At the Utah Republican convention Saturday, Gov. Spencer Cox wondered if all the nastiness, boos and insults he and some other candidates endured at the hands of delegates would give “more ammunition” to those who would like to discontinue the caucus/convention system.
The simple answer is yes. The conversation surrounding the future of selecting candidates is Topic 1 this week among those who follow and support political races. It’s not just about booing candidates or expressing differences. The behavior exhibited by some at the Salt Palace Convention Center Saturday was disturbing enough to make us wonder whether the system has outlived its usefulness.
Our conclusion is that it isn’t yet time to change the system, but that party leaders should beware.
We have long supported retaining the caucus/convention system in addition to the signature-gathering system for qualifying candidates for primary ballots. The two systems combined give registered Republicans the opportunity to choose from a diversified pool of candidates.
But that argument loses some of its luster when conventions are controlled by unruly and uncivil behavior. And when caucus night activities are so confusing or disorganized that only 9% of the Republican Party turn out to select delegates, as happened this year.
And while it’s true that candidates new to the political world may not have the name recognition or the resources to gather the requisite signatures, and that the caucus/convention system gives them an attainable route to the ballot, those advantages are lost when a my-way-or-the-highway ideology triumphs over common sense and productive debate.
It is both sobering and instructive to contemplate that, without the signature-gathering option as an alternative, Cox would have been denied a chance for reelection as governor. This, despite a Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics poll in February showing 50% of voters favoring him in the upcoming primary. The nearest competitor had 5%.
Over the last 10 years, convention delegates have often chosen candidates other than those preferred in opinion polls. Generally, they lose in the primary election.
What really ought to give Utahns pause, however, is the incivility and nastiness that some (certainly not all) convention delegates displayed Saturday. Even Gov. Cox’s Disagree Better national campaign was mocked by some in the convention hall.
When Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson posted on X that she was “mortified by the vulgarity and viciousness my young nieces were exposed to by another gubernatorial campaign’s supporters,” it raised questions about the intent of delegates who were elected to express the will of party members.
When a strong conservative such as Utah Rep. Kera Birkeland tweets about her daughters enduring mocking and shaming at a help desk, it elevates those questions.
And when former state senator and current Senate candidate Dan Hemmert tells us delegates seemed more concerned with conspiracy theories, federal issues and a candidate’s position on the new state flag than on vetting people for their ability to do the job to which they seek election, it raises alarm bells.
Is this the true nature of the state’s largest political party?
Hemmert told delegates the Republican Party has a record of electing good people in spite of the caucus/convention system, not because of it. That ought to give party leaders pause.
The convention this year seemed designed to make participation difficult. Delegates complained of long lines and technical difficulties. The convention lasted 15 hours, with the original tally of 3,886 credentialed delegates having dwindled to 2,713 by the time candidates were considered for the important Senate seat being vacated by Mitt Romney.
If the caucus/convention system were scuttled, satisfying alternatives are hard to find. The party may adopt a more open primary, in which candidates would have to collect fewer, or perhaps no petition signatures. But this would only put another flaw in Utah’s election system into high relief — the lack of a runoff election procedure for races involving multiple candidates when none receives a majority of votes cast.
Certainly, there is little appetite to go back to the days of party bosses and whatever passed for a smoke-filled room in Utah. Nevertheless, it is valid to ask, is there a better way?
We are reminded of the words of John Adams, who said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Utah lawmakers should be careful when it comes to changing or removing long-standing party nominating systems. It may not be time to end the caucus/convention system that served past generations so well. However, party leaders now have the responsibility to demonstrate that keeping it will be good for democracy in the future. After all, the goal should not be about control. It should be about participation and having one’s civil voice heard.