"Democratic Party officials earlier this year approved a plan which requires any state that wants to hold a nominating contest before the first Tuesday in March..."

"... including the traditional early four of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — to apply for permission. Last month, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas and Washington made presentations to the Rules and Bylaws Committee detailing why they should be among the first states to hold presidential nominating contests in the next presidential election. At the time of the presentations, the focus was especially on Iowa, which was proposing dramatic changes to its complicated system as it aimed to maintain its 'first in the nation' status in the face of criticism of the caucus process and of the state's lack of diversity and competitiveness at the presidential level."

 
From "Democratic National Committee to delay rules committee vote on early state calendar" (CNN).

They're putting off the decision until after the midterm elections, perhaps mostly to keep the focus on the midterms, but maybe something about the midterms will be useful in deciding who gets to go first. Is it hard to understand why Iowa and New Hampshire have held onto their position for so long? I've always assumed that it's a deliberate effort to reduce the power of black voters. The broad field of candidates must pass first through a process dominated by white voters.

I googled "percentage of black voters at iowa caucus" and the first hit was a 2020 article in The Guardian, "The real outrage about Iowa? The Democratic party silencing black voters/If Democrats want to dismantle white supremacy, they can start right now by dismantling a caucus system that ignores black voters."

That article was written by Karine Jean-Pierre, who is identified as the chief public affairs officer for MoveOn and a political analyst for MSNBC. Of course, she is now the White House press secretary.

She wrote:

The results from Iowa are in: there are no results. On Thursday, three days after the caucuses began on Monday, the Associated Press announced that due to irregularities and how close the race is, it would be unable to declare a winner.

Here's what ultimately happened. Somehow Joe Biden got the most delegates, even though 3 other candidates got more votes than he did. And the candidate who got the most votes, by far, got the third most delegates.

Back to Jean-Pierre:

Confusion and a lack of information are the story coming out of Iowa right now. But there’s another story worth telling: that, no matter who wins, the results won’t be representative of the Democratic race for president writ large. 

And that’s because the Democratic nomination process, by starting in Iowa and New Hampshire, systematically drowns out the voices and power of black voters. 

There’s no doubt Iowa is important under the current Democratic primary system. It is seen as a crucial test of electability, and in seven of the last nine contested Democratic primaries, the winner of the Iowa caucuses went on to win the Democratic nomination for president. But both the state, being predominantly white, and the type of election it holds, a caucus, actively diminish the role of black voters in the process. 

By continuing to allow the Iowa caucuses to hold such an influential role in the Democratic nomination process, the Democratic party is failing its black voters, plain and simple. The first reason is one of simple demographics. Iowa is predominantly white – over 90%....

It's rigged! Now, you could say that it's rigged in favor of winning the election, and black people are benefited by having the Democratic Party in power, which is less likely to happen if black people are too influential in choosing the candidate. And yet, the black vote in South Carolina turned out to be crucial in getting the nomination for Joe Biden, and Biden did go on to win. If the nomination had gone to one of the candidates who did better amongst the white people of Iowa, then maybe Trump would have won. Those candidates were, in order by popular vote, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizabeth Warren.

Back to Jean-Pierre:

Why does a political party that counts on black voters let a state where just 3.8% of the population is black have such a big influence? Of course, the next state in the process – New Hampshire – isn’t any better (it’s actually worse – it’s 94% white). By the time the race for the Democratic nomination hits South Carolina, the menu has already been set. South Carolina’s voters, which includes a much more robust black population, are left choosing among options dictated by predominantly white states.... 

Pete Buttigieg infamously was polling at 0% nationally among black voters – but is currently neck and neck with Bernie Sanders for number one in Iowa. Meanwhile, the candidate who’s shored up the most support among black voters nationwide, Joe Biden, is doing worse than expected in Iowa, currently coming in at fourth.

Ultimately, he was fourth, but somehow he got 14 delegates, while Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizabeth Warren got 9, 12, and 5, respectively. How rigged was that? Rigged to unrig?

One of the most recent polls showed Biden winning an astounding 48% of black voters, with the second-highest candidate, Sanders, at 20%. Buttigieg isn’t quite at zero – but he was polling at just 2% of black voters in this poll. In Iowa, we’re watching the current Democratic primary system silence black voters in real time. It’s time to put an end to it. If the Democratic party is going to dismantle white supremacy, it can start right now by dismantling another system: its very own primary and caucus system that effectively diminishes black voters’ voices. 

Well, that's what I was assuming. It's interesting to find this 2-year-old article by the now-prominent Karine Jean-Pierre saying it all so clearly.