Contact:JustinLee

(801)9286948
justinlee@utah.gov

VoterandCandidateClarification

SALTLAKECITY(Jan,19,2016)Lt.Gov.SpencerJ.Coxissuedthefollowingmemo
offeringclarificationtovotersandcandidates:

The2016electioncycleisofficiallyunderway.Thisyear,voterswillonceagainhavethe
opportunitytovoteformanyoffices,includingpresident,Congress,governor,statelegislators
andothers.AstheStateschiefelectionofficer,Ihavethestatutoryresponsibilitytoenforce
Utahselectionlawsthisincludestheinterpretationoflawsandallinitialdecisionsrelatedto
electionmatters.Additionally,Iamrequiredtoprovideelectioninformationtothepublic.

Recentlytherehasbeensignificantattentiongiventolegislationpassedin2014thatalteredUtah
electionlawandthewaycandidatesmaketheirwaytotheballot.Thischangeiscommonly
knownasSB54.ThepassageofSB54hasbecomecontroversialanddivisive.Therehasalready
beenonecompletedlawsuitandanotherwasfiledlatelastweek.Consequently,therehavebeen
manyrumors,mediareportsandspeculationaddingconfusionanduncertaintytotheprocess.
Regardlessofmypersonalfeelingsonthesechanges,ortheviewsofothers,myofficeistasked
withimplementingandenforcingthislegislation.Equallyimportant,Ihavethedutyofensuring
afair,orderlyandsmoothelectionprocess.Indoingso,werelyheavilyonthelegalguidance
andinterpretationofUtahsAttorneyGeneralandhisstaff.

OnJanuary4thcandidatesbeganfilingtheirdeclarationstogathersignatures.Todate,morethan
70candidateshavedeclaredtheirintenttodoso.Thousandsofsignatureshavealreadybeen
gatheredandsubmitted.Assuch,weareofficiallyinthemiddleofanelectioncycleandmyjob
istomoveforwardandhelpUtahnsnavigatethisnewprocess.

Thepurposeofthismemoissimplytoprovideclarityandguidancetocandidatesandvoters
regardingthelawanditsimplementation.Morespecifically,thismemoanswersseveral
questionsthathavecometomyofficedirectlyorthroughmediareports.Thisisnotintendedto

bealegalbrief,noracomprehensiveexplanationoflaw.Furthermore,Idonotattempttooutline
thedisputesanddifferinginterpretationsofthelaw.Pleasenotethatthismemoisnotmeantto
beadversarialinanyway.Instead,Imerelysetouttoexplainhowthelawwillbeinterpretedand
implementedbymyoffice.Intheinterestofbrevity,thismemoassumesthatreadershavesome
previousknowledgeofSB54.Whilemanyofthesequestionscomefrommembersofthe
RepublicanParty,thesameissuesapplytoallcandidatesandpartiesequally.Ihopethismemo
willhelpthoseparticipatingintheelectiontomakedecisionsandrelyingoodfaithonanorderly
process.

Question#1:Docandidatesgettodecidewhichpaththeytaketotheballot?

Yes.AfteranextensivereviewofSB54withtheAttorneyGeneralsOffice,Ihavedetermined
theclearwordingofthestatuteallowscandidates,andnotparties,todeterminewhethertogather
signatures,participateinthecaucus/conventionsystemordoboth.Whilemyofficehadbeen
workingwiththeRepublicanPartytogetfinalclarificationonthisissuefromtheUtahCourts,
werecentlyreceivednoticethattheyhadchangedtheirmindanddecidedtofilesuitinfederal
courtagainstthestatetochallengethisandotherprovisionsoftheElectionCode.Thatlawsuit
wasfiledon1/15/16.

Question#2:Willpoliticalpartiesbeallowedtoremovecandidatesthatgathersignatures?

No.BecauseSB54specificallyallowscandidatestochoosesignaturegathering,candidatesthat
relyonthelawandmeetallotherlegalrequirementswillbeplacedontheprimaryballot.Any
attemptstoremovecandidatesfromtheballotforfollowingthelawandgatheringsignatureswill
berejected.

Question#3:Canvotersberemovedfromapartyforsigningcandidatepetitions?

No.Whiletherehasbeenmuchrumorandspeculationonthisquestion,theRepublicanPartyhas
specificallystatedthatthespeculationwasunfoundedandunintended.Furthermore,thereisno
basisinlawtosupportsuchanaction.UnderSB54anyvoteraffiliatedwiththeparty,based
uponthevoterspartyaffiliationdesignationsubmittedbythevoterandenteredintotheofficial
register,isallowedtosignapetitiononbehalfofacandidateforthatparty.Assuch,anyattempt
toremoveanotherwisequalifiedandaffiliatedvoterthatsignsacandidatepetitionwillbe
rejected.

