Senator Stewart Reid (R – Ogden, District 18) just doesn’t seem to get it as he continually chooses to stand by his yea vote on HB 477 and his nay vote on HB 1001 to repeal the draconian GRAMA (Government Records Access Management Act) law.

In yesterdays Salt Lake Tribune, Reid said 477 should have stayed in place, asking the hypothetical question “What if my wife texts and asks me at 3 o’clock to rendezvous with her?” And went on to say “Some government official gets to read that text.”

Reid and his ilk continue to labor under the false impression that GRAMA requests allow citizens and the media to have full and open access every single document transmitted over any means whatsoever.

The simple fact is that GRAMA requests need to be somewhat specific, otherwise those in government charged with fulfilling the request won’t have a place to even start. For a request to be effective, requests have to be given a frame.

And what of these so called “fishing” expeditions. The few pro-477 legislators point to one GRAMA request that took 290 hours and resulted in no newspaper article or citizen action. They claim that this is proof that people abuse the system, but they have failed to actually state what the request was for. Having poured over many documents from my own GRAMA requests, it is safe to say that sometimes you can’t find anything worth reporting – even if you really want to. It is quite possible that an individual, despite extreme tenacity, simply could not find enough evidence to make a case – that lawmakers actually did act in the best interest of the public (a novel concept, I will grant you, but possible none the less).

But let us suppose the request truly is an attempt to find embarrassing information – the so called “midnight text.” The answer to preventing people from finding these texts should come from the law-makers themselves, rather than clamping down on the citizens.

Anyone with any sense of the employee-employer relationship knows that you do not use company resources for personal matters; furthermore, you should know that if you do send an email over official channels, you have no right to expect privacy. Why do lawmakers – whom we employ, mind you – feel that they are somehow exempt from this basic rule? Personal matters should take place only through personal channels, and if you, either through ignorance or arrogance, choose to ignore this, don’t expect privacy.

But this isn’t enough, lawmakers should expect that if personal devises are used for the peoples business, those particular records should be made available as well. This does not mean that a GRAMA request can demand your entire hard drive, what it does mean is that if you respond to a constituent email from a home computer, you just did the peoples business, and we have a right to know your opinion on any particular matter. If the “personal” avenue is protected, lawmakers could simply tell special-interest leaders to email or text on a personal account or phone, pushing potential corruption to an even deeper level.

Lawmakers, naturally, are the most concerned about GRAMA laws and complain that their 4th Amendment right is at jeopardy; but, as Michael Williams, former Utah Supreme Court justice points out in the same Trib article, lawmakers give up some of their rights by choosing to be a public servant – it is simply part of the job. In essence, there ability to effect the public good outweighs their private right to some (but certainly not all) rights. Though it may be an extreme parallel, felons, due to  the decisions hey have made, give up some (but not all) of their rights as well.

Reid also wants to paint a picture that GRAMA requests will put a chilling effect on peoples desire to communicate with their legislators. This I find to be a very weak argument, if only because if a citizen is willing to write a legislator, it is probably because they are passionate about an issue and want to make sure their representative votes a certain way. Even if a person does not want their information published, a request to vote a certain way (and the reasons to do so) are far different from those that a GRAMA request would look for. I don’t care if Jon Q. Public thinks you should vote a certain way, I only care if Mr. Public says that you should vote a certain way and bribes or blackmails you to do so. There is a sort of de facto protection of the citizens right to contact lawmakers because a simple “I think you should vote this way” does not make for a very interesting story.

But lets suppose I am wrong. The evil main-stream media really is out to harass a law maker for no reason other than they just don’t like them. How do we address this legitimate concern?

