So, I am just going to say it now and get it out of the way, watching Senator Casey Anderson (R-Cedar City, District 28) propose legislation is a bit like watching clowns continually come out of a car labeled “mind numbingly bad.” Just for kicks, you could even add the word “Express.”

I have  already told you Anderson’s brilliant idea to arrest cops for enforcing federal law, and his awe inspiring ideas on making it more difficult to pay our bills as a state.  In that tradition, I would like to inform you of his latest work of legislative craftsmanship by informing you of SJR 11, Joint Resolution – Informal Poll on United States Senate Candidates.

To put it bluntly, this piece of crap is a grand bit of legislative masturbation if I have ever seen any.

Get this – if this resolution were to pass, the state would have to create a way for state lawmakers to voluntarily participate in a poll to determine who (as a body) they feel would be the best senator for Utah.

Yes, we would spend state tax payer time and money to allow lawmakers to participate in what amounts to a popularity contest.

I just have to ask how this possibly serves the needs of the citizens of the State of Utah? Like, at all?

Anderson is proposing this bill for one of two reasons (or possibly both – lord only knows what is going on in his head at this point):

1) Anderson really wants to go back to the good ol’ days when state legislatures picked senators, as opposed to when the 17th Amendment was added to the Constitution, placing that power in the hands of the people – because he can’t change the US Constitution, he would like to do the next best thing and just pretend – if only for a day.

2) Anderson wants a way to influence the general public to vote for senators by giving whatever candidate one the added “endorsement” of the Utah State Legislature. However, I dream that this tactic would backfire terribly given most peoples attitudes towards the legislature at any given moment.

Regardless of the motive, this bill is beyond stupid. Every “small government” Republican should vote against this bill because it expands government and truly does nothing for the people.  Not one citizen will benefit from this resolution (except the person running for office that gets the endorsement I suppose).

Seriously senator? Is this really what you came to Capitol Hill for? Was this how you dreamed you would serve the people? If so, you really need to ask yourself how you think you are going to achieve those goals…cuz’ buddy, right now you ain’t cutting it.

To contact Sen. Anderson, Click Here or call 435-263-5854

Impact: 0

Need: 0

Overall: -5

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

There is always a cute dance that takes place at the start of every legislative session, where we get to see just how mean, crazy, out of touch, or (gasp dare I say it?) reasonable newly elected or appointed legislators are.  Well, I am sorry to say that Representative Steve Eliason (R-Sandy, District 45) appears to be falling on the “mean” side.

By proposing HB 285, Repeal of Higher Education Tuition Assistance Program, Eliason is attempting to remove a job creator in our state…and I don’t quite know why. Heck, I even tried to find any news-clipping or blog post that might explain this bizarre move. Nothing.

So I have to presume that Eliason is coming from a budget hawk, starve the beast, mentality where any government spending is bad government spending. Even if such spending is good for the state.

The Higher Education Tuition Assistance program is specifically designed to help low income students pay for the high price of college; where the only barrier to their education is not a lack of ability, but a lack of funds. The program, presumably, helps dozens, if not hundreds, of students receive a college degree – a degree that will allow them to receive higher paying jobs…by extension helping the state economy.

As of the time of posting, no fiscal note was attached to the bill, so I can’t tell you exactly how many dollars go to students.  But I have to believe that every single one of those dollars is an investment in our state and our citizens. By trying to reverse this bill, Eliason is trying to reverse course for our state.

To contact Rep. Eliason, Click Here or call 801-673-4748

Impact: 2

Need: 0

Overall: -3

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

I must admit that I originally was not going to write about SB 107, Possession of Graffiti Paraphernalia for one main reason: I have very mixed feelings about the bill. However, after members of the online group Anonymous targeted (for some unknown reason) the Salt Lake City Police Department’s website in protest of this bill, I figured I should chime in.

First things first, it is clear that Senator Karen Mayne (D –  West Valley, District 5) is coming from a point of frustration on this one.  Graffiti continues to be a chronic problem in the urban areas of the state, and prevention is almost a herculaneum task. The problem is that graffiti is a symptom of bigger issues, so simple law-making isn’t enough.

