A brief guide to the voters in House District 60, Orem, Utah, consisting of a summary of differences on important issues between the challenger, Alan Keele, and the incumbent, Bradley Daw (for more details and the sources of the information please look at all the other postings on this blog at: www.alankeeleforutahhouse.blogspot.com):
1. Rep. Daw has failed to work hard to support education, both K-12 and our wonderful new university in Orem, Utah Valley University. A second-grade teacher told us recently she had 32 youngsters in her class last year. This year it’s 37! How can any child learn at a high level with so little access to the teacher?! The legislature also cut UVU’s budget just this year a full 12% even through it is growing with new students every year by at least 10%! Even though UVU is right here in our District 60, Rep. Daw did not make an effort to help out, evidently because he is philosophically opposed to spending money on public education.
Alan Keele is a life-long educator (40 years teaching at BYU) who knows we must re-prioritize to turn around this decline in support for Utah’s schools and its wonderful, dedicated teachers! Money is available! 101 million dollars are right now going to waste to “send a message to Washington!” (See my blog posting entitled: Big Tobacco Money = Ok?...) Alan Keele will break any china in the Legislature he needs to to call attention to the needs of K-12 educators as well as President Holland of UVU!
2. Rep. Daw recently sponsored House Bill 150 which makes it legal for your electronic e-mails, cell-phone calls, and other electronic communications to be obtained without a search warrant signed by a judge. The bill is clearly unconstitutional since it undermines our Fourth-Amendment right to be safe from unwarranted intrusions. This important part of the Bill of Rights reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Alan Keele thinks that any true conservative would have opposed such a bill, not sponsored it. At the very least, this bill will end up costing the State a lot of money to defend in court before it is ultimately judged unconstitutional and thrown out. (Or the Legislature could do the wise thing and rescind the bill before the State has to waste money defending it. For more information see my earlier posting on how safe you are in your home in Utah.)
3. According to the public record, on August 11, 2008 Rep. Daw accepted a campaign donation of $400 from Altria Group, one of the world’s largest tobacco companies (formerly called Phillip Morris) which also deals globally in beer and wine. The public record further shows this was part of a total of $109,000 distributed by Big Tobacco companies to Utah lawmakers to influence them to vote against a program that would increase the tax on cigarettes to fund an anti-tobacco educational program called the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. (After it originally failed, I’m happy to say the bill finally passed this year, over Rep. Daw’s negative vote.) Now, whenever I see a Brad Daw campaign sign, especially his big, exorbitantly expensive billboard, I can’t help asking myself if it was purchased with this Big Tobacco money.
(In fairness, it must be admitted that Mr. Daw's overall voting record on tobacco questions has not been consistent and easy to understand. Based on some of his earlier votes, he even likes to portray himself as an opponent of tobacco, and he apparently did start out opposing certain kinds of smokeless tobacco products. But for Alan Keele the question isn't whether Brad Daw ALWAYS voted with Big Tobacco. The problem is that after he took their money, in 2010 he undeniably DID vote with Big Tobacco. And from Alan Keele's point of view, even one vote in Utah for Big Tobacco is a vote too many.)
Alan Keele knows the terrible costs associated with youngsters who start to smoke early in life: 1,100 Utahns die annually from their own smoking, 230 from second-hand smoke. 26,000 kids now under 18 and alive in Utah will ultimately die prematurely from smoking. Smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murder, and suicides combined, and this does not count other tobacco-related causes such as fires from smoking, nor does it tally in the harmful effects of smokeless tobacco products or account for the much larger number of tobacco-related health problems that are not fatal. In terms of money, smoking directly causes $345 million in annual health care costs in Utah. Additionally, the state suffers $294 million annually in smoking-caused productivity losses. Each Utah household bears an annual extra tax burden of $523 from smoking-caused government expenditures. There's not enough money in the world to induce Alan Keele to vote even once on the wrong side of this life-and-death matter!
I hope you’ll study all the issues and vote for me on November 2nd! There's an old saying: "Politicians are like diapers. They need to be changed often, and for the same reason." Sincerely, Alan Keele
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Linda Keele Gives Her Perspective On The Race!
Hi, I’m Linda Keele; the wife of Alan Keele running for the Utah House of Representatives. When I say “running,” I literally mean “running” (“walking”) to every home in our district 60. We decided that was the best way to get out our message of change and to meet you as our friends and neighbors of Orem. (I’ve already worn out a pair of shoes; and I’m tired but still full of energy to greet as many of you as we can. It has been a GREAT experience!)
We have had a wonderful experience meeting some of you; usually about l/3 of you are at home when we walk around your neighborhood, and it has been fun to see you; your cute families and dogs (even though sometimes I’ve been a little afraid of the big dogs); your creative Fall and Halloween decorations; your yards and homes. We are sorry we’ve missed any of you.
What we have especially enjoyed seeing is your beautiful children–so happy and so sweet and friendly. I think because we look like a “Grandma and Grandpa,” many of the children would smile and want to be with us. It has been delightful! As we look at these many children with their eyes big and bright and wanting the best, it re-emphasized in our minds what this Grandma and Grandpa want for our district 60 “grandchildren.”– a great education so they can be and do anything they choose to be.
Our legislature has cut funding to the public schools K-12. The teachers in our public schools are trying their best to do all they can for these children with very little $. They use their own $ and time and are dedicated even with little salary to help. Some of you have said that public education is not what it should be. How can it be when our schools in Utah have the lowest funding per student in the entire United States (we are sometimes tied with Idaho)? Our most priceless possession (our children) need to be TOP priority. We don’t need to raise taxes; just make education our TOP priority. My husband’s opponent wants to cut funding for public schools. How can we improve our public schools if there is no $ to get the best teachers, supplies, facilities, etc.?
Also the legislature this year cut 12% funding for UVU; our GEM in the middle of Orem even though UVU has been growing by about 10% per year for several years. UVU is the lowest funded higher education school in Utah. My husband’s opponent voted for this funding cut for UVU even though it is in his district.
As we walk around your neighborhoods, I talk to each person at the door and tell them that my dear husband is a moderate, and he is getting support from moderate Republicans, Democrats and Independents. As I mention that we need cooperation from all groups to come to the MIDDLE of the spectrum and WORK TOGETHER to provide the best legislation for this state and especially our Orem, many of you nod your heads “YES, YES!!” Now is the time to swing the pendulum back towards the MIDDLE. As I talk to you I see a light shining with a new hope that maybe all of us can work together for the good of our great state and city. I feel, and many of you agree, that with just a one-party system, we just get one set of ideas. Instead of getting ideas and input from many people across the spectrum, we just get a one-sided view. Special interest groups can get into the system and influence the one-party system. This can work for either left or right. We need a MULTI-PARTY system where there are ideas and strengths from all sides, where there are CHECKS and BALANCES and ACCOUNTABILITY!! “YAY!” I shout! Maybe we can all play together once more for the good of the whole!!
Alan Keele is very BRIGHT, ENERGETIC, HONEST, HARD WORKING with HIGH INTEGRITY AND ENTHUSIASM TO BRING A NEW LIGHT TO THE LEGISLATURE.
PLEASE VOTE FOR ALAN KEELE ON NOVEMBER 2.
and PLEASE SHARE THIS MESSAGE WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS INVITING THEM by phone or email or facebook TO VOTE ON NOVEMBER 2 FOR A NEW FUTURE IN THE LEGISLATURE BY VOTING for ALAN KEELE
And look at all the other postings on: www.AlanKeeleforUtahHouse.blogspot.com
We have had a wonderful experience meeting some of you; usually about l/3 of you are at home when we walk around your neighborhood, and it has been fun to see you; your cute families and dogs (even though sometimes I’ve been a little afraid of the big dogs); your creative Fall and Halloween decorations; your yards and homes. We are sorry we’ve missed any of you.
What we have especially enjoyed seeing is your beautiful children–so happy and so sweet and friendly. I think because we look like a “Grandma and Grandpa,” many of the children would smile and want to be with us. It has been delightful! As we look at these many children with their eyes big and bright and wanting the best, it re-emphasized in our minds what this Grandma and Grandpa want for our district 60 “grandchildren.”– a great education so they can be and do anything they choose to be.
Our legislature has cut funding to the public schools K-12. The teachers in our public schools are trying their best to do all they can for these children with very little $. They use their own $ and time and are dedicated even with little salary to help. Some of you have said that public education is not what it should be. How can it be when our schools in Utah have the lowest funding per student in the entire United States (we are sometimes tied with Idaho)? Our most priceless possession (our children) need to be TOP priority. We don’t need to raise taxes; just make education our TOP priority. My husband’s opponent wants to cut funding for public schools. How can we improve our public schools if there is no $ to get the best teachers, supplies, facilities, etc.?
Also the legislature this year cut 12% funding for UVU; our GEM in the middle of Orem even though UVU has been growing by about 10% per year for several years. UVU is the lowest funded higher education school in Utah. My husband’s opponent voted for this funding cut for UVU even though it is in his district.
As we walk around your neighborhoods, I talk to each person at the door and tell them that my dear husband is a moderate, and he is getting support from moderate Republicans, Democrats and Independents. As I mention that we need cooperation from all groups to come to the MIDDLE of the spectrum and WORK TOGETHER to provide the best legislation for this state and especially our Orem, many of you nod your heads “YES, YES!!” Now is the time to swing the pendulum back towards the MIDDLE. As I talk to you I see a light shining with a new hope that maybe all of us can work together for the good of our great state and city. I feel, and many of you agree, that with just a one-party system, we just get one set of ideas. Instead of getting ideas and input from many people across the spectrum, we just get a one-sided view. Special interest groups can get into the system and influence the one-party system. This can work for either left or right. We need a MULTI-PARTY system where there are ideas and strengths from all sides, where there are CHECKS and BALANCES and ACCOUNTABILITY!! “YAY!” I shout! Maybe we can all play together once more for the good of the whole!!
