A Crisis Caused by an Ambiguous Map: Utah's District 57 (Update)

For the past fortnight or so, the residents of Utah's House District 57 (a newer portion of Cedar Hills in Utah County) represented by Craig Frank and to a smaller extent the state at large, has been perplexed by an accidental discovery by Frank that he didn't live in his district according to state records: a requirement stipulated by the Utah Constitution.

For me¹, there has been a plethora of confusion over this dilemma as reported in the media which seems to have been finally put to rest by the information in the video below, from the District 57 group of voters "Our Vote Counts":

The video highlights that the state was relying on an oxymoronic map showing conflict between the words "city boundary" and the drawn city line whereas the county went with the city boundaries. The city boundaries were certified through several cycles of elections and Lt. Governors (who in Utah serve as Secretaries of State as we haven't that position). These points highlighted in the video and the group's website seem to be rather ignored in the Utah mass media which hasn't helped to alleviate my personal confusion and frustration over the matter.

It seems however, in light of Frank's resignation on Friday (Daily Herald) that there is working another solution as discussed on yesterday's Red Meat Radio (KTKK, 630AM): with a 2/3 supermajority required in both houses, pass SB 113 which would define the boundary for District 57 as the one which everyone has been happily using for the past decade. On the program, Rep. Hughes (R-51) cited concerns about the bill due to lawsuit concerns and appearances of gerrymandering.

Hughes' lawsuit concerns by Democratic operatives were balanced out during the program by the point that the residents of District 57 are threatening a lawsuit to protect their vote. Having been an early outspoken critic on the importance of non-gerrymandered results on upcoming reapportionment (Nacilbupera, Nov 2010) let me say this: declaring (or moving, whichever be your position) the lines for district 57 contains NO FORM of gerrymandering, but rather righting what has been supposed and incontrovertible all along. Indeed, it seems that any alternative other than this could be considered gerrymandering or at minimum deprecating the will of the voters.

Has anyone speculated if Matheson would still be in office if the lines that the state now upholds were enforced? In 2002, liberal Democrat Matheson won a squeaker against John Swallow and District 57 is staunch and loudspoken conservative. Surely numerous dilemmas such as this could be posed. Without diminishing the plausibility of other solutions, I wholeheartedly support SB 113 and with the state legislature convening tomorrow, urge its passage.

A Time to Reconsider the Residency Requirement

An interesting related issue to all this is to note that while federal Congressional leaders can live outside their boundaries, according to the Utah State Constitution Utah state lawmakers cannot. Last October, I blogged about my opposition to Utah Constitutional Amendment B because it put increased requirements for state legislative office:

If the citizens feel like someone is being a carpetbagger, then let the citizens have freedom through our competitive caucus system to elect someone else.

Although Amendment B passed by nearly 85%--a larger margin than any of the four proposed Amendments--it was widely dismissed as a positive which should be passed. In fact the voter information pamphlet even lacked a "Argument Against" to give voters a pause to think about the consequences of extending residency requirements. Perhaps the crisis surrounding Frank's eligibility may help to demonstrate that there can be unforeseen and unwanted consequences to having a residency requirement for legislators as part of our state's Constitution.

++++ Update: 6pm:

Found today's Daily Herald Editorial (h/t Joel Wright) "Honor in Resignation" which helps clarify that Frank resigned specifically for the passage of SB113. The editorial also links the Laura Cabanilla issue here in Provo to which as a resident I concur: Cabanilla definitely should step down. To quote the Herald: "Elective office is not a right or a personal possession."

¹ As some setting disclosures, while I am not a resident of District 57, in a few months my son will be a registered voter of the District. I like Craig Frank as a legislator and agree with him on most political issues and would most likely vote for him were I to live in the District. Conversely, I am not a Frank partisan whereby I feel it my duty to uphold Frank over law because of my regard for him.

Help On The Way In Curbing Future Utah Tax Increases, But Too Late To Stop Provo's Prop 1

Last week in Provo a small group of citizens quietly raised everyone's property taxes for the next 20 years for the purpose of a recreation center or Prop 1 which passed 60%-40%. In a more telling perspective, fewer than 9,000 voters turned out to vote in favor of raising taxes on the remaining 51,000 registered voters. In percentage terms, less than 15% of registered Provo voters were able to vote tax increases on 100% of the property owners in the city. Is this really a fair way to approve tax increases?

Those in favor of Prop 1 were organized and had political mailings, a website, endorsements, and yard signs; those wanting to keep their own money were clearly not organized. We must remedy this as voters and hold accountable officials who publicly signed their names as citizens supporting unnecessary tax increases. We must be ready to organize better to stop future attempts from our city council and to be ready to change city council members.

But for those of us feeling that something more than a simple 50% majority should be required to approve tax increases (which coincidentally includes many people who did favor Prop 1), help is on the way in the form of a proposed Constitutional Amendment. Rep. Carl Wimmer (R-Herriman) announced a proposed Constitutional amendment to "require that any tax or fee increase on the state, city or county level would require two thirds majority vote in order to pass." (ABC4)

The proposed amendment will need to pass a 2/3rds vote through the legislature next year and then require voter approval as amendments A, B, C, and D did this past election.

