The fact that the DTC had any sort of legal power was almost as much of a surprise as Rachel’s abrupt resignation — and not just to me, but to most of the other people I talked to over the next two weeks as well. In fact, the first time I called the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office to try and figure out what our responsibilities were, even they had never heard of the caucus option. This, unfortunately, left me in sort of a limbo for about a day and a half — a long time in the age of instant communication. In the meantime, I was getting calls and emails from reporters, DTC members, potential candidates, and other interested parties and all I could tell them was that I would let them know the details as soon as I found them out myself. The only thing that was clear in the early going was that we’d have an unfathomably short turnaround time on this.
With the help of state party officials, state election officials and my crack legal team, we pieced together how the process was supposed to happen and who was responsible for all of the moving parts. Since the 29th Middlesex contains all but one precinct of Watertown and all of Ward 9 in Cambridge, our town committee and their ward committee were each responsible for picking delegates to a caucus that would be called by the state party in proportion to the vote that the Democratic candidate received in the last gubernatorial election. All of a sudden, I was glad I did all that GOTV work for Deval — it turned out that Watertown got 18 delegates and Cambridge got seven. The caucus would be empowered to replace Rachel’s name on the ballot. If the caucus failed to meet or failed to nominate someone, the primary ballot would remain blank and whoever got the most write-in votes over 150 would become the Democratic nominee. All this had to be completed by 72 weekday hours after the last day to withdraw names from the ballot, June 4th at 5PM.
The exact method of choosing delegates to this caucus is not specifically outlined in party rules or bylaws. We were instructed to use the method of selecting delegates to the senate district caucuses where Democratic State Committee members are chosen (another arcane process) as a guideline. Those rules allowed only town and ward committee members to vote for delegates, though 20-year and associate members are permitted to participate in that selection. This posed a slight problem since our records of associate memberships were sketchy and there was a challenge to our official list of 20-year members, forcing me to spend an evening sorting through forty years of town committee election results. These rules also required that we hold the delegate selection meetings within the jurisdiction of our town and ward committees, which ruled out having a joint meeting between Watertown and Cambridge (unless we wanted to conduct it in Mount Auburn Cemetery).
Watertown picked our delegates at our next DTC meeting, though I didn’t really intend for that to happen. The plan was to lay out the process we were going to follow at our meeting so that everyone knew the rules we were playing by. Then candidates would have three or four days to line up who they wanted to be delegates and have time to lobby individual DTC members.
It didn’t work out that way, though. Early on in the packed DTC meeting it became apparent that the majority of members did not feel comfortable putting someone on the ballot, which would essentially anoint Rachel’s successor without a general vote. Nearly all those in attendance spoke against replacing Rachel’s name, and we passed a near-unanimous motion (none opposed, two abstentions) declaring that the DTC wanted to leave the ballot blank. We spent the bulk of the meeting after that motion trying to figure out the best way to achieve that goal. Since the quorum requirements at the caucus where a potential replacement would be named were so low (10%, or three attendees), we could not afford to boycott the caucus by not selecting anyone to attend. Instead what we did was elect delegates with the instructions that they try to ensure that no name is placed on the ballot and that they would only be seated on condition that Cambridge Ward 9 also selected delegates.
The discussion at our meeting was so one-sided that most of us assumed that the Cambridge delegation would make the same decision and that there wouldn’t be a caucus at all. After all, our delegates would only be seated if Cambridge picked theirs, and Watertown had enough of a majority of delegates that we would have the votes to get the outcome we wanted. On Saturday, however, the Cambridge Ward 9 Committee decided to select delegates and so the caucus was on.
The caucus was held June 3rd in the Watertown Town Hall, with State Senator Steve Tolman as chair. Originally I had thought that the caucus would be a quick affair, with the Watertown delegation making a motion to adjourn shortly after the meeting opened. After calling around to some of the Cambridge delegation, however, I changed my mind. Several of the delegates from Cambridge felt that they were shut out of the process and that Watertown had decided what was going to happen regardless of what they thought. This was a fair criticism, though I think it was more of a consequence of the process — we couldn’t have a joint meeting to select delegates and we couldn’t expect Cambridge to know anything about Watertown politics (and vice versa). I thought that at least we owed it to the Cambridge delegation to explain why we thought the way we did, even if we disagreed on what we should do. So, I told my committee’s delegates that we should allow a debate, even though we had the votes to end the meeting before it began.
This was not necessarily a popular decision with my committee. The danger was that if the Cambridge delegates were to open nominations and nominate a candidate, we could potentially end up in a situation where someone had to win. I was accused of being naive, and threatened (in jest) with being strung up from the town hall chandeliers if someone ended up on the ballot. Luckily for me, things worked out pretty much how I planned. We had a short debate — about 45 minutes — on the merits of naming someone to the ballot or not, and at the end the caucus voted 19 to 6 to leave the ballot blank.
Personally, I was glad it worked out the way it did. Even though I’m now officially an insider, that doesn’t mean I have to act like a party boss. Not to be overconfident, but the 29th Middlesex is a strong Democratic district. To put someone on the ballot unopposed in the Democratic primary and potentially unopposed (depending on whether someone wins the Republican, Green or Working Families party primaries as a write-in) in the general is basically appointing someone to the State House for at least two years and then giving them the power of incumbency for any challenges in 2010. It just did not seem necessary to do this, at least to me. It would have been different if this were a general election with a Republican opponent on the ballot, but the stakes seem lower since this is a primary and we have a number of good potential candidates.
