EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

September 22, 1971

Page 32908

MANDATE FOR REFORM

HON. GEORGE McGOVERN OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Wednesday, September 22, 1971

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, as I travel around the country I find that there is a great deal of interest in the reform of the Democratic Party and just how the party will differ from 1968. I am proud to have been the chairman of the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection to the Democratic National Committee which laid down the guidelines for the political reform of the party and am now pleased to serve the present chairman, Representative DONALD M. FRASER, in attempting to see that these guidelines will be implemented to the greatest possible extent.

I firmly believe that the 1972 Democratic Convention will be the most open political convention in American history if people across the country dedicate themselves to the full and fair implementation of the guidelines contained in the commission report.

I am pleased to ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the "Mandate for Reform."

There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

MANDATE FOR REFORM: A REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON PARTY STRUCTURE AND DELEGATE SELECTION TO THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ON PARTY STRUCTURE AND DELEGATE SELECTION

Chairman Honorable George S. McGovern, U.S. Senator from South Dakota.

Vice Chairman Honorable Harold E. Hughes, U.S. Senator from Iowa; former Governor of Iowa.

Mr. I. W. Abel, President, United Steelworkers of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Honorable Birch Bayh, U.S. Senator from Indiana.

Professor Samuel Beer, Professor of Government, Harvard University; former National Chairman of Americans for Democratic Action.

Mr. Bert Bennett, former Chairman, State Democratic Executive Committee of North Carolina.

Mr. Warren Christopher, former U.S. Deputy Attorney General, Los Angeles, California.

Honorable Leroy Collins, former Governor of Florida.

Mr. Will Davis, former Chairman, State Democratic Executive Committee of Texas.

Mr. William Dodds, Director, Community Action Department; United Auto Workers, Bethesda, Maryland.

Mr. Frederick Dutton, Executive Director, Robert Kennedy Memorial; former Special Assistant to President Kennedy, Washington, D.C.

Mr. John F. English, National Committeeman from New York.

Honorable Donald M. Fraser, U.S. Representative from the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.

Mr. Peter Garcia, former Deputy Director, Community Action Program, San Francisco, California.

Mr. Earl G. Graves, President, Earl Graves Associates, New York, New York.

Dr. Aaron E. Henry, Chairman, Democratic State Committee of Mississippi; member of the national board of directors, NAACP, SCLC, & SRC.

Mr. John Hooker, President, Minnie Pearl International, Nashville, Tennessee.

Mrs. Patti Knox, Vice Chairman, Democratic State Central Committee of Michigan.

Mr. Louis E. Martin, Publisher, Chicago Daily Defender; former Deputy Chairman, Minorities Division, Democratic National Committee.

Honorable Oscar Mauzy, Texas, State Senator, Dallas, Texas.

Mr. George Mitchell, National Committeeman from Maine; former Chairman, Democratic State Committee of Maine.

Mr. David Mixner, Co-Director, Vietnam Moratorium Committee, Washington, D.C.

Honorable Katherine Peder, former State Commerce Secretary of Kentucky.

Honorable Albert A. Pena, County Commissioner, Bexar County, Texas. 

Honorable Calvin L. Rampton, Governor of Utah.

Professor Austin Ranney, Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin; editor of the American Political Science Review.

Honorable Adlai Stevenson, III, State Treasurer of Illinois.

Mrs. Carmen H. Warschaw, National Committeewoman from California.

COMMISSION STAFF

Robert W. Nelson, Staff Director; Eli J. Segal, Chief Counsel; Kenneth A. Bode, Director of Research; Joan C. Skoff, Executive Secretary.

RESEARCH STAFF

Jennifer Cafritz, Carol Casey, Richard Downey, John Elrod, Mark Gersh, Mark Gitenstein, Marcia Goodman, Richard Norling, Alex Sanger, Ted Tschudy.

SUMMER INTERNS

Michael Biel, Catherine Boucree, Jessie Bourneuf, Joseph Gebhardt, Robert Henry, Jerry Hlldebrand, Leonard Levine, Charles Longley, Richard Lyon, William McDonald, Charles Nau, John O'Sullivan, Durrell Sackl, Douglas Serdahely, Rodney Smith, Richard Stearns, Fran Ulmer, James Wright.

VOLUNTEERS

Tina Bauman, Mark Feinberg, Cindy Grofic, Jack Hoadley, Priscilla Martinez, Diane Moore, Jack Schmidt, Diane Summers, Conner Wheatley.

CONSULTANT COMMITTEE

Mrs. Anne Wexler, Chairman; Alexander M. Bicker, Professor of Law, Yale University; Richard C. Wade, Professor of History, University of Chicago.

DEMOCRATIC LEADERS SPEAK

"I commend the McGovern Commission for giving the Democratic Party the most comprehensive and detailed analysis and recommendations in its history on delegate selection. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have been willing to debate these admittedly controversial issues and to set down guidelines for state and national action. I am confident that the national and state parties will find the Commission's work to be most helpful in achieving a party capable of meeting the critical issues of the 1970's."

HONORABLE HUBERT H. HUMPHREY,

December 15, 1969.

"An effective political party must be responsive to the needs of its constituents and responsible in the exercise of its power. To be such a party it must be constantly alert to the need for reforming its structures and is procedures to insure maximum opportunity for meaningful participation in the democratic process. The McGovern Commission has engaged in a searching and honest examination of the problems of party reform. Its guidelines provide us with a base on which to build a more effective party, which is responsive and responsible."

SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

February 12, 1970.

"In 1968, many people were asked to test our political system through the Democratic party. That system was found lacking. If people are to turn to the Democratic Party again, there must be substantial evidence that the events of 1968 will not recur. The guidelines of the McGovern Commission require provisions for timely delegate selection, 18 year old participation, adequate public notice, one man-one vote, and the existence of party rules – as well as the elimination of all mandatory assessments, proxy voting, unit rule, and closed slate-making. These guidelines, if enforced, will open up the party to new ideas and new people.

"The danger is that this document will be just one more paper that politicians may prefer to ignore rather than implement. The national Democratic Party must – if it is to be worthy of its name – reform its own processes and procedures."

SENATOR EUGENE J. McCARTHY,

March, 20, 1970.

"The guidelines developed by the McGovern Commission are a major step toward the Democratic Party's goal of broadening citizen participation in the nominating process. I am confident that the guidelines will provide the 1972 Convention with effective criteria for assessing the delegate selection process in each state, criteria which themselves have been arrived at openly and with the fullest possible participation of the entire spectrum of the Party.

"The members and staff of the Commission deserve the Party's thanks for reporting early enough so that all state and local party organizations will have ample opportunity to achieve full compliance in time for the next convention."

Senator EDWARD M. KENNEDY,

March 17, 1970.

"I am impressed with the work accomplished by the McGovern Commission, and I believe the great majority of Democrats will welcome its guidelines as being fair and long overdue.

"We have no greater task than assuring that ours will be an open party, encouraging the widest possible participation in all of our affairs. The Democratic Party must serve, not be served; it must facilitate choice, not deny it; it must invite diversity, not discourage it. The guidelines of the McGovern Commission are a most important step toward these goals."

Senator FRED R. HARRIS,

December 4, 1969.

"The work of the Commission chaired by Senator McGovern spotlights a crucial question confronting our nation today: whether our traditional political party system can be modernized and rehabilitated to meet the challenges of the democratic process in the 1970's. I believe we will meet that test only if we enlarge upon the efforts already underway and if we assure the fullest participation of all in our Party who wish to associate with us, while being vigilant against the exclusion of any segment or any element."

LAWRENCEF. O'BRIEN, Chairman, Democratic National Committee,

April 8, 1970.

COMMISSION ON PARTY STRUCTURE AND DELEGATE SELECTION,

Washington, D.C.,

April 1970.

DEAR FELLOW DEMOCRAT: The 1968 Democratic National Convention adopted a resolution requiring that all Democratic voters be given a "full, meaningful and timely" opportunity to participate in the delegate selection process and authorized the creation of a commission to "aid the state parties" in meeting this requirement. Early in 1969, Senator Fred Harris, then Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, announced the establishment of this Commission – the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection – and invited me to serve as Chairman.

From the beginning, the Commission, with the assistance of a small staff and the cooperation of Democrats throughout the nation, set out to find methods which would guarantee every American who claims a stake in the Democratic Party the opportunity to make his judgment felt in the presidential nominating process.

After intensive study, during which testimony was taken from hundreds of Democrats, the Commission concluded that the processes by which delegates to the National Convention are presently chosen are inadequate for assuring the opportunity for widespread participation. To remedy this weakness, the Commission has adopted Guidelines for delegate selection that are binding on all state parties for 1972. In the following report, the Guidelines are placed in the historical context of 1968 which gave birth to the reform mandate of our Commission.

Throughout its deliberations, the aim of the Commission has been to strengthen the National Convention, and, in the process, to strengthen our Party and American democracy. I believe that the adoption of these Guidelines by all the States will contribute to the regeneration of the Democratic Party as a more responsive and dynamic servant of the American people.

I hope that you will give the Guidelines the most careful study and consideration.

Sincerely,

GEORGE MCGOVERN. Commission Chairman.

MANDATE FOR REFORM

The 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago exposed profound flaws in the presidential nominating process; but in so doing it gave our Party an excellent opportunity to reform its ways and to prepare for the problems of a new decade.

The delegates to the Convention, concerned by the chaos and divisiveness, shared a belief that the image of an organization impervious to the will of its rank and file threatened the future of the Party. Therefore, they took up the challenge of reform with a mandate requiring State Parties to give "all Democratic voters . . a full, meaningful, and timely opportunity to participate" in the selection of delegates, and, thereby, in the decisions of the Convention itself.

In order to ensure that this mandate would be implemented, the Convention directed the Democratic National Committee to establish a Commission to aid state Parties in meeting the Convention requirement.

In February 1969, Senator Fred Harris, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, appointed us to that body mandated by the Convention – the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection. We are Democrats who represent every segment of our Party. We find common cause in our Party's history of fair play and equal opportunity. We believe that the continuing vitality of the Democratic Party depends upon its adherence to this heritage.

Since its inception, our Party has been an open party – open to new ideas and new people. From the days of Jefferson and Jackson, the Democratic Party has been committed to the broad participation of rank-and-file members in all of its major decision making.

In the American two-party system no decision is more important to the rank-and-file member than the choice of the party's presidential nominee. For this reason, popular control over the nominating process has been a principle of the Democratic Party since the birth of the National Convention 140 years ago.

This tradition for participation and popular control, however, has not always been adequately expressed. After a lengthy examination of the structures and processes used to select delegates to the National Convention in 1968, this is our basic conclusion: meaningful participation of Democratic voters in the choice of their presidential nominee was often difficult or costly, sometimes completely illusory, and, in not a few instances, impossible.

Among the findings the Commission has made about delegate selection in 1968 are the following:

In at least twenty states, there were no (or inadequate) rules for the selection of Convention delegates, leaving the entire process to the discretion of a handful of party leaders.

More than a third of the Convention delegates had, in effect, already been selected prior to 1968 – before either the major issues or the possible presidential candidates were known. By the time President Johnson announced his withdrawal from the nominating contest, the delegate selection process had begun in all but twelve states.

Unrestrained use or application of majority rule was the cause of much strain among Democrats in 1968. The imposition of the unit rule from the first to final stage of the nominating process, the enforcement of binding instructions on delegates, and favorite-son candidacies were all devices used to force Democrats to vote against their stated presidential preferences.

Additionally, in primary, convention and committee systems, majorities used their numerical superiority to deny delegate representation to the supporters of minority presidential candidates.

Secret caucuses, closed slate-making, widespread proxy voting – and a host of other procedural irregularities – were all too common at precinct, county, district, and state conventions.

In many states, the costs of participation in the process of delegate selection were clearly discriminatory; in others, they were prohibitive. Filing fees for entering primaries were often excessive, reaching $14,000 in one State, if a complete slate of candidates had been filed.

"Hospitality" fees were often imposed on delegates to the convention, reaching $500 in one delegation. Not surprisingly, only 13% of the delegates to the National Convention had incomes of under $10,000 (whereas 70% of the population have annual incomes under that amount).

