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

Man, things are kind of dusty around here – I mean, it has been a while since I have done anything on this blog…but man, the cobwebs!

I want to let you know that the BTW series will be back for its fifth installment starting tomorrow. It should be an interesting session, if only because of the new batch of freshmen legislators will be stepping in to fill the shoes of legislators who are pursuing higher elective office.

But that does not mean that we will be devoid of terrible legislation; a quick glance at the Leg’s website shows that there is plenty of bills out there that deserve a little more attention.

On that note, I tried something new last year and added a -5 to 5 point scale to “score” bills.  I would like to bring that back but refine it slightly.  At first it was simply called an “urgency score” however, upon reflection, this phrase did not really get the convey what point I was trying to get across.  This year there will be three scores: impact, need, and overall.

Impact will be scored on a scale of 0-5. A score of 0 indicates in my not-so-educated opinion that the bill will have little to no impact on the “average” Utahns life; conversely, a score of 5 would mean that the bill has a very large reach that affects most (if not all) of the population.

Need is scored on a scale of 0-5 as well. A score of 0 implies that I feel that the bill is not needed at all, but is (most likely) a message bill that is not designed to address any real issue; a 5 indicates that I feel that this is urgent legislation that needs to be passed to ensure a “better” Utah (again, in my own eyes).

So, as an example, a bill that would, say, designate a state hand gun would receive an impact score of 1 and a need score of 0. A bill to raise taxes to fund schools would receive an impact score of 5 and a need score of 5.

The final metric is the elusive “overall” score. This score ranges from -5 to 5 and is my reflection on the bill overall.  A score of -5 means that I think it is a horrible bill and should be scrapped before it even makes it out of the gate; a score of 5, as you can probably deduce, means that I feel it is vital that the bill is passed as soon as possible.

So there you have it.  Bills To Watch 2012 kicks off tomorrow. You will note that I have added a “Bills to Watch 2012″ tab to the top of the webpage for easy access to a listing of all bills covered.  If you have a suggestion for a bill you would like me to watch, please feel free to email me at curtis.haring@gmail.com or message me on twitter: @blueinredzion. Stay tuned for the ride!

…I have just been busy is all.

Bills to watch will be back with vengeance soon enough.

Dear members of the Utah State Legislature,

I was troubled (but not surprised) by a recent blog post by Speaker Lockhart posted regarding the redistricting process and the complaints that have arisen from it.

In essence, she speaks down to the complaints of those who feel that the process has been unfair – emphasizing that the process has been perfectly legal. This, I feel, is a true statement; however her words (and by extension the words of the body) reflect a hubris that many are truly complaining about.

This complaint is nothing new – indeed some form of it has existed since the dawn of civilization. But the degree and duration of such holier than thou attitudes seem to have increased over the past five or so years (certainly it seems this way for as long as I have been following the Legislature). This seemed to have reached its peak with the HB 477 debacle – but, in the eyes of many, both Republican and Democrat, the redistricting process has been some cruel encore presentation.

It appears that the Legislature has, once again, willfully ignored the will of (at the very least) a sizable minority of the people in an effort to maintain political power at the expense of the citizens of the State of Utah.

It is said that politics is dictated by those who show up. And time and time again, from all corners of the state, those who chose to show up to the public meetings regarding redistricting overwhelmingly asked that communities be kept together; that city, county, and regional lines be kept together as much as possible. On top of this we drew maps, joined coalitions, and aired our concerns to you – all in the hopes that you would listen.

But no one was really all that surprised when you attempted to push through a federal map that had been unseen by the public – amended from a basic map that did not conform to the wishes of those who voiced their concerns.  Were we angry? Yes. But in reality we were disappointed.

We were disappointed that you continue to hide behind disingenuous defenses.  For example, it is true that a “community of common interest” is an intangible that can not easily put down, but to quote Justice Stewart “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.”

We were disappointed because in one breath legislators say that they should be in charge of the process because they know the state and its citizens, and in the next they seem to say that they cannot see the difference between Salt Lake City and Monticello because the term is too vague.  Having lived in this state my entire life, I can tell you that they have very little in common – yet this concept seems to evade you. Furthermore, having lived in this state, I can tell you that there are four unique regions: Salt Lake Metro, Provo Metro, Ogden Metro, and rural Utah.  Of course each area has its own unique quirks, but it seems bizarre that you can’t even find a general boundary to agree upon.

