Iowa Democrats Give Buttigieg the Most Delegates, but Won't Correct All Errors

The reexamination did not change earlier projections that Buttigieg led in the count of national delegates, but it moved one more into his column. The party said that Buttigieg had received 14 delegates, Sen. Bernie Sanders took 12, Sen. Elizabeth Warren earned eight, former Vice President Joe Biden received six, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar got one.

The Associated Press, which historically verifies election results and makes calls on the outcome of races, has not allotted the final delegate to Buttigieg because of the errors in the caucus results-counting, nor has the AP declared a winner in the Iowa race. The Times, which has followed the AP’s calls in the past, has not assigned the final delegate to Buttigieg.

And the new results are not necessarily final: Campaigns have until noon Monday to request that the statewide vote count be reexamined, after the party moved the deadline from Friday.

In recent days Buttigieg has claimed to have won Iowa because he leads the delegate count by a razor-thin margin, while Sanders claimed victory because he had the most total supporters in both rounds of voting on caucus night.

Even with the dust settling after a chaotic week that began when the party failed to report results Monday night, throwing the Democrats’ nominating race into an uproar, not all candidates and voters may reach closure. Internal Iowa Democratic Party emails revealed that although the party was taking a second look at some problematic precincts, close to 5% of the total, it would not fix errors that might have occurred on the official handwritten tally sheets from precincts.

Those records are known as “caucus math worksheets.” The party only corrected discrepancies between the data as recorded on the worksheets and what was officially reported in public releases of the results.

The party could not change even blatant miscalculations on the worksheets, according to a lawyer for the party, because they were a legal record, and altering them would be a crime.

“The incorrect math on the Caucus Math Worksheets must not be changed to ensure the integrity of the process,” wrote the party lawyer, Shayla McCormally, according to an email sent by Troy Price, chair of the party, to its central committee members. The lawyer said correcting the math would introduce “personal opinion” into the official record of results.

Thanks to greater transparency in reporting the caucus results this year, outsiders were able to identify internal inconsistencies. The New York Times reported last week that some precincts, for example, had awarded more delegates to candidates than they were allotted.

In addition, caucus “captains” for individual candidates photographed the worksheets in their precincts and shared them internally with their campaigns. Those photographs provided further examples of problems. The most blatant were errors in adding up votes for candidates, which take place in two rounds, and miscalculations when using a formula that translates raw votes to “state delegate equivalents.”

But because the caucus chair and secretary of each precinct had certified the results on the worksheets, along with representatives of candidates, the documents could not be readjusted without violating election law, the state party lawyer said.

“It is the legal voting record of the caucus, like a ballot,” McCormally wrote in her opinion. “The seriousness of the record is made clear by the language at the bottom stating that any misrepresentation of the information is a crime. Therefore, any changes or tampering with the sheet could result in a claim of election interference or misconduct.

“The IDP’s role is to facilitate the caucus and tabulate the results,’’ McCormally continued. “Any judgment of math miscalculations would insert personal opinion into the process by individuals not at the caucus and could change the agreed-upon results. That action would be interfering with the caucus’ expression of their preferences. There are various reasons that the worksheets have errors and may appear to not be accurate; however, changing the math would change the information agreed upon and certified by the caucusgoers.”

Sanders said in an interview with CNN on Sunday that the Iowa contest had been “an embarrassment” and “a disgrace.”

“They screwed it up badly is what the Iowa Democratic Party did,” Sanders said.

In response to pressure by candidates and the chair of the Democratic National Committee, Tom Perez, the Iowa state party permitted campaigns to flag precincts that had problems. On Saturday, it said 95 had been identified by three campaigns — those of Sanders, Buttigieg and Warren.

The party notified campaigns that it would only reexamine reported results if presented with “documentary evidence” of “inconsistencies” between the data on the worksheets and the reported results.

“The inconsistencies must show a discrepancy between the Caucus Math Worksheet and the publicly reported results,” the party told campaigns.

In the party lawyer’s opinion, the only recourse a campaign has if it wants to challenge the worksheets is to seek a recount, which would require examining “presidential preference cards” filled out by everyone who attended the caucuses. These cards were collected at the end of the evening and were included in a packet that was sent to state party headquarters by the caucus chairs.

But even a full recount may not be definitive. Several caucus chairs said in interviews that not all caucusgoers had turned in their preference cards. They left into the Iowa evening after performing a proud civic duty, with no hint of the mess to come.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times .