Representation of blacks, women and youth at the Convention was substantially below the proportion of each group in the population. Blacks comprised about five percent of the voting delegates, well above their numbers in 1964; since blacks make up 11% of the population and supplied at least 20% of the total vote for the Democratic presidential candidate, however, they were still underrepresented at the Convention. Women comprised only 13% of the delegates with only one of 55 delegations having a woman chairman. In a majority of delegations there was no more than a single delegate under 30 years of age, and in two delegations the average age was 54. The delegates to the 1968 Democratic National Convention, in short, were predominantly white, male, middle-aged, and at least middle-class.

As this information emerged, we recognized that two alternative courses of action were available to us. First, we could suggest that the institution of the National Convention had outlived its usefulness and should be discarded. To be sure, at our public hearings several Democrats gave testimony expressing the judgment that the convention system did not deserve to be saved. There was a substantial body of feeling, in fact, that a national primary within each Party would

be the most democratic means of selecting presidential candidates.

Second, we could conclude that there was nothing inherently undemocratic about a National Convention; that 1968 was a culmination of years of indifference to the nominating process, rather than a startling aberration from previous years; that purged of its structural and procedural inadequacies, the National Convention was an institution well worth preserving. The Commission has taken this second course. The following are some of our reasons:

In view of the stringent demands made upon a President of the United States, the challenge imposed upon any contender for the nomination in seeking support in a wide variety of delegate selection systems should be maintained.

The face-to-face confrontation of Democrats of every persuasion in a periodic mass meeting is productive of healthy debate, important policy decisions (usually in the form of platform planks), reconciliation of differences, and realistic preparation for the fall presidential campaign.

The Convention provides a mechanism for party self-government through the election and instruction of a National Committee.

While endorsing the institution, the Commission believes that if delegates are not chosen in a democratic manner, the National Convention cannot perform its functions adequately. In order to ensure the democratic selection of delegates, the Commission has adopted 18 Guidelines binding on all state Parties.

These Guidelines represent the Commission's interpretation of its mandate to ensure that all Democrats are provided a full, meaningful, and timely opportunity to participate in the delegate selection process. To this end, the requirements and recommendations of the Guidelines are directed toward the elimination or regulation of:

(a) Rules or practices which inhibit access to the delegate selection process – items which compromise full and meaningful participation by inhibiting or preventing a Democrat from exercising his influence in the delegate selection process;

(b) Rules or practices which dilute the influence of a Democrat in the delegate selection process, after he has exercised all available resources to effect such influence;

(c) Rules and practices which have the combined effect of inhibiting access and diluting influence.

The Commission believes that there is no one selection system ideal for all states. Therefore, we did not find it desirable to lay down uniform rules for delegate selection in the Guidelines.

Instead, we have adopted certain minimum standards of fairness that all states are expected to meet. Once these standards are met, state Parties are free to adopt any procedures they may prefer. The Commission believes that this preservation of local genius is an important element of a healthy National Convention.

These Guidelines are meant to serve no ideology and no geographic segment of our Party. They are designed to stimulate the participation of all Democrats in the nominating process and to re-establish public confidence in the National Convention.

The Commission has proceeded in its work against a backdrop of genuine unhappiness and mistrust of millions of Americans with our political system. We are aware that political parties are not the only way of organizing political life. Political parties will survive only if they respond to the needs and concerns of their members.

In adopting our Guidelines and in presenting this report, we have been guided by the firm belief that the Democratic Party is incapable of closing its eyes and ears to this unhappiness and mistrust. While the Republican response to popular demands for more participation and open processes has been indifference, the Democrats have chosen to face the matter head on.

Our Party's longevity is due in no small way to its capacity to respond to these demands in a positive fashion. We are confident that it will do so again.

HISTORY OF THE COMMISSION

Few National Conventions of political parties have aroused as much interest and public debate as the 1968 Democratic National Convention. In one sense, the Convention accomplished its purpose; a Democratic nominee for the Presidency of the United States was chosen. But in another way, the Convention was a failure. A great political party was left bitterly divided, with its morale eroded and its leaders predicting defeat.

One of the reasons for this condition was the belief of many rank-and-file Democrats that the Convention and the events leading up to it had been closed to them. The most striking aspect of the politics of 1968 was that so many people who were engaged in active dissent from the policies of the Administration were using the time-honored avenues of primaries and state conventions to channel that dissent. But as state after state readied its delegation for the Convention, dissatisfaction with these avenues began to grow and allegations of unfair treatment became common.

Origins, mandate and organization of the commission

In the summer of 1968, Governor, now Senator Harold E. Hughes of Iowa, sensitive to this feeling, as well as to the painful schism among Democrats, took the initiative of organizing a Commission on the Democratic Selection of Presidential Nominees. The report of this Commission, presented to the 1968 Convention, represented the first serious effort undertaken by any Party to study the procedures by which National Convention delegates are selected. The Hughes Commission report painted a disheartening picture of these procedures. The authors of the report were alarmed enough to conclude that "State systems for selecting delegates to the National Convention display considerably less fidelity to basic democratic principles than a nation which claims to govern itself can safely tolerate."

Given the atmosphere in Chicago in the summer of 1968, the Democratic National Convention could not have ignored the evidence of disregard for popular expression presented by the Hughes Commission. For Democrats the way was clear: "The cure for the ills of democracy," it was long ago said. "is more democracy." So in the tumult of Chicago, the Democratic Party, with active support from all presidential camps, issued a mandate for reform.

Nonetheless, a major floor debate did ensue over how rigorously the Convention should use its powers to compel the state Parties to undertake reform. The Rules Committee, under Governor Sam Shapiro of Illinois, proposed that the Democratic National Committee appoint a commission to "give serious consideration" to certain reforms. The Credentials Committee under Governor Richard Hughes of New Jersey went a step further by proposing that a committee be appointed "to aid the state Democratic parties" in enacting reforms, and report its "efforts and findings" to the 1972 Convention.

But a minority of the Rules Committee brought to the floor a still more stringent resolution. They proposed that the 1972 Convention "shall require," in order to give "all Democratic voters . . full and timely opportunity to participate" in nominating candidates, that (1) the unit rule be eliminated from all stages of the delegate selection process and (2) "all feasible efforts (be) made to assure that delegates are selected through party primary, convention, or committee procedures open to public participation within the calendar year of the national convention." This minority report of the Rules Committee, subsequently passed by the delegates assembled in Chicago. carried an unquestionably stern mandate for procedural reform.

In early February of 1969, Senator Fred Harris of Oklahoma, then Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, acted on the Convention mandate and officially appointed a 28-member Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection. We are that Commission. We represent all ideological and geographical elements of the Party. We are present and former public officeholders, party officials, teachers, labor leaders, and civil rights organizers.

On March 1, 1969, we held our first meeting in Washington, D.C. At that time we took two actions: first, we directed the staff to analyze the delegate selection systems of each state and to report their findings to us; secondly, we decided to organize into five-member task forces and hold regional hearings on the strengths and weaknesses of our party.

Beginning in April, the Commission conducted hearings in seventeen cities and heard the testimony of more than five hundred Democrats. Among them were Vice President Hubert Humphrey, Senator Eugene McCarthy, Reverend Channing Phillips, Senator Edmund Muskie and Senator Edward Kennedy. They ranged from such established party leaders as former National Chairman John Bailey, former Governors Richard Hughes, Phillip Hoff and Carl Sanders, and Mayors Richard Daley, Ivan Allen, and James Tate to professors, party insurgents, Young Democrats, and one witness who was a member of both the New York State Democratic Central Committee and the Students for a Democratic Society. From the statements of rank-and- file Democrats and party leaders at these hearings, the Commission has concluded that there is a genuine, broadly based commitment to reform within the Party.

At the same time that testimony was being taken in the field, the staff was examining the maze of state laws and party regulations which determines how National Convention delegates are selected in each jurisdiction. After integrating the testimony, consulting with experts in universities, studying news accounts and seeking the advice of state party leaders, the staff gradually evolved a tentative set of standards which could achieve the objectives of a National Convention.

In September 1969, the Commission modified this tentative set of standards and adopted its proposed Guidelines for delegate selection, which were then circulated for comment among 5,000 interested Democrats. On the basis of these comments, some revisions were made. Then, on November 19 and 20, the Commission reconvened and after lengthy deliberations, adopted the final version of the Guidelines. Democratic state Party chairmen, members of the National Committee, Governors, and U.S. Congressmen and Senators received copies of these guidelines in late December. They have been available to the general public since February 1.

Aiding the States

With the adoption and distribution of the Guidelines, the Commission has completed the first phase of its work in the area of delegate selection. Under the terms of the 1968 Convention resolution, however, the Commission's work in delegate selection is not done until it completes the process of aiding state Parties to meet the requirements of the call to the 1972 Convention.

This second phase of our work has begun. We have sent letters to each state chairman and each member of the National Committee comparing the Guidelines with his state's selection system.

We have consulted with party leaders in several states. We have served as an information conduit between the state reform commissions. We have prepared memoranda on the different methods state Democratic Parties are using to modernize their procedures.

We plan to continue these services in the months ahead. The National Convention told us that party reform was to be a joint effort of the State and national Party. We mean to keep it this way.

We present this report in this spirit of cooperation. We have worked from the assumption that when Democrats have the information on a subject, they will respond quickly and honestly. In the following pages, therefore, we offer a narrative on the events and lessons of 1968. Our staff is available for any additional information that is needed.

DELEGATE SELECTION IN 1968

The slow evolution of the National Convention and the system by which delegates are chosen, together with the cherished federal character of the major parties, has resulted in a varied nominating process in which no two States choose their delegates in exactly the same way. In order to clarify the formal and informal aspect of delegate selection, the Commission offers the following analysis of the processes used in 1968.

Delegate selection systems

The Commission has discerned three broad systems of delegate selection: election by party convention, the most widely used; selection by party organization, many vestiges of which still survive; and election by direct primary. Hybrids of the three major systems are common and a few systems escape ready classification altogether.

Some of the intricacies and distinctions among the systems will become clearer when the ways in which delegates were chosen to the 1968 Democratic National Convention are examined in the following pages.

Convention systems

In 1968, 26 states and three territories selected their entire delegation to the National Convention at state conventions. Three other states selected part of their delegates in this manner.

There are two major kinds of state conventions: in one, rank-and-file party members select the delegates; in the other, party officials make the selection. Of the 32 states and territories which selected their delegations by convention, 21 relied on rank-and-file members, and six on party officials. In five states, both methods were used.

In the typical convention system, party members assemble in their wards, townships, or precincts to elect delegates to a county or some other intermediate convention which in turn sends delegates to the district and/or state convention. In a few smaller states, Maine, Vermont, and Hawaii, for example, the election to the state convention from the precinct or town is direct.

In many of the convention states not all of the National Convention delegation is actually chosen at the state convention. Instead, delegates to the state convention caucus by congressional district to nominate and sometimes elect a share of the delegation. In Minnesota, Tennessee, and Iowa, for example, more than half of the delegation was formally "nominated" at congressional district caucuses and conventions, although these nominations were never opposed at the state conventions. In Michigan and Missouri, among others, delegates were actually elected at the congressional district level.

The majority of state conventions allow for a wide degree of popular participation. Party members are invited to attend their local precinct meetings and nominate and elect delegates to the next highest convention, or stand as candidates for delegate themselves. In several states, including Colorado, Utah, Kentucky, and Texas, a higher percentage of Democrats participated in the selection process in 1968 than in some primary states.

Where party officials select the delegates in state conventions, there is usually only indirect participation by the rank-and-file party member. Delegates to these party meetings are party officials or their agents: precinct and ward chairmen, county chairmen, and officers of congressional and legislative districts.

In Kansas in 1968, for example, precinct chairmen and co-chairmen met with their county officers to select delegates to a state party convention. This party convention selected one-quarter of the state's delegation to the National Convention at large. The county officers in turn met with the congressional district leaders to choose the remaining three-quarters of the delegation.

Delegate selection systems in 1968

Convention systems: Alaska, Canal Zone, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Wyoming.

