>> good morning, everyone. thank you all for being here. i am jen o'malley and i'm the chair and i'm joined by migrate friend, larry cohen, vice chairman of the commission and i call the meeting to order. i would like to first ask the members and those with us to join in the pledge of llegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and stice for all.

patrice you, i now ask o call the roll. mr. baker. ms. bower, ms. flores, congresswoman fudge, ms. harris, .r. went, ms. cliff miscohen. ms. lewis. mr. newport, mr. neary. mr. roosevelt. ms. rue ease. ms. turner, mr. weaver. . mr. webb, mr. rugby.

ms. o'malley. and mr. cohen. >> we are missing a few commission members but we have a quorum. and i would like to start today by acknowledging chairman perez who is here and we are thankful for his participation. [applause] >> and more than that, his leadership of the democrats and the national party. we are really glad you could be here with us and look forward to hearing your remarks. >> good morning everyone. i want to say thank you for all your hard work. this was an immensely important exercise and it was labor intensive and everyone came to it with an open mind. and with remarkable set of ideas. i want to say thank you to all of you and thanks to our

co-chairs, jen and larry. we have been updating regularly and brainstorming regularly and can't say enough wonderful things about both of you. you have entered this enterprise ith a spirit of bold passion and spirit of ingenuity and spirit that understands this is the most serious stress test on our nation's democracy, perhaps in our history and the work of this unity commission is so critically important. and so, larry and jen, thank you so much for what you have been doing. it's impossible to overstate the importance of the work that you have been doing. this is -- i come to you both with a sense of remarkable so bright given what's happening in

washington and around the country in the era of this president and also a sense of optimism borne out of what we have seen on the ground. you look at the chaos and carnage that we see every day from this administration and the stakes couldn't be higher. this tax bill that people like congresswoman fudge and others fought against is just an abomination. it is a break for wealthy people, wealthy corporations at the expense of virtually everybody else. the attack on the affordable care act, 13 million people potentially losing health care all in service of the tax cut for large corporations and wealthy people who don't need it. they tell us there is no money to re-authorize the state children's health insurance program but yet they want to eliminate the estate tax, which

is a boon for the 1% of the 1%. and you see what's happening overseas where we have become a laughing stock around the world, other countries have figured out how to handle this president, you roll out the red carpet, you appeal to his ego and then take him to the cleaners and that's what happened in china and what has happened elsewhere, yet our allies in europe and elsewhere rather than having our back, this administration establishes them in the back. and that's why we are a a less safe country and democracy. and that's why this work is so critically important moving forward. we understand the seriousness of the task at hand. we have seen in 2017 what we can do when we are united and watched the elections. the last time we won the

governors' races in new jersey and virginia was in 2005 and we saw what happened in the house of representatives a year later in 2006. we saw what happened in both new jersey and virginia, but in other places, we saw what happened when we are united. we saw what happened when we organize. we organize early. we lead with our values and go into places like virginia and say health care is a right for all and not a privilege for a few. voters responded to that. health care was the number one issue in virginia by far and the democratic party led on that issue and that is a big reason why we won. in virginia and elsewhere. and so we have a lot to look back on in 20717 and wasn't just new jersey and virginia. we can win elections virtually anywhere. the special elections in oklahoma that took place, three

special elections in deep red trump districts and what they all have in common, we won all three elections. state senate seat in new hampshire, a special election down in florida where the republican won last year by a double-digit margin and annette won that race. you see when we organize. you see what we do and we listen. and when we make sure take the term off year out of the electiony con of the democratic party. we have gone to school on the lessons. and one of the lessons we learned from the past is the mission of the democratic national committee must always be to elect democrats up and down the ticket from the school board to the oval office and we have done just that. and with the help of this commission, we will be able to do that even better scale because the recommendations that you have put forth today are

remark apply important in moving forward as we turn the corner. i believe again that democrats can win everywhere. and the motto of our partnership with our state parties, we call it every zip code counts because again we can understand we can win everywhere and we have demonstrated that in elections. we understand that we have to spend money on infrastructure. we haven't spent a dime on television at the d.n.c. our investments have been organizing and connecting directly with voters. through our summer program led by deputy chair keith ellison, we knocked over a million doors to invite americans of all walks of life to join us. we made investments in virginia up to a million five in virginia. zero dollars went into television, but into organizing and made sure the tech tools

were there to help our friends in the progressive ecosystem. and in new jersey, we helped people up and down the ticket. it was an honor to campaign on behalf of the house of delegates' candidates. we want you to govern and best way is to flip the house of delegates. last time democrats this many seats in the virginia house of delegates was the late 19th century. it wasn't a cow insi dens and the 15 republicans who are about to on become former members of the house of delegates are all men and replaced by 11 women. history made, including the first two latinas in the history of the house of delegates. first asian american in virginia house of delegates and first

openly transgender person in virginia house of delegates. we can win. so that's what we've learned. that's the progress we have made. that's the momentum. we need to scale that and make sure we are doing that everywhere in 2018 because we can win governorships and state legislatures. i was with the dch dlcc yesterday reiterating the message ta the new democratic party is up and down the ticket and working to organize everywhere. i believe we can win everywhere and we can win everywhere as long as we are continuing to organ continuing to put in place the recommendation of this remarkable commission. and so -- as we shift into this next phase of the commission, i want to take a moment to tell you some of the things we have already put in place because i

think it's really important and inspired conversations with people i have had in this room. we need to be looking toward 2017 and need to have an eye on the future and build a party that can win today and sustain those victories tomorrow. we need to make sure we are preparing now for the 2018 election, but also preparing ahead for the 2020 election. and as we think about 2020, there are many things that are very important. we spent a lot of time learning from the past and our mistakes. i think it's so critically important heading into 2020 and that starts now at the d.n.c. that it does not put its thumb on the scale either in fact or in perception. nothing the d.n.c. or our party officials do should give a primary candidate an unfair

advantage. toward that end we announced a wild back that one innovation we are going to do to make sure we are true to that addmon is and announce our debate schedule for the democratic primaries well in advance so there is no perception there is a thumb on the scale for any one candidate. i know there are other things we can do and that's why in this commission i'm committed to make sure all of our joint fundraising agreements are transparent and available to all of the candidates. we need to make sure we give them more opportunities. the recommendations here on the primaries i think are some of the most important things we can do. it makes absolutely no sense to me to have a voter registration deadline that's on one day and a deadline to change your party

affiliation even one day earlier. that makes no sense to me. i suspect that makes little or no sense to anyone on this commission and that's a really important reform that i look forward not om to adopting with this commission but to implementing because it's one thing to adopt but another thing to make sure we move forward with our recommendations. we also need to make sure that we remain vigilant in making sure we expand opportunities for people to vote, not contract them. my work as a civil rights lawyer has given me a front row seat to the fact that voter suppression is a permanent part of the republican playbook. the sooner we understand, the sooner we respond. they have been talking about this decades, not just for months and implementing not just through voter i.d. laws that are

making it harder for eligible people to vote rather than easier. we need to make sure that voter offense and defense are part of our playbook and these recommendations of the commission and i commend the chair and the co-chair for the work they have done in this area because there are too many oom working people who can't vote in this. we have had a robust dialogue and i thank everybody who has been working on the issue of caucuses because obviously we want to make sure that if you are a shift worker you can vote in the caucus or a member of the military or someone else who has been left out of the process that we can do that, that you can vote and make sure that your franchise is exercised. and there has been remark apply important discussions here. i think opening up that caucus process consistent with the recommendations are going to be

game changing and i applaud the work of the commission and i applaud the work you have done in the area of super dell gates. in 2016, it made up 16% of the delegates in the commission. at that time, when you were negotiating the unity commission, both secretary clinton and senator sanders agreed on the mandate passed there to provide for a significant reduction in the number of unpledged delegates and i'm excited about the fact that the recommendations are going to reduce that by over 50%. and that is so critically important. but timely -- and i shouldn't say but, finally, if we want democrats to win and stay in power we have to reform our party from the ground up. our resistance summer effort was a downpayment, efforts of grassroots organizing, we are at rise and organ we are going to

