2014 SB 54 Elections Amendments

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

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.

I would be happy to provide more information.

Fred C. Cox, representing Salt Lake County on the Utah Republican State Central Committee.

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.

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

update, a smaller version of this can be found:
http://www.neighborhoodelection.org/flaws_in_count_my_vote_proposed_legislation

For more blog posts on this subject, see:
http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/


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/

Why the Sudden Urgency to improve Neighborhood Elections

Why the urgency?

Count My Vote makes mistake after mistake. If they think we are voting on the changes to save their behind, they are wrong.   

Since the beginning of the year members of the republican state central committee have been working on trying to tweak the neighborhood caucus election system. A system that has worked well for years where 25,000 came, but the last two meetings it has doubled and then doubled again.

Count My Vote demanded changing the balance and getting rid of multiple round ballots, or changing the balance and taking the meeting out of the meeting. Creating a system that would favor the wealthy, the famous, incumbents and encourage people to stay home and watch Dancing with the Stars.

Of Course the demands were rejected. They still are. That doesn't mean reasonable changes can't be made and will.

The last central committee only one proposal was put on the agenda, one that didn't have a prayer to pass which was known in advance by most of the committee. The other consensus items were not even allowed on the agenda.

The reason for the "emergency" meeting is that those same people that have fought the Count My Vote people since they met in the Alta Club in May of 2010, that have wanted improvements to the system, have demanded the meeting, so we make the changes. If Count My Vote gets some of the issues solved at the same time, fine.

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.

New proposals for 2014 include a better system for check in, including optional preregistration. The ability to optionally pre-file to run to represent your neighbors as well. The meeting will be designed to last for 2 hrs. or less, from 7pm to 9pm. There will be a pre-meeting from 6pm to 7pm to allow you to personally meet candidates to represent your neighborhood that have decided to run and for you to ask one on one questions. Even with large groups, changes to make sure members can agree on questions to ask neighborhood representative candidates with more time to hear from them.

I hope you will come again in 2014 and make the meeting better.

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.


I am not afraid of Count My Vote.

They have made mistake after mistake. Ignoring those prior to the announcement, of their initiative, where they had 25 people stand behind a podium at the capitol and they couldn't figure out for an hour how to attach their sign.

They said they needed $1.5 Million. Then had to loan themselves $50,000 just to hit 1/3 of that. They filed an initiative, that even some of their strongest backers find poorly drafted, with rookie wording mistakes. I have read through over 1000 bills and voted on them. This isn't ready to become law, even if you agreed with it.

They schedule public meetings at noon during a special session of the legislature? In Provo and other locations they used slides that incorrectly calculated less than 60 delegates from all parties control the will of 3 Million.

There were over 110,000 caucus attendees in just the republican meetings alone in 2012 and there were tens of thousands of delegates elected. Yes the slides have now been updated to be more correct, sorta like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Both sets of slides are online. Look at the ones at the CMV website and the ones shown in Provo on the Lt. Gov. Website. The attendees at the meetings were given worse than spin. If you are going to try to sell your product, at least be honest.


It is going to cost taxpayers about $1,000,000 initially and $900,000 dollars every two years to replace what we have with the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote initiative. We get no run off Election. There is no limit to the number of candidates that could be on the ballot. 
 Count My Vote even missed their last filing deadline with the Lt. Governor as required by 20A-11-802 (1) (v)

I am just getting started in the mistakes Count My Vote has made. To be continued. 

Count My Vote vs Flyover Counties and Towns

Utah's 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.

Utah's Neighborhood Elections work to create a balance between population and Counties, similar to what the US Presidential Electoral System is designed to do.

See also:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865588184/My-View-No-caucus-means-fly-over-counties.html



Why keep the US Presidential Electoral System:

The US Constitution provided for a balance between small population states and large ones. This is one of the reasons for the Senate having 2 per state and the House being divided based on population.

The current US Presidential Electoral System keeps part of that concept so that voters in California, New York, and a few others do not decide who is elected, ignoring the rest of the country.

The original system was designed so that the electors nominated two candidates, one not from their state, and unless there was a candidate nominated by the majority of electors, the voting for president out of the top 5 nominees was done by the US House of Representatives, one vote per state. If two candidates received a majority of electors, the House would decide between just the two. Basically, the loser of the top two became the Vice President, who would take over if something happened to the President. The elector college system protected every state from being ignored.

By 1796 and 1800, partly due to political party influence, and because the public didn't want the US House to decide the election a movement to change happened and under the 12th amendment this was changed. One reason was to make sure the President and the Vice President could run together. The change made it so the electors would almost always reach a majority and therefore cast the final vote, and because of that, most states have now required that the elector vote based on which party they represent. Utah requires that an elector be replaced if they do not vote per party. See http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE20A/htm/20A13_030400.htm

Under the current system, Utah having 6 votes instead of 4 gives us a slight edge over population. Utah has decided to have a winner take all system. If Utah were to split our vote, it would carry less weight in the national election, but it would put Utah more in play.

While the current system doesn't work as originally intended, there is still some balance favoring smaller states, just barely enough to encourage candidates to campaign throughout most of the country. Without the US Presidential Electoral System , I believe that would be eliminated and I also believe the cities with the most population would be the locations where campaigning would occur, making the situation of ignoring parts of the country even worse.

Some information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Changes to the 2014 Utah Republican Neighborhood Election Meeting

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.

New proposals for 2014 include a better system for check in, including optional preregistration. The ability to optionally pre-file to run to represent your neighbors as well. The meeting will be designed to last for 2 hrs. or less, from 7pm to 9pm. There will be a pre-meeting from 6pm to 7pm to allow you to personally meet candidates to represent your neighborhood that have decided to run and for you to ask one on one questions. Even with large groups, changes to make sure members can agree on questions to ask neighborhood representative candidates with more time to hear from them.

I hope you will come again in 2014 and make the meeting better.

 

The Caucus System in Utah

The caucus system is the best way to make sure grass roots movements can work over large amounts of money. It is the only way someone with $100,000 can go against someone with $2,000,000 in election funds.

There were about 60,000 republicans in Utah that went to the neighborhood caucus elections in 2010 to elect the 3500 delegates. Add to those numbers to democrats and the primary elections and certainly the municipal elections didn't do any better in voter representation.

In 2012 the number showing up again doubled. You look at primary turnout and you will see that few voters would decide.

Most people that want the caucus system changed, there are exceptions, are frustrated that they don't have as much power as people that show up to the neighborhood election caucus meetings. It doesn't take money, you just have to show up.

What we need are more people getting involved earlier, not shutting down the system that protects us from power hungry people wanting to take over.

 If you are going to run as a democratic candidate, you have to comply with their rules. If you are going to run as a republican, you have to comply with their rules. If you want to run and not have those rules, you can run as an unaffiliated or independent. There are also 3rd party. This is an attempt to change the party rules by state law, bypassing the party and is even an attempt to change the law bypassing the legislature. That is called being a pirate. 

Bypassing the Caucus / Convention System will NOT create more participation. Between one of every 4 or 5 republicans attended their neighborhood election caucus meeting this last year. One is every three told a KSL poll they were involved or attending. There are 4000 state delegates that spend countless hours vetting candidates to be on the ballot. They are selected by those that attend the neighborhood election caucus meeting. You just have to come.

When people realize this will give them less of a chance to participate but give media and power brokers more power, they will not sign any initiative. It sounds good, but so did the unethical reform proposed as "ethical reform" which was a power grab by a few. That is what this is. It doesn't mean things can't be better, but this isn't the way to do it.