So, I am just going to say it now and get it out of the way, watching Senator Casey Anderson (R-Cedar City, District 28) propose legislation is a bit like watching clowns continually come out of a car labeled “mind numbingly bad.” Just for kicks, you could even add the word “Express.”

I have  already told you Anderson’s brilliant idea to arrest cops for enforcing federal law, and his awe inspiring ideas on making it more difficult to pay our bills as a state.  In that tradition, I would like to inform you of his latest work of legislative craftsmanship by informing you of SJR 11, Joint Resolution – Informal Poll on United States Senate Candidates.

To put it bluntly, this piece of crap is a grand bit of legislative masturbation if I have ever seen any.

Get this – if this resolution were to pass, the state would have to create a way for state lawmakers to voluntarily participate in a poll to determine who (as a body) they feel would be the best senator for Utah.

Yes, we would spend state tax payer time and money to allow lawmakers to participate in what amounts to a popularity contest.

I just have to ask how this possibly serves the needs of the citizens of the State of Utah? Like, at all?

Anderson is proposing this bill for one of two reasons (or possibly both – lord only knows what is going on in his head at this point):

1) Anderson really wants to go back to the good ol’ days when state legislatures picked senators, as opposed to when the 17th Amendment was added to the Constitution, placing that power in the hands of the people – because he can’t change the US Constitution, he would like to do the next best thing and just pretend – if only for a day.

2) Anderson wants a way to influence the general public to vote for senators by giving whatever candidate one the added “endorsement” of the Utah State Legislature. However, I dream that this tactic would backfire terribly given most peoples attitudes towards the legislature at any given moment.

Regardless of the motive, this bill is beyond stupid. Every “small government” Republican should vote against this bill because it expands government and truly does nothing for the people.  Not one citizen will benefit from this resolution (except the person running for office that gets the endorsement I suppose).

Seriously senator? Is this really what you came to Capitol Hill for? Was this how you dreamed you would serve the people? If so, you really need to ask yourself how you think you are going to achieve those goals…cuz’ buddy, right now you ain’t cutting it.

To contact Sen. Anderson, Click Here or call 435-263-5854

Impact: 0

Need: 0

Overall: -5

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

I don’t want you all to think that I am biased towards Representative Rebecca Chavez-Houck (D – Salt Lake, District 24) simply because she happens to have ranked number 1 last year for best representing my interests…or because she just so happens to be my actual representative on the hill; but the honest truth is, I am biased towards her because, well, she is kinda awesome.

I point to HB 274, Adoption Amendments, as an example of her ability to run unabashedly progressive bills that (gasp) line up with the values of many Utahns.

Now, lets not beat around the bush on this one – this bill would allow homosexual couples to adopt children…but before the far right brings out the torches (which they will anyway), the major stipulation is that the child must already be living with a legal parent.

Currently the law is very specific in saying that the person seeking to adopt the child must be married to the legal adult – Chavez-Houck wishes to extend this out to say that the legal parent has the right to choose who can adopt their children regardless of the legal status of their relationship.

And, in many ways, this is why the far-right should fully agree with this bill. For years we have heard about how important parental rights are and how the state has very few rights to interfere with a parents ability to parent.  Well, I would argue that choosing who can and can not make decisions such as medical treatments and education options is the ultimate exercise in parental rights. As a parent, I should not have the state deciding who should or shouldn’t be able to adopt my child.

Of course, I am presuming that lawmakers will use that logic when voting on this bill…yeah, I can dream.

This is a good bill that does little more than allow healthy and happy families thrive.

To contact Rep. Chavez-Houck, Click Here or call 801-891-9292

Impact: 2

Need: 4

Overall: 4

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

It is rare when I agree with Representative Curtis (R – Clearfield, District 14); so on those rare occasions that I do, I feel it is worth noting.

With HB 124, In-State Tuition for Veterans, Oda is saying in no uncertain terms, thank you, to the men and women who serve (or have honorably served) our country by offering them in-state tuition to our state colleges and universities even if they do not meet normal residency requirements. The best part is that this bill would even extend residency status to active personnel family members as well.

I am grateful that we as a state are willing  to dig a little bit deeper to show our appreciation for the sacrifice these soldiers have shown.  We may disagree about the merits of the conflicts we are fighting, but bills like this show that we as citizens know there is a huge difference between the politics of war and the on-the-ground realities of war.

Kudos to Representative Oda for proposing this bill. It may cost us more, but I say it is a price worth paying.

