2011 Weber County Organizing Convention Election Results

County Party Chair:
Matt Bell

County Party Vice-Chair:
Noall Knighton

County Party Secretary:
Matt Gwynn

County Party Treasurer:
Suzanne Ellison-Ferre

Noall Knighton - 2011 Candidate - Weber County GOP Vice Chair

Dear Delegate,

My name is Noall Knighton and I am running for Weber County vice-chair. I am asking for your vote at Saturday's convention.
Below you can read some information about me. Please contact me if you have any questions. I can be reached at noall@comcast or (801) 726-9944.

I look forward to serving you and appreciate your support.

Regards,
Noall Knighton
(801) 726-9944
noall@comcast.net

Party Experience:

State Delegate
County Delegate
Chair of Leg 10
Vice Chair of Leg 10
Precinct Chair
Co-Chair for state party golf tournament
Held fund raisers for local candidates
Hosted a campaign kick-off fund raiser for Rep. Wallis to unset a 6 term democrat
Walked neighborhoods to support GOP candidates

Community Experience

President of Breakfast Exchange Club
President of Utah Opticians Association
President of Ogden Golf and Country Club
Party contact to Weber 9/12 group

Professional Experience

President of Knighton Optical
Development Director at Ogden/Weber Applied Tech College
Business Broker at United Business Brokers
Fledgling career as a billboard model

Personal

Married to Julie Knighton ( Thanks to her high tolorance and low expectation, that has lasted over 30 years)
Two sons, Eric and Alex
Mother is Ellen, who we are blessed to have live in our home
Hobbies include golf, photography, and reading
Favorite book read of all time: Atlas Shrugged (The Movie is great!)
Photographer for the Ogden Raptors
Host family for Ogden Raptors

Politics

I believe the US Constitution outlines the role of the federal government. I have a strong belief that we should follow those principals.

I am a strong supporter of the free enterprise system and support efforts to eliminate government from competition with the private sector.

Favorite quote: The government that governs best is the government that governs least.

Political decisions are best when made closest to the people.

Elizabeth Carlin - 2011 Candidate - Weber County GOP Vice Chair

Our current Vice Chair of the Weber County Republican Party has chosen not to run due to her added family duties. At this time I am retiring and now have the time to devote to building up our county party.

This county has a history of being a solid Democratic Party strong hold and has now become quite Republican.

I have been fortunate to have been part of that movement.

What I will bring to this possition is a knowledge of our county's Republican history an a willingness to work to promote the principles of our party.

There is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. There is a difference between the state and county party. Since I have been a Legislature Chair twice and have been on the State Central Committe, I do understand that difference.

Having been the volunteer chair I understand grass root energy and time frames. Our party should be open to people's desire to serve on more than a one night every two years basis.

I respectfully request you vote for me to be the next Vice Chair of the Weber County Republican Party.

Thank you.

Elizabeth Carlin

Official Weber County 2019 General Election Interim Tallies

Here are the official Weber County 2010 General Election vote tallies as of 11:p.m. last night (11/2/10), courtesy of the Standard-Examiner. Winning candidates are marked with an "x" and highlighted in red.

U.S. Senate
x-Mike Lee, R, 263,189
Sam Granato, D, 137,271
Scott Bradley, C, 25,615

U.S. House, District 1
x-Rob Bishop, R, 125,371
Morgan Bowen, D, 40,089
Kirk Pearson, C, 8,285
Jared Stratton, L, 3,718

Governor
x-Gary Herbert, R, 278,873
Peter Corroon, D, 135,440
Andrew McCullough, L, 8,480
Farley Anderson, Una., 9,086

Weber County
State Senate, District 18
x-Stuart Reid, R, 7,281
Betty Sawyer, D, 4,821

State House, District 6
x-Brad J. Galvez, R, 7,711
Benjamin Pales, D, 1,740

State House, District 7
x-Ryan Wilcox, R, 5,101
Peter Clemens, D, 2,116

State House, District 8
x-Gage Froerer, R, 4,053
Alan L. Wheelwright, D, 2,495

State House District 9
x-Jeremy Peterson, R, 1,194
Neil Hansen, D, 1,039

State House, District 10
x-Dixon M. Pitcher, R, 3,990
Randy Rounds, D, 3,360

State House, District 11
x-Brad Dee, R, 3,854
Steven Gaskill, D, 1,736

State House, District 12
x-Richard A. Greenwood, R, 3,890
Larry Cisney, D, 1,595

Clerk/Auditor
x-Ricky Hatch, R, 24,868
Teresa Yorgason, D, 16,814

County Commission Seat A
x-Jan M. Zogmaister, R, 27,138
T.R. Morgan, D, 10,729
Drew Johnson, Una., 4,189

