May 23, 2013

You are here: Home / Archives for Utah

Poll Results from “Insiders” on the Utah Nomination System

May 10, 2013 by 1 Comment

A couple of days back, I presented a very brief summary of the debate occurring in the Utah Republican and Democratic Parties about the efforts of an outside group, the County My Vote committee, to influence how Utah’s parties conduct their nomination system. You can read it here.

I posted a poll of my readers asking what they thought should happen. Should the system change? Should the parties give up control of the process? Etc.

You might call these people the “Publius Online insiders.”

Not surprisingly, most of them were Republicans. I can’t help it if Democrats opted not to vote.  ;-)

Here are the results of the completely non-scientific poll:

Should the parties control their nominations

What changes would you support

Party affiliation

Are you feeling left out?

You can still vote in my completely unscientific poll below:

Related articles
Filed Under: Democratic Politics, Republican Politics Tagged With: , , , , , ,

LaVarr Webb’s insiders weigh in on Utah’s nomination system [POLL]

May 8, 2013 by 5 Comments
Crowds of people fill out precinct forms, paw over piles of political pamphlets and get informed at a Republican caucus meeting at the North Davis Preparatory Academy in Layton Tuesday, March 23, 2010. Brian Nicholson, Deseret News

Crowds of people fill out precinct forms, paw over piles of political pamphlets and get informed at a Republican caucus meeting at the North Davis Preparatory Academy in Layton Tuesday, March 23, 2010.
Brian Nicholson, Deseret News

Don’t forget to vote in the poll at the bottom of this post!

If you’ve been following inside politics around Utah of late, then you know that the talk among the party insiders–in both the Republican and Democratic Parties–has largely centered around whether Utah’s caucus system needs an update, should be jettisoned to make way for an open primary, or otherwise modified. (If you’re interested in how the Utah caucus system works, check out this interesting document by Dana Dickson that spells out the details. It can also be found embedded at the bottom of this post).

Yes, I know, this has not been the sole issue of discussion.  Party leadership elections are fast approaching , as well. The caucus is near and dear to many Utah politos’ hearts, though, and it has been the route many of them took to get elected. Further, many feel like the caucus allows and encourages unparalleled access to the political process and to elected officials, to say nothing of allowing candidates with little financial backing an opportunity for public office on a level with better funded candidates.

For examples, look no further than Senator Mike Lee. In 2010, then-candidate Mike Lee saw then-Senator Bob Bennett knocked out at the Republican State Convention by delegates who tied Bennett to the government’s massive Wall Street bailout (remember TARP?).  Lee then faced off against Tim Bridgewater in the Republican Primary, securing the nomination. He easily won election in November.

In fact, many of those discontent with the current system look to the 2010 convention as a reason for opening up the Republican Primary and/or ending the caucus system. Proponents of change argue that then-Senator Bob Bennett would easily have won an open primary in Utah, but extremist Republicans, in control of the convention, denied him the right to be on the ballot.

LaVarr Webb, publisher of Utah Policy and leading member of the group seeking to change the Utah caucus system

LaVarr Webb, publisher of Utah Policy and leading member of the group seeking to change the Utah caucus system

One of those behind the effort to change the Republican (and maybe the Democratic) caucus system is LaVarr Webb, publisher of the Utah Policy, (tagline: “Where political junkies get their daily fix”). He sent a letter on April 12, 2013 from his group, the “Count My Vote” executive committee,  and addressed to Republican and Democratic Party leaders.  The letter ostensibly seeks to help more people get involved, but alarmingly appears to all but threaten if party leaders don’t bring about changes to the nomination system.

After acknowledging some of the qualities in the nomination system that I noted above, the letter goes on to threaten a statewide referendum by  ”Count My Vote”  if the system is not changed by the political parties.  I quote in part:

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

To avoid the state referendum, Webb says that the parties must

  1. Allow more people to participate in caucus meetings than just those who are available at a specified time. Just because you are sick or have children is no reason to be denied a vote in delegate and party leadership selection.
  2. Raise the threshold necessary to avoid a primary and eliminate multiple rounds of voting. In other words, any candidate who receives a marginal level of support (Webb suggest 20 or 25% of delegate vote) has the opportunity to face a primary election.
  3. Make the changes statutory. In other words, once the parties have made the changes, hand them over to the state legislature so that the nomination process is out of the hands of the political parties.   This last one makes about as much sense as asking your parents to pick out your spouse for you.

Read the full letter here or scroll down to see it embedded.

Ironically, it may be that those who consume Webb’s political content–his Utah Policy Daily–don’t necessarily agree with him.  A recent poll on his site on whether Utah’s Democratic Party will change its nominating system came out looking less than shiny for a direct primary.

UPD Caucus Poll 5-6-13

What do you think? Should Utah’s parties change their nomination process?

