Sat., April 7, 2018, 11:00 a.m.-NoonHunter
Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 South Sat., March 24, 2018,
2:00-4:00 p.m. Hunter
Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 South
Sat., March 17, 2018,
Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 South Wed, February 28, 2018,
7:00-8:30 p.m. Hunter
Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 South Sat., February 17, 2018,
Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 South Sat., January 13, 2018,
Library Meeting Room, 4740 West 4100 South
Salt Lake County GOP Meet the
Candidate Meetings for 2018
3-27-18 Herriman Library, 5380 Main St,
Herriman, UT 84096, 6-8 pm
4-2-18 Riverton Library,
12877 S 1830 W, Riverton Utah 84065, 7-9 pm
4-4-18 Sandy Library, 10100 Petunia
Way, Sandy, UT 84092, 6-8 pm
4-7-18 Hunter Library Meeting Room,
4740 W 4100 S, West Valley City, UT 84120, 1-3 pm
4-9-18 Whitmore Library, 2197 Fort
Union Blvd, Salt Lake City, UT 84121 7:15-8:45 pm
4-10-18 Millcreek Library, 2266 E
Evergreen Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84109, 6-8 pm
County Convention Friday, April 13th Meet and Greet 7 pm
to 9:30 pm Saturday, April 14, 2018, Meet and
Greet 7 am Call to Order, 10 am Cottonwood High School 5715 South 1300
East, Murray 84121
For Immediate Release
Contact: Don Guymon
for Constitutional Defense Committee - Utah Republican Party
Statement from Utah Republican Party Constitutional Defense Committee
Republican leaders clarify intent of special meeting and new bylaw language
Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - Salt Lake City, UT. Don Guymon,
spokesperson for the Utah Republican Party Constitutional Defense
Committee (“CDC”), released the following statement to correct false
information, reported in the news, regarding the purpose and outcome of
the Saturday, February 24, 2018 meeting of its governing body, the State
Central Committee (SCC):
The SCC meets regularly, and sometimes
monthly, as needed, to address Party business, including organizing for
caucuses and elections. The 2018 Caucus takes place on Tuesday, March
20. For this reason, in accordance with our rules, the SCC members
called a special meeting on Saturday, February 24, to address Caucus
preparation, budget issues, and bylaw modifications, including
modification of an existing bylaw that has been under discussion since
State statute authorizes political parties to challenge the candidacy of any candidate who violates party rules.
Additionally, Justice Scalia in the U.S. Supreme Court decision on California Democratic Party vs. Jones stated:
In no area is the political association's right to exclude more
important than in its candidate-selection process. That process often
determines the party's positions on significant public policy issues,
and it is the nominee who is the party's ambassador charged with winning
the general electorate over to its views. The First Amendment reserves a
special place, and accords a special protection, for that
process...because the moment of choosing the party's nominee is the
crucial juncture at which the appeal to common principles may be
translated into concerted action, and hence to political power…
Since 2015, candidates have been required to certify they will not
violate the party rules, but the bylaw lacked enforcement language.
Under the new bylaw language, a candidate who willingly files to run,
using a method contrary to Republican Party rules, temporarily forfeits
membership in the Party, for the duration of the election cycle.
These changes were made in consultation with legal counsel and in
compliance with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and Utah Code Section
20A-8-401-(2a) . This Court precedent was confirmed in the Party’s
recent successful constitutional challenge to election law changes,
which the Utah Legislature passed in 2014 (Senate Bill 54). It is SB54
that is unconstitutional and is the subject of the current lawsuit.
If the Republican Party Executive Committee chooses to enforce this
bylaw change, it does not affect any candidate already filed to run, and
during the 2018 election cycle, it only applies to U.S. House Districts
1 and 2, so that no already filed candidate will be impacted.