Committee systems: Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia,Louisiana, Maryland, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island.

Primary Systems: Alabama, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, West Virginia.

Mixed systems

Illinois: Two-thirds of the delegation was selected by convention and one-third by primary.

Indiana: The delegation was selected at a state convention, but was bound by the results of the presidential preference poll.

New York: One-third of the delegation was selected by committee and two-thirds by primary.

Oklahoma: One-half of the delegation was selected by convention and one-half by committee.

Pennsylvania: One-fourth of the delegation was selected by committee and three-fourths by primary.

Washington: Two-thirds of the delegation was selected by convention and one-third by committee.

Wisconsin: Most of the delegation was selected by either the State Administrative Committee or Senator Eugene McCarthy, the winner of the presidential preference primary in eight of ten congressional districts and at-large.

Committee systems

In 1968, four state Democratic Parties, Arizona, Arkansas, Maryland, and Rhode Island, and one territory, Puerto Rico, selected the entire delegation to the National Convention by party committees. In four other States, Oklahoma, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, a portion of the delegation was selected by party committees. These ranged from one-third of the delegates in New York to one-half of those in Oklahoma. Two additional states, Georgia and Louisiana, permitted their Governors, in effect, to appoint their entire delegations to the National Convention.

Just as in some convention systems where party officials select the delegates, in committee systems there is only indirect participation by the rank-and-file in the delegate selection process. All delegates so selected are chosen by party officials whose duties go far beyond delegate selection. In these instances, the officials are elected mainly on the basis of their abilities to perform other responsibilities in party affairs.

Furthermore, states which permit the selection of delegates by party committees often leave other decisions which fundamentally affect the selection of delegates to the decision of the party committee itself.

In New York and Pennsylvania, for example, the party committees which appoint the at-large delegates are also empowered to determine how many delegates shall comprise the at-large segment of the delegation, and how the remainder of the delegates shall be apportioned.

Primary systems

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia used primaries in 1968 either to elect some or all of their delegation to the National Convention, or to bind or advise a delegation as to the preference of party members regarding potential presidential candidates.

In 1968, primaries directly elected the entire state delegation to the National Convention in eleven states and the District of Columbia, and parts of the delegation in three others (Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania). Indiana and Wisconsin were unusual in that their delegations, bound by the results of the presidential preference primary, were selected after the primary itself – Indiana by a state convention and Wisconsin by the State Administrative Committee and Senator Eugene McCarthy, the winner of the primary.

Presidential preference polls, although often confused with the primary election of delegates, ordinarily occupy a separate place on the ballot. Their purpose is to discern the favorite among candidates for the presidential nomination of the state's party voters. Some preferential polls are binding on the state's delegates, as are Indiana's and Oregon's; others are of only an advisory nature, like New Jersey's and West Virginia's. Pennsylvania permits the delegate to indicate on the ballot whether he will be bound by the outcome of the preferential vote. Where the poll is binding, the nature of the obligation varies. Indiana, for example, binds the delegate for one ballot, Oregon for two (unless in the interim the favored candidate's share of the Convention vote falls below 20 percent or he releases his pledges). Many of the preferential polls are held only if the presidential candidate or his supporters take the initiative to place his name on the ballot. This is true, for example, in Illinois and New Hampshire. The primaries in Wisconsin and California are important exceptions to the distinction between the election of delegates and the preference poll. In Wisconsin, the law permits the winner of the preference poll to name his delegates after the primary; therefore, the preference poll, in effect, elects the delegates. In California, the names of candidates for delegate do not even appear on the ballot; the slate of delegates pledged to the winner of the prefernee poll is automatically elected.

An important difference among primary systems for direct election of delegates by primary is the degree to which candidates for delegate are permitted or required to identify themselves with a presidential candidate. At one extreme, New York does not permit the candidate for delegate to indicate his presidential preference on the ballot in any manner. At the other extreme, Wisconsin and California do not permit the ballot to name the candidates for delegate. A candidate in Florida's primary may use a presidential candidate's name, but, if successful, is in no way obliged to vote for him. A New Hampshire candidate may list himself as "pledged" in which case he is bound, or as merely "favorable to," in which case he is not.

Another important difference is statewide election of delegates and election in smaller constituencies. In two states in 1968, California and South Dakota, and in the District of Columbia, delegates were elected at-large. Five states chose delegates by the primary results in each Congressional District; while the majority, nine, used a mixed at-large Congressional District formula.

These distinctions by no means exhaust the intricate variations among the different state primaries. As primaries become more popular (Rhode Island, Maryland, and New Mexico adopted primaries in 1969) so will the complexities that distinguish the different state systems.

DELEGATION SELECTION IN PRACTICE

Through the years, people have analyzed the presidential nominating process by looking to the formal systems of delegate selection that state parties used. In 1968, however, allegations of irregularities and barriers to full participation made this kind of analysis superficial. For example, in all three selection systems, excessive costs and fees assessed of candidates for delegate and alternate precluded full participation.

The delegates to the 1968 Convention, therefore, refrained from isolating any one kind of system as the ultimate problem in delegate selection. Our analysis of the selection process in 1968 supports this judgment. For the most part, the procedural irregularities, discrimination and structural inadequacies discussed below were not unique to any one selection system.

Procedural irregularities

The Commission found at the beginning of its inquiry that no written party rules existed in at least 10 States, and that rules in many other states did not describe the delegate selection process in sufficient detail, leaving important decisions to the discretion of elected or appointed party officials. In some instances, where codified rules existed, they were inaccessible despite persistent efforts to secure them, bringing the total to at least twenty states where the Commission found rules either non-existent or unavailable to Democrats who sought to participate in the nominating process of the Party. The absence, inadequacy, or inaccessibility of rules explains what the Commission found to be the most common area of abuse – procedural irregularity.

These are some of the most frequent and substantial examples of unfair procedure that the Commission examined:

The unit rule

The unit rule is a practice by which a majority of a meeting or delegation can bind a dissenting minority to vote in accordance with the wishes of the majority; it has been an issue of controversy within the Democratic Party for over a century. The unit rule and other procedural devices such as favorite son candidacies and obligatory instructions have been widely used at party meetings from the precinct level to the national conventions, binding the members of a delegation to vote as a single unit. Delegates so bound are frequently required to cast votes against their personal preferences – indeed against their consciences – at the next stage of the nominating process.

In 1968, prior to the National Convention, the unit rule, in one form or another, was used at party meetings in at least 15 states. In 224 of the 254 county caucuses in Texas, for example, the unit rule was imposed. Many Connecticut town committees employed the unit rule or binding instructions at the meetings where delegates to the State Convention were selected. Two States, Oregon and Massachusetts, which selected delegates by a primary process, also bound their delegations to vote for the candidate who received a majority or plurality of the vote in the presidential preference poll, regardless of the delegates' personal choice, as declared on the primary ballot. In Indiana, delegates actually chosen in a State Convention were bound to vote for the plurality winner of a previous primary.

Proxy voting

Proxy voting is a process by which one person is empowered or authorized to act in the name of another or many others. Many state parties have authorized or permitted the use of proxies, although the Commission found that rarely were adequate safeguards against their abuse provided for or enforced. As a result, proxy voting was a source of much real and felt grievance in 1968. Some abuses involved irregularities discovered only after proxies had been cast and enforced. In Hawaii, for example, proxies were voted at the State convention from unorganized precincts. One such precinct consisted of an urban renewal area comprised largely of vacant lots. In another case, a Missouri party official cast 492 unwritten proxies in a township caucus. These proxies, totaling three times the number of party members physically present, were cast as a single unit on behalf of a candidate whose supporters were clearly a minority at the meeting.

Public notice

A necessary condition for full and meaningful opportunity to participate in delegate selection is information on the nature of that process. In many states in 1968, the Commission found that there was little or no information made available to the voter that the process was taking place. In several states, for example, lack of provisions in state law or party rules for adequate newspaper (or other) information made secret precinct caucuses common. In other states, information was supplied too late in the process for many people to participate.

Related to this problem was the situation in many states where voters participated in the nominating process without benefit of information that may have been critical in making an informed choice. In Pennsylvania, Alabama, Florida, New Jersey, Oregon and the District of Columbia, for example, delegates elected by primary opted to run with no notice of which presidential candidates they would support if elected. In New York a portion of the delegation was elected in congressional district primaries, but state law forbids candidates for delegate to inform voters of their presidential preference on the primary ballot.

The remainder of the New York delegation was appointed by the Democratic State Committee elected in the same primary with no public notice on the ballot of the presidential preferences of candidates for the state committee. In seven other states some or all of the delegation was also appointed directly by the state or district committees. In none of these States were the members of the committees elected with adequate notice to the voter that one of the responsibilities of the committee would be the appointment of delegates to the National Convention. In an additional 10 states, party committees elected in primaries, with no notice on the ballot that they would perform this function, chose delegates to district and state conventions.

Slate making

Regardless of the formal procedures specified for delegate selection in state laws or party rules, it is often the case that the final selection of National Convention delegates is made or influenced by those who nominate candidates for delegate and alternate. In many states, one or more slates of prospective delegates are presented to the official decision-making body (for example, party members, state convention, or State committee) for choice among them. In most cases, these slates can be altered or opposed only with great difficulty, if at all. Slate making, therefore, is a crucial step in the selection process. If it is closed, effective citizen participation is precluded.

In 1968, however, in many states the official slate: (1) was prepared in a manner which made participation difficult; (2) was given preferential status on the primary ballot; or (3) was protected from effective challenge by rules or tradition in convention systems. Some examples follow:

(1) In California, a committee of three party members assembled an entire "at-large" slate of National Convention delegate nominees whose names never appeared on the primary ballot. In many convention states, including Connecticut, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, and Missouri, official or traditional slates were prepared by the state chairman or special party committees. In New York and Pennsylvania, where some delegates are appointed by the State Committee, the state chairman made up an at-large slate which is submitted to the Committee. In all of these instances, the slate makers were elected or appointed without adequate notice that they would perform this function.

(2) In several primary states, there was no challenge to the state committee's slate. Where chalenges did occur, they often stood little chance of success. In Connecticut, slates of delegates to the State Convention are nominated by official party committees and automatically elected unless challenged in the primary. If the official slate is challenged it receives special designation on the ballot as the "Party Endorsed Slate." In Massachusetts, New Jersey and Ohio, official slates are challenged so infrequently that in operation delegate selection is more by committee system than by primary (although in 1968, effective challenges were made in New Jersey).

(3) In several convention systems, party rules and/or tradition made challenge to the official slate difficult or impossible. In some states, floor nominations were not allowed at lower stages of the selection process. In other states, including Kentucky, Maine and North Dakota, floor nominations of additional or alternative candidates for delegate were contingent upon a Convention vote to amend or reject the official slate or the report of the nominating committee.

In many others, "informal" slatemaking procedures were no less influential in the election of slated delegates.

Dates and times for the conduct of meetings

In several states, considerable discretion is exercised by local party officials in the choice of dates and times for meetings involved in the delegate selection process. In some cases, existing party rules give such authority to party officials. In other cases, party rules do not cover such matters.

Whatever the circumstances, the consequence of this absence of uniformity in 1968 was an added burden imposed on party members who wished to participate in the selection of delegates.

In at least three states, Connecticut, Delaware, and Tennessee, procedures by which delegates are selected, including the dates and times of the initial meetings and caucuses, are governed by local rules – with no provisions for uniform procedures statewide.

In Missouri, where in 1968 no rules governed the selection of delegates at any level, township and ward chairmen operated with total discretion in the scheduling of caucuses. As a result, many were held unannounced, often in private homes and at times not designed to insure maximum participation.

Quorum requirements

The rules of many State Parties contain no quorum provisions governing party committee meetings. In these and other instances where quorum regulation exist but are exceptionally lenient, committees are permitted to reach decisions affecting procedures related to the nominating process or the actual appointment of delegates with a small number of eligible representatives present.

