If there is one thing our Utah State Legislature is good at, it is talking out of both sides of its mouth.

Take, for example, HB 87, Billboard Revisions, as proposed by Representative Melvin Brown (R-Coalville, District 53).

It seems that every year we hear the legislature complain about how there is too much government interference with the state, yet they (as the state) are all too eager to interfere with local governments when they do something that they don’t like.  The big example last year was Wayne Niederhauser’s bill that was a knee-jerk reaction to Salt Lake City attempting to stop McMansions in certain neighborhoods (more on that coming up in another post). This year, Brown is the one attacking Salt Lake City after Mayor Becker pushed to cap the number of electronic billboards in his city. Now the billboard companies didn’t like this much, but Mayor Becker stood firm.

Oooh, also, funny story: in his last election, Brown received $689 in campaign contributions from Reagan Signs – the sign company primarily affected by such a ban.

The decision to limit advertising in a municipality is the municipality’s decision – not the states. But Brown, apparently attempting to appease a donor, has thrown that idea out the window.  Utah legislators don’t want the Fed’s telling them what to do, but they are more than happy to dictate certain minutia to the cities.

This is a unnecessary and hypocritical law that was designed to please the interests of campaign donors and not the citizens of Utah.

To contact Rep. Brown, Click Here or call 435-647-6512

Impact: 2

Need: 0

Overall: -4

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

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.

With the recent outbreak of measles across the Salt Lake Valley, the debate has began to once again heat up over the rights of parents immunize their children. Those touting parental rights point to flawed science that finds tenuous connections between immunization and various developmental disorders. They also point to cases where individuals, having been exposed to a very weak form of the disease due to the nature of immunization, do indeed fall ill and sometimes die from the very shot that was designed to protect their life.

But those who claim that it is wrong for the state to impose strict immunization rules are far more dangerous than any shot will ever be.

We live in a very privileged age, one where a simple cough could have meant death less than 200 years ago could have spelled certain death. We live in an age were we have the luxury of assuming that, if we are exposed to communicable diseases, we will either not fall sick at all or be able to take a barrage of medication and eventually be cured. We tend to forget that the idea of being “cured” is a relatively new invention.  We have the luxury of pointing to the small amount of cases where something goes wrong, rather than having to deal with the very real repercussions of a pandemic.

And so the result is lawmakers and celebrities with no medical background whatsoever standing up and demanding that the rights of the parent to choose what is best for their child should supersede the right of the public from suffering from devastating epidemics. They claim that mandating immunizations is tantamount to a crap shoot where we decide that it is acceptable to allow some people to die. They claim that is wrong for the state to purposefully know it is going to harm some of its citizens.

What these same individuals tend to forget, however, is that, although the death of any child is truly a sad event, the death of thousands has a much worst effect on the world we live in.

They also claim that it is not the governments right to tell parents what to do; ignoring the fact that our very constitution, in its preamble,  says that the purpose of government is to insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare. It seems very convenient that these same individuals seem to ignore this fact when discussing the rights of individuals.

But lets take it down to a more personal level. There is a saying – “the right to throw your fist ends where my face begins.” Certainly government should not interfere with every aspect of a persons life, but by loosening immunization requirements in the name of personal freedom, your fist will very much hit my face.

The same non-doctors will claim that if they choose not to immunize a child and it does fall sick, the only people that will be harmed are the child and others who also made the same decision. These same non-doctors are wrong.  One can receive an immunization and not know if the immunization actually took or not, furthermore, the effectiveness of the immunization may decrease or disappear in some cases.  Let us also not forget that children often do not receive full protection from immunizations immediately at birth – the schedule for vaccinations takes place over the course of a year and requires many boosters to ensure protection.

Let us suppose a 12 year old child is infected, but is not showing the immediate signs of measles (a slight itch being treated with lotion, say), and is brought around an infant to babysit. The baby soon falls ill and may die – all this because a parent felt that it was their right to refuse immunizations.

Extreme? Perhaps, but your fist suddenly hit my face and you have put another persons life in danger because of unproven science.

Let us also consider the fact that protecting family values often as part of the backdrop of these debates, there are very few things more harmful to a child and their family than an unimmunized child. Opponents to required immunization may demand that we “think of the children” in other cases, but seem to woefully ignore that mantra when it comes to this issue.

In the case of the recent measles outbreak, the Granite School District suffered losses of $8,600 when it had to hire substitutes to protect teachers whose immunizations had failed, a total that would have been higher if the outbreak would have occurred before or after spring break. The Utah Department of Health has dolled out $75,000 while the Salt Lake Vally Health Department needed to devote more than 2,200 man hours and $107,000 to contain the infected, administer tests, and protect other citizens from disease (source). Yes, over  $190,000 in taxpayer dollars have rightly been spent because some individuals may have had philosophical objects to being protected, thus creating a preventable emergency in the most populous county in the state.