For more information, Contact Don Guymon
[Update: Some additional comments from me]
For a week, prior to the February 24, 2018 SCC meeting, I told backers of the amendment for Bylaws 8, that I would not vote for it as it changed the rules in the middle of the election and could cause my opponent to forfeit his party membership this election. They came back with a narrower change, but I still said no. the next morning, Saturday, the had a new version that didn't directly affect any existing officeholder or candidate and I said I would look at it.
is hard to fire an attorney you never hired. The questions raised were
IF the SCC ever approved him in September. Other questions were if he
was working for the party or the chair and if his opinions were for the
party or the chair, and what his fee was. It is very possible if the
vote was taken at the January meeting the results would have been the
There are 3 attorneys helping with the lawsuit. They are still there.
The SCC finally was given a chance to consent or not for an Attorney the
chair wanted as the party attorney and had been using since last fall
without SCC approval. That approval was asked for on February 24 and voted
Both 20A-8-101 and 401 say the party did not violate state law by passing the bylaw changes re: membership. Neither the Utah Supreme Court or the initial federal judge would take
away our QPP status because of the party Constitution and Bylaws and the
Democrats tried. That is still pending in Denver. Until the party acts,
and not just threatens, there is no case.
I specifically stated that the first 2 versions of the bylaw proposal I
told them I wouldn't vote for it and gave them nightmare reasons why I
would not. When they sent me the last version prior to the meeting that
didn't affect any existing office holders or candidates directly, I said
I would look at it. I did ask questions at the meeting and was TOLD
that the Lt. Gov didn't have the specified authority to remove us from
QPP status. They were quoting attorneys not in the room, and Lt. Gov.
Spencer Cox memo from 2016. I am not an attorney. I have read and
sponsored bills dealing with Title 20A in state code.
The 14th amendment also uses the word State and not Political Party. How
did the state allow a pilot program allowing some county clerks to have
same day voter registration and not other counties?
I want to give the Utah Policy credit for this update: "Editor's note: A
previous version of this article said Mitt Romney would be kicked out of
the party because of the bylaw change. The Utah GOP State Central
Committee wrote the change in such a way that nearly all of the 2018
candidates would not be affected. We regret the error."
No current 2018 candidates are affected, including Mitt Romney,
For 2018, Only congressional District 1 and 2 where no GOP candidates
are currently gathering signatures including Rob Bishop or Chris
It is not a new bylaw.
The state party has
required, in the past, candidates to state if they agree with the party
platform, etc. and if they didn't, what they didn't agree with. Some
counties have had that as well. What
passed Feb. 24th was that has extended to races not just multi-county, with
some teeth to those that don't follow our C&B for elections, with
that going into effect for the 2018 election for just the US House
Congressional District 1 and 2 races, where no GOP member has filed
using signatures at this point.
There is no purity club. Bernie Sanders could apply to run, register as a
republican say that he agreed with none of the bylaws and run in 2018
for the 3rd congressional district and get elected if the voters wanted
him and if he moved here before he was elected. If he ran in the 2nd
this year, and followed the party rules to get elected, and was elected
he could. All that was asked re: party platform was to publicly disclose
what they agreed with and what they didn't with the party platform. That requirement has existed for years.
There were 6 items on the agenda, and only one was bylaw changes. There
was a vote to stop the meeting after the 1st item and that failed, there
was a vote to stop after the top 4 items and that failed to pass. Same
with after 5 items. The people that wanted to stay, stayed.
Carrie Dickson insisted on creating a proviso for the 2018 election at
the bottom vs having the language in the middle of the bylaw. Bob Bernick either doesn't understand that, has been given
bad info, or is intentionally misleading. Also, there was no vote on
Saturday for the caucus committee as Rob didn't have a list to present.
Bob is reporting that was voted on Saturday, where it wasn't.
If you are concerned about the SCC, you do have to realize my State Representative was also elected last year to be a member of the committee, but resigned prior to the first meeting we had. His sister has been a good moderating, win-win, influence on the committee. He has not been involved, one way or the other, even though he could have been.