Statement from Utah Republican Party Constitutional Defense Committee

Statement from Utah Republican Party
Constitutional Defense Committee

National, State and Political Organizations Across Political Spectrum File Amici Briefs on Behalf of Utah GOP

National, state and political and policy organizations from across the political spectrum have filed amicus briefs in support of the Utah Republican Party’s petition to the United States Supreme Court petitioning the court to hear the party’s challenge to SB 54, the controversial 2014 Utah law which dictates how political parties must choose their nominees.

Filing amicus briefs in support of the party’s petition are:
• Senators Mike Lee and Ted Cruz and Representative Rob Bishop and Raul Labrador
• Nineteen Current and Former Utah State Senators and Legislators
• National and State Political Parties. National parties include the Green, National Independent American and Constitution Parties and seven state Libertarian parties and Idaho Republican Party.
• The Pacific Legal Foundation and Cato Institute
• Judicial Watch
• Eagle Forum
• Private Citizen

On Tuesday, October 9, the Utah Republican Party filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court in its challenge to overturn SB 54 which dictates how Utah political parties choose their nominees. Interested parties had 30 days to file the amicus briefs.
Selected Quotations from the Amici Briefs:

Senators Mike Lee and Ted Cruz. Representatives Rob Bishop and Raul Labrador: “Amici file this brief to emphasize the need for this Court to grant review and reverse the Tenth Circuit’s decision, which disregards the long tradition in America of party autonomy regarding nomination processes and the value of the particular nomination process overridden by the Utah statute at issue.”
 
Current and Former Utah State Senators and Legislators: “The issue of whether a government may constitutionally impose on a political party the kind of substantive intrusion that SB54 represents has divided the Party and the state and will not be resolved absent the Court’s examination of the issue, since the governor has promised to veto all SB54 repeal measures. This is the ideal vehicle for the Court to vindicate the First Amendment rights of political parties.”
 
National and State Political Parties: “The Tenth Circuit’s ruling has the potential to make political parties powerless in making decisions that limit the influence of money or that address any other unique challenge.”
 
The Pacific Legal Foundation and Cato Institute: ““[A]nother vital truth: Because political associations ‘aspire to rule the state,’ those in power look upon political parties with an ‘instinctive abhorrence’ and stand ready to ‘combat them on all occasions.’ The First Amendment stands as a bulwark against the natural tendency of the state to co-opt political parties for its own purposes.”
Judicial Watch and Allied Educational Foundation “The right to freely associate is ‘almost as inalienable in its nature as the right of personal liberty. No legislator can attack it without impairing the foundations of society.’”
 
Eagle Forum: “The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari should be granted because the First Amendment rights of political parties are a matter of enormous national importance, and the Tenth Circuit gravely erred in allowing government to interfere with how political parties nominate their candidates.”
 
SB 54 was passed by the Utah Legislature during the 2014 session. The Utah Republican Party immediately filed suit and won the first portion of its constitutional challenge, overturning an onerous stipulation requiring the Party to allow non-Republicans to participate in nominating its candidates. SB 54’s restriction on a party’s ability to use Utah’s traditional caucus-convention system in nominating candidates, however, was upheld by the 10th Circuit in a split decision.

Statement from Utah Republican Party Constitutional Defense Committee

For Immediate Release
Contact:  Don Guymon
for Constitutional Defense Committee - Utah Republican Party

Statement from Utah Republican Party Constitutional Defense Committee

Republican leaders clarify intent of special meeting and new bylaw language

Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - Salt Lake City, UT. Don Guymon, spokesperson for the Utah Republican Party Constitutional Defense Committee (“CDC”), released the following statement to correct false information, reported in the news, regarding the purpose and outcome of the Saturday, February 24, 2018 meeting of its governing body, the State Central Committee (SCC):

The SCC meets regularly, and sometimes monthly, as needed, to address Party business, including organizing for caucuses and elections. The 2018 Caucus takes place on Tuesday, March 20. For this reason, in accordance with our rules, the SCC members called a special meeting on Saturday, February 24, to address Caucus preparation, budget issues, and bylaw modifications, including modification of an existing bylaw that has been under discussion since 2013.

State statute authorizes political parties to challenge the candidacy of any candidate who violates party rules.

Additionally, Justice Scalia in the U.S. Supreme Court decision on California Democratic Party vs. Jones stated:

In no area is the political association's right to exclude more important than in its candidate-selection process. That process often determines the party's positions on significant public policy issues, and it is the nominee who is the party's ambassador charged with winning the general electorate over to its views. The First Amendment reserves a special place, and accords a special protection, for that process...because the moment of choosing the party's nominee is the crucial juncture at which the appeal to common principles may be translated into concerted action, and hence to political power…

Since 2015, candidates have been required to certify they will not violate the party rules, but the bylaw lacked enforcement language. Under the new bylaw language, a candidate who willingly files to run, using a method contrary to Republican Party rules, temporarily forfeits membership in the Party, for the duration of the election cycle.

 These changes were made in consultation with legal counsel and in compliance with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and Utah Code Section 20A-8-401-(2a) . This Court precedent was confirmed in the Party’s recent successful constitutional challenge to election law changes, which the Utah Legislature passed in 2014 (Senate Bill 54). It is SB54 that is unconstitutional and is the subject of the current lawsuit.

If the Republican Party Executive Committee chooses to enforce this bylaw change, it does not affect any candidate already filed to run, and during the 2018 election cycle, it only applies to U.S. House Districts 1 and 2, so that no already filed candidate will be impacted.

 For more information, Contact Don Guymon

 

Count My Vote taking away accountability of elected officials.

Updated based on current version.

Whether or not you agree that the caucus and convention system which did NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous, as being a good thing, the New Count My Vote 2.1 is worse.

Currently you can at least watch what your legislator does during the session and if you don't like it, you can either run or help someone run against them by filing after the session ends.

CMV 2.1 changes the deadline to be selected by the party OR to submit signatures by the first business day after March 1st., lines 469, 476). (worse than CMV2.0)

They are saying we have to have the caucus and county and state party conventions during February, when the Utah Legislature is meeting!

This takes away part of the accountability of these elected officials.

Most of the bills will pass after the new proposed filing deadline and it will take time prior to qualify and so it would be two years until you have a chance to hold your State Representative accountable or perhaps four years for your State Senator or Governor depending on their end of term.

So much for accountability to the people. Is this initiative is written to protect incumbents?

Do we call this Count My Vote or Blank Check Vote?

https://elections.utah.gov/Media/Default/2018%20Election/Initiatives/Count%20My%20Vote%20Addendum.pdf

What is the major problem technically? 

The new CMV2 violates the Utah Constitution Art VI sec 1, (2) (a) (i) (B ) for lines 97 to 107.

IF they CAN constitutionally combine an initiative and a referendum of advance legislation, which the constitution has as separate powers and the state law has different requirements for, the state constitution is very clear a referendum can not repeal bills passed by a 2/3 vote of both legislative houses. This is written to include repeal of those, even before they exist, violating the part of the State Constitution they are using to create CMV2. 

Other major problems?

While it will cost less to get on the primary ballot under CMV2, it will cost a lot more to actually run and win elections making lobbyists and corporations, or the wealthy and famous even more powerful in elections.

There are no geographical requirements for signatures within a district or state so the potential of fly over counties and cities and area becomes much worse.

What should Count My Vote 2.1 actually change?

IF they really want to change elections, they should get rid of straight party voting as people can now get on the general election ballot as an unaffiliated candidate with signatures bypassing the political parties, and have been able to for many years. They just have a harder time wining with straight party voting. CMV2 does nothing to help unaffiliated voters. That would.

