled?  Probably need to say that, whatever transmittal is used – we need to make clear that there are a few things to still be fleshed out and refined.  A few scenarios that could be harrowing if not laid out how they are treated.

All members of the RBC will receive this and willing to have that conversation

Dan Blue: Clarification – eliminating “unpledged delegates”   – however they will become “pledged”? 

Jeff Berman: really eliminating unpledged. Converting unpledged into NPLEO delegates will pledge in accordance with statewide results.  Filing of pledges & procedures & paperwork will occur after statewide results are known.  That’ll happen after latter part of the process. RBC will clarify how that will occur. 

Interesting question raised around whether the candidates and/or the chairs/vice chairs should ever pledge. 

If they don’t want to/can’t pledge – they’ll be able to attend w/o voting- but have all other categories.

Meredith Smith (Oregon Chair) – comment on this: if chair/vice chair if chooses to remain unpledged and go non-voting, would they be in disfavor? 

Answer from Berman – no – plenty of reasons why not to pledge and now there will be an option for it to be fine.  Outcomes are not dictated by the NPLEOs, so not a big deal. 

Tom Miller – agrees with Jeff and goes back to the basics – that we don’t want a situation for a group of people to overturn the will of the people.  With this voting NPLEO role – will get more buy in from DNC and elected officials

Dan Blue brought up the initial question around whether there’d still be an insurance plan in place in case things went south with the presumed candidate.

Litigated in Kennedy Carter convention – that worst case, folks still have the ability to change their minds.  A “pledged” delegate is still not legally bound to vote for their candidate.  Delegate may face criticism, but in terms of still having adult supervision, still fine.

Bill Carrick – how to ensure NPLEOs conform to the results of the primaries?  Candidates have the right to approve their own delegates – RBC will have to figure out new mechanisms for NPLEO delegate selection.  Don’t want to have folks masquerading as supporters of the other candidate.  Also – again – need to think about how this functions in “alternates” – and that this will function more like the regular at-large – and will need alternates.

Question on Caucuses where the delegate and popular votes are out of synch (ie – Nevada) – on which % to base the pledged delegate allocation for NPLEO. 

Berman clarifying that it’d be based on the final results.

Should include in the report – a recommendation that The NPLEO delegates need to pledge after the final results of a state are known.  Don’t want our party leaders in a position for premature pledging.

Rob Hampshire – implications on diversity requirements of the recommendation:

McCaskill – same diversity rules will apply – shouldn’t change anything – just avoiding repeat of past mistakes.

Change Commission: Findings and Reco for Caucuses

Caucuses

With the high level of excitement surrounding the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination, states saw an unprecedented level of participation in their primaries and caucuses. While this is great for the party overall, it created unforeseen problems in some caucus states.

Findings

The Democratic Change Commission is mandated to make appropriate recommendations for new criteria that will ensure caucuses are adequately planned, organized and staffed; take place at times and locations to maximize participation; use appropriate balloting measures; and provide candidates with lists of elected delegates for the upper tiers of the caucuses and an opportunity to communicate with those delegates before upcoming caucus tiers. Additionally, the Commission is to consider ways that caucuses can be organized to encourage the maximum ability of Democratic caucus-goers to participate, including in particular making absentee participation available in caucuses.

With respect to these issues, the Commission found that:

• There is a participation barrier in caucuses which limits the ability of the elderly, shift workers, students, members of the military and others with certain hindrances on their ability to take part in the process. For those who are unable to attend the meeting during which the caucus is held, there is currently no way to cast a ballot. Some Commission members expressed interest in exploring methods for these groups of people to participate whether it be by absentee ballot, proxy voting, or another unexplored method, provided that the collaborative participation aspect of the caucus system be respected to enable party building and community involvement.
• States have varying levels of experience with running caucuses. Some states have recently switched to caucus systems because of the inability to obtain state funding for a primary, while other states have held caucuses as a matter of preference for a long period of time. The Commission agreed that states of all levels of experience could benefit from peer group collaboration where experienced caucus states could share their expertise with other states.
• The Commission discussed the fact that there are various ways caucus systems are being used in the Democratic nomination process. It is important to remember the diversity of the caucus process being used across the country, and that the rules in a state may be set by tradition, state law, or party requirement.
• The Commission found that in order to have a successful caucus process from beginning to end, it is critical that there be adequate preparation for all stages of the caucus process. This preparation includes everything from appropriate site selection to caucus participant education. After the caucus meetings, there needs to be timely reporting of not only the numerical results, but also the names of delegates elected to the next level of the process.

