So here is my official, unofficial list of the ten worst bills to come out of the legislative session. More discussion coming soon!

• 10) HB187 – Agricultural Interference Bill by Rep John Mathis (R-Vernal) – This is the bill that caused, once again, national head scratching over the bizarre antics of the Republicans in the Utah State Legislature.  This bill makes it a crime to, if you suspect violations on a farm, take pictures or video of that suspected abuse and send it to the authorities.  Let’s be clear – many of the past meat recalls were prompted by whistle blowers who videotaped improper procedures in slaughterhouses.  50 million Americans Americans get sick from tainted food each year, and of those, 3,000 die. And Rep Mathis wants to make it harder to report violations? I was confused, until I realized that the AGPAC, the political action committee, was a major donor to his campaigns.  He, of course, just called them his “good Ag friends.”

• 9) HB87 – Billboard Revisions by Rep. Melvin Brown (R-Coalville) – This bill is a direct response to Salt Lake City limiting the number of electronic billboards that can exist within their city.  Utah Republicans are all about small government…when it suits their interests.  But what interest does Brown have in making sure billboards stay up in a city 50 miles away from his home? Perhaps the campaign contributions the billboard companies gave to help reelect him.  Salt Lake City passing a bill that might force the industry to alter their practices in Utah’s capitol city?  That sure would be inconvenient.  Luckily, they have Rep Brown to ride to the rescue, and impose his will on all of Salt Lake City.  Small government indeed.

• 8) SB34 – Production and Sale of Food in Utah Revisions by Sen. Casey Anderson – You know you’ve done a bad job writing your bill when half of the actual text of your bill is other people writing about how unconstitutional it is.  But we understand, Sen Anderson is a freshman senator, and may have forgotten that we all have to abide by the Constitution.  That’s the only reason I can think of for why Anderson would write a bill that says that the state law trumps the federal law. I’d like to suggest that Sen Anderson Google the Supremacy Clause.  We’ll wait.

• 7) SJR5 – Joint Resolution on Education by Sen. Stewart Reid (R-Ogden) –  TThis resolution wants to rewrite Utah’s constitution to take education out of the hands of the state school board, and put it under the direct political control of Governor Gary Herbert.  Because he’s done such a great job with UDOT, the DABC and the rest of the state? Governor Herbert, and the Republican governors that preceded him, have categorically failed to fund, support, or prioritize education in Utah.  That is the biggest argument, in my book, to keep education as far away from Republicans as possible.

• 6)  SB208 – Healthcare Compact by Sen Stuart Adams (R-Layton) - The Republicans like to give bills fancy names like “healthcare compact” to their bills, but what they mean is “kill Medicare and Medicaid.”  This bill would end Medicare and Medicaid as we know it for Utah’s seniors, by wresting control of the programs away from the federal government and into state control.  Do you want the Utah State Legislature and Governor Gary Herbert in control of your Medicare and Medicaid benefits?  Neither do I.  Our seniors have worked hard to earn these benefits.  Shame on these Republicans for trying to take that away.

• 5) HJR 9 -  Joint Resolution on Monetary Declaration by Rep Brad Galvez (R-West Haven) – Really, guys?  Gold? This resolution supports the use of gold and silver as “natural currency.”  Really? Again?  But then, considering the issue comes up year after year – maybe the better question is: who are all these constituents that are apparently clammoring to pay for their Big Gulps in gold and silver?

• 4) HJR 3 – Joint Resolution on Federal Transfer of Public Lands by Rep. Roger Barrus (R-Centerville) – Here we have another Utah Republican who apparently hasn’t read the Constitution all the way through.  This resolution demands that the federal government give Utah control of all the publicly owned lands in Utah, including all the national parks and monuments.  And I’m sure that the next step is to build condos in Bryce and a golf course in Zions.  We’d all be laughing at this completely ridiculous resolution, except that the Republicans are using it as a bait-and-switch excuse to not fund education. Again.  And that is absolutely not a laughing matter.

