Who voted “no” in the 2012 Utah legislature?

Both chambers saw the most “no” votes come from a member of the Republican majority.

Some legislators vote “no” far more often than others. You might expect this to reflect partisanship: In a Republican-dominated body, you would expect more “no” votes from Democrats than from Republicans. That’s true in part, but only in part.

In fact, both chambers saw the most “no” votes come from a member of the Republican majority. In the House, the most “no” votes came from Republican John Dougall, followed closely by another Republican, Jim Bird (who was tied with a Democrat, Brian Doughty). In the Senate, the most “no” votes came from Republican Casey Anderson.

You can find complete data on “no” voting for all legislators at my other site. Here, I’ll just list the 10 who voted “no” most and least often in the House, and the 5 who voted “no” most/least often in the Senate.

“No” voters in the House, from least to most

Rank Representative Party “No” votes Percent of total
1 Ipson, Don L. R 17 2.6%
2 Brown, Melvin R. R 18 2.8%
3 McIff, Kay L. R 20 3.1%
4 Snow, V. Lowry R 23 3.5%
5 Eliason, Steve R 25 3.8%
5 Hutchings, Eric K. R 25 3.8%
7 Froerer, Gage R 26 4.0%
8 Barlow, Stewart R 27 4.1%
9 Hughes, Gregory H. R 28 4.3%
9 Ray, Paul R 28 4.3%
67 Morley, Michael T. R 81 12.4%
68 Moss, Carol Spackman D 82 12.6%
69 McCay, Daniel R 84 12.9%
70 Hemingway, Lynn N. D 85 13.1%
71 Chavez-Houck, Rebecca D 86 13.2%
72 Briscoe, Joel K. D 87 13.4%
73 Bird, Jim R 93 14.3%
73 Doughty, Brian D 93 14.3%
75 Dougall, John R 100 15.4%

“No” voters in the Senate, from least to most

Rank Senator Party “No” votes Percent of total
1 Adams, J. Stuart R 17 1.9%
2 Bramble, Curtis S. R 19 2.1%
2 Christensen, Allen M. R 19 2.1%
2 Okerlund, Ralph R 19 2.1%
2 Stevenson, Jerry W. R 19 2.1%
25 Robles, Luz D 76 8.5%
26 Dayton, Margaret R 80 9.0%
27 McAdams, Benjamin M. D 83 9.3%
28 Romero, Ross I. D 85 9.6%
29 Anderson, Casey O. R 94 10.6%

 

About Adam Brown: Adam Brown is an associate professor of political science at Brigham Young University and a research fellow with the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy. You can learn more about him at his website.

Posted in Everything | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Utah legislators with the best and worst attendance records of 2012

The 2012 legislative session saw a modest decline in legislator absenteeism. In 2011, 7.1% of Representatives missed a typical vote in the Utah House, whereas 14.3% of Senators missed a typical vote in the Utah Senate. These numbers dropped somewhat in 2012, to 5.9% in the House and 10.0% in the Senate. The chart below shows the trend since 2007.

Average absentee rate, by year

Absenteeism in the Utah House

This table lists the 10 (actually 11) members of the Utah House with the lowest absentee rate, followed by the 10 with the highest absentee rate. (You can find data for all 75 Representatives here.)

Rank Representative Party Missed votes Votes held Absentee rate
1 Cox, Fred C. R 1 651 0.2%
1 Peterson, Val L. R 1 651 0.2%
3 Chavez-Houck, Rebecca D 3 651 0.5%
4 Galvez, Brad J. R 4 651 0.6%
4 Sanpei, Dean R 4 651 0.6%
6 Barlow, Stewart R 5 651 0.8%
7 Poulson, Marie H. D 6 651 0.9%
8 Handy, Stephen G. R 7 651 1.1%
9 Frank, Craig A. R 9 651 1.4%
9 Grover, Keith R 9 651 1.4%
9 Peterson, Jeremy R 9 651 1.4%
66 Hughes, Gregory H. R 79 651 12.1%
67 Lockhart, Rebecca D. R 83 651 12.7%
68 Sandstrom, Stephen E. R 88 651 13.5%
69 Sumsion, Kenneth W. R 92 651 14.1%
70 Dougall, John R 100 651 15.4%
71 McCay, Daniel R 101 651 15.5%
72 Ray, Paul R 105 651 16.1%
73 Painter, Patrick R 112 651 17.2%
74 Hutchings, Eric K. R 136 651 20.9%
75 Brown, Melvin R. R 163 651 25.0%

Absenteeism in the Utah Senate

Since there are fewer Senators than Representatives, I list only the 5 lowest and highest absentee rates here. Data for all 29 Senators is here.