In Alabama, for example, no permanent rules govern the procedures and the entire delegate selection process is determined each four years by the State Committee. At the meeting to determine how National Convention delegates will be elected in that state, 17 of 72 members (23 percent) constitutes a quorum. Similarly, in Arizona, where National Convention delegates are chosen at a meeting of the State Committee, 25 percent of the membership of that Committee constitutes a quorum. In its selection of at-large delegates, the New York state committee permits business to be conducted once 33 percent of its members are present in person or represented by proxy.

Selection of alternates, filling of vacancies

Because alternates succeed to delegate status in many cases, the provisions for their selection and succession are of great importance in the delegate selection process. The Commission found that in many States, however, the provisions dealing with alternates are not described with sufficient clarity. In other states, including Florida and Oregon, each delegate is allowed to name his own alternate in any way he sees fit.

In still others, state party chairmen, or their agents, are empowered to fill vacancies. The Connecticut State Convention in 1968, for example, approved an incomplete slate, leaving several delegate and alternate positions open to the appointment by the chairman. In California, a nominating committee of only three people is empowered by State law to select all alternates and fill all vacancies.

In some States, including Connecticut and California, existing provisions for filling of vacancies permit the insertion of new members onto the delegation instead of the succession of duly elected alternates.

DISCRIMINATION

A second area examined by the Commission was the level of representation of blacks, women and young people at the 1968 Convention. The Commission found that each of the groups was significantly lacking in representation

Blacks

Only 5.5 percent of the 1968 delegates were black, although blacks constitute over 11 percent of the total population and an even higher percentage of Democratic voters. The most creditable data we have from the 1968 general election indicates that 85 percent of the black Americans who voted cast their presidential ballots for the nominee of the Democratic Party. In 1964 when 94 percent of all blacks voted Democratic, blacks comprised only 2 percent of the entire National Convention. When Democrats assembled in Chicago for the 1968 Convention, thirteen states and three territories still had no black delegates or alternates whatsoever, and fifteen had no voting delegates. Another eleven states had only one black member, and six more had three or less.

Young people

The participation of American youth in the nominating process of the Democratic Party was one of the outstanding features of the politics of 1968.

Yet, at the National Convention, 16 delegations had no voting members under the age of 30, and another thirteen had only one delegate from that age group. In eight states, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, and Wyoming, the average age of the delegation was over 50 years. Young people, in short, proved significantly unable to translate their widespread participation into delegate status at the Convention.

Women

Women, who now comprise a majority of the voting age population in the United States, showed a dramatic increase in political awareness and activity during the 1960's. Like young people, and blacks, however, they found delegate positions at the Democratic Convention to be among the political offices that remained beyond their reach. In the 1968 Convention, women comprised only 13 percent of the voting delegates. In no state were women represented commensurate to their presence in the population; in ten delegations, there were insufficient women to fill the positions traditionally assigned them on the four permanent committees of the convention. In Ohio, only 6 of 116 delegates were women; in Illinois only 8 of 118. Representative Edith Green of Oregon was the only woman chairman of the fifty-five state and territorial delegations.

STRUCTURAL INADEQUACIES

A third area of the Commission's investigation involved practices which, though seldom intentionally discriminatory, had the effect of limiting access to the delegate selection process.

Untimely delegate selection

In 1968, some or all of the duly accredited delegates to the Democratic National Convention from the following states were selected by a process which began before the calendar year of the Convention:

Altogether, these states selected delegates who cast approximately 860 votes at the 1968 Convention. Since there was a total of 2,622 votes cast at the Convention, this represents 33 percent of the delegate votes cast. When the 110 votes cast by members of the Democratic National Committee (themselves elected in 1964) are added to this total, the percentage of votes cast by delegates selected in an untimely manner rises to 38 percent (970 delegate votes).

This means that the day Eugene McCarthy announced his candidacy, nearly one-third of the delegates had in effect already been selected. And, by the time Lyndon Johnson announced his intention not to seek another term, the formal delegate selection process had begun in all but 12 of the states. By the time the issues and candidates that characterized the politics of 1968 had clearly emerged, therefore, it was impossible for rank-and-file Democrats to influence the selection of these delegates.

Costs, Fees, and Assessments

In an era when Americans have become belatedly conscious of the extremes of wealth and poverty in this country, the Commission's studies indicate that the personal and financial expense of participation fn the presidential nominating process may exclude many at the outset. Filing fees, party assessments, the costs of campaigning for and serving as delegates, cumulative in most cases, limit the participation of some Democrats and preclude the participation of others.

A glance at the income levels of the Democrats who Serve as National Convention delegates gives an initial indication of the extent to which Convention delegations are unrepresentative of the population. In 1964, the median income of delegates to the Atlantic City Convention exceeded $18,000 (compared to a national median of under $6,000); the average personal expenses incurred by delegates attending the Convention that year were $455. By 1968, the situation had not changed – 40 percent of the delegates in Chicago had incomes of over $20,000 and only 13 percent had incomes under $10,000. (The comparable figures for the population as a whole are 12 percent over $20,000 and 70 percent under $10,000.) These disparities are explainable in part by the fees and assessments levied on delegates and alternates and candidates for delegate and alternate that made participation costly.

Some primary states, for example, require excessive filing fees of candidates for delegate. Florida imposes a mandatory $25 fee on all candidates for congressional district delegates and a $50 fee on all candidates for at-large delegates. In Nebraska, candidates for delegate must pay a filing fee of $25; candidates for alternate must pay a fee of $15.

Often, slates which carry the endorsement of party officials were given preferential treatment with regard to fees or ballot positions. For the challenge primary for delegates to the 1968 State Convention in Connecticut, the official party slate received free access to the ballot and special designation. Challengers, on the other hand, would have had to pay over $14,000 in non-refundable filing fees to mount a statewide challenge.

There were numerous examples of mandatory assessments placed on delegates to the 1968 National Convention. In Indiana and Iowa, for example, each delegate was assessed $250 by the State Party. Members of the Indiana delegation were charged an additional $250 to defray the costs of the Party's hospitality suite – bringing the total delegate assessment in that state to $500 exclusive of personal expenses.

Ex-officio designation of delegates

The Commission has found that some state Parties grant public office-holders and/or party officials automatic status as delegates to the National Convention or to party meetings related to the delegate selection process. These ex-officio delegates are usually not subject to popular appraisal in the calendar year of the Convention.

In 1968, party and public officials of several states served as delegates at precinct, county and state conventions. Furthermore, in Georgia, Washington, Maryland, and New York party rules or special resolutions provided for the automatic National Convention delegate status of several party officers. In Washington, for example, of the 47 votes allotted to the delegation, 12 were cast by ex-officio delegates individually named by resolution of the state central committee.

Apportionment

The Commission found wide variation in the formulas used to apportion National Convention delegates within the states, and in those used to apportion party meetings and conventions at which such delegates are chosen. Many of these apportionment formulas are based on outmoded considerations of territorial units, without due regard for either population or Democratic voting strength. In 1968, in Vermont, Hawaii, Connecticut, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, and Pennsylvania, party committees or assemblies directly related to the delegate selection process were apportioned wholly or in part on the basis of representation by town or county, independent of considerations of population and Democratic vote. In only six states, Oklahoma, Washington, Tennessee, Kentucky, Maine, and North Dakota, do apportionment formulas take account of the previous presidential vote in the state, though many experts have suggested that this should be the most influential factor in apportioning delegates and alternates to the National Convention.

Committee systems

In about one-fifth of the states, some or all of the delegates are selected by party committees. These vary from the selection of the entire delegation by an executive committee of the state committee to the selection of a part of the delegation by county or district committees. In many cases, these party committees meet in what is described as conventions, although membership at these meetings is limited to party officers.

In all of these systems, the selection of delegates is indirect and never affords adequate notice to the voter of his role in the election of the party committee. The Commission found a higher level of misunderstanding and confusion and a lower level of meaningful participation by the voter in selection by committee than in selection by primary or convention.

Fair representation of minority views on presidential candidates

One issue of special concern to the Commission was the fair representation of supporters of each presidential candidate on the state's delegation. Many witnesses at our hearings believed that the unrestrained application of majority rule in primary, convention and committee systems, produced much of the bitterness and divisiveness characteristic of 1968.

In California, a "winner-take-all" primary state, Senator Robert Kennedy received 46 percent of the vote (compared to 42 percent for Senator Eugene McCarthy and 12 percent for the slate ultimately committed to Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey). The delegation pledged to Senator Kennedy became the sole representatives of California Democrats to the National Convention. In New Hampshire, on the other hand, McCarthy received only 42 percent of the vote in the presidential preference primary, yet 83 percent of the delegates to the National Convention from New Hampshire cast their ballots for him.

In Minnesota, a caucus-convention system, the supporters of Senator McCarthy comprised 42 percent of the delegates to the state convention, but, by majority vote, were denied any of the 20 at-large delegates elected by that body. In New York, where the at-large segment of the delegation is appointed by the State Committee after the delegate primary, the delegates chosen by a majority of that committee bore scant resemblance in their presidential preferences to the results of the primary election, causing a serious rift among Democrats in the state.

THE GUIDELINES

The Guidelines that we have adopted are designed to eliminate the inequities in the delegate selection process discussed in the last chapter. We view popular participation as the lifeblood of the National Convention System; any compromise with this threatens the future of the Convention.

Since the inception of the Convention system, there has been a trend toward more and more popular participation in the nominating process. First there was the effect of the communications and transportation revolutions of the 19th Century. Then there was the introduction of primaries in the early years of this century. In more recent years, Democrats have eliminated the two-thirds rule and racial discrimination. In 1968, the delegates to the Democratic National Convention accelerated this trend with the adoption of the reform resolution and the authorization for the creation of our Commission. In the pages that follow we summarize the Guidelines, which are based on the resolution, discuss the legal status we have to effect the changes our Guidelines require, and present the Guidelines themselves.

SUMMARY OF THE GUIDELINES

The Guidelines are divided into two broad classifications, one in which the Commission requires certain action by state Parties, and one in which the Commission urges action by the Parties.

The following is a summary of the guidelines the Commission requires state Parties to adopt.

"Requires" means that the stated purpose is within the "full, meaningful and timely opportunity" mandate of the 1968 Convention, and that the Commission considers the accomplishment of the stated purpose to be the minimum action state Parties must take to meet the requirements of the Call of the 1972 Convention. These Guidelines are meant to apply at all levels of the process by which delegates and alternates are selected.

1. Adopt explicit written Party rules governing delegate selection (A-5).

2. Adopt procedural rules and safeguards for the delegate selection process that would:

a. forbid proxy voting (B-1).

b. forbid the use of unit rule and related practices like instructing delegations (B-5).

c. require a quorum of not less than 40% at all Party committee meetings (B-3).

d. remove all mandatory assessments of delegates to the National Convention (A-4).

e. limit mandatory participation fees to no more than $10, and petition requirements to no more than 1 % of the standard used to measure Democratic strength (A-4).

f. ensure that in all but rural areas, Party meetings are held on uniform dates, at uniform times, and in public places of easy access (A-5).

g. ensure adequate public notice of all Party meetings involved in the delegate selection process (C-1).

3. Seek as broad a base of support for the Party as possible in the following manner:

a. Add to the party rules and implement the six anti-racial-discrimination standards adopted by the Democratic National Committee (A-1).

b. Overcome the effects of past discrimination by affirmative steps to encourage representation on the National Convention delegation of minority groups, young people and women in reasonable relationship to their presence in the population of the State (A1, A-2).

c. Allow and encourage any Democrat of 18 years of age or older to participate in all Party affairs (A-2).

4. Make, where applicable, the following changes in the delegate selection process:

a. Select alternates in the same manner as prescribed for the Selection of delegates (B-4).

b. Prohibit the ex-officio designation of delegates to the National Convention (C-2).

c. Conduct the entire process of delegate selection in a timely manner, i.e., within the calendar year of the Convention (C-4).

d. In convention systems, select no less than 75% of the total delegation at a level no higher than the congressional district and adopt an apportionment formula which is based on population and/or some standard measure of Democratic strength (B-7).

e. Apportion all delegates to the National Convention not selected at large on a basis of representation which gives equal weight to population and Democratic voting strength based on the previous presidential election (B-7).

f. Designate the procedures by which slates are prepared and challenged (C-6).

g. Select no more than 10% of the delegation by the State committee (C-5).

