thankful

I have not posted this week so far because I am on vacation. But I wanted to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. This year I feel especially blessed and appreciative of my live.

My list is long but the big highlights include: graduating from law school, passing the bar, getting a great legal job in Utah, having a terrific internship in DC, meeting helpful and smart attorneys in Washington, having a week off to visit with my in-laws in Virginia, and receiving great health insurance through the state government.

So hopefully you are not reading this today but if you want a break from family, put in the comments what you are thankful for.

why the judiciary must be kept separate

Or, why State Senator Chris Buttars has no idea what he is talking about...again

Well to be fair, one of the two bad ideas I am going to discuss here is proposed by AG Mark Shurtleff, but it is something Buttars supports I am sure. So let's go first into Buttars' "idea"

It's a job that has been overseen solely by the courts for two decades.
But now a task force headed by Sen. Chris Buttars wants a new, independent commission to evaluate how Utah's judges are performing and let voters know about it.
"I don't think judges should judge the judges," Buttars said Friday.
Members of a proposed, politically neutral 13-member commission would be equally chosen by the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Sitting judges and legislators would not be eligible.

So we will have a state commission, made up of (most likely) ex-legislators like Greg Curtis (I expect that he will be gone next year, either by his choice or by the voters' choice) ENDORSING judges? That would lead to cronyism, with judicial candidates being working to stick closer to the panel wishes than to the dictates of the LAW. We already have a electorally moribund branch--its called the legislature. We don't need another group who allegiances are questionable.

The original purpose of Buttars' task force that came up with this cockamamie scheme was, according to Stephen Hunt "was supposed to study how to improve an information pamphlet sent to voters asked to keep or reject judges appointed by the governor." The packet currently shows what proportion of attorneys approve of a judge. Sure, the information could be more helpful. It could break down the voting by criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors, insurance company defense attorneys, personal injury attorneys, etc. That way, an average voter could see which side finds a judge more favorable to their clients. Rather than endorsing a judge, such a system would truly provide the voter with more information. And when say both prosecutors and defense attorneys agreed that a judge was bad--like Leslie Lewis--the voters would dismiss such a judge. But what the pamphlet has to do with creating a governmental endorsement system I don't know.

And the proposal for the panel will lead to uninformed and ideologically based recommendations take a look at what the make up would be and the grading system.

Currently, judges must score at least 70 percent on 75 percent of the survey questions for a favorable rating.
The task force is considering a 1-to-5 scale for survey questions pertaining to a judge's abilities, and a yes/no question as to whether a respondent recommends that the judge be retained.
The task force has also suggested litigants be asked to participate in surveys about the judge on their case, in addition to witnesses who have testified in cases before a judge and court staff who have worked with a judge.
[...]
* Four members appointed by the chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court.
* Four by the governor.
* Two each by the president of the Senate president and the speaker of the House of Representatives.
* The executive director of the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice.
* No more than half can be from the same political party or attorneys by profession.

So we have 8 picks made by conservative Republicans, 4 by the Chief Justice, and a pro-prosecution executive director. Do we have any doubt that the number of judges willing to throw out some prosecutor's cases will go down?

It is not politically popular to defend those accused of crimes, but the more their rights decrease the more the rest of our rights and protections decrease. Which brings me to politically driven suggested legal change number two.

The Utah Constitution description of individuals' rights against unreasonable searches and seizures is almost identical to the wording of the Fourth Amendment, but federal and state judicial interpretation over the reason evidence can be excluded from trial differ. Exclusionary rules, also different at the state and federal levels, allow defense attorneys to argue to block evidence from being used in court if there is proof the evidence was improperly collected.

Shurtleff's proposal, discussed by the Constitutional Revision Commission Thursday, would add language to the state constitution saying an individual's rights related to search and seizure would follow the interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court and that evidence gathered in violation of an individual's rights shall only be excluded in a state proceeding if it would be excluded based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Essentially, Shurtleff wants to get rid of Utah's search and seizure provision of its constitution (Article 1 section 14). Before I go into why this is not a good idea, let's discuss why the is a separate set of analysis for the Utah Constitution and that has given more protections to Utahns than the federal constitution has been interpreted.

During the Territorial/Pioneer days of the state, Utahns were besieged by raids by federal marshals. The Deseret News at the time called these home invasions as "outrages," "carried out without even a warrant giving the perpetrators the authority [to search]." Tracey E. Panek, Search and Seizure in Utah: Recounting the Antipolygamy Raids, 62 Utah Historical Quarterly 316, 327 (1994). State v. DeBooy, 2000 UT 32, 996 P.2d 546, also went into this history when the court prohibited Utah police from conducting certain types of roadblocks where they questioned and searched drivers under the Utah Constitution.

This state's early settlers were themselves no strangers to the abuses of general warrants. Underlying the abuse of the general warrant was the perversion of the prosecutorial function from investigating known crimes to investigating individuals for the purpose of finding criminal behavior. A free society cannot tolerate such a practice.

Id. at P26.

Did you know, for example, that your bank records are exempt from the Fourth Amendment and are considered public information to the police? But not under Art. I Sec. 14, Utah's constitution deems those to be protected unless the police get a warrant. But Shurtleff and soon to be ex-Federal District Court Judge Paul G. Cassell want you to focus on the drug dealers who benefit from these additional privacy protections. Or say that it is hard on police officers to know what the Utah courts will do next, and confusing to them to hear one thing from the US Supreme Court and Utah Supreme Court. But guess what? Police officers aren't that stupid, and there are plenty of good attorneys that can help explain what they can and cannot do in the wake of a landmark decision.

