Making Minnesota's Precinct Caucus Night Welcoming and Accessible

by Susan Herder, Secretary-Administrative Officer of DFL SD 59

Introduction

The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL) is a long-established and well-organized institution. Yet for many newcomers, precinct caucus night—the entry point to the party’s democratic process—can feel decidedly undemocratic, another chore on their list, even punitive and elitist. Complex procedures and parliamentary rules often concentrate power, leaving others on the margins. The solutions proposed in this memo update the DFL’s caucus toolkit to make the event more inclusive, accessible, and empowering.

 I propose these improvements: training chairs and conveners to make procedures more welcoming, utilizing technology to expand access, and providing childcare to remove barriers. As Moynihan (2021) cautions, when institutions rely too heavily on rigid proceduralism, they risk losing capacity by valuing rule-following over genuine participation. Preparing conveners can ease that problem.  Offering child care and digital participation directly addresses Kaufman’s analysis of party behavior (2023). And Moon’s work (2019) reminds us that power is not only hierarchical—it is also discursive and moral.

Navigating the Institutional Avenues to Greater Inclusivity

Precinct caucus night represents the intersection of formal and informal. Established in statute (Sec. 204C.03, Minn. Stat.), the caucus is a legally mandated event that political parties coordinate with the Office of the Secretary of State (Minnesota Office of Secretary of State). Within this framework, the DFL’s Official Call (2024-2025, and updated biennially) outlines the procedures, timelines, and rules that govern participation. 

Implementation is shaped by neighborhood-level informality. Each of the DFL’s 121 Organizing Units (Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party, n.d.) depends on volunteers whose experience and institutional knowledge vary widely ("Primary Voters Versus Caucus Goers" and "The Peripheral Motivations of Political Participation,"  n.d.). Ultimately, how democratic the caucus feels depends less on law than on the capacity and inclusiveness of its organizers.

Solution 1: Adept Conveners Can Make the Event Engaging

Skilled chairs and conveners are essential. Caucus results must be recorded accurately to sustain the conventions that follow, and participants must feel welcomed and informed. Yet for newcomers, the process can seem opaque (Brady, Verba, & Schlozman). Participation often favors those with the time and confidence to navigate complex rules. Well-prepared conveners can bridge that gap by translating procedures into clear, inclusive guidance.

The DFL and Party Affairs Committee already provides strong preparation. Building on that foundation, the Outreach and Inclusion (OnI) Committee could help Organizing Units (OUs) recruit and train new conveners by partnering with unions, youth groups, and civic organizations. Experienced leaders, such as Auditor Julie Blaha, could mentor conveners, while OU-level mock caucus rehearsals would help build confidence and consistency. A pilot program in diverse OUs could refine a standardized, statewide training model.

Solution 2:  Greater use of  technology

Two tech-based improvements could help Minnesota’s system achieve the inclusivity and efficiency, as seen in Iowa’s Democratic Caucuses Will Be More Accessible to Voters in 2016 and The Untapped Power of Technology in Voter Engagement. 

First, a hybrid version of the DFL’s e-voting model could be expanded to include access for those hindered by weather, caregiving, or scheduling barriers. A trial in select OUs could test this system while remaining compliant with Minnesota Stat. 202A as a DFL-authorized party experiment. Pre-event registration could utilize QR codes or online sign-in tied to VAN/ActionNetwork, accompanied by a digital affirmation oath, and feature hybrid Zoom or Slack spaces for discussion. A caucus-night tech hotline and attention to cyber-insurance needs would ensure stability.

Second, an online exit survey would capture authentic feedback and strengthen engagement. A brief Google Form pilot—distributed by QR code, text, and email—could measure accessibility, clarity, and inclusion, while inviting volunteers. Data coordinators would secure responses and summarize results statewide within 30 days to guide future inclusivity upgrades.

