Tag: Utah

Inside Politics

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

When I read about the results of the Utah Democratic party chairman’s race I had an interesting thought pop into my head. (Although this article originally ran in the Salt Lake Tribune I am linking to a copy at UtahAmicus because tribune articles eventually expire and disappear.)

First, some background. The race for chairman was between the incumbent, Wayne Holland, and Jeff Bell. Wayne’s website essentially advertised this message – “I’m the incumbent” – while Jeff’s advertised a message of “this is the direction the party needs to go and here is how I will make it happen.” The result:

the party delegates elected Holland with 87 percent of the vote.

When I saw the 87% figure I started to wonder – considering how much the state Republican party has been accused of being an insiders game – if the state Democratic party might be even more of an insiders game.

It’s something to ponder.

P.S. I’m going out of town for a week long road-trip of rest and relaxation, in case anyone would have wondered why I don’t post for the remainder of the week. I expect to be back to my regular schedule next week.

Tags parties, Salt Lake Tribune, Utah

State

Why Bob Bennett?

I went to the organizing convention for the Utah Republican Party on Saturday. While I was there in the nidst of hundreds of people campaigning for candidates and causes among the state delegates I made a point to talk to a variety of people sporting Bob Bennett t-shirts. With four primary challengers at present it is easy to see that the discontent with our incumbent is widespread. I believe that the reasons for supporting a challenger are not substantially different between those supporting Mark Shurtleff, James Williams, Cherilyn Eagar, or Tim Bridgewater (in the order they will have officially announced) – I understand some of those generic reasons for seeking a change. What I wanted to understand was what motivated those who were actively supporting an embattled incumbent. I tried to present the question in a way that would get them to try to sell the candidate to me rather than leaving them feeling as if they (or their candidate) were being attacked.

I have to say that I was not very surprised by the answers that I received. I talked to more than two people and I always talked to them one-on-one so that one person would not influence the answers of another but they offered only two distinct reasons between them. The first reason was the same one I heard from Senator Bennett back in February at a town hall breakfast meeting – seniority. (Some said experience but it amounts to the same argument.) The other answer I heard – and this would likely be even more disconcerting to many conservatives than seniority – was Bennett’s ability to work with Democrats. Personally I would rather support someone who would drown while trying to swim against the current than support someone who would stay afload by swimming with the current that was swiftly running away from the desired destination. Thankfully I think that we have candidates already in the race who can stay afloat while swimming upstream.

For those who are convinced that seniority is everything we can look to the freshman representative in Utah’s 3rd congressional district. Rep. Chaffetz has done quite a job of defending his positions and even getting bills passed without an ounce of seniority – and he’s earning quite a reputation for standing firm in his convictions which probably helps him to do more than if he were more prone to going along with the crowd. Some would argue that seniority is more important in the Senate than in the House – for those I would point to the example of a freshman senator from New York who was probably more influential in the Republican controlled senate of 2000 than our own two term Republican senator in that same senate. Seniority is not everything – it’s simply useful if you are headed in the right direction.

Tags 2010, Bob Bennett, change congress, Cherilyn Eagar, Clinton, Jason Chaffetz, Mark Shurtleff, senate, Tim Bridgewater, Utah

National State

Second Amendment Victory

My appreciation for the second amendment just went up another notch. Opponents of gun ownership rights like to argue that guns kill people (for that matter so do hands, cars, T-bone steaks, and many other things) but they never mentioned that gun rights could also kill an illegal house seat for D.C.:

Fights over gun control in Washington, D.C., may have killed for the year a bill that would give Utah a fourth U.S. House seat and give D.C. a House seat with full voting rights.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., delivered that message in his weekly briefing for reporters on Tuesday

Apparently leaders in D.C. would rather keep very strict gun control laws than gain an unconstitutional voting seat in the House. If they want to now pursue a path to full House representation that does not sidestep the Constitution I’ll sign the petition at the first opportunity. Residents of D.C. deserve voting congressional representation as much as anyone else, but that does not justify ignoring the fundamental law of the land.

I still can’t believe that 80% of Utah’s congressional delegation fell for this Washington parlor trick. If the bill comes up again in 2010 I hope they will be smart enough to reject it since Utah would only have 1 possible year of representation before we would get another seat anyway (regardless of what Orrin Hatch would tell you about possibly missing it again).

