Does Utah need these election reforms?

Over the last several election cycles, many of our current mainstream political leaders would have been defeated in convention had they been at the mercy of a relative handful of county and state convention delegates

Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

More than two dozen bills have been filed or requested in the current legislative session making changes to Utah’s election laws. We review this perennial obsession by politicos.

This is the 10th legislative session in which lawmakers have proposed laws regarding the delegate/convention system and primary elections. Why does this issue continue to haunt the lawmaking process? Will there ever be a resolution as to how a primary ballot is formulated?

Pignanelli: “Organizing free and fair elections is more important than the result itself.” — Fatos Nano

Through close observation and personal experience, I can attest many families endure repeated disputes with continuing hard feelings and grudges. Similar dynamics abound among Utah’s political class, especially regarding the delegate/convention system. Therefore, the Legislature frequently reiterates this ongoing debate.

I was once a solid proponent of the delegate/convention system. This holdover from the progressive era allowed candidates with limited resources (like me) the opportunity to compete. For decades, delegates were selected in homey neighborhood meetings whose participants echoed local priorities. But lifestyles have changed and the process no longer garners large participation, prompting influence by well organized special interest groups. Regardless, delegates control the fate of both parties and of many candidates — a power not easily surrendered. Legislative deliberations result.

Over time, most family quarrels dissipate. This is the likely outcome for determining Utah primary elections, but not in the immediate future.

Webb: Utah’s dual-track system for getting on the primary election ballot could use a few tweaks (see below). But it would be disastrous to force all candidates to exclusively use the old caucus/convention process. There will always be extreme elements within the Republican Party that want to do exactly that. SB54 and the Count My Vote effort produced an excellent compromise that should be maintained and strengthened.

Over the last several election cycles, many of our current mainstream political leaders would have been defeated in convention had they been at the mercy of a relative handful of county and state convention delegates. But because they had the option to gather signatures to get on the primary election ballot, they soundly defeated far-right opponents when all Republican voters had the opportunity to vote and choose their party nominees.

Next year, Sen. Mitt Romney is up for reelection. He will likely be defeated at the state convention, but has a solid chance of being renominated in a primary election. He at least deserves a chance to make his case before all Republican voters.

Our mainstream conservative governance has served the state very well. Let’s not allow more extreme elements of either party to take over the nomination process.

Several interesting concepts sponsored by Rep. Jordan Teuscher have captured the support of lawmakers. HB202 (Signature Threshold Amendments) would modify the threshold for signature petitions to the greater of existing numerical requirements or 3% of the registered voters of the qualified party in the district. HB205 (Primary Election Amendments) attempts to resolve the primary plurality issue to ensure that the nominee is supported by a majority of the voters in a primary. This is accomplished through a “contingency voting” process that utilizes the multiple choices of voters. What is driving these proposals?

Pignanelli: Teuscher is well known on Capitol Hill for intense and persuasive preparation. He did not disappoint when presenting these bills. A weird disparity does exist between legislative and school board signature thresholds, which his bill tries to remedy. As the state grows, the percentage metric becomes important.

Teuscher also documents that since 2014, 42 primary elections had more than two candidates. Among these, almost 80% of the time the winner received less than 50% of the vote (many with less than 40%). Utahns became aware of this unusual feature in 2020 when the gubernatorial and two congressional races sported four candidates. The legislation would allow voters to provide their first and second choice in a primary election. If a candidate does not receive 50%, there is an immediate reallocation of these preferences to determine the winner.

The signature gathering process is enduring growing pains, which these bills are helping to alleviate.

Webb: Yes, the signature-gathering process and multicandidate primary elections need some improvements, which Teuscher seeks to address. Any changes need to strengthen the system and make it fairer and more efficient, not sneakily undermine it.

There are several bills mandating an audit of Utah’s election process. Are these needed and why?

Pignanelli: Utah possesses the gold standard for elections. Any mandates for audits should be to maintain this treasured attribute.

Webb: Periodic audits are fine if they are fair and not too burdensome on the entity being audited. For the most part, Utah’s elections are administered efficiently and professionally. When problems occur, such as happened in Utah County a few years ago, they are promptly resolved. 

The biggest election problems occur when vote counting drags on for days and weeks after election day. Long delays produce suspicion and doubt. Any election reform ought to focus on voting efficiency and quick and accurate tabulation of results.