VIDEO: Minnesota Precinct Caucus Fails to Elect Delegates

Last night a friend and I went to our DFL precinct caucus. Things went poorly (video below).

The MN Democratic Party claims that precinct caucuses include “[e]lection of delegates and alternates to the next level of conventions in the DFL structure.” In Congressional District 5, Minneapolis Ward 2, Precinct 4, this did not happen. In the video, taken by my friend Luke Odenthal, I asked about this to the people who appeared to be in charge:

Video taken by Luke Odenthal. Editing and captioning by Celisia Stanton.

Apparently, delegates for the next level (the district convention) were chosen on a first-come, first-serve basis — in a precinct where at least several hundred voters turned out.

The recorded conversation came after we spent about an hour and a half in line. Those at the front of the line got a chance to become delegates. Those at the back did not.

Caucus organizer quote of the night: “Procedure was not followed here.”

This occurred even though an incumbent state legislator, Minnesota House Rep. Phyllis Kahn, faces two challengers for the Democratic nomination in House district 60B. According to two DFL Caucus Hotline workers I spoke with (on separate calls), delegates to the district convention will pick a nominee (but see here for more).

Two of the three people who appeared to be in charge of the caucus wore campaign buttons for Ilhan Omar, one of Kahn’s two challengers. While I really don’t suspect foul play — more on that in a minute — this fact could reasonably give the appearance that the haphazard delegate selection was rigged in favor of Omar’s supporters. This reality, plus failure to follow the rules and elect delegates in the first place, made this caucus seem sketchy a’f.

Here’s why I don’t suspect foul play: incompetence. In the video, the caucus organizers say that the DFL did not provide training to them. That’s why I don’t really blame them for what happened. One of the organizers told me that they were all first-time caucus-goers. That’s fantastic, but it underlines the need for the DFL to train people.

Another oops: one organizer told me that “a lot of these people [listed delegates] probably don’t even know what they signed up for.” This indicates that the delegate process was not explained, even to those who did sign up.

I had to directly ask about all this. After marking our presidential preference ballots, Luke and I sat down in the caucus room, expecting that other caucus business, like electing delegates and debating resolutions, would take place after everyone had a chance to vote for presidential nominees. But when I heard one caucus worker telling another participant that a single delegate alternate spot remained, I thought, “Huh. That’s not how this is supposed to work.” Neither Luke nor I saw a chance to introduce our respective resolutions.

(Again, I’m not sure who was technically in charge of this caucus: that was never clearly stated, but I spoke with two of at least three people who appeared to be running it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯?)

I called the DFL to voice my concerns — twice. The first time, I was told I’d get a call back in 15 minutes. Thirty-five minutes later, I called again, only to be told a second time that I’d get a call back later. They still haven’t called me back. Perhaps the DFL is working through a backlog of complaints?

What’s the point?

Here’s where I’ll step away from just chronicling events as they happened, which I’ve tried to do (relatively) objectively above. This is the fun part in which I’ll give My Opinion™.

I think what went down at my precinct caucus matters for two reasons:

First, this specific caucus was mismanaged. If we take caucuses seriously as part of our electoral process, then this mismanagement was also serious. Those in charge of the caucus told me there was no training beforehand — an error that I pin not on those individuals but on the DFL.

Second, caucuses in general are prone to problems. My experience is just one more data point for the pile. These meetings are inherently complicated and thus vulnerable to errors like the one at my precinct. Reports from friends in other precincts paint a chaotic picture. And then there’s what you can find online:

The parties need to do a better job running and organizing caucuses — period. But beyond that, caucuses raise deeper questions. They’re plagued by problems, particularly in presidential primary years. These problems are much broader than the specific issues Luke and I faced:

• Caucuses are complicated and confusing. They’re prone to error.
• Caucuses pose difficulties for families with children. Especially with young kids and babies, caucusing isn’t quite a family-friendly outing. This is bad enough on its own, but when it intersects with financial hardship — hey, not everyone can afford a babysitter — caucuses shut even more people out.
• Caucuses exclude people who aren’t in their precinct on a given day. What if someone’s on vacation outside MN? What if they’re elsewhere in the state on business? What if they’re at a faraway hospital getting treatment? Caucuses don’t offer absentee ballots for presidential preference polling.
• Caucuses constitute a barrier for workers. While state law requires employers to give people time off, employees have to ask for it, and they have to ask 10 days in advance. If you’re a 9-to-5 white collar type in the suburbs, that seems chill. But if you’re working an hourly job in the evening, struggling to make ends meet, forgoing pay to caucus could be a non-starter. In this way — combined with other issues like childcare — caucuses become a way to deny poorer Minnesotans a say on which candidate their party ought to endorse for President of the United States.

Maybe we need to ditch caucuses and switch to a presidential primary. Maybe a raft of smaller fixes could work. Either way, the system we have now doesn’t function. And lowkey, we should talk about that.