County Commission Seat B
Kerry W. Gibson, R, 27,354
Amy L. Wicks, D, 14,737

County Recorder
x-Ernest D. Rowley, R, 25,750
Debbie Hansen, D, 16,114

County Sheriff
x-Terry Thompson, R, 29,704
Gary Haws, D, 12,591

Ricky Hatch Weber 9/12 Group Meet the Candidates Night Speech

I'm Ricky Hatch, and I'm running for Clerk/Auditor. By the way, when you see my name on the ballot, it won't say “Richard Hatch.” It'll say “Ricky.” That's what it says on my Utah birth certificate, which I'll be happy to show you, if you ask.

In 1959, Chevrolet created the El Camino. I've always been fascinated with the El Camino because I never knew if it was a car or a truck. Most people think it’s a car, but UDOT considers it a truck. It’s not something I would call “sexy.” Then again, I’ve called stranger things “sexy.”

The office of Clerk/Auditor is kind of like a governmental El Camino: is it a clerk or an auditor? The answer? It’s both, and both positions are very important. The Clerk/Auditor basically wears two hats: one for all things financial (from auditing to managing the Purchasing Department), and one for all things related to elections and voting.

So what characteristics should you look for in a Clerk/Auditor? Like the El Camino, you want someone who has proven that they can do more than one thing well, even if they might look a little funny.

For an Auditor – Look for accounting-related education. I have a Bachelors and a Masters of Accounting.

Look for Audit-related certifications. If you don’t think certifications are important, think about the last time your child broke an arm or was really sick. Would you have taken them to someone not certified as a doctor? You want someone with third-party certification that says they can do the job they say they can do. I have had my CPA license for over 13 years, and have been a Certified Information Systems Auditor for about the same time. This is important because of the county’s increased reliance on computer systems.

Weber County is a big organization, with a $100 million budget. In a budget that big, money can easily disappear. You want someone with experience in big organizations. I worked for 7 years for the world’s largest CPA firm, PriceWaterhouseCoopers. I had many clients you might have heard of such as Disney, Kraft Foods, and the California Institute of Technology. These clients have multi-billion dollar revenues.

On the flip side, though, I’m not a corporate big wig – I’ve also worked for small companies, so I know the importance of being hands-on and involved. I was CFO of a company with $1 million in annual sales, and I helped my son start a candy machine business and my daughter a rabbit-raising business and, both of which were profitable, if you don’t count dad’s time and labor.

Now, on the Clerk side, you want a Clerk who is personable and approachable. Believe it or not, they do exist. They just don't come out of their caves very often.

Look for someone who is involved and who cares about their local community. I’ve served on Farr West City’s Planning commission, the GOP State Audit Committee, and the county GOP for several years. I recently had a letter to the Standard Examiner published regarding the so-called Fair Boundaries and Ethics initiatives.

For perhaps the most important characteristic in a County Clerk, do you want the person responsible for voter issues to share the philosophy of our Founding Fathers regarding the right of the citizens to vote, and the sacred duty of the government to protect that right? I love our Constitution. I’ve studied it. I’ve written articles about it. I commit to staying loyal to constitutional principles as your Clerk/Auditor.

Why do I want to do this? Harold Kushner wrote, "Our souls are not hungry for fame, comfort, wealth, or power. Our souls are hungry for meaning, … to live so that …the world will be at least a little bit different for our having passed through it." I want to help our county be a little bit different, a little bit better. And I need your help and your vote.

So when you're at the ballot box or electronic polling station, and you see the political El Camino position of Clerk/Auditor, remember how the Clerk/Auditor holds county departments fiscally accountable and safeguards the elections process. And then vote for Ricky Hatch.

Thank you.

Important SCOTUS Victory For the Second Amendment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

June 28, 2010

McDonald is More than Victory

For Gun Owners Alone

Justice Thomas Writes to Breathe Life

Into Important Privileges or Immunities Clause

Arlington, Va.—Gun owners today rejoiced as the U.S. Supreme Court today struck down the city of Chicago’s ban on handguns in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Today’s ruling should be celebrated not just by gun owners, but by everyone who cares about liberty and the unique role played by courts in protecting it under our system of government. The Institute for Justice (IJ) has for decades been among the most consistent defenders of an engaged judiciary and an appropriately originalist interpretation of the Constitution, including particularly the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. As today’s ruling makes clear, the right to keep and bear arms is a uniquely American, and decidedly fundamental individual right. That will be the result for which the McDonald decision will be remembered and, for many, celebrated.

