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.

As many of you either knew or could easily figure out – I have been working for the Fair Boundaries Initiative over the past four months.  Last Thursday, we finally submitted our signatures for final counting and, though nothing official has been released, I can tell you that we probably received half of our legally required goal of 95,000 signatures.

Now that I am free of the shackles, so to speak, I feel the need to tell the world how I feel about the initiative process in Utah.

It is unconstitutional.

Yes, unconstitutional. The state constitution states in Article 1, Section 2 that “All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.”  One of the ways we can theoretically do this is through the referendum process if and when our government fails to act.

Ah, but our government has acted – to halt the referendum process.

Three laws are now on the books that severely limit the ability for people to petition our government.

1. Petition gatherers need to collect signatures equivalent to 10% of those who participated in the last gubernatorial election.
2. Petition gatherers need to collect 10% of signatures in 26 out of 29 senate districts
3. Petition gatherers must submit petitions to the various county clerks on April 15, however you can remove your signature up to one month after submission.

There are also a few procedural items that make the task even more difficult.

1. A signature may be deemed invalid, even if it is legal, if it is not submitted to the proper county clerk.
2. Electronic signatures will be counted by some clerks but not others.

Now, Fair Boundaries was extremity popular. In fact the Deseret News reported that two out of every three people supported the indicative and its goals, yet it still failed to reach its legal goal – why?

The laws in this state make it too difficult for people to petition their government and are, there fore, de facto unconstitutional.

As a point of fact, the nonpartisan Citizens in Charge gave Utah a grade of C- in the ability of its citizens to pass a referendum, however this document was clearly published before the rules were changed to up the required distribution to 26 out of 29 senate districts and to remove signatures. I would imagine that with this added information it would drop to a D- by the groups standards.

I also find it interesting that the very legislators who claim to be doing the will of the people get so frantically upset when the people wish to do something as patriotic as participating in their democracy.

The initiative process should be difficult, but not impossible. Sadly, it appears that only large sums of money, and not grassroots efforts can prevail in this state.

We as citizens have to ask ourselves if we want our democracy to be so blatantly bought and sold as to prevent the citizenry from ever participating in it.

Fair Boundaries was only disliked among the political elite who stood to loose something from making the system more equitable. The only reasonable objection I ever heard from a citizen was “who chooses the commission that sets up the boundaries in the first place?” Indeed, people should ask those questions – however most felt that it was an improvement over the current system.

So, sadly, Fair Boundaries failed. I will close with a story I have about the late Senator Ed Mayne that I have told in the past.

While working as Senator Mayne’s intern, we had a discussion about a bill he was running regarding health care spending for people with disabilities.  The bill was doomed to fail – and he asked me if it would.  After saying that it had no chance, he replied “I know it won’t pass; but damn it, it is the right thing to do.”

During the campaign I kept on my computer monitor a post-it note from a donor that made it all worth while:

Fair Boundaries was the right thing to do and I know that, in my own way, I have done something to help the state I love.

Passed (for) – HB 44 – Referendum Ballot Proposition Amendments, F. Hunsaker
Passed (against) – HB 112 – Supreme Court Review of an Initiative or Referendum – B. Dee
Passed (for) – HB 144 – Medical Language Interpreter Amendments, R. Chavez-Houck
Passed (against) – HB 200 – Informed Consent Amendments, C. Wimmer
Passed (for) – HB 222 – Land Use Meeting Notice, T. Beck
Passed (for) – HB 230 – Human Trafficking Amendments, J. Fisher
Passed (against) – HB 340 – Sexual Assault Victim Protocols, J. Biskupski
Passed (for) – HB 462 – Criminal Homicide and Abortion Revisions, C. Wimmer
Passed (against) – HJR 12 – Climate Change Joint Resolution, K. Gibson
Passed (against) – SB 11 – Utah State-Made Firearms Protection, M. Dayton
Passed (against) – HJR 15 – Joint Resolution on Legislative Ethics Commission, D. Clark
Passed (against) – SB 38 – Restrictions on High Occupancy Vehicle Lane, K. Morgan
Passed (for) - SB 58 – Transportation Expense for Defendants, S. Adams
Passed (for) – SB 59 – At-Risk Student Provisions, L. Robles
Passed (against) – SB 93 – Gubernatorial Appointment Powers Amendments, C. Bramble
Passed (for) – SB 117 – Pete Suazo Memorial Highway, L. Robles
Passed (against) – SB 275 – Removing Signature From Initiative and Referendum Petition, H. Stephenson