 

LaVarr Webb’s letter to the Utah Republican and Democratic Parties

Webb m e m o r a n d u m 4-12-13

ABCs of the Utah Caucus System

 

Utah Caucus ABC s

Filed Under: Democratic Politics, Politics, Republican Politics Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Tact: a lesson in politics from Mike Mower

April 23, 2013 by 1 Comment

Mike MowerTonight, I caught up with Utah Governor Gary Herbert’s chief of staff, Mike Mower, at a Salt Lake County Young Republican meeting. Mower had a few simple pieces of advice that I thought were interesting.

Rather than push conservative talking points or take the opportunity to push the Governor’s agenda (ok, other than a plug for Governor Herbert’s main goal to create jobs and grow the economy, but that was about it), Mower shared three pieces of advice that, really, are good common sense and could apply in almost any career, not just in politics.

They could all be summed up in one word: tact.

1. “Be nice” was Mower’s first piece of advice. If you want to succeed in politics, realize that you will occasionally disagree with people with whom you must later cooperate. It is one thing to disagree on policy, Mower said. It is another thing altogether to attack someone personally. I might also call this the golden rule: treat others as you would have them treat you.

Mike Mower 2

2. “Network,” or connect with others. Engage others, build relationships, and grow your network. “There is energy in interconnectedness.”

3. Last, be knowledgeable. It’s one thing to have an opinion–it’s another thing to have an informed, rationed, and educated opinion, said Mower. When you are knowledgeable, you’ll be more persuasive and people, including policy makers, will listen to you.

Tie these together–the golden rule, interconnectedness, and knowledge–and you might find something like tact: “a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense,” according to Merriam-Webster. More important than any political philosophy, is how we treat each other, how we interact.

Publius Online is participating in the Blogging from A to Z Challenge, a month-long quest to post every day (I know…I’ve missed a few days). Each day should match a letter of the alphabet. Today is the letter T, as in Tact.

 

 

Filed Under: Leaders Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Thomas Wright will not seek reelection as Utah Republican Party Chair

March 28, 2013 by 2 Comments
Thomas Wright

Thomas Wright, chair of the Utah Republican Party, presides over a Utah Republican Party meeting from the lectern.

Thomas Wright, chair of the Utah Republican Party since 2011, will not seek reelection when his term expires in May.

The news first appeared on Facebook, and Wright has since confirmed it to me in a text.

Known for his tact, energy, organization, and tenacity, Wright leaves behind a Republican Party in Utah that oversaw gains in the Utah Legislature and improved organization at the grassroots level.

Wright was elected on the wings of a successful vote-by-mail effort he led during his term as Salt Lake County Republican Party Chair, registering some 40,000 voters. In 2012, Wright oversaw a caucus night that more than doubled attendance from 58,000 in 2010 to at more than 125,000 in 2012. During the 2012 election, the Republican Party increased its advantage in the State Legislature, winning from Democrats an additional three seats in the House and one in the Senate.

In a letter posted on the Utah Republican Party’s Facebook page, Wright said that while serving as chair has been an honor, he looks forward to more time with family and focusing on his business.

David Neilsen, who worked under Wright at the Utah Republican Party and was closely involved in the GOP’s grassroots strategy, spoke highly of his former boss.

“Thomas is a compassionate and thoughtful leader,” said Neilsen. “I’m sad to see him step aside and wish him all the best.”

On a personal note, I have found Wright to always offer a fair shake and optimistic outlook. I remember watching him handle an especially contentious exchange between individuals at a Republican meeting which I attended. Wright tactfully allowed each party to have its opportunity to be heard and carefully weighed his role in helping resolve the conflict. When all was over, Wright offered his appreciation for the diversity of views and expressed his wish that we continue to bring our differing perspectives to the table.

That willingness to hear all sides and welcome all interested in working together is part of why Wright was able to bring new energy to each project, breathing new life into Utah Grand Old Party. He will be missed.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

 

Filed Under: Republican Politics Tagged With: , , ,

Appointing versus Electing the Attorney General

March 19, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Senator wants Utah to look at appointing attorney general The Salt Lake TribuneTo avoid the influence of cash on Utah’s chief law enforcement office, Senator Todd Weiler wants the legislature to look into amending the Utah  constitution to allow for an appointed attorney general. With Utah’s long history of flawed AGs, perhaps it’s an idea we should take seriously.

 

During the Utah Legislative Session, ended last week, members of the legislature were largely taciturn on the Swallow scandal, preferring to reserve judgement until the FBI investigation into Swallow wraps and the facts are clear. Regardless, the legislature passed two pieces of legislation addressing, if indirectly, the Swallow scandal.

The first, Senate Bill 83 sponsored by Senator Todd Weiler, addressed employees of the Utah Attorney General’s office accepting outside consulting work–as Swallow has said he did for a Nevada cement project.

