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.

The Meet and Greet with Attorney General Candidates in West Valley

On December 4, 2013 I arranged a meet and greet opportunity at the Hunter Library large meeting room in West Valley to discuss which candidates to nominate as Utah Attorney General to the Governor for the currently vacant office, prior to the Utah Republican State Central Committee (SCC) meeting and vote on December 14th. The filing deadline is December 6th at 5pm. As a member of the committee, I will be voting for 3 nominees. I also have opened an account with the Lt. Governor to run for the Utah House District 30 next year. I felt like this would be a good chance for people in the area to give me feedback.

I invited specifically, via Facebook many average voters that I knew that live in my area (approx. 350), and posted the Facebook event on my political page, and shared the event on my personal Facebook profile, where I approach 3000 friends, State Central Committee Facebook Group. At least 400 people saw the event on Facebook that was linked back to my page. The potential was for several thousand to know about the event. I sent emails to approx. 170  people in my area that had sent me emails about issues when I was in office as a member of the Utah House of Representatives during 2011 and 2012. That list includes many democratic party affiliated and unaffiliated voters.  At least one or two Salt Lake Republican Party senate chairs had forwarded the email to precinct chairs. I also invited via email, Facebook and by phone any candidates for AG that have filed with the Utah State Republican Party along with several that have said they were considering running.

Two of the candidates, Michael J. Wilkins, and Scott Burns contacted me and said they had conflicts and couldn't make it. A few mentioned they had other meetings that night but would be able to drop by at sometime during the discussion and a couple said they would be there the whole time.

Bret Rawson came early and was able to talk to one member of the SCC that had a conflict and needed to leave early, but had come to see if they could still catch any of the candidates. She had to leave prior to the 7pm start time. Brent Ward was there by 7pm. Several other attendees came and after an informal chance to talk one on one we began the meeting with a prayer and pledge.

The candidates were given 5 min. to introduce themselves. Bret Rawson started followed by Brent Ward. At that point Michelle Mumford was there and also took 5 min. All 3 moved their chairs to the front of the room to field questions from those that came. After a few questions had been answered by those 3, Rep. Dan McCay arrived. While he hadn't filed yet, he had told others he was considering running and was asked to come to the front and also answer questions and introduce himself. The other candidates agreed, mentioning they would rather have him upfront, than sit in the back and take notes on them with the potential of still running. Near the end of the meeting Sean Reyes came. He was able to also help answer questions.

If I had based success of the evening on a large turnout, we had a couple of dozen come. All that came are very active in politics. We had attendees from Salt Lake, Utah and Weber Counties. Many were members of the SCC, along with county party chairs, region chairs, senate chairs, legislative district chairs, precinct chairs, bylaw committee members, county and state delegates. We also had some spouses of those individuals.

Also attending was Utah State Karen Mayne, who represents much of the area. As a Democratic Party member, she wouldn't be able to vote on the 14th, but could give me feedback as to who to vote for. At the end of the meeting she was given time to ask a question. She wished them all success and simply asked all of them to make sure they had enough investigators in the AG's office. As someone that had passed several business related bills in the legislature, she could see that the AG's office didn't have enough investigators to research cases to enforce some of those laws, including businesses paying people under the table to avoid immigration and workers compensation laws.

Who didn't come? The "typical" average voter, with temperatures less than 15 degrees F outside.  I doubt that there was anyone there at that meeting that didn't attend their neighborhood caucus election last year. While there were several that would not be able to vote on the 14th, these were people that were or had been county or state delegates, or other officers. These are people not afraid to spend the time to personally vet candidates.

Other than answers to specific questions, I learned that each of those answering the questions would all make a fine Attorney General. If the public was worried that we would not have a good replacement, if one of these attorneys is selected, concern should be erased. While they have huge differences in background and experience, they agreed on the answers to each question, whether it was from no-knock warrants to if the new AG should file to run in 2014. They were on the same page regarding balancing enforcement and protecting the innocent, and the importance of defending the US and Utah's Constitution, including are Bill of Rights. Each would bring their own strong but different abilities to that office.

