Latinos in Iowa and the Future of the Primary Process

The traditional primary process for our party was deeply questioned in the past two years, as Democratic National Committee (DNC) members worked for several months in the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) to try to address a series of concerns about how to truly have the best primary process possible for a 21st Century national political party.

In the end, the primary process remained mostly intact, with Iowa and New Hampshire going first (on January 3rd and 8th, respectively), leaving Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina and Florida in second place and then 22 other states on February 5th. Some had prognosticated that if, in fact, the RBC's preferred sequence of IA, NV, NH, SC had prevailed, that this may have signaled the beginning of the end for Iowa and New Hampshire's primacy.

The tenacious actions which both Iowa and New Hampshire have undertaken in the last quarter of 2007 to ensure that they remained first, and the fact that a minority candidate was successful in a state that is 96% white (Iowa) are arguments that favor those who defend the status quo. Would Latinos be better served in 2012 or 2016, if states with larger numbers of Latinos went earlier, or first, in the process? Do the advantages of retail politics, by allowing a small state to be first, really result in that much more personal contact with the candidates? Does it truly give a fair chance to underfunded candidates?

As the party with the most diverse field of candidates in any presidential election cycle ever, we have a lot to be proud of. But we also have weighty questions to consider going forward into the next four, or perhaps eight, years. And the changing face of the Democratic electorate, and membership of the DNC roster, will result in different approaches to these perennial concerns.