Commission members from caucus states, as well as speakers addressing the Commission, stressed that caucuses can be a great advantage to the party base. For example, the Kansas Democratic Party acquired

25,000 new email addresses, 8,000 new volunteers and several strong new candidates for office because

of the tremendous participation in its 2008 caucuses.21 Many states are able to use these events not only

to select a nominee for President, but also as a party building exercise and a way to begin to organize the

state for the general election. Commission members stressed the importance of giving the Democratic

National Committee and the Rules and Bylaws Committee oversight of these caucus processes so that

certain benchmarks are met in the organization and preparations of each step of a caucus process. The

Commission also stressed, however, that this oversight serve to help state parties plan and run their

caucuses, and not place onerous restrictions or cost increases on states.

Recommendations

In balancing these considerations, the Commission considered the development of a set of “Best Practices,” which would provide guidelines to be used by caucus states in implementing their delegate selection processes. These “Best Practices” would provide certain benchmarks that are important in the planning and facilitation of caucuses. The RBC could establish a committee of caucus state representatives to provide a peer-to-peer system of advising state parties and the RBC on these “Best Practices.”

Accordingly, the Commission recommends for the 2012 nominating process:

• A set of “Best Practices” should be adopted to provide caucus states with a set of benchmarks to achieve leading up their caucuses. States will be required to periodically show that they have met, or are working toward meeting, these benchmarks.
• The Rules and Bylaws Committee will oversee these state submissions and ensure that states are making adequate progress. They may require additional submissions from caucus states that are slow to meet benchmarks.
• The “Best Practices” will take into consideration the fact that there are very different types of caucuses being utilized within the party, as well as the fact that some state parties have limited resources with which to work.

The Commission wishes to emphasize openness and the ability for as many Democrats to take part in the caucus process as possible while still honoring the spirit of caucuses as an institution and an in-person party building tool. Appropriate locations, staffing, and planning will be necessary. Equally important will be efforts to educate caucus participants as to the way the process works ahead of time, especially those who may have been underrepresented in the past or are new to the process entirely.

21 Larry Gates testimony at October 24 Democratic Change Commission meeting

Change Commission: Findings and recos for unpledged delegates (superdelegates)

Reducing Unpledged Delegates

Findings

In 2008, unpledged delegates played a significant role in the nominating process. Unpledged delegates constituted 19% of the total convention and the presidential candidates were compelled to spend a substantial amount of candidate time and other resources to seek the support of these automatic delegates. We learned that in a closely contested presidential race, the nomination could be decided by this category of delegates.

The Resolution establishing the Commission mandates that there be “significant reduction” in the number of unpledged delegates to reduce the chance that a nomination could possibly be in contravention of the wishes of our voters and caucus goers.20

 

The DNC must address the perception that there are too many unpledged delegates and those delegates could potentially overturn the will of the people, as determined by the state contests. It is critical that significant changes be made in the number of unpledged delegates to ensure a visible reduction in the role unpledged delegates play in the nominating process.

The unpledged delegates cover a wide range of elected officials and local Democratic activists. Commission members felt it critical to keep these party leaders involved in the process. Any reduction to the number of unpledged delegates must continue to provide participation in the convention, and also during the primary process in their own states. Several Commission members mentioned the importance of retaining unpledged status for unpledged delegates who often act as gatekeepers and impartial referees in the nomination process, so they can maintain a neutral status in their state’s process.

Given the enhanced level of public participation in our primaries and caucuses, as exemplified by the expanded turnout for our 2008 contests, it is now time to significantly reduce the role of automatic, unpledged delegates in our nominating process.

 

Recommendations

Accordingly, the Commission recommends:

• The category of unpledged add-on delegates will no longer be allocated and automatic voting status for all remaining categories of unpledged delegates (DNC members, Democratic Members of the House and Senate, Democratic Governors and Distinguished Former Party Leaders) be retained in a new category of pledged delegates each with a full vote at the National Convention.
• Under this new category, these pledged delegates would be called National Pledged Party Leader and Elected Official (NPLEO) delegates. Each state would be allocated NPLEO slots equal to the number of current DNC members, Democratic members of the House and Senate, Democratic Governors and Distinguished Former Party and Elected Leaders from their state.
• NPLEO delegate slots would be allocated to the presidential candidates based on the state wide primary or caucus results, which is the same manner by which at-large delegates are allocated.
• Members of the NPLEO Categories shall automatically serve as a NPLEO delegate by submitting a statement of candidacy and presidential pledge of support to the State Democratic Party by a date certain.
• Any member of the NPLEO Delegate Categories who does not wish to apply or pledge for a NPLEO Delegate position shall have the automatic right to serve as a Non-Voting Delegate to the National Convention with all the privileges associated with being a member of the state delegation to the National Convention, except for voting on the floor of the National Convention. These Non-Voting Delegate privileges include floor credentials and housing in the same manner as is provided for their state’s delegation.
• The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee shall specify the procedures for the members of the NPLEO Delegate Categories to apply for and pledge their delegate vote, and for other matters in connection with the selection of the NPLEO Delegates, including but not limited to the filling of vacancies.

20 Resolution establishing the Democratic Change Commission as adopted by the Democratic National Convention on August 25, 2008 – text of resolution in the Appendix

Change Commission: Findings and Recos for Primary Timing

Timing of the 2012 Presidential Nominating Calendar

Findings

The Resolution establishing the Commission mandates that the 2012 primary and caucus calendar open on the first Tuesday in March and that the pre-window open on February 1. The Commission was charged with developing methods to reduce frontloading within the window period and to review the rules for proper enforcement of the primary and caucus timing requirements and delegate allocation matters.18 The Commission examined and discussed a number of different scenarios and alternatives relative to these issues.

There was a consensus among the members that the goal of the nominating process should be to produce the best and strongest Democratic presidential nominee. That goal is best achieved by devising a system that gives Democratic candidates an opportunity to present themselves and their views to a broad range of voters. It must also allow voters an opportunity to see, hear and question the candidates and measure them against one another.

With respect to these issues, the Commission found that:

• Primaries and caucuses began too early in 2008 and that something has to be done to change this in the future. Don Fowler stated during his testimony that he believes “the process is too long and the more you move it closer to the convention and the election itself, I think you serve the interests of the party better and the interests of the political system.”19
• There was considerable concern about the issue of frontloading. In 2008, 23 states held their primaries or caucuses on February 5, the opening day of the window. The 2008 Delegate Selection Rules established a bonus incentive to encourage states to hold their nominating events later in the season. However, this did not achieve the hoped-for results, with only 10 states earning a total of 54 bonus delegates.
• There was support for encouraging regional or sub-regional clusters of primaries and caucuses that would be held throughout the primary and caucus season. Testimony on regional clustering that occurred during 2008, such as the Potomac Primary held in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, indicated strong political and public acceptance of the benefits of this approach. Commission member David Plouffe stressed the importance of spacing these primaries and caucuses so that candidates have more time to spend in each cluster. There was a general consensus among the Commission members that state party decisions to cluster their primaries and caucuses should be encouraged, but voluntary.

 

There was discussion of offering bonus delegates and other incentives, such as additional convention credentials or preferred convention seating or hotel assignments, to those states clustering their primaries or caucuses (as was provided in the 2008 rules for states holding contests later in the season).

