Word is reaching that Count My Vote is willing to stop their petition. A negotiation with the Utah Legislature.
Count My Vote = Pirates?
From a year ago:
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/03/fair-elections-in-utah.html
Why would Count My Vote now "cave" ? Several good reasons, they wanted the Utah Legislature to bail them out.
1. They never had a well written proposed law.
http://www.neighborhoodelection.org/flaws_in_count_my_vote_proposed_legislation
2. Their Legal brief was finally discovered to be a con.
http://www.countmyvoteutah.org/s/Constitutional-Memorandum-and-Letter-wso2.pdf
In a soon to be released counter brief it was discovered that Count My Vote / Buy My Vote based part of their argument on a minority opinion form the SCOTUS and not the majority opinion. It shows that the Legal Brief put out by Count My Vote to be as flawed as the proposed law. Not only is the conflicting sections in Count My Vote going to give a judge pause and kick it back to the Utah Legislature to fix, and the 2% system obviously not treating candidates from different parties equally, but the whole premise of Count My Vote being able to stand up to the courts is flawed.
3. 2014 SB 2014 passed the Senate.
4. Protect Our Neighborhood Elections files a complaint with the Lt. Governor's office re: Count My Vote asking for signatures, perhaps even all to be thrown out.
from
http://fox13now.com/2014/02/21/complaint-claims-count-my-vote-collected-signatures-in-violation-of-the-law/
The complaint outlines four accusations, which include the following:
1 – Only one of eight corporate donors for Count My Vote has filed
the required financial disclosures with the Lt. Governor’s Office.
2 – Washington County School District member emailed Count My Vote materials from a school email account during school hours.
3 – Count My Vote signature collectors have, on documented occasions,
verbally misrepresented the nature of initiative, going so far as to
completely lie about it.
4 – Count My Vote petitions were allegedly left unattended in public
places, which could have allowed anyone to sign without first having
their identity verified.
What did Count My Vote do? They pulled in more money, this time from Sen. Orin Hatch, and they called in Mitt Romney, who likely was just acting at the request of Mike Leavitt.
It is in doubt that Mitt Romney is up to speed on the flaws of Count My Vote:
http://www.redstate.com/diary/fredccox/2013/11/07/perhaps-mitt-romney-should-be-blasting-count-my-vote-having-no-run-off/
Passed problems with 2014 SB 54
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2014/02/2014-sb-54-elections-amendments.html
Pirates or Just Cowards?
Count My Vote had their public hearings when the least number could come and even scheduled them during UEA and a Legislative Session.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/56992046-90/count-vote-group-public.html.csp
"They have scheduled four of their seven public statewide meetings at
noon during the week with two of those during a special session of the
Legislature," said Fred Cox, a former state representative and opponent
of the Count My Vote movement. "They also scheduled two of the required
regional public meetings during UEA (Utah Education Association), so
they don't seem to want the UEA teachers or their invited parents to
attend."
Their Press Conference tomorrow is during the State GOP Central Committee meeting so that none of the GOP Party Leaders could be there.
Count
My Vote: a Lexus lane to the ballot for the rich and famous. Always has
been. With the proposed compromise it is just more obvious.
Fair Elections in Utah. It matters. You can remove your signature using this process:
http://www.neighborhoodelection.org/faq
Showing posts with label Utah Caucus System. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Utah Caucus System. Show all posts
Friday, February 28, 2014
Friday, December 20, 2013
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.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
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
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
Thursday, November 21, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
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):
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.
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).
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.
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:
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:
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://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:
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
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.
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.
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:
Monday, October 14, 2013
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
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
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Monday, July 29, 2013
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/
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/
Saturday, June 22, 2013
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:
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:
and
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.
Keep fair elections in Utah.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Messed up Utah primaries Which bad idea do you want
It appears the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote Group has decided their idea of bypassing the caucus / convention system was a bad idea.
I agree.
Now they want to ruin our primary system. If you change the way our Utah primary's work as they are proposing, you could have two republicans in the general election ballot (or two democrats).
Much of the state there will just be republicans and part of Salt Lake County, just democratic candidates on the General Election ballot. And this is a good idea?
They are going to poll everyone to see which bad idea we like. What do you bet they just poll 400 of us and call it good. How about running changes past the parties or at least the legislature? The states that are ruled by polls typically are ruled by Debt.
If the voters figure this out, none will sign on to this idea.
