You are here: Home / Archives for hb477

Open Political Caucuses – Comparing the Powell and Romero Bills

January 30, 2012 by Leave a Comment
public-meeting-2

The fallout of H.B. 477 continues up at the Utah legislature, with two bills this session — one from each side of the aisle — that would require parties to make their caucuses open to the public in certain circumstances.

One bill, H.B. 89, is proposed by Representative Kraig Powell, who promised to make this a focus of his efforts after publicly back-tracking in his original support of H.B. 477.  The other bill, S.B. 45, is being sponsored by Democratic Senator Ross Romero, currently a candidate for Salt Lake County Mayor.

I thought I’d take a couple minutes and compare the two bills, to see what the differences are.

H.B. 89 – Representative Powell

H.B. 89 is by far the simpler bill, providing simply that wherever a quorum of a “public body” is present at a meeting of a “political party, political group, or political caucus” where “legislative action” is being discussed, that meeting must be open to the public, though attendance can be regulated.

Here’s the actual text:

52-4-211.  Political caucus open to public — Conditions.

(1) A political party, political group, or political caucus is not subject to the provisions of this chapter except as provided in Subsection (2).

(2)(a) If a quorum of a public body is present at an assembly of a political party, political group, or political caucus, any discussion by the political party, political group, or political caucus of legislative action by the public body, whether the legislative action is pending, proposed, potential, or previously-passed, is open to the public.

(b) A political party, political group, or political caucus may regulate or limit attendance at a discussion described in Subsection (2)(a) if reasonable access to the discussion by the public is preserved.

A “public body” is defined in Utah Code Ann. § 52-4-103 as follows:

   (8) (a) “Public body” means any administrative, advisory, executive, or legislative body of the state or its political subdivisions that:
(i) is created by the Utah Constitution, statute, rule, ordinance, or resolution;
(ii) consists of two or more persons;
(iii) expends, disburses, or is supported in whole or in part by tax revenue; and
(iv) is vested with the authority to make decisions regarding the public’s business.

(b) “Public body” does not include a:
(i) political party, political group, or political caucus; or
(ii) conference committee, rules committee, or sifting committee of the Legislature.

A “quorum” is defined as “a simple majority of the membership of a public body,” though it “does not include a meeting of two elected officials by themselves when no action, either formal or informal, is taken on a subject over which these elected officials have advisory power.”

None of the other key terms in H.B. 89 are defined, but they are more self-explanatory.  The practical effect of the bill would seem to be almost exclusively limited to state legislative party caucuses because, although a non-partisan legislative body like a city council might qualify as a “public body,” in order to be subject to the provisions of this chapter, a majority of the members of the city council would have to assemble at a meeting of a political party, political group, or political caucus, where a legislative action (past, current, or future) was being discussed.  This seems unlikely, although it’s possible to imagine a scenario where, say, a (quorum) a simple majority of Salt Lake City council members decide to attend a Democratic or Republican Party meeting where the legislation efforts of the council would be discussed — if that happened, it seems that H.B. 89 would require that meeting to be open to the public.

S.B. 45 – Senator Ross Romero

Senator Romero’s bill is much more detailed that Representative Powell’s and reads as follows:

52-4-211. Meetings of legislative political caucuses.

(1) As used in this section:

(a) “Legislative party leadership” means:

(i) the speaker of the House of Representatives;
(ii) the president of the Senate;
(iii) the leader, whip, assistant whip, or manager of a legislative political caucus; or
(iv) the chair or vice chair of the Executive Appropriations Committee, the Senate Rules Committee, or the House Rules Committee.

(b) (i) “Legislative political caucus” means an assembly of legislators:

(A) to which belong a majority of legislators from the same registered political party in a chamber of the Legislature;
(B) called to assemble by a person authorized by the caucus to do so for the purpose of discussing policy, legislation, strategy, plans, or registered political party business; and
(C) on a day that the Legislature is conducting the annual general session, a veto-override session, or a special session.

(ii) “Legislative political caucus” does not mean:

(A) an assembly of legislators who are an informal or unofficial subgroup of a registered political party;
(B) an assembly of legislators who meet because the legislators share a particular political philosophy distinguishable from the legislative political caucus; or
(C) a meeting only attended by two or more legislative party leadership.