Alan Keele is very BRIGHT, ENERGETIC, HONEST, HARD WORKING with HIGH INTEGRITY AND ENTHUSIASM TO BRING A NEW LIGHT TO THE LEGISLATURE.
PLEASE VOTE FOR ALAN KEELE ON NOVEMBER 2.
and PLEASE SHARE THIS MESSAGE WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS INVITING THEM by phone or email or facebook TO VOTE ON NOVEMBER 2 FOR A NEW FUTURE IN THE LEGISLATURE BY VOTING for ALAN KEELE
And look at all the other postings on: www.AlanKeeleforUtahHouse.blogspot.com
Friday, October 8, 2010
How secure are you in your home in Utah now?
NEWSFLASH!
Leading Utah “Conservatives” Pass Bill Allowing More Government Intrusion Into Our Lives!
“SAY, WHAT?”
(This posting is going to look a little like the beginning of a cheap mystery novel): Earlier this morning I heard the doorbell ring. I was getting dressed, so my wife went to the door, returning with a large envelope addressed to Alan Keele. An unidentified person had dropped it off at the door.
Inside I found a complete dossier on a case I had known about for some time and had been following on-line, but here were all the facts in the case, carefully collected into one file, with the salient points underlined in red. Clearly, someone who knows a lot about this matter wanted me to get busy and inform the voters in District 60 about it. I agree that we ought to be well-informed voters, so here goes:
The case involves a recent House of Representatives bill (HB 150 of 2010, which failed once, then finally passed and was signed into law by Gov. Herbert), sponsored by Rep. Brad Daw (and sponsored in the Senate by Margaret Dayton). HB 150 essentially deletes from prior law the requirement for a judge to issue a search warrant before anyone’s personal e-mail, cell-phone messages, or other electronic communications can be accessed by the authorities.
This means that in Utah it is now legal for any official – a prosecutor or police officer, for example – to access your communications from your service providers without a judge first issuing a search warrant. The bill was aimed at sex offenders who use the internet to troll for victims. We certainly want to prosecute all such offenders, but it seems logical that any judge would certainly gladly issue a warrant for their e-mails if there were probable cause. And a judge would be far less likely to want to go on a broad fishing expedition against ordinary e-mail users.
But this Daw-Dayton bill takes the judiciary out of the process, essentially undermining the protections guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures. Without the need for a judge to decide whether probable cause exists, it’s easy to imagine how easily such an arrangement can be abused. (The bill originally would have allowed police to search for any felony, not just child sex offenders, but the notion of any felony was eventually removed in order to get the votes to pass the bill.)
Though vigilance against sex offenders using electronic communications is laudable, it is evident that passing such a broad bill probably constitutes overreach.
Certainly the 6th Circuit Court has ruled that lack of a proper warrant and lack of probable cause for the disclosure of e-mails from an Internet Service Provider is unconstitutional. See:
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0252p-06.pdf
(By the way, since it increases the number of requests for access, this is also unnecessarily burdensome to Internet Service Providers and other such companies, who don't get paid for searching their systems and delivering information to government agencies.)
Here are a few links for further reading and viewing on the subject:
(Even non-partisan conservative sites like Grass Roots consider the Daw/Dayton bill unconstitutional):
http://www.utahgrassroots.org/annual/2010/
(Owners of Internet companies like X-Mission’s Pete Ashdown are also very concerned):
http://peteashdown.org/journal/2010/04/14/to-republican-and-democrat-state-delegates/
Here's an illuminating Fox New report on the bill:
www.fox13now.com/.../kstu-utah-ags-subpoena-powers-could-be-expanded,0,5376666.story -
Here's a posting by Connor Boyack:
www.connorboyack.com/.../the-unwarranted-expansion-of-administrative-subpoenas-in-utah
Here's even one by the Libertarian Party head Andrew McCullough, a constitutional lawyer:
http://www.kued.org/productions/voteutah/fsm/transcripts/fsm-McCullough.pdf
A number of others can be viewed if you google: administrative subpoenas attorney general utah
My view is that the State has better places to spend our tax money – helping educate our youngsters better, paying public employees better, helping to create more jobs, and generally using the money more wisely – than to be giving it to lawyers to defend unconstitutional bills in court, only to have them inevitably overturned.
Whether it’s guns made in Utah and supposedly exempt from federal background checks on firearm purchasers (Margaret Dayton’s recent Senate Bill 11); an immigration bill (being written now by Rep. Steven Sandstrom) based on the controversial and costly Arizona law which was already essentially overturned by a judge; or this intrusion-into-our-privacy bill sponsored by the Daw and Dayton duo, we shouldn’t have to be wasting our tax money defending irresponsible bills in court!
A true conservative, in my view, would stand up for our Fourth Amendment rights to be free from searches and seizures in our homes. And true conservatives would not want to waste money defending such unconstitutional bills!
I’d like to know how you see it. Write me at akeele@gmail.com.
Thanks! Alan Keele
Leading Utah “Conservatives” Pass Bill Allowing More Government Intrusion Into Our Lives!
“SAY, WHAT?”
(This posting is going to look a little like the beginning of a cheap mystery novel): Earlier this morning I heard the doorbell ring. I was getting dressed, so my wife went to the door, returning with a large envelope addressed to Alan Keele. An unidentified person had dropped it off at the door.
Inside I found a complete dossier on a case I had known about for some time and had been following on-line, but here were all the facts in the case, carefully collected into one file, with the salient points underlined in red. Clearly, someone who knows a lot about this matter wanted me to get busy and inform the voters in District 60 about it. I agree that we ought to be well-informed voters, so here goes:
The case involves a recent House of Representatives bill (HB 150 of 2010, which failed once, then finally passed and was signed into law by Gov. Herbert), sponsored by Rep. Brad Daw (and sponsored in the Senate by Margaret Dayton). HB 150 essentially deletes from prior law the requirement for a judge to issue a search warrant before anyone’s personal e-mail, cell-phone messages, or other electronic communications can be accessed by the authorities.
This means that in Utah it is now legal for any official – a prosecutor or police officer, for example – to access your communications from your service providers without a judge first issuing a search warrant. The bill was aimed at sex offenders who use the internet to troll for victims. We certainly want to prosecute all such offenders, but it seems logical that any judge would certainly gladly issue a warrant for their e-mails if there were probable cause. And a judge would be far less likely to want to go on a broad fishing expedition against ordinary e-mail users.
But this Daw-Dayton bill takes the judiciary out of the process, essentially undermining the protections guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures. Without the need for a judge to decide whether probable cause exists, it’s easy to imagine how easily such an arrangement can be abused. (The bill originally would have allowed police to search for any felony, not just child sex offenders, but the notion of any felony was eventually removed in order to get the votes to pass the bill.)
Though vigilance against sex offenders using electronic communications is laudable, it is evident that passing such a broad bill probably constitutes overreach.
Certainly the 6th Circuit Court has ruled that lack of a proper warrant and lack of probable cause for the disclosure of e-mails from an Internet Service Provider is unconstitutional. See:
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0252p-06.pdf
(By the way, since it increases the number of requests for access, this is also unnecessarily burdensome to Internet Service Providers and other such companies, who don't get paid for searching their systems and delivering information to government agencies.)
Here are a few links for further reading and viewing on the subject:
(Even non-partisan conservative sites like Grass Roots consider the Daw/Dayton bill unconstitutional):
http://www.utahgrassroots.org/annual/2010/
(Owners of Internet companies like X-Mission’s Pete Ashdown are also very concerned):
http://peteashdown.org/journal/2010/04/14/to-republican-and-democrat-state-delegates/
Here's an illuminating Fox New report on the bill:
www.fox13now.com/.../kstu-utah-ags-subpoena-powers-could-be-expanded,
Here's a posting by Connor Boyack:
www.connorboyack.com/.../the-unwarranted-expansion-of-administrative-
Here's even one by the Libertarian Party head Andrew McCullough, a constitutional lawyer:
A number of others can be viewed if you google: administrative subpoenas attorney general utah
My view is that the State has better places to spend our tax money – helping educate our youngsters better, paying public employees better, helping to create more jobs, and generally using the money more wisely – than to be giving it to lawyers to defend unconstitutional bills in court, only to have them inevitably overturned.
Whether it’s guns made in Utah and supposedly exempt from federal background checks on firearm purchasers (Margaret Dayton’s recent Senate Bill 11); an immigration bill (being written now by Rep. Steven Sandstrom) based on the controversial and costly Arizona law which was already essentially overturned by a judge; or this intrusion-into-our-privacy bill sponsored by the Daw and Dayton duo, we shouldn’t have to be wasting our tax money defending irresponsible bills in court!
A true conservative, in my view, would stand up for our Fourth Amendment rights to be free from searches and seizures in our homes. And true conservatives would not want to waste money defending such unconstitutional bills!
I’d like to know how you see it. Write me at akeele@gmail.com.
Thanks! Alan Keele
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Big Tobacco Money = Ok? Federal School Money = Not Ok? What's Wrong With This Picture?
The opinion of Alan Keele, Candidate for Utah House.
As my wife Linda and I have knocked on thousands of doors throughout District 60 here in central Orem, people repeatedly ask what the differences are between the challenger Alan Keele and my opponent, the incumbent Bradley Daw. I reply that I take the word representative in the term House of Representatives very literally. If I am elected, my job would be to represent the interests of a maximum number of citizens and their families from our district. Standing in the middle, I can reach out along both sides of the spectrum, as long as my arms stretch. If I were already on one of the extreme ends, my arms could hardly reach back across the spectrum.