continue this. i commend my friend and colleague, keith ellison who has been part of that conversation. we have been making investments in our state parties and making investments in ballot races and working with our colleagues in the progressive ecosystem. some of these organizations don't have a chief technology officer but what they have is tremendous energy and when they harness that technology and use the tools we have, that is a force multiplier because we all succeed when we all succeed. and as we saw in new jersey, virginia and elsewhere, we are at our best when we are united when we have our oars in the water and rowing. and that's why we are continuing to make sure we make these investments. i'm proud of the fact that we are now providing one-third every month to state parties. and it's not a blank check but accompanied by accountability

measures and working together with state parties and critical stakeholders in each state to develop that strategic plan for success that enables us to win this year and for many years to come. i'm proud of the technology infrastructure that we are building, the voter protection infrastructure, all of those things that unable us to work across states to make sure we are empowering folks. we need to continue to empower our diverse grassroots democrat at every level and make sure they have a seat at the leadership table. let's build on our small dollar fundraising success and stand by corporate -- ian was born at night but not last night and this commission is a critical part of that process moving forward. and i am confident that senator

kennedy once taught me many things but he said, you know, tom, we are at our best when we are united and unity doesn't mean you muslim it. unanim inch ty. senator contendy moved the ball down the field and making sure if we protected the right to organ making sure we protected women's rights and immigrants' rights. when we move forward in that spirit and i'm confident we agree on many, many things here and i'm confident there are areas where we may still have disagreements. but i know what units us far exceeds our differences. moving forward this report is going to make a big difference. i'm going to work with all of you to make sure it doesn't

gather dust because the work you do today and tomorrow is the end of one chapter but the beginning of an equally important chapter, the chapter of implementation. when history looks back on your work, our work, that history records this as a moment in which democrats came together around a vision of opportunity for everyone, of empowerment for grassroots communities, of construction of a pathway not only for a victory in 2018 but long-term sustained success. that's when we are at our best. i thank you and look forward to hearing the final results. i know we have a lot of work to do today but i have a lot of optimism moving forward because this is a great group of folks who know what our north star is. north star is taking back america and making sure it works for everybody and every

community. thank you, jen, thank you, larry and everyone on this commission for your great work. [applause] >> thank you so much, mr. chairman for your remarks and someone who has spent a good amount of time in my career and working on the party, i commend you and your team and the hard work that you have undergone and the adjustments and the new evolution of the work you are doing across the country and i think seeing the amazing wins in virginia and downballot victories is no small part to your leadership and leadership of your team. so thank you for that so much. we are here at the final meeting of the unity reform commission. and i want to just first start by saying thank you to the commission members. as you can imagine, this is not

exactly the most sexy of jobs that all of us do and it requires a lot of work. as i was explaining the commission to someone the other day said this is a workers' commission. every single person here is putting in the time not only in this meeting but outside of them, reaching out to the deprass roots and think about some hard sticky topics and come up with thoughtful ideas and solutions and you will that through the day and tomorrow. i commend the commission for their participation and passion in what they believe in and on behalf of the party and the work here and i'm really confident what we will end up with today and tomorrow is a report that will help unify the party and bring major reform, greater reform than i have certainly seen during my time doing political work that is 100% on the mark with what this

commission mandated to be more open and inclusive and think about grassroots participation and easier to vote. i'm confident we will have a good two days but make sure we set the tone and everyone who is ere and that is tuning in, understands the work. i want to thank everyone who has come today and many i see who have been here for many meetings. thank you for your participation in being here and thank you for caring about this and not just the folks here in person. we have received thousands of outreach from people in the party, across the party, across the country on thoughts and ideas people have and input they have shared through the web site and we have taken it very seriously and this is about all of us and we thank everyone that is here today. as we have started each of these

meetings, i think about what is happening in the world and ensure that what we are doing here is tangible and concrete to the reality that we are facing. and unfortunately for every single meeting, i have had too many things as the chair had mentioned as well that we can point to that the trump administration and the republicans are doing that are taking away and hurting the people that we care about, stand for and the values we share. as we go through this process as we have this whole time, let us just remember as we sit here, we have gone through in the last 10 days, everything from the republican tax bill to more discussion on the muslim ban, to the conceal and carry gun law, to what's going on with dreamers and the list goes on and on. and i say that to say that we know on many things we will gee. on many things we won't gee.

but let us not lose sight what is most important and think of the responsibility the party has to build this party and open its doors wide and make sure people understand who this party is and who it represents and the values we share and win elections. and we have done a good job in doing that so far and we need to continue doing that because what is at stake that anyone could imagine we are in that situation. let us stay focused. with that, i'm going to hand it over to someone i haven't known very long but someone i feel i have known my whole life migrate friend, the vice chair larry cohen. >> thanks, jen and sandwiched in between two chairs. i don't know what that would feel like physically.

thorns. between two >> i want to he can couldn't the -- echo the thanks that have been given here and we need to stay rooted in that in these times. everybody in the room feel we need to fight for change in this country like never before. and everybody feels that this party is a major vehicle for all of us in doing that. and i think it's in that spirit that we spent the last six months as a group, little more an that for jen and i, given this resolution, the resolution that was passed was unanimously, 4,500 delegates. didn't matter if you are there as a clinton or sanders' delegate, it was passed and lays

out the four directions we will be talking about today, the four things, the four buckets as tom called them. but at the same time that this is really a call tore all of us to engage in what i call party building, not just here in terms of what we're going to adopt but in terms of what we each do in each of our parties, whether it's democrats abroad or in a territory or one of the 50 states. and i would really stress that, because a lot of the things we are going to talk about indicate what should happen. the only way we go from what should to what will is thousands of people saying this must happen. finally, no time will be spent in these two days on the introduction, but as somebody who deeply believes in this introduction, i call attention to it. a couple of lines.

democrats must act internally to model our commitment and beliefs that every vote must counts. democrats must not wait for a new supreme court or a new congress. and i think this is really key because a lot of what we are going to talk about the caucus and primaries and the state parties and how are they run and the so-called super delegate decision and are we going to go with the people and build a popular party, not one party. we are 57 parties. and there's an obligation to follow the path that i think together we have laid out here. in those 57 parties. and with the 447 members of the d.n.c. so i would say for me and most of this commission, we will mobilize and encourage you to mobilize and if we do mobilize and build a more democratic,

transparent, open, inclusive party, that's the way we will win elections and that's the way we will win elections in a way that matters to us. it's not just the democratic party but the democratic party that fights for freedom and fights for economic justice and many of us grew up in places, in my state, pennsylvania, we didn't have that kind of party. and that means the a lot to me that we continue that fight and together we can do that. and finally as the chairman said, we will not agree there will be votes here and we will not agree on everything but you will see those who can stand stay in the room long enough that we will agree on here if you are here as a journalist, organizer and as union president for 10 years, we would dwell on this, whether it was bargaining

or internal, very easy to look what is not in the cup. let's look in the cup and then what's missing. i look forward to debate, discussion and building a better party than ever. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much, larry. let me spend a few minutes about the process and the meetings today and tomorrow and then we'll get started. she's in charge. >> i forgot to say one thing, there are a number of folks on the d.n.c. staff that work really hard. into ften toil long hours the night. and it includes but is not

limited to patrice taylor. folks in the back there. [applause] >> the folks who have been working, we ought to say thank you. julie in the back. the back benches back there. this stuff just doesn't happen out of thin air. this happens from really talented and committed people. and i see others in the audience. it is inspiring to see the serial activists who care so much about this. and i think that is tremendous that we have so much interest out there. that is one of the many, many things that gives me great optimism moving forward because the energy i see at the back of the room here and this table, is mirrored across america.

thank you who are watching via live stream, however we are doing that. i apologize that i have to go to another event, but i will be monitoring carefully. [applause] also as remiss not to clude my thanks to the staff and patr inch ce who helps me in a formal role. we would not be a commission without her and her team and everyone at the d.n.c. who put this together. we are going to spend the remaining hours of today and tomorrow in our fifth meeting going through recommendations and each section. and you have heard it discussed. but we have broken down our main areas of focus in four specific

areas. primaries, caucuses, unpledged delegates and party reform. so that will be the structure that we really take everything in throughout today and tomorrow and we have been over the series of meetings that we have had over the last year. in those meetings, we have been going through robust discussion on each of these topics, hearing from experts, panelists from different states, getting in the weeds on what really is happening and how the commission's mandate is part of that. so what we are discussing today is a product of all of that work and discussion that we have had over the past year. and so the topics we're discussing, elements we are discussing are focused in those areas. we are here today because of the expansive work that the commission has done. tomorrow, we will spend today going through those.

