Utah's purpling?

The Deseret News and Dan Jones have done another poll on Utah's presidential preferences, and it seems that Utahns are warming to the idea of John McCain. If a state that gave Romney 90 percent of the vote (and McCain 5%) in the GOP primary can reconcile with McCain, doesn't it stand to reason that the vast majority of Clinton supporters will vote for Obama in the fall? Anyway, on to the results.

McCain, the GOP's presumptive nominee, was the choice of [...] 62 percent when matched up against Obama. That's a big change from February, when McCain mustered support from only 30 percent of Utahns surveyed.

The poll was conducted by Dan Jones & Associates of 604 registered voters statewide May 13-19 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

I omitted the results of the Clinton/McCain match up because A) she isn't going to win the nomination and B) the results are statistically insignificant (she does 3 points worse, well within the margin of error). Believe it or not, if 62 percent holds up through the fall, that will really help Utah Democrats. That's because George W. Bush did 10 points better than that in 2004.

To help down ticket Democrats, Obama doesn't have to win states, he just has to not hurt them. And Obama is much better at the top of the ticket in the West than Clinton would have been on that score. Sure, she might have been better in places like Ohio and Florida, but she really would be a drag on so many U.S. House and Senate races in places like Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, North Carolina, and yes even Georgia and Mississippi, where black turnout will be through the roof thanks to Obama. And the main goal of the party is not just to elect a president, but to win races from county council to president.

And for future reference, there are what I call teaser states--ones that are always close nationally but of late consistently go Red or Blue--and truly swingable states--ones which either party has a legitimate shot at winning. In my mind, OR, WA, WI, MI, MN, PA, WV, and FL are all teasers. They are close, but they have gone Blue (in the case of the first 6 states) or Red (in the case of the last 2) in the last two-to-three presidential elections. The swing able states are VA (due to demographic changes that has resulted in going from all GOP governors and two GOP senators to 2 Democratic governors in a row and as of this fall, two Democratic senators), MO (Kerry really should have tried harder here, and with a likely winner Democratic gubernatorial candidate--and no gay marriage amendment on the ballot and major black turnout in St. Louis--it should be a possible squeaker), OH (the economy, combined with the fact that Dems swept in every statewide office last year, should help Obama, despite his Appalachia problem), NH (again, demographic trends and strong down ticket candidates helps Obama), IA (Gore barely won it in 2000, Kerry lost it in 2004, Obama is loved in Iowa), NM (Gore barely won it in 2000, Kerry barely lost it in 2004, if Richardson is on the ticket, it could be sewn up), CO (another demography and strong statewide candidates aid to Obama--Kerry contested this mildly in 2004), NC (demographic trends and strong black turnout).

I really don't see PA or FL changing "colors" any time soon. But if you disagree with any of this analysis, please comment and explain why you think I am wrong.

State Elections Office=Ministry of Truth?

Yesterday, the Deseret News picked up on a report that gave Utah an F on campaign finance disclosure (we ranked 45th out of 50).

Here are a few of the easy to fix problems:

"You have no disclosure of occupation and employer for contributors, no last-minute reporting of contributions," says Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies.

And it is not wonder we got such a rating when such things are not disclosed. Even worse, politicans can delete information that looks bad are errors on their own, without having to file a corrected disclosure form.

The state's 8-year-old electronic campaign finance reporting system is getting an overhaul, but for now, candidates can change or delete entries to their online documents without explanation or a visible trail.
A donation or expense that shows up today could be gone tomorrow.
That ease of use is justified, said Joe Demma, chief of staff to Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert.
"If someone submits a report and makes a mistake, they should have an opportunity to correct that mistake," Demma said.
State Attorney General Mark Shurtleff recently had two such vanishing entries.
In early May, the Deseret News reported an April 18 donation of $2,300 from Shurtleff's campaign to John McCain's presidential campaign, which some questioned as a possible violation of Federal Election Commission regulations.

But who checks to make sure it is a mistake Joe? Do we just take them at their word and let them edit it without a trace or affidavit? We don't even let people edit their own Wikipedia entries with so little oversight. Demma says that they will have new software up and running soon (supposidely before June 24th) that will track when such corrections were made.

But the article says nothing about any requirements on proof or oath as to why the changes are necessary...now or in the future.

online financial facts are subject to change at the whim of the candidate. And elections officials don't question why.
"I generally don't think people would think less of an elected official if a data entry error occurred," Demma said.

I might not think less of an elected official, but I sure do think less of state elections officials.

Greg "conflicts of interest" Curtis

Our state House Speaker.

Curtis, an attorney, has had great success in battling opponents of his clients' development plans in [Sandy] City Hall and some wonder if it's due to his negotiating skills, the merits of his causes or who he is and the powerful position he holds as speaker of the House of Representatives.

I don't wonder, do you? It's because he gets to create development deals (like approve state money to build a road near a piece of property owned by a client, or contributor, or buy/sell land via the state or the county for inflated profits to his patrons) via his power on Utah' Capitol Hill. He gets to set out the limits of municipal powers as well, something people working in city halls in Utah care about. Rolly gives us some details...

Now, I've learned Curtis got his way with the all-Republican Salt Lake County Commission eight years ago, just before the county changed its government to a mayor-council form. That was before he was speaker, but he was a member of the Legislature who shortly thereafter would become chief counsel to then-County Mayor Nancy Workman.
In that case, his family members had applied for a zoning variance to build a duplex on the 1600 East block of Creek Road in Sandy. The Little Cottonwood Community Council obtained signatures on a petition opposing the variance and the Planning and Zoning Commission denied it, ruling the size of the lot was not conducive to a duplex. The matter was appealed to the County Commission and the lot was approved.