Rank Senator Party Missed votes Votes held Absentee rate
1 Reid, Stuart C. R 2 890 0.2%
2 Okerlund, Ralph R 21 890 2.4%
2 Weiler, Todd R 21 890 2.4%
4 Anderson, Casey O. R 26 890 2.9%
5 Romero, Ross I. D 28 890 3.1%
25 Madsen, Mark B. R 157 890 17.6%
26 Urquhart, Stephen H. R 177 890 19.9%
27 Stephenson, Howard A. R 180 890 20.2%
28 Niederhauser, Wayne L. R 194 890 21.8%
29 Hillyard, Lyle W. R 255 890 28.7%

Posted in Everything | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

The Utah legislature’s 20 closest votes in 2012

Yesterday, I wrote that narrow votes are extremely rare in the Utah legislature, as are party-line votes. Instead, the legislature shows a clear preference for consensus voting, with majorities of Democrats and Republicans voting on the same side.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. Today, I thought I would post the 20 closest votes in each chamber from the 2012 session. You can click the bill’s number to learn about the bill; you can click the vote totals to see how each legislator voted. The “vote margin” is the differences between the number of “ayes” and “nays.”

You can find tables like this for past legislative sessions at my other site.

The 20 closest votes in the 2012 Utah House of Representatives

Bill Vote type Ayes-Nays-Absent Vote margin
HB0325 House/ failed 35-36-4 1
HB0424 House/ failed 36-37-2 1
HB0210 House/ uncircled 37-35-3 2
SB0210 House/ passed 3rd reading 38-36-1 2
HB0210 House/ failed 36-39-0 3
HB0298 House/ floor amendment 38-35-2 3
HB0090 House/ passed 3rd reading 38-34-3 4
SB0062 House/ passed 3rd reading 39-35-1 4
HB0414 House/ passed 3rd reading 38-33-4 5
SB0039 House/ passed 3rd reading 39-34-2 5
HB0022 House/ passed 3rd reading 39-33-3 6
HB0119 House/ failed 32-38-5 6
HJR013 House/ passed 3rd reading 38-32-5 6
SB0041 House/ passed 3rd reading 39-32-4 7
SB0082 House/ floor amendment 38-31-6 7
SB0098 House/ passed 3rd reading 39-32-4 7
HB0140 House/ passed 3rd reading 41-33-1 8
HB0049 House/ floor amendment 38-29-8 9
HB0051 House/ passed 3rd reading 40-31-4 9
HB0068 House/ passed 3rd reading 40-30-5 10

The 20 closest votes in the 2012 Utah Senate

Bill Vote type Ayes-Nays-Absent Vote margin
SB0059 Senate/ failed 14-15-0 1
SB0211 Senate/ passed 2nd reading 15-14-0 1
HB0213 Senate/ floor amendment 15-12-2 3
SB0044 Senate/ failed 11-14-4 3
SJR022 Senate/ passed 2nd reading 16-13-0 3
SJR026 Senate/ floor amendment 16-13-0 3
HB0229 Senate/ failed 12-16-1 4
HB0448 Senate/ passed 2nd reading 16-12-1 4
SB0112 Senate/ failed 12-16-1 4
SB0210 Senate/ passed 3rd reading 16-12-1 4
HB0139 Senate/ passed 3rd reading 17-12-0 5
SB0085 Senate/ passed 2nd reading 17-12-0 5
SB0139 Senate/ failed 11-16-2 5
HB0107 Senate/ passed 3rd reading 17-11-1 6
HB0220 Senate/ passed 2nd reading 17-11-1 6
HB0250 Senate/ passed 3rd reading 17-11-1 6
HB0298 Senate/ passed 2nd reading 16-10-3 6
SB0107 Senate/ failed 11-17-1 6
HB0041 Senate/ failed 11-18-0 7
HB0081 Senate/ passed 2nd reading 16-9-4 7

Posted in Everything | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The Utah legislature’s 20 closest votes in 2012

Consensus voting is still the norm in Utah legislature

The frequency of consensus voting should provide reassurance that the legislative process works much of the time.