and go as long as we can and vote on everything we can vote on and have discussions. we will break at periods during the day and pick up again tomorrow with whatever voting is remaining and have an opportunity to hear from the commission members to share their final thoughts about this commission and also spend some time talking about what's next, what is the process what happens from here, how does that work in terms of the commission itself and also the rules and by-laws of the d.n.c. and that gives you a flavor. and we'll stay flexible throughout the day based the needs of the commission. so with that, we are going to get started and start with unpledged delegates which are referred to as super delegates as our first section. this is the first area of discussion. i will just do and this will be the format. i will do a couple of top lines of the key elements here and then we are going to open it up

to amendment recommendations and discussion from the commission members and then go through and vote on the elements here in terms of the recommendation. so just to keep highlighted and again we want to spend the majority of the day on substance and not overview, but we spend a lot of time and obviously there has been much discussion about unpledged delegates as larry mentioned. this mandate comes from the convention voted unanimously. it doesn't matter where you came from and that convention is the highest. and why we are taking the entire mandate and has particular ressonance how we had to think through of judge pledged delegates. in temperatures of the recommendations, we are looking at a series, the first that the commission concurs with the convention which reduces the automatic unpledged delegates by

400. democratic members of congress, governors, distinguished party leaders to remain unpledged delegates, all party officials who have a role in the execution of the primary remain neutral in their administration of electoral activities, that the commission recommends a creation of three categories of automatic delegates, one unfledged and two that are bound for the presidential roll call. the commission provided three options for the to consider those are pledged pool option and pledged voter option and pledged optional d.n.c. member voting option. there is a lot there and a lot to discuss. and that's where we start. but we will go through -- we are

not going to go through everything unless there is something we want to amend. i open this up for discussion to the commission and ask for commission members to begin focused solely on unpledged delegates and if they want to raise amendments or edits, they can start the process. >> thank you madam chairwoman and this amendment starts on page three, line 33 and to add to the end of the paragraph and decrease the undue influence, real or perceived the judge pledged delegates had on influencing the outcome of the ominating process. >> discussion on that?

indiscernible]

>> makes it a neutral statement. >> we're still on my amendment as i proposed. i understand what you are saying. there was undue influence in 2016 and the democratic party would do well to confess that there was undue influence and my biggest concern in adding this amendment, this amendment shows that we recognize there was undue influence, real or

perceived. some of this is perceived by the public and sometimes perception becomes reality. there is such thing called the invisible primary and the influence of those super delegates suppressed during the voter turnout particularly in a state like california where i was there when that happened. so i want to keep the amendment pure the way that i introduced it. >> just procedurally, i will second her amendment. it had nth been seconded yet. so it is seconded now. >> we need to vote on my amendment first which is an amendment to the amendment -- ok. any other discussion? >> apparently my mike wasn't

working before. did you hear my amendment? ok. >> let me add, in support of nina turner's amendment, the term undue influence is qualified by real or perceived. i think that the concern is dealt with adequately by the real or perceived and i don't think there is any reason to lter the amendment as it is. >> to be clear my proposed amendment still stands. >> so going to vote on the amendment to strike undue. -- hose in favor, pleas lease raise your hand.

ok. so we have 10 raised. o that passes. i'm sorry, all those not in favor. i'm asking again. sime sorry, this is my first exactly.-- mia's those opposed to mendment to strike "undue" lease raise your hand.

we have 10 again. so mia's recommendation to amend the amendment is adopted. ok so now we need to vote on the amendment as adopted. all those in favor. all those opposed.

3 for, zero against. we're going to stay with unpledged delegates and move on to additional amendments. the commission members have. jeff weaver. >> i move to adopt an amendment that i've submitted to page three, line 39. which everybody has in their pact. happy to explain it for two decades -- for two seconds if people want. people came to this commission with a wide range of views on the appropriate role of unpledged delegates at the democratic convention. we were given a mandate by the

convention from 2016, the highest authority of the democratic party, and this commission has worked within that framework, despite the fact that people came to this and still have widely disparate views on unpledged delegates. my view is they should -- they should have no vote at the convention. others have different views. this discusses the range of views that are held by the commission on this point. > i second jeff's amendment. >> discussion on this? seeing no discussion, we're going to put it to a vote. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. it's unanimous. he amendment is adopted. ther amendments?

to amendment number seven, amendment to page four, line 19. this is another amendment that expresses the diversity of view on the economy with respect to the role of -- committee with respect to the role of unelected officials. the unofficial role of elected officials in the primary process. there was some discussion, has been inside and outside the commission, about what that role should be and whether folks should be encouraged to voluntarily bind themselves to the outcome of whatever electorate elected them. we went around on this and there was some discussion about whether that was an appropriate thing to do, to try to get

elected officials to bind themselves to their constituents . some felt that it was appropriate. some felt it was not. and some felt that -- i put myself in that category, that it would be impractical or im possible to enforce a gag rule on unelected officials. this mirrorers the diversity view on the commission on this topic. i'm happy to read the amendment or someone else can read it. 'm happy to read it. [inaudible] >> we don't know what you're talking about at all. >> go ahead. go ahead and read it. >> i'm happy to read it. the current amendment is amendment number seven. page four, line 136789 replace the last sentence -- line 13. replace the last sentencing with the follow text. some on the commission do not believe that preventing our

electeded officials from primary ing in the process is necessary or useful to our party. while others believe that mandating such a rule would be impractical or impossible to enforce. >> point of inquiry. is there any way we can put the draft up? pursuant to d.n.c. bylaws it should be public. if the public's here and they've taken time to come and watch this they should at least understand what we're debating. >> the draft does not have to be public. it's more a question of the format of it. and it's very messy -- it's very messy. i think what we'll do is make sure everyone is reading out and making clear what their specific amendment is. that's our past practice. >> in response, it's one thing to see the amendments but if they don't see what the initial commentary was, where it's being inserted in relation to what has been written, it just seems very confusing. >> why don't we just do -- i think that's an important point.

there was a line in the report draft that said the commission does not believe that preventing our elected officials from participating in the primary process is necessary or useful to our party. that sentence states one point of view. and what i understand jeff's amendment to be is to expand that sentence, to express the diversity of views among the commission. and that there were people on the commission who have that point of view,s that not necessary or useful to do that. there are people on the commission who think it is useful and necessary to do that. and there's also a third group on the commission who believe that even if you thought it was useful, you actually can't effectively do that. so i think that jeff's language is intended to encompass all three views. is that accurate? >> yeah. that's accurate. in fact, there were some discussion before about making a minor tweak to this. i would ask unanimous consent to

make that edit right here and then to read it again as edited. and i would ask unanimous consent that it be accepted in that way. the replacement sentence would now read, it becomes two sentences, some on the commission do not believe that preventing our elected officials from participating in the primary process is necessary or useful to our party. while others do. period. others believe that mandating such a rule would be impossible or impractical or impossible to enforce. so i think now we have encompassed sort of all three views on this. those who think it's a good idea, those who think it's a bad idea and those who think regardless of whether it's a good or bad idea, it would be difficult or impossible to do. >> additional discussion? >> yes. so, i want to make sure all three points are encompassed but i also want to say, i think it the people who certainly believe that there should be no superdelegates whatsoever or if we have superdelegates they

should be all bound by what happens with the states, i've heard no one say that elected officials should not be allowed to participate in the process. they participate in the process one way or the other. either they participate as a superdelegate or they participate as an elected. but what the point is is that they should not, you know, have undue influence over the process, period. that was really the major point. not whether or not elected officials should participate or not participate. because they do participate. >> so, there was some discussion about whether we should make some attempt to -- i don't use this term prajortively, to muzzle elected prior to the elections in the jurisdictions, which they represent. and i think that's the issue that we're talking about here in terms of endorsements by electeds and what have you. so there were some people who held the view that electeds

should withhold their public announcement of support until after the voters had spoken. some had an alternate view and some thought -- regardless of your view, it would be impossible to really enforce. that i think is what is being expressed here. >> any additional discussion? if there's no objections, i'd like to move to a vote. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. unanimous. it's unanimous. that amendment is adopted. >> [inaudible] >> so what we're -- go ahead. >> hi. let me try to be helpful here. these amendments, for folks who have come to observe, are not going to make total sense. by a long shot. when we're done with the amendments, we're going to go to the main points for adoption.

