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?

Last week Senator Orrin Hatch held a “Tele-Town Hall Meeting” in Utah County where he asked various questions to the audience and posted results on Twitter. The questions he posed, as well as the responses he received makes it clear that Hatch is quite content in his bubble and more than happy to think that the views of a select group of people should be what we base our national policy on.

As I rummaged through my junk-mail pile, it became more and more clear that I did not, in fact, receive an invitation to participate in this meeting; this, despite the fact that I am a) a tax payer, b) a Utahan, and c) a voter in good standing. Clearly a mistake was made, therefore I have to go entirely off of Hatch’s Twitter feed to determine what was actually discussed during the “town-hall.”

According to Twitter, Hatch asked three questions:  What would you do to lower gas prices? To reduce the Federal Deficit should we raise taxes, cut spending, or both? And should Obama-care be repealed. The answers were predictable. To the gas price question 32 percent of those asked said expand domestic production, 10 percent said “alternative energy,” and 58 percent said both. Reducing the deficit also was quite predictable – 1 percent want to raise taxes, 78 percent said they want to cut spending, and 20 percent said both. Finally, a resounding 95 percent of those lucky enough to have found the embossed and gold leafed invitation said that “Obama-care” should be repealed.

It is clear that Hatch was not so much interested in connecting with his constituents as he was with connecting with the Republican base. After all, one sure fire way to know if Hatch is up for reelection is if he is actually in Utah.

But what is upsetting is that this puts into stark detail just how little Hatch actually cares about getting a well rounded opinion on the views of the people. No doubt, Hatch will go back to Washington with a chip on his shoulder saying that “the people of Utah overwhelming want to get rid of Obama-care, cut spending, and drill baby, drill;” failing, of course, to point out that by “the people of Utah” Hatch really means “the people he is trying to court to get reelected.”

At least I certainly hope Hatch does not actually believe that this unbelievably biased and small sample is the will of the people of Utahns. Indeed, health care reform may be unpopular, but I have to believe that at least the most hardcore of Democrats, comprising about 10 percent of the population supports the basic idea behind it.

But what this really points to is another example of the biased delegate system. If there is one complement I can pay to Hatch, it is that he always runs a campaign as if he is three points behind. Hatch will work a small group of delegates over and over again until he is sure that his support is solid – the downside of this is that it means Hatch does NOT have to listen to or appeal to the majority of Utahns, just the majority of Republican delegates.

Provided, of course, that Hatch is successful in courting 51 percent of delegates based on the actions that take place at these biased town-hall meetings, he will most likely win yet another term. This would ensure that, barring death or retirement, Hatch will serve in office for 42 years (fun fact – Hatch was elected to office for eight years when I was born). If he is not, it is clear that, in the mean time, he will continue to court a select group of voters right up to the bitter end – possibly ignoring his true beliefs, the true desires of the voters, and perverting the process.

It must be throwback day here at Blue in Red Zion, after all, the topic today seems to be the resurrection of bad bills. Well, Senator Howard Stephenson (R – Draper, District 11) is continuing the trend by proposing SB 224 – Partisan School Board Elections – a bill that mimics Senator Curt Bramble’s from 2007. As a bit of history, Bramble’s bill was killed on the last day of the session, despite attempts to rush it through both chambers.

Proponents of the bill claim that it would add more competition to the election of state school boards and, in theory, that is true. This is because only people interested in running for state school boards do so because they have a passion for education or reform – pish, why would we want to limit it to that when political parties could easily recruit members from their ranks to do the same job…even if they don’t know what they are doing!

And that is the root of the problem. Although I am not going to pretend that school boards don’t suffer from the same partisan bickering associated with many other sections of government, I have to wonder why we have to make the education of our children so overtly political.  As an example, when Bramble proposed his bill back in 2007, he defended his bill by saying that a “very positive outcome” of his legislation would be that advocacy groups such as the pro-voucher Parents for Choice in Education could more easily get involved and, presumably elected, if his bill would pass. Bramble even went so far as to say that “that’s what (he was) hoping for.”

And that should raise warning flags.

Supporters of Brambles bill got behind the legislation, not so much because they wanted to make the election of school board members more democratic (note the little “d”), or improve the quality of our school board – no, they got behind it because they saw it as another way to force an agenda that, in this case, was not supported by the public.

It is safe to assume that supporters of Stephenson’s bill feel the same way.

Sadly, one of the reasons partisan politics exists is that people don’t have to think as hard when they walk into the ballot box. Most voters know (or think they know) what a party stands for – and an “R” or a “D” next to the name of the candidate acts as a sort of short-cut for voters, giving them the ability to opt out of researching a candidate. Another sad reality that we have to consider is that people already don’t research State School Board candidates, meaning that, if someone chooses to vote in that election in the first place, they most likely will choose at random. Although that system is far from perfect, it does have the effect of partially canceling out votes, making it easier for the educated voters to make a decision.

By passing this bill, we would be further perverting an already perverted system by allowing party politics to greatly influence the outcome of an election when voters may not otherwise produce a certain result.

For what it is worth, this bill is actually further behind in the legislative process than its 2007 cohort was with nine days left in the session. Hopefully this bill will see the same fate.

Urgency Score:

Click here to contact Senator Stephenson.

Two years ago, Representative Mike Noel (R – Kanab, District 73) proposed HB 379, that copies word for word this years HB 399 – Environmental Litigation Bond sans an amendment that was made on the floor of the House that actually made the original bill even more harmful to those who wish to challenge any environmental finding.

The fate of that bill was that it was killed on the floor of the Senate without so much as getting a committee hearing. But, undeterred, Noel is back with his carbon-copy legislation.

The bill, if passed, would require plaintiffs challenging the findings of the Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Transportation, or the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration to post a bond to compensate defendants in the event that the the findings of those departments are sustained in court. Furthermore, the bill would require that plaintiffs filing suit would have to pay the defendants for the loss of time and resources.  As an example, when the plaintiffs challenged the findings of the environmental study produced by UDOT on the Legacy Highway, those challenging the state would have had to find the resources necessary to compensate UDOT before going to court if UDOT ultimately prevailed in the challenge.

I use Legacy because its environmental impact study was of legitimate concern a decade ago – and it turned out that some errors were made, resulting in the legal wrangling and eventual compromise that turned the “Legacy Highway” into the “Legacy Parkway.” Now, regardless of your feelings toward the parkway, it is fair to say that, had this bill been in place, the plaintiffs probably would not have challenged the findings, or at least been far more weary to question what was going on in a public forum.

And that is where I have the problem with Noel’s bill. It places a chilling effect on the citizens ability to question the government. Though I understand the frustration associated with major projects being held up in court because of litigation, it is equally frustrating to see projects get railroaded through without proper public input or study. I dare say the latter, however, is more dangerous to the functioning of our democracy and quality of life.

What also bothers me is that Noel is clearly targeting one group that he simply does not like. It is well documented that Noel hates environmentalists in fact I suspect that he would go out of his way to step on an endangered animal just to prove a point. By proposing such legislation he is not trying to make the state more efficient, financially sound, or increase growth, no, rather he his trying to shut up a group of people with legitimate concerns for the state of the state and its citizens.

In the end, I hope this bill suffers the same death as its two year old brother. Right now it is at the same stopping point, having cleared the House.

Urgency Score:

Click here to contact Representative Noel.