Chuck Thies is a political consultant who lives in Washington.
By nearly all measures, the experiment was a success. The decision to leapfrog Iowa and New Hampshire, supported by then-Mayor Anthony Williams (D) and the entirety of the D.C. Council, generated months of controversy that garnered nationwide news coverage. In each story, the disenfranchisement of District residents was explained, in some instances with great detail.
Furthermore, presidential candidates were compelled to make clear their support, or lack thereof, for District voting rights or statehood. Nothing like that had been achieved before.
Unfortunately, the 2008, 2012 and 2016 presidential contests came and went with the District agreeing to play by rules set forth by political parties, in particular the Democratic National Committee, that protect Iowa and New Hampshire. How are those rules enforced? If the D.C. Democratic Party, D.C. Council and mayor decide to disregard DNC rules and go first, the national party can penalize local political players and limit the number of delegates the District sends to the presidential convention in 2020.
No buffets, open bars and funny hats for rule-breakers!
Every voting rights advocate in the District understands that one of the greatest hurdles toward achieving equality is public awareness. If Americans don’t know that District residents live without equal rights, how can we expect them to fight for our cause?
At present, the District is scheduled to hold the very last primary in 2020. If, instead, it went first, the District would spread its message further than it did in 2004. News outlets are covering the 2020 campaign every day; a fly in the ointment would be an irresistible story line. Add to that the ability of social media to amplify the District’s plight, and the perfect recipe for a positive public relations campaign becomes clear. Furthermore, Democrats now are far more activist than they were in 2004. Willingness to defy establishment authority, including the DNC, is a given. There are potentially millions of people who would fight alongside District residents — but only if they know of our plight.
The D.C. Democratic Party recently decided to defer to the D.C. Council in setting the date of the 2020 presidential primary. The 2020 Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary are on Feb. 3 and Feb. 11, respectively. The District should schedule its presidential primary for Jan. 28.
The Democratic field is expected to be vast. As candidates jockey for position, their opinion of the District’s primary and decision about whether to participate will make news. So, too, will the DNC’s handling of the District’s defiance. I have no doubt that the majority of activists, in particular the most left-leaning, will come down on the District’s side and, in doing so, bring along their candidates. Others will follow. A few may sit it out. Indeed, that is exactly what happened in 2004.
The cost of a primary is about $1 million. The cost of not going first is an opportunity lost and, worse, further affirmation that voting rights and statehood are issues to which many local leaders give lip service but for which they are unwilling to take risks and make a sacrifice.
Read more: