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 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.

As many of you either knew or could easily figure out – I have been working for the Fair Boundaries Initiative over the past four months.  Last Thursday, we finally submitted our signatures for final counting and, though nothing official has been released, I can tell you that we probably received half of our legally required goal of 95,000 signatures.

Now that I am free of the shackles, so to speak, I feel the need to tell the world how I feel about the initiative process in Utah.

It is unconstitutional.

Yes, unconstitutional. The state constitution states in Article 1, Section 2 that “All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.”  One of the ways we can theoretically do this is through the referendum process if and when our government fails to act.

Ah, but our government has acted – to halt the referendum process.

Three laws are now on the books that severely limit the ability for people to petition our government.

1. Petition gatherers need to collect signatures equivalent to 10% of those who participated in the last gubernatorial election.
2. Petition gatherers need to collect 10% of signatures in 26 out of 29 senate districts
3. Petition gatherers must submit petitions to the various county clerks on April 15, however you can remove your signature up to one month after submission.

There are also a few procedural items that make the task even more difficult.

1. A signature may be deemed invalid, even if it is legal, if it is not submitted to the proper county clerk.
2. Electronic signatures will be counted by some clerks but not others.

Now, Fair Boundaries was extremity popular. In fact the Deseret News reported that two out of every three people supported the indicative and its goals, yet it still failed to reach its legal goal – why?

The laws in this state make it too difficult for people to petition their government and are, there fore, de facto unconstitutional.

As a point of fact, the nonpartisan Citizens in Charge gave Utah a grade of C- in the ability of its citizens to pass a referendum, however this document was clearly published before the rules were changed to up the required distribution to 26 out of 29 senate districts and to remove signatures. I would imagine that with this added information it would drop to a D- by the groups standards.

I also find it interesting that the very legislators who claim to be doing the will of the people get so frantically upset when the people wish to do something as patriotic as participating in their democracy.

The initiative process should be difficult, but not impossible. Sadly, it appears that only large sums of money, and not grassroots efforts can prevail in this state.

We as citizens have to ask ourselves if we want our democracy to be so blatantly bought and sold as to prevent the citizenry from ever participating in it.

Fair Boundaries was only disliked among the political elite who stood to loose something from making the system more equitable. The only reasonable objection I ever heard from a citizen was “who chooses the commission that sets up the boundaries in the first place?” Indeed, people should ask those questions – however most felt that it was an improvement over the current system.

So, sadly, Fair Boundaries failed. I will close with a story I have about the late Senator Ed Mayne that I have told in the past.

While working as Senator Mayne’s intern, we had a discussion about a bill he was running regarding health care spending for people with disabilities.  The bill was doomed to fail – and he asked me if it would.  After saying that it had no chance, he replied “I know it won’t pass; but damn it, it is the right thing to do.”

During the campaign I kept on my computer monitor a post-it note from a donor that made it all worth while:

Fair Boundaries was the right thing to do and I know that, in my own way, I have done something to help the state I love.

You may recall me writing about SB 275 a month ago. In summary, the bill allows petition signers to remove their name from a petition up to one month after it has been submitted.  At the time I pointed out this law could easily be used by opponents of any particular petition to put pressure and harass targeted individuals in an attempt to make the petition fail.

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.

As many of you may know, I am the Director of Operations for the Fair Boundaries Imitative, and I want to be very clear that the views I express in this blog (or any blog, for that matter) are my own and do not represent the views of any organization I work for.

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.

Representative Carl Wimmer (R-Herriman-District 52), when not threatening to throw women in jail for murder for having an abortion, is apparently tweeting about how is day is.

Ok, fair enough. A lot of politicians have chosen to open Twitter and Facebook accounts in an attempt to spread their ideas to, and communicate with, their constituents.  What amazes me, however is how thin skinned Wimmer seems to be when someone says something he doesn’t like.

You see, just before Christmas, Wimmer apparently got into a little dust up with a few people who do not see eye to eye with him on various issues. Now, again, I can understand this as politics is inherently a thing that puts people at opposite ends of things – this too can be forgiven. But this is where Wimmer crosses the line.