We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is a good thing.
Keep Fair Elections in Utah. Our Caucus and Conventions system.
PS, if they want to really help voter participation, we have some ideas, if they have the guts to try.
I agree.
Now they want to ruin our primary system. If you change the way our Utah primary's work as they are proposing, you could have two republicans in the general election ballot (or two democrats).
Much of the state there will just be republicans and part of Salt Lake County, just democratic candidates on the General Election ballot. And this is a good idea?
They are going to poll everyone to see which bad idea we like. What do you bet they just poll 400 of us and call it good. How about running changes past the parties or at least the legislature? The states that are ruled by polls typically are ruled by Debt.
If the voters figure this out, none will sign on to this idea.
We have a system that that does NOT favor the incumbent, wealthy or famous. This is a good thing.
Keep Fair Elections in Utah. Our Caucus and Conventions system.
PS, if they want to really help voter participation, we have some ideas, if they have the guts to try.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
My view We need to keep fair elections in Utah Deseret News
My op-ed for the Deseret News:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765631377/We-need-to-keep-fair-elections-in-Utah.html
That system of discussion is being proposed to be removed from the neighborhood caucus meeting. We would be dropping off votes, but not meeting and discussing candidates and issues. We want neighbors discussing the best candidates and finding ways to improve this state and the nation. That is what is wrong with Washington, D.C. Many don't listen to each other in a meeting. They watch from their offices. We need to change that, not perpetuate it.
Perhaps the "Count My Vote" group should go watch "WALL-E" from Pixar again (the people on the spaceship).
We are talking neighborhood town halls. We aren't just meeting to elect delegates. I believe the Count My Vote group would ruin that.
The present system does not protect the incumbent, the wealthy or the famous. Keep fair elections in Utah.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765631377/We-need-to-keep-fair-elections-in-Utah.html
That system of discussion is being proposed to be removed from the neighborhood caucus meeting. We would be dropping off votes, but not meeting and discussing candidates and issues. We want neighbors discussing the best candidates and finding ways to improve this state and the nation. That is what is wrong with Washington, D.C. Many don't listen to each other in a meeting. They watch from their offices. We need to change that, not perpetuate it.
Perhaps the "Count My Vote" group should go watch "WALL-E" from Pixar again (the people on the spaceship).
We are talking neighborhood town halls. We aren't just meeting to elect delegates. I believe the Count My Vote group would ruin that.
The present system does not protect the incumbent, the wealthy or the famous. Keep fair elections in Utah.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Utah Caucus and Convention System History
Utah has used neighborhood caucus and convention system since statehood in 1896, as did every other state at the time.
Utah Governor Herbert B. Maw
Many felt like an open Primary was the ticket to the governorship, and he did win. But the Change in the system only lasted for a decade. After disillusionment, Utah restored the Caucus and Convention System. See the Deseret News from 1946:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=VXczAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sXwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6680%2C5376710
Today only seven states still have a caucus and convention system, but Utah is the only state that actually nominates the candidates in the convention that are placed on the ballot. Other state conventions are endorsing conventions, but the party has little or no control over which candidate/s runs against its endorsed candidate and whether the others even represent the Party platform.
The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. I think that is a good thing.
Historical research credit: Cherilyn Eagar
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Keep Fair Elections in Utah
The Salt Lake Tribune has published an op-ed that I wrote. You can read it at:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/56205410-82/state-caucus-system-party.html.csp
The idea is so everyone that was not at the meeting can find out who represents them and who to contact.
We are talking neighborhood town halls. They aren't just meeting to elect delegates. I believe the Count My Vote group would ruin that.
No, I didn't pick the photo that they used.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/56205410-82/state-caucus-system-party.html.csp
The idea is so everyone that was not at the meeting can find out who represents them and who to contact.
We are talking neighborhood town halls. They aren't just meeting to elect delegates. I believe the Count My Vote group would ruin that.
No, I didn't pick the photo that they used.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Fair Elections Utah
My other blog on Fair Elections Utah vs the Count My Vote / Buy My Vote is at:
http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/
http://fairelectionsutah.blogspot.com/
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Why keeping the 60 percentage threshold to avoid a primary helps Fair Elections
We
already have a large percentage of contested races go to primary. If
we have more primaries, we are apt to have more last minute attack
pieces and more ethics problems. There will also be a need for more
political donations raised for the more expensive races. We don't need
to provide more power to
the lobbyists.
