2005 Bill Tracking Page
Last updated on:
February 15, 2005 at 10:45 AM
Use your REFRESH button to ensure that
you are looking at the latest version.
Categories:
Foreword:
We, as a people, reap what we sow. This bill tracking page
exists to display the fruits of this citizenry and their
political choices. Do citizens choose wise leaders and
hold them accountable by carefully watching, scrutinizing, and
scolding them when necessary? Or do officials run rampant and
unchecked? You decide. If you don't like what you see, then
work to motivate and educate the citizenry that elected these
officials. For resources to assist you, see our Training page.
Tracking Instructions: Each
summary below includes a hyperlinked bill number. Click
on the bill number to go to the "Bill Documents" page for each
bill. From there you can click on the latest bill
version to view the actual language, or see other crucial
information on the bill. The "Status" feature,
for instance, tells you
where the bill is in the legislative process and gives you
actual floor vote details.
Toward the bottom of the "Bill
Documents" screen, under "Web Watch,"
you can actually sign up to receive e-notification of any
changes to the bill or bill status. This is a nice
feature, though not always as timely or reliable as it ought
to be. Make sure to also be cognizant of new amended
versions of the bill.
Disclaimer:
"Good bills" can be amended to bad bills at any time, and we
might not catch the change on this page until it is too late.
If you are interested in a "good bill", please keep that in
mind.
Abbreviations: HB= House Bill, HCR= House Concurrent
Resolution, HJR= House Joint Resolution, rep= representative,
S= Substitute [followed by the number of the substitute], SB=
Senate Bill, sen= senator, SCR= Senate Concurrent Resolution,
SJR= Senate Joint Resolution.
Contact us: If you have any corrections or
additions, please notify us at
info@accountabilityutah.org.
Good Bills
Disclaimer:
"Good bills" can be amended to
bad bills at any time, and we might not catch the change on
this page until it is too late. If you are interested in
a "good bill", please keep that in mind.
Abortion (Infanticide)
None at this time.
Back to
Categories
Cruel & Unusual Punishment
SB 99
(Sen. Tom Hatch, Republican): Currently, it is a Class B Misdemeanor
(punishable by a $1,000 fine and up to 6 months in jail) to
"criminally trespass" on state park lands. The
state can also seek treble damages against these individuals for
"civil" damages. This bill takes a small step by
reducing that to single damages.
Even if this bill passes, the process is still unjust.
In "civil" cases, the defendant is not entitled to a trial by
a jury of his peers.
Rather than let one bureaucrat or judge decide the outcome of
a "civil" case, defendants should have the right to a jury
trial in a criminal court. In addition,
the maximum penalty of a Class B Misdemeanor is too harsh a
punishment for such offenses.
Status: SB 99 failed senate committee
(2-4-0).
Note: This bill may have something to do with Sen.
Hatch's recent run-in with the law and tyrannical state
wildlife officials. Hatch and his brother, Ronald, had
come upon a seriously wounded bull elk. Ronald suggested that
"we ought to finish it off." Hatch responded:
"I told him 'I'm not going to shoot it
with 20 people around in my position [as an elected
official]'... We continued on down the ridge and I did shoot
a cow elk."
The elk was left to suffer and eventually died. And the Hatch
brothers went right on hunting.
Poaching charges were later threatened against Ronald, as
officials suspected that he had shot the bull elk by mistake.
Isn't it amazing how perspectives and motivations can be
altered when one actually is on the receiving end of bad laws?
ource: "Lawmaker
cleared in elk shooting: Illegal trophy bull: But the
brother of Panguitch's Sen. Hatch faces poaching charges in
state court," Brett Prettyman, Salt Lake Tribune, Jul.
28, 2004.
Back to
Categories
Decentralization of Power
SB 81
(Sen. Beverly Evans, Republican): This bill would require
organizations to first obtain
approval from the local government before setting up a
commercial nonhazardous solid or hazardous waste treatment or
disposal facility (see lines 68-70). Current law only
requires that organizations obtain approval from the
legislature and governor.
Activities like these affect the short- and/or long-term
safety of surrounding neighbors. Is the facility safe? What
would likely occur if the storage company goes bankrupt?
Prior approval by property owners directly impacted seems, in
this case, appropriate.
Will city councils carefully
weigh these matters and conscientiously make wise decisions
with this new power? If not, that is a matter for the
local property owners to rectify through increased scrutiny
and by holding their local officials more accountable for
their political actions.
Status: SB 81 passed
senate committee 6-0-0, senate (24-0-5), house committee
(10-0-1), and house (68-0-7).
Back to
Categories
Equal Standing Before the Law
None at this time.
Back to
Categories
Election Reform
See also Unsure/Skeptical, HB
211.
Back to
Categories
Ethics
HJR 4 (rep. David Ure, Republican): This bill requires
legislators to declare potential conflicts of interest.
It is a one word change from "should" to "shall" on line 25,
and it is about time. If a legislator stands to
personally (particularly financially) benefit after an unequal
fashion, he should publicly declare it.
SB 102 (sen. Greg Bell): This bill was half-heartedly
included in our Good Bills section (and may be moved from this
section upon further reflection). It requires lobbyists to
report more detailed information about expenses made to
benefit public officials when the lobbyist spends more than
$10, rather than the current $50 limit. It also
specifies that financial reports should be filed when
expenditures have been made in an amount that exceeds the new
threshold.
With rare exceptions, these lobbyist
expenditures constitute bribery and should be
completely banned. Lobbyists and legislators who participate
in bribery should be shunned, removed from office, and
potentially prosecuted.
While it is perhaps better to know of their
bribery than not to know, we still fear that this
approach will legitimize bribery by allowing legislators and
lobbyists to merely report what should be illegal acts. This bill provides evidence of the degree to which
we, as a people and society, have surrendered our once-clear
standards of decency and integrity.
Status: SB 102 failed senate committee
(2-2-1).
SB 143 (amended) by Scott Jenkins, Republican: This short bill
would require that, in addition to written minutes, a digital
or tape recording of all open, public meetings be kept for at
least 180 days. From lines 28-29:
Written minutes [or] and
a digital or tape recording shall be kept of all open
meetings...
And from lines 54-55:
The custodian of digital or tape
recordings of meetings shall retain those recordings for at
least 180 calendar days.
Currently, governmental bodies only prepare
written minutes, typically drafted and "sanitized" by a staff,
or outside, attorney. Other than this record or citizens who
attend and physically record the meeting, there is no record
(on earth at least) of what happened. Citizens who cannot
attend have a right to more than an attorney's cliff notes.
Status: SB 143 passed senate committee
(3-2-0), and failed senate (11-18-0).
Back to
Categories
Federal Implications
HCR 7 (rep. Mike Noel,
Republican): This resolution opposes federal nuclear testing
in Nevada. The federal government has a dismal track
record of protecting public health and safety in past nuclear,
chemical, and other military experiments. Citizens in
Utah (the "Downwinders" group for one) and Nevada have
suffered horrendous abuses, including denial of the truth, and
timely and adequate treatment and recompense, by federal
officials.
It also should be noted that the federal
government has no legitimate reason to conduct nuclear testing
while it simultaneously refusing to keep America's current
arsenal of ballistic missiles serviceable.
Note: A more thorough discussion of this
subject goes beyond the scope of Accountability Utah's
Mission.
Status: HCR 7 passed house committee
(14-0-1), house (67-0-8), senate committee (2-0-4), and passed
senate (26-0-3).
Back to
Categories
Illegal Aliens
HB 239 by rep. Glen Donnelson: In 2002, rep. David Ure and
sen. Howard Stephenson sponsored
HB 144, to
allow children of
illegal aliens to receive in-state tuition at Utah colleges
and universities if they meet certain requirements. HB 144
blatantly discriminated against American citizens — particularly
those who achieved their status through legal and lawful
means — and encouraged lawlessness.
An American citizen who moves away from Utah
for a couple of years loses his resident status. Under HB 144,
an illegal alien retains his status forever, no matter where
he resides or what taxes he does or does not pay.
See a
flier by Accountability Utah on HB 144.
HB
239, on the other hand, would repeal in-state tuition
advantages for illegal aliens. From lines 37-43:
(2) (a) "Eligible student" means a financially needy student
who is:
(i) unconditionally admitted to and enrolled at a Utah
postsecondary institution on at least a half-time basis, as
defined by the board, in an eligible postsecondary program
leading to a defined education or training objective, as
defined by the board; and
(ii) [(A)] a resident student under Section
53B-8-102 and rules of the board[; or].
