What could replace Utah's caucus and convention system?

This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2010, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Getting politicians, and even the media, to engage in a constructive discussion of changing Utah's current caucus/convention system for selecting candidates for election seems to be virtually impossible.

Of course there are vested interests in maintaining the status quo but I would like to think that the lack of dialogue is not purely out of self-interest but arises, at least in part, from the ambiguity and uncertainty of what could replace the current system.

Interestingly, there is a broad and diverse range of primary nominating schemes in use around the country reflecting the political cultures of different regions that can be used to inform how Utah's system could be reformed. What these processes have in common is that candidates advance directly from filing for office to having their name appear on a primary ballot.

This is the key difference between Utah's current system and the nominating processes of nearly every other state.

Political parties, as private organizations, claim a right, which has been upheld by state and federal courts, to vet, screen or approve candidates that will represent the party in an election.

In Utah that vetting process is done by requiring candidates to be registered as members of the party whose nomination they seek and by having their candidacy ratified by party delegates in a convention.

The convention process is not the sole means that parties across the country use to screen their candidates. For example, in California a prospective candidate must obtain the signatures of 75 members of his party residing in his district in order to file as a candidate for that party's nomination. In fact, most states have a similar requirement that protects the parties' right of association and screens unqualified candidates, although the signature thresholds vary.

After candidates qualify to appear on a primary ballot, they may be nominated by one of several voting scenarios.

Most states require all candidates to appear on a primary ballot even if unopposed for their party's nomination whether the primary is "open" or "closed." Utah can continue to permit parties to choose who gets to vote in their primary and whether or not they must be affiliated.

Utah can retain its primary election "as is" with a couple of changes to the candidate filing process to add such a signature-gathering requirement and permit a candidate to appear on the ballot. Conventions can still be held and can show their support to preferred candidates through a "straw poll" type election. As conventions would not determine ballot qualification, the timing of the conventions would not be the legal and operational issue it currently is.

Requiring all candidates to appear on the primary ballot would ensure that June primaries will always be countywide, which, when known and planned for in advance, will reduce the overall cost of elections. Additionally, all voters will be able to participate, which will relieve the confusion and fear of disenfranchisement that voters currently feel.

An additional by-product would be an improvement in the woefully low voter turnout in primary elections.

An objection I've heard from defenders of the convention system is that any change will require more fundraising, and candidates with deeper pockets will have an advantage.

That already appears to be the case. It's ironic that these same defenders of the status quo are often strident opponents of campaign finance reform.

Opposing changes to the current system based upon fundraising concerns while also opposing campaign finance reform seems, at best, contradictory and, at worst, disingenuous. Removing party delegates and political conventions as gatekeepers to the candidate nominating process through a few simple changes in filing requirements would result in a more representative candidate selection process for all political parties.

A direct primary will be more participatory, more efficient, more cost-effective and much less confusing to voters.

Fear that changes to the process will change tactics and possibly the outcomes of the nominating process are self-serving reasons used to protect the power of the delegate oligarchy.

Utahns of all parties should insist on a more open and more participatory candidate nominating process.

Scott O. Konopasek is director of Salt Lake County elections and a former delegate to county and state conventions.