Republican delegates got a gift in the mail today – a trifold pamphlet outlining the evils of the so called “Common Core” program in Education, claiming that it is an insidious and underhanded way for the federal guv’met to take over our schools and, therefore, our kid’s fragile little minds!

The reality, of course, is that core standards upgrade curriculum so that the state produces a higher quality of student. Good thing, right? I would say so. After all, good students mean quality students, quality students mean skilled workers, skilled workers mean higher pay, higher pay means higher quality of life, and Utah becomes an all around better place.

But none other than the infamous Gayle Ruzicka (seen here diligently defending Utah – Thanks Pride In Utah) of the Eagle Forum feels that Republican delegates need to know about the core curriculum, and more importantly, who voted for it – especially before this Saturday’s Republican Convention.

Now, I count about nine different ways I can take this blog post at this point: do I take the easy route and talk about how Gayle is up in the night? Do I support the core curriculum as a step in the right direction for our schools? Do I talk about how the Eagle Forum has far to much power in this state when their only real claim to fame (as near as I can tell) is that they are fantastic at harassing lawmakers? No, no, that is far too easy.

No, I want to talk about one line I found in the Tribune article that brought this all to my attention: “Ruzicka said the pamphlet isn’t the work of any group. She said there is one man — whom she would not name because he wants to remain anonymous — who paid to publish and mail the brochure.”

Yes, an anonymous backer is pumping , by my estimates, some $2,500 directly into our election process by attempting to directly influence delegates and, therefore, our elections.

$2,500 may seem like small change, and in many elections it is, but let us focus on the principal of the matter – our democratic system is so vulnerable to intrusion that an investment  of a very cheep car could have a dramatic effect on the state for years to come.

In a related story, another wing nut, anonymous individual recently sent out a letter degrading Sen. Curt Bramble (R-Provo) in a presumed attempt to oust Bramble from office. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not a fan of Bramble in particular and the Republican party in general, but stories such as this point to the fundamental problem with our current election system.  Anonymous individuals can easily influence a select group of individuals with very little effort.

The irony is that this happens to also be the strength of the delegate system – a candidate with passion and determination can, theoretically, oust a long time politician if they are better on the issues. But in that situation we know exactly who is funding the campaign and  the motives behind their actions. Here we simply have a lone wolf who got a bug up their butt and feel it is far more important to promote their own agenda rather than think about the interests of the state of Utah. Even worse, let us consider the possibility that this individual actually does feel that they are promoting the interests of the state; if that is the case, than this individual does not have the conviction to stand behind what they have produced, depriving the public (or at least Utah Republican Delegates) of a fair and proper debate – and, in my mind, that is almost worse.

By depriving people of debate while simultaneously promoting your own agenda, you show that you care little for our democratic process.  You show that you have no problem perverting the system that, when used properly, elevates the rights and dignity of people. Faceless individuals such as these are proving that there are deep cracks in our system and, perhaps, we should reevaluate the delegate system here in Utah and either reform or remove it from the process. The delegate system is proving to be moving away from its intended purpose of allowing the “everyman” to be elected, and instead is showing us just how easy it is to entrench candidates and influence elections.

I am shocked and saddened by the recent statements made by two members of the Republican Caucus of the Utah Senate.

By now, you may have seen the Senate Majority Leader, Scot Jenkins, outburst on the outlandish thought of exempting military personnel from having to pay property taxes while serving on active duty (click here for post and video).

Well, on Thursday, the trend continued. Senator Casey Anderson (R-Cedar City, District 28), while discussing HB 263, stood up before the chamber and claimed, in short, that military families should do one of two things: have a spouse quit their job and suffer financial hardship due do a forced relocation,  or break up a family because a spouse needs to stay behind to earn money at their present job while their military family member moves due to deployment.  The worst possible solution, in Anderson’s eyes, apparently, is that the state will have to cough up roughly $85,000 a year to cover unemployment benefits while the relocated spouse looks for work near their partners new base (for those of you doing the math, that is a show stopping three cents per year per Utah resident).