The next thing they should look at is Ranked Choice Voting and not the expensive run off primaries that are part of CMV2, that have poor voter turnout and cost millions each election.

Ranked Choice voting Video

Don't sign their initiative. It makes elections worse and not better. 

Count My Vote or Blank Check Vote

So the Incumbent protection for the Utah Legislature and Governor is in the Count My Vote?

Currently you can at least watch what your legislator does during the session and if you don't like it, you can either run or help someone run against them by filing after the session ends. (March 1st, Line number 321).

This takes away part of the accountability of these elected officials.

Most of the bills will pass after the new proposed filing deadline and so it would be two years until you have a chance to hold your State Representative accountable or perhaps four years for your State Senator or Governor depending on their end of term.

So much for accountability to the people. Is this initiative is written to protect incumbents?

Do we call this Count My Vote or Blank Check Vote?

https://elections.utah.gov/Media/Default/2018%20Election/Initiatives/Count%20My%20Vote%20Application.pdf

Is this the only problems?

No, there is a typo on line 95, with a reference that isn't correct. How many other errors are there in this initiative? It clearly isn't ready.

What is the major problem technically? 

The new CMV2 violates the Utah Constitution Art VI sec 1, (2) (a) (i) (B ) for lines 88 to 95.

IF they CAN constitutionally combine an initiative and a referendum of advance legislation, which the constitution has as separate powers and the state law has different requirements for, the state constitution is very clear a referendum can not repeal bills passed by a 2/3 vote of both legislative houses. This is written to include repeal of those, even before they exist, violating the part of the State Constitution they are using to create CMV2. 

Other major problems?

While it will cost less to get on the primary ballot under CMV2, it will cost a lot more to actually run and win elections making lobbyists and corporations, or the wealthy and famous even more powerful in elections.

There are no geographical requirements for signatures within a district or state so the potential of fly over counties and cities and area becomes much worse.

What should Count My Vote 2 actually change?

IF they really want to change elections, they should get rid of straight party voting as people can now get on the general election ballot as an unaffiliated candidate with signatures bypassing the political parties, and have been able to for many years. They just have a harder time wining with straight party voting. CMV2 does nothing to help unaffiliated voters. That would.

The next thing they should look at is Ranked Choice Voting and not the expensive run off primaries that are part of CMV2, that have poor voter turnout and cost millions each election.

Ranked Choice voting Video

Don't sign their initiative. It makes elections worse and not better.

We do Not need the Buy My Ballot Spot system

We never needed the Buy My Ballot Spot (2014 SB 54) for someone to get on the ballot if they didn't want to go though the parties. Just get 300 signatures from their friends or 1000 signatures for a state wide race and go directly to the General Election as an Unaffiliated Candidate.

The Buy My Ballot Spot with paid signature gatherers favors the rich and famous. Why do they need State Mandated help?


My Poll Results from respondents. Survey was sent to all active voters in House District 30 in West Valley City in January 2016 (not just one party)

A federal judge has ruled that a portion of the law that passed in 2014, SB 54 Elections Amendments, is not constitutional for two political parties, the Utah Republican and the Utah Constitution parties. This part of the law requires the political parties allow voters who were not members of their party to select their party’s nominee. Because of that ruling, candidates of the Utah Constitution Party cannot use the optional signature route to get on the party primary ballot. (They don’t have enough members). They are OK with the ruling because they didn’t want the State telling their Party how to select its nominees.

Voters can only sign one candidate petition per race but might be able to sign a form to remove their signature, if they act fast enough, and sign someone else’s petition.

In some areas of the State, there are not enough registered Republican Party voters to make the signature party nominee route fair. Candidates using the signature route likely will have to register to do so prior to the legislative session and then all candidates will register after the legislative session. If someone decides to run for Party Nominee after the legislative session, there is almost no time to gather signatures.

The Utah Republican Party, who wasn’t part of the “compromise” is still contesting the law in court. A special legislative session to fix the law based on the court ruling was not called by the Governor.

30% The legislature should provide minor fixes of the current election law and see what happens in 2016.

53% The legislature should repeal this petition law because the court’s ruling has caused the law to become unfair to some candidates in some political parties.

17% It is too late for the legislature to do anything this election year, but I will not be signing any signature party nominee petitions this year.

(Disclaimer, I have personally fought the signature party nominee route because I believe it favors the incumbents, the rich and the famous. While I [was] an incumbent and plan on running for [election] after the legislative session though the neighborhood caucus and convention system, I am NOT also using the signature route because I do not believe that route is fair).

How did we get to the point where the Utah GOP is suing the State of Utah

How did we get to the point where the Utah GOP is suing the State of Utah when most of those that supported 2014 SB 54 were Republicans? 

Pretty simple. The future Count My Vote backers showed up to conventions and picnics in 2009 (Jowers and Doug Wright for example). People at the time were tired of being over taxed and the Feds trampling our rights, (same as today). The delegates didn't fawn over them at the time and then Tim Bridgewater beat Sen. Bennett at convention in May of 2010 (yes Mike Lee squeaked out as well) and the backers met at the Alta Club and decided they wanted to get rid of the current system. Sen. Bennett backed Tim Bridgewater for the 2010 Primary, but Mike Lee won. Professors at both BYU and UofU plus Doug Wright have been blasting the caucus/convention system ever since. Some had been blasting it already when Gov. Walker got in the 2004 race too late and lost.

When polls and stats (Y2/BYU) showed Sen. Bennett would have lost even with the 2012 "Hatch" delegates they (the CMV backers) decided to work on changing the delegate voting threshold and "other" changes by threatening demands from the outside the Party.

When those changes failed (other changes later passed, such as helping fire fighters, etc. vote), they launched Count My Vote. They used a deceptive and poorly written "bill" and legal analysis from a DC lobbyist expert and had trouble getting the signatures in several parts of the state as required. They hired a group to help who violated the laws and official complaints were filed against them. So they compromised with the Utah Legislature directly, bypassing the Parties, and got things they didn't even try to get with CMV because they thought they would lose in court.

Members of the Utah Legislature believed CMV would still get the signatures and already had the media and so agreed with the compromise. When the party announced just before the grand Compromise in March 2014 that they would protect their rights and that at least CMV violated their rights - people ignored them. When almost 4000 state delegate said we should protect our rights against SB 54 in April of 2014 people ignored that as well. So when the Party did sue in Dec of 2014 people wondered why.

Notes:
Jowers 2009 GOP State Convention ice cream social, Wright, Salt Lake County GOP 2009 Constitution Day Picnic.

Alta Club Meeting

Bennett/Bridgewater
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700030688/Utah-GOP-delegates-dump-Sen-Bob-Bennett-at-state-convention-Bridgewater-Lee-to-battle-in-primary.html?pg=all


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/11/bennett-endorses-former-rival/


Poll and Stats released publicly by Quinn Monson at the State Young Republican meeting Nov. 9,  2013.