To illustrate my point, I ask you to consider two recent legislative cases. I’d be interested in whether you think Mr. Daw really represented your interests in these two instances:
Case One: This year, 2010, as I learned from someone in our District who works for the American Cancer Society, Representative Daw voted against an increase in the tax on each pack of cigarettes sold in the state, a tax which was designed to combat smoking, especially youth smoking, and pay for such educational initiatives as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (whose funding was eliminated by the Legislature in 2009).
Mr. Daw would naturally argue that as a libertarian he is opposed to tax increases of any kind, but this claim instantly lost its credibility for me when I discovered that on August 11, 2008 Brad accepted a substantial campaign donation from Altria Group, one of the world’s largest tobacco companies (formerly called Phillip Morris) which also deals globally in beer and wine.
(In fairness, it must be admitted that Mr. Daw's overall voting record on tobacco questions has not been consistent and easy to understand. Based on some of his earlier votes, he even likes to portray himself as an opponent of tobacco, and he apparently did start out opposing certain kinds of smokeless tobacco products. But for Alan Keele the question isn't whether Brad Daw ALWAYS voted with Big Tobacco. The problem is that after he took their money, in 2010 he undeniably DID vote with Big Tobacco. And from Alan Keele's point of view, even one vote in Utah for Big Tobacco is a vote too many.)
I was further astonished to learn from the public record that in 2007 and 2008, while they debated the merits of the tobacco bill, Utah lawmakers, including Daw, accepted a total of $42,000 from Altria as well as from the RJ Reynolds tobacco company. (And this was just the tip of a very big tobacco iceberg: Altria alone made $101 million in campaign contributions in the US between 1998 and 2004! Source on Altria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altria.
Source on Altria’s contribution to Daw: http://gva1.utah.gov/disclosures/PublicArchive.aspx?type=CORP)
In 2009, the amount going to Utah lawmakers from Big Tobacco increased to an even more astonishing $67,000. (Sources: http://www.no-smoke.org/goingsmokefree.php?id=167 and http://www.tobacco-facts.net/2010/01/big-tobacco-kicked-big-bucks-into-utah-politics
So, with $109,000 (42k + 67k) in Big Tobacco money greasing the palms of certain Utah lawmakers for three straight years, not surprisingly the bill originally failed (2009). This year, however, (2010) a watered-down version finally managed to become law, albeit with approximately half the originally called-for increase – about $1 per pack of cigarettes. (To provide some perspective on the magnitude of Big Tobacco’s interest in our state: the total amount of Big Tobacco money being spent on marketing tobacco products in Utah each year is $58.7 million dollars. Nationwide it’s a staggering $12.8 billion per year. Source: www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/toll.php?StateID=UT)
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids can now go forward in Utah again, no thanks to Brad Daw and other Utah lawmakers who took Big Tobacco money (the long list of names include such leaders as: Killpack, Wimmer, Bramble, Herbert, Valentine, Waddoups, Clark, Grover, and Shurtleff. Source: http://gva1.utah.gov/disclosures/publicsearch.aspx)
These people obviously forgot that they represent us, the majority of people in the districts and in the state. (Did Brad ever ask you what you thought about the tobacco bill? He certainly didn’t ask me or anyone else I know in our district.)
Case Two: Did Mr. Daw ask me or you recently whether we wanted 101 million dollars of our federal tax money from the US Department of Education (Utah’s share of the 10 billion dollar Education Jobs Fund of 2010) to come back to the state to help prevent the layoffs of an estimated 1,800 more teachers in Utah this year?
Mr. Daw and other members of the extreme Patrick Henry Caucus in the Legislature have vowed to sue to prevent the state from accepting the money, despite huge shortfalls in the education budget in Utah this year, and even though it is clear that the US Department of Education can legally give the money directly to the school districts over the objections of the legislature. (I’ve had people repeatedly insist there must be sinister strings attached – citing other cases like Federal Highway Funds which come contingent on seatbelt use, for example, -- but I’ve looked at this case carefully: there simply are no strings attached.) And the Utah Attorney General’s Office recently found that the transfer of our tax money back to the state for our use was entirely legal and constitutional. (For more information on this question I invite you to look at articles such as: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50213313-76/money-state-legislature-education.html.csp)
I’d like to hear what you think about this tobacco tax case, including the $109 thousand in campaign contributions from Big Tobacco to Utah lawmakers like Brad Daw. I’d also like your views on accepting the $101 million from the Department of Education. Please write me an email at akeele@gmail.com!
As for me and my house, I can’t believe campaign donations don’t influence votes. I think this is just good, old-fashioned, corrupt influence peddling, pure and simple, more of Utah pay-to-play politics. And from Big Tobacco, no less! In Utah??!! These familiar words from LDS scripture ring in my ears: “In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days.” (Doctrine and Covenants section 89: “The Word of Wisdom”)
Does any responsible person in our state really think it’s ok for our kids to start a life-long habit that may eventually kill them, meanwhile costing society millions in increased health-care and other costs? (1,100 Utahns die annually from their own smoking, 230 from second-hand smoke. 26,000 kids now under 18 and alive in Utah will ultimately die prematurely from smoking. Smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murder, and suicides combined, and this does not count other tobacco-related causes such as fires from smoking, nor does it tally in the harmful effects of smokeless tobacco products or account for the much larger number of tobacco-related health problems that are not fatal. In terms of money, smoking directly causes $345 million in annual health care costs in Utah, including $104 million from the state Medicade program. Additionally, the state suffers $294 million annually in smoking-caused productivity losses. Each Utah household bears an annual extra tax burden of $523 from smoking-caused government expenditures. Source: www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/toll.php?StateID=UT)
As more and more Brad Daw signs and exorbitantly expensive billboards go up throughout Orem, I have to ask myself: Was this sign paid for by a contribution from Big Tobacco? It's creepy to think about.
I also can’t believe Utah doesn’t deserve its $101 million back from Washington to help us keep up to 1,800 Utah teachers in their classrooms this year!
Still, I want to continue to learn from you, so write me a note (and remember to vote on November 2nd)!
Cordially, Alan and Linda Keele
As my wife Linda and I have knocked on thousands of doors throughout District 60 here in central Orem, people repeatedly ask what the differences are between the challenger Alan Keele and my opponent, the incumbent Bradley Daw. I reply that I take the word representative in the term House of Representatives very literally. If I am elected, my job would be to represent the interests of a maximum number of citizens and their families from our district. Standing in the middle, I can reach out along both sides of the spectrum, as long as my arms stretch. If I were already on one of the extreme ends, my arms could hardly reach back across the spectrum.
To illustrate my point, I ask you to consider two recent legislative cases. I’d be interested in whether you think Mr. Daw really represented your interests in these two instances:
Case One: This year, 2010, as I learned from someone in our District who works for the American Cancer Society, Representative Daw voted against an increase in the tax on each pack of cigarettes sold in the state, a tax which was designed to combat smoking, especially youth smoking, and pay for such educational initiatives as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (whose funding was eliminated by the Legislature in 2009).
Mr. Daw would naturally argue that as a libertarian he is opposed to tax increases of any kind, but this claim instantly lost its credibility for me when I discovered that on August 11, 2008 Brad accepted a substantial campaign donation from Altria Group, one of the world’s largest tobacco companies (formerly called Phillip Morris) which also deals globally in beer and wine.
(In fairness, it must be admitted that Mr. Daw's overall voting record on tobacco questions has not been consistent and easy to understand. Based on some of his earlier votes, he even likes to portray himself as an opponent of tobacco, and he apparently did start out opposing certain kinds of smokeless tobacco products. But for Alan Keele the question isn't whether Brad Daw ALWAYS voted with Big Tobacco. The problem is that after he took their money, in 2010 he undeniably DID vote with Big Tobacco. And from Alan Keele's point of view, even one vote in Utah for Big Tobacco is a vote too many.)
I was further astonished to learn from the public record that in 2007 and 2008, while they debated the merits of the tobacco bill, Utah lawmakers, including Daw, accepted a total of $42,000 from Altria as well as from the RJ Reynolds tobacco company. (And this was just the tip of a very big tobacco iceberg: Altria alone made $101 million in campaign contributions in the US between 1998 and 2004! Source on Altria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altria.
Source on Altria’s contribution to Daw: http://gva1.utah.gov/disclosures/PublicArchive.aspx?type=CORP)
In 2009, the amount going to Utah lawmakers from Big Tobacco increased to an even more astonishing $67,000. (Sources: http://www.no-smoke.org/goingsmokefree.php?id=167 and http://www.tobacco-facts.net/2010/01/big-tobacco-kicked-big-bucks-into-utah-politics
So, with $109,000 (42k + 67k) in Big Tobacco money greasing the palms of certain Utah lawmakers for three straight years, not surprisingly the bill originally failed (2009). This year, however, (2010) a watered-down version finally managed to become law, albeit with approximately half the originally called-for increase – about $1 per pack of cigarettes. (To provide some perspective on the magnitude of Big Tobacco’s interest in our state: the total amount of Big Tobacco money being spent on marketing tobacco products in Utah each year is $58.7 million dollars. Nationwide it’s a staggering $12.8 billion per year. Source: www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/toll.php?StateID=UT)
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids can now go forward in Utah again, no thanks to Brad Daw and other Utah lawmakers who took Big Tobacco money (the long list of names include such leaders as: Killpack, Wimmer, Bramble, Herbert, Valentine, Waddoups, Clark, Grover, and Shurtleff. Source: http://gva1.utah.gov/disclosures/publicsearch.aspx)
These people obviously forgot that they represent us, the majority of people in the districts and in the state. (Did Brad ever ask you what you thought about the tobacco bill? He certainly didn’t ask me or anyone else I know in our district.)