and then that will make sense. but we have to, with all apologies, focus on having a document that we can vote on versus it making sense to the audience. so our rules are that we have to debate in public. no matter what we're doing. that's what we're doing. but it's not like this is a coherent presentation, if you haven't been one of us. as vice chair, i'll apologize for that. but the second part of this is going to make more sense than this first part. because we're going to come back and then say, point by point what we're adopting. that's going to make more sense. these are changes in a draft before us. >> and i would just add to that, we will be voting on every specific recommendation in each section that the commission will make and we will read that allowed before we vote. so everyone will be able to hear that. >> just procedurally, when we had the platform, we had a draft . when we had amendments to that draft, they went up on a screen.

so that viewers could see them, especially those watching. i'd see no reason why we can't, if there is a line edit document, why it cannot appear. i think it's respectful to the audience. and it's helpful for those who are here. secondly, if we're not going to do that, then the procedure that i would suggest we adopt is to onin by saying, in line four page whatever, where it says, and then state what it says, i want to change it to what the adoption or the amendment is. i think that to not do that is to literally say, come to view a process that you'll have no idea what the process is. so i think we either have to put the line edits up or we have to make it clear what the line -- what the edits are all about before we have a vote. simply so that people know

what's going on. >> that's what we're asking everyone to do when they go through this. what we'll also do is when we're voting on the final recommendations in each section, we will put them up as amended. and that -- then everybody will be able to see. that we will read through them and then we will vote on them. i think that serves for helping everyone see exactly what the final product is that we're voting for. but i do ask and agree with jim, if everyone, when they have the amendments, even if we might know, please be clear what the page number and the line item is, but then speak to the subject matter and then the adjustment. if you want to give a second on why that would be helpful too for context. ok. additional amendments from the commission. >> i want to go back to page four, line 11.

so, will replace -- will we replace, be encouraged to voluntarily with also? , so the whole section reads, the commission has discussed extensively the role of unpledged delegates outside their voting role at the d.n.c. some have suggested the unplaced delegates be required to withhold any endorsement until after votes in their representative stapets have been cast -- states have been cast. or in the case of elected officials, that unpledged delegates be encouraged to voluntarily bind themselves to the will of the voters they represent. so, in that one, want to replace encouraged to voluntarily with also. so also bind themselves.

>> any discussion? seeing no discussion, we can move to a vote. all those in favor please raise our hands. ok. unanimous support. he amendment is adopted. any other amendments for unpledged delegates section? >> yeah. i have a series of technical amendments that are here. and i'd ask to offer them en bloc because i think they're not going to be controversial. , 15, 16 endment 11, 12

and 17. >> you want to offer that en bloc as well? >> yes, i do. >> yeah. 14, fine. if that's going to be noncontroversial. so this is a series of amendments that seeks to clarify the section on how unpledged -- previously unpledged delegates will be allocated under the new formula, which binds folks to the outcome of the election. 11 and 12 sort of deal with how we put people in different categories and what the priority is for categories. because there are some superdelegates who are superdelegates for more than one reason. so we are going to prioritize which category they are in. the amendment 14 merely says that we hope that the r.b.c. does its work in a consulttive way with the members of the commission.

also it points out that we looked at some other options besides the options we suggested in terms of how we bind the delegates, but that some of those that we rejected would have greatly increased the number of pledge delegates at the convention. so we didn't adopt those. amendment 15, make sure that we use the word bound instead of pledged. pledged means something very specific. those are delegates elected to the primary and caucus system. and calling the newly bound previously unpledged delegates pledged also is confusing and so we should call them -- use the term bound. it means something different. number 16, changes in one place, with respect to the r.b.c., the word comment to consultation. number 17, purely technical. just to ensure that folks understand that the new process will be integrated into the way that votes are actually cast at the convention. it's a very technical amendment in that way. i would ask for the adoption of those amendments en bloc. happy to answer any questions. > second the motion.

>> so there are some very complicated provisions in here with how this process works. in the recommendation on unplenged -- unpledged delegates. i would like to ask the commission to basically allow jeff and myself and anyone else who would like to collaborate to review one more time the specific language and come back with perhaps sion a somewhat more concise but still very accurate discussion of how the process will work for dealing with the unpledged delegates. >> just for clarification, that s specific to the categories

execution of the voting. five, a, b, and c. that's the only part of this that you're asking to have a little bit more time to rework, the language, to simplify it. >> yes. so i would move the adoption of the amendment and then i think we can make a unanimous consent request after that that allows some revisions to the technical aspects of this which allows us to represent it to the commission, probably tomorrow out of the normal order. >> ok. any further discussion on jeff's amendment? seeing no discussion -- >> i just want to make sure i understand what's happening. so we're going to vote on your technical amendments. then you and jeff are -- and whoever else -- are proposing that we, we look at this section with your technical amendments and potentially we're going to come back with something

tighter. is that what's on the table? ok. >> we can discuss that latter part if we want to talk further. we just want to clear the -- ok. >> [inaudible] >> ok. all those in favor of the amendment please raise your hands. ok. unanimous support. the amendment is adopted. >> i'd ask unanimous consent that following this meeting, that mr. berman and myself and any other interested commission members meet to discuss the technical aspects of the implementation of the mandate with respect to unpledged delegates and be able to present the conclusion of those discussions out of order tomorrow during these proceedings. >> any objections? hearing none, it's moved forward. further amendments for the unpledged section.

>> do you want an amendment to adopt this section as amended? ok. all right. >> so, we're going to move to go through and vote on each recommendation and we're just going to need a minute here before we get them up on the screen. as everyone knows, we are going to go vote by vote. nd then we will go from there.

>> by not being told when we signed up, we were never told the time or the room for this meeting. you know this is a tainted meeting and yet when a few people figure out how to participate, by just sitting here, you want to take a sign away. [inaudible] underscores the problem with how the d.n.c. has not learned the lessons of the past. if it's so threatening to have a

sign, that simply asks democratic party or undemocratic party, question mark, this behavior of trying to kick people out and take away the signs underscores perhaps the answer to that question. >> all of the commission members deeply respect the grassroots that are here and i think if you could take your see the and hold your sign -- seat and hold your sign, we're all comfortable with that. [inaudible] are all the commission members ok with that? thank you. thank you. [applause] we deeply respect the grassroots that are here. >> yes. please return the signs and then if you both take your see the, that's totally fine. thank you -- take your seat, that's totally fine. thank you. >> [inaudible] -- not be here if i did not have a sign. one of my signs has to hold open, public meetings -- [inaudible] -- statements and suggestions as well. another of my recommendations is

to get money out of politics and make that a number one priority of the democratic party. another of my suggestions was that we need to do everything we can to prevent d.n.c. favoritism. thank you. >> thank you. and we will also try to get your sign back and we appreciate your support and your comments and we take grassroots comments very seriously. nd appreciate yours.

>> can i make one comment for the record, chairwoman? sure. ky make one comment for the record? >> yep. >> hopefully for future commissions we will have an opportunity to have the public come and testify because it is something that we've heard over and over. i know there was an open -- a form that people could write their answers and their suggestions, which i don't believe any of us saw the results of. so i just would like the record to reflect that we never received those and hopefully in the future we will have an opportunity to listen to the public's testimony because i think it's very important.

> thank you.