Threatening demands
http://www.publiusonline.com/lavarr-webbs-insiders-weigh-in-on-utahs-nomination-system-poll/

Writers of CMV
Matthew T. Sanderson
Stephen W. Owens.
Source: Nov. 9, 2013, CMV, Taylor Morgan

Poorly written, CMV
http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-resolution-declaring-count-my-vote.html
http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/2013/11/5-reason-not-to-sign-their-petion.html

Volations:

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/legislature/group-questioning-count-my-votes-petitions/article_d7e74a33-e847-58cb-9d7e-0b9c8a7a0a70.html

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865597116/Count-My-Vote-ballot-initiative-attacked-on-two-fronts.html?pg=all

Lose in Court, Unaffiliated Voters
http://www.countmyvoteutah.org/s/Constitutional-Memorandum-and-Letter-wso2.pdf
(notice it specifically says CMV doesn't open the primary to unaffiliated)

Poorly written legal analysis
http://www.scribd.com/doc/211089967/Memorandum-rebuttal-of-initiative-constitutionality-2-25-14-3-pdf

Prior to the Grand Compromise, Party to protect it's rights

Delegates back Fight.
2014 Utah GOP Nominating Convention vote, estimates of over 95%

Conclusions are those of Fred C. Cox, and may not represent others or parties.

A Resolution Declaring the Count My Vote Initiative A Violation of First Amendment Freedoms

A Resolution Declaring the "Count My Vote" Initiative
A Violation of First Amendment Freedoms

WHEREAS, The Count My Vote initiative seeks to eliminate the process that was chosen by the political parties in Utah to select the candidates that best represent them; and,

WHEREAS, The Utah Republican Party has free association rights guaranteed under the Constitution; which entitles political parties to determine how they select their nominees for office; and,

WHEREAS, The state of Utah can regulate the free exercise of political rights only if it satisfies a compelling state interest that is narrowly defined; and,

WHEREAS, The burden will be on the state of Utah to prove they have a compelling interest that mandates significant interference with the autonomy and choice of all political parties in Utah; and,

WHEREAS, The Supreme Court has shown great deference in respecting how political parties exercise their First Amendment rights in the candidate selection process; and,

WHEREAS, The citizen initiative process does not allow for the trampling of Constitutional freedoms, regardless of how many signatures are obtained;

BE IT RESOLVED, That the Central Committee of the Utah Republican Party believes the Count My Vote initiative violates the right of free association guaranteed in the First Amendment.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That regardless of how well intentioned, we stand against all government overreach and control that violates our shared Constitutional freedoms.

Submitted by Aaron Gabrielson
March 1, 2014

This Resolution Passed the Utah Republican State Central Committee with no votes against on March 1, 2014

The count my vote bluff do not negotiate with pirates

Word is reaching that Count My Vote is willing to stop their petition. A negotiation with the Utah Legislature.

Count My Vote = Pirates?
From a year ago:

http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/03/fair-elections-in-utah.html

Why would Count My Vote now "cave" ? Several good reasons, they wanted the Utah Legislature to bail them out.

1. They never had a well written proposed law.
http://www.neighborhoodelection.org/flaws_in_count_my_vote_proposed_legislation

2. Their Legal brief was finally discovered to be a con.
http://www.countmyvoteutah.org/s/Constitutional-Memorandum-and-Letter-wso2.pdf

In a soon to be released counter brief it was discovered that Count My Vote / Buy My Vote based part of their argument on a minority opinion form the SCOTUS and not the majority opinion.  It shows that the Legal Brief put out by Count My Vote to be as flawed as the proposed law. Not only is the conflicting sections in Count My Vote going to give a judge pause and kick it back to the Utah Legislature to fix, and the 2% system obviously not treating candidates from different parties equally, but the whole premise of Count My Vote being able to stand up to the courts is flawed.

See:
http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-resolution-declaring-count-my-vote.html



3. 2014 SB 54 passed the Senate.

4. Protect Our Neighborhood Elections files a complaint with the Lt. Governor's office re: Count My Vote asking for signatures, perhaps even all to be thrown out.


from
http://fox13now.com/2014/02/21/complaint-claims-count-my-vote-collected-signatures-in-violation-of-the-law/


The complaint outlines four accusations, which include the following:
1 – Only one of eight corporate donors for Count My Vote has filed the required financial disclosures with the Lt. Governor’s Office.
2 – Washington County School District member emailed Count My Vote materials from a school email account during school hours.
3 – Count My Vote signature collectors have, on documented occasions, verbally misrepresented the nature of initiative, going so far as to completely lie about it.
4 – Count My Vote petitions were allegedly left unattended in public places, which could have allowed anyone to sign without first having their identity verified.
What did

Count My Vote do? They pulled in more money, this time from Sen. Orin Hatch, and they called in Mitt Romney, who likely was just acting at the request of Mike Leavitt.

It is in doubt that Mitt Romney is up to speed on the flaws of Count My Vote:

http://www.redstate.com/diary/fredccox/2013/11/07/perhaps-mitt-romney-should-be-blasting-count-my-vote-having-no-run-off/

Passed problems with 2014 SB 54
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2014/02/2014-sb-54-elections-amendments.html

Pirates or Just Cowards?
Count My Vote had their public hearings when the least number could come and even scheduled them during UEA and a Legislative Session.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/56992046-90/count-vote-group-public.html.csp


"They have scheduled four of their seven public statewide meetings at noon during the week with two of those during a special session of the Legislature," said Fred Cox, a former state representative and opponent of the Count My Vote movement. "They also scheduled two of the required regional public meetings during UEA (Utah Education Association), so they don't seem to want the UEA teachers or their invited parents to attend."


Their Press Conference tomorrow is during the State GOP Central Committee meeting so that none of the GOP Party Leaders could be there.

Count My Vote: a Lexus lane to the ballot for the rich and famous. Always has been. With the proposed compromise it is just more obvious.

Fair Elections in Utah. It matters. You can remove your signature using this process:
http://www.neighborhoodelection.org/faq

2014 SB 54 Elections Amendments

2014 SB 54 Elections Amendments 

[update this is for Sub. 1 SB 54. Sub 2 has different requirements]

2014 SB 54 Elections Amendments, A proposal for the Utah Legislature to adopt Count My Vote, prior to knowing if they get enough signatures, and prior to a vote in November if they do. It provides exceptions, one of which would ruin the Same Day Ballot that the GOP is adding to increase participation for Neighborhood Caucus Election night.

Many citizens who attend their neighborhood elections and caucus meeting become interested in politics and get involved in their communities, the state and the nation. They meet and help candidates become elected. Some then later become candidates. This should be encouraged through education. SB 54, lines 796 to 800 ruins that and should be amended.  

Again, we need to amend it to allow greater participation by those that are new to the process. Delete lines 796 to 800. This will allow someone new to run the night of the meeting. We have and should have incentives to file and run for delegate or precinct chair prior to the meeting, but as drafted, the bill reduces participation.  

My letter to the Utah Republican State Central Committee:

Dear SCC members,

re: Senator Bramble's bill

http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/SB0054.html

It is my opinion that if the proposed bill should be amended, particularly lines 796 to 800.

If not, the bill should not pass.

794 (b) permits members of the registered political party to vote for neighborhood

795 delegates remotely or by absentee ballot;

796 (c) accepts a vote cast remotely or by absentee ballot, under Subsection (12)(b), for a

797 period of not less than two days after the day on which:

798 (i) all delegate nominees of the registered political party have been identified; and

799 (ii) the name of each delegate nominee described in Subsection (12)(c)(i) is made

800 available to members of the registered political party;

The 2 day system in the bill for the caucus will ruin it.

You either can't find out that night who won any race, or

you have to file before you know who won.

Someone running for State Delete that night and losing and running for Prec. Chair or County Delegate if they lose goes away.

I have talked to Sen. Bramble last night [Tues. Feb. 4] about these concerns to no avail.

We, the SCC, have spent months coming up with a Same Day Ballot to solve the concerns and not ruin the meeting.

If not amended or deleted, lines 796 to 800 ruins the meeting.