Vetoed (against) – HB 12 – Abortion Amendments, C. Wimmer
Failed (for) – HB 56 – Amended Campaign Financial Statements, S. Allen
Failed (for) – HB 85 – Responsible Development of Nuclear Power Generation, J. Seegmiller
Failed (for) – HB 91 – Traffic Control Signs for Bicycles, C. Spackman-Moss
Failed (against) – HB 114 – Disclosure of Donations to Higher Education Institutions, C. Wimmer
Failed (against) – HB 196 – Tobacco Tax Revisions, P. Ray
Failed (for) – HB 194 – Grants for Math Teacher Training, B. Last
Failed (for) – HB 210 – Eminent Domain Modifications, C. Frank
Failed (against) – HB 217 – Income Tax Revisions, C. Wimmer
Failed (for) – HB 223 – Alcoholic Beverage Control Act and Restaurant Licenses, G. Froerer
Failed (for) – HB 237 – Restriction on Use of Wireless Telephones in Vehicles by Minors, P. Riesen
Failed (for) – HB 247 – Lobbyist Restriction Modifications, C. Moss
Failed (for) – HB 278 – Government Records Access and Management Amendments, C. Herrod
Failed (against) – HB 288 – Daylight Saving Time, K. Sumsion
Failed (against) – HB 432 – Hate Crime Amendments, S. Sandstrom
Failed (for) – SB 32 – Rainwater Harvesting, S. Jenkins
Failed (against) – SB 36 – Wolf Management, A. Christensen
Failed (against) – SB 60 – Voluntary Search and Rescue Funding, R. Okerlund

So, he legislature listened to me about 45 percent of the time, although the times they disagreed with me, they really disagreed with me…Yeah…

Analysis coming soon!

Now, sadly, SB 275 has already passed, so this “bill to watch” is a bit of a moot point. I write only to draw your attention to this matter and to the dirty tactics Senator Stephenson is willing to stoop to when he feels threatened. Furthermore, I would like to point out that my good friend, Carl Wimmer, sponsored the bill in the House…so this bill is a double whammy. Finally, there was a part of me that felt that, as Director of Operations for Fair Boundaries, I could, theoretically threaten our organization by writing about this bill before it went through the system. Well, now, the only thing standing between a truly unfair law and justice is an unlikely veto from the governor.

What is the problem, you may ask? Well SB 275 makes it easier for people to remove their signature from a petition after signing if and when they gain more information and no longer wish to support the cause…and if the bill stopped there, I would support it completely – but the bill takes it one step further.

You see, petitioners can remove their signatures even after petitions have been submitted to clerks many weeks after the submission.

Aye, and there is the rub. You see, when you submit petitions, your name becomes public and people opposed to a particular petition now have a few extra weeks to put specific pressure on specific list of people in an attempt to have names removed from the list of supporters; meanwhile groups supporting the petition do not have the opportunity to collect signatures – opponents have a marked advantage in making sure that petitions are not successful. The debate should take place during the campaign, and neither side should be given an advantage in the court of public opinion.

Think about it. Is it fair to the 95,000 people who signed a petition thinking they were improving their democracy only to be told it failed because one person changed their mind after the campaign was over? To put it more broadly, is it fair to the winning team to allow the looser to keep playing for an extra five minutes after a game is officially over?

It should also be noted that these rules would take effect the moment the governor signs the bill…meaning that the petitions currently circulating would be subject to this rule – the legislature is changing the rules mid-game because they can, much like a petulant five year old that is not getting its way.

A final thought. Supporters of this bill claim that this bill was fair because signers may not know what the petition says, so it adds a level of fairness to signing a petition.  This is, perhaps, the most offensive argument possible. It says two things 1) groups, such as Fair Boundaries, are somehow concealing what we want they do – I would dare argue that these groups are far more open about the ramifications of our proposed legislation as opposed to, say, this bill. 2) Arguments such as this imply that your opinion is only valid if you know the issue inside and out.  By this logic, there should be tests to see if you are competent to vote in the first place. Perhaps we should have literacy or civics tests at the polls and tell people that their vote does not count if they fail any number of tests.

Talk to any legislator and ask them if they read the 1,000+ bills that move through the legislature over the 45 day session and ask them if they vote only on the ones they know well.

Shame on you Senator Stephenson for directly attacking our democracy and flaunting how much you hate the will of the people. Furthermore, Representative Wimmer, once again, proves that he does not care about the Constitution, only about maintaining power.

Finally, please contact Governor Herbert and tell him that the playing field needs to be level – this bill is despicable.

Click here to contact Governor Herbert.

Click here to contact Senator Stephenson.

Well, enter Senator Curt Bramble (R – Provo, District 16). He is proposing SB 93 - Gubernatorial Appointment Powers Amendments, a bill that would give unprecedented power to the Senate.

Before I go on, we need a little civics lesson. The governor will appoint various people to various committees and posts across the state.  Often these appointments require the approval of the Senate in order for the individual to actually receive the job the governor has tapped them for.

Well, SB 93 would change the rules and allow the Senate to reject individuals without ever even giving them a hearing.You see, if, after 90 days (or 30, depending on the type of appointment it is), the Senate chooses not to act, the appointment is considered rejected and the post remains unfilled.

