Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Chris Herrod is the best candidate for Utah Congressional District 3

I wore Chris Herrod and Deidre Henderson stickers at the special Congressional District 3 GOP Convention and so I was thrilled one of them won.

Chris Herrod supported Ted Crus for POTUS. He supports limiting Federal over reach and protecting our freedoms. He believes in the US Constitution and would support that over whoever is President of the US. He married someone from Ukraine and is not a fan of Russia as he lived under Soviet rule for a few years. He has been pro-legal immigration for years. His wife's family came from Muslim upbringing and he isn't prejudiced. I have a few friends that voted for Trump only because Hillary was such a bad candidate. I didn't vote for either. 


Chris Herrod is the best candidate running for Utah's Congressional District 3 "vacancy". I served with Chris in the Utah Legislature in 2011 and 2012. He cares deeply for this county. He has my full support and endorsement.

Remember that hundreds of thousands of voters came out to the 2016 caucus meetings including democrats. They elected the tens of thousands of delegates. Democrats picked their nominee using the delegate system. They have no primary. We get a couple of Buy My Ballot Spot candidates that could have just as easily gone straight to the general election if they didn't want to go though the caucus/convention system. That is costing us 3 months more not having 4 representatives in Congress. We could be voting among all candidates in August.

For more information for Chris Herrod, go to
http://herrodforcongress.com/

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Background on 2016 HB 69 and why it is important now

Email sent June 2, 2017
 
SCC members. Sorry for this email. I thought it was important as we are not scheduled to meet in June 2017 anymore as a SCC.

Background on 2016 HB 69 and why it is important now. Violating our own party C&B may cause our selection on June 17th to be in question. Perhaps that is the intent?


See lines 78 to 83.

While 2014 SB 54 was being created and passing, I kept making fun of the concept that the party would need a hall for 8,000 delegates under the QPP status. 4,000 in the hall and 4,000 ready to step in if someone didn't show. As late as 2016 I was proposing to change our Party C & B so it would match the QPP for alternate delegates or change the law to match our Party C&B (Constitution and Bylaws). My attempt to change the law was hijacked and then failed.

In discussing this concern with Mark Thomas at the Lt. Gov. office at the time he said that they had determined, in consultation with the AG's office that the party having a deadline of 5 days or 8 days or 14 days to change out delegates prior to the convention was reasonable and they accepted the party as a QPP for the 2016/2017 elections. We wouldn't need a hall for 8,000 state delegates and alternates because we would know someone needed to be replaced if they simply told us in advance.

I also personally asked the 2014 SB 54 sponsor what his intent was just prior to a SCC meeting. He said he didn't like the last minute appointments and wanted to have as many vote as possible and mentioned what we do at National RNC conventions with delegates and alternate delegates. That might work fine for 40 delegates from Utah, that are not voting on different races but the party opted to create a process to replace delegates (alternate delegates) and it is in our party C & B

If we don't follow our C & B, which includes deadlines such as 5 days prior to the convention to replace delegates (alternate delegates) are we saying we were not a QPP for the 2016 elections? While the party may not have done what the original sponsor of 2014 SB 54 wanted re: alternate delegates, it seemed to be fine during his 2016 race. Does he want to invalidate his election in 2016 or invalidate our party's selection of a nominee to replace Rep. Jason Chaffetz on June 17th.

I have contacted two party officers on this issue. one agreed and the other said it was a moot point, potentially referring to someone posting 20A-9-101 at the last convention to justify not following our party C&B. I am more worried at this point at the 2016 elections and at the nomination of our candidate for CD3 in 2 weeks to replace Rep. Chaffetz.

If our Party C&B has a 5 day deadline to change our delegates prior to the 17th, we should follow it. Someone claiming we are violating the QPP status needs to remember those deadlines were specifically allowed by both the Lt. Gov office and the AG office for the 2016 elections.

If anyone questions my talking to Mark Thomas (Chief Deputy/Director of Elections, Utah) last year on this issue, re: 2016 HB 69, call him. I confirmed our conversation with him this week.

Fred C. Cox, Salt Lake County
2015-2017 SCC member and 2017-2019 SCC member

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

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).

Do Not Sign Our Schools Now

Do you support Our Schools Now?
No, What was originally a 20% income tax increase, and then reduced to 17.5%, is now a 10% income tax increase and a 10.6% sales tax increase.
 A  tax increase is not the answer, especially when there is no limit generally to what is spent on Higher Education which can be spent by the same Education Fund. While OSN places new limits for new money, it doesn't solve the underlying problem.

If the Legislature doesn't fund Higher Education to the level the Regents want, (and put some more back for K-12 Public Education), the Regents simply raise tuition and blame the legislature. That must change.  

We also do not spend all the $4.84 Billion K-12 Public Education funds in the best way, with too much of it not getting directly to classroom teaching. 

Read what the proposed bill says. How much local control do you want taken from a school? See the bottom of page 6.
https://elections.utah.gov/election-resources/initiatives 

See how much of our State Tax Money for K-12 Public Education is going where:

https://le.utah.gov/lfa/cobi/currentCobi/cobi.html?cobiID=8&tab=overviewTab

click on the uses and also see where it comes from.

Take a look at the $1.81 Higher Education Budget as well.
 https://le.utah.gov/lfa/cobi/currentCobi/cobi.html?cobiID=6&tab=overviewTab