In desperation, Mayne is proposing that we target the materials used to create graffiti in an attempt to slow the proliferation of tags in the community.

Here is where I take issue with the bill.  The bill can’t cut a sharp enough line between discouraging the act of tagging and simply possessing the materials that can be used to tag.  The legal term “intent” must, therefore, be included in the bill so that we only arrest those who “intend” to tag.

Of course, we can never know someones “intent” at the time of arrest or, in theory, ever.  Indeed, this was the main reason why Anonymous protested the bill.

But intent is a common phrase in the law – and it should be.  If you posses drug paraphernalia, the odds are high that you intend to take illegal drugs; get drunk and then sitting in your car (even when the keys are not in) shows that you intend to drive – the list goes on and on.

Now, Anonymous (using the crutch of pop culture) compared this to pre-crimes in the movie Minority Report; however if this is their main protest, they have clearly missed the mark - exposing how this will create “raids at 6 am over spray paint” and “end in corporations selling miniature drones to police offers chasing 13 year old’s.” The tradition of prosecuting intent dates far back in our legal history.  I am concerned not about police knocking down doors, but of officers abusing the law to put people away that they don’t like, even for a night (a far more realistic scenario).

It is not that something should not be done to address the issue of graffiti, but I think it would behoove us all to focus on the disease rather than the symptom.

To contact Sen. Mayne, Click Here or call 801-968-7756

Impact: 2

Need: 1

Overall: -1

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

I have come to a conclusion: Representative John Dougall (R-American Fork, District 27) has no idea how cause and effect, prevention, or general common sense, works.

Why else would he be proposing HB 298, Motor Vehicle Safety Inspection Amendments? A bill that, based on his own arguments in the media, is a bad decision.

HB 298 would eliminate the requirement that automobile owners have to pass a safety inspection in order to drive on Utah’s roads…let that sink in for a moment.  Now, I would at least wrap my head around the concept that a far-right, anti-environment lawmaker may want to do away with emissions inspections…but safety? Really?

Dougall’s justification for this bill is that we have reduced deaths on the road and that people don’t repair their cars anyway until they are forced too come inspection time.

So, your argument is that we have fewer deaths, so getting rid of safety standards would…reduce that…somehow? By that logic Dougall should propose a law increasing the amount of alcohol in “Utah beer” to national levels – after all, we have fewer alcohol related incidents in the state, so adding that back in shouldn’t cause a problem.

The second point is equally perplexing. I know that people tend not to fix mechanical problems such as poor breaks and dangerously cracked windshields until the state forces them to. But I guess Dougall is missing the point that issues such as these DO GET FIXED.

I mean, does Dougall honest want to be on roads where people have bald tires, worn breaks, and broken tail lights?

This logic originates from the Land of Conservatism, where people always have money to fix things and no one struggles to get by.  In this same land people magically just take it upon themselves to do things even when the path of least resistance is far easier and it is much less work to simply ignore problems…until they blow up in your face.

Conservatives like this fundamentally don’t understand the role of regulation.  Regulations such as these force people to do things they are not normally inclined to do.  We don’t impose laws like safety requirements on cars because the DMV gets a kick out of making citizens struggle (despite what people like Dougall might think), we impose regulations because failure to do so puts you, me, and everyone else on the road in danger. Regulations such as these are a requirement for living with other human beings that have as many faults as you do.

This bill, if it were to pass (and I hope it does not), would be putting peoples lives in danger in a very real way. Remember, with this law in place, you may have a perfectly running car, but that does not mean that the person who side-swiped you  because their unsafe car ran a red.

To contact Rep. Dougall, Click Here or call 801-708-5170

Impact: 3

Need: 0

Overall: -5

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

I am deeply concerned with the utter disdain Representative Kraig Powell (R-Heber City, District 54) is showing towards the citizens of Utah. I have already written about his desire to remove people from the voter file – and now I am sickened by his push to make policy making a closed door affair.