I had considered raising the threshold to avoid a primary, but after looking at the numbers, it doesn't make sense.
The 60% works, allowing a shot of a challenger to eliminate an incumbent and yet requires a challenger to be a strong candidate.
Based on the party released sheets since 2000 for state wide races or congressional races, At 60%, threshold to avoid a primary, 1/2 of contested races went to primary. If at 2/3 threshold to avoid a primary, 67% of contested races go to a primary and at 70% threshold to avoid a primary, 70% of the races go to primary. The last 2 numbers do not have to match, but they ended up doing so.
They tracked 44 races, 14 of which were not contested for the nominee. We realize it is only 5 or 6 contested races difference, but when you are looking at 30 contested races, a change of 5 is 17%.
70% would not have helped 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.
Sen. Hatch just barely missed eliminating Dan Liljenquist by hitting just under the 60% threshold to avoid a primary, and Jason Chaffetz just missed eliminating Chris Cannon by hitting just under 60% threshold to avoid a primary.
Both races went to primaries. The 60% line works fine. Raising it decreases the chance of eliminating an incumbent, and we get weaker challengers.
It was the caucus system that got Sen. Hatch, Sen. Bennett, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., Gov. Leavitt & Lt. Gov. Walker, etc. elected in the first place. The system is fine when they win, but if any of them lose, it is bad?
The democrats in SLCo. just added an additional vote at the end of their conventions to see if they can avoid a primary. They have no interest in the initiative passing and have been vocal not to support it.
The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. We think that is a good thing.
I like the 60/40, but initially thought I would be willing to go to 2/3 and 1/3. It would make it harder to boot out an incumbent at convention and but give someone new a little better chance of making to a primary. Gov. Gary Herbert would have most likely faced Morgan Philpot this year and Rep. Chris Stewart would have faced Dave Clark. Moving it back to 70/30 makes it almost impossible to kick out an incumbent at convention. That violates their 4th principle. This year, my friend Rep. Newbold was defeated at convention in her re-election campaign. If the threshold to avoid a primary had been 70%, she would have made it to the primary. I asked her last month if she favored changing the threshold to avoid a primary to 70%. She said no.
The proposal from the "Count My Vote / Buy My Vote" crowd wasn't just to raise the threshold to avoid a primary. It was to also remove multi-round voting or IRV and send all candidates that hit the lower range to the primary if someone didn't hit the higher range on the only vote. With that proposal, why raise the range at all?
"Fair. A system that provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is not acceptable." I agree and the "Count My Vote" proposals up to now don't follow their own principles. Perhaps that is why they deleted it from their list of 4 principles.
We already have a large percentage of contested races go to primary. If we have more primaries, we are apt to have more last minute attack pieces and more ethics problems. There will also be a need for more political donations raised for the more expensive races. We don't need to provide more power to the lobbyists.
Three of my other posts on this subject:
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/04/fair-elections-most-important-principle.html
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/04/thoughts-on-utah-neighborhood-elections.html
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/03/fair-elections-in-utah.html
I had considered raising the threshold to avoid a primary, but after looking at the numbers, it doesn't make sense.
The 60% works, allowing a shot of a challenger to eliminate an incumbent and yet requires a challenger to be a strong candidate.
Based on the party released sheets since 2000 for state wide races or congressional races, At 60%, threshold to avoid a primary, 1/2 of contested races went to primary. If at 2/3 threshold to avoid a primary, 67% of contested races go to a primary and at 70% threshold to avoid a primary, 70% of the races go to primary. The last 2 numbers do not have to match, but they ended up doing so.
They tracked 44 races, 14 of which were not contested for the nominee. We realize it is only 5 or 6 contested races difference, but when you are looking at 30 contested races, a change of 5 is 17%.
70% would not have helped 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.
Sen. Hatch just barely missed eliminating Dan Liljenquist by hitting just under the 60% threshold to avoid a primary, and Jason Chaffetz just missed eliminating Chris Cannon by hitting just under 60% threshold to avoid a primary.
Both races went to primaries. The 60% line works fine. Raising it decreases the chance of eliminating an incumbent, and we get weaker challengers.
It was the caucus system that got Sen. Hatch, Sen. Bennett, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., Gov. Leavitt & Lt. Gov. Walker, etc. elected in the first place. The system is fine when they win, but if any of them lose, it is bad?
