The Green Party of Utah (GPUT) lost ballot access in November, 2004.
The GPUT began its petition drive November 22, 2004 and submitted its first batch of petitions to the state elections office in February, 2005.
The GPUT formed its non-profit “Green Party of Utah, Inc.” in January of 2005 and trademarked the name on April 6, 2005, as a result of the party website being hijacked and indications that a rival group was going to incorporate the name and the party (which ultimately was attempted by the rival group.).
The rival group, consisting of suspended members (see FAQs at GPUT FAQs) and a never-before-heard-of infiltrator, submitted its first batch of petitions on April 8, 2005 to the elections office illegally using the GPUT’s name.
The Director of Elections has stated that his office will remain silent on the issue of national affiliation, incorporation, and trademark, even though it is against the law in Utah to use or allow the use of an incorporatated and trademarked name. The Director of Elections has stated that the first “group” to complete its petition drive gets the name on the ballot.
This means that I can submit a petition under the name “Coca-Cola” or “The LDS Church Party” and get away with it!
Humor aside, here is a post that came into the GPUS national discussion list early this morning:
——————————————–
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 02:12:31 -0400
From: “Steve Greenfield” <email deleted>
Subject: [usgp-dx] New Utah Green Party certification
To:
Click to access GPUTCertificationLetter.pdf
The State of Utah has certified a political party called the Green Party of Utah. This process includes the filing of sufficient signatures of membership, a constitution/bylaws, a name and emblem, and the names of officers.
The Lt. Governor of Utah seems either unaware or unconcerned about the communist conspiracy.
We now have a constitutional crisis of our own in GPUS. We are seating delegates from an organization that is not a state political party, that does not have access to a ballot line and will be legally forbidden from using the name “Green Party” for electoral purposes. No matter what may have led to this state of affairs, there is no excuse at this point for allowing it to continue. I believe it is time for the Accreditation Committee to take this up. It is no longer a matter for Dispute Resolution. From a legal standpoint, the claim of the currently seated delegations is over.
Steve Greenfield
New Paltz, NY
——————————————–
Mr. Greenfield’s assertions are incorrect. Precedent has been set by Missouri, where a similar situation occured, and the party in that state recognized by the GPUS is called Progressive Party of Missouri.
The GPUT has the history with the GPUS. The GPUT‘s secretary possesses all the party’s records from the date of its inception. The GPUT has a legally functioning non-profit arm, “Green Party of Utah” and is protected under Utah Commerce Laws. The GPUT is active, doing outreach, is building coalitions and participating in community endeavors. The GPUT has delegates that are engaged and involved.
The GPUT is currently researching options including taking legal action to protect its name from this unauthorized use.
The Green Party of Utah will move forward with completing its petition drive for the ballot line and will move forward with running candidates in 2006.
Deanna Dee-Dee Taylor 
A rose by any Other Name
I like the sound of the Anti-war party. Or even possibly the Cindy Sheehan party. I noticed non-violence is not a top priority of the “new Green party” of Utah headed by the newly Green Jeff Beardall. If we aren’t differentiated from the Republicans and the Democrats by our opposition to the war, (hello…., Hillary, Kerry, OBama???!!) that what the hell are we?
my web-site is http://Highlandcityreview.org.
Response to Mr. Greenfield
Mr. Beardall has proven himself a liar many times over, most recently in front of the entire GPUS delegation at Tulsa when he claimed to be associated with the Green Party of Utah for 8 years. Until he provides a verifiable list of all his supporters who consider themselves members of his party, no one has any reason to believe he represents anyone other than himself.
And I am still waiting to hear the explaination as to why, if a vast majority of Utah Greens wanted to keep David Cobb off the ballot, the persons responsible for that travesty of totalitarianism repeatedly refused to poll the membership.
N. Shane Cutler
Another response to Mr. Greenfield
Mr. Greenfield is continuing to spread errouneous statements about Utah.
One such statement is that the GPUT cannot operate as an electoral party because of its non-profit status. This is incorrect.
The non-profit status is that of the arm of the political party Green Party of Utah. It has legally incorporated and trademarked the name. It is not a 501(c)(3), never has applied for that IRS non-profit status, and never will. It is a state of Utah non-profit operating in the same manner as an IRS recognized 527. 527’s operate in support of political organizations. The GPUT is not barred from being a political party.
Second, Mr. Greenfield asserts that the “Beardall party” (Mr. Greenfield’s words) holds the ballot line in Utah and also infers that the “Beardall party” holds GPUS recognition. While the “Beardall party” may temporarily hold a ballot line, it will soon be joined by the GPUS-recognizd GPUT. The “Beardall party” is not recognized by the GPUS and has no representation to the GPUS.
Third, in response to this paragraph Mr. Greenfield recently sent to the GDI list:
In reality all the King group has achieved is to throw 90% of Utah’s Greens out of GPUS while permanently destroying presidential access to a Green ballot line in their state. They are a microcosmic version of the Cobb-engineered GPUS implosion. I’m sorry if this sounds fatalistic, but we can’t get what we want unless a 2/3 majority of people who are opposed to what we want agree to support us or go away, and neither of these things will happen.
Mr. Greenfield has has facts totally reversed. It was the Parsons group (now the Beardall group) that was instrumental in destroying presidential access to the Green Ballot line in Utah. (Please read the facts on the gput website! All facts are officially documented and verifiable via request of the party secretary.)
The GPUS-recognizeed GPUT is the group that was left after that destruction.
Re: Another response to Mr. Greenfield
It’s funny that he says 90% — there were 4 people suspended from the party if I remember correctly, 3 until the end of 2005 and one until the end of 2006. Beardall was never a member of the party, but joined the suspend-eds after the fact. One local and a few other members stopped participating as a result of the suspensions, but that was voluntary, they were never kicked out. How 4 of the 48 total members of the GPUT becomes 90% I can’t imagine. Must be getting his “facts” from Beardall — a few months participation with a disenfranchised group becomes 8 years with the GPUT, and less than 10% beocmes 90%.
I wonder what will happen at the end of the suspension period, btw?
Re: Another response to Mr. Greenfield
I’m not sure where Mr. Greenfield is getting his figures.
Regarding the suspensions, they will be reviewed at the end of the term of suspension and the council will, at that time, make recommendations.
Response to Steve Greenfield’s Post
Within a short amount of time, there will be two Green Parties in Utah recognized by the state of Utah. There only is one recognized now, but there is nothing in our rules and bylaws that are triggered necessarily by that recognition. It may be that only one of them will be called the Green Party, but there is nothing unique about that. Our affiliate from Missouri is not called the Green Party, and we have had and have now parties with hybrid names. In Europe and Africa, there are many precedents for political parties affiliated with other Green Parties but who use a different name for one reason or another. A Green Party is defined by its support for the 10 Key Values.
Secondly, the affiliation agreement must be agreed to by a state when it joins, though there is disagreement as to how it is interpreted. If the NC votes in the case of Utah, it may be choosing between two parties. In that case, I’m sure many delegates who will have to choose will want to know how both of the Utah parties interprets that agreement. If and when the AC revisits Utah, I urge them to ask both parties this question as a part of their evaluation. I’m confident that my state party would not support the affiliation of a party that does not agree to put the nominated candidates on the ballot, and in particular would not disaffiliate a party that makes the commitment in favor of one that will not, or has shown that it won’t.
Dean Myerson