Yes, Powell’s HB 226, Closed Meeting Amendments, is a direct attack on the peoples right to participate in this representative democracy.  In one paragraph, Powell is single handedly taking our democracy back to the dark ages.

Dramatic? I don’t think so. To quote from the bill:

A closed meeting…(may take place if) discussion of legislative action by a public body, whether the legislative action is pending, proposed, potential, or previously-passed, if the public body believes that conducting the discussion in a closed meeting is preferable to conducting the discussion in an open meeting;

What does that mean? It means that if the members of a body (say legislative committee, commission, or city council, for example) want to close their doors to the public because they feel it is “preferable” to actually having to deal with the public to pass a law or statute, they would be able to close the meeting.

Now, up to this point, there have been very reasonable and very specific reasons why a body may close its meetings – most focusing around confidentiality of individuals or organizations. This bill would mean that we could close a meeting because the members of the body preferred not to deal with the public on an issue.

Of course policy makers want to be able to close the doors whenever they pleased! That messy general public that always seems to stick its nose into its own business – demanding that they understand what is going on in their government and other such nonsense.

Look, I sit on one of these boards that could potentially take advantage of this bill and shut the doors to the pubic. Yes, that board has shut the doors on occasion – but it wasn’t because we felt it was “preferable” to dealing with the public; rather we felt that the topics being discussed were of such a delicate nature that we had to strategize our approach before making a public statement.

The public being involved in the democratic process can be a messy one, but God damn it it is an important one. If committees are allowed to shut the doors whenever they pleased, they will be closing the doors on holding our elected officials responsible and opening the door for corruption and fraud.  It is imperative that the public be able to sit in on uncomfortable meetings where policy is being discussed because it is the public that will be affected by the decisions our representatives make.

This is a despicable bill whose mere existence is a mark of shame on this state.

To contact Rep. Powell, Click Here or call 435-657-0185

Impact: 5

Need: 0

Overall: -5

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

Post Script: Powell has claimed that he has proposed this bill to prove a point and that he has no intention to advance the legislation. If true, I have to ask why he is willing to waste taxpayer time and money on an admitted “message bill.” I, as a concerned citizen, bristle at the mere thought that this could receive a legitimate shot at becoming state law because, time and time again, our legislature has not hesitated to attempt to take away our right to know what is going on in our legislative process (read HB 477).

Powell’s body of legislation include bills that remove voters from voter files…and for opening caucus meetings.

So, this bill is either terrible policy, or a mean spirited joke. Powell either does not know or does not care about how raw of an issue this is for those of us to care deeply about open and honest government.

If there is one thing I have come to watch during my “Bills to Watch” series, it is that I should automatically become suspicious of any legislation that attempts to change benefits to state employees. Why? Because it inevitably means that we will be screwing over the public servants who are trying to make the state a better place.

Take for example SB 138, Health Insurance Mandate Accountability Amendments by Senator Todd Weiler (R-Woods Cross, District 23).

The bill is remarkably think to get through for being only a four page bill – and I suspect it is that way on purpose.  After about four pass overs here is the long and short of it – we are attempting to screw over public employee’s access to health insurance benefits by adding an extra layer of complication to the process. To make the situation worse, it is a feeble attempt to somehow workaround the Affordable Health Care Act.

Yes, in some fancy political maneuvering, Weiler is attempting to screw over public employees by stating that an essential health care package is not, in fact, an “insurance mandate” when applied to a state employee. What does that mean? It means that a state employee is not entitled to any sort of basic health insurance package when hired – and if they attempt to apply for even a basic level insurance, they will not be covered…EVEN IF a national health care system passes the Supreme Court.

Oh, and did I mention this little fact – the “public employees” I am talking about are specifically teachers.

Yes, once again, our Republican legislature is attempting to screw over our teachers – all the while stating that we must think of the children. We complain that we have a brain drain of teachers, and we wonder why they don’t stick around…well, I have one theory. Not only do we pay them terribly, we are now making it almost impossible for them to receive any sort of benefits as well.

