Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Background on 2016 HB 69 and why it is important now

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

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

See lines 78 to 83.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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