• 3) HJR 10 – Joint Resolution on Legislator Eligibility by Rep. John Dougall (R-American Fork) – What do you do when your buddy accidentally moves out of his district and has to quit the Legislature?  Why, run a bill that makes it legal for legislators to run in ANY district in the state, no matter where they live!  Isn’t the point of our “constitutional compound Republic” that we are represented in the legislature by our neighbors – people who understand the issues that our neighborhoods and communities face?  This bill would make it legal for a person in Box Elder County to run, and win, in a district in San Juan County.  Republicans in the Legislature have already shown during redistricting that they could not care less about true representation for Utahns, but this is bordering on the absurd.  Our legislatures, from our communities, representing our issues.  It’s not really that hard to understand.

• 2) HB 155 – Drug Screening for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Recipients by Rep. Brad Wilson (R-Kaysville)– It’s that same, tired old story.  The myth of the low income family that just sits around on the public dole.  The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (or TANF) is designed to help those who have fallen on temporary hard times to ensure that they are able to keep their kids fed and clothed – and because these families have had the audacity to have had a parent laid off, or someone in the family get sick, Representative Wilson wants them drug tested.  He apparently thinks they’re all “going fishing.”

• 1) HB 363 – Health Education Amendments by Rep Bill Wright (R-Holden) – Currently, over 90% of Utah families opt-in to have their children attend sex-ed classes during school.  Due to the Senator Wright’s bill, as a parent, even after you’ve signed a detailed waiver saying that it’s all right for that instruction to happen, you are out of luck.  This bill that makes it optional for school districts to teach sex ed at all. And for those that chose to, he’s muzzled them so severely that school districts and teachers are unable to give our kids any of the information they need to stay safe–even answer questions. Teachers can now be fined or jailed for answering students questions.  It is a shameful example of agenda-mongering and abuse of power from some Republicans in the Utah State Legislature, and it’s our kids who will pay the price

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

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.

Once again, a Republican Utah state legislator is attacking the free market system because they are more concerned about their own special interests rather than allowing people to make their own choices.

But, surely this is because it is in the best interest of the people because, say, they want to ensure that all Utahn’s have affordable health care or have easier access to clean energy, right? Well, sorry sport, one legislator wants to mandate that  state schools play at least three games against in state rivals in all team sports.

You heard right. A legal mandate to play college sports in state.

Senator Lyle Hillyard (R – Logan, District 25), a Aggies fan, is pushing for all Utah teams to play against other teams at least three times a year. Hillyard, clearly reacting to the fact that the University of Utah is now in the Pac-12 (GO UTES!), has started the process of passing such a mandate into law in an attempt to ensure that the Utes don’t live up to their full potential.

Hillyard’s argument is, of course, an economic one. Somewhat ironically, he is worried that the University of Utah will not be a team-player and focus, instead, on continually being able to compete on a national level, leaving smaller programs (such as Utah State) out of season play – thus depriving smaller schools of the large crowds, and the money associated with that.

When I say it is ironic, I should really say that this is unsurprising. The Utah State Legislature has continually stepped in to prevent the school from doing what it wants to do. Everything from handguns on campus to forcing the school to define a mission and stick to it for fear of loosing funds have been fair game. To ask the U to be a team player now by state law, should be par for the course.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think it would be a shame to loose the U/Aggie rivalry games – the rivalry alone has a long tradition. But to make such a game a mandate not only cheapens the experience, it once again points out that a legislator is more interested in his own pet project rather than sticking to principal.

If Senator Hillyard is that concerned about the funds lost by a game not being played, perhaps he should push for better funding for our colleges and universities.

