utah gop motion for injunction

i

Marcus R. Mumford (12737) MUMFORD PC 405 South Main Street, Suite 975 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 428-2000 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff Utah Republican Party

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

UTAH REPUBLICAN PARTY,

Plaintiff, v. GARY R. HERBERT, et al.

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case No. 2:14-cv-00876-DN Judge David Nuffer

Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Utah Republican

Party (“Party”) hereby moves for a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo and stay the

enforcement and/or implementation of Senate Bill 54 (“SB54”), attached as Exhibit A, which the

Party is challenging, during the pendency of the underlying action. SB54 is presently scheduled

to go into effect as of January 1, 2015. As set forth below, the parties have reached some

understanding to avoid the need to seek a temporary restraining order, as attorneys for the State

of Utah have agreed that SB54 does not require Defendants to take any immediate action

affecting the rights of the Party, and the parties have been negotiating various proposals to

expedite the prosecution of the underlying action.

The grounds for the Party’s requested relief is that SB54 violates Party’s constitutional

rights as well as its rights under the Lanham Act in a manner that threatens to irreparably harm

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN Document 12 Filed 01/01/15 of 29

ii

the Party, that the harm to the Party outweighs any harm to Defendants, and because the

requested relief is in the public interest.

This motion is based on the following memorandum of points and authorities, the

attached declarations of James Evans (“Evans Decl.”), with exhibits, the records and pleadings

on file with the Court, all matters of which the Court may take judicial notice, and such other

evidence and oral arguments that may be presented at any hearing on this Motion. Plaintiff

requests oral argument.

INTRODUCTION

The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee to the

Party and its members the right to associate in a political party, the right to act and govern

themselves as a political party, the right to vote as a party in Utah elections, the right to define

who belongs to the Party, the right to determine for itself the Party’s platform and message, the

right to allocate its name, title, emblems, and endorsements to those candidates it believes will

best represent the Party’s political platform, the right to determine for itself the candidate

selection process that will produce the nominee who best represents the Party’s political

platform, and to not have the State substitute its judgment for that of the Party or be deprived of

those rights without due process of law. This case concerns these core Constitutional freedoms.

While Utah election law may govern the time, place, and manner of elections, it must

accommodate and respect the Party’s rights, especially in how the Party determines for itself

how its nominee standard bearers are selected. The Supreme Court has stated:

In no area is the political association’s right to exclude more important than in the process of selecting its nominee. That process often determines the party’s positions on the most significant public policy issues of the day, and even when


iii

those positions are predetermined it is the nominee who becomes the party’s ambassador to the general electorate in winning it over to the party’s views.

…

Unsurprisingly, our cases vigorously affirm the special place the First Amendment reserves for, and the special protection it accords, the process by which a political party “select[s] a standard bearer who best represents the party’s ideologies and preferences.” The moment of choosing the party’s nominee, we have said, is “the crucial juncture at which the appeal to common principles may be translated into concerted action, and hence to political power in the community.”

California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 575 (2000) (quoting Tashjian v. Republican

Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208, 216 (1986), and Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic

Central Committee, 489 U.S. 214, 224 (1989)).

Earlier this year, SB54 was enacted to amend the Utah election code and impose on the

Party a byzantine regimen of rules and internal processes that substitutes the judgment of the

State for the judgment of the Party in how to ensure that its candidate selection process produces

those nominees who best represent its political platform. Those responsible for SB54 have

admitted that the intent of the law was not viewpoint neutral, as it was enacted to produce Party

nominees for elected office who will represent different “priorities” and “views” than the

political views of Party and its members and to make the Party’s winning candidates less

responsive and accountable to the Party and its Platform.

SB54 deprives the Party of the rights it should enjoy as a political party, and did enjoy

prior to SB54. Among other things, SB54 takes away the Party’s right to certify its candidates

and control its brand, endorsement and message. It further violates the Supreme Court’s

“unconstitutional choice” or the “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine by seeking to condition

the Party’s right to participate in the political process on its agreement to surrender control of the


iv

internal selection processes of its candidates for office. In the underlying action, the Party seeks

an order striking down SB54 as an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of the Party and its

members. With this motion, the Party seeks a stay of the enforcement of SB54 to preserve the

status quo and avoid irreparable harm to the Party during the pendency of this action.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Party attaches and incorporates herein the attached Declaration of James Evans as

facts in support of this motion. Additionally, the Party would refer the Court to the legislative

history of SB54, which are incorporated herein and available at

http://le.utah.gov/jsp/jdisplay/billaudio.jsp?sess=2014GS&bill=sb0054&Headers=true.


1

ARGUMENT

I. THE APPLICABLE STANDARD TO OBTAIN A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must show “(1) a likelihood of success on

the merits; (2) a likely threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (3) the harm alleged by the

movant outweighs any harm to the non-moving party; and (4) an injunction is in the public

interest.” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1128 (10th Cir. 2013). Where

the moving party can show that the second, third, and fourth factors “tip strongly in [its] favor,”

the Tenth Circuit holds that it may satisfy the first factor “by showing that questions going to the

merits are so serious, substantial, difficult, and doubtful as to make the issue ripe for litigation

and deserving of more deliberate investigation.” Id. (quoting Okla. ex rel. Okla. Tax Comm'n v.

Int'l Registration Plan, Inc., 455 F.3d 1107, 1113 (10th Cir. 2006)); see also Awad v. Ziriax, 670

F.3d 1111, 1125 (10th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted); Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v.

Pierce, 253 F.3d 1234, 1246-47 (10th Cir. 2001) (“If the party seeking the preliminary injunction

can establish the last three factors [of the test for a preliminary injunction], then the first factor

becomes less strict – i.e., instead of showing a substantial likelihood of success, the party need

only prove that there are ‘questions going to the merits … so serious, substantial, difficult, and

doubtful as to make the issue ripe for litigation and deserving of more deliberate investigation.’”

(quoting Federal Lands Legal Consortium v. United States, 195 F.3d 1190, 1194 (10th Cir.

1999))).

“[I]n First Amendment cases, the likelihood of success on the merits will often be the determinative factor.” ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 589 (7th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, –– U.S. ––, 133 S. Ct. 651, 184 L.Ed.2d 459 (2012). That is because:


2

! “the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury, Heideman v. South Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182, 1190 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted);

! “when [a] law ... is likely unconstitutional, the[ ] interests [of those the government represents, such as voters] do not outweigh [a plaintiff’s interest] in having [its] constitutional rights protected,” Awad, 670 F.3d at 1131-32; and

! “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights,” id. at 1132.

Hobby Lobby, 723 F.3d at 1145.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is … to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held. … [A] preliminary injunction is customarily granted on the basis of procedures that are less formal and evidence that is less complete than in a trial on the merits. A party thus is not required to prove his case in full at a preliminary-injunction hearing.

Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)

Preliminary injunctions are regularly granted in cases raising constitutional issues. See,

e.g., Republican Party of New Mexico v. King, 741 F.3d 1089 (10th Cir. 2013) (affirming

preliminary injunction of campaign finance law based on First Amendment grounds); Hobby

Lobby, 723 F.3d at 1128 (reversing the denial of a motion for preliminary injunction of

Affordable Care Act regulations mandating contraceptive coverage based on First Amendment

grounds); Campbell v. Bysiewicz, 242 F. Supp. 2d 164 (D. Conn. 2003) (preliminary injunction

and summary judgment granted to candidates challenging ballot-limiting statutes).

Likewise, with respect to the issues raised in the underlying action regarding trademark

infringement, courts have “consistently held that a preliminary injunction should usually issue

when the use of a mark creates a likelihood of confusion in the consumers’ minds as to the

ownership or sponsorship of a product.” Church of Scientology Intern. v. Elmira Mission of the


3

Church of Scientology, 794 F.2d 38, 41 (2d Cir. 1986) (emphasis added); see also Petro

Franchise Systems, LLC v. All American Properties, Inc., 607 F. Supp. 2d 781 (W.D. Tex. 2009)

(“[P]reliminary injunctions are routinely granted to prevent ongoing use of a trademark.”).

II. THE COURT SHOULD STAY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SB54 DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS MATTER.

A. Party Will Suffer Irreparable Injury If the Injunction Is Denied.

“A plaintiff suffers irreparable injury when the court would be unable to grant an

effective monetary remedy after a full trial because such damages would be inadequate or

difficult to ascertain.” Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1131 (quoting Dominion Video Satellite,

Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp., 269 F.3d 1149, 1156 (10th Cir. 2001)). Significantly, with

respect to Party’s constitutional claims, “when an alleged constitutional right is involved, most

courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary.” Id. (quoting Kikumura v.

Hurley, 242 F.3d 950, 963 (10th Cir. 2001)). As the Hobby Lobby court recognized, “the loss of

First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes

irreparable injury.” Hobby Lobby, 723 F.3d at 1145; see also Thalheimer, 645 F.3d at 1109

(recognizing Hobby Lobby language as part of “long line of precedent”).

In Awad, the plaintiff alleged that enforcement of a state amendment would violate his

constitutional rights. See Awad, 670 F.3d at 1131. (“Mr. Awad has alleged that if the Oklahoma

amendment takes effect, he will suffer such a condemnation injury in violation of constitutional

rights.”). Based on such allegations, the Awad court agreed that “Mr. Awad is likely to face

irreparable injury absent an injunction.” Id. Likewise, in Hobby Lobby, the court had no

difficulty finding that “a plaintiff satisfies the irreparable harm analysis by alleging a violation of

RFRA,” which is even less than alleging a constitutional violation. See Hobby Lobby, 723 F.3d


4

at 1146-47 (explaining that “although RFRA violations are not constitutional violations,

Congress has given RFRA similar importance”). The result here is no different.

The Supreme Court is unequivocal: “our cases vigorously affirm the special place the

First Amendment reserves for, and the special protection it accords, the process by which a

political party selects a standard bearer who best represents the party’s ideologies and

preferences.” California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 575 (2000) (internal

quotations and citation omitted); see also New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552

U.S. 196, 203 (2008) (recognizing “the right that the First Amendment confers on political

parties to structure their internal party processes and to select the candidate of the party’s

choosing”). “There is simply no substitute for a party’s selecting its own candidates.” Id. at 581.

Party has demonstrated how the enactment and implementation of SB54 will violate the very

constitutional rights recognized by Jones and other authorities. See Compl. ¶¶ 96-104; Evans

Decl. ¶¶ 51-59; see also Thalheimer, 645 F.3d at 1116 (“verified complaint may be treated as an

affidavit, and, as such, it is evidence that may support injunctive relief”). Because constitutional

violations are alleged, “no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary.” Awad, 670 F.3d at

1131. Just as in Hobby Lobby and Awad, Party has “demonstrated irreparable harm.” Hobby

Lobby, 723 F.3d at 1146; Awad, 670 F.3d at 1131 (“Mr. Awad is likely to face irreparable injury

absent an injunction.”).

With respect to Party’s trademark infringement claim, many courts have stated that where

the plaintiff makes a strong showing of likely confusion, irreparable injury follows as a matter of

course.” Opticians Ass’n of America v. Independent Opticians of America, 920 F.2d 187, 196

(3d Cir. 1990) (citing opinions from Second, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits). The Tenth


5

Circuit has subscribed to a similar rule. See SCFC ILC, Inc. v. Visa USA, Inc., 936 F.2d 1096,

1100-01 (10th Cir. 1991) (“Irreparable injury is frequently presumed where a trademark is

wrongfully appropriated by another.”). The irreparable injury here is further apparent given the

nature of the trademark at issue. In Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican

Party, Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Kennedy, made the following observations with respect to

Party trademarks and symbols:

Parties seek principally to promote the election of candidates who will implement [their] views. That is achieved in large part by marking candidates with the party's seal of approval. Parties devote substantial resources to making their names trusted symbols of certain approaches to governance. They then encourage voters to cast their votes for the candidates that carry the party name. Parties' efforts to support candidates by marking them with the party trademark, so to speak, have been successful enough to make the party name, in the words of one commentator, “the most important resource that the party possesses.” And all evidence suggests party labels are indeed a central consideration for most voters.

552 U.S. 442, 463-64 (2008) (SCALIA, J., dissenting) (internal citations omitted). Not only

would SB54 allow the State to misappropriate Party’s “most important resource,” but such

misappropriation would occur on the election ballot. To this, Justice Scalia further opined on the

“special role that a state-printed ballot plays in elections” as follows:

The ballot comes into play ‘at the most crucial state in the electoral process—the instant before the vote is cast.’ It is the only document that all voters are guaranteed to see, and it is ‘the last thing the voter sees before he makes his choice’. Thus, we have held that a State cannot elevate a particular issue to prominence by making it the only issue for which the ballot sets forth the candidates’ positions…It [is] not enough to sustain [a] law that the party remain free to select its preferred candidate through another process, and could denounce or campaign against the candidate carrying the party’s name on the general election ballot. Forced association with the party on the general election ballot [is] fatal… [T]hrusting an unwelcome, self-proclaimed association upon the party on the election ballot itself is amply destructive of the party’s associational rights. An individual’s endorsement of a party shapes the voter’s view of what the party


6

stands for, no less than the party’s endorsement of an individual shapes the voter’s view of what the individual stands for.

Id. at 465-66 (citations omitted).

Here, Party has “expended significant resources” to makes its name and mark a “trusted

symbol.” Evans Decl. at ¶ 12. And SB54 will burden Party by the “unwelcome, self-proclaimed

association” of candidates who Party did not nominate and does not endorse. Evans Decl. ¶¶ 51-

52, 55-56, 59. In Justice Scalia’s words, under SB54, Party’s “goodwill is hijacked.”

Washington State Grange, 552 U.S. at 466. In light of the foregoing, Party has established

irreparable injury for purposes of its trademark claim.

B. The Injury The Party Will Suffer Outweighs Any Harm To Defendants.

Party must show that its “threatened injury outweighs any injury to [Defendants] caused

by granting the injunction.” Awad, 670 F.3d at 1131. With respect to Party’s constitutional

claims, Defendants will likely advance the same argument rejected in Awad: “the balance weighs

in their favor because [Utah] voters have a strong interest in having their politically expressed

will enacted, a will manifested by a large margin at the polls.” Id. But, as the Awad court made

clear, “when the law that voters wish to enact is likely unconstitutional, their interests do not

outweigh Mr. Awad’s in having his constitutional rights protected.” Id. Likewise, even if

Defendants rely on some disruption in Utah’s election laws, the result is no different. For

example, in Thalheimer, the court agreed that “the equities tipped in Plaintiffs’ favor because the

burden of the restriction on their speech and associational rights outweighed the disruption to the

City’s campaign finance system.” Thalheimer, 645 F.3d at 1129.

Furthermore, SB54, like the amendment in Awad, “does not appear to address any

immediate problem.” Id. at 1132. Indeed, the purpose of SB54 is simply to weaken Party and


7

produce elected officials who are “less ‘beholden’ to the Party.” Evans Decl. ¶ 43. Surely

seeking to weaken Party and change its message is not an “immediate problem.” And as the

Awad court found, “[d]elayed implementation of a measure that does not appear to address any

immediate problem will generally not cause material harm, even if the measure were eventually

found to be constitutional and enforceable.” Id. Just as in Hobby Lobby, there is “[no] question

about the balance of equities.” Hobby Lobby, 723 F.3d at 1146. The balance of harms tips

decidedly in Party’s favor. Just as in Awad, Party has an interest in having its constitutional

rights protected. This interest outweighs any harm of which Defendants can complain, including

“delayed implementation” of the “politically expressed will” of voters. Id. at 1131-32.

Similarly, with respect to Party’s trademark infringement claim, not only is its

“[i]rreparable injury…presumed” because SB54 allows the State to “wrongfully appropriate[]”

its mark and emblem, but any harm to Defendants is nonexistent. See SCFC, 936 F.2d at 1101.

The balance of harms here is no different than in Otero Sav. and Loan Ass’n v. Federal Reserve

Bank of Kansas City, Mo., 665 F.2d 275, 278 (10th Cir. 1981) wherein the court affirmed the

grant of a preliminary injunction because “the potential injury to the Reserve Bank from the

granting of an injunction was nonexistent when measured against the resulting harm which

would be suffered by plaintiffs if it were denied.” This element clearly weighs in Party’s favor.