[(B) exempt from paying the nonresident portion of
total tuition under Section 53B-8-106.]
HB 239 also entirely repeals
Section 53B-8-106 (stricken above), which comprised the
guts of HB 144.
In order to stop the lawless hordes — from all
over the globe — who are invading our nation, we need to stop
handing out enticing carrots, and stop thumbing our noses at
law-abiding immigrants who dignify themselves by coming here
legally.
Status: HB 239 was returned to the rules
committee. In other words, it failed house committee
(8-6-1).
Back to
Categories
Judicial Reform/Due Process
See also Good
Bills/Parental Rights.
Back to
Categories
Keep & Bear Arms
None at this time.
Back to
Categories
Medical Freedom
See Good
Bills, Due Process for Parents (etc.), HB 42.
Back to
Categories
Parental Rights
HB 42
S1 (amended) by rep. Mike Morley, Republican: This bill
prohibits government school employees from using the Department of Child
and Family Services (DCFS), the court system, threats, or
school policies to force parents to comply with their "mental health"
advice. From lines 44-61:
(2) Except as provided in Subsection (4) or
(5), school personnel may not:
(a) recommend to a parent or guardian that a child take or
continue to take a psychotropic drug as a condition for
attending school;
(b) require that a child take or continue to take a
psychotropic drug as a condition for attending school;
(c) recommend that a parent or guardian seek or use any of
the following:
(i) the administration of any psychotropic medication to a
child;
(ii) a psychiatric or psychological treatment for a child;
or
(iii) a psychiatric evaluation of a child;
(d) conduct a psychiatric or behavioral health evaluation of
a child without the consent of the child's parent or
guardian;
(e) recommend a specific licensed physician, psychologist,
or any other health specialist to a parent or guardian for a
child; or
(f) make a child abuse or neglect report to authorities,
including the Division of Child and Family Services, solely
on the basis that a parent or guardian refuses to consent
to:
(i) the administration of a psychotropic drug to a child;
(ii) a psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral treatment
for a child; or
(iii) a psychiatric or behavioral health evaluation of a
child.
The bill also attempts to restrict courts and DCFS from
seizing children because parents refuse to subject them to
mind-altering drugs. From lines 148-152:
(4) A court or the Division of Child and
Family Services may not remove a minor from the custody of
his parent on the basis of the refusal of the parent solely
to consent to:
(a) the administration of a psychotropic drug to a child;
(b) a psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral treatment
for a child; or
(c) a psychiatric or behavioral health evaluation of a
child.
The bill goes to great length (perhaps a bit too far) to
ensure that government school employees are not prohibited from otherwise
freely communicating with parents regarding mental health
issues (see lines 62-89).
In any event, this bill is, at the very least, a step in the
right direction. Unfortunately, judges in Utah have
little incentive to follow it. See, for example, our
write-up on judicial retention elections. In
addition, government agencies have little incentive to comply
with this law because
they are virtually immune from suit (see SB 55 S1 in our 2004
report and SB225 S1 in our 2003 report in our
Annual Reports section or in the
Extended Bill Summaries page of our Pink Slip Reports
section).
Note: HB 42 stands in direct opposition to the
impending implementation of the "New
Freedom Commission", promoted by the Bush regime. One of
the many goals of this new, Orwellian commission is to
establish mental health screening programs for every child in
every government school.
Status: HB 42 passed house committee
(7-3-0) and house (41-32-2).
HB 89 by rep. LaVar Christensen, Republican: According
to lines 12-15, this bill:
Amends the Judicial Code by repealing the
presumption that a person who has direct and exclusive care
and control of a minor at the time the minor is abused is
responsible for the abuse or neglect.
People are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty. No parent is all-knowing or all-powerful.
Children are often abused without a parent's knowledge, and
often without the parent even having a reasonable opportunity
to avoid the situation before it occurs.
Status: HB 89 passed house committee (9-2-0), house
(47-25-3), and senate committee (3-1-4).
SB 59 by sen. Mark Madsen, Republican: Parents who
educate their children at home or in private schools, and who
accept the notion that government must grant approval of their
desires, are required to fill out an annual "permission" form
that details their instruction in government-mandated subjects
(including how much time the child received instruction, days
off, etc.).
Local government school boards can further harass these
parents by denying them "permission" to home school, by
nit-picking over how they fill out their "permission slips,"
and by attempting to dictate subject matter and other
minutiae.
SB 59 strikes the following language in lines 44-47 and 53-55:
[(a)] (i) a minor over
age 16 may receive a partial release from school to enter
employment if the minor has completed the eighth grade[.
Minors excused under this subsection are required to attend
part-time schooling or home schooling as prescribed by the
board]...
[(ii) the minor is taught at home in the subjects
prescribed by the State Board of Education in accordance
with the law for the same length of time as minors are
required by law to be taught in the district schools;]
Lines 70-93 would restrict the power of these government
school boards:
(2) (a) On an annual basis, a school-age
minor shall be excused from attendance by a
local board of education and a parent
exempted from application of Subsections 53A-11-101 (2) and
(3), if the minor's parent files a signed affidavit with the
minor's school district of residence, as defined in Section
53A-2-201 , that the minor will attend a home school and
receive instruction as required by Subsection (2)(b).
(b) Each minor who attends a home school shall receive
instruction:
(i) in the subjects the State Board of Education requires to
be taught in public schools; and
(ii) for the same length of time as minors are required to
receive instruction in public schools, as provided by rules
of the State Board of Education.
(c) Subject to the requirements of Subsection (2)(b), a
parent of a minor who attends a home school is solely
responsible for:
(i) the selection of instructional materials
and textbooks;
(ii) the time, place, and method of instruction, and
(iii) the evaluation of the home school instruction.
(d) A local school board may not:
(i) require a parent of a minor who attends a home school to
maintain records of instruction or attendance;
(ii) require credentials for individuals providing home
school instruction;
(iii) inspect home school facilities; or
(iv) require standardized or other testing of home school
students.
(3) Boards excusing minors
from attendance as provided by Subsections (1) and (2)
shall issue a certificate stating that the minor is excused
from attendance during the time specified on the
certificate.
In other words, SB 59 would require local school boards to
"excuse" parents from attending government indoctrination
centers (i.e. schools) based upon an annual, signed affidavit
from the parents stating that the minor will be taught at home
in accordance with the government's curriculum and time
requirements. Parents would not be required to fill out
additional minutiae, or otherwise comply with the whims of
tyrannical school board members.
It should be clearly stated that SB 59 still turns a blind eye
to the unjust supposition that parents must seek government
permission to educate their own offspring. This
supposition is intolerable, and should be vehemently opposed,
ignored, and ridiculed by all freedom-loving citizens.
Our Creator empowered parents, not the government, to educate
their children. For this reason, it could be argued
that SB 59 is still too immoral and unacceptable to support.
Still, SB 59 does reduce the egregious reporting requirements
and, aside from the repulsive "permission" slip, makes it
virtually impossible for government school board members to
further stick their noses in parents' business. We view
this as a very small step in the right direction.
Status: SB 59 passed senate committee (7-0-0).
Back to
Categories
Privacy
None at this time.
Back to
Categories
Property Rights
None at this time.
Back to
Categories
Taxes, Regulation, Subsidies
HJR 12 (rep. John Dougall, Republican): This joint
resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to repeal the
property tax and uniform fee on personal property. It is
about time.
Status: Amazingly, this
bill was held in house committee (12-1-2).
Back to
Categories
Bad Bills
Abortion (Infanticide)
None at this time.
Back to
Categories
Cruel & Unusual Punishment
Senate Confirmation of
Robert Adkins: On October 26, 2000, Paul Wayment left his
2-year old, sleeping son, Gage Wayment, strapped in his car
seat for approximately 45 minutes while he scouted an area for
deer prior to the hunting season. The boy managed to unstrap
himself, get out of the car, and wander off. He was found dead
several days later by searchers.
Paul Wayment had to live with the anguish of
his mistake. His boy was gone from him. Rather than leave the
destitute man alone, then-Summit County Attorney Robert Adkins
apparently felt that the state needed to exact it's own pound
of flesh, and decided to prosecute Paul Wayment for negligent
homicide.
The district judge (Robert Hilder) sentenced
Paul Wayment to 30 days in jail. On the day he was to begin
his sentence, July 17, 2001, Paul Wayment traveled near to the
spot where Gage Wayment's body was found and put a bullet
through his own head.