Congress is known for its partisan wrangling and party-line votes, but the environment is completely different in the Utah legislature. Here in Utah, almost all floor votes are decided by overwhelmingly large margins, with Republicans and Democrats alike agreeing to support a bill. Party-line votes are extremely rare.

Average size of voting majorities

During the 2012 legislative session, the average House vote had 93% of legislators voting the same way, and the average Senate vote had 95% voting the same way. Republicans control only 77% of House seats and 76% of Senate seats, so these massive voting majorities indicate cross-party consensus voting.

This has been a consistent trend for several years, as shown here:

Average size of voting majority in House Average size of voting majority in Senate
2007 93% 96%
2008 94% 96%
2009 92% 96%
2010 93% 95%
2011 92% 96%
2012 93% 95%

Frequency of near-unanimous votes

Another way to look at this is to consider how frequently each chamber has a near-unanimous vote, defined here as a vote with 90% or more of legislators voting the same way. This, too, has been consistently frequent over the years:

Frequency of near-unanimous votes in House Frequency of near-unanimous votes in Senate
2007 77% 85%
2008 79% 85%
2009 76% 85%
2010 76% 84%
2011 70% 86%
2012 76% 83%

Party-line voting

The result of all this consensus voting is that party-line votes are rare in the Utah legislature. Only 13% of House votes and 8% of Senate votes were decided along party lines during the 2012 session. (It’s a “party line” vote if a majority of Republicans votes one way and a majority of Democrats votes the other way.) As you can see from this chart, those numbers are pretty typical.

Frequency of party line votes in the Utah legislature

What does it mean?

I wrote earlier today that bills seem to pass through the legislature more quickly than they used to, which raises a concern as to whether the legislature vets bill less carefully than it used to. The data in this post work against that concern.

I don’t have hard statistics on this, but I’ve noticed that it’s rare for a bill to pass without being heavily amended first. A legislator’s initial bill idea might be flawed, but by the time the bill makes it through committee hearings and floor debates, it is likely to have been moderated in a way that makes it broadly acceptable.

The frequency of consensus voting should provide reassurance that the legislative process works much of the time.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, and the Utah legislature sees its share of partisan battles and narrow victories. Those divided votes are the ones that tend to provoke media coverage and public outcry. But the overall pattern is one of consensus building.

Posted in Everything | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Consensus voting is still the norm in Utah legislature

Bills were introduced later, passed faster in 2012 session

In 2008, 44% of bills were introduced on day 1. In 2012, only 28% were introduced on day 1.

Now that the 2012 session of the Utah legislature has wrapped up, what can we observe?

For one thing, it appears that the legislature spent less time vetting bills than has been the case in other recent years. We see this in two ways. First, fewer bills are ready to go when the legislative session begins. Second, bills are rushed through the committee process more quickly than used to be the case. Let’s look at each point.

Introducing bills later

Because Utah’s Constitution gives the legislature only 45 days each year to consider new legislation, it has traditionally been the norm for legislators to work on their bills during the interim (summer) months. Then, when the legislative session opens, legislators can introduce a bill that they have spent months preparing and discussing with people.

In 2011 and 2012, we’ve seen a shift away from that norm. Fewer bills are ready to go on day 1. In 2008, 44% of bills were introduced on day 1. In 2012, only 28% were introduced on day 1. That’s a huge decline.

This table gives a bit more detail. You can see that the big decline happened mostly in 2010 and 2011, with 2012 representing a continuation of 2011’s showing. Fewer bills are ready on day 1. What’s more, fewer are ready within the first two weeks of the seven-week session.