C. The Injunction Is Not Adverse to the Public Interest.

“[I]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional

rights.” Hobby Lobby, 723 F.3d at 1147 (quoting Awad, 670 F.3d at 1132). Furthermore,

“[w]hile the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out…the public has a

more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights.” Awad,


8

670 F.3d at 1132. In Awad, where the movant sought to enjoin enforcement of a voter approved

amendment, “the preliminary injunction was not adverse to the public interest.” Id. The same

result holds here. Even if Defendants argue that “the preliminary injunction interferes with

[Utahns’] fundamental right to vote, prevents enactment of the voters’ will, and discourages the

voters from participating in the election process”, the public interest still favors Party. Id. Under

no set of circumstances is Party’s requested preliminary injunction adverse to the public interest.

Likewise, in the trademark infringement context, “[public interest] is most often a

synonym for the right of the public not to be deceived or confused.” Opticians Ass’n, 920 F.2d

at 197 (citing 2 J. McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 30:21 (2d ed. 1984)); see

also Tsunami Softgoods, Inc. v. Tsunami International, Inc., Case No. 2:00-cv-738, 2001 WL

670926, *6 (D. Utah Jan. 19, 2001) (citing Opticians Ass’n). If Defendants are allowed to

wrongfully appropriate Party’s mark and emblem, surely the public interest will be undermined.

There will be deception and/or confusion with respect to whether Party actually supports or

endorses candidates for office and whether candidates for office actually subscribe to Party’s

platform and message, as opposed to simply having a “preference” for Party. See Compl. ¶ 70.

Just as in Tsunami, “there is no strong public interest against [Party]’s request for injunctive

relief” and therefore, the Court should find that the public interest is “best served by entry of an

injunction.” Tsunami, 2001 WL 670926, at *6.

D. Party Has Proved That There Are Questions Going to the Merits So As to Make the Issues Ripe for Litigation and Deserving of More Deliberate Investigation.

As demonstrated above, the other three factors clearly weigh in Party’s favor, both on

constitutional and trademark infringement grounds. Therefore, just as in Prairie Band, Party

“[is] not required to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Prairie


9

Band, 253 F.3d at 1253. Rather, Party is only required “to prove that there [are] ‘questions going

to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult, and doubtful as to make the issue ripe for litigation

and deserving of more deliberative investigation.’” Id. (citation omitted). But, regardless of the

correct test, both are satisfied in this case. The constitutional claims and trademark infringement

claim are addressed in turn.

1. Party’s Constitutional Claims.

“To assess the constitutionality of a state election law, we first examine whether it

burdens rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Eu v. San Francisco County

Democratic Cent. Committee, 489 U.S. 214, 222 (1989). “If the challenged law burdens the

rights of political parties and their members, it can survive constitutional scrutiny only if the

State shows that it advances a compelling state interest, and is narrowly tailored to serve that

interest.” Id. (citations omitted); see also Thalheimer, 645 F.3d at 1116 (“moving party bears the

initial burden of making a colorable claim that its First Amendment rights have been infringed,

or are threatened with infringement, at which point the burden shifts to the government to justify

the restriction.”). Furthermore, “[t]he purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve

the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held…A party thus is not

required to prove his case in full at a preliminary-injunction hearing. Univ. of Texas v.

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981) (emphasis added). Party has made “a colorable claim”

that its First Amendment rights will be infringed by SB54. See, e.g., Evans Decl. ¶¶ 51-59.

Furthermore, Defendants cannot meet their “special First Amendment burden” to justify SB54’s

constitutional infringements. Gordon, 721 F.3d at 644.


10

The Supreme Court has stated that “[a] political party has a First Amendment Right to

limit its membership as it wishes, and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its

view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform.” Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. at

202. “[Supreme Court] cases vigorously affirm the special place the First Amendment reserves

for, and the special protection it accords, the process by which a political party ‘selects a

standard bearer who best represents the party’s ideologies and preferences.’” Jones, 530 U.S. at

575. Stated simply, “a State cannot substitute its judgment for that of the party as to the

desirability of a particular internal party structure”. Eu,, 489 U.S. at 232-33. Further, “[b]arring

political parties from endorsing and opposing candidates not only burdens their freedom of

speech but also infringes upon their freedom of association.” Id. at 224. Likewise, “[d]epriving

a political party of the power to endorse suffocates this right [to ‘identify the people who

constitute the association,’ and select a ‘standard bearer who best represents the party’s

ideologies and preferences.’]”. Id. Finally, “[t]he freedom to associate for the ‘common

advancement of political beliefs,’ necessarily presupposes the freedom to identify the people

who constitute the association, and to limit the association to those people only.” Democratic

Party of U.S. v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107, 122 (1981). In other words, “a

corollary of the right to associate is the right not to associate.” Jones, 530 U.S. at 574. And,

“[i]n no area is the political association’s right to exclude more important than in the process of

selecting its nominee.” Id. at 575. SB54 burdens and/or threatens to burden all of the

aforementioned rights. See, e.g., Evans Decl. ¶¶ 51-59. Several cases illustrate this point.

In La Follette, the Supreme Court found unconstitutional a state law which, like SB54,

burdened a political party’s right to exclude. The Court stated:


11

Here, the members of the National Party, speaking through their rules, chose to define their associational rights by limiting those who could participate in the processes leading to the selection of delegates to their National Convention. On several occasions this Court has recognized that the inclusion of persons unaffiliated with a political party may seriously distort its collective decisions—thus impairing the party’s essential functions—and that political parties may accordingly protect themselves ‘from intrusion by those with adverse political principles.’

La Follette, 450 U.S. at 122. Like the National Party in La Follette, Party has, “speaking

through [its] rules,” defined those who can participate in the process leading to the selection of

its nominees. Evans Decl. ¶¶ 20, 25, 29. Specifically, Party, through its rules, has exercised its

right to exclude those voters who are unaffiliated with Party. Evans Decl. ¶ 25. But SB54, like

the unconstitutional state laws in La Follette, would force association upon the party by forcing

Party to hold primary elections open to voters not affiliated with Party. Evans Decl. ¶ 57(b).

Significantly, the La Follette Court recognized the importance of “inhibit[ing] party ‘raiding,’

whereby voters in sympathy with one party designate themselves as voters of another party so as

to influence or determine the results of the other party’s primary.’” La Follette, 450 U.S. at 122.

But party raiding is exactly what SB54 permits. Absent a narrowly tailored, compelling state

interest, SB54 cannot stand in light of La Follette.

In California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 577 (2000) the election law at

issue “force[d] political parties to associate with-to have their nominees, and hence their

positions, determined by-those who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party, and, at

worst, have expressly affiliated with a rival.” As the Court noted, this was like the

unconstitutional law in La Follette that “allow[ed] nonparty members to participate in the

selection of the party’s nominee [in] conflict[] with the Democratic Party’s rules.” Id. at 576.

Significantly, the Court made the following statement: “It is arguable that, under the Court’s


12

reasoning combined with Tashjian, the only nominating options open for the States to choose

without party consent are: (1) not to have primary elections, or (2) to have what the Court

calls a “nonpartisan primary”. Jones, 530 U.S. at 577 n.8 (emphasis added). SB54 does not

fall into either category.

As the Jones Court explained, a nonpartisan primary “is not actually a ‘primary’ in the

common, partisan sense of that term at all. Rather, it is a general election with a runoff”. Id.

SB54 is not the type of nonpartisan primary described by Jones. This point is illustrated by the

Supreme Court’s consideration of a nonpartisan primary system adopted in Washington, directly

in response to Jones. See Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552

U.S. 442, 446-47 (2008) (“[a]fter our decision in Jones, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit struck down Washington’s primary…The Washington State Grange promptly proposed I-

872 as a replacement.”)

In Grange, the political party claimed that, like the law in Jones, the new Washington law

“allows primary voters who are unaffiliated with a party to choose the party’s nominee.”

Grange, 552 U.S. at 452. But, as the Court explained, “[t]he flaw in this argument is that, unlike

the California primary, the I-872 primary does not, by its terms, choose the parties’ nominees.”

Id. at 453. “[T]he election regulations specifically provide that the primary ‘does not serve to

determine the nominees of a political party but serves to winnow the number of candidates to a

final list of two for the general election.’” Id. Finally, “[w]hether the parties nominate their own

candidates outside the state-run primary is simply irrelevant.” Id. SB54 is nothing like the

Grange law. Unlike the Grange law, SB54 does choose the party’s nominee. Evans Decl. ¶

51(b). And unlike the Grange law, it is not irrelevant if “parties nominate their own candidates


13

outside the state-run primary”. Id. Indeed, if the party nominates a candidate outside the

state-run primary, a severe penalty is imposed; the party is not permitted to endorse its candidate

on the general election ballot. Evans Decl. ¶¶ 52(b). As Justice Scalia made clear: “Parties’

efforts to support candidates by marking them with the party trademark, so to speak, have been

successful enough to make the party name, in the words of one commentator, ‘the most

important resource that the party possesses.’” Grange, 552 U.S. at 464 (SCALIA, J., dissenting).

Like the blanket primary in Jones, SB54 “forces petitioners to adulterate their

candidate-selection process—a political party’s basic function—by opening it up to persons

wholly unaffiliated with the party, who may have different views from the party.” Jones, 530

U.S. at 568. And like the law in Jones, SB54 “has the likely outcome—indeed, it is [SB54’s]

intended outcome—of changing the parties’ message.” Id. Evans Decl. ¶ 43. SB54 is not the

type of “nominating option[] open for the State to choose without party consent”. Id. at 577 n.8.

Accordingly, SB54 “is unconstitutional unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state

interest.” Id. at 568. Following the Jones decision, several states have found that laws similar to

SB54 impose unconstitutional burdens on political parties.

In Idaho Republican Party v. Ysura, 765 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 1268 (D. Idaho 2011), the

court found that “[b]ecause the open primary permits substantial numbers of independent voters,

as well as voters associated with other political parties, to ‘cross over’ and participate in the

Republican Party’s selection of its nominees, the Court concludes that, by mandating such a

nomination process, the State violates the Party’s constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of

association.” In Idaho Republican Party, the court relied on the state’s own expert testimony,

which established the following:


14

Inside the Idaho open primary system, especially in a one-party state like Idaho where the Republican Party primaries are in most cases the ‘only game in town,’ voters do likely cross over; they have to in order to have any meaningful influence in the elections and express their sincere preferences with regard to their own representation…

Id. at 1273. Expert testimony further established that “extant empirical literature on crossover

voting shows ‘that an effective estimate of the average of crossover voting in the literature comes

in at around 10%, under the strict definition of crossover voting—of one side’s partisan

identifiers voting in another party.’” Id. at 1274. The experts also testified that “if they included

independent voters, there is more likely 20-30% crossover voting.” Id. According to Idaho

Republican Party, “even if we use the most conservative estimate of 10% crossover voting, with

only a small number of partisan raiders, the effects can be devastating to a party.” Id. at 1275.

Thus, the court could not “find any meaningful distinction between the open primary in

Idaho and the blanket primary found unconstitutional in Jones. Like the blanket primary system

addressed in Jones, the current open primary system in Idaho forces the Idaho Republican Party

to open its candidate-selection process to persons wholly unaffiliated with the Party.” Id. This

case is no different. Like Idaho, Utah is a “one-party state…where the Republican Party

primaries [will] in most cases [be] the ‘only game in town’”. Id. at 1273; see Evans Decl. ¶ 13.

Further, SB54 does not include any disaffiliation requirements and it mandates that unaffiliated

voters can cast votes in Party’s primary elections. Evans Decl. ¶ 57(b). Just as in Idaho

Republican Party, crossover voting is highly likely, and whether the percentage of crossover

voting is 10%, or even smaller, just as in Idaho Republican Party or Jones, “such forced

association has the likely outcome…of changing [Party’s] message.” Id. at 1275 (quoting Jones,

530 U.S. at 581-82). Indeed, that is the stated purpose of County My Vote and SB54. Evans


15

Decl. ¶¶ 42-43. With respect to Party’s right to exclude, just as in Idaho Republican Party, there

is no “meaningful distinction between the open primary [under SB54] and blanket primary found

unconstitutional in Jones.” Id.

In Arizona Libertarian Party v. Brewer, Case No. 4:02-cv-00144-RCC (D. Ariz. Sept. 27,

2000) (Dkt. 61), the district court noted that “[a] political party’s right to choose its own

nominees is a core associational activity and the mandatory inclusion of unaffiliated persons with

the political party may seriously distort the party’s decision.” (Order at 7, attached as Exhibit B.)

As the court explained, “Arizona’s primary system compels the ALP to associate with registered

independents and those registered with other parties who do not have a candidate in the general

election.” (Order at 5-6.) Because this “create[d] the danger that the Libertarian candidate will

be selected by voters who are not Libertarians,” the district court found that “[t]he burden

imposed on the ALP by Arizona’s primary system is severe.” (Id. at 5.) Stated differently,

“[d]ue to the potential distortion forced on the Libertarian party by the mandatory inclusion of

those not affiliated with the party, Arizona’s primary system imposes a severe burden on the

ALP.” (Id. at 7.) The district court also rejected attempts to distinguish Arizona’s law from the

one in Jones, or to analogize Arizona’s primary system to those at issue in Clingman v. Beaver,

544 U.S. 581 (2005).

As the court explained, “[t]he burden imposed in this case is more similar to the burden

imposed in Jones than the burden imposed in Clingman.” (Order at 6-7.) This is because, like

Jones, and unlike Clingman, “the burden involved forced association in the primary election”.

(Id.) In other words, “[a]s in Jones, Arizona’s primary system has created a clear and present

danger of a party’s candidate being chosen by people other than party members.” SB54 permits


16

unaffiliated voters to vote in Party’s primary elections. This is the same burden found in Arizona

Libertarian Party and Jones, not Clingman. Indeed, the Clingman Court specifically

distinguished Oklahoma’s “semiclosed primary system” as “unlike” the law in Jones which

would “compel…association with unwanted members or voters”. Clingman, 544 U.S. at 587.

In addition to the Jones case, Arizona Libertarian Party also explained how “Arizona’s

primary system is similar to the Virginia primary system found unconstitutional in Miller v.

Brown, 465 F. Supp. 2d 584 (E.D. Va. 2006)”. (Order at 7-8.) As the Sixth Circuit stated, “the

Board concedes that if a political party is compelled to select its candidate ‘by means of a

state-run primary, the State may not force the party to include voters in that primary.’”

Miller v. Brown, 503 F.3d 360, 368 (4th Cir. 2007) (emphasis added). But, like SB54, the

Virginia law did just that, it “forced the Committee to use a nomination process that prevented it

from excluding voters with whom it did not wish to associate.” Id. at 363. Thus, “relying on

language from our prior opinion in this case, the court determined that ‘the type of forced

association caused by mandatory open primary causes significant injury to the First Amendment

rights of a political party.’” Id.

The only reason Virginia’s law was not unconstitutional on its face was “because

Virginia law permitted other methods of nomination under which a political party could restrict

participation in its nominating process to voters who share its political beliefs.” Id. But that is

not the case with SB54. While Defendants may argue that Party can disregard SB54 and still

place a nominee on the general election ballot, the Court should not be persuaded. As explained

above, any disregard for the SB54 system comes at great cost to Party. See Evans Decl. ¶ 52(b).

SB54 would severely penalize Party by prohibiting it from putting its mark or endorsement on


17

the ballot. Id. But being able to “support candidates by marking them with the party

trademark…[is] the most important resource that the party possesses.” Grange, 552 U.S. at 464

(SCALIA, J., dissenting); see also Eu, 489 U.S. at 224 (“[b]arring political parties from

endorsing and opposing candidates not only burdens their freedom of speech but also infringes

upon their freedom of association” and “[d]epriving a political party of the power to endorse

suffocates this right.”) Indeed, “all evidence suggests party labels are...a central consideration

for most voters.” Id. Contrary to what Defendants might claim, SB54 does not allow “other

methods of nomination,” SB54 impermissibly places Party between a rock and a hard place. On

the one hand, Party must allow the State to “substitute its judgment for that of the party,”

something the State “cannot” do. See Eu, 489 U.S. at 233. On the other hand, Party must forfeit

its right to have its mark and endorsement, it’s “most important resource,” on the general

election ballot. See Grange, 552 U.S. at 464 (SCALIA, J., dissenting); Evans Decl. ¶ 52(b). But

even if SB54 provides other nominating options, Arizona Libertarian Party dictates that the

burden imposed by SB54 is still severe, just as it was in Miller “even though the primary system

in Virginia was not exclusive.” Arizona Libertarian Party, Order at 7-8.