I will not be able to vote to nominate 5 or 6, only 3. I hope to be able to listen to the other candidates next week on the 11th and 13th, and look forward to their speeches on the 14th. Limiting the Governor's choice to 3 will be tough.

I believe these candidates can be AG, and should also file to run in 2014, without over politicizing the office and still being able to restore the trust needed for it to succeed. They believe if they do a good job prior to the elections, they would be elected. They said didn't have to focus all their efforts on fundraising and campaigning, especially with our current neighborhood caucus elections, convention and primary system. At least one candidate not there at the meeting has said they would only be appointed if they didn't file to run in 2014. With these fine candidates, and with our current election system, I believe that would be a mistake. We want someone to be AG that is willing to face the voters next fall.

[Note: The approx. 180 SCC members are elected by county delegates, with a few exceptions, such as party chair, elected by state delegates. There are 4,000 of the state GOP delegates, but around 10,000 GOP county delegates. These delegates are elected at Neighborhood Caucus Elections. In 2012, over 110,000 came and voted for these delegates to represent them in vetting candidates and electing party officers.]

For more information, see:
http://www.utgop.org/utgop.asp

Utah's Attorney General is NOT Utah's Top Cop

Utah's Attorney General is NOT Utah's Top Cop, and we don't want one that thinks they will be.

We are NOT nominating 3 candidates to the Governor to appoint to be "Utah's Top Cop". 

Utah's Top Cops are the UHP, the Sheriffs, the Police. The AG is to provide legal advice to the state and provide a balance to make sure we don't become a police state, but we do care about the victims as well.


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/56421732-82/attorney-cops-real-save.html.csp

Article VII, Section 16. [Duties of Attorney General.] "The Attorney General shall be the legal adviser of the State officers, except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, and shall perform such other duties as provided by law."

Other duties include:
http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE67/htm/67_05_000100.htm  

We don't need another Attorney General, like in 2011, pushed to further amend our 4th amendment rights. It was only 2 words, but it would have been a big deal.

After several people explained what he was up to the bill was repeatedly killed in committee, despite the fact that our current AG personally came to the Utah House Judicial Committee to speak for the bills passage.

http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0059.htm

Yes, the AG is to help enforce the law through the court system. They also defend Utah in the courts. The office was never supposed to be sheriff, prosecuting attorney, judge and jury, all rolled into one.

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

Democratic Leaders to blame for Shutdown

So when the US House recently passed a compromise, backed also by Rep. Matheson as well as Sen. Lee, that wouldn’t have defunded ObamaCare, but delayed implementing part of it, and Sen. Harry Reid refused to even let it be heard, that was the GOP’s fault?

When the House passed a bill to keep the parks open, and Sen. Reid wouldn’t let it be heard, that was the Republican’s fault?

When, instead of calling a meeting with the House and Senate leaders of both parties to solve the impasse, the President scheduled the meeting to see how to get a “clean CR” without dealing with any of the problems of implementing ObamaCare, which even Rep. Matheson’s office said was would not get anywhere as soon as the meeting notice arrived, that was the Republican’s fault?

Who hasn’t had even one budget passed during his entire time as US President, when even his own party wouldn’t buy in to his proposed budgets?

OK, there are people on both sides that aren’t being smart, but the majority of the problem has been with the US Senate Democratic Majority Leader and our current US President.

Our US President isn't implementing all of ObamaCare. He thinks not enforcing the law because it or the Country isn't ready for it is fine, but if Congress delays implementing part of it because we don't have the money, that is not OK?

So when the US House recently passed a compromise, backed also by Rep. Matheson as well as Sen. Lee, that wouldn’t have defunded ObamaCare, but delayed implementing part of it, and Sen. Harry Reid refused to even let it be heard, that was the GOP’s fault?
When the House passed a bill to keep the parks open, and Sen. Reid wouldn’t let it be heard, that was the Republican’s fault?
When, instead of calling a meeting with the House and Senate leaders of both parties to solve the impasse, the President scheduled the meeting to see how to get a “clean CR” without dealing with any of the problems of implementing ObamaCare, which even Rep. Matheson’s office said was would not get anywhere as soon as the meeting notice arrived, that was the Republican’s fault?
Who hasn’t had even one budget passed during his entire time as US President, when even his own party wouldn’t buy in to his proposed budgets?
OK, there are people on both sides that aren’t being smart, but the majority of the problem has been with the US Senate Democratic Majority Leader and our current US President .
- See more at: http://utahdatapoints.com/2013/10/senator-lee-and-the-shutdown/#sthash.kJJAzETy.dpuf

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.