Total number of bills introduced % of bills introduced on first day % of bills introduced in first two weeks
2007 733 40% 74%
2008 744 44% 74%
2009 800 35% 71%
2010 713 32% 63%
2011 782 24% 52%
2012 765 28% 56%

The flip side of this is that more bills are being introduced at the tail end of the seven-week session. In 2007 and 2008, only one in ten bills was introduced during the last three weeks. In 2011 and 2012, one in five bills was introduced during the last three weeks. Here are the data:

% of bills introduced in last three weeks
2007 10%
2008 11%
2009 13%
2010 17%
2011 24%
2012 21%

If bills are introduced later, that means there will be less time to vet them thoroughly before passing them.

Rushing bills through committee

After a bill is introduced, it must be approved by a committee before coming to the floor. Given the sheer number of bills that make it to the floor, committees play a critical role in vetting bills. There just isn’t enough time to have a full debate of every bill on the floor. That has to happen in committee.

To their credit, legislative committees routinely refer bills to interim hearings if they do not feel they can adequately consider a bill before the session ends. Still, there is some evidence that committees have rushed bills through in recent years.

This table shows the average “age” of a bill at the time of its first floor vote. That is, how many days pass between the bill’s introduction and its first floor action. (Any committee action will have concluded before the first floor vote.)

Average age of bill at time of first vote
2007 17.9
2008 15.9
2009 16.1
2010 14.4
2011 13.1
2012 13.6

In 2007, typical bills spent 17.9 days–two and a half weeks–between introduction and floor action. In 2012, they spent 4.3 days fewer, on average. Two weeks is plenty of time for a committee hearing, but this is still a noteworthy decline.

What does it mean?

It might not mean anything. These numbers do not prove that the legislature vets bills less carefully than it used to. All that these numbers show is that the legislature has less time for vetting than it used to. Maybe there were inefficiencies in the process 5 years ago that have been rooted out. That’s certainly possible.

If these numbers do indicate less vetting, then legislators may want to consider the consequences. The outcry over HB477 last year (the GRAMA reform) probably could have been avoided if the bill had been given more time for public scrutiny. This year’s GRAMA reform attracted few (if any) complaints, because legislators took their time on it. Spending more time on bills helps legislators avoid casting votes that they may later regret.

Note that this post is an update to something I wrote on the first day of the legislative session, when I first noticed the decline in bills being introduced on day 1.

Posted in Everything | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Poll: Should Utah schools teach about contraception?

Self-identified “strong Republicans” are the only group that clearly opposes instruction about contraceptives.

This analysis was performed by Jessica Biggs, a student research fellow at BYU’s Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy, in collaboration with CSED faculty. The writing is mostly hers. Inquiries about this research should come to me (Chris Karpowitz).

The Utah legislature recently passed a bill, HB 363, curtailing sex education in Utah’s public schools and prohibiting any instruction about contraceptive use. An online petition urging Governor Herbert to veto this bill has attracted over 36,000 signatures. Recently, we fielded a Utah Voter Poll that asked a sample of Utah voters whether schools should teach about contraceptives. A significant majority—58.3%—of survey respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that public schools should teach about contraceptive use.

Question wording: “Public schools in Utah should teach about the use of contraceptives.”

“Strongly disagree” or “disagree” 29.5%
“Neither agree nor disagree” 12.3%
“Strongly agree” or “agree” 58.3%
Total responses 472

The picture changes slightly when the responses are viewed in terms of party identification. Democrats and independents are united in supporting the instruction of contraceptives in school, but Republicans are divided. Independents who say they lean Republican are split, with 33.4% opposing instruction about contraceptives and 44.5% supporting such instruction. Republicans who consider themselves “not so strong” Republicans are similarly split, with 38.4% opposing instruction about contraceptives and 43.4% supporting it.