The following is a summary of the Guidelines the Commission urges state Parties to adopt.

"Urges" means that the stated purpose is within the Commission's mandate, that the Commission considers the accomplishment of the stated purpose by the state Parties to be desirable, but that the Commission is not prepared to require such action before the 1972 Convention.

1. Remove all costs and fees involved in the delegate Selection process (A-4).

2. Explore ways of easing the financial burden on delegates and alternates and candidates for delegates and alternates (A-4).

3. Assess the burdens imposed on a prospective participant in the delegate selection process by registration laws, customs and practices, and make all feasible efforts to remove or alleviate voter registration laws and practices which prevent the effective participation of Democrats in the delegate selection process. These restrictive laws and practices include annual registration requirements, lengthy residence requirements, literacy tests, short and untimely registration periods, and infrequent enrollment sessions (A-3).

4. Provide for party enrollment that (a) allows non-Democrats to become Party members and (b) provides easy access and frequent opportunity for unaffiliated voters to become Democrats (C-3).

5. Terminate all selection systems which require or permit party committees to select any part of the state delegation (C-5).

6. Adopt procedures which will provide for fair representation of minority views on presidential candidates (B-6). (The Commission has also recommended that the 1972 Convention adopt a rule requiring state Parties to provide representation to minority political views to the highest level of the nominating process. Recognizing the overwhelming importance of this issue, the Commission will make every effort to stimulate systematic public discussion of it now and at the 1972 Democratic National Convention.)

LEGAL STATUS OF THE GUIDELINES

Because the Commission was created by virtue of actions taken at the 1968 Convention, we believe our legal responsibility extends to that body and that body alone. We view ourselves as the agent of that Convention on all matters related to delegate selection. Unless the 1972 Convention chooses to review any steps the Commission has taken, we regard our Guidelines for delegate selection as binding on the states.

We believe that we have been restrained in our exercise of our authority. We have proceeded in much the same manner as any administrative agency. We held hearings, adopted proposed standards, invited comments on those standards and finally adopted our official Guidelines.

Unlike some administrative agencies, however, we have no direct enforcement power. But this does not mean that our Guidelines are merely suggestions for the state Parties.

At the 1964 Convention, the Special Equal Rights Committee was created to "aid the state Democratic parties" in meeting the anti-discrimination requirements of the 1968 Call. After holding a series of hearings, that Committee adopted six basic elements to determine compliance with the 1968 Call. In 1967, Governor Richard Hughes of New Jersey, Chairman of the Committee, attached these elements to a letter he sent to all state chairmen. In the letter, he informed them that in the event of nonconformity with the elements "this Committee will recommend that the Credentials Committee declare the seats to be vacant and fill those seats with a delegation broadly representative of the Democrats of the state".

The Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection has the identical legal status and options available to it that the Special Equal Rights Committee had. Although as a matter of policy we plan to work as closely as possible with state Democratic Parties and the Democratic National Committee, we recognize that our obligations to the 1968 Convention may necessitate action similar to that of the Special Equal Rights Committee.

We believe that our Guidelines place no unreasonable demands on state Parties. We did not adopt them with the intention of stimulating credentials challenges in 1972.

In this regard, we did not believe that we should hold state Parties to the same rigid standards if compliance requires a change in state law. Our mandate is to work with state Parties and not with state legislatures – even those with Democratic majorities. Therefore, where compliance would require state legislative or constitutional action, the Commission has relieved state Parties from the obligation of actually accomplishing the required statutory change once "all feasible efforts" have been made. "All feasible efforts" means that the state Party had held hearings, introduced bills, worked for their enactment, and amended its rules in every necessary way short of exposing the Party or its members to legal sanctions.

Regardless of whether conformity is to be achieved by change in State law, or party rule or practice, the Commission believes that state Parties have considerable power at their disposal to democratize their delegate selection process. Therefore the Commission recommends that in the event of any contest or challenge involving an allegation of failure to fulfill the provisions of the following Guidelines, the Credentials Committee of the 1972 Democratic National Convention be guided by the principle that state Parties must assume the burden of ensuring opportunities for full, meaningful and timely participation in the delegate selection process for party members.

THE OFFICIAL GUIDELINES OF THE COMMISSION

On November 19 and 20, 1969, the Commission, meeting in open session in Washington, D.C., adopted the following Guidelines for delegate selection.

Part I – Introduction

The following Guidelines for delegate selection represent the Commission's interpretation of the "full, meaningful, and timely" language of its mandate. These Guidelines have been divided into three general categories.

A. Rules or practices which inhibit access to the delegate selection process – items which compromise full and meaningful participation by inhibiting or preventing a Democrat from exercising his influence in the delegate selection process.

B. Rules or practices which dilute the influence of a Democrat in the delegate selection process, after he has exercised all available resources to effect such influence.

C. Rules and practices which have some attributes of both A and B.

A. Rules or practices inhibiting access

1. Discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, or national origin.

2. Discrimination on the basis of age or sex.

3. Voter registration.

4. Costs and fees.

5. Existence of Party rules.

B. Rules or practices diluting influence

1. Proxy voting.

2. Clarity of purpose.

3. Quorum provisions.

4. Selection of alternates; filling of delegate and alternate vacancies.

5. Unit rule.

6. Adequate representation of political minority views.

7. Apportionment.

C. Rules and practices combining attributes of A and B

1. Adequate public notice.

2. Automatic (ex-officio) delegates.

3. Open and closed processes.

4. Premature delegate selection (timeliness).

5. Committee selection processes.

6. Slate-making.

Part II – The Guidelines

A-1 Discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, or national origin

The 1964 Democratic National Convention adopted a resolution which conditioned the seating of delegations at future conventions on the assurance that discrimination in any State Party affairs on the grounds of race, color, creed or national origin did not occur. The 1968 Convention adopted the 1964 Convention resolution for inclusion in the Call to the 1972 Convention. In 1966, the Special Equal Rights Committee, which had been created in 1964, adopted six anti-discrimination standards – designated as the "six basic elements"– for the State Parties to meet. These standards were adopted by the Democratic National Committee in January 1968 as its official policy statement.

These actions demonstrate the intention of the Democratic Party to ensure a full opportunity for all minority group members to participate in the delegate selection process. To supplement the requirements of the 1964 and 1968 Conventions, the Commission requires that:

1. State Parties add the six basic elements of the Special Equal Rights Committee to their Party rules and take appropriate steps to secure their implementation;

2. State Parties overcome the effects of past discrimination by affirmative steps to encourage minority group participation, including representation of minority groups on the national convention delegation in reasonable relationship to the group's presence in the population of the State.

 

A-2 Discrimination an the basis of age or sex

The Commission believes that discrimination on the grounds of age or sex is inconsistent with full and meaningful opportunity to participate in the delegate selection process. Therefore, the Commission requires State Parties to eliminate all vestiges of discrimination on these grounds.

Furthermore, the Commission requires State Parties to overcome the effects of past discrimination by affirmative steps to encourage representation on the national convention delegation of young people – defined as people of not more than thirty nor less than eighteen years of age – and women in reasonable relationship to their presence in the population of the State. Moreover, the Commission requires State Parties to amend their Party rules to allow and encourage any Democrat of eighteen years or more to participate in all party affairs.

When State law controls, the Commission requires State Parties to make all feasible efforts to repeal, amend, or otherwise modify such laws to accomplish the stated purpose.

A-3 Voter registration

The purpose of registration is to add to the legitimacy of the electoral process, not to discourage participation. Democrats do not enjoy an opportunity to participate fully in the delegate selection process in States where restrictive voter registration laws and practices are in force, preventing their effective participation in primaries, caucuses, conventions and other Party affairs. These restrictive laws and practices include annual registration requirements, lengthy residence requirements, literacy tests, short and untimely registration periods, and infrequent enrollment sessions.

The Commission urges each State Party to assess the burdens imposed on a prospective participant in the Party's delegate selection processes by State registration laws, customs and practices, as outlined in the report of the Grass Roots Subcommittee of the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection, and use its good offices to remove or alleviate such barriers to participation.

A-4 Costs and fees; petition requirements

The Commission believes that costs, fees, or assessments and excessive petition requirements made by State law and Party rule or resolutions impose a financial burden on (1) national convention delegates and alternates; (2) candidates for convention delegates and alternates; and (3) in some cases, participants. Such costs, fees, assessments or excessive petition requirements discouraged full and meaningful opportunity to participate in the delegate selection process.

The Commission urges the State Parties to remove all costs and fees involved in the delegate selection process. The Commission requires State Parties to remove all excessive costs and fees, and to waive all nominal costs and fees when they would impose a financial strain on any Democrat. A cost or fee of more than $10 for all stages of the delegate selection process is deemed excessive. The Commission requires State Parties to remove all mandatory assessments of delegates and alternates.

The Commission requires State Parties to remove excessive petition requirements for convention delegate candidates of presidential candidates. Any petition requirement, which calls for a number of signatures in excess of 1% of the standard used for measuring Democratic strength, whether such standard be based on the number of Democratic votes cast for a specific office in a previous election or Party enrollment figures. is deemed excessive.

When State law controls any of these matters, the Commission requires State Parties to make all feasible efforts to repeal, amend or otherwise modify such laws to accomplish the stated purpose.

This provision, however, does not change the burden of expenses borne by individuals who campaign for and/or serve as delegates and alternates. Therefore, the Commission urges State Parties to explore ways of easing the financial burden on delegates and alternates and candidates for delegate and alternate.

A-5 Existence of party rules

In order for rank-and-file Democrats to have a full and meaningful opportunity to participate in the delegate selection process, they must have access to the substantive and procedural rules which govern the process. In some States the process is not regulated by raw or rule, but by resolution of the State Committee and by tradition. In other States, the rules exist, but generally are inaccessible. In still others, rules and laws regulate only the formal aspects of the selection process (e.g., date and place of the State convention) and leave to Party resolution or tradition the

more substantive matters (e.g., intrastate apportionment of votes; rotation of alternates; nomination of delegates).

The Commission believes that any of these arrangements is inconsistent with the spirit of the Call in that they permit excessive discretion on the part of Party officials, which may be used to deny or limit full and meaningful opportunity to participate. Therefore, the Commission requires State Parties to adopt and make available readily accessible statewide Party rules and statutes which prescribe the State's delegate selection process with sufficient details and clarity. When relevant to the State's delegate selection process, explicit written Party rules and procedural rules should include clear provisions for: (1) the apportionment of delegates and votes within the State; (2) the allocation of fractional votes, if any; (3) the selection and responsibilities of convention committees; (4) the nomination of delegates and alternates (5) the succession of alternates to delegate status and the filling of vacancies; (6) credentials challenges; (7) minority reports.

  

Furthermore, the Commission requires State Parties to adopt rules which will facilitate maximum participation among interested Democrats in the processes by which National Convention delegates are selected. Among other things, these rules should provide for dates, times, and public places which would be most likely to encourage interested Democrats to attend all meetings involved in the delegate selection process.

The Commission requires State Parties to adopt explicit written Party rules which provide for uniform times and dates of all meetings involved in the delegate selection process. These meetings and events include caucuses, conventions, committee meetings, primaries, filing deadlines, and Party enrollment periods. Rules regarding time and date should be uniform in two senses. First, each stage of the delegate selection process should occur at a uniform time and date throughout the State. Second, the time and date should be uniform from year to year. The Commission recognizes that in many parts of rural America it may be an undue burden to maintain complete uniformity, and therefore exempts rural areas from this provision so long as the time and date are publicized in advance of the meeting and are uniform within the geographic area.

B-1 Proxy voting

When a Democrat cannot, or chooses not to, attend a meeting related to the delegate selection process, many States allow that person to authorize another to act in his name. This practice – called proxy voting – has been a significant source of real or felt abuse of fair procedure in the delegate selection process.