18 Resolution establishing the Democratic Change Commission as adopted by the Democratic National Convention on August 25, 2008 – test of resolution in the Appendix

19 Don Fowler testimony at October 24 Democratic Change Commission meeting

 

Recommendations

Accordingly, the Commission recommends for 2012:

• The pre-window events (i.e., Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina) should be held no earlier than February 1st and the window for all other states should open on the first Tuesday in March.
• States are encouraged to cluster their contests by region or sub-region. This would not be a mandatory obligation upon the State Parties. The Commission recommends that these clusters be staggered throughout the window to allow for a deliberative process that benefits all voters and caucus-goers throughout the country. The RBC and the DNC would coordinate with state parties, state legislatures and Governors to move the dates of their contests into regional clusters.
• This approach should be encouraged by offering incentives, specifically bonus delegates, preferred convention seating and/or preferred convention hotels, to those states which opt to participate in these regional clusters.
• Under this approach, the Change Commission would encourage the RBC to review the enforcement measures that are currently in place and make any necessary adjustments to ensure proper enforcement of the Party’s rules.
• The Commission recommends that the Democratic Party coordinate, to the extent feasible, with the Republican Party to facilitate the new timing for the window and to minimize the front loading of the contests within the window.
• Adopting these recommendations during the 2012 election cycle would allow the Party by using this special opportunity of 1) a relatively rare cycle of no apparent Democratic presidential nomination challenge, and 2) an RNC empowered for the first time by the Republican National Convention to recommend nominating rules changes between national conventions.

Press release from the DNC on Change Commission Recommendation

** High Priority **

Dear DNC Members:

I wanted to make sure you see the Press Release I sent out this afternoon on the work of the Change Commission. The next steps are the work of the RBC in reviewing the recommendations and then your vote on the presentation of our delegate selection rules.

Let me take a moment to wish you a very happy new year, to thank you for all your hard work, and to share my hope for a wonderful — and democratic — 2010.

Tim

____________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release

December 30, 2009

DNC Chairman Tim Kaine Issued the Following Statement on the Democratic Change Commission’s Recommendations to Improve the Presidential Nominating Process

Washington – DNC Chairman Tim Kaine issued the following statement after the Democratic Change Commission this afternoon voted to approve its recommendations to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee designed to improve the Presidential nominating process. The Commission was created as a result of a resolution passed unanimously by the delegates in attendance at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver. The Commission made its recommendations to the Rules and Bylaws Committee by unanimous agreement.

The recommendations include pushing back the window of time during which primaries and caucuses may be held; converting unpledged delegates (DNC members, Democratic Members of the House and Senate, Democratic Governors and Distinguished Former Party Leaders) to a new category of pledged delegate called the National Pledged Party Leader and Elected Official (NPLEO) delegates, which will be allocated to Presidential candidates based on the state wide primary or caucus results; and establishing a ?best practices? program for caucus states to improve and strengthen their caucuses. Under the Commission’s recommendations – the pre-primary window could not begin until February 1st or thereafter, and the primary window could not begin until the second Tuesday in March or thereafter.

The recommendations come after nearly a year of discussion about how best to improve the system to make it as accessible and open as possible.

I want to congratulate Congressman Clyburn and Senator McCaskill and entire the Democratic Change Commission for issuing their recommendations today and for taking up this important work,? said Kaine.

Openness, fairness, and accessibility are central to our ideals as Democrats, and the Commission’s recommendations to reform the delegate selection process will ensure that voters’ voices and preferences are paramount to our process of nominating a Presidential candidate.

The Commission’s recommendations are consistent with the goals of the Democratic Party and President Obama and with the Commission’s mandate. And though this is the first step in a process that will later include a full examination by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and the full membership of the DNC, it is an important statement about the direction our Party is going and our priorities as we look to 2012 and beyond.

As we work towards improving our Presidential nominating process and making it accessible to as many voters as possible, I am grateful to the Commission for its hard work in moving this process forward.

The Democratic Change Commission was tasked by a resolution passed during the 2008 Democratic Convention with recommending changes to the Democratic Party’s rules for the 2012 Presidential nominating and delegate selection process.

By appointing the Change Commission this spring, Gov. Kaine has followed through on President Obama’s promise made during the election to reexamine and improve the Democratic primary process.

Gov. Kaine, President Obama, and the Democratic Party believe that improving the primary system is an important priority, and that the process should be as inclusive and accessible as possible.