You see, Wimmer blocks two people he has been communicating with so that they can not comment on his board – little sketchy, but alright, you want this to be your sound board, not random politicos you don’t agree with.  No, it is HOW Wimmer goes about it that is concerning.

Instead of saying that he simply will agree to disagree and that he will no longer be accepting tweets from these individuals, he blows up and asks “(w)ho are you? I don’t even know who you are, so you (sp) opinion means NOTHING. Go bug someone else.”

Wimmer shows his cards in a way that is far more interesting than what a simple block could have achieved. If he does not know who you are, your opinion means nothing to him. This is not something he said under his breath or was cornered into saying, no he sat down at his computer or he opened up his phone – looked at the message – and then hit send.

Wimmer does not care about you if he does not know you.

The person on the receiving end of that message, one @ash_anderson, is actually Ashley Anderston, a citizen of the state of Utah who is actively involved in his community and is willing to fight for the issues he believes in – you know, participating in our democracy. Yet, Wimmer seems to forget this little fact in favor of staying in his bubble.

In the end, it is not that Wimmer blew up that bothers me, it was HOW he did it. He has proven that he does not care about the issues effecting the citizens of the state of Utah.  He does not not know who you are and, therefore, does not care what you think.

Think I am taking this out of proportion? Perhaps. But I find it telling how people act when they are not calm and collected…

As reported the other day, Utah GOP Chair Dave Hansen is fiercely opposed to Utah’s Fair Boundaries initiative, and though this is one mans opinion, it is a sign of growing disdain for the will of the public from the Republican Party leaders.

Fair Boundaries appears to be catching the brunt of Utah GOP’s rage.  On Thursday, September 10, Fair Boundaries was attending the University of Utah’s “Conservative Day” in their attempt to gather signatures for the petition to place their cause on the ballot. Approximately ten minutes into the event Legislator Becky Lockhart (R-Provo) verbally confronted Mark Nelson, a volunteer for Fair Boundaries, and, along with the University of Utah College Republicans, made it clear that Fair Boundaries was no longer invited to the event. The organization is a confederation of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who wish to change Utah’s redistricting process to lessen the effects of gerrymandering – the term used to describe suspiciously shaped political boundaries that favor one party over another.

In a statement written statement, Fair Boundaries was “disturbed by the incident” and explained that Conservative Day was sponsored by the University of Utah.

But this is only the most recent and outlandish action by Utah Republican leaders. Speaker of the House, Dave Clark (R – Santa Clara), has consistently shown opposition to an independent commission, claiming that the only thing to come from an independent panel are lawsuits and that legislators are inherently better qualified to choose their voters because they know the districts better.

On a less obvious level, then Lieutenant Governor Herbert’s (R) office authorized a $1 million fiscal note on the initiative using questionable assumptions about how an independent has no back knowledge when compared to the Utah State Legislature.

On the flip side, it should also be noted that former Senate Majority Leader, Curt Bramble (R – Provo) interrupted town hall meetings that discussed the other main initiative going around the state concerning ethics reform by shouting questions to panel memembers when all other attendees patiently waited their turn to speak.

No one doubts that Republicans are the majority in Utah, but the majority of observant voters also know that they are disproportionately represented in the Utah State Legislature. One has to wonder why Republican leaders are so opposed to redistricting the boundaries of Utah’s political districts, despite the fact that 60 percent all citizens surveyed in a recent Deseret News/KSL-TV Poll support a redistricting commission and a whopping 85 percent want ethics reform – they are even going against their own party: a Dan Jones and Associates poll showed 60 percent of self identifying Republicans supporting the redistricting initiative.

The trend is clear – there is fierce opposition in the halls of power about the initiatives and the reasons for this are many and varied.  The paternal nature of the legislature combined with the desire to maintain power means that spats like this should be expected at least until the initiatives fail or go before the voters next November.

Here is an account of what took place in my previous post from one of the individuals that was at the receiving end of the arrest.