>> i'm going to ask for one more

time, any additional amendments to the unpledged section? >> madam chair. yes. lineumber nine, page four, 32. so it reads right now, the commission recommends the d.n.c. work to ensure that all party officials who have a role in the execution of the actual primary caucus process in their state must be scrupulously neutral, both in reality and in perception in their administration of electoral activities and i'm moving to amend that to say will. so instead of work to, they will ensure. >> i second the amendment. >> yes. >> any discussion? seeing no discussion, we'll move to a vote. . l those in favor

unanimously, the amendment is adopted. >> madam chair. another amendment. . ge four, line 35 want to add to the end of that paragraph that any -- page four -- yeah. number 10. pages four, line 35. so we're just adding to the end of the paragraph. any person who violates this important commitment to impartiality could be subject to loss of delegate status or any other privilege they may hold at the d.n.c. so we're adding at the end of the entire paragraph, so that everybody in the audience can --

>> i second the amendment. >> seeing no discussion, we'll move to a vote. all those in favor. unanimous. >> it's adopted. >> any additional amendments? great. ok. we're going to be putting up the recommendations starting on page our.

ok. so i'm going to read this, the first one. and then we can move forward with that. recommendation number one, under unpledged delegates. the commission concurs with the determination of the 2016 democratic national convention that the reduction of over 400 unpledged delegate votes equaling nearly 60% of the total unpledged delegates in 2016 will strengthen the grassroots role in our presidential nominating process. it is important to the commission that the grassroots voice and the presidential nominating process be amplified -- in the presidential nominating process be amplified.

ny discussion? madam chair, i think it would just be helpful just to clarify for people watching online and those in the audience who we are removing the superdelegate status for. right? so i think for clarification purposes, that essentially means all the state-level d.n.c. members. so state chairs, vice chairs, d.n.c. ommitteemen, committeewomen. the remaining will be members of congress, governors and other distinguished party leaders. so i just want to make it clear that those are going to be the remaining superdelegates.

and then all the other state-level folks who were superdelegates will continue to be delegates to the convention, but their vote will be tied to how their primary or caucus votes. >> i think we explicitly stated in the second -- the next one e're going to adopt. >> are we prepared to vote on one? ok. all those in favor of one please aise your hands. unanimous. ok. recommendation is adopted. ok. we are going to move to number two. in regards to current unpledged delegate, the commission concurs with the 2016 democratic national convention that democratic members of congress, governors and distinguished party leaders remain automatic

delegates and unpledged on all matters before the convention. and that d.n.c. members remain automatic delegates, but that their vote be pledged only with respect to the first ballot of the presidential roll call vote. ready to move to a vote. >> madam chair. could i just ask unanimous consent that the word pledged in that second to last sentence and all throughout be changed in this context to bound. and that it be conformed throughout the document. >> not when we call people pledged or unpledged. meaning what the old system was. but meaning in terms of the casting of their -- >> the new previously unpledged. right? who are now becoming something else. we should call them bound as opposed to pledged and describe their status as bound as opposed to pledged because it creates

confusion with those people who are elected in the primary caucus process. who are in fact called pledged delegates in the rules. if we call these bound delegates, it's something different. >> the only question i have for you, are there other things they would vote on that we would be suggesting they're bound that they're not bound on? meaning we're binding them for a specific purpose. i just want to make sure that change wouldn't -- throughout -- later in this, as get down these votes later in these paragraphs, it is clear that they are bound only with respect to the first round of the presidential nominating balloting and they're not bound with respect to any other issue. so we are making -- that's -- >> as long as that's the effect. >> yeah, yeah, right. it's just that we all understand who we talk about when we talk about pledged or bound that we're talking about two ifferent groups of people. >> why can't there be zero superdelegates? that would be the most democratic way to run the party. >> so, thank you for your

comments. this has been a long process where we've talked through this. so we're going to move. see nothing discussion from the commission, to a vote. on number two. ll those in favor. it's unanimous. we are adopting number two. ok. we're going to move to number three. i'm going to read this from the screen. i have not updated my eye glass prescription in about a year and a half. so hopefully i can see this. i'm going to work on that after this commission meeting. ok. the commission recommends that the d.n.c. will ensure that all party officials who have a role in the execution of the actual primary or caucus process in their state must be scrupulously neutral, both in reality and in perception, in their administration of electoral activities. any person who violates this important commitment to

impartiality could be subject to loss of delegate status or other privilege they may hold at the d.n.c. any discussion? >> i'm very much in favor of this amendment. but i want to point out that we already have in the delegate selection rules in fact a stronger check on this, even than this language. which is the ability of someone to challenge implementation of an accepted delegate selection plan. so that means that if a state party chairman gets their plan accepted, approved by the d.n.c., and then violates their plan in order to try and sway the process to a candidate or another, guess what, they will have to undergo a challenge from people in that group. so while this is fine, i just want to point out to everybody that there's actually a much tougher remedy that we've always

used. >> just to clarify. this is not in conflict with anything that we already have? >> not a conflict. it's just that this has been -- that's already there. >> ok. >> any discussion? seeing no discussion, we'll move to a vote. ll those in favor. [inaudible] >> ok. so unanimous. all right. oving on to number four.

all right. the commission recommends the creation of three categories of automatic delegates. one of which would remain unpledged and two of which would be bound on the first ballot of the presidential roll call -- roll call. for a, category one, democratic members of congress, governors and distinguished party leaders who remain automatic delegates and unpledged. for b, category two. state elected d.n.c. members, d.n.c. members elected as a state chair, vice chair, state committee man or woman, who are not part of category one. would remain automatic delegates. however, on the first ballot of the presidential roll call vote, their votes would be proportionally allocated based on the outcome of the primary or caucus in the state which elected them. 4-c, category three. officers at large and affiliated

members who are not part, both in b and c, can we just change party to part? ok. who are not part of category two or three would remain automatic delegates. however, on the first ballot of the presidential roll call vote, their votes would be proportionally allocated based on the national outcome of the primaries and the caucuses. any discussion? senator turner. >> thank you, madam chair. just on those points. even though it significantly reduces the number of superdelegates, it is still my opinion that this party needs to work to abolish a two-tier system that this sets up between the grassroots and the party faithful and those who have titles. fancy titles. to make those title people more important than the grassroots.

so respecting those title folks, because i'm one of them, but i don't think the democratic party should be in the business of setting up a two-tier system, all of those superdelegates should be treated exactly the same. it does reduce the number, but it does create a two-tier system and part of that system, most of the grassroots are a diverse group in terms of ethnicity and gender. more diverse, the group that's bound, than the group that is not. bound. [applause] >> additional discussion? >> i just have a clarifying question. if there is a democratic member of congress, governor or distinguished party leader that is also the state chair or one of these other bound categories, what rules apply to them? >> category one. >> category one. >> i know. so just -- >> so that was the point of one

of the amendments i offered was to clarify how this works when you have -- because there are nasm people who have -- a number of people who have superdelegate status in virtue of being a member of congress and an elected d.n.c. member. so you sort of go through it by numbers. so if you qualify under category one, even if you qualify under another category, you're treated as a category one. >> but that brings up some concerns then. because if i'm a member of congress and i'm chair of my party, i'm supposed to be neutral as chair of my party in the presidential primary process. but if i belong to category one, i don't have to be neutral. >> you remain unpledged, you may still have to be neutral by other rules. >> [inaudible] >> we just passed a rule on impartiality and the requirement of impartiality. >> this is solely with respect to what you were required to do on the first ballot of presidential distribute first voting in at al ballot on the convention of the presidential nomination.

that's what this is about. you're only unpledged with respect to -- well, you're unpledged with respect to everything else. but we are -- those people in category one, on the first ballot, are unpledged with respect to the first round balloting in the presidential nomination contest. think may be bound by other rules, which require them in the operation of the state party, to be neutral. right? when they get to the convention, they can vote for whom geographer ever they want on the ever they ot -- whom ant on the first ballot. >> any further discussion? we are going to vote on these 4-a, 4-b and 4-c. three votes under four. ok. so we're going to move to the vote. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. 4-a.

