That is a picture of a parking stall that should have contained this type of car in our apartment complex:

That car is known as a Buick Rainier, and the one owned by MRF is pleasantly known as “Cheney,” yes, as in Dick Cheney.

Cheney was driven by MRF to a Honk and Wave for Tim Bridgewater yesterday…this honk and wave:

That Honk and wave took place on North Temple and State Street in Salt Lake City. That is right here:

Funny story, that parking stall lives here, along with MRF and myself at 200 East and South Temple:

Now, some of you more observant readers may have noticed that our home, the parking stall, and the honk and wave are two city blocks away…

MRF drove her car two blocks to go to a Republican honk and wave.

…

Just felt the world needed to know.

P.S. This is my car:

Utah Federal Senate – Republican Primary:

Mike Lee v. Tim Bridgewater

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

Prediction:

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

Utah Federal House District 2 – Democratic Primary

Jim Matheson v. Claudia Wright

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

Prediction:

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

Salt Lake County Council 1 - Democratic Primary:

Arlyn Bradshaw v. Cal Noyce

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

Predicition:

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

Utah House District 25: Democratic Primary

Anthony Kaye v. Joel Briscoe

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

Prediction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure enough, we are now hearing of examples of such harassment. But first, a little back story.

Less than a week ago the Deseret News reported that State Republican Party chairman Dave Hansen will “probably” start a campaign to convince some GOP signees to remove their name from the Utahens for Ethical Government petition but that they “won’t harass anyone; (they’ll) ask them to consider taking their name off.”

Indeed, the next day, a federal judge (presumably seeing how such a law could be abused) issued a court order to keep the names of signers off the public record for at least ten days. This, however, does not appear to be enough.

While listening to the Nightside Project on KSL, a caller stated that they were being harassed by an individual to remove their name from the UEG petition. Now I am not accusing the Utah Republican Party of initiating the process of harassment, but who is to say if an individual member, perhaps one who works for the county clerk, acted on their own accord to harass this signer?

Of course this is all pure conjecture, but the Utah GOP certainly has the most vocal in their opposition to the peoples initiative (though some Democratic lawmakers have raised concerns as well). They are the ones who work in the majority of the clerks offices, and they are the ones who passed this law in the first place.

I am not opposed to allowing people to remove their signature, but this is proof that lawmakers are not interested in letting the process work properly. What I predicted would go wrong has, and it did not even take a week to prove it.

For those of you who do not know that LRGC is, don’t feel stupid, the legislature doesn’t either. The LRGC is to help draft and review laws to see if, amongst other things, laws will violate that ever so pesky Constitution. Oh, sure, they still weigh in on the legality of bills, but it is clear that the legislature never really gets that far down in reading any particular law.

Take this excerpt from Senate Bill 11, a law which passed the Senate 19-10 and the House 56-17:

As required by legislative rule and practice, the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel provides the following legislative review note to assist the Legislature in making its own determination as to the constitutionality of the bill…Congress has provided a comprehensive system for regulating the manufacture of firearms, including broad licensing requirements. Congress has also provided that contrary state laws are invalid. Existing judicial interpretations of Congress’s power to regulate intrastate conduct allow the manufacture of firearms to be restricted by federal law. Accordingly, because this legislation purports to limit the reach of the federal law and is inconsistent with the federal firearms provisions, this legislation is highly likely to be held to be unconstitutional under the United States Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

In other words: this bill is unconstitutional and we will most likely loose in court if you dig-bats pass it into law.

But, of course, the bill did pass by a wide margin and we probably will go to court over this issue (though, in this particular case, Montana was kind enough to pass a similar law first. We might just luck out and not get sued first).

And ignoring LRGC is a common trend in this message bill loving state.  Time after time we pass bills because they are “the right thing to do” to send a message to those filthy (insert derogatory statement here).