To contact Rep. Oda, Click Here or call 801-773-9796

Impact: 2

Need: 3

Overall: 2

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

There is always a cute dance that takes place at the start of every legislative session, where we get to see just how mean, crazy, out of touch, or (gasp dare I say it?) reasonable newly elected or appointed legislators are.  Well, I am sorry to say that Representative Steve Eliason (R-Sandy, District 45) appears to be falling on the “mean” side.

By proposing HB 285, Repeal of Higher Education Tuition Assistance Program, Eliason is attempting to remove a job creator in our state…and I don’t quite know why. Heck, I even tried to find any news-clipping or blog post that might explain this bizarre move. Nothing.

So I have to presume that Eliason is coming from a budget hawk, starve the beast, mentality where any government spending is bad government spending. Even if such spending is good for the state.

The Higher Education Tuition Assistance program is specifically designed to help low income students pay for the high price of college; where the only barrier to their education is not a lack of ability, but a lack of funds. The program, presumably, helps dozens, if not hundreds, of students receive a college degree – a degree that will allow them to receive higher paying jobs…by extension helping the state economy.

As of the time of posting, no fiscal note was attached to the bill, so I can’t tell you exactly how many dollars go to students.  But I have to believe that every single one of those dollars is an investment in our state and our citizens. By trying to reverse this bill, Eliason is trying to reverse course for our state.

To contact Rep. Eliason, Click Here or call 801-673-4748

Impact: 2

Need: 0

Overall: -3

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

One of the reasons I have always liked Representative Rebecca Chavez-Houck (D – Salt Lake, District 24), is that she has always fought to expand the rights of voters in Utah.  She has been a strong advocate for modernizing our democracy while still holding true to is roots.

I point to HB 119, Study of Signing Petitions Online as a prime example of this.

As you might of guessed, the bill would require the Lieutenant Governor (the executive branch official in charge of elections in Utah) to study the possibility of  allowing petitions to be signed electronically.

The bill stems from the 2009 Fair Boundaries and Utahns for Ethical Government’s separate, but valiant, attempts to ensure they had enough signatures to place their respective initiatives on the ballot. As you may have guessed, they both failed as you probably have not seen any independent panels discussing district boundaries or unethical behavior.

One main reason both electronic petitions failed was due to the fact that the laws simply have not kept up with modern times – even though electronic petitions, an many ways, made it harder to commit fraud by signing false names.

Houck is attempting to catch our legal system up with this little portion of our democracy – and rightly so. Utah could be a leader in citizen participation with the passage of a bill such as this, and I strongly encourage the legislature to at least allow the Lt. Governor to see if it is a viable solution to creating a modern democracy.

To contact Rep. Chavez-Houck, Click Here or call 801-891-9292

Impact: 3

Need: 4

Overall: 3

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

I must admit that I originally was not going to write about SB 107, Possession of Graffiti Paraphernalia for one main reason: I have very mixed feelings about the bill. However, after members of the online group Anonymous targeted (for some unknown reason) the Salt Lake City Police Department’s website in protest of this bill, I figured I should chime in.

First things first, it is clear that Senator Karen Mayne (D –  West Valley, District 5) is coming from a point of frustration on this one.  Graffiti continues to be a chronic problem in the urban areas of the state, and prevention is almost a herculaneum task. The problem is that graffiti is a symptom of bigger issues, so simple law-making isn’t enough.

In desperation, Mayne is proposing that we target the materials used to create graffiti in an attempt to slow the proliferation of tags in the community.

Here is where I take issue with the bill.  The bill can’t cut a sharp enough line between discouraging the act of tagging and simply possessing the materials that can be used to tag.  The legal term “intent” must, therefore, be included in the bill so that we only arrest those who “intend” to tag.

Of course, we can never know someones “intent” at the time of arrest or, in theory, ever.  Indeed, this was the main reason why Anonymous protested the bill.

But intent is a common phrase in the law – and it should be.  If you posses drug paraphernalia, the odds are high that you intend to take illegal drugs; get drunk and then sitting in your car (even when the keys are not in) shows that you intend to drive – the list goes on and on.

Now, Anonymous (using the crutch of pop culture) compared this to pre-crimes in the movie Minority Report; however if this is their main protest, they have clearly missed the mark - exposing how this will create “raids at 6 am over spray paint” and “end in corporations selling miniature drones to police offers chasing 13 year old’s.” The tradition of prosecuting intent dates far back in our legal history.  I am concerned not about police knocking down doors, but of officers abusing the law to put people away that they don’t like, even for a night (a far more realistic scenario).