Finally, in Green Party of Tennessee v. Hargett, 882 F. Supp. 2d 959 (M.D. Tenn. 2012)

rev'd on other grounds and remanded, 700 F.3d 816 (6th Cir. 2012), the court invalidated

Tennessee’s requirement that party’s choose nominees by way of primary elections. There, the

state argued that Tennessee’s system was “akin to the ‘semi-closed’ primary that renders

Tennessee’s system distinguishable from Jones and more like the Supreme Court’s decisions in

Clingman, and Tashjian.” Id. at 1004. But, unlike the Tennessee statute at issue, as well as

SB54, the Clingman and Tashjian cases involved primaries where “voters also had to act by


18

registering themselves in a particular party” and where “voters had to ‘register as Libertarians or

Independents to participate in LPO’s primary”. Id. In other words, like the Tennessee law, SB54

“does not assure that the nonparty members are ‘registered independents’ as in Clingman, and

Tashjian.” Id. More significantly, “Clingman…and Tashjian…involved acts by political parties

requesting the State to open their closed primaries to allow independent voters to participate in

their primaries.” Id. In other words, unlike in Clingman and Tashjian, and just like in Green

Party, here “the State is initiating this action by state law imposing these requirements upon

[Party].” Id. This is important. The Jones Court recognized that under Tashjian, “a party may

require a State to open up a closed primary”. Jones, 530 U.S. at 577 n.8. But, the Court stated

that, arguably, there are only two “nominating options open for the States to choose without

party consent”. Id. Those options are (1) to not have primaries at all, or (2) to have a

“nonpartisan primary”. Id. As previously explained, SB54 does not fall into either of these

permissible “nominating options”.

The Green Party court ultimately held that “[b]ased upon Timmons and the holding in

Jones,…Tennessee cannot force Plaintiffs, as minor political parties, to select their nominees by

primary election and to compel Plaintiffs to do so violates Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right of

association, including the right to select the nominees or spokespersons for their parties.” Green

Party, 882 F. Supp. 2d at 1005. Just as in Green Party, and as counseled by the Supreme Court

in Jones, the State cannot impose the “nominating option” contemplated by SB54 without

Party’s consent. Jones, 530 U.S. at 577 n.8. To do so imposes a severe burden on Party’s

constitutional rights.


19

To summarize, SB54 is substantially similar to the election laws that were invalidated by

La Follette, Jones, Idaho Republican Party, Arizona Libertarian Party, Miller, and Green Party.

Like SB54, the laws in all of those cases impermissibly forced political parties “to adulterate

their candidate-selection process—the ‘basic function of a political party,’—by opening it up to

persons wholly unaffiliated with the party.” Jones, 530 U.S. at 581. Like SB54, the burden

imposed by the laws in all of those cases “is both severe and unnecessary.” Id. at 586. And like

the laws in all of those cases, SB54 is “unconstitutional unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a

compelling state interest.” Id. at 582.

While Defendants have not yet articulated what they believe to be a narrowly tailored,

compelling state interest, it is highly unlikely they can satisfy their burden. See Gordon, 721

F.3d at 644 (in First Amendment context, state has “special First Amendment burden”). Indeed,

Jones rejected “seven state interests” and also “observe[d] that even if all these state interests

were compelling ones, Proposition 198 is not a narrowly tailored means of furthering them.”

Jones, 530 U.S. at 582, 585. As an example of a narrowly tailored means, the Court proffered

the “nonpartisan primary,” which SB54 is not. See id. at 585-86 (explaining nonpartisan blanket

primary in which, unlike the law in Jones, or SB54 here, “[p]rimary voters are not choosing a

party’s nominee.”) Any attempt by Defendants to offer a compelling state interest is further

likely to fail because, as the Supreme Court held in La Follette, “whatever the strength of the

state interests supporting the open primary itself, they could not justify this ‘substantial intrusion

into the associational freedoms of members of the National Party.’” Id. at 576 (quoting La

Follette, 450 U.S. at 126).


20

In light of the foregoing, there can be no doubt that Party has proven “that there [are]

‘questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult, and doubtful as to make the issue

ripe for litigation and deserving of more deliberative investigation.’” Prairie Band, 253 F.3d at

1253. But even if Party is required to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the

merits, it has done so.

2. Party’s Trademark Infringement Claim.

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), Party must make the following showings: (1) “that the mark

is protectable”; (2) “that Defendants used the trademark ‘in connection with any goods or

services’; and (3) “that Defendants’ use ‘is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to

deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as

to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by

another person.” Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Foundation of Apologetic Information and

Research, 527 F.3d 1045, 1050 (10th Cir. 2009). These elements are satisfied here.

a. Party’s Mark Is Protectable.

“An identifying mark is distinctive and capable of being protected if it either (1) is

inherently distinctive or (2) has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning.” Two

Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 769 (1992). “Marks are often classified in

categories of generally increasing distinctiveness…they may be (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3)

suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or (5) fanciful.” Id. at 768. “The latter three categories of marks,

because of their intrinsic nature serves to identify a particular source of a product, are deemed

inherently distinctive and are entitled to protection.” Id. “In contrast, generic marks—those that


21

‘refer to the genus of which the particular product is a species,’—are not registerable as

trademarks.” Id. Here, the Party’s mark fits into the latter three categories and is protectable.

Justice Scalia’s dissent in the Washington State Grange case is instructive. As Justice

Scalia explained, “[p]arties seek principally to promote the election of candidates who will

implement [their] views.” Washington State Grange, 552 U.S. at 463 (citations omitted). “That

is achieved in large part by marking candidates with the party's seal of approval” and “[p]arties

devote substantial resources to making their names trusted symbols of certain approaches to

governance.” Id. at 464 (citations omitted). Further, “[p]arties' efforts to support candidates by

marking them with the party trademark, so to speak, have been successful enough to make the

party name, in the words of one commentator, ‘the most important resource that the party

possesses.’” Id. (citations omitted). Further, “all evidence suggests party labels are indeed a

central consideration for most voters.” Id. (citations omitted). Surely Party’s Mark, or the mark

of any political party, is “inherently distinctive and…entitled to protection.” Two Pesos, 505

U.S. at 768. This is especially true where Party has “expended significant resources” to make its

name and mark a “trusted symbol”. Evans Decl. ¶ 12.

Also instructive is the Second Circuit’s decision in United We Stand America Inc. v.

United We Stand, America New York, Inc., 128 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1997). There, the plaintiff

brought suit “to enjoin the use of its registered service mark” which “was a service mark initially

used by the principal campaign committee for Ross Perot’s 1992 presidential campaign.” United

We Stand, 128 F.3d at 88. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff and the

Second Circuit affirmed. Like Justice Scalia, the Second Circuit explained the importance of a

political organization’s mark:


22

A political organization that adopts a platform and endorses candidates under a trade name performs the valuable service of communicating to voters that it has determined that the election of those candidates would be beneficial to the objectives of the organization. Thus voters who support those objectives can support the endorsed candidates with some confidence that doing so will advance the voters' objectives. If different organizations were permitted to employ the same trade name in endorsing candidates, voters would be unable to derive any significance from an endorsement, as they would not know whether the endorsement came from the organization whose objectives they shared or from another organization using the same name…The resulting confusion would be catastrophic; voters would have no way of understanding the significance of an endorsement or position taken by parties of recognized major names. The suggestion that the performance of such functions is not within the scope of “services in commerce” seem to us to be not only wrong but extraordinarily impractical for the functioning of our political system.

Id. at 90. In light of the foregoing, there can be no doubt that Party’s mark is protectable. See,

e.g., Partido Revolucionario Dominicano (PRD) Seccional Metropolitana de Washington-DC,

Maryland y Virginia v. Partido Revolucionario Dominicano, Seccional de Maryland y Virginia,

312 F. Supp. 2d 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2004) (“[Lanham Act] protections extend to the names and

symbols related to political organizations.”) (citing United We Stand, 128 F.3d at 90).

b. Under SB54, Party’s Mark Will Be Used In Connection With Goods Or Services.

Again, United We Stand is instructive. As the Second Circuit explained, “[t]he term

‘services’ has been interpreted broadly.” United We Stand, 128 F.3d at 89. “[T]he right to

enjoin infringement of a trade or service mark ‘is as available to public service organizations as

to merchants and manufacturers.’” Id. (citation omitted). And “retention of a distinct identity by

a non-profit organization that sells no goods is just as important as it is to a commercial

company.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). Accordingly, “[t]he Lanham Act has

thus been applied to defendants furnishing a wide variety of non-commercial public and civic

benefits.” Id. at 90.


23

Under SB54, the State provides a “non-commercial public and civic benefit[]” by

overseeing general elections. Indeed, as the Supreme Court explained in Jones, “States have a

major role to play in structuring and monitoring the election process”. Jones, 530 U.S. at 572.

Here, among other things, the State is charged with regulating paper ballots. See Utah Code

Ann. 20A-6-301, et seq as amended. Thus, the State is “engaged in dissemination of

information” which has been categorized as a “service” under the Lanham Act. See United We

Stand, 128 F.3d at 90 (citing Committee for Idaho’s High Desert v. Yost, 881 F.Supp. 1457,

1470-71 (D. Idaho 1995)). The concurring and dissenting opinions in Washington State Grange

recognized the importance of this “service”. Citing to Justice Scalia’s dissent, Chief Justice

Roberts recognized that “what makes the ballot ‘special’ is precisely the effect it has on voter

impressions.” Washington State Grange, 552 U.S. at 460 (Roberts, C.J. concurring). Namely

that “[the ballot] is the only document that all voters are guaranteed to see, and it is the ‘last thing

the voter sees before he makes his choice’.” Id. at 465 (Scalia, J. dissenting) (citations omitted).

Here, SB54 allows the State to use Party’s mark in connection with “goods or services”.

Even without Party’s authorization, the State can use Party’s mark on the ballot and associate

Party’s mark and symbol with candidates who were not nominated by Party and who Party does

not endorse. Evans Decl. ¶¶ 52, 55. To the extent the State argues that this element is not met

because the State does not offer “competing services,” the Court should not be persuaded. See

Washington State Republican Party v. Washington State Grange, 676 F.3d 784, 795 (9th Cir.

2012) (affirming dismissal of trademark claim where Libertarian Party did not “even attempt[]”

to show that state “uses party labels on ballot to perform a service in competition with the

Libertarian Party.”)


24

It is well established that “liability for trademark infringement can extend beyond those

who actually mislabeled goods with the mark of another.” Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives

Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 853 (1982). In other words, liability is not limited to the one

who offers the competing services. As the Inwood Court explained, “if a manufacturer or

distributor intentionally induces another to infringe a trademark, or if it continues to supply its

product to one whom it knows or has reason to know is engaging in trademark infringement, the

manufacturer or distributor is contributorially responsible for any harm done as a result of the

deceit.” Id. at 854. Here SB54 would allow the State to use Party’s mark and associate it with

candidates whom the State “knows or has reason to know” are not actually endorsed by Party

and whom the Party did not select as its nominee. Evans Decl. ¶¶ 52, 55. SB54 would allow the

State to associate Party’s mark with candidates who do not adhere to Party’s platform, are not

accountable to Party, and are otherwise in direct competition with Party and potentially Party’s

actual preferred nominee. Id. ¶¶ 52, 55-56, 59. Under SB54, the State would certainly be liable

pursuant to the doctrine of contributory infringement.

c. The State’s Use Of Party’s Mark Is Likely To Cause Confusion.

There can be no doubt that the State’s use of Party’s mark under SB54 is likely to cause

confusion. As explained above, SB54 would permit the State to associate Party’s mark with

candidates who do not adhere to Party’s platform and who are not the standard bearer for Party’s

message. To quote again from United We Stand:

A political organization that adopts a platform and endorses candidates under a trade name performs the valuable service of communicating to voters that it has determined that the election of those candidates would be beneficial to the objectives of the organization. Thus voters who support those objectives can support the endorsed candidates with some confidence that doing so will advance the voters' objectives. If different organizations were permitted to employ the


25

same trade name in endorsing candidates, voters would be unable to derive any significance from an endorsement, as they would not know whether the endorsement came from the organization whose objectives they shared or from another organization using the same name…The resulting confusion would be catastrophic; voters would have no way of understanding the significance of an endorsement or position taken by parties of recognized major names.

United We Stand, 128 F.3d at 90-91. If candidates who do not adhere to Party’s platform and

who are not endorsed by Party are allowed to have Party’s mark placed next to their name on the

ballot, as SB54 allows, surely there will be “catastrophic” confusion. Indeed, as Justice Scalia

explained, “party labels are indeed a central consideration for most voters” and a political party’s

goal of “promot[ing] the election of candidates who will implement [its] views…is achieved in

large part by marking candidates with the party’s seal of approval.” Washington State Grange,

552 U.S. at 463-64 (Scalia, J. dissenting). This element is satisfied in Party’s favor.

With respect to Party’s trademark infringement claim, Party has proven “that there [are]

‘questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult, and doubtful as to make the issue

ripe for litigation and deserving of more deliberative investigation.’” Prairie Band, 253 F.3d at

1253. But even if the Court applies the “substantial likelihood of success” standard, it is also

satisfied.

Dated: December 31, 2014.

/s/ Marcus R. Mumford Attorney for Plaintiff


Marcus R. Mumford (12737)

MUMFORD PC

405 South Main Street, Suite 975

Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Telephone: (801) 428-2000

Email: [email protected]

Attorney for Plaintiff Utah Republican Party

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

UTAH REPUBLICAN PARTY,

Plaintiff,

v.

GARY R. HERBERT, in his Official

Capacity as Governor of Utah, and

SPENCER J. COX, in his Official Capacity

as Lieutenant Governor of Utah,

Defendants.

DECLARATION OF JAMES

EVANS

Case No. 2:14-cv-00876-DN

Judge David Nuffer

I, James Evans, declare as follows:

1. I am chairman of the Utah Republican Party (the “Party”), plaintiff to the above-

referenced action. I was elected as chairman in 2013 to a two-year term of office. I submit this

sworn declaration in support of the Party’s motion for a preliminary injunction to stay the

enforcement of SB54 during the pendency of the underlying dispute.

Duties and Responsibilities

2. As chairman of the Party, my duties are defined by the Party’s foundational

documents, including the Party’s Constitution and Bylaws, which are attached hereto as Exhibits

1 and 2.

Case 2:14-cv-00876-DN Document 12-1 Filed 01/01/15 Page 1 of 48

2

3. The stated purpose of the Party is to “nominate and support the election of

Republican candidates in partisan races for public office, promote the principles set forth in the

State Party Platform, and perform Party functions set forth in the election laws of the State of

Utah and the Constitution and Bylaws of the Party.” Ex. 1, Art. I(B).

4. Consistent with the Party’s purpose, my duties are defined to serve the Party in

the following roles: as Chair of the State Central Committee, as Chair of the State Executive

Committee, and as liaison with the Lieutenant Governor of Utah on all matters relating to Utah

state election laws. Ex. 1, Art. III(B)(1).

5. Among other things, my duties under the current version of the Utah election code

include the certification to the Utah Lieutenant Governor the names of the Party’s nominees for

elected office selected pursuant to the Party’s chosen candidate selection process, who would in

turn provide the names of those candidates to the individual county clerks serving as Utah

election officers in their respective counties. Ex. 1, Art. III(B)(1) & Utah Code Ann. §§ 20A-9-

202(4) & -9-701.

6. I understand that legislation enacted earlier this year by the Utah Legislature and

Governor, who is a defendant to this lawsuit, as Utah Senate Bill 54 (“SB54”) amended the Utah

election code to, and among other things, take away the Party’s rights, and my duties to execute

those rights, regarding the certification of the Party’s nominees by mandating, among other

things, that Utah’s Lieutenant Governor certify himself the Party’s nominees, without awaiting

certification from myself or the Party. Utah Code Ann. §§ 20A-9-701(1)-(2), as amended.

7. This is a significant burden on the Party’s rights, as it places exclusively in the

hands of the State of Utah (“State”) the power to control and designate the Party’s nominees and


3

candidates for elected office.

8. Heretofore, I understand the Utah election code to have respected and recognized

the rights of the Party, the membership is made up of like-minded Utah registered voters, to

organize in political parties in order to select and endorse those candidates for office who best

represent the ideologies and preferences of the Party’s members, and to “place names of

candidates representing that organization upon the primary and regular election ballots under the

common organization name.” Utah Code Ann. § 20A-8-102(2).

9. Utah election code provides that the paper ballots, electronic ballots, and ballot

sheets used in the State’s general elections shall designate, where appropriate, the Party’s

endorsements of political parties nominating candidates, including by way of a political party’s

name, title and emblem, in order to communicate its Party endorsements to general election

voters. Utah Code Ann. §§ 20A-6-301(1)(d)-(g) & -301(2)(a), -302(1)(a), -303(1)(g), & -

304(1)(g).