(c) “Registered political party” is as defined in Section 20A-8-101 .

(2) (a) A legislative political caucus is not required to comply with the provisions of this chapter except as provided in this section.

(b) A legislative political caucus shall be open to the public except in the circumstances described in Subsection (3).

(3) A legislative political caucus is not required to be open to the public during the portion of the caucus during which business is conducted relating to:

(a) a purpose described in Subsection 52-4-205 (1); or
(b) caucus or legislative party leadership elections.

Senator Romero’s bill would seem to open all official party legislative caucuses to the public that (1) are called by party leadership, (2) during the legislative session, (3) for the purpose of discussing legislation, plans, or strategy.  In that sense it is broader than H.B. 89, which would apply only to caucuses where a (1) a quorum was present, and (2) were held for discussions of legislative action.  As currently drafted, S.B. 45 would also be more narrow that H.B. 89 in that it would only apply to assemblies of “legislators” and would only operate when the legislature is in session.

However, all these distinctions may be more apparent than real, as it is unlikely that Representative Powell’s bill would have much (if any) application outside of the the legislative session, and Senator Romero’s bill contains a number of exceptions designed to allow the caucuses to be closed in specific situations (such as party leadership elections and the other many situations identified in Utah Code Ann. 52-4-205(1)) and to exempt specific groups, such as the Patrick Henry Caucus, for example, from the open caucus requirement.

Overall, the bills are similar enough in their effect, that’s it’s probably a wash between the two.  The more interesting fight will take place between those who will argue that it’s an impermissible limitation on the freedom of association to mandate closed caucuses at all.  I’ll be posting on that a bit later, if I can find the time.

 

Filed Under: Bill Summaries, Law, News, Slider Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

H.B. 253 — Voter Registration Amendments, Rep. Powell

January 24, 2012 by Leave a Comment
vote-slider

Remember Representative Kraig Powell?

He made headlines last spring for his very public and deeply emotional change of position on H.B. 477 and his commitment to work for transparency in the future.  This year — at least according to the Utah legislature’s website — he’s poised to make good on that promise, having opened up a number of bill files dealing with legislative transparency:

But at least one of his initial efforts in this young legislative session deserves some more scrutiny.  H.B. 253, which Rep. Powell introduced in committee yesterday, would require county clerks to remove the names of voters from the county’s registration rolls in each of the following circumstances:

  1. The voter dies and his or her name is listed on the annual report of deceased residents from the Department of Health’s Bureau of Vital Records;
  2. A voter sends written confirmation to the county clerk that he or she no longer resides in the county;
  3. The voter requests, in writing, that the county clerk remove his or her name from the county’s registration rolls;
  4. The county clerk receives a notice that the voter has registered to vote in another state;
  5. The county clerk receives a notice that the voter has been convicted of (1) a felony in any state or federal court, or (2) an election-related misdemeanor (e.g., fraudulent voter registration) and determines that the voter’s right to vote has not been restored by applicable law; and
  6. After a voter has failed to respond to a written notice from the county clerk (sent to the address on his or her registration records), the voter fails to vote in the next 2 general elections.

Current law allows, but does not require, a county clerk to remove a voter’s name from the registration rolls for any of the first five reasons.  H.B. 253 would make it mandatory, which is in itself a significant change.  But the real meat of H.B. 253 is in the addition of the sixth basis for name removal.  And it seems poised to send a lot of flak Rep. Powell’s way.

Here’s how the sixth basis would operate.  H.B. 253 would require county clerks to send a notice to each person who fails to vote in two consecutive general elections, which are held once every two years.  So, for example, if I failed to vote in 2010 and 2012, the Davis County clerk’s office would be required, by law, to send me a notice informing me that my registration will be revoked if I do not respond to the notice or actually vote in one of the next two general elections.  Then, if I both (1) failed to respond to the notice, and (2) failed to vote in either of the subsequent two general elections (2014 and 2016), my registration would be automatically revoked.