This is a much-needed amendment, case in point: had this amendment been in place, Prop 1 would have fallen considerably short of the votes it needed and I wouldn't be forced to choke up $80 a year for the next 20 years. Provoans could have then sought a more fiscally responsible way to pay for their want. Those who wanted a rec center could have donated the money they used to fund their taxation efforts into a voluntary citizen donation fund to accrue money over time towards a day when we could build a rec center without raising taxes or forcing citizens to pay for services they do not need or want.

Utah Constitutional Amendment ABCD's

I'm not a huge fan of amending our Utah State Constitution, let alone FOUR TIMES as is the proposal before us on November 2nd. Like dude, what is this a Constitutional Convention or something? As with voter propositions, my default is set to NO unless you can prove its a great thing we really, really need. So I got out my voter pamphlet and put the Amendments to the smell test.

Amendment D: Creating a Legislative Ethics Commision

This creates a 5 person "independent" panel of "distinguished Utahns" (language in "Argument For" section) to review complaints of unethical legislative behavior. So, let me get this right, we are creating a non-elected oligarchy to pass judgement on the legislature? And what the fishwiskers makes someone a "distinguished Utahn"? This is an absurdity of an amendment.

Then I saw who was pushing this: David Clark, Speaker of the House. Oh. That makes sense now. The same guy who lead the standing ovation to Kevin Garn's hot tub-with-a-minor confession. (Holly on the Hill) Yep. This Amendment will decidedly vault Utah into a State of Enoch where distinguished panel members appointed by noble legislators will stand as 5 wise Solomons in executing perfect judgement. NOT!!!!

If there's one thing I've learned about a Republic is WE THE PEOPLE bear the burden of executing judgement and whenever we think to give up our power to someone else to do our job we suffer the consequences of their wrong decisions and encounter huge resistance in reigning back the power that is justly ours.

Chris Buttars, the sole Republican to have the wisdom to vote against this asp summed it up in the "Argument Against":

The current process places you, the citizen, in full control of ethics violations. In fact, you ARE the ethics committee, because YOU decide whether a candidate is allowed to serve.

Do not use ethics legislation as a feel-good crutch when the real problem is that too many citizens fail to properly scrutinize before they vote.

There are no short cuts to running a proper democratic republic.

It's quite the shame more Republicans couldn't grasp the vision of Senator Buttars. I believe, if passed, this panel will permit or create far more unethical behavior than it will ever solve. This is the worst of the four proposed Amendments and gets a NO! vote from me.

Amendment C: Specific Property Tax Exemptions

This Amendment provides some property tax exemptions for entities providing water and had no opposition. Here's my take: I can find no Federal Constitutional justification for Property Tax--that is, the governmental misappropriation of private property--so if we can give anyone any break on property tax let's do it and vote YES.

Amendment B: Eligibility for Legislative Office

The innocuous intent of this Amendment belies masking the debate on appropriate requirements for office. The Amendment seeks to normalize the requirements for office between elected and appointed officials. Fair enough so far.

Where I disagree is that it limits the citizens freedom to choose whomever they want to represent them. Having a 3-consecutive year citizenship in the state seems stringent in our mobile society. Suppose someone lived in Utah all their life, but moved away two years ago for a year for employment reasons. That person is ineligible for holding office. What if my citizen-legislator has to relocate across town and outside their district to care for an aging parent? They would not be able to serve.

If the citizens feel like someone is being a carpetbagger, then let the citizens have freedom through our competitive caucus system to elect someone else.

Until requirements are eased, there is no need for normalization which moves in the direction of stringency. We the People need fewer laws and more freedoms, so it's NO on B for me.

Amendment A: Further Definition of Utah's Secret Ballot

A bit of background: there is a growing national movement to do away with secret voting when it comes to forming a union (aka "card check"). I am strongly for keeping one's vote private when it comes to unionization because a public vote opens the door for intimidation and coercion of the workers in getting them to sign on to the union. It is easy to see through the fallacy of open union balloting by simply asking promoters to defend why then shouldn't all voting be public rather than secret?

Our Utah Constitution currently says that "all elections" should be by secret ballot so it seems like we should be protected from Federal intrusion into our state (IE feds: what part of "all elections" don't your understand?) and thus we shouldn't amend our Constitution whimsically.

The problem is we have seen the unchecked iron fist of the Federal government reach in and steal our lands we need to fund our schools, steal franchises from car dealers in our state, and force us into purchasing health insurance meeting their requirements. The 10th Amendment has been spit upon and "enumerated powers" has grown to a neverending Santa's list of wants.

If this small Amendment helps clarify our laws and keep the secret ballot for unionization we currently have--which I believe it does--then do I justify this Amendment with a YES vote.