That's right, he was Nacy Workman's "chief counsel." He got to draw two salaries (one from the County, one from the State) and he really did a great job of looking out for County tax payers, making sure County employees didn't buy lots of unnecessary SUVs and fill them (and their personal cars) up with abandon...oh wait.

Nancy Workman was tossed out of office (she did not seek another term out of pressure from GOP leaders that knew she could not win) for presiding over a corrupt County government, and Curtis was her right hand man, her partner in crime.

In short, Speaker Curtis is the poster boy for what is wrong with the state legislature. He exemplifies the lack of transparancy, the lack of concern about ...conflicts of intrest, and un-righeous indignation by legislators that accompanies any complaint about the first two things. Voting Curtis out of office won't solve all our problems, but it will rid us of a big one, and send a message to those smaller-time crooks that they will be held accountable by the voters.

code language

Here's the number one story in today's Salt Lake Tribune--A-1, top of the fold all that--"Utah Dems hunt for GOP converts" and features pictures of "moderate" Republicans targeted by the state Democratic Party. Notice the word "converts?" They could have used the word "switch," but instead a religiously loaded term was chosen.

It not so subtly implies

1. Democrats aren't LDS
2. Republicans are LDS
3. These targets are potentially corruptable souls
4. It is your job, dear reader, to keep those Democrats from bribing these Republicans from switching sides

And this article isn't in the Deseret News, whose Editor-in-Chief is the former GOP state party chair. Anyone who calls the local media liberal just isn't paying attention.

gay marriage ruling, the sequal?

So you probably have read that the California Supreme Court has ruled that gay marriage is a protected right under the California state constitution. Since I worked at for a Massachusetts legislator when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made a similar ruling and helped my boss when there was Constitutional Convention regarding the issue, I wanted to clear up some confusions people might have.

1. Like the SJC, the California supremes based their ruling on their state constitution. This means that even if all nine U.S. Supreme Court justices think it was a terrible opinion and disagree, they can't do anything about it. State courts are the final arbiters of their own state constitutions, and while the U.S. Supreme Court can declare a state constitutional provision to be in violation of the Federal constitution, if a state constitution grants the people more rights than the federal constitution (for example, many states have a constitutional right to quality education), that's that state's business. It's called federalism.


2. And since the ruling is based solely on state case law and the state constitution, it will have zero effect on other states or the federal government. Now, I am sure this case will have some persuasive effect on other liberal states' justices, just as Goodridge had on the California justices. But DOMA is still the law of the land until some gay couple from California or Massachusetts moves to another state and seeks recognition of their marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. [I doubt anyone will challenge DOMA until the ideological makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court becomes at least 5-4 liberal]


3. Unlike federal judges and Massachusetts' justices, California's are popularly elected. If Californians don't like how these justices rule, they can vote against those justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage when their terms are up. And they might even be able to recall them like they did to Gov. Gray Davis.


4. Also unlike Massachusetts, the California legislature twice passed bills granting Californians same-sex marriages. Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the bills twice, in 2005 and 2007. In Massachusetts, the legislature essentially sat on its hands during the years that the SJC considered Goodridge. Arguably, had MA legislators passed a civil union bill, Goodridge might have turned out differently.


5. In Massachusetts, in order to amend the state constitution, the legislature must meet in Constitutional Convention (state House and Senate together) and vote for the same amendment in two successive sessions. That still is yet to happen since Goodridge came down. California, by contrast, allows any yahoo who collects enough signatures (and these days has a lot of money to get said signatures)to get a state constitutional amendment on the ballot. In fact, there is already a initiative in the works to overturn the CA Supreme Court's decision, an initiative that Schwarzenegger supports. So does John McCain


6. In California, the court overturned a proposition that enacted a state law banning gay marriage. In Utah, the people voted for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This means that even if the Utah Supreme Court agreed with the reasoning of California's supremes, they couldn't strike down Amendment 3.
7. Barrack Obama's support of civil unions and support of the California court's decision are not inconsistent. Although the court said that civil unions would subject same-sex couples to "second class citizenship," Obama is supporting the rights of states to decide the gay marriage issue for themselves. Obama's federalist argument is something Bob Barr, author of DOMA and now presumptive Libertarian Party candidate, agrees with even though he himself is opposed to even civil unions.


8. This will not help the GOP in November. Bush already milked gay marriage for all it was worth to conservatives in in 2004, especially in swing states like Ohio and Missouri. Those states can't have another constitutional amendment on the ballot this year to say the same thing. And California won't be in play for Republicans any time soon, no matter how much John McCain wishes it so.


9. Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey allow for civil unions for same sex couples (Hawaii used to as well); only Massachusetts and California (as well as Canada, Great Britian, South Africa, and few other countries) have legalized gay marriage.


10. After San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom tried to marry same sex couples in early 2004, the California Supreme Court struck him down, but now they reversed course. Why? Well, George W. Bush appointed the California version of Clarence Thomas--Janice Rogers Brown--to the D.C. Circuit (which is considered the stepping stone court for those judges to become U.S. Supreme Court justices). I can't imagine getting an arch conservative off the CA court wouldn't change the vibe, let alone the ideological make up. Just look what happened after Chief Justice Warren came on board, Brown v. Board became a unanimous reversal (when before it was narrow affirmance). So arguably, if you wanted to blame anyone for this decision, the fault would lie with Bush and Senate Republicans, who went to the mat for this nomination despite repeated filibuster.

