Once again, Gov. Gary Herbert has said he would veto a legislative attempt to undo the compromise that allows candidates to get on the ballot either through the traditional caucus-and-convention route or by gathering signatures on petitions.
The governor has made similar threats through the years since the compromise became law in 2014. The latest indication he hasn’t changed his position came via Senate President Stuart Adams, who had spoken with him, and later was confirmed by the governor’s office to Utahpolicy.com.
We’re glad the governor remains firm. It’s time, at long last after six years of party infighting, for those who cling to the idea of an exclusive caucus/convention path to give up that fight. In the intervening years, voters have shown they often prefer candidates other than those who emerge through conventions.
The most notable example may have been the election of Rep. John Curtis to Congress from the state’s 3rd District. He emerged to the primary ballot through petitions because he was not the choice of Republican convention delegates, then proceeded to beat the convention’s choice and go on to win the general election.
Herbert’s veto threat came after state Sen. Dan McCay sponsored SB91, a bill that would give political parties the option to once again revert to the convention-only method of selecting a party nominee. Even though the bill would lower the threshold for forcing a primary within that convention, it would likely exclude candidates who otherwise would be popular with voters.
Originally, the petition-gathering compromise grew out of a desire to head off a ballot initiative that sought to do away with the caucus system completely. Lawmakers passed the compromise, known at the time as SB54, to preserve that system but allow a second path to the ballot.
Opinion polls have consistently shown voters prefer this compromise. In spite of this, the state’s Republican Party waged a long and expensive battle to overturn it. This effort suffered a blow last year when the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear the legality of the compromise, effectively upholding an appellate court decision that the law “strikes an appropriate balance” between the free speech rights of party members and the state’s duty to effectively manage election procedures.
Political parties exist as private entities and enjoy the rights of association and free speech. However, the Republican Party’s dominance in Utah politics gives it a unique position in terms of governance and power.
The caucus system gives disproportionate influence to the most passionate, highly active party members, who tend not to be reflective of party members as a whole. Moderates and those not chosen to be caucus delegates argue the system deprives them of the right to effectively assert their voices in the process.
The compromise retains the party’s ability to present its best choices to the state’s voters. The signature path, on the other hand, is expensive to pursue and can advantage wealthy or well-known candidates. Utahns are best served by the preservation of both these paths.
For the moment, SB91 has yet to be heard by a Senate committee. Senate leaders acknowledge it likely wouldn’t garner the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.
We applaud Herbert for standing firm in preserving a system that is working well for Utah.