Shortly after the legislative session closed yesterday, an article appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune in which an attorney for the ACLU was quoted as suggesting that H.B. 253 was illegal because it ran contrary to controlling federal law. Defenders of the bill responded, arguing that, not only is H.B. 253 consistent with federal law, but it was a good idea because: (1) the threat of being removed from the voter registration rolls will make people more likely to vote; (2) it makes voter fraud more difficult by removing the excess names from the state’s voter registration rolls; and (3) it will make Utah’s voting statistics more accurate, thus presumably making us look better to outsiders.

I wanted to take a couple minutes to respond to each of the arguments noted above and to offer a few of my own thoughts.

Federal Law

Although the Tribune’s article cites an attorney for the ACLU contending that H.B. 253 would violate the “National Voting Rights Act,” I believe she was actually referring to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (the “NVRA,” aka the “motor voter bill”).  While there is a “Voting Rights Act,” I don’t believe there is a “National Voting Rights Act” —  it all seems like understandable acronym confusion.

Contrary to the assertion of the ACLU’s attorney, my research suggests that applicable federal law (i.e., the NVRA) specifically allows for the removal of voters from the state’s registration rolls as contemplated by H.B. 253 (though I acknowledge my lack of expertise and the fact that it’s entirely possible I could be proven wrong).  Here’s the applicable section from the NVRA, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6:

(b) Confirmation of voter registration

Any state program or activity to protect the integrity of the electoral process by ensuring the maintenance of an accurate and current voter registration roll for elections for Federal office -

(1) shall by uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.); and

(2) shall not result in the removal of the name of any person from the official list of voter registered to vote in an election for Federal office by reason of the person’s failure to vote, except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to a State from using the procedures described in subsections (c) and (d) to remove an individual from the official list of eligible voters if the individual -

(A) has not either notified the applicable registrar (in person or in writing) or responded during the period described in subparagraph (b) to the notice sent by the applicable registrar; and then

(B) has not voter or appeared to vote in 2 or more consecutive general elections for Federal office.

Based on this language, it appears to me that if H.B. 253 is nondiscriminatory (i.e. generally applicable), it is consistent with federal law.

Justifications — Encouragement, Fraud, and Our Image, Elevated

Rep. Powell suggested yesterday in committee that receipt of a notice threatening to revoke registration would actually prompt more people to vote.  Although it’s an interesting argument, he offered no evidence in support of his contention.  Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, that his assertion is true, it strikes me that someone just voting once everyone 4 – 8 years to preserve their registration isn’t really the type of participation that we want to encourage.  And the idea that our elected officials believe that a legitimate way of getting people to vote is threatening to revoke their registration is, frankly, a bit concerning.

Representative Powell also contended that removing non-voters would make it more difficult for people to commit voter fraud.  This is certainly the case for people who have died  (who can already be removed under the current version of Utah’s law), but it’s hard to see how simply sending a notice to habitual non-voters would accomplish this objective.

Finally, the most ridiculous justification from Rep. Powell for H.B. 253 was that leaving the names of non-voters on the state’s rolls makes us look bad because it makes our percentage voting statistics seem lower than they actually are.  This may be true, but it’s ridiculous to suggest that burnishing our public image in this respect is worth the very real possibility that some of Utah’s previously unengaged voters will attempt to vote on election day only to find that their name has been removed from the voter registration rolls because they had not previously been civically engaged.  Furthermore, it seems that H.B. 253 would have just as much, if not more, potential for distorting Utah’s voting statistics.  How in the world do we get an accurate picture of Utah’s level of civic engagement by ignoring people who are eligible to vote but are, for whatever reason, not exercising the franchise?  The whole thing smacks of ostrich-style willful ignorance.  Regardless of whether eligible voters choose to participate in elections or not, they remain a part of the body politic.  As was noted by numerous others yesterday afternoon:  The right to vote includes the right not to vote.

One of the primary arguments of those critical with Utah’s caucus system is that it contributes to Utah’s alarmingly low levels of electoral participation.  There’s a part of me that wonders whether this bill is designed, at least in part, as an attempt to answer that critique by artificially inflating voter participation totals overnight, coincident with the GOP’s laudable push to get as many people out to caucus night as possible.

