http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/us/politics/02vote.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=printJanuary 2, 2008
Caucuses Give Iowa Influence, but Many Iowans Are Left Out
By JODI KANTOR
DES MOINES — Jason Huffman has lived in Iowa his whole life. Lately he has been watching presidential debates on the Internet, discussing what he sees with friends and relatives. But when fellow Iowans choose among presidential candidates on Thursday night, he will not be able to vote, because he is serving with the National Guard in western Afghanistan.
“Shouldn’t we at least have as much influence in this as any other citizen?” Captain Huffman wrote in an e-mail interview.
He is far from the only Iowan who will not be able to participate. Because the caucuses, held in the early evening, do not allow absentee voting, they tend to leave out nearly entire categories of voters: the infirm, soldiers on active duty, medical personnel who cannot leave their patients, parents who do not have baby sitters, restaurant employees on the dinner shift, and many others who work in retail, at gas stations and in other jobs that require evening duty.
As in years past, voters must present themselves in person, at a specified hour, and stay for as long as two. And if these caucuses are anything like prior ones, only a tiny percentage of Iowans will participate. In 2000, the last year in which both parties held caucuses, 59,000 Democrats and 87,000 Republicans voted, in a state with 2.9 million people. In 2004, when the Republicans did not caucus, 124,000 people turned out for the Democratic caucuses.
The rules are so demanding that even Ray Hoffman, chairman of the Iowa Republican Party and a resident of Sioux City, cannot caucus on Thursday night, because he has to be in Des Moines on party business.
********
Mr. Hoffman, his Republican counterpart, said he was resigned to the system’s inequalities. “That’s just the way it works,” he said. (His own lack of participation is fine, he said, because he is neutral in the race.)
Legally the issue falls into a murky area. The Constitution promises no affirmative right to vote, just assurances that specific categories of people cannot be excluded. And because the parties do not collect demographic data, no one really knows who does and does not participate. Besides, since the caucuses are run not by government but instead privately by the parties, the courts are reluctant to intervene in all but the most egregious cases.
Changing the rules might mean giving up Iowa’s treasured first-in-the-nation status and also the attention that candidates lavish on it. Iowa’s switching to a more formal, primary system could violate New Hampshire’s self-proclaimed mandate to be the first primary state, undercutting the informal compact between the two.
“There is no incentive for Iowa to change this at all,” said Mr. Issacharoff, of N.Y.U. “It corresponds to what Iowa wants, which is candidates spending time and resources in Iowa,” in order to win supporters dedicated enough to conquer the obstacles to voting.
So in order to preserve their early voting opportunities, Iowa party leaders must defend a system that excludes many of the state’s people from voting.
*********
Now caucus mania is sweeping the state again, leaving some voters to observe closely a process they say is closed to them. In recent weeks, Nick Okland has taken orders from Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Christopher J. Dodd at Centro, a sleek Italian restaurant in Des Moines. Mr. Okland would like to vote for Representative Ron Paul, he said, but he is putting himself through college and needs the busy night’s tips.
“We wait on all of them,” he said, “and then we can’t go caucus.”
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