Tags Bill of Rights, Deseret News, fourth seat, Orrin Hatch, unconstitutional, Utah

State

The Huntsman News

By Monday afternoon this is, of course, old news but if you visited here you must have been at least marginally interested in my opinion on the fallout from Huntsman being tapped to become the ambassador to China. First of all, I think that Bob Bernick captured the essence of the Big Utah Political Picture especially in the following sections:

Now 2010 in Utah is wide open.

Now there is an open governor’s race with a one-year incumbent . . .

There is also U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, facing an intra-party challenger {or two}.

Adding to the mix will be the off-cycle governor’s race in 2010. Because Huntsman is leaving so early in his second term, Herbert must run again in 2010, the eventual winner serving only two years before he or she must run again in 2012.

That puts next year’s governor’s race off schedule — and incumbents like Attorney General Mark Shurtleff can seek the higher office without having to give up his current post. That’s also the case for Democrats Corroon and Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker — all who can run for governor without risking their current seats.

And there’s a few state senators who just won re-election to their four-year seats in 2008 and so can run for governor or U.S. Senate next year without risking their current offices, as well.

. . .

2010 is suddenly a once-in-a-generation opportunity for many current and wanna-be Utah politicians.

So there’s the big picture. We’ll be holding two elections for Governor by 2012 and that Governor’s seat in 2010 added to Bennett’s seat in the Senate makes for a lot of opportunities for those (especially senators) who are not facing re-election in 2010 to take a shot at moving up in Utah politics.

Now for my opinion on the Huntsman move in particular.

In my very first political blog post I said of Huntsman:

I have spent months looking at everything I could find on the candidates and so far as I can tell the least promising republican candidate just won the republican primary

In all fairness I have to say that Huntsman exceeded my expectations as a Governor (which is why I suggested that he would be an improvement over Hatch in 2012). I like him better for some of the reasons that others dislike him, and dislike him for some of the reasons that others dislike him. Plus I still dislike him for most of the reasons I didn’t like him to begin with. So you can safely guess that I’m not sad to see him leaving. In fact, I believe that he is very well qualified to be our ambassador to China and I have high hopes that he will fill that post well.

Beyond being not sad to see Huntsman leaving I am very happy that he will be vacating the Governors seat officially because it’s been months since he left me with the impression that he was doing any more there than keeping the seat warm. If there is any way to leverage this political confusion to oust Bennett from his seat in 2010 so much the better but simply based on the fact that Huntsman had already moved on mentally from his position as governor I happily wish him well in his future endeavors and hope that Herbert and our future governors spend the bulk of their time in office proving that they are working for Utah more than for their personal political futures.

Tags 2010, Bob Bennett, candidates, Jon Huntsman, Utah

State

Hoping History Holds

Nobody with a political pulse in Utah could be surprised at the news that Sens. Bennett and Hatch plan to run again, especially considering that they both have their campaign websites up and running already (yes, even Hatch for 2012). I have often been discouraged by the assertions of a trusted friend that Hatch is unbeatable for as long as he chooses to run after being in the Senate for over 30 years. My hope that he is wrong got a boost from that Deseret News article.

Holly provides a good rundown against the "seniority is everything" argument of our two senators and we have the next 3 years to disprove Hatch’s assertion that "Sen. Bennett and I work as hard every day for Utahns as the first day we set foot in the U.S. Senate." (They undoubtedly work hard, but the more I look at their records the less I am convinced that either of them work for Utahns anymore like they did the first day they set foot in the Senate.) I would like to provide a proactive argument for why both of our senators should be replaced now even if you believe the seniority argument.

First of all, neither of our Senators is getting any younger so they will have to be replaced sooner than they would like to admit. While they would both like to be compared to the LDS apostles since few people among their voters would care to think of the apostles in a negative light, the fact is that there is a vast difference between the temporary election of a political officeholder and the permanent appointment of an ecclesiastical leader. We know going in that the apostles are there for life, not so with the senators.

