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.

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.