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 hereherehere 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 grumbling discussion.

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.

URP Chair James Evan’s Survey RE: SB 54

Liked it? Take a second to support Utah.Politico.Hub on Patreon!
  • Nathan Rathbun


  • Pingback: Midday Commentary on Last Night's News - May 8, 2015 - Utah.Politico.Hub()

  • Pingback: The Bottom Line: What You Need to Know in 300 words or less about-CMV/SB54 « Cherilyn Eagar()

  • Pingback: The Bottom Line: What You Need to Know about-CMV/SB54 in Less Than 300 Words « Cherilyn Eagar()

  • nyminute2

    As a girl, I became a staunch opponent of political parties when I observed the abuses of the Dems in Wisconsin. I swore then, and i maintain my commitment now, to never belong to ANY political party. The beauty of the democratic system is that it vests power in the PEOPLE, not in any PARTY. I reject utterly the idea that any group of people can determine who can or cannot get elected or have power and influence in our government. The People are sovereign. If a truly INDEPENDENT candidate would run for office in this state. I would work my asterisk off to help him or her get elected.

  • Ignominious

    The RINO’s are squeeling because the take over of the party is not going as planned. The Republican party’s process is for selecting it’s candidates to run for office. The government has no legitimate say in how that process is conducted.

    Holly, had I known you were a progressive our family wouldn’t have busted our behind in support of Dan. And Dan had to have known. I am getting better about vetting people we support. I see you are running again…….now I understand why you’re upset.

    • Harper

      Dan Liljenquist was the second most liberal Republican during his time in the Utah state senate. He would’ve been just as bad as, if not worse, than Orrin Hatch. I ended up voting for Hatch because at least I knew he likely will be gone in 2018. Liljenquist probably would’ve been in the US Senate for another 30+ years, which would’ve been very scary in light of his liberal voting record.

      • Ignominious

        As I said I’ll be better about vetting anyone I support. Perhaps I was blinded by my disgust with Hatch and Dan’s great sounding rhetoric.

        I’m sure Hatch is still sore about being forced in to a primary making him spend $11 million on his campaign. He’s hinted about running again and I’m sure wants the caucus/convention out of the way so it’s cheaper with a more sure way to buy his way back. He also saw some options in Thad Cochrans reelection.

    • Harper

      Another thing: Is it just me, or is Holly’s strategy of attacking the Republican Party a dumb political move? It sounds like you’ve also heard that Holly is again going to challenge Brian Greene for the same House seat she gave up after just one session. Is throwing stones at her fellow Republicans really a smart strategy?

      • Ignominious

        I suspect she is upset because she is seeing her chance of winning evaporate because the party is not caving in.