But McDonald is about much more than just guns. At its heart, McDonald is a case about liberty. The Court was deeply divided over whether the Constitution protects a right to own guns from improper interference by state and local governments—just as District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 held that the Second Amendment protects such a right against federal interference. Four justices voted to strike down Chicago’s handgun ban, finding a right to keep and bear arms under a doctrine called “substantive due process.” Four disagreed, voting to uphold the gun ban.

The pivotal fifth vote was Justice Clarence Thomas, who noted that, for all the disagreement between the two groups of four Justices, “neither side argues that the meaning they attribute to the Due Process Clause was consistent with public understanding at the time of its ratification.” Justice Thomas agreed that the gun ban should be struck down, but instead proposed “a more straightforward path to this conclusion, one that is more faithful to the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and history”—namely, the 14th Amendment’s “Privileges or Immunities Clause.” That Clause states that “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

“The most important takeaway from today’s decision is that it remains an open question which provision in the 14th Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms against state infringement,” said IJ Senior Attorney Clark Neily, who was one of the three attorneys who litigated District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case that struck down the D.C. gun ban. Neily, who co-authored IJ’s amicus briefs throughout the appellate process in McDonald, explained, “Today’s outcome is a tremendous victory for liberty, and we are pleased that it hinges on Justice Thomas’s compelling account of the history and purpose of the 14th Amendment, including the central role of the Privileges or Immunities Clause.”

The phrase “privileges or immunities” may be unfamiliar today, but as Justice Thomas’s concurrence shows, 19th-century Americans used it synonymously with a term modern Americans know very well: rights. After the Civil War, officials throughout the South systematically violated the rights of newly freed blacks and white abolitionists in their states and sought to keep them in abject poverty and terror. The whole point in amending the Constitution to add the 14th Amendment—and with it the Privileges or Immunities Clause—was to end the pervasive culture of oppression and tyranny by state and local governments. As the Institute for Justice explained in its amicus brief, two rights the Privileges or Immunities Clause was clearly intended to protect were armed self-defense and economic liberty.

But the Supreme Court essentially wrote the Privileges or Immunities Clause out of the 14th Amendment in an 1873 decision called the Slaughter-House Cases. The result was predictably disastrous: Those who were politically disenfranchised would continue to be economically marginalized and stripped of any meaningful ability to protect themselves from the vicious reprisals and Klan violence that soon became a shameful hallmark of Reconstruction.

“When the Institute for Justice was founded almost 20 years ago, it was unthinkable to most people that the Supreme Court would ever revisit the Slaughter-House Cases,” said Chip Mellor, IJ’s co-founder and general counsel. “Today’s divided opinion shows the enormous distance we have covered since then and sends a strong signal that the Court cannot remain out of step with the original meaning of the Constitution forever.”

The other Justices who voted to strike down the gun ban did not join Justice Thomas’ interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the four-justice plurality, found “no reason to reconsider [Slaughter-House’s] interpretation here,” instead relying on a set of precedents outlining a “substantive due process” inquiry into “whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty.”

Justice Thomas rejected this sort of free-floating inquiry, suggesting that the Court should focus on questions of what the text of the Constitution means, rather than on which rights judges find sufficiently fundamental. “To be sure, interpreting the Privileges or Immunities Clause may produce hard questions,” Justice Thomas’ opinion acknowledges. “But they will have the advantage of being questions the Constitution asks us to answer.”

“People who are worried about judicial activism should be worried about the fact that eight justices today argued that the question of whether Americans enjoy a right to keep and bear arms would come down to the abstract question of how ‘fundamental’ that right is,” said IJ Staff Attorney Robert McNamara. “Justice Thomas’ opinion points toward principled judicial engagement. Judges will be constrained by what the provisions of the Constitution actually meant when they were adopted, but at the same time they must give full force to the powerful protections for individual rights encompassed in the 14th Amendment.”

“Overturning the Slaughter-House Cases was one of the Institute for Justice’s founding goals, and today’s decision gives that mission new vigor,” concluded Mellor. “IJ has fought and will continue to fight for principled judicial engagement, which means that courts should strike down when the executive or legislative branches violate individual rights or exceed powers enumerated in the Constitution. Today’s divided Court opens the door to restoring the 14th Amendment as a crucial bulwark of individual liberty against overreaching government power. We are confident the Court’s understanding of the law will soon catch up to the scholarly consensus, and IJ stands ready to help defend the rights of all Americans to live their lives free from abuse at the hands of state governments.”

Journalists can find comprehensive material on the Privileges or Immunities Clause by visiting: www.ij.org/PorI.

Greg Haws Treasurer Candidate Information

• Greg Haws Letter
• Greg Haws Biography