 

Fair Elections Utah Help us fight the Count My Vote or Buy My Vote initiative

Fair Elections Utah

We call upon Citizens of Utah , the Utah Legislature, and Political Parties in Utah  to protect the Utah Neighborhood Election, Caucus and Convention Candidate Nomination Process.

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

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 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.

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?

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?

Our current problem with voter turnout is it has not kept up with the population increases. The voter turnout keeps going up but not as fast as the population. Some of that is the younger voters, where Utah has a larger percentage of them and they aren't, as a group, as involved. We need to educate those moving in and not understanding our system.

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.

The system and the experience attending the meetings can always be improved, but the “Count My Vote” initiative isn't the way to do it. Any changes to the system the political parties use to determine their nominees should be determined by the political parties.

Fair Elections Utah. Help us fight the "Count My Vote", or "Buy My Vote" initiative.

Count My Vote vs Fair Elections in Utah who is funding the Buy My Vote group

Major Count My Vote funding so far released. 

Alliance for Good Government
http://disclosures.utah.gov/Search/PublicSearch/FolderDetails/1411317

8/20/2013 Gail Miller   $100,000.00

12/17/2013 James Swartz $25,000.00

12/6/2013 Leslie and Alan Layton $25,000.00

11/22/2013 Ian M. Cumming $25,000.00

11/4/2013 Thomas and Kristin Stockham $25,000.00

10/18/2013 Prime Holdings Insurance Services, Inc. $25,000.00

9/3/2013 Mike Leavitt  $25,000.00

9/3/2013 Rich McKeown $25,000.00

8/26/2013 Garff Enterprises, Inc. $25,000.00

8/26/2013 H. Roger Boyer $25,000.00

8/26/2013 Maccall Management, LLC $25,000.00

8/26/2013 Merit Medical $25,000.00

8/23/2013 Dell Loy Hansen $25,000.00

8/23/2013 Donald and Susan P. Lewon $25,000.00

8/23/2013 John Price $25,000.00

8/22/2013 Kem C. and Carolyn Barnes Gardner $25,000.00

8/20/2013 H. Brent Beesley $25,000.00

8/7/2013 Mark Miller $25,000.00

7/18/2013 Dinesh Patel $25,000.00

7/18/2013 Gary Crocker $25,000.00

9/13/2013 Sandy Chamber of Commerce $24,000.00

12/28/2013 L E Simmons $20,000.00

10/9/2013 Khosrow B. Semnani $15,000.00

8/13/2013 Burton L. and Elaine L. Gordon $12,500.00

12/31/2013 John Miller $10,000.00

12/30/2013 David E. Simmons $10,000.00

12/26/2013 Dan England $10,000.00

12/11/2013 Anne Osborn $10,000.00

8/27/2013 JLS Holdings, LLC $10,000.00

8/12/2013 ThomasArts Holding, Inc. $10,000.00

7/11/2013 Bruce Bastian $10,000.00

7/10/2013 Omar Kader $10,000.00

5/7/2012 Khosrow B. Semnani $10,000.00

4/24/2012 William Nelson Shiebler $10,000.00

4/20/2012 Dell Loy Hansen $10,000.00

4/16/2012 Lunt Capital Management, Inc. $10,000.00

12/13/2013 Gail Miller $9,000.00

11/13/2013 Gail Miller $9,000.00

12/31/2013 Scott Keller $5,000.00

12/20/2013 R. Anthony Sweet $5,000.00

12/4/2013 Thomas Guinney $5,000.00

11/22/2013 Kristen M Fletcher $5,000.00

11/6/2013 Victor and Linda Lund $5,000.00

11/4/2013 E R Dumke, Jr. $5,000.00

10/16/2013 Ezekiel Dumke $5,000.00

9/30/2013 Edward McCartney $5,000.00

11/4/2013 Lonnie M. Bullard $3,000.00

12/31/2013 Clark and Jennifer Whitworth $2,500.00

12/31/2013 Don Stirling $2,500.00

12/30/2013 James Olson $2,500.00

The caucus & 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.