Where is the philosophical objection to that?

We as a people must, through government, decide to sacrifice personal liberties for public good. We should decide to do this only when the danger to the public is greater than the rights of the individual. There are reasons, for example that we ban the personal freedom to drive drunk because of he social cost it may create; likewise it is illegal to pollute beyond determined amounts because of the negative effects on a public. We even have laws prohibiting garbage on properties because excessive amounts create negative effects for not just the individuals with garbage, but also those who surround the home. There are times when government needs to step in to protect us from those who do not wish to think of others and, indeed, actively or passively harm them.

Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. If a doctor, in their learned and medical opinion feels that an immunization poses to great of a risk to a patient, they should absolutely have the ability to supersede a general government mandate. But make no mistake, immunizations save lives – and an unprotected public poses a greater threat to us all. We must recognize that with something as important as the communal health, ideologues with agendas must step back and do what is truly best for us all.

It is true that government should not create a so called “nanny state,” but isn’t also true that government should to what it can to ensure that we are protected from the harms others can impose on us? Indeed government is charged with protecting not just liberty, but life and the pursuit of happiness.

Well the be sure to follow Blue In Red Zion on Twitter – @blueinredzion or click the link on the right.

Heck, you should probably do that anyway!

Updates start at 7:00 in the A.M.

Yes, it is that time of the year again. The magical time when politicos start to emerge from the cocoon like state that is election burnout and start to embrace the disease that is politics. This year the focus for Dem’s will be electing officials to run the state and county parties. Indeed, tomorrow the Salt Lake County Democrats will elect leadership to guide the second largest Democratic organization in the state for the next two years.

It is for this reason that I offer the following unsolicited endorsements. Who knows, perhaps these endorsements will give you a reason to vote against people, but hey, just hear me out on this.

Chair – Justin Miller

As I have said before, I have been very impressed with Miller’s passion, knowledge, and grit. Miller is running for office because he truly cares about the party and the direction it should head in the future; and the institutional knowledge he will bring to the position on day one is worth its weight in gold (although I don’t quite know how one would weight “institutional knowledge”). I am also thoroughly impressed with Miller’s passion to work in the trenches of Sandy and Draper, working on the tough races that were far from gimmies.  I have always felt that Miller acts with poise and class, and I know that he would serve our party well.

First Vice Chair – Richard Jaramillo

Although Richard is running unopposed, he would have my endorsement anyway.  Richard does not shy away from debate and always works to ensure that all sides of the table are brought to the discussion. His wit and humor ensure that, even in fierce debate, you know that, at the end of the day, you were listened to and respected.

Second Vice Chair – Laura Arellano

Two years ago I ran against Laura for this very position and loss.  At the time I was disappointed, of course, but could not of thought of a better person to lose to. I first met Laura at Drinking Liberally where her organizing and communication skills are constantly on display. Since being elected she has focused on herding cats, mostly in the form of message development and dissemination. 

Secretary – Breanne Miller

For better or for worse, Breanne is the reason I became involved in politics. Years ago Breanne was the President of the University of Utah College Democrats and, as part of her responsibilities, she had a table and a sign up sheet. After chatting with her, I was on the contact list and the rest was history.  From that day, I have always admired her strong will and no nonsense style. This, combined with her unquestionable passion, commitment, and attention to detail makes for a fantastic secretary. Breanne has served the county for many years, and she has more than earned the right to continue to do so.

There ya have it folks.  I hope this helps you in your decision making process tomorrow.

And before you get too upset, I did not forget about Holly Martak in the Treasurer position – however she is running opposed and, unlike the candidates listed above, I must admit that I am not familiar enough with her work to “recommend” her on a personal level. That being said, it certainly appears that she has done a fine job as every single dollar is in order every time I see a financial statement.

Finally, if you need information on the convention, visit the Salt Lake County Democratic Parties Website.

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 what appears to be an ongoing theme of hypocrisy this legislative session I present to you SB 243 – Historic Areas or Sites Amendments as proposed by Senator Wayne Niederhauser (R – Sandy, District 9). I know you may be shocked at this, but let me explain.

You know how Republicans have been hooting and hollering about how they feel the federal ‘guvment is encroaching on the states right to govern itself? And do you remember how they feel that government should be as local as possible, saying that the people have the right to govern themselves without outside interference? Yeah, I remember the protesters and the current proposed resolutions talking about such issues.

That is why I find it odd that Republicans such as Niederhauser would support such a bill because, after all, this bill seems to completely ignore that.

