Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Will Iowa's ghosts resurface in any other Democratic contests?

Map of United States

New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina are the next states to take the national stage.

Milos Subasic/Getty Images; edited by Tristiaña Hinton/The Fulcrum

The first question that will go through the minds of millions of Americans at 8 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday, when the polls close in the New Hampshire primary, will likely be a version of this:

We aren't going to have a repeat of the Iowa caucuses, are we?

This week's historic collapse of the system for reporting those results has thrust the mechanics for conducting the rest of the Democratic presidential contest under a spotlight of national anxiety and skepticism. And a bit of it is already justified, even before the next state votes.


The problem in Iowa centered on a hastily constructed and minimally mobile app that was supposed to be used to send the results from almost 1,700 caucus sites quickly and cleanly to a central counting location.

But a variety of problems doomed that concept from the start. Plenty of precinct captains never even tried to download the app, let alone get familiar with it before caucus night. Then flaws in the app's coding did not allow the three sets of results from each location to be transmitted correctly. And the old-fashioned Plan B — calling in the results to a telephone bank at party headquarters in Des Moines — caused a massive backup that apparently was aggravated by a wave of President Trump supporters who called the toll-free number in order to tie it up.

Everybody wants to know whether it could happen again — and, if so, where. That depends on a number of factors: whether the balloting is being conducted by the state government or the state Democratic Party, the latter of which usually has far less experience in running elections; whether the state is one of the few remaining with a caucus, which is more complicated than a primary; and what technologies are being deployed for conducting the vote, transmitting the results from the polling places and tabulating the statewide results.

Here is a quick look at what to expect from the next three Democratic contests, which combine with Iowa to be the de facto opening round that will probably reduce the roster of presidential hopefuls to a viable handful: the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, the Nevada caucuses on Feb. 22 and the South Carolina primary on Feb. 29.

New Hampshire

Risk of Iowa redux: LOW

Positives:

  • The election is being run by the state — not by the party, like the Iowa caucuses.
  • There are only 301 precincts — as opposed to the 1,681 in Iowa.
  • It's a straightforward primary, with Democrats allowed to choose one candidate, whereas Iowans could change allegiances between a first and second round.
  • The voting is on paper ballots.
  • Absentee ballots can only be obtained with an excuse, which often limits their number and so makes less work for election officials.

Negatives:

  • There will be more votes to count. This week's Democratic turnout in Iowa totaled about 180,000 participants — but approximately 250,000 voted when Hilary Clinton squared off against Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire in 2016.
  • Same-day voter registration could slow down the process if a throng of newbies show up.
  • Experts say the state's voter registration rolls may be vulnerable to hacking.

Nevada

Risk of Iowa redux: MODERATE to HOLD ON TO YOUR HAT

Positive:

  • The Democrats have scrapped plans for using the same app, built by the curiously named Shadow Inc., that caused so much Iowa angst.

Negatives:

  • Like Iowa, this will be a caucus run by the state party — so neither a primary nor a government-run contest. Also, like Iowa's Troy Price, Nevada Democratic Party Chairman William McCurdy has never run a caucus before.
  • There is no replacement yet for the dumped app. And the new process for reporting results has not been announced with two weeks to go.
  • There will be 1,835 different caucuses — or 9 percent more than in Iowa.
  • Early voting is allowed Feb. 15-18. That will require transmitting those results to organizers at each caucus site, and relying on them to include the early ballots in the vote count for each candidate.
  • The party has a new set of rules this year, including a version of ranked-choice voting at the start of the caucuses and a complex method to determine which candidates have enough support to qualify for delegates.

South Carolina

Risk of Iowa redux: LOW

Positives:

  • The state will run the election.
  • It's a traditional primary: There will be 14 names on the ballot (including some who've dropped out) and voters do nothing but mark a single choice for president.
  • Absentee voters must provide an excuse, which usually lowers the number of absentee ballots to be counted.
  • There is no same-day registration that could slow the voting process.

Negatives:

  • The state has a well-earned reputation for dirty politics.
  • It's an open primary, meaning Republicans could swamp the polling places in an attempt to skew the results.

Read More

Veterans Don’t Stop Being Veterans at the Prison Gate

Veterans often lose VA healthcare, disability benefits, and education access during incarceration, disrupting PTSD and addiction treatment when continuity matters most.

Getty Images

Veterans Don’t Stop Being Veterans at the Prison Gate

A veteran’s PTSD doesn’t disappear when they enter prison. Traumatic brain injuries don’t cure themselves. Addiction doesn't vanish behind bars. Yet many of the systems designed to help veterans manage those conditions stop at the prison gate.

When veterans are incarcerated, they often lose access to VA healthcare, struggle to use education benefits, and face major cuts to disability compensation. The problem is not eligibility. The problem is continuity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why I’m Using My Influence to Defend Democracy Now

A group of people waving small American flags at sunset.

Getty stock photo

Why I’m Using My Influence to Defend Democracy Now

It was about this time of year in 1997 that I moved across the country and took my first job in the sector broadly known as “civil society.”

Since then, I have grown in my career. I have developed a profile. By dint of sheer survival and longevity, I have accumulated seniority.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors holding signs outside of the Idaho statehouse.

Protesters rally for abortion rights outside of the Idaho Statehouse in downtown Boise, Idaho, on May 14, 2022.

Sarah A. Miller/Idaho Statesman/AP

Idaho Voters Will Weigh In on One of the Strictest Abortion Bans in the Country

Idaho voters will weigh in on their state’s abortion laws this November. The secretary of state’s office certified a ballot measure that could, if passed, overturn one of the strictest bans in the country, the campaign to restore abortion rights in Idaho confirmed on Monday.

The measure would enact a new law establishing a state right to “reproductive freedom,” which it defines as allowing residents to make their own decisions in areas including fertility treatment, contraception and abortion. But it would not amend the state’s constitution, meaning it could still be overturned by the state’s Republican legislature. Currently, Idaho bans abortion in nearly all circumstances, with a narrow exception if staying pregnant threatens someone’s life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The New Fight Over Election Observation
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

The New Fight Over Election Observation

As a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the U.S. has signed the foundational agreement committing all participating states to open elections to external scrutiny and inviting fellow members to observe through the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). The 2024 ODIHR observation mission to the U.S. found the fundamentals reassuring—a well-run process, active engagement, free campaigning—but issued 31 recommendations to align U.S. elections with international standards and commitments. Four stand out: federal pre-clearance legislation against discriminatory election-law changes; reassessing the Electoral College; balanced representation in election administration; and guaranteed access for international and nonpartisan observers—notable, since 17 states still legally bar international observation, which is at odds with commitments made by all 57 OSCE states. Yet over a year later, follow-through is thin: no pre-clearance restoration, no Electoral College review, unchanged observer-access laws. Where movement exists—in disinformation tools, in financial disclosure—it remains piecemeal.

An uncomfortable convergence

Keep ReadingShow less