It is not that something should not be done to address the issue of graffiti, but I think it would behoove us all to focus on the disease rather than the symptom.

To contact Sen. Mayne, Click Here or call 801-968-7756

Impact: 2

Need: 1

Overall: -1

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

I have come to a conclusion: Representative John Dougall (R-American Fork, District 27) has no idea how cause and effect, prevention, or general common sense, works.

Why else would he be proposing HB 298, Motor Vehicle Safety Inspection Amendments? A bill that, based on his own arguments in the media, is a bad decision.

HB 298 would eliminate the requirement that automobile owners have to pass a safety inspection in order to drive on Utah’s roads…let that sink in for a moment.  Now, I would at least wrap my head around the concept that a far-right, anti-environment lawmaker may want to do away with emissions inspections…but safety? Really?

Dougall’s justification for this bill is that we have reduced deaths on the road and that people don’t repair their cars anyway until they are forced too come inspection time.

So, your argument is that we have fewer deaths, so getting rid of safety standards would…reduce that…somehow? By that logic Dougall should propose a law increasing the amount of alcohol in “Utah beer” to national levels – after all, we have fewer alcohol related incidents in the state, so adding that back in shouldn’t cause a problem.

The second point is equally perplexing. I know that people tend not to fix mechanical problems such as poor breaks and dangerously cracked windshields until the state forces them to. But I guess Dougall is missing the point that issues such as these DO GET FIXED.

I mean, does Dougall honest want to be on roads where people have bald tires, worn breaks, and broken tail lights?

This logic originates from the Land of Conservatism, where people always have money to fix things and no one struggles to get by.  In this same land people magically just take it upon themselves to do things even when the path of least resistance is far easier and it is much less work to simply ignore problems…until they blow up in your face.

Conservatives like this fundamentally don’t understand the role of regulation.  Regulations such as these force people to do things they are not normally inclined to do.  We don’t impose laws like safety requirements on cars because the DMV gets a kick out of making citizens struggle (despite what people like Dougall might think), we impose regulations because failure to do so puts you, me, and everyone else on the road in danger. Regulations such as these are a requirement for living with other human beings that have as many faults as you do.

This bill, if it were to pass (and I hope it does not), would be putting peoples lives in danger in a very real way. Remember, with this law in place, you may have a perfectly running car, but that does not mean that the person who side-swiped you  because their unsafe car ran a red.

To contact Rep. Dougall, Click Here or call 801-708-5170

Impact: 3

Need: 0

Overall: -5

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

I am deeply concerned with the utter disdain Representative Kraig Powell (R-Heber City, District 54) is showing towards the citizens of Utah. I have already written about his desire to remove people from the voter file – and now I am sickened by his push to make policy making a closed door affair.

Yes, Powell’s HB 226, Closed Meeting Amendments, is a direct attack on the peoples right to participate in this representative democracy.  In one paragraph, Powell is single handedly taking our democracy back to the dark ages.

Dramatic? I don’t think so. To quote from the bill:

A closed meeting…(may take place if) discussion of legislative action by a public body, whether the legislative action is pending, proposed, potential, or previously-passed, if the public body believes that conducting the discussion in a closed meeting is preferable to conducting the discussion in an open meeting;

What does that mean? It means that if the members of a body (say legislative committee, commission, or city council, for example) want to close their doors to the public because they feel it is “preferable” to actually having to deal with the public to pass a law or statute, they would be able to close the meeting.

Now, up to this point, there have been very reasonable and very specific reasons why a body may close its meetings – most focusing around confidentiality of individuals or organizations. This bill would mean that we could close a meeting because the members of the body preferred not to deal with the public on an issue.

Of course policy makers want to be able to close the doors whenever they pleased! That messy general public that always seems to stick its nose into its own business – demanding that they understand what is going on in their government and other such nonsense.

Look, I sit on one of these boards that could potentially take advantage of this bill and shut the doors to the pubic. Yes, that board has shut the doors on occasion – but it wasn’t because we felt it was “preferable” to dealing with the public; rather we felt that the topics being discussed were of such a delicate nature that we had to strategize our approach before making a public statement.

The public being involved in the democratic process can be a messy one, but God damn it it is an important one. If committees are allowed to shut the doors whenever they pleased, they will be closing the doors on holding our elected officials responsible and opening the door for corruption and fraud.  It is imperative that the public be able to sit in on uncomfortable meetings where policy is being discussed because it is the public that will be affected by the decisions our representatives make.

