Friday, October 20, 2006

An Alternative Too Horrible to Contemplate -- UPDATED!

If it ain't broken, don't reckon you need to worry bout fixin' it.

WCF Goldmine Archives
Cowboy Wisdom
October 2006

Weber County Republicans came into the 2006 election season "sitting pretty," with incumbent State Senator Dave Thomas in place in his Senate 18 District seat.

Republican Senator Thomas, who had defeated Democrat Ed Allen in the November 2002 election, had made his mark on capitol hill, and had become one of Utah's better-respected state senators. Activively participating on numerous committees and the authoring and sponsoring much important legislation, Senator Thomas had become, for Districct 18 citizens, a legislator with increasing political clout -- a force to be reconned with -- a real local political asset.

Although we didn't always agree with everything Senator Thomas did during his term in the Senate, we always respected his intellect and reasoning. Above all, we respected his independance.

And when it came time for expressing our political preferences, we embraced the above cowboy wisdom and gave Dave our endorsement.

But for reasons which are still unclear, the Republicans of District 18 sought fit to "fix what wasn't broken," send their incumbent senator packing... and nominated Jon Greiner for the Senate 18 race.

And now, 100 days later, we're presented with this absolutely ridiculous development, courtesy of this morning' Standard-Examiner.

Your blogmeister researched the Hatch Act problem for another police officer friend about six months ago. The rules are not at all complicated:

The Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 1501 - 1508) restricts the political activity of individuals principally employed by state, county, or municipal executive agencies in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a federal agency. An employee covered by the Act may not be a candidate for public office in a partisan election, i.e., an election in which any candidate represents, for example, the Republican or Democratic party. It has long been established that an officer or employee of a state or local agency is subject to the Hatch Act if, as a normal and foreseeable incident of his principal position or job, he performs duties in connection with an activity financed in whole or in part by federal funds. In re Hutchins, 2 P.A.R. 160, 164 (1944), Special Counsel v Gallagher, 44 M.S.P.R. 57 (1990).

Although Chief Greiner says he consulted with legal counsel prior to entering this race, we find it difficult to believe that any competent lawyer would have ruled out a Hatch Act challenge. Perhaps Mr. Greiner should have called Rudi. Your blogmeister could have saved Greiner lots of trouble.

Now that the die is cast however, we urge Chief Greiner to finish what he has begun. District 18 Republicans have relied upon Jon Greiner's candidacy to their possible detriment. Greiner's only ethical option is to resign his Chief of Police job (or give uo 2 years' salary) and continue in his Senate candidacy, we think.

The alternative is this guy, gentle readers -- an outcome too horrible to contemplate.

You led the District 18 Republicans down the primrose path, Mister Greiner. We think you should finish what you started.

Update 10/21/06 9:26 p.m. MT: Today's news reveals that our beleguered Republican Senate 18 candidate actually did talk to a lawyer prior to knocking Dave Thomas outta the race with his heavily-Lindquist-financed primary campaign. According to today's Standard-Examiner story, Utah's #1 neoCON politician Mark Shurtleff told him that the police chief of a city with dang near the highest percentage of federal grants and revenues in Utah would have no Hatch Act problems when he recruited him. And Greiner apparently relied blindly upon this dismal and hopelessly incompetent advice.

Now Shurtleff and his Utah neoCON Republican party shills are telling him to hire "a real lawyer." SHEESH!

This story gets even more strange by the minute.

If Chief Greiner is getting the political shaft, we know who gets the blame.

We can only imagine what's coming up next in Monday's anticipated Std-Ex story.

And puh-leeze don't anybody tell us again that the definitely independant Jon Greiner is Boss Godfrey's bitch!

Reid and Boss Godfrey have run a fine District 18 campaign so far. They're merely reeling in Greiner's "rope," so to speak.

And you know what Weber County cowboys say about rope: When you get to the end of yours, tie a knot and hang on.

Show 'em who's the REAL BOSS, JON! You'd definitely have Rudi's vote... if he resided in YOUR district.

Rudi loves underdogs - especially O.H.S. homies who are opposed by Boss Godfrey.

Update 10/22/06 12:57 p.m. MT: The Standard-Examiner provides the latest news in the Senate 18 race brouhaha this morning. Republican candidate Jon Greiner has a hard decision to make by the Halloween witchin' hour, it appears.

No problem -- Mark Shurtleff will be preparing a "legal brief, we're assured. "The feds have no clue," our Utah AG sez, with a completely straight face.

"With 'friends' like Mark Shurtleff, who needs political opponents?" we ask.

"Hang in there Jon," we advise. We're sure the top law enforcement officer in the state will be able to up with something clever ( wink-wink) to find a way around the federal law that seemingly could not be more clear on its face.

And as an added bonus, the Std-Ex throws out another teaser. Mark Decaria will issue his long-awaited report "very soon" -- possibly even before the election.

78 comments:

Anonymous said...

Rather than resign, Jon can just ask his father-in-law for a "loan" of two years salary which will go the the feds.

In FL any votes going to the disgraced Mark Foley automatically are tallied up for his R challenger.

Why couldn't Greiner's votes, if he is disqualified, go to Thomas, who was his challenger in the Primary?

Anonymous said...

Ah, Rudi... and Sharon... at some point you're going to have to face that fact that your party, which has a long and rich tradition even the the 20th Century, stemming from Teddy Roosevelt and Ike, has been taken over by the wing nuts, ideaologs and "separation of church and state doesn't exist" Christian fundamentalists. Until you folks do accept that, there's no way, I think, you can re-take your party --- in Utah or nationally --- and return it to what used to be Republican principles: fiscal responsibility, limited government and the preservation, protection and defense of the Constitution.

Think Reid would be worse? I don't know. He may be. I wouldn't presume to say. But I can say this: maintaining or increasing the R majority in both houses of the Utah legislature means endorsing the majority that has promised [only during elections] to put education first, but that has, in fact, time after time, and despite poll after poll making it plain that the voters want them to put education first, shoved eduction well down in the list of budget priorities. Remember the polls showing voters wanted, by large majorities, the legislature to use the budget surpluses for education first? Guess what they put first instead: road construction. And they do it over and over, year in and year out. Roads first, education fourth.

Perhaps, if they lose a few seats... yes, even to the likes of Reid... the Republican leadship in the Utah Legislature will begin to mend its ways. Maybe. But I do know that maintaining or increasing the Republican majorities in both houses will provide no incentive for them to mend their ways. And we can look forward to two more years of both houses wasting time on the kind of "message" bills the sending of which Chris Buttars and his ilk thinks, apparently, is the legislature's primary job.

If you want to retake your own party and restore to it what used to be Republican principles [and from the bottom of my heart, I wish you success in that task], you may have to arrange an icewater bath for the present Republican establishment in Utah first. And the only way to do that is at the polls.