Adkins downplayed his decision to drag this
emotionally unstable man through the added humiliation of
court and potential jail time, with the flimsy excuse that he
recommended to the judge that Paul Wayment not receive jail
time. In his senate confirmation hearing on February 7, Adkins
stated: "I do not back away from difficult cases." Nor
do we, Mr. Adkins.
Source: "Judicial
nominee comes under fire at hearing: Citizens criticize Summit
official's handling of cases," Geoffrey Fattah, Deseret
News, Feb. 6, 2005.
Laws written on paper do not constitute deity,
and should never be pursued absent common sense or devoid of
appropriate compassion. Any person sick enough to pursue such
an unjust and unmerciful prosecution has no business being a
judge.
Status: The senate
unanimously (28-0-1) confirmed Adkins' nomination.
See HB 92 under Bad Bills, Taxes,
Regulation, Subsidies.
Back to
Categories
Decentralization of Power
HB 166 (rep. Paul Ray, Republican): This bill allows
local governments to enact laws that are more
restrictive than the "Utah Indoor Clean Air Act," but not
less restrictive. If local governments are to be
trusted at all with regard to modifying this act, then they
should have the power to make modifications in both
directions.
Note, for example, that if SB
77 passes, local governments would not be able to
counteract its unjust effects on private property owners.
Status: HB 166 failed house committee (2-6-3).
Back to
Categories
Election Reform
See also Unsure/Skeptical,
HB 211.
Back to
Categories
Equal Standing Before the Law
HJR 2 (Craig Frank, Republican): This resolution would require legislative research to attach a family impact
statement to each piece of legislation. Questions include:
-
"How does
this legislation strengthen the stability of the family and
especially the marital commitment?"
-
"Does this
legislation assist the family to perform its function or
does it substitute government activity for the function?
How?"
-
"What
specific services would this legislation provide to
families?" and
-
"By what
amount does this bill increase or decrease family earnings
for a family of five in Utah making $55,000 per year?"
Well, of course families should certainly be considered in any
piece of legislation considered. But are these families more
important than widows who make far less each year? Is the
stability of a family of more import than that of an orphan?
HJR 2 encapsulates the political statement in George Orwell’s
Animal Farm,
"All animals
are equal, but some are more equal than others."
We could add widows, orphans, the disabled, the homely, and any
other group of persons who, because of their circumstance or
disability, never had the privilege of being married into HJR
2's definition of "the family." But in order to cover all the
possibilities and be just and fair, we would eventually end up
listing enough groups to cover everyone in our society.
Without acknowledging it, we would end up right back where we
started: viewing each and every individual as equal before
the law.
Rather than end up that way, we should start off that way.
See also Bad
Bills, Thought Crimes, SB 181 and HB 50.
Back to
Categories
Ethics
HB 14
(amended) (rep. Fred Hunsaker, Republican): The
original (introduced) bill reduced voter control over elections and allowed
officials and bureaucrats to sneak tax increases under the
citizen radar screen. Specifically, HB 14 did the
following:
-
Eliminates the requirement on government to
mail notices of proposed property tax increases (lines
647-656);
-
Eliminates voter challenges (lines 737-778);
and
-
Reduces power of election judges to prohibit
unqualified voters from receiving a ballot (lines
3298-3300).
As we argued, voters already have enough problems controlling
runaway elections.
A new amended bill has been introduced and is still under review.
It appears to remove most of this offensive language, but
presents a new round of comprehensive changes, some of which
again appear ominous. For this reason, HB 14 remains in
the Bad Bills section.
For more information on the sad state of our
election process, see our
recent write-up on election snafus.
Status: HB 14 (amended) passed house committee
(10-1-0), house (72-0-3), and senate committee (4-0-4), and
senate (24-0-5).
HJR 5 (Rep. Dave Hogue,
Republican): According to Article VI, Section 19 of the
Utah State Constitution, legislators already have the
power to impeach and remove the Governor and state and
judicial officers (with the exception of justices of the
peace), for "high crimes, misdemeanors, or malfeasance in
office." According to Article VI, Section 21,
All other officers not liable to impeachment shall be
removed for any of the offenses in this article [i.e. high
crimes, misdemeanors, or malfeasance], in such a manner as
may be provided by law.
Unfortunately, the legislature is habitually
derelict in exercising its current authority, as we have amply
documented throughout our website.
HJR 5, however, amends Article VI, Section 21
of the Utah Constitutional granting the legislature power to
remove any officer for any reason whatsoever. From lines 29-31
of HJR 5:
2) Nothing in this section may be construed to impair the
authority of the Legislature to provide by statute for the
removal from office of officers not liable to impeachment
for reasons other than the offenses specified in this
article.
This is a vague and dangerous precedent.
The legislature would be empowered to write statute
authorizing itself to conduct witch hunts based upon any
frivolous, unsound reasoning.
Status: HJR 5 failed house committee
(6-6-1).
Back to
Categories
Federal Implications
None at this time.
Back to
Categories
Free Speech
HB 131 (amended) by Douglas "Adolf" Aagard,
Republican: This frightening bill would destroy free speech,
undermine religious freedom and property rights.
This bill specifically:
"...Provides that knowingly approaching within eight feet of
a person for the purpose of passing out literature,
displaying an object, or engaging in protest or counseling
without the other person's consent is a class B
misdemeanor if the person is within 100 feet of an entrance
door to a health care facility or place of worship." (lines
13-18, emphasis added)
HB 131 is a natural extension of the modern
"Free Speech Zones" philosophy that has its roots in
Hindenburg and Hitler's Nazi Germany, as well as Stalin's
Russia. The entire country of America used to be a free
speech zone. Now, citizens beg the government for
permits to freely speak their mind — even public property.
The bold history of free speech is being rejected in favor of
ever-expanding zones of censorship.
HB 131 also allows any passerby to sue the
person or persons who pass out fliers, attempt to engage them
in conversation, etc.:
"...[HB 131] permits recovery of civil damages and
injunctive relief against a person who violates the above
provisions or who incites another person to violate the
above provisions;... and provides that an action for
recovery of civil damages or injunctive relief is not
dependent upon a person's conviction of the above
provisions." (lines 19-21 and 24-25)
Finally, this bill grants power to local governments to enact
even more stringent statutes against free speech:
"...[HB 131] permits local political subdivisions to adopt
different ordinances or regulations provided that they
are at least as restrictive as the above provisions..."
(lines 22-23, emphasis added)
HB 131 is being sold as something that will
protect people in churches and hospitals from speech they
might be uncomfortable with. As with anything pursued by
big government, however, HB 131 destroys the inalienable right
of people to engage in public discourse, even on their own
property. Consider the following:
-
Churches could no longer be able to freely communicate on
their own property. Even if the pastor approves of a
written or oral message being presented on church grounds,
according to HB 131, one intolerant attendant or passerby
could land the entire effort in jail and court.
-
Property owners who own a home or business within 100 feet
of a church would likewise be at risk if they conduct such
activities on their property.
-
Religious missionaries who frequently volunteer in a
hospital and who had the "audacity" to pass out a tract, or
strike up a religious conversation, with someone who feigned
interest in their religion within 100 feet of that hospital
could later be jailed, fined, and sued. Those
missionaries would have to prove that the person wanted the
literature or oral communication. They would be
fair game for malevolent people to bait and then harass and
blackmail via court actions.
If HB 131 had been law throughout history,
consider the following:
-
The American Sons of Liberty, who often relied upon
religious organizations to disseminate their pamphlets,
could have been arrested, jailed, fined, and sued simply
because one parishioner disagreed with the content.
-
LDS founder Joseph Smith and his followers often passed out
Books of Mormon and other tracts in front of other
churches. If just one church attendant or passerby did not
like these tracts, however, they could have been arrested,
jailed, fined, and sued.
-
Martin Luther, hailed by many as a crucial religious
reformer, could have been sought for punishment by the
government for protesting Catholic policies at the doors of
a church near the Wittemburg castle in 1517. Oh, that's
right, he was.
The
first amendment of the Bill of Rights echoes the
inalienable right of all citizens to speak freely and to share
their thoughts and information with others. HB 131 would
end that. The price of tossing someone's literature in
the trash bin is far less than the price of attacking the
distributor's right to hand it to you or to speak to you.
It is particularly amazing that the churches of
our day are silent or supportive of this heinous affront to
liberty. Not only are they now gun free havens for
violent criminals, but they appear more than willing to become
No Speech Zones as well.