The second bill, pushed through on the last day of the session, though with none of the opposition that other last minutes bills have seen in the past, was Senator Peter Knudson’s Senate Bill 289. It aimed to move investigatory power from the Attorney General to the Lieutenant Governor when elections complaints were filed against the AG. While prompted by the Alliance for a Better Utah complaint about Swallow to the Lieutenant Governor’s office, both legislators and staffers went to lengths to point out that the bill was to remove a weakness in the law, not target Swallow.ada cement project after appointment by then Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.

Appointment by Supreme Court or Governor is a good idea

money-and-justice-scalesEven with these two changes in the law–one putting the same restrictions on political appointees as exist on state employees and the other preventing the AG from investigating himself–Weiler believes further changes may be necessary to avoid a repeat of the same problems.

“The discussion is: As an elected official in a statewide race, we’re asking these candidates to run around and ask people for political donations,” Weiler said to the Salt Lake Tribune. “If someone was appointed, we’d take that entirely out of the process. We wouldn’t have the chief law enforcement officer asking people for money.”

In an 2011 proposal for the same, State Senator Steve Urquhart  said that it could get better attorneys into the AG’s office:

“[...] maybe we would get a better-qualified attorney than we tend to get and we might get an attorney with an approach that is consistently on the merits of the issues rather than on the basis of politics or something else.”

Currently, only seven states have appointed attorney generals. The Salt Lake Tribune lists those states as Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Tennessee and Wyoming, citing the National Association of Attorney Generals.

6TXZ_Sup_Ct_Lg

In Tennessee, the state Supreme Court appoints the attorney general, which I find particularly interesting, especially given how Utah’s justices join the bench. Unlike many states, Utah’s Supreme Court justices are not elected but serve ten-year renewable terms after appointment by the governor and confirmation by the state senate. As result, Utah’s Supreme Court has avoided much of the politicization that plagues other states. Not beholden to campaign donations, Utah tends to have justices who are better known for the legal acumen than their political connections.

This kind of process can prove useful for an AG appointment in two ways:

  1. Appointment by the Governor: similar to selection for the Utah Supreme Court, selection of the AG would be based on merit and subject to an “advise and consent” process by the state senate. The process could be further depoliticized by including a vetting process by the Utah Bar Association.
  2. Appointment by the Supreme Court: already less beholden by virtue of their appointment and independence as a separate branch of government, an appointment by the Supreme Court would carry additional levels of review and detachment from the political process, allowing selection of a person without need of review of political bona fides.

There’s no way that politics will be completely removed from the process, but an appointment–either by the governor with consent of the senate or by the Supreme Court–would remove the politics from the Utah Attorney General’s office.

 Swallow opposes, makes “Bandwagon” argument

SwallowNot surprisingly, Swallow, with nothing to fall back upon if he loses his job, does not support the idea. To the Salt Lake Tribune

“The attorney general is the guardian of the public interest and should be independent and provide legal advice based on the law instead of political pressure,” Swallow said. “Utah is one of 43 states where the attorney general is elected by popular vote and this process ensures the attorney general is the lawyer for all Utah citizens.”

 

In case you missed that, Swallow implied that there’s less political pressure on someone who needs to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to get elected (as he did) than there is on someone who is appointed. (Swallow also wins Logical Fallacy of the Day with his “Bandwagon” appeal to popularity as a validation of his position).

Not the first time…

220px-Mark_ShurtleffAs I noted earlier, this isn’t the first time that someone has suggested we look at moving to appointment of the AG. Given Shurtleff’s history.  Urquhart proposed looking into the idea in 2011.

“I also think it’s much cleaner if the guy making prosecutorial decisions isn’t out soliciting money from people who could be impacted by those decisions,” Urquhart said in a Salt Lake Tribune article at the time.

Then Attorney General Mark Shurtleff opposed the idea, touting the independence that comes with election. Of course, he had his own problems. During his term, Shurtleff was regularly pilloried by the City Weekly for receiving contributions from questionable donors, including the same ones who helped get Swallow elected and some of which are now under federal investigation.

Paul Rolly has also in his column told a short history of Utah’s attorney generals, and few escape some kind of scandal. With Utah’s history, perhaps it is time we change how we think about the office of the attorney general. It’s cliche to talk about lawyers,politicians, sharks, snakes and leeches in the same breath, but do we need to add to the taint of corruption and make the cliche real?

In 1998, the Utah Supreme Court was moved into...

In 1998, the Utah Supreme Court was moved into the Scott M. Matheson Courthouse building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I like Weiler’s request, echoing Urquhart’s suggestion in years past, that the legislature look into changing the Utah constitution to provide for a more independent attorney general uncorrupted by the taint of political contributions. Utahns should be able to look to their attorney general as their advocate, regardless of whether they have been able to donate to his campaign.