It dawned on me the other day that during this past legislative session I went through the effort of ranking various bills that were important to the state – in essence creating a ranking of bills from great to gawdaweful. You probably noticed the little rankings at the bottom of each post in the Bills to Watch series that ranked bills from -5 (terrible policy) to 5 (implement now); well, I have gone through and evaluated how each legislator voted on each of the 50+ bill I wrote about to create a ranking of each legislator – creating a sort of scorecard to tell you how well legislators represented the interests of the people…at least according to me.

Here is how it worked: if a lawmaker voted in favor of a bill that had a positive score, they received that many points, if they voted against it, they received that many negative points – for example, if a lawmaker voted for a bill that had a three on the urgency score, they got three points and if they voted against the bill they received negative three points. Likewise, if they voted against a bill that had a negative score, they received a positive score for that many points, and voting for it would earn you the negative points – voting against a score of negative five would earn you five points, but voting for it would earn negative five. Finally, if you sponsored a bill you got double points, if it was a good bill it went in the positive direction; bad bill? Double the negative. Confusing? Sure, but trust me, it makes sense once you start doing it.

In the end a perfect score in the House was 113, in the Senate it was 111 (this was due to the fact that there were some bills that never left their chamber, or even a committee). A score of 113 or 111 means a lawmaker did the highest amount of good they could have for the state, a score of 0 means they did what was best half the time, and a score of -113 or -111 means you did nothing right for the state.

So, I present to you the first annual BiRZ’er Awards!

Lets start with the best performing in the House:

Representative Rebecca Chavez-Houck (D – Salt Lake, District 24) came in first place with a near perfect score of 103. Representative Biskupski (D – Salt Lake City, District 30) was a close second with a score of 98, while Representative Patrice Arent (D – Salt Lake City, District 36) was a very respectable third with a score of 90. Not surprisingly, Democrats  made up 16 of the top 20 slots, but Representative Neil Hendrickson (D – Salt Lake City, District 33) was the lowest ranking Democrat coming in 21st place due in part to his yea vote HB 477 and his nay vote to repeal the bill. Republicans breaking the top 20 were Rep. Derek Brown (16th Cottonwood Heights – District 49), Rep. Rebecca Edwards (17th – Bountiful, District 20), Rep. Kay McIff (Richfield, 18th – District 70), and rounding out the top 20 was Rep. Lee Perry (Perry, District 2).

In the Senate:

Democrats again dominated the field, making a clean sweep of the top seven spots, though scores were much lower than in the House. This is not surprising because senators have a much larger constituency to think about when voting, furthermore the Senate is designed to be a little more removed from the whims of the rabble such as myself.

Senator McAdams (D-Salt Lake City, District 2) comes in first with a score of 66 out of 111, placing him at right around 11th place if he were in the House, but a score that still implies that he is with me more than 75 percent of the time. Senator Robles (D – Salt Lake, District 1) comes in a respectable second with a score of 55, and Senators Mayne (D –  Salt Lake, District 5) and Romero (D – Salt Lake, District 7) are not to far behind in third with a score of 53 each.

On the flip side, the lowest scoring members in the House and Senate are a veritable who’s who of those who grace the pages of various blogs and editorial cartoons.

Coming in last in the House:

At dead last is Representative Bill Wright (R – Holden, District 68). What is interesting is that, while others on the list made it this far down because they proposed several bad laws, Wright made it through pluck – by voting poorly on just about every bill that came before him. With -56 points to his credit, Wright is certainly wrong for Utah. Coming in a close second, you know him, you love (?) him – Yes Carl Wimmer (R – Herriman, District 52) comes in at -54 points, due almost entirely by proposing bad laws. Representatives Harper (R – West Jordan, District 43) and Christensen (R-Draper, District 48) were just one point shy of creating a three way tie for second, but, instead, they have to settle for third worst with a score of -53. Indeed, it was a very close race to the bottom.