This is a despicable bill whose mere existence is a mark of shame on this state.

To contact Rep. Powell, Click Here or call 435-657-0185

Impact: 5

Need: 0

Overall: -5

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

Post Script: Powell has claimed that he has proposed this bill to prove a point and that he has no intention to advance the legislation. If true, I have to ask why he is willing to waste taxpayer time and money on an admitted “message bill.” I, as a concerned citizen, bristle at the mere thought that this could receive a legitimate shot at becoming state law because, time and time again, our legislature has not hesitated to attempt to take away our right to know what is going on in our legislative process (read HB 477).

Powell’s body of legislation include bills that remove voters from voter files…and for opening caucus meetings.

So, this bill is either terrible policy, or a mean spirited joke. Powell either does not know or does not care about how raw of an issue this is for those of us to care deeply about open and honest government.

After reading up on HB 263, Unemployment Benefits for Military Spouse as proposed by Representative Lynn Hemingway (D – Salt Lake City, District 40), I was shocked to find out we needed a bill like this in the first place.

Being the spouse of a serviceman or woman is a difficult one, often times meaning that you have to move from town to town on very short notice. This, naturally, means that servicemember spouses have to choose between staying at a job or staying with their partner. More often than not, the family member will quit their job so that they can continue to be with their loved-one, forcing people to quit their jobs.

Now, by “quit their job” it does not mean that they were disgruntled, or stopping an upcoming firing, no – I am sure most people would love to stay in one spot and build a career.  But our nation has called on these families to make a large sacrifice, and it is not one that families can simply opt-out of.

However, when a family leaves Utah to go off to some other base, that family is simply up a creek without a paddle. Not only do you loose the income from the job you have been working at, but you loose all access to the rightful unemployment insurance you have been paying into while you are here.

To add insult to injury, Utah is only one of ten states in the nation that does not extend this basic courtesy to the families of the men and women who fight for our country.

Thankfully, Rep. Hemingway has decided to take on this oversight by proposing HB 263 so that Utah can extend unemployment benefits to those  who would rather not quit their jobs, but have a higher duty to the nation. When you do find a new job, your unemployment benefits end, just as they would had you stayed in the state.

And, here is the best part. It is estimated that the benefits we will have to pay out in a given year are roughly $85,000. Yes, you read that right – not $850,000, but $85,000. Yes, for the cost of a nice car, the citizens of the State of Utah can say thank you to those who serve and the families that support them.

This is a no-brainer folks. I hope this bill passes with flying colors.

To contact Rep. Hemingway, Click Here or call 801-231-2153

Impact: 1

Need: 4

Overall: 4

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

This time last year, Senator Wayne Niederhauser (R – Sandy, District 9) showed just how much disregard he has for local government sovereignty by proposing SB 243 – Historic Areas or Sites Amendments. Apparently, in the past year, Niederhauser realized just how draconian his law really was to begin with…but is still missing the point.

Time to pull out your flip-flops on this one folks, because Niederhauser, by proposing SB 115, Historical District Creation Requirements, he is attempting to remove the very law he so desperately wanted on the books this time last year.

Yes, Niederhauser’s bill puts a giant strike-through on everything he proposed last year as necessary for the protection of citizens in this state.  I suppose he could have changed his mind…he certainly has the right to do that.  But if I had to wager a guess, it has more to do with the fact that he was able to get what he wanted last year by helping a buddy build McMansions and realized just how crap-tacular his bill actually was.

This current reincarnation does set into place various requirements for a city to set up a so called “historical district.” Although the thresholds are not impossibly high, I have to ask the same question I asked last year – how is this a State issue?

Isn’t it the right of a city and its citizens to determine what is or is not a historic district within their city limits? Shouldn’t the citizens decide what areas deserve protection? And shouldn’t those citizens create the mechanisms to determine such a status? Up until Niederhauser stuck his nose into the process last year, the issue largely worked itself out without interference from the state.

Yes, from time to time, issues of proper historical designation reared its head – but the courts were able to adequately  handle the problem.

The first half of the bill where Niederhauser wishes to get rid of his mistake is fantastic, however the second half is unnecessary.  I begrudgingly say that this is a good bill, but only kinda-sorta.  What would be ideal is if we went back to pre-2011 law.

To contact Sen. Niederhauser, Click Here or call 801-942-3398

Impact: 4

Need: 2

Overall: 2

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here