Well, that is what the GRAMA work-group is hashing out right now. In my own opinion a few reasonable updates should be put into place:

1. Require that all electronic communications between legislators and registered lobbyists take place through a traceable and archived system, be it text, email, instant message, or other recordable digital communication (you will note that this would, most likely, still exclude phone calls and says nothing about face-to-face communication). These electronic communications should only be accessible to lawmakers and lobbyists,  unless a proper GRAMA request is made.
2. Create a formal Ombudsman for the citizens of Utah to act as an intermediary. A list of no less than five people should be generated and agreed upon by the Governor, the Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, the Speaker of the House and the House Minority Leader, and the President of the Senate as well as the Minority Leader. One Ombudsman should then be elected into office with a term of no more than four years and given a term limit of two terms. This Ombudsman should be independent and charged with defining what is truly private communication requests. There should also be a process to overturn the Ombudsman’s decisions.
3. Make it clear to lawmakers that ownership of an electronic device is immaterial in regards to any public communication.
4. Lawmakers should make clear, upon first communication, that their conversation could be public in nature with added rights given to individuals who are initially, and legitimately, unaware of this possibility.

Reid ends the article with the rather aggressive statement that “(t)here is no interest on the media’s part to protect privacy of legislators and their constituents.” Reid is only half right, and proves that he has no respect for the additional check and balance the fourth estate provides. You see, if the media always respected the right to privacy at a level Reid and his cronies would like, the media would no longer be doing its job. The media must probe, and it should not always play nice. To do so would mean that it is no longer serving the interest of the public, it is only by way of the open exchange of ideas – no matter how embarrassing, misguided, or downright deceitful – that our democracy is able to function. One you are operating in the public realm, you have to accept the fact that the public is able to criticize and question it.

Democrats in Utah certainly seem to be an innovative bunch. Over the past year various Democratic groups have been holding this rally or that to either “raise awareness,” “show unity,” or “fight for change.”

Problem is, it seems like this is the only tool Democrats in general and progressives in particular, seem to have in their toolbox to make their voices heard. Lately it feels like I receive a weekly event on Facebook asking me to attend this rally or that, all to ensure that the people on Capitol Hill hear “us,” whoever “we” may be.

But have rally holders stopped to think about what they actually hope to achieve by holding this rally or that? Of late it feels as though a sort of “rally fatigue” has set in and that the message is being lost – when individuals are constantly bombarded by calls to action from all sides, it is easy to miss the message of unity entirely.

If the whole goal is to raise awareness, rally holders need to recognize this fact. If the goal is to display that a large group of citizens are upset over something, it can not be the same 50 to 100 people that show up to every rally time and time again. If the goal is to make a change, make sure that you are giving them something to actually get behind – not just state idle platitudes about how “we can do better” and that it is “time for a change.”

In short, make sure that your rally might actually achieve something, and don’t just hold a rally because you can. But this alone isn’t enough, we also need to have an honest conversation about why so many rallies are taking place to begin with.

The uptick in rallies has been due in large part to the fact that civically engaged liberals and moderates simply do not know of any other outlet to express their frustrations. These individuals are unaware that other actions such as running for office, writing letters to the editor, walking door to door for candidates, and participating in party politics are viable options for their energy. The concept of participating in a formal structure has not occurred to them because the formal structure is unable to reach out to these individuals or people feel that there is no point in participating because they feel that they won’t be valued;  they either don’t know how else they can participate or they feel that no other option is really available to them.

There are, of course, those who do participate in the supporting of rallies and in party politics. But perhaps we should stop asking why so many do do this, and start asking why we can’t get more people doing both.

To its credit, the Utah Democratic Party has in place a number of formal systems in place to harness people when they do choose to participate. But it seems that awareness of these programs are limited to those who already involved with the party. An honest effort needs to take place to recruit new blood to ensure that information is not just being passed from one party activist to another.

We also need to ask why so many more rallies are taking place to begin with. Are liberals and moderates more outraged than they have been in the past? Or is it because groups of concerned citizens are working in a vacuum where no one knows what anyone else is doing?

