Have you voted yet?
The GOP primary election ends June 30th and if you haven't received your ballot in Utah, call your county clerk tomorrow.
https://slco.org/clerk/elections/
You can also go to the Utah Lt. Gov. Election website at:
https://vote.utah.gov/
Click on the like to read what information candidates that are on your ballot turned in
https://votesearch.utah.gov/voter-search/search/search-by-address/candidates-and-issues
If you have questions, you can call me or email me at:
mailto:fred@fredcox4utah.com
Some information about me can be found at:
http://www.fredcox4utah.com/
It has links to recent posts, videos of town hall meetings, endorsements, etc.
This has some good information about me.
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2020/05/vote-fred-c-cox-for-salt-lake-county.html
One of the best ways to vote is to drop off your ballot all ready to mail but at the County Clerk Elections Drop Box.
those locations are at:
https://slco.org/clerk/elections/vote-by-mail/ballot-drop-box-locations/
Vote for Fred C. Cox for Salt Lake County Council District 2
Showing posts with label Utah Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Utah Elections. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
Saturday, November 24, 2018
Time to get rid of straight party voting in Utah
When referring to possible changes to elections I have stated:
"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. CMV v2.1 does nothing to help unaffiliated voters. That would."
As far as I can remember I have not voted straight party for an election. That goes back approx. 40 years.
I started promoting getting rid of straight party voting at least by Sep. 2017. See for example the bottom of this post.
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2017/09/count-my-vote-or-blank-check-vote.html
When I updated the blog post after CMV amended their proposal it has the same suggestion at the bottom http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2017/11/count-my-vote-or-blank-check-vote.html
When I wrote my op-ed for the Salt Lake Tribune in Feb. 2018, it had the same suggestion.
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/02/03/commentary-count-my-vote-would-take-away-accountability-of-elected-officials/
I realized I voted against 2016 HB 119 in committee Feb. 2, 2016, but I was very torn at the time (you can listen to my comments in the committee) have had time to reconsider.
https://le.utah.gov/av/committeeArchive.jsp?mtgID=14061&timelineID=71358
That decision had nothing to do with the 2018 election.
"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. CMV v2.1 does nothing to help unaffiliated voters. That would."
As far as I can remember I have not voted straight party for an election. That goes back approx. 40 years.
I started promoting getting rid of straight party voting at least by Sep. 2017. See for example the bottom of this post.
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2017/09/count-my-vote-or-blank-check-vote.html
When I updated the blog post after CMV amended their proposal it has the same suggestion at the bottom http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2017/11/count-my-vote-or-blank-check-vote.html
When I wrote my op-ed for the Salt Lake Tribune in Feb. 2018, it had the same suggestion.
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/02/03/commentary-count-my-vote-would-take-away-accountability-of-elected-officials/
I realized I voted against 2016 HB 119 in committee Feb. 2, 2016, but I was very torn at the time (you can listen to my comments in the committee) have had time to reconsider.
https://le.utah.gov/av/committeeArchive.jsp?mtgID=14061&timelineID=71358
That decision had nothing to do with the 2018 election.
Thursday, March 1, 2018
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
[Update: Some additional comments from me]
For a week, prior to the February 24, 2018 SCC meeting, I told backers of the amendment for Bylaws 8, that I would not vote for it as it changed the rules in the middle of the election and could cause my opponent to forfeit his party membership this election. They came back with a narrower change, but I still said no. the next morning, Saturday, the had a new version that didn't directly affect any existing officeholder or candidate and I said I would look at it.
It is hard to fire an attorney you never hired. The questions raised were IF the SCC ever approved him in September. Other questions were if he was working for the party or the chair and if his opinions were for the party or the chair, and what his fee was. It is very possible if the vote was taken at the January meeting the results would have been the same.
There are 3 attorneys helping with the lawsuit. They are still there. The SCC finally was given a chance to consent or not for an Attorney the chair wanted as the party attorney and had been using since last fall without SCC approval. That approval was asked for on February 24 and voted down.
Both 20A-8-101 and 401 say the party did not violate state law by passing the bylaw changes re: membership.
Neither the Utah Supreme Court or the initial federal judge would take away our QPP status because of the party Constitution and Bylaws and the Democrats tried. That is still pending in Denver. Until the party acts, and not just threatens, there is no case.
I specifically stated that the first 2 versions of the bylaw proposal I told them I wouldn't vote for it and gave them nightmare reasons why I would not. When they sent me the last version prior to the meeting that didn't affect any existing office holders or candidates directly, I said I would look at it. I did ask questions at the meeting and was TOLD that the Lt. Gov didn't have the specified authority to remove us from QPP status. They were quoting attorneys not in the room, and Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox memo from 2016. I am not an attorney. I have read and sponsored bills dealing with Title 20A in state code.
The 14th amendment also uses the word State and not Political Party. How did the state allow a pilot program allowing some county clerks to have same day voter registration and not other counties?
I want to give the Utah Policy credit for this update: "Editor's note: A previous version of this article said Mitt Romney would be kicked out of the party because of the bylaw change. The Utah GOP State Central Committee wrote the change in such a way that nearly all of the 2018 candidates would not be affected. We regret the error."
No current 2018 candidates are affected, including Mitt Romney,
For 2018, Only congressional District 1 and 2 where no GOP candidates are currently gathering signatures including Rob Bishop or Chris Stewart.
It is not a new bylaw.
The state party has required, in the past, candidates to state if they agree with the party platform, etc. and if they didn't, what they didn't agree with. Some counties have had that as well. What passed Feb. 24th was that has extended to races not just multi-county, with some teeth to those that don't follow our C&B for elections, with that going into effect for the 2018 election for just the US House Congressional District 1 and 2 races, where no GOP member has filed using signatures at this point.