10. Utah code mandates that the State ensure that the paper or electronic general

election ballots or ballot sheets be designed to allow for voting by a straight ticket of any

registered political party. Utah Code Ann. § 20A-6-305(4)(d).

11. As chairman, I have seen to my duties to communicate to the State of Utah the

requisite certifications concerning the use and appearance on the ballot of the Party’s name, title,

and emblem, with the names of the Party’s candidates, in order to communicate the Party’s

endorsement to general election voters. This includes the certification and authorization to use

the Party’s logo on the Lieutenant Governor’s certification and general election ballots, which

was provided most recently on or about August 26, 2014, with the logo and emblem appearing


4

generally as set forth in the Complaint filed in this matter at paragraph 47.

12. The Party has expended significant resources to protect and preserve the exclusive

use of its name, title, marks and other intellectual property, and it is also the licensee of critical

marks and intellectual property belonging to the Republican National Committee pertaining to

the Republican Party name and brand.

The Party

13. The Party is a registered political party under Utah election code, and it is

generally recognized as being the most dominant political party in the State, in terms of the

number of its members and in the success it has had electing its nominees to office at the federal,

state, and local levels.

14. The success that the Party has had in electing nominees to office at the federal,

state, and local levels is due almost entirely to the candidate selection process that the Party has

chosen and designated for itself.

15. These candidates, especially successful, naturally become leaders in the Party and

standard bearers who represent the Party’s ideologies and preferences. As set forth below, the

Party has established a candidate selection process for itself to ensure that those nominees and

candidates are responsive to the Party and its members, including a commitment to the Party’s

platform as the standard by which their conduct in office should be measured.

16. Prior to SB54, the Utah election code largely left it up to the Party to determine

for itself the candidate selection process in order to select standard bearers who best represent the

Party’s ideologies and preferences.

a. The election code required that the Party designate a candidate selection process “at


5

the federal, state, and county levels that allows active participation by party

members,” but otherwise left matters to the Party. Utah Code Ann. §§ 20A-8-

401(2)(c).

b. The election code recognizes, as it must, that the State’s procedures for a primary

election cannot “govern or regulate the internal procedures of a registered political

party.” Utah Code Ann. § 20A-9-401(2).

17. Utah code currently allows, but does not require, that the Party may “choose[]” to

use the State’s primary election process “to nominate some or all of its candidates.” Utah Code

Ann. § 20A-9-403(1)(b).

The Party’s Chosen Candidate Nomination Process

18. In addition to a constitution and bylaws, the Party has adopted a platform to

express its common message on the timely political issues of the day. A copy of that Platform is

attached as Exhibit 3.

19. Consistent with current Utah election code, the Party has determined the

candidate selection process that will allow and encourage active participation by Party members

and, in its view, produce nominees who best represent the Party’s political platform.

20. That process is established largely by the Party’s constitution and bylaws and

involves a combination of a caucus/ convention and primary election, where the members of the

Party, organized by precincts, hold neighborhood caucus meetings at a designated time and,

among other things, elect a member or members of their neighborhood to serve as delegates to

the Party’s county and state nominating conventions, where those delegates nominate the Party’s

candidates for partisan federal, state and local government elected offices. Ex. 1, Art. XII.1.A-.B


6

& .2.A-.J. The Party’s constitution tightly controls the process by which the names of its

nominees are certified by the Party to the respective Utah county clerks or Utah lieutenant

governor. Id.

21. The Party’s Constitution and Bylaws establish the procedures for its

neighborhood caucus meetings.

a. The Party’s Constitution and Bylaws provide that while the caucus meetings are open

to the public, only registered Republican Party members may participate, and any

officer, delegate, candidate or registered affiliated voter of a rival political party in the

state is not allowed to participate. Ex. 1, Art. XII.1.A; Ex. 2, § 9.A.3

b. The Party’s Bylaws mandate that participants start all caucus meetings with, among

other things, a prayer, the recitation of the pledge of allegiance, and a reading of the

Party’s platform, and only after those agenda items do the members select delegates

to the county and state nominating conventions. Ex. 2, § 9.0.B.

22. The Party’s Constitution and Bylaws establish the rules and procedures for its

county and state nominating conventions.

a. Similar to the neighborhood caucus meetings, the county and state nominating

conventions are open to the public, but participation is limited to those delegates

selected at the Party’s neighborhood caucus meetings to nominate candidates for

partisan elective office and adopt the Party platform. Ex. 1, Art. XII.3.A.

b. The Party’s Bylaws provide that only Republican candidates who have properly filed

for elected public office as required by Utah election law and who also meet the

requirements of the Utah Republican Party will be considered by the convention. Ex.


7

2, § 7.5.I.1.

c. The Party’s Bylaws require that any candidate wishing to run for the Party’s

nomination to elected office must sign a disclosure statement regarding the Party

Platform, and submit it to the Party’s headquarters at least 30 days prior to the

convention, which the Party makes available to all delegates attending the

convention, so that the Party’s delegates may consider in advance a candidate’s

support for and acceptance of the Platform as the standard by which that candidate

will be evaluated as the holder of public office. Ex. 2, § 8.0.A.

d. In the Party Platform disclosure statement, the candidate running for the Party’s

nomination and endorsement must certify that he or she is “not a candidate, officer,

delegate nor position holder in any party other than the Republican party” and either:

i. that the candidate has “read the Utah Republican Party Platform” and

“support[s] … and accept[s] it as the standard by which my performance as a

candidate and as an officeholder should be evaluated”; or

ii. that the candidate has “read the Utah Republican Party Platform” and, with

exception of provisions from the Platform specifically noted by the candidate,


candidate and as an officeholder should be evaluated.” Ex. 2, § 8.0.A.

e. In the event that any candidate fails to submit a disclosure statement as required, the

Party Chairman must announce this failure to the delegates prior to balloting for that

candidate’s office, so that the Party’s delegates may consider the candidate’s failure

in that respect in their selection of a nominee. Ex. 2, § 8.0.B.


8

f. Except for those situations where a candidate is running unopposed, the Party

Constitution requires that delegates cast votes at the convention to select the Party’s

nominee for elected office only after substantive nominating and acceptance speeches

are made to the delegates by the individual candidates or on behalf of the individual

candidates running for the Party’s nomination. Ex. 1, Art. XII.2.F.

23. In the event a field of candidates is more than two, for a single elected office, the

Party’s constitution provides for the use of multiple ballots until the field is winnowed to the top

two candidates, or until a candidate receives 60% or more of the delegate vote cast for the office

(the “Convention Threshold”), in which case, that candidate is certified by the Party to the

State’s election officer to appear on the general election ballot as the Party’s endorsed nominee.

Ex. 1, Art. XII.2.H-.J.

24. If no candidate receives 60% or more of the delegates’ vote at convention as to a

single elected office, the Party nominates both candidates to run in a primary election conducted

in accordance with Utah election code. Ex. 1, Art. XII.2.I & .5.A.

25. The Party mandates that only voters who are registered Republicans may vote in a

Republican primary election. Ex. 1, Art. XII.5.B.

26. By limiting its use of the primary election process provided by the state of Utah to

the top two candidates at convention, where neither received more than 60%, the Party ensures

that the nominee winning any primary election will have received a majority of votes cast.

27. In this manner, and only this manner, has the Party chosen to use the primary

election process provided by the state of Utah to nominate some of its candidates.

28. The Party has established these rules and procedures pursuant to its founding


9

documents, and they can only be changed as set forth in those founding documents.

29. The purpose of these rules and procedures is to “promote the principles set forth

in the State Party Platform” in the nomination of Republican candidates for elected office by,

among other things, (1) limiting participation at the Party’s caucuses and county and state

nominating conventions to Party members, (2) mandating neighborhood caucuses begin with a

prayer, a pledge, and a review of the Party’s platform, (3) requiring that all candidates seeking

the Party’s nomination make disclosure statements regarding the Party’s platform and

substantive speeches to delegates before the delegates vote, and (4) setting the designated vote

thresholds to require either a supermajority of delegates at convention or a majority of Party

members voting where the Party rules call for the use of Utah’s primary election process. Ex. 1,

Art. I.B.

The Impact Of SB54

30. I have expended a significant amount of time and effort in reviewing the

amendments to the Utah election code under SB54, how that law affects and burdens the Party’s

rights.

31. In this, I have spent countless hours conferring with Party’s members, leaders,

delegates, and others in trying to assess and analyze the impact of SB54, and what the Party

would have to do to bring itself into compliance with the law when SB54 goes into effect.

32. Given my position with the Party since 2013, I am aware of some of the

circumstances at issue in the State’s proposing and passing of SB54.

33. I understand that SB54 includes in significant part the entirety of a proposal

circulated beginning in 2013 by a handful of well-known, influential, and self-described


10

bipartisans that came to be known as Count My Vote.

34. I understand that the stated purpose of the Count My Vote efforts was to change

the Utah election code for the purpose of affecting the message and “priorities” expressed by the

Utah Republican Party in its chosen candidate selection process, and in particular to decrease the

level of responsiveness that Party nominees who won election would later be required to show to

the Party and its Party Platform.

35. At the time, individuals associated with what came to be known as Count My

Vote began making demands to Party leadership and its State Central Committee that the Party

change the rules and procedures governing its candidate selection process.

36. On or about April 12, 2013, these individuals sent Republican Party leaders, and

the State Central Committee, a letter stating that their group, which was also registered as Utah

Political Issues Committee Alliance for Good Government, would move forward with a ballot

initiative to change Utah’s election code in a way that would affect the Party’s power and

influence, unless the Party’s State Central Committee voted, among other things, to: (1) change

the Party’s internal rules and procedures for voting at its nominating conventions to eliminate

multiple ballots and raise the Convention Threshold to between 70-80%; (2) open caucus

participation and allow absentee balloting; and (3) agree to implement other “long-term internal

or statutory solutions to provide stability and predictability.”

37. The Party’s State Central Committee voted multiple times to reject these demands

that the Party change its rules under threat of a ballot initiative that would impose changes on the

Party through the Utah election code.

a. On or about March 23, 2013, a special session of the State Central Committee met to


11

discuss the Count My Vote demands that the Party change its internal rules and

policies in the candidate selection process, and rejected most of them.

b. On or about April 13, 2013, the Party’s State Central Committee rejected a proposal

to increase the Convention Threshold as Count My Vote had demanded.

c. On or about May 18, 2013, the Party’s State Central Committee rejected a similar

proposal made to increase the Convention Threshold from 60% to 2/3rds or 66% of

delegates, as Count My Vote had demanded.

38. After the State Central Committee rejected Count My Vote’s demands, on or

about May 18, 2013, the Party’s delegates to the state convention also rejected a proposal to

increase the Convention Threshold from 60% to 2/3rds or 66% of delegates, and voted to table

indefinitely a proposal to increase the Convention Threshold from 60% to 70%.

39. I understand that after the Party refused these proposals originating from outside

groups to affect the Party’s priorities and messaging through the internal rules and procedures

governing its candidate selection process, some of the same influential Utahns making the

demands, in what was described as a bipartisan group of unaffiliated, Democratic Party

members, and dissatisfied Republicans, moved forward as a Utah Political Issues Committee

called Alliance For Good Government, or Count My Vote, with efforts to organize and fund a

ballot initiative to impose reforms on the Party through the Utah election code that the Party, its

governing body, and its delegates had rejected.

40. I understand that Count My Vote proceeded to raise large sums of money from a

few, wealthy donors who shared its views and desire to change, from the outside, the Party’s

priorities and messaging by enacting reforms in the Utah election code that would force the Party


12

to change the internal rules and procedures governing its candidate selection process.

41. Count My Vote registered its initiative and began its effort to obtain the

signatures required by law to have an initiative submitted to a vote of the people of Utah.

42. I understand that Count My Vote, and its supporters, touted their initiative as a

“bipartisan effort” to affect the priorities and messaging of the Party, as the dominant political

party in Utah, through reforms in the Utah election code that would force the Party to change the

internal rules and procedures governing its candidate selection process.

43. I understand that Count My Vote promised as one of the purposes and impacts of

the initiative that it would reduce the “power” of the Party and its members in the state of Utah

and cause the Party to nominate candidates with less “extreme views,” and cause those

candidates to become what they described as less “beholden” to the Party, Platform, and

members, in how they eventually governed as federal, state and local representatives.1

44. During the 2014 legislative session, I understand that Count My Vote organizers

began working with various Utah lawmakers to enact their initiative by statute, with its intended

effects.

45. I understand that eventually organizers of Count My Vote and Utah lawmakers

struck what was characterized as a compromise to enact the Count My Vote ballot initiative into

law, with other reforms, in what came to be known as SB54, amending the Utah election code.

46. I understand that SB54 incorporated almost the entire language, verbatim, of

Count My Vote’s ballot initiative, with additional reform provisions imposed by the State

regarding the manner in which a political party chooses its nominees.

1 See, e.g., Count My Vote, Why Change Utah’s Election System?, available at

http://www.countmyvoteutah.org/facts (as accessed October 16, 2014).


13

47. I understand SB54 is scheduled to go into effect as of January 1, 2015

48. In consultation with the Party and legal counsel, I caused this action to be filed on

or about December 1, 2014, and verified the same by sworn declaration, which I incorporate into

this declaration.

49. I understand the affects and purposes of SB54 are consistent with the recitation

set forth in paragraphs 62 through 94 of the Complaint filed in this action, including, among

other things, to try and misappropriate to the State the Party’s right to certify and endorse its

nominees, to try and reduce the involvement and influence of the Party and its members in how

Party nominees are selected, and to try and dilute the Party’s message and influence in the

election process in Utah by restricting access to the general election ballot to those parties who

comply with SB54’s provisions or forcing the Party to open its primaries to unaffiliated voters by

way of a new classification of Utah registered political party called “qualified political party,” or

“QPP.” Utah Code Ann. § 20A-9-406, as enacted.

How SB54 Burdens The Party’s Rights

50. SB54 takes effect January 1, 2015, and it burdens the Party’s rights in a number

of ways, including the following:

51. As set forth above, it takes away, and misappropriates to the State, the Party’s

right to certify and endorse its nominees for elected office.

a. Where the election code previously respected the rights of the Party to “certif[y] …

[its] nominees for offices to be voted upon at the regular general election” to the

lieutenant governor, who in turn would provide the names of those candidates to the


14

individual county clerks,2

b. as amended by SB54, the election code now mandates that Utah’s Lieutenant

Governor certify himself the Party’s nominees, without awaiting certification from

the Party, and prohibits the Party from being able to communicate its endorsement of

any other nominee on the ballot.3

52. SB54 takes away, and misappropriates to the State, the Party’s right to

communicate its endorsement on the general election ballot and to control the use of its name

and emblem on the ballot.

a. Where the election code previously respected the rights of the Party to establish its

own “procedure for selecting party candidates at the federal, state, and county

levels” as long as it “allows active participation by party members,”4 and to place

the names of its candidates under the Party’s name and emblem, including with

the Party Mark,5

b. as amended by SB54, the election code now

iii. prohibits the Party from indicating any “nominat[ion],” “affiliat[ion],”

“endorsement[],” or “symbols, markings, or other descriptions,” on the ballot

unless it nominates its candidates pursuant to the Presidential or CMV

Processes, and

iv. strips the Party of its right to place the names of its nominees on the ballot under

its name, title or emblem, and

2 Id.

3 Id. § 20A-9-701(1)-(2), as amended.

4 Id. §§ 20A-8-106, 20A-8-401(2)(c).

5 Id. § 20A-6-301(2)(a).


15

v. if the Party refuses to comply, relegates the Party’s nominees on the general

election ballots to a column with the other “unaffiliated” candidates “without a

party circle.”6

53. SB54 takes away, and misappropriates to the State, the Party’s right to determine

for itself the candidate selection process that will produce a nominee who best represents the

Party’s political platform.

a. Where the election code previously allowed the Party to determine for itself the

candidate selection process to produce a nominee who would best represent the

Party’s political platform, and allowed the Party to “choose[] to use the primary

election process to nominate some or all of its candidates,”7

b. as amended by SB54, the election code now dictates that the Party “shall comply

with the requirements of this section and shall nominate its candidates for elective

office in the manner prescribed,” if it desires to have its candidates appear on the

general election ballots featured with the Party’s affiliation, prohibiting any affiliation

with the Party from appearing on the ballot if the Party does not comply with the

mandates of SB54 in nominating its preferred candidates for elected office.8

54. SB54 burdens the Party’s associational rights by mandating changes to the Party’s

internal rules and procedures, at the threat of depriving the Party of its rights if it refuses to

comply, that disadvantage the Party, and that the Party has rejected and that conflict with the

rules the Party has determined for itself, as set forth in its Constitution and Bylaws, will produce

6 Id. §§ 20A-6-301(1)(d)-(g), -301(2)(a), -302(1)(a), -303(1)(g), & -304(1)(g), as amended.

7 See id. §§ 20A-8-106, 20A-8-401(2)(c) & 20A-9-403(1)(b).

8 Id. §§ 20A-9-403(1)(a)-(c) & -403(2)(a), as amended.


16

a nominee who best represents the Party’s political platform.




election process to nominate some or all of its candidates,” respecting that it may not

“govern or regulate the internal procedures of a registered political party,”9

b. as amended by SB54, the election code now dictates that, if the Party wishes to have

its candidates for elective office “featured on the ballot,” it “shall comply with the

requirements of this section and shall nominate its candidates for elective office in the

manner prescribed,”10

requiring a petition process that is more onerous for candidates

seeking the Party’s nomination than candidates seeking the nomination of other

parties, and conflicting with the Party’s Constitution and Bylaws that set the timing of

the nomination process to allow meaning time to vet candidates11

and require, among

other things:

i. that its nominees be selected at state and county conventions by delegates who

are members of the Party and selected by other members at neighborhood

meetings that start with a prayer, the pledge and a review of the Party’s

platform;12

ii. that its nominees themselves be registered members of the Party and otherwise

9 See id. §§ 20A-8-106, -8-401(2)(c), -9-401(2), & -9-403(1)(b).

10 Id. §§ 20A-9-403(1)(a)-(c) & -403(2)(a), as amended.

11 See, e.g., Bylaws § 7.0.A (mandating a letter of intent to be received by the Party at least 30

days before convention). 12

Party Const. Art. XII.1.A-.B, Art. XII.2.A-.J & Bylaws §§ 9.0.A.3, 9.0.B.