Don’t believe me? Lets take a look at the tape:

Boy, that doesn’t look good…eeee. Almost looks like you care more about your rabid anti-tax stance that you wouldn’t know a good bill if it punched you in the face. I mean, the idea of paying three cents more is so gawdawful that you are willing to either split up families or force them to suffer because, whelp, they knew what they were getting into when they signed up to serve.

This kind of fanaticism makes me sick. Far too often dogmatic lawmakers such as Anderson can’t see the forest for the trees. This same type of thinking creates lawmakers who will shoot down a revolutionary school education funding program because they perceive it as a tax hike, but make them more than eager to pass laws that will cost the state millions in lawsuits that will undoubtedly be overturned – all because we want to prove a point to the nasty federal guv’ment.

I hope that voters see these people for what they really are, dangerous to our state. At the very least, I hope Republicans are able to reign this kind of crap in because, frankly, they have gone way too far.

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

Over the past year, there have been numerous anti-government protests across the nation, and though I have been highly critical of some of the movements, I none the less support the right for them to petition their government.

Well, it appears that Senator Margaret Dayton (R – Orem – District 15) doesn’t feel the same way.  Her bill, SB 33, Trespassing on State Lands is a knee jerk reaction to the protests we have seen because these groups had the gall to peaceably assemble to protest the government.

The bill says, in no uncertain terms, that it is a misdemeanor for a person to camp on state land for more than 15 days. Now, at first, I knew this bill didn’t pass the smell test, but I couldn’t quite figure out why; then it hit me – the capitol building also counts as state land.

Ha ha! Remember how those pesky protesters would not go away in at the Wisconsin State House? How they demanded to be heard after they disagreed with the decisions of policy makers? Remember how those pesky protesters couldn’t just be thrown into jail because they weren’t, you know, breaking the law? Furthermore, remember how they have something called a “1st Amendment Right” to be there? Well, thankfully, Dayton is trying to at least make sure that they are breaking the law in the short term so that lawmakers won’t have to deal with upset people when they are trying to pass laws behind closed doors.

Interestingly, I noticed that Idaho is attempting to pass a similar law in their state.  Near as I can tell, their most conservative lawmakers too feel that this is all-of-a-sudden an issue for them as well.  I am sure, however, that this is all just a coincidence, and not that there is a national conservative organization of lawmakers that get together to discuss what bills they feel must be passed right away.

These random lawmakers all have similar talking points – namely that cities have these types of laws, why not states? I say the main difference is that trespassing laws are inherently city and township issues, because cities and towns are primarily the government entities who have do deal with the issues of trespassing. Furthermore, cities have mechanisms in place specifically designed to avoid infringing on First Amendment rights – this is why, for example, Occupy Salt Lake was able to camp at Pioneer Park overnight…for many nights. This bill conveniently forgets to add such mechanisms; but I am sure that this was just an oversight.

This is a terrible bill born out of conservative lawmakers fears that they might actually be called out on the work they do. I am sure, at some point, someone will get arrested on this very issue, and that the state will be drawn into a long and messy court battle.  Dayton will of course gleefully take us down this road because she just hates those filthy hippies sooooooo much.

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

Impact: 2

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.

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

I am getting sick of the annual attacks Republicans in the legislature lob towards a citizens right to vote. Every year they try (often successfully) to make it just a little bit harder for you to exercise your right to participate in your government. If they are not trying to put the administration of elections into private hands, they are trying to slow down nullify the right to petition the government though possible coercion, force people to prove they are citizens at the polls while making more difficult to do so, or simply remove polling locations all together.

The latest attack comes from Representative Kraig Powell (R-Heber City, District 54).  By proposing HB 253, Voter Registration Amendments, Powell is looking to out and out remove people from the voter file.

Yes, if you miss two general elections, you are out.

