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.

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 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

From the moment Ben McAdams threw his hat into the ring for Salt Lake County Mayor, I was excited. Over the years I have watched McAdams, first as an adviser for Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker, and then as my state senator; and every time I have had the pleasure to work work with him on various issues, I have always come away impressed.

McAdams is a smart, forward-thinking, and approachable man whose  humility is only matched by his effectiveness. He is the first to step into a fight, and often the last man standing.  His work, in particular, during the redistricting charade solidified in my mind that he is a man who is willing to fight for what he believes in, even when he knows it is a Herculean task to even get your foot in the door.

But anyone who knows Ben knows that he would not do it any other way. I have never seen him simply throw his hands up in the air and say “it can’t be done;” on the contrary, he is the first to ask “who can we talk to to get this solved?”

Yes, ultimately, Ben is a problem solver who understands how the gears and cogs of government do and don’t work. His position as one of 29 state senators limited his ability to push through effective policies (and being in the minority party did not help much either) – however, when given a chance to shine on such issues as the non-discrimination ordinance and continuing pushes towards stricter anti-fraud laws, Ben does not disappoint.

Not afraid to shy away from his Mormon faith, Ben has been able to not only reconcile, but embrace issues such as LGBT rights and the liberalization of liquor laws; though I can’t speak for McAdams, I suspect it is because he realizes the world is not as black and white as many Republicans would like to think it is, and that one of the principal tenets of any faith is to first do unto others.

This mindset also places McAdams in a unique position – he has been endorsed by many across the political spectrum, and for good reason. The issues Ben wants to address (and have always wanted to address) do not fit nicely into “Republican” or “Democratic” labels; rather they fall into issues that have common sense solutions, yet seem to befuddle old-school politicians. Issues such as clean air, smarter planning, and better use of public space only become bewildering when close-minded politicians wish to make it that way.  By no small miracle, Ben has already found a way to cut through those traditional barriers in an attempt to find solutions.

I must also admit that I am amazed by the personal relationship I have forged with Ben.  As an example, when MRW had to go into unplanned, major surgery a week ago, a phone call was not far behind to her, asking how she was doing and pleased to hear that she was making a fast recovery.  Though I would not expect him to make such a gesture to every resident in the county, it does show that Ben has a honest heart and is genuinely concerned about the well being of others.

Democrats will face a tough decision at the Salt Lake County Convention; Ben’s opponent, Senator Ross Romero, is no slouch. Both men bring great attributes to county government. This pre-convention race should prove to make the winning campaign more powerful, and whomever comes out victorious will have another hard fought campaign in the books. I am hopeful that whomever comes out ahead, we as Democrats recognize that we will all win. I have chosen to endorse Ben because I feel that he is the better man for the job, but I can completely understand why others would feel that Ross fits that same description. As a party we are all to eager to rip each other apart – but let us fight fair, and let us fight hard, for the ultimate future of Salt Lake County.

Please, consider joining me in supporting Ben McAdams as Salt Lake County Mayor.

To learn more about Ben McAdams, visit www.benmcadams.com

As we rapidly approach the Utah Democratic Party’s annual convention the conversation on candidates to lead our party seems to have taken a dramatic shift away from candidate merit or ability, and towards simplistic labeling.

All too often I have heard people say that they will vote for a candidate because they are a woman, come from the unions, or because they are gay. Likewise many have said they will vote against people because they are insiders or because they come from one wing of the party.

I am weary of anyone who is willing to cast their vote one way or another based on one or two overly simplistic character traits. Those who cast their votes in this overly simplistic manner should take a hard look at how this mentality would affect the party for the next two years.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand why people think this way, it is a sort of electoral shorthand to make broad assumptions about a candidate based on what we can easily perceive.  You may be a firm believer in gender equality and workers rights; but to presume that a woman is the best candidate for women’s issues means that you may disregard or ignore facts that are fundamentally counter to that fact. Likewise, presuming the union candidate is the best for labor is to make a logical fallacy along the same lines. Yes, their position may place them at an inherent advantage, but to put up such ideological blinders on is to allow prejudice into your vote.

Consider this, if someone were to say they would NOT vote for someone, solely because they are gay, a woman, or a union member, you would be up in arms – claiming that they are closed minded and ignorant; but why is the reverse somehow acceptable? How degrading would it be if you were running for office and the only reason they voted for you was because they liked the stereotype they placed you in?

Please don’t confuse this with me saying that you shouldn’t vote for a particular person that has some of the attributes listed above, I am simply saying that you shouldn’t vote for a person ONLY because of the attributes listed above. It is not my intention to sway you to vote for one candidate over another in this post…my only intention is to encourage you to think about why you support someone, ensuring that you are voting for candidates because you know they really do match your goals and vision. Also, please don’t misconstrue this post as me saying that the gay candidate is bad on gay issues or that the liberal candidate won’t moderate their message when necessary – I am speaking in generalities and using real world stereotypes to highlight my point.

Delegates, please consider your vote before you cast it. Select the candidate who best matches your true desires for the party, not just the one that best matches the category you think they are in. In short, do your research; you may find that the person you were supporting all along may not be the one you actually desired.

We often complain that people vote Republican without thinking, but is this really all that different?