Self-identified “strong Republicans” are the only group that clearly opposes instruction about contraceptives. A majority of these respondents (63.4%) do not support the instruction of contraceptive use in public schools. The following table shows the results to this polling question broken down by respondent partisanship:

“Strongly disagree” or “disagree” “Neither agree nor disagree” “Strongly agree” or “agree”
Strong Democrat 0% 2.2% 97.8%
Not so strong Democrat 11.5% 0% 88.5%
Independent leaning Democrat 1.6% 3.3% 95.1%
Independent 11.3% 15.1% 73.6%
Independent leaning Republican 33.4% 22.2% 44.5%
Not so strong Republican 38.% 18.3% 43.4%
Strong Republican 63.4% 6.9% 29.8%

The strong Republican dominance in Utah’s political system may allow HB 363 to escape a veto, despite the widespread approval for the instruction of contraceptive use in Utah’s public schools by a majority of Utah voters. Although Strong Republicans are the only group of Utah voters who strongly support a ban on instruction of contraceptive use, this bloc of the Republican Party overwhelmingly turns out for the caucuses and primary elections in the state. The governor faces a difficult political choice in whether or not to veto this bill; will Herbert go with the majority of Utahns, who seem to oppose this bill, or will he follow the intense preferences of the strong Republicans who support it?

About Chris Karpowitz: Chris Karpowitz is an associate professor of political science at Brigham Young University and Co-Director of the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy.

Posted in Everything | Tagged , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Who sponsored the most bills in 2012?

As hard as he worked, Rep. Dougall was not the most active bill sponsor this session. By any measure, that was Sen. Bramble.

I’ve seen a few media reports claiming that Utah Rep. John Dougall sponsored more bills than any other legislator this session, or that he sponsored more bills than any one legislator has sponsored in any session in recent memory (see here or here for examples). This is not true. Let’s put this myth to rest.

During the 2012 session, John Dougall did indeed prepare a large number of bills. There are 23 bills clearly attributable to him. There’s one more bill that is apparently his, although there is some confusion on the legislature’s website as to whether this is Rep. Dougall’s bill or Rep. Ipson’s bill. I assume it is Rep. Dougall’s, so let’s call it 24 bills for 2012. (We’ll be generous and ignore the fact that some of these were empty “boxcar” bills without any content.) How does that compare?

Most active bill sponsors during the 2012 session

First, let’s list legislators by how many bills they numbered. Sen. Bramble tops the list, with Rep. Dougall in second place.

Legislator Bills numbered
Sen. Bramble 26
Rep. Dougall 23
Rep. Ray 20
Sen. Niederhauser 20
Sen. Valentine 19

Now, let’s list legislators by how many bills they actually introduced. That means the bill had substance, not just a number, and the legislator made a minimal effort to see the bill passed.

Legislator Bills introduced
Sen. Bramble 26
Rep. Dougall 21
Sen. Niederhauser 18
Sen. Hillyard 17
Sen. Adams 16

And now the kicker: How many bills actually came to a vote? Regardless of whether each bill passed, let’s consider how many bills each legislator managed to get through committee and bring to a vote on the floor of at least one chamber.

Legislator Bills brought to a floor vote
Sen. Bramble 21
Sen. Hillyard 16
Sen. Adams 15
Sen. Niederhauser 15
Rep. Ipson 14

Rep. Dougall doesn’t appear on that list at all. He numbered a lot of bills, but he didn’t introduce all of them, and he certainly didn’t bring them all to a vote. (He brought 13 bills to a vote, putting himself in 6th place.)

There’s no question that Rep. Dougall was very busy this session. He worked hard. So did a lot of other legislators, though. As hard as he worked, Rep. Dougall was not the most active bill sponsor this session. By any measure, that was Sen. Bramble.

Most active bill sponsors since 2007

Just for comparison, let’s look at the most active bill sponsors since 2007. I treat each year separately, the same legislator might appear multiple times in this list. This list shows any legislator who numbered 23 ore more bills in a single year since 2007. (You can find bill sponsorship data for all legislators here.)

Rank Legislator Year Bills numbered
1 Sen. Hillyard 2009 36
1 Sen. Bramble 2011 36
3 Sen. Hillyard 2007 30
4 Rep. Herrod 2011 28
5 Sen. McCoy 2009 27
6 Sen. Bramble 2012 26
6 Sen. Bramble 2010 26
6 Sen. Niederhauser 2009 26
9 Sen. Bell 2007 25
10 Sen. Valentine 2009 24
11 Rep. Dougall 2012 24
12 Sen. Bramble 2009 23

Punchline

Rep. Dougall worked hard this session and sponsored a lot of bills. But let’s put to rest this claim that he sponsored more than anybody has sponsored in recent memory, or that he sponsored more than anybody else this year. I haven’t heard him say that, but it’s been floating around in the press.