The democrats in SLCo. just added an additional vote at the end of their conventions to see if they can avoid a primary. They have no interest in the initiative passing and have been vocal not to support it.
The current system does not protect the incumbent, wealthy or famous. We think that is a good thing.
I like the 60/40, but initially thought I would be willing to go to 2/3 and 1/3. It would make it harder to boot out an incumbent at convention and but give someone new a little better chance of making to a primary. Gov. Gary Herbert would have most likely faced Morgan Philpot this year and Rep. Chris Stewart would have faced Dave Clark. Moving it back to 70/30 makes it almost impossible to kick out an incumbent at convention. That violates their 4th principle. This year, my friend Rep. Newbold was defeated at convention in her re-election campaign. If the threshold to avoid a primary had been 70%, she would have made it to the primary. I asked her last month if she favored changing the threshold to avoid a primary to 70%. She said no.
The proposal from the "Count My Vote / Buy My Vote" crowd wasn't just to raise the threshold to avoid a primary. It was to also remove multi-round voting or IRV and send all candidates that hit the lower range to the primary if someone didn't hit the higher range on the only vote. With that proposal, why raise the range at all?
"Fair. A system that provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is not acceptable." I agree and the "Count My Vote" proposals up to now don't follow their own principles. Perhaps that is why they deleted it from their list of 4 principles.
We already have a large percentage of contested races go to primary. If we have more primaries, we are apt to have more last minute attack pieces and more ethics problems. There will also be a need for more political donations raised for the more expensive races. We don't need to provide more power to the lobbyists.
Three of my other posts on this subject:
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/04/fair-elections-most-important-principle.html
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/04/thoughts-on-utah-neighborhood-elections.html
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/03/fair-elections-in-utah.html
Friday, April 12, 2013
Fair Elections the Most Important Principle
In Lavarr's email to the SCC, (See below) the most important item is
what is missing. It is LaVarr's 4th principle, the one that surprised me
when this was released last month, just prior to our other meeting, because I believe
their proposals violate it:
http://utahpolicy.com/view/full_story/21947725/article-Principles-for-an-Acceptable-Nomination-Process
"Fair. A system that provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is not acceptable."
If Fair Elections are no longer a principle of theirs, than the opposite could be true, in which case, I have no interest in keeping them happy.
Also, from Daily Policy today, the ultimate, you will not do what we want so we are really going to do it anyway.
http://utahpolicy.com/view/full_story/22225960/article-Bob-Bernick-s-Notebook--Change-Can-be-Difficult--Especially-in-Primary-Elections?
"The Utah Republican Central Committee, meeting Saturday, apparently won’t even consider a change in convention candidate nomination rules that would address a major complaint by Utah voters: The ability of a few hundred state GOP delegates to drive relatively popular Republican incumbents from office."
"In short, even with a long list of possible candidate nomination changes, Utah GOP bosses would still be able to boot from office incumbents like former Sen. Bob Bennett (in 2010) and former Gov. Olene Walker (in 2004)."
Since these two didn't make even the top 2 candidates, the only proposal to change it is likely not to pass. We don't elect officials for life. This isn't the SCOTUS. They have no right to expect to remain in office if the voters don't agree, and it was the voters that elected the delegates in their neighborhoods.
This group has no advantage to turn in their initiative prior to the first couple of days of June of 2013, according to information I received from the Lt. Gov. office. They have to have their signatures all counted and approved at the county and state level in 316 days from the day they file, if I remember correctly, and prior to April 15, 2014. That is next year.
Fred C. Cox, Salt Lake County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"LaVarr Webb"
*To: *"LaVarr Webb"
*Sent: *Friday, April 12, 2013 2:12:32 PM
*Subject: *Memo to Political Party Leaders
M E M O R A N D U M
April 12, 2013
*From*: Count My Vote Executive Committee (Gov. Mike
Leavitt, Rich McKeown, Maura Carabello, Matt Sanderson, Kirk Jowers,
David Hansen, LaVarr Webb, Michael Shea)
*To*: Republican and Democratic party leaders
*Subject*: Update and Statement of Principles
As you know, over the last several months our group, along with many
other Utahns, has been discussing Utah’s process for nominating
political party candidates with the goal of increasing voter participation.