I hope that clears things up. Any questions?

adding insult to injury

As you probably have heard, there were two major natural disasters in Southeast Asia this week: the massive earthquake in China and the massive cyclone in Myanmar. While China's oppressive government has won praise for its handling of the earthquake--immediately sending thousands of aid workers, tons of equipment, and the Premier himself to the epicenter (apparantly learning from George W. Bush's mistakes)--Burma's military junta has not. Perhaps one can understand their reluctance to allow U.S. military aircraft to drop things over their country, but the world is hard pressed to understand junta's prevention of NGOs from being able to distribute their own aid as they see fit. But now comes the icing on the proverbial cake.

Myanmar announced Thursday that a constitution won massive support in a referendum -- a claim slammed by a leading rights group as an insult to the country's people.

The document, which critics say will cement nearly four decades of military rule, was approved by 92.4 percent of the 22 million eligible voters last Saturday, said Aung Toe, head of the Referendum Holding Committee on state radio. He put voter turnout at more than 99 percent.

While the junta is content to have hundreds of thousands of people to die needlessly because of their paranoia, they hold a sham election (reporters saw military "officials telling voters outside polling places, 'Don't forget to put the tick, the right mark,'" on their ballots....and "[v]oting officials also would sometimes pull aside the curtains protecting the privacy of the voting booths.") to justify their iron grip on the country. And while we are at it, let's look at the particulars of this "popularly enacted" constitution.

The constitution would bar Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, the detained leader of the country's pro-democracy movement, from public office. The military refused to honor the results of the 1990 general election won by her National League for Democracy party.

These people really have no sense of shame whatsoever. And obviously they aren't Buddists, because Karma really is a b!tch.

crackdown at the speakeasy

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (DABC) is punishing liquor serving establishments harder than during the Olympics, where there was a rash of drunk driving deaths and violent crime...oh wait, never mind about that last part.

So, how are they getting so many citations? Trickery and entrapment say critics.

State undercover liquor-control agents made lewd propositions to a waitress, then waved a $5 bill at a boisterous woman in a Clearfield club, daring her to expose herself in what they later explained were tactics to fit in with the crowd.
At an American Fork restaurant, agents badgered a waiter into bringing them a round of beers, then ticketed the eatery for serving alcohol without a required meal.
And in a Salt Lake City pub, three agents ordered shots, two purposefully left the table, then they cited the server for delivering too many drinks.
[...]
Sam Granato is a Salt Lake restaurateur who also is board chairman of the DABC, whose staff prosecutes liquor violations uncovered in stings. He calls the tactics described above as "devious," but says he has no control over them because the agents are under the supervision of the Department of Public Safety.
It seems he is not alone in feeling powerless. For the past several years, state undercover agents have had uneven oversight and little training.
Only two agents on the 15-member team have been on the liquor squad for more than a year. And although the state of Utah generally sends agents to annual liquor-control workshops conducted nationally, no team members have received that training because of the high rate of turnover.

This seems to be an easy fix if there is anything suspect going on: give DABC control of their investigative agents, hold those agents accountable, and train them.

As for some of the tactics used by agents, Scott Duncan, commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, said changes are in store.
"Something went terribly wrong," said Duncan, who is Michaud's top boss and has been in the job since July 2006. "There are rogue cops out there, but I've been around long enough to know that [agents] do what their supervisors expect them to do."

But it isn't just bar owners fighting back against the perceived underhanded tactics of DABC agents.

But citing "ticky tacky" prosecutions, Rep. Curtis Oda, R-Clearfield, recently sponsored a bill that would have transferred prosecution powers from the DABC to the Utah Attorney General's Office. Oda withdrew the bill after DABC board Chairman Granato pledged more cooperation with businesses.
In April, for the first time in memory, board members agreed (4-to-1) to impose a fine of $1,200 as penalty for serving alcohol to underage decoys. In the past, such violations brought a five-day suspension. Granato said because servers already are being criminally charged for providing alcohol to minors, he doesn't favor closing down establishments and taking away the livelihood of all employees.

irony or poetic justice?

It seems the radical presidency of George W. Bush has had some drastic effects that he would regret:

National membership in the [ACLU], which fights for freedom of speech and religion, equal protection, due process and privacy, has doubled since Bush took office in 2001 - an extraordinary spurt of growth for the 88-year-old institution. [...]
The ACLU counted about 250,000 members in the final year of Bill Clinton's presidency. Today, the organization has about 500,000 card-carriers, 2,500 of them in Utah.
Fundraising has increased in kind. According the IRS, the nonprofit had about $44 million in annual revenues in the 2000 fiscal year. In the fiscal year ending in March of 2007, it collected more than $80 million.

By the end of Clinton's second term, Utah's ACLU chapter had only 1,300 members.

To its credit, the ACLU has stayed extremely ideological but definately not partisan. Both parties have found its positions annoying and objectionable. It is considering helping the polygamists in Texas, is against voter ID laws but for eliminating campaign finance regulation (save disclosure laws), against the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegence, against the public displays of the Ten Commandments, against torture, against warrantless wiretapping, against "extrodinary rendition," for same sex marriage, and for Rep. William "$90,000 in his House office freezer" Jefferson (D-LA) [he declined their offer of help]. Its members include likely Libertarian Party presidential nominee ex-Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), who lead the impeachment battle against Bill Clinton .