Case Two: Did Mr. Daw ask me or you recently whether we wanted 101 million dollars of our federal tax money from the US Department of Education (Utah’s share of the 10 billion dollar Education Jobs Fund of 2010) to come back to the state to help prevent the layoffs of an estimated 1,800 more teachers in Utah this year?
Mr. Daw and other members of the extreme Patrick Henry Caucus in the Legislature have vowed to sue to prevent the state from accepting the money, despite huge shortfalls in the education budget in Utah this year, and even though it is clear that the US Department of Education can legally give the money directly to the school districts over the objections of the legislature. (I’ve had people repeatedly insist there must be sinister strings attached – citing other cases like Federal Highway Funds which come contingent on seatbelt use, for example, -- but I’ve looked at this case carefully: there simply are no strings attached.) And the Utah Attorney General’s Office recently found that the transfer of our tax money back to the state for our use was entirely legal and constitutional. (For more information on this question I invite you to look at articles such as: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50213313-76/money-state-legislature-education.html.csp)
I’d like to hear what you think about this tobacco tax case, including the $109 thousand in campaign contributions from Big Tobacco to Utah lawmakers like Brad Daw. I’d also like your views on accepting the $101 million from the Department of Education. Please write me an email at akeele@gmail.com!
As for me and my house, I can’t believe campaign donations don’t influence votes. I think this is just good, old-fashioned, corrupt influence peddling, pure and simple, more of Utah pay-to-play politics. And from Big Tobacco, no less! In Utah??!! These familiar words from LDS scripture ring in my ears: “In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days.” (Doctrine and Covenants section 89: “The Word of Wisdom”)
Does any responsible person in our state really think it’s ok for our kids to start a life-long habit that may eventually kill them, meanwhile costing society millions in increased health-care and other costs? (1,100 Utahns die annually from their own smoking, 230 from second-hand smoke. 26,000 kids now under 18 and alive in Utah will ultimately die prematurely from smoking. Smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murder, and suicides combined, and this does not count other tobacco-related causes such as fires from smoking, nor does it tally in the harmful effects of smokeless tobacco products or account for the much larger number of tobacco-related health problems that are not fatal. In terms of money, smoking directly causes $345 million in annual health care costs in Utah, including $104 million from the state Medicade program. Additionally, the state suffers $294 million annually in smoking-caused productivity losses. Each Utah household bears an annual extra tax burden of $523 from smoking-caused government expenditures. Source: www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/toll.php?StateID=UT)
As more and more Brad Daw signs and exorbitantly expensive billboards go up throughout Orem, I have to ask myself: Was this sign paid for by a contribution from Big Tobacco? It's creepy to think about.
I also can’t believe Utah doesn’t deserve its $101 million back from Washington to help us keep up to 1,800 Utah teachers in their classrooms this year!
Still, I want to continue to learn from you, so write me a note (and remember to vote on November 2nd)!
Cordially, Alan and Linda Keele
Monday, September 27, 2010
Immigration: a more sensible view
Asked about my stand on immigration, I often respond that I agree with the intelligent and charitable views contained in two recent Deseret News editorials by Mark H. Willes, reproduced here. I hope they will be helpful to you as well. Cordially, Alan Keele
(The first has visual footage of Mr. Willes as well, viewable at:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11911159)
Here’s the written text of the first one, from August 8th:
Editorial: Immigration-It's about us
August 8th, 2010 @ 10:00pm
By Mark Willes, President and CEO of Deseret Management Corporation
“Over the last few weeks, we have run a series of special reports on immigration in print, on television and radio, and on our multiple websites. We have tried hard to fairly represent all points of view. We have also tried to separate fact from fiction, hyperbole from reality.
We are pleased that many have told us they are now thinking more deeply about the complex issues involved. We too have found ourselves struggling to know exactly what to do. Lives, jobs, safety, and much more are at stake. In fact, the very core of what kind of people we are, and what kind of state we want to have, will be reflected in and strongly influenced by how we deal with immigration.
Common Threads
Several common threads have emerged from our reporting on immigration:
* People on all sides of the issue have uncommon courage. The debate has become so heated, the rancor so large, that anyone who takes a strong stand has been subject to withering criticism. We greatly admire all those who have added to the public dialogue by sharing their views, no matter the personal cost.
* Virtually everyone concurs that current circumstances surrounding immigration must be fixed. While areas of emphasis differ, virtually no one is happy with the way things are.
* Almost everyone also agrees that illegal felons should be caught, prosecuted, and sent out of the country.
* There is also wide consensus that to be effective, there must be a national solution to the challenges of immigration. Utahns of all points of view eagerly seek national leadership to find effective, workable solutions, sooner rather than later.
* Finally, there seems to be a broadly held view that Utah, like Arizona, should do something, if only to help speed up federal action.
No Easy Solutions
The problem, of course, is that complex problems do not lend themselves to easy solutions:
* Some argue it is a simple matter of obeying the law. Those who are here "illegally" should be sent "home." Legally, living here without proper documents is an infraction on a par with driving five miles over the speed limit. If it is just a matter of law, then where will we send all of those who have broken the speed limit? If that does not make sense for speeders, is there also a more appropriate penalty for those without proper documentation?
* Often legal and undocumented immigrants are part of the same family. Do we deport U.S. citizens because they are related to those who are not documented, or do we break up families? These both seem like unacceptable alternatives.
* How do we separate hard working contributors to our communities from those who steal, sell drugs or commit other felonies?
* If we really did send 11 million undocumented residents out of the country, what would happen to our fragile housing market, our economy, our reputation and welcome around the world? What kind of economic, political and social retaliation could we expect, and how would we deal with it? We shudder to think!
* Before a new drug can be introduced for general consumption, it must go through a long process of testing. There are almost always "side effects" that must be clearly understood or people can be badly hurt. Simple legislation often leads to unintended consequences that can be worse than the problem that was supposed to be fixed by the passage of the law. How do we make sure we truly understand the effects of what we decide to do?
Send the Right Message
Even though there is no easy or simple answer, something must be done. If Utah is to send a message to the Federal Government, let's try to craft a message that deals with all of the complexities of the issue - border control, background checks, worker permits, health insurance coverage, and so on. Many creative Utahns are working on such ideas. Rather than passing a simplistic law that does not recognize how complex and challenging the situation is, why not take the time to develop a comprehensive set of proposals that could be a model for what the Federal Government could do. That way Utah could help lead the way to real solutions that actually work. It would show we want the thugs and drug dealers sent home, while giving those who want to be contributing members of society a path out of uncertainty and fear.
Conquer Our Fears!
It is strange that the United States, which has been built by immigrants, has always had a difficult time dealing with immigrants. Whether we came from Europe, Asia, Latin America or Africa, there were always some who thought we were different, disruptive and unwelcome. Yet this constant infusion of brawn and brains has helped turn America into a country envied and copied around the world. This odd phenomenon is doubly true for Utah. Everyone who lives here, whether Mormon or not, shares in the heritage of the pioneers who first entered the Salt Lake Valley in 1847. They were driven here by people in Missouri and Illinois who had come to fear and hate the Mormons. The Mormons were different. The Mormons were growing in economic and political clout. The Mormons had strange ideas and a different culture. For these and other complex reasons the pioneers were forced to give up their homes, their possessions, and at great personal sacrifice and cost, came to Utah. They brought with them their hopes, dreams, and willingness to work to create a better life for themselves and their families.
Since then other people and other faiths have immigrated to Utah. Some were easily welcomed. For others the process was more difficult and took longer. But because of the sacrifice and hard work of so many, from so many places, we now live in a state that is unique and wonderful!
Therefore, we of all people should be sensitive to the desire of others to provide more opportunities for themselves and their families. We, of all people, should take the time to learn to love our neighbors, rather than allowing the fact that they are different to cause us to want to drive them from our midst. We, of all people, should set a higher standard of concern, compassion and love. Except for Native Americans, we are all here because of immigration. Common decency and gratitude for what we have should cause us to embrace those who have a desire to share in and add to what is already here.
Utah - A Higher Standard
We don't minimize the very real problems associated with immigration. No one is happy with the current situation. Undocumented residents live with fear, worry, and often discrimination. Citizens worry about crime, jobs, political influence. It is precisely at times like this that we find out who we really are. Do we live by core values of love and compassion or do we take counsel from our fears? Are we willing to provide moral leadership or do the expedient thing even when we are not sure what the consequences will be?
We encourage all Utahns to take the time to learn and ponder. We don't need to follow anyone else's lead. We can lead out in thoughtfulness, creativity, comprehensiveness, and compassion. Others have left a remarkable legacy for us. Let us leave a legacy for those who follow that will stand the test of time and that will reflect and honor the sacrifices or those who preceded us.
At the end of the day, what we do about immigration will say more about "us" than it will about "them." We need to find a way so that they and we are one.”
-Mark Willes, on behalf of Deseret Media Companies: KSL Television, KSL Radio, Deseret News, and El Observador
This is the second editorial, from September 26:
“Immigration and the rule of law.” Sunday, Sept. 26, 2010 12:00 a.m. MDT in the Deseret News.
“The rule of law is a bedrock principle of our constitutional democracy. Many behaviors can corrode and undermine the public's confidence in the rule of law. Two of these are especially important regarding the issue of immigration.
The first is blatant disregard for the law. Few things hurt the efficacy of a rule as quickly as indifference to its enforcement.