Here's what former Chief Justice Michael Zimmerman thinks of Shurtleff's proposal:

if the intent is to remove the exclusionary rule it would be better to remove search and seizure language from the state constitution altogether than to add language. "That will do what the proposal attempts to do, but the proposal is not well written," he said. "Be honest about it. You're turning all of these issues over to the federal courts."

And who sits on the federal courts? Conservatives who have sought to chip away at the 4th Amendment. Color me unsurprised.

What people like Chris Buttars doesn't understand is that some day, the shoe could be on the other foot. Every "law and order" person has to realize that they too could become like Larry Craig, caught up with police and the criminal justice system...their private life made very public. And by that time, Article 1 Section 14 won't be there to protect them. Even worse, they have protections legally, but the hack judges the panel endorsed go after them to appease the types that sit on the panel.

This is why like religion, the judiciary should be kept separate from the political branches of the government. I guess they just don't teach civics anymore (or folks like Buttars doesn't care for civics).

the planted debate

I watched the Democratic debate last night, and after a week or so of discussion about an apparantly planted question for Hillary at a town hall meeting, I got the distinct feeling that this whole CNN debate was staged.

Biden knew that he was going to get to answer a question about Pakistan and Iran. Since Biden answered those questions, he had to include mentions that he talked to Bhuto and Mushariff personally before Bush did and that he told Bush in the White House that if Bush went to war with Iran, Biden would urge impeachment. Joe Biden needs to retire from the senate and be an envoy, host a late night talk show, or simply be the host of the most killer DC party every year. But not president. He had some good points, but do we really need a habitual name-dropper as president?

Obama knew a question about Social Security and Medicare was going to him. He did the right thing and dropped the word crisis on Social Security (since as Matt Stoller and others amptly point out, there is no crisis). Obama seems to be strattling the line between reality--which I think is actual policy would be aimed at--and appeasing the beltway media to show that he is "serious" about the "crisis" and Hillary is not.

Hillary knew there was going to be a "gender card" question. She really knocked it out of the park.

Richardson knew he was going to get a question on immigration and driver's licenses. He also did a great job by saying three words, "I've done it."

There were several times during the debate that I felt deja vu with the question and then knowing who would get first or second crack at the question.

Now maybe it is because there was so little substance covered in this and other debates. Or because I have been following this race much closer than even a primary goer in an early state. But newsflash, so have the candidates and their staffs.

The whole thing seemed to be Kabuki theater, designed to elicit a story line--this time, it was "mean Edwards (and Obama) attack Hillary, but she bounces back." We had a preordained gaffe or two (Richardson saying human rights is more important than security and Obama appearing to waffle on driver's licenses) a couple of preordained winning lines--Obama saying Wolf Blitzer was a pessimist and he was hopeful, Hillary saying know they are attacking me not because I am a woman but because I am ahead, etc.

In the end, who watches these things other than the junkies like me or those who already support their candidate? Do you really think that one debate will determine the votes of even those undecided Nevadans who were sitting up front? I doubt it.

Last week, I was excited that the race seemed (even if it was completely artifically) to be getting closer. Which ever candidate wins Iowa will likely win the Democratic nomination (unless somehow Richardson wins Iowa). But if Huckabee wins Iowa, that's all you will hear about and even if Clinton gets third place in Iowa, she might be able to come back thanks to Huckabee.

I had fun watching it last night, but let's get real, every single player in the debate seemed to know (for the most part) what was going to happen before it happened. And as a result, nothing really happened.

my great-great-great grandfather is in the news

If you have read my profile, you would notice that I am very proud to be a sixth-generation Utahn. My family's first Utahn was John Varah Long. Born in Yorkshire, England in 1826, he was one of the first English converts and became a bit of a mucky muck in England before he set sail for America with his wife. Two children died on the boat passage. He made is way to Utah and became (among other things), a regent for the University of Deseret (now the University of Utah), an editor for the Deseret News, one of fifteen scribes/personal secretaries for Brigham Young, a lawyer, a state legislator, a businessman, and even a dentist for a short while. One of his wives, Sarah (he had 5) was a famous artist in her day as well. Her most famous painting was “Brigham Young and His Friends,” which hangs in the Church Family History office [pictured in the painting is also Mr. Long]. She was also friends with Eliza R. Snow, dubbed "Zion's poetess." By the early to mid 1860s however, John V. Long had a falling out with Church officials (in particular Brigham himself). He--and his family--were excommunicated in 1866 for "associating with the Young Men’s Social Club and other conduct unbecoming of a Latter-day Saint" as accused of "associating with Gentiles that would seek to shed Mormon blood." Sadly, he and Sarah largely disappeared from society as a result.

In 1869, John V Long was found dead in a irrigation ditch between North and West Temple. Sixty some-odd years after the fact, his daughter claimed that that fateful night John V. Long was last seen walking down North Temple with Bill Hickman, an erstwhile "destroying angel" (who boasted that he had killed many men on behalf Church leaders). The legend was that John V. Long knew too much about Mountain Meadows or the Utah Wars and after he started blabbing, he was first excommunicated, then assassinated.

Why should you care, other than the fact that it is a really interesting story about the Territorial/Pioneer days? My Great Aunt Irma recently gave a treasure trove of John V. and Sarah Long's papers to Ken Sanders to sell. The most valuable piece in the collection are two undiscovered poems by Eliza R. Snow, written in her own hand. The could be worth millions.

(Photo Credit: ABC 4 News)

There are also 11 diaries written in an archaic shorthand known as Pitman remaining out of the 115 John V. Long refers to in his diaries. Also in the collection are documents signed by Brigham Young, sermon transcripts by Young and other early Church leaders. These missing diaries include the 1857-58 period of the Mountain Meadows Massacre and Utah Wars that so intrigues historians and would clarify once and for all if the legend is based in anything other than lore.