Their role as Gadfly and legal harrasser of the Bush Administration will ensure that future Administrations will think twice before attempting to expand their powers, let alone exercise those claimed by Bush during his 8 years....especially with all of those new members and new donors.

fun with scripture

Trust me, this will be a good quote, but I have to lay some background first. So yesterday was Pentecost, the day were the apostles were able, thanks to the Holy Spirit, to speak the native languages of all of the Jews assembled in First Century Jerusalem, telling the listeners about all of the cool stuff God had done. Some witnesses believed this "speaking in tongues" to be a miracle, others, that the speakers were merely inebriated.

So it was up to (Simon) Peter to set the doubters straight: "You are wrong to think that these people are drunk. After all, it is only nine o'clock in the morning.">(Acts 2:15)

They can't be drunk because it is too early in the morning? We all should try lame arguments out like that on people. Of course, Peter went on to talk about how this all was prophesized in the book of Joel. But when I heard this reading yesterday at church, I had a hard time not laughing out loud.

the second wave?

In 2006, voters' dissatisfaction with Bush, and the economy, the war, etc. lead to the Democrats regaining control in both chambers of Congress after a dozen years in exile (notwithstanding the brief period that Dems pretended to have control in the Jeffords 50-49-1 Senate). It was a wave of discontentment that swept incumbent Republicans out of office (and nearly cost a dozen more their jobs) all over the country...except in Utah. That wave seems to have lapped up against the Wasatch Mountains, the Green and Colorado Rivers and western desert.

Amazingly, things look even worse for the Republican Party this year nationally. At best, they will only lose 3 more Senate seats and two dozen House seats. At worst, Democrats could have a filibuster-proof majority in the US Senate. Even more incredibly, Utah Republicans are getting concerned about their prospects.

Perhaps worried that President Bush's poor approval ratings and a dragging economy could harm GOP candidates in November, the Utah Republican Party is starting a public campaign showing what is right about Republicanism and how GOP officeholders have brought prosperity, freedom and well-managed government to Utahns.
The new program comes as Republicans meet in their state convention Saturday in Orem. There, thousands of state delegates will talk about immigration and other political issues, as well as cast ballots for intra-party contests in the 2nd and 3rd Congressional Districts.
[...]
Meanwhile, state party bosses want to remind Utahns why they've voted Republican for years.

Party leaders have faced criticism this election season as a number of GOP candidates and their supporters claim the party bosses favored incumbent Republicans, especially in a number of intra-party legislative races.
[...]
GOP state party chairman Stan Lockhart will submit a resolution before state delegates Saturday that outlines "what Republicans believe." It echoes what he told the Salt Lake County GOP convention last Saturday, that "it is not by accident" that Utah is one of the best managed states in the nation and that a number of Utah communities are rated as fine places to live and raise a family.

"We are going to get out our message — we have the best economy in the nation, we are the best managed state, most livable, best for the family, best place to start a business. Republicans helped create this atmosphere."

So what is the Utah Republican party's quasi-platform?

It quotes passages from the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. But it also makes statements of principles that are not found in those documents, as well. Among the principles:

• A belief in God and a government based on "moral foundation with honesty, integrity, morality and accountability."


• "Individual religious expression, including prayer, in public and private."


• Individuals, families and charities should help the needy, but "support a government safety net if all else fails."


• There should be public, private and homeschooling education, with competitive excellence in education.


• Simplified tax code with elimination of the estate tax and a broad-based tax rate.


• Environment, air, water and land are the heart of existence and must be protected "through balanced management."


• Oppose abortion except to "preserve the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest."


• Traditional family is the fundamental unit of society, with parents responsible for bringing up their children.

I wonder what the party's leadership expects to achieve with this document and what they plan to do to tout it? Or will they simply try to contrast it with the Utah Democratic Party's platform?

The phrase "competitive excellence in education" will likely be construed by Democrats (and perhaps Republican challengers) as official party support for vouchers, which the voters resoundingly rejected last fall all over the state.

Similarly, "honesty, integrity, morality and accountability" can be used as a bludgeon to compare certain incumbents ethical lapses, and more importantly the lack of ethics enforcement by the legislature's own or by the Attorney General.

Does this mean I think that the GOP in Utah will lose control of the legislature or any statewide offices? Extremely doubtful. But I do think that in this political climate, (additional) incumbents will fall in November.

superD's in Utah

The local papers today discuss what's the hold up with superdelegates, in particular why haven't Utah's decided whom they'll vote for. In particular, they go after Utah's lone Democratic Congressman, Jim Matheson, who last cycle didn't even attend the convention in Boston. But I would rather focus on the other supers, because it is more interesting.

Both candidates have support among Utah's superdelegates. Utah Democratic Chairman Wayne Holland and former U.S. Rep. Bill Orton have endorsed Obama, citing his big win in the state primary and his ability to energize new voters. Obama will also have the support of an as-yet-unnamed superdelegate that Holland will select at the state convention on Saturday.
Clinton has the backing of Utah Democratic Committeewoman Helen Langan and former state Sen. Karen Hale, although they have said they are giving Obama's campaign a second look after his victory in the state primary in early February. Langan said Wednesday that she is remaining a Clinton supporter.
"If I say anything different, it will be after the primaries," Langan said.

