Sure enough, we are now hearing of examples of such harassment. But first, a little back story.

Less than a week ago the Deseret News reported that State Republican Party chairman Dave Hansen will “probably” start a campaign to convince some GOP signees to remove their name from the Utahens for Ethical Government petition but that they “won’t harass anyone; (they’ll) ask them to consider taking their name off.”

Indeed, the next day, a federal judge (presumably seeing how such a law could be abused) issued a court order to keep the names of signers off the public record for at least ten days. This, however, does not appear to be enough.

While listening to the Nightside Project on KSL, a caller stated that they were being harassed by an individual to remove their name from the UEG petition. Now I am not accusing the Utah Republican Party of initiating the process of harassment, but who is to say if an individual member, perhaps one who works for the county clerk, acted on their own accord to harass this signer?

Of course this is all pure conjecture, but the Utah GOP certainly has the most vocal in their opposition to the peoples initiative (though some Democratic lawmakers have raised concerns as well). They are the ones who work in the majority of the clerks offices, and they are the ones who passed this law in the first place.

I am not opposed to allowing people to remove their signature, but this is proof that lawmakers are not interested in letting the process work properly. What I predicted would go wrong has, and it did not even take a week to prove it.

Passed (for) – HB 44 – Referendum Ballot Proposition Amendments, F. Hunsaker
Passed (against) – HB 112 – Supreme Court Review of an Initiative or Referendum – B. Dee
Passed (for) – HB 144 – Medical Language Interpreter Amendments, R. Chavez-Houck
Passed (against) – HB 200 – Informed Consent Amendments, C. Wimmer
Passed (for) – HB 222 – Land Use Meeting Notice, T. Beck
Passed (for) – HB 230 – Human Trafficking Amendments, J. Fisher
Passed (against) – HB 340 – Sexual Assault Victim Protocols, J. Biskupski
Passed (for) – HB 462 – Criminal Homicide and Abortion Revisions, C. Wimmer
Passed (against) – HJR 12 – Climate Change Joint Resolution, K. Gibson
Passed (against) – SB 11 – Utah State-Made Firearms Protection, M. Dayton
Passed (against) – HJR 15 – Joint Resolution on Legislative Ethics Commission, D. Clark
Passed (against) – SB 38 – Restrictions on High Occupancy Vehicle Lane, K. Morgan
Passed (for) - SB 58 – Transportation Expense for Defendants, S. Adams
Passed (for) – SB 59 – At-Risk Student Provisions, L. Robles
Passed (against) – SB 93 – Gubernatorial Appointment Powers Amendments, C. Bramble
Passed (for) – SB 117 – Pete Suazo Memorial Highway, L. Robles
Passed (against) – SB 275 – Removing Signature From Initiative and Referendum Petition, H. Stephenson

Vetoed (against) – HB 12 – Abortion Amendments, C. Wimmer
Failed (for) – HB 56 – Amended Campaign Financial Statements, S. Allen
Failed (for) – HB 85 – Responsible Development of Nuclear Power Generation, J. Seegmiller
Failed (for) – HB 91 – Traffic Control Signs for Bicycles, C. Spackman-Moss
Failed (against) – HB 114 – Disclosure of Donations to Higher Education Institutions, C. Wimmer
Failed (against) – HB 196 – Tobacco Tax Revisions, P. Ray
Failed (for) – HB 194 – Grants for Math Teacher Training, B. Last
Failed (for) – HB 210 – Eminent Domain Modifications, C. Frank
Failed (against) – HB 217 – Income Tax Revisions, C. Wimmer
Failed (for) – HB 223 – Alcoholic Beverage Control Act and Restaurant Licenses, G. Froerer
Failed (for) – HB 237 – Restriction on Use of Wireless Telephones in Vehicles by Minors, P. Riesen
Failed (for) – HB 247 – Lobbyist Restriction Modifications, C. Moss
Failed (for) – HB 278 – Government Records Access and Management Amendments, C. Herrod
Failed (against) – HB 288 – Daylight Saving Time, K. Sumsion
Failed (against) – HB 432 – Hate Crime Amendments, S. Sandstrom
Failed (for) – SB 32 – Rainwater Harvesting, S. Jenkins
Failed (against) – SB 36 – Wolf Management, A. Christensen
Failed (against) – SB 60 – Voluntary Search and Rescue Funding, R. Okerlund

So, he legislature listened to me about 45 percent of the time, although the times they disagreed with me, they really disagreed with me…Yeah…

Analysis coming soon!

Now HB 12 was the act of a zealot who could not think beyond sending a message to the arch-conservatives out there that Carl Wimmer is numero uno when it comes to anti-abortion bills, so you should probably send him money so that he can get reelected.