On KUER's RadioWest, host Doug Fabrizio devoted one of their hour long programs to the papers and John V. Long, featuring a heated debate between Ken Sanders, Will Bagley and official Church historian Ron Barney.

Will we ever know exactly why John V. Long was excommunicated (no one seems to know what the Young Men's Social Club was), if Hickman killed him and why? These papers probably won't ever tell us anything on those scores. Long could have been killed by Hickman on behalf of Union Pacific, since Hickman had become a free lance killer and Long was representing plaintiffs suing the railroad. Or Long could have just fallen down drunk into the irrigation ditch, as Barney seemed to suggest.

My dad has placed calls in with Bagley and Sanders to find out more about the papers and his great great grandfather after hearing the radio show. No matter how important or unimportant who John V. Long ends up really being after deciphering all of those papers, it is so wonderful to know more about our family. (Included in the papers are genealogical records of my family going back to England to the 1700s)

I learned that John V. Long's house was on 100 South and 200 East, where the parking lot of Questar Gas' parking lot now stands in its place. That house that sands next to it, was his neighbor. The house itself was what started the falling out with the Church. A major general commandeered the Long house and Brigham Young wrote Long a very unfriendly letter demanding he pay thousands of dollars, which in the 1860s in Utah Territory was a lot of money, Long owed to stay in favor with the Church.

Now more than ever, I feel great ties to Utah and Salt Lake. I can walk around Temple Square and imagine what it must have looked like that night in 1869. My parents have a painting of John V. Long in their study (complete with enormous bow tie, beard, and pen) and now I want to see if Sarah painted it.

Another family story is that someone sold their land in Bingham Canyon so that the daughters could go to college. Of course, now the mountains of the Canyon is the world's largest hole in the ground (one of the few man made things you can see from space) and literally billions of dollars of copper have been extracted. Its doubtful that some documents on that issue magically appear and make news. I have to say though, I am proud of all of my ancestors even if I could have been a Rockefeller of Utah.

the politicization of crime budgets

Just yesterday I was happy that the DA's office got more money ($1.3 million more to be exact) to hire attorneys and support staff necessary to reduce the case load on current prosecutors. Republican DA Lohra Miller's plea was heard by a 5-4 Republican Democratic split. That was unfortuneate. Now comes worse news.

The Salt Lake County Council won't put a penny into the languishing lockup next year despite first-year Democratic Sheriff Jim Winder's insistence that the county soon will need it to relieve the population squeeze on the nearby maximum-security Adult Detention Center (ADC).
"I'm extremely frustrated," Winder said Tuesday. "The county is not taking into consideration our external partners - the cities, the judiciary - in making this decision."
The Republican-led council slammed the door on the deteriorating South Salt Lake jail Tuesday, denying the $5.9 million Winder sought to reopen the facility and the $610,000 that Democratic Mayor Peter Corroon had recommended for upgrades and repairs.
Democratic Councilman Randy Horiuchi urged his conservative colleagues - who opposed Oxbow funding on a 5-4 partisan vote - to keep the jail "battle ready."
But Republicans balked, saying a criminal-justice master plan should come first.
[...]
But the loss of Oxbow has the sheriff steamed.
"To say we are going to hold off and formulate another plan," Winder said, "does not address what is a critical need today."

We can argue about what causes more crime, plea agreements to lesser charges (meaning less time in jail/prision) or having the jail so full that it releases people picked up on warrants. I think you know where I stand on the debate.

But what is sad is that it shouldn't matter that Sherrif Winder is a Democrat or DA Miller is a Republican. The entire criminal justice system should be funded and planed in a thoughtful consistant manner. While budgeting is a zero sum game at the local level (because they cannot borrow outside of narrow bond issues), the math should not depend on what party you belong to. Shame on you County Council.

The war to end all wars

Today is Veteran's Day in the U.S. but really its origins stem from the end of the First World War, known as the Great War, or the War to End All Wars-- it was called Armistance Day (in Great Britian it is still called Rememberance Day). The end of the war was occurred as arbitrarily as it began. Europeans liked the idea of ending on the 11th minute of the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month because they believed that the piece they achieved was saving the world from itself at the last possible moment.

Of course this war to end all wars was really the war that began all wars since that day in 1918. The people in Paris drew the maps of the middle east, leading to Iraq's civil war, the lack of a Kurdish state, Israel/Palestine, and dictators throughout the middle east. (those kings were installed by the Brits) The Treaty of Paris lead to Vietnam's civil war and American involvement (Ho Chi Mehn was a dishwasher at the conference and tried to get audience with the Big Three, but they ignored him). The drew up Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, one turned out horrific and the other split relatively amicibly. They drew up Poland and humilated Germany. They divvied up Africa at a later conference in Berlin, creating the idiotic borders we know today.

I could go on but I also want to focus on the more immediate impact of that war. Architecture and Art were destroyed, cities leveled. Hundreds of thousands died for no territorial gain among the leading countries. Among them were brilliant poets, writers, and artists. Many brilliant ideas that could have been died in Flanders Fields. An entire generation was erased, only to see the next one perish a few decades later.

Even the so-called Good War, World War II, has been shown to have been in reality merely a necessary war, thanks to Ken Burns. Each war is filled with its incompetant greedy military leaders, idiotic domestic leadership, the suffering of millions.