Written by Derek Jones:

My boyfriend and I were walking home from the Gallivan Center concert series and naturally had to walk down the pedestrian mall (it was a direct path to our house and we have walked it many times together).  We were holding hands.

Matt paused to say something to me and hugged and kissed me.

At that moment, several LDS church security guards came up to us and asked us to leave because we were being inappropriate.

Matt moved in closer to me and put his arm around me and asked the security guards loudly “what are we doing wrong?” We were obviously annoyed that they singled us out, especially since we were just passing through and not spending considerable time there. And there were no other people on the easement that we could see.

At this point they said that they wanted us to leave because of the public display of affection and that they do not allow any sorts of public displays of affection on the easement whatsoever. This especially irked the both of us because having walked through on a frequent basis (we often walk to work through there) and every time I have been through there are either marriage ceremonies going on, young mormon [sic] couples cuddling in front the fountain, hugging, holding hands, etc.

Matt then tried to get them to admit they were singling us out because they just didn’t approve of “gay” public displays of affection, baiting them into revealing their bigotry.

As all this was going on, several more security guards began showing up. I didn’t make an actual count but I would guess about 10 security guards were now surrounding us.

One of the security guards then got in Matt’s face and expressed very forcefully that “we (meaning straight people?) don’t come to your house and make-out on our property.” At this point Matt called him on his [expletive deleted] and mentioned that every time he has been through, he’s seen brides and grooms, couples holding hands on the pavement etc.

The security guards then changed their strategy and went the route of telling us that the easement is privately owned by the church and they can basically kick-out anyone they deem being offensive or inappropriate. This is technically true, but at the time I thought that it was a public easement and they had no rights to kick us out for holding hands (I didn’t really follow the controversy back in 2003 when the City ended up caving into the Mormon Church’s request to make the easement private property).

At this point they then split us up and forced me onto the ground on my stomach. They put my face against the pavement and handcuffed my hands behind my back. They then did a search and took everything out of our pockets. They did the same to Matt, although he resisted (not violently) and they weren’t able to get him on the ground because he’s a big guy and it took four or five of their guys to get him handcuffed. Matt remembers asking “what are you doing? Why are you doing this?” Then Matt launched into them verbally, telling them that they were hypocrites and did not have the authority to be arresting us.  Matt never threatened them, nor was he ever violent. He even explicitly told them that we were not being violent and that handcuffing was completely unnecessary. Neither of us are violent people. We were just trying to get them to have a civil conversation with us about the real reasons they wanted us to leave. Matt then asked if what they are doing was legal.  The security guards tried to claim that they were the cops. One of them even pulled out a fake badge and said he used to be a cop.

Matt then asked where the real cops were and they then said we could either leave, or they would get the cops. While we waited for the cops to arrive, the security guards kept trying to take pictures of us with their digital cameras. They also tried to accuse us being intoxicated although we were not. I admitted to have A beer at the gallivant, but that was hours before.

The cops finally showed up and talked to the church security away from while we still sat in cuffs. The police then escorted off the easement and took off our cuffs. We answered their questions and the one cop tried to shame us by pointing out we had been drinking, at which point Matt said “of course I have been we were at the Gallivan and took the responsible route by walking
home.

The cop then dropped that line of attack that [sic].

The cops then issued us both citations for trespassing and let us go.

Update: Some of the commenters seem to be under the impression that I, as author of this blog, was one of the victims of the preceding incidents – I wish to clarify that I am simply reporting the information as I have received it from the two directly.  It is for this reason that I have not answered what I plan to do because I have no direct connection to the case – other than the fact that people I know and care about have been directly affected by it. My appologies for any confusion.

Breaking:

So a friend of mine informed me, by way of Facebook status updates, that he was, he claims, illegally detained and charged with a Class C Misdemeanor for trespassing on the Main Street pedestrian mall in Downtown Salt Lake. The reason, he claims, is that he was holding the hand of his gay partner.

As I said, this is breaking and the facts are not in – however I would not be surprised to hear if it was entirely true.