Some Closing Thoughts

It makes sense to occasionally review our voter registration rolls to ensure that they are accurate and up to date.  So let’s ensure that people who are clearly disqualified from voting in Utah are removed to discourage fraud and help us get an accurate idea of Utah’s level of civic engagement.  But it doesn’t do Utah or its voters any good to take away someone’s voter registration simply based on the fact that they haven’t voted.

 

Filed Under: Bill Summaries, Law, News, Opinion, Slider Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Secrecy and Utah Redistricting 2011

October 19, 2011 by 2 Comments
locked-door-2-slider

I know, I know, I said no more redistricting.  But it’s what the news is today, so bear with me one more time.

Today, the Republican majority in the Utah legislature got universally lambasted by editorial pages around the state for its performance on redistricting.  KSL’s Doug Wright got so excited that he decided to host one of his famous town hall meetings up at the Utah state capitol.

While there’s quite a bit of anger resulting from the final results of the congressional map, people are just as mad — if not more so — about the process that got them there.  In particular, people are making a lot of noise about two things: (1) that Republicans closed their caucus meetings when discussing maps on the final day of the special legislative session, and (2) that Republicans only gave Democrats 20 minutes to look at the final map before they substituted the map and voted on the state house floor.

I’ve made no secret of my opinions regarding redistricting and the fact that I thought the Republican legislative leadership ignored the fairest and most sensical map in their rush to divide up the state in their predetermined way.  But I wanted to weigh in on what seems to be the issue that resonates most strongly with the public:  secret closed caucuses.

[adsenseyu2]

I don’t really have that much of a problem with some secrecy is legislative deliberations (up to a point, of course — hey, I’m an attorney and people hate attorney-client privilege, too).  If our Republican legislators want to take the stupid, ill-advised step of continuing to close their caucuses, that’s their prerogative and — though it annoys me — it doesn’t make me angry.  I’m sure that most of the time doors are closed it’s not because of anything sinister, but simply to hash out differences so that Republicans can present a united front to their opposition, the media, and the public.  Though what went on behind closed doors last Monday may not be readily available to the media, it is available via deposition and other discovery tools in a lawsuit, should the Democrats follow through on their threats to mount one.

The fact of the matter is that no one (aside from dedicated transparency types) seems to have a big problem with some secrecy when they think the process is fair and the outcome is right (or even reasonable).

But while I don’t buy into most of the secrecy rhetoric I’ve been hearing, that doesn’t mean the legislative process was everything Republicans claim that it was.  The fact of the matter is that, when it came to the congressional map, the open, transparent, and responsive process that produced the state schoolboard map, the state house map, and the state senate map, was converted into little more than a sham.  But not content with only pretending to listen to citizens, who overwhelmingly disagreed with the Republican leadership’s favored “Wimmerhole” model, our Republican legislative leadership took the additional (and very insulting) step of trying to capitalize on the grassroots goodwill developed by a citizen map — the Garber map — by claiming an outrageously drawn map was a Garber derivative.

It’s because of these types of shenanigans that people make a big deal about secret Republican caucuses.  If our Republican legislative leadership is intent on continuing to do little more than pretend to listen to members of the public whenever listening would interfere with their own ideological agenda — especially on sensitive political power matters like transparency, ethics reform, and redistricting — people are going to continue to demand to know what it is they’re talking about behind those closed doors.  And Republicans will continue to hand Democrats a simple, powerful, non-merits-based critique of their job performance.

Republicans have got to earn some trust in order to close their caucuses without public condemnation.  And that starts by really listening to what people say, especially when you ask for their opinion.

Republican legislative leadership:  Open the doors or change the approach.  Your choice.

Filed Under: Bill Summaries, News, Opinion, Slider Tagged With: , , , ,

Utah Redistricting, Some (Probably) Final Comments

October 17, 2011 by 4 Comments
utah-capitol-slider

It appears we’re at the eleventh hour in Utah’s months-long congressional redistricting saga.  The legislature is set to resume its special session today.  In all likelihood, the state house and senate will officially resolve their disagreements and approve a final congressional map that will govern federal politics in Utah through 2021.