We were disappointed because you continue to hide behind the argument that an urban/rural mix would ensure that all of the states interested would be represented by all of its representatives.  I would posit this point to you: The Constitution specifically set up the Senate for the task of representing the interests of the state, not the House. Indeed, the House was designed to be as representative of the passing whims of as many varied and different interests of the districts. Representatives were designed to represent the specific interests of specific people – the idea being that the multiple, various, and in many cases opposed, viewpoints would have to debate issues on a national stage.  By spreading a Representative out across various urban/rural districts, you are asking those in Congress to simultaneously vote for a water bill that helps the urban and hurts the rural area of the district, to vote for an urban rail line and not improvements to a country road, to fight for inner city school programs and against country development programs – the list goes on and on.

We are disappointed because you argue that no independent commission is unbiased…yet somehow neglect to mention the fact that you too have very specific biases that enter into the equation. When this is brought up, you state that, because you are elected officials, the voters can ultimately hold you accountable. Two points: First, the bias an independent, bipartisan commission may favor one political party over another, however this bias is reduced by having equal representation on both sides, thereby making it more likely that they will listen to the concerns of the citizenry. The second point is that the legislature still  has ultimate approval of any map; so even if an independent commission did propose a map, you still would vote on it and still be responsible to the voters.

We are disappointed because we know your bias is much more immediate and much more personal. An independent commission could be created and dissolved in relativity short order. You, however, in order to do the business of being a legislator, must make deals to advance your agenda – and to that point, sometimes advancing your agenda means advancing your career. We know you are too close to the process and that you can’t admit that you have a horse in the race beyond representing the people.

And this brings me back to my ultimate point: we are disappointed because you can rightly claim up and down that the process is legal, but we all know that you can not claim that the process is fair. You continue to talk out of both sides of your mouth, thumb your noses at legitimate requests from community members, and act as if you are above the process when we all know you are not.

So, in the end, we are not angry – just disappointed and hurt that you feel you can continue to treat us this way.

You will do what you will do, but you need to know that why we are upset, not why you think we are upset.

With deepest sincerity,

Curtis Haring

I wanted to take a break from my media decisions series for a brief interlude to the events surrounding the Tim DeChristopher sentencing on Tuesday as I have now had an opportunity to gather my thoughts. I suspect that there will be a higher than average amount of discussion in the comments section – so I simply ask that everyone remain civil. Please feel free to disagree with one another, but insults and disrespectful comments will not be approved and/or removed.

***

Dear Peaceful Uprising and DeChristopher Supporters,

When I first heard the news of the protests going on outside of the federal court house and the subsequent blocking of the intersection of 400 South and Main street during rush hour, I snarkally comment on Facebook and Google+ that “I thought it was odd to show you want to protect the Earth by blocking a mass transit line and creating an artificial traffic jam, thus causing dozens of cars to idle.”

Though I stand by that statement, I realize that it was an inflaming comment that did little to advance the conversation. The more I contemplate the place where that comment came from in my own mind, the more I realize that I am not so much angry at you – rather I am disappointed.

I remind you at this point (as I often have to do in these conversations) that I supported the actions of DeChristopher. His actions, though spur of the moment, served to bring new light to the issue of public lands in particular, but also stewardship in general.

Up until that point, the discussion on environmentalism had somewhat plateaued.  Yes, Al Gore had scared us about climate change and we were all starting to switch out our light bulbs, but only a select group of people were out there trying to push back on things like the Clear Skies Initiative (the most impressive piece of double-speak I have ever heard).  With DeChristopher’s actions, the debate about sustainability returned to the headlines.  People were again talking about the environment and an impressive amount of political capital was created.

Out of this new capital, you emerged, and they showed great promise to really advance the debate.

Your opening salvo as an organization was to find an individual to run against a sitting Democratic congressman. Now, I would be remiss if I didn’t say that he had not all rubbed us the wrong way from time to time, however it did seem odd that you chose to attack the most friendly member of the Utah Congressional delegation.

This, I believe, is where my disappointment started to emerge.

Yes, these actions upset me, but what was lost in the conversation was that I did respect what you were doing.  As a point of fact, I made it a point to come to your candidates election night party in order to give a heart felt congratulations to campaign staffers for putting up a good fight – I know how hard it is to work on a campaign, and I certainly know how hard it is to loose after all that effort.

But during that time accusations ran wild of payoffs, litmus tests were verbally administered, and graffiti (albeit in chalk) defaced the entrances of the Democratic Party. It soon appeared that as a group (or prominent members of your group) either lacked basic civility towards your opponent or chose to purposefully ignore it.

Soon, you would refocus on the DeChristopher trial. Standing outside the federal courthouse in vigil, I again supported the solidarity you displayed, but as your members disrupted the court proceedings by shouting during the trial and reading of the verdict, it again became clear that civility and respect was simply not part of your plan.

During the time between the verdict and Tuesdays sentencing of DeChristopher, members of your organization split off from a peaceful protest in order to disrupt the workings of the peoples house in Washington D.C. As the saying goes, the third time is a charm – and I grew tired of trying to defend your actions.