The lack of communication that takes place between groups is astounding in this era of social-media. Often, if one group knows what another is doing, it is only because a member happens to participate in both groups and is actually in a position to say something. How often on this or that Facebook page do we see a message along the lines of “I would like to come, but X is doing X at that time” and others agreeing with that statement?

Again, simple, formal communication between these groups needs to take place. It does not even need to be fancy, a Google Document will do. But the lack of structure is killing the impact of public meetings such as rallies. If organizations could communicate with each other, rally fatigue could be mitigated and groups could actually *gasp* work together to gain greater numbers and create a real impact.

Finally, organizers need to realize that they have something that is actually rally-able. Rallies are literally defined as “to muster for a common purpose” and “to arouse for action.” If people come together, but they are not asked to do anything the rally has missed its mark. Many rallies, it seems only play lip service to this – with speeches about the magnitude of various problems, but offer no course of action for solutions. Organizers ask us to contact policy makers, but don’t provide the tools people need to do so – indeed, they only seem to say this because they don’t know how else to wrap up a speech.

And this s the problem with holding rallies with such great frequency. Often times groups use the rally as the last step in fighting this issue or that when in reality it is only one possible option at one stage in the political discussion. Rallies should give people both the desire and the ability to do more, not just give them an excuse to be angry. Yes, make people angry, make them want to fight for a cause, but make sure they know how to actually do it.

In the end, we as citizens should continue to hold rallies, but we need to realize that if it is the only way we as citizens participate in the process, there is no way any change will actually take place.

It is that time again, where less than half the population chooses who will lead everyone for the next two, four, and six years (depending on the election). Here are my predictions based on gut feeling, recent polls, and just a touch of hopeless optimism that people like liberals as much as I do.

Nationally

Demo’s in the Doghouse

It should come as no surprise that Democrats are going to take a thumping this year…though I suspect it is not going to be as bad as everyone is making it out to be. The simple fact of the matter is that people are upset that the economy has not turned around and have failed to see the legitimate accomplishments of the Obama administration. But, not having a job (or being underemployed) is a major stress on people and it is easy to see why they want a solution and they want it fast.

Democrats will loose the House but maintain a majority in the Senate.  In the House, my guess is 204 to 230 – for the Senate 52 t0 48.

The question, of course, is how Obama will have to adapt to the new situation. Odds are we will see something similar to the Clinton years where compromise was key on legislation. Outwardly, things will be much more contentious, however good laws will probably come out of the debate.

Senate

National Budget will be instantly slashed by 40%

Despite a strong showing by Granato, Mike Lee will be the junior senator from Utah. Granato’s problems were twofold: 1) he is running as a Democrat in Utah, 2) he was planning on running against Bob Bennett. Lee’s style was and furor amongst supporters made victory a near impossibility whereas Bennett was predictable and measured – Granato never seemed to be able to adapt to the game-changer despite great attempts to do so. Lee wins 59-35 with the remaining 6 percent going to third party candidates.

House

More of the same:

Bishop is back

In CD 1 Rob Bishop will soundly beat Morgan Bowen, his rival in 2008, and he will do it with a wider margin. Bowen’s fire at the Democratic convention fizzled and Bishop hopped on the Tea Party bus to take advantage of the movement and the extra votes that come with it. Bishop wins 70-25 with the remaining 5 percent going to third party candidates.

Philpot = looser

CD 2 has been one of the more contentious races, but Jim Matheson will hold off Morgan Philpot. Republicans smelled blood in the water early and jumped on the chance to boot the five term Democrat, but Matheson, primed from an inner party challenge, was is campaign mode early on and knew how to get votes. Philpot, on the other hand, never seemed to come out with a coherent message other than “hey, I am a Republican, you should vote for me, look how scary Nancy Pelosi is even though you don’t know what she does.” Matheson wins 54-46 with the remaining 8 percent going to third party candidates.