See:

http://www.neighborhoodelection.org/the_same_day_ballot_for_the_neighborhood_caucus_election_republican_meeting

as well as:

http://utahpolicy.com/index.php/features/today-at-utah-policy/1494-utah-gop-adds-same-day-ballots-to-caucus-system

We have made huge improvements for the 2014 Neighborhood Elections.

For some of these, see:

http://www.utgop.org/stateCentral.asp

For purposed of reviewing Sen. Brambles 2014 SB 54 bill, and to allow the Count My Vote language to be put directly in statute with an exception to parties that qualify for the 4 items covered in the bill, I am willing to temporarily look past many of the flaws from the initiative, since they may not apply. See:

http://www.neighborhoodelection.org/flaws_in_count_my_vote_proposed_legislation

I am opposed to changing the system we have to allow unaffiliated voters to affiliate the day of election. It has proven to decrease cross voting during a primary and still allow individuals to vote. I believe that requirement, "allow unaffiliated voters to affiliate the day of election" could be part of SB 54 on lines 792 to 793.

As you know, I am not in favor of changing the threshold percentage to avoid a primary.

See:

http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-threshold-to-avoid-primary-is-two.html

I have no problem with electing alternate delegates, and we currently allow counties to do so.

If Lines 796 to 800, were modified to allow our Same Day Ballot to meet the requirements of lines 794 and 795,

we might have a bill to work with.

To replace the the threshold percentage item, the following items could be discussed:

legal notice requirements for caucus and convention and 
require election day affiliation for UAF so that law Isn't removed later. 
We could add voter info protection and 
remove straight party voting in the general. 
We could also fix the check a buck program so it comes out of the taxes of the person that checked the box instead of everyone else.

The final point is the bills timing. It is a big risk. See the critical dates from March 1st to May 15th.

http://le.utah.gov/asp/electiondates/sessdates.asp

Notice the bill would have to pass the legislature, both houses by March 13.

The Governor has until April 2 to sign or veto it.

The legislature has until May 12, to override a veto.

Count My Vote has until April 15 to get the signatures they need.

The county clerks have until May 1st to the 15th to verify the signatures and turn them in to the Lt. Gov. those that have requested to be removed.

The Lt. Gov. has until June 1st to decide if the number of signatures meets the law.

We do not know if between March 13th and April 15th if the number of signatures coming in will increase or decrease if the bill passes. It could either add fire to their initiative or crush it. It is a risky move. 

In a nutshell, 2014 SB 54 lines 796 to 800 must be amended or deleted before we even have something to discuss. (The 2 day requirement) it isn't the 48 hours it is the other requirements.

Fred C. Cox

Salt Lake County representative to the State Central Committee

What is the Truth About Neighborhood Caucus Elections in Utah

All Utahns deserve the opportunity to understand the drastic changes that are being proposed to our election system and how these changes will impact YOU.  Count My Vote (CMV) is an initiative to change from our current Neighborhood Caucus Election system to a Direct Primary. One consequence of this would be to give big money and lobbyists a much more dominant role in Utah’s elections.

A diverse group of concerned volunteers from throughout the state has produced a presentation about the proposed changes.  Please take a minute to view the presentation  to better inform yourself about this issue and the consequences of enacting the proposed legislation.

Please share this information with those you know.  It is critical that people understand the ramifications of signing the Count My Vote petition, and that they know how to remove their signature if they have already signed it.

Click here to view the presentation

If you are interested in supporting this effort, please see the website below to volunteer your time or to make a donation.

Protect Our Neighborhood Elections 

http://www.neighborhoodelection.org/

Count My Vote and the Emperor's New Clothes

We have all heard the story of " The Emperor's New Clothes"


I have not spoken to anyone that has experience reading bills that have read the proposed "Count My Vote"  law that doesn't agree that the Legislature would have to fix it. They even admitted that.

It contradicts itself. I would have thought since they are spending over $3/4 Million on this they would have got a real "bill". 

http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/2013/11/below-is-my-non-legal-analysis-of.html

 

The bunch of people that they had say the "bill" was constitutional, only said that based on one primary argument: Could the state force the parties to change their system based on the proposed "bill"?

They (Count My Vote) don't seem to want people to read it. Just sign it and vote on it later. The purpose of getting that many people to sign it is to make sure, since they are bypassing the legislature, that the "bill" gets vetted. We get ticked at congress if they don't read what they are voting on.

CMV intentionally made it hard for anyone to come to the public hearings, and almost no one would have come if we didn't invite them. They then had a chance to amend their proposed law and they didn't.

Now they hope some legislator can bail them out and change the law, but they can't back off because, I believe, they have told the education community that if CMV passes, they will use it to change the legislature so taxes are raised and education gets more money.

They have told others, I have heard, that CMV will allow certain candidates that "can't" win under the current system, to win, and those are helping to pull in the big bucks for them so their candidates get elected in 2016.

98% of all the money raised, $851,201.50 this year and before comes in contributions of $2,500 or more, much of it $25,000. 92% of all money raised came from 34 donors. 7 of 8 corporations donating to Count My Vote's PIC have not filed with the state as required by state law.

And Count My Vote is worried about 20,000 state and county delegates from the different parties that are elected by 150,000 voters? Perhaps we should worry about the 34 that are doing most of the funding of Count My Vote?

Are you really believing Count My Vote?

A quick look at the Count My Vote website lists the following concerns about our current system: Outdated, Lower participation (voter turnout), Limited access, restrictive, can't come that night, can't vote, delegates are extreme and that is who the candidates and elected officials are held responsible to.


For some quick answers as to why you shouldn't sign their initiative, see:

http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/2013/11/5-reason-not-to-sign-their-petion.html

For some more, lets look at a few of their claims:

Outdated, as in the constitution? The constitution was based on local participation of voters to make sure the government was accountable. Local townships with frequent votes were the norm. The Federal Government is now trying to run our lives and is working to take over what the State was supposed to do. Local Government is being ignored. We need more people involved and not less. CMV reduces local neighborhood involvement, not increases it.

They go back to the 1800's, but they forget that the system we have is a compromise after trying a better than CMV direct primary. When Utah tried a direct primary in 1937 to 1947, it came with a run off primary, so the majority would elect the nominee. When the voting turn out and the cost drove the public and the media to reject that system - a compromise, caucus/convention and run off primary was created. We have that today. Count My Vote not only removes the nominating for general elections using delegates, it removes the run off primary system we have and nominees will no longer be selected out of a 2 person race.

They also ignore that Utah's 10 year trial with a direct primary was to get a Democratic State Senator President elected either to the US Senate or Governor. That worked. Who are we changing the system back to the 1940's for this time?

Voter turnout can be effected by the age of the voters, strength of one party over another, or the percentage of move-ins to the state. CMV and those that they quote, have assumed the lower turnout has been due to the threshold required to avoid a primary, (fewer primaries) but have ignored the other factors listed as even a possibility. Compare Utah to other states with a dominate political party and our voter turnout looks normal. If it was the number of primaries that was the reason, why did we have such a low turnout in 2013 with the City races? That had nothing to do with the caucus/convention system.

Limited access? If a person thinks a party is too much a barrier to get to a ballot, they can run directly in the general election as an unaffiliated with 300, 5% or 1000 signatures, depending on the size of the race. 300 for local or 1000 for states wide is the maximum. CMV sets that at 2% based on the party voters, and depending on the size of the race and the party, it can vary to as large as 13,000 signatures for all state races for the GOP or 1/90th of that for some other parties. It actually creates a larger barrier than we have now.