So I say dump em’. As I recall there were 8 to 10 staffers for LRGC who work throughout the entire year. Each one probably makes anywhere from $40,000 to $80,000 a year for a possible savings of $320,000 t0 $800,000 (not including other staff and supplies).

Woah golly! We might actually be able to afford those lawsuits after all.

Of course, if legislators would actually listen to these hard working individuals, they would be worth their weight in gold.  But these part time legislators, many of whom have no real concept of how the legal system works, must know best.

Now MRG is not exactly a shrinking violet. After about a minute of having this lawmaker thumb his nose and rolling his eyes at her, she had inquired about the nature of his purchase.  Of course, he was purchasing lawn signs for an upcoming campaign – but she decided to play dumb.

“I am running for Senate in this area” he replied, nose still upturned. “Oh really?” MRG responds, waiting for a reaction. After a bit of a scoff, he replies “yes.”

That is when MRG kicks it up a notch. “Well I am a Republican delegate for my area and I will keep that in mind.”

After a purposeful awkward silence (MRG is very good at these), she finishes her business and leaves the building.

Now, of course, living in Taylorsivlle, odds are very low that MRG could actually have an effect on this gentleman race, but MRG does not care to point this out to him.

Thanks to some forensic work on my part, I came to discover that the person she was talking to was none other than Senator Howard Stephenson (R – Draper – District 11).

Moral of the story – you may be holier than thou, but you never know when it is going to bite you in the butt.

*UPDATE*

I wish to extend a personal apology to Senator Stephenson. I just received a phone call from him and, after a very polite conversation, he informed me that he was not in Utah County yesterday getting lawn signs. MRG must have confused Senator Stephenson with another law-maker or candidate running in the area.

The moral of the story still stands, however, to any candidate running for office.  Don’t thumb your nose at people when running – you never know when it is going to get you.

Blue in Red Zion values truth over rhetoric and always attempts to make opinions obvious. In this case, I will fully admit to the error and appreciate and apologize to Senator Stephenson for having to take time out of his day to correct my error.

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

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

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

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

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

Shame on you Speaker Clark.

MRG’s night started out by driving to the other end of her severely gerrymandered district in order to attend. After confirming that she is, in fact, a registered Republican, the festivities began as she walked into a  junior high auditorium that reeked of Axe body spray, angst, and general puberty. The 400 plus people were ready to get their democracy on.

The night was, according to her, surprisingly devoid of politicians actually speaking.  I would have assumed that at least one or two state legislators would have spoken but, alas, they apparently did not show.

Two things stuck out in MRG’s mind – Senator Bennett is in serious trouble and that Representative Chaffetz needs to focus more on his district if he wants to hold his seat.

Bennett complaints were largely that he has been in office too long and that he is too liberal for Republicans.  I understand the first statement, but must admit that the second was a bit shocking. We are talking about a guy that, aside from voting for bailout money, has never voted the way the Democrats wanted. In MRG’s precinct the discord was quite palpable amongst the nine or so people who chose to attend, stating that Bennett had to go. Throughout the night she had also noted murmurs that the crowd was disappointed in the fact that Mark Shurtleff chose not to run against Bennett.

The discussion on Chaffetz is also telling. The Republicans in this Taylorsville/West Valley district felt that he was not doing enough for the district, instead focusing on pulling out the cot to make sure that he has something to tweet about.  They want him to focus less on what is happening in DC (regarding gay marriage perhaps?) and more on what the district actually needs. MRG herself can’t stand Chaffetz for the same reason.  The general message seemed to be that he is starting to upset people and that it will bite him if he does not stop playing with fire.

In the end MRG was elected as a state delegate  as well as vice-chair of her precinct – not to shabby for someone just starting out in politics at this level and who is relatively new to the district. I think it will be funny when we each show up to the state convention at the Salt Palace on May 8th and one of us walks to the left side of the building and the other to the right to attend our respective conventions.

I also wonder why both pro and anti Bennett people are targeting me – I hate the guy, but I can’t go to a Republican caucus anyway!