17

meet the Party’s requirements to qualify for the Party’s nomination;13

iii. that its nominees make disclosures to the Party that they are “not a candidate,

officer, delegate nor position holder in any party other than the Republican

party” and that they have “read the Utah Republican Party Platform” and either

“support … and accept” that Platform “as the standard by which my

performance as a candidate and as an officeholder should be evaluated” or, with

exception of Platform provisions specifically noted by the candidate,


candidate and as an officeholder should be evaluated”;14

iv. that its nominees be selected only after the Party confirms that the candidates

running have made these disclosures regarding the Party’s Platform;15

v. that its nominees be selected at conventions only after making substantive

nominating and acceptance speeches to the delegates voting;16

and

vi. that its nominees be selected by a supermajority of delegates at state and county

nominating conventions or a majority of Party members voting in primary

elections.17

55. SB54 burdens the Party’s rights by imposing on the Party a nominee who may not

necessarily be a Party member and without guaranteeing that nominee has been selected by a

majority of Party members participating in the primary election.

13

Bylaws §§ 7.5.I.1 & 8.0.A. 14

Id. § 8.0.A. 15

Id. § 8.0.B. 16

Party Const. Art. XII.2.F. 17

Id. Art. XII.2.H-.J & Art. XII.5.A-B; Utah Code Ann. § 20A-9-403(5)(a).


18




election process to nominate some or all of its candidates,” which as set forth above,

ensured that its nominees were Party members and that any nominee selected in a

primary election would be by a majority vote,18

b. as amended by SB54, the election code now dictates that the Party “shall nominate its

candidates for elective office in the manner prescribed,” by the Presidential and CMV

Processes, which require only that a candidate for the Party’s nomination express his

or her “preferred” party affiliation and has no requirement that a nominee receive a

majority vote in the primary election.19

56. SB54 takes away the Party’s right to have its nominees commit themselves to the

Party Platform “as the standard by which my performance as a candidate and as an officeholder

should be evaluated,” and replaces it with a process that requires only that candidates gather

signatures.



Party’s political platform, and the Party required that candidates for its nominations

make a certified disclosure to the Party that they have “read the Utah Republican

Party Platform” and “support … and accept” that Platform “as the standard by which

18

See Utah Code Ann. §§ 20A-8-106, 20A-8-401(2)(c) & 20A-9-403(1)(b); Party Const. Art.

XII.1.A-.B, Art. XII.2.A-.J & Bylaws §§ 7.5.I.1 & 8.0.A. 19

Utah Code Ann. §§ 20A-9-403(1)(a)-(c), -403(2)(a) & -403(5)(a), as amended.


19

my performance as a candidate and as an officeholder should be evaluated,” with any

exceptions notated,20

b. as amended by SB54, the election code now dictates that the candidates for the

Party’s nomination need only complete and file nomination petitions to qualify for the

primary ballot, and that only the candidate who receives the highest number of votes

in the primary may appear on the ballot with the Party’s endorsement.21

57. SB54 burdens the Party’s rights by mandating that the Party replace its current

system to select nominees with what SB54 requires.




election process to nominate some or all of its candidates,” which as set forth above,

the Party utilized only where a candidate was unable to get more than 60% at the

nominating convention,22

b. as amended by SB54, the election code only allows the Party to utilize a convention

for the purpose of designating candidates for the primary election ballot, and only if

the Party adopts a new classification, where it changes its rules and procedures to:

i. allow unaffiliated voters to participate in the Party’s primary election;

ii. allow delegates the right to vote remotely in the Party’s convention or a

20

See id. §§ 20A-8-106, 20A-8-401(2)(c) & 20A-9-403(1)(b); Party Const. Art. XII.1.A-.B, Art.

XII.2.A-.J & Bylaws §§ 7.5.I.1 & 8.0.A. 21

Utah Code Ann. §§ 20A-9-403(3)(a) & -403(5)(a), as amended. 22

See Utah Code Ann. §§ 20A-8-106, 20A-8-401(2)(c) & 20A-9-403(1)(b); Party Const. Art.

XII.1.A-.B, Art. XII.2.A-.J & Bylaws §§ 7.5.I.1 & 8.0.A.


20

procedure for designating alternate delegate;

iii. delay its convention until after April; and

iv. allow candidates to circumvent the convention and qualify for the Party’s

primary election ballot also through a petition process.23

c. In other words, the election code as amended by SB54 would only allow the Party to

retain its convention system if it agreed to open itself up to a process that allows

unaffiliated persons to vote in the Party’s primary and does not require that the

winning candidate be selected by a majority of those participating in the Party’s

primary.24

58. SB54 burdens the Party’s rights by opening the Party up to unknown means of

manipulating the process by which its nominees are selected, as compared to the proven

candidate selection process it selected for itself.

59. SB54 reduces the Party’s ability to govern itself and to control its own brand and

message, and its authority over its endorsement, name, and emblem, and threatens to deprive the

Party of its rights and recognition as a registered political party in the State unless it complies

with the State’s mandates, which limit those rights.

Modifications To The Party’s Candidate Selection Process

60. One of the issues I have been forced to consider in my role as chairman of the

Party is how the Party could bring itself into compliance with SB54, even if it wanted to.

61. First, the Party would have to change and amend its current bylaws with those

consistent with SB54.

23

Utah Code Ann. § 20A-9-101(12), as amended, & -9-409, as enacted. 24

Id.


21

62. New Party bylaws may be adopted or modified through two different methods:

either adopted by the State Central Committee or the Delegates to State Convention. Both

methods require a 2/3 vote. Ex. 1, Art. II(B).

63. Second, the Party would have to change and amend its current constitution with

amendments consistent with SB54.

64. The Party’s Constitution may be amended by a 2/3 vote of the members at a State

Central Committee meeting if subsequently ratified by a majority vote of the Delegates present at

the State Convention. The Constitution may also be amended by 2/3 vote of Delegates present at

the State Convention. Ex. 1, Art. X(B).

65. To be considered at the state convention, proposed amendments to the

Constitution and proposed changes to the Bylaws and Convention Rules must be received in

writing by 5:00 p.m. 30 days before the Convention at UTGOP Headquarters. The Constitution

and Bylaws committee has the option to forward proposed changes either to the Delegates at the

State Convention or to the State Central Committee. Ex. 2, § 7.5(H).

66. In order to be considered at a State Central Committee Meeting, proposed

amendments to the Constitution and proposed changes to the Bylaws must be received in writing

at UTGOP Headquarters one week prior to the mailing of the official meeting notice. (UTGOP

Bylaws, 2.0, Section C) The official notice must be postmarked at least two weeks prior to the

meeting. Ex. 1, Art. IV(E).

67. The Constitution and Bylaws Committee is responsible for vetting proposed

amendments and enabling extensive consideration of possible ramifications related to changes to

the Party's governing documents. Most organizations spend at least six months in preparation of


22

such a major document revision before they present the final product to the Delegates.

68. As an example, of the time it takes for the Party to amend its constitution, in the

2013 organizing convention, there were minor amendments to the constitution and bylaws

proposed and considered. I am informed that the Party’s committees responsible for reviewing

them prior to convention spent the equivalent of several work weeks in man-hours reviewing and

refining the proposals in advance of the convention, putting together a booklet of proposals that

organized the proposals for the delegates to consider. In the consideration of those matters, the

delegates expended approximately two hours, or 20% of the total convention time. And it does

not appear from the records of that convention that very many, if any, amendments were offered

from the floor of the convention. In contrast, the amendments that would be proposed and

considered by the delegates to bring the Party into compliance with SB54 would require

exponentially more time and resources.

69. I understand that the Party must certify by November 2015 its compliance with

SB54, and that the failure to do so would deprive the Party of its ability as a Utah registered

political party to have its nominees appear on the general election ballot with the endorsement of

the Party. Based on my understanding of the modifications to the founding documents of the

Party, I do not believe the Party will be able to bring its governing documents into compliance

with SB54 by November. My conclusion on this is informed by the following considerations,

among others:

70. The Party’s Constitution appears to limit the Party to one Nominating Convention

and one Organizing Convention during an election cycle. (Article XII, Sections 2, 3 and 6)

71. In the 2014-15 Cycle, the Party held its nominating convention last spring, and is


23

scheduled to hold its organizing convention later this year, at a date to be determined.

72. At any organizing convention, everyone one of the approximately 4,000 Party

delegates selected by the Party’s members will have the right to propose amendments to any

amendments to the Party’s constitution or bylaws, resulting in a time intensive approval process.

73. The Party currently accounts for an organizing convention of one day.

74. The time that it will take to deliberate and/or approve the necessary amendments

and changes to the Party’s constitution and bylaws mandated by SB54 will take significantly

longer than one day.

75. My judgment on these matters is further informed by the fact that units of the

Republican Party organized in each county in Utah as county Republican parties will also need

to modify each of their governing documents to bring their candidate selection processes in line

with the requirements of SB54.

76. The Party’s Constitution presently delegates to each County Party the power to

select nominees for local partisan office and mandates that each County Party adopt a

constitution and/or bylaws to govern the selection of nominees running for partisan elected office

in that county or its parts. Ex. 1, Art. VII(A).

77. The Party’s Constitution provides that “[a]ny provision of those [county

constitution or bylaws] that is contrary to state law or to a specific provision of this Constitution

is null and void.” Id.

78. As a result, many County Parties refer to changes made to the State Party's

governing documents. Because County parties hold their conventions prior to the State

Convention, I do not see how they will be able to enact the changes necessary to be in


24

compliance with SB54.

79. It would be a substantial burden on the Party to make the arrangements for an

organizing convention extending several days.

80. Planning and running a Party convention involves immense costs, including

venue rental costs, audio/visual set-up.

81. The Party raises tens of thousands of dollars every year to fund its convention. As

an example, the 2014 Convention budget included the rental for one day of the South Towne

Expo Center at a cost of $42,582.67, and a contract with Webb Audio for electronics and AV

resources at a cost of $26,112.11.

82. This does not take into account the significant man-hours of volunteers that are

required to organize and run a Party convention.

83. The aforementioned costs pertain to a one-day convention.

84. As the Party would need to make arrangements for a multi-day convention in

order to bring its governing documents into compliance with SB54, it is my judgment that the

financial burden alone attributable to SB54 is untenable.

85. As set forth above, the requirements of SB54 place a heavy and undue burden on

the rights of the Party to associate as like-minded registered voters, select as candidates those

persons who will best represent the Party and its Platform in elected office, and communicate its

endorsement of those candidates to voters on the general election ballot.

86. This burden will begin to be felt as soon as SB54 goes into effect. Accordingly, I

respectfully request that the Court enter a stay of enforcement of SB54 pending the outcome of

this lawsuit.


Utah Republican Party Constitution 2013 Official Version

PREAMBLE We, as members of the Utah Republican Party, grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, desiring to perpetuate principles of free government and the blessings of liberty to our posterity, do establish and adopt this Constitution. This Constitution, the Party Bylaws, and Robert’s Rules of Order Current Edition are the exclusive governing rules of the Utah Republican Party. ARTICLE I NAME, PURPOSE AND MEMBERSHIP A. Name. The name of this organization shall be the Utah Republican Party, also referred to as the State Party or the Party. B. General Purposes. The Party shall nominate and support the election of Republican candidates in partisan races for public office, promote the principles set forth in the State Party Platform, and perform Party functions set forth in the election laws of the State of Utah and the Constitution and Bylaws of the Party. C. Membership. Party membership is open to any resident of the State of Utah who registers to vote as a Republican. ARTICLE II BYLAWS A. Bylaws. The State Central Committee may adopt Bylaws to govern subjects not covered by the Constitution. Such enactments shall not be inconsistent with this Constitution. B. Adoption and Modifications. 1. By the State Central Committee. Any Bylaw adopted or modified by the State Central Committee shall be binding and in full force and effect when adopted by a 2/3 vote of a quorum of the State Central Committee. 2. By the State Convention. The delegates to the State Convention may adopt or modify a Bylaw by a 2/3 vote. ARTICLE III OFFICERS


A. State Party Officers. The Officers of the State Party shall be the Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer. B. Duties of Officers. 1. Chair. The State Party Chair shall serve, as Chair of the State Central Committee, and as Chair of the State Executive Committee. The Chair may appoint, subject to the approval of the State Central Committee, Party personnel and the General Counsel. The State Party Chair shall serve as liaison with the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Utah on all matters relating to state election laws. The term of office shall be two years. 2. Vice-Chair. The State Party Vice-Chair shall serve, as Vice-Chair of the State Central Committee, and as Vice-Chair of the State Executive Committee. The Vice-Chair shall assist the Chair in his or her duties and perform the Chair’s duties in the Chair’s absence. The term of office shall be two years. 3. Secretary. The State Party Secretary shall serve as Secretary of the State Central Committee, as Secretary of the State Executive Committee, and as Secretary of the State Convention. The Secretary shall provide required notice, minutes and attendance records of the State Central Committee, State Executive Committee, and the State Convention. The term of office shall be two years. 4. Treasurer. The State Party Treasurer shall serve as Treasurer of the State Party, as Treasurer of the State Central Committee, as Treasurer of the State Executive Committee, and as a member of the Budget and Finance Committee. The Treasurer shall keep and maintain financial records. The term of office shall be two years. C. Election of Officers. 1. Delegates to the State Party organizing convention held on odd-number years shall elect the State Party Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer. D. Replacement of Officers. 1. Vacancies. Officer vacancies shall be filled within ninety (90) days of the vacancy by the State Central Committee. 2. Removal. Any officer may be removed by a 60% vote of all the voting members of the State Central Committee. ARTICLE IV STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE A. Powers. The State Central Committee shall be the governing and policy-making body of the Party. B. Membership. The voting members of the State Central Committee shall consist of the State Party Chair, State Party Vice-Chair, State Party Secretary, State Party