Rather than stand for freedom — even when it
may be inconvenient and uncomfortable — they now beg
government for the tar, feathers, and fetters with which to
silence alternative discourse and communication. What
they have apparently not figured out is that you cannot end
the communication of others without ultimately ending your
own.
What comes around goes around. Get ready
for the lawsuits and chaos.
Status: HB 131 passed house committee
(11-1-1).
Back to
Categories
Illegal Aliens
HB 223 by rep. Curtis Oda: This bill has been marketed
as prohibiting the Utah Department of Motor Vehicles from
knowingly granting drivers licenses to individuals who are
above the law (aka: illegal aliens).
Currently in Utah, illegal aliens use matricula
consular cards issued by the U.S. government or Mexico, to
obtain a valid Utah driver's license. Utah is one of only four
states to allow this flagrant circumvention of our laws
governing immigration.
Because of our lackadaisical attitude, DMV
offices have been inundated by hordes of illegal aliens — criminals — who are pouring across Utah's borders to
obtain drivers licenses, university tuition breaks (also made
possible by the legislature via
House Bill 144 in 2002), and welfare "benefits".
HB
223 appears to require any renewed licenses to expire when the
foreign visitor is no longer legally in America:
f) An original license or a renewal to an
original license obtained using proof under Subsection (9)(a)(i)(E)(III)
expires on the date of the expiration of the applicant's
foreign visa, permit, or other document granting legal
presence in the United States or on the date provided under
this Subsection (8), whichever is sooner.
(lines 152-155; see also lines 334-337)
HB 223 also appears to require proof of U.S. citizenship prior
to granting a driver's license (see lines .
Unfortunately, looks can be deceiving. HB 223 contains a
fatal flaw that renders it unacceptable. In lines 51-58:
The division shall:
(1) in accordance with Title 63, Chapter 46a, Utah
Administrative Rulemaking Act, make rules:
(a) for examining applicants for a license, as necessary for
the safety and welfare of the traveling public;
(b) for acceptable documentation of an applicant's
identity, Utah residence address,
proof of legal presence, proof of United States
citizenship, and other proof or
documentation required under this chapter;
[red, bold emphasis added]
As
we have witnessed with regard to the
gutting of SB 68 (the prohibition of taxpayer-funded
abortions in almost all cases) enacted in the 2004 session,
administrative bureaucracies have been empowered to completely
rewrite laws through the Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act.
This language in HB 223 further encourages and empowers these
bureaucrats to completely gut the bill at their leisure. The
phrase "proof of legal residency," for example, becomes a
loophole that turns all exceptions back over to the power of
the Drivers License Division. See lines 156-172 below
(emphasis and comments added):
(9) (a) In addition to the information required by Title 63,
Chapter 46b, Administrative Procedures Act, for requests for
agency action, each applicant shall have a Utah residence
address and each applicant shall:
(i) provide the applicant's:
(A) full legal name;
(B) birth date;
(C) gender;
(D) between July 1, 2002 and July 1, 2007, race in
accordance with the categories established by the United
States Census Bureau;
(E) (I) Social Security number [or];
(II) temporary identification number (ITIN) issued
by the Internal Revenue Service for a person who does not
qualify for a Social Security number [that would include
most, if not all, illegal aliens];
or
(III) (Aa) proof that the applicant is a
citizen of a country other than the United States
[that would include most, if not all, illegal aliens];
(Bb) proof that the applicant does not qualify for a Social
Security number [that would include most, if not
all, illegal aliens]; and
(Cc) proof of legal presence
[Bingo! As per lines 51-58 cited above, that means
WHATEVER the Drivers License Division requires it to be in
its forthcoming "administrative rule"] in the
United States, as authorized under federal law; and
(F) Utah residence address [of the applicant]
as documented by a form acceptable under rules made by the
division under Section 53-3-104 ;
This language effectively gives the "Fourth Branch" of state
government a front door to neutralize this entire bill.
There's nothing worse than wasting everyone's time just so a
handful of bureaucrats can turn hard work into toilet paper.
Immigration was an important benefit to the growth and
strength of early America. But in order for immigration
to benefit America, those who are not inclined to obey wise
laws must not be allowed to further corrupt our society.
It
takes time to absorb, and become unified with, people from
very different cultures. History has proven that
language and cultural barriers need to be adequately addressed
if any society is to survive. This is why policies were
enacted to limit the number of immigrants, and to screen and
test potential immigrants prior to awarding them citizenship.
Without sufficient time and other precautions, Utah will
continue down the dismal road recently evidenced in
California. We will Balkanize and lose the one advantage
we still have over other nations: a heritage of unity, a focus
on maintaining essential freedoms, and a respect for just and
wise laws.
Those who would come and refuse to abide by the laws that made
our Country should not remain. These criminals should be
deported — not be rewarded with driver's licenses for breaking
our laws.
In order to stop the lawless hordes
— from all over the globe — who
are invading our nation, we need to stop
handing out enticing carrots, and stop thumbing our noses at
law-abiding immigrants who dignify themselves by coming here
legally.
Unfortunately, HB 223, in its present form,
only gives an unelected bureaucracy additional power, and is
not a step in the right direction.
Status: HB 223 passed house committee (10-0-1).
Note:
For more information on this topic, see
"Illegal Aliens" on our Other Resources page.
Back to
Categories
Judicial Reform/Due Process
SB 135
S1
by sen. Lyle Hillyard, Republican: This bill
allows any judicial district to create a drug court; and
allows Davis and Weber counties to create a pilot drug board
to oversee intensive substance abuse treatment for parolees
under conditions set out by the Board of Pardons and Parole
and the Department of Corrections.
Drug courts turn judges into prosecutorial
collaborators. Rather than provide an objective ruling, the
judge is reduced to a glorified social worker who works
arm-in-arm with a prosecutorial-minded team of psychologists,
legal drug pushers, and other "professionals" to "treat" the
defendant. This Orwellian concept originated in the
former Soviet Union as a way of dealing with political
dissidents.
Status: SB 135 passed senate
committee (4-0-4), senate committee (4-0-4), senate (28-0-1),
and house committee (8-0-1).
See also Bad
Bills/Parental Rights.
Back to
Categories
Keep & Bear Arms (Self-Defense)
None at this time.
Back to
Categories
Medical Freedom
HB 25 (amended) (rep. Jackie Biskupski, Democrat): Midwifery (or
home birthing) is technically illegal in Utah, though many
Utahns wisely and courageously thumb their noses at this
unjust, immoral law. In addition to it being the right
of parents to deliver their baby as they see fit, midwife
deliveries are statistically much safer than hospital
deliveries.
This bill provides a new layer of government
regulation in the form of midwifery certification and
licensure, governed by an unelected board of individuals. It
also provides some legal recognition of midwifery, but
this recognition comes at an unacceptable regulatory price.
Proponents of this bill are asking those who
defy current law to accept this Trojan Horse of
regulation, and ignore the likelihood that this licensure will
soon expand to micro-regulate all midwives through onerous
regulatory hoops and stiff fines and punishments. In addition,
as is par for the course, increased regulation will inevitably
raise the cost of midwifery services as is the case with
"professional" medical services today.
Status: HB 25 (amended) passed house committee
(7-1-0) and house (41-30-4).
See also Bad
Bills, Due Process (for Parents, etc.), SB 83.
Back to
Categories
Parental Rights
See also Bad Bills/Free
Speech, HB 131.
SB 15 (amended) by sen. Chris
Buttars, Republican: This bill horrifically broadens the
definition of child abuse to include any "crime" committed in
the presence of children. Once again, Buttars appears to
be playing a clever game to deceive citizens. From lines
29-33 of the
original (referred to as "introduced") SB 15:
(1) "Abused child" means a child 17 years
of age or younger who is a victim of: (a) sexual abuse
or [serious] physical abuse [and
who is 17 years of age or younger.]; or (b)
other criminal offense committed against the child or
committed in the presence of the child. (29-33)
What if the person is breaking a bad law, or is committing a
trivial crime such as jaywalking or driving with a broken tail
light?
What if an innocent spouse is involved? Several cases
have come to our attention where an abusive spouse has
repeatedly trespassed or violated court orders. The
other spouse was forced to call the police for assistance, and
the Utah Department of Child & Family Services (DCFS) then
stepped in and attempted to seize the children because these
actions occurred "in the presence of children".
