Right On: Utah’s flawed caucus system

April 18, 2018 Utah Channel 3

OPINION — If you attended one of this year’s Republican caucuses, which candidate did your caucus choose for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination?

I’m not asking which of the 12 announced candidates you support but instead which candidate won your caucus vote?

With Utah’s Republican state nominating convention on April 21, that would seem like a fair question in most caucus states.

But not in Utah because Utah’s Republican Party leadership clings to an anachronistic and flawed caucus system for selecting nominees.

It’s time that the party came into the 21^st century.

Utah today has a combination caucus/primary system. But that only came about in 2014 when the Legislature passed Senate Bill 54, a compromise with backers of the “Count My Vote” initiative that was likely to become law that fall.

The troglodytes in the state Republican Party leadership sued to overturn the Legislature’s compromise. Not satisfied after losing in federal court, they took the case to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and lost again.

The party still holds caucuses to select the party’s “official” primary candidate, the one blessed by party officials. All other Republican candidates must gather signatures to get on the primary ballot.

So what’s wrong with Utah’s caucus system?

In most states with caucus systems, caucus participants openly show support for their favored candidates. They raise their hands or break into groups backing candidates. Delegates backing the winning candidates are then selected to represent the caucus at the party’s convention.

Not so with Utah’s flawed system dating to the 19^th century, back when no one knew what was going on in far-off Salt Lake City.

The first order of business at my 2016 neighborhood caucus was selecting delegates to the county and state conventions. With multiple party candidates in the running for several offices, I expected to hear local advocates explain which candidates they supported and why.

Instead, right off the bat, the caucus chair asked for who would like to be a delegate. Several folks volunteered and were elected more or less by acclamation.

Which candidates did they support? Who knows? No questions were asked and no explanation was given.

To me, it was like sending a neighbor from the next block to pick an interior decorator for my house without knowing anything about my furniture or my color preferences.

Defenders of this system argue that by selecting delegates who are not committed to particular candidates, those vying for nominations “get out and talk to people, period. This levels the playing field for all candidates.”

But instead of leveling the playing field, this exposes a major flaw in Utah’s caucus system. All too often extreme candidates on the right or left are able to mobilize enough followers in enough caucuses to hijack a nomination.

BYU professors Christopher Karpowitz and Jeremy Pope addressed this phenomenon in a Cambridge University press paper. They found that “caucuses are more likely to select a more extreme nominee.”

Writing in a subsequent Washington Post article that used Utah Sen. Mike Lee as the poster child, these same professors explained that, “In terms of their willingness to take consistently conservative or liberal positions on the issues, caucus attendees look a lot more like members of Congress than they do average Republicans or Democrats.”

In other words, the caucus system contributes to hollowing out the political center. Unsurprisingly, we have recent examples in Utah.

In a special election last year to replace Republican Jason Chaffetz as one of Utah’s congressional representatives as well as in our 2016 gubernatorial election, GOP delegates picked candidates who were later trounced in primaries by more moderate candidates.

Washington County Democrats saw firsthand how special interests can hijack caucuses.

Lynn Cobb, county party secretary, relates that about 600 young people attended one 2016 Democratic caucus meeting because they wanted to elect a delegate supporting then-presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

“And then they disappeared and we never saw them again,” Cobb said.

Caucus proponents argue that candidates must spend big to win primaries, making them beholden to their donors. They claim caucuses allow low-budget candidates to connect directly with the public. But it’s not the public that candidates connect with; all too often it’s issue-oriented delegates who have their own agendas.

Gov. Gary Herbert points out that, “We end up having candidates that spend a ton of money to try to stack the delegates. That’s not how the system was designed to be.”

Organizers of this year’s retooled “Count My Vote” initiative have decided they can live with the combo system. We’ll be asked to vote this fall on their proposal lowering the number of signatures needed to get on the primary ballot. If you support low-budget candidates, vote “yes.”

It’s time for Republican Party leaders to stop fighting primary elections in the courts and in the Legislature and to recognize that their cherished caucus system does not reflect the will of the people of Utah.

Count my vote. And while it doesn’t happen often, that’s something that my fellow opinion columnist, liberal Ed Kociela and I agree on.

Howard Sierer is an opinion columnist for St. George News. The opinions stated in this article are his own and may not be representative of St. George News.

Email: hsierer@stgeorgeutah.com

Twitter: @STGnews