>> madam chair. i am abstaining on the votes on four and five because since this comes to the rules and bylaws committee, and as five acknowledges, the rules and bylaws committee may come to a different conclusion, which will come back to this unity reform commission. i'm going to abstain so i can conduct a full an open discussion there. i'm not expressing opposition to it. >> this is an issue that i'm going to raise later. but i have a sense that there are a number of issues here that are going to come before the rules and bylaws committee. in the interest of fairness, my sense is that i'm not opposed to members of this body who will be on the rules and bylaws committee voting in this body. but i do think they should be --

they should recuse themselves from the discussion that -- when it occurs before the rules and bylaws committee. it's a fundamental issue of fairness and i think the optics are also problematic. when there would be debates here and people would fall on different sides of it, but then go to the rules and bylaws committee and then vote on it in the rules and bylaws committee. so i'm going to raise it later. but i just thank jim for making it. but i do think they should be able to vote now. but they shouldn't be able to vote again in the later body. >> my view is sort of the mirror image of that. i want to be able to lead a full and open discussion at that point which is why i'm not voting now. >> ok, ok. >> i'm sticking with where we are, we're still in the middle f counting votes here.

so let's make sure we have the right count. so all those in favor, please raise your hands to make sure we have the right count. everyone please, can you raise your hand if you are in favor of 4-a. we're redoing this because someone asked for to us redo it so we can make sure we have the right count. >> raise them a little heighter - a little higher. > all those opposed. then one of one abstained. >> [inaudible] why don't we just put placards

up? >> because it's too hard to see. >> i know you guys can do it. [laughter] ok. >> [inaudible] >> distinguished party leaders include former presidents and former leaders of the party. of the national party. >> vice chair? >> no. we're going to move to vote on 4-b. all those in favor. please raise your hand. 4-b. all those in favor. 4-b. ll those in favor. unanimous with one abstaining. we're going to vote on 4-c. all those in favor please raise our hands. unanimous with one abstention.

ok. next we have number five and this is what we were asked for unanimous consent earlier, that we were going to have members of this commission update the language and bring this back later to vote on. so we are not going to vote on five. >> [inaudible] >> yes. ok. so with that, we have closed out the votes on the unpledged delegates section. >> ok. prime earls. - primaries. ok. primaries. so, again, in the resolution itself, some boundaries were set . lots of work's been done on. this and for folks who are here -- on this. and for folks who are here, there are really two principles. you're going to hear the recommendations that the two principles are that this party must be inclusive. at the same time it needs to do

party building. so, what these action items really are saying is that, and you heard it from chairman perez, we are going to push to the limit. you'll hear this again when we get to caucus. same day. same day registration. same day party registration. but at the same time there is party registration. so we can do party building. and with that, basically what we're looking for here is to -- there will be some expanded use of primaries, you'll see. and again, some of this will make more sense when you hear about caucuses. it means primaries versus caucuses. so there will be some expanded use of state-run primaries. we will require states, the word is require, and this will depend on what you all do in your

state, to use same-day or automatic voter registration. whether he require states to use same-day party switching. require. we will resist attempts that vote -- at voter suppression or disenfranchisement. this means by our parties. not just the republican party that may control 26 or 30 states. [applause] we will allow voters to switch parties at least as late as the deadline for registering to vote. at least as late. we will develop a strategy to educate voters in states with confusing timelines. many states for voter registration and party affiliation. seven, d.n.c. shall publicly report on the efforts to secure the changes in items one through six. not just adopt it and it goes away. number eight. the rules and bylaws committee

ended d.n.c. itself -- and the d.n.c. itself shall review the allocation of national delegates. and number nine, the rules and bylaws committee shall modify e requirements for what is term of art in their rules. proveable, positive steps and include legal recommend dis, means litigation -- remedies, means litigation. now we will discuss each recommendation, which may include amendments. if amendments are offered and you just saw this in the last section, we'll vote on the amendments and then come back to the action items. so, i will now open the floor for ommission members, amendments. we can start with amendments to section one. ny amendments?

>> i have an amendment. >> please read your amendment. >> my amendment would create a new recommendation item. the purpose of the amendment is to put the d.n.c. and state parties, to require them to use everything in their power to open up democratic presidential nominating primaries, to nonaligned voters. as known as independent and no-party preference voters in various places. and would impose the same penalties on those states who do not do that, as would be impresident obama posed under the provision -- would be imposed under the provision already in the document from changing party -- having earlier parties switching deadlines than voter registration deadlines. i can read the amendment in its entirety if that would be helpful to you. >> also where it would be placed. we're going in order here. >> we'd add a new number or a new chapter, a new paragraph number. the amendment reads as follows. the democratic national committee and the party at all levels shall use all means

encouraging -- including encouraging legislation, changing party rules and undertaking litigation to require that states permit nonlined voters, also known as independent or no-party preference voters, to participate in a democratic presidential nominating primary. with respect to any state that does not permit nonaligned voters to participate in its democratic presidential nominating primary, the rules of the party shall be amended to impose an appropriate penalty, which could include a reduction on the number of pledge delegates to the democratic national convention to which the state would otherwise be titled or potential adjustments to state party support. state parties that are able to demonstrate that all proveable positive steps, including litigation, as determined by the rules and bylaws committee have been undertaken to require the participation of nonalign voters but were not successful in those efforts shall not be penalized. that language tracks the language that's already in there, again, with respect to those states whose party change deadlines and voter registration deadlines are not currently

aligned. >> so i was going to go in order. it's fine. this is number five. action item number five. for members of the commission. and if you could just indicate what -- so, let's consider what's here now. five, and let's consider this 5-a. your amendment. because you're actually adding another section. it might be useful if you could describe what's different, if anything, between 5-a this language, and five. >> of course. let me go to that page. >> page 11, number five. and again, whether he come back to this in any case -- we will come back to this in any case. >> there's been a lot of discussion about opening up the process. chairman perez said before he left, we, the democrats, need tokespand opportunities for eligible voters to participate at every level. the document that we have, the underlying draft, makes -- i will say this. substantial positive change in terms of enfranchising people who have been disenfranchised by the process before.

i would point in particular to the outrageous example of new york state which has a party switch deadline that is months ahead of what the voter registration deadline is. i think everybody on the commission found that there was really no basis for having that disparity in deadlines. so what is in five would require that states align their party switch deadlines and voter registration deadlines so that you could switch parties at least as late as when you had to register to vote. the amendment that i'm offering would add a new section which would also put us on record and the democratic party on record as supporting -- as another option, the participation of what are currently called nonalign voters or independent voters. and democratic primaries across the country. as you know, the vast majority of states, in fact, do allow the participation of nonalign voters. some notable exceptions, most clustered in the northeast, but not exclusively.

new york, pennsylvania, delaware, maryland, and then outside of that environment, florida and arizona being two --er states that have closed in the presidential. that's what i'm talking about. presidential. arizona is the other way around. they allow it on the down ballot but not a at the president a -- at the presidential level. i'm happy to speak to this amendment if someone will second it. >> i second it. >> discussion on what will now -- we'll now call 5-a. so five would remain. this would be 5-a. repeats much of the language of five it. basically adds that even at the time of voting they don't need to have party identification. in other words, the language is not aligned. they remain nonalined through the voting process versus through what you see here in the other items. discussion? >> so, we ask independent voters

to vote for a presidential candidate postprimary. we're also asking for their votes in the primary as well. i think that a lot of young people, especially young people of color, are choosing to identify as an independent right now. because they don't have confidence in the democratic party. i think that this is a very strong bridge that we are building to prove to those voters that we need and want them in the party. it is my hope that if they are independent now and they're engaged in the presidential primary, that they then become a proud democrat. but that this is one way we can bring them into our party. >> jeff or anybody else who is willing to elaborate on how we hold these state parties accountable. for instance, in new york state, just as an example, the state party is almost, you know, completely controlled by a body that is chosen by the governor. so, how would we make sure to

hold state like that accountable? >> that issue's going to come up for all nine points. so if jeff can -- if you'd like him to talk about it in terms of 5-a, but we have that issue for all nine. >> yeah. so as with the other provisions, as larry had said, you know, we can change party rules, we can go to legislatures and we can undertake litigation. as the testimony that we received from the new york state official in new york state at the democratic party of new york said to them, we want the democratic primary to include nonaligned voters, they would do that automatically without any kind of legislation whatsoever in new york. if i could just speak more broadly about the amendment for a second. the gallup research from 2016, january, shows that 42% of all voters are nonaligned voters. democrats only are 29% of voters. if you break down, of course, if you go deeper with independents, in fact many of them align with one party or the other.

