Utah Democratic Voting Guide
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Utah Taxpayer
The Volume Utah Taxpayer 34 JuJulyly 2009 2009 Number 7 Page 1 The Utah Taxpayer A Publication of the Utah Taxpayers Association 1578 West 1700 South♦Suite 201♦Salt Lake City, Utah 84104♦(801) 972-8814 July 2009 Articles 2009 Federal, State, and Local Tax Burden on 2009 Federal, State, and a Median-income Utah Family Local Taxes on a Mediam income Utah Family A median-income Utah household consisting of two parents and three children pays 24.2% of its income in direct federal, state, and local taxes, according to an analysis by the Utah Taxpayers Asso- My Corner – Iranian style ciation. A median-income Utah family with two parents and three children earns $63,074 in wages elections in Utah? and salary. Additionally, the family earned $5,474 in the form of employer-paid payroll taxes for a total income of $68,548. Highlights from the Taxes Now Conference The following chart illustrates the tax impact. These taxes do not include the taxes that businesses pay and pass The costs taxpayers pay on to their customers in because of UTOPIA Percent of Percent of the form of 2009 Taxes Amount Taxes Income RDAs: Corporate welfare higher prices, disguised as “economic to employees Social Security $7,821 47.1% 11.4% development” in the form of Sales tax 2,106 12.7% 3.1% reduced State income tax 1,967 11.9% 2.9% compensation, Medicare 1,829 11.0% 2.7% and to Property tax 1,347 8.1% 2.0% shareholders in Automobile taxes 922 5.6% 1.3% the form of Employment taxes 649 3.9% 0.9% reduced divi- dends and Excise taxes 306 1.8% 0.4% stock prices. -
Does Vote-By-Mail Cause Voters to Gather Information About Politics?∗
Does Vote-by-Mail Cause Voters to Gather Information About Politics?∗ James Szewczyk Department of Political Science Emory University [email protected] June 28, 2019 Abstract In this paper, I examine the effects of vote-by-mail on voter behavior and voter knowledge. I argue that vote-by-mail electoral systems result in a more informed electorate, because voters have additional time with their ballot and access to resources to conduct research about races on the ballot that they know nothing about. I present the results of two empirical studies that support this prediction. First, I find that all-mail elections in Utah cause a 6.368 percentage point decrease in straight ticket voting. This is con- sistent with the logic that voters spend more time with their ballots when voting by mail relative to when they are voting at a polling place. Second, I estimate the effects of vote-by-mail on voter knowledge using an original repeated cross-sectional survey that was fielded during the 2018 general election in California. The research design exploits the implementation of the California Voters Choice Act (VCA), which resulted in five counties in the state switching to an election system in which all voters in the counties are sent a mail-in ballot. I find that the VCA causes an increase in voter knowledge and an increase in time that voters spend gathering information about the election. However, the reform does not affect the prevalence of political discussion or levels of knowledge about the party identification and ideology of candidates. ∗I thank the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the Madison Initiative of the William Flora Hewlett Foundation for generously funding this research. -
Research Report Report Number 704, November 2011 Nominating Candidates the Politics and Process of Utah’S Unique Convention and Primary System
Research Report Report Number 704, November 2011 Nominating Candidates The Politics and Process of Utah’s Unique Convention and Primary System HIGHLIGHTS For most of its history, Utah has used a convention- g Utah is one of only seven states that still uses a primary system to nominate candidates for elected office. convention, and the only one that allows political parties to preclude a primary election for major In the spring of election years, citizens in small caucus offices if candidates receive enough delegate votes. g Utah adopted a direct primary in 1937, a system meetings held throughout the state elect delegates to which lasted 10 years. represent them at county and state conventions. County g In 1947, the Legislature re-established a caucus- convention system. If a candidate obtained 70% or conventions nominate candidates for races solely within more of the delegates’ votes in the convention, he or she was declared the nominee without a primary. the county boundaries, while the state convention is used g In the 1990s, the Legislature granted more power to the parties to manage their conventions. In 1996, to nominate candidates for statewide offices or those the 70% threshold to avoid a primary was lowered to 60% by the Democratic Party. The Republican that serve districts that span multiple counties. At these Party made the same change in 1999. conventions, delegates nominate candidates to compete g Utah’s historically high voter turnout rates have consistently declined in recent decades. In 1960, for their party’s nomination in the primary election, or, 78.3% of the voting age population voted in the general election. -
2006 American Express Political Contributions
