Utah Code 20A-1-601. Bribery in elections.(1) It is unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by himself or through any other person to:
(a) pay, loan, or contribute, or offer or promise to pay, loan, or contribute any money or other valuable consideration to or for any voter or to or for any other person:
(i) to induce the voter to vote or refrain from voting at any election provided by law;
(ii) to induce any voter to vote or refrain from voting at an election for any particular person or persons;
(iii) to induce a voter to go to the polls or remain away from the polls at any election;
(iv) because a voter voted or refrained from voting for any particular person, or went to the polls or remained away from the polls; or
(v) to obtain the political support or aid of any person at an election;
(b) give, offer, or promise any office, place, or employment, or to promise or procure, or endeavor to procure, any office, place, or employment, to or for any voter, or to or for any other person, in order to:
(i) induce a voter to vote or refrain from voting at any election;
(ii) induce any voter to vote or refrain from voting at an election for any particular person or persons; or
(iii) obtain the political support or aid of any person;
(c) advance or pay, or cause to be paid, any money or other valuable thing to, or for the use of, any other person with the intent that the money or other valuable thing be used in bribery at any election provided by law; or
(d) knowingly pay, or cause to be paid, any money or other valuable thing to any person in discharge or repayment of any money expended wholly or in part in bribery at any election.
(2) In addition to the penalties established in Section 20A-1-609, any person convicted of any of the offenses established by this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or by both a fine and imprisonment.
Utah Amicus: 30 pieces of PCE Silver
D-News: Pro-voucher group issues retraction
SL Trib: Rolly: Opps! Vote purchase didn't pay
8 comments:
Question: do you think they were paying people to vote or paying people to get out the vote? And, if the latter, then would this apply to Utahns for Public Schools or any number of related groups?
Just a question.
PTM
I'm not a lawyer Paul, but I can say that there is nothing wrong with paid canvassers.
However, I have been a volunteer for many organizations and I can say that I would never put a program together involving a organizations funds, without authorization. It just doesn't make sense.
The real issue here is the bogus retraction.
I believe it was a lie.
Unlike typical "get out the vote" efforts that are aimed generally at the public, in this instance the individual would only get paid if specific voters (1) actually voted (2) in favor of vouchers. Having re-read PCE's--oops, I mean the unaffiliated entity's--e-mail, it says:
"As an advocate, you agree to seek out your friends and family and solicit their commitment for this important cause. In addition, if you provide your field manager with a minimum of 25 names of persons who have committed to voting for Referendum 1, and those persons actually vote, you can earn $10 per person."
20A-1-601(1)(a)(iv) says it is unlawful to pay any person "because a voter voted or refrained from voting for any particular person, or went to the polls..." As the e-mail makes clear, these people were only going to get paid "because a voter...went to the polls". Generic "VOTE FOR VOUCHERS!" advocacy, such as Sutherland Institute press releases or door to door canvassing, do not implicate the statute, in my view.
I'm a big advocate of voting by mail, however if vote-buying schemes become common that's a possible downside of a paper ballot that's filled out at home. Big red flag here!
I think things like this should be avoided in general.
Obviously paying a canvasser "per head" to go out and encourage voters is not in itself illegal, but paying based on who actually votes would be, and when it comes to the PCE's reputation (so far) in this debate, I'm uncomfortable with them proceeding in this way.
I think common sense should tell an organization to steer clear of anything of this sort. It not only looks desperate and suspicious, but it creates a risk for abuse. If you can't campaign successfully without resorting to these types of incentives and tactics, perhaps it's time you reconsider your own point of view.
Maybe you're losing a particular campaign because you're wrong, and not because you're not paying people enough to vote?
Just a thought.
Well said, Jason.
All fine and dandy, except the state election's office said there was nothing wrong with it at all.
Just Like Shurtleff said that HB 174 would stand alone.
Post a Comment