You may wonder what the big deal is, after all that is over the course of 8 years. One could argue that this bill is simply a way to make sure voter files are as up to date as possible – removing those who clearly don’t want to participate. But to think this way makes you gloss over one important fact: you are removing people based on an assumption.

Thankfully, the county clerk must make attempts to contact you if your registration is about to be revoked. However, I have to wonder if such notices would not simply get buried under mounds of junk mail.

I suppose my real problem is that the government should not be removing voters simply because they do not meet some sort of “participation” threshold. As it stands right now, you have the right to vote at a certain place, at a certain time, regardless of the last time you showed up to the polls unless there is an overriding factor (such as moving or going to jail) to change that fact – and it should stay that way.

I have worked on many political campaigns, and I can’t begin to tell you how frustrating it is to find out that a registered voter has left a home – but the inconvenience of a political operative is no excuse to simply purge someone from the record. Also, the time and “trouble” the clerk has to go through to print extra pages in the official log does not give them a magical pass to simply start chopping off names.

This is a disturbing trend across the nation – several legislatures are attempting to trim back the voter roles. At this rate, our democracy will die by a thousand little cuts.

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

Impact: 4

Need: 0

Overall: -5

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

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

We start the Bills to Watch series with an announcement.  I, Curtis Haring, wish to announce my candidacy for State House Representative of American Fork so that I can formally run against the proposer of HJR 10 – Joint Resolution on Legislator Eligibility, Rep. Dougall (R-American Fork, District 27).

Normally this would pose a problem to me…as I live a good 30 miles away from the district. Thankfully Dougall will think this is okay because his Joint Resolution, if passed, would start the process to change Utah’s Constitution to allow people to run in districts they do not actually live in.

Yes, if this resolution were to become law, you would not actually have to have ever seen the district you represented.

This, of course, is a direct result of the Craig Frank debacle where it was discovered that Frank did not actually live in his district halfway through the legislative session. Last year Senator Valentine attempted to alleviate this issue by trying to expand Frank’s district to actually include his home, therefore allowing him to still be the representative from that area. The bill rightfully did not pass because it ultimately amounted to redistricting after boundaries had already been decided upon.

Dougall’s bill would eliminate this problem all together. You can live where ever you want and can run for whatever office you wish.

This concept spits in the face of representative democracy. The whole idea behind electing local representatives is that they are a) local, and b) representative. When anyone can run for anything, citizens can easily loose control of the the electoral process and be flooded with carpetbaggers who are more interested in winning an office than representing people.

I would point out that, on a federal level, members of Congress already have this rule (this is why Rep. Jason Chaffetz famously does not live in his district), however the reason for such a rule is quite a bit different.  It came about because state lawmakers were purposefully redrawing incumbents out of districts that they had represented for years – this sneaky tactic was seen as a blatant violation of election rigging by the state and was promptly squashed down.

This bill was written because one of the State Rep’s got burned by the law.  I suppose I should look at it the other way, after all Dougall is just proposing a bill that his constituent probably suggested - Craig Frank.

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

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

Last Tuesday it was announced that West Vally City Mayor, Mike Winder will be a regular contributor to the Deseret News’ online, local news oriented, feature “Deseret Connect.” Since then, Mayor Winder and the Deseret News have successfully reopened the debate regarding how close is too close when it comes to having politicians involved in the news cycle.

Let us start by discussing what this is not.  This is not a state takeover of a media outlet – but in the same breath it is also not a politician simply wishing to communicate with their constituents through another means.

I hold sacred the idea  that the media is the so called “fourth estate” in our electoral process. Providing a check and balance to the three main forms of government we learned about in 8th grade civics class. The role of the media is to question if the decisions of the legislative, executive, or judicial branch are sound – not if they should have a corner office or just a cubicle to write from.

We should not forget that politicians are regularly allowed to participate in the media through opinion pieces. These articles often are given more weight that regular letters to the editor and are segregated in newspapers to emphasize their importance. This higher standard is fair, if only because politicians are naturally regarded as experts in the field of municipal affairs.  It is not as if decision makers are left out of the media, it is just that they do not receive an additional platform to politic from.