Treasurer, National Committeeman, National Committeewoman, Chair and Vice-Chair of each County Republican Party, County Representatives elected at the county organizing conventions, and Presidents or Chairs of any organization designated as a Party Auxiliary by the State Central Committee. The following elected officials, if Republicans, shall each be a voting member of the State Central Committee: Governor, U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative, State Attorney General, State Treasurer, State Auditor, and the Republican leader in both the Utah House and Utah Senate. Republican U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives may designate a voting representative to attend State Central Committee meetings and vote when the elected official is unable to attend. The Lieutenant Governor may attend State Central Committee meetings and vote when the Governor is absent. C. Meetings. The State Central Committee shall meet at least quarterly. The Chair or 25% of all the voting members of the State Central Committee may call a special State Central Committee meeting. D. Quorum. In order to conduct binding business, the State Central Committee must have a quorum in attendance, defined as 40 voting members. E. Notice of Meetings. A regular, quarterly State Central Committee meeting shall be noticed by postmarking an agenda at least two weeks before the intended meeting. A special State Central Committee meeting shall be noticed by postmarking an agenda at least one week before the intended meeting. No business may be considered at a State Central Committee meeting unless properly noticed by inclusion in the agenda except if a majority of the members in attendance vote to add an item to the agenda. ARTICLE V STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE A. Powers. The State Executive Committee shall be a standing committee of the State Central Committee. B. Membership. The voting members of the State Executive Committee shall consist of the State Party Chair, State Party Vice-Chair, State Party Secretary, State Party Treasurer, Chair of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee, Chair of the Audit Committee, National Committeeman, National Committeewoman, and two Congressional District Representatives from each congressional district who are elected from the Central Committee members in each congressional district, and the Presidents or Chairs of any organization designated as Party Auxiliary by the State Central Committee. The Congressional District Representatives shall be elected for two year terms at the first State Central Committee meeting after the state organizing convention to serve on the State Executive Committee. The following elected officials, if Republicans, shall each be a voting member of the State Executive Committee: Governor, U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative and the Republican leader in both the Utah House and Utah Senate. Republican U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives may designate a voting representative to attend State Executive Committee meetings and


vote when the elected official is unable to attend. The Lieutenant Governor may attend State Executive Committee meetings and vote when the Governor is absent. C. Quorum. In order to conduct binding business, the State Executive Committee must have a quorum in attendance, defined as a majority of voting members of the State Executive Committee. ARTICLE VI PARTY COMMITTEES A. Party Committees. The following standing committees shall be established: 1. Budget Committee, to propose a Party budget and monitor financial matters. The Party Chair shall appoint members with the advice and consent of the State Central Committee. A majority of the members shall be State Central Committee members. 2. Convention Committee, to raise funds for the Party Convention, to plan and oversee the annual convention. The Party Chair shall appoint members with the advice and consent of the State Central Committee. A majority of the members shall be State Central Committee members. 3. Constitution/Bylaws Committee, to propose changes to the Party Constitution and Bylaws. The State Central Committee shall elect, from among its members, the voting members. State Party Officers may not serve on the Constitution/Bylaws Committees. 4. Audit Committee, to appoint the Auditor and oversee an annual audit of the State Party. The Audit Committee shall issue an annual written report to the State Central Committee. The State Central Committee shall elect, from among its members, the voting members. State Party Officers may not serve on the Audit Committee. 5. The State Party Chair may establish other committees. These committees shall be recommending bodies only. ARTICLE VII COUNTY PARTIES A. Constitution and Bylaws. Each County Party shall, by its central committee or its convention, adopt a Constitution and/or Bylaws, which shall govern its procedures, including the selection of those party officers, delegates, and representatives who represent only that county or its parts. Any provision of those documents that is contrary to state law or to a specific provision of this Constitution is null and void. 1. Each County Party shall file a current copy of its Constitution, Bylaws, and any special or standing rules of continuing application by February 1, 2004. 2. Each County Party shall file revised copies of its Constitution, Bylaws, and any special or standing rules of continuing application within 30 days of their adoption or amendment.


3. The governing documents of a County Party applicable to the choosing of state delegates shall be those on file with the State Party 30 days prior to the voting precinct caucuses. B. County Party Officers. Each county organizing convention held during odd-numbered years shall elect a County Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary, and/or Treasurer. C. County Central Committee. Each County shall have a County Central Committee, which shall be its governing body. D. Function of County Parties. The County Parties and the State Party shall cooperate to elect Republicans and promote the State Party platform. ARTICLE VIII BUDGET A. State Party Budget. The Budget Committee shall submit, and the State Central Committee shall consider for approval, the budget for the next fiscal year at the last State Central Committee meeting of the current fiscal year. B. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year for the State Party shall run from 1 July through the next June 30. ARTICLE IX NATIONAL COMMITTEEMAN AND COMMITTEEWOMAN A. National Committeeman and National Committeewoman. The National Committeeman and National Committeewoman shall represent the State Party on the Republican National Committee. The National Committeeman and National Committeewoman shall perform all other duties prescribed in the Republican National Committee and Utah Party Bylaws for the National Committeeman and National Committeewoman. B. Election of National Committeeman and National Committeewoman. Delegates to the State Party Nominating Convention during the presidential election years shall elect the National Committeeman and National Committeewoman. C. Term of Office. The National Committeeman and National Committeewoman shall serve for four years. D. In addition to the duties described in Article IX, Section A., the duties of the National Committeeman and the National Committeewoman shall be to assist the Party Chair and Vice Chair in raising funds for the Utah Republican Party and to report their fundraising activities quarterly to the State Central Committee. ARTICLE X


MODIFICATION A. Ratification. The Constitution shall be binding when approved by a majority vote of the delegates present at a State Party Convention. B. Amendments. The Constitution may be amended by a 2/3 vote of the members at a State Central Committee meeting if subsequently ratified by a majority vote of the Delegates present at the State Convention. This Constitution may also be amended by 2/3 vote of Delegates present at the State Convention. C. Severability. If any portion of this Constitution is ever declared void, all other portions shall remain binding and effective. ARTICLE XI Reserved for future use. ARTICLE XII CAUCUS AND CONVENTION PROCEDURES Section 1. Precinct Caucuses A. Precinct Caucuses shall be held in each even-numbered year. The State Central Committee shall designate the date thereof at least eight weeks prior to the caucuses. The County Party shall designate the locations. The County Party shall designate, based upon the relative Republican strength of each precinct, the number of delegates to be elected in each individual caucus meeting. Relative Republican strength shall be calculated by aggregating the total combined county Republican votes cast at the previous election for governor/lieutenant governor, attorney general, state auditor, and state treasurer, excluding the vote for any candidate who had no opposition. Each precinct’s portion of the aggregate vote shall be calculated on a strict percentage basis, without rounding. The County Party shall give notice of each individual caucus meeting by notifying the local news media and requiring three notices to be posted in the precinct. Each individual caucus shall be open to any Utah citizen who resides in the precinct, who will be at least 18 by the time of that year’s general election. The State Party, through its Bylaws, may restrict participation and voting in the precinct caucuses based on party affiliation. The caucus shall convene at 7:00 p.m. B. The voting precinct caucus shall elect: (1) voting precinct officers; and (2) the number of delegates to the county convention and state convention that the voting precinct has qualified to elect. Alternate delegates may also be elected if allowed by the respective county’s bylaws governing documents. In the event that three or more candidates are nominated for the same precinct office or the same delegate position, the caucus may use multiple ballots or preference voting to choose precinct officers or delegates.


C. No subsequent election or ratification shall be required by county conventions for state delegates elected at the precinct caucuses or at a caucus of delegates at the county convention. D. If any precinct fails to elect sufficient delegates to the county convention or state convention, the County Central Committee may designate delegates to the county convention from qualified members residing in the precinct, and the state delegate positions may be filled from qualified members by the county convention. These state delegates shall reside in the same congressional, Utah House, and Utah Senate districts as the precinct. E. 1. Pursuant to the requirements of Utah State Election Law, the following listings shall be made available to the public by the state party and each county party within the time frames specified: a. all officers of that party, within 7 days of their election or replacement; b. all persons holding membership on any governing bodies of that party, within 14 days of their selection or replacement; c. any other persons holding elected or appointed positions within that party, within 14 days of their election or appointment; d. all persons who have filed as Republicans for partisan public elective office, whose jurisdiction would include or be contained in that party’s boundaries, within 7 days of the filing deadline; e. all persons who have been nominated as Republican candidates for public office by that party, within 7 days of their nomination or replacement. 2. All such listings shall include, at a minimum, the name, address, and phone number, where available, of each person listed. 3. The state party shall make available to the public, within 14 days of the caucuses, a complete statewide listing of all Republican state delegates. Each county party shall make available to the public, within 14 days of the caucuses, a complete countywide listing of the Republican state and county delegates residing in that county. Changes in delegate status shall be reflected in the listings within 14 days of their occurrence. 4. All delegate listings shall include, at a minimum, the name, precinct, Utah House district, Utah Senate district, Congressional district, address, phone number, and basis of eligibility of each delegate (e.g., election in the precinct caucus, election after the caucuses to fill an unfilled seat, or appointment to fill a vacancy occurring after the caucuses). 5. The state party and/or county parties may charge up to, but not more than, the direct cost of the medium by which a listing is made available to the person(s) so requesting, provided that any listing made available by electronic mail or on the Internet shall be made available at no charge. F. If a delegate dies, resigns, or is disqualified prior to a county or state nominating or organizing convention, the County Party precinct chair shall appoint a replacement from the precinct of the deceased, resigned, or disqualified delegate. If precinct elected


alternate delegates per Section 1.B. are available, the precinct chair shall appoint the alternate delegate. Section 2. State and County Nominating Conventions A. The Party shall nominate candidates for partisan offices by a nominating convention and primary elections. B. The number of delegates to the state convention shall be set by the State Central Committee. C. Delegates shall be apportioned based upon relative Republican strength of each county. Relative Republican strength shall be calculated by aggregating the total combined Republican votes cast at the previous election for governor/lieutenant governor, attorney general, state auditor, and state treasurer, excluding the vote for any candidate who had no opposition. Each county's portion of the aggregate vote shall next be calculated on a strict percentage basis, without rounding. Each county whose allocation of delegates is smaller than the number of precincts in the county shall have its allocation of delegates increased to equal the number of precincts. D. At the time and place set for the state and county nominating conventions, the name of each person who has filed a declaration of candidacy may be placed in nomination for the office for which the declaration was filed. E. When the number of candidates filing declarations of candidacy is no greater than the number of nominees required for the next general election, those candidates shall be declared to be the Party’s nominees for those offices and shall not be required to run at either the nominating convention or the primary election. F. Following the nominating and acceptance speeches made on behalf of the candidates for office, the delegates shall vote. The county and state convention shall provide time and voting facilities so that all delegates may vote. G. Each delegate shall cast one vote for each office to be filled. H. In the event that three or more candidates are nominated for the same office, the convention may use multiple ballots or preference voting to choose Party nominees. The State Party Central Committee shall certify the method of election for the State Convention at least 6 months prior to the convention. In the case of multiple ballots, more than one candidate may be eliminated in each round, provided that the sum of the votes received by the candidates to be eliminated does not exceed the number of votes received by the next highest candidate, and that at least two candidates remain on the ballot. The two top candidates shall participate in the final ballot. I. A candidate for an office that receives 60% or more of the votes cast at any point in the balloting process at the state nominating conventions shall become the Party’s candidate without the necessity of running in the primary election, except in multi-county


legislative district races where the percentage used shall be that of whichever county in the respective multi-county district requires the lowest percentage for its own races. J. By 5:00 p.m. on the Monday after the convention, the secretary of each nominating convention shall immediately certify to the county clerk or the lieutenant governor, as appropriate, the names of the Party’s nominees. K. Counties shall submit a current, updated, and final list of state delegates to the State Party no later than 5:00 p.m., five days before the state nominating convention. Section 3. State Nominating Convention A. At least two days prior to the primary candidate certification deadline specified in the Utah State Code, delegates to the state nominating convention shall convene at a time and place designated by the State Central Committee in a state nominating convention to nominate candidates for partisan elective office and adopt a State Party platform. B. In each presidential election year, the state nominating convention shall also choose presidential electors and the delegates and alternates to the national Party convention. C. The gubernatorial candidates nominated by the state nominating convention shall nominate a candidate for lieutenant governor who meets the eligibility requirements of the statutes and constitution. If the convention fails to affirmatively ratify the nominee for lieutenant governor, the gubernatorial nominee shall nominate other candidates until the convention affirmatively ratifies a nominee. D. The governor and lieutenant governor candidates nominated by the state nominating convention shall run as a joint ticket in the primary and general elections. Section 4. Nomination of Legislative Candidates A. When the boundaries of either the Utah House or Utah Senate districts are identical or completely within the boundaries of a single county, the candidates shall be chosen at the county nominating convention by the county delegates from within the legislative district. If a house or senate legislative district encompasses more than one county, the candidates shall be chosen at the state nominating convention by the state delegates from within the legislative district. Section 5. Primary Election A. When two candidates are nominated by the state nominating convention for the same office, both candidates shall run in a primary election in accordance with Utah Code. B. Only voters who are registered Republicans may vote in a Republican primary election. Section 6. County Organizing Conventions


A. On or before August 15th in each odd-numbered year, a county organizing convention shall be held in each county in the state. B. Each County Party shall mail a notice regarding the county organizing convention to every properly qualified county delegate. C. At the time and place designated by the County Central Committee, the county organizing convention shall be held to elect a county chair, vice-chair, a secretary and/or treasurer and county representatives to the State Central Committee. D. The method of choosing county representatives to the State Central Committee shall be determined by the County Central Committee. E. The total number of county representatives to the State Central Committee shall be set by the State Central Committee. County representatives shall be apportioned among counties using the method of Article XII, Section 2B. F. County representatives to the State Central Committee shall be seated after the state organizing convention and shall serve for two years. Section 7. State Organizing Convention A. On or before September 1st of each odd-numbered year a state organizing convention shall be held at a time and place designated by the State Central Committee. B. Counties shall submit a current, updated and final list of state delegates to the State Party no later than 12:ooa.m., eight days before the state organizing convention. C. The State Party shall mail a notice regarding the state organizing convention to every properly qualified state delegate. D. The state organizing convention shall be held to elect a State Party Chair, a State Party Vice-Chair, a State Party Secretary, and a State Party Treasurer. E. In the event that three or more candidates are nominated for the same single seat office, the convention may use multiple ballots or preference voting to choose officers. The State Party Central Committee shall certify the method of election at least 6 months prior to the convention. Section 8. Candidate Vacancies A. In the event that a Party candidate who is involved in a contested primary resigns, dies or becomes incapacitated before the primary election the remaining candidate shall be designated as the Party nominee.


B. In the event that a Party candidate resigns, dies or becomes incapacitated after nomination at the state convention or at the primary election, the candidate shall be replaced by the following method: 1. A candidate for county or legislative office totally contained within a county shall be replaced by the respective County Central Committee. 2. A candidate for legislative office that encompasses more than one county shall be replaced by the state delegates elected from within the respective legislative district at a special legislative caucus. 3. A candidate for any statewide, U.S. Senate or U.S. Representative office shall be replaced by the State Central Committee. Section 9. Interpretative Principles A. In the case of ambiguity, Article XII shall be interpreted to be consistent with the provision of the Utah Code as of January 1, 1994. ARTICLE XIII ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern all meetings of the Party unless contrary to the Party Constitution and Bylaws and any special rules of order the Party may adopt. As amended June 9, 2007 by the Utah Republican Party State Convention.

As amended June 18, 2011 by the Utah Republican Party State Convention.

As amended May 18, 2013 by the Utah Republican Party State Convention.

Michelle Mumford State Party Secretary


Utah Republican Party Bylaws 2013 Official Version 1.0 GENERAL COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION A. Binding Business. No elected or appointed committee described in Article VI of the Party Constitution shall conduct binding business unless a quorum is present. A quorum is a majority of the members of the committee. If a quorum is present, then additional committee members may participate by teleconference or videoconference, according to procedures established by that committee. B. Removal. Members of elected or appointed committees described in Article VI of the Party Constitution may be removed by a 60% vote of a quorum of the State Central Committee. C. The State Party Executive Director and the State Party General Counsel shall be ex-officio, nonvoting members of all party committees, except the Audit Committee. 1.1 ELECTED COMMITTEE A. Letter of Intent. Candidates who wish to run for a position on an elected committee must submit a letter of intent to the State Party. The letter of intent must be received at the State Party headquarters at least 48 hours prior to the election. B. Term. Members of elected committees described in Article VI of the Party Constitution are elected for a two-year term. The election shall take place at the first Central Committee meeting following the state organizing convention. C. Chair. The individuals who receive the greatest number of votes in each committee election shall be responsible for organizing the first committee meeting, at which time the committee shall elect a chair from among the committee members. D. Absenteeism. Any member of an elected committee who has two unexcused absences from meetings of the elected committees during their current term, shall be automatically removed and the seat declared vacant. An absence from an elected committee meeting is excused if written or verbal notice is given to the elected committee chair within five (5) days of the elected committee meeting. E. Vacancies. Vacancies on elected committees shall be filled by an election at the first State Central Committee Meeting following the vacancy, provided it occurs before notice is given of that State Central Committee Meeting. A person elected to fill a vacancy shall only complete the remainder of the term of that person he/she is replacing. 1.2 APPOINTED COMMITTEES A. Chair. The State Party Chair shall select a chair for each appointed committee described in Article VI of the Party Constitution. B. Vacancies. Vacancies on appointed committees shall be filled by appointment of the State Party Chair, subject to ratification by the State Central Committee. C. Removal. Members of appointed committees serve at the discretion of the State Party Chair. 1.3 CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS COMMITTEE A. Number of Members. The Constitution and Bylaws Committee shall have seven (7) members. The Chair of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee shall be a member of the State Executive Committee. B. Purpose. The Constitution and Bylaws Committee is the guardian of the Party Constitution and Bylaws. C. Changes. The Constitution and Bylaws Committee is responsible for reviewing the Party Constitution and Bylaws and making recommendations to the State Central Committee for changes as the need arises. 1.4 AUDIT COMMITTEE A. Number of Members. The Audit Committee shall have five (5) members. The Chair of the Audit Committee shall be a member of the State Executive Committee. B. Purpose. The Audit Committee shall select a qualified CPA firm to audit the Party’s financial records for the past fiscal year. The Audit Committee shall oversee the audit and present the audit report to the Executive Committee for review and its recommendations for approval or disapproval of the audit report before submitting the audit report to the State Central Committee for approval. C. Exclusion. No State Party Officer or State Party employee may be a member of the Audit Committee. 1.5 BUDGET COMMITTEE A. Number of Members. The Budget Committee shall have six (6) members. One member shall be the State Party Treasurer and one member shall be an Audit Committee member selected by the Audit Committee.