Buttars original SB 15 was attacked for these and other
weaknesses. In response, Buttars now offers this amended
version that would accomplish the same sinister objective
using different verbiage:
1) "Abused child" means a child 17
years of age or younger who is a victim of:
(a) sexual abuse or [serious] physical abuse
[and who is 17 years of age or younger.]; or
(b) other crimes involving children where the child is a
primary victim or a critical witness, SUCH AS in
domestic violence cases and drug-related child endangerment
cases. (lines 29-33b, bold caps added)
Notice the choice phrase "such as...", which in layman's terms
means "including, but not in any way limited to..." In
other words, "other crimes" still has no limitations, and can
include any crime where the child could be
called as a witness.
SB 15 (amended) would STILL encourage DCFS to attempt
ridiculous attacks on innocent parents and families.
SB 15 (amended) also empowers existing quasi-governmental
organizations known as "Children Justice Centers," to get
intimately involved in managing this new definition of
"abuse." From lines 52-55c:
(1) (a) There is established a program that
provides a comprehensive, multidisciplinary, nonprofit,
intergovernmental response to sexual abuse of children [and
serious], physical abuse of children,
and other crimes involving children where the child is a
primary victim or a critical witness, SUCH AS in
domestic violence cases and drug-related child endangerment
cases, in a facility known as a Children's Justice
Center. (see also lines 97-101; bold caps added)
Intergovernmental could also be termed "intermeshed with
government" (see our discussion of "fascism" in
HB 179). These "centers"
receive tax dollars and therefore will have no financial
incentive to resist the will of the state. Through SB 15
(amended), they will soon comprise another layer of
bureaucracy, including, no doubt, expert witnesses who will
join DCFS, the Guardians ad Litem Office, Child Protective
Services, and the Utah Attorney General's Office in testifing
against innocent parents in court.
To learn more about this intermeshed involvement, consider
lines 136 and 141-153:
(4) The Advisory Board on Children's Justice
shall:... (e) review, evaluate, and make recommendations
concerning state investigative, administrative, and judicial
handling in both civil and criminal cases of child abuse,
child sexual abuse, [and] neglect, and other
crimes involving children where the child is a primary
victim or a critical witness, SUCH AS in domestic
violence cases and drug-related child endangerment cases;
(f) recommend programs to improve the prompt and fair
resolution of civil and criminal court proceedings; and (g)
recommend changes to state laws and procedures to provide
comprehensive protection for children [of] from
abuse, child sexual abuse, [and] neglect, and
other crimes involving children where the child is a primary
victim or a critical witness, SUCH AS in domestic
violence cases and drug-related child endangerment cases.
(5) The Advisory Board on Children's Justice may not
supersede the authority of the contracting public agency to
oversee the accountability of the center, including the
budget, costs, personnel, and management pursuant to Section
67-5b-104 and Title 51, Chapter [2] 2a,
Audits of Political Subdivisions, Interlocal Organizations,
and Other Local Entities. (bold caps added)
Finally, in an ironic twist, sen. Buttars calls for General
Shurtleff to educate the public on this new definition of
abuse. From lines 69-70 and 92-93:
(3) The attorney general and each center
shall fulfill the statewide purpose of each center by:
(k) enhancing the community understanding of criminal
offenses committed against or in the presence of children.
However, Buttars
recently stated:
"I think that anything this
prominent [the upcoming marriage amendment] will be
challenged legally and it will be my suggestion that we have
independent outside counsel who is really into
constitutional law. Mark Shurtleff isn't."
If Shurtleff is not "into constitutional law," why is Buttars
putting him in charge of educating the public on the law? The
bizarre relationship between these two is only eclipsed by the
legislation they both pursue in tandem. Shurtleff, after
all, was the primary drafter of SB 175 S2 in the 2004 session,
an unconstitutional attack on your property rights (see our
analysis of SB 175 S2).
Note: The
Utah
Eagle Forum rallied around sen.
Buttars, even after he attacked your property rights and after
his repeatedly dismal voting performance (see our 2004 and
2003
Annual Report).
The Utah Eagle Forum
encouraged citizens to attend an August 18, 2004, press
conference sponsored by Buttars and another representative and
a political organizing meeting in Buttars' home on September
24, 2004. Buttars was also a featured speaker at the Utah
Eagle Forum's January 8, 2005, annual convention.
Citizens should realize that
accountability does not apply to politicians only, but to the
citizens who enable their behavior. See our
Issue in Focus: "How Citizens Enable Political
Corruption," and learn how you, or your organization, can
be more effective and foster more self-respect.
To learn more about the parental rights you
DO NOT have under Utah law, see our alert, "Utah
Legislature Declares War on Your Family" and the
Parental Rights section of our Issues & Alerts page.
Status: SB 15 (amended) passed senate
committee (5-0-3), senate (26-0-3), and house committee
(10-0-3). In the senate, Buttars even
received support from anti-family zealots such as
Dan Eastman (golf buddy of DCFS director Richard
Anderson),
Patrice Arent, and
Paula Julander.
SB 72 (amended) by sen. Dan Eastman. Republican: In
cases where the state has seized children from parents, this
bill allows unelected bureaucrats at the Division of Child and
Family Services (DCFS) to deny parent time if they feel it may
somehow prevent "emotional anguish". From lines 411-417:
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (9)(a), the
person designated by the division or a court to
supervise a parent-time session may deny parent-time for
that session if the supervising person determines that,
based on the parent's condition, it is necessary to deny
parent-time in order to:
(i) protect the physical safety of the child;
(ii) protect the life of the child; or
(iii) prevent the child from suffering emotional anguish.
SB 72 adds insult to injury and is par for the course for
anti-family zealots like
sen. Eastman (also a golf buddy of DCFS director Richard
Anderson). Parents are already denied basic due process
SB 72 will be used to deny innocent parents even minimal
visitation with their shell-shocked children.
To learn more about the parental rights you
DO NOT have under Utah law, see our alert, "Utah
Legislature Declares War on Your Family" and the
Parental Rights section of our Issues & Alerts page.
Status: SB 72 (amended) passed senate committee
(3-0-3) and senate (28-0-1).
SB 83 (amended) by sen. Dave Thomas, Republican: This
bill is even more watered-down than the final product that
failed last year (SB
90 S4 (amended) — also by sen. Thomas), which barely made
our "Good Bills" list last year. SB 83 is now too weak
to be considered a positive step for the following reasons:
1) SB 83 requires a weaker standard of
evidence against parents. Last year's bill was "beyond
a reasonable doubt", and this year's bill is only "clear and
convincing evidence.")Judges currently apply this standard
in many cases in which they abuse innocent parents, which
leads us to the second problem.
2) Under SB 83, accused parents are still not
afforded a trial by a jury of their peers. One man, an
unelected judge with a virtual guarantee of lifetime
appointment and virtually no incentive to place the needs of
the family over the desires of state bureaucracies,
determines the fate of these parents. This is
tyrannical and wrong.
For more information, see our
Issue in Focus: "Why Are Jury Trials Crucial to Your
Freedom?" and our
write-up on judicial retention elections.
3) SB 83 does not require the medical
situation to be deadly serious before the state is allowed
to even consider intervention. Even if SB 83 passes,
the state can initiate court action against parents who
refuse to put their child on mind/behavior altering
medication, or who try homeopathic cures rather than
pharmaceutical drugs.
4) If the court does find that a parent's
medical decision does constitute neglect, this is still
grounds, according to other state statute, to permanently
remove the child from his parents.
5) SB 83 will actually be harmful by giving
the appearance that due process is in place, when, in fact,
it is not.
Citizens have brought DCFS and judicial abuses
to legislators' attention for years now, and have repeatedly
demanded that their due process rights be respected.
Unfortunately, legislators are unwilling to recognize that our
laws are as respected as toilet paper in the halls of the
judicial branch. They refuse to restore judicial
accountability and due process, and instead run "handy wipe"
bills like SB 83.
Parents are obligated by their Creator to make
the tough decisions regarding the medical care of their
children. It is high time parents were again treated
with the respect due their monumental responsibility — but
through real legislation, not another farce.
DCFS even appears to be endorsing SB 83.
According to the
Salt Lake Tribune:
Adam Trupp, policy analyst for DCFS, said
while the bill remains under close review, Thomas has worked
with the agency over the summer and listened to their
concerns. "It creates a reasonable standard that people
can understand and that is great." This differs from the
controversial measure last year in that Thomas was pushing
to have a parent presumed competent to make a medical
decision for their child unless the state could prove
otherwise "beyond a reasonable doubt." That legal standard —
typically reserved for criminal proceedings — is the highest
evidentiary threshold of proof in the judicial system. State
DCFS officials last session said that such a threshold would
flip the agency's attention to the parent to assess
competency, rather than deal with the welfare of the child.
