And how broad is it? It demands every single record related to House, Senate, and Congressional redistricting to or from any legislator or their staff. As I’ve mentioned before, the House and Senate maps both passed their respective houses almost unanimously, so what good does it to to request all of the records relating to these maps? It’s almost designed explicitly to be rejected as a freebie, and it hints that there’s really no evidence to support a lawsuit. Anyone who has actually worked with GRAMA knows that the most successful requests are specific and targeted, not overly broad.

More hilarious are the ground upon which the Party is requesting a fee waiver. The law provides that fees can be waived if the primary beneficiary of the release is the general public. In the request, however, the Party says rather bluntly that they intend to use the records in a potential lawsuit. They still insist, however, that the public is the primary beneficiary. Uh, what? Last I checked, the OLRGC is not designed to be a legal research team subsidized by the taxpayers, and if your intent of the request is to start suing people, it’s insulting to try and pretend that your primary objective is to look out for the public good.

Another portion of the law provides that a fee can be waived if it is related to the individual filing the request. Stunningly, the Party tried to insist that it is an individual under the law (ironic since most of them oppose Citizens United), a claim that OLGRC saw right through. They also dismissed the claim that because the fee “may” be waived that they are required to.

I find myself wondering if the legal eagles planning their lawsuit are rank amateurs or if they just want to see what sticks. I’ve said before that the legal threats are both poor strategy and a waste of time and money. This latest sloppy move only confirms it.

I’d like to offer some defense of the caucus system. While it does often reward party insiders, it allows candidates with a message but little funding to find some kind of traction. It also typically results in the most informed voters being most heavily involved.  The chief criticism is that many candidates who may win in a general election do not get that chance as it can be gamed and shut a lot of candidates out in the cold.

So why not a primary? The problem with primaries is that instead of heavily lobbying 1500-ish delegates, you have to mass market to tens or hundreds of thousands of potential primary voters. This requires a lot of money and, again, shuts some candidates out of the process. It also does nothing to diminish the power of donor money on the final outcome.

While my preferred system for elections is instant runoff voting (IRV), it’s not without its own problems. Like a primary, you need a large amount of money, except moreso since you have to survive until the general election instead. The upside is that instead of voting for a “lesser of many evils” candidate, you can pick your favorite and have a fallback position. This removes the “viability” argument from elections and gives what would previously be considered “long-shot” candidates a fighting chance.

What I’d like to propose is a hybrid of some of the best ideas of each of these with IRV serving as the base.

First, let’s allow any candidate to have ballot access so long as they are willing to file the appropriate paperwork and pay the appropriate fees. This would immediately increase the number of ballot choices in all elections and likely encourage more non-partisan candidates. Right now, non-partisan candidates must collect 1,000 signatures for a statewide office and 300 signatures for any other office. While this can be accomplished, it is a significant barrier to entry.

Second, let’s keep the caucus and convention system, but only as a means of endorsement. Any political party should be able to endorse one candidate on the ballot, and that endorsement should appear on the ballot along with the candidate’s affiliation, if any. This allows the political parties some influence over the election process, but no real control of the ballot itself. As much as I would like to pretend that voters do extensive research on all candidates before making their selection, I think we all know this to largely be a fiction. Party endorsement and affiliation still has a place.

Third, and biggest, let’s mix this all up with IRV. By allowing you to rank the candidates in order of preference, there is no such thing as a “wasted” vote, and keeping a broad base of support as a second or third choice can propel a candidate to victory. With both party affiliation and endorsement displayed next to each candidate, this can provide some additional information to voters to help them make a decision. Rep. John Dougall is already taking a small step by allowing cities to pick IRV for their municipal elections, and the convention system already uses it.

Will this change every election? No, not likely. It may not even change any at all. That said, it is a lot fairer to candidates and voters to at least put the options on the table.