Although it may be unspoken, the ethos of the group is clearly one of disruption rather than discussion.

In the end you lost an initial supporter. But, who am I? Well, I am an informed citizen who reads the paper and stays up to date on issues; but I am in the minority.  Most people are too busy to really pay attention to politics and you had not really connected with the general public.

Then Tuesday happened.

DeChristopher was finally sentenced, and the reaction of many of your supporters was to block that mass transit line and snarl traffic in downtown Salt Lake during rush hour. Suddenly you made your presence abundantly clear to hundreds of people that night and thousands more as they watched the news, read the paper, and hopped online. Most people will not look at that action with much goodwill. Why? Because most people will see that you caused people to miss time with their family or made it harder to relax after a hard day.

This is where my disappointment becomes complete.

Time after time you have been handed opportunities to advance your case, and time after time you seem eager to not only squander those opportunities, but go out of your way to do so. Time after time you are given golden opportunities to shed light on some serious issues and raise awareness of those issues to the general public, but you seem to squander them on poorly executed publicity stunts. Time after time you have been put in a unique position to change the debate, and time after time you come up with ways to alienate allies and potential converts.

My disappointment comes from squandered potential.

At this point, one has to wonder what good you have done. Ideally, if you really want to make the change to the planet and the way we function, you have to know that you need to cause people to want to make that change. You have to know that this will only be achieved through social and political means. This is where you differ from those you claim as your own: King, Gandhi, Milk, Anthony, the Founding Fathers, they all knew that civil disobedience was just one part of social change, not the entire strategy and that you need to persuade just as much as you prod. All too often you seem eager to cause disruption for disruptions sake, but no strategy to change policy is apparent.  You appear both as a rudderless ship and a boxer wildly swinging.

Some have said to me “What would you prefer? Writing letters has not worked, protesting has not worked, getting people we like has not worked. Would you prefer that people stay at home and simply accept our fate?” To these people I say no. You should be harassing elected individuals, you should be raising hell, you should try to get people you like elected – what you shouldn’t do is assume that change will happen overnight and become petulant children when doesn’t. You must fight, but you must not be naive.

For better and for worse, our democracy was designed to be slow. Nothing happens overnight or in a vacuum. Things take time. But, one of the amazing things about our democracy is that things can and do change; but change only happens when you have enough people on your side.

So, please, go forth and fight, but for heavens sake, be smart about it. Stop, breathe, and think about a real strategy for advancing your agenda to preach beyond the choir. I have read your goals and ideals, heard your speeches, and talked to supporters – and it all seems like a wish list, not a plan.  Remember, the victor in politics is the one who has the better plan to gain a majority.

I know you have the ability to do so. You have very smart and very capable people who have already stepped forward.  Smart people like Ash Anderson, Deb Henry, and Claudia Wright are just some the individuals I know and respect within your organization.

We do need to fight for our future, and we should care about the pressing environmental issues facing ourselves and our children. This issue is a deep and pressing one, but we are on the right side of history.  The key to victory is to ensure that we present a common narrative that all can get behind and creating a majority.

In the end, make it so that I can defend your ideals, rather than your actions, to those who may be open to joining the majority.

This month I have the to suffer the joy that is renewing my car registration. The fee is a stone cold $170 to legally drive on Utah’s roads for another year. I will, of course, pay this fee, along with any sort of costs to test my cars safety and emission standards because I rather enjoy not being pulled over for expired tags.

There is a part of me, however, that wants to have a little fun.

You see, during the last legislative session, Representative Brad Galvez (R – West Haven- District 6) successfuly pushed through HB 317, a bill that makes gold and silver legal tender in Utah. I am just thinking how great it would be to walk up to the DMV with a little more than a tenth of an ounce of gold in order to pay my dues.

Of course, there are a few problems.  First and foremost, you have to pay with gold or silver that was minted by the federal government and the money would only be worth the face value, not the value of the gold or silver that actually resided within the coin.  So I would need to buy 8 $20 “common” gold coins at $1,650 a pop, and one $10 coin at $816 – sadly, as much as I would like to prove a point, I don’t know if I could justify spending $4,000 more than I actually dropped to buy the car just to renew it for another 12 months.

The other hitch is that the law says that I can’t force the poor soul at the DMV to actually accept my gold as payment – though, if they clerk were smart, they would gladly accept it and swap it out with the $20 in their pocket – in the eyes of the state they are equal.

So, alas, I guess I won’t show up to the DMV with nine ounces of gold after all.

“But wait,” you say, “you mean to tell me that the legislature took up valuable time debating a bill that structurally does nothing more than prove an absurd point but gets nothing done?”

Yes, I am afraid to burst your bubble on that one.

