Is Utah out of step in the critical process of picking political candidates, or is our unique caucus/convention system something to be treasured and maintained?
You couldn’t find more different opinions than those expressed Friday in a special Utah Foundation seminar.
As reported earlier in UtahPoilcy, the non-profit, non-partisan foundation has released a new report on Utah’s caucus/convention process. You can read the report here.
Key points:
-- No other states have a caucus/convention system like ours.
-- Only Utah allows for delegates to deny an incumbent his office by eliminating him/her in the county or state party conventions.
-- By far most states have primary elections to decide a party nominee. And even those who provide for a convention delegate vote on candidates have some kind of alternative path to a primary election, like a voter petition.
Kirk Jowers of the University of Utah’s Hinckley Institute of Politics believes Utah’s caucus/convention system is not working well.
He favors, at the very least, opening up that system by the political parties themselves loosening their 60 percent candidate nomination rule.
“That alone would get more (candidates) into primary elections,” he told a special seminar/debate on the topic hosted by the foundation in the Zions Bank headquarters.
State GOP chairman Thomas Wright strongly defended the current caucus/convention system, saying his organization will spend $300,000 next year to double the number of rank-and-file Republicans who attend the mid-March neighborhood caucus meetings, where delegates will be elected to the county and state 2012 conventions.
Jim Dabakis, state Democratic Party chairman, said he’s willing to further study changing the candidate nominating system that his party uses (which is the same as state Republicans).
Beyond that, Dabakis said, the current problem is more with state Republicans than Democrats – since GOP officeholders (which control most of the local governments and all of state government) are “extremists.”
“This group of (Mike) Leavitt, Jowers (and others) just can’t stand it.
“We (Democrats) don’t have the extremists,” said Dabakis, which brought more than a few laughs from the audience.
Posturing aside, the group Dabakis refers to – the Alliance For Good Government -- just announced last week that they will NOT attempt a citizen initiative in 2012 aimed at providing that primary ballot alternative route.
Jowers said the group decided to give political parties and/or the Legislature two years to address the concerns of many Utahns over the caucus/convention system.
And if those groups won’t make significant changes, then his group likely will try for an initiative in 2014, said Jowers.
“I’m not that concerned with the extremes (in either party),” said Jowers. “It is about participation. This is a Democratic Party problem. It is a Utah problem.”
Jowers used his own and the foundation’s numbers to show how few Utahns are voting these days. The state led the nation in voter turnout as late as the 1980s. But in 2008, Utah ranked 47th among the 50 states.
Wright said Utah has great government. And while he’s concerned about voter turnout, he denies there is any correlation between the caucus/convention system and Utah’s poor voter turnout.
But Jowers said there is a clear connection – polls and various studies show that most Utahns don’t believe their vote has an impact on who will get elected, in a large part because convention delegates decide which Republican and which Democrat is on the general election ballot.
Most legislative seats, drawn by the GOP majority, are not competitive, said Dabakis. “Something internally is happening here that is bad – redistricting.”
Jowers said incumbent officeholders are listening more and more to a smaller and smaller group of individuals – the delegates who have the power to take them out, or put them in, office.
And various studies and polling shows that those delegates are more conservative than rank-and-file Republicans on the GOP side, more liberal than regular Democrats on the other side.
Because delegates can decide who gets the nomination, in Utah much more money and time is spent by candidates on the delegates than any other state spends on its party delegates (if they even have party delegates).
Delegates don’t reflect the political views of their own party members, much less the general voting public, said Jowers.
When questions were allowed from the audience, several folks stood up to tell horror stories of the 2010 GOP neighborhood caucus meetings, where attendees were shushed into silence, ignored or just told be to quiet.
Vicki Varela, a former top aide to former GOP Gov. Mike Leavitt, said she attended her neighborhood 2010 GOP caucus, but is not a registered Republican because she values her independent status.
At first, the caucus host told her she had to leave. But she stood up and said she wanted to attend. Finally, she was allowed to stay “if I promised not to talk.”
“I thought that was unreasonable.”