…when our senator retired. I went pledged to a candidate as a TC representative, and felt comfortable with that person – until we got there and a far superior candidate emerged, somebody I hadn’t known was interested. I had to decide if I should honor my pledge, or nominate the person I thought could do a better job – it really WAS my decision, as it was a secret ballot to choose one of five candidates.
<
p>Sco – it sounds like you did a good job.
Hey Sco, this is a great story.
<
p>It also speaks to the very serious need for the Democratic Party to reconsider this “ward boss” rule. This rule clearly gives ward/town committees far too much power, effectively subverting the Democratic process for what would end up being an insider choice.
<
p>That sco and the Watertown committee took the high road is made all the more amazing, given that I think we can safely assume that 75% or more of other committees would not. As an example, what do you all think happens if Marian Walsh takes an administration job this month? Somehow, I doubt if the Hyde Park/Roslindale/West Roxbury(WArds 18, 20)/Dedham/Norwood committees choose to take a pass on electing a preferred candidate.
<
p>Until this rule change does take effect, however, progressives should certainly take note: The meetings may be deadly boring, but there’s a very real reason to join your local committee.
I’m really glad sco put this post up, because it is a good explanation of what can happen in the uncommon event that a state rep steps down after the name’s been put on the ballot.
<
p>I disagree with your assertion:
this rule clearly gives ward/town committees far too much power, effectively subverting the Democratic process for what would end up being an insider choice.
<
p>Ward members & their Chairs are elected by voters in the Democratic Presidential Primary. If that’s not democratic enough for you, then you need to walk around in the ward and convince your neighbors to vote you on the committee. This situation happens rarely, and until you can produce a list of three really bad legislators who got their seats through this process, I’d say the rule is not a problem.
<
p>Of course, I’m the Chair of the Ward 11 Committee in Cambridge, so I’m an insider. But I’d be curious to hear a list of really bad outcomes from this rule that actually occurred, as opposed to just fears that someone somewhere could abuse it under some circumstances.
There are some circumstances where it may be necessary to replace a name on the ballot for the good of the party. We just didn’t think that this was one of those cases.
<
p>What I would like to see is maybe the rules for these sorts of caucuses codified in the state party bylaws so that there isn’t the feeling that we’re making up rules as we go along. The process should be clear for everyone especially since the timeframe on these actions is so short.
Which is why I said codified in the state party bylaws, not in the MGL.
ward and town committees, for the most part, aren’t too powerful. There’s still dozens of them out there that barely meet. Certainly, there are a few powerful ones out there, but that’s usually because they’re powerfully organized (often due to very strong leadership). I have a gut feeling that if those Town/City/Ward committees didn’t exist, that powerful leadership would just find a new home and organize outside the party. It would certainly diminish their power, but I don’t think in a good way: it’s better to have grassroots people engaged in Democracy at a grassroots level, which is exactly what well organized, strong local committees can accomplish. It also means that the state and local parties are that much more likely to accomplish the goals its dedicated members want, not just the few people at the top.
<
p>*Disclosure: I’m on my own Town Committee.
…in the form of House 683, which would allow small committees – esp. in rural areas – to legally combine and elect delegates, have a single OCPF report, etc. Instead of have three and three and three – you could have nine!
<
p>Anybody interested in rebuilding town committees, check out the bill – and ask Third Reading to let it go to the Senate!
than perhaps we think. And perhaps the Secretary of State’s office should be better prepared since it does happen not infrequently. From my post in the 12th Plymouth District of Sept 2006.
<
p>http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
And nice job with the ballot, you did the right thing
The whole town committee was pretty unified, and I have to give credit to the member who suggested the “sense of the meeting” motion, which started the ball rolling in the right direction.
If the Democratic side of the ballot is blank do you just have a bunch of sticker campaigns and see who has the most votes in the primary? Personally, I would have put a name on the ballot in order to have someone to unite behind. I don’t think being an “insider” per se is a negative. What matters is whether you use that status to facilitate to process or abuse it.
Which is fine in this situation.
<
p>I could understand if the caucus had picked someone to fill Kaprielian’s position–especially if, say, there were the chance that someone crazy but with a lot of money or name recognition could win a sticker campaign. That doesn’t happen often, though.
There are three candidates running in the Democratic primary, all using stickers. The person with the most votes gets the right to be on the general election ballot, just like any normal primary, though the winner must get over 150 (this will not be a problem, as all three candidates are actively campaigning).
<
p>I can understand the impulse to put a name on the ballot to have someone to unite behind. I will say, however, that a state rep election in Watertown and Cambridge is different than one in Dracut. There really is no GOP presence here. The last townwide elected Republican in Watertown died just last year, unless I’m missing someone. There’s no one on the GOP primary ballot and there’s really no one waiting in the wings if they want to put someone forward.
<
p>There’s no reason to unite behind anyone, frankly, because there’s no opposition.
In your case, power has not corrupted. In fact, my experience with town/ward committees where I’ve lived has been that the Chairs are often, but not always, honest brokers who see themselves as facilitating the process, not dictating it or picking favorites. I think that is the role and you seem to have lived up to it – no wonder you were made chair. Good story about the realities of life in the democratic trenches.
to me, implies that you try to keep others from knowing and having a stake in the process. I really doubt you’ll ever be that kind of insider, even when you find yourself in the smoke-filled room.