In his Wall Street Journal Best of the Web column James Freeman detects “Democracy in Crisis at the DNC.” Come for the satirical bite and stay for the nod to my cousin Dean. Mr. Freeman writes (all links but the last one omitted):
* * * * * *
Remember last winter when Democratic National Committee officials struggled to explain their convoluted rules on gender diversity to an uncomprehending public? Now DNC officials are implicitly saying that they didn’t understand the rules either—and are laying the groundwork for a purge of two of the winners in the party’s leadership elections. Is this still the party that presents itself as the guarantor of democracy?
Dylan Wells and Patrick Svitek report for the Washington Post:
A Democratic National Committee panel found that David Hogg and another vice chair were not properly elected this year, setting off a process that could lead to Hogg’s ouster amid backlash to his plans to support primary challengers to House Democrats.
The Credentials Committee’s recommendation will get a vote from the full DNC membership. If approved, the two vice chair elections will be invalidated, and new elections will be held as soon as practicable. The new elections will be limited to the same five candidates who were eligible at the February vote.
The challenge to the election was filed more than two months ago — before Hogg’s announcement about primary challenges — by Kalyn Free, an Oklahoma activist who unsuccessfully sought one of the vice chair slots in the Feb. 1 election. She argued the DNC broke its rules on gender diversity in party officer elections, invalidating the election of Hogg and a second vice chair, Malcolm Kenyatta.
Who would have guessed that the party’s election process could end up looking even worse than it did at the time? In February Jonathan Chait wrote in the Atlantic:
Speaking to the Democratic National Committee, which met to select its new leadership this weekend, the outgoing chair, Jaime Harrison, attempted to explain a point about its rules concerning gender balance for its vice-chair race. “The rules specify that when we have a gender-nonbinary candidate or officer, the nonbinary individual is counted as neither male nor female, and the remaining six officers must be gender balanced,” Harrison announced.
As the explanation became increasingly intricate, Harrison’s elucidation grew more labored. “To ensure our process accounts for male, female, and nonbinary candidates, we conferred with our [Rules and Bylaws Committee] co-chair, our LGBT Caucus co-chair, and others to ensure that the process is inclusive and meets the gender-balance requirements in our rules,” he added. “To do this, our process will be slightly different than the one outlined to you earlier this week, but I hope you will see that in practice, it is simple and transparent.”
The Democratic Party, at least in theory, is an organization dedicated to winning political power through elected office, though this might seem hard to believe on the evidence provided by its official proceedings. The DNC’s meetings included a land acknowledgement, multiple shrieking interruptions by angry protesters, and a general affirmation that its strategy had been sound, except perhaps insufficiently committed to legalistic race and gender essentialism.
Now after all that faculty-lounge babble about gender, the Democratic party seems to be well on its way to claiming that it has been practicing gender discrimination. The Post reports:
“In attempting to guarantee that at least one male candidate was elected, the DNC used procedures that all but guaranteed that both male candidates would be elected,” Daniel Seabold, a parliamentarian who served as a witness for Free, said during the committee hearing.
Graham Wilson, a lawyer for Hogg, conceded during the hearing that the procedures used for the election might have been “imperfect” and “messy.” However, he added, “these procedures clearly complied with the DNC charter, the bylaws and the rules of procedure.”
How would he know, if not even party officials can seem to make sense of the rules? Perhaps Mr. Hogg is being punished for threatening to support primary challengers to Democratic incumbents. But why punish Mr. Kenyatta, a state legislator from Pennsylvania, who also will have to win a new DNC election if he wishes to keep his leadership post?
Mr. Kenyatta posts on X:
100 Days ago I was elected as a Vice Chair of the DNC with 298 votes well above the 201.5 threshold to win. David Hogg received only 214.5 Today the DNC credentials committee heard a (complex challenge) to this election and voted for a new one to be held.
For his part Mr. Kenyatta argues that the decision by the committee is not due to Mr. Hogg’s primary threats and states:
First, yes, I disagree with the ruling, but ultimately the committee voted and I respect their votes — even when I really disagree.
Mr. Kenyatta also reviews his recent record:
In 100 days: -I’ve traveled 19,805 miles. -I’ve done nearly 3 dozen events. -I’ve been to 8 states and traveled to visit our Dems Abroad. -I’ve raised money for this party through call time and events.
Anyone can certainly understand if he believes he’s being treated unfairly by his party. Perhaps he should talk to former Rep. Dean Phillips to discuss ways to ensure Democrats permit democracy.