Now, HB 12 was not just pulled out from nowhere. A Vernal woman paid a man to beat her until her child was aborted – truly a horrific act. But, instead of thinking about why this woman went  to such extremes to abort her child, Wimmer simply did the knee jerk thing and tried to pass a law.

Well, Wimmer got away with it, with the bill flying through the House and the Senate with little resistance from fellow Republicans; after all, it was an abortion bill from a good fellow Republican, so there should be no harm in voting for the bill. Indeed, as we speak HB 12 is waiting for the signature of the Governor.

Well damn liberals like me, the New York Times, the Huffington Post, and ABC (just to name a few) rightfully called this a barbaric abortion bill as it  had the consequence of charging women with homicide in the event of a miscarriage.

So Wimmer, in order to save face and pretend to be the victim has proposed HB 462, a relatively good bill that makes it very clear that a miscarriage does not an abortion make. Basically this bill does what Wimmer intend to do in the first place, make sure that women are not intentionally harming themselves to prevent a birth.

But we should ask ourselves why Wimmer was not so careful in the first place when proposing HB 12.  Is it possible that he is a bad lawmaker and does not think about the consequences of his bills? Is it possible that he does think about it, but simply does not care about those who disagree with them – even if they raise very real an very valid points? Is it possible that Wimmer cares more about being the golden child of the Republican Party than doing the will of the people in his district and of the state? Is it possible that Wimmer is a bad legislator?

Well, I know how I feel.

I hope this bill passes, it really is a reasonable abortion bill when you get right down to it – it is just a shame that this bill had to be proposed because we already passed a radical bill before hand. Finally, I would like to point out that if this bill does not make it though in time, HB 12 will (probably) be signed into law and miscarriages could be illegal in Utah until at least next year – when we will have to clean up Wimmer’s mess by proposing a bill similar to this one.

You see, Sandstrom is proposing HB 432 – Hate Crime Amendments. This bill states that if a hate crime takes place on state or local property, the state will not transfer the criminal to federal agents. So, if you beat up a gay guy in Utah, don’t worry, you won’t actually have to face the charges.

Aside from how horrific this bill is on the face (ignoring hate crime legislation) think about the greater ramifications. We are basically saying that the state of Utah can pick and choose what federal laws it will follow.

This has happened before – ultimately it lead to a civil war.  Brash? Not really. If Utah can choose what laws to follow, why can’t I do the same? We have laws for a reason and we simply do not have the luxury of ignoring them because we don’t like them.

This is a bad bill because it sets a precedent that we really don’t want to go down. It should fail…unless I can pick and choose what laws I want to follow.

Click here to contact Representative Sandstrom.

We have passed the time were legislators can no longer simply submit bills, yes the madness has, somewhat, come to an end…well, except for the boxcars.

For those of you who don’t know, a “boxcar” is a bill that has been “numbered and titled” but does not have anything in it. In other words, if you think of a bill as a book, a boxcar would be one with a cover and a title, but contain nothing but blank pages. Legislators do this for two main reasons – either they want to delay time to mount opposition to a bill or they have not lined up enough support to pass a bill…yet.  In either case, boxcars are scary things because we know that the legislator is up to something, but all we have is a bill title that will only leave us guessing.

It is for this reason that I would like to draw your attention to the following bill titles that hold plenty of interest, but are lacking in actual substance:

HB 329 – Campaign Finance Amendments, B. Ferry
HB 358 – Voting by Mail, N. Hansen
HB 360 – Public Education Grants, K. Sumsion
HB 368 – Election Day Voting Centers, R. Chavez-Houck
HB 372 – Wrongful Death of Unborn Child, C. Wimmer
HB 405 – Transportation Surcharge, D. Ipson
HB 415 – Email Communications, K. Powell
HB 432 – Hate Crime Amendments, S. Sandstrom
HB 433 – Foreign Exchange Student Amendments, C. Wimmer
HB 376 – Monkeys as Pets, C. Herrod
HB 392 – Zero Based Budgets for State Agencies, C. Frank
SB 187 - Requirements for Initiative and Referenda Circulation, W. Niederhauser
SB 193 – Redistricting Advisory Committee, C. Bramble
SB 204 – Mid-Term Vacancy Amendments, B. McAdams
SB 215 – Transportation Revisions, B. McAdams
SB 226 – Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Amendments, C. Bramble
SB 227 – State Energy Amendments, C. Bramble
SB 233 – Wolf Management Act, A. Christensen
SB 255 – State Symbols Amendments, G. Davis
SB 261 – Ethics Amendments, S. Jenkins

At the time of publishing, all of these bills sit silent – if something changes and is interesting, I will be sure to let you know.

Currently, if a victim of sexual assault walks into an Instacare center, they can immediately receive emergency contraception. This bill would change the code and allow Instacares the right to deny EC so long as a hospital is less than 30 miles away from the center.