Question#4:CantheLt.GovernorsOfficeandcountyclerksbeginverifyingsignatures
immediately?

Yes.ThereissomeconfusionregardingarequiredMarch1stdeclarationfromthepartiesover
whowillbeallowedtoparticipateintheirprimariesandthuswhowouldbeeligibletosign
petitions.ThisprovisionexistedpriortoSB54andsimplyhastodowiththecategoriesofvoters
thatareallowedtoparticipateinprimaryelections,asopposedtoindividualvoters.Thestatute
hasalwayscontemplatedthatapartysownaffiliatedvoterswouldbeabletoparticipateinthat
partysprimaryelection.However,ifapartydecidestoallowvotersfromanotherpartyto
participateintheirprimary,thepartymustnotifymyofficebyMarch1st.Asthiswasthe
primaryfocusofthepreviouslawsuit,myofficeisoperatingundertheassumptionthatthe
RepublicanpartywillonlyallowRepublicanvoterstoparticipateinitsprimaryelection.As
such,myofficewillonlyacceptsignaturesfromRepublicanaffiliatedvoters.However,ifthe
RepublicanPartynotifiesmyofficethatithasdecidedtoopenitsprimarytootherpartiesor
unaffiliatedvotersbyMarch1st,myofficewouldthenallowsignaturesfromthoseotherpartys
voters.

Question#5:IsitpossiblethattheRepublicanPartywillloseitsQualifiedPoliticalParty
(QPP)statusandthatcandidateswhochooseonlythecaucus/conventionpathwillbe
removedfromtheballot?

No.Becausethereisnothinginthelawthatanticipateswhathappensifapartyfailstofollowthe
requirementsofaQPP,andbecausethereisnoprovisiontosubsequentlydisqualifyaparty,this
hasbeensubjecttodifferentlegalinterpretations.OnAugust17,2015,theUtahRepublican
PartycertifiedtheirdesignationasaQPPandspecificallystatedtheirintentiontofollowallof
thestatutoryQPPprovisionsandrequirements.Assuch,myintentionistorelyonthis
certification,andallowcandidatesaccesstotheballotthroughthecaucus/conventionprocess,
unlessanduntilthepartyofficiallyrevokesthatcertification.WhileIrejectthepossibilityof
removingcandidatesthatrelyonthelawtogetontheballotbygatheringsignatures,Ialsoreject
thepossibilityofremovingcandidatesthatrelyonthelawtoparticipateinthecaucus/convention
system.

Question#6:Inlightoftheuncertaintysurroundingpotentiallitigation,doyouhavea
recommendationonwhichpathacandidateshouldtaketoensureaccesstotheballot?

ThisisthequestionIreceivemostoftenfromcandidates.Thedecisionandcalculationonwhich
pathtochoosewillbedifferentandpersonalforeachcampaign.Whiletherearemanydifferent
reasonstochooseonepathoveranother,Icanonlyspeaktoballotaccess.WhileIamattempting
toprovideasmuchinformationandclarityaspossibletohelpcandidatesmakeaninformed
decision,Irecognizethatadditionallitigationmakesafinaloutcomedifficulttopredict.
Althoughjudgesarehistoricallyaversetoremovingcandidatesfromtheballot,itisimpossible
toknowwith100%certaintywhetherajudgecouldinvalidatethesignaturepathorremovethe

partysQPPstatus,thuseliminatingthecaucus/conventionpath.Inshort,whileIcanensure
ballotaccessforeitherballotpaths,ajudgecouldalterthatdetermination.Assuch,itappears
thattheonlywaytocompletelyguaranteeballotaccess,regardlessofanyjudicialoutcome,
wouldbeforcandidatestochooseBOTHroutes(gatheringsignaturesANDparticipatinginthe
caucus/convention).

Isincerelyhopethisclarificationishelpfulandisreceivedinthespirititisintended.Irecognize
therearehonestandpassionatevoicesonbothsidesofthisdebateandthatlegalcasescould
potentiallyimpactthesedeterminations.However,Ialsoknowhowdifficultandstressful
campaignscanbeforallthoseinvolved.Accordingly,Iaskonlythatcandidates,countyclerks,
partiesandmyofficeworktogethercloselythisyeartoensuretheelectionmovesforwardina
collaborativeandorderlymanner.Iwishtheverybesttoallinvolvedthiselectionyear.