B. Preparation of Budget. Prior to the last State Central Committee meeting of the fiscal year, the State Party Officers shall prepare a proposed budget for the next fiscal year. The Budget Committee shall review this proposed budget and make any recommendations for change. C. Review by Executive Committee. The proposed budget shall be submitted to the State Executive Committee for review and recommendations, for approval or disapproval of the proposed budget, before submitting the proposed budget to the State Central Committee. D. Approval by the State Central Committee. The Budget Committee shall submit the proposed budget to the State Central Committee for approval at the last State Central Committee Meeting of the fiscal year. E. No Approved Budget. In the event the Party must operate without an approved budget, the State Party Officers are authorized to raise funds and incur the minimal expenses deemed necessary by the State Party Officers to keep the Party operating. Such expenses include, but are not limited to rent, utilities, payroll, and postage. F. Retained Deficit. In the event that the monthly financial statements of the Party, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, reflect a retained deficit, the State Party Officers shall revise the budget with the help and approval of the Budget Committee. The revised budget shall take into account any actions necessary, such as fund raising and reductions in expenses, to eliminate the retained deficit within a reasonable period not to exceed six months. 2.0 STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE A. Meeting Dates. During the month following the state organizing or nominating convention, the State Party Officers shall determine the dates for the next four (4) regularly scheduled State Central Committee Meetings and shall notify all State Central Committee members of these dates by mail. At each State Central Committee Meeting the dates for the next four meetings shall be announced and notice of these meetings shall be sent with the notice of the Central Committee Meeting. B. Quorum. In order to conduct binding business, the State Central Committee must have a quorum in attendance, defined as 40 voting members. C. Agenda. Following the Welcome, Prayer, and Pledge of Allegiance, the Agenda of all State Central Committee meetings shall begin with the binding business if a quorum is present. Delegation, committees, and auxiliary reports shall follow binding business. Any binding business requiring written material; e.g. minutes, budgets, resolutions, etc, shall be included in the written notice of the meeting. Names and phone numbers of individuals submitting resolutions and or amendments must be included. Any State Central Committee member may submit agenda items if submitted in written form and received at the Party Headquarters one week prior to the official meeting notice being sent to members. D. Disclosure and Accountability. Upon the request of 25% or more members present, a vote on a question by the State Central Committee shall be by a method (roll call, electronic, or comparable means) that records the vote of individual State Central Committee members. All recorded voting results, stating exactly the question voted on, shall be publicly and permanently disclosed on the Party’s website within 14 days of the vote as a record of official Party business. 3.0 STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE A. Purpose. The State Executive Committee is an advisory committee to the State Central Committee and the State Party Officers. Any Party Committee or State Party Officer may submit a proposal to the State Executive Committee for review and its recommendation for approval or disapproval of the proposal prior to submitting such proposal to the State Central Committee. B. Auxiliaries. The State Executive Committee shall ensure that groups petitioning for official auxiliary status meet the following minimum criteria: 1. Have submitted a copy of the group’s bylaws to the State Executive Committee for review and; 2. The group’s stated purpose and bylaws comply with and assist in the Party’s purpose of electing Republicans to office and; 3. The group provides a list of at least 25 active members and their contact information to the State Executive Committee and; 4. All voting members of the group are registered Republicans. C. To remain a Party Auxiliary, an Auxiliary shall re-petition prior to the 1st State Central Committee meeting following each State organizing Convention by providing documents meeting criteria established in Section 3B. D. The State Executive Committee shall also assist and mentor auxiliaries to remain productive in


helping the State Party achieve its goals. If the State Executive Committee determines that an auxiliary no longer meets any of the above criteria, it may recommend rescinding the auxiliary status of that group to the State Central Committee. E. If a quorum is present, then additional committee members may participate by teleconference or videoconference, according to procedures established by that committee. 4.0 PARTY OPERATIONS A. Operations Manual. The State Party Officers shall have a written manual that contains office, administrative, and financial procedures. This manual shall be available to members of the State Central Committee during regular business hours at the State Party headquarters. B. Review. The Operations Manual shall be reviewed by the State Executive Committee in the same year after each organizing convention. C. Interim Policy. The State Party Officers may adopt new policies and procedures that will be subject to ratification at the next State Central Committee Meeting. D. Changes. The State Party Officers shall propose any changes to the Operations Manual for review by the State Executive Committee and approval by the State Central Committee. E. The State Party Chair shall serve as liaison with the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Utah on all matters relating to the Party’s relationship with the State. F. The Utah Republican Party will not certify, recognize, assist, or support a candidate for an elective office who has filed in the same election as a candidate for more than one political party for said office. 5.0 Reserved for future use. 6.0 NOTIFICATION A. Form and Date Given. Whenever the Constitution of the Utah Republican Party or these Bylaws require notice to be given, such notice must be in writing. The written notice may be hand delivered, mailed, or sent by facsimile. Unless otherwise specified, notice shall be deemed to have been given (i) if hand delivered, on the date the notice is actually delivered, (ii) if mailed, first class, postage prepaid, on the date the notice is postmarked, and (iii) if sent by facsimile, on the date the facsimile transmission is completed. B. Time for Filing. Whenever the Constitution of the Utah Republican Party, these Bylaws, or adopted rules require a filing or submission to the Utah Republican Party, such filing must be in writing. The written filing may be hand delivered, delivered via mail or courier, or sent by facsimile or email. Unless otherwise specified, the filing or submission shall be considered timely (i) if hand delivered, before 5:00 p.m. on or before the established deadline, (ii) if delivered via mail or courier, before 5:00 p.m. on or before the established deadline, and (iii) if sent by facsimile or email, the transmission is completed by 5:00 p.m. on or before the established deadline. The burden of confirmation lies with the individual filing or submitting. C. Computation of Time. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by the Constitution of the Utah Republican Party or these Bylaws, the day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not one of the aforementioned days. When the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than eight (8) days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation. D. Legal Holidays. For purposes of the Constitution of the Utah Republican Party and these Bylaws the following-named days are legal holidays: 1. January 1, called New Year’s Day; 2. The third Monday of January, observed as the anniversary of the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., also known as Human Rights Day; 3. The third Monday of February, observed as the anniversary of the birth of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, also known as Presidents’ Day; 4. The last Monday of May, called Memorial Day; 5. July 4, called Independence Day; 6. July 24, called Pioneer Day; 7. The first Monday of September, called Labor Day; 8. The second Monday of October, called Columbus Day; 9. The fourth Thursday of November, called Thanksgiving Day; and 10. December 25, called Christmas. If any of the foregoing holidays falls on Saturday, then the preceding Friday shall be the holiday. If any of the foregoing holidays falls on a Sunday, then the following Monday shall be the holiday.


7.0 CONVENTIONS AND ELECTIONS A. Letter of Intent. Candidates who wish to run for any office elected at the State Party Convention must submit a letter of intent to the State Party. The letter of intent must be received at the State Party Headquarters 30 days prior to the State Party Convention. B. Allocation and Binding of National Delegation. All National Convention delegates and alternates shall be allocated to the candidate receiving the most votes of the statewide vote in the Republican Presidential Primary. On the first ballot, the national delegation shall be bound to vote for the candidate who has received the most votes in the Republican Presidential Primary, but the delegation shall not be bound on any subsequent ballots. If the candidate requests in writing that the state party not bind its national delegates or if the candidate is not a candidate at the national convention according to the rules of that convention, then the national delegates shall not be allocated or bound on the first ballot. C. Eligibility for the Republican Presidential Primary. Only voters who are registered Republicans may vote in the Republican Presidential Primary. The Republican Presidential Primary shall be open to registered Republicans, and unaffiliated voters requesting a Republican ballot who affiliate at the polls as a Republican. D. In the event that three or more candidates are nominated for the same single seat office, the convention may use multiple ballots or preference voting to choose party nominees or multiple ballots or preference voting to choose party officers. 1. In the case of preference voting, delegates may indicate a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc preference of all qualified candidates. a. Delegates shall mark a 1st preference for the ballot to be valid. b. Delegates may list additional preferences not to exceed the number of qualified candidates. c. Preference votes for no candidate or for a candidate not officially nominated shall invalidate that preference position only. d. Ballots containing only preferences for candidates who have been eliminated will not count as an official ballot for purposes of vote percentage tabulation. e. On the first ballot, the candidate receiving the fewest 1st preference votes shall be eliminated 1. Ballots cast for the eliminated candidate shall be reviewed for further preference. The highest preference for a remaining candidate shall be added to that remaining candidates total vote. 2. The candidate with the fewest votes after step D2e1 shall be eliminated. 3. The process will continue until: a. A candidate for party office at an organizing convention surpasses a 50% total vote and is declared elected. b. A candidate for party nomination at a nominating convention has surpassed a 60% total vote and is declared the nominee or c. Two candidates for party nomination at a nominating convention have not been eliminated and neither candidate for that nomination has surpassed 60%. The two remaining candidates are to be referred to a Primary Election. 7.1 LEGISLATIVE VACANCIES When a vacancy occurs for any reason in the office of representative or senator in the state legislature and if the prior officeholder was a Republican, the State Party Chair shall submit to the lieutenant governor the name of the replacement selected as follows: A. Multi-County Districts 1. If the district encompasses more than one county, within 30 days of the vacancy, the State Party Chair shall call a special caucus of the state delegates residing in the legislative district, who shall elect the replacement to fill the legislative vacancy. The caucus shall be held in one of the counties in the district. The first candidate to reach a majority shall be declared a winner. 2. Notice of the caucus shall be mailed to the delegates at least 14 days prior to the caucus. A quorum for the purpose of conducting business shall consist of any number of delegates attending. Candidates must file in writing at least 7 days prior to the caucus. The caucus shall elect one person to fill the vacancy using the same voting method as was used at the prior state nominating convention. 3. If the vacancy occurs during a regular session of the legislature, the State Party Chair may declare the caucus an emergency. In that case, notice of the caucus may be given by notifying at least 3/4 of the delegates by telephone at least 24 hours prior to the caucus, a quorum shall consist of 1/2 of the total number of delegates residing in the district, and nominations shall be accepted from the floor. B. Single-County Districts


1. In legislative districts that are identical to or completely within the boundaries of one county, the candidate to fill the vacancy shall be determined according to that county party's governing documents. If those documents do not contain a specific provision for filling the vacancy, the vacancy shall be filled by a special caucus of county delegates according to the provisions of section A. 7.2 PARTY OFFICER NEUTRALITY A. State Party officers, National Committee members, and paid staff shall assist and provide, without discrimination or restriction, equal access to Party information and services within their responsibility to all Republican candidates. B. State Party Officers, National Committee members, and paid staff shall not publicly endorse or oppose any Republican candidate for partisan public office in Utah while the candidate is opposed by another Republican candidate for the same office. This neutrality requirement shall not apply to the U.S. presidential race. C. A State Party Officer, or National Committee member, or paid staff shall not use State Party resources or their official title as such in any communication to the State Central Committee or to the State Convention delegates that supports or opposes a platform amendment, a resolution, or an amendment to the Constitution or Bylaws unless the issue has been approved by the State Central Committee or unless the State Party Chair is correcting a misrepresentation of facts regarding an issue that has been communicated to the State Central Committee or State Convention delegates either in writing or verbally. D. Any Party Officer who has publicly expressed their personal support or opposition to any platform amendment, resolution, or amendment to the Constitution or Bylaws may not chair the portion of the State Central Committee meeting or State Convention in which that measure is contested. E. Failure to comply with the provisions in this section of the Bylaws may result in disciplinary action by the State Central Committee, provided that prior notice of the action is given. Disciplinary action may include: private or public reprimand, suspension, or expulsion from office (expulsion in accordance with the threshold provision in Article III.D.2 of the Constitution). The extreme penalty that may be imposed is expulsion from office. 7.3 Reserved for future use. 7.4 Reserved for future use. 7.5 STANDING CONVENTION RULES A. Purpose 1. This __________ Convention shall nominate Republican Party candidates for (list candidates). 2. The Nominating Convention shall also select a National Committeeman, a National Committeewoman, __ National Delegates including 3 from each Congressional District, __ Alternate National Delegates including 3 from each Congressional District, and __ Presidential Electors. In addition, the __________ Convention shall conduct party business including amendments to the State Party Constitution, and State Party Bylaws. The Nominating Convention shall consider amendments to the standing State Party Platform. B. Call 1. The Utah Republican Party State __________ Convention shall convene at (time) on date), at the (location), Utah. 2. Multi-County State Senate District Elections shall be held at (time). 3. Multi-County State House District Elections begin at (time). C. Rules of Order 1. The State Party Constitution and Bylaws, these Rules and the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order shall govern this Convention. 2. These rules shall govern any conflict with Robert's Rules. D. Order of Business 1. The order of business of this convention shall follow the agenda adopted by the delegates. 2. All challenges to the qualifications of an individual delegate to serve must be received in writing by 5:00 p.m. at State Party Headquarters on the Monday prior to the day of Convention. The Credentials Committee shall attempt to contact challenged delegates to resolve any disputes and make a report for Convention adoption. E. Seating and Admission 1. Members of the public and media will be admitted to the convention hall to view the proceedings, as long as they follow proper conduct and the directions of the Chair and Sergeant of Arms.


2. Only delegates may participate in the business of the Convention; however, the Convention Chair may invite any individual to address the Convention. 3. In the hall, seating shall be organized by county with a separate area for visitors and media. 4. Each delegate to this convention will be issued a credential card that is nontransferable and must be displayed at the time of balloting and any voting. F. Recognition to Speak 1. A delegate must state his or her name and county and be recognized by the chair before speaking on convention business. 2. No delegate may speak more than once or longer than two (2) minutes upon the same question, unless allowed by a majority of the convention. G. PlatformAmendments and Resolutions 1. Only amendments to the Platform and resolutions which have been submitted in writing with seconding endorsements from at least five state delegates other than the sponsor and received at the Republican State Party Headquarters by 5:00 p.m., 30 days before the Convention, shall be presented to the Platform/Resolutions Committee for review. There shall be a limit to no more than two amendments or resolutions sponsored by any one delegate. 2. The Platform/Resolutions Committee will meet with amendment and resolution proponents to discuss the amendments and resolutions on (date) preceding the Convention at Republican Party Headquarters. 3. The Platform/Resolutions Committee shall forward non-redundant, significant amendments and resolutions to the Convention for consideration. 4. Amendments and resolutions may only be made during the time specified in the agenda approved by the Convention. The Convention may determine, by a majority vote, the order in which resolutions shall be considered. The debate and summation time for each amendment and resolution shall be determined by the convention agenda. Equal debate time shall be allowed for proponents and opponents of the motion. H. Constitution, Bylaws and Rules Amendments 1. In order to be considered at the convention, amendments to the Party Constitution, and proposed changes to the Bylaws and Convention Rules must be received in writing by 5:00 p.m. 30 days before the Convention, at Republican State Party Headquarters. 2. The Constitution/Bylaws Committee shall forward those duly submitted Constitution and Bylaw amendments either to the Convention or to the State Central Committee for consideration, and shall forward those duly submitted other Rules amendments to the Convention. 3. The debate and summation time for each amendment and bylaw change shall be determined by the convention agenda. Equal debate time shall be allowed for proponents and opponents of the motion. I. Candidate Rules and Requirements 1. Only Republican candidates who have properly filed for elected public office as required by law and meet the requirements of the Utah Republican Party Bylaws shall be considered by the Convention. In accordance with Party Bylaws, all candidates including those for the positions of National Committeeman, National Committeewoman, Presidential Elector, National Delegate, and Alternate National Delegate shall have filed a letter of intent and disclosure statement at State Party Headquarters at least 30 days prior to the State Convention. 2. Signage and distribution of literature rules shall be established by the rules committee, convention officers and the host facility. 3. The Candidate or his/her representative shall sign a document which states they have read and understand the CANDIDATE RULES AND REQUIREMENTS. 4. All Candidates, special interest groups, and other organized groups shall pay a $____ refundable cleaning deposit before the convention. 5. Anyone distributing materials at the Convention shall be responsible to remove their materials after the Convention, from the facility and the parking area. Clean up is required in order to get the $____ refundable cleaning fee returned. 6. Basic rules apply to all who have paid the $____ fee. (The intent is to have fairness, to treat all equally.) J. Nominations 1. Opposed candidates shall be allowed ___ minutes for presentation. 2. Opposed candidates in multi-county legislative elections shall be allowed ___ minutes for presentation.