Our problem with voter turnout is it has not kept up with the population increase. The voter turnout keeps going up but not as fast as the population. Some of that is the younger voters, where Utah has a larger percentage of them and they aren't, as a group, as involved. Also those moving in and not understanding our system.

If you change the way our Utah primary's work, you could have two republicans in the general election ballot (or two democrats).
 
We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is a good thing. Keep Fair Elections in Utah. Keep the neighborhood caucus election system.  

Update:
I am glad Gail Miller is keeping involved. Helping children with reading.

It is sad she bought into the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote arguments however. Didn't Chris Cannon have endorsements from Pres. Bush, Mitt Romney and both of the then current US Senators at the time? Jason Chaffetz still won.

re: Sen. Bennett in 2010. He was not in the top 2 coming out of convention. In fact the more moderate Tim Bridgewater was selected by 57% of the delegates in the last round. Mike Lee managed to get 43% and make it to a primary. Sen. Bennett endorsed Tim Bridgewater during the primary, but with voters ticked at TARP and ObamaCare, they went with Mike Lee.
 
You like or don't like Sen. Mike Lee? Well 57% of the delegates didn't pick him to be the nominee. It was during the primary he was selected to be the GOP nominee.
 
Limiting? There were over 120,000 voters that participated in the 2012 Neighborhood Caucus election and meeting. The democratic caucus also had record turnout. People want a say on who shows up on the ballot.
 
The open primary is working so well in 2013 where 15% was considered good? You can't blame that on the caucus system. The one time Utah got rid of the caucus system our turnout went to 10% for a primary that included the US Senate. It was even that low in Salt Lake County. See August of 1946.

For more information see:
http://fairelectionsutah.com/

Drug use help for Needy Families Recipients

Utah has spent more than $30,000 to screen welfare applicants for drug use since a new law went into effect a year ago, but only 12 people have tested positive, state figures show.

The data from August 2012 through July 2013 indicates the state spent almost $6,000 to give 4,730 applicants a written test. After 466 showed a likelihood of drug use, they were given drug tests at a total cost of more than $25,000, according to the Utah Department of Workforce Services, which administers welfare benefits and the tests.

24 percent of applicants who were required to take a drug test didn't and did not continue in the application process.

Who takes the written test?
http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillenr/HB0155.pdf

H.B. 155 Drug Screening for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Recipients

This bill modifies the Employment Support Act by requiring an applicant who otherwise qualifies for cash assistance under Utah's Family Employment Program to complete a written drug screening questionnaire and meet other requirements in order to receive cash assistance under the program.

If we helped 12 people get off drugs and not end up in our prison system and helped them get off assistance, that would be worth the $30,000. It sounds more like we had over 100 who would have been getting cash that had a drug problem that decided they didn't want the help. How much did that save taxpayers?

Sim Gill v Chad Bennion

I don't know Sim Gill, but I spent a few years working with his dad. His father is a good man. I know many of the leaders of the Sikh temple in Utah.

I think Chad Bennion is badly referring to what Sim himself has said, but not doing a great job of doing it, or the press is not connecting the dots.

http://voicesofutah.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/from-india-to-district-attorney-sim-gill-fights-for-salt-lake-county/

(from that account)
Gill, 52, spoke in a faint Indian accent of a formative moment from his youth, to a classroom of 13 students recently at the University of Utah. At the age of “eight or nine” in his native India, Gill said, he witnessed the brutal beating of a man accused of stealing jewelry from a neighbor’s home, and in the end, the beating of an innocent man.

“That left a very strong impression on me,” Gill said, “that when you have that authority, when you have that power, when you have that capacity to alter and impact people’s lives, you have to really use that with a great level of deference and responsibility.”