American Express Company Semi-Annual Political Contributions Report July-December 2016 American Express participates in the political process through the American Express Company Political Action Committee (AXP PAC) and through corporate political contributions in those jurisdictions where it is permissible to do so. AXP PAC is supported entirely through voluntary contributions from those who are eligible. We do not spend corporate funds directly on electioneering communications, and our PAC does not contribute to presidential campaigns. In this report, which is updated semi-annually and posted on our company website, we provide information about all political contributions made through our PAC or with corporate funds to political candidates, parties and committees. We also disclose contributions to other political entities organized and operating under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 527 of the Internal Revenue Code; independent political expenditures; dues used for political purposes by trade associations that respond to our request, entities organized under section 501(c) 4 of the Code, and other tax exempt organizations (that receive in excess of $50,000 during the calendar year from the Company); and payments made to influence the outcome of ballot measures as defined under Subsection 162(e)(1)(B) of the Code. In addition, we include a list of principal U.S. trade and industry associations to which we have paid annual dues of $50,000 or more in the most recent fiscal year and the portion of our dues or payments made that are used for lobbying purposes under section 162(e) of the Internal Revenue Code. For more information about our Company and its Political Activity Policy, please visit http://about.americanexpress.com/news/pap.aspx. -
Life Before BCRA: Soft Money at the State Level
L I F E B E F O R E B C R A S O F T M O N E Y A T T H E S T A T E L E V E L I N T H E 2 0 0 0 & 2 0 0 2 E L E C T I O N C Y C L E S By D E N I S E B A R B E R T H E I N S T I T U T E O N M O N E Y I N S T A T E P O L I T I C S D E C . 1 7 , 2 0 0 3 1 833 NORTH MAIN, SECOND FLOOR • HELENA, MT • 59601 PHONE 406-449-2480 • FAX 406-457-2091 • E-MAIL [email protected] www.followthemoney.org T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S State Parties: Looking for New Dance Partners ........................................3 Summary of Findings...............................................................................5 State-by-State Rankings ...........................................................................7 Who Gives to State Party Committees? ....................................................9 National Committees: State Party Sugar Daddies ................................... 10 Patterns in Giving....................................................................... 11 Transfers and Trading................................................................. 11 Reporting Discrepancies ............................................................. 13 Top Individual Contributors ................................................................... 14 Interstate Trading of Soft Money............................................................ 19 Top Industries ........................................................................................ 21 Tables ........................................................................................................ Table 1: Soft-Money Contributions, 2000 and 2002......................7 Table 2: Types of Contributors to State Party Committees ............9 Table 3: Soft Money from the National Committees ................... 10 Table 4: Top 25 Individual Contributors of Soft Money.............. 16 Table 5: Top 30 Industries Contributing to State Parties............. -
CDP V. FEC (18-0888) Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Filed July 13, 2018
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 14 Filed 07/13/18 Page 1 of 43 U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) COMMITTEE TO DEFEND THE ) PRESIDENT, ) ) No. 18-888 (RDM) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) ) Defendant, ) _______________________________________) PLAINTIFF COMMITTEE TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS Dan Backer POLITICAL.LAW PLLC 441 N. Lee Street, Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 210-5431 [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Committee to Defend the President Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 14 Filed 07/13/18 Page 2 of 43 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................1 A. Federal Campaign Finance Law ...........................................................................1 1. Contribution Limits ...................................................................................1 2. Reporting Requirements ...........................................................................2 3. Joint Fundraising Committees ..................................................................2 4. Anticircumvention Provisions ..................................................................3 B. Administrative Complaint Process .......................................................................4 C. CDP’s Administrative Complaint .........................................................................6 D. CDP’s Challenge to the FEC’s Failure to Timely Adjudicate Its -