The second, which is just as damaging, is stubborn enforcement of rules that are unjust. Humans seem to have an inborn sense of justice. We recoil when formal legal authority appears to be the only justification for enforcement of something that seems unfair. Officiousness, petty legalism, and injustice enforced by rules are not what is captured in our principled respect for the rule of law.
Our current immigration policies undermine the rule of law with the twin threats of blatant disregard of clearly established laws and the stubborn enforcement of unjust rules.
When 11 million individuals reside in our country without documentation to show that they entered lawfully, the law is threatened by indifference. But fundamental fairness is also threatened when officials forcefully raid the homes of and break up families whose sole motivation for undocumented entry was to seek freedom and opportunity.
This tension between written law and the demands of fairness is, of course, not new. Indeed, one of the great strengths of the American legal system has been its ability to navigate between these extremes that threaten to undermine public confidence in the rule of law.
A notable example of this is in our property law. For those of us who sing the praises of pioneer ancestors it may be disquieting to learn that the Utah pioneers (i.e., those settlers who arrived prior to 1869) were technically squatters. They settled on and improved lands without any formal legal authority. Historians frequently refer to these arrangements as "extralegal."
This was not just a Utah issue — it was an issue for most western lands. In lands acquired by the United States through purchase or treaty, the federal government had clear formal authority to step in and chase off squatters.
Instead of rigidly enforcing the law of property and thereby destroying the livelihood and wealth of ingenious freedom-loving pioneers, we adapted our laws using common sense to make what was "extralegal" part of the legal economy. Through accommodating legislation like the Preemption Act of 1841, the Homesteading Act of 1862 and the General Mining Act of 1872, the United States transformed extralegal uses of property in western lands into recognized titles and legal claims. It is important to note that land was not given away — there were requirements, processes, and fees — but none of it was onerous for settlers of good will.
These practical legal adaptations transformed those who first came to these mountain valleys from illegal squatters into honored pioneers. By making those adjustments, the government did not abandon law or give in to illegal behavior. Statesmen of the day had the common sense, decency, and foresight to recognize that the existing property law would prove too rigid and inhumane if it kept the orderly, productive activity of our pioneer forebears outside of the bounds of law.
The same hope for freedom and opportunity that motivated pioneers to settle the West continues to draw families to America. Over the centuries millions of immigrants have had that hope fulfilled. With each wave of immigration there has been understandable worry about the impact — but immigration has always enriched America culturally and economically.
The eyes of the world have turned to Utah. Global press outlets like The Economist and The New York Times have covered how Utah, with its pioneer heritage and a population with extraordinary international experience, is addressing this challenging issue.
One need not advocate amnesty to see that we need a way to bring those undocumented families of good will among us out of the shadows. One need not abandon the principle of accountability to provide a mechanism for people to work in and contribute to our society.
We urge our lawmakers today to deliberate about how they might fashion clear and enforceable immigration rules that recognize, welcome and accommodate families motivated by that pioneering spirit of opportunity. They should honor the fact that the overwhelming majority of Utah's residents trace their heritage to immigrants who came here because of freedom and opportunity. Often cast off from their native lands as social, economic, or religious misfits, our ancestors found in these valleys refuge and opportunity. They also found a responsive system of law that accommodated rather than rejected them. The heritage of opportunity, tolerance, and adaptation that guided us in the 19th and 20th centuries should continue to guide us today.
Disregard of current entry requirements harms respect for law. Abuse of those requirements for blatantly criminal ends is unacceptable. But the rule of law is equally harmed through stubborn, costly and capricious enforcement of unwise rules. Respect for law will increase when our immigration policies respond to and adapt to that universal human impulse to seek opportunity and freedom. And if history is our guide, such adaptation will enhance our culture and expand economic innovation and growth.”
(The first has visual footage of Mr. Willes as well, viewable at:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11911159)
Here’s the written text of the first one, from August 8th:
Editorial: Immigration-It's about us
August 8th, 2010 @ 10:00pm
By Mark Willes, President and CEO of Deseret Management Corporation
“Over the last few weeks, we have run a series of special reports on immigration in print, on television and radio, and on our multiple websites. We have tried hard to fairly represent all points of view. We have also tried to separate fact from fiction, hyperbole from reality.
We are pleased that many have told us they are now thinking more deeply about the complex issues involved. We too have found ourselves struggling to know exactly what to do. Lives, jobs, safety, and much more are at stake. In fact, the very core of what kind of people we are, and what kind of state we want to have, will be reflected in and strongly influenced by how we deal with immigration.
Common Threads
Several common threads have emerged from our reporting on immigration:
* People on all sides of the issue have uncommon courage. The debate has become so heated, the rancor so large, that anyone who takes a strong stand has been subject to withering criticism. We greatly admire all those who have added to the public dialogue by sharing their views, no matter the personal cost.
* Virtually everyone concurs that current circumstances surrounding immigration must be fixed. While areas of emphasis differ, virtually no one is happy with the way things are.
* Almost everyone also agrees that illegal felons should be caught, prosecuted, and sent out of the country.
* There is also wide consensus that to be effective, there must be a national solution to the challenges of immigration. Utahns of all points of view eagerly seek national leadership to find effective, workable solutions, sooner rather than later.
* Finally, there seems to be a broadly held view that Utah, like Arizona, should do something, if only to help speed up federal action.
No Easy Solutions
The problem, of course, is that complex problems do not lend themselves to easy solutions:
* Some argue it is a simple matter of obeying the law. Those who are here "illegally" should be sent "home." Legally, living here without proper documents is an infraction on a par with driving five miles over the speed limit. If it is just a matter of law, then where will we send all of those who have broken the speed limit? If that does not make sense for speeders, is there also a more appropriate penalty for those without proper documentation?
* Often legal and undocumented immigrants are part of the same family. Do we deport U.S. citizens because they are related to those who are not documented, or do we break up families? These both seem like unacceptable alternatives.
* How do we separate hard working contributors to our communities from those who steal, sell drugs or commit other felonies?
* If we really did send 11 million undocumented residents out of the country, what would happen to our fragile housing market, our economy, our reputation and welcome around the world? What kind of economic, political and social retaliation could we expect, and how would we deal with it? We shudder to think!
* Before a new drug can be introduced for general consumption, it must go through a long process of testing. There are almost always "side effects" that must be clearly understood or people can be badly hurt. Simple legislation often leads to unintended consequences that can be worse than the problem that was supposed to be fixed by the passage of the law. How do we make sure we truly understand the effects of what we decide to do?
Send the Right Message
Even though there is no easy or simple answer, something must be done. If Utah is to send a message to the Federal Government, let's try to craft a message that deals with all of the complexities of the issue - border control, background checks, worker permits, health insurance coverage, and so on. Many creative Utahns are working on such ideas. Rather than passing a simplistic law that does not recognize how complex and challenging the situation is, why not take the time to develop a comprehensive set of proposals that could be a model for what the Federal Government could do. That way Utah could help lead the way to real solutions that actually work. It would show we want the thugs and drug dealers sent home, while giving those who want to be contributing members of society a path out of uncertainty and fear.
Conquer Our Fears!
It is strange that the United States, which has been built by immigrants, has always had a difficult time dealing with immigrants. Whether we came from Europe, Asia, Latin America or Africa, there were always some who thought we were different, disruptive and unwelcome. Yet this constant infusion of brawn and brains has helped turn America into a country envied and copied around the world. This odd phenomenon is doubly true for Utah. Everyone who lives here, whether Mormon or not, shares in the heritage of the pioneers who first entered the Salt Lake Valley in 1847. They were driven here by people in Missouri and Illinois who had come to fear and hate the Mormons. The Mormons were different. The Mormons were growing in economic and political clout. The Mormons had strange ideas and a different culture. For these and other complex reasons the pioneers were forced to give up their homes, their possessions, and at great personal sacrifice and cost, came to Utah. They brought with them their hopes, dreams, and willingness to work to create a better life for themselves and their families.
Since then other people and other faiths have immigrated to Utah. Some were easily welcomed. For others the process was more difficult and took longer. But because of the sacrifice and hard work of so many, from so many places, we now live in a state that is unique and wonderful!
Therefore, we of all people should be sensitive to the desire of others to provide more opportunities for themselves and their families. We, of all people, should take the time to learn to love our neighbors, rather than allowing the fact that they are different to cause us to want to drive them from our midst. We, of all people, should set a higher standard of concern, compassion and love. Except for Native Americans, we are all here because of immigration. Common decency and gratitude for what we have should cause us to embrace those who have a desire to share in and add to what is already here.
Utah - A Higher Standard
We don't minimize the very real problems associated with immigration. No one is happy with the current situation. Undocumented residents live with fear, worry, and often discrimination. Citizens worry about crime, jobs, political influence. It is precisely at times like this that we find out who we really are. Do we live by core values of love and compassion or do we take counsel from our fears? Are we willing to provide moral leadership or do the expedient thing even when we are not sure what the consequences will be?
We encourage all Utahns to take the time to learn and ponder. We don't need to follow anyone else's lead. We can lead out in thoughtfulness, creativity, comprehensiveness, and compassion. Others have left a remarkable legacy for us. Let us leave a legacy for those who follow that will stand the test of time and that will reflect and honor the sacrifices or those who preceded us.
At the end of the day, what we do about immigration will say more about "us" than it will about "them." We need to find a way so that they and we are one.”
-Mark Willes, on behalf of Deseret Media Companies: KSL Television, KSL Radio, Deseret News, and El Observador
This is the second editorial, from September 26:
“Immigration and the rule of law.” Sunday, Sept. 26, 2010 12:00 a.m. MDT in the Deseret News.