Posted in Everything | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Who sponsored the most bills in 2012?

Cage match: Herrod v Liljenquist

On bills that pass, Liljenquist and Herrod agree 97% of the time.

Chris Herrod has served in the Utah House since 2007. Dan Liljenquist served in the Utah Senate from 2009 through 2011. Both want to replace Orrin Hatch in the U.S. Senate. Orrin Hatch’s 36-year record in the U.S. Senate has given people plenty to argue about. But let’s pause and compare Herrod’s and Liljenquist’s service in the state house. I’ll focus on the three general sessions (2009, 2010, and 2011) when both men served.

Disagreements

It’s difficult to compare Herrod’s voting record to Liljenquist’s, since they served in different chambers. A bill might pass the House, but then be amended in the Senate before coming to a floor vote. To compare their voting records, we need to be sure we’re looking at times when they both voted on the exact same language.

One way to get around this problem is to compare their voting record only on bills that actually pass. (Technically, I’m looking at bills that were “enrolled.”) By looking at the last vote held in each chamber on an enrolled bill, we can be confident that both men were voting on the exact same language.1

Between 2009 and 2011, there were 565 times when both Herrod and Liljenquist participated in a final floor vote on a bill that ultimately passed. We’ll use those 565 votes for this comparison. (Incidentally, we’d have more than 565 cases to look at if not for Liljenquist’s 102 absences and Herrod’s 44. More on that in a moment.) Here’s the data:

Liljenquist “yes” Liljenquist “no”
Herrod “yes” 545 1
Herrod “no” 18 1

The dearth of “no” votes makes this comparison a bit bland. Liljenquist voted “no” twice; Herrod voted “no” 19 times. If a bill doesn’t have enough consensus behind it to pass by a wide margin on the floor, it tends to die earlier in the process. Since we’re only looking at bills that passed, there aren’t many “no” votes here.

On the whole, we see 546 agreements and 19 disagreements. On bills that pass, Liljenquist and Herrod agree 97% of the time.

Participation

Herrod Liljenquist
Bills sponsored, 2009-2011 37 41
Bills passed, 2009-2011 13 32
Absentee rate, 2009-2011 5.7% 19.0%

Herrod and Liljenquist sponsor a similar number of bills. Over the course of the 2009-2011 sessions, Herrod sponsored 37 bills compared to Liljenquist’s 41. Liljenquist manages to pass far more of those bills than Herrod does, though.

When it comes to absence during floor votes, Herrod’s participation rates beat Liljenquist’s. Herrod missed only 5.7% of his floor votes during this period, but Liljenquist missed 19.0% of his. Herrod’s absence rate was roughly average for the House, but Liljenquist’s absence rate was much higher than average for the Senate.

Maybe it’s possible that Liljenquist’s high absentee rate is explained by his high bill passage rage. Maybe he needs to leave the floor in order to work on those bills. It’s possible. I hesitate to make that conclusion, though. He passed 11 bills in 2009 with a reasonable 8.5% absentee rate. He passed roughly the same number of bills in 2010 (11 bills) and 2011 (10 bills), but with much higher absentee rates (25.8% in 2010, 24.1% in 2011). The rise in absences doesn’t seem to reflect a rise in bill sponsorship activity.

You can find detailed profiles of any Utah legislator who has served since 2007 at my personal website. Here is Chris Herrod’s profile and Dan Liljenquist’s profile.

Posted in Everything | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Cage match: Herrod v Liljenquist

Fact check: The audacity of nope

Dan Liljenquist did indeed cast fewer “nay” votes than average during his time as a state senator.

A couple weeks, Dan Liljenquist posted a campaign video called “Audacity of Nope” to Youtube. In brief, he argued that the government should say “no” more often when people request government action.