Thomas was willing to lower the evidentiary standard in SB83
and also established the "reasonable and prudent"
measurement that parents and officials can look to. "It sets
a standard that lawyers can understand and the public and
parents can as well," Trupp said. "What it does is clearly
state where the burden lies. . . If you are behaving
reasonably and prudently as a parent and caring for your
child in a way you believe to be appropriate, the state will
not intervene." (bold added)
Source: "Parental choice in health
care is back on the Hill," Amy Joi Bryson, Jan. 19, 2005.
Status: SB 83 (amended) passed senate
committee (4-0-2), house committee
(6-0-2), house (67-0-8), and the senate then concurred with
house amendments (24-0-5). Thomas has even
recruited the support of anti-family zealots such as
Dan Eastman (golf buddy of DCFS director Richard
Anderson),
Patrice Arent, and
Paula Julander.
See also Bad
Bills, Medical Freedom, HB 25.
Back to
Categories
Property Rights
SB 77 (amended) (sen. Michael Waddoups, Republican): This bill
removes the exemption for private clubs from the
"Indoor Clean Air Act". In other words, private
property owners would no longer be allowed to let people smoke
freely in their business establishments.
It is one thing to regulate smoking in
public places, but quite another to do so in private places. Owners of private property have the right to
encourage or restrict smoking as they see fit within,
and on, their premises — without interference from a
government nanny.
The current "Utah Clean Air Act" provided an
exemption in statute
26-38-4 for adjoining private clubs built prior to 1995
that shared ventilation systems with public places. In
these cases, the private clubs could allow smoking. SB
77 also repeals this exemption.
Status: SB 77 (amended) passed senate
committee (4-1-1) failed senate (13-16-0).
Note: For more information on just how far
this nanny attitude is being stretched, see
"The Fat
Tax: Public Policy Goes Belly Up." To learn
more about sen. Waddoups, see his
Pink Slip Report.
Back to
Categories
Taxes, Regulation, Subsidies
HB 11
(rep. Brad Dee, Republican): This bill establishes corporate
welfare zones, called "development zones," and encourages
financial "incentives" for businesses in those zones.
Government should not be in the business of creating wealth or
determining which private provider should create wealth.
Government has the limited role of creating the environment so
that the private sector can do these things on its own.
These corporate welfare schemes traditionally encourage
government to steal property from innocent owners.
Status: HB 11 passed house committee
(7-0-0), house (63-4-8), and senate committee (5-0-2).
HB 17 (rep. Sheryl Allen,
Republican): This bill steals $3 million from taxpayers and
gives it to filmmaking businesses (the bill refers to it as
the "Motion Picture Incentive Fund"). This is further
evidence that once government grants corporate welfare in any
form, other entities soon come to the trough to partake
of the spoils.
Status: HB 17 passed house committee
(6-0-1), house (58-14-3), and senate committee (5-0-2).
HB 18 (rep. Rebecca Lockhart, Republican): This bill
is a tax increase on vehicle owners. It would:
-
Increase taxes by $9 on temporary
registration permits, motorcycle registration, passenger
vehicle registration, and vintage vehicle registration;
-
Increase taxes by approximately 10% on small
trailer, farm truck, large truck, and lifetime commercial
trailer registration, original and annual personalized
license plate set, and oversize and overweight permits; and
-
Increase taxes on duplicate certificate of
registration, original and duplicate certificate of title,
original and duplicate license plate set, original special
group license plate set, motor carrier fee, and overweight
vehicle fines.
Rep. Lockhart has repeatedly claimed that she
is a conservative who stands for smaller government and less
taxes and regulation. It will be interesting to how this
will be presented as anything other than a tax increase.
Note: This bill would also stop the repeal of
special fuels surcharge.
HB 56 S1 (rep. Peggy Wallace,
Republican): The
original (introduced) version of this bill
called for the following:
Provides that a divorce may not be granted on
the grounds of irreconcilable differences if:
there are minor children of the marriage;
the parties have been married longer than ten years; or
one of the spouses objects. (lines 11-16)
We
argued that this bill unreasonably sets couples on unequal
standing before the law. Why can't this be granted if no
spouse objects and they have been married longer than ten
years? What if the entire family feels that such should
be granted by the court?
This
new substitute bill creates yet another meaningless,
taxpayer-funded "task force" to study marriage, divorce,
"irreconcilable differences", pornography, etc.
As
we stated before, a
positive, meaningful reform with regard to divorce would consist of restoring the
right to a trial by jury in cases where divorces become
"irreconcilable" and nasty. You don't need a
"task force" to figure that out.
For more information, see our
Issue in Focus: "Why Are Jury Trials Crucial to Your
Freedom?" and our
write-up on judicial retention elections.
Status: HB 56 passed house committee (12-0-1).
HB 58 (rep. Peggy Wallace, Republican): This bill
would establish a "Government Efficiency and Effectiveness
Review Committee," funded with more tax dollars.
Never mind the fact that the citizen's C.P.A., our
elected State Auditor, is woefully under funded and cannot
possibly monitor Utah's over $8 billion annual budget. Never
mind that his office is not permitted — by statute — to conduct a
comprehensive audit of the government school system. Never mind that
we have numerous legislative committees that apparently don't
do anything.
And never mind that all representatives and
senators, including Wallace, were theoretically elected to
BE the "Government Efficiency and Effectiveness Review
Committee."
Will somebody PLEASE teach this woman
what a state auditor does, and let her in on the running joke
regarding legislative committees?
To learn more about Wallace's grand ideas
regarding government
efficiency, see HB 179 below.
Status: HB 58 passed house committee
(6-0-5).
HB 92 (rep. Michael Noel, Republican): This bill
increases the seat belt violation from an infraction to a
class C misdemeanor, and temporarily revokes the license of
minors who did not "buckle up". HB 92 is further evidence that
there is no foreseeable end to the zealotry of government
nannies.
Note: For more information on just how far
this nanny attitude is being stretched, see
"The Fat
Tax: Public Policy Goes Belly Up."
HB 179 (aka "The Enron Bill") (rep. Peggy Wallace,
Republican): In 2003, Wallace passed HB 240, Substitute 1,
which established a "venture capital" contingency fund of $20
million each year. This fund provided welfare subsidies to
private companies.
HB 240 flagrantly violated the spirit of
the
Utah State Constitution regarding non-interference in the
free market system (see Article XII. Section 20, restricting
"conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce."). The Utah
State Auditor’s Office, charged with protecting the financial
interests of taxpayers, has correctly filed suit to have HB 240
declared unconstitutional.
Source: "Fund
act is subject of lawsuit," Brice Wallace, Deseret News,
Nov. 2, 2004. See our
2003 Annual Report to learn how your legislators voted on
HB 240.
These taxpayer-funded corporate welfare monies
comprise the "fund of funds" and are overseen by the "Utah
Capital Investment Corporation." According to the Deseret
News, this pseudo-government corporation now has assets of
over $100 million.
Source: "Capital
company names directors," Deseret News staff,
Deseret News, May 14, 2004.
In other words,
this
pseudo-private corporation is allowed to gamble with
taxpayer dollars.
This effort encapsulates the very meaning of the term
"fascism" (government manipulation and control under the
façade of private ownership) and, again, directly contradicts
Utah's Constitution:
"Article XII, Section 20.
[Free market system as state policy -- Restraint of trade
and monopolies prohibited.]
It is the policy of the state of Utah that a free market
system shall govern trade and commerce in this state to
promote the dispersion of economic and political power and
the general welfare of all the people. Each contract,
combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy
in restraint of trade or commerce is prohibited. Except as
otherwise provided by statute, it is also prohibited for any
person to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or combine or
conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize any
part of trade or commerce."
Wallace is back for more. HB 179, known
to some as "The Enron Bill," goes one step further by
exempting the "Utah Capital Investment Corporation" empowered
in HB 179 with taxpayer dollars, and its board of directors,
from being forced to report taxpayer fund performance of
venture firms and private equity firms.
In other words, there
will be no accountability for how these unconstitutional funds
are used.
Status: HB 179 passed house committee
(7-0-0), house (73-0-2), and senate committee (3-0-4), and
senate (27-0-2).
Note: For more information on this
fascist agenda, see our commentary on
Constitutional Amendment 2 (sponsored by now-House Speaker
Greg Curtis) that passed last November.