The Commission believes that any situation in which one person is given the authority to act in the name of the absent Democrat, on any issue before the meeting, gives such person an unjustified advantage in affecting the outcome of the meeting. Such a situation is inconsistent with the spirit of equal participation. Therefore, the Commission requires State Parties to add to their explicit written rules provisions which forbid the use of proxy voting in all procedures involved in the delegate selection process.

B-2 Clarity of purpose

An opportunity for full participation in the delegate selection process is not meaningful unless each Party member can clearly express his preference for candidates for delegates to the National Convention, or for those who will select such delegates. In many States, a Party member who wishes to affect the selection of the delegation must do so by voting for delegates or Party officials who will engage in many activities unrelated to the delegate selection process.

Whenever other Party business is mixed, without differentiation, with the delegate selection process, the Commission requires State Parties to make it clear to voters how they are participating in a process that will nominate their Party's candidate for President. Furthermore, in States which employ a convention or committee system, the Commission requires State Parties to clearly designate the delegate selection procedures as distinct from other Party business.

B-3 Quorum provisions

Most constituted bodies have rules or practices which set percentage or number minimums before they can commence their business. Similarly, Party committees which participate in the selection process may commence business only after it is determined that this quorum exists. In some States, however, the quorum requirement is satisfied when less than 40% of committee members are in attendance.

The Commission believes a full opportunity to participate is satisfied only when a rank-and-file Democrat's representative attends such committee meetings. Recognizing, however, that the setting of high quorum requirements may impede the selection process, the Commission requires State Parties to adopt rules setting quorums at not less than 40% for all party committees involved in the delegate selection process.

B-4 Selection of alternates; filling of delegate and alternate vacancies

The Call to the 1972 Convention requires that alternates be chosen by one of the three methods sanctioned for the selection of delegates – i.e., by primary, convention or committee. In some States, Party rules authorize the delegate himself or the State Chairman to choose his alternate. The Commission requires State Parties to prohibit these practices – and other practices not specifically authorized by the Call – for selecting alternates.

In the matter of vacancies, some States have Party rules which authorize State Chairmen to fill all delegate and alternate vacancies. This practice again involves the selection of delegates or alternates by a process other than primary, convention or committee. The Commission requires States Parties to prohibit such practices and to fill all vacancies by (1) a timely and representative Party committee; or (2) a reconvening of the body which selected the delegate or alternate whose seat is vacant; or (3) the delegation itself, acting as a committee.

When State law controls, the Commission requires State Parties to make all feasible efforts to repeal, amend or otherwise modify such laws to accomplish the stated purposes.

B-5 Unit rule

In 1968, many States used the unit rule at various stages in the processes by which delegates were selected to the National Convention. The 1968 Convention defined unit rule, did not enforce the unit rule on any delegate in 1968, and added language to the 1972 Call requiring that "the unit rule not be used in any stage of the delegate selection process." In light of the Convention action, the Commission requires State Parties to add to their explicit written rules provisions which forbid the use of the unit rule or the practice of instructing delegates to vote against their stated preferences at any stage of the delegate selection process.

   

B-6 Adequate representation of minority views on presidential candidates at each stage in the delegate selection process

The Commission believes that a full and meaningful opportunity to participate in the delegate selection process is precluded unless the presidential preference of each Democrat is fairly represented at all levels of the process. Therefore, the Commission urges each State Party to adopt procedures which will provide fair representation of minority views on presidential candidates and recommends that the 1972 Convention adopt a rule requiring State Parties to provide for the representation of minority views to the highest level of the nominating process.

The Commission believes that there are at least two different methods by which a State Party can provide for such representation. First, in at-large elections it can divide delegate votes among presidential candidates in proportion to their demonstrated strength. Second, it can choose delegates from fairly apportioned districts no larger than congressional districts.

The Commission recognizes that there may be other methods to provide for fair representation of minority views. Therefore, the Commission will make every effort to stimulate public discussion of the issue of representation of minority views on presidential candidates between now and the 1972 Democratic National Convention.

B-7 Apportionment

The Commission believes that the manner in which votes and delegates are apportioned within each State has a direct bearing on the nature of participation. If the apportionment formula is not based on Democratic strength and/or population the opportunity for some voters to participate in the delegate selection process will not be equal to the opportunity of others. Such a situation is inconsistent with a full and meaningful opportunity to participate.

Therefore, the Commission requires State Parties which apportion their delegation to the National Convention to apportion on a basis of representation which fairly reflects the population and Democratic strength within the State. The apportionment is to be based on a formula giving equal weight to total population and to the Democratic vote in the previous presidential election.

The Commission requires State Parties with convention systems to select at least 75% of their delegations to the National Convention at congressional district or smaller unit levels.

In convention or committee systems, the Commission requires State Parties to adopt an apportionment formula for each body actually selecting delegates to State, district and county conventions which is based upon population and/or some measure of Democratic strength.

Democratic strength may be measured by the Democratic vote in the preceding presidential, senatorial, congressional or gubernatorial election, and/or by party enrollment figures.

When State law controls, the Commission requires State Parties to make all feasible efforts to repeal, amend or otherwise modify such laws to accomplish the stated purpose.

C-1 Adequate public notice

The Call to the 1968 convention required State Parties to assure voters an opportunity to "participate fully" in party affairs. The Special Equal Rights Committee interpreted this opportunity to include adequate public notice. The Committee listed several elements – including publicizing of the time, places and rules for the conduct of all public meetings of the Democratic Party and holding such meetings in easily accessible places – which comprise adequate public notice. These elements were adopted by the Democratic National Committee in January 1968 as its official policy statement and are binding on the State Parties.

Furthermore, the Commission requires State Parties to circulate a concise and public statement in advance of the election itself of the relationship between the party business being voted upon and the delegate selection process.

In addition to supplying the information indicated above, the Commission believes that adequate public notice includes information on the ballot as to the presidential preference of (1) candidates of slates for delegate or (2) in the States which select or nominate a portion of the delegates by committees, candidates or slates for such committees.

Accordingly, the Commission requires State Parties to give every candidate for delegate (and candidate for committee, where appropriate) the opportunity to state his presidential preferences on the ballot at each stage of the delegate selection process. The Commission requires the State Parties to add the word "uncommitted" or like term on the ballot next to the name of every candidate for delegate who does not wish to express a presidential preference.

When State law controls, the Commission requires the State Parties to make all feasible efforts to repeal, amend or otherwise modify such laws to accomplish the stated purposes

C-2 Automatic (ex-officio) delegates (see also C-4)

In some States, certain public or Party officeholders are delegates to county, State and National Conventions by virtue of their official position. The Commission believes that State laws, Party rules and Party resolutions which so provide are inconsistent with the Call to the 1972 Convention for three reasons:

1. The Call requires all delegates to be chosen by primary, convention or committee procedures. Achieving delegate status by virtue of public or Party office is not one of the methods sanctioned by the 1968 Convention.

2. The Call requires all delegates to be chosen by a process which begins within the calendar year of the Convention. Ex-officio delegates usually were elected (or appointed) to their positions before the calendar year of the Convention.

3. The Call requires all delegates to be chosen by a process in which all Democrats have a full and meaningful opportunity to participate. Delegate selection by a process in which certain places on the delegation are not open to competition among Democrats is inconsistent with a full and meaningful opportunity to participate.

Accordingly. the Commission requires State Parties to repeal Party rules or resolutions which provide for ex-officio delegates. When State law controls, the Commission requires State Parties to make all feasible efforts to repeal, amend or otherwise modify Such laws to accomplish the stated purpose.

C-3 Open and closed processes

The Commission believes that Party membership, and hence opportunity to participate in the delegate selection process, must be open to all persons who wish to be Democrats and who are not already members of another political party; conversely, a full opportunity for all Democrats to participate is diluted if members of other political parties are allowed to participate in the selection of delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

The Commission urges State Parties to provide for party enrollment that (1) allows non- Democrats to become Party members, and (2) provides easy access and frequent opportunity for unaffiliated voters to become Democrats.

C-4 Premature delegate selection (timeliness)

The 1968 Convention adopted language adding to the Call to the 1972 Convention the requirement that the delegate selection process must begin within the calendar year of the Convention. In many States, Governors, State Chairmen, State, district and county committees who are chosen before the calendar year of the Convention, selector choose agents to select the delegates. These practices are inconsistent with the Call.

The Commission believes that the 1968 Convention intended to prohibit any untimely procedures which have any direct bearing on the processes by which National Convention delegates are selected. The prccess by which delegates are nominated is such a procedure. Therefore, the Commission requires State Parties to prohibit any practices by which officials elected or appointed before the calendar year choose nominating committees or propose or endorse a slate of delegates – even when the possibility for a challenge to such slate or committee is provided.

When State law controls, the Commission requires State Parties to make all feasible efforts to repeal, amend, or modify Such laws to accomplish the stated purposes.

C-5 Committee selection processes

The 1968 Convention indicated no preference between primary, convention, and committee systems for choosing delegates. The Commission believes, however, that committee systems by virtue of their indirect relationship to the delegate selection process, offer fewer guarantees for a full and meaningful opportunity to participate than other systems.

The Commission is aware that it has no authority to eliminate committee systems in their entirety. However, the Commission can and does require State Parties which elect delegates in this manner to make it clear to voters at the time the Party committee is elected or appointed that one of its functions will be the selection of National Convention delegates.

Believing, however, that such selection system is undesirable even when adequate public notice is given, the Commission requires State Parties to limit the National Convention delegation chosen by committee procedures to not more than 10 percent of the total number of delegates and alternates.

Since even this obligation will not ensure an opportunity for full and meaningful participation, the Commission recommends that State Parties repeal rules or resolutions which require or permit Party committees to select any part of the State's delegation to the National Convention.

When State law controls, the Commission recommends that State Parties make all feasible efforts to repeal, amend, or otherwise modify such laws to socomplish the stated purpose.

C-6 Slate-making

In mandating a full and meaningful opportunity to participate in the delegate selection process, the 1968 Convention meant to prohibit any practice in the process of selection which made it difficult for Democrats to participate. Since the process by which individuals are nominated for delegate positions and slates of potential delegates are formed is an integral and crucial part of the process by which delegates are actually selected, the Commission requires State Parties to extend to the nominating process all guarantees of full and meaningful opportunity to participate in the delegate selection process. When State law controls, the Commission requires State Parties to make all feasible efforts to repeal, amend or otherwise modify such laws to accomplish the stated purpose.

Furthermore, whenever slates are presented to caucuses, meetings, conventions, committees, or to voters in a primary, the Commission requires State Parties to adopt procedures which assure that:

1. the bodies making up the slates have been elected, assembled, or appointed for the slate- making task with adequate public notice that they would perform such task;

2. those persons making up each slate have adopted procedures that will facilitate widespread participation in the slate-making process, with the proviso that any slate presented in the name of a presidential candidate in a primary State be assembled with due consultation with the presidential candidate or his representative.

3. adequate procedural safeguards are provided to assure that the right to challenge the presented slate is more than perfunctory and places no undue burden on the challengers.

When State law controls, the Commission requires State Parties to make all feasible efforts to repeal, amend or otherwise modify such laws to accomplish the stated purpose.

CONCLUSION

The Guidelines that we have adopted are designed to open the door to all Democrats who seek a voice in their Party's most important decision: the choice of its presidential nominee. We are concerned with the opportunity to participate, rather than the actual level of participation, although the number of Democrats who vote in their caucuses, meetings and primaries is an important index of the opportunities available to them. As members of the Commission, we are less concerned with the product of the meetings than the process, although we believe that the product will be improved in the give and take of open and fairly conducted meetings.

We believe that popular participation is more than a proud heritage of our party, more even than a first principle. We believe that popular control of the Democratic Party is necessary for its survival.

We do not believe this is an idle threat. When we view our past history and present policies alongside that of the Republican Party, we are struck by one unavoidable fact: our Party is the only major vehicle for peaceful, progressive change in the United States.

If we are not an open party; if we do not represent the demands of change, then the danger is not that people will go to the Republican Party; it is that there will no longer be a way for people committed to orderly change to fulfill their needs and desires within our traditional political system. It is that they will turn to third and fourth party politics or the anti-politics of the street.