Wright said the Utah Republican Party is a private organization. And if you don’t subscribe to its ideals and policies, you can rightfully be excluded.
And it’s not only exclusion from caucuses. Republicans hold closed primary elections in Utah, even though state taxpayer dollars pick up the estimated $1 million cost of a party primary vote.
Thus, if you are not a registered Republican, you can’t vote in a neighborhood caucus, you can’t vote in a GOP primary election.
Democrats, said Dabakis, “welcomes anyone.” An independent voter can attend a Democratic caucus, can vote in a Democratic primary election.
Wright apologized for any mistreatment in the 2010 GOP caucuses. But that is no reason to junk a good system which has served Utah well for more than 50 years.
Part of the $300,000 GOP caucus effort next year includes better training for caucus meeting hosts, which in turn will lead to more civility and proper voting procedures in the March 15 Republican Party caucuses.
But even if GOP leaders can get 100,000 people to the GOP caucuses, said Jowers, “that is still small compared to 3 million Utahns. “But by any definition, you cap (citizen) input by having only a certain number of delegates” who vote on candidates in county and state conventions.
Why is Utah moving against the trends of American political history, said Jowers, which since the Founding Fathers has allowed for more and more citizens to decide who gets to be on the ballot, who is elected to public office?
America started, he said, with only white rich men getting to vote, then other white men got to vote, then all men, then women, then we moved the voting age from 21 to 18.
But in Utah, GOP and Democratic delegates – less than 0.2 percent of voters – can still decide who gets on the ballot and who doesn’t.
Said Jowers: “The dual track allows us to keep what is good” about the caucus/convention system “but gives us all a little bit more.”
Post a Comment
The problem is that the proposed solution of more primary elections will not accomplish either goal.
The Foundation debunks the voter turnout issue in their own research, where they state that the primary-system with the Utah Direct Primary Law of 1937 "lasted only one decade, during which the state had very low voter turnout." Indeed, they showed that Utah had its highest levels of participation that were above national norms under the caucus/convention system from 1960 to 1996.
As for the second issue of more moderate candidates, there is plenty of academic research to show that primary elections do not have that effect. Will it give us more moderate candidates? Forty-three states already have direct primaries. It gives us the vast majority of members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Is that our model of moderation and decorum?
The fact is that when candidates compete in a direct primary they have to get more money and media attention to campaign to a larger group. This leads them to more strident positions as they try to distinguish themselves and get media attention. It may make them more beholden to funders. This also leads to more need for candidates to “bring home the bacon” with special pork-barrel spending and less general appropriation ballooning the budget like we have seen at the federal level.
There are good reasons to reform the caucus/convention system. It has always bothered me that there was not an absentee or distance voting option. I have yet to hear a good solution to this problem.
The petition idea is valuable, too. It can provide a safety valve for a "too insular" delegate group and should be explored by the parties and possibly even mandated by the State of Utah for parties who participate in primary elections -- but the parties should have control over the rules for the petitioning process so that it benefits their organizational needs and it should not be described in state code. It is an idea that I think the Democratic Party can make workable.
What we want to avoid is a process that gives us candidates like Al Greene, the 2010 U.S. Senate Democratic nominee in South Carolina.
The South Carolina State Chair said she had not seen Greene since he filed to run, local party leaders had not met Greene, he did not attended any local Democratic events and had not responded to any invitations to local meetings. He did not attend the state Democratic Party convention, did not file the form with the Secretary of the Senate and the legally required form for the Federal Election Commission, and attempted to pay his $10,400 filing fee with a personal check, rather than a check from a campaign account.
Greene faced felony obscenity charges stemming from a November 2009 arrest for allegedly showing a pornographic picture on an Internet site to an 18-year-old female University of South Carolina student.
Was this good for democracy? I think not. A study by the Pew Research Center released in July 2010 found that Greene’s campaign received the most media attention of all of the 2010 political campaigns.
Utah can and has done better.
So what does account for Utah’s low voter turnout? Two-thirds of Utah’s decline in election participation can be attributed to eligibility and registration problems.