In a very short press release from Salt Lake County Chair Mary Bishop, the county party hinted at the true nature of the problem, but fell short at hitting the mark. In it Bishop states that “It truly defies fairness for a candidate for public office to be granted such a stage from which to trumpet himself,” and “if Mayor Winder wishes to use the conveniences of the internet to reach his constituents and other interested parties, he can easily do so using a blog on the West Valley City website.”

Bishop is correct in saying that it is unfair to give one elected official more clout than any other in a major publication, but she falls short in placing the blame squarely where it needs to go: on the Deseret News.

Although I doubt the Deseret News had any sort of nefarious motives when they chose to bring on Winder as a contributor, they did show an astounding lack of respect for journalistic integrity by doing so. In an effort to add to their business by beefing up their local news coverage, they ignored the idea that integrity should be upheld and bias should be removed whenever possible.

Bishop is right when she says that this provides Winder an unfair platform – but it is not unfair towards Winder, it is unfair towards the public who may not be able to decipher the difference between actual news and political opinion. Deseret News Managing Editor Rick Hall feels that by simply labeling  a news article in slightly bold print at the top of an article as coming from the mayor, people will automatically be able to decipher what follows as an opinion piece. This line of thinking is a dangerous one to go down because it implies that the Deseret News has no qualms about where stories and sources come from.

The role of the news is to educate, and education implies ignorance on certain topics. In this case it is not the role of the news to educate the public on this topic or that, but to educate the public on the news itself. By attempting to downplay and brush off the  potential violation of public trust, the Deseret News has said that it has put profit before journalistic integrity.

Winder did what he did because not only does he have a passion for his city, but also because it is in his best interest to continue putting his name forward as he attempts to run for County Mayor. The problem is that the Deseret News did what it did because it has lost its way on how proper reporting should work.

Even if Winder never touches a story that has to do with himself or his administration, there will now be the cloud hanging over the newsroom that he has input in the editorial process. His mere presence casts doubt on the Deseret News’ ability to accurately report, and  that alone should have been reason enough not to invite him to the table.

Last Thursday, ABC 4 broke the news that the Republican dominated redistricting commission has, at least in some cases already started to set into place the political boundaries before even hearing one proposal from the public – this, despite the fact that lawmakers have claimed from day one that this is to be an open and public discussion where input from the citizens will be respected and heard.

Of course, I wish I could say I was surprised by this finding, but I have said for quite some time that lawmakers are more interested in choosing their voters rather than actually listening to them. This is yet another example of business as usual for Republican lawmakers who rarely are held accountable for their actions.

The sad thing is that this action, along with countless others, will be defended by lockstep GOP supporters while we as a party are to busy complaining about city mayors who write in local newspapers. Don’t get me wrong, that is an issue I will be writing about soon, but a press release regarding Mayor Winder writing for the Deseret News came out within hours, and I have yet to hear anything from the Democrats regarding the most flagrant attempts to attack our democracy.

Republicans, of course, will say that maps are only lawmakers initial ideas and that they do welcome the input from the public. If this is the case, why be so secretive about the drawing of maps that, according to ABC 4 reports, were drawn up to make it much more difficult for certain senators to be reelected? Lawmakers are, after all, citizens too, and deserve to have a say in the process, so why hide your thoughts?

Could it be because they don’t see the point in sharing with the public largely because their concerns will be ignored? Is it because boundaries were decided long ago and they view the “public input” process as a chance to see the state at the expense of having to hear from the noisy rabble for a few hours?

I wish, of course, that I was wrong – that the legislature isn’t working behind the scenes while ignoring the will of the public (one that overwhelmingly supports the idea of an independent redistricting commission). But why should we think otherwise? One theme that is constantly said at redistricting public hearings is that people are not voting because they have lost faith in the systems ability for voices to be heard; and with backroom deals such as these, is it any wonder why people are disenfranchised with the system?