And Sharon, Grenier's votes can't go to Thomas because Utah election law forbids it. Utah, like most states, bans substitution of other candidates this close to an election to avoid bait-and-switch nominations. The law is a wise one, even when it discomodes Republicans.

Anonymous said...

Greiner is a very dark and malevolent character. An absolute enemy to decent and honerable people every where. Anything to do with him is a pretty poor choice.

However, given the choices in front of us I would say that Greiner in the State Senate but not as Chief of Police is the best choice in the Republican side of things. Greiner in jail where he belongs is even a better choice of course.

Reid, as big a puke as he is, would be the best of all present choices. As a Democrat he would have virtually no power and there fore would be nutrual.

It is really pretty sad that the best of what the people of that district can hope for is a senator with no influence or power. Bad for them but best for all other decent people in Utah!

Anonymous said...

well, you will hear it first on this blog, the republican county clerks office is thowing the election to the wind! that is they are sending the wrong ballots to the wrong voters. they sent ballots meant for leg district 6 to the voters of leg district 8.
when is the corruption going to stop! I have seen on this blog that we need to vote democratic and I guess it is true more than ever this year.
this kind of thing happened in 1992 in district 12 and the election was decided by 7 votes.

ARCritic said...

I wonder if he can simply take an unpaid leave. Then win the election, resign the senatorial seat, end his unpaid leave and the republicans can then fill his empty seat?

Anonymous said...

"To horrible to contemplate." Good god, what's this all about? A lost seat in the Utah Senate is "to horrible to contemplate?"

Priorities, people, priorities. Much higher stakes out there than this.

Anonymous said...

Arcritic:

He probably can. But it would be dishonest to stand for election to a seat he knows he will not fill. It would be a pretty raw and blatant example of Mr. Grenier's lack of respect for basic honesty and his lack of even the minimum level of integrity we should expect from public men. If doing what you outline above does not bother him and his Republican handlers, it should.

ARCritic said...

Dishonest? A polititian? Never. :-)

Anonymous said...

I agree, Curmudgeon, if that's what his objective is from the beginning. Things change, however, and once they do one finds that no one is unexpendable. It's the "too horrible to imagine" that gets to me, for within a matter of a few days or weeks, things will be back up and running. Business as usual, nothing of the magnitude of "too horrible to imagine." But hell, maybe that's just the author of the thread article taking a little "literary license."

Anonymous said...

omygoodness....do you really think Greiner would resign his seat? Does he resemble Glasmann?

Thing is, Reid may not have power except that he would be Godfrey's flunky down there. And, I think Griener owes a few favors to Godfrey also. At least, until he realizes "Hey! I'M the senator here. That little twerp isn't going to tell ME how to vote!"

Either way, Matt is the winner...for awhile.

They are both bad choices. Your answer to Sharon, Curm, about UT law not allowing substitution of candidates: wouldn't the fact that Thomas WAS the R challenger in the recent primary count? After all, it isn't as if he was just put forward out of the blue.

Anonymous said...

Just read the article about the flooding after rains in Morgan. It seems the storm drains are in a state of neglect (over many years).

Having houses where Peterson wants to build...on a fault, and with torrential rains in OGDEN also, wouldn't we possibly see perilous times ahead?

How are the storm drains in that neighborhood now? Isn't it true that many homes have flooded basements in the Mount Ogden area?
In Morgan, the CC is going to have public input (how novel) before requiring homeowners to cough up the cost of curbs to retard the effects of rains. Pretty expensive.

Could Peterson afford to make every home he builds 'quake proof' as is being encouraged all up and down the Wasatch Front?

Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure and studies, studies, studies. We must be vigilant and safeguard our General Plan. It mustn't be allowed to be nibbled away.

Once again, thanx to Amy Wicks for searching out the State code to protect our properties, and for Dorrene for disseminating it.

Anonymous said...

Wally:

Nope. Makes no difference. The runner up does not get on the ballot if the primary winner withdraws. Not this close to the election.

The law is a good one, though it makes it difficult for both parties now and then. The idea is to prevent a party nominating candidate A, and then deciding based on polls etc that he is going to lose, and so weeks before the electio, Candidate A withdraws and Candidate B [who perhaps finished second in the primary] replaces him to improve the party's chances of winning. Most states won't allow this this close to an election, even if Candidate A dies.

The Republicans in Florida face the same problem in Foley's district. Florida law permits them to substitute a candidate for the resigned and disgraced Foley but they cannot replace Foley's name on the ballot this late. [Like irony? Some years ago in Florida the Dems had a house candidate go ill and withdraw. They replaced him just a few weeks before the election and asked that voters be notified, at the polls, that a vote for the first candidate would in fact count for the second. The Republican secretary of state said no, that would be electioneering at the polls, which is flatly forbidden under Florida law. But now Florida Republicans want voters informed at the polls that a vote for Foley [still on the ballot] will count for the new guy, and when a judge said no [same grounds the Republican Secretary of State gave for denying Dem request some years ago], the Republicans appealed the decision. Election rules in Florida, you see, are only to be interpreted narrowly when doing so disadvantages Democrats. When doing so disadvantages Republicans, the party sues to have the rules suspended. Sigh.]

Anonymous said...

Sharon,

Good point about the earthquake fault that runs along the bench. Also, there actually was a huge flood at Mount Ogden Park in about 1987. The cart storage area looked like a swimming pool with many carts floating upside down. Large pumps were brought in to drain the water.

The park area was also flooded with 3 or 4 feet of water. There was a definite lack of storm drains and/or retention ponds. I believe it was called a "hundred year storm" by the Examiner.

Anonymous said...

From this morning's SL Trib story on the Grenier/Hatch Act matter:

Greiner said in an e-mail to reporters that it's obvious someone - the state Democratic Party filed the complaint - is trying to use a technicality to eliminate him as a candidate.
"Cowardly acts are generally done by cowardly people who don't want to address the issues of the day that are a concern to the residents, in an open manner," he wrote.


Ah, I love it. The charge has been made, and intitially supported by the U.S. Justice Department, that Chief Grenier is in violation of the Hatch Act. And the Republican reaction? Democrats are "cowards" for daring to inquire whether Ogden's chief of police is violating the law or not.

Gee, I must be getting old. Why, I can remember when Republicans used to tell people they were "the law and order party." But then, that was when Republicans ran candidates who, like say Barry Goldwater for example, actually had principles, and had something other than holding office at any price as the primary principle they served.

As I said, I must be getting old if I can remember that.

Anonymous said...

In the latest story, Curm, the possiblity of another candidate on the ballot is being looked into. That doesn't sound iron clad to me.
I think an amendment to the state law prohibiting a sub in the case of withdrawal or death, could stipulate the 2nd choice in the PRIMARY would be on the ballot. If the candidate didn't have a challenger in the Primary...then it's a no go. That party is outta luck.