No doubt, Weiler is attempting yet another “starve the beast” approach to government, and he will be damned if it hurts the children. Furthermore, I am sure he has had numerous insurance lobbyists whispering in his ear telling him how important it is to pass this legislation.

This bill is a bad one, and it needs to die fast.

To contact Sen. Weiler, Click Here or call 801-599-9823

Impact: 3

Need: 0

Overall: -4

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

If there is one thing our Utah State Legislature is good at, it is talking out of both sides of its mouth.

Take, for example, HB 87, Billboard Revisions, as proposed by Representative Melvin Brown (R-Coalville, District 53).

It seems that every year we hear the legislature complain about how there is too much government interference with the state, yet they (as the state) are all too eager to interfere with local governments when they do something that they don’t like.  The big example last year was Wayne Niederhauser’s bill that was a knee-jerk reaction to Salt Lake City attempting to stop McMansions in certain neighborhoods (more on that coming up in another post). This year, Brown is the one attacking Salt Lake City after Mayor Becker pushed to cap the number of electronic billboards in his city. Now the billboard companies didn’t like this much, but Mayor Becker stood firm.

Oooh, also, funny story: in his last election, Brown received $689 in campaign contributions from Reagan Signs – the sign company primarily affected by such a ban.

The decision to limit advertising in a municipality is the municipality’s decision – not the states. But Brown, apparently attempting to appease a donor, has thrown that idea out the window.  Utah legislators don’t want the Fed’s telling them what to do, but they are more than happy to dictate certain minutia to the cities.

This is a unnecessary and hypocritical law that was designed to please the interests of campaign donors and not the citizens of Utah.

To contact Rep. Brown, Click Here or call 435-647-6512

Impact: 2

Need: 0

Overall: -4

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

After reading through SB 34, Production and Sale of Food in Utah Revisions, I literally spat out a sigh of disgust/confusion/and general “huh?” a-tude.

The bill, proposed by Senator Casey Anderson (R-Cedar City, District 28) says that if an agricultural product is grown, distributed, and consumed entirely in Utah, it is exempt from federal regulation.

This was the confusion part.

The bill then goes on to say that  if a state or federal agent arrests someone for growing, distributing, and consuming an agricultural product entirely in Utah, the state or federal agent will be arrested and charged with a Class A misdemeanor.

This was the “huh” part.

And the cherry on the cake – if some mean old law enforcement officer does manage to arrest someone without getting arrested themselves…wait for it…THE STATE WILL PAY THEM BACK FOR THEIR TROUBLES…EVEN THOUGH THEY BROKE FEDERAL LAW!

Disgust has now set in.

Really Senator Anderson? Really? I MEAN REALLY?!

Your grand idea, the whole reason you wanted to come to Capitol Hill was to propose some half-baked law that would be overturned in a heartbeat.

Yes, that is the best part of this bill – IT IS COMPLETELY IMPOTENT! SAYS SO RIGHT IN THE BILL!

Scroll down to the bottom, down there where Legislative Research threw in its own two cents; and I quote (emphasis added):

As drafted, these provisions raise issues relating to the Supremacy Clause, contained in Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution (“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”). The United States Supreme Court has “long recognized that state laws that conflict with federal law are ‘without effect,’”… and has further held that an individual cannot be guilty of a state crime if the individual was acting necessarily and properly under the authority of the laws of the United States.

Based on the federal statutes and case law described above, there is a high probability that a court will find that this bill violates the Supremacy Clause to the extent that it: 1) conflicts with valid federal regulation of intrastate commerce; 2) makes it a crime for a government agent to enforce federal law; or 3) requires a court or the governor to uphold state law in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

That’s right, if this bill were to pass, IT WOULD DO NOTHING! and (this is the best part) WASTE STATE TIME AND MONEY IN THE PROCESS!

I mean really? You are concerned about the feds? With Carrots? I mean…Really? You…we…Constiu…Can’t do it…won’t work…I…wha?

You know what? I am done here. Captain Picard, take us out.