Local readers know that Misty Fowler is probably going to be the "as-yet-unnamed [Obama supporting] superdelegate that Holland will select" a pledged delegate for Obama because Sen. Obama asked for her to be nammed his superdelegate. A well deserved trip to Denver for Misty, who worked her butt off (and represents the hundreds of others from Utah who also toiled for Obama) for over a year to get the Beehive State to go for Obama. (I hope Bob gets it as well)

So next we have Bill Orton, the former congressman from Odgen who ran for governor in 2000. My State Senator, Scott McCoy (who I am proud to has read this blog) is mounting a campaign to kick Orton off. And Orton's fighting back:

McCoy sent an email to hundreds of state delegates, informing them that [...] "Because Bill Orton endorsed my Republican opponent in my [2006] Senate race, I don't think he deserves to be our Democratic National Committeeman any longer. On this, I hope you will agree too," McCoy wrote in his e-mail.
[...]
Orton said Jarvis is a longtime family friend and volunteered on his gubernatorial campaign in 2000.
"My endorsement of my friend . . . didn't cost Scott McCoy any votes. But if I had abandoned my friend after he had asked me to help him out, I very well could have lost a close friend," Orton said.
[...]
"I'm very proud of that record I have in helping the party and helping Democrats," Orton said.
Orton also points out that McCoy backed a member of the gay Log Cabin Republicans in a Salt Lake City Council race. The council races are officially non-partisan.

Now that's interesting and I will be curious to see what happens.

But let's get back to our two Hillary supporting superdelegates: Helen Langan and Karen Hale. Both now work for Ralph Becker. And Becker is backing Obama. Obviously, Hale and Langan are entitled to their own opinions, and Becker isn't the kind of guy that would demand that they vote in lock-step with him. But Hale's waivering statement, combined with Langan's "call me in June" statement seem to mean that they too will vote for Obama in August.

So where does that leave Jim Matheson? Well, maybe Obama himself cornered Jim just off the House floor after the presumptive nominee made a surprise visit to the House today. The House is a treasure trove of superdelegates (235, more than were at stake on Tueday), 66 of whom are "undecided," with lots more that could flip Obama's way. There are many districts which Obama carried where the Member hasn't voiced their opinion. And many others, especially in the leadership (cough Pelosi cough) who are all-but-in-name for Obama.

Who knows what Obama's negatives will be like in late August, but I doubt they will be a bad as they were for John Kerry in 2004 and Denver is certainly not Boston in terms of optics. If I were to bet, I would expect Jim to show up to Denver and cast his vote for Obama along with the rest of the Utah delegation (save those Hillary pledged delegates).

why the nomination battle is now over

Jason The and Chris Bowers (along with many others) have rightfully wondered why in the world last night's results in Indiana and North Carolina were somehow definitive even though nothing fundamentally changed. I offer you this theory: TV pundits are wedded to polling.

Right before New Hampshire, polls showed Obama winning by double digits, as did the exit polls. But Clinton pulled out a narrow popular vote victory (the two ended up with the same number of delegates from the Granite State). This shocked and rocked the media's world. It enabled her to further "shock the world" in Nevada (with a nine-point popular vote win but tie in delegates) and in turn be shocked by Obama's giant win in South Carolina, where it was his turn to vastly out perform the polling. Obama didn't get a bounce out of Super Tuesday, because lots of polls had him barely winning or more narrowly losing states like California, even though he netted about 100 more delegates than Clinton did due to his small state strategy.

After Obama's 11-state romp (which also surprised the media to a degree), he promptly lost Texas and Ohio by more than expected from the polls. Ditto in Pennsylvania. This, coupled with Rev. Wright's sad exploitation of his 15-minutes of fame led to a media narrative that Obama was in serious trouble.

But then, Obama's victory in North Carolina was akin to those during his late February winning streak (and more importantly, bigger than the polling projected by about 6 points). The real mind melter, however, was the fact that Obama only lost Indiana by about 22,000, despite being projected to lose it by about 5-10%.

Obama has in particular the mayor of Gary and Lake County party officials to thank for delaying reporting their results so that Obama could dramatically "come from behind" when all the votes had been cast hours beforehand.

So to sum up, it is the psychosis of the punditry that was masterfully manipulated by Obama and his supporters that made this end. And it was the masterful manipulation by the Clintons and their supporters (and a function of the calendar) that enabled this race to last two more months past its mathematical conclusion.

And since media narratives drive the polling questions, and in turn, their perception of the public, look for national polls (which are irrelevant because over 95 of those polled will have had their chance to vote already) to show Obama with a big lead over Clinton and McCain (which is also irrelevant because Obama and the Dems haven't even begun to lay into Mccain--or McCain and the GOP into Obama) now.

[Oh and FYI: 1.25M+ Hoosiers voted yesterday for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. In 2004, John Kerry received 969,000 the state of Indiana...in the general election. Meanwhile, John McCain only mustered 77% of the vote in Indiana]

FLDS keeping tabs on their polygs

As the legal battle between the erstwhile Republic of Texas and the FLDS begins, there was an interesting disclosure by the prosecution:

A review of the "Father's Family Information" sheets shows a handful of 16-year-old wives, 13 young monogamous couples and 24 men with multiple wives - including one man with 21 wives and 36 children.
[...]
The pages were recently released by the court. Sgt. Danny Crawford said the sheets were found April 5 in an office at the ranch, home to members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Texas authorities raided the ranch on April 3 after receiving reports of an abused 16-year-old, calls now being investigated as a possible hoax.
Authorities have said, however, they found evidence of a polygamous lifestyle and underage marriage practices at the ranch that supported removing 464 children.
The bishop's record sheets helped them make that case.
The sheets were filled out between March and August of 2007 and list names of husbands, wife or wives, children and current residence.
Most are shown as living at the Yearning for Zion Ranch, but some are listed as being in Short Creek - the historic name of the twin towns now known as Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz. Others are described as living in Idaho, "elsewhere" or in the "house of hiding." Among the documents is a sheet showing who was living at each home, duplex and trailer at the ranch.