I think Greiner, if he loses his appeal, will just forfeit his salary, (look who his in-laws are) and reamin as Chief. Can you imagine the dilemma of giving up POWER and PRESTIGE for the unknown? What if he resigned as Chief and then Reid won?????

But, the dems are bing scrutinized also. Start quaking, dear.

Now, Curm, you're just pouting beacause the dems in FL (all northern transplants, BTW) didn't hae enuf sense to appeal!!

Thanx, Golfer...for the input. Wasn't there some flooding more recently in that neighborhood?

Anonymous said...

Curm,

Does Greiner rhyme with whiner?

Anonymous said...

Sharon:

Several points. The Republicans are indeed "looking into" whether the rule that has been in place for some time in Utah can be changed to accommodate them. Just as they are "looking into" it in Florida. Just as they "looked into it" in Texas to try to get a replacement on the ballot when De Lay resigned. They failed, by the way. Texas courts would not permit it. But this is Utah, and it would not surprise me in the least if the existing rules were "adjusted" to assist the Republican party in this instance. It would disappoint me, though. It is a generally accepted principle of justice, from the sandlots of Brooklyn where I grew up, to the highest courts in the land, that you cannot change the rules of a contest once it has begun or after it is over, merely because you don't like the results. Republicans hold majorities in both Houses in Utah and they hold the Governor's office. They can change the law about candidate replacement close to an election, by passing a new law, anytime they like. They can not, in good conscience, change the rule on the fly absent new legislation in one instance to fix a party problem in one district. Though they may, Sharon. They may. This is the party of Chris Buttars after all.

If the Justice Department determines that Democratic candidates are running in violation of the Hatch Act, they should come under the same rules as are being applied to Mr. Grenier. Absolutely. [And I notice that a challenge was made to Mr. Reid's candidacy last year I believe. The Justice Dept determined the challenge was not valid. Was the Republican who made the challenge a coward too, according to Mr. Grenier?]

Sorry, Sharon, but you won't get me on hipocracy on this one. Whatever rule is applied to Grenier should be applied to all with respect to the Hatch Act. And the rule about replacement on the ballot that has held for all in Utah under the existing law should hold for Grenier too.

I don't know if the Justice Dept. ruling on Grenier can stand judicial scrutiny or not. Sounds like pretty thin grounds to me. But raising challenges like this is how the laws get defined in a practical way, and I'm hard put to criticize the Dems for raising the question in re: Grenier and the Hatch act [remember, Republicans raised the same question earlier about Reid], particularly since the Justice Department's initial ruling establishes that the challenge was credible and that a serious question about what the law means has been asked. If Democratic candidates are eliminated by the same principle Justice is applying to Grenier, so be it.

From my own POV, Republican desperate attempts to alter the rules in Texas to accommodate a late replacement for DeLay, and to alter the rules in Florida to accommodate a late replacement for Foley, and to apparently alter the rules in Utah to accommodate a late replacement for Grenier are prime examples of how the party of Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight David Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater has abanded, even locally, the notion that we have a government of laws and not simply one of men.

ArmySarge said...

Too bad we aren't in New Jersey. The same law as you are referencing here is in place there as well. However, since the result (there) would have almost surely been a Republican winner (though unopposed), the honorable judge declared that the dems could, inspite of state law stipulating otherwise, replace the candidate (Toricelli) who stepped down due to extremely low poll numbers (the result of some "dealings"). Sorry Curm, I knwo you are under the illusion that all d's never do anything wrong but, suxh was the case in New Jersy.

Anonymous said...

If the Ogden city council can change the rules after the fact to make Stuart Reid and Godfrey's felonius conduct - in Stu's seperation agreement and $47 grand walking money - A OK, then why can't our State Legislature extend the same courtesy to our dark and malevolent Chief?

Did the Standard have an article on Greiner the Whiner this morning (Saturday)? I can't get it on the web, can some one post it here? Is the evil one really out of the race officially?

Has that sorry assed excuse for a county attorney released the Matt Jones findings yet? Seems like the latest stall of his said he was going public with it on Friday (yesterday).

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Anonymous said...

Sarge:

Got a link for the NJ decision? And you will note, I said repeatedly the rules ought to be the same for all. If they are laws, they must be the same for all, R or D. And you have never heard me say here or anywhere else that Ds are immune from sin or crime. [ I lived in Louisiana for 31 years. Nuff said on that.]

I do know that Tx courts refused the DeLay request for replacement on the ballot, and first Florida judge refused the attempt to replace Foley. That Dems in NJ may have requested similar and got it in now way vitiates the final line of my previous post.

Tinkering with the laws in place for partisan advantage is wrong. Always. Everywhere. Without exception. But at the moment, Republicans being in power and in a majority in both houses [national and state], the opportunities for bending the law are, necessarily, more frequent for them than for Dems. Just as the opportunities for influence peddling and bribery are greater for Republicans than for Dems. Which is why Abrahmof, Ney, DeLay, Cunningham and a raft of smaller fish have alrady pled guilty or are under indictment. Does that mean Dems cannot be corrupt as well? Of course not. Rep. Jefferson comes to mind [from La. of course], though as yet he has been neither charged nor indicted.

I do note that when Jefferson's honesty came into question [not even indicted], he was asked to step down from appropriations committee until the matter was resolved, he refused, and Pelosi and the Dem leadership removed him. I also notice that when DeLay was indicted, the Republican leadership promptly changed their own House rules to permit him to stay on as majority leader during his trial. Only when the public stink of that got to be too high did they reverse themeselves and restore the old rules which forced him to resign his position as leader.

Power in the hands of men of no character tends to corrupt. The difference between the parties at the moment is that the Republicans are in power and so have many more temptations to corruption... many more buyers of their services making offers, shall we say... than do the Democrats. Men, and women, who have a strong sense of honor in public office can, and do, exercise power without being corrupted in the process. The problem is, we... all of us... do not elect nearly as many of them as we need to to govern us well. Not in the city, not in the state, not in the nation.

And in aniticpation of comments: there are various kinds of honor. A man [or woman] can be a perfect pig in his or her private relationships, and be scrupulously honorable as a public servant. Or a man or woman can be a fine, upstanding husband and father and steady church-goer and yet be as corrupt as they come in public office. What I am concerned about in a public person is his [or her] integrity in office when about the public's business. Period. American history is piled high with evidence that "virtue" in private and personal relationships is absolutely no guide to either competence or honesty or integrity in office. No corrolation, on the evidence, what-so-ever.

Anonymous said...

Curmudgeon

Sounds like a case of situational ethics to me.

I think it is bull shit. If a politician is going to cheat on his wife he is just as likely to cheat on this constituants. If that politician is dishonest and snakey in one part of his life he will be so in other parts as well. A sociopath is a sociopath period. You either have integrity or you don't.

I would be very interested to hear what some of those shrink and ethics professors at WSU think about your theory.

Anonymous said...

Oh GOOD!

Our blog is working again!

What happened?