It’s probable that the final map is going to look a lot like one of these two:

Sumsion 15, aka “Wimmerhole” Sumsion 16, aka “Elongated Wimmerhole”

 

My personal preference remains an eminently reasonable compromise option: the King-Garber map, which only splits Salt Lake County two ways and does a good job keeping the east side of the Salt Lake valley together as a community of interest.  There remains some momentum in that direction, though it appears to have been arrested a bit by the release of Sumsion 15 and 16.

I’ve already given all the substantive reasons why I think the King-Garber map is the superior option when it comes to redistricting principles.  I wanted to take some time today and offer some other thoughts.

H.B. 477

Thus far, I think the signature event in Utah politics during 2011 was the public furor aroused by H.B. 477, the legislature’s attempt to alter GRAMA, Utah’s freedom of information statute.  The legislature changed course on GRAMA after the surprisingly loud and sustained public outcry, which, though fueled by vested media interests had a real grassroots base in broad, bipartisan, public anger.

The legislature was admittedly surprised by the force of the public response to H.B. 477, and ultimately changed course and abandoned its ambition for changes — at least for now.  The interesting question is have they learned from their mistake?  I think what the legislature does today will tell us much of what we need to know to answer that question.

[adsenseyu2]

H.B. 477 & Redistricting — Lessons Learned?

There were two problems with H.B. 477: the (non) process through which it was enacted, and its substance.  I think it’s pretty clear that the lessons of H.B. 477 have informed the way the legislature has gone about redistricting.  The legislature opened up the process for public input in a way it never had before, making complicated redistricting software available online for free, traveling the state with a bipartisan commission to take public input, and even selecting  citizen-drawn maps as “finalists.”  Speaker Becky Lockhart, traveling the state with the committee, has emphasized, time and time again, that when it comes to redistricting, “a good process ensures a good result.”

The legislature is committed to not making itself vulnerable to H.B. 477-style complaints of backroom dealing without public input thrown at it on redistricting.  In fact, the Republican majority is so concerned about a H.B. 477 redux, that when some Democrats made a bit of noise about map drawing in close Republican caucuses (not so subtly referencing H.B. 477 in the process), they immediately suspended the special session, ostensibly to take more public input and do things out in the open.

On the surface, it appears that the legislature has learned the first lesson of H.B. 477 well.  The process matters to the public.

But if you look a little closer, it becomes evident that the lesson may have only been half learned.  Speaker Lockhart is correct that, generally speaking, a good process will lead to a good result.  But this is only true if you really commit to a good process.  It has become evident, that, at least as to the Congressional redistricting map, the legislature hasn’t committed to the open, public process it created.  Once the redistricting committee identified the 6 finalist maps, it immediately gave them no further discussion, and, instead, adopted a map drawn up the night before and released for the first time on the day of the (then) final committee meeting: Sumsion_06_Modified_A.

It’s clear to me that the Republican majority in the Utah legislature has not actually learned the most important lesson delivered by H.B. 477: their constituents have a nagging feeling that their representatives do not want to bothered with them, and they’re getting tired of being placated with pledges of constitutional fidelity, ad hominem attacks on opposing party members, and sham public input on significant issues — especially when, in the rare times they make an effort to have their feelings known, their efforts are treated with contempt.  Failure on ethics reform, H.B. 477, past redistricting boondoggles, and other things have combined to make their constituents suspicious and susceptible to rhetoric raising concerns about the way things are done on Utah’s Capitol Hill.

There may be a number of legislators who simply don’t buy what I’m selling; legislators that still believe H.B. 477 was nothing more than media-manufactured outrage, and who think — just as they thought with H.B. 477 — that when it comes to redistricting all they will have to endure is 7 days of bad press in exchange for 10 years of political spoils.  They may be right.  But I suspect they are wrong.  And they’re playing a dangerous game.

They might do well to ask themselves, “what is this all for?”  To send Carl Wimmer to Congress?  To get rid of Jim Matheson, as right-leaning a Democrat as one can possibly find?  Just to stick to it Jim Dabakis and the Democrats for threatening lawsuits?  Because the RNC demands four 62 percent districts?

There are great map options available that will give the Republicans much of what they want politically with no cost to their reputational capital.  They are geographically sound, politically fair, and comply with all the non-political principles set out by the redistricting committee.  They are citizen-drawn.