By now I think we can all agree that the current war in Iraq was not necessary but was a war of choice. And the longer we remain in that the country, the worse the mistake becomes. America cannot afford to have Iraq be as chaotic as it is today, but thanks to this Administration we can no longer serve any positive purpose in that country. Equally sadly, few nations are willing to step in when we inevitably leave.

Today is a day to remember the sacrifices of those who have served our country, who have been "rewarded" with death, dismemberment, brain injury, disabilities, pyschological traumas, and homelessness. But it also remains a day to remember the aweful cost of war and the need to avoid it.

So rather than merely hoisting a flag, giving a speech in a smoky VFW hall, or shaking a vet's hand, we need leaders who will think about this horid past and present towards thinking up a future were peace will become not just the pause between wars but era that last generations.

non-partisan political roundup

My latest thinking on how this blog will stay interesting without violating any ethics rules is to serve as a blog version of those political scientists that get quoted in stories. That is, what I think the impact of a news event or statement by a candidate etc. will mean to X election. I am always cognizant of my leans and so I will be extra cautious to say that something will really help this candidate or party, but sometimes it will just seem obvious to me. And I am sure I will be proven wrong once in a while.

• Vouchers were probably a main reason why so many progressives/liberals are in SLC government after the election. Normally, off-year elections are pretty tame affairs and people don't get that excited about voting for mayor. However, the openness of this race (at least initially) and the presence of vouchers contributed to piqued interest and turn out.
  
  Buhler was one of the better conservatives to campaign for mayor in a while, but he got traunced by the biggest margin yet. Why? SLC voters tapped the screen 75-25 against vouchers. In some places in SL County, voters were in line for HOURS trying to vote. You never see that during a presidential year in Utah, let alone an odd-year election. This ballot issue was important to Utahns. I hope the legislature gets the message after the thumping vouchers took at the voting booth.


• Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) seemed like a long shot for the GOP nomination, and still does. However, he seems to have tapped into something (more than just millions of dollars online) that could lead him to getting a good 20 something percent nationally if he were to run as a third-party candidate. And I think he will do surprisingly well in Utah during the GOP primary. I am predicting a 2nd or third place finish. Here's why:(Photo Credit: Jeffrey D. Allred/Deseret Morning News)

  Supporters of GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul served state officials, including Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., with a complaint Wednesday as part of a national effort seeking to require paper ballots in the upcoming presidential elections.

  Ron Paul does best in areas where teh federal government owns lots of land. And Utah has one of the largest percentage of the state owned by the feds. While this state is socially conservative, it is above all very libertarian on all matters not associated with social issues and very distrustful of the federal government in general. This is basically Ron Paul's ideology. Around town, the only Republican candidate I have seen any outward signs of support for (other than Romney) has been Ron Paul. His people were there at the anti-war rallys. They have signs on freeway overpasses on I-15, etc. Since Ron Paul was the Libertain Party's candidate before, and since he raised nearly $10M in the last couple of months, if I were a Republican Party leader, I would be nicer to him.


• Here's something interesting to discuss that I won't touch with a ten foot pole:

  Past editions of that page say all of the people chronicled in the book "were destroyed, except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." The new introduction reads much the same but says the Lamanites "are among the ancestors of the American Indians."
  [...]
  Last year's change "takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography which are not known," according to church spokesman Mark Tuttle. "The change will be included in the next edition of the Book of Mormon printed by the church."
  
  He said the introduction page in current LDS-produced books "was not part of the original text translated by Joseph Smith Jr.," adding it was written and published in 1981. The church declined comment on who wrote that version of the page.
  
  Andrew Corbin, a senior editor at Doubleday, said the one-word change was specifically requested by the church for the second edition, published in October 2006.

  As all lawyers know, one word change really can make a big difference.


• In my last semester in law school, I took a class on state and local government law. One of our guest speakers was Summer Pugh, a Draper resident mad at the proposed TRAX route that would go close to her backyard. Her group "Citizens for Responsible Transportation" or "CRT" tried to challenege the route decision, seaking move the route "out of low-density neighborhoods and closer to business-heavy State Street - or even farther west.". Her case challenging the rulings that the decision was not petition-able is now before the Utah Supreme Court. This election, CRT supported some candidates for Draper city council seats. The results were not pretty.

  Incumbent Bill Colbert, who won another term despite CRT's efforts, thanked the group for not endorsing him.
  "CRT didn't have the impact they wanted - but they had an impact," Colbert said. "They tried to hijack the race, and it backfired on their butts."
  Candidate Scott Tanner, one of the three defeated CRT-backed candidates, agrees the endorsement played a part in his defeat.
  "I wish that we weren't lumped together that easily," he lamented. "The candidates didn't want to make TRAX the issue."
  [...]
  "This was an election about the 70 percent tax increase and the lack of ballparks for our kids," Pugh said. "TRAX . . . was not heavily debated."
  She added that her group simply backed a slate of candidates so its supporters would know who was open to their cause. Pugh added that CRT got its candidates through the primary election, even in the midst of a long list of 13 candidates.
  That, she said, was a sign that people want to move TRAX away from east-side neighborhoods.

  This sounds like spin to me. Anyone from Draper who can weigh in on this matter?


• Here's a common sense piece of legislation everyone should support:
  

  Sen. Bob Bennett has reintroduced legislation that would prohibit nuclear testing without the approval of Congress and require extensive review before such tests could go forward.
  [...]
  Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, is sponsoring similar legislation in the House, though neither bill is as yet scheduled for a committee hearing.
  The measure, co-sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says the White House must get permission from Congress before resuming nuclear detonations at the Nevada Test Site or elsewhere, though Bennett notes there have been no proposals to restart such tests.
  [...]
  Bennett's bill says that if the administration asks and Congress approves renewed testing, the secretary of the Energy Department must provide public notice of the test, shall notify the public if any radiation is released and shall hold a town hall meeting in southern Utah after each explosion.
  It also establishes a nine-member commission - with three of the members coming from Utah - to oversee the safety, health and air quality concerns at the Nevada Test Site. And it requires the National Academy of Sciences to study the health and safety precautions currently at the Nevada Test Site.
  