For those of you who have not been paying attention, Salt Lake City is looking to make portions of the Yalecrest neighborhood an historic district, the result being that it is difficult for owners to make modifications to their homes in an attempt to make sure the area maintains its charm and not suffer from McMansion Syndrome. Some property owners balk at the idea while others embrace it – I, as a Salt Lake City resident, think that the area should be maintained the way it is. Senator Niederhauser (again, from Sandy) thinks that the state should step in to prevent such an atrocious affront to property rights.  That is why his bill would prevent any city from “designat(ing) an historical area or site on or after May 10, 2011 and before May 8, 2012.”

But, if you truly believe in local control of government, why would Senator Niederhauser (again, I want to point this out, who is from Sandy) want the state to interfere with what is almost the definition of a city issue. The state has nothing to gain one way or the other. Now if it property rights Senator Niederhauser (did I mention he was from Sandy?) cares about, why allow the creation of historical districts on May 9, 2012?

It is almost as if Senator Niederhauser (from Sandy) does not really care about either of these things. Rather he wants the state to stick its nose into Salt Lake City’s business. But why, esteemed Senator from Sandy, do you want to do this? What do you have to gain?

If you care about the protection of local rights, you should not like this bill – even I, the bleeding heart liberal from Salt Lake City that I am, know that this is an infringement on local control. This bill should be abandoned like the many mammoth homes I am sure Senator Neaderhauser sees around his Sandy neighborhood.

Urgency Score:

Click here to contact Senator Nedierhauser (email works in Sandy).

You know what I love most in my lawmaking? Bald faced hypocrisy. That is why I am so glad Representative Wayne Harper (R – West Jordan, District 43) is proposing HB 226 – Local Government Fee Authority. I mean, it just smacks of double standards, and it makes no attempt to pretend it doesn’t.

Remember a short while back when Salt Lake County slapped what amounted to a tax on those in the unincorporated portion of the valley to ensure that they could pay cops to be on the street and firemen to show up when a house is burning down? If you don’t, you probably did not have to pay. Needless to say the tax was unpopular, but it is what the county government felt had to be done to ensure that these services were provided.

Now I am not here to debate the validity of the service fee, rather I am here to ask why Representative Harper (along with many of his Republican friends) is so willing to interfere when the internal matters of county government when they themselves cry and moan about federal interference of internal matters regarding the state?

The bill itself would eliminate the tax and make it illegal for any county with a population of 31,000 people or more to impose such a tax, thereby severely restricting the ability for that county government to govern.

Why can’t Representative Harper trust that the democratic process might actually work on this one? If enough people disagree with the tax, they will vote people in at the county level who vow to eliminate such a tax. But that’s just it – it is the place for the residents of the county to make such a decision, not 104 legislators who may or may not have an understanding (or even an vested interest) in what the county does.

Again, many faux-conservatives complain about state’s rights, but a true conservative would also ask the question of county, city, and neighborhood rights. Does the legislature have the right to restrict the action of a county simply because they don’t like the idea of taxation…ever…for anything? I say no. Let the county do what the county will do, and let the voters decide though our representative democracy if it is the best course of action.

Urgency Score:

Click here to contact Representative Harper.

When I first heard the news that current County Democratic Chair Weston Clark was not seeking another term, I was initially concerned. I have always been impressed with the drive and initiative the County Party has shown under Clark’s management, and to loose him as a leader could potentially spell disaster or, at the very least, stagnation for the Salt Lake County Democrats.

The Salt Lake County Democrats have made tremendous gains under Clark, but this would downplay the work of the entire Executive Committee. Indeed, though Clark may have been at the head of the ship, he had a strong crew to help move the party forward.

That is why I was pleased to hear that First Vice Chair of the Salt Lake County Democrats, Justin Miller, was willing and eager to step up and fill Clark’s seat as head of the County Party. Not only has he served in some capacity with the County Dems for five years, but has been Vice Chair for four of them.

Miller has helped shape and guide the party down a path of success. Among many smaller achievements, the Salt Lake County Democrats have been able to hire an Executive Director for the first time in over 20 years, launch the very successful “Think Precinct” project to encourage more local involvement in elections, and have reached out to several caucuses and individuals in their drive to create a more unified and powerful county party.

I was also personally impressed with Miller when he spoke with me about his run in the first place. He was more than happy to answer any questions I had and he was more than willing to listen to some of the concerns I raised about where I wanted to see the party go. More often than not we had a similar vision and I feel that Miller has as much passion for growth of the party as I do. Miller proved to me that he really does listen and care about what people think.

But let us also not discount his experience. Miller may be younger than some, but what he lacks in age he more than makes up for in knowledge and wisdom. This, when mixed with his unquestionable loyalty and passion, along with his proven long term commitment to the party, make him a worthy successor. I have also been impressed with his ability to take on tough challenges, rather than to take the easy road to political notoriety; he is clearly not doing this to advance his name, but because he has a genuine love for the party.

We are still months away from the election of a new party chair, but I can think of no one better to move our party forward.

To learn more, click here for Justin’s Facebook Fan Page.