No so for corporate income taxes. As much as we’d love to believe the myth that cigar-chomping mustachioed men in smoke-filled rooms are having to dip into their Scrooge McDuck vault to pony up their tax bill, it just isn’t so. Businesses always build their costs into their products and services, and most of them aren’t really going to let on as to how much of their retail cost goes to specific purposes. Quick: how much of Ford’s taxes did you pay when you purchased that new pickup? You have no idea, and that’s the problem. It’s not just that you’re paying a hidden tax either. Companies spend as much (or, in the case of  GE more than) finding ways to not pay taxes as they do in checks to Uncle Sam.

And this gets down to a very simple truth: companies do not pay taxes, people do. The consumers of the product are the ones shouldering it, but they don’t even get the benefit of knowing how much it is. Ending the corporate income tax doesn’t raise taxes on people, it just makes those previously unknown costs known while eliminating the loopholes that corporate collectivists are so fond of using. Doesn’t that sound like a refreshing idea?

First off, many people claim that all redistricting is a highly partisan affair, and that the Republican majority cannot be trusted to treat Democrats fairly. The votes on the House and Senate districts, however, simply don’t bear out this claim. The House map cleared by a 74-1 vote. The Senate approved its own boundaries by a 25-1 vote. In both cases, a single, lone Democrat voted against the districts for their own body. It doesn’t sound like partisanship had a lot to do with those maps at all. Again, this isn’t a judgement on the Congressional maps, merely an observation that fairness can and has been in at least part of this process.

Another common claim is that the public isn’t being heard or considered in the process. However, a citizen map for the Congressional districts was one of the six finalists approved in committee (by a unanimous vote, I might add). The Garber map received significant discussion and consideration. Even though it did not ultimately prevail, it did shape the discussion. That’s kind of the point; it’s really difficult to tell what kind of influence the various citizen maps had on the process, and it’s really lazy to say that because a citizen-proposed map was not approved modification-free that the input had no effect.

A real head-shaker is the insistence that specific principles trump others when drawing districts. A lot of space has been spent trying to define a “community of interest”, but there’s a lot of ways you can go about it. You can go by partisan, ethnic, or demographic make-up. You can use city, street, county, or major road boundaries. I don’t think any of these is more valid than the other. In cases of partisan break-up, you can create a bunch of “safe” districts (3 R, 1 D in most proposals), or you can try breaking them up a bit to see what happens. Who’s to say that one of these is better than the other? Why should either urban or urban/rural mix districts carry the day? In the end, it’s all judgement calls. Just like the citizen maps, the failure of your preferred principles to be reflected doesn’t mean that no consideration was given to them.

I can understand how people can be upset with the finished product for not reflecting their preferred solution or principles, but resorting to over-the-top rhetoric in the 11th hour is not just unproductive, it’s highly damaging. Ask yourself this question: do you need to convince the people who already agree with you, or the people who are on the fence? Do you think that putting a Congressional map on-par with the Holocaust the way the Daily Herald has done makes you look good to reasonable people? And most importantly of all, where have you been during the last four years as the composition of the legislature used to make these decisions was elected?

Those who think that preaching to the choir for a couple of weeks can substitute for making rational arguments while participating in the electoral process are simply divorced from reality. It might help beat the minority party’s fundraising drum, but don’t expect much appeal beyond a few partisans, nor anything in the way of tangible and long-lasting results.

For those of you not paying attention, Dababkis threatened a lawsuit over the current redistricting effort due to perceived gerrymandering. I’ve looked at some of the proposed maps and, yes, I think the Sumsion 6 Congressional one in particular is a real stinker. It’s kind of a problem, though, to threaten to sue over a map that hasn’t even been adopted yet. Already some substantively different maps have been seriously discussed (including one from Speaker Lockhart that actually looks half-decent), and there’s still plenty of time for back-and-forth to create more new maps. Throwing down the threat now is petulant foot-stomping.

This doesn’t even get into the risk/reward problem that following through on such a threat presents. Consider that the odds of winning a lawsuit on redistricting are extremely slim. Even if such a suit succeeded, we’re talking about maybe 3-4 total seats affected in the legislature. And the cost? I’d say a good six figures after all of the inevitable appeals. (Them lawyers don’t come cheap.) It’s a very high cost with a very small reward and a very high risk. The money might as well be put on red down in Vegas.