On the Senate side:

Yes, now former Senator Chris Buttars (R – West Jordan, District 10) takes the bottom spot for senators through an ingenious strategy of poor voting and poor proposed laws. This one two punch would net him a score of -40. Senator Dayton (R – Orem – District 15) was a half step behind at -38 points, but should get extra credit by getting there only through terrible, terrible voting. Finally the senator with a heart of gold, Curt Bramble (R – Provo, District 16), came in at a respectable third with -34 points. Now, of course, we know that Senator Buttars is not coming back, so this would bump Dayton to first, Bramble to second, and coming in at the new third would be a tie between Senator Howard Stephenson (R – Draper, District 11) and Senator Scott Jenkins (R – Plain City – District 20), each at -30 points.

If you want a complete breakdown of where your representatives scored, you can click here to open a wonderful spreadsheet with a complete listing.

In closing, I just wanted to point out that I think it is rather cool that both of my representatives ranked first on my little scorecard – I certainly did not expect it when I started. I just wish more people could say the same about their elected representatives.

Senator Stewart Reid (R – Ogden, District 18) just doesn’t seem to get it as he continually chooses to stand by his yea vote on HB 477 and his nay vote on HB 1001 to repeal the draconian GRAMA (Government Records Access Management Act) law.

In yesterdays Salt Lake Tribune, Reid said 477 should have stayed in place, asking the hypothetical question “What if my wife texts and asks me at 3 o’clock to rendezvous with her?” And went on to say “Some government official gets to read that text.”

Reid and his ilk continue to labor under the false impression that GRAMA requests allow citizens and the media to have full and open access every single document transmitted over any means whatsoever.

The simple fact is that GRAMA requests need to be somewhat specific, otherwise those in government charged with fulfilling the request won’t have a place to even start. For a request to be effective, requests have to be given a frame.

And what of these so called “fishing” expeditions. The few pro-477 legislators point to one GRAMA request that took 290 hours and resulted in no newspaper article or citizen action. They claim that this is proof that people abuse the system, but they have failed to actually state what the request was for. Having poured over many documents from my own GRAMA requests, it is safe to say that sometimes you can’t find anything worth reporting – even if you really want to. It is quite possible that an individual, despite extreme tenacity, simply could not find enough evidence to make a case – that lawmakers actually did act in the best interest of the public (a novel concept, I will grant you, but possible none the less).

But let us suppose the request truly is an attempt to find embarrassing information – the so called “midnight text.” The answer to preventing people from finding these texts should come from the law-makers themselves, rather than clamping down on the citizens.

Anyone with any sense of the employee-employer relationship knows that you do not use company resources for personal matters; furthermore, you should know that if you do send an email over official channels, you have no right to expect privacy. Why do lawmakers – whom we employ, mind you – feel that they are somehow exempt from this basic rule? Personal matters should take place only through personal channels, and if you, either through ignorance or arrogance, choose to ignore this, don’t expect privacy.

But this isn’t enough, lawmakers should expect that if personal devises are used for the peoples business, those particular records should be made available as well. This does not mean that a GRAMA request can demand your entire hard drive, what it does mean is that if you respond to a constituent email from a home computer, you just did the peoples business, and we have a right to know your opinion on any particular matter. If the “personal” avenue is protected, lawmakers could simply tell special-interest leaders to email or text on a personal account or phone, pushing potential corruption to an even deeper level.

Lawmakers, naturally, are the most concerned about GRAMA laws and complain that their 4th Amendment right is at jeopardy; but, as Michael Williams, former Utah Supreme Court justice points out in the same Trib article, lawmakers give up some of their rights by choosing to be a public servant – it is simply part of the job. In essence, there ability to effect the public good outweighs their private right to some (but certainly not all) rights. Though it may be an extreme parallel, felons, due to  the decisions hey have made, give up some (but not all) of their rights as well.