The current caucus/convention nominating process has many excellent
qualities that we wish to retain. The system allows candidates who lack
fame, wealth, and incumbency to compete for a party’s nomination. We
also appreciate the valuable grassroots nature of the process, with
neighbors gathering to discuss political issues and candidates.
We believe, however, that substantive reforms are necessary to reverse
the current trend of low voter participation and to ensure good
governance and creation of good public policy.
We believe this matter to be of such high importance that we are in the
process of filing the proper paperwork and putting together a large,
statewide signature-gathering effort to place a proposal on the 2014
ballot allowing all voters to choose an alternative candidate nomination
process. Given the results of survey research and focus groups, we are
confident that such a proposal would be strongly supported by most Utah
leaders, and would be overwhelmingly approved by voters.
As part of this process, we have engaged in productive and good-faith
discussions with party leaders, and many party members. We are pleased
that party leaders have been open-minded, creative, and desirous of
increasing participation in the political process. We appreciate their
willingness to discuss, negotiate, and seek solutions.
Some time ago, we developed three important principles that continue to
guide our deliberations. We have concluded that if the political parties
are able to make internal reforms to fulfill these principles, we will
not need to move forward with the ballot measure.
Here are our expectations for fulfillment of these principles:
1.The nomination process must be inclusive, accessible, and allow
participation in the caucus phase by all voters. A process that
requires individuals to attend a particular meeting at a particular
place at a particular time on a particular day excludes and
discriminates against those who may be away serving their country or
church, those who may be ill, those who may be required to work, or away
on business. Such a system is not acceptable. Fulfilling this principle
will require opening caucus participation over a longer period of time,
and providing an accessible method for votes to be cast by those who
cannot attend in person.
2.Primary election choices must be expanded so more voters have the
opportunity to determine a party’s ultimate nominees. This can be
achieved by: (a) raising the convention vote threshold to avoid a
primary election to between 70% and 80%; (b) certifying for the
primary-election ballot any candidate who receives over 20% or 25% of
the delegate vote on any ballot during the Convention; and (c)
eliminating multiple ballots. These modest changes would provide more
choices for the broader party membership in a primary election, which
will, in turn, boost Utah’s voter participation rate. While we encourage
the parties to consider all of these proposals, raising the threshold to
at least 70% is the minimum required to fulfill this principle.
3.Some degree of stability, consistency and permanence is necessary so
that changing political winds do not result in frequent changes to the
system. We recognize that nothing in politics is certain or lasts
forever, but we expect party leaders to work to implement long-term
internal or statutory solutions to provide stability and predictability.
Because of deadlines and the large amount of work involved in mounting a
signature petition drive to place a proposal on the 2014 ballot, we will
continue our ballot-measure preparations as we monitor the success of
the parties in adopting these reforms over the next several weeks. We
appreciate party members’ and leaders’ willingness to listen, analyze
and work with us.
*LaVarr Webb / *The Exoro Group
10 West 100 South #300 / Salt Lake City UT 84101
www.utahpolicy.com
<http://www.utahpolicy.com>/ www.exoro.com <http://www.exoro.com>
[email address and mobile phone number deleted for privacy]
Two other of my blogs on this subject:
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/04/thoughts-on-utah-neighborhood-elections.html
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/03/fair-elections-in-utah.html
http://utahpolicy.com/view/full_story/21947725/article-Principles-for-an-Acceptable-Nomination-Process
"Fair. A system that provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is not acceptable."
If Fair Elections are no longer a principle of theirs, than the opposite could be true, in which case, I have no interest in keeping them happy.
Also, from Daily Policy today, the ultimate, you will not do what we want so we are really going to do it anyway.
http://utahpolicy.com/view/full_story/22225960/article-Bob-Bernick-s-Notebook--Change-Can-be-Difficult--Especially-in-Primary-Elections?
"The Utah Republican Central Committee, meeting Saturday, apparently won’t even consider a change in convention candidate nomination rules that would address a major complaint by Utah voters: The ability of a few hundred state GOP delegates to drive relatively popular Republican incumbents from office."
"In short, even with a long list of possible candidate nomination changes, Utah GOP bosses would still be able to boot from office incumbents like former Sen. Bob Bennett (in 2010) and former Gov. Olene Walker (in 2004)."
Since these two didn't make even the top 2 candidates, the only proposal to change it is likely not to pass. We don't elect officials for life. This isn't the SCOTUS. They have no right to expect to remain in office if the voters don't agree, and it was the voters that elected the delegates in their neighborhoods.