There is no purity club. Bernie Sanders could apply to run, register as a republican say that he agreed with none of the bylaws and run in 2018 for the 3rd congressional district and get elected if the voters wanted him and if he moved here before he was elected. If he ran in the 2nd this year, and followed the party rules to get elected, and was elected he could. All that was asked re: party platform was to publicly disclose what they agreed with and what they didn't with the party platform. That requirement has existed for years.
There were 6 items on the agenda, and only one was bylaw changes. There was a vote to stop the meeting after the 1st item and that failed, there was a vote to stop after the top 4 items and that failed to pass. Same with after 5 items. The people that wanted to stay, stayed.
Carrie Dickson insisted on creating a proviso for the 2018 election at the bottom vs having the language in the middle of the bylaw. Bob Bernick either doesn't understand that, has been given bad info, or is intentionally misleading. Also, there was no vote on Saturday for the caucus committee as Rob didn't have a list to present. Bob is reporting that was voted on Saturday, where it wasn't.
If you are concerned about the SCC, you do have to realize my State Representative was also elected last year to be a member of the committee, but resigned prior to the first meeting we had. His sister has been a good moderating, win-win, influence on the committee. He has not been involved, one way or the other, even though he could have been.
Some thoughts from others
https://guymonsays.wordpress.com/2018/03/01/the-utah-gop-and-the-first-amendment/
https://youtu.be/8S02ZFpPlpU
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
[Update: Some additional comments from me]
For a week, prior to the February 24, 2018 SCC meeting, I told backers of the amendment for Bylaws 8, that I would not vote for it as it changed the rules in the middle of the election and could cause my opponent to forfeit his party membership this election. They came back with a narrower change, but I still said no. the next morning, Saturday, the had a new version that didn't directly affect any existing officeholder or candidate and I said I would look at it.
It is hard to fire an attorney you never hired. The questions raised were IF the SCC ever approved him in September. Other questions were if he was working for the party or the chair and if his opinions were for the party or the chair, and what his fee was. It is very possible if the vote was taken at the January meeting the results would have been the same.
There are 3 attorneys helping with the lawsuit. They are still there. The SCC finally was given a chance to consent or not for an Attorney the chair wanted as the party attorney and had been using since last fall without SCC approval. That approval was asked for on February 24 and voted down.
Both 20A-8-101 and 401 say the party did not violate state law by passing the bylaw changes re: membership.
Neither the Utah Supreme Court or the initial federal judge would take away our QPP status because of the party Constitution and Bylaws and the Democrats tried. That is still pending in Denver. Until the party acts, and not just threatens, there is no case.
I specifically stated that the first 2 versions of the bylaw proposal I told them I wouldn't vote for it and gave them nightmare reasons why I would not. When they sent me the last version prior to the meeting that didn't affect any existing office holders or candidates directly, I said I would look at it. I did ask questions at the meeting and was TOLD that the Lt. Gov didn't have the specified authority to remove us from QPP status. They were quoting attorneys not in the room, and Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox memo from 2016. I am not an attorney. I have read and sponsored bills dealing with Title 20A in state code.
The 14th amendment also uses the word State and not Political Party. How did the state allow a pilot program allowing some county clerks to have same day voter registration and not other counties?
I want to give the Utah Policy credit for this update: "Editor's note: A previous version of this article said Mitt Romney would be kicked out of the party because of the bylaw change. The Utah GOP State Central Committee wrote the change in such a way that nearly all of the 2018 candidates would not be affected. We regret the error."
No current 2018 candidates are affected, including Mitt Romney,
For 2018, Only congressional District 1 and 2 where no GOP candidates are currently gathering signatures including Rob Bishop or Chris Stewart.
It is not a new bylaw.
The state party has required, in the past, candidates to state if they agree with the party platform, etc. and if they didn't, what they didn't agree with. Some counties have had that as well. What passed Feb. 24th was that has extended to races not just multi-county, with some teeth to those that don't follow our C&B for elections, with that going into effect for the 2018 election for just the US House Congressional District 1 and 2 races, where no GOP member has filed using signatures at this point.
There is no purity club. Bernie Sanders could apply to run, register as a republican say that he agreed with none of the bylaws and run in 2018 for the 3rd congressional district and get elected if the voters wanted him and if he moved here before he was elected. If he ran in the 2nd this year, and followed the party rules to get elected, and was elected he could. All that was asked re: party platform was to publicly disclose what they agreed with and what they didn't with the party platform. That requirement has existed for years.
There were 6 items on the agenda, and only one was bylaw changes. There was a vote to stop the meeting after the 1st item and that failed, there was a vote to stop after the top 4 items and that failed to pass. Same with after 5 items. The people that wanted to stay, stayed.
Carrie Dickson insisted on creating a proviso for the 2018 election at the bottom vs having the language in the middle of the bylaw. Bob Bernick either doesn't understand that, has been given bad info, or is intentionally misleading. Also, there was no vote on Saturday for the caucus committee as Rob didn't have a list to present. Bob is reporting that was voted on Saturday, where it wasn't.
If you are concerned about the SCC, you do have to realize my State Representative was also elected last year to be a member of the committee, but resigned prior to the first meeting we had. His sister has been a good moderating, win-win, influence on the committee. He has not been involved, one way or the other, even though he could have been.
Some thoughts from others
https://guymonsays.wordpress.com/2018/03/01/the-utah-gop-and-the-first-amendment/
https://youtu.be/8S02ZFpPlpU
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).
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)