“The rule of law is a bedrock principle of our constitutional democracy. Many behaviors can corrode and undermine the public's confidence in the rule of law. Two of these are especially important regarding the issue of immigration.
The first is blatant disregard for the law. Few things hurt the efficacy of a rule as quickly as indifference to its enforcement.
The second, which is just as damaging, is stubborn enforcement of rules that are unjust. Humans seem to have an inborn sense of justice. We recoil when formal legal authority appears to be the only justification for enforcement of something that seems unfair. Officiousness, petty legalism, and injustice enforced by rules are not what is captured in our principled respect for the rule of law.
Our current immigration policies undermine the rule of law with the twin threats of blatant disregard of clearly established laws and the stubborn enforcement of unjust rules.
When 11 million individuals reside in our country without documentation to show that they entered lawfully, the law is threatened by indifference. But fundamental fairness is also threatened when officials forcefully raid the homes of and break up families whose sole motivation for undocumented entry was to seek freedom and opportunity.
This tension between written law and the demands of fairness is, of course, not new. Indeed, one of the great strengths of the American legal system has been its ability to navigate between these extremes that threaten to undermine public confidence in the rule of law.
A notable example of this is in our property law. For those of us who sing the praises of pioneer ancestors it may be disquieting to learn that the Utah pioneers (i.e., those settlers who arrived prior to 1869) were technically squatters. They settled on and improved lands without any formal legal authority. Historians frequently refer to these arrangements as "extralegal."
This was not just a Utah issue — it was an issue for most western lands. In lands acquired by the United States through purchase or treaty, the federal government had clear formal authority to step in and chase off squatters.
Instead of rigidly enforcing the law of property and thereby destroying the livelihood and wealth of ingenious freedom-loving pioneers, we adapted our laws using common sense to make what was "extralegal" part of the legal economy. Through accommodating legislation like the Preemption Act of 1841, the Homesteading Act of 1862 and the General Mining Act of 1872, the United States transformed extralegal uses of property in western lands into recognized titles and legal claims. It is important to note that land was not given away — there were requirements, processes, and fees — but none of it was onerous for settlers of good will.
These practical legal adaptations transformed those who first came to these mountain valleys from illegal squatters into honored pioneers. By making those adjustments, the government did not abandon law or give in to illegal behavior. Statesmen of the day had the common sense, decency, and foresight to recognize that the existing property law would prove too rigid and inhumane if it kept the orderly, productive activity of our pioneer forebears outside of the bounds of law.
The same hope for freedom and opportunity that motivated pioneers to settle the West continues to draw families to America. Over the centuries millions of immigrants have had that hope fulfilled. With each wave of immigration there has been understandable worry about the impact — but immigration has always enriched America culturally and economically.
The eyes of the world have turned to Utah. Global press outlets like The Economist and The New York Times have covered how Utah, with its pioneer heritage and a population with extraordinary international experience, is addressing this challenging issue.
One need not advocate amnesty to see that we need a way to bring those undocumented families of good will among us out of the shadows. One need not abandon the principle of accountability to provide a mechanism for people to work in and contribute to our society.
We urge our lawmakers today to deliberate about how they might fashion clear and enforceable immigration rules that recognize, welcome and accommodate families motivated by that pioneering spirit of opportunity. They should honor the fact that the overwhelming majority of Utah's residents trace their heritage to immigrants who came here because of freedom and opportunity. Often cast off from their native lands as social, economic, or religious misfits, our ancestors found in these valleys refuge and opportunity. They also found a responsive system of law that accommodated rather than rejected them. The heritage of opportunity, tolerance, and adaptation that guided us in the 19th and 20th centuries should continue to guide us today.
Disregard of current entry requirements harms respect for law. Abuse of those requirements for blatantly criminal ends is unacceptable. But the rule of law is equally harmed through stubborn, costly and capricious enforcement of unwise rules. Respect for law will increase when our immigration policies respond to and adapt to that universal human impulse to seek opportunity and freedom. And if history is our guide, such adaptation will enhance our culture and expand economic innovation and growth.”
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
A fuller account of Elder Marlin K. Jensen's statement on behalf of the LDS Church about the problems of a one-party system
I have mentioned in earlier blogs and in my printed door hanger that Elder Marlin K. Jensen of the First Quorum of the Seventy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was my mission companion in Germany in the 1960's. And I have quoted briefly what he had to say, at the behest of the First Presidency, about the need for a robust multi-party system. Here is a longer version of his interview with the Salt Lake Tribune on May 3, 1998, as summarized by the paper.
"There is sort of a division along Mormon/non-Mormon, Republican/Democratic lines," says Elder Marlin Jensen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. "We regret that more than anything -- that there would become a church party and a non-church party. That would be the last thing that we would want to have happen."
Jensen said major national political parties may take stands that do not coincide with teachings of the 10 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but that should not put them out of bounds for members.
A former attorney and lifelong Democrat, Jensen was careful in his comments not to suggest an official LDS preference for any political party but to maintain the church's traditional stand of partisan neutrality.
The First Quorum of the Seventy is the third tier in LDS Church leadership after the Quorum of Twelve Apostles and the governing First Presidency.
Jensen for the past three years has been a member of the church's Public Affairs Committee. He was designated by church officials to respond to The Salt Lake Tribune's request for an interview on the topic of partisan imbalance in Utah and among LDS members.
The Tribune's inquiry came on the heels of two significant developments: Utah Democrats' unprecedented failure to field a candidate in a congressional race and a statement from the LDS First Presidency -- read over pulpits in January -- urging members to seek elective office.
In an hourlong interview at the church's worldwide headquarters in downtown Salt Lake City arranged and overseen by LDS media-relations director Mike Otterson, Jensen discussed leaders' views about the seeming demise of two-party politics among members. Among the concerns he aired:
-- The LDS Church's reputation as a one-party monolith is damaging in the long run because of the seesaw fortunes of the national political parties.
-- The overwhelming Republican bent of LDS members in Utah and the Intermountain West undermines the checks-and-balances principle of democratic government.
-- Any notion that it is impossible to be a Democrat and a good Mormon is wrongheaded and should be "obliterated."
-- Faithful LDS members have a moral obligation to actively participate in politics and civic affairs, a duty many have neglected.
"I am in shock," Utah Democratic Party Chairwoman Meghan Zanolli Holbrook said when told of Jensen's comments. "I have never heard anything like this in the years I've been here."
"That's an earthshaker," said Democrat Ted Wilson, head of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics and a longtime critic of the close connection between the Mormon Church and Republican Party.
"Mormon Democrats have been praying for this," said Wilson, who is LDS. "This is more than seeking -- we have beseeched the divinity over this."
Utah Republican Chairman Rob Bishop's reaction was less enthusiastic. "Any time a major player in the social fabric of the state, like the church, says something, it will have an impact."
"We obviously will not change," Bishop added. "If Mormons feel comfortable we welcome them. And if non-Mormons feel comfortable, we welcome them, too."
Jensen, who was called as a general authority in 1989, said high church officials lament the near-extinction of the Democratic Party in Utah and the perception -- incorrect though it is -- that the GOP enjoys official sanction of the church.
All five Congress members from Utah are Mormon and Republican, four of the five statewide offices are held by GOP officials and two-thirds of the state Legislature is Republican. Nearly 90 percent of state lawmakers are LDS. Democrats last held a majority in the state House in 1975, and in the Senate in 1977.
President Clinton finished third in balloting in Utah in 1992, the only state in which the Democrat finished behind Republican George Bush and independent Ross Perot. Utahns last voted for a Democrat for president in 1964, when they supported Lyndon B. Johnson.
Public-opinion polls show voters identifying themselves as Republican outnumber Democrats by a ratio of about 2-1.
However, a statewide survey taken in April by Valley Research, The Tribune's independent pollster, found the state equally divided when asked if the question if Republicans had too much power. Forty-six percent of the 502 respondents answered yes, 45 percent did not believe the GOP held too much sway and nine percent were unsure.
"One of the things that prompted this discussion in the first place was the regret that's felt about the decline of the Democratic Party [in Utah] and the notion that may prevail in some areas that you can't be a good Mormon and a good Democrat at the same time," Jensen said.
"There have been some awfully good men and women who have been both and are both today. So I think it would be a very healthy thing for the church -- particularly the Utah church -- if that notion could be obliterated."
The idea that Mormonism and Democratic Party affiliation are incompatible traces back to the early 1970s, when LDS general authority Ezra Taft Benson, who later became church president, was quoted in an Associated Press interview as saying it would be difficult for a faithful member to be a liberal Democrat.
Church officials later claimed the comment was taken out of context, although the AP stood by its account.
Jensen said concerns exist on two levels about the unofficial linkage of the Republican Party and Mormon Church.
One is the fear that by being closely identified with one political party, the church's national reputation and influence is subject to the roller-coaster turns and dips of that partisan organization. Also bothersome is that the uncontested dominance of the Republican Party in Utah deprives residents of the debate and competition of ideas that underlie good government.
"There is a feeling that even nationally as a church, it's not in our best interest to be known as a one-party church," Jensen said. "The national fortunes of the parties ebb and flow. Whereas the Republicans may clearly have the upper hand today, in another 10 years they may not."
Closer to home, he pointed to the Democrats' precarious toehold in Utah -- a circumstance highlighted by the dearth of minority-party officeholders and the current one-sided election in the 3rd Congressional District.
Republican Rep. Chris Cannon in 1996 defeated Bill Orton, a conservative Democrat and Mormon who had been the lone member of the minority party in Utah's delegation. This year, Cannon is seeking a second term without any challenge from a Democrat -- a first in Utah history.