The whole affair has been correctly pegged as grandstanding. Dababkis isn’t enough of a rank amateur to think that any suit filed would actually succeed, but he knows that he can score a bunch of political points with the party faithful, even if it is a complete waste of their rather limited funds. Unfortunately, it’ll stop there, and fail to resonate with the rest of the electorate.

So how did it all start? Way back in mid-2008, Ron Paul’s campaign for president was winding down and the newly energized campaign volunteers were still all kinds of riled up. They were sick of the constant centralization of both government and economic power, and sickened by the power structure of the parties that only allows “annointed” candidates to advance to elections. A coalition of libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and reformers were ready to challenge any and all party structures that did business as usual. So what happened?

Well, those in power in the parties didn’t get there by being stupid. They saw the wave coming and knew they had to nip that sucker in the bud, and what better way than pulling a reverse infiltration? Almost immediately, the same people who had been a part of the problem started loudly singing the praises of the Tea Party, carefully steering it into an attack dog of the Republican Party, not a near-partyless populist mob demanding more from everyone. In Utah, the problem was particularly bad as the organizers chose to invite elected officials to come speak to crowds, hardly the kind of thing a reform movement should want. It only took weeks or months to quell the uprising and get the media to label the newly-formed beast as a group of angry zealots  whose rage was fueled by racism, misogyny, xenophobia, or whatever ugly thing could be attached to it.

What got botched was a trans-partisan populist movement to fight against centralization of power, public and private, that has lead to rampant crony capitalism, impenetrable political party power structures that exclude any kind of insurgent candidates from the process, and the reigning in of an out-of-control pattern of federal spending perpetuated by both parties. All of these are laudable and arguably popular goals. Unfortunately, they’ve been buried under a mountain of far-right social neo-conservatism with a very narrow appeal, obviously explaining the precipitous drop in popularity among the general populace.

Is there any hope for these much needed reforms to happen anytime in the near future? Maybe. It depends on if the lightning in a bottle during the first few weeks can be recreated, or if the original reformers have stuck around now that the real work begins.. Otherwise, I expect the same old story.

A lecture is a one-way street, presenting your point of view and ignoring or shutting down feedback. This restricts the sources of ideas to just those whom the lecturer has hand-picked, often in a way that reinforces their own biases. All too often, it comes across as condescending arrogance. This, unfortunately, is exactly how the Utah Taxpayers Association operates. There is no debate, no discussion, and almost zero interaction. You’re expected to accept their obviously superior point of view without question or discussion.

Sutherland Institute provides a sharp contrast to this. They regularly interact with politicos of multiple political perspectives and seek input on new policies they may not have thought of. These policies are then discussed openly to try and find a good solution. It’s a conversational tone, one in which understanding is actively sought. This is the opposite approach that the Utah Taxpayers Association takes, seeking a problem and then trying to find solutions via a collaborative process.

I feel like Sutherland Institute is adding to the dialog, whereas the Utah Taxpayers Association is merely trying to shout everyone else down. Which do you think is better serving the interests of our state?

The Legislature has opted to keep the House frozen at 75 seats rather than allowing it to expand to the limit of 87 from Article IX, Section 2 of the Utah Constitution. This creates less flexibility in redistricting as each seat need to contain roughly 33,000 residents. Even an expansion to the maximum limit would only drop the size of a district to 28,500. This makes it difficult to not split up large cities or combine smaller cities together, sometimes in piecemeal, but it is a step in the right direction. Consider that in 1900, just four years after statehood, Utah had just 276,000 people and a district with the current number of seats would be just 3700 people. We have ten times as many people, but no more representation. This will obviously mean that many voices will not be heard.

While we can’t do much about the federal level (though organizations like ThirtyThousand working to fix it), we can absolutely work to make sure that our districts allow for much more fine-grained representation. It’s too late to do anything for this year, but we should ask that something be done to expand the House as much as possible. It will keep neighborhoods whole, make legislators more responsive and accountable, and allow cash-poor candidates the opportunity to serve.

