WCGOP LINCOLN DAY LUNCHEON

Freedom of association guarantees our right to come together with other individuals to collectively express, promote, pursue and/or defend our common interests.

This year our Lincoln Day Dinner is scheduled for Saturday March 23, 2019 at the Timbermine Restaurant www.timbermine.com 10:30am – 2:00pm

As you are probably aware, our Lincoln Day Dinner is our annual fund raiser and a chance to celebrate our Party’s mission and its valuable contribution to our community. This year theme is “Freedom of Association.” The right to associate freely is an inalienable right and a cherished American principle. Without this freedom…there would be no political parties as we know them today.

A simple definition of the word liberty is “the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely.” It includes freedom from restraint or control from almost anything, other than illegal or harmful activities. When one looks around today, we do see our freedoms being lessened, while our government has morphed into an uncontrollable behemoth where the political elitists do as they please and damned be the people.

The freedom to join or leave groups who share a common viewpoint was guaranteed by our Founding Fathers. It allows us, under the First Amendment, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. I believe that, with the recent attack on our constitutional rights of assembly, speech and association, by the Utah state legislature, our annual fundraiser might be the best forum (other than the SCOTUS) to make our case.

Let’s be clear, freedom of association encompasses both an individual’s right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria. Our freedom to associate guarantees our right to come together with other individuals to collectively express, promote, pursue and/or defend our common interests.

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.

As Republicans, we believe in goodness and righteousness of freedom, of self-reliance, of independence, of merit, of virtue, of hard work, of honor, of courage, of sacrifice, of loyalty, of morality, of faith, of the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

Before Utah passed legislation known as Senate Bill 54 in 2014, Utah election law did not infringe on political parties’ freedom to choose how they would nominate candidates for the general election. Parties could choose whether or not to use the state’s primary election mechanism or not.

With that freedom, the Utah Republican Party chose not to use the primary as its principal means of selecting candidates. Instead, the Party had, and continues to employ, a carefully crafted convention process. Party members in defined precincts conduct neighborhood caucus meetings. In accordance with the Republican Party’s bylaws, each caucus meeting is open to the public and begins with a prayer, a recitation of the pledge of allegiance, and a reading of the Party’s platform. The caucus attendees in turn select community representatives to serve as delegates to the Party’s convention, where nominees will eventually be considered and selected for the ballot.

According to existing case law, 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. Indeed, the First Amendment affords “special protection” to “the process by which a political party selects a standard bearer who best represents the party’s ideologies and preferences.”

And this makes sense, as the nomination process is one that “often determines the party’s positions on the most significant public policy issues of the day, and even when 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.”

American political parties have always occupied somewhat of a gray area of constitutional law because of their dual public-private nature. At times, political parties undertake activities that make them look very much like parts of the government. At other times they behave more like private organizations. The courts have long recognized the dual nature of political parties in this country but have never provided a coherent framework to distinguish when parties are to be treated as “public” entities and when they are to be deemed “private” ones. When parties are treated as primarily public entities, they are often subjected to the same constitutional standards that the courts have traditionally imposed on the “State.” When parties are seen as undertaking “private” activities, they have often been afforded greater freedom in their actions. As the role of political parties has grown over the years, this question has become increasingly difficult to answer.

Where there has been judicial review of Political Parties, Case law has acknowledged that they are composed of three parts, all of which have been treated differently by the courts.

1) The “Party Organization” – Internal party activities.
The party organization encompasses the party’s active members; this is the most “private” side of party behavior including party decisions as to membership, internal party structure, and selection of party leaders. These are matters which primarily concern party activists and are vital to the preservation of party independence.

2) The Party-in-the-Electorate – The electoral functions and nomination phase.
The party in the electorate is composed of the party’s rank-and-file membership as it relates to the conduct of political parties in elections. Because state laws regulate aspects of the electoral process, in the name of the public interest, the State attempts to regulate political parties under this concept.

3) The “Party-in-Government”
The party-in-government is made up of the party’s elected and appointed officeholders. As federal and state office-holders, including Senators, Congressmen and governors, parties are clearly performing “public” functions and are subject to considerably higher regulatory and constitutional standards of behavior.

Therefore, the level of independence granted to parties does vary depending on the type of party activity under consideration. In its more “private” functions, such as selection of party leaders and defining membership (1 above), the parties should retain maximum independence from government regulation, including judicial oversight. This is where we believe the SCOTUS will agrees with us.

When parties perform their more “public” functions, such as the operation of election campaigns and actual governance, they are subject to much closer judicial scrutiny and held to higher constitutional standards. In this way, they claim, the states and courts will be able to foster the democratic ideals of electoral competitiveness and participation while preserving some degree of party independence. The goal is a balance between these two sets of fundamental American political ideals. Sometimes this balance tips against the Party’s goals and objectives and this is why we seek relief through the courts.
​
It appears as though SCOTUS will decide whether to hear our case on March 1st. Keep your fingers crossed! I believe if the Court takes our case…we will win it!
​