(In 1982, Democrat Henry Huish missed the filing deadline and had to run as an independent. Still, he had the backing of the Democratic Party.)
"The Democratic Party has in the last 20 years waned to the point where it really is almost not a factor in our political life," Jensen said. "There is a feeling that that is not healthy at all -- that as a state we suffer in different ways. But certainly any time you don't have the dialogue and the give-and-take that the democratic process provides, you're going to be poorer for it in the long run."
There also are more immediate, tangible costs, he said.
Jensen blamed the Republican monopoly for contributing to Utah political leaders' inability or unwillingness to grapple with long-range planning issues. He pointed to the lack of state leadership on issues of open-space preservation and land-use planning.
He also pointed to the massive, catch-up highway-building binge that has disrupted Salt Lake County commuters and businesses. "One might say that the transportation crisis that we're in might have been averted had there been better balance in the parties and something was thrashed out 10 years ago, perhaps during Gov. Bangerter's time, rather than being allowed to wait until we reached a crisis situation.
"There are probably issues like that environmentally, educationally that we'd really benefit from if there were a more robust dialogue going on. But we've lacked that and I think we've suffered somewhat because of it."
Jensen's comments are bound to cause ripples among the 70 percent of Utahns who are counted as members of the LDS Church, as well as millions of faithful throughout the country, say political observers.
"This is the second dramatic time in the history of the state when forceful signals have been flashed from church headquarters calling on Mormons to choose up political sides more evenly," said J.D. Williams, retired University of Utah political scientist.
Williams compared Jensen's public pronouncements to the church's attempts in the 1890s to divide congregations up evenly among the two major political parties.
"Thus, wonder of wonders, theocracy was the mother of democracy in the territory of Utah," Williams said. "We achieved statehood five years later."
Jensen also referred to the 19th-century splitting of congregations along partisan lines, when the territorial People's and Liberal parties were abandoned in favor of national party affiliations.
He repeated an anecdote told by prominent LDS Democrat Oscar McConkie about his father's recollections of a church leader telling a congregation during a Sunday morning meeting to "sign up to be Republicans."
At that time, Mormons favored the Democratic Party because it was less stridently anti-polygamy than were Republicans.
When members of the flock returned for an afternoon session, the Republican sign-up sheet remained blank, Jensen said. "Brothers and sisters, you have misunderstood," said the church leader. "God needs Republicans."
"And Oscar said his father would wink and say, `And you know, Oscar, those damned Republicans think they've had God on their side ever since,' " Jensen said.
"I don't know if you can make any use of that but it's a great story. And there's a little of that embedded in our culture, unfortunately," he said.
Elbert Peck, editor of Sunstone magazine, said it is noteworthy that it is not LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley or one of his counselors breaking the church's silence on political imbalance.
"It is not as official as if it was an apostle or a member of the First Presidency saying it," Peck said. "Still, the quotes are out there and people will use them. You can bet they'll be remembered and taken as a sign."
Peck, whose Salt Lake City-based independent journal publishes articles on historical and contemporary Mormonism, predicts similar comments will be made in other settings -- church firesides and the like, because messages sent by LDS general authorities are repeated.
"Privately, I've heard reports of these opinions, but not publicly," Peck said. "The church leaders have been careful about saying anything publicly."
The tremendous growth of the Mormon Church worldwide has forced attention to its image as a good, trustworthy neighbor in the communities, states and countries where it is taking root, he said.
"We need to develop a tolerance -- so we don't demonize people that we have a disagreement with," Peck said. "It really was the church leaders' position on abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment [in the 1970s] that was the death of the Utah Democratic Party, because it became a litmus test," he said.
Pro-choice and, more recently, gay-rights stands of the national Democratic Party have helped Republicans paint the donkey-symbol party as taboo.
Jensen said it is time for LDS members to take a broader view of political affiliation.
"We would probably hope that they wouldn't abandon a party necessarily because it has a philosophy or two that may not square with Mormonism. Because, as I say, [parties] in their philosophies ebb and flow," Jensen said.
"You know, the Republicans came very close last time to bringing a pro-abortion plank into their platform. That was maybe the biggest battle of their [1996 national] convention," he said. "Which shows that if you're a pure ideologue, eventually you're going to have trouble in either party."
"Everyone who is a good Latter-day Saint is going to have to pick and choose a little bit regardless of the party that they're in and that may be required a lot more in the future than it has been in the past. But I think there's room for that and the gospel leaves us lots of latitude."
"There is sort of a division along Mormon/non-Mormon, Republican/Democratic lines," says Elder Marlin Jensen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. "We regret that more than anything -- that there would become a church party and a non-church party. That would be the last thing that we would want to have happen."
Jensen said major national political parties may take stands that do not coincide with teachings of the 10 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but that should not put them out of bounds for members.
A former attorney and lifelong Democrat, Jensen was careful in his comments not to suggest an official LDS preference for any political party but to maintain the church's traditional stand of partisan neutrality.
The First Quorum of the Seventy is the third tier in LDS Church leadership after the Quorum of Twelve Apostles and the governing First Presidency.
Jensen for the past three years has been a member of the church's Public Affairs Committee. He was designated by church officials to respond to The Salt Lake Tribune's request for an interview on the topic of partisan imbalance in Utah and among LDS members.
The Tribune's inquiry came on the heels of two significant developments: Utah Democrats' unprecedented failure to field a candidate in a congressional race and a statement from the LDS First Presidency -- read over pulpits in January -- urging members to seek elective office.
In an hourlong interview at the church's worldwide headquarters in downtown Salt Lake City arranged and overseen by LDS media-relations director Mike Otterson, Jensen discussed leaders' views about the seeming demise of two-party politics among members. Among the concerns he aired:
-- The LDS Church's reputation as a one-party monolith is damaging in the long run because of the seesaw fortunes of the national political parties.
-- The overwhelming Republican bent of LDS members in Utah and the Intermountain West undermines the checks-and-balances principle of democratic government.
-- Any notion that it is impossible to be a Democrat and a good Mormon is wrongheaded and should be "obliterated."
-- Faithful LDS members have a moral obligation to actively participate in politics and civic affairs, a duty many have neglected.
"I am in shock," Utah Democratic Party Chairwoman Meghan Zanolli Holbrook said when told of Jensen's comments. "I have never heard anything like this in the years I've been here."
"That's an earthshaker," said Democrat Ted Wilson, head of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics and a longtime critic of the close connection between the Mormon Church and Republican Party.
"Mormon Democrats have been praying for this," said Wilson, who is LDS. "This is more than seeking -- we have beseeched the divinity over this."
Utah Republican Chairman Rob Bishop's reaction was less enthusiastic. "Any time a major player in the social fabric of the state, like the church, says something, it will have an impact."
"We obviously will not change," Bishop added. "If Mormons feel comfortable we welcome them. And if non-Mormons feel comfortable, we welcome them, too."
Jensen, who was called as a general authority in 1989, said high church officials lament the near-extinction of the Democratic Party in Utah and the perception -- incorrect though it is -- that the GOP enjoys official sanction of the church.
All five Congress members from Utah are Mormon and Republican, four of the five statewide offices are held by GOP officials and two-thirds of the state Legislature is Republican. Nearly 90 percent of state lawmakers are LDS. Democrats last held a majority in the state House in 1975, and in the Senate in 1977.
President Clinton finished third in balloting in Utah in 1992, the only state in which the Democrat finished behind Republican George Bush and independent Ross Perot. Utahns last voted for a Democrat for president in 1964, when they supported Lyndon B. Johnson.
Public-opinion polls show voters identifying themselves as Republican outnumber Democrats by a ratio of about 2-1.
However, a statewide survey taken in April by Valley Research, The Tribune's independent pollster, found the state equally divided when asked if the question if Republicans had too much power. Forty-six percent of the 502 respondents answered yes, 45 percent did not believe the GOP held too much sway and nine percent were unsure.
"One of the things that prompted this discussion in the first place was the regret that's felt about the decline of the Democratic Party [in Utah] and the notion that may prevail in some areas that you can't be a good Mormon and a good Democrat at the same time," Jensen said.
"There have been some awfully good men and women who have been both and are both today. So I think it would be a very healthy thing for the church -- particularly the Utah church -- if that notion could be obliterated."
The idea that Mormonism and Democratic Party affiliation are incompatible traces back to the early 1970s, when LDS general authority Ezra Taft Benson, who later became church president, was quoted in an Associated Press interview as saying it would be difficult for a faithful member to be a liberal Democrat.
Church officials later claimed the comment was taken out of context, although the AP stood by its account.
Jensen said concerns exist on two levels about the unofficial linkage of the Republican Party and Mormon Church.
One is the fear that by being closely identified with one political party, the church's national reputation and influence is subject to the roller-coaster turns and dips of that partisan organization. Also bothersome is that the uncontested dominance of the Republican Party in Utah deprives residents of the debate and competition of ideas that underlie good government.
"There is a feeling that even nationally as a church, it's not in our best interest to be known as a one-party church," Jensen said. "The national fortunes of the parties ebb and flow. Whereas the Republicans may clearly have the upper hand today, in another 10 years they may not."
Closer to home, he pointed to the Democrats' precarious toehold in Utah -- a circumstance highlighted by the dearth of minority-party officeholders and the current one-sided election in the 3rd Congressional District.
Republican Rep. Chris Cannon in 1996 defeated Bill Orton, a conservative Democrat and Mormon who had been the lone member of the minority party in Utah's delegation. This year, Cannon is seeking a second term without any challenge from a Democrat -- a first in Utah history.