Solution 3: Provide Child Care

Providing child care on precinct caucus night is one of the most direct ways to make participation more equitable. Scholars describe caregiving as a “time and resource” barrier that limits participation among working families (Jewitt, 2024). In Minnesota, where caucuses occur on winter weeknights and often stretch for hours, long lines and confusion have discouraged many parents (MPR News, 2016). Offering child care directly addresses this imbalance, making attendance feasible for caregivers and helping the DFL better reflect the full range of its membership.

The DFL could pilot child care in select OUs to test costs, logistics, and safety before expanding statewide. Participants would sign up during e-registration, allowing organizers to plan. Each OU could choose the model that fits its resources—on-site care, off-site reimbursement, or a hybrid approach—partnering with licensed providers or trained volunteers and following uniform screening and insurance standards.

To ensure affordability and consistency, the DFL could negotiate statewide insurance coverage, continue using public school facilities, and partner with unions or nonprofits for staffing. Advertising available care in caucus announcements would boost turnout among working parents, while simple evaluation forms would capture lessons for a permanent, statewide “Caucus Access & Care Policy.” Over time, a tested, data-informed program could make child care a standard part of an inclusive, family-friendly caucus system.

Conclusion

Minnesota’s precinct caucuses reveal both the promise and the limits of participatory democracy. To keep the event from being an onerous obstacle to direct engagement in democracy (as discussed above), conveners and chairs trained to welcome people to the process, utilizing tech and providing child care, would foster local discussion and civic engagement. Ensuring that every Minnesotan can take part is essential if the caucus process is to reflect the inclusive values it claims to uphold.

References

Arceneaux, K., et al. (2019). Who shows up to caucus night? Participation and representation in U.S. party meetings. Yale Institution for Social and Policy Studies Working Paper. Institution for Social and Policy Studies

Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271–294. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082425 Cambridge University Press & Assessment+2Cambridge University Press & Assessment+2

Jewitt, C. E. (2024). To caucus or primary? Why state parties change their presidential nomination contests. Political Science Quarterly, 139(2), 210-235. https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12886 Wiley Online Library+1

Karpowitz, C. F., & Pope, J. C. (2020, February 3). Why caucuses select more extreme candidates. LSE USAPP Blog. Home | USAPP

Kaufman, M. (2023). Setting the agenda or responding to voters? Political parties, voters and issue attention. Cambridge University Press.

Institution for Social and Policy Studies. (n.d.). Primary voters versus caucus goers and the peripheral motivations of political participation. Yale University. https://isps.yale.edu

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. (2016). Caucus versus primary participation rates: A comparative report. Washington, DC. https://lawyerscommittee.org

Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party. (n.d.). Party officers guidebook. https://dfl.org

Minnesota Office of the Secretary of State. (2025, November, 11). Minnesota Office of Secreatry of State Steve Simon. Minnesota Secretary Of State - Precinct caucuses

Minnesota Statutes § 204C.03 (2024). Precinct caucuses. Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Sec. 204C.03 MN Statutes

Minnesota Statutes § 204C.03 (2024). Precinct caucuses. Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Sec. 204C.03 MN Statutes

Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party. (2025). Minnesota DFL: Official site. https://dfl.org

Moon, S. (2019). Power in global governance: An expanded typology from global health. Global Public Health, 14(6), 829–842. https://doi.org/10.xxxx

Moynihan, D. P. (2021). Rescuing state capacity: Proceduralism, the new politicization, and public policy. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 558–569. https://doi.org/10.xxxx

MPR News. (2016, March 2). Long lines, confusion soured the caucuses for some. Long lines, confusion soured the caucuses for some | MPR News

National Association of Secretaries of State. (2023). The untapped power of technology in voter engagement.https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/issue-paper-Civix-NASS-summer23.pdf

Pew Research Center. (2020, January 28). How do caucuses and primaries differ? https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/01/28/how-do-caucuses-and-primaries-differ/

TIME Staff. (2014, August 1). Iowa’s Democratic Caucuses Will Be More Accessible to Voters in 2016. TIME Magazine.https://time.com/3070537/iowa-caucuses-2016/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 The opinions expressed in the SD59 Blog are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent a consensus of thought or position of the DFL.