Swallow has been accused by three businessmen of soliciting donations in return for protection. Regardless of the truth of the accusations, changing the nature of the selection of the attorney general would remove the possibility that prosecutorial decisions are tainted by money.

Related articles

 

Filed Under: Characteristics of Lawyers, Utah Legislature Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Behold Utah’s Bow Tie Caucus

March 11, 2013 by Leave a Comment

 

Filed Under: Utah Legislature Tagged With: , , , , ,

Don’t move the state prison…yet. [Contributor]

March 8, 2013 by 1 Comment

220px-Utah_State_Prison_Wasatch_FacilityRhett Wilkinson is a senior at Utah State University. He is studying journalism and political science. The opinions expressed are his own.

I felt hollowed last weekend as I watched James Bond find himself compromised, within killing range of the vengeful Silva.

It happened after the ocean blue-eyed hero made a robust attempt to reach a chapel in lonely Scottish field, seeking to save a boss, the target of Silva’s angst, who had displayed even maternal compassion for Bond.

His problem (beyond grenades being hurdled at him and torrents of fire pouring towards him from a helicopter): he reached a pond that was hardly frozen over, as he would learn moments after starting to run across it. Consequently, Agent 007 found himself standing in the middle of the body, tangled with one of Silva’s minions and the vengeful one himself standing along the pond’s shores.

Because of the fragility of the ice, however, Bond was also saved by it, shooting the material and allowing himself to sink deeply before proving to recover.

When it comes to moving the Utah State Prison in Draper, Utah Sen. Lyle Hillyard knows the state might not be as fortunate as the long-survived action man.

“When we step out on this ice, I want to see how deep the water is,” he said late last month, adding that he wonders how the state would handle the proposed financing options falling $100 million short in seeking to change the 62-year-old facility from its 690-acre site.

Seconds after Silva placed a revolver to the temple of his trusted directive, Bond sprung into the chapel spearing Silva with a knife and ending a chase that could have ended a half-dozen times.

Utah, however, doesn’t have that many options. It can’t gain more economic freedom if it is willing to sanction the transfer of a structure with a transfer price estimated at $550 million to $600 million.

We ought to pay attention to Hillyard’s insight. The Logan Republican has said that 33 years in the Legislature tells him the estimated $17 million to $20 million in annual savings from operating a new prison won’t happen. It’s not the right time, either: since 2005, the prison would have cost taxpayers only more than $300 million—the difference between the price of a new prison and the value of the land then. Since then, property values have dropped dramatically.

The prison’s six-month projected time frame would also cause problems for local government in terms of land-use planning and zoning, numerous legislators have attested.

The Senate also removed from a bill a provision that would allow the state to capture half of all the local property and sales taxes generated from redevelopment of the current prison to help finance a new facility. State Senator Scott Jenkins said that was placed in the bill should that money be needed.

The bill also would not preclude the state from asking local tax entities — cities, counties and school districts — to commit some of their anticipated tax revenues to construct a new prison.

Are those agencies willing to give that up for a prison? A local community isn’t likely to prioritize the relocation of the prison and how it’s financed, other than they can have new ground to develop.

The question is also begged about how much taxpayers and, mostly, developers would gain from scrapping the 390 acres in Draper now occupied by the prison and building roads, homes, shopping centers, movie complexes and all the other trappings of southern Salt Lake Valley cities.

It invites some serious human problems. Would volunteers or family members have the time, money and transportation to visit a distant prison? What about taking inmates to the University Hospital and its affiliates for health care or getting them to court?

If it’s approved, many entities should also expect to be in a long haul. Former Corrections Director Tom Patterson said during last year’s legislature that it would take 10 to 15 years to work out the economics of building a new prison.

On any account, isn’t this all moving a bit fast? As House Speaker Becky Lockhart first suggested, the Legislature truly ought to wait to pass legislation dealing with whether to move the prison from its Draper location. A special session could be held for a decision that could prove so consequential, rather than rushing the decision in a matter of a handful of days in which the state legislature is still in session.

That’s especially optimal now that the Senate has passed a fourth version of SB72, creating an 11-member committee to delve into the issues surrounding building a new prison and disposing of the 600-plus acres where the current prison stands. It allows interested parties to submit proposals not only on rebuilding the prison in a new location, but operating the prison.

Yes, at least two-thirds of the cost may be covered in the savings from operating a state-of-the-art prison and the sale of the current property. It may provide $20 billion in economic development to the state along with 30,000 to 40,000 jobs.

But in a state that prides itself on its self-sustainability and innovation, the project should hinge on its ability to be self-funding through savings rather than at least the current proposed tax revenue. Bond may have, against all odds, found a way through a crack in the ice only after avoiding a certain downfall. With its economic strength, Utah’s foundation doesn’t need this type of crack—especially with what’s currently waiting on the shore.

Related articles

 

Filed Under: Utah Legislature Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,
«Older Posts