Now, I do not honestly think that any health center would actually deny care to a victim of such a horrendous crime, but I have to wonder why Biskupski (of all people) would propose this – after all, this is the kind of bill I would expect from a Carl Wimmer or a Chris Buttars – not one of the most liberal legislators on the hill.

But, I have to read the bill on its face, and the implications therein. I encourage Representative Biskupski to explain this bill in greater detail, and I am very willing to change my position. As it stands right now, it looks as though the bill would allow the denial of services to victims of crime.

Click here to contact Representative Biskupski.

For those of you who don’t know, the enacting clause is the portion of any bill that basically says that it is a law if passed, specifically it says “be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah.” If it is removed, it means that it is not enacted and is not, therefore, a law. To have an enacting clause struck is, quite possibly, one of the most dishonorable ways to kill a bill, as it is worse than just not voting on it – having the clause struck it is sort of like the legislature saying to the bill sponsor “we don’t like this idea so much, we are going to spend extra time just to kill it.”

Thankfully, Senator Robles is back with SB 117 – Pete Suazo Memorial Highway. The bill, again, would make Redwood road (from 2100 South to 1700 North officially the Pete Suazo Memorial Highway (see below).

I went to school with the Suazo children, and I remember how vivid the events of his tragic death were to the west side – a strong and passionate leader was removed from us so quickly.  Senator Suazo was the first Hispanic legislator and was a great inspiration to those who often felt disenfranchised – he truly represented what government could and should be about.

I hope this bill passes, it has already made it out of the Senate at the time of writing, and I hope it makes it to the Governors desk.

Click here to contact Senator Robles.

Well, enter Senator Curt Bramble (R – Provo, District 16). He is proposing SB 93 - Gubernatorial Appointment Powers Amendments, a bill that would give unprecedented power to the Senate.

Before I go on, we need a little civics lesson. The governor will appoint various people to various committees and posts across the state.  Often these appointments require the approval of the Senate in order for the individual to actually receive the job the governor has tapped them for.

Well, SB 93 would change the rules and allow the Senate to reject individuals without ever even giving them a hearing.You see, if, after 90 days (or 30, depending on the type of appointment it is), the Senate chooses not to act, the appointment is considered rejected and the post remains unfilled.

Currently, senators have to at least vote on an individual before they are rejected, SB 93 would allow senators to sit by and say that they were not responsible for important posts not being filled – and this process could go on and on and on where, in theory, every state government position sits unfilled.

Is this a possibility? You bet it is.  Suppose the Governor and the President of the Senate get into a spat, but we have a vacancy at, say, the Department of Health just as a outbreak of the next flu starts. With no one at the helm, lives could be lost all because two individuals didn’t like each other and the Senate sat on an appointment.

This bill gives far too much power to the Senate.  I think it is a good thing that the Senate has to confirm individuals, but this bill passed “goes too far” by the tenth line in the bill. I urge the Senate not to pass this and, if they do, I hope the House has enough common sense to reject it.  Finally, if all else fails, I hope the Governor realizes his role in the three branches and veto’s this bill. It does not hold senators accountable and it weakens state government.

Click here to tell Senator Bramble that this bill needs to be vetoed.

Well, that is where SB 60 comes in. This bill would allow vendors to create a voluntary “Utah Outdoor Recreation Search and Rescue Card” that people could buy and carry around with them, costing $3 for a year or $12 for five years. Now, if you don’t buy a card, the state will still come and get you, but this is just a little something extra to pad the budget for search and rescue.

Now, here is where I have the problem – the bill specifies that the vendor will either get $1 or $3 if they sell a card to you (depending on how long the card will be valid). I assume Senator Okerlund’s logic on this is that the vendor will offer some sort of discount program to those that buy the card and that this would offset the cost – but there is no guarantee of this. In theory, the vendor is making money without any sort of product being produced: Making a card is cheep and a person will be rescued regardless of being a “card carrying member.” Granted, it is not a lot of money, but it is still something.

Imagine if we sold 20,000 of these things across the state – that is anywhere from $20,000 to $60,000 that will not go towards search and rescue – to put it another way, that is (I would be willing to bet) the cost of rescuing one to three people.

I think it makes much more sense to raise the cost of hunting, and fishing licenses by, say, a two dollars, raise the registration fees of snowmobiles and off-highway vehicles by five dollars and have those additional fees go towards search and rescue – heck we can even tell people when they are getting their registration and licenses that this is the case.

My other problem with this bill is how it distributes the funds gained from this card. The money will be distributed not based on the number of search and rescues a county conducts, but by where the person bought the card.  Now I am sure that this will short change those living in southern and eastern Utah as they have a low population base but a high number of people visiting the outdoors.

This is a bill with a good idea and a bad execution.

Click here to contact Senator Okerlund.