It is one thing to give your address out to your religion so you can get the church bulletin, it is quite another for them to know that you are in a "house of hiding."

The state's case seems to be focused on child "marriages" and sexual contact with minors. The trouble is, Texas only recently (2005) raised the age of marriage from 14 to 16. Yet they are looking into marriages all the way back to 1993.

But is also interesting to see that not all of the members of the FLDS compound were practicing "plural marriage," in fact there was a decent number (13 out of 37) of monogamous couples. The picture appears to be much more complex than first impression. However, when the results of the DNA testing comes back, we will finally know who fathered/mothered whom. I wonder if they will ever be able to tell the age of some of these women.

fun with frontrunner

(Photo Credit: KUTV

On Saturday, my wife and I rode Utah's newest commuter rail up to Clearfield and back. It was a fantastic experience and I highly recommend those of you who have to commute from the northern suburbs to SLC to take it or Rapid Bus Transit. We started out our trip by eating brunch at Hong Kong Tea House, which had a high-quality Dim Sum. We prefer Dim Sum via carts, because we know lots of dishes by sight rather than by name (either English translation or Chinese), and because it makes it more fun. But has you might have guessed, the place has pretty good tea. And it is a stone's thrown away from one of the new TRAX stops and about half way between the Gateway and the Intermodal hub.

The hub building is very nice and clean and much larger than a similar building in Providence that I am all too familiar with. I particularly enjoyed the (LEED certified) architecture, and tablets explaining Salt Lake's former ethnic neighborhoods. You get the feeling that the neighborhood between the Gateway and the Hub are going to explode with development, but those "towns" (Greek, Japan, etc.) are not coming back.

The commuter trains themselves are clean and quiet, both inside and out. The ceilings inside are about 6'5" as it felt a bit tight to me and I am 6'3" 1/2. There are two levels on the cars, the top deck features small card tables perfect for laptops and, of course, card games. We saw lots of young families and groups of friends young and old and actual ethnic diversity (for Utah). At $5, it is about as much or less than the amount of gas you would spend driving and takes about the same time on a Saturday (on a weekday at rush hour, I bet it is much faster). Plus, you get to enjoy the scenery, play with your children, talk to your friend/spouse.

The onboard WiFi was acting up for us--we were "connected" but not able to send or receive--but assuming those kinks get worked out, then you can even get some work/play done on your way to and from work. If I was a parent traveling with young children (which I will be in a few months), I would much prefer the train to driving. It is safer than having to look back to see why the baby is crying, what your kids are fighting about, etc. And troubles are likely to be quelled much sooner if you sitting right next to them without having to worry about driving. Everyone on the train was remarking about how this will "save gas," but I also think it will reduce stress, which will only help quality of life, marriages etc.

Soon, TRAX will go to the airport, to Draper, and to "the Jordans." A trolley line will go up east along 21st South from 3rd West up to Sugarhouse. Frontrunner itself will go all the way North to Brigham City and about the same time South to Provo. By about 2025, Utah will have more commuter rail lines than anywhere but places like New York City. How cool is that?

How did this all come to pass? First, our local Congressmen (Jim Matheson and Republicans before him, as well as our GOP Senators) secured 80-20 federal funding for mass transit using the Olympics as a hook. Next, once taxpayers saw how great TRAX was, they voted repeatedly to increase their own taxes to pay for expansions. Now communities like Bringham City and South Jordan are voting to raise tax revenues to pay for TRAX/FrontRunner to come to their neighborhoods. Third, environmentalists sued to block the Legacy Highway. I know that sounds counter intuitive, but here's how it went:

The suit first stalled the highway from being build for years. Then, instead of settling for a moved highway, the attorneys representing the environmentalist worked into the settlement "funding the environmental review of light rail and bus plans." The studies showed what the environmentalists had been claiming for years--that we can't build enough roads to fix our traffic troubles, and that our air quality will only get worse if we take that route. As a result, Bus Rapid Transit lines and FrontRunner were built. The U and LDS Church helped a lot by getting their employees to use mass transit and to promote mass transit in commercials. Everyone who rides the trains to Jazz games and the like also deserve credit and praise.

Is the case against the FLDS unraveling?

Texas authorities have canceled the arrest warrant for the Arizona man who had been suspected of physically and sexually abusing a teenage girl -- allegations that launched last month's raid on an FLDS ranch in Eldorado.
Law enforcement did not find the teenage girl or Barlow at the YFZ Ranch, owned by the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
The man named in the warrant, Dale E. Barlow, was never arrested and denied knowing the girl.

That's right, the entire legal justification for the raid has been yanked, and the poligamist they were supposedly seeking has never been arrested in connection with the raid. Now the next question you are asking yourself is "does that mean the whole case against the FLDS will get thrown out?" Not necessarily.

The U.S. Supreme Court created a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule in U.S. v. Leon. That is, if the prosecutor can prove that the Texas law enforcement officials had no reason to believe at the time of the raid that "Sarah" was some repeated prank caller in Colorado and not a 16 year old child bride in Texas, then they can still use the evidence gathered during the seizure at trial. I am sure the FLDS defense attorneys are going to file a motion and ask for a hearing (with witnesses etc.) to determine what Texas knew and when it knew it regarding "Sarah."

But even if the evidence stays in, the fact that the warrant was withdrawn and they never really went after Barlow will be used like a bludgen by defense attorneys to argue to the jury that the FLDS are being persecuted by Texas because of their religious beliefs.

bipartisan universal health care?