Reid also wants to paint a picture that GRAMA requests will put a chilling effect on peoples desire to communicate with their legislators. This I find to be a very weak argument, if only because if a citizen is willing to write a legislator, it is probably because they are passionate about an issue and want to make sure their representative votes a certain way. Even if a person does not want their information published, a request to vote a certain way (and the reasons to do so) are far different from those that a GRAMA request would look for. I don’t care if Jon Q. Public thinks you should vote a certain way, I only care if Mr. Public says that you should vote a certain way and bribes or blackmails you to do so. There is a sort of de facto protection of the citizens right to contact lawmakers because a simple “I think you should vote this way” does not make for a very interesting story.

But lets suppose I am wrong. The evil main-stream media really is out to harass a law maker for no reason other than they just don’t like them. How do we address this legitimate concern?

Well, that is what the GRAMA work-group is hashing out right now. In my own opinion a few reasonable updates should be put into place:

1. Require that all electronic communications between legislators and registered lobbyists take place through a traceable and archived system, be it text, email, instant message, or other recordable digital communication (you will note that this would, most likely, still exclude phone calls and says nothing about face-to-face communication). These electronic communications should only be accessible to lawmakers and lobbyists,  unless a proper GRAMA request is made.
2. Create a formal Ombudsman for the citizens of Utah to act as an intermediary. A list of no less than five people should be generated and agreed upon by the Governor, the Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, the Speaker of the House and the House Minority Leader, and the President of the Senate as well as the Minority Leader. One Ombudsman should then be elected into office with a term of no more than four years and given a term limit of two terms. This Ombudsman should be independent and charged with defining what is truly private communication requests. There should also be a process to overturn the Ombudsman’s decisions.
3. Make it clear to lawmakers that ownership of an electronic device is immaterial in regards to any public communication.
4. Lawmakers should make clear, upon first communication, that their conversation could be public in nature with added rights given to individuals who are initially, and legitimately, unaware of this possibility.

Reid ends the article with the rather aggressive statement that “(t)here is no interest on the media’s part to protect privacy of legislators and their constituents.” Reid is only half right, and proves that he has no respect for the additional check and balance the fourth estate provides. You see, if the media always respected the right to privacy at a level Reid and his cronies would like, the media would no longer be doing its job. The media must probe, and it should not always play nice. To do so would mean that it is no longer serving the interest of the public, it is only by way of the open exchange of ideas – no matter how embarrassing, misguided, or downright deceitful – that our democracy is able to function. One you are operating in the public realm, you have to accept the fact that the public is able to criticize and question it.

Now that we have evaluated some of the more subtle nuances of the maneuvering that took place this legislative session, it is time to step back and take a look at the big picture.

All things considered, this legislative session was slightly better than those in years past. This could be due to a number of reasons: a new Speaker of the House, a large group of freshmen legislators, or intense back door negotiating to pass liquor and immigration reform. What made the overall quiet odd was that this was an off-year session, meaning that legislators would not have to face the polls for almost two years; with such a long period of time between passing questionable legislation and the poles, legislators have come to make the odd year sessions the most interesting.

I would be remiss if we did ignore the biggest misstep that took place this session, the passage (and eventual repeal) of HB 477.

Leadership in both the House and the Senate have been of the opinion that access to government records are too loose, and they have been attempting to pass legislation restricting the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) for a few years now. The problem is that every time they have attempted to do so in the past, they have received strong push-back from the media. Taking a calculated risk, leadership attempted to ram 477 through in the waning days of the session suspecting that only the media would be upset – but not see any repercussions. Governor Herbert was happy to play along with this plan, and did so by singing the bill a good two and a half weeks before he would be forced to make a decision one way or another.

But, as we now know, the media were not the only ones who were upset by the swift passage of some very draconian laws. The public upsurge was impressive and the populist uprising would result in a near unprecedented special legislative session to repeal the law.

