Categories:

None at this time.

SB 99 (sen. Tom Hatch, Republican, district 28): 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.

None at this time.

HJR 4 (rep. David Ure, Republican, district 53): 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, Republican, district 22): 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) (sen. Scott "Benedict" Jenkins, Republican, district 20): Special Note: Jenkins voted against his own bill on the floor!

This short bill would have required 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). Again, "Benedict" Jenkins voted against his own bill on the floor!

HCR 7 (rep. Mike Noel, Republican, district 73): 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).

Special Note: See our Feb. 21 expose, "Legislative Audit: 58,000+ Illegals Get Driver's License; Hundreds Register to Vote".

HB 239 (rep. Glen Donnelson, Republican, district 7): 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

None at this time.

See Good Bills, Due Process for Parents (etc.), HB 42.

Back to Categories

HB 42 S1 (amended) (rep. Mike Morley, Republican, district 66): 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), house (41-32-2), and was not considered by the senate.

HB 89 (rep. LaVar Christensen, Republican, district 48): 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 (amended) (sen. Mark Madsen, Republican, district 13): 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) and senate (26-0-3).

None at this time.

Back to Categories

None at this time.

HB 37 (representative David Ure, Republican, district 53): This bill reauthorizes (i.e. solidifies into statute) all of the "administrative rules" for all state agencies.

The Utah Department of Health, in collaboration with various state legislators and other officials, recently published a "rule" that allows taxpayer resources such as equipment, facilities, and employees to be used for ALL types of abortion on demand.

The legislature has now endorsed and enforced this rule.  Once again, the cries of the unborn went unheeded by legislators.

For more information on the slaughter of the unborn using your tax dollars, see our alert, "Utah Government Takes Another Stab at Unborn," as well as the Abortion/Infanticide section of our Issues & Alerts page.

Status: HB 37 passed the house without a committee hearing (69-1-5), senate committee (3-0-2), and senate (25-0-4).
 

See also HB 131 (amended) under Bad Bills, Free Speech.

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.

See HB 242 under Bad Bills, Keep & Bear Arms (Self-Defense).

Back to Categories

HB 166 (rep. Paul Ray, Republican, district 13): 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).

See also Unsure/Skeptical, HB 211.

HJR 2 (rep. Craig Frank, Republican, district 57): 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.

Status: HJR 2 was held (i.e. failed) house committee.

See also Bad Bills, Thought Crimes, SB 181 and HB 50.

• 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 S1 (Rep. Dave Hogue, Republican, district 52): 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 33-35 of HJR 5:

(3) Nothing in this constitution may be construed to impair the authority of the Legislature to provide by statute for the removal by recall 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 passed house committee (9-0-4) and failed the house (45-27-3).

None at this time.

Back to Categories

HB 131 (amended) (rep. Douglas "Adolf" Aagard, Republican, district 15): This frightening bill would destroy free speech (to include peaceful abortion protests), and 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)

The vague phrase "incites another person" opens a Pandora's Box of opportunities for designing individuals to crush free speech.  In other words, even parties not directly involved in passing out literature or engaging in conversation could be held civilly liable for the peaceful actions of others.

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.

• Websites or ministers that decry abortion on demand could be held civilly liable for anyone who peacefully passes out anti-abortion information, or who attempts to engage others in conversation about alternatives to abortion, within 100 feet of hospitals that perform abortions with taxpayer dollars.

• 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).
Historical Note: When Adolf Hitler assumed power, then-Reich President Paul von Hindenburg used article 48 of the Weimar Constitution to suspend civil rights, including free speech (see article 118). Rep. Douglas "Adolf" Aagard's HB 131 accomplishes the same objective, creating No Speech Zones around churches and hospitals, along with an additional layer of fear for anyone who dares to encourage others to speak freely about issues such as abortion and religion.

Special Note: See our Feb. 21 expose, "Legislative Audit: 58,000+ Illegals Get Driver's License; Hundreds Register to Vote".

HB 223 (amended) (rep. Curtis Oda, Republican, district 14): This bill is even more sinister than we originally thought.  It has been fraudulently marketed as prohibiting the Utah Driver License Division 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". 

In a recent legislative audit, it was confirmed that over 50,000 illegal aliens have obtained Utah driver's licenses, most fraudulently using a Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) provided by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for those who do not have a Social Security Number.  HB 223, again a supposed "reform" bill, does nothing to stop these criminals from using their ITIN to obtain a driver's license.

On the surface, 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, bold added)

This sounds like driver's licenses for illegals will be phased out, right?  Wrong!  Looks can be deceiving. Let's take a look at not only Subsection (9)(a)(i)(E)(III), but the surrounding verbiage:

(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 [Note: That includes most, if not all, illegal aliens]; or [Note: The placement of this "or" is key.  Illegals can either continue to use their ITIN or jump through the hoops below and be denied a license. Hmmm... Which route would you take?]
(III) (Aa) proof that the applicant is a citizen of a country other than the United States;
(Bb) proof that the applicant does not qualify for a Social Security number; and
(Cc) proof of legal presence 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 ;

HB 223 also grants the corrupt Driver License Division power to determine what additional forms of identification are "acceptable".  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 citizenship of a country other than the United States, 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 effectively gives the "Fourth Branch" of state government a front door to make the current situation even worse.  And 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 is a farce, a fraud, and will likely make matters even worse.

Status: HB 223 passed house committee (10-0-1), house (70-0-5), and senate committee (6-0-2), senate (21-8-0). It is going back to the house for a concurrence vote.  Folks, when no one votes against a bill that purports to curtail abuses by illegal aliens, realize that something is wrong!
Note: For more information on this topic, see "Illegal Aliens" on our Other Resources page.

SB 227 amended (sen. Curt "Kervorkian" Bramble, Republican, district 16): This bill is a slap in the face of every legal immigrant and citizen in the State of Utah.  It would provide illegal aliens — criminals — with a special "driving privilege card".  According to lines 253-255:

The division [Driver License Division] shall only issue a driving privilege card to a person whose privilege was obtained without using a Social Security number as required under Subsection 53-3-205 (9).

Of course, illegal aliens do not legally have a Social Security Number. The driver's license issue has been discussed at some length in the bill above. But to more fully understand the depth of this treachery, see our Feb. 21 expose, "Legislative Audit: 58,000+ Illegals Get Driver's License; Hundreds Register to Vote".

This type of betrayal is a trademark of sen. Bramble, who has made a career out of giving lip service, and then destroying, the limited government movement. As another of many examples, see how Bramble repeatedly stabbed the unborn in the back.

Status: SB 227 passed senate committee (4-1-3) and senate (21-8-0).

SB 135 S1 (sen. Lyle Hillyard, Republican, district 25): 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), house committee (8-0-1), and house (70-0-5).

HB 242 (rep. Scott Wyatt, Republican, district 5): This bill would enact enhanced criminal penalties for individuals who mistreat animals, to include a life-time gun ban for relatively minor acts, and property rights infringements that border on cruel and unusual punishment. According to lines 80-80a and 85-86:

"A person is guilty of aggravated cruelty to an animal if the person, without having legal privilege to do so:... knowingly or intentionally places or causes to be placed in a location accessible to an animal, a poison or poisonous substance that is attractive to one or more species of animals..."

Bills like these are imbecilic.  Who will assign meaning to this vague notion of "legal privilege" and when will they do so?  Will rep. Wyatt spend his lunch breaks fielding phone calls from people who desire the "legal privilege" to set animal traps that contain poison?

What about the farmer who sets poisonous traps for varmints that are eating his crops (or killing his sheep)?&n