[adsenseyu2]

The Utah legislature (and, more accurately, the Republican majority in the Utah legislature) has, in redistricting, a golden opportunity to rehabilitate its H.B. 477-damaged reputation.  Certainly, they are under no constitutional obligation to be fair in redistricting and to hand away seats to the Democrats.  Redistricting is a political exercise, and, so long as the districts are reapportioned equally there is little the Democrats can do to stop whatever the Republican majority wants to do.  But if Republicans press forward and take everything they want (which they have the political power to do), it will come at the cost of its increasingly sparse reputation for meaningful representation and fairness.

The people of the State of Utah are, by and large, with the Republican Party when it comes to matters of substance.  The Republican members of out state legislature are not so much vulnerable on their policy positions, as on matters of process, fairness, and representation.  If the legislature adopts a map that is obviously drawn to dilute the Democratic voice and put Carl Wimmer in Congress as the Fourth District Representative, it plays directly to the most powerful critique that Democrats can lodge against it.

Here we go.  It will be fun to watch.

Epilogue

Well, it appears to be all over but the post-hoc shouting.  Lots of short bursts of excitement intermingled in a day of long “secret” caucusing, and the end result is . . . SB3002S19, or Wimmerhole v. 5.  I really think the Utah legislature missed a big opportunity here, but I’m wrong at least as much as I’m right.  Time will tell.

Although I suspect that it will, adopting this map shouldn’t totally obscure all the good work done by the redistricting committee and the legislature generally on the three other statewide boundary maps.  The process wasn’t all bad (though it definitely ended on a sour note), and there are a few people who should be singled out for their excellent work:  

  • Rep. Fred Cox, who, though not a member of the redistricting committee, put more effort into this process than anyone in the entire state.  And what did Rep. Cox get out of the process for his extraordinary effort?  His state house district combined with the district of a democratic incumbent.  Despite this, he stayed engaged until the very end, willing to compromise and work for what he thought made sense for the people of Utah.  
  • Sen. Ben McAdams and Rep. Brian King championed true compromise proposals that should have met better fates then they did.  
  • And, of course, there is David Garber, a Utah citizen who stirred things up by advancing a straightforward, uncomplicated congressional proposal that ultimately just made a little too much sense.

The Republican majority in the Utah legislature did congressional redistricting the same way it’s always been done.  They’re not villans anymore than any other legislature in this country that does the same thing after having won power in contested election.  But in doing things the way they’ve always been done the legislature missed an opportunity to make a positive change and combat some of the political cynicism bred by blatantly political decisions clothed in principled garb.  None of us should feign surprise when Utah’s voter turnout continues to be low and people continue to lack confidence in their legislative institutions and representatives.  Doing things the way they’ve always been done just means that you continue to get what you’ve always gotten.  

Filed Under: Bill Summaries, News, Opinion, Slider Tagged With: , , , , ,

Republic v. Democracy and Utah’s Caucus System

June 18, 2011 by 4 Comments

Originally submitted to (but not published by) the Salt Lake Tribune:

Ever since our state legislature passed H.B. 220 (a.k.a., the “republic v. democracy bill”), I have tried to relegate it to the rubbish bin of political silliness.  But it refuses to stay where I want to leave it, because H.B. 220 is a little bit more than political silliness.  It is a small (and generally harmless) symptom of what I see as a much more troubling problem: an attitude of contempt for the average citizen voter among Utah’s elected representatives and political power players.  We observed a startling example of this contempt in our legislature’s attempt to ram through H.B. 477 (a.k.a., the “GRAMA bill”) without public input and despite overwhelming public opposition.  The attitude is also rather glaringly reflected in Matthew Carling’s recent defense of the Utah caucus system, “The Utah Caucus System: Anathema of Apathy.”

To Mr. Carling, the caucus system is the grassroots embodiment of our republican government—it is the way we protect our political heritage from those well intentioned but less enlightened.  In theory, the caucus system:

  • Allows voters to choose the informed and committed persons who will represent them in selecting a party candidate for a statewide election.
  • Lowers the barrier that money and name recognition would pose for aspiring political candidates.
  • Prevents the candidate selection process from devolving into attack ads and sound bytes.
  • Results in the best slate of party candidates because delegates are able to meet with candidates and obtain a basis to make an informed decision.