Thankfully, legislators made it even more difficult for citizens to participate in our democracy and *gasp,* dare to question the decisions they make. SB 165, proposed by Curt Bramble (R – Provo, District 16) was an out and out attack on the citizens right to petition their government, by upping the already obscenely high number of signatures required to place an initiative on the ballot by tying it to the number of people who voted in a presidential election. Furthermore it did away with the popular idea of electronic signatures, would require every signature on a petition be compared to one on file, not allow people to verify their own signatures, and ensure that if anyone at any point makes any mistake – no matter how minor, that the entire petition not be valid. 165 flew completely under the radar and was a huge step backwards for our democracy.

We also need to talk liquor. Yes, the classic thorny issue for Utah, liquor laws took a step back this year when the legislature required the closing of several popular (and profitable) liquor stores across the state. Never mind that these stores literally provided millions of dollars to fund school lunch programs, or that the purchase of liquor from a store rather than a bar means reduced drunk driving rates; this deal took place because it was a misguided attempt to reduce consumption. The reality is that more people will cross state lines to purchase bulk amounts of spirits and happily hand over the tax dollars that go with it to Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada schools. Good work legislature, you didn’t solve anything, AND you ensured that more children will go without food.

One of the least surprising things to happen during this legislative session was the blatant hypocrisy seen by some of the states more conservative legislators. Despite touting the importance of “state rights” and “local control” when discussing the relationship between the feds and the state, they had no problem sticking their noses in very specific city and county issues. By inserting themselves into the debate regarding historic districts in Salt Lake City and service fees in Salt Lake County, conservative legislators did not disappoint in their ability to talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Of course this year saw the annual, shall we say, “interesting” legislation. We saw bills that did everything from allowing you to shoot cats, have an official state gun, force your children to learn about oil production and the fact that our government is a republic. The legislature fixed the state flag to reflect how how founders originally envisioned it and asked the government to allow longer semis on our highways. They even debated if religion should officially be part of public policy and if we should drop daylight savings time.

Now that the dust has settled, we can start to look back and survey the damage. Some areas of our public policy made huge strides forward while others took serious strides back. After all is said and done, my personal opinion is that the state survived the session, but in many ways the advances made just barely makes up for the losses incurred.

Final Marks:

Areas Discussed:

Taxation and Government Spending = B-

Immigration = B+

Citizen Participation = F

Education = C-

Marks in areas not discussed:

Transportation = C

Environment = D

Healthcare = B+

Local Control of Government = F

Overall grade for the 2011 Legislative session = C-

It is a sad state of affairs when the best we can boast regarding education in the State of Utah is that we were able to hold the line on education funding; but that is exactly the case. What makes it even sadder is that this is actually an improvement.

We must acknowledge, however, that this really is an improvement in the education system. Tight budgets have made education funding an easy target over the past few years, and to actually be willing to put money back into the system is a sign that things might actually be improving. But, lets not kid ourselves, Utah still holds the dubious title of having the lowest per-student spending in the nation. A great deal of investment has to take place before we catch up with Puerto Rico…

This year also saw the implementation of performance based evaluations for teachers rather than just relying on seniority when looking at filling a position. Though controversial, it is an understandable step to take; with such limited resources in our state as it is, we should ensure that the best teachers, rather than the oldest, keep their jobs. The Utah Education Association, somewhat rightly so, is concerned that this would give administrators the ability to fire older teachers and hire younger ones in an attempt to cut budgets and flood schools with inexperienced (and therefore lower paid) teachers.

But, thankfully, the legislature was willing to cut into its budget woes by now allowing school districts to put advertisements on school buses. It now appears that another staple of a child’s youth will now be perverted by a McDonald’s ad.

Higher education received zero support in its budgets this year. Indeed, the Board of Regents just announced tuition increases of anywhere from 5 to 11.8 percent, depending on the institution. At the same time, our colleges and universities now have “mission based” education, creating what amounts to school specialization. While good in theory, it could lead to stagnation in the overall education system as colleges are now discouraged from innovating.

The biggest stories, however, were the attempts to weaken education in the state. There was an attempt to give the governor control over education, and in sister legislation, eliminate the State Board of Education. Baring that, an attempt was made to make school board elections partisan, ensuring that Republicans have out and out control of teaching students, and opening up public education to the perils of electioneering and radicalization.

