The 2025 DNC leadership elections for Vice Chair have been challenged and DNC members will be vote soon to consider whether new elections should be ordered for two Vice Chair positions (Malcolm Kenyatta and David Hogg).
Why it matters: The DNC election process is under question for its fairness, but at the same time we’re at a pivotal point in the future of the Democratic party. Our actions as DNC members will send a message to the country about what we truly value.
Quick recap of my position on the DNC Vice Chair election: it should not take 4 months to fix this, but party bosses can’t put their fingers on the scale either.
— Bryan Graham (@bryangraham.com) June 8, 2025 at 6:02 PM
[image or embed]
Understanding the February 2025 Election
On February 1, 2025, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) held its elections for new leadership. This included elections for three “Vice Chairs”. The DNC Charter requires that its officers are “equally divided as practicable according to gender”. With the result of the other officer elections, the three Vice Chairs could be balanced in any manner out of the 19 candidates running (i.e., two male and one female; two female and one male; or one female, one male, and one non-binary candidate.)
Our process for elections is antiquated though, so we end up voting on successive ballots. Candidates drop off if they get the fewest votes, and we have more rounds. Amazingly, Artie Blanco received more than half of the votes on the second ballot so we had our first Vice Chair elected, a woman.
At this point—in the middle of the process no less…—we modified the rules to drop the two male and two female candidates receiving the fewest votes. We also had a number of candidates drop out after this vote, leaving five remaining candidates:
- Male candidates: Malcolm Kenyatta and David Hogg
- Female candidates: Kalyn Free, Jeanna Repass, and Shasti Conrad
To ensure officer balance we had two positions remaining:
- One position reserved specifically for a male candidate
- One position open to candidates of any gender
Acknowledging Serious Procedural Flaws
On the next ballot, members were instructed to vote for two candidates, one male and one of any gender. This instruction dramatically disadvantaged female candidates.
- Mathematical Improbability for Female Candidates
- Male candidates had access to all 812.5 total votes
- Female candidates were restricted to only 411 votes
- All candidates needed 205 votes to win
- This made it unlikely for any female candidate to achieve a majority
- Problematic Vote Counting
- Votes for male candidates in the male-only category were counted again in the all-gender category
- This gave male candidates like David Hogg an immediate advantage, as his 214.5 votes from the male-only election carried over to the all-gender race
- Of the 411 votes available for the all-gender election, 330.5 votes were cast for women, yet the combined vote tally effectively nullified these votes
Vice Chair Hogg’s Actions
Vice Chair Hogg has been at the center of controversy based on his public commitment to invest in challenges against older Democratic incumbents in safe districts. I didn’t vote for David because I also had concerns based on some of his previous actions attacking Democratic candidates for their stances on guns, and specifically Alaska Congresswoman Mary Peltola.
Many things can be true at once:
- I don’t believe that a Vice Chair of the DNC should be publicly working against the election of Democrats.
- There are problems with the stagnancy our Democratic leadership, and even a large void of leadership in the current environment that need to be addressed.
Why I’m Not Supporting a New Election
Despite acknowledging these serious procedural flaws, I cannot support calling for a new election now, four months after the fact. Here’s why:
- Timing and Optics — while the challenge is technically timely, the amount of time that has passed since this election raises questions about motivation and could damage party unity and public trust.
- Proper Channels for Accountability — while there are justifiable concerns about the actions of Vice Chair Hogg, these should be addressed through proper channels for officer removal not through a technicality in the process.
- Focus on Future Reform — we should focus on implementing reforms to prevent similar issues in future elections, from more modern processes (ranked choice voting?) to better process safeguards.
Moving Forward Constructively
The February election highlighted serious flaws in our processes that disadvantaged female candidates. This is unacceptable and must be addressed. However, the solution isn’t to overturn an election four months later. Instead, I propose:
- Better systems for more immediate challenges to elections with clear timelines
- Procedural reforms that ensure opportunity for candidates or that simplify voting
Conclusion
While I respect the Credentials Committee’s work and share their concerns about the February election’s flaws, I believe that overturning the election now would create more problems than it solves. The focus should be on addressing any specific concerns about officer performance through appropriate channels and implementing reforms to prevent similar issues in future elections.
Let’s learn from this experience and work together to build stronger, fairer processes for the future. Our party’s credibility is on the line.