and 16% of that or percentage points of that 42% are in fact democratically aligned voters. if you look at that total number of democrats and democraticallylined voters which comes out to be about 45%, fully 1/3 of those are democratically aligned independents. so when we close primaries we are locking out 1/3 of the democratic base. this is particularly problemsome for young people, well over 50% of young people are choosing to register as independents. pew research from 2014 shows that 54% of millennials do not identify few with -- identify with either democrats or republicans. highest among latinos at 59%. we are lock out young people of color -- we are locking out young people of color. when you look at independents who are democratically leaning, the demographic with the highest percentage of democratic leaning independents, and these are the independents who would participate in our process, it's

31% of african-american and hispanic millennials are being excluded from the democratic primary process in states that have closed prime ears. that is a higher number than white millennials. you're locking out about 23% of white millennials because a much larger number of white millennials are republican-leaning. so a process which blocks out democratically leaning young people is disproportionately affecting young people of color. i would say also with respect to that, we see across races, we do see among older voters, we see that among older voters we do see that they are much more likely to register with one of the parties. although even so, latinos, 59 and older, over 20% of latinos 59 and older are not aligned with any party. so i think if we're going to grow this party, particularly in bringing young people, those of us who have worked in the online world know about ladders of

engagement and how you bring people in, the easiest way to get people on the ladder of engagement with the democratic party is to allow them to participate in our presidential nominating process. it's a small minority of state which is have this closed primary rule. i think it's time to bust that open and bring young people in, people of color, and working people back into the democratic party. . >> so just a point of clarification, five that's already in there allows -- is recommending and encourages unaffiliated voters to vote, but says -- and for same-day registration and the only difference is they would just need to register their vote as a democrat in order to participate that day. you know, just wanted to say for the one that's already in there, it's not precluding or disencouraging anyone to be unaffiliated and not show up. the distinction here between five and 5-a is whether they declare as a democrat to vote in the democratic primary. >> and this is in addition, not a substitution.

ask you have a comment on the amendment? >> yes. just to bounce out what mr. weaver just said, there was an nbc poll that was issued last week saying that 71% of those under the age of 36 want a third party and i think we have a real opportunity here with this amendment if we vote in favor of it to show the democratic party is -- these are voters that are aligned with progressive values, that the democratic party is taking this generation very seriously and i think this will be a very bold step moving forward to bring those people back into our party. >> so i think that it's very hard to say that the reason that latino -- young latinos are not engaged with this is because of this. i think we could look at all sorts of things that the democratic party hasn't done or needs to do in order for them to get engaged and i don't think this is it. this is a democratic party. if you want to vote in the

primary, you should be a democrat. i think ultimately that's what it is. you have the ability to be able to register that day. if i was an independent and i feel moved to vote for someone that day, this amendment -- the way it states now, i'm able to show up, change my party affiliation to a democrat, vote in it and still participate. so i'm glad we're having this discussion about how to engage young people, especially how to engage young latinos and seeing these numbers don't -- the numbers you just stated, you know, are a little shocking but there are other strategies we need to be able to look at and there are other things we need to try to address in order to bring these people in. >> can i respond to that for a second? there is an order here. i'll put you on the list. >> number one impediment -- blocking people from voting is not being able to vote and there's been a lot of research. i understand. we can do a lot to engage minorities and minority

communities. coming from new york state in particular, the areas where there are more impediments to registering to vote and getting people to vote is where the party doesn't vote. the closed primary. and the communities of color. these two things go hand in hand. we make these comments republicans are doing this. there is a lot of research done by pew research and more recently on, you know, circle, believe, did some work. >> i'll yield to you to respond to her. >> again, we are not blocking anyone from voting. that day we'll have voter register where people can say they change their party and they can vote that day. i don't think that's saying, well, guess -- i hear your point on new york. right. i think we all agree that's something we -- we're addressing.

i think that's what this commission is doing. we are not blocking anyone from voting. we are giving people an opportunity to. we are asking them to be democrats in order to vote in the democratic party. >> i just want to say a point of order here. we have nine items that aim at that because there's an amendment of this one, we sort of abstracted that. when we get back you'll hear that kind of comment, you know, over and over again. mr. weaver. >> i just like to say, the other issue is we have mistreatment of voters from state to state. a voter in virginia who votes in the democratic primary, supports democratic candidates, gives money to the democratic party, if that voter doesn't have a little piece of paper in that pocket, right. the people in new york needs to have a piece of paper. the republicans make them have that, not democrats. >> member ruiz. >> can we call a question? >> not debatable. we will vote on calling the question. >> second. >> anyone who's not in favor of

calling the question just to explain because this has been stated here can vote no on calling the question. that's different than voting on the amendment. so motion has been made to call the question. it's nondebatable. all those in favor of calling the question please indicate by raising your hand. down hands. oppose. questions called. now we're voting on the amendment. this is what we're calling amendment 5-a. and member weaver has read it previously. all those in favor of adding as a separate 5-a, please indicate by raising your hands. [laughing] >> ok. five. who's the sixth?

ok. six. we got them all? all those opposed. you got it? ok. thank you. it's defeated. we are back to other amendments. well, i need to make sure. seeing no other amendments we go to the action items. we start with number one. will read them. ok. come on, jacob. ok. they will be on the screen for those who are here. so i'll read it as you put it up. the democratic national committee and the party at all levels shall use all means -- i am going to emphasize -- all

means, including student legislation, changing party use to expand the use of primaries. all those in favor indicate by raising your hand. this is primaries -- sorry. wherever possible. these are state-run primaries. all those in favor, hands are p. opposed. abstained. ne abstention. is there anyone voting no? there's one abstention. thank you. action item two. the democratic national committee and the party at all levels shall use all means, including encouraging legislation, undertaking litigation to require states to use same-day or automatic

registration for the democratic presidential nominating process. seeing no discussion, all those in favor, indicate by raising your hand. unanimous. number three. the democratic national committee and the party at all levels shall use all means, including encouraging legislation, changing party rules, undertaking litigation to require states to use same-day party switching for the democratic presidential nominating process. as part of those efforts it shall be the position of the democratic party as an example that an otherwise eligible voter shall be able to participate in a democratic presidential primary if she or he had presents officials at the polling location with written notice that she or he wishes to be enrolled in the

democratic party. no discussion. all those in favor indicate by raising your hand. down hands. it's unanimous. number four. the democratic national committee and the party at all levels shall use all means, including encouraging and opposing legislation, changing party rules, and undertaking litigation to resist any attempts at voter suppression and disenfranchisement. voter suppression and disenfranchisement includes but is not limited to laws or regulations that make it more onerous for people to vote as well as administrative actions or inactions. related to issues such as the number and placement of voting locations and the adequacy and accuracy of state voting rolls, including party identification

where required. in advance of the 2020 democratic nominating process, the democratic national committee shall identify such issues on a state-by-state basis and seek to remedy them prior to voting in 2020. this would include the timely pursuit of perspective judicial relief where appropriate. all those in favor, indicate by raising your hands. opposed. i'm sorry. down hands. it was unanimous. number five. democratic national committee and the party at all levels shall use all means, including encouraging legislation, changing party rules and undertaking litigation to require states to allow voters to switch parties at least as late as the deadline for registering to vote. with respect to any state that has a deadline for party switching which is earlier than the deadline for voter registration, the rules of the party shall be amended to impose an appropriate penalty

which could include a reduction in the number of pledged delegates at the democratic national convention to which the state would otherwise be entitled or potential adjustments for state party support. state parties that prove all positive steps including litigation as determined by the rules and bylaws committee have been taken to change the party affiliation deadline but were not successful in those efforts should not be penalized. all those in favor, indicate by raising your hand. it's unanimous. number six. the party must develop a strategy to prioritize and resource education programs directly to voters in those states due to no fault of the party, that continue to have confusing timelines of registration and party affiliation, ensuring everyone understands the rules and timelines in place and the impact they have on voter

participation. all those in favor, indicate by raising your hand. unanimous. number seven. the democratic national committee shall publicly report on an annual basis its efforts and the result of its efforts to secure the changes in paragraphs 1-6 above. all those in favor, please indicate by raising your hand. it's unanimous. number eight, the rules and bylaws committee and the democratic national committee shall review the allocation of national delegates to ensure it reflex the principle of proportionality among the several jurisdictions as well as any bonus delegate allocations currently being used. all those in favor, indicate by raising your hand. it's unanimous. number nine. the rules and bylaws committee shall modify the requirement for proveable positive steps as provided in rule 2-b to include