Overall, cuts to higher education, along with just “holding the line” on K-12 education, means that we as a state really took a step backwards. This, combined with attempted attacks on the very foundations of education has lead to low marks for the legislature. I am going to have to ask them to please see me after class.

My grade for the 2011 Utah State Legislature on Education: C-

Up next: Overall

Over the past year, we saw two organizations actively worked against the legislative status quo by questioning not only the ethics of the legislators, but also the process they use to draw districts in the state. In many ways, the 2011 legislative session actively attempted to punish Fair Boundaries and Utahns for Ethical Government, and put a chilling effect on any organizations that have the nerve to have citizens actively participate in their government through petitions and initiatives. Furthermore, legislators made a resounding and far reaching statement surrounding access to their backroom deals – one that says “keep out” and “don’t ask questions.” If, even after all this, citizens still want to participate in our democracy, our state legislature took the extra step of ensuring that it is more difficult to participate in elections.

Let us start with the most glaring breach of the public’s trust: HB 477. Many of you have heard of the outrageous breach in public trust that was HB 477. By pushing though radical legislation that would put Utah on par with Mexico and Azerbaijan in regards to public access to public information, the legislators resoundingly told the citizens of Utah that they do not want voters knowing what they do during the 45 days they are in session. What makes matters worse is the growing list of legislators who said they were strong-armed to vote for the bill for fear of not having their own legislators bills make it out of the House. In many ways, the swift, unquestioning passage of HB 477 shows the problems with one party rule in this state – a weak governor from the same party also exacerbated the situation because he is more fearful of an interparty challenge than protecting the rights of the citizens of Utah. And all this was done in just four days.

But the problems don’t end there. Suppose the citizens are upset with the passage of bills such as HB 477 and they with to repeal the law? Well, Senator Curt Bramble (R – Provo, District 16) was kind enough to spend eight days pushing his bill through that would up the quota of signatures required to have a successful recall on a law. Keep in mind that the recall process is already one of the most difficult ones in the country, and it seems convenient that a bill was pushed through at the same time an unpopular bill was about to pass.

Citizens also received another hurdle put into place if they have the audacity to question their government. HB 399 passed and would require citizens to put up a bond if they dared to question the legitimacy of environmental impact statements as produced by various government agencies. If you don’t trust that UDOT considered all options but rather bent one way or the other because of developers, you can still question it – but if the project cost millions or billions of dollars, you have to put money up, up front, to cover the cost of lost days if you are found to be in the wrong. But, please, by all means question your government, but you need to pay the price first to do so.

So, we can’t look at government records, and it is much more difficult to overturn laws that we don’t like – but, by damn, you as a citizen still have the right to vote! Well thankfully the legislature still has not taken away that basic right, but they continue to make the voting process more and more removed from the people. This year we saw SB 14 and 18 pass. SB 14 would call off elections in the event that there were not enough candidates to fill an elected position (say for open city council seats) – though viewed as a cost cutting measure, it also serves to make voting seem less important in the eyes of voters by telling them that they don’t really need to participate this time around. SB 18 is potentially more damaging because it allows county clerks to farm out elections to private contractors. Yes, it is not bad enough that our voting machines could potentially be gamed, but now the system itself could be run by a business with questionable intent.

One bright spot for citizen participation was the passage of HB 130 by Representative Rebecca Chavez-Houck (D – Salt Lake, District 24). The bill allows county clerks to set up a sort of voting stations on election day – similar to how early voting works now – and does not require people to go to their local school, church, library and so on, on election day. This bill serves to increase public access to elections, and modern technology ensures that people won’t be able to vote early and often.