Williams Companies Corporate Contributions January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010
Williams Companies Corporate Contributions January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010 Party Amount State Organizations Utah Democratic Party D 1,000 Total $1,000 National Organizations Democratic Governors Association D 10,000 National Governors Association - 20,000 Republican Governors Association R 35,000 Western Governors Association - 5,000 Total $70,000 Other Organizations Accountability for Colorado D 750 Colorado Leadership Fund R 2,500 One Oklahoma Coalition - 5,000 Senate Majority Fund R 2,500 Total $10,750 State Contributions Alabama Rep. Jim Barton R 500 Rep. Paul Beckman R 500 Rep. James Buskey D 500 Rep. Spencer Collier R 500 Rep. Chad Fincher R 500 Sen. Rusty Glover R 500 Rep. Betty Carol Graham D 500 Rep. Ralph Howard D 500 Rep. Mike Hubbard R 500 Rep. Thomas Jackson D 500 Sen. Marc Keahy D 500 Rep. Richard Laird D 500 Sen. Del Marsh R 500 Rep. Jimmy Martin D 500 Rep. Barry Mask R 500 Sen. Wendell Mitchell D 500 Sen. Jim Preuitt R 500 Sen. Bobby Singleton D 500 Sen. Cam Ward R 500 Total $9,500 1 Williams Companies Corporate Contributions January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010 Georgia Lt. Governor Casey Cagle R 500 Sen. Bill Cowsert R 500 Rep. Katie Dempsey R 500 Sen. Bill Heath R 500 Sen. Emanuel Jones D 500 Rep. Jan Jones R 500 Rep. Chuck Martin R 500 Rep. Howard Mosby D 500 Rep. Larry O'Neal R 500 Rep. Don Parsons R 500 Rep. Alan Powell D 500 Rep. David Ralston R 1,000 Sen. Chip Rogers R 500 Sen. -
Research Report Report Number 708, April 2012 the 2012 Utah Priorities Survey of Party Delegates and Voters
Research Report Report Number 708, April 2012 The 2012 Utah Priorities Survey of Party Delegates and Voters HIGHLIGHTS As part of the 2012 Utah Priorities Project, Utah g While distinct differences remain between Foundation and the Hinckley Institute of Politics have state party delegates and voters, they are not as pronounced as in 2010. surveyed Utah voters and delegates to the major parties’ g The top policy priorities of Republican delegates focus on state’s rights, the economy, and reducing state conventions. This survey was conducted for the crime. These priorities are more in line with Republican voters than delegates were in 2010. first time in 2010, showing distinct differences between g The top policy priorities of Democratic delegates party delegates and voters, with delegates usually taking focus on education, healthcare, ethics, pollution, and the economy. These priorities are very more zealous positions than their parties’ voters. The similar to Democratic voters. g Republican congressional incumbents Rob Bishop 2012 survey also shows differences between voters and and Jason Chaffetz hold comfortable leads over their challengers and will almost certainly receive delegates, but those differences are not as pronounced as enough delegate votes to avoid a primary. in 2010. g Governor Herbert and U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch are close to the 60% delegate threshold to avoid This survey also shows that both Republican delegates and voters now have more moderate a primary, but the margin of error makes these views on several issues, such as global warming, abortion and public education. Additionally, convention races too close to call. this survey reveals that support for the Tea Party in Utah has declined significantly since g Regarding political ideology, 58% of Utahns 2010. -
The School of the Prophets: Its Development and Influence in Utah Territory
Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 1970 The School of the Prophets: Its Development and Influence in Utah Territory John R. Patrick Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the History Commons, Mormon Studies Commons, and the Sociology Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Patrick, John R., "The School of the Prophets: Its Development and Influence in Utah erritT ory" (1970). Theses and Dissertations. 5019. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/5019 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. D 1661 THE SCHOOL OF THE PROPHETS ITS development AND INFLUENCE IN UTAH TERRITORY A thesis L L presented to the department of history brigham young university in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree master of arts by john R patrick june 1970 acknowledgments it is with deep appreciation and gratitude that I1 extend these ac- knowledgmentsknowledgments at this time to those who have been instrumental in helping complete this study first I1 wish to thank drs eugene E campbell and thomas G alexander members of the brigham young university history department and members of my committee for their time and effort expended in helping obtain permission to work on this topic for their reading and critical -
1A United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Utah Republican Party and Utah Democratic Party V. SPENCER J. COX, in Hi
