Now, sadly, SB 275 has already passed, so this “bill to watch” is a bit of a moot point. I write only to draw your attention to this matter and to the dirty tactics Senator Stephenson is willing to stoop to when he feels threatened. Furthermore, I would like to point out that my good friend, Carl Wimmer, sponsored the bill in the House…so this bill is a double whammy. Finally, there was a part of me that felt that, as Director of Operations for Fair Boundaries, I could, theoretically threaten our organization by writing about this bill before it went through the system. Well, now, the only thing standing between a truly unfair law and justice is an unlikely veto from the governor.

What is the problem, you may ask? Well SB 275 makes it easier for people to remove their signature from a petition after signing if and when they gain more information and no longer wish to support the cause…and if the bill stopped there, I would support it completely – but the bill takes it one step further.

You see, petitioners can remove their signatures even after petitions have been submitted to clerks many weeks after the submission.

Aye, and there is the rub. You see, when you submit petitions, your name becomes public and people opposed to a particular petition now have a few extra weeks to put specific pressure on specific list of people in an attempt to have names removed from the list of supporters; meanwhile groups supporting the petition do not have the opportunity to collect signatures – opponents have a marked advantage in making sure that petitions are not successful. The debate should take place during the campaign, and neither side should be given an advantage in the court of public opinion.

Think about it. Is it fair to the 95,000 people who signed a petition thinking they were improving their democracy only to be told it failed because one person changed their mind after the campaign was over? To put it more broadly, is it fair to the winning team to allow the looser to keep playing for an extra five minutes after a game is officially over?

It should also be noted that these rules would take effect the moment the governor signs the bill…meaning that the petitions currently circulating would be subject to this rule – the legislature is changing the rules mid-game because they can, much like a petulant five year old that is not getting its way.

A final thought. Supporters of this bill claim that this bill was fair because signers may not know what the petition says, so it adds a level of fairness to signing a petition.  This is, perhaps, the most offensive argument possible. It says two things 1) groups, such as Fair Boundaries, are somehow concealing what we want they do – I would dare argue that these groups are far more open about the ramifications of our proposed legislation as opposed to, say, this bill. 2) Arguments such as this imply that your opinion is only valid if you know the issue inside and out.  By this logic, there should be tests to see if you are competent to vote in the first place. Perhaps we should have literacy or civics tests at the polls and tell people that their vote does not count if they fail any number of tests.

Talk to any legislator and ask them if they read the 1,000+ bills that move through the legislature over the 45 day session and ask them if they vote only on the ones they know well.

Shame on you Senator Stephenson for directly attacking our democracy and flaunting how much you hate the will of the people. Furthermore, Representative Wimmer, once again, proves that he does not care about the Constitution, only about maintaining power.

Finally, please contact Governor Herbert and tell him that the playing field needs to be level – this bill is despicable.

Click here to contact Governor Herbert.

Click here to contact Senator Stephenson.

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.

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.

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.

To be blunt, this is a scary Joint Resolution. The resolution, if it were to pass and be approved by the people, would change our state constitution to create an ethics commission that would independently review any complaints made against legislators to see if the complaint merits “further consideration.”

On the surface, this sounds like a good first step towards ethics reform and, indeed, if this were a bill rather than a joint resolution, I would be in favor of the bill. But we need to remember a few things about constitutional amendments: 1) they are much more difficult to pass, and 2) they are much more difficult to change if things are not going well.

So legislators could say that they passed a good ethics bill and then not have to say anything when the truth comes about about why the bill is bad. Furthermore, it is rare for the Speaker of the House to propose a bill – I feel that he was specifically chosen because of his power to push legislation through the chamber, not so much because he believes in the legislation.

Why is it bad you say? Well the bill does nothing to actually prosecute ethics violations, and it allows the legislature to define what a violation is. In other words, the legislature could pass extremely lax definitions of ethics violations and then not do anything to their fellow members if and when the commission actually rules that a violation took place.

This is a purely political bill that will give uninformed voters feel goods while making the problem go from bad to worse. It will do little to actually fix the problem, but will look good on a campaign flier.

Click here to tell Representative Clark to take a constitutional.

For some reason Representative Kenneth Sumsion (R – American Fork – District 56) wants to do away with daylight savings time with the aptly named HB 288 - Daylight Saving Time.

Yup, for some reason Sumsion wants to join Arizona and Hawaii in doing away with daylight savings time because…it is a pain to fall back?

Actually, I suspect that this is the lamest attempt yet by the legislature to take on the federal government.

Yes, I suspect that this is a message bill at its worse – this bill will achieve absolutely nothing other than confuse people and not actually change how the government does business in relation to the states.

I mean, what other reason could we honestly have for doing this? It is not that great of an inconvenience to spring forward during the summer, and an argument can be made that an extra hour of light makes our life a little bit better by allow us to, say, drive in an extra hour of light  or enjoy our parks more after work during the long and enjoyable summer months. Sure, we all complain when we have to fall back – but really, is Sumsion that big of a morning hater to propose this law?