The Democratic Change Commission was tasked by the delegates to the 2008 Democratic Convention with doing three things:

1. Changing the window of time during which primaries and caucuses may be held

2. Reducing the number of super delegates

3. Improving the caucus system.

The Commission is made up of 34 members and two co-chairs (for 36 members total) and represents a diverse mix of DNC members, elected officials, representatives of State Parties, academics, organized labor officials, grassroots activists, and other Party leaders.

House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn and Senator Claire McCaskill have served as the co-chairs.

Why not learn airport security from the Israelis?

In this article, they talk about new measures put into place  that directly react to the technique used aboard that flight - continuing the trend of reaction rather than proaction. 

I have 2 suggestions:

1. Be more like the Israelis
2. Have marshalls actually be visible on flights – and look like serious bad asses.

I still think back to a flight my husband and I took from Tel Aviv to Addis Ababa in Ethiopia (and the same applies for flying to/from Tel Aviv).  I had at least 2 liters of water in a bottle with me and the Israeli security team didn’t care.  What they did do, however, is interview me – separately from my husband, for at least 10 minutes.  They did psychological screening – and have been for years.  I don’t know all that they’re looking for, but I imagine it’s to gauge consistency, stability, purpose etc… 

From what I recall, they use very attractive Israeli men and women to interview people.  People coming to the airport know to get there a long time in advance and know that they’ll have several levels of security.  Plus – there are other levels of security.  We were bringing in cans of food to have throughout the week and those things went through an entirely other course of screening – and we were put through another series of questions about our planned activities, motivations, etc…

I even remember when I was about 12 and my brother was 14 and we went to Israel.  He stupidly made a joke in line when we were at JFK and the Israeli security officials separated us from each other and from our parents and questioned us for another 15 minutes.

In terms of the marshalls, presumably, their incognito on the flights.  But – imagine if there were a combination of plain clothes and uniformed/visible marshalls in airports and on flights.  Perhaps that would add another level of deterence.

Sadly – this next round of asking people to stay seated the last hour is going to be another reaction that may or may not work (as a parent with kids who can’t always make that last hour, it’ll be especially interesting to see how that works).  Time to try things that are more about being proactive.

Listening to NPR today, heard an interview with Rafi Ran – former head of security for Lod, Tel Aviv’s airport.  He’s now a security consultant.  I couldn’t find an interview from today, but found this older one.

Everyone should take the new light rail to Seatac

Whenever I travel places where there’s a viable rail solution to the airport, I always get jealous.  I flashback to the scene in the movie Singles when the protagonist, who is an urban planner, has his idea of rail in Seattle completely shut down by the mayor.  But last week’s ribbon cutting for the Seattle-Seatac light rail link changes all that (at least a little bit).

And today, in order to learn where to go and to determine how difficult it’ll be so that I don’t have to explore under duress, I took my daughter and a friend of hers on the train that “launched” last week from downtown Seattle to the airport. 

the Verdict: It was absolutely wonderful!  I can’t recommend it highly enough!  Some comparisons:

• Cost: Way cheaper: Light rail – $2.5o one way for adults (free under 6); typical car service/cab: $45.
• Timing: Net Neutral:  Light rail – Consistently 40 minutes from Westlake to Seatac (plus time from home to light rail stop); driving can be anywhere from 20 minutes from my house to an hour.
• Comfort: Way better -smooth ride, nice seats and kids aren’t strapped into a car seat
• Considerations: if you need to have car seats at your destination and can’t rent them from a rental car company (most rent them), it is a pretty heavy shlep.  For a business person, it is an absolute no brainer
• For a general outing: If you have a child who’s into trains, it’s an easy and cheap outing – make it a picnic!
• Parking: Unfortunately, there aren’t park & rides or long term parking lots near the stations that I’m aware of yet.  I think there’s one down near the king street station which is the international stop.  But then again – at more than $20/day at/near the airport – it’s worth just getting a cab to the Westlake tunnel and going from there.
• Lastly – it’ll be phenomenal for people who live at/near the other stops along the way for communting in to downtown.  Ie – From Columbia City to Westlake felt like about 5-10 minutes.  By car on a busy day, that can take about 30-40 minutes!

For the environment, for your sanity and for the fun of it – I recommend taking the light rail to the airport the next time you go.

