Should Iowa replace presidential caucuses with a primary election?

Last Saturday, national Democrats finally ratified their plans to end Iowa Democrats' right to go first in the presidential nominating order. What a sad moment for Iowa politics.

Surprisingly, though, not everyone is disappointed. Some have been calling for years now to do away with Iowa caucuses. Citing counting debacles of Iowa Republicans in 2012 and Iowa Democrats in 2020, some opponents of our charming caucus system see the removal of Iowa Democrats’ first-in-the-nation spot as a step toward replacing it with a simpler primary election. Would a presidential primary be preferable to Iowa voters? Let’s discuss.

If Iowa voters want to hold a presidential primary in lieu of a caucus, the first question they should consider is when that primary should be held. Many voters know that Iowa already has a primary election for every partisan race except the presidential one. (Voters who didn’t know that ought not to opine quite so vociferously about the electoral system in the state of Iowa, but that’s just my opinion.)

Primary elections in Iowa always occur on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June of a general election year. To qualify for the primary ballot, each candidate must file a petition containing the requisite number of signatures from eligible electors. For state and federal candidates, petitions must be received by the Iowa Secretary of State’s office no later than 5 p.m. on the 81st day before a primary. That day falls in mid-March.

Candidacy-wise, a lot can happen between that March filing deadline and the June primary date. In March, more than one candidate will likely still be vying for the presidential nomination, requiring an organizational effort to gather enough signatures to qualify for the primary ballot. But by the time voters actually cast those ballots in June, it’s likely that a presumptive nominee will have been determined, either by a candidate securing enough delegates to the national convention or by becoming the last one standing after all other serious campaigns suspend operations.

That occurs often enough to consider how it would affect a June presidential primary in Iowa. In 2012, Mitt Romney clinched the requisite number of national GOP delegates during the last week of May, rendering a would-be June primary vote more or less moot. Joe Biden clinched the 2020 Democratic nomination late in the first week of June, but he’d already been informally considered the nominee since April, when his final opponent, Bernie Sanders, suspended his campaign.

Is suspending a campaign the same thing as formally withdrawing from a ballot? Not in Iowa. A campaign may suspend operations at any time, but save for a five-day window after the original filing deadline, a candidate’s name can’t just be yanked off the ballot. It is likely that a June presidential primary ballot would contain names of candidates who have long since suspended campaigning. If only one active candidate remained, the question would likely seem redundant to most voters.

Now, what if we had a primary, but at an earlier date? A change in state law would be needed to accomplish one of two things: Move the existing primary to a sooner date, or add a second earlier presidential primary. Either would be unwise.

Moving up the June primary could force elections commissioners to start primary election preparations before concluding operations for city and school board elections held the previous fall, complicating their ability to effectively manage either. It would also mean a shorter time frame for parties to recruit general election candidates, and a longer and more expensive general election campaign.

Adding a separate presidential primary election would keep the time frame for other candidates in balance, but would only compound workload issues for county elections staffs. It would also cost a lot of money. State law dictates a minimum number of polling places staffed with paid election officials. It also requires a 20-day early voting period, during which some elections departments must hire extra staff. A separate primary — funded by the taxpayer — would be a huge waste. Speaking of taxpayer funding, proponents of an Iowa presidential primary should consider: Who should pay for the presidential selection process in Iowa?

A presidential caucus has always been a function of party business. Every facet of a primary election, however, is a function of state law — political parties have no say in the process. Parties only get to step in and choose their nominees for the general election ballot in cases where no one files to run for a particular office. Even then, they must wait until the primary has completed its legally prescribed process before they proceed with nominating a candidate by convention, organized (and paid for) by the party.

Primary elections in Iowa have a single purpose: Voters specifically determine who will appear on the general election ballot in November. The presidential preference vote, whether done using a caucus or primary system, does not do that. If it did, Iowa’s general election ballots would have listed Ted Cruz as the GOP nominee in 2016 and Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee in 2020.

The explicit intent of the presidential preference vote is to rate support for each candidate for the purpose of awarding delegates at each party’s national convention, where the actual nomination will take place. As a function of party business, it doesn’t seem right that taxpayers — especially those with no party affiliation — should foot the bill for a presidential primary for the sake of using a simpler process than a caucus.

The simplicity touted by proponents of a primary system comes at more just a cost to taxpayers. It would also cost Iowans the heart and soul of our political parties. Iowa is one of the few remaining states that has the nerve to invite presidential preference voters to actually engage with their neighbors, attend a convention, help craft the party’s platform, join their county central committee and fund it with grassroots donations. That process, prescribed by Iowa law, will not cease if presidential nominating is replaced by a primary. But it will be dealt a significant blow if it can’t bring people in with a presidential vote. To lose that kind of access to the grassroots would be devastating for any major political party.

Changing Iowa’s presidential nominating process would make a mess. It won’t actually happen — the GOP-controlled state legislature has made that clear. But Iowa Democrats still have their own mess as they grapple with the conflicts between what their state law requires and what their national rulers demand.

It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation; pitting the character of our system against the uniformity of theirs, with voters, delegates and candidates all caught in the middle as Iowa Democrats pledge to forge ahead with caucuses and national Democrats promise to strip delegates from candidates who participate. Let the chips fall where they may while Iowa Democrats scramble to save their process — and their party. National Democrats have tried to kill the Iowa caucuses. Iowans shouldn’t let them die.

Comments: 319-398-8266; althea.cole@thegazette.com

Opinion content represents the viewpoint of the author or The Gazette editorial board. You can join the conversation by submitting a letter to the editor or guest column or by suggesting a topic for an editorial to editorial@thegazette.com