We believe that our Guidelines offer an alternative for these people. We believe that the Democratic Party can meet the demands for participation with their adoption. We trust that all Democrats will give the Guidelines their careful consideration.

We are encouraged by the response of state Parties to date. In 40 states and territories the Democratic Party has appointed reform commissions (or subcommittees of the state committee) to investigate ways of modernizing party procedures. Of these, 17 have already issued reports and recommendations. In a number of States, party rules and state laws have already been revised, newly written or amended to insure the opportunity for participation in Party matters by all Democrats.

Rhode Island and Maryland, for example, were states that in 1968 chose their delegates by a State Committee selected in an untimely manner – that is, by a process that began before the calendar year of the convention. In 1969, the legislative bodies of those States passed presidential primary bills at the urging of Democratic members of those legislatures and Democratic Party officials. This year, the Maryland legislature has improved on the bill enacted in 1969.

Legislatures in the states of Illinois and New Mexico have also passed presidential primary laws, the latter being the first state to adopt a primary providing for proportional representation. In Nevada, a bill supported by the Democrats and calling for a presidential preference primary with proportional representation was approved by the legislature, but was vetoed by Republican Governor Paul Laxalt. A presidential primary bill has passed one house of the Delaware legislature.

In March, the Idaho legislature, at the prodding of its Democratic members, passed a law that will allow for complete modernization of the delegate selection process.

In several states there has been substantial reform of party rules governing delegate selection and party structure. In Minnesota, a new party constitution has been adopted that provides for proportional representation and modified "one Democrat – one vote."

In Michigan, a meeting of 2,000 Democrats convened in January and adopted the broad recommendations of the Haber Reform Commission. In North Carolina, the State Party has adopted comprehensive reforms of its party structure, including one provision for 18-year-old participation in all party affairs and another for reasonable representation on all party committees and delegations of women, minority racial groups and young people. In Colorado, the State Committee has adopted a proposal that will ensure proportional representation for all presidential candidates at the next convention. In Oklahoma, rules have been proposed which will assure that not more than 60 percent of the membership of any committee or convention will be of the same sex, and will eliminate the role of untimely committees in the delegate selection process. In Missouri, statewide public hearings have been held to discuss proposals for party rules.

In other states, the Democratic Party has adopted significant changes in the structure and selection of their state and constituent committees. In January, Alabama reapportioned its State Committee on a one-man, one-vote basis with members now elected from districts rather than at large. The Florida Democratic Advisory Committee has provided for ex-officio representation of minority groups and youth on the State Committee.

In Washington and Virginia, the State Committee has adopted party rules that require 18-year-old participation in all party affairs. In an additional 30 states, at the urging of Democratic leaders, the 18-year-old vote is before the legislature or will be on the ballot in November.

In Mississippi, South Dakota and the Canal Zone the first set of comprehensive party rules has been adopted. The Missouri State Central Committee, upon completing its extensive statewide hearings, will adopt its first party constitution.

All of these efforts lead us to the conclusion that the Democratic Party is bent on meaningful change. A great European statesman once said, "All things are possible, even the fact that an action in accord with honor and honesty ultimately appears to be a prudent political investment."

We share this sentiment. We are confident that party reform, dictated by our Party's heritage and principles, will insure a strong, winning and united Party.

APPENDICES

THE ORIGINS AND MANDATE OF THE COMMISSION ON PARTY STRUCTURE AND DELEGATE SELECTION

1. Origins

(a) Excerpts from the Majority Report of the Credentials Committee, adopted by the Convention on August 26, 1968:

The deliberation of this Committee suggests that we can and should encourage appropriate revisions in the delegate selection process to assure the fullest possible participation and to make the Democratic Party completely representative of grass-roots sentiment.

And to this end, this Committee will recommend and does recommend that the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee establish a Special Committee to do these things:

A. Study the delegate selection processes in effect in the various states, in the context of the peculiar circumstances, needs and traditions in which each state's laws and practices find their roots.

B. Recommend to the Democratic National Committee such improvements as can assure even broader citizen participation in the delegate selection process.

C. Aid the State Democratic parties in working toward relevant changes in State law and Party rules.

D. Report its findings and recommendations to the Democratic National Committee and make them available to the 1972 Convention and the Committees thereof.

Be it further resolved, that the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee shall establish a Special Committee to aid the State Democratic parties in fully meeting the responsibilities and assurances required for inclusion in the Call for the 1972 Democratic National Convention, said Committee to report to the Democratic National Committee concerning its efforts and findings and said report to be available to the 1972 Convention and the committees thereof.

(b) Excerpts from the Equal Rights (Richard Hughes) Committee Report, adopted by the Democratic National Committee, August 24,1968:

To the end that the Democratic Party will demonstrate its highest commitment to principle as well as the utmost of political wisdom, we recommend: ...

4) That a Commission on Party Structure should be created to study the relationship between the National Democratic Party and its constituent State Democratic Parties. in order that full participation of all Democrats, regardless of race, color, creed or national origin may be facilitated by uniform standards for structure and operation.

2. Mandate

Minority Report of the Rules Committee, adopted by the Convention on August 27, 1968:

Be it resolved, that the Call to the 1972 Democratic National Convention shall contain the following language:

It is understood that a State Democratic Party, in selecting and certifying delegates to the National Convention, thereby undertakes a process in which all Democratic voters have had full and timely opportunity to participate. In determining whether a State Party has complied with this mandate, the convention shall require that:

(1) The unit rule not be used in any stage of the delegate selection process; and

(2) All feasible efforts have been made to assure that delegates are selected through Party primary, convention, or committee procedures open to public participation within the calendar year of the National Convention.

[This amendment to the 1972 Call is to be implemented by the Commission, as a result of the Convention's adoption of the Credentials Committee recommendation (supra.) that the Commission was to "aid the State Democratic Parties in fully meeting the responsibilities and assurances required for inclusion in the Call for the 1972 Convention").

STATE REFORM COMMISSION CHAIRMEN

 

Alabama: Honorable Bert Haltom, Florence, Ala.

Arizona: Mr. George Miller, 2934 North Los Altos, Tucson, Ariz.

Arkansas: Mr. Richard S. Arnold, P.O. Box 1938, Texarkana, Ark.

California: Mr. Donald Solem, 1182 Market Street, San Francisco, Calif.

Colorado: Mr. Dale Tooley, 635 Vine Street, Denver, Colo.

Connecticut: Judge Stephen K. Elliot, 50 Center Street, Southington, Conn.

Delaware: Dr. Arlen Mechler, 1108 North Rodney Street, Wilmington, Del.

Florida: Mr. Pat Thomas; P.O. Box 1758, Tallahassee. Fla.

Georgia: Mr. James H. Gray,2501 Bank of Georgia Building, Atlanta, Ga.

Idaho: Mr. James B. Donart, 35 East Main Street, Weiser, Idaho.

Indiana: Mr. Richard B. Stoner, 2770 Franklin Drive, Columbus, Ind.

Iowa: Mr. Dan Boyle, 403 Magowan Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa.

Kentucky: Mr. Thomas C. Carroll, 1415 Kentucky Home Life Bldg., Louisville, Ky.

Maine: Mr. George Mitchell, 62 State Street, Augusta, Me.

Maryland: Honorable Thomas Hunter Lowe, House of Delegates, Annapolis, Md.

Michigan: Dr. William Haber, 11498 Portlance, Detroit, Mich.

Minnesota: Mr. Forrest Harris, 6113 Second Avenue, Minneapolis, Minn.

Mississippi: Dr. Matthew Page, Colonel Albert Richardson, 346 Issaquena Avenue, Clarksdale, Miss.

Missouri: Mr. George W. Burruss, 1709 Hayselton, Jefferson City, Mo.

Nebraska: Richard M. Fellman, 845 Omaha National Bank Bldg., Omaha, Neb.

Nevada: Mrs. Pat Potter, 1555 West King Street, Carson City, Nev.

New Hampshire: Mr. Harry Macris, Room 700, Carpenter Hotel, Manchester, N.H.

New Jersey: Honorable Frank Thompson, U.S. House of Representatives, 2246 Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C.

New Mexico: Mr. Thomas G. Morris, P.O. Box 336, Tucumcari, N.M.

New York: Mr. Theodore Sorensen, 180 Central Park South. New York, N.Y.

North Carolina: James B. Hunt, Jr., P.O. Box 249, Wilson, N.C.

North Dakota: Mrs. Liv Bjorlie, 1380 Central Ave., Valley City, N. Dak.

Ohio: Mr. Robert B. McAlister, 17 South High Street, Columbus, Ohio.

Oklahoma: Mr. Jerry Sokolosky, Cravens Building, Oklahoma City, Okla.

Pennsylvania: Mr. Horace J. Culbertson, P.O. Box 129, Lewistown, Pa.

South Dakota: Dr. Byron Harrell, Box 5, Vermillion, S. Dak.

Tennessee: Mr. James Peeler,= Covington, Tenn.

Utah: Mr. John Klas, 363 East Second South, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Vermont: Mr. Richard J. Young, Shelburne, Vt.

Virginia: Mr. Tom B. Fugat, Ewings, Va.

Washington: Mr. Dino Batali, 1700 Fernside Drive, Tacoma, Wash.

West Virginia: Mr. Rudolph DiTrappano 2 1400 Commerce Square, Charleston, W. Va. Wisconsin: Mr. David Carley, 315 West Gorham, Madison, Wis.

Canal Zone: Mrs. Leona McFarland, P.O. Box 936, Balboa, Canal Zone.

Guam: Mr. Fred Bordallo, P.O. Box 1328, Agana, Guam.

DELEGATE SELECTION IN 1968: A STATE BY STATE SUMMARY

Alabama: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were elected from executive committee districts (contiguous with the congressional district boundaries prior to court ordered redistricting in 1965) in a primary held in May 1968. Candidates for delegate and alternate ran individually and their presidential preference was not listed on the ballot. Candidates for delegate and alternate who were unopposed were deemed elected and their names did not appear on the ballot. No presidential preference poll was conducted. The Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary of the State Committee were appointed as delegates to the National Convention by the State Committee.

Alaska: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state convention held in April, 1968. Delegates and alternates to the state convention were selected at district conventions composed of delegates selected at precinct caucuses held in the early spring of 1968.

Arizona: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large by the State Committee in April, 1968. Members of the State Committee were selected by country committees composed of precinct Committeemen elected in a primary held in September, 1966.

Arkansas: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large by the State Committee, meeting in July 1968, three-fifths on the basis of the recommendations of the county committees convened in each congressional district. Members of the State Committee were selected by a state convention composed of delegates elected by county conventions. Delegates to the county conventions were elected in a primary held in August, 1966.

California: Delegates to the National Convention were elected at large by slate in a statewide presidential primary held in June 1968. The slate of the presidential candidate who received a plurality of the primary vote was elected. Only the names of the presidential candidates appeared on the ballot. The committee which nominated the winning slate of delegates named the alternates to the National Convention.

Canal Zone: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at a regional convention held in the Spring of 1968. Any member of the Canal Zone Democratic Party was allowed to attend the regional convention.

Colorado: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state assembly held in July 1968, three fourths on the basis of the recommendations of congressional district conventions and one fourth on the basis of the recommendations of a nominating committee of the state assembly. Delegates and alternates to the congressional district conventions and state assembly were Selected at county conventions composed of delegates selected at precinct caucuses held in May 1968.

Connecticut: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a State convention held in June 1968. Delegates to the state convention were selected by town committees, town caucuses, or municipal primaries. Town committees were selected between 1966 and 1968. Town caucuses were held in February and early March 1968 and were attended by rank and file Democrats. Delegates chosen by town committees or at town caucuses were subject to a challenge primary, an option exercised in one sixth of the towns. Approximately one-eighth of the delegates to the state convention were selected by virtue of the challenge primary.

Delaware: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state convention held in May 1968. One third of the delegates and alternates to the state convention were selected in the Spring of 1968 and two thirds were selected by county and district chairmen elected in a primary in 1966.

District of Columbia: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were elected at large by slate in a presidential primary held in May 1968. The names of candidates for delegate appeared on the ballot, and the voter had the option of casting his ballot for a slate or for individual candidates on different slates. Candidates for delegate could not express their presidential preference on the ballot and no presidential preference poll was conducted.