Anonymous said...

people have said that when I became the police cheif that I was paid for enforcing the law, Not for living it.
so there. na nan nan na
OH! I didn't say that it really was the democrats fault but my own, I just said that I was going to blame them.
Na nan na na na.
so now that i'm out of the race lets vote democratic!!!

Anonymous said...

Isn't the chief suppose to enforce the laws? why is it when he brakes a federal law that he does'nt resign right away for breaking the law? or is this something that his lawyer brother told him that he could get away with. just like that jones matter and after all lets just now whatever we darn well please, after all we are republicans and the laws were only made for democrat to live by. right!!!!

by the way greiner, do you understand what CHECKMATE MEANS!

Anonymous said...

Sorry Rudy.

I'll be punching in Dave Thomas on the new Diebold device.

I urge everybody else in District 18 to do the same.

Anonymous said...

Curm...what hypocracy?
I don't care who was on the ballot, who may be disqualified..resigned, or died...I think the challenger in the Primary (2nd) could be the new candidate.

I don't know why you feel so hardpressed to diss Republicans....what if Reid AND Greiner are disqualified?
What then??
District 18 will have NO senator.

Any votes for Foley (whose name will still be on the ballot) will go to his replacement. Are you saying that if Foley was a democarat( and his behavior is more in keeping), that his votes would NOT count for his replacement? tsk tsk

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And Ozboy, I agree that if a pol cheats on his wife he's just as likely to cheat on his constituents. I think I made this argument some time ago and got raked over Curm's hot coals for it.

GO COUGS!!! 52 TO 7 OVER UNLV. A gorgeous day...cool, clear, blue skies, lovely mountains. Perfect.

Anonymous said...

Sharon and Oz:

The issue in Florida is not where votes for Foley will go. His is the only name on the ballot. They will go to the person the Reps chose to replace him as candidate. The issue in Florida is that Florida has a law banning any electioneering, any mentioning of a candidate's name on a poster, sign, or in any other way within 100 feet of the polls [except on the ballot itself]. Republicans wanted signs put up at the polls telling voters that a vote for Foley will go to the other guy. The Florida courts [first level] ruled, as has been ruled under the existing law in the past, that that violates the electioneering law and cannot be done. We can argue about whether the law in Florida is a wise one or not, but it is [at the moment] the law.

And as for your claim that someone who cheats on his wife is likely to cheat the public, and someone who is faithful is more likely not to: I ask again for evidence to back up your claims. We've had incompetent and corrupt presidents who were faithful as the day is long, and philandering presidents who turned out to be among the greats. When you can show me some evidence that marital fidelity correlates with either ability or honesty in office, then we can talk. But show me some evidence first. I can marshall [and have here before] substantial evidence on the other side of the argument, I think.

Anonymous said...

Rudi:

You wrote: We can only imagine what's coming up next in Monday's anticipated Std-Ex story. By my count, the report is already a week past the release date anticipated in the SE story. If I were a betting man [which it would be illegal to be here in Zion so of course I am not], I'd wager that the report, whatever it says, probably won't be released until after the election. If it is complete, it should of course be released now [whether its conclusions are favorable to Grenier or not]. It'll be interesting to see not only what the report says, but when we will get to see what it says.

Anonymous said...

I looked up Political Activity on the Office of Special Counsel's webpage. It's really very clear. There is also this notice:

Advisory Opinions

OSC issues advisory opinions to persons seeking advice about political activity under the Hatch Act. You may request such advice by phone, fax, mail or e-mail.


This is making me wonder why someone didn't do this at the beginning of the Greiner campaign. Currently, the defense we are reading in the paper is that Chief Greiner's salary is not being paid by federal funds. However, as Rudi states in his article, the part of the Act entitled: Hatch Act For State and Local Employees says this:

The Hatch Act applies to executive branch state and local employees who are principally employed in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a federal agency.

Having read that, wouldn't you think that a candidate or his/her attorney anywhere around federal funds would write for a ruling prior to making the decision to run?

Also on the page are some letters and opinions. Here is a quote from one of them:

It has long been established that an officer or employee of a state or local agency is subject to the Hatch Act if, as a normal and foreseeable incident of his principal position or job, he performs duties in connection with an activity financed in whole or in part by federal funds.

So it's not just a question of salary. It's a question of being connected to federal funding, too, which Chief Greiner definitely is.

Why didn't the attorney, or the campaign manager, or Chief Greiner himself, write in and simply ask? This information is not some buried, arcane piece of knowledge, but very accessible to everyone.

Anonymous said...

This Greiner story is both disgusting and informative.

We have this Hartley, evidently one of the Utah GOP apologists in charge saying:

"He is hopeful Greiner will appeal the federal ruling, which he described as a “knee jerk” decision made without carefully reviewing the facts."

and

“It’s a very typical bureaucratic response,” Hartley said Friday. “This should give us all concern about the Hatch Act."

and then we have Pee Wee adding:

“It’s his decision,” Godfrey said. “I’ll be supportive of whatever he decides.”

Then

"Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said Friday he will provide a written legal opinion on Greiner’s eligibility for office next week at the request of Republican leaders in the state Senate."

"He (Shurtliff) also criticized the Office of Special Counsel for rushing to judgment.

“It’s one federal attorney sitting in an office deciding that Jon Greiner can’t participate in state politics,”

Whew!

This now vilified Special Council is a Republican working in and for a Republican administration. If this finding were against a Democrat these hypocrites would be full of praise for this person. Instead they tear up the decision and person with all of the above derogatory and inflametory derisions and accusations. They attack the law itself, and the person who apparently is in charge of enforcing this act for the United States Government! The US Justice Department's top expert on the Hatch Act is now reduced to "one federal attorney sitting in an office" "making knee jerk decisions"!

Also I might ask, why is the state attorney general spending his time and the Utah Tax Payer's money "writing a special opinion" on the matter for the State Republican party? Isn't he supposed to represent and defend the laws of the land? Isn't he supposed to be looking out for ALL the citizens of Utah, not just Republican leaders?

I also like the little evil one's position of supporting what ever decision Greiner makes. He doesn't say anything about supporting the law or integrity, just what Greiner decides!

Then out of Kristen Moulten's article in the Tribune today she quotes Greiner and his attorney Bradshaw:

"Our intention is to convince them they are, in fact, wrong. The law does not apply to him"

Typical Greiner and Godfrey thinking - the law does not apply to them. This of course is very evident in their actions surrounding the Matt Jones fiasco where they not only thumbed their noses at the law but have continued to do so, with DeCaria's and Shurtliff's cooperation, in the so called and very prolonged "investigation".

And finally Greiner's now notorious quote:

"Cowardly acts are done by cowardly people who don't want to address the issues of the day that are of concern to the residents in an open manner:

This is just about the heighth of arrogance and duplicity for this particlular dark, evil and dishonorable person to say! Look at his actions in the Matt Jones affair! Every thing he and Godfrey have done on this one flies in the face of what he wrote. He and Godfrey are the biggest liars, cowards and most disingenuous people in the whole town in my opinion!! The very ingetrity of the police department is on the line with the Jones matter, it is one of the very most important "concern to the residents" of Ogden.

Anonymous said...

In further perusing the Hatch Act page, I came across an example where someone did indeed write in and was given advice from the Office of Special Counsel. Here's part of the Office's Response:

...you believe that you are covered by the Hatch Act. You state that you intend to run for the position of District Attorney in _________________ County in November of 1995. You further state that you will resign from your position with the County in April of 1995, but would like to know if you may engage in any preliminary activities relating to your candidacy prior to resigning from your County position...


...An employee covered by the Act may not be a candidate for public office in a partisan election, i.e., an election in which any candidate represents, for example, the Republican or Democratic party.

...The prohibition against political activity extends not merely to the formal announcement of candidacy but also to the preliminaries leading to such announcement and to canvassing or soliciting support or doing or permitting to be done any act in furtherance of candidacy....

...Therefore, you would be prohibited from writing introductory letters to local patty committees requesting the opportunity to meet with them and you would also be prohibited from meeting with individuals to plan the logistics and strategy of your candidacy...

...at this point you should not ask people to participate in any activities directed toward the success of your future candidacy...


Unless Chief Greiner can convince the Office that it is in error, it looks like he may have been in violation for some time. Of course, it is at the discretion of the Office whether or not to prosecute this.

It looks as though in order to be in compliance, he should have resigned his position quite some time ago.

You can read the entire advisory here:


State and Local Hatch Act Advisory:
Candidacy in a Partisan Election

Anonymous said...

This brings up the question of Brad Dee who works for Weber County and is in the Utah legislature.

It appears that we should expand the Utah election laws to specifically state that no Utah government employee is eligible to hold elected state office just as no Federal employee can hold office under the Hatch Act.

Anonymous said...

The Utah Code 77-10 pertaining to Grand Jury powers also needs to be amended.

Uner the present Utah Grand Jury Code there is no provision for a Grand Jury to hear Civil Law issues. The abuses by elected officials all come under Civil Law.

So in truth, we citizens have no recourse at all anywhere unless the charge is either criminal or a felony when we can go to the Grand Jury.

Elected officials continue to abuse the Code intentionally because a citizen has no recourse except to hire a private attorney at $250.00 an hour hour or to buy a set of law book to file their own "pro se" case.

We are told to go to the County Attorney and the Utah Attorney General for help. That is a joke because I have done that repeatedly in the last 3 years.

The bottom line is that no one monitors abuse of the Utah Code pertaining to Civil law.

This is a plea to every candidate running for either the House or the Senate to discuss this issue and if elected to be willing to introduce a bill to amend Utah Code 77-10.

The amendment should include the words "The Grand Jury is empowered to adjudicate any violation of the Civil Law Code by an elected official and to impose sanctions for such violation".

Elected officials are getting away with all kinds of violations and citizens have absolutely no recourse that we can afford financially.

Anonymous said...

What a sorry mess. The Hatch Act is certainly understandable with even the most cursory reading.

Why does Shurtliff have to write a special opinion?

It is disengenuous to be vigorously looking for loopholes and saying that Greiner..THE POLICE CHIEF, is above the law!!!

Yep, it's a sorry mess, alrite...and this crookedness knows no Party boundaries.

People should just not vote at all for Senate Dist 18 on Nov 7.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Dorothy, I'm in complete agreement with you about the Grand Jury and the hearing of abuses of the Utah Code.

Let's lobby our representatives!

We can do it. And, we don't need $43,000. bucks from the city to do so!

Anonymous said...

If Brad Dee oversees federal funds the Hatch act should apply to him also.

Does he?

Also, how does Greiner's military pay effect his standing under the Hatch Act? Remeber, he is a double dipper, or is that triple?

Anonymous said...

One thing I have been wondering is whether or not these agencies that have oversight actively oversee, or sit and wait for citizens to complain or inquire. If it is the latter, we all should be aware of that.

Kristen Moulton has an excellent article in today's Trib at the end of which she very succinctly describes the situation as it stands now. And know what? If Greiner is indeed found to be in violation of this, guess who pays? I'll give you a hint---it's not Greiner:

What's next for Greiner?
Jon Greiner and his attorney have two weeks to convince investigators for the U.S. Office of Special Counsel that he should not fall under the Hatch Act. If the office agrees, Greiner is in the clear to campaign for the Senate seat. If not, Greiner has a choice to make. He can quit his job as Ogden police chief and face no more problems. If he quits the race, his name will remain on the ballot, but votes for him will not be counted. If he quits neither his job nor his bid for office, Greiner risks a complaint from the Special Counsel to the Merit Systems Protection Board. An administrative law judge would hear evidence and decide the penalty, if any. The typical penalty for violating the Hatch Act is that the employer - in this case Ogden - forgoes two years' salary for the employee, and the employee is prohibited from working in state and local government for 18 months, according to an attorney for the Office of Special Counsel. Because Greiner makes more than $104,000 a year, Ogden City's penalty could amount to more than $208,000.


Senate District 18: Feds impose dilemma for Ogden cop/candidate
Abandon your legislative bid or risk penalties for the city and yourself, investigators tell him
By Kristen Moulton
The Salt Lake Tribune

Anonymous said...

Dian

Interesting situation. If Greiner persists will Godfrey fire him or let the city pay the $208 grand penalty?

With Godfrey's apparent lack of concern about the tax payers of Ogden's money, I would guess he will let the city pay up.

Neither one of these guys have an ounce of integrity or concern for the citizens of this town.

Anonymous said...

Waitaminnit....if Greiner quits, why can't any votes for him be counted?

I thot that was the choice: Quit and run for Senate...
Stay ON and face penalties.

IF Greiner has to forfeit the 2 yrs pay...then the rabble must rise up and Godfrey will be forced to fire Jon to avoid the $208,000 plus being paid out by 'us'.

What a sorry mess.

Anonymous said...

sharon said...

Waitaminnit....if Greiner quits, why can't any votes for him be counted?


Well, because he would have quit. Dropped out of the race.

Or were you thinking those votes should go to someone else? People were mentioning something of the kind earlier.

This tidbit that the city/employer and not the candidate has to pay implies that it is the city's job to police (pardon the word,) its employees to see that none would run for office in violation of this Hatch Act. In view of this, I find it curious that the city attorney is stating that he will not get involved.

Anonymous said...

thanx, Dian.

I meant if Greiner quits as police chief. I thot THAT would allow him to run for senate. What have I missed somewhere?

And yes, if the city pays...then the city should certainly have 'policed' his candidacy. Don't we employ 5 city attorneys????

Anonymous said...

Oh. Yes. It said that if he quit the police job, he could run and things would be fine. (This is a lot of leeway, in view of the fact that the Act also covers preliminary campaigning.) If he kept the police job and resigned from the Senate race, none of his votes would be counted. This because the ballots have already been printed up, perhaps, and people would vote for him even though this is going on? I think that's it.

Anyway, worst case scenario, there Ogden City would be, with Greiner not being able to serve as Chief for 18 months, yet Ogden City having to pay out two years of his salary, in addition to having to pay a replacement Chief, I would imagine.

So yes, I would think that those who are hired to protect the interests of Ogden City should have looked into this. After all, they made sure that none of the info from the Final Five Council applicants was released. I assume this decision was made from protective instincts.

Perhaps the Office of Special Counsel will change its opinion. This is possible. But in view of the fact that it has been enforcing the Act for some time, this has undoubtably come up before, and from the letter, it appears that this is how it rules in this situation.

It's going to be an interesting two and a half weeks.

Anonymous said...

Well, shall we wager (1) that DiCaria releases his investigative findings tomorrow? Or NOT?
(2) that he slaps the wrists of Griener and Godfrey? Or NOT?
(3) that he has Jones reinstated?? Or NOT?

ArmySarge said...

Curm, I have no spwcific link but it should be easy to search. I'm not sure of the year but it gave us more of Frank Launtenberg and the substitution of Mr. Lautenberg for MR. Toricelli WAS in violation of New Jersey ;aw.

Anonymous said...

Sarge:

I will look for it. If it's as you say, the decsion was, seems to me, not a wise one unless the decision overturned a NJ law for violating the NJ Constitution. That would mean the new rule would apply to all henceforth, not just one particular candidate. Let me see what I can find on it, and thanks for the pointer.

Anonymous said...

So, when did Stuart Reid jump back on the Democratic Party ship. A few years back when working closely w/ Mayor Godfrey he jumped over to the Republican Party because he said it more closely represented his values. I guess it doesn't really matter, but as a Democrat it's going to be very difficult to vote for this guy.

Also, give it up Greiner!

Anonymous said...

Anon:

Agreed. But sometimes, duty requires that we do as H.L. Mencken concluded his duty as a citizen required him to when faced with Warren G. Harding as a candidate. "I shall, " he wrote, "hold my nose and do the dirty deed" and vote for Gamaliel. [The "G" in Warren G. Harding.]

And so shall I, two weeks from now, hold my nose and do the dirty deed and vote for Reid. And then begin working in my Party to see that in the future it nominates real Democrats, not wet-finger-in-the-air which party affiliation will help me in my career at this moment candidates. Like Reid.

ARCritic said...

This morning there was a commentary from the Ogden City Council in regards to the fiasco that was the shutting out of the public in the process of appointing a replacement to the council that I just could not let pass.

I can't seem to get a link to it right now but it basically said that they got a number of requests that the information not be released, that it might subject the applicants to harrassment or safety or identity theft concerns. That is a bunch of bunk.

Putting your name up for an elected position is basically an invitation for harrassment and for safety and identity theft concerns it is very common for things to be redacted from records released by governments under Utah's GRAMA law.

They claim that they wanted the process to be as open as possible, so they held the interviews in public meetings properly agenda'ed. Well I hate to break it to them but there is no other way they could have interviewed the candidates as a council. State law specifically forbids closing a meeting to interview a candidate to be appointed to the council.

They say that changing council norms is a normal and ordinary thing. Except that normally if you want to do something other than what your norms dictate you would normally change the norms first, then do the thing differently that the previous norms say, not make a change retroactively to make the norms conform to what was done.

They claim that by publishing the names and contact information of the candidates that interested citizens had the chance to contact any of the candidates that they wanted. First, I think that the candidates probably would find, if the public had done that, overwhelming and unmanagable. Do these people not understand the value of a press. Have they never read the first amendment? Or do they simply not understand that the majority of the citizens, rightly so I believe which is why the press is free, depend on the press to get their information. Especially about the govenment and it's goings on.

That is exactly why the Utah Legislature enacted GRAMA to begin with. The press is the eyes and ears of the public. Do they really expect all the people who would have read the information that the Standard was prepared to diseminate to actually call each of the 39 candidates and ask those questions?

Arrogance is not a harsh enough word to describe the attitude of this council.

I really feel sorry for the citizens of Ogden that they have councilmembers who have so little regard for their constituants. I am glad I don't live in Odgen and have these people representing me.

Stacey Haws
Speaking for myself, but an elected city councilmember in Riverdale.

ARCritic said...

Here is the link to the commentary.

Anonymous said...

Arcritic:

Exactly right on all counts. Cannot help wondering what information the candidates for election wanted the Council to know about them to further their candidacy, but did not want us to know about while their candidacy was being considered. This was, as you note, a normally elected position they wanted, not appointment to a board or commission.

Even granting the Council [for the sake of arguement only] its point about whether such information should be made public, it should have complied with its procedures then in place, and changed them afterwards. What the Council did establishes that the members do not feel bound by their own established procedures and feel free to violate them whenever they please, so long as they intend to change them in the future.

That's not democracy, it's ad hocracy.

Anonymous said...

Stacey,

If you want to see real arrogance, look no farther then our Mayor.

He make the CC action on this one issue look like peanuts. His back room activity surrounding this gondola and the Mount Ogden Park open space, if recorded would be criminal.

Anonymous said...

CouncilMAN ARcritic:

Wow, you really aren't a woman! I checked Riverdale's web site to confirm it.

For the past year a few of us thought you were. Must of been the sense you were making and the spelling of your first name.

Why don't you move to Ogden and really make a difference. I hear there will be four seats on the Ogden Council that will just be begging for some one like you to fill them.

"Poor Ogden, so close to Riverdale and so far from God"

Anonymous said...

Well ozboy,
I say we incorporate all the little (and big) cities 'round about into ONE city...except none will accept us in the package.

Anonymous said...

Did you see in this morning's SE where Reid is stopping his campaign in order to be fair to Greiner?

Anonymous said...

Assinine to the hilt. Go for it! Just because your opponent can't do what is right, shouldn't keep a challenger from going forward.
Remember, that because of this flap, it is GREINER who is getting all the publicity! Reid? Reid, who?

Of course, the chicanery of one, and the dismal rep of the other only makes it easier for the voters, eh?

Anonymous said...

I think it gets closer to a good old boy network than I am comfortable with. This is what I am examining right now to see if it is a valid thought. Because if it is, this is very depressing.

No matter how much "we all want to get along," it is a fact that peoples' political ideologies are different. And to many of us, these differences are important, our particular one is important, and the political environment in our city, state, and country is important.

Elections, as Curmudgeon has said, should not be to vote for personalities. Elections are for the purpose, among other things, of letting the majority decide which way it wants to go according to the ideology present in candidates' opinions of current issues.

There are undoubtably some differences in the platforms of Reid and Greiner. Doesn't Reid understand that those differences are important to his supporters? In choosing Greiner over those supporters who, of course, have put time and money into this race, he might have committed a sort of betrayal.

But if there are no differences between them ideologically---and it must be admitted, both have been spoken of favorably by Mayor Godfrey in the past--then who wins or loses really isn't that important, is it?

Very depressing thoughts, indeed.

Anonymous said...

Dian:

Exactly. If Mr. Reid has a case to present to voters explaining why they should vote for him, then he needs to present that case, whether Mr. Greiner is in the race, out of the race, campaiging vigorously, campaigning passively, or not campaigning at all. If it actually matters that Weber County voters send Reid to the state Senate instead of Grenier, he needs to tell us why it matters. And if it doesn't matter, what the hell is he running for in the first place?

What I suspect is going on now is what several WC Formum folk predicted a while back. Mr. Greiner will stop active campaigning so as not to violate the letter and warnings from the Justice Department, but he will not formally withdraw so that votes cast for him will "count" [they will not if he withdraws], so that he can then resign the seat formally if he loses the Hatch Act appeal, and a Republican governor can appoint a Republican replacement.

Which is a further reason why Mr. Reid, who claims to be the Democratic candidate running [rather than ambling or, this being the west, moseying] for the office, should be out pounding the pavement, meeting prospective voters, placing yard signs at every welcoming patch of grass, and more.

If Mr. Reid did not intend to run for the office, hard, as a Democratic candidate, he should not have put himself forward for the nomination. And the Weber County Democrats should not have nominated him. I hope his Hamlet-like dithering ["To campaign or not to campaign. That is the question."]will be remembered by Weber County Democrats and that next time, we'll nominate someone actually interested in running for the office.

RudiZink said...

"If Mr. Reid did not intend to run for the office, hard, as a Democratic candidate, he should not have put himself forward for the nomination. And the Weber County Democrats should not have nominated him. I hope his Hamlet-like dithering ["To campaign or not to campaign. That is the question."]will be remembered by Weber County Democrats and that next time, we'll nominate someone actually interested in running for the office."

Bravo Curmudgeon -- bravo.

Our exact thoughts.

We've been working on a compilation of ALL the WCF articles mentioning Stuart Reid during the last 18 months or so.

If Mr. Reid is so confident with the posture of the 2006 Senate 18 campaign that he doesn't believe he needs to run on his record...

We're planning to help him out.

Stay tuned for the WCFGoldmines Stuart Reid Collection!

Coming to a cranky Weber County Utah Blog near you very soon.

heheheh.

Anonymous said...

Curmudgeon, this scenario:

What I suspect is going on now is what several WC Formum folk predicted a while back. Mr. Greiner will stop active campaigning so as not to violate the letter and warnings from the Justice Department, but he will not formally withdraw so that votes cast for him will "count" [they will not if he withdraws], so that he can then resign the seat formally if he loses the Hatch Act appeal, and a Republican governor can appoint a Republican replacement.

Might be playing with fire. According to the Moulton article:

If he quits neither his job nor his bid for office, Greiner risks a complaint from the Special Counsel to the Merit Systems Protection Board. An administrative law judge would hear evidence and decide the penalty, if any. The typical penalty for violating the Hatch Act is that the employer - in this case Ogden - forgoes two years' salary for the employee...

Etc.

I myself would like to know a few dates on this, because with both the election and the warning letter from the OSC happening at once, conclusions might be being drawn that are not really the case. For instance:

When did Greiner announce his candidacy? Anybody remember? Seems to me that it was quite some time ago, and as I said earlier, this Hatch act status, which Greiner himself said had been looked into, "upon the advice of legal counsel," should have been looked into a bit more thoroughly then. After all, Greiner was aware of the Hatch act enough to ask legal counsel about it possibly around the time he announced.

When was the complaint filed against Greiner? Was this situation really allowed to go on this long, or was the complaint filed some time ago, with the OSC not getting to it until now? Was it, perhaps, filed at the same time as the complaint against Reid, which the Reid camp is saying has been resolved?

The answers to these questions are important in view of the accusation that this was a well-timed sting by the Democratic Party, to wait until the race got right down to the wire and then file this complaint. That may very well be, but the answers to these questions to put the whole thing in a timeline would tell us whether or not that accusation might be valid.

Anonymous said...

I doubt if either one of these clowns have really stopped campaigning.

Forgetfull John Greiner is playing it coy and careful with the Feds while promoting the idea that this whole thing is the product of those cowards in the Democratic party - such that it is.

Meanwhile that puts Reid on the defensive as one of the underhanded cowards that are trying to steal the election from Greiner by unfair and chicken shit tactics - like ratting him off to the feds to begin with.

Reid's only recourse is to try to combat that notion of him being behind this, so he is coming on with this phony nice and fair LDS stuff about not campaigning himself to be fair to Greiner. (pardon me while I puke)

The bottom line is that both of these scum bags are trying desperately to not let the voters know and see their true colors.

It is all very disingenuous as is most politics here in Zion. How do you say "write in"?

Anonymous said...

Write in Representative Neil Hansen, that is who should be running in this senate seat.

ARCritic said...

From the Letter:

Accordingly, this letter serves as notice that OSC has resonable grounds to believe that your current candidacy for State Senate is in violation of the Hatch Act. Rather than pursue diciplinary action against you at this time, we are providing you with an opportunity to immediately come into compliance with the law. You may withdraw your candidacy or you may resign from your employment with the Police Department. Failure to pursue one of these actions could result in disciplinary action charges being brought against you before the Merit Systems Protection Board.

If you choose to withdraw your candidacy, you must inform the appropriate election official that you are withdrawing from the election and follow his or her instructions as to what actions are necessary to effectuate your withdrawal. If you are unable to have your name removed from the ballot, you must publicly announce your withdrawal (e.g., press release, letter to the editor, etc.). Lastly, you must stop all campaign activities, including organizing or encuraging a write-in candidacy, and no longer hold yourself out as a candidate.

If you choose to withdraw from the race, and despite your best effort to do so you are elected because your name remained on the ballot, be advised that you would have been elected in violation of the law (i.e., via a partisan election). Thus, although the Hatch Act does not projibit an employee from being appointed to or holding public office, under these circumstances, if you are elected and you accept the position, the Hatch Act Unit will consider your acceptance a significant aggravating factor warranting a recommendation to the Special Counsel to prosecute this matter. Cf. Special Counsel v. Bradford, 69 M.S.P.R. 247, 250 (1995) ("refusal to accept the fruit of a prohibited contest may be considered evidence of good faith").

Please provide OSC with evidence of your withdrawal or resignation by October 31, 2006. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at (800)854-2824 or (202)254-3609.

Sincerely,

Mariama Liverpool
Attorney
Hatch Act Unit


But the state said if he resigns his candidacy his votes would not be counted.

Sounds to me if he does not resign his job or his candidacy even if he does not accept the seat if elected, he would be in violation.

We will see.