Secondly, the Republican party is out of power right now (especially with Arlen Specter switching parties so that the Democrats will have the 60 vote margin to end any attempted filibuster) which diminishes the value of any seniority they have amassed in their decades in office. The Democrats may maintain the 60 seat majority in 2010, but even if they don’t they are virtually assured of maintaining control of the senate. That means that now is the time to elect some new senators so that they can start building their seniority in advance of 2014 (the earliest that Republicans have any real shot at regaining control) rather than waiting until 2016, 2018, or whenever one of our senators fails his immortality test.

Tags 2010, 2012, Arlen Specter, Bob Bennett, connections, Deseret News, Orrin Hatch, Pennsylvania, senate, seniority, Utah

Local State

Convention Surprise

I attended the Davis County Republican Party organizing convention on Saturday. There was one very surprising outcome for me from attending. Senator Bob Bennett spoke at the conventions and by the end of his speech I realized that I could potentially vote for him in 2010 if he survives the Republican nominating convention and primary (if necessary) next year. I’m still absolutely sure that there must be at least half a dozen Republican politicians in this state that would be far better for the state than Senator Bennett can be he is still better than the majority of likely Democrat and third party candidates. Even if he were running unopposed I could not vote for our sitting senator at the Republican nominating convention but I may find that he is the best available option in the general election if he is the Republican nominee.

How’s that for a ringing endorsement.

Tags 2010, Bob Bennett, Davis County, parties, Republican, Utah

State

Senate Session Wrap Up

The legislative process has been compared to sausage making and we are often told that we don’t want to see the process. At the blogger meeting in the Senate President’s office yesterday what we got among all the talk about various bills was a peek at the sausage making process. Personally I found the insight fascinating because what we may be aware of in the process may not be representative of the reality. I think the best thing that I could do with that is to share some of the notes I took at the time – here they are as I wrote them (with links added later):

Before the meeting started I heard a very telling comment between a couple of interns – they said that nobody could possibly have any idea of what actually happens at the State Capital by reading/listening to the news.

Glen Warchol just showed up and the tone of the meeting immediately changed to be more confrontational. He’s complaining about the ethics bill and the rule about legislators turning lobbyist. Specifically we have Senator Stephenson who is a lobbyist by trade. It seems to me that the people have the choice to elect a lobbyist if they choose. Electing someone and then having them become a lobbyist is a different issue.

Look at the Voter Registration bill – SB25

Glen just left – I’m betting that the rest of the meeting will be more congenial from here on out.

The idea of VMT in place of (or addition to) gas tax is not happening now. I had suggested on a comment once that we could use our odometer readings rather than GPS tracking. Sen Killpack (majority leader) made the observation that out of state trips would be taxed by that method.

Ric Cantrell "If citizens abdicate their responsibility there’s nobody to pick up the slack."

Tags 2009, legislation, legislature, Utah

State technology

Predictable Responses

As newspaper Editorial Boards begin to write about SB 208 their positions mirror what I called the tip of the iceberg and what we expected on the day that SB 208 was announced. In fact, one might almost wonder in passing if the editorial in the Standard Examiner was written by the same person who wrote the editorial in the Deseret News. Both dismiss the idea that they oppose this because it cuts into the revenue they get from publishing legal notices and both suggest that a state run website would not treat all legal notices equally. Also, neither editorial mentioned that this website would help city governments and citizens to save money on all the legal notices that they are required to publish. Essentially all their objections boil down to scare tactics as shown by this response to the Standard Examiner editorial.

As I read the Deseret News version I had a thought about an amendment to the bill that would expose the sincerity of the newspapers in their "public service" claim for opposing this. If the bill were amended to stipulate that the legal notices website allow bulk uploads of legal notices from entities such as newspapers (at bulk rates), and also allow a feed or other source for newspapers to print or otherwise republish the notices from that site (if they so choose) then I can see no reason for newspapers to object – besides the revenue competition. If the papers really are not afraid of the competition – if they honestly believe they are opposing this on public service grounds – they should simply offer to post on the state website any legal notices they receive so that their service complies with the new law (assuming it passes).

The Deseret News also provided two claims that need to be debunked.

In addition, as any Web surfer can attest, Web sites are not dependable. They are subject to technical issues, and they don’t make a reliable and enduring archivable record the way newspapers do.

As a long-time web developer I can say that whatever temporary glitches a website may have does not change the fact that web sites can produce reliable and enduring archivable records. In fact, the most reliable archivable records of newspapers are digital. For proof of that simply go look at archive.org. I can pull up old websites of mine that I know no longer exist on any computer where I ever published them. Even if a government site went down it is not likely that it would be lost.