Amidst all of the protests all over the world yesterday over US immigration policy, the war in Iraq, remembering the Holocaust, food prices, and worker's rights, there was some good news in Washington, DC.

The [Congressional] Budget Office report, drafted with the help of the Joint Committee on Taxation, said if the [Healthy Americans Act] was passed this year, the insurance system could be set up by 2012 and fully running by 2014. And while it would cost an unspecified amount in those two transition years, it would be "roughly budget neutral" by 2014. After that, it would actually raise a little money for the government, according to the analysis, which the senators will undoubtedly use in their sales pitches to the next president and their fellow senators.

The even better news is that the sponsors include Sens. Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Bob Corker (R-TN). In fact, there are seven Democrats and seven Republicans sponsoring this bill. This bill sounds like as good a starting point on reforming our health care system--by allowing employees to keep their health care plan even if they leave their job that provided their coverage, and more importantly, the coverage would remain at the same rate they paid before. I hope the next President--Obama, McCain, or Clinton--will not be overly wedded to their campaign plan and give this one a serious chance. Of course, this hope is dependant upon these 14 senators sticking with this plan (and getting his/her colleagues to support it) even if their preferred presidential candidate doesn't win.

round 4

It seems Republican SL County Councilman David Wilde think they have found a work around to Mayor Carroon insistance not to throw County tax dollars away.

[N]o money will actually go straight to the stadium.

Instead, the county might extend a deal that gives Sandy $300,000 a year for the Sandy Amphitheater. The county has provided that funding for several years now, but the deal was supposed to end this year.

By extending the deal, Sandy won't have to come up with that $300,000, leaving Sandy free to "shift its funds" to other projects, like the $110 million stadium for Real Salt Lake, Salt Lake County Councilman David Wilde [R] said.

"It's not money that we are giving toward the stadium," Wilde said. "We're giving money toward an amphitheater. Again, I guess there is sort of a wink and a nod saying if you guys in Sandy want to somehow rearrange your funds and somehow give it to the stadium, that's OK."

So why do this? Wilde claims it is a quid pro quo for Sandy's helping the County get more money for roads, Democratic Councilman Joe Hatch claims that the Oxbow Jail, the restaurant tax, road funding and the soccer stadium were all discussed in one big meeting but that none of these items were bartered for another. Carroon says he is trying to play nice with Sandy, to show there's no hard feelings.

Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon said his decision to extend the amphitheater funding has nothing to do with the stadium.
[...]
"We're trying to extend an olive branch out to Sandy to say maybe we don't support some of the projects you're doing, but we do overall support Sandy city," Corroon said.
And the amphitheater, which hosts multiple concerts and musicals throughout the year, fits into the county's overall vision for arts scattered across the county.

Oh and Carroon's initial assessment--that the stadium was not worth taxpayer's support--has been borne out.

A new study by the University of Utah Center of Public Policy and Administration says sports stadiums have not shown significant positive impact on local economies.

"In fact, a sports franchise has about the same scale of economic effect as a large grocery store," according to the study, which was released Wednesday.

However, quality-of-life issues may justify continued public financing, according to the study.

That is, if Larry Miller were to hold SLC hostage and says he will move the Jazz to say Oklahoma City unless the city ponies up millions for a new stadium, well then Utahns will not like their life as much if the team leaves, so a city should try to keep a team in town. But if a team is marginal, and doesn't even fill its current stadium except when someone like David Beckham or the national team comes to town, then there is no need to spend $110 million when you could spend just a few million for a Super Target in Sandy (and get more economic bang for your buck).

round 3

It seems SL County Mayor Peter Carroon has found another opening to stop or stall the RSL stadium.

On Monday, Mayor Peter Corroon sent Sandy's economic development director a letter saying he "would not support Salt Lake County contributing its tax increment" to the community development agency. And even if Corroon supported the CDA, he doesn't have the votes on the County Council to approve the plan.

Sandy wanted to raise $10 million through a community development agency, but that takes the cooperation of all the taxing entities in the area. And cooperation is hard to come by.

Jordan School District officials have already made it clear that they will not forgo their cut of property tax dollars for the multimillion-dollar stadium.

And the county is reluctant to open its wallet again, after the state forced Salt Lake County leaders to use hotel-room tax dollars to pay for the public infrastructure of the $110 million stadium under construction in Sandy.

"Given that the state has already used $35 million of Salt Lake County's transient room tax revenue for contribution to the soccer stadium project, I don't feel that it is in the best interest of the citizens for the county to contribute more revenue to the project," Corroon wrote in a letter Monday to Randy Sant, Sandy's economic development director.

Color me unsurprised that public entites would not want to part with tax revenue during an economic downturn for a soccer stadium for a team that might not even exist (or move) in a few years.

But don't worry, County Councilman Randy Horiuchi, friend of Delevopers and Sandy politicans, is on the case.

Horiuchi said leaders are "scrambling" and "noodling" several ideas to come up with more public funding to help the city build the stadium for Real Salt Lake.

"We will never stop discussion in trying to help this thing and make it more amenable to everyone," Horiuchi said. "We're a jurisdiction that, we want to be one that is willing to just keep our mind open. If we can help in a way that is beneficial and not hurtful to the county, I'm sure we'll look at it."

Horiuchi may find out the hard way that the public hates the stadium deal. We all know Carroon will easily be reelected this fall, but I can't say the same for Randy. "He's got game," says his campaign slogan, but whose game is he playing?