Contrary to studies showing a decline in turnout by voting-age population, voter turnout in the United States has not declined since 1972 when calculated for those eligible to vote. In 1972, non-citizens and ineligible felons constituted about 2% of the voting-age population. By 2004, ineligible voters constituted nearly 10% and are not evenly distributed across the country with 20% of California’s voting-age population ineligible. An examination of the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey shows that turnout is low but not declining among the youth, when the high youth turnout of 1972 (the first year 18–20 year olds were eligible to vote in most states) is removed from the trend. (Michael McDonald and Samuel Popkin, American Political Science Review, 2001)
There is a decline of those in Utah eligible to vote. We have a higher immigration population, Utah changed the law regarding felons, and we still have the youngest state in the nation with the highest proportion underage.
Registration is more difficult and not timely. NVRA (aka “Motor Voter”) has not offset declines created by changes in other Utah laws like the imposition of ID requirements, the thirty day by mail registration deadline, the elimination of neighborhood registrars, consolidation of precincts requiring fewer poll-workers as a percentage of the population, and candidate and Party registration drives have declined as fewer people volunteer and timelines for registration have changed outside the normal canvassing period.
Turnout has decreased as civic engagement has decreased. Voluntary participation in political parties and the attendance of observers at town meetings is down. The decline in voting has also accompanied a general decline in civic participation, such as church attendance, membership in professional, fraternal, and student societies, youth groups, and parent-teacher associations. Alienation following governmental scandal and incapacity to address issues important to voters causes a decrease in turnout. This is the “bowling alone” problem.
It is rare for factors such as competitiveness, weather, and time of year to cause an increase or decrease in turnout of more than five percentage points. (G. Bingham Powell, Voter Turnout in Thirty Democracies, Electoral Participation)
Four Cultural Attitudes with a Strong Positive Effect: 1) trust in government; 2) degree of partisanship among the population; 3) interest in politics; and, 4) belief in the efficacy of voting.
Partisanship is an important impetus to turnout, with the highly partisan more likely to vote. (This is a warning to changing the caucus/convention system which further decreases partisan activity.)
Lower turnout is experienced where parties appear to have little real difference, voters perceive the process as unfair, or the outcome is determined by corruption and fraud.
Voter fatigue can lower turnout if there are many elections in close succession. (Utah had five higher profile elections between October 2007 and November 2008.)
The two-step process of registration prior to voting clearly decreases voter turnout. States with no, or easier, registration requirements have larger turnouts. No-excuse absentee voting, vote-by-mail, an increased number of polling locations, accessible voting locations (parking / handicapped), early vote, decreased wait times, and requiring companies to give workers some time off on voting days have shown increases in turnout. (Richard Niemi and Herbert Weisberg, Controversies in Voting Behavior)
So, what can Utah do to increase voter turnout?
There are studies that show if you really want to increase turnout significantly, shame is a key motivator. Publishing the names of those who do not participate will increase turnout dramatically. I don’t suspect anyone really wants to do this, so, here are some other good alternatives:
1. Same-day voter registration
2. Legislation that allows better timing for voter registration drives (the state has recently instituted online registration that will help here)
3. Increased vote-by-mail (Salt Lake County has led the way on this, other counties should follow suit)
4. Perceived fairness of electoral system:
a. State Election Commission (not overseen by one party)
b. Redistricting Commission (not overseen by one party)
c. Ballot order random or based on candidate filing date/time (we’ll get a chance to see this for the first time this coming cycle in Utah)
d. Elimination of the winner-take-all electoral college system (there are moves by the National Popular Vote to do this, but it would not be my preferred method)
5. Increased levels of partisanship are highly correlated to increased participation.
a. Political parties need to be strengthened in a manner that encourages participation.
b. The entertainment value of local politics needs to be heightened leading to an increased culture of political giving and participation.
c. Increased direct subsidies (like check-off) need to be encouraged.
d. Longer candidate filing period.
6. Increased focus by news media on local politics with message that every “good” member of the community is going to participate instead of constant message that an individual vote does not matter and that the outcome is a foregone conclusion.