Chaffetz keeps his cot

CD 3 was an interesting race from a philosophical standpoint: would people in Utah County even listen to a Democrat despite the fact that they were a conservative Democrat who once listed themselves as a Republican? Well, it turns out the answer is no. Karen Hyer might be able to beat Jason Chaffetz in a leg wrestling match, but not much else. A shame, really, as Hyer was a strong candidate with fire in her belly. Chaffetz wins 70-24 with the remaining 6 percent going to third party candidates.

Governor

Two more years of poor leadership

I had said early on that Peter Corroon was the Democrats best chance to take the governors seat away from the Republicans as Herbert was weak and inexperienced.  Sadly, this does not mean that Corroon will be our next governor. Corroon did everything right – choosing a Republican as his running mate, raising funds, campaigning strong, and asking tough questions, but it is simply not enough to put him over the top. I hope Corroon comes back in 2012 with even more fight in him, as his campaign put all Republicans on edge, and made Democrats proud locally. Herbert wins 62-34 with the remaining 4 percent going to thrid party candidates.

Utah State Senate

More of the same

Don’t expect much to happen in the Utah State Senate.  Though some races are tighter than others (Gene Davis vs. Lee Brinton and Wayne Niederhauser vs. Tyler Ayers) I don’t suspect that any incumbents will be booted this year. The real question will be how districts are redrawn during the legislative session and what the 2012 election will look like.

Utah State House

Gerrymandered districts and Dems on Defense

It should come as no surprise that, in Utah’s severely gerrymandered districts, that few faces will change on Capitol Hill. Indeed, the only real change will be the people filling the seats of their fellow party members who either have chosen to step down or were booted at convention. A few races should be interesting, however: Patrice Arent vs. Jason Epps in District 36 features a former lawmaker (Arent) attempting to hold a seat recently won by the Democrats in 2006; District 44 features the very popular Tim Cosgrove against former basketball player Shawn Bradley (who’s only policy position seems to be, in fact, that he is quite tall), will voters on the west side vote for star power alone? Finally House District 48 features a rematch between incumbent Trish Beck and former representative from the district, LaVar Christensen – in the last bout, Beck was victorious by less than 230 votes.

Salt Lake County

The more things change…

The Salt Lake County Council will have some fresh faces on its nine member panel. Republicans are eager to point out that Richard Snelgrove will beat Holly Mullen to win control of the at large seat.  Indeed, I suspect that Mullen peaked too early and could not construct a proper campaign to last her into November; Snelgrove will win 56-42. In County Council District 1, Arlyn Bradshaw will coast past competitor Steve Harmsen in the extremely liberal district 72-28. In County Council District 5, Tyler Andrus, the Democrat, has put up a good fight, but the conservative district will likely not sway and, instead, vote back into office Steve DeBry by a margin of 55-45.

This would split the council 4-4. We now turn our head towards County Council District 3 – a repeat of 2006 where the victor was chosen by just over 900 votes. In the match between the Democrat, Diane Turner, and the Republican David Wilde, the contest would not be more heated.  Turner is out for victory and has worked hard to ensure that she will see victory. I feel that the efforts by Turner and her campaign staff have been nothing less than astonishing, and I feel that it will pay off. Turner will beat Wilde 54-47 and a Democratic majority will remain in the County Council.

On the executive side, Jim Winder and Sherry Swensen will coast to victory. Swensen will have the widest margin of victory due in part to her overall popularity and the childish campaign her opponent has run; Swensen wins 65-35. Winder will also soundly trounce his opponent 62-38.

The one big shake up will be in the District Attorney’s office. Lohra Miller has mismanaged the office and the voters have noticed – at the time of her election it was clear that she was inexperienced, and Sim Gill has used this as his rallying cry in another repeat campaign between the two.  Gill’s message has been clear and they have campaigned effectively. Gill beats Miller 53-47.

Amendment A is a solution to a problem that does not exist, and it has the added benefit of possibly harming our state.