But while the theory is straightforward, it is time to take a hard look at the realities of the caucus system in Utah.  In reality, the caucus system:

  • Compresses the candidate selection process for the average voter into a little more than two hours on a night when they may have other necessary commitments.
  • Often results in a slate of candidates that are out of step with the majority of party members.
  • Punishes incumbents who represent more than the fringe of their political party.
  • Opens doors to strident campaigners without large political war chests, but at the cost of closing political doors for nearly everyone else.
  • Results in the election of delegates who rarely seek to understand the viewpoints or opinions of their constituents, but are almost always already covert (or open) committed supporters of a particular candidate.
  • Gives unjustified power to delegates who are no more enlightened than the general electorate and just as susceptible to sound bytes and political demagoguery.
  • Allows a handful of delegates to determine the final results of statewide elections since there is no credible opposition threat in the general election.
  • Allocates so much political power to so few that it is susceptible to corruption.
  • Leaves candidates responsible to no more than a handful of strident political activists, thereby creating a breeding ground for comfortable contempt for average voters.

Far from being, as Mr. Carling suggests, the cure for voter apathy, Utah’s caucus system exacerbates the problem by creating a system in which almost all of Utah’s voters feel powerless to influence results.

It is true that we live in a republic.  But it is a democratic republic.  And absolute ideological disdain for democracy in all circumstances pushes republicanism over the line into guardianship, especially in a state so dominated by a single political party.  Abraham Lincoln, our country’s first Republican President, recognized that the American government was “by the people” and “of the people” as well as “for the people.”  Utah’s current caucus system is not, and we should be earnestly contemplating revisions or searching for alternatives.


Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Political Opportunities and Utah H.B. 477

March 14, 2011 by 5 Comments
Dnews GramaRepeal

I’ve alluded elsewhere to the fact that I think there are political opportunities created by H.B. 477 for those who are perceptive and intelligent (and, hopefully, passionate!) enough to take advantage of them.  In the unlikely event that there is anyone reading this post who is unfamiliar with what H.B. 477 is or exactly what it does, I refer you to either my prior post, or the general media’s coverage of this abominable legislation.  I think that there are a couple of unique realities that make H.B. 477 a particularly good issue for individuals interested in challenging incumbent state representatives in the 2012 Republican Party primary.  Follow along and let me know whether you agree.

[Continue Reading...]

Filed Under: Law, News, Opinion, Slider Tagged With: , , , ,

H.B. 477: After Rally Thoughts and Rant

March 11, 2011 by 3 Comments
Dnews GramaRepeal

Yes, I attended the H.B. 477 rally last night at the Capitol.  Public protests are usually not my style.  I am, by nature, a pretty even-keeled person who believes in talking things out rather than in yelling, dancing, and waiving signs.  But the more time I have had to think about H.B. 477, the more upset I’ve become with the bill’s substance, (lack of) process, and the legislature’s total (and rather insulting) disregard of the public view on this issue.  We’re not talking about the normal Utah legislature penchant for ignoring the opinions of everyone but the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, we’re talking about the total disregard of unified public opinion, as I have yet to talk with anyone, of any party or political persuasion, who support this bill–although one (possibly a legislator?) did comment on my prior blog post.  By yesterday afternoon, I had decided that our legislative representatives need to hear from their constituents loudly on this issue, because it had become obvious that the public’s clear opposition certainly wasn’t getting any response.  So, I drove out to the Capitol last night and joined the party.

[Continue Reading...]

Filed Under: Bill Summaries, News, Opinion, Slider Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Weighing in on H.B. 477

March 6, 2011 by 15 Comments
Dnews GramaRepeal

It seems like everyone has been weighing in against H.B. 477, John Dougall’s bill (recently passed the House and Senate) officially titled Government Records Amendments, but more colloquially referred to by the media ’round these parts as The GRAMA Death Blow.  According to most of the editorials I’ve read, the bill guts GRAMA by exempting certain types of communications from the definition of a government “record,” and by increasing the costs to obtain records that are available.  Doesn’t sound particularly good, does it?

[Continue Reading...]

Filed Under: Bill Summaries, Opinion, Slider Tagged With: , , , ,