Compared to Elections in Emerging Democracies
What does the recreation center election have in common with elections in emerging democracies? More than you might expect and in some cases the emerging democracies come out ahead.
| Emerging Democracies | South Davis Recreation District |
| Opposition forced to obtain a permit in full compliance with the law in order to hold a rally; waived certain requirements for the party in power. | Opposition threatened with arrest if handed it out leaflets at Handcart Days Parade; Bountiful city ignored the rule with no reprecussions (truck in parade, city employees leafleting, etc.) |
| Power cut off during opposition rally in order to shut off loud speakers. | Denied right to leaflet during Handcart Days Parade (70,000 spectators) in order to restrict opponents ability to get their message out. |
| Government resources including public transportation, government workers, etc. used to support party in power’s rally | Government resources used by public officials to influence vote including city employees, facitities (maintenance shops, rec center), truck and city newsletter. |
| Disruption of public transportation in order to prevent people from attending rallies. | Scheduled election during peak vacation period thereby surpressing voter turnout. |
| Use of taxpayer and government resources to get party in power’s voters out. | Use of Bountiful Recreation Center by city staff and equipment to get people to vote on election day. Spent $39,000 of taxpayers funds to run a special election just three months before the general election in order to limit voter participation and influence outcome. |
| Organization of government worker’s and beneficiaries to support the governing party including pressure to vote. | Bountiful public official’s organization of Rec Center users to support and vote for the new center, including threats that certain facilities would be closed if the bond did not pass. |
| Use of state’s police power to prevent rallies and demonstrations. | Use of the city’s police power to deny opponents right of free speech (threat of arrest). |
| Rewarded supporters, denied benefits to opponents. | Gave one private health club special concessions in return for support; denied similar benefits to those opposing the bond issue. |
| Governing party pressured outside groups to support its candidates. | City employee pressured the Bountiful Lions Club into donating $5,000 to fund literature supporting the bond issue. |
| Restricted coverage of opposition in government controlled press. | Openly critized press that benefits from government business for coverage of Citizens for Tax Fairness. |
| Misinformation about opposition party programs in government controlled media. | Misinformation in official Voter Information Pamphlet and government controlled media (city newsletter). |
| Pressure on individuals not to criticize government candidates, programs, etc. | Pressure on School District Officials not to correct misinformation in Voter Information Pamphlet. |
| Non-government press reports extensively on election problems. | Limited reporting on citizen’s complaint with the exception of the (Ogden) Standard-Examiner. |
| Ambassadors from democratic nations intervene to encourage fair and free elections include vote count | The Utah Attorney General and Lieutenant Governor take no action to encourage fair and free elections. |
| The country’s election office investigates challenges in hundreds of constituencies and requires revotes in areas where serious problems are identified. Outside observers present to insure a fair and impartial process. | The Utah Elections Office states that it has no jurisdication and takes no action after referring the request for investigation to the Attorney General’s office. Over a year later, the Attorney General’s office concludes that it has no jurisdiction. |
Citizens For Tax Fairness 