Amendment A sounds nice enough – hell, it even sounds like it is un-democratic to vote against it.  Its language is simple:

 Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to specify that elections currently required to be by secret ballot include elections under state or federal law for public office, on an initiative or referendum, or to designate or authorize employee or individual representation?

I mean, who doesn’t want our elections to be private, is our right to feel our vote is our own, free of coercion.

But did you catch that last line? By adding ”(secret ballots include elections) to designate or authorize employee or individual representation,” legislators are subtlety attempting to harm unions and take on the federal government.

You see, this amendment was prompted by Congresses potential passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, an act that would make it easier for unions to form. As the Salt Lake Tribune explains:

Under existing law, if 30 percent of employees sign cards saying that they want an organizing election, a union can petition the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to conduct an election by secret ballot. If the union gets a majority of the votes, the NLRB certifies the union.Under the “Employee Free Choice Act,” the NLRB would certify the union if it could get more than 50 percent of the workforce to sign the cards. The election by secret ballot would be eliminated.

Business, naturally, fears that this would give union bosses the potential to coerce people into publicly supporting the formation of a union. In an attempt to circumvent this, the Utah State Legislature is trying to pass Amendment A to change our Constitution.

But here is the rub – the Utah Constitution already says that all elections are required to be secret. The only problem is that the union issue has never been challenged in state court and, therefore, never defined.

As an added bonus, if the Employee Free Choice Act were to pass, it doesn’t matter what our state constitution says due to the fact that federal law always trumps state law. Since our legislature loves taking on the federal government, it is only natural that we will spend God only knows how much defending a losing battle – I suspect a judge would just snicker, render his verdict, and move on.

If the Employee Free Choice Act does not pass (and it is looking like it won’t), we have created a solution to a problem that does not exist. Anti-big government people, where are you on this one?

I do love the grand platitudes Representative Wimmer and Senator Stephenson use to defend their proposed amendment. Hell, if you were to read it you would think that the Lord himself has tasked Wimmer and Stephenson to protect democracy herself.

Vote no on Amendment A. At best it is useless, and at worse it could cost Utah a good chunk of change.

I have somewhat neglected to post my recent debate with Cherilyn Eagar on KRCL regarding the role (if any) the caucus system should play in our Democracy.

Click here to listen to the debate!

It is that time again, where I look into my extremely cloudy crystal ball and make some predictions about the upcoming primary election taking place next week. If you are able, please be sure to vote; turnout is expected to be abysmally small, so your voice really can make a difference. I have provided links to a map of the various districts so you can check and see if you reside within them.

Utah Federal Senate – Republican Primary:

Mike Lee v. Tim Bridgewater

First off, I must admit that I defer much of my knowledge to MRF on this one as I am certainly not the target demographic these two races are after.  That being said, MRF and I both agree that Lee’s campaign seems to have the wheels coming off of it.  Many far right conservatives are learning about Lee’s lobbying past and are being turned off by it. Bridgewater, on the other hand, seems to be surging right when he needs to – with endorsements from many notable lawmakers, including current Senator Bob Bennett.

Prediction:

Lee will perform well in rural Utah but may not have what it takes to win in more metropolitan areas where more moderate Republicans reside. Bridgewater, I predict, will win by six points.

Utah Federal House District 2 – Democratic Primary

Jim Matheson v. Claudia Wright

If you have read my blog at all, you know where I stand on this issue.  That being said, I must admit that Wright has done a very good job at gaining grassroots support.  There are two main “X” factors come election day 1) Wright supporters are vocal, but are there enough to carry her over the top 2) Matheson supporters are more numerous, but not necessarily as motivated to vote in a primary.

Prediction:

In the end, and with my bias in mind, I still think Matheson has what it takes to gain victory.  The battle ground is in southern and eastern Utah where Democratic voters may be hesitant to take a bet on a new Democrat on the ticket that has not proven that she can win. I feel that the Wasatch front may go to Wright, but it is difficult to call.