SB 27
(amended) (sen. Alma Mansell, Republican): This bill
provides blanket reauthorization for several pork barrel
projects and onerous regulatory acts slated to be sunsetted
(terminated by a certain date) in 2005.
The following were made permanent additions to state statute:
The following were extended from 2005 to 2015:
-
Dietitian Certification Act
-
Health Facility Administrator Act
-
Nurse Practice Act
-
Occupational Therapy Practice Act
-
Professional Engineers and Professional Land
Surveyors Licensing Act
-
Utah Digital Health Service Commission Act
The following were extended from 2005 to 2010:
It is common strategy to pass questionable legislation with a
sunset clause in it, and then to pass bills like SB 27 each
year until those laws become permanent fixtures of a big
government.
Note: For more information on the track record
of sen. Mansell, see his
Pink Slip report.
Status: SB 26 passed the senate without a senate
committee hearing (25-0-4), house committee (10-0-1), house (53-16-6),
and the senate concurred with house amendments (27-0-2).
SB 35
S1 (amended) (sen. Dave Thomas,
Republican): Related to HB 179 above,
the
original (referred to as "introduced) SB 35 expanded the power of the pseudo-government agency,
the "Utah Capital Investment Corporation":
9-2-1913. Organization of Utah fund of funds.
(1) The corporation shall organize the Utah fund of funds.
(2) (a) The Utah fund of funds shall make
investments in private seed and venture capital partnerships
or entities in a manner and for the following purposes:
[(a)] (i) to encourage the availability
of a wide variety of venture capital in the state;
[(b)] (ii) to strengthen the economy
of the state;
[(c)] (iii) to help business in the
state gain access to sources of capital;
[(d)] (iv) to help build a
significant, permanent source of capital available to serve
the needs of businesses in the state; and
[(e)] (v) to accomplish all these
benefits in a way that minimizes the use of contingent tax
credits.
(b) A business relationship or
dealing with a local, state, or federal public entity does
not preclude a private seed or venture capital partnership
or entity from receiving an investment under Subsection
(2)(a).
Mixing government control, taxpayer monies, and
private monies, is the objective of the fascist philosophy.
The original SB 35 appears to have come under fire from irate
citizens.
This substitute bill has craftily shifted focus
to tightening relationships between higher education
institutions and public/private venture capital entities.
From lines 46-52b:
(c) (i) Each institution may enter into
business relationships or dealings with private seed or
venture capital entities or partnerships consistent with
Utah Constitution Article VI, Section 29, Subsection (2).
(ii) A business dealing or relationship entered into under
Subsection (c)(i) does not preclude the private entity or
partnership from participating in or receiving benefits from
a venture capital program authorized or sanctioned by the
laws of this state, unless otherwise
precluded by the specific law that authorizes
or sanctions the program.
(iii) SUBSECTIONS (c)(i) AND (ii) ALSO APPLY TO THE UTAH
COLLEGE OF APPLIED TECHNOLOGY 52b CREATED IN TITLE 53B,
CHAPTER 2a, UTAH COLLEGE OF APPLIED TECHNOLOGY.
This substitute has the same problems as the
original bill. See HB 179 above for more discussion on
the problems with this bill.
Status: SB 35 S1 passed senate committee
(4-0-3), senate (26-0-3), house committee (5-0-2) and house
(69-0-6).
SB 37 (amended) by sen. Dan Eastman: This bill would dramatically
raise corporate security bonds as follows:
-
From $50,000 to $75,000 for
motor vehicle drivers licenses;
-
From $20,000 to $75,000 for
special equipment dealers licenses;
-
From $1,000 to $10,000 for
motorcycle, off-highway vehicle, or small trailer's or
crusher's license; and
-
From $10,000 to $20,000 for
body shop licenses.
This is a blatant attempt to squash the little guy. Only
larger establishments can afford these kinds of onerous
regulations.
Note: Dan Eastman used to be an
executive of a large automotive dealership in Utah.
Status: SB 37 (amended) passed senate committee (6-0-0),
house committee (11-0-2), house (62-3-10), and the senate
concurred with house amendments (24-0-5).
SB 108
S1 (amended) by sen. Curt Bramble, Republican: This
latest amended substitute deals with telecommunications and is still under review.
The sponsor's dismal past performance with regard to
pseudo-governmental organizations and
general voting record, however, do not elicit cause for much
hope. In addition, this bill is changing too quickly to
ever receive a thorough review and should be voted down for
that reason alone.
Status: SB 108 S1 (amended) passed
senate committee (6-0-0), senate (26-0-3), and house committee
(11-0-1).
SB 109
S1 by sen. Karen Hale, Democrat: This bill repeals
the provision that makes a seat belt violation for a person 19
years of age or older enforceable only as a secondary action
when the person is detained for another offense. Our
ever-encroaching, nanny government never stops trying to
protect us from ourselves.
Note: For more information on just how far
this nanny attitude is being stretched, see
"The Fat
Tax: Public Policy Goes Belly Up."
Status: SB 109 passed senate committee
(4-1-1).
See also Bad
Bills, Property Rights, SB 77.
Back to
Categories
Thought Crimes (Destruction of
Equality & Due Process)
SB 181 by sen. Karen Hale, Democrat. Aside from an
unimportant alteration in the severability clause, this bill
is identical to HB 50 (discussed in detail below). As
suspected, the Marxists are attempting to start the bill in the
senate this year.
HB 50 by rep. David Litvack, Democrat. This bill would
do the following:
-
Place people on unequal grounds before the
law;
-
Trivialize vile atrocities;
-
Establish thought crimes; and
-
Balkanize and destroy society.
From the bill language:
(1) If the trier of fact finds beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant, in committing an
offense, intentionally selected the victim or the property
primarily because of the defendant's actual bias or
prejudice, a: (a) class B misdemeanor is a class A
misdemeanor; (b) class A misdemeanor is a third degree
felony... [etc.]
(6) As used in this section, "bias or prejudice" means
intentionally selecting the victim based on perceived or
actual attributes that include, but are not limited to,
race, color, disability, religion, sexual orientation,
national origin, ancestry, age, or gender. [bold added]
Place people on
unequal grounds before the law
HB 50 would use the law to divide (or segregate) both victims
and victimizers into groups (or classes). The criteria
used to divide them is whether the crime was politically
correct or not.
HB 50 trivializes the rights of those who are not victims of
"politically incorrect" crimes. HB 50 proposes, for instance,
that a woman who is sexually assaulted because the perpetrator
was indifferent to her womanhood is somehow not as deserving
of full justice as is a woman who was victimized due to "bias
or prejudice". Try telling a rape victim that her
sufferings do not qualify for an "enhanced penalty" against
her assailant — because she was not "fortunate enough" to be
targeted for the color of her skin or her group affiliation.
This "group rights" philosophy is not new, and
is perhaps best defended by Karl Marx, of Communist Manifesto
fame. Marx constructed distinct, hierarchical groups in an
attempt to build a moral, philosophical foundation for the
political system of communism, or socialism.
Marx assigned different values to individuals
based upon their “class”, or affiliation, in society. He then
pitted these classes against each other, calling for the
"working class" to rise up, overthrow the elite class, and
establish a communal system would force all members to
contribute their energies, rights, and property to the group.
Under Marx's philosophy, the group became an
entity unto itself, greater than the individual. Sub-groups
and individuality were to be neatly assimilated — in Borg-like
fashion — for the good of the collective. In George Orwell's
classic, 1984, this mentality was termed "groupthink."
Unfortunately, Marx's groupthink philosophies have been
stubbornly repeated around the globe, resulting in only dismal
failure and untold human death and misery.
Senator Greg Bell, a Republican thought crimes
proponent, recently exposed this diabolical "groupthink"
mentality:
"Bell said he supports hate crimes
[legislation] because when someone is 'a victim because he
or she is a Jew or a Mormon or black or whatever... the
perpetrator is assaulting the class. The true hate crime is
not done against the person, it's done against the class.'"
Source: "Hate-crimes
bill gets a lobbyist," Deborah Bulkeley, Deseret News,
Jan. 29, 2005.
In contrast, the
Declaration of Independence
claims that "all men are created equal and endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable rights." President Thomas
Jefferson spoke in his
first inaugural speech
of "equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or
persuasion" and that if we ever departed from this principle
"in moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our
steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace,
liberty, and safety."