Representative Galvez, along with 18 far right cosponsors, knowingly spent the states resources on a bill that would do NOTHING, other than prove a point that we don’t need the gov’ment telln’ us what ta’ do!

*Sigh* I guess I will just have to settle with using a gold card instead.

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.

Yesterday the legislative redistricting committee met yet again, this time to discuss the rules that will guide the redistricting process.

Motions from 2001 were mostly adopted, however one big change did take place, the reduction of the margin of difference between districts was reduced. This action directly harms rural Utah and benefits Republicans. The problem is that, if you didn’t know what was going on, you would never suspect that it was actually a dirty trick to further consolidate power.

But, this fact isn’t obvious. First, we must realize that every district needs a target number of people in it – say 1,000. But it is very difficult to have every single district to reach the exact target because to the smallest units of a district, the precincts, are not determined by population size, but by blocks or geographic areas. So one precinct may have 500 people while the other may hold 300, but they all need to come together to create a legislative district.  To give legislators some wiggle room in crating districts while still being fair, they implement a sort of over/under of tolerance from the ideal goal.

During the 2001 legislative process, this over under was 4 percent, meaning that the ideal number of people in the hypothetical district above could contain anywhere between 960 and 1040 people. Yesterday the committee decided to reduce that percentage to 3.5. This means that the newly created districts in rural areas are disadvantaged because it has now become much more difficult for these rural areas to meet their population goals, if only because they need to expand or contract greatly to ensure they meet their goals. At the extreme end of this, if the target was perfect population districts, rural districts would have to take on truly serpentine shapes to ensure they can create a “perfect” district. For the same reason, this lower standard harms Democrats, only in this case, it is because it is easier for Republicans to split up areas because they now have to follow the tighter standards set down – but more on that in a second.

The biggest event was what rules were not implemented. It was proposed that the committee attempt to create districts that reflect “areas of common interest.” Although it was just a recommendation, Republicans refused to accept this rule. On the surface, they claimed that it was because an area of common interest was impossible to define, therefore we should not even have it as a possibility.  This, of course, is not the reason why the proposal was shot down.

We all know, for example, that the section of Salt Lake City between Redwood Road and I-215 from 700 north to the county line has more in common with the rest of the Rose Park area, yet it was put in the same district as the east bench of Bountiful. Tooele famously is split into three senate districts, one representing northern Utah, the other western Salt Lake County, the third cuts right through the heart of the state – this, despite the fact that the area is easily an area of common interest.

The proposal would simply say that the commission should strive, whenever possible, to create districts with common interest, not that it must. The real reason that the proposal was shot down was because legislators want to be able to create districts any way that works best for them, creating panhandles, fingers, and caves in various districts. The most obvious of these would be splitting Salt Lake County into four separate federal house seats and all but ensuring that Republicans hold all for posts. But don’t be fooled, this will extend all the way down to house seats, with many creative maps made along the way.  When you add in the smaller margin of error stated above, you are guaranteeing that districts will be carved in very interesting ways.

What makes all of this truly upsetting is the smokescreen surrounding the debate.  The manta coming from Republicans is that, so long as each district has relatively the same number of people in it, it is a fair district. This, of course is false, and here is a clear and simple example as to why this mantra isn’t true:

In each case there are nine purple squares and six orange circles. In the a, the minority has no power as purple holds a 3:2 majority in each seat, b is the most fair, allowing purple to win two seats and orange on, but in c the districts have been gerrymandered to give orange two out of the three seats. Now this is a particular type of gerrymandering, but it proves the point – just because a district has the same number of people in it, it does not mean that it is not still gerrymandered. It is easy to game the system.

Republicans other main mantra is that it is a good thing to divide cities, towns, and counties into various districts because now, all of a sudden, they are represented by multiple people rather than one, so they have more people to fight for them. Salt Lake County would greatly benefit because four of four federal house representatives would have to pay attention to them.

This premise too is false.

Legislators touting this fail to mention that these same legislators also have to represent different areas with completely different (and often competing) interests. Lawmakers, rather than focus on one city or county and its best interests, have to consider what is politically popular in a large swath of people. The result is that lawmakers will vote in ways that continue to get them reelected rather than what is in the interest of any particular community – sure some areas benefit greatly from this, but it is at the expense of the margins. If districts are as compact as possible, legislators can focus on the issues that matter most to their area and truly fight for them, not just do what is the most popular at any given moment.

But I may be wrong, I mean how often to jobs get ignored and people overextend when they have to many things on their plate.

In the end I am thankful that the commission has come out this early against reasonable rules. I now know that they have already decided to make this a farce, so now I can just sit back and complain rather than think that legislators may actually have the best interests of voters at heart – after all, it can be very tiring to give people the benefit of the doubt when it drags on.