I believe Utah has seen a large problem from Ogden to other places in the state of an abuse of power by a few members of the police, based on the 4th amendment and state law. I have no problem with Sim Gill calling them on it. 

Update:

Lisa Riley Roche, Deseret News/KSL
re:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865584932/State-GOP-supporting-county-party-chairmans-comments-about-district-attorney.html


I felt like you were clear on Chad. Thanks.

What isn't as clear on the quote you have from me is that I didn't think that Chad was being racist, but others have believed that.

If you have time, perhaps you could add a couple of clarifying words.

"by others"

Fred Cox, a member of the state party's central committee, said Bennion's comments have been interpreted [by others] as "trying to use Sim's ethic background as one of the reasons he is a 'cop hater.'"

While Cox, a former West Valley City lawmaker, said there needs to be a discussion about whether Gill is trying to protect against a police state by leaning "too far in the other direction," Bennion's comments may be hurting the party.

"He's coming across as being angry," Cox said. "Instead of remaining on the attack, in my mind what he should have done is make sure people understood what his intent was."

Cox and other Salt Lake County Republicans said party members may discuss Bennion at next month's county central committee meeting, but it's not clear there's support for taking action against him.

Thanks again,

Fred C. Cox

Update2:
The reporter did a good job of clarifying that Chad Bennion was quoting Sim Gill re: an experience sim had as a 8 or 9 year old. I am less impressed with some of the quotes by others. Especially mine. I was very clear that I felt Bennion was not trying to pull in ethnic race but some were interpreting it or reporting that way. We do need to focus on if Sim Gill is pushing the pendulum too far. It is also obvious that we do need some balance. Sim Gill should provide some balance. We don't need a police state.

Update 3:
I don't believe Sim's experience when his was 8 or 9 is a liability for his current office, nor do I believe he is a cop hater. I do wonder if all the over 100 West Valley City cases should have been tossed the way they were or if more could have been saved. If you have someone breaking into neighborhoods and they are caught, and then let them off the hook, it is a pretty big deal.

Update 4:
As a member of the Utah House of Representatives for the years 2011 and 2012, I voted to remove DUI check points as a 4th amendment violation, voted to fix the problem with police arresting the legal carry of guns under disturbing the peace, and helped stop AG Mark Shurtleff's "clean up bill" 3 times in the House Judicial Standing Committee (it was voted on twice and the 3rd idea didn't get enough support to be put on the agenda) that would have allowed police arresting someone without a warrant with only probable cause for class B and C misdemeanors. (what I felt was further amending our 4th amendment US Constitutional rights) 

I have tried to listen to and be fair to both sides.

Swallow in 200 words

I worked on a project for a year with John Swallow, Chief Deputy AG. I ignored the mud slinging during the primary. I knew both side's political consultants well enough to assume that they were behind it. I should have listened as I was blindsided Jan. 12th this year.

John's biggest critics since becoming AG on several issues are from Republicans. I was looking online for his conflict disclosure forms on Jan. 12th of this year. Not only his March 15th one, (I didn't find out about the March 9th until later) but also the one he had just signed Jan. 10th. I was more concerned with them and the lack of information re: P Solutions than the comments I heard on the tape from Johnson.

When two witnesses (one to get the money and one to pay it) and a tape accused Shurtleff of a $2M deal that involved Jenson, my focus moved to that. Jenson claimed Swallow knew about the $2M deal (Swallow says no). The $1M asset Swallow was to get looks bad.

Investigate. If he knew about the $2M, based on what Swallow hasn't done this year, (Shurtleff in Jail) Impeach. Malfeasance in Office.

Fair Elections in Utah vs Count My Vote

The caucus & 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, wealthy or famous. This is a good thing.

Our problem with voter turnout is it has not kept up with the population increase. The voter turnout keeps going up but not as fast as the population. Some of that is the younger voters, where Utah has a larger percentage of them and they aren't, as a group, as involved. Also those moving in and not understanding our system.

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

If you change the way our Utah primary's work, you could have two republicans in the general election ballot (or two democrats).