I frankly just don’t see the need and, therefore, am opposed. Oh, and if this is an attack on the federal government, all I have to say is that this is a rather lame attempt to do so.

Click here to have Representative Sumsion fall back.

Well, I have to admit that HB 114 – Disclosure of Donations to Higher Education Institutions is not so much a bad bill as a bill that just makes no sense.

You see, the bill wants to require the disclosure of any gifts from a foreign person to the Board of Regents if the gift is above $50,000.  Now, if any other legislator would have proposed this bill, I probably would have just shrugged my shoulders and simply have said “whatever,” but my sick fascination makes me have to wonder why Wimmer cares so much about this education issue.

Is he concerned that Osama Bin Laden is funding research at Utah State? Is he concerned that no one would notice all the big skull and crossbones on the boxes leaving the lab? Does he think that it is bad for foreign individuals and companies to invest in our schools…where the school would own the rights to the research? Does he think that foreign students would only be allowed in the labs and that none of the students or professors would write down their research? AAAACK!!!! Where is this coming from Representative?! Please tell me.

Perhaps the biggest question – why do we need to spend the time debating this bill in the first place.

So I am going to mark this bill down as one I am against, can someone out their possibly explain why we need this bill?

Click here to send a befuddled email to Representative Wimmer.

That being said, Representative Brad Dee’s (R – Ogden – District 11) HB 112 – Supreme Court Review of an Initiative or Referendum is, I feel, a direct attack on the peoples right to circulate petitions.

You see, the bill, if passed, would delete various time requirements for the Supreme Court to review initiatives and referendums and would allow the Supreme Court of Utah to differ fiscal impact estimate issues related to these matters. In other words, if the people are sending a petition around, the Supreme Court is no longer required to act within a set time period to ensure that the people can sign said petition – they could sit on it and, effectively, kill any chance of reform from the people. Furthermore, the Supreme Court could tell an agency under attack to “honestly” investigate the cost associated with implementing a new law – and I am sure these agencies will be unbiased in their assessments.

It should be obvious that this bill is trying to kill future attempts from the people to reform our government.  By removing time restrictions we are removing the requirement for government to certify petitions and, therefore, potentially removing the right of the people to speak on various issues.

Well, I have one simple question for Representative Dee – why are you so afraid of the people to speak? Are you afraid to hear what they have to say about how you and your colleagues govern?

This bill is an attack on your right to speak and should die the most horrific of deaths.

Click here to tell Representative Dee that you demand the right to participate in our democracy.

P.S. Even though this post does not reflect the views of Fair Boundaries, I still encourage you to sign by clicking here.

Well, thankfully, I recovered just in time to read Representative Kerry Gibson’s (R – Ogden – District 6) HJR 12 – Climate Change Joint Resolution. Ya see, this Dairy Farmer knows a thing or two about them bookitie smarts all them educated people are talking about in the big cities, and he wants to put a stop to all this climate change nonsense they have been talking about.

HJR 12 is asking the Environmental Protection Agency to halt any and all carbon dioxide reduction policies, programs, and regulations until climate data and global warming science are substantiated.

Now I am not going to go on about all the usual stuff these climate change deniers bring out, stories about how it was cold yesterday so the climate can not be changed or how (quoting the bill mind you) “global temperatures have been level in declining in some areas (my house, for example, has been climate stable)” or how a set of emails up playing the threat means that certifiable data is suddenly. No I am not going to talk about how stupid it is to point to the failed Copenhagen accords is proof that the science is bad or to say that capping CO2 emissions would, somehow, put “billions of human beings into long-term poverty,” no…I am going to talk about the fact that we live in a society where a diary farmer thinks he has all the answers when compared to years of data analysis and  thousands of scientists saying that this is a real problmem.

And how we live in a society where people will listen to him.

These are the same people who don’t believe in evolution, and would have stoned Galileo on his outlandish thoughts on “global rounding and solar circulation.”

Yes, we have little faith in our scientists these days, and it allows mental nymphs such as Gibson to actually think that what he is saying is correct – and for some of his colleges to go along with it.

Now, I could be wrong, Gibson could be a full-time climatologist on the side – but if that is the case he should really tell the people running the state website to change his profession on his profile; furthermore, I will fully admit that I am not a climatologist either. But I also will state that people are experts for a reason – they spend their lives learning about particular topics and not just think that one or two counter points means that an entire theory was bunk.

To use an example that Gibson might understand: Every dairy cow I have ever heard of produces milk, but I heard a story once about how a guy milked a bull, so that must mean that Gibson should be able to drink bull milk as well and not have any sort of concerns.  Crass? You bet, but it proves a point.  Of course I am wrong about “bull milk” and you would think me a fool to be preaching that as fact – but it is the exact same thing.  The science is in on climate change, and I am sorry if you don’t like the facts.

Click here to tell Representative Gibson not to drink bull milk.