Last week, the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to reorganize the party’s 2024 presidential primary schedule as President Biden and his political advisors have recommended. The committee’s vote is one early step of several, but the smart money is on this new schedule being implemented before the next presidential nomination process begins.
The Iowa caucuses, the long-time opening act for presidential candidates, will be relegated to a later date and little influence. South Carolina’s primary will be the new first test for candidates followed by New Hampshire and Nevada, and then Georgia, followed by Michigan. South Carolina famously boosted President Biden to the nomination in 2020 after he placed fourth and fifth respectively in Iowa’s caucuses and New Hampshire’s primary.
What do these changes mean for unions and the working families they represent?
There is a strong argument unions’ influence will not be affected at all by the new calendar. Unions will remain an essential tent pole of the Democratic coalition. Most fundamentally, unions and most Democrats share values and goals. I lived that experience as President Biden’s top labor policy advisor during his campaign and in the White House. A union endorsement, especially a national union endorsement, validates a candidate’s pro-worker bona fides and more. For example, an endorsement from the National Education Association or the American Federation of Teachers validates a candidate’s support for unions, but also speaks volumes about their support for public education. Unions’ seals of approval also send important signals to opinion leaders and pundits: most unions will throw in only with those candidates that have a real shot at winning. Union endorsements are a mark of seriousness.
More practically, unions help the Democrats (and a few Republicans) they endorse win elections. They provide substantial funding to campaigns and party organizations. They provide skilled organizers. Many have excellent media relationships and communications infrastructures that allow them to “message” effectively to their members and the general electorate. For all these reasons, every Democratic presidential candidate craves and pursues union support, regardless of whether it makes a difference in the first couple of nominating contests.
The contrary argument is that unions are most effective when mobilizing members, retirees, and their families, and so shifting the order of presidential primary states matters. In particular, rabidly anti-union and right-to-work South Carolina is a problem (Bernie Sanders’ 2020 campaign manager Faiz Shakir recently made a related argument in the NY Times). South Carolina has the lowest union density rate of any state in the country, roughly one-quarter of Iowa’s rate. So, union voters will have less power in the opening contest. More important, Iowa’s results have long had an outsized, if inconsistent, influence on voters’ decisions in later primaries. If South Carolina has the same power in 2024 and beyond, unions’ reduced voice in the first contest could have huge consequences. Georgia also has a below-average union density rate. Its elevation to the “first four” could reinforce South Carolina’s verdict.
This argument works only if you squint your eyes to block out Nevada, New Hampshire, and Michigan. Taking those states into account, it is entirely possible that unions will become even more influential under the DNC’s new primary calendar. All three states have union density rates well above the national average. They also boast unions with large and highly politically effective memberships: the vaunted Culinary Workers in Nevada, SEIU and public employee and teachers’ unions in New Hampshire, the UAW in Michigan. It’s worth noting that an early priority for Michigan’s Democratic legislature and governor will be to repeal the state’s right-to-work law. The resulting union growth in Michigan should yield even more union votes for endorsed Democratic presidential candidates. Adding Michigan to the "first five" meaningfully increases unions' voice in the nominating process.
While candidates for statewide office in South Carolina are unlikely to campaign on union-related issues, candidates for the Democratic nomination for President absolutely will address those issues in detail. As noted above, they need and want national union endorsements. The candidates will emphasize those issues in the other four of the first five states. So, they will respond to the mountain of questionnaires campaigns receive every election cycle from unions seeking detailed answers to a long list of policy questions. They will speak to union conventions, executive boards, and legislative conferences. Candidates may not feature these issues in their television or digital advertising in South Carolina, but their platforms will not change because South Carolina votes first.
Let me add that I very much like the idea of dozens of union organizers and volunteers running around South Carolina and building local relationships on behalf of their unions’ endorsed candidates. Who knows what organizing opportunities might come out of those close and persistent contacts with South Carolina’s workers?
In sum, unions might not have written the new primary calendar exactly as the DNC has proposed it. But they are much more likely to benefit from it than lose their voice.