For those of you who don’t recall, the Salt Lake City approved the sale of a section of Main Street in Downtown in April 1999 to the Mormon church from South Temple to North Temple, effectively connecting the LDS Temple grounds with the LDS Offices. The debate was heated as the land would effectively become private property and events, such as this, could (in theory at the time) be prosecuted. In the end the Church won and we see the symptoms of this victory today – assuming it is true.

But is it right?

Unlike the block housing the LDS Temple, the area is completely open and accessible to the public – indeed, I have cut through the area from time to time with no trouble whatsoever.  The area offers no physical restrictions and to someone who knew nothing of the Mormon culture, would assume it was a park area (all be it with an interesting choice in architecture).  Now these two are long standing residents of the state and city, but my point still stands.

How would we be viewed by the national press if this had been a couple from another city our country? Is this how the Church really wants to be perceived – especially after the the whole Proposition 8 dust up? Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that the Church “does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family.”

One would reasonably assume that holding hands is far less of an attack against “traditional marriage” than, say, allowing gay couples to enter into mutual contracts. Yet, if these allegations are true, here we are.

So what is more important, your First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and pass through an area, unknowingly trespassing, or arresting people because you think they are ookie? I have no doubt that they broke the actual law, but did they break the spirit of it?

P.S. Any posts that reference a religious verse or doctrine directly will be blocked – this is a legal issue and, therefore, requires a legal response. Furthermore, morality is not the dependant on any particular religion, rather it is the concept that we should be good to one another; therefore, replies regarding morality in a religious context, too, will be blocked.

Update: Read the account of this from one of the individuals arrested by clicking here.

Update: Salt Lake Tribune reporting, Deseret News reporting (the only one who acknowledged this blog directly – thanks Clayton), Q Salt Lake reporting, CBS 2 Reporting, ABC 4 Reporting, KSL 5 Reporting, Fox 13 Reporting.

Speaker of the Utah House of Representatives, David Clark, recently posted a poll on his political blog “Speaker Clark” asking his readers who they thought would be best fit to handle the redistricting process: The Governor, The Legislature, The Supreme Court, or An Independent Commission. Clark, being a strong supporter of the Legislative option, clearly felt that his readers would side with him.

That…was not the case.

Liberal blogger Jeff Bell informed the internet of this poll and invited people to go and vote how they felt – not surprisingly his readers are not fans of the states appalling gerrymandered districts and voted accordingly. Soon the poll was overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of a commission (the last I saw it was leading by 85%), soon after it disappeared from Clark’s site.

But this post is not about a magical mystery poll – it is about the utter lack of criticism, demonstrated by Clark’s actions, that Republican leadership have in their position as representatives of the citizens of the state of Utah. This mindset that ignores the will of the people is a classic sign of a bloated and ineffective government that serves more as an oligarchy than a republic.

This pattern of behavior is nothing new: Vouchers, cuts in current health care funding for children and the elderly, questionable business practices with people indicted for fraud, bribery of opponents in elections, the rejection of an ethics commission, an utter disdain for the earth, a total rejection of public education – from preschool to college, and Byzantine laws regarding legal actives all point to a legislature that is out of touch with the people they are charged to represent.

So, does it come as a surprise that power-brokers want to do all they can to prevent the people from wrestling power away from them in favor of a more representative government? After all – the last time we challenged law makers in a head to head battle, the people overwhelmingly rejected decision makers. The battle regarding redistricting is another example of how the Utah Legislature loathes and despises the people they represent.

And so Speaker Clark is showing us the tactic House and Senate Republican leaders are going to employ in regards to this issue – deny there is a problem and reject the will of the people in favor of maintaining power.

I challenge Speaker Clark to post the results of his poll on his website, and I further challenge Speaker Clark to engage in an open and honest debate with representatives of the Fair Boundaries project. Furthermore I challenge Speaker Clark to allow this initiative to go to the people of Utah so that they may decide who represents them – if you are correct and that the Legislature is truly fit to choose its voters, then you should have no problem convincing the people of this fair state of this fact.