Bypassing the caucus/convention system will not create more participation. There are 4,000 state delegates and many more county delegates that spend countless hours vetting candidates to be on the ballot. They are selected by those that attend the neighborhood election caucus meeting. The current one-on-one candidate vetting by delegates cannot be done well any other way.

When people realize this Count My Vote initiative will give them less of a chance to participate but give media and power brokers more power, they will not sign any initiative. This is a power grab and it isn't by the neighbors you elect as delegates.

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 don't like those rules, you can run as unaffiliated, independent or as a third-party candidate. Count My Vote is attempting to change all party rules by changing state laws by initiative, thus bypassing the political parties and the Legislature.


Who gets to pick the people that show up on the ballot? It is the voters through the caucus system. The candidates get to decide if they are going to run and each of us vote to have them vetted. We put the best ones we have that volunteered to run on the ballot. One of the reasons we get involved in the caucus system is to have a say as to who is on the ballot.

If we didn't have the system we have, it would be the power brokers that would get to decide. They are the ones trying to get rid of the caucus.

Keep Fair Elections in Utah, keep the caucus and convention system

For more information, see:
http://www.fairelectionsutah.com/

Random thoughts on the last 3 letters to the House from Swallow attorney

Is John Swallow's attorneys flipping off the House a good idea?

 I think you would have a difficult time finding very many in the #utleg that would believe that the court gets to determine the definition of "high crimes, misdemeanors, or malfeasance in office;" for the Utah State Legislature in cases of impeachment. That is the garbage the letters from Swallows attorneys have tried to make and that is the reaction, in my opinion of some in the Utah Leg.

It is like kicking a hornets nest. The Supreme Court gets to toss out laws that they determine are not constitutional, but they do not get to define what the legislature interprets the constitution to mean that they swear to uphold. No where in their oath of office do they swear to defend the law or defend case law. They write the law and they get to interpret the constitution for their oath of office and defined powers themselves.

John Fellows's job includes putting constitutional notes to let them know about possible case laws and whether or not it could effect the law in the future. John Fellows advices the #utleg. They get to make up their own mind.

"As required by legislative rule and practice, the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel provides the following legislative review note to assist the Legislature in making its own determination as to the constitutionality of the bill. The note is based on an analysis of relevant state and federal constitutional law as applied to the bill. The note is not written for the purpose of influencing whether the bill should become law, but is written to provide information relevant to legislators' consideration of this bill. The note is not a substitute for the judgment of the judiciary, which has authority to determine the constitutionality of a law in the context of a specific case."

If the legislature doesn't agree with the opinion of either the US or State Supreme Court as to how far the 4th amendment can be amended, the legislature can and has held it to a higher standard and the court has agreed the #utleg has that authority and the state AG (Shurtleff at the time) can toss a fit but it doesn't matter.

Again, the Utah Supreme Court doesn't get to determine the definition of "high crimes, misdemeanors, or malfeasance in office;" for the Utah State Legislature in cases of impeachment", in my opinion and I am not alone in that opinion. It would be a conflict of interest as the legislature has the duty to impeach the justices if there was reason to do so.

The last case of an impeachment process by the #utleg was a judge.

re: the balance of power between 3 branches of government and 2 levels of government. You forget that the Utah House has seated Reps when the courts wouldn't have and yet it did and the courts wouldn't interfere.

#utleg "do solemnly swear that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."

There is nothing that says they would swear to support, obey and defend Case Law, or any existing laws.

You tell a member of the house they aren't following their oath of office and I can think a few that would just a soon punch you in the mouth. "Thems fighting words". Gov. Herbert has made that mistake a few times and saw his veto overridden.

Why Keep the Utah Neighborhood Caucus and Convention System

Why Keep the Utah Neighborhood Caucus and Convention System?

The caucus 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, wealthy or famous. This is a good thing.

Our only problem with voter turnout is it has not kept up with the population increase. The voter turnout keeps going up but not as fast as the population. Some of that is the younger voters, where Utah has a larger percentage of them and they aren't, as a group, as involved. Some of that are those moving in and not understanding our system.