To contact Sen. Anderson, Click Here or call 435-263-5854

Impact: 0

Need: 0

Overall: -5

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

Senator Peter Knudson’s (R- Brigham City, District 17) heart appears to be in the right place when he proposed SB 19, Voter Information Pamphlets, however the timing is a bit off.

Now, in the olden days, people actually had to walk uphill, both ways, with snow up to their ears to receive a voter information packet – it would arrive by either rain, sleet, or snow. By damn, you got a physical copy that would, most likely, be used to line your birdcage or sit at the bottom of a stack of bills.

But, you got it – and that is an important part of my point.

SB 19 would basically eliminate physical voter registration pamphlets, allowing the state to instead put voter information packets online while advertising where potential voters can go to learn more.  If the bill were to pass and you still longed for the days where you could draw mustaches on candidate photos, you could still request a physical copy to take with you.

I have two main concerns with this, however.

First, although I do just about everything online, I am weary of retiring physical documents such as voter information pamphlets. In a day and age where we delete 30 emails a day because it is such an pain to see that inbox grow, it feels (to me anyway) that a physical copy of something just means more – it means it is of value and it means that it is important. I worry that if physical copies of the pamphlet were removed, we would loose the value of the document.

My second concern is a more practical one.  We have many people in this state (read the elderly) who are still technophobic or tech-illiterate and simply will not know how to access this information easily. If they do want to obtain a physical copy, there is an extra step put in their way that makes things just a little more difficult.

I am not saying that we shouldn’t have an online voter information packet, but I really feel that it should be an opt-in program and not an opt-out. We are seeing a trend where voting becomes just a little bit harder; and this bill would make the process of becoming an informed citizen even more difficult. I honestly don’t think that that was the intent of this legislation, however it is an consequence of it.

To contact Sen. Knudson, Click Here or call 435-730-45699

Impact: 1

Need: 2

Overall: -2

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

I don’t even know where to begin on this one folks.

With SJR 7 – Joint Resolution on Priority Status for Bills, Senator Margaret Dayton (R – Orem – District 15) is such an overt attempt to squelch the rights of the political minority that it sounds more like the fiat of a third world dictator than that of a modern democracy.

SJR 7, in no uncertain terms, would give any bill proposed by the minority party in the legislature automatic “second class” status. Furthermore, it comes up with absurd requirements for drafting legislation to begin with.

The resolution does three things: makes bill drafting a “first come, first served” affair, places a priority of bill drafting by legislators when requesting bills, and requires that any bill that is prioritized by majority vote of an interim committee be drafted first.

So, lets look at the situation.

I am a Democratic lawmaker who wises to pass comprehensive education reform, so I go to legislative research (the folks who actually draft the legalese part of bills)  and ask for this bill to be put together.  Well, that is just super, but, unfortunately, your Republican colleagues don’t want to see this happen, so they made sure to flood leg research with dozens (if not hundreds) of fluff bills beforehand, thereby tying up resources to get your bill through in a timely manner – your bill is diligently worked on, but not released until it is to late. All because of the “first come-first serve” basis. Yes, even if your bill is a half-cocked mess, you still get priority over a bill that has been well researched and ready to go out of the gates.

But, lets suppose you came to the front of the line and ask that your bill be properly prepared. Whelp, that still is a problem because, again, Republican leaders have come up with a backup plan. Flood leg research with committee (read Republican dominated) requested bills.

Oh ho – but SJR 7 specifically says that those bills are to be drafted on a first come, first served basis before committee bills are recognized. But does anyone honestly believe that, in a culture where legislators already throw their weight around to get their bills out, they will somehow not do the same when there are seven or eight of them?

This bill is designed to do one thing, and one thing only – make it harder for Democrats to get their bills out and, therefore, make it harder for them to pass any legislation that they feel is important. Dayton has been known as a bully for years, and this bill is just further proof of that.

To contact Sen. Dayton, Click Here or call 801-221-0623

Impact: 1

Need: 0

Overall: -5

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here