  I hope Reps. Cannon and Bishop will co-sponsor this as well.


• Romney's doing a fullcourt press on religious conservatives:
  

  Parents who home school their children should get a tax credit to help offset the expense of teaching, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Wednesday.
  "I also believe parents who are teaching their kids at home, homeschoolers, deserve a break, and I've asked for a tax credit to help parents in their homes with the cost of being an at-home teacher," he said.
  Romney supports giving parents more educational options, through charter schools or vouchers, but he said legislation should be done on a state level.

  While homeschooled children make up a tiny fraction of the over all number of children (like 1-2%), the vast majority (97%) of them are homeschooled on religious/moral grounds.

political joke of the day

I got this from an email someone forwarded me. Note that I am not saying that anyone group is like this or that, it is only playing off stereotypes for humoric effect. That is, it is a joke people, get over yourselves.

Now that's out of the way, on with the forward:

The Pope took a couple of days off to visit the Rugged Mountains of Alaska for some sightseeing. He was cruising along the campground in the Popemobile when there was a frantic commotion just at the edge of the woods.

A helpless Democrat, wearing sandals, shorts, a "Save the Whales" hat, and a "To Hell with Bush" T-shirt, was screaming while struggling frantically and thrashing around trying to free himself from the grasp of a 10-foot grizzly.

As the Pope watched in horror, a group of Republican loggers came racing up.

One quickly fired a 44 magnum into the bear's chest. The other two reached up and pulled the bleeding, semiconscious Democrat from the bear's grasp.

Then using long clubs, the three loggers finished off the bear and two of them threw it onto the bed of their truck while the other tenderly placed the injured Democrat in the back seat.

As they prepared to leave, the Pope summoned them to come over. "I give you my blessing for your brave actions!" he told them. "I heard there was a bitter hatred between Republican loggers and Democratic Environmental activists but now I've seen with my own eyes that this is not true."

As the Pope drove off, one of the loggers asked his buddies "Who was that guy?"

"It was the Pope," another replied. "He's in direct contact with Heaven and has access to all wisdom."

"Well," the logger said, "he may have access to all wisdom but he sure doesn't know anything about Grizzly bear hunting! By the way, is the bait holding up, or do we need to go back to Massachusetts and get another one?

a new beginning

Rep. Steve Urqhart (R-St. George) wrote a half congratulations/half insult to my post on swearing into the Utah Bar. Since I am having a particularly good couple weeks, maybe I won't rub it in that his voucher bill lost in every single county in Utah...nah.

Rather than gloating or congratulating (Mayor Becker has a nice ring to it), I write today about how this blog will have to change during the next year. And why.

Two hours before my swearing into the bar, I had a job interview for a judge. When I landed in D.C. and turned on my cell phone, I had a message from said judge telling me I was hired and he needed me out here ASAP. So I ended my internship two weeks early (thanks to my awesome boss at the Campaign Legal Center), packed up all my belongings, and paid through the nose to fly back to SLC two days ago.

As a staffer for the judicial branch, I cannot comment anymore on things that might come before the court or be partisan in general. Had vouchers passed for instance, there was a very good chance that my boss would be ruling on whether or not the bill violated the Utah Constitution.

Thus, I may focus on the horse race or policy aspects of the 2008 elections, but I will (hopefully) refrain from supporting one side or the other. It won't be as much fun, but this job is important to me.

As far as standing for something, Rep. Urquhart, I stand for the Utah and United States Constitution. Great minds can differ about many aspects of interpreting this august documents, but we all can agree that it is they who are to be exhaulted in our system of government, not particular persons or factions.

My career goals are to help as many people as possible as much as possible to make their lives better. Oh and make enough money to support my family. In that order. To me, that can be through the courts (on the inside or outside), or the legislative process (again from within or externally), or the executive branch (local, state or federal), or though NGOs/non-profits.

So if you have thoughts on how to make things better in Salt Lake, in Utah, in America, in the world, drop them into the comments section.

Utahns take back their state

News to legislature: we the people of Utah, are a co-equal branch in the lawmaking process. Moreover, if you do stuff we don't like, we will vote it down (and hopefully) vote you out of office. Listen to us.

Thanks,
62% of Utahns.

P.S. I won't be blogging on local political issues much anymore given my new job I just started today. But it is good to be back.

only six percent of UT GOPers want to help the poor

I make this claim by putting together two sets of information. Number one:

a new Tribune poll found that a mere 6 percent of Utahns cited helping poor students as the reason they support vouchers.

Data point number two

The Utah Republican Party State Central Committee passed a resolution supporting school vouchers at its quarterly meeting Saturday. The committee is the governing and policy-making body for the Utah Republican Party and consists of 175 county leaders from across the state.
The Utah Democratic Party has opposed the voucher proposal.

Cannon tries to remove his foot from his mouth

If Willard "Mitt" Romney becomes the Republican nominee for president, I want to hang Rep. Chris Cannon, who endorsed him (just like Sen. Lary Craig endorsed him...more on Craig below), around Romney's neck.

Rep. Chris Cannon's vote against a revised law to hold private contractors in Iraq legally accountable is being questioned by his congressional seat competitors.

However, Cannon asserts the bill is poorly drafted and is damaging and redundant to a law already in place to provide contractor accountability — something outside onlookers might not have seen.

Which is why Chris Cannon opposes vouchers...oh wait, never mind.

However, Cannon explained he isn't in favor of immunity, either, and that accountability has always been in place through the National Defense Authorization Act, passed in 2005.

The act expanded the definition of who could be prosecuted for crimes to include civilian contractors and employees from other federal agencies who support American military missions overseas, according to the congressional document.

For some reason, though, no one has used that old law to prosecute independent contractors, said members of Cannon's staff. So rather than trying the legislation, a new, poorly worded bill was created, Cannon said.

This proposed law would limit the scope of prosecutions to individuals who are contracted or work in an area, or in "close proximity to an area where the Armed Forces is conducting a contingency operation," according to HR2740. That could mean a crime committed in Germany, away from the heated conflict in Iraq, could go unpunished.

Even if what Cannon says is true, why isn't it a good idea to be doubly sure that these mercenaries are under U.S. Law and to send a message to these private armies--and the muslim world--that we are serious about curbing abuses like Blackwater's? I mean, even Leavitt and Chaffetz gets it.

And if the 2005 law really did cover Blackwater, why has the State Department refused to do anything to Blackwater? I don't see Cannon's name on any of those letters that went out to State regarding Blackwater.

Oh and if you are in a men's bathrooom in Washington DC, let Larry Craig know if you have found his watch. Sen. Craig lost it in some bathroom. Don't ask how or which one, he visits so many, to you know, "use the bathroom." I can never keep up with all the slang.

Utah legislators are bullies

A post a day keeps the vouchers away. I will stop writing about the badness of vouchers after Utah voters knock it down on Tuesday. But I can't avoid writing about it when the legislature pulls stuff like this:

A University of Utah report on private school vouchers released just 10 days before next Tuesday's Referendum 1 vote is raising concerns among legislative leaders, including House Speaker Greg Curtis, R-Sandy.

Lawmakers say they are more concerned about the timing of the report from the U.'s Center for Public Policy and Administration than its content. Curtis went so far as to call the U.'s vice president for government affairs, Kim Wirthlin.

Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble, R-Provo, said he did not fault Curtis for making the call. "From my understanding of what that call was, it was appropriate," the Senate leader said, adding he had talked with Curtis about his conversation with Wirthlin.

Curtis' chief of staff, Chris Bleak, told the Deseret Morning News that Curtis did not want to talk about the call. However, Curtis reportedly told KUTV Ch. 2 that the university would "create hard feelings with certain members of the Legislature" because of the report.

David Patton, director of the U. center, said the intent of the report was to provide unbiased information to people who wanted to make a decision about the voucher issue.

Maj. Leader Bramble and Speaker Curtis, the two heads of their cameras of the legislature, are trying to intimidate the University plain and simple.

And why? Because the University is trying to do a public service by releasing a study about the biggest issue on the ballot a 10 days before it is voted on. You and I dear reader, might have been focused on this battle for a year or so, but your average voter didn't have much thought about it until he was was bombarded with ads from both sides.

Since the University of Utah is trusted, even by Cougar fans, to present intellectually honest analysis, it seems fair for them to do it. Remember, the U is funded almost entirely by taxpayer dollars, which is appropriated by people controlled by Curtis and Bramble. The Huntsmans and the Eccles can't fund the U all by themselves.

This bullying is just another example of how antidemocratic and anti-empirical-evidence our legislature is. We need new leadership, and I hope vouchers next fall will give us that leadership by voting out those who wasted all our time, money, and effort on this stupid bill.

cue the fat lady

[A]ccording to Kirk Jowers, director of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics[,]
"When you're the underdog, you don't need to be leading in these polls, but you have to show some momentum," Jowers said. [...]
Becker, an urban planner and the Democratic House minority leader, held virtually the same 20-percentage-point edge among men and women, according to the poll.

It seems like voters have seen through the "nice" and "reasonable guy" routine as well.

Significant margins also break Becker's way in the favorable/unfavorable category, according to the poll.
More than 60 percent of likely voters give Becker a favorable mark compared with 46 percent for Buhler.
And 27 percent recognized Buhler as unfavorable, compared with just 12 percent for Becker.

Stick a fork in Buhler, because he is done.

voucher dishonesty goes national

George Will, a conservative columnist for the Washington Post and talking head on ABC's "This Week," wrote yet another disingenuous column today about Utah's voucher referendum. I am sure it will show up in Utah papers today or tomorrow. Let's take it down one lie and smear at a time.

There [Utah], teachers unions, whose idea of progress is preservation of the status quo, are waging an expensive and meretricious campaign to overturn the right of parents to choose among competing schools, public and private, for the best education for their children.

My idea of progress is when things improve. So if vouchers will not improve our children's education--and a study by a conservative once pro-voucher think tank in Milwaukee shows they don't--then change for the sake of reform is not "progressive."

Will also conveniently forgets that this bill was pushed first by outside groups and is opposed by a solid 60 percent of Utahns--the only state that still gives Bush a positive job rating.

And every Utah voucher increases funds available for public education. Here is how:

Utah spends more than $7,500 per public school pupil ($3,000 more than the average private school tuition). The average voucher will be for less than $2,000. So every voucher that is used -- by parents willing to receive $2,000 rather than $7,500 of government support for the education of their child -- will save Utah taxpayers an average of $5,500. And because the vouchers are paid from general revenue, the departed pupil's $7,500 stays in the public school system.

So many lies in such a short space, that merits an award in rightwing shilling. First, he uses the highest public school spending number from Park City School District ($7,500) while simultaneously using the artificially low and cherry picked "average" private school tuition ($3,000). The real average private school tuition is nearly $8,000 according to the Deseret News. And the real public school spending is lower as well--the US Census places Utah again as the lowest in the nation this year with $5,257.

Again, Will "just so happens" to omit the fact that over time, the bill would raid public school money for vouchers, and the problem would get progressively worse. As others has better explained than I, schools have fixed costs that can't easily be reduced when a handful of students leave a private school for a public school.

But wait, there is still more inches to fill in his collumn, so Will manages to squeeze in a few more lies.

Utah's Office of Education reports that the state's private schools -- which are operating one-third below full enrollment -- have a higher percentage of nonwhites than do public schools.

Private schools in Utah are not at a third capacity, rather they are nearly full. From the Deseret News:

Of note, many private schools could not accommodate many more students if they wanted to take advantage of vouchers to enroll.

For example, the Catholic Schools of the Diocese of Salt Lake, the largest private school system in the state with 5,407 students in 14 schools, estimates it has capacity to add only 317 more elementary/middle school students and 373 high school students.

Current capacity at its schools ranges from a high of 101 percent (at both the St. John the Baptist elementary and middle schools in Draper) to a low of 68 percent (at St. Olaf school in Bountiful,) according to data provided by the diocese.

I won't even bother with the diatribe against Teachers' Unions, only to say that he doesn't mention the out of state money coming in defense of vouchers from Amway founders etc. Oh and when you are calling someone else's arguments "threadbare," Mr. Will, you might want to make sure yours aren't full of crap themselves.

the oath

Today I did not blog until now because I have been busy with work, a job interview, and joining the legal profession.



Amid the pomp and circumstance of joining the Utah Bar, there is an important task that some 260-odd men and women did today. We raised our right hands and pledged to defend the United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution, to treat each other civilly, to obey the rules of ethics, etc. I take those oaths very seriously, and this is why speak out so aggressively against things and people like Torture, NSA wiretapping, Rudy Giulliani, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, vouchers, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, etc.

America-- and the state of Utah-- was founded as a nation and state of laws, not men. I do not pledge allegiance to a flag or to a government, but to a set of rules which the people have agreed to be governed by-- our constitutions.

The republic is under attack, and not just occasionally from Al Qaeda, but from within by those that think that might trumps right and that we must throw away centuries of laws to sleep at night. Their recklessness is what keeps me up at night. I think of all of people around the world who grow to hate America and Americans, of all the people who use the policies and rhetoric of this Administration to repress democracy and peace in their own countries and regions.

While not all of us can or should become lawyers, all of us should personally pledge to defend this state and country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, who seek to subvert our constitution for their own personal or ideological benefit and to the determinant of the people for whom the government was created.

Huntsman backs away slowly

The other day I posted how Huntsman is trying to do a half hearted support of vouchers so that if it fails, which it will, he won't face blowback from the voters next fall. But since PCE people are dumb enough to think they can change public opinion which is overwhelmingly and firmly against vouchers, they are confused at Huntsman's coyness.

If you own a television, you've probably seen the commercial of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. at a Capitol news conference endorsing Utah's school voucher program facing a Nov. 6 referendum.
[...]
What you don't see is the part of the news conference in which Huntsman tells Utahns it is OK to vote against vouchers.
"Whatever you think is right, whatever you can justify, is the right answer for you," Huntsman says in the portion voucher supporters edited out.
The governor's "lukewarm" support for vouchers - he refuses to take time to tape a real commercial, saying he will not be used as a "poster boy" for the issue - puzzles political observers and has allowed him to be claimed as a champion by both sides.

Silly "political observers," Huntsman is like any other politican who got stuck on the wrong side of popular opinion. He doesn't want to go down with the ship. Romney was happy to trumpet his support from Sen. Larry Craig, until Craig's arrest report leaked.

Of course, rather than admitting that Utahns don't want their terrible bill, voucher supports are going to blame the lukewarm messenger.

Voucher spin doctors edited his comments as best they could and now are using them in their latest TV ads. But if it turns out to be too little too late, they may blame Huntsman for not stepping up sooner.
Hark back to the Republican convention fight of 2004 when Lampropoulos emerged as the delegates' preferred leader for several months leading to the convention. Lampropoulos was the top voucher drumbeater among the candidates. He not only talked the talk, he opened his wallet and contributed tens of thousands of dollars to the cause. He also gave Parents for Choice in Education free office space at his campaign headquarters.
Huntsman, meanwhile, told delegates at many a chili-and-fruit-punch backyard meeting that he supported vouchers. But his comments were carefully crafted, coming with conditions and certainly not with the born-again zeal Lampropoulos offered.
As the convention neared, Huntsman grabbed the momentum and appeared likely to come out of the convention as the front-runner. The mystery was who would be the runner-up and also qualify for the primary.
[...]
There still could be consequences for Huntsman. Pro-voucher business leaders continue griping about the governor's tepid support - which might have been one reason he finally agreed to show up at the press conference - and have approached some former Republican gubernatorial candidates about a possible run in 2008.

Really, please do primary him. I would love to see the Utah Republican party pick a crazy over Jon Huntsman, Jr. If they pick $100,000 to PCE Lampropoulos, maybe the Dems can convince Jim Matheson to run for Governor.

major voucher supporter is a bigot himself

Remember how Patrick Bynre, CEO of Overstock.com, called people who opposed vouchers bigots?

The NAACP demanded an apology Friday from the founder of Overstock.com, who said Utah minorities who don't graduate from high school might as well be burned or thrown away.

Patrick Byrne's comments were posted on YouTube. The video clip was from a debate Tuesday at the University of Utah law school, where he was speaking in favor of vouchers, public aid for families sending kids to private schools.
[...]
On YouTube, he says: "Right now, 40 percent of Utah minorities are not graduating from high school. You may as well burn those kids. ... If they do not get a high school education, you might as just throw the kids away."

So what would you do when caught on tape saying something racist? First, you pull the video off YouTube, then blame the internets.

Byrne said he had no intention of apologizing and claimed his comments were taken out of context.

"These folks have been selective in their editing," he told The Associated Press. "I very clearly said the system is throwing away 40 percent of the minority kids because they're not graduating. I'm saying that I'm against throwing kids away.

This is the face of the voucher movement. His hundreds of thousands he gave to PCE is the biggest local donor to the cause. He was one of two people who came to debate at the law school on the subject. If he didn't speak for voucher supporters, they have a funny way of letting him speak for them.

Williams noted that Byrne didn't mention white children who don't graduate. Utah is 83.5 percent white, 11 percent Hispanic and 1 percent black.

"It says he's not sympathetic to the minority community and he means exactly what he said," Williams said of Byrne's lack of an apology.

Maybe he got so upset and called people bigots because of his own bigotry he is trying to hide.

SLC mayor money follows the winner-- Becker

People give money to candidates for three main reasons, which some times overlap. 1) You support them on a personal level (Jim Matheson hit up his East High classmates in his 2000 race) 2) You support them on an ideological level (I gave $100 to Wes Clark in 2003 because I agreed with his views on foreign policy) 3) You think they are going to win (re-)election, and you want to have audience with the person who will shortly be in power (Why Hatch raises millions with no effort).

So when news reports came out that Becker had an amazing two months of fundraising and Buhler not so hot, most people with a brain would say duh! Here's how Buhler spins the bad news

Buhler's campaign has taken in about $144,000 since Aug. 31, bringing his total to $465,000. [Becker has raised $590,000 in his campaign for mayor, including $268,000 in the past two months]

"I'm the underdog in this race, so it's always a little more challenging to raise money," he said. "I feel very gratified for the support I've received, and we're still raising money, of course."

Let's look back at the money race at the beginning of August shall we?
As you can see, Buhler had raised slightly more than Becker had at that point, but also spent more on billboards (and both were behind Jenny and Keith).

And here's what I said two weeks after the primary, when the Tribune was trying to portray this as a neck and neck race. (Now of course, they gave up and endorsed Becker):

Make no mistake about it, Ralph is going to barn storm the entire city with volunteers knocking on doors. He is going to raise money from people looking to make a safe bet without much effort. He is going to be organized and disciplined. And he is going to win the race by 15-20 points.

In another mini-edition of "I called it," here's an excerpt from a Becker campaign press release:

Ralph Becker’s campaign received a big financial boost on Friday [October 19th, 2007], thanks to a phone-a-thon that raised $56,365 in just seven hours.

I am not saying that people that gave during this phone-a-thon or any other in the last two months must be only from type 3, but surely the reason Ralph funding has doubled in three months is because he is cruising in the polls.

Utah's undemocratic branch strikes again

Sounds like we need to see which legislator owns a golf course.

Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, is backing legislation that would vest tremendous power in a 15-member board appointed by the governor which would have broad authority to decide what services towns, cities, counties and the state can provide and what unfairly competes with businesses.
[...]
He believes the state's proper role includes making sure "local governments aren't getting into the business of business and putting private concerns that have invested their capital out of business," said Stephenson.
Stephenson, who chairs the Government Competition and Privatization Subcommittee, said lawmakers keep hearing from business owners who say their survival is being threatened by competition from government-owned entities, and said that is the path the former Soviet Union took and it paid a price. He also noted that government has a built-in advantage because it is exempt from taxes that businesses must pay.
Under the proposed bill, labeled as a "working draft," any business owner that felt he or she was being hurt by unfair competition could go to the Government Competition and Privatization Commission, which would decide if the activity was a "core government function."
If not, it could order the government to stop and, if the municipality refuses, go to court to seek fines and penalties.

Here are a list of these government operations that the Republican controlled legislature wants to do away with:

* Catering and reception halls. Operators have said the low prices to rent public buildings, like Red Butte Arboretum or the Salt Lake Library for receptions undercuts private reception centers.
* Municipal golf courses. They can charge lower rates than private courses.
* Recreation centers. They compete with private gyms.
* Trash collection. Cities disposing of their own trash cut into opportunities for private firms.
* Ambulance services. Some cities are offering municipal ambulance services, competing with private entities.

Because in the bizzaro world of the legislature, the goal of government is to protect business, not citizens that have to pay for things.

Local governments don't do these services to make money but to serve the people of their county/city/town. If the people in these areas don't want, say for Salt Lake County to own horse stables, they would tell their elected officials that or run against them. Unlike the Soviet Union, Utahns currently have the power to prevent their local government from doing things they don't like and have done it in the past. Water in Ogden, for example, isn't fluoridated. But people like to play golf, for example, and not everyone can afford to join the Country Club. The public likes these services and since these places don't have to operate on a profit, they are cheaper to run.

Private businesses that do things that local governments do can earn their business by doing their job better than the local government. And I thought privatization meant that everything would be cheaper because the marketplace is so efficient, so why should these businesses need the legislature to close down these government venues and services.

Beyond my opposition to the substance of what they are proposing to do (privatization for the sake of benefiting lobbyists at the expense of the public), I don't like the way it is being done. Local governments are accountable because officials are elected. This commission, however would be completely anonymous and unaffected by public sentiment since they are appointed.