UPDATE: Take the survey online RIGHT HERE.
The James Evans SB 54 survey is out (find the full survey at the bottom). Included are a number of proposals – like purity panels and removal from the party. A number of those proposals have made the news with headlines like “Beehive McCarthyism” and “GOP Politburo needs to trust its voters.”
The survey – more than a day late and a dollar short – is to “assess the opinions and wishes of Utah Republicans” – after being quite public about some very bad proposals. Having some questions that were not obviously leading might be helpful to the process, but hey – no one is claiming this will be be scientifically valid.
The first question asks if the party should chose QPP or RPP or not sure. The Chairman didn’t ask about the 3rd option: do nothing. It is a legitimate option and the longer the party delays in making a decision, the more likely that option becomes. You can read more about QPP and RPP here, here, here and here and don’t miss the Chairman on KVNU here.
The 2nd question is about the legal challenge. The party states that they were not party to the SB 54 compromise. They do neglect to mention that they were on the Hill during SB 54 negotiations and that the chair was asked to participate but he declined. They do note that the case is not scheduled to be heard until Jan 2016, but that the “prudent course” is to get legal clarification. Back to the question: should the lawsuit continue?
Questions 3-5 are about party membership. Question 3: Should candidates be prohibited from being officers in another party? Question 4 states that for many years the GOP has required a disclosure document and now wants to know if the party should require a disclosure document and subsequently remove party membership from those who refuse to sign. Question 5 states that at least one county party has an interview process already, then asks if the GOP should require that process for all candidates. The county in question seems to be Utah county where a previous chair would ask candidates if they had what they needed and if they understood the process. Even that mild visit (not an “interview”) is no more and hasn’t been for a number of years.
Questions 6-11 ask which candidates are pure enough to receive party support: email lists, data and volunteers. Although most candidates and current elected officials have stopped relying on the party for support and know they have to get their own volunteers and hire their own data peeps (or do it themselves). Also – should the party endorse candidates pre-primary and if so, who?
Question 12 and 13 ask if the threshold for getting on the ballot should be lowered for getting on the primary ballot, to as low as 20%, thus ensuring multiple primary candidates. This proposal is a new one and I suspect will generate a good amount of
Question 14 asks whether the legislature should pass new legislation to address the plurality issue, where candidates could get on the ballot without a majority (not a Constitutional issue – multiple other states have people who have won via plurality). Of course, the chair could have thought to ask that before the 2015 session, but that would have made sense….
Question 15 asks if the party should open its primaries to unaffiliated voters.
Question 16 asks if the Republican party should “charge its candidate a fee” to “defray costs”. Sigh. And here I thought pay-to-play was illegal….
It’s bad enough, but no, we’re still not done. One more.
Question 17 asks about stripping party membership from impure Republicans who gather signatures through the petition route only.
Welkomen to the big tent. Don’t let the Politburo phase you. I hear the Gulag is nice this time of year.
Again. Take the survey. Just click here.