Salt Lake County Council 1 - Democratic Primary:

Arlyn Bradshaw v. Cal Noyce

Next to the Wright/Matheson race, this race has been one of the most contentious race amongst Democrats. Bradshaw has the support of every Democratic County Council member, along with with County Mayor Corroon and the Young Democrats of Utah, just to name a few. On the flip side, Noyce has the endorsement of Corroon as well, along with many labor organizations and the Stonewall Democrats – a possible factor in this race as both candidates are openly gay and, as Senator Hatch put so well, they vote. I will admit that I support Bradshaw and have worked with (and against) him in the past – I really do feel that he is a smart and talented individual who can get the job done.

Predicition:

The biggest factor in this race will be turnout, specifically between the east and west side of Salt Lake. When you couple this with the fact that the east side will come out more anyway due to State House race 25 and Congressional District 2, it is easy to see that the east side will come out strong.  Bradshaw, as an east-side resident, has the clear advantage, and has been working hard in these areas to make sure it materializes. Noyce seems to have become somewhat reactionary, not a good sign for victory.  I predict Bradshaw wins by 10 points.

Utah House District 25: Democratic Primary

Anthony Kaye v. Joel Briscoe

This race has been one of the most entertaining to watch as there are two strong candidates, each of which would do a great job on the hill.  Kaye is much more aggressive and in your face – not surprising for a New York native and could easily be the attack dog for the Dems.  On the flip side, Briscoe is the proven administrator, knowing how to work the system to get things done.

Prediction:

I hate to say it, but this one is too close to call. We are just going to have to wait and see.

As I have discussed in the past, I feel that the laws regarding passing a citizens initiative in Utah are so difficult that they are, for all intents and purposes, unconstitutional.

Well, late last night I received an email detailing the official results that can be found here. As you can see, both Fair Boundaries and Utahns for Ethical Government failed to reach their goal.  Though each group had over a year to collect signatures, they were sorely lacking in resources.  Indeed, Fair Boundaries averaged expenditures of about $800 a month over the year it was in operation – truly a grassroots effort. Utahns for Ethical Government averaged monthly expenditures of just under $4,750, still a small operation to say the least.

At the same time, Fair Boundaries was able to collect just under 45,250 signatures; Utahns for Ethical Government collected almost 73,250.  Although it is a bit of a small bit of data, we can project that a successful campaign needs to spend over $100,000 to have a chance at collecting the necessary amount of signatures to get on the ballot in November. Although not impossible, how many organizations are able to be organized from scratch and raise $8,400 a month, every month for one year? Furthermore, would you want to run an organization that is constantly on the verge of running out of money? Of course not.

It should become increasingly clear that successful initiatives require more than just the will of the people – a well funded and structured organization is required long beforehand to have any chance of success.

Sometimes, as with the case regarding school vouchers, the people are more than eager to sign a petition to change a law; but it is hard to deny that the anti-voucher campaign would have been successful had it not been principally supported by the Utah Educators Association and the built-in organization it provided. It should also be noted that the Utah State Legislature made the initiative process more difficult after the success of the anti-voucher (and anti-legislature) petition.

And so, the will of the people failed this time around. Perhaps a less democratic process is required to get things changed in our democracy.

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.

Tonight I will be on the KRCL FM 90 discussing various bills being discussed on the hill.  Joining me will be Misty Fowler over at Saintless, and I am told one other person…yet to be named.

So tune in to 90.9 FM at 6:00 PM or click here to listen online.

I received the following email and was asked to publish it – sorry it took so long to do so; I have had a rather hectic day.

Tomorrow morning (Sun, July 12th) at 9:00am, a group is meeting at the Main Street Plaza.  They invite those concered about the events on the Main Stree Plaza, both gay and straight, to join them for their our own “public display of affection.”  Nothing inappropriate…but just basic stuff like hugging, kissing, holding hands, etc.  to see what the security guards do then – will they ask them all to leave?  or just the gay/lesbian couples?