legal remedies to bring a state law in compliance with our rules. all those in favor, indicate by raising your hand. it's unanimous. and now i want to go back to nomi's point if you want to make any comments on how -- so there's a lot in here, obviously, but your earlier point was beyond 5-a about how what we do to enforce this in states. did you want to say anything further? >> i know we will be dealing with this in party reform. a lot of the efforts in the party reform category will be about how we make sure everything we recommend and our existing rules and bylaws are held accountable. i know we discussed this in the past during our conversations about how we made sure states -- that whether -- in arizona there's going to be some form of legal action or in states like new york where it is completely up to the state party. what's the carrot and sticks strategy, what's the

accountability? >> thank you. i will just add paraphernalia theyically myself this -- paraphernalia theycally myself this will be in states where you may have republican control and they are suppressing the vote. it's where the party doesn't push to be as inclusive as possible. that's mobilization within the 57 parties. it's two-fold. >> i'm sorry i was distracted. have it on? i have -- i was slightly distracted and missed the opportunity in number six. we were going too quickly through the process to make what i hope would be a friendly suggestion amendment. and that is where it says to ensure everyone understands the rules and timelines in place, i would like to add in addition -- sorry -- time -- line above

that, line 19, confusing timelines for registration and party affiliation. i'd like to add, in the process for running for delegate, in order to ensure that everyone understands the process. that issue of running for delegate is not understood in most states. i know in the same way you have to have party affiliation, certainly deadline, in some states like illinois, you have to literally -- you have to file to run for delegate almost a year in advance of the election. you have to fill a form to qualify for the process. it's way too confusing a process in some states and i had he prefer if we could include that so that state parties in addition to submitting their rules to rules and bylaws committee make them available in understandable form for democrats in their states so they can run for delegate if they so choose. >> i'll second that. >> ok. well, in the spirit of what we're doing here, let's say

that's -- we did move fast. so we're on that. again, i would just point out there are sort of two places that could go here but that could fit in party reform because we're talking about the party's delegates. anyway, in the spirit of inclusion, let's discuss it. >> i want to make a point someone to the one elaine made earlier. the current delegate selection plans requires this now, particularly with regard to affirmative action, but that is subject began to challenge to whether there is a full implementation of the plan or not. so as currently provided for, i see no harm in re emphasizing here. it's -- re-emphasizing here. but it's here with remedies. >> you're saying, again, this is the longtime chair of r.b.c. there is no harm on including it. i want people happy here but

not happier. ok. question has been called. we will add that as emphasis. all those in favor of amending six to include and the process for delegate selection please indicate by raising your hand -- >> process for running for delegate. >> ok. smarter people will get every word down. the process for running for delegate, please indicate by raising your hand. down hands, opposed. abstained. ok. we'll call it unanimous. maya -- sorry. senator turner and maya. >> because we were going quickly, on number five, we are not asking anybody to take any steps that would be considered in the context of litigation frivolous, like you should file just for the sake or it's

impractical, you want to bankrupt state parties that don't have the resources to -- i'm just trying to clarify what we're saying is -- >> correct. >> you should use all means such as the ones that have been itemized but for whatever reason it's frivolous or impractical we are not suggesting that, is that correct? >> that would be corrects. senator turner. >> thank you, mr. chair. just going back to this whole section and the point that jeff was making and chairwoman and also nomi about, i really think it is the height of hypocrisy for this party to want independence to vote in the general to help us beat republicans but not have that same respect for independent voters leaning democratic. it's just totally put out there to not have them vote in the process. 310 million people or so in this country put under two

buckets and being told by the two parties who benefit from this system that they either have to be a democrat or republican or we don't want you in the primary but oh, i love you in the general. it's wrong. and, you know, jeff's amendment made a whole lot of sense. not just in terms of the numbers that he laid out for the numbers of millennials of color and the millennial generation is the largest generation and most diverse generation and they are speaking loudly and clearly about how they feel about both parties. but the democratic party is supposed to be the party of inclusion, both in terms of diversity and inclusion of thought and for this commission not to accept that amendment goes a long way to showing we are not serious about that, trying to win over independent voters and making them feel wanted and included in the primary process but we said no to that here as a commission

but then we will go and tell them how much we love them in the general because we need them to beat republicans, i think that is wrong. >> jane. >> and i wanted to make sure it was crystal clear on the record that when we are talking about included independents, i wish all states had same-day voter registration. so those that are independent may choose to be a democrat when they go into the voting booth to vote in a primary or the general election. but that's not the case. we have a lot of republicans, jorge, i'm speaking specifically to you since you brought this up. so we have a lot of republicans in states that are specifically blocking same-day voter registration because they know that it increases participation, especially on the democratic side. it's why some states choose to caucuses because as a state party we can then say we are

welcoming independence, yes, become a democrat the day of the caucus. so when you said earlier an independent should just switch parties on the day of the primary, that's not possible. it's not possible in states like nebraska. so we have in the state of nebraska allowed independents to vote in our presidential primary because we believe those voters are critical to the makeup of our party and in order to get our democrats over the finish line. so the reason this amendment was put forward is because we have republicans who are disenfranchising voters left and right, especially in red states. so i just wanted to make sure it's clear. i want all independents to be democrats. it's why i ran for chair of the nebraska democratic party. i believe in our party. but i also think we have got to build a bridge to get those folks there. >> ok. i just closing comment here, we're obviously pushing this as far as possible.

tomorrow you'll hear about caucuses. what you'll see here, and nebraska has a caucus, as close as you can get to parody between the two. when there's a democratic caucus you have to be a democrat at that moment going in the room. that's all that that's going to ask. and similarly we are trying to push this language as far as possible to say at the time you go into the voting booth, regardless of what you were before. so i think just trying to frame that up so we feel like there's a lot of accomplishment here in terms of what we're trying to do of pushing, pushing, pushing, both the state party and these states that are holding back voting. and with that this section is concluded. turn it back to the chair. >> thank you. i thank you, everyone. so two points to make. one, we have found out that the hotel policy is actually not to have signs. we were able to allow them to have signs. i bring this up to point out the security was doing what was asked by the hotel and wanted to make that clear to everyone in here. the second thing is, we are

recessing for lunch and we will come back in a short amount of time once we have fed ourselves. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> we will have discussion during lunch. but you can leave your stuff. you are not going to use for discussion.

>> this is the democratic national committee unity reform commission. it was created in 2016. the final session here in washington. they're taking a break here for lunch. we will have live coverage when they resume. the commission's recommendations, discussions this morning will be issued to update the d.n.c. rules and bylaws committee ahead of the 2018 and 2020 elections. we will have live coverage again when they resume here on c-span. the supreme court earlier this week heard oral argument in a

case whether a wedding cake designer can decline to make a cake for a gay couple. in masterpiece cakeshop v. colorado civil rights commission, they claimed artistic freedom. the gay couple challenged and now the supreme court will decide. we will have the oral argument tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. at the same time on c-span2, live coverage of president trump holding a rally in pensacola, florida, at the pensacola base center. we're expecting him to talk about the tax reform effort in congress. that's live on c-span2. also online at c-span.org and on the free c-span radio app. president trump leaving this afternoon heading for florida. this morning he tweeted out. big crowd expected today in pensacola, florida, for make america great again speech. we have done so much in so short period of time and yet planning to do so much more. see you there. >> tonight on c-span -- at 8:00

eastern, this week's supreme court oral argument in the case of masterpiece cakeshop v. colorado civil rights commission on whether a baker can refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple based on religious beliefs. nd kellyanne conway. >> i am not here to read about myself, think about myself. i am here for something so much bill b.i.g.er than me. i've often said publicly and certainly privately, there are only two people that work here and that's donald j. trump and michael r. pence. if you don't know that get out. >> watch it on c-span, c-span.org and with the free c-span radio app. >> the council on foreign relations hosted a symposium on suber security threats to

democracy including foreign attempts to shape debate. this portion includes a conversation with senate intelligence committee chair richard burr. he provides an update on his committee's investigation involving russia and the 2016 elections. >> i'd like to welcome senator richard burr to the key note of this -- it's been a fascinating morning. a discussion of russia, the election interference but also broader cyber issues and we're glad you've come to the council to talk to us.