Dear Editor,
I believe the current Republican Party caucus system is a good system that allows neighborhoods to choose wise delegates and allows potential candidates a forum to present themselves before those delegates, without having to raise the vast campaign funds that are necessary for public campaigns. This system has helped the Republican Party choose candidates that for the most part have been a credit to the state of Utah.
However, all of this is irrelevant. The governor seems to have reservations with SB54 or Sen. Jenkins's proposed constitutional amendment to allow parties to choose candidates in any way they choose, and has threatened a veto because this would thwart the will of the people. While well intended, his reservations are misplaced. In a constitutional republic, the will of the people is not the final arbiter. While I understand desire to cater the will of the people that is step down a dangerous road to mob rule.
The president of the LDS church is an influential figure in this state, and there is a process in place for how he is selected, whether or not the public at large likes the man or the method that organization uses to select him. Even if most people in the state dislike this process, we would never consider a law (or should never) that would mandate a different selection process, no matter how many signatures such an initiative might receive. Why? Because in a constitutionally limited state, the government has no jurisdiction in the internal affairs of a private organization, no matter how many citizens want to vote that power to the state.
The state does however have the power to govern rules on elections of individuals running for public office, and rightly so. The state does not have the right to determine how the Republican Party chooses one of its members as a candidate for public office. After all, republican candidate for the office of x, is not a public position. If Republicans wish to change the candidate selection process, they may do so within their party, or leave the party, or start a new one. No law should restrict a private group to retain sovereignty over its internal affairs.
Dan Davis
Pleasant View, UT