Can't come that night? CMV has totally ignored and refuses to even admit that the Utah GOP has Same Day Ballots for 2014, which solves the mom with the sick kids or the firefighter that had to work or the military/mission voters.
See: http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-same-day-ballot-for-neighborhood.html


Extreme? There are differences between polls between delegates and non delegates. Sometimes it is because the delegates have taken the time to meet the official or candidate personally or have asked a typical question. For example according to a Dan Jones Poll leaked this week, current Utah State Delegates have a higher opinion of Gov. Herbert than the average Republican voters. Is that extreme? For 2012 they picked Gov. Herbert over Morgan Philpot, Mia Love over Carl Wimmer and almost picked Orrin Hatch over Dan Liljenquest as the nominee. States with direct primaries actually have had more problems with extreme candidates.

We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is a good thing.

The Same Day Ballot for the Neighborhood Caucus Election Republican Meeting

The Same Day Ballot for the 2014 Neighborhood Caucus Election Republican Meeting

It started about a year ago with some at the Utah Republican State Central Committee (SCC) trying to figure how to grant an exception or maybe even a proxy vote for some that couldn't come to the  the Neighborhood Caucus Election Meeting.

The idea of a Proxy Vote was defeated, and it has taken many months to come up with a Same Day Ballot (SDB) system. It has many protections so it isn't a proxy vote. The person prints out their own ballot, which has a number to avoid copying it. They fill out their own ballot that day and put it in an envelope, seal it, and sign across the seal, so we know it wasn't someone else. They provide the ballot and copies of their state ID to whoever is bringing the ballot that allows those receiving it to check the signature and make sure the person is a registered voter in the precinct. The ID is given back to the person that brought in the ballot so we don't have issues with ID theft or party liability for the ID copies.

It was structured in such a way to allow the mom who was planning on coming to the neighborhood caucus election meeting, but her kids got sick to still vote, or the firefighter, for example, that had to work that night. We want people to come to the meeting, but things can come up that can't be controlled. The Same Day Ballot (SDB) is designed to not provide an incentive for people to avoid the meeting. The person that just had knee surgery that uses a SDB, is not likely to be able to come, and the SDB will actually increase the number participating and not decrease it.

Because the ID with the ballot was given outside the envelope, the party never gets control of it, and the person selected to deliver the ballot is going to be a spouse, family member or trusted friend. People will not give a copy of their ID to someone they don't know. That would make sure someone representing a campaign didn't try to abuse the system.

We added a pre-meeting before the Neighborhood Caucus Election Meeting from 6pm to 7pm and advance registration, to encourage, but not require, those wanting to run for delegate or precinct chair, etc. to let people know in advance so those that couldn't come would know who to vote for, and have time to call them up and ask questions. The SDB allows a write in vote, so if they know or want someone to be nominated that night, they can vote for them as well.

The next concern, which was discussed in Filmore, during the October 26th SCC meeting, was a limit as to how many of the Same Day Ballots could be brought in by one person.

Since we live in Utah, and we also have small rural towns, there are people that are trusted in each community that could pick up quite a number of the SDB. The proposal in Fillmore was to limit the number of SDB's a person could bring in to one (1). That was discussed and rejected. five (5) was a number discussed, but it wasn't approved either. We wanted to have a large enough number to make sure the mom or the firefighter could find someone to bring their SDB in, or if a family got sick, the voters in the household would turn in their votes, but small enough so as to not encourage abuse. On Saturday, Dec. 14th, the SCC decided three (3) was the best number for the limit of SDB's a person could bring in.

Some have raised concerns that the number 3 would be limiting. In the September 21st SCC meeting, a resolution titled "Resolution to Increase Voter Participation and Defend the Utah Neighborhood Election" passed the committee with no one voting against it, so the majority, and perhaps all the members of the SCC believe we want increased voter participation. We had over 110,000 voters come to the Republican Neighborhood Caucus Election Meeting, and we made improvements so that number can continue to increase. It has doubled and then doubled again. We don't know that we will have 250,000 voters show up in 2014, but we want to be as prepared for that as we can, and we want to hear more from those running at the same time.

It was made clear that the limit of 3 would not limit the number of firefighters that could participate, as they would each have family and friends that could deliver the ballot for them. It was also make clear that this limit would not apply to the Same Day Military & Mission Ballots that are sent to the precinct chair and vice chair. That had other protections to make sure we know who is voting.

Note, the approx. 180 committee members were elected by either state or county delegates which total 4000 (state) or approx. 10,000 (county), that were elected by over 110,000 registered Republican voters in 2012. Each county has at least 2 or more members.

The truth about neighborhood election night attendance hospital doctors firefighters military missionaries

For the GOP alone, neighborhood election night attendance doubled in 2010 and again in 2012 exceeding 110,000 voters. Same Day Ballots approved for 2014 will help the hospital doctor and firefighter along with the military and missionary to vote at the meeting. Turnout can continue to grow, from the 20% registered GOP voters attending in 2012 to even higher with additional upgrades approved for 2014.

Why this compromise isn't a compromise.

There are several ways to save fair elections in Utah, and this proposed bill is not the way to do it.  To have a real compromise you need to work with the parties on all sides. The Republican State Central Committee has been fighting on several related issues for a year. After months of hammering it out, on October 26, 2013 we were able to agree on meaningful changes. The key players on that compromise are not on board, let alone at the table of this proposed "compromise". The last thing we need is to go backwards and not forward. 

According to information we have on a proposed "compromise" law being proposed:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57190718-82/vote-party-convention-percent.html.csp

The following proposed changes and goals are part of the bill.
1. Allow absentee and remote voting in the neighborhood caucuses and allow more time for people to vote on line or by mail for their delegates.
2. Allow absentee and remote voting by delegates in the convention.
3. Allow unaffiliated voters to vote in party primaries.
4. Change the threshold for a candidate to win the party’s nomination outright at the convention, from 60 percent of the delegate vote to 65 percent. 

What has already passed the Republican State Central Committee?
See: 
Passed Resolutions from October 26, 2013
1. Resolution to Improve the Language of the Republican Party's System of Nominating Candidates
2. Resolution to Improve the Republican Party Neighborhood Caucus Election Experience by Recommending an optional Neighborhood Meet and Greet with Candidates
3. Resolution to Improve the Republican Neighborhood Caucus Election Check-In Process
4. Resolution to Improve the Republican Neighborhood Caucus Elections by Creating An Online Registration Process
5. Resolution to Allow Same-Day Balloting at Republican Neighborhood Caucus Election Meetings
6. Resolution on Participation by Individuals Engaged in Out of State Military and Religious Service at Neighborhood Caucus Elections

[updated rules as of Dec. 14, 2013
http://www.1888932-2946.ws/ComTool6.0/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Caucus%20Rules%202014.pdf

]

Response to the reported bill, and why the changes are no go at the start.
Goal 1. & 2. The Republican SCC has come up with a same day ballot for the neighborhood elections. While allowing a fire fighter or a mom with sick kids to have their voice heard that night, care was taken to make sure it would not decrease attendance at the meeting. Having an "absentee" ballot will take the "meeting out of the meeting". This is especially true of the convention. 

We want neighbors discussing the best candidates and finding ways to improve this state and the nation. If the system is changed, we would be dropping off votes, but not meeting and discussing candidates and issues. That is what is wrong with Washington, D.C. They don’t listen to each other in a meeting. They watch from their offices. We need to change that, not perpetuate it.

As you know from 2008 to 2010 neighborhood election meeting attendance doubled. From 2010 to 2012, meeting attendance doubled again. There is hope that in 2014, it will double again and 250,000 will attend. I know that The State GOP has a committee that is working to make sure we don't have the same growth problems for 2014 and that the system can handle the volume of those interested and still allow time to meet candidates and ask questions. 