Florida: Three fifths of the delegates to the National Convention were elected at large and two fifths by congressional district in a primary held in May 1968. The names of candidates for delegate appeared on the ballot grouped by slate pledged to a presidential candidate. No presidential preference poll was conducted. Each elected delegate appointed his own alternate to the National Convention.

Georgia: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large by the Chairman of the State Executive Committee with the advice and consent of the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in May 1968. The State Chairman was selected by the state convention held in October 1966, and the Democratic gubernatorial nominee was selected in a primary held in September 1966.

Guam: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a local convention held in July 1968. Delegates to the local convention were selected at precinct caucuses also held in July 1968.

Hawaii: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state convention held in May 1968. The delegates and alternates to the state convention were composed of party officials and the elected representatives of each precinct club. Precinct clubs elected their representatives in March 1968.

Idaho: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state assembly in June 1968. One third of the delegation was apportioned to each of the two congressional districts. Delegates and alternates to the state assembly were the legislative district chairmen and the delegates selected by precinct committeemen elected in a primary held in August 1966.

Illinois: Two fifths of the delegates and alternates to the National Convention were elected by congressional district in a primary held in early June 1968 and three fifths were selected at large at a state convention held in late June 1968. In the primary, candidates for delegate and alternate ran individually and were not allowed to express a presidential preference on the ballot. No presidential preference poll was conducted. The state convention for the selection of atlarge delegates and alternates to the National Convention was composed of delegates selected by township committeemen elected in 1966 and by ward and precinct committeemen elected in the June 1968 primary.

Indiana: One half of the delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected by congressional district caucuses and one half at large at a State convention held in June 1968. Congressional district delegates were bound by the results of the district presidential preference poll held concurrently with the election of delegates and alternates to the state convention in the May primary. At-large delegates were bound by the result of the at-large presidential preference poll.

Iowa: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a State convention held in May 1968, one half on the basis of the recommendations of congressional district caucuses and one half on the basis of the recommendations of a nominating committee of the state convention. Delegates and alternates to the state convention were selected at county conventions composed of delegates selected by precinct caucuses held in March 1968.

Kansas: One-fourth of the delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected one fourth at large at a state convention held in March 1968 and three fourths at congressional district conventions held in February 1968. Delegates and alternates to the state and district conventions were selected at county conventions composed of precinct committeemen and committee women elected in a primary held in August 1966.

Kentucky: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state convention held in July 1968, one third on the basis of the recommendations of congressional district caucuses and two thirds on the basis of the recommendations of a nominating committee of the State convention. Delegates and alternates to the State convention were selected at county or legislative district conventions, also held in July 1968, composed of all those party members who wished to attend.

Louisiana: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large by a selection committee established by the State Committee. The members of the selection committee were the Governor, the Chairman and Secretary of the State Committee, and the members of the National Committee from Louisiana. The Governor and State Committee officers were elected in a primary held in November 1967. Members of the National Committee were selected in 1964.

Maine: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state convention held in May, 1968 on the basis of the recommendations of a nominating committee of the state convention. Delegates and alternates to the state convention were selected by municipal caucuses held in February and March 1968.

Maryland: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a "convention" of the State Committee held in April 1968. The State Committee was composed of local committee members elected in a primary held in September 1966.

Massachusetts: Two thirds of the delegates and alternates to the National Convention were elected at large and one third by congressional district in a primary held in April 1968. Names of congressional district candidates for delegate and alternate appeared on the ballot; because the State Committee's slate of candidates for delegate and alternate at large was not contested, these candidates were deemed elected without their names having to appear on the ballot. Although candidates for district delegate expressed their presidential preference on the ballot, a presidential preference poll held concurrently with the election of delegates bound the delegates regardless of their individual preferences.

Michigan: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at a state convention held in June ,968, one half at large and one half by congressional district caucuses of state convention delegates. Delegates and alternates to the State convention were selected by county conventions composed of delegates elected in a primary held in August 1966.

Minnesota: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state convention held in June 1968, three fifths on the basis of the recommendations of congressional district conventions and two fifths an the basis of the recommendations of a nominating committee of the state convention. Delegates to the congressional district and state conventions were selected at county conventions composed of delegates selected at precinct caucuses held in the spring of 1968.

Mississippi: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at the state convention held in July 1968, two fifths on the basis of the recommendations of congressional district caucuses and three fifths on the basis of the recommendation of a nominating committee of the State convention. Delegates and alternates to the state convention were selected at county conventions composed of delegates selected at precinct conventions also held in July 1968.

Missouri: Nine tenths of the delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at a state convention held in June 1968; one tenth of the delegation was appointed by the State Committee. At the state convention, one half of the delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at congressional district caucuses and two fifths at large on the basis of the recommendations of a nominating committee of the state convention. Delegates and alternates to the state convention were selected at county conventions composed of delegates selected at ward or township meetings held in April and May 1968.

Montana: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state convention held in June 1968. Delegates and alternates to the state convention were selected at county convention; composed of precinct committeemen and committeewomen elected in a primary in June 1968.

Nebraska: Three fourths of the delegates and alternates to the National Convention were elected at large and one fourth by congressional district in a primary held in May 1968. The names of candidates for delegate appeared on the ballot with their presidential preference or the designation "uncommitted" below their name. A non binding presidential preference poll was conducted concurrently with the primary election of delegates.

Nevada: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state convention held in March 1968. Delegates and alternates to the state convention were selected at county conventions composed of delegates and alternates selected in precinct mass meetings held in February and March 1968.

New Hampshire: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were elected in a primary equally from the two congressional districts in March 1968. Delegates ran individually and their names appeared on the ballots along with their presidential preference. A non binding presidential preference poll was conducted concurrently with the primary election of delegates.

New Jersey: Nine tenths of the delegates and alternates to the National Convention were elected by congressional district and one tenth at large in a primary held in June 1968. Delegates ran individually and their names appeared on the primary ballot along with their presidential preference. No presidential preference poll was conducted.

New Mexico: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state conventon held in June 1968. Delegates and alternates to the state convention were selected at county conventions composed of delegates selected at ward meetings (or at combined county conventions large at a state convention held in June 1968.

New York: Two thirds of the delegates and alternates to the National Convention were elected by congressional district in a primary held in June 1968 and one third were selected at large by the State Committee later in June 1968. In the primary, candidates for delegate and alternate ran individually and were not permitted to state their presidential preference on the ballot. No presidential preference poll was conducted. The State Committee which selected the at-large delegates and alternates to the National Convention was composed of members elected by assembly district in the June primary. The Chairman, Vice Chairman, Treasurer, Secretary, and Chairman of the law committee were ex-officio delegates to the National Convention.

North Carolina: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state convention held in June 1968, three fifths on the basis of the recommendations of congressional district caucuses. Delegates and alternates to the state convention were selected by county conventions composed of delegates selected in precinct caucuses held in May 1968.

North Dakota: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state convention held in June 1968. Delegates and alternates to the state convention were selected at meetings of the legislative district committees composed of precinct committeemen elected in a primary held in September 1966.

Ohio: Three fifths of the delegates and alternates to the National Convention were elected at large and two fifths by congressional district in a primary held in May 1968. Delegates ran individually and by slate, and in both cases their names appeared on the ballot along with their presidential preference. No presidential preference poll was conducted.

Oklahoma: One half of the delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected by the congressional district committees and one half were selected at large at a state convention held in June 1968. The congressional district committees were composed of county chairmen and co-chairmen Selected by precinct chairmen and co-chairmen. The precinct chairmen and co-chairmen were selected by precinct committeemen elected in the primary held in February 1967. The state convention was composed of delegates and alternates selected at county conventions whose delegates were selected at precinct meetings held in June 1968.

Oregon: Three fourths of the delegates to the National Convention were elected at large and one fourth by congressional district in a primary held in May 1968. Delegates ran individually and their names appeared on the ballot. Although candidates for delegate expressed their presidential preference on the ballot a presidential preference poll held concurrently with the primary election of delegates bound the elected delegates regardless of their individual preferences. Each elected delegate appointed his own alternate to the National Convention.

Pennsylvania: Three fourths of the delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected by congressional district in a primary held in April 1968, and one fourth was selected at large by the State Committee in February 1968. The State Committee was composed of members elected by senatorial district in a primary held in April, 1966. Candidates for delegate in the congressional district primary ran individually and could not express their presidential preference on the ballot. A presidential preference poll was conducted concurrently with the primary election of delegates and was binding on any elected delegate who pledged himself to abide by the results of the poll if he won.

Puerto Rico: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at a meeting of the Territorial Committee whose members were selected in 1966.

Rhode Island: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large by the State Committee on the basis of the recommendations of a nominating committee in May 1968. Members of the State Committee were elected in a primary held in September 1966.

South Carolina: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state convention held in March 1968, two thirds on the basis of the recommendations of the congressional district caucuses and one third on the basis of the recommendations of the State Committee. Delegates and alternates to the state convention were selected by county conventions composed of delegates selected by precinct clubs in February 1966.

South Dakota: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were elected at large in a primary held in June 1968. Candidates for delegate ran by slate but their names appeared on the ballot along with their presidential preference.

Tennessee: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state convention held in June 1968, one half on the basis of the recommendations of congressional district caucuses and one half on the basis of the recommendations of a nominating committee of the state convention. In 91 counties, delegates and alternates to the state convention were chosen by mass meetings held in the spring of 1968, and, in the four largest counties, by the executive committees elected in the primary held in August 1966.

Texas: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state convention held in June 1968. Delegates and alternates to the state convention were selected at county (or senatorial district) conventions composed of delegates selected at precinct conventions in May 1968.

Utah: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state convention held in July 1968. One sixth of the delegation was chosen by the State Central Committee and five sixths was apportioned among the counties grouped in "districts" for this purpose. Delegates and alternates to the state convention were selected at county conventions composed of delegates selected at voting district mass meetings in May 1968.

Vermont: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state convention held in May 1968. Delegates and alternates to the state convention were selected at town caucuses held in April and May 1968.

Virgin Islands: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a territorial convention on the basis of a slate presented by the Territorial Committee. Delegates to the territorial convention were members of the Territorial Committee, the executive committees of each division organization, and members of the legislature elected at the previous general election.

Virginia: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state convention held in July 1968, three fifths on the basis of the recommendations of congressional district caucuses and two fifths on the basis of the recommendations of the State Chairman. Delegates and alternates to the state convention were selected by city and county conventions composed of delegates selected at mass meetings held in April 1968.

Washington: Three tenths of the delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected by the State Committee in February 1968, six tenths by congressional district conventions held in June 1968, and one tenth at a state convention held in July 1968. The State Committee was composed of members selected by county committees which were composed of the precinct committeemen elected in the November 1966 general election. Delegates and alternates to the congressional district and state conventions were selected by county conventions composed of delegates selected in precinct caucuses in March and April 1968 and precinct committeemen elected in the November 1966 general election.

West Virginia: One half of the delegates to the National Convention were elected at large and one half by congressional district in a primary held in May 1968. Candidates for delegate were not permitted to state their presidential preference on the ballot (although, for example, some delegates had their names listed on the ballot as "John Doe"). No presidential preference poll was conducted. Each elected delegate appointed his own alternate to the National Convention.

Wisconsin: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected by the primary held in March, 1968, either by slate in the primary itself or by the presidential candidate (or his agent, the State Administrative Committee) who won the congressional district and statewide presidential preference poll held concurrently with the primary election of delegates. In the primary, only the names of the presidential candidates appeared on the ballot. After the primary, Senator McCarthy, the winner of the presidential poll in the eight districts in which no slate of delegates was filed, and at large, chose half of the delegates and alternates and accepted half of the recommendations of the State Administrative Committee.

Wyoming: Delegates and alternates to the National Convention were selected at large at a state convention held in May 1968, one fourth by floor nominations and three fourths on the basis of the recommendations of the nominating committee of the state convention. Delegates and alternates to the state convention were selected by county conventions composed of precinct committeemen elected in a primary held in August 1966.