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 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.

Yesterday, a well known individual within the Democratic Party went on to his Facebook page to imply that one of the candidates running for Salt Lake County Chair had a few skeletons in their closet, saying “I have been very torn about this race until my network of intelligence assets told me something disheartening yesterday. I want to make it abundantly clear that I support [Candidate A] in [their] run, and it is my hope that YOU will as well.”  The individual then went on to say that they, and I quote, “(did) not intend to discuss (the damaging information) at this time…Personally I believe… in protecting the integrity of the party and frequently put the needs of the many above the needs of myself.”  Reliable sources tell me that this same individual is making calls to delegates along these same lines.

When called on this post, by a fellow supporter of Candidate A mind you, that it was unfair to insinuate things without proof, the poster promptly deleted the comments. Obviously upset at this turn of events, the individual who’s comments were deleted contacted the Candidate A to demand something be done about this or else Candidate A will lose a supporter – no reply has been received.

I acknowledge that I am being somewhat obtuse up to this point – and I do it for very good reason: either you know the situation or you don’t. But by looking just at the situation you can decipher the situation without bias, and that is the heart of the post.

The situation is simple: a supporter of Candidate A has decided to resort to negative whisper campaigning as a way to try and bring victory to their candidate. What is unclear is if this individual is acting as a rouge supporter, or if this is part of a coordinated effort by Candidate A’s camp to try and gain victory. If the former is true, it is pathetic. If the latter is true, it is despicable.

It astounds me that people can say that they are so noble by “protecting the integrity of the party” while they don’t quite seem noble enough to actually say what is on their mind. If there is a legitimate reason why someone should not hold a position, it should be discussed openly and honestly, rather than attempting to swiftboat a candidate just days before an election.

What is truly disappointing is that this is exactly what we don’t need as a political party. There will always be passion and disagreement for ideas or candidates, and this can be a good thing, but to air inferred dirty laundry in such a public forum as an attempt to give one side a perceived advantage in one election just speaks to how much some people refuse to move forward. I don’t know if people have noticed, but Democrats are still a minority in this state, and how is it that we can possibly move forward as a unit when parts are purposefully trying to break the machine?

We must come together, regardless of who wins. We must respect the democratic process and ensure that elections are fair, open, and honest. After all, how can we as Democrats demand this of our Republican counterparts if we can’t seem to do it in our own elections? If an issue truly deserves to be discussed, discuss it, but don’t imply, infer, distort, or flat out lie about things in an attempt to sway an election.

We are Democrats dammit, we should be better than this.

And in that spirit of openness, I will once again disclose that I have endorsed a candidate in this race. If you want to find out who that is, you are more than welcome to.

In the waning hours of the legislative session, I decided to to head up to Capitol Hill and take in the festivities. At one point I returned to a very packed House gallery and found the first seat I could find. Quite by accident I discovered that, seated one row in front of me, none other than former Utah House member and perennial challenger to Jim Matheson, John Swallow was carrying on a very loud (and not so subtle) conversation.

Swallow, talking to a man and woman around my age, was clearly discussing campaign strategy. Both clearly knew what they were talking about as they continued to discuss how Swallow could beat “him” if he announces soon. The gentleman Swallow was talking about said that he could “easily raise a quarter of a million in three months and half a million by convention.” Swallow was bolstered by this and said that he knows the federal issues – rambling things off such as  taxation and really emphasizing his knowledge on immigration.

Having spoken to a few Republican colleagues, the inside talk was that Swallow was eyeballing the Attorney General’s position – being a lawyer, that would be a very logical conclusion. But you don’t need half a million dollars by convention time to do this. As a point of fact Attorney General Shurtleff spent under a quarter of a million by convention time in 2008, and many of these expenses were to other candidates and travel expenses outside the state (gotta love Utah election law).  To be confidant that you will raise, need,and can get such a large amount of money so early is a good sign that Swallow has his eye on something much larger.

Finally, when Swallow and I very briefly exchanged a glance, Swallow immediately apologized for talking so loud and shot up and left the chamber with his cohorts in tow – all this in under two seconds. Interesting behavior for someone if they are talking about a campaign that has already been expected but quite understandable if you are plotting something bigger that you don’t want anyone to see coming.

What I found interesting (aside from the obvious) was that Swallow was doing all of this in the House chamber in the last hours of the session. Only true political nerds such as myself would knowingly and happily spend a Thursday night on the Hill, and only nerds such as myself would have anything to gain by hearing such a conversation. It is a bit of an understatement to say that this it is a rookie mistake to have this type of conversation in that particular setting – as I said before, I sat by Swallow quite by accident. Furthermore, if you are going to have this conversation, don’t conduct it so loudly that I can clearly make out the topic of discussion.

I mean really, how stupid do you have to be?! In the most political spot in the state, where people have the most interest in this sort of thing, Swallow is either so arrogant or so stupid, that he thinks it is safe to have this conversation in the most public of settings.

So, we shall see if Swallow moves forward on his election goals. There has already been quite a bit of conversation about knocking Hatch out at convention, and all the right candidate needs to do is ensure that they are in the top two by the end of the day. It worked for Mike Lee, and it could easily work for a well funded, established candidate such as Swallow.