One of the arguments for the proposed changes is that Salt Lake County can't handle over 200,000 attending for the GOP neighborhood elections. Let’s see if we can keep increasing turnout and meet the goals before ruining what we have.

Goal 3. Count My Vote has left alone Utah's "semi-closed" primaries as their legal analysis said it would help protect CMV from being tossed out in court.
In Utah if you are unaffiliated you can affiliate at the polls. This has been the state law has been for over 10 years. This system has been found to allow participation and still almost eliminate cross over voting where someone votes to pick the weaker candidate in a primary so their candidate will win in the general election.

The law had a sunset every 5 years and had existed for 10 years. After extending the law 5 more years failed in committee the summer of 2012, a bill file to eliminate the sunset or expiration date was pulled. It was signed into law, 2013 H.B. 262 Unaffiliated Voter Amendments. It keeps the current law and removes an automatic expiration date.

In 2010, concerns in even the national media that there would be a crossover vote by the Republican voters to get Rep. Matheson eliminated in a primary election never happened. There were two reasons; first, the GOP had a close primary for US Senate where Mike Lee just barely beat Tim Bridgewater, who had been endorsed by Sen. Bob Bennett. The 2nd reason was the current state law re: unaffiliated voters and a 30 day requirement for other voters to affiliate.

The system we have saves almost a $1 Million over the "direct" primary proposed by Count My Vote, which doesn't change the ability for unaffiliated voters to vote and eliminates our current run off primary. . 

We already have a "bypass" system, filing as an unaffiliated candidate. A candidate can go straight to the general election ballot. Someone who doesn't think they can win if vetted by average citizens asking one on one questions can still run and spend their money. Why should they be a political party nominee if they are going to bypass their political party? 

Goal 4. The 60% threshold to avoid a primary works, allowing a shot of a challenger to eliminate an incumbent and yet requires a challenger to be a strong candidate. Raising it to 65% threshold would have make a few more primaries, but the risk of an incumbent losing, or someone rich or famous losing would also go down. Do the rich, famous or incumbents really need the protection?

The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. That is a good thing.

5 reasons not to sign their petition

1. The "bill" Count My Vote, or proposed law is flawed, terribly so. Even some of the strongest supporters admit the legislature will have to fix it if this mess passes.

We tell public officials to kill these kind of errors in committee, not skip the public hearing, not read the bill and vote to send it to the floor of the legislature to decide if it should pass or not.

That is exactly what Count My Vote is telling people to do. Sign it, unread, and hope everyone realizes next fall it doesn't deliver. They could have amended it but chose not to and by law, can no longer amend the "bill".

2. This proposed law will cost taxpayers millions, $1 Million the first year and almost that every 2 years, with about 1/2 of the unfunded mandate being picked up by the less populous counties, the ones that the same proposed law will cause to be flyover places where the candidates and elected officials won't come anymore.

3. When Utah tried a direct primary in 1937 to 1947, it came with a run off primary, so the majority would elect the nominee. When the voting turn out and the cost drove the public and the media to reject that system - a compromise, caucus/convention and run off primary was created. We have that today. Count My Vote not only removes the nominating for general elections using delegates, it removes the run off primary system we have and nominees will no longer be selected out of a 2 person race.

4. The political royalty sponsors of Count My Vote loved the current system when the turnout to the neighborhood caucus elections meetings (GOP) was about 25,000, but when it exceeded 50,000 and 100,000, they no longer want that system because they no longer have the power. They don't tell you that the same delegates, proposed to be elected by closer to 10,000 attendees will still pick nominees such as the replacement for Spencer Cox.

5. They claim more people will be able to vote. A large percentage of voters will not affiliate to vote in the GOP primary election and those same people will not be able to vote in a "GOP" direct primary under Count My Vote.  They will get to pay more as Count My Vote makes sure the parties will not be picking up the tab they currently do, it will be the taxpayers, unaffiliated or not.

Don't sign, just to vote on it later. Do read it. Do find out more. I trust if you actually understand what you will get, you will not sign the Count My Vote / Buy My vote initiative.

Below is my non legal analysis of the problems with Count My Vote

From Fred C. Cox, former member of the Utah House of Representatives

In 2011 and 2012 I had more than 1300 floor votes on bills as a member of the Utah House of Representatives. That doesn't include votes in committees. (if you combined both years, I missed the fewest floor votes of any legislator of both parties and both houses). I was in the Senate Chambers during those 5 of 1302 votes. There were also special sessions, and I didn't miss any of those floor votes).

I have read through in excess of 1000 bills to decide whether or not to vote for them or not. Whether or not you agree with the policy being submitted as Count My Vote or not, as I ask that you vote against it now.

It is my experience that most bills that reach the floor of the house pass. The bad ones are killed in committee. We have had the public hearings on Count My Vote. They (Count My Vote sponsors) have opted not to amend their "bill" or proposed law after the public meetings where they received very little public support. The proposed law stands or fails as written.

In my opinion it fails. Below is my non legal analysis of the problems with Count My Vote. (I am not an attorney) You elect legislators to vote on bills prior to them becoming law. You elect a governor to also verify and sign the bill before it become law. The legislature can override a veto. The public can veto a bill that has less than a 2/3 vote in both houses by referendum.

You are not being asked to veto a current law. You are being asked to make a new law. It has to stand on its own. You don't know if someone else is going to fix it later.

Count My Vote is asking you to sign their "bill". It is over 20 pages. Before you sign it and long before it is to be voted on, You must read it for your self. I hope the following notes help you decide to not to sign the petition and to kill this "bill" before it is to be voted on.

It is my opinion that Count My Vote is poorly drafted. It is my opinion that it creates bad policy and makes our current system worse. Based on that, there is no reason to vote for it, even if you don't like our current system. It doesn't make it better.

My Notes (very rough form, you were warned):


In a nutshell, CMV was drafted by 2 different people that seemed to ignore each other. One tries to strip the party designation away from any party that doesn't play by the new rules and nominates candidates not using the new system and the other person makes sure No One can be on the ballot unless they follow the new rules. If the Party doesn't sign up, none of the candidates will show up with the party designation, but that isn't true as if you get the signatures you are on the ballot for the party you pick. CMV allows the party to decide to opt out or not, but not really.

The unequal 2% barrier that CMV uses would likely fail in court. A Democratic governor candidate would need 2,812 signatures to be a nominee, a Republican would need 13,162. A Unaffiliated Candidate with 1,000 signatures currently and also under Count My Vote would need 1,000 to go straight to the general election.
http://elections.utah.gov/party-and-status



The "bill" Count My Vote, or proposed law is flawed, terribly so. Even some of the strongest supporters admit the legislature will have to fix it if this mess passes.

http://elections.utah.gov/election-resources/initiatives


has the "bill", fiscal note, and public meetings video. compare the slides from the Provo meeting and their current website. You will find they are different and that the public hearings used incorrect and confusing information about their proposal and what we currently have at best. For my opinion on the timing of the public hearings, if you missed them, see:

http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/2013/10/count-my-vote-of-swipe-my-vote.html

Item #0
They can't amend the "bill" anymore. You must vote on it as it is.
20A-7-204.1 (4)a

Most of the current laws re: the initiatives are at:

http://www.le.utah.gov/code/TITLE20A/htm/20A07_020100.htm

quick stuff is here:
http://elections.utah.gov/election-resources/utah-initiatives

They missed the 3 days prior to public hearing required Lt. Gov. filing deadline per
20A-11-802 (1) (v)

They just filed their financials with the Lt. Gov. but didn't make up the previous one. 