But lets not kid ourselves, this has been one of the worst legislative sessions for citizen participation. There has always been a simmering distrust of the voters by elected officials, but with a super majority eclipsing anything seen in decades, they finally had the gusto to out and out attack the basic rights of the citizens to know what their government was doing. This fact is only exacerbated when you consider the assault that took place on the citizens right to show their disapproval though the courts, the referendum process, and the most basic of rights – voting.

This has been a truly shameful year for the rights of the citizens.

My grade for the 2011 Utah State Legislature on Citizen Participation: F

Up next: Education

If there was one debate that truly became contentious this year, it was the immigration debate. Representative Sandstrom (R – Orem – District 58) launched the opening salvo by proposing HB 70 – Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act. Although this bill would ultimately fail, its existence created more than enough problems for the legislative session.

Despite Democrats pointing out that a very similar law in Arizona has cost that state millions, far right Republicans were still eager to pass the law because they wanted to prove that they were tough on the issue and that Utah would not become a “safe-haven” for those who illegal cross the border by basically harassing anyone who was a shade darker that alabaster.

With that in mind, the logical conclusion was that this bill would fly through the session with little to no resistance.

…But that turned out not to be the case.

Senator Luz Robles (D – Salt Lake City, District 1) proposed a much more moderate SB 60, a bill that favors documentation and acknowledges the true situation on the ground. Though this bill had its flaws as well, it did protect the basic rights that, yes crazies, even illegal immigrants have.

Through skillful maneuvering, Robles was able to ensure that her bill was on the table as well. Though the bill would ultimately fail, it too would affect the debate in a very real and overall positive manner.

The end result would be what was known as the “Utah Solution.” Comprised of two main bills, the Utah Solution consisted of HB 116 and HB 466 and better addressed the reality of the immigration debate. Though far from perfect, these two bills did seek to find a compromise between the two very disparate parties on the immigration debate and avoided the national outcry an backlash Arizona received when it passed its immigration reform.

HB 116 has been panned by arch-conservatives as proof of the end of days, because it has the audacity to realize that there is no way the state is going to be able to round up every single illegal immigrant and place them on a bus headed for the border. They claim that it creates an open door that will create a flood of new  imm’a'gants that will take our ‘jerbs. In reality, the bill places very severe restrictions on illegal immigrants residing in Utah and does many of the things these same arch-conservatives have been complaining about for years, namely that we tax those in the country illegally, set standards to learn English, track where illegal immigrants are working and living, and punishes those living here by imposing a $2,500 fine for living in the state illegally.

HB 466 would then monitor the results of bills such as HB 116 as well as the general status of illegal immigration in Utah, making suggestions to the legislature as well as working with the feds and state agencies to assimilate aliens and establish systems to make these aliens legal. It would also put into place mechanisms that would allow potentially illegal aliens to obtain work visas and come to Utah legally, contributing to the economy in a way that (up until now at least) no one has objected to.

But, of course, having your demands met is not enough for many of these far-righters who refuse to accept reality…no, no, nothing short of tar and feathering these individuals will make them happy.

And therein lies the problem with the immigration debate here in Utah (and indeed across the nation). People refuse to educate themselves as to why we have illegal immigrants in the first place, preferring to make assumptions and not listen to reason. The state has met almost every demand of the far-right, but had the audacity to treat them like people in the process. Now I am not going to pretend that these two main immigration bills were perfect – and I do have a problem with how these bills treat people as a commodity that is bought and sold depending on the needs of business; but what I will say is that it is far more humane than anything that would have normally passed through the legislature had no intervention taken place.

By providing clear standards, as well as a path to citizenship and acknowledging that a crime took place and punishing those who broke the law, the Utah solution does provide some framework for the federal government to work with as it creates its own immigration laws. Hopefully this will kick-start the debate in a more healthy and productive way that what conservatives have been proposing in the past. Heck, if we can pass something like this in the Utah legislature, there is a chance we could get it through Congress.

My grade for the 2011 Utah State Legislature on Immigration: B+

Up next: Citizen Participation