2020 delegate selection plan draft

The draft of the Delegate Selection Plan is open for public commentary. Please see the plan and the Addendum below. It is open for public commentary; please click the button below to submit your feedback.

Proposed Delegate Selection Plan

Addendum

submit
feedback

feedback received

Below you will find the comments submitted by the public through 10am April 26, 2019. This feedback is posted exactly as received and has not been edited.

• This looks good to me. I personally would like to see a summery of dates and steps to take if some one wanted to be a delegate and be on a standing committee something like a summery at the end. The rules can be very confusing for most.

• Overall, I'd like to see real absentee balloting, not surrogate designation, at our caucuses for presidential preference. Working people, etc. deserve to have their votes counted, not just have someone to stand in for them (who may or may not represent them that well at the end of the preference balloting). I strongly encourage the state central committee to amend Sec I.B.3.e appropriately to allow real absentee balloting on April 27.Sec III.A.2.a. there is an instance of 2016 that should be corrected to 2020.Sec III.A.3.a(1) the last sentence mentions that "... at the discretion of theDemocratic State Chair" but we are in the county caucus section. Is that intentional? Should it read "Democratic County Chair"?Sec III.A.3.b(1)(b) the last sentence reads "plus onedelegate for any number of residents in addition to amultiple of 3,000 votes." I think the last word should be changed to "residents."Sec VII.A.2.a mentions a date in 2015 that should probably be changed to a date in 2019.

• I got a little context for the "surrogate affidavit" used in 2016 last night. Apparently the rule was used to enact absentee balloting 3 years ago. I encourage you to change the wording so it's not so confusing. "Surrogate ballot" is not a meaningful phrase; if we are trying to use that phrase to mean "absentee ballot" we should just say what we mean. The meaning of the rule should not depend on the particular form and contents of the paperwork a voter has to fill out.My remaining point remains, however. Why does the party need to know why a person may not attend the caucus? The party does not need to judge whether voters' reasons for not attending caucus are "valid."

• Hello,  I would like to suggest that surrogate forms be available to all voters, rather than just to people with conflicts related to religious observance, military service, disability, illness or work schedule, as described in I.B.3.e.

• For the most part, I support this document. Thanks to all of you for all your hard work to get this to this stage. I think we must take care to make sure this is as open a process as possible, while ensuring the security & validity of the results. I have some comments & I'll try to reference the appropriate sections for edits.Section I.B.3.a. "general" should be added after "on the day of the next" and before "election".Section I.B.3.b. Will costs related to travel to caucus be considered as an indirect cost of participation? And, how will compensation be determined for those costs?Section I.B.3.e. This section is severely lacking in detail. Surrogate ballots need to be far more secure than allowing anyone to print off a ballot. There needs to be rules regarding how those ballots are secured and how they're handled from the time that voters get access to the ballot until after the caucus is held to make sure those votes can be verified. On a completely different topic, should indirect costs, such as travel, be included as a reason why someone cannot participate in the caucus & be able to use a surrogate ballot?Section II.B.2 I think the language in this section should agree with other areas of the plan to include non-binary people.Section III.A.2.a. Change 2016 to 2020.Section III.A.3.a.7. If the DNC charter prohibits secret ballots, doesn't that mean that surrogate ballots would not be accepted? There have been several elections I've seen & participated in over the past 3 years or so that would violate a prohibition on secret ballots.Section III.A.3.a.10. "Voice votes, standing votes, or roll call" votes are stated as ways to collect votes & it says, "vote...may not be made by proxy." I think that questions whether surrogate votes are actually allowed by the DNC.Section III.A.3.b.7 may contradict with section III.A.3.a.8.Section III.A.3.b.7.(a-d). should be deleted.Section III.A.3.b.9. The language here should agree with Section III.A.1.Section III.A.5.b. should include the language concerning non-binary folks that is in the other parts of the document.Section III.A.5.e. I think "district level" should be deleted.Section VII.B.2. Who is on the speaker's bureau?Section IX.D. 2016 should be replaced with 2020.Affirmative Action Plan. C. Niobrara county should have at least 1 delegate.

• The Young Democrats of Wyoming believe every Democrat should have the right to vote in choosing our next Democratic Presidential Nominee in 2020. While the Wyoming Democratic Party’s Delegate Selection Plan utilizes surrogate ballots, we believe surrogate ballots do not go far enough to accommodate Democrats unable to attend or participate on caucus day. In 2016, a Caucus Reform ad-hoc committee was established and tasked with reviewing county conventions and caucuses. They released a report with recommendations for absentee balloting and “vote and leave” a form of primary election-style voting. Caucus Reform Report: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GDWvKHUVL8chkjyKQFEFdr_1qr3LB_4A/view?usp=sharing

We support the use of absentee ballots that have an optional form question on why a Democrat is unable to attend their caucus. We support the use of an absentee balloting process that allows for Democrats to vote via mail, online, or by phone modeling the Iowa Democratic Party’s Virtual Caucus Plan: https://iowademocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/02/Caucus-Updates-_-Virtual-Caucus.pdf.

We understand the purpose of a presidential preference caucus is to engage Democratic neighbors in lively dialogue in-person and has its merits; however, we believe a primary election system run by the State of Wyoming is best suited to accommodate the interests and rights of all voters.

We acknowledge such a primary election is unlikely to happen soon so it’s our goal to adapt our presidential preference caucus, to the best of the state party and county parties’ ability, to be as transparent and accessible as possible.

We ask the Bylaws and Delegate Selection Plan Subcommittee and WDP State Central Committee to adopt changes to the drafted delegate selection plan for the use of absentee ballots and the suggestions put forth by the 2016 Caucus Reform ad-hoc committee.

• Use of the surrogate form is more restrictive than absentee voting in Wyoming. Why do we require a reason? The surrogate forms were a bone of contention last time. Can we better educate Democrats about their use and also find a more secure our transparent way to handle them once they are submitted.//

Venues for caucuses was an issue last time with some inadequate venues chosen by county parties. Can we require that counties work more closely with the WDP to assure the size of the facility, accessibility, etc.//

the document says that "the names of every presidential candidate who sends a letter to the State Democratic Chair no later than 5 p.m., [date], with the candidate’s authentic signature stating that that person is a candidate for President of the United States, meets the requirements set forth by the United States Constitution, and wishes to participate in Wyoming’s presidential preference caucus." Can we say that they must be a registered Democrat? Later on we say that "All delegates, alternates and standing committee members must be bona fideDemocrats who have the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Partyof the United States at heart," It would seem that the candidates being considered meet that same standard.//

The affirmative action/inclusion stuff seems to lack teeth-- we "urge"//

And I'm curious about the "Representation Goals"-- I assume the %ages are based on the registered voters in the voter file, but interestingly the numeric goals seem lower than they have been in the past. I'm particularly looking at Native American, I think it has been 2 and in this doc it is 1. We just got a win on the Reservation, cutting back seems short sighted.//

I also found a few typos. I can point those out to whoever is in charge of this document.