This group has no advantage to turn in their initiative prior to the first couple of days of June of 2013, according to information I received from the Lt. Gov. office. They have to have their signatures all counted and approved at the county and state level in 316 days from the day they file, if I remember correctly, and prior to April 15, 2014. That is next year.
Fred C. Cox, Salt Lake County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"LaVarr Webb"
*To: *"LaVarr Webb"
*Sent: *Friday, April 12, 2013 2:12:32 PM
*Subject: *Memo to Political Party Leaders
M E M O R A N D U M
April 12, 2013
*From*: Count My Vote Executive Committee (Gov. Mike
Leavitt, Rich McKeown, Maura Carabello, Matt Sanderson, Kirk Jowers,
David Hansen, LaVarr Webb, Michael Shea)
*To*: Republican and Democratic party leaders
*Subject*: Update and Statement of Principles
As you know, over the last several months our group, along with many
other Utahns, has been discussing Utah’s process for nominating
political party candidates with the goal of increasing voter participation.
The current caucus/convention nominating process has many excellent
qualities that we wish to retain. The system allows candidates who lack
fame, wealth, and incumbency to compete for a party’s nomination. We
also appreciate the valuable grassroots nature of the process, with
neighbors gathering to discuss political issues and candidates.
We believe, however, that substantive reforms are necessary to reverse
the current trend of low voter participation and to ensure good
governance and creation of good public policy.
We believe this matter to be of such high importance that we are in the
process of filing the proper paperwork and putting together a large,
statewide signature-gathering effort to place a proposal on the 2014
ballot allowing all voters to choose an alternative candidate nomination
process. Given the results of survey research and focus groups, we are
confident that such a proposal would be strongly supported by most Utah
leaders, and would be overwhelmingly approved by voters.
As part of this process, we have engaged in productive and good-faith
discussions with party leaders, and many party members. We are pleased
that party leaders have been open-minded, creative, and desirous of
increasing participation in the political process. We appreciate their
willingness to discuss, negotiate, and seek solutions.
Some time ago, we developed three important principles that continue to
guide our deliberations. We have concluded that if the political parties
are able to make internal reforms to fulfill these principles, we will
not need to move forward with the ballot measure.
Here are our expectations for fulfillment of these principles:
1.The nomination process must be inclusive, accessible, and allow
participation in the caucus phase by all voters. A process that
requires individuals to attend a particular meeting at a particular
place at a particular time on a particular day excludes and
discriminates against those who may be away serving their country or
church, those who may be ill, those who may be required to work, or away
on business. Such a system is not acceptable. Fulfilling this principle
will require opening caucus participation over a longer period of time,
and providing an accessible method for votes to be cast by those who
cannot attend in person.
2.Primary election choices must be expanded so more voters have the
opportunity to determine a party’s ultimate nominees. This can be
achieved by: (a) raising the convention vote threshold to avoid a
primary election to between 70% and 80%; (b) certifying for the
primary-election ballot any candidate who receives over 20% or 25% of
the delegate vote on any ballot during the Convention; and (c)
eliminating multiple ballots. These modest changes would provide more
choices for the broader party membership in a primary election, which
will, in turn, boost Utah’s voter participation rate. While we encourage
the parties to consider all of these proposals, raising the threshold to
at least 70% is the minimum required to fulfill this principle.
3.Some degree of stability, consistency and permanence is necessary so
that changing political winds do not result in frequent changes to the
system. We recognize that nothing in politics is certain or lasts
forever, but we expect party leaders to work to implement long-term
internal or statutory solutions to provide stability and predictability.
Because of deadlines and the large amount of work involved in mounting a
signature petition drive to place a proposal on the 2014 ballot, we will
continue our ballot-measure preparations as we monitor the success of
the parties in adopting these reforms over the next several weeks. We
appreciate party members’ and leaders’ willingness to listen, analyze
and work with us.
*LaVarr Webb / *The Exoro Group
10 West 100 South #300 / Salt Lake City UT 84101
www.utahpolicy.com
<http://www.utahpolicy.com>/ www.exoro.com <http://www.exoro.com>
[email address and mobile phone number deleted for privacy]
Two other of my blogs on this subject:
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/04/thoughts-on-utah-neighborhood-elections.html
http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/03/fair-elections-in-utah.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)