 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, or run as a 3rd party candidate. “Count My Vote” is attempting to change all party rules by changing state laws by initiative, thus bypassing the political parties and the Legislature.

We already have a "bypass" system. It is called filing as an unaffiliated candidate. You go straight to the general election. So if Mr. Jowers, or Mr. Leavitt don't think they can win if vetted by average citizens asking one on one questions, they can run that way and spend the money. Why should they be a party nominee if they are going to bypass the party?

When people realize this "Count My Vote initiative will give them less of a chance to participate but give media and power brokers more power, they will not sign any initiative. This is a power grab by Lobbyists, and those that want to run for office but don't believe they can win if vetted by average citizens asking one on one questions.


I ask you to read these two of my Op-Ed articles:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/56205410-82/state-caucus-system-party.html.csp

and

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765631377/We-need-to-keep-fair-elections-in-Utah.html

We need to coordinate with college and university campuses in Utah so students know where their caucus meeting is, and where Utah residents can register to attend and participate.

We could make sure that neighborhood caucus meetings could be done in two hours, and the election results distributed not just to the county and state parties, but to those who missed the caucus, so they can learn who represents them and who to contact to make their views known. Any person who got a babysitter for two hours to attend a caucus meeting should be able to vote within that time frame.

The present system does not protect the incumbent, the wealthy or the famous.

Keep fair elections in Utah.

Problems with STEM

I have toured the Micron facility twice in Lehi, who has complained about getting STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) employees locally. They pay their innovation engineers very well, but seem to have trouble getting enough of them. They have not complained about not being able to get experience with the degree, but some with a degree have said Micron and others also want experience and a skill set that the local candidate has had trouble getting. I have been told that L-3 has been willing to locally provide the required experience, but, I believe has recently been hit by the Budget Sequestration in 2013.

I know in the field of Architecture, (construction related, not typically listed in STEM) I had seen the UofU put out dozens and dozens of those with a Master's degree in Architecture. They aren't an architect until they are licensed, which requires at least a few years of experience plus passing a very hard licensing exam. The exam used to be over 4 days with the last part being 12 hours that you brought your lunch to. That piece took me 4 tries, over 2 years to pass. I was licensed (over 20 years ago) with 4 years of college, a 2 year degree and 7 years full time experience plus passing the test. 

That option is not available today. What is required, I believe requires the professional degree plus 3 years of experience, plus the test. Most take 6 to 8 years to get the BA/BS and a MA in Architecture not including the 3 years of experience. The option I took and what is required today, often take 11 years.

Working at a large firm, several years ago, I would see some of the recent graduates not have the required skills, let alone the required experience. I would see some with an AAS decree in architectural technology be able to function better in a firm initially where those with a MA from the UoU could. It was one of the reasons I transferred from the U to what is now SLCC and got the AAS degree with more experience.  Over the years I have suggested students graduate from SLCC in Architectural Technology prior to taking the U's classes. I know the U has worked hard to make sure their graduates have the required skills that were missing and have helped them get the experience as well.

Because consulting engineers in the field of producing documents to help construct buildings have similar requirements (to architects) to get their PE or SE to not only have the degree but also experience and passing the tests, that area seems to work well. The license is critical as unlike a doctor, who, if makes a mistake. can cause one person to die, if an architect or consulting engineer working with contractors make a major mistake, we can take out 20,000 people at once. Typically it isn't that big a number, but hundreds and sometimes thousands have and do die in collapses, fires, etc.

It appears now, looking from the outside in, that in the US, many of the STEM graduates do not have the required employment skill set AND experience to actually get the job they want in the field they have the degree in. That is either a communication problem, (knowing they need this experience as well), a curriculum problem, or an internship problem. Anyway, it isn't just pumping out people with STEM degrees. It appears many of the overseas graduates looking for work here have the required employment skill set and experience to actually get the job. I believe that is why some articles say we have plenty of STEM graduates, but why the employers are saying they can't find the STEM employees they need. We likely do need more graduates and more money in education in these fields and I believe The I-Squared Act will help, but only if this other issue is solved as well.

For more on the immigration portion of this subject, see:
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/06/not-big-immigration-bill-but-lots-of.html