Consider this: when was the last time you checked the license status of your favorite business? That’s right, you probably never have. Now when was the last time you looked them up on Yelp or Foursquare? Odds are good that these privately-run sites containing voluminous user feedback are your first pick for determining if you’re going to spend your hard-earned dollars there. I’d argue that a few bad reviews on either of those services does significantly more damage than a citation from the state or a city for failure to comply with licensing requirements. This provides motivation for a business or professional to always perform well whereas a license provides just enough incentive not to do anything egregiously illegal.

My wife is finishing up cosmetology school this week, an effort that took 2000 classroom hours, $18,000 in debt, and two years of our lives. The question is why that much time, money, and effort should be a requirement for someone who had mastered the basic skills within a few months. Yes, there are some who, even after all of that, will still be offering terrible hairstyles at your local SuperCuts the rest of their lives. But why should that hold back someone who knows what they are doing?

As a legislator recent commented (and I mentioned earlier), it’s all about controlling the competition. Setting up huge barriers to entry does not ensure that the practitioners of a particular trade will be of higher quality, but it does ensure that there are fewer of them which drives up prices and stifles innovation. If someone with little training and no talent tries to make a go at it, dissatisfied customers will flock to the Internet to spread that bad rap, sinking their chances of doing much damage. On the flip side, someone with a natural knack for something can easily turn that into a lucrative profession with positive testimonials reaching thousands of potential clients.

I would encourage the Legislature to take a long look at the licenses they require and start taking them out to the woodshed. We’ve already figured out a much better way to hold bad businesses accountable for a fraction of the cost.

Let’s bear in mind how this became messy in the first place. A number of years ago, Ridgway managed to get into some arguments concerning following party rules, something the leadership apparently wasn’t doing. In the process, he ended up crossing infamous bully Mark Towner, at the time a party insider who all too often ended up embarrassing those he associated with by his own bad behavior. (And Mark, don’t email me any more empty legal threats about this like you did the last time. You’re a public figure, so try using that thick skin you always claim to have, eh?)  Towner was the one really leading the anti-Ridgway charge, likely as a way to curry favor with the party leadership. You may recall that Steve Turley did the same thing not too long ago.

At any rate, Towner managed to get a judge who’s friends with his wife to issue a restraining order barring Ridgway from being anywhere he or his wife happened to be, including any party functions. In addition to this, the party had Ridgway arrested for showing up to a party meeting (which I understand Towner wasn’t even at), but SLC DA Sim Gill couldn’t find any charges to press against him. The real irony here is that Towner, for all his maneuvering, ended up leaving the Republican Party and even sought to be Scott McCoy’s replacement. (If you want a good laugh, watch him trashing on vouchers despite having been deeply entrenched on the pro-voucher side.) Why is the GOP leadership so willing to continue Towner’s personal vendetta with Ridgway long after he has both left and trashed the party?

My take is that they are so invested in being anti-Ridgway that they can’t back down now or risk admitting that they goofed up big time. Mike wasn’t always as sharp-tongued and insistent as he is today, and I think we can blame the bad treatment he received at the hands of the party he was trying to fix. Hey Utah GOP? You created this mess, and you’ve picked a heck of a way to deal with it. If he’s an “uncivil jerk”, an “intimidator”, or a “harasser”, it’s because you forced his hand. You can only beat someone so much before they’ll lash out.

So other than a sense of injustice at how the party system can grind people up and spit them out, why should you care? Consider that the GOP (and to a lesser extent, the Democrats) are experiencing an insurgency of sorts as party reformers make attempts at seizing control and changing the direction of the party. All it takes is for another Towner-like bully to label you a “troublemaker” and you’re persona non grata. Could people like Connor Boyack or Claudia Wright be persecuted and demonized by their chosen party simply for demanding that the party get better? If the way the GOP treats Ridgway is any indication, I’m betting on it.