They will be fined $100 for not following the law.

http://disclosures.utah.gov/Search/PublicSearch/FolderDetails/1411317


Problems with the CMV proposed law include: Line numbers are from the CMV "bill". Other references are from state law. You can look any of them up yourself at:

http://le.utah.gov/UtahCode/title.jsp

Items:
1. They change the status of the Lt. Gov. handling races crossing county lines. See for example lines 186 and 190, 230, etc.

2. They use 20A-6-301 paper ballots which isn't used any more (Maybe San Juan Co).

We don't use the separate but unequal paper ballots anymore.

See for example lines 112 to 114. Can't forget those candidates we put way over there. :)

Tell me 20A-6-301 violates Fed. Election laws, or the 14th amendment.

3. They let parties opt out but not really. See 100, 101, They repeat is at 129, 130 ,etc. It appears that if we don't play by their rules, (line 305) our party is stripped from the ballot, but they claim if I fill out the petition with signatures I will be on the primary ballot. Line 290 says General Election.

4. They claim an unaffiliated or democratic candidate can't get on our GOP primary ballot. While it is almost clear the petition signers have to be registered party members, or at least will be by the end of March the next year, and will be registered voters, at least by then, It isn't clear that the candidate is. See line 211. The use of preferred affiliation is not defined and is used only in current Utah code to describe Smith' Cards for going shopping.

5. We get to keep the GOP primary election closed, so the unaffiliated will get to watch at home and pay almost $1 Million the first year and $900,000 for the privilege, unless they affiliate. They can do that now.

6. Rookie mistakes with "and" and "or". See line 427, 3rd word "and" and 453, 1st word "or". As we all should know, in a state law, and and or are not the same. You are guilty of X if you are going 65 MPH and driving in Provo vs  You are guilty of X if you are going 65 MPH or driving in Provo. In the last case anyone driving in Provo at any speed would be in violation of the law.

[update, Line 453 is designed to be "or". It creates problems however, as discussed below. Line 427 can be "and" as noted, but with the two "or"s on lines 426 it needs to be on 3 separate lines, so it isn't confusing. This is important as this section could make it so some 17 year old future voter is charged with a Class A misdemeanor for trying to help and not realizing in November that in March their plans had changed. This is the section that is supposed to make sure people signing the nominating petition realize the criminal penalty they face for incorrectly signing the nominating petition. In this case the proposed law takes away from the clerk the ability to make it more clear and tells them the exact wording to use. We should evaluate the policy of setting up a teenager to be a criminal . We want to avoid voter fraud, but perhaps another solution should exist.]

7. There is no run off primary election. While the Deseret News in 1946    

may or may not like what we have today, they didn't want to just toss out the expensive run off elections. Unlimited candidates for the primary, we could have 20 others in the race and one might win with just 6% of the vote and not a majority.

8. According to the person that wrote the fiscal note (additional cost to taxpayers if this new law is enacted), I called, about 1/2 of the $1 million will be picked up by the counties, and most of it the smaller counties. It is like a state unfunded mandate, unless the Utah Legislature decides to fund from the state to the counties.

9. Count My Vote had a conference call with the County Clerks prior to the Fiscal Note being released. I don't know if that is like witness tampering or not. If the fiscal note is low by 25%, the legislature can toss Count My Vote out the window if they choose., even if it is signed by the petition and the majority of the votes vote for it. See 20A-7-214 (2). 

10. Unlike a typical fiscal note for a Utah Law, no funding is provided for this proposed law. This sounds like what they do in Washington D.C.

11. Former Rep. Spencer J. Cox has a replacement being nominated by delegates selected at our neighborhood caucus election meetings. That system will remain, it is not changed by CMV, there will just be almost no one coming to the neighborhood caucus election meetings if CMV were to pass. They are concerned we don't have enough balanced attendees now, what will happen if CMV were to pass?

12. While 2% isn't a tough number of a state house seat, it is a tough number for state wide races. Much more for GOP candidates and the democratic candidates will need fewer signatures.

13. any party endorsements would not show up on a ballot like they claim . 20A–6-301, where they have put back door loophole wording in isn’t used anymore. We use electronic voting machines or vote by mail ballots. See item 2. I am hearing the Utah Legislature might get rid of 20A–6-301 or replace it in 2014 and if so it won't be there in 2015 if CMV passes. What happens then?


I hope this helps,

PS, they "cheated" as not all of the section in whole changed are included in the proposed law.  

The . . . is used. You actually need to read a lot more than 20 pages to see what sections of State law will be changed.


Misc notes:
Lines 209 to 211
I __ declare my candidacy for the office of __ seeking the nomination of the ___ party, which is my preferred political party affiliation.

Currently, a person declares their intention of becoming a candidate for a party. There is no certification when filing required as to what party they belong to, that is up to the political party. In this case, the state would take away the party's ability to control or vet or eliminate any candidate that wants to be their nominee.

Lines 209 to 211 DO NOT state that the ____ party is the party affiliation on their voter registration of the person running, it does have the words "which is my preferred political party affiliation" . I do not believe that is clear.

The person declaring their candidacy for an office, has to get signatures from people that are either now registered to vote or signing they will be registered to vote by 5pm on the final day of March. The people signing have to list their party affiliation of the registered voter. This allows someone that isn't 18 on Nov. 15th of the year before to sign their name and then later register to vote prior to the end of March of the election year.

Is Line 211 clear enough that the person signing to run as a candidate for that party, is a registered member of that party? I don't believe so. It uses the word "preferred" and not "registered". That is splitting hairs for some of the average public, but it isn't for the legislature, or Leg. Research. CMV representatives have specifically used the words Registered in response to questions. CMV uses no such word for the candidate.

The reason I even post this one, is I am tripping over one word, "preferred". Currently, there are those that have run for office as unaffiliated and I am thinking this word v "registered" leaves the door open. I would like to get feedback on this prior anyone saying that someone doesn't have to be a registered republican to run as a republican.

Party affiliation is used in statute. Registered Party is used. I can see getting a registered political party affiliation. Preferred political party affiliation is not used, nor is there anything close to it. Preferred affiliation used in the same section only refers to a "Smith Card", requirements.
You will find that in 59-12-102. Smith's cards.

for the signature sheet of the voter signing the petition it uses the term "Party Affiliation of Registered Voter". That is clear enough to make sure that party members sign the petition, with the exception of one very large loop hole:

I think it interesting that line 453 uses the word "or" and 427 uses the word "and" putting it unclear if the person signing the petition needs to be currently registered to vote or just promises under penalty of a A Class A misdemeanor, that they will be registered by the end of March. How will the candidate know that they do that?


[update, Line 453 is designed to be "or". It creates problems however, as discussed below. Line 427 can be "and" as noted, but with the two "or"s on lines 426 it needs to be on 3 separate lines, so it isn't confusing. This is important as this section could make it so some 17 year old future voter is charged with a Class A misdemeanor for trying to help and not realizing in November than in March their plans had changed. This is the section that is supposed to make sure people signing the nominating petition realize the criminal penalty they face for incorrectly signing the nominating petition. In this case the proposed law takes away from the clerk the ability to make it more clear and tells them the exact wording to use. We should evaluate the policy of setting up a teenager to be a criminal . We want to avoid voter fraud, but perhaps another solution should exist.]


"Independents and Unaffiliated voters have said they want Parties to fund their own closed primaries"
CMV does just the opposite. It prohibits parties from doing that, or selecting their own nominees, and requires that be done by the state at the state expense.