(In 1982, Democrat Henry Huish missed the filing deadline and had to run as an independent. Still, he had the backing of the Democratic Party.)
"The Democratic Party has in the last 20 years waned to the point where it really is almost not a factor in our political life," Jensen said. "There is a feeling that that is not healthy at all -- that as a state we suffer in different ways. But certainly any time you don't have the dialogue and the give-and-take that the democratic process provides, you're going to be poorer for it in the long run."
There also are more immediate, tangible costs, he said.
Jensen blamed the Republican monopoly for contributing to Utah political leaders' inability or unwillingness to grapple with long-range planning issues. He pointed to the lack of state leadership on issues of open-space preservation and land-use planning.
He also pointed to the massive, catch-up highway-building binge that has disrupted Salt Lake County commuters and businesses. "One might say that the transportation crisis that we're in might have been averted had there been better balance in the parties and something was thrashed out 10 years ago, perhaps during Gov. Bangerter's time, rather than being allowed to wait until we reached a crisis situation.
"There are probably issues like that environmentally, educationally that we'd really benefit from if there were a more robust dialogue going on. But we've lacked that and I think we've suffered somewhat because of it."
Jensen's comments are bound to cause ripples among the 70 percent of Utahns who are counted as members of the LDS Church, as well as millions of faithful throughout the country, say political observers.
"This is the second dramatic time in the history of the state when forceful signals have been flashed from church headquarters calling on Mormons to choose up political sides more evenly," said J.D. Williams, retired University of Utah political scientist.
Williams compared Jensen's public pronouncements to the church's attempts in the 1890s to divide congregations up evenly among the two major political parties.
"Thus, wonder of wonders, theocracy was the mother of democracy in the territory of Utah," Williams said. "We achieved statehood five years later."
Jensen also referred to the 19th-century splitting of congregations along partisan lines, when the territorial People's and Liberal parties were abandoned in favor of national party affiliations.
He repeated an anecdote told by prominent LDS Democrat Oscar McConkie about his father's recollections of a church leader telling a congregation during a Sunday morning meeting to "sign up to be Republicans."
At that time, Mormons favored the Democratic Party because it was less stridently anti-polygamy than were Republicans.
When members of the flock returned for an afternoon session, the Republican sign-up sheet remained blank, Jensen said. "Brothers and sisters, you have misunderstood," said the church leader. "God needs Republicans."
"And Oscar said his father would wink and say, `And you know, Oscar, those damned Republicans think they've had God on their side ever since,' " Jensen said.
"I don't know if you can make any use of that but it's a great story. And there's a little of that embedded in our culture, unfortunately," he said.
Elbert Peck, editor of Sunstone magazine, said it is noteworthy that it is not LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley or one of his counselors breaking the church's silence on political imbalance.
"It is not as official as if it was an apostle or a member of the First Presidency saying it," Peck said. "Still, the quotes are out there and people will use them. You can bet they'll be remembered and taken as a sign."
Peck, whose Salt Lake City-based independent journal publishes articles on historical and contemporary Mormonism, predicts similar comments will be made in other settings -- church firesides and the like, because messages sent by LDS general authorities are repeated.
"Privately, I've heard reports of these opinions, but not publicly," Peck said. "The church leaders have been careful about saying anything publicly."
The tremendous growth of the Mormon Church worldwide has forced attention to its image as a good, trustworthy neighbor in the communities, states and countries where it is taking root, he said.
"We need to develop a tolerance -- so we don't demonize people that we have a disagreement with," Peck said. "It really was the church leaders' position on abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment [in the 1970s] that was the death of the Utah Democratic Party, because it became a litmus test," he said.
Pro-choice and, more recently, gay-rights stands of the national Democratic Party have helped Republicans paint the donkey-symbol party as taboo.
Jensen said it is time for LDS members to take a broader view of political affiliation.
"We would probably hope that they wouldn't abandon a party necessarily because it has a philosophy or two that may not square with Mormonism. Because, as I say, [parties] in their philosophies ebb and flow," Jensen said.
"You know, the Republicans came very close last time to bringing a pro-abortion plank into their platform. That was maybe the biggest battle of their [1996 national] convention," he said. "Which shows that if you're a pure ideologue, eventually you're going to have trouble in either party."
"Everyone who is a good Latter-day Saint is going to have to pick and choose a little bit regardless of the party that they're in and that may be required a lot more in the future than it has been in the past. But I think there's room for that and the gospel leaves us lots of latitude."
Monday, September 13, 2010
Register to vote and then be sure to vote!! Here's some useful information.
An important note from Alan Keele to voters in Orem District 60 about our 17 Precincts, your individual voting location, and how to register to vote:
YOU MUST REGISTER AT LEAST 30 DAYS BEFORE NOVEMBER 2 IF YOU REGISTER ON PAPER OR ONLINE. IF YOU REGISTER IN PERSON AT THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE (100 East Center St., Rm 3600, Provo UT 84606) YOU CAN REGISTER UP TO 15 DAYS BEFORE NOVEMBER 2.
Orem District 60 runs basically from Center Street south to the University Parkway and from I-15 east to the Provo River. Three precincts, however, are south of the University Parkway. (Precinct 12 is south of the Parkway to 1600 South and east of Main Street to State Street. Precinct 37 is south of 1600 South to 2000 South, east of 250 East to State Street. Precinct 9 and a small extension of the Precinct called 9a are south of the Parkway to the Provo border and from State Street east just past Carterville Road to the Provo River.)
If you visit:
http://www.utahcountyonline.org/apps/WebLink/Dept/CLERKAUD/LegDistrict60_Reduced.pdf
you can find a map of our District and locate your Precinct. (It helps to enlarge the image by clicking control and + several times so you can read the street numbers.)
Unfortunately, the list of polling places at:
http://www.utahcountyonline.org/dept/clerkaud/Elections/PollLocate.asp
was incomplete as of September 27 (they have promised me to fix it asap).
Fortunately, the list of polling places for the past PRIMARY ELECTION is complete and seems accurate:
http://www.utahcountyonline.org/apps/WebLink/Dept/CLERKAUD/Primary2010PollList2.pdf
To register to vote, please visit:
http://elections.utah.gov/
and go to the link on the lower right hand that says register to vote and: Vote, Leave Your Print! You can download a paper form or register online.
Please register and be sure to vote, even if you don’t vote for me (which I hope you will, however!) As citizens we all have a duty to study the issues and make our voices heard at the polls on November 2nd!
We always get the kind of government we deserve. If we are diligent we’ll have good governance, if not, there are lots of examples of bad governance. (When a woman in our District recently told me she thought we ought to do away with all government, to get government “off our backs,” I later mentioned her to my brother-in-law Elder F. Melvin Hammond, an emeritus member of the LDS Quorum of the 70 (and a Democratic representative to the Idaho State House – and minority leader – for many years). Mel said to me, recalling his years as a mission president in Bolivia: “She ought to move to Bolivia,” he said. “In Bolivia there’s almost no government: No roads, no schools, no fire, no police, no worker safety, no environmental protection, no social security, no medical care, no child labor laws... in Bolivia you’re pretty much on your own.” We deserve better here in Utah County, in District 60!
YOU MUST REGISTER AT LEAST 30 DAYS BEFORE NOVEMBER 2 IF YOU REGISTER ON PAPER OR ONLINE. IF YOU REGISTER IN PERSON AT THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE (100 East Center St., Rm 3600, Provo UT 84606) YOU CAN REGISTER UP TO 15 DAYS BEFORE NOVEMBER 2.
Orem District 60 runs basically from Center Street south to the University Parkway and from I-15 east to the Provo River. Three precincts, however, are south of the University Parkway. (Precinct 12 is south of the Parkway to 1600 South and east of Main Street to State Street. Precinct 37 is south of 1600 South to 2000 South, east of 250 East to State Street. Precinct 9 and a small extension of the Precinct called 9a are south of the Parkway to the Provo border and from State Street east just past Carterville Road to the Provo River.)
If you visit:
http://www.utahcountyonline.org/apps/WebLink/Dept/CLERKAUD/LegDistrict60_Reduced.pdf
you can find a map of our District and locate your Precinct. (It helps to enlarge the image by clicking control and + several times so you can read the street numbers.)
Unfortunately, the list of polling places at:
http://www.utahcountyonline.org/dept/clerkaud/Elections/PollLocate.asp
was incomplete as of September 27 (they have promised me to fix it asap).
Fortunately, the list of polling places for the past PRIMARY ELECTION is complete and seems accurate:
http://www.utahcountyonline.org/apps/WebLink/Dept/CLERKAUD/Primary2010PollList2.pdf
To register to vote, please visit:
http://elections.utah.gov/
and go to the link on the lower right hand that says register to vote and: Vote, Leave Your Print! You can download a paper form or register online.
Please register and be sure to vote, even if you don’t vote for me (which I hope you will, however!) As citizens we all have a duty to study the issues and make our voices heard at the polls on November 2nd!
We always get the kind of government we deserve. If we are diligent we’ll have good governance, if not, there are lots of examples of bad governance. (When a woman in our District recently told me she thought we ought to do away with all government, to get government “off our backs,” I later mentioned her to my brother-in-law Elder F. Melvin Hammond, an emeritus member of the LDS Quorum of the 70 (and a Democratic representative to the Idaho State House – and minority leader – for many years). Mel said to me, recalling his years as a mission president in Bolivia: “She ought to move to Bolivia,” he said. “In Bolivia there’s almost no government: No roads, no schools, no fire, no police, no worker safety, no environmental protection, no social security, no medical care, no child labor laws... in Bolivia you’re pretty much on your own.” We deserve better here in Utah County, in District 60!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)