Currently, senators have to at least vote on an individual before they are rejected, SB 93 would allow senators to sit by and say that they were not responsible for important posts not being filled – and this process could go on and on and on where, in theory, every state government position sits unfilled.

Is this a possibility? You bet it is.  Suppose the Governor and the President of the Senate get into a spat, but we have a vacancy at, say, the Department of Health just as a outbreak of the next flu starts. With no one at the helm, lives could be lost all because two individuals didn’t like each other and the Senate sat on an appointment.

This bill gives far too much power to the Senate.  I think it is a good thing that the Senate has to confirm individuals, but this bill passed “goes too far” by the tenth line in the bill. I urge the Senate not to pass this and, if they do, I hope the House has enough common sense to reject it.  Finally, if all else fails, I hope the Governor realizes his role in the three branches and veto’s this bill. It does not hold senators accountable and it weakens state government.

Click here to tell Senator Bramble that this bill needs to be vetoed.

To be blunt, this is a scary Joint Resolution. The resolution, if it were to pass and be approved by the people, would change our state constitution to create an ethics commission that would independently review any complaints made against legislators to see if the complaint merits “further consideration.”

On the surface, this sounds like a good first step towards ethics reform and, indeed, if this were a bill rather than a joint resolution, I would be in favor of the bill. But we need to remember a few things about constitutional amendments: 1) they are much more difficult to pass, and 2) they are much more difficult to change if things are not going well.

So legislators could say that they passed a good ethics bill and then not have to say anything when the truth comes about about why the bill is bad. Furthermore, it is rare for the Speaker of the House to propose a bill – I feel that he was specifically chosen because of his power to push legislation through the chamber, not so much because he believes in the legislation.

Why is it bad you say? Well the bill does nothing to actually prosecute ethics violations, and it allows the legislature to define what a violation is. In other words, the legislature could pass extremely lax definitions of ethics violations and then not do anything to their fellow members if and when the commission actually rules that a violation took place.

This is a purely political bill that will give uninformed voters feel goods while making the problem go from bad to worse. It will do little to actually fix the problem, but will look good on a campaign flier.

Click here to tell Representative Clark to take a constitutional.

Want proof? Look at Representative Carol Spackman-Moss’ ( D – Salt Lake – District 37) sound ethics bill,  HB 247 – Lobbyist Restriction Modifications.

Currently, a former legislator could lobby on behalf of a bill if they are engaging in lobbying that is on behalf of themselves or a business they are associated with (unless that business is associated with lobbying or government affairs).  Spackman-Moss’ bill would remove this loophole and demand that legislators wait one year after leaving the legislature before becoming a lobbyist…period.

This bill, and the “cooling off” period it is advocating, is just one of many Democratic ethics bills that are going nowhere because a Republican did not sponsor it. I have to wonder where this bill would if it was proposed by some random legislator in the heart of Utah – alas, I will never know.

This is a great example of a bill that will go nowhere because of the name associated to the bill.

Click here to contact Representative Spackman-Moss.

So tune in to 90.9 FM at 6:00 PM or click here to listen online.

That…was not the case.

Liberal blogger Jeff Bell informed the internet of this poll and invited people to go and vote how they felt – not surprisingly his readers are not fans of the states appalling gerrymandered districts and voted accordingly. Soon the poll was overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of a commission (the last I saw it was leading by 85%), soon after it disappeared from Clark’s site.

But this post is not about a magical mystery poll – it is about the utter lack of criticism, demonstrated by Clark’s actions, that Republican leadership have in their position as representatives of the citizens of the state of Utah. This mindset that ignores the will of the people is a classic sign of a bloated and ineffective government that serves more as an oligarchy than a republic.

This pattern of behavior is nothing new: Vouchers, cuts in current health care funding for children and the elderly, questionable business practices with people indicted for fraud, bribery of opponents in elections, the rejection of an ethics commission, an utter disdain for the earth, a total rejection of public education – from preschool to college, and Byzantine laws regarding legal actives all point to a legislature that is out of touch with the people they are charged to represent.

So, does it come as a surprise that power-brokers want to do all they can to prevent the people from wrestling power away from them in favor of a more representative government? After all – the last time we challenged law makers in a head to head battle, the people overwhelmingly rejected decision makers. The battle regarding redistricting is another example of how the Utah Legislature loathes and despises the people they represent.

And so Speaker Clark is showing us the tactic House and Senate Republican leaders are going to employ in regards to this issue – deny there is a problem and reject the will of the people in favor of maintaining power.

I challenge Speaker Clark to post the results of his poll on his website, and I further challenge Speaker Clark to engage in an open and honest debate with representatives of the Fair Boundaries project. Furthermore I challenge Speaker Clark to allow this initiative to go to the people of Utah so that they may decide who represents them – if you are correct and that the Legislature is truly fit to choose its voters, then you should have no problem convincing the people of this fair state of this fact.