1a United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Utah Republican Party and Utah Democratic Party v. SPENCER J. COX, in his official capacity as Lieutenant Governor of Utah, Nos. 16-4091/16-4098 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah (D.C. No. 2:16-CV-00038-DN) Marcus Mumford, Mumford Law, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Plaintiff-Appellant. David P. Billings, Fabian VanCott, Salt Lake City, Utah (Peter W. Billings and Charles A. Stormont, Fabian VanCott, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Clemens A. Landau, Zimmerman Jones Booher, Salt Lake City, Utah, with him on the briefs), for Plaintiff - Intervenor-Appellant. Tyler R. Green (Stanford E. Purser with him on the brief), Utah Attorney General’s Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendant-Appellee. Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. 2a EBEL, Circuit Judge. These appeals are only the most recent volley in the spate of litigation that has dogged the Utah Elections Amendments Act of 2014, commonly known as SB54, since it was signed into law in March 2014. At issue here, SB54 reorganized the process for qualifying for a primary ballot in Utah, most importantly by providing an alternative signature- gathering path to the primary election ballot for candidates who are unable or unwilling to gain approval from the central party nominating conventions. Prior to the passage of SB54, the Utah Republican Party (“URP”) selected its candidates for primary elections exclusively through its state nominating convention, and it would prefer to continue to do so. In this litigation, the URP sued Utah Lieutenant Governor Spencer Cox in his official capacity (“the State”)1, alleging that two aspects of SB54 violate the URP’s freedom of association under the First Amendment, as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. -
05357 HIP Newsltr Press.Indd
PARTICIPATION WINTER 2005 40th Anniversary for Hinckley Institute of Politics The Hinckley Institute of Politics will celebrate IN THIS ISSUE its 40th anniversary and announce the new director of the Hinckley Institute at an event in September. Institute History Page 2 The gathering will feature a prominent guest Scholarships Page 3 speaker and a program about the history of the Outstanding Interns Page 4 Institute. All former interns and students, commu- Congressional Interns Page 5 nity members, friends of the Institute, and elected Former Interns Page 5 officials are invited to attend. Further details will Featured Internships Page 6 be released in the coming months. We hope to see Hinckley News Page 6 you there! Semester Abroad Page 8 Hinckley Staff Page 9 Hinckley Forums Page 10 From top to bottom: Hinckley interns with newly elected 2003-2004 Interns Page 12 Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr.; 1966 Hinckley Summer interns; intern Lieu Tran with Sen. Arlen Specter and Gov. Donors Page 15 Arnold Schwarzenegger; Pres. Ronald Reagan greeting Capital Encounter Page 16 interns; and Hinckley interns campaign for Scott Matheson, Jr. 1 HINCKLEY INSTITUTE OF POLITICS PARTICIPATION History of Hinckley Institute of Politics Scholarship Award Winners Anne Bergstedt Receives John Micah Elggren Receives Robert H. Hinckley founded the Hinckley Institute of Politics in 1965 with the vision to “teach students and Anne Hinckley Scholarship Robert H. Hinckley respect for practical politics and the principle of citizen involvement in government.” Forty years later, Mr. Hinckley’s dream is a reality. Countless students, schoolteachers, and the general public have participated in Graduate Scholarship programs he made possible through the Hinckley Institute. -
The Future of Higher Education
ANNUAL NEWSLETTER CONCEPTUAL RENDERING THE FUTURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION THE HINCKLEY INSTITUTE’S FUTURE HOME PLANNING FOR THE PRICE INTERNATIONAL PAVILION LAUNCH OF THE SAM RICH LECTURE SERIES MALCOLM GLADWELL’S VISION FOR COMPETITIVE STUDENTS OFFICE FOR GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT PARTNERSHIP THE U’S GLOBAL INTERNSHIPS POISED FOR MASSIVE GROWTH 2013 SICILIANO FORUM EDUCATION EXPERTS CONVERGE FOR FULL WEEK table of contents NEW & NOTEWORTHY: 4 HINCKLEY FELLOWS 5 DIGNITARIES 44 HINCKLEY HAPPENINGS: 8 HINCKLEY PRESENCE 10 HINCKLEY FORUMS 8 THE FUTURE OF HIGHER ED: 12 OUR VISION 14 PRICE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING 15 OUR NEW PARTNERSHIP 16 16 SICILIANO FORUM 18 SAM RICH LECTURE SERIES 1414 HINCKLEY TEAM: 20 OUR INTERNS 30 OUR STAFF 31 31 PORTRAIT UNVEILING Contributing Editors: Ellesse S. Balli Rochelle M. Parker Lisa Hawkins Kendahl Melvin Leo Masic Art Director: Ellesse S. Balli MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR Malcolm Gladwell. Dubbed by the seven short years since we KIRK L. JOWERS Time magazine as “one of the 100 launched our global internship most influential people” in the program, we have placed more world and by Foreign Policy as than 400 students in almost 60 a leading “top global thinker,” countries across the globe. It is Gladwell discussed the advantages now celebrated as the best political of disadvantages in a sold-out and humanitarian internship pro- event at Abravanel Hall. gram in the U.S. Culminating this Gladwell’s findings confirmed achievement, this year the Hinck- my belief that it is far better for ley Institute was charged with undergraduates to be a “big fish” overseeing all University of Utah within the University of Utah and campus global internships in part- Hinckley Institute than a “little nership with the new Office for fish” at an Ivy League school.