Isn't Neil in the house? Wasn't this Ed Allen's district?

Anonymous said...

Thank you for posting that, arcritic. I agree with your assessment---that seven days from now, Greiner must either resign his job or withdraw his candidacy. I view holding off on campaigning as sort of meaningless at this point, although continuing to might be construed as in indication that he is playing both sides,and not immediately coming into compliance, which of course he would not want since the Office is giving him the opportunity to do this rather than moving on it right away.

I am wondering if one of these closed door deals Ogden is famous for might be taking place, such as an agreement that if Greiner resigns his position, an interim replacement will be appointed, and if Greiner loses the election, he can have the position back. This would certainly be covering all bases, although it would be a dead end career move for the hapless interim replacement. And I have no idea of the legality of it. As you say, we will see.

And Neil is a Representative and on the ballot. Probably too late to change horses here.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it interesting how the chief law inforcement officers of Ogden City, the mayor and the chief of police, go to such lengths to avoid complying with the law and in some instances outright breaking it?

Then the county and state authorities that can do something about it don't!

Where are citizens of Ogden supposed to turn to inorder to be protected from these kind of immoral officials?

Anonymous said...

KSL has a story up:

Early Voting Starts Today

Is this true of the Greiner/Teid race also?

What a mess this has turned into, if so.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for typo. Greiner/Reid race, that should have been.

And yes, Katy--I have been thinking that also. Very different from the position of the lawbreakers the OPD finds "reasonable grounds" to believe have committed a violation, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

The down side of this early voting and the new electronic voting machines is that it will give the scammers and crooks a much bigger window of time to corrupt the programs and subsequent results.

There are a lot of people in government and working for government who have the motive, the means, the access and the corrupt souls to do it! especially in the NeoCon World of Utah Republican politics.

Voting should be on election day. This speading it out so we don't have to buy more machines is a crock of crap. Are they going to have election judges on duty for two or three weeks with each machine in each location? Is that going to save mone?

Is there a rat lurking in this deal?

Anonymous said...

How can we have early voters NOW when it isn't known for sure if Greiner can be on the ballot??

Anonymous said...

Sharon:

That is one of the things wrong with extended [or early] voting: it renders meaningless news that breaks between the vote and election day.

Beyond that, there is something important lost, I think, by diluting election day, by diluting the idea that on this day, majorities spoke across the nation. Yes, there should be accommodation for those who for some reason cannot be at the polls on the day. It's called absentee voting. But beyond that, it still makes sense to have a single day, nationwide, on which decisions are made by the whole people, or at least the majority of those willing to flog themselves to the polls to vote.

I didn't like early voting when it was originally proposed. I don't like it now. If the idea is to increase turnout, a much better reform might have been to move election day nationwide to a Saturday instead of a mid-week work day for most Americans.

But, to return to partisan mode, early voting is yet another gift of the Utah Republican majority....

ARCritic said...

Ozboy and Curm,

I would have to say that on the point of early voting the Republicans succumed to the idea. It has been pushed for several years and the Republican majority steadfastly refused to allow it. Much to the chargrin of those pushing it (I am not sure who was pushing the hardest but I believe one of the biggest was the Salt Lake County clerk, a democrat).

Also as for additional election judges, many counties are having the early voting at the county offices and I expect using normal county election staff to staff the election judging positions. This is particularly the case in Summit county where the only early voting place is at the county offices/courthouse in Coalville. One group has funded a shuttle bus to take voters from Park City to Coalville to vote early because the county clerk said that it would cost too much and be too much of a security risk to place voting machines in other places in the county.

Anonymous said...

Arcritic:

Since you seem up on the topic, do you know if ballots cast early are counted in the returns reported on election day [i.e. are they merged into the returns reported from various polling places], or are they treated as, more or less, absentee ballots, and totaled up after the election day polling place results come in?

I hope it's the former. Occasionally absentee ballots change the outcomes reported on election eve, but not often. If early votes are counted separately and after those cast on election day, we might see more results altered after the end of election day totals are posted.

Just curious.

Anonymous said...

I still think it gives too many rascals too much opportunity for mischief.

ARCritic said...

According to a nice lady at the Lt. Governor's office early voting is included in the totals from election day to be reported that night. Absentee voting is still available by mail and those votes are opened and counted later as usual.

And did you see the report on the news that the lines for early voting are long. That it is taking on average 2 times as long to vote because even if you vote straight party or want to skip certain races you have to go through each page of the ballot.

I might decide to go down Friday or Monday before election day so I don't get in too long a line on election day.

And did you see this blog from Paul Rolly of the Trib? Talks about what we talked about a while ago how some people are being frightened by the "leave your print" ad campaign.

I will remember to get some gloves when I go vote.

I wonder what would happen if I showed up outside a polling place on election day with a couple of boxes of doctor's disposable rubber gloves to hand out to anyone who didn't really want to 'Leave their print'?

Anonymous said...

Arcritic:

Wear sunglasses too. The alleged security cameras in clerk's office are really retinal scanners recording the id of all who vote early, along with the magnetic number implanted in the individual ballots. Everyone knows this....

And of course the license plates of all cars parking in the County lot are taken down by patrolmen who will also note if any political bumperstickers are present. Better park on the street. At least a block away. Maybe two.

And when they ask you to seal your vote in an evelope they will give you, don't lick the envelope. DNA sample on a platter. Demand a damp sponge to do the sealing....

Can't be too careful. Remember, just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you....

[grin]

Anonymous said...

Curm

You describe the perfect world
according to Matt Godfrey.

ARCritic said...

Curm,

Did you see this article prior to your posting?

http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/10168194/detail.html

And I though all the early voting was being done on the (republican controlled) Diebold machines. I believe if you request a ballot for absentee voting it is a paper one that requires an envelope and stamp.

Anonymous said...

Arcritic:

No. Two son requested absentee ballot [he will be working out of town on The Day], and it came this week. Paper. With envelope requiring stamp.

I know in some states with a history of election chicanery, like Ohio, local Democratic organizations are telling people worried about their vote registering for the other party on the Diebold machines, or not registering at all, to ask for an absentee paper ballot. May take a while to get counted, but it will be counted.

Be interesting to see, nationwide, if there is any significant increase in absentee voting this time 'round, which might be taken as a vote of no confidence in the electronic ballots.

I think in Utah, we opted for an E-system that does produce a paper record of each vote cast, just in case. I think. In other states, like I think Maryland and, of course, Florida, the legislature opted in stead for the cheaper "no paper trail" system. Imagine that....

Going to look at the article attached to the link you posted.

Anonymous said...

Arcritic:

Hadn't seen the KC piece. Man, I would love to see this one litigated. I think they'd have a hell of a time establishing that bumper sticker as making the car a "campaign vehicle." If it touted a particular candidate, maybe. But a generic GOP = Grand Oil Party sticker, I don't think so....
Thanks for the pointer.