Independents and Unaffiliated voters want to vote for any candidate in a primary funded by them. They want the primaries to be "open". Lines 305 to 308 allow a party to let anyone vote in "their" state run primary, or just a specific party and whether or not unaffiliated voters can vote. That is current state law and doesn't change.

While CMV isn't a true California ballot, you are correct that there is no limit to the number of candidates that could show up on your ballot. CMV has made it a little tougher than CA to get on so their might not be quite as many. I could get 100 to sign in my own precinct and someone could do the same in the other 21 precincts and we could get 20 on the primary Republican ballot.


Mr. Owens (sponsor letter op-ed to the SL Tribune) letter is like telling the Utah Legislature it can meet, but only pass resolutions and that it can’t pass laws anymore.
Yes, the caucus convention system would remain, but it couldn’t nominate anyone for public office, except mid term elections.

His argument is pretty deceptive. He needs to realize that any endorsements would not show up on a ballot like they claim. 20A–6-301, where they have put wording in isn’t used anymore. We use electronic voting machines or vote by mail ballots.

Unaffiliated would still not vote in GOP elections. They would pay more to watch.

Who benefits under Count My Vote / Buy My Vote?
out of the $144,000   they just spent, Exoro’s got $110,000 and Donald Dun’s group got $30,000. ie the political consultants.

Mitt Romney just blasted the caucus system because a majority doesn't decide. If you look at item #7 above, Count My Vote takes that away from Utah voters.

For more information on this subject see:

http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/

Perhaps Mitt Romney should be blasting Count My Vote having no run off

Perhaps Mitt Romney should be blasting Count My Vote for having no run off. 

"I’m concerned that that kind of approach (some caucus/convention systems) could end up with a minority deciding who the nominee ought to be. And that I think would be a mistake," he told The Globe.    "I think we should have the majority of the party’s voters decide who they want as their nominee."

Utah's Count My Vote / Buy My Vote (CMV) doesn't get a majority of the parties voters to decide who they want. We do that now. CMV has no run off and almost eliminates the possibility of the party picking between 2 candidates, so virtually no majority candidate.

Count My Vote is proposing a primary with no run off and unlimited candidates. If the poorly drafted proposed law passes, the nominee will be selected by a minority almost every time. Currently a nominee is selected by 60% of the delegates or the majority at a primary between 2 candidates.

There have been 10 times the numbers coming to the neighborhood caucus elections than would be required to get signatures or votes to be the nominee under Count My vote. For a legislative district, there could be as few as 100 signatures vs 1000 caucus attendees and depending on the number of candidates, fewer votes for the nominee than caucus attendees.

in 2008, Jason Chaffetz beat 12 year incumbent Chris Cannon 60/40 in the prmary with Rep. Cannon endorsed by Pres. Bush and the 1st lady, Mitt Romney, Sen. Hatch and Bennett. When Jason Chaffetz won the nominee, the endorsers backed Jason.

I am thinking about why Utah changed from the neighborhood caucus election system in 1937 (just so one democratic state senate president could get elected governor for 8 years) and Count My Vote / Buy My Vote is proposing to change the system again (just so one former republican governor can get elected to the US Senate)

I really hope the public is smarter than that. In the 1937 case, it was the taxpayers that got stuck with the bill, and the current poorly drafted proposed law would do the same thing again. This time it will cost taxpayers, about 1/2 of it born by smaller counties, almost $1,000,000 and then about $900,000 every two years if Count My Vote / Buy My Vote were to pass.

Someone has to have a pretty big ego to want to buy a state's entire election system (or get Mitt to jump in as well) just to get elected to a specific office. I know, Sen. Hatch spent a ton of money but still faced a primary. At least he worked to win with the current system. 

At only one time for 10 years in Utah’s history did the state depart from the Neighborhood Election, Caucus and Convention System. In 1937, a powerful democratic state senator convinced enough of the legislature to switch to an open primary. He had had two losses, a US Senate race and also for governor, because the majority of the convention delegates disagreed with his legislative voting record. But he was well known and had money.

Many at the time felt like an open primary was his ticket to the governorship, and he did win. But the change in the system only lasted for a decade. After public and media disillusionment, and even worse voter turnout, Utah restored the Caucus and Convention System. Why go back? in 1946, after almost 10 years of a direct primary with run off, the media and public demanded the return of the Caucus and Convention System to replace the need for a run off election.

Even the Deseret News in 1946 was specific that they didn't want to just eliminate the run off, as that would turn the power over to money. They wanted that every day people would vote at local meetings. That is what we have.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=VXczAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sXwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6680%2C5376710

Mitt seems to be worried about Tea Party Wins.

Whether you like Sen. Mike Lee or not you should consider the following. The delegates almost eliminated him at convention.

re: Sen. Bennett in 2010. He was not in the top 2 coming out of convention. In fact the more moderate  of the two, Tim Bridgewater was selected by 57% of the delegates in the last round of voting by the delegates. If he had received 60% Tim Bridgewater would have been the party nominee and Mike Lee would have been eliminated.

Sen. Bennett endorsed Tim Bridgewater during the primary, but with voters ticked at TARP and ObamaCare, they went with Mike Lee.

Sen. Mike Lee was the party nominee after the primary

The Neighborhood Election and Convention system in Utah is the best way to make sure a grassroots process can win over large amounts of money. It is the only way someone with $100,000 can go against someone with $2 million in election funds.

We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, the wealthy or the famous. This is a good thing, and should be protected.

Don't let the vampire Count My Vote suck you dry

Protect Our Neighborhood Elections, bringing sunlight (and wooden stakes) to Count "My Vote".

Mr. "My Vote" is a lobbyist and a paid political consultant who has turned into a vampire wanting to suck on taxpayers $$. Count "My Vote" will cost taxpayers almost $1 Million and then again almost $1 Million every 2 years.

Count "My Vote" will take away your neighborhood's current ability to help decide who is on the ballot, creating a primary election system with unlimited candidates paying media BIG money to win your vote.

We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, the wealthy or the famous. This is a good thing, and should be protected. Don't let Count "My Vote" suck on your money or your your neighborhood's voice.

To help bring sunlight to Count "My Vote", sign up and donate at:
http://www.neighborhoodelection.org/

Neighborhood Elections

Neighborhood Elections allow candidates who are not famous or wealthy to run for office. Utah chooses candidates based on ideas & strong community values, while other states choose their candidates based on who has spent the most money to reach people with sound-bites, talking points and buzzwords.

Neighborhood Elections ensure that the names on the November ballot have been carefully and fully vetted by elected neighbors that we trust; not by big money special interests.

 Neighborhood Elections have added many civic minded people to the grassroots spirit for which Utah is known. Often these people later become candidates themselves for everything from City Council and School boards to US Congress and Governor.

Neighborhood Elections ensure that our elected officials are held accountable by individual citizens and not special interests. Only in Utah can we find a US Senator in a person’s living room answering questions from everyday people like your elected neighborhood representatives.

Neighborhood Elections force candidates to pay attention to rural areas of Utah. Direct primaries encourage candidates to ignore rural areas and communicate only by paid advertising. A direct primary would create fly-over areas of Utah that will rarely get to meet their candidates face to face. Our Neighborhood Elections benefit everyone in your area, whether they are registered with a party or not. Losing the voice of rural Utah with a direct primary would change our state forever.
Neighborhood Elections ensure that our elected officials are held accountable by individual citizens and not special interests. Only in Utah can we find a US Senator in a person’s living room answering questions from everyday people like your elected neighborhood representatives.