Today, the Salt Lake Tribune is reporting that Representative Stephen Sandstrom (R – Orem, District 58) wants to pass a similar law for Utah.

Before ripping into Rep. Sandstrom, some history. In 2008, the Utah State Legislature passed SB 81 – a law that, among other things, deputizes police officers as immigration officers. Now, I am not going to harp about that law, as it has already passed (mostly because it has already passed into law – but expect more criticism if this pushes forward).  No, let us focus on the current proposed bill and its potential impact.

If a law similar to Arizona were to pass in Utah, not only would police officers be able to question you for any reason about your immigration status, they could immediately arrest you based on your answer. “Well, how is this different from any other questioning police officers do?” you may rightfully ask.

First of all, immigration control is not a state issue. Indeed, if there is any issue that is a national one, it is protecting its boarders – people (not just citizens) are free to move within the boarder with no resistance.  This concept is outlined in the commerce clause of the Constitution. Second we need to consider not just the word of the law, but also the nature of the law as to why it is not right for officers to have this extra power.

Now, not many people know this, but when I was younger I actually trained to be a police officer. I only stuck around one day, but they taught me something very important: all murderers have black hair, large ears, dark eyes, and like to wear ties. If I am to see anyone matching this description, I should immediately question them and possibly arrest them if I think there is a slight chance they could have committed a crime.  Is it fair? No, but almost every murderer (I was told) matches this description.

This, of course, is absurd.  But when I say “illegal immigrant” do you think of someone who looks like Representative Sandstrom? Or do you think of someone who looks like Representative Rebecca Chavez-Houck? And be honest. Both are citizens, both are law makers, but if you knew nothing about either individual aside from their name and face and you were told to start questioning people about their immigration status, who would you harass?

Congratulations, you just committed racial profiling. It is part of human nature and it is not how our justice system should work.

This law leaves the door wide open for mass “questioning” of individuals as part of a systematic way to get rid of individuals. Now, Representative Chavez-Houck could, in theory, be caught up in such raids numerous times, only to be released – but not before being away from her friends, family, job, and life in general. What if we started rounding up murderers who matched my description? Would you still say the law was fair?  After these individuals were rounded up, they could immediately be hauled off to a federal jail, despite the fact that this is well beyond the Herriman City Cops jurisdiction.

This leads me to my next point. Why is it that Representative Sandstrom, a member of the far right Patrick Henry Caucus, is so eager to enact such a law? After all, he just spent an entire legislative session trying to buck off the federal government, stating that they have overreached their bounds in almost every aspect of our daily lives. Now, he seems more than happy to have the state take on this particular aspect of federal regulation even though, again, it is not within Utah’s jurisdiction to even touch this matter thereby overreaching its boundaries.

We are required to provide basic services to everyone within our boarders, whether or not  they are here legally. Illegal immigration is, therefore, a fundamentally different issue than murder. Laws, such as Arizona’s take us down a very real path of racial profiling, fueled by distrust, hate, and anger, towards a future that very much looks like Nazi Germany before the start of the Holocaust. Our history shows that rounding up individuals and interning them is not a foreign concept in America – indeed, we do not even need to leave this states boarders to see Japanese internment camps a mere 100 miles away from the Capitol building.

I am a firm believer that we have become better since those days, but I am also a firm believer that we could easily go back if we are not careful. There needs to be a solution to the illegal immigration problem, but it needs to come from the federal level. Legislation is on deck (after the Wall Street reform bill) to discuss this very issue.

Representative Sandstrom, let the feds do their job – provide input, but don’t make Utah look backwards and don’t send us down this rabbit hole.

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.

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, Utah could have received another congressional district during the last round of redistricting if the census bureau would have counted, amongst other things, missionaries. In preparation for a court victory that never came, the legislature drew up four legislative maps that would give Salt Lake County its own district and the remaining three districts would consist of a hybrid of urban and rural districts. But, because we never got that fourth district, the legislature used the current map today where every district has an urban and rural component.

Now the Republicans logic behind this is representatives will…well, I don’t exactly know what the logic is; it certainly is not in the best interest of the people.

While on the campaign trail for Fair Boundaries, I would often point out that Representative Matheson is charged with voting for what is in the best interest of his constituents in Salt Lake City and Saint George…at the same time. Now love him or hate him, the simple fact of the matter is that the needs of these two areas are very different, and on any particular vote, he is probably going to let someone down within his distirct.

But Speaker Clark does not care about out actually representing the people of Utah, no he cares about ensuring that Republicans gain and stay in power, and this rehashed plan certainly does that. By coming out this early he has already sent the message that he has made up his mind about how districts should look – unfair, undemocratic, and unbelievable.

Bravo Speaker Clark. You are influencing the process before it even begins and you are doing it so brazenly that it is disgusting.  Furthermore, you get extra points for waiting less than a week after Fair Boundaries failed to prove why it needed to succeed – this system is broken and power brokers like you are more than happy to make sure it stays the way it is.

Shame on you Speaker Clark.

You may remember that I have mocked them, rightfully so, in the past.

Call these people out on their BS…The following were passed around at the Tea Party that took place yesterday at the capitol. Five points to whomever finds a) the most spelling/grammatical errors, b) the most logical fallacies, c) the most illegal statements:

Front Page:

Back Page:

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.

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.

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.

It is obvious, at this point, that most far-right Republican leaders, pundits, and organizations are more concerned with Obama failing than our nation succeeding – or to put it much more harshly, these people want our country to fail in order to prove a point.  These people are putting personal gain above national need.  There is a word for this…it is treason.

Yes, treason.

They are showing disloyalty and a willful desire to disrupt the workings of the state that goes beyond the sacred right to protest.  During the Bush administration many left commentators questioned policy and actions of the president by standing up and shouting at the top of their lungs how they wish that more would be done or less would be done…but at no point did commentators wish that he failed at his job.  Fairly or unfairly, many of the people protesting simply felt that he already had failed.

This is not what we see today.  Rush Limbaugh, one of the de facto leaders of the Republican Party, famously wished that Obama would fail; organizations cheer when Chicago looses its bid for the Olympics and panic when the nation’s leader tells children to stay in school; Glen Beck blatantly accuses the president of racism; Teabaggers bring firearms to rallies in a clear act of intimidation towards the nations leader and supporters and Congressmen shout at the President when addressing the nation.

On the playground we call these actions bullying, on the national stage we call it sedition. It is not how our Republic should be run.

I sincerely believe that this is not the mindset of the majority of Republicans who disagree with Obama – they have legitimate concerns about the policies he is putting forth, just as the left had concerns about the policies of the Bush era. But I also believe that there is a sizable minority of Republicans who are overtly undermining our democratically elected leader in order to insert a radical agenda that benefits only them and not the nation.

It should be noted that our system has a more peaceful way of removing leaders that is the epitome of patriotism – the act of voting. We as a nation either support or oppose the President every two years and decide if he is failing our nation every four. But I don’t know of any true American that wants our nation fail simply because they don’t like the leader of the country.

I am proud of my liberal ideology, and I am not afraid to express my displeasure at the policies that any leader puts forth. But if I had to choose between country and party, my country will win every time – I am an American first and foremost. I would never wish for my leader to fail and, by extension, our country to fail to do otherwise would mean that we all have failed.

E pluribus unum indeed.

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.