The rights of the individual, regardless of
his/her race, gender, or affiliations are pre-eminent and
should be vigorously defended without regard to these
characteristics. The blindfold of Lady Justice (Justitia)
represents impartiality and her scales represent generality
and uniformity.
In America, Justice is supposed to treat all
victims and perpetrators equally. But in Marxian
philosophy, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal
than others" (Animal Farm, by George Orwell).
Trivialize vile
atrocities
To see how ridiculous this unequal "groupthink" philosophy is,
consider something as loathsome as pedophilia. Under HB
50, justice would no longer be confidently meted out against
these vile predators. Again, from the bill:
"Bias or prejudice" means intentionally
selecting the victim based on perceived or actual attributes
that include, but are not limited to... sexual
orientation..."
Pedophiles can argue that they feel "love" or "attraction"
toward their victims. Would they therefore be
subject to a lesser penalty for the same, or similar, crime,
than would a heterosexual Black Panther member who exhibited a
"bias or prejudice" against his homosexual, Jewish
neighbor?
Going further, what if a man were to assault a pedophile
because he bragged about his latest child exploitation? Would
that man then be subject to a greater penalty than would the
pedophile for his act against a child? The man would be
"biased" or "prejudiced," while the pedophile appeared to be
indifferent, even "benevolent" in his own mind.
Establish
thought crimes
The following is what we expect our juries to perform in the
courtroom:
1) Determine whether a particular action or
crime was performed by the accused;
2) Whether the action or crime was an
accident or purposely committed;
3) Whether the action or crime was committed
with premeditation (or whether there was a conspiracy
involved—even more premeditation); and
4) Whether there was malicious intent to do
harm.
These are enormous, difficult questions for
jurors to grapple with and attempt to satisfactorily answer.
Wise jurors attempt in their deliberations to focus on
specific actions rather than the perpetrator's belief system.
In fact, the perpetrator's belief system need only be broached
to perhaps assist in finding answers to the above questions.
Isn't that enough work for judges and juries to
get right and to do well? A juror is supposed to answer these
questions and also remain impartial, general, and uniform —
treating all victims and perpetrators equally in their final
deliberation.
Consider the ludicrous nature of this type of
deliberations that would occur in the above example of the
woman who was sexually assaulted. In addition to questions of
accident, premeditation, and intent, with thought crimes in
place, jurors would have to consider new questions such as the
following:
-
Would the perpetrator have sexually assaulted
someone else of some other persuasion if given the same
opportunity?
-
Did he do it because he hates women in
particular? Or just women of a particular color?
-
Did he do it because he was just mad at the
world? Or was he beaten as a child?
Just where is the victim in all these new
deliberations? She is largely forgotten and the courtroom
turns from her violation to the philosophies and nuances that
may exist in the mind of the accused.
It would be unreasonable, arrogant, and wrong
to force a human being to judge a perpetrator's philosophies
and belief systems along with everything else they are tasked
to do. It is simply not within the power and authority of a
biased and imperfect man.
The peaceful beauty of our traditional system
of jurisprudence is that the accused is entitled to be judged
by a jury of his peers who are assumed to be above the crime
with which he is charged. With thought crimes, no such
presumption can be made, because we are all guilty of thinking
ill of some one or some group at one time or another. No
matter how "reformed" or "politically correct" we think we
are, we are all guilty of bias and prejudice.
Balkanize and
destroy society
Putting people on different levels before the law destroys
community, fosters resentment and bigotry, and will further
Balkanize, or divide, Utahns. Ironically, thought crimes are
diametrically opposed to Martin Luther King's purported vision
for society. King publicly promoted the idea that people
should not be judged by their creed or the color of their
skin. Said he:
"I have a dream that one day this nation will
rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold
these truths to be self-evident that all men are created
equal.'"
Thought crimes, by definition, require that we
reject this proposition entirely and instead scrutinize
victims and victimizers by their beliefs, rather than judging
all by the blindfold and scales of impartiality, generality,
and uniformity.
In a
flier
Accountability Utah shared with Republican delegates
in Utah County in April 2003, we pointed out that thought
crimes legislation is increasingly used to attack beliefs and
expression. In countries like Canada and Great Britain, for
example, the government has criminally prosecuted people who
speak out against homosexual behavior.
During a debate on thought crimes legislation
sponsored by Utah County citizens, Richard Wilkins, Professor
of Law, at the BYU J. Reuben Clark Law School, and Frank
Guliuzza, Professor of Political Science at Weber State, cited
many other examples of how legislation expanding "group
rights" and notions of "bias and prejudice" have already been
used to persecute beliefs and expression.
The Answer to
Injustice is Judicial Reform
Few are willing to seriously entertain the argument that our
courts are just and full of integrity. But the heinous
problems afflict more than just certain types, or groups, of
people. We will only make our judicial system worse by
completing the destruction of the concept we once cherished:
that each person is equal under the law.
The true solution lies in removing judges who discriminate
based upon skin-deep criteria. This involves restoring true
judicial elections, electing legislators who will impeach the
vermin that infest our judicial branch, restoring the option
of a trial by jury in all cases, and educating juries as to
their rightful powers and status in the courtroom. For more
information, see our
write-up on judicial retention elections
or our
Issue in Focus: "Why Are Jury Trials Crucial to Your
Freedom?"
Note: Accountability Utah
is not particularly interested in the private sexual practices
of consenting adults, be they normal or deviant. We become
very interested, however, when groups (or sub-groups) attempt
to use government to force their beliefs on others and to
obtain special rights and dispensations that others do not
have. For more information on this subject, see the
Thought Crimes section of our Issues & Alerts page.
See also Bad Bills/Free
Speech, HB 131.
Back to
Categories
Unsure/Skeptical
HB 202
by rep. Wayne Harper, Republican: This 100-page
bill in its original form appeared to be sufficiently positive to include in our
Good Bills section. Unfortunately, the bill was
substituted without amended We will soon post our arguments.
Status: HB 202 passed house committee
(vote not yet available).
HB 211
S1 by John Dougall, Republican: The introduced
(original) bill perpetuated gaping security
problems and grants the Lt. Governor permission to purchase
fraudulent electronic voting equipment. While this substitute
bill perpetuates many of the same security problems, it could
be argued that it does no worse than what is currently going
on, and puts in a few requirements on automated voting systems
that will allow for future reforms to be feasible.
The bill now requires new automated voting systems to:
...produce a permanent paper record that is available for
the voter's inspection prior to the voter leaving the voting
booth that:
(A) shall be available as an official record for any recount
or challenge conducted with respect to an election where the
automated voting system is used;
(B) shall include human readable printing which shall be the
ultimate record of the voter's intent;
(C) may also include machine readable printing, which may be
the same as the human readable printing; and
(D) allows poll watchers and poll counters to observe the
election process to ensure its integrity. (lines 76-85)
An unalterable paper record is essential, and must be
printed, handled and examined by the voter on the spot, and
deposited by the voter in the ballot box at the voting
location. After all, just because the voter receives a paper receipt does not mean that the values on the receipt are counted
correctly by the machine. Without some sort of paper trail
kept at a voting location, one would have to go around collecting all of the
receipts from all of the voters — hoping that none of the
voters had lost or discarded their receipt — and then conduct
a hand count and expect the government, a "board of
canvassers", and public to take the results seriously.
Where this bill falls short is in requiring
that these paper ballots be verified by hand, in full
public view, after the polls close. Specifying anything short
of this level of security is counterproductive.
Citizens lose control when the ballots are
allowed to leave the voting location without first being fully
verified. There are too many security weaknesses during the
process of transportation and storage. Election judges, for
instance, are not required (or invited) to ride with police
officers to the storage facility. The unloading and storage
processes are also typically accomplished without full access
by poll watchers and the public. The opportunity for a few
individuals to tamper with thousands of ballots is simply too
easy and tempting.
This bill also falls short in allowing greater
access to third parties to scrutinize or audit the results.
Current statutes in Salt Lake County, for instance,
effectively prohibit hand counts by citizens even after the
"official" election results have been published.
For more information on meaningful election
reform, see our "Fraud
Advisory:
Beware of Officials Who Attempt to Sell You
Electronic Voting!" and
a
recent write-up on election snafus.
Status: HB 211 passed house committee
(9-0-2).
SB 30 (sen. Dave Thomas,
Republican): This bill deals with search warrant requirements
and is still under review.
Status: SB 30 passed senate committee
(4-0-4) and senate (25-0-4).
Back to
Categories
Top
If you have comments or
suggestions, please email us at
info@accountabilityutah.org.
|