Today, I’m seeing people on Twitter (@JulianBabbitt, @TerryLeeCamp, and @JDavola) linking to a response posted anonymously (classy…) to YouTube, called “Audacity of Nope?” Its claim: For a guy talking about the “audacity of nope,” Dan Liljenquist didn’t vote “no” very often during his time in the state senate.

I don’t want to get into a discussion of whether voting “nay” is a good thing (call it “the audacity of nope”) or a bad thing (call it “obstructionism”). But since the two sides are quibbling over this, I got curious enough to do a quick fact check. I’ve written before that “absent” votes are more common than “nay” votes in the Utah legislature. Given that “nay” votes are rare in legislative floor votes, my initial suspicion was that the response ad criticizing Liljenquist might be off base.

So, just for fun, I posted a new page to my website showing how often each legislator votes “nay.” As it happens, Dan Liljenquist did indeed cast fewer “nay” votes than average during his time as a state senator. In 2010, Dan Liljenquist cast fewer “nay” votes (1.9%) than any other state senator. In 2011, there were 6 senators (of 29) who cast fewer “nay” votes than he did.

Meanwhile, the Senate Republican who cast the most “nay” votes was Margaret Dayton in 2010 (8.0% of her votes) and also 2011 (5.7%). The complete data tables for 2007 through 2011 are available here.

Posted in Everything | Tagged , | 5 Comments

Why is Utah’s turnout falling?

In the 1980s, Utah ranked in the top 10 for voter turnout; since 2006, Utah has ranked in the bottom 5. Why?

Earlier today, I wrote about Utah’s declining turnout, and about claims made yesterday in a legislative committee that we could improve Utah’s turnout by removing inactive voters from the registration rolls. In the 1980s, Utah ranked in the top 10 for voter turnout; since 2006, Utah has ranked in the bottom 5. Why?

Why is turnout declining in Utah relative to other states? We’re not talking about a national problem. We’re talking about a Utah-specific problem. That means the answer will be something specific to Utah.

Offhand, I can think of three possibilities. Maybe it’s because our state is young. Maybe it’s because our state is overwhelmingly Republican. Maybe it’s because of our caucus-convention system. Let’s consider each.

First, maybe it’s because Utah has so many young voters. Research has shown that young voters turn out less, and we know that Utah is a very young state. I tested that explanation last year and found that it didn’t work, though. The main problem: Utah has always been a young state, even during its heyday of high turnout 30 years ago.

Second, maybe it’s because general elections have become much less competitive over the years. With only two exceptions (1912 and 1960), Utah voted for every winning presidential candidate (Republican or Democratic) from 1900 through 1972; since 1976, Utah has voted only for Republican presidential candidates. We also see this shift in legislative voting: Democrats haven’t controlled the Utah House since 1975 and the Utah Senate since 1977. Utah became a Republican state in the late 1970s, and it has stayed that way. In fact, Utah has continued to shift to the right since that time, and 28 of Utah’s 29 counties continued to move to the right over the past decade. Clearly general elections are less competitive. If people believe that their votes are less likely to sway the outcome (either way), then they might not bother to show up.

Third, maybe it’s because Utah strengthened its caucus-convention system in the 1990s, making it harder to force a primary and easier to win in convention. If that has resulted in more extreme candidates, then voters might be turned off, as a recent report from the Utah Foundation suggested. If this is correct, it might be amplified by Utah’s uncompetitive general elections.

What can be done?

  • If Utah’s declining turnout can be blamed on its youthfulness, then voter registration drives on college campuses might help. But I’m not sure that’s the cause.
  • If Utah’s declining turnout can be blamed on Republican dominance, then that’s a hard nut to crack. You can’t legislate a more competitive balance among Utah voters, although creative reforms like the alternative vote or non-partisan runoffs might help a lot by bringing Republican-on-Republican competition into the general election. (A “non-partisan runoff” is what most Utah cities use to elect their mayors.)
  • If Utah’s declining turnout can be blamed on extremism bred by a caucus-convention system, then a direct primary (or non-partisan runoffs) would address that. At the least, the parties could make it easier to force a primary.
Posted in Everything | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments