John Deeth serves as the Caucus To Convention Chair for the Johnson County Democrats. He has volunteered for the Johnson County Democrats and been involved in caucus planning since 2004. He was the lead organizer for the Johnson County caucuses in 2016, 2020, and 2024. Deeth has also worked in the Johnson County Auditor’s Office since 1997. This post first appeared on his website.
An open letter to: Johnson County Democratic Legislative delegation, Johnson County Democrats Executive Board, IDP Chair Rita Hart, and anyone reading this.
The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee met on July 24 and voted on the early state calendar. While this is not final, it is important to note that Iowa did not receive even a single vote from the committee for the Midwest slot in the early states, let alone for First In The Nation.
The likely order appears to be:
- South Carolina
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- Michigan
- New Mexico
- Virginia
I am mostly satisfied with this, except for New Hampshire. As you remember, when we lost our place in the early states for 2024, we followed both the state law and the DNC calendar by having an early caucus for party business only, followed by a later mail in vote for presidential preference. In contrast, New Hampshire defied the DNC and scheduled a rogue First primary after being assigned the third slot. They should have faced consequences for that.
I ask each of you to join me in publicly accepting this outcome. It is long past time for Iowa Democrats to let go of the idea that we will get “the caucuses” as we knew them back.
To our legislators: I encourage you to publicly state that First As We Knew It is over, and to introduce and support legislation for an Iowa presidential primary, as our JCDems platform has supported in 2024 and 2026. (A thank you to Dave Jacoby for introducing a primary bill in 2025.) I also urge you to fight hard against any Republican legislation that would prevent us from complying with the DNC calendar and having our national delegation seated, or that would keep us from using absentee ballots in our nomination process.
To my fellow JCDems: I urge you to continue to share the nightmare of our attendance crisis with your friends in other counties. Johnson County is always happy to help other counties, but we need help from the rest of the Democrats in the state on this. No matter what our schedule is for 2028, we must have a system to reduce our oversized crowds, by getting the people who only want to vote for president out of the rooms. That will make the caucuses once again the neighborly and deliberative meeting that it was long ago.
To Chair Hart: I ask you to accept this outcome and say so in public, to encourage our statewide candidates to do the same, and to stand firm against the forces in our party who want to defy the DNC. The penalties are strict and severe enough that, even if we do schedule a rogue early contest, the candidates will not come to Iowa. That will both defeat the purpose and will cost us our seats at the national convention.
I hope this distraction will soon be behind us and we can focus on the more immediate task of winning this year. Thank you all for your support and friendship.
Democrats crowd in at Iowa City 17, the biggest caucus in the state in February 2020 with attendance of 860. Photo by Jeff Charis-Carlson provided by the author and published with the photographer’s permission.
11 Comments
Thank you, John Deeth.
Climate change is real, catastrophic, and caused by human activity. Iowa’s very high nitrate pollution levels are mostly caused by conventional Iowa agriculture. And, as pointed out in this post, “First As We Knew It is over.” C’mon, Iowa Democrats, we’re supposed to be the party that is willing to face reality.
PrairieFan Tue 28 Jul 5:41 PM
Fight for your right to party
I first voted in the 1980 Iowa Caucus, supported Teddy Kennedy over incumbent(disaster) President Jimmy Carter. I’m guessing the author doesn’t have memories of 1980 and probably wasn’t even born yet. Those who appreciate the history of the Iowa Caucus should defy the DNC and be like New Hampshire. Am delighted that Rita Hart and Rob Sand have the backbone to defy the DNC. Have zero respect for DNC after kicking IDP to the curb to pander South Carolina. Also for lying about Biden’s mental capacities and coronating Harris without a single primary or caucus. Ken Martin is a bad joke and transparency isn’t his strong suit. Iowa Caucus belongs first!
ModerateDem Tue 28 Jul 7:54 PM
I wasn't old enough to vote
But I do remember the 1980 Iowa caucus campaign.
As much as you and other may want to bring the glory days back, “defying the DNC” will not recreate an Iowa caucus campaign like 1980. The serious contenders will not campaign here! The sanctions would be too severe.
I’m sure Iowa will hold an early caucus, in accordance with state, law, but having a presidential selection in January won’t accomplish anything if we don’t get the experience of candidates campaigning in Iowa beforehand.
Laura Belin Tue 28 Jul 11:50 PM
The Iowa law is unconstitutional
U.S. Supreme Court
Democratic Party v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981)
Democratic Party v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette
No. 79-1631
Argued December 8, 1980
Decided February 25, 1981
450 U.S. 107
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
Syllabus
Rules of the Democratic Party of the United States (National Party) provide that only those who are willing to affiliate publicly with the Democratic Party may participate in the process of selecting delegates to the Party’s National Convention. Wisconsin election laws allow voters to participate in its Democratic Presidential candidate preference primary without regard to party affiliation and without requiring a public declaration of party preference. While the Wisconsin delegates to the National Convention are chosen separately, after the primary, at caucuses of persons who have stated their affiliation with the Democratic Party, those delegates are bound to vote at the Convention in accord with the results of the open primary election. Thus, while Wisconsin’s open Presidential preference primary does not itself violate the National Party’s rules, the State’s mandate that primary results shall determine the allocation of votes cast by the State’s delegates at the National Convention does. When the National Party indicated that Wisconsin delegates would not be seated at the 1980 National Convention because the Wisconsin delegate selection system violated the National Party’s rules, an original action was brought in the Wisconsin Supreme Court on behalf of the State, seeking a declaration that such system was constitutional as applied to appellants (the National Party and Democratic National Committee) and that they could not lawfully refuse to seat the Wisconsin delegation. Concluding, inter alia, that the State had not impermissibly impaired the National Party’s freedom of political association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the State’s delegate selection system was constitutional and binding upon appellants, and that they could not refuse to seat delegates chosen in accord with Wisconsin law.
Held: Wisconsin cannot constitutionally compel the National Party to seat a delegation chosen in a way that violates the Party’s rules. Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U. S. 477, controlling. Pp. 450 U. S. 120-126.
(a) The National Party and its adherents enjoy a constitutionally protected right of political association under the First Amendment, and
Page 450 U. S. 108
this freedom to gather in association for the purpose of advancing shared beliefs is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by any State, and necessarily presupposes the freedom to identify the people who constitute the association and to limit the association to those people only. Here, the members of the National Party, speaking through their rules, chose to define their associational rights by limiting those who could participate in any binding process leading to the selection of delegates to their National Convention. Pp. 450 U. S. 120-122.
(b) Wisconsin’s asserted compelling interests in preserving the overall integrity of the electoral process, providing secrecy of the ballot, increasing voter participation in primaries, and preventing harassment of voters, go to the conduct of the open Presidential preference primary, not to the imposition of voting requirements upon those who, in a separate process, are eventually selected as delegates. Therefore, such asserted interests do not justify the State’s substantial intrusion into the associational freedom of members of the National Party. Pp. 450 U. S. 124-126.
93 Wis.2d 473, 287 N.W.2d 519, reversed.
STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BLACKMUN and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 450 U. S. 126.
Mterry Wed 29 Jul 8:00 AM
"Old Enough"
The individual who wrote this column *IS*, in fact, old enough to remember 1980 quite well, though he did not yet live in Iowa. I have only missed one caucus since 1972 (though I was not old enough to vote at the first couple I attended). Does that give me credibility in your eyes? Because I agree with the author.
The party of “voting rights” needs to live up to that reputation.
Rod Sullivan Wed 29 Jul 2:09 PM
Capitulation Or Caucus
I’m pleasantly surprised to see Madam Chair Rita Hart and Iowa Democratic Party stand up to Democratic National Committee like the Granite State does.
iowan since 1960 Wed 29 Jul 3:11 PM
It’s Time to Move On
The Iowa Democratic Party and candidate campaigns should focus their energy on aggressive voter registration and get out the vote logistics.
Also, contingency planning should occur to address any MAGA voter suppression hijinks that may arise at polling places or to mess with voting by mail.
All that is much more important than howling at the moon about the caucuses.
A candidate will be better prepared and more fully vetted by campaigning in several states – offering a variety of constituencies – than largely anchoring in one state for months on end.
I’ve participated in the caucuses since 1980. Given the current state of our nation, nostalgia about the caucuses is the least of my concerns.
Bill Bumgarner Wed 29 Jul 3:54 PM
To caucus or not to caucus
I have thought after the 2020 caucus that Iowa Democrats should do away with the caucuses. They were just getting too big to be manageable. And even the candidate events during the campaign were not what they once were. Like Rod Sullivan I have been attending caucuses since 1972, but unlike Rod, I was old enough to vote. In the early days we were able to meet the candidates in small groups and really talk to them. More recently, all we see are big rallies where the candidates give speeches but don’t really hear from us.
Part of me wants the Iowa Dems to defy the DNC, but if that just means, at best, a return to first in the nation caucuses, I don’t think we have gained anything. I think Iowa should have a primary. And let’s have it when we want it.
Wally Taylor Wed 29 Jul 4:05 PM
DNC's Decision
I have mixed emotions about whether we should allow the national committee to dictate terms.
What has the DNC done for Iowa lately?
HHHdemocrat Thu 30 Jul 10:23 AM
South Carolina
I see Trump won South Carolina by 18% over Harris in the 2024 general election. Not convinced that Iowa deserves to go first in 2028, but South Carolina hasn’t gone Democrat since 1976(Carter). Are they really the best choice to go first?
union50702 Mon 3 Aug 1:16 PM
Can someone who disagrees with this answer me fhis
How do you think spending time and effort to defy the DNC will help elect Democrats in Iowa? The DNC will not seat any delegates from rogue caucuses (ask Michigan from 2008) and no presidential candidate will campaign in Iowa. So what’s the endgame?
Iowan since 2020 Mon 3 Aug 9:19 PM