Jordan Tanner took advantage of early voting Tuesday to choose Democratic challengers over Republican incumbents.

Who's Tanner? He's a former GOP lawmaker who spent 10 years in the state House proposing ethics and campaign reform that he feels went nowhere.

He's specifically endorsing Don Jarvis in the House District 63 over incumbent Steve Clark.

Tanner appeared with county Democrats on Tuesday at a news conference called to tout the endorsement and outline Democratic ethics proposals.

"This is the year I hope the people of Utah County will stand up and say, 'This is the time,' " Tanner said. "Year after year after year, the leaders of both the House and the Senate refused to take seriously my [reform efforts]."

With his well-known push for ethics reform, Tanner also raised eyebrows toward the end of his time in the Legislature when he built a house in the north end of the county but maintained that his residency was still in District 63.

When asked about the situation, Senate President John Valentine, who spent time with Tanner in the House, said there was discussion about where Tanner actually lived.

"It appeared to me at the time that he had moved out of the district," he said. "It was pretty hard for him to make the case that he lived in two places at the same time."

Clark replaced Tanner eight years ago.

"I took his seat and he mentored me with showing me the ropes and learning the process," he said.

Clark is also on the House ethics committee and has sat through the "solid week" of hearings over allegations of vote buying against Draper Republican Greg Hughes. No ethics violations were found, though Hughes was asked to change his behavior, which "was unbecoming a member of the Utah House of Representatives."

Clark said that this year is the first time in his eight years that a formal ethics complaint has come up, but that the hearing did show him where changes could be made, including at the most basic levels.

"We've never had to put it to the test," he said. "We need to define what a violation of ethics is.

"I am going to do that this coming session. This ethics committee hearing has really opened up my eyes as to what needs to be done."

The ethics tact that Democrats are using is reminiscent of the "Colorado Model," Clark says.

The method, conservatives say, is one in which ethics complaints are leveled at Republicans, pushed until the media runs with it, and then whether or not they're true, they're used to tout time for a change.

"A person can be guilty before proven that way, by innuendo, by accusations," Clark said.

Colorado Democrats recently took power in that state's Legislature after 44 years of Republican dominance, according to the Weekly Standard.

The reforms touted Tuesday at the news conference focused on campaign finance and targeted lobbyists and corporations. When asked why they didn't include regular citizens in the same restrictions, Jarvis said he'd "go for that."

Valentine said ethics and campaign finance reform will be addressed in the upcoming legislative session. He'd like to see an independent investigation into ethics accusations. He'd also like to see a reversal of how the process is handled now. Instead of a public accusation and private hearing, he said he wants private accusations with a public hearing.

On Tuesday, Democrats said Utah is almost alone among other states that have passed strict ethics and campaign finance laws.

"There's no reason why we couldn't pass such bills in Utah," said House District 62 candidate Claralyn Hill. "It's time we did something about that. It's time we had some people up there who will get that legislation through."

Tanner gave a warning about not voting in a new set of lawmakers:

"If they are turned down by the voters, then my feeling is, the Utah County voters can take what they get."

Democrats' proposed reforms

• Establish an independent ethics commission.

• Prohibit legislators from receiving gifts of value more than $50 from a lobbyist or political action committee.

• Require full disclosure of all gifts and meals of any value by both the lawmaker and provider when the provider is a lobbyist or member of a PAC.

• Prohibit the use of campaign funds for personal uses by the candidate.