Resources:        Fares   *     Schedules   *    Maps 

Here’s the video version of our adventure

House & Senate Bills Side by Side: Going into Conference Committee

On the eve of the Senate passing a bill, I thought I would go back to one of my first civics lessons: Schoolhouse Rock’s I’m Just a Bill video.

While an awesome video, unfortunately, it didn’t include the step that we’re about to have between Friday and the middle/end of January – the Conference Committee.  

As a reminder for those who missed that chapter in High School government class (or for those, like me, who never had this info in school), here’s the skinny on what happens next:

Leaders from the House and Senate will be on this conference committee.  Both bills will get put into the mix (see below for the comparison between the two bills – thanks to the Miami Herald for the content – but not the formatting).  They’re not supposed to add anything new to the bills – just reconcile them.  So – for example – the House bill had a public option, the Senate version did not.  They’ll hash that out and there’s still a possibility that the final could include a public option.  Neither bill had a clause to make sure that every child gets a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down.  That won’t be included in the final.  You get what I mean.  (note – constituents should completely reach out to their legislators to press for the components that they most want (or don’t want as in the case of Stupak).

After the conference committee is satisfied with the reconciliation, the unified bill goes back to both houses of Congress for a final vote before being sent to the President.  Below is the comparison of the two bills. 

Thank you,
Suzi

(the content for this grid comes from this Miami Herald article.  if you click on the image, you can enlarge the grid)

Making Change Happen: Summary of notes from our final Change Commission Meeting…

Knowing that enough people like to get to the results first and read later, I’ll share my notes in that order:

First – let me reiterate what I’ve shared before – I’m deeply honored to serve on this commission!  Okay – here’s what happened: While we didn’t make our final recommendation from today’s meeting, we did have a great discussion (see notes below) that the staff will take, cull and provide back to us as a final draft recommendation.  We will then have a final discussion on a conf call in the next couple of weeks and vote on the final recommendation.  Our report needs to be delivered to the Rules & Bylaws commission of the DNC before the end of the year.  the RBC will then formulate that into a formal recommendation that will then be voted on by the full DNC membership.  The goal is to provide as specific a recommendation as possible so that the RBC doesn’t have to do the work for us.

As a quick reminder – the three issues that the group is mandated to address are:

1. primary timing
2. reducing the numbers of unpledged delegates (aka super delegates)
3. having caucuses be more organized

The staff did a great job bringing together the discussions we’ve had so far and laid out proposed options on each.  #1 and #3 were relatively uncontroversial:

#1: recommended encouraging regional primaries and spreading out the calendar – with incentives (ie – bonus delegates).  RBC to determine incentives.  (We did not address penalties or how to handle when a state’s legislature breaks the windows without the party’s permission). 

More detail here

#2 (generated a lot of excellent discussion and yielded the most exciting options.)  Fundamentally, we will make a recommendation that substantially reduces the numbers of unpledged voting delegates (and may get rid of that option altogether).  We all agreed that, while we want to reduce the # of unpledged delegates, we want to retain the wisdom and presence of those individuals at the convention. Thus, three directions emerged that we will discuss more on our conf. call (much more detail in the notes below).  This is super exciting!  Another exciting point was the continued focus on diversity in terms of “agenda, ethnicity and race” and making sure that our actions don’t inadvertently whack that out of balance.

1. Convert all unpledged delegates to non-voting delegates who get presence at the convention, but no vote.  AND – expand # PLEO (party leader and elected official) delegates so that, should they want, those officials and DNC members can run in that category for delegate)   (NOTE: This is what I and many others, including Chairman Clyburn, support)
2. Maintain voting status of unpledged delegates, but substantially reduce % across the different groups (elected officials, dnc members, etc…)
3. Maintain status quo in numbers and convert elected officials to non-voting delegates, but convert the DNC members to become pledged delegates allocated on a % basis and required to vote for their designated candidate.

More detail here

#3 Caucuses – have the RBC gather best practices and have the caucus states share and show their plans and whether they are on target with those best practices. 

More detail here

also be sure to read Frank Leone’s notes on his site