By Richard Engle

Here we go again. Repeatedly the Oklahoma Republican Party has considered reversion to the caucus system to replace the Presidential Preference Primary. It was very narrowly defeated when it was first brought up, and it went down badly the next time. Since then, various grassroots activists have tried to bring it up again, only to be treated with derision.

Once again, we are hearing of efforts to not only restore the caucus for the Presidential race, but also for other offices.

I was known as one of the leaders of the caucus movement, but I have changed my mind.

Why would I join the ranks of those who reconsidered their support of caucuses?

I observed during the last Presidential nominating process that a number of caucus states had uncertain or even tampered with results. Iowa had a stream of changing results that made a mockery of their process. In Maine the entire delegation to the Republican National Convention was disposed of by the National Convention Credentials Committee after reported irregularities.

In many caucus states there were actual fights among Delegates (we even had one in our convention in Oklahoma) and the opportunity for fraud was rampant.

In my own case, I ran for Republican National Committeeman and lost by what ended up being 18 votes. After I conceded that the results could not be recounted (several counties simply threw the ballots away) I was informed by Pam Pollard, OKGOP Vice Chair at the time, that one delegation should not have been seated under the rules of the party. That delegation voted 20 to 0 for my opponent. The Oklahoma GOP uses a caucus/convention system to elect party officers.

Do we want to subject our public offices to this kind of election mismanagement? I think not.

Admittedly, there are many advantages to a caucus, but only if it is broad based and free of corruption.

I have personally observed the caucus system in a number of states and I must say that Utah has the best system of caucus/primary. They have a much higher participation rate than Oklahoma ever did. Utah's caucus requires a super majority to avoid a primary and if there is no caucus super majority they have a primary among the top contenders.

The Utah system dramatically reduces the cost (to taxpayers and campaigns) as they eliminate a primary when there is no real need for one (such as the guy who ran against Insurance Commissioner John Doak this year but didn't make a serious effort) and it makes the primaries that do occur into what effects a runoff, further reducing costs.

The only thing the Utah system does to prevent corruption in the caucus is the fact that a super majority is required. As Hugh Hewitt said, "If it's not close they can't cheat." Getting a super majority is difficult to fake!

Lacking a well thought out system like Utah, I would have to oppose a caucus.

While we have been through this before, we may find ourselves there again. The state has three reasons to cease paying for primaries on behalf of the parties:

1) It is actually unconstitutional under the Oklahoma Constitution. The state constitution instructs that the state may not make a gift to a private entity. It can pay private entities for products or services it needs, but may not make gifts. The primaries are a system that benefits the parties and arguably does not benefit the state. Lawyers are, and have been, working on using this constitutional provision. Expect more action on it by trial lawyers now that Oklahoma is in a state of Republican ascendency.

2) It is very expensive. A statewide primary costs over $3 million. The legislature may want to move forward with forcing the party's to pay for any primary they want. The parties would be forced to create a large filing fee (current filing fees don't come close to paying the cost of primaries) for candidates so as to cover the cost of a primary. This would be an extraordinary burden on any grassroots oriented campaign. The Utah caucus system dramatically reduces the number of primaries and could create a funding system for those it must have while allowing popular, but underfunded, candidates a fighting chance.

3) Recent changes in national election law have forced our primaries to occur closer to the legislative session, and filing for office to happen during session. This is forcing a conflict that will only get worse. In the race for District Attorney in Tulsa two sitting legislators, Sen. Brian Crain and Rep. Fred Jordan, chose to file for the office along with Assistant DA, Steve Kunzweiler. A last minute vote (on a pay increase that impacted District Attorneys) created a scenario in which Sen. Crain realized that he was disqualified and he withdrew. Rep. Jordan remained in the race convinced that the law did not apply to him as his term ends prior to the initiation of the term for District Attorney. The time for protest against the candidacy of candidates ended before the disqualifying vote in the legislature. The names of both legislators remained on the ballot and Kunzweiler leads going into the runoff against Jordan. The confusion is due to the filing period (and the protest period) being backed up to a time that the state legislature is still in session.

There are any number of additional reasons why the legislature may want to make changes. Any legal change in the election process (including those recently made) will force the Republican and Democrat parties to consider some version of a caucus.

The Utah caucus/convention system could prevent the difficulties described. However, Oklahoma is not Utah. We can't presume their system would work as well here. Switching to a caucus system, even one as good as Utah's comes with great risk.

Any change needs to be well considered and well crafted to prevent the cure from being worse than the disease.