The bill claims it would cost the state nothing. However, Web sites require considerable maintenance and personnel. Even if this new site were to fall under existing state government Web services, it still would cost taxpayers. Newspapers, on the other hand, store and archive data for nothing other than the cost of a legal notice.

This statement completely ignores what was actually said when SB 208 was first unveiled. The site would not cost taxpayers anything not because Sen. Urquhart is ignoring the cost of running a site, but because the site would charge a nominal fee to cover the costs of the website.

I have nothing against the newspapers – sometimes they have useful information – but they have yet to show a solid reason why they deserve a captive market for legal notices. To prove that, I would encourage a removal of the cap on what they can charge for legal notices (this would be even more broad than what they are pushing for in SB 161) if SB 208 is passed.

Tags connections, Deseret News, laws, legislation, legislature, media, Steve Urquhart, Utah

State technology

Legal Notice – SB 208

I was going to post a summary of the meeting, but many other people have already done a good job of that (Holly, JM Bell, Jason, Bob, Joe). So far, it appears that only JM Bell and BenJoe have taken the time to create something more than a back-of-the-napkin post of quotes and initial reactions. (That’s not a criticism of the other posts, by the way.) From the meeting itself I only want to post one little gem from Sen. Urquhart:

It’s not government’s job to prop up an industry.

I wish someone would tell that to Congress.

Now, my initial thoughts were that I can’t wait to see how the media reacts to this. The very tip of the iceberg comes in the form of a comment that has been posted on a couple of the blogs that wrote initial reactions.

The claim is that the newspapers are already developing a website that would serve a similar purpose of providing more access and wider distribution of legal notices. Personally, I won’t hold my breath. Even if their site is close to production I would have to see it before deciding if it really serves the public. There is no reason that citizens should be mandated to publish through the newspapers – just as there would be no justification for mandating that they could not publish through the newspapers.

If newspapers are pushing to raise the cap on what they can charge for legal notices I have a hard time imagining that they are planning to offer the services of their new website for free or even at a low cost.

I think the heart of the comment is in this paragraph:

As has been the case for centuries, public notice is best served by a third-party, independent source. There should be a be check and balance on government power. In other words, should the fox be watching the henhouse when it comes to legal notices? Also, should the government be in the business of creating its own communications bureaucracy?

I think we need to define who the parties are to this system. The government has nothing to gain by not publishing some legal notice that has been submitted so I’m not sure that you could claim that they are any less independent than the newspapers. I don’t believe that publishing legal notices gives any power to the press. The whole statement sounds like a breathless rush to throw out something that might make people reject this proposal without any real argument against it.

A more thoughtful question was posed during the briefing (I believe by Ethan Millard):

Why should government take over a market that has been a private transaction?

My answer has two parts. First – is it really a private transaction when government has already mandated that the transaction take place? Second – I would not argue that government should take over such transactions, only that there is very little reason why government should avoid making the legal requirement that drives those transactions as painless as possible. If there were already some low-cost way for people to meet the requirements of providing legal notice that provided the requisite distribution of the notice then there would be no reason for this bill.

The fact is that government should not be mandating a captive market, as the legal notice requirement currently does. Newspapers have become dependent on their captive market – that’s not healthy for them and they need to fix it even if SB 208 were not being proposed. Let’s free people to allow publishing of legal notice outside the newspapers and then eliminate the cap on what newspapers can charge for the notice when people choose to publish through the papers.

Tags blogger briefing, connections, laws, legislation, legislature, media, Steve Urquhart, Utah

State technology

Utah Waste Buster

File this under "technology experiments by public officials" but it seemed worth linking to Utah Waste Buster
if for no other reason than the fact that my senator, Dan Liljenquist, is one of those who is behind this blog. While there are those who complain that this is a waste of money and time (not sure about that since blogger blogs like this are free) I figure that it is worth exploring ways to increase the flow of information between officials and constituents. I’ve added it to my sidebar for now to encourage people to visit and give this a chance of making a difference.

Time will tell if anything truly useful emerges, but I’m always happy to see efforts being made.

Tags connections, Dan Liljenquist, Senate 23, Steve Urquhart, Utah