Flagged Bill: SB 54 – Elections Amendments, Sen. Bramble

Senator Curt Bramble (Republican - Provo)
Senator Curt Bramble (Republican – Provo)

***Note: this bill has been substituted, this analysis may no longer be valid***

Over the past year, Count My Vote (CMV) has been ruffling feathers and raising funds in their attempt to get election reform on the ballot.

Currently, a select group of individuals, known as delegates, are chosen at various public neighborhood meetings for both the Republican and Democratic Parties.  These individuals come from all walks of life, but come together to select the candidates that best represent the opinions of the respective parties (according to these delegates). Count My Vote contends that this process concentrates power and radicalizes candidates while supporters claim that the current system makes it easier for political unknowns to unseat entrenched lawmakers that may no longer be serving the will of the people.

Attempts at reform within the respective political parties failed in April of last year, with delegates voting to keep the current system. Since then, Count My Vote has been actively working to collect the necessary amount of signatures to put the CMV petition directly on the ballot this November.

Senator Curt Bramble (Republican – Provo) appears to have made a power play to be the chief peacemaker in the CMV vs. traditional system debate with SB 54 – Election Amendments.

The bill itself does several things, but three major reforms stick out in the bill: Upping the minimum percentage of delegate votes a candidate must receive within their political convention in order to avoid a primary, allows for delegates to be elected and then subsequently vote remotely, and lets unaffiliated voters vote in a political party’s primary election without restriction.

Starting with the last issue first. The idea of allowing unaffiliated voters to participate in primary elections is nothing new, the Democratic Party has allowed it for years – but Republicans have balked at the idea, requiring that any unaffiliated voters register as Republicans prior to voting in that party’s election. By allowing people to remain unaffiliated, there is no doubt that Republican registration numbers will shrink over time as people choose to drop the Republican title and re-register as unaffiliated voters. Though likely to cause some consternation within Bramble’s own party, this is not the most radical of moves in SB 54.

What is radical is allowing for the election of delegates to take place remotely, letting those delegates elect candidates remotely, and then upping the percentage required to “clear convention.”

It seems odd, in an age where Republicans often worry of voter fraud, that they appear to have no problem with allowing remote selection of candidates. Unlike the respective county clerks from across the state, political parties don’t have access to the same resources to ensure that requests for absentee nominations are legitimate. It is quite possible that the system could be gamed if proper checks and balances are not put into place, fundamentally calling into question the legitimacy of any particular candidate’s nomination.

Though slightly less worrisome, concerns should also be raised about remote voting of candidates. In order to make such systems works, county and state parties will need to invest heavily in under-the-hood updates – something that may not be feasible for smaller county parties. Both the state Republican and Democratic parties have used technology, such as voting by email, to conduct theoretical “remote votes” at their respective conventions, but coordination may be impossible for those local parties with fewer resources.

The issue of increasing the percentage of delegate votes necessary to clear convention would be a minor victory for CMV, as it would increase the odds of candidates appearing on the primary ballot come November – though it would still fall well short of CMV’s mission to have direct primaries from the start.

Indeed, CMV is none too happy about the proposed legislation. Executive Director of CMV, Lindsay Zizumbo, said in a press release last Friday that SB 54 “deliberately stand[s] in the way of citizens who have legally won the right to vote and enact a law,” noting that the “legislation that intentionally nullifies legal and proper citizen action is not respectful of the constitutional process – or the people.” Zizumbo would close by saying that the “inherent conflict makes it all the more imperative that officeholders avoid any appearance of choosing self-preservation over respect for the process and the voters.”

CMV’s response makes clear that Bramble did not consult them during his peacekeeping mission or, if he did, they were not satisfied with his conclusions. 

The feelings towards this bill largely depend on where one stands on CMV, however it is troubling that the legislature is attempting to interfere with any initiative process. In a year where lawmakers are holding back on gay rights and religious freedom issues pending future events, it seems disingenuous to act directly against this particular action as well. It would not be the first time that the state has made the petition process more difficult, and, every time they do so, it erodes the ability for the citizenry to act; and it is for this reason that the bill will receive a low lemon score.

As of Friday, the bill has received unanimous, favorable recommendation from the Senate Business and Labor Committee.

To contact Senator Bramble, click here or call 801-226-3663.

Impact on Average Utahn:

High Impact   5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0   No Impact

Need for Legislation:

Necessary   5 . 4 3 . 2 . 1 . 0   Unnecessary

Lemon Score:

Sound Legislation 5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 0 Clunker

You can track this, and all of our other flagged bills, by clicking here. Need an explanation of scores? Click Here.

One Reply to “Flagged Bill: SB 54 – Elections Amendments, Sen. Bramble”

  1. There are a few corrections needed. Perhaps in April, when CMV was demanding specific changes, the GOP SCC didn’t make the changes they wanted. But changes have been made since, many of which solves the concerns raised. It is unfortunate that several lines in SB 54 ruins the biggest change, the Same Day Ballot. The 2 day process takes the meeting out of the meeting, a demand that CMV had that didn’t match their request to take into account the fire fighter, medical worker, mom with sick kids, etc.

    re: Remote voting, SB 54 doesn’t mandate that for convention, it only lists that as one way to meet the requirement, the other, alternate delegates, something the GOP has already done this year in allowing counties to decide. It wouldn’t take much to require the alternate delegates.

    The threshold change might increase the number of primaries some, it has a big effect, decreasing the potential of eliminating an incumbent at convention. The current 60/40 requires a strong candidate, but puts the incumbent at risk. A 65/35 decreases the likelihood of the incumbent loosing.

    The real coup is the Unaffiliated voter. Count My Vote’s own flawed legal analysis of it’s poorly drafted proposed law states that Utah would likely Not be able to require this change, and sites case law to do so. In Fact Count My Vote doesn’t change the closed primary the GOP has or would have under Count My Vote, something many “supporters” don’t realize.

    If the last item was kept, which does have the default of the Count My Vote, which is incorporated in SB 54, and the Same Day Ballot or something like it was allowed, the bill might be a win-win for many. It would certainly deliver what Count My Vote is promising but isn’t doing. (Allowing everyone to vote).

    Should the bill pass as is, No. Amended, perhaps.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.