3. Opposed candidates in elections for National Committeeman and Committeewoman shall have ___ minutes for presentation. Candidates for the positions of National and Congressional Delegate, Alternate National and Congressional Delegate and Presidential Elector will not have time allotted to address the convention. 4. An individual may not run for both the positions of National Delegate and Alternate National Delegate. An individual may run for both the positions of Presidential Elector and either National Delegate or Alternate National Delegate. 5. Candidates are not required to have a nomination or second but may if they so desire. The total time limit remains the same regardless. 6. The order of presentation shall be decided by random drawing. 7. The intent is to have fairness, to treat all candidates equally. 8. In Multiple Round Balloting, prior to a second or subsequent round of balloting, remaining candidates shall be allowed one (1) minute each for additional presentation if they desire. K. Physical Arrangements 1. Candidates and organizations are responsible for observance of these rules by their staff, campaigns, committees, supporters and delegates. Violations will result in forfeiture of deposits and removal of all signs of the violating group or individual. Each candidate or organization is responsible for the clean up of anything produced by, distributed by, or bearing the name of that candidate or organization. 2. Candidates and organizations will have access to the convention hall on _____ preceding the Convention until ______. 3. Signage: a. Schedule for setup and take down of signs will be available from the State Republican Headquarters two weeks prior to the Convention. b. No helium balloons are allowed. c. Nothing may be affixed to any surface at the Convention Center. d. No signs may appear in or around the staging area of the arena. 4. Booth space may be rented from the party. a. All booth space, including the setting up of any tables inside or outside the Convention Center, must be obtained from or approved by the Utah Republican Party. Booths shall not be taken down until the Convention is officially adjourned on Saturday. b. Booth space will be chosen by lottery. c. Multi-county district elections will be held in separate rooms. Candidates who wish to have a table outside of the room prior to district meetings must contact party headquarters at _______. A $____ fee will be charged. 5. Distribution of food must be approved in advance by the State Republican Headquarters in coordination with the (Convention host) management. 6. No confetti is allowed in the convention facilities. 7. The Rules Committee may make alterations or amendments to this section of the rules as needed to meet demands of the host facility and Party. 8. There shall be no restrictions on the distribution of printed material, except that materials may not be predistributed on the chairs in the convention hall. All printed material shall have a disclaimer identifying the responsible person or organization and phone number and be clearly printed on the material. L. Quorum 1. Any number of credentialed state delegates shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business except that a majority of those credentialed shall be required for considering Resolutions and changes to the Party Constitution, Bylaws, and Platform. M. General Voting Rules 1. Other than the election of candidates or other balloting as noticed in the convention call, voting shall be by voice or by a show of delegate credentials. A call for division shall be accepted if 50 delegates stand in support. This division shall be an actual count of the delegates. 2. The Credentials Committee, directly after the opening ceremonies shall report the number of delegates registered as present with proper credentials and shall make a final report immediately preceding candidate speeches. 3. Suspension of Convention Rules shall be by a 2/3 majority of delegates present with a quorum present. 4. In contested statewide and federal races, candidate names shall appear on the ballot by random drawing at least seven (7) days before the Convention. In the races for Presidential Electors, National


Delegates, and Alternate National Delegates, candidate names shall appear on the ballot according to the following system: Each letter of the alphabet shall be randomly drawn. The order in which the letters are drawn shall be the order in which they appear on the ballot. The names of the candidates shall be alphabetized within each individual letter group. 5. Election of Presidential Electors, National Delegates (both at-large and congressional), and Alternate National Delegates (both at-large and congressional) shall be by single ballot. 6. There will be no absentee or proxy voting. 7. Unopposed candidates shall be declared the party’s nominee by the Chair. 8. Voting will be conducted in the convention hall when the chair calls for the vote. It is the prerogative of the chair to open and close balloting at appropriate times. 9. Each opposed candidate for ____________shall be permitted to have one poll watcher. This observer may not leave the ballot counting room before the vote tally for that office has been announced to the Convention. The Elections Committee Chairperson is responsible for the ballot counting room and poll watchers. The Elections Chairperson is responsible for any complaints and has the authority to take any concerns to the Convention Chair. N. Presidential Electors and National Delegates (Nominating Convention Only) 1. The Convention shall select __ at-large Presidential Electors and __ Presidential Elector per congressional district, for a total of ___ Electors. When filing for the position of Elector, candidates should specify for which type of Presidential Elector position (atlarge or congressional district) he/she wishes to run. 2. The Convention shall select __ at-large national delegates including (3) from each congressional district and __ at-large alternate national delegates including (3) from each congressional district. When filing for the position of national delegate, candidates should specify for which type of national delegate position (at-large national delegate, atlarge alternate national delegate or congressional district national delegate, alternate congressional district national delegate) he/she wishes to run. 3. All state delegates at the Convention shall vote for the at-large Presidential Electors, but only the delegates from each congressional district shall vote for their respective congressional district Presidential Elector. 4. The two at-large Elector candidates with the highest vote totals shall be the at-large Electors. The next six at-large elector candidates with the highest vote totals shall be ordered as alternates. The elector candidate from each congressional district with the highest vote total shall be the Elector for that district. The next three elector candidates in each congressional district with the highest vote totals shall be ordered as the alternate congressional district Electors. 5. All state delegates at the Convention shall vote for the at-large national delegates and alternates, but only the delegates from each congressional district shall vote for their respective congressional national delegates and alternates. 6. The top __ at-large and alternate national delegates with the highest vote totals shall be the at-large and alternate national delegates. The top __ congressional district national delegates and alternates with the highest vote total shall be the congressional national delegates and alternates for that district. 7. Presidential Electors per congressional district and national delegates and alternates to the national convention representing congressional districts shall be residents of and qualified voters in said districts respectively when elected and when serving. 8.0 CANDIDATE DISCLOSURE A. Candidates who wish to run for any federal or statewide office shall sign and submit a disclosure statement to State Party Headquarters at least 30 days prior to the State Party Convention. The disclosure statement shall specify either: (1) "I have read the Utah Republican Party Platform. I support that Platform and accept it as the standard by which my performance as a candidate and as an officeholder should be evaluated. I certify that I am not a candidate, officer, delegate nor position holder in any party other than the Republican party." Or (2) "I have read the Utah Republican Party Platform. Except for the provisions specifically noted below, I support that Platform and accept it as the standard by which my performance as a candidate and as an officeholder should be evaluated. I certify that I am not a candidate, officer, delegate nor position holder in any party other than the Republican party." B. The candidate disclosure statements and any exceptions noted therein, shall be compiled on the Utah Republican Party internet site at least two weeks prior to the state party convention, and shall be made available to delegates attending the convention. Should any candidate fail to submit the Disclosure


Statement, the Party Chairman will announce this failure immediately prior to balloting for that candidate's office. 9.0 DELEGATES AND CAUCUS MEETINGS A. Qualifications and Disqualifications of State and County Delegates. Each individual caucus shall be open to the public. Each participant shall be: 1. A Utah citizen who resides in the precinct and 2. 18 by that year's general election. 3. A registered Republican party member as referenced in Article I of the Party Constitution or who registers as Republican at the individual caucus meeting. Each participant shall not be a simultaneous officer, delegate, candidate or registered affiliated voter of any other rival political party. (Voter registration materials shall be available at the meeting for those who wish to affiliate that night as Republicans.) For purposes of this Bylaw, "rival political party" means any organization of registered voters currently qualified to fully participate in Utah elections as provided by Utah Code, which is not the Republican Party. B. Each caucus meeting shall use the following agenda:

• Welcome/Introductions • Prayer • Pledge • Reading of the State or County Platform • Review of Rules, Procedures, Duties of Precinct and Delegate Positions • Nominations and Elections (County Parties may change the order) for:

Precinct Chair Precinct Vice Chair Precinct Secretary and/or Treasurer State Delegate County Delegate

• Other Business as directed by State and/or County Parties • Select Election Judges • Adjournment of the Meeting

C. The State Central Committee shall approve any additional Caucus Rules to be used in addition to those outlined in Bylaws Section 9.0 A and B, prior to each Caucus Meeting. 10.0 CONVENTION CREDENTIAL CHALLENGES Challenges pertaining to state delegate credentials or eligibility must be received in writing at State Party Headquarters no later than 5 p.m. three days prior to the State Convention. The Credentials Committee report shall be the first order of business at the convention. Nothing in this provision shall prohibit any delegate from moving an amendment to the credentials report at the convention. 11.0 ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order shall govern all meetings of the Party, except to the extent they are inconsistent with the Constitution and Bylaws and any special rules of order the Party may adopt. SPECIAL RULE In any elections conducted by the State Central Committee in which more candidates file than the positions being filled, the Committee shall use multiple ballots. A majority of votes is necessary to elect. The candidate with the fewest votes shall be eliminated in each round and more than one candidate shall be eliminated when the sum of the votes received by the candidates to be eliminated does not exceed the number of votes received by the next highest candidate, and at least enough candidates remain to fill the position(s). Last Amended 9/21/13 by the Utah Republican Party State Central Committee. Michelle Mumford State Party Secretary


Utah Republican Party State Party Platform (as ratified at the 2009 State Convention)

PREAMBLE We, the Republican Party of the Great State of Utah, affirm our belief in God and declare our support for government based upon a moral and spiritual foundation. We affirm freedom for every individual as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Constitution. We believe that citizens' needs are best met through free enterprise, private initiative, and volunteerism. We support the “Rule of Law” and believe in upholding the law of the land.

THE PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT We believe government properly exists by the consent of the governed and must be restrained from intruding into the freedoms of its citizens. The function of government is not to grant rights, but to protect the unalienable, God-given rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

PRIVATE PROPERTY We recognize the rights of the individual to own property. We resist any effort by government to take private property without an overwhelming need for public use. We strongly oppose the forfeiture of private property from innocent owners.

REAFFIRMATION OF STATES' RIGHTS We oppose congressional, judicial, and executive abrogation of the principle that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. We oppose unreasonable and intrusive federal mandates.

ETHICS AND STANDARDS We demand honesty, integrity, morality, and accountability of our public officials. We will work to expose and stop corruption.

NATIONAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC PROTECTION We support a military force of sufficient strength and readiness to deter any threat to our national sovereignty or to the safety and freedom of our citizens. We support the Constitutional mandate to protect and secure our national borders. We oppose placement of United States troops under any foreign command, including the United Nations. We support lawful efforts of local law enforcement agencies to protect citizens in their homes and in their communities. We urge reform of the legal system to accomplish a swift and balanced administration of justice, including consideration of rights of the victim. We support capital punishment when appropriate.

SELF DEFENSE We support the individual constitutionally-protected right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes. We encourage personal responsibility for the care and use of these firearms.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION We claim freedom of religion for every citizen and expect the protection of government in securing to us this unalienable right. We affirm the right to religious expression, including prayer, in both private and public.


FAMILY VALUES We recognize the traditional family as the fundamental unit of society. We affirm that parents have the fundamental right and primary responsibility to direct the upbringing of their children and to provide nurturing care, discipline and training in moral values.

RIGHT TO LIFE We believe in the right to life for both the born and unborn. We strongly oppose abortion, except to preserve the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. We believe the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We believe all human life is sacred regardless of age or infirmity, and therefore we oppose abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the public funding of any of these abhorrent practices.

HUMAN SERVICES We believe that the primary responsibility for meeting basic human needs rests with the individual, the family, and the voluntary charitable organizations. We recognize, however, that there are special social needs which must be addressed through state human service programs. We support requiring welfare recipients to work towards self-sufficiency.

HERITAGE We recognize the contributions made to our quality of life through ethnic diversity.

EQUAL RIGHTS We believe that no individual is entitled to rights that exceed or supersede the God-given individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Utah.

EDUCATION We believe that all children should have access to quality education. Parents have the primary right and responsibility to educate their children, and we support their right to choose public, private, or home education. We support incentives to promote competitive excellence. We encourage cooperative initiatives to help all Utahans become literate in English. We support the prudent and profitable use of school trust lands. We support all interest and dividends from the permanent State School Fund being distributed to each public and charter school to improve student academic performance.

TAXATION We accept the necessity for limited taxation in order for government to perform and administer those services which meet essential public needs. However, we recognize that the power to tax is also the power to control, and believe that the best way to control government is to strictly control the amount of taxes imposed on the people. We encourage further simplification of tax systems, the elimination of the estate tax, and broad-based rate reduction where possible.

REGULATION We recognize that government regulation can be a major impediment to productivity and to competition. We must rely more on market forces and less on government. Regulatory power now exercised by the federal government must be eliminated or returned to state and local governments.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT We believe that a strong, diversified economy based on a positive work ethic, a well trained and well educated work force, a business-friendly environment, and safe work place will help Utah compete in a world market place. We believe that developing our human resources is essential to the future of Utah. We support the Utah Right to Work Law.


THE ENVIRONMENT We appreciate the quality of our environment. Our air, water, and land are at the heart of our existence and must be protected through balanced management. We support reasonable laws and volunteer efforts to improve air and water quality. We continue to seek responsible solutions to controversies surrounding uses of our wilderness. We seek to preserve the environment while serving the best interests of our Utah citizens. We oppose as unconstitutional the declaration by any President without approval from Congress of any large tract of land as a national monument. We call on the Governor of the State of Utah to use the Constitutional Defense Fund and other resources at his disposal to bring any such declaration affecting Utah before the United States Supreme Court for reversal.

JURY The jury is a fundamental institution of liberty, because it is the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. The jury has the right and the authority to acquit if jurors feel justice will be served.

IMMIGRATION America is a stronger and better nation because of the hard work and entrepreneurial spirit of legal immigrants, and the Republican Party honors them. We believe that control of our borders is an urgent national security interest and our national sovereignty depends on those secure borders. We oppose illegal immigration and all forms of amnesty, or legal status, for illegal immigrants. We support suspending automatic U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal immigrant parents. We oppose granting government benefits to those illegally present in the US. We oppose any temporary or "guest" worker program that would offer an automatic path to citizenship. We believe that current laws against employing illegal immigrants should be vigorously enforced, particularly to stem the now too common crime of identity theft in obtaining employment.

UTAH STATE SOVEREIGNTY The 13 original Sovereign States in Constitutional Convention created the Constitution of the United States of America and subsequently ratified that document creating a Federal Government and granting to that Government limited and enumerated powers. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States defines Federal powers as those enumerated in the Constitution and reserves all other powers to the States and to the People. It remains the sacred responsibility of the States as creators of the Federal Government to keep the federal powers within the limits set by the Constitution. We resolve that the Republican Party of the Great State of Utah and elected party members take any and all steps necessary to ensure that Federal powers exercised within the Great State of Utah not exceed those granted by the Constitution of the United States, and that those usurpations of State Sovereign Powers already violated by the Federal Government be corrected by the State Legislature and enforced by the Governor’s office thus protecting Utah State Sovereignty

OUR MISSION The Republican Party is a party by the people and for the people. We appreciate the productivity of our citizens, affirm the infinite worth of all individuals, and seek the best possible quality of life for all. We invite all citizens to join us in working together for a better Utah.


utah gop motion for injunction

Documents