Buttars watch your back

The political story of the day is about why Sen. Majority Leader John Valentine stripped Sen. Chris Buttars of his Judiciary Committee chairmanship but not his seat on the committee. (Sorry Brian and super obvious story)

According to Scott Sabey of the Utah Bar,

Valentine [told Sabey that he] had "taken a political hit'' for stripping Buttars of his chairmanship in February, after the senator wrote a letter chastising a judge for a ruling against [his] friend and political ally [Chris Buttars]
The Senate president feared he could lose his leadership spot if he kicked Buttars off the committee, Sabey told the [Utah Judicial Council, a] panel chaired by Supreme Court Justice Christine Durham and responsible for making policy for the judiciary.
Sabey told the council that Valentine feared that Sen. Mike Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, could beat him in a leadership election later this year if Valentine suffered any more political damage.
The bar association preferred to keep Valentine as Senate president, and was willing to give Valentine a pass on his prior commitment [to Buttars, Sabey told the council.]

In response, Valentine sounded like a drunken sailor: "My gosh," Valentine said. "There are parts of that that are accurate and parts of that that are like, 'Wow, I've never heard some of those things before.'"

Which parts are accurate, Sen. Valentine, the fear of Waddoups? Your prior commitment to Buttars? (Because Valentine just signed, along with other Senate leaders, a letter endorsing Buttars in the primary) Your sharing of Buttars's ideology? Your taking a political hit? That last one is most certainly true.

But Valentine said Monday he left Buttars on the confirmation committee because he spoke with the committee's new chairman, Sen. Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights, and Sen. Lyle Hillyard, R-Logan, a committee member, and they agreed he should stay on.
"If I lose the presidency to anybody it's because I lose the votes and I've got more than enough votes now and I'm not worried about anything in this issue that is going to affect the run for president," Valentine said. "This is really strange."

So I guess he is suggesting that the part about Waddoups is not true. But not that he never directly says Sabey's statements were false (either in that Valentine didn't say them, or in that Valentine was not afraid of losing his leadership position). Moreover, Waddoups has run for the job the past two times, and I am sure he would like it. So I don't think we can just assume that Sabey was making stuff up to impress the Judicial Council.

The fact remains that Valentine not only knew about the inappropriate letter to a judge who ruled against Buttars's friend, but also helped Buttars write it. Why won't any reporter ask both Valentine and Buttars what changes Valentine suggested Buttars make to the letter while it was being drafted? We all know Valentine should have suggested that Buttars not write the letter at all, and given Buttars a lecture about judicial independence and the rule of law. But the question remains what was he thinking, and why did Valentine do it? Sabey's account of what Valentine told him seems at least plausible and is the only explanation I have seen about why this all happened.

legislating or litigating partisan outcomes

While Barack Obama announced his plan last week to win the general election by registering millions of people to vote, the U.S. Supreme Court one upped him today by making it harder for those he registers to be able to cast their vote.

During the Warren Court, the court built up the right to vote as a fundamental right, one that the government could not impinge upon via a law/policy without undergoing strict scrutiny. The strict scrutiny standard is the highest one the Court uses, and as a practicle matter used to mean that if there was any infringement on a right under the strict scrutiny test, the law was deemed unconstitutional.

I say used to, because the Radical Roberts Court seems to have things in reverse. Despite Indiana presenting ZERO evidence of in-person voting fraud in their state, the court in a fractured plurality opinion fashion (reminincent of the Rehnquist Court) said that the minorities, homeless, elderly, and poor that challeneged the Hoosier State's law did not meet their burden. Justices Stevens, Roberts, and Kennedy claim that a state needs to come forward with merely plausible non-discriminatory interests to justify a law effective the fundamental right to vote. The evidence they site of these non-discriminatory interests are 1) an ancedote from NYC's Tamney Hall corrupt (Democratic) machine of the post-civil war era and 2) a single case of impersonation voter fraud in 2004 Washington state governor's race (where Democrat narrowly won by a few hundred votes after a contested recount).

Notice a pattern? The two examples were of a different time and place, one of which wasn't actually evidence, but a story that might or might not be true. More importantly, both examples were those of Democrats winning under suspicious circumstances. In Indiana, ONLY Republicans voted for this law and a Republican Governor signed it into law. Those who it will disproportionately effect--the elderly, the poor, minorities, homeless, students, etc.--are all groups that vote overwhelming for Democrats. On appeal, only Republican appointed judges voted to uphold the law, and Democratic appoint judges voted to strike the law. At the Supreme Court, only one Justice appointed by a Republican president voted against the law (Souter) and the rest voted along party lines like Bush v. Gore.


Stevens, Roberts and Kennedy threw a fake bone to those challenging these photo-ID laws, claiming to leave open the possibility for as-applied challenges (meaning, this law is generally constitutional, but it is unconstitutional as applied to me because...) But they made such challenges incredibly difficult to succeeed. That is, the burden has been flipped from those proposing election laws to those opposing election laws.

Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas go ever further, finding it irrelevant that the challengers might be more burdened than the average voter, suggesting that the Court should ignore the poor, minority, elderly, and students and look instead only to "average" voters. Apparantly, the Court should not look at the parties before them because they are too sympathetic and might actually have been harmed by the law.

I find it very disturbing that the U.S. Supreme Court seems fine with laws and legal decisions that effectively put one political party in power over another, and the empowered party "just so happens" to be that of the person that appointed the majority of the Justices. Prof. Rick Hasen of Loyola University [LA] Law School is also disturbed. "I fear that, despite the Stevens-Kennedy-Roberts' opinion's best intentions, this opinion will be read as a green light for the enactment of more partisan election laws in an attempt to skew outcomes in close elections. It is a real disappointment from that perspective."