I love Utah politics

[chrisrenrut]

Do we have one congressperson from Utah that has at least a modicum of integrity and stones?

Embedded Tweet

[frank ryan]

RFK Jr cancels 500 mill in vaccine research. What a shitty disastrous pick

[wally]

Embedded Tweet

Age of consent in Utah is 14? Yikers!

https://www.ksl.com/article/51359900...-granddaughter

plot twist: his granddaughter was the 18 YO with a 13 YO boy.

[Donuthole]

https://www.ksl.com/article/51359900...-granddaughter

plot twist: his granddaughter was the 18 YO with a 13 YO boy.

That's like a quarter-twist, barely. "The Happening" era M. Night Shamalan, at best. If his grandchild were the 13 year old, now you'd have a real Keyser Soze moment.

[MartyFunkhouser]

That's like a quarter-twist, barely. "The Happening" era M. Night Shamalan, at best. If his grandchild were the 13 year old, now you'd have a real Keyser Soze moment.

Women can be sexual predators too. Feminism!

[myboynoah]

Embedded Tweet

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is going to be fun to watch.

Utah passed a citizen initiative for independently drawn congressional districts. Utah legislature ignored. Now a court says you can't just ignore laws passed by initiative.

Embedded Tweet

[Bo Diddley]

This is going to be fun to watch.

Utah passed a citizen initiative for independently drawn congressional districts. Utah legislature ignored. Now a court says you can't just ignore laws passed by initiative.

Been following this with much interest. Great timing as well when you consider what's been happening across the country last few weeks.

[Pelado]

Been following this with much interest. Great timing as well when you consider what's been happening across the country last few weeks.

What's been happening - fall camp for football season?

[Bo Diddley]

What's been happening - fall camp for football season?

Exactly. Don't you see how interesting that is?

[Copelius]

This is going to be fun to watch.

Utah passed a citizen initiative for independently drawn congressional districts. Utah legislature ignored. Now a court says you can't just ignore laws passed by initiative.

Embedded Tweet

I know this will be an unpopular opinion here, but the Utah Supreme Court's opinion on which the judge's opinion is based overstepped. On one hand they say that the legislative power rests equally in the legislature and the people. However, they go on to say that the people are more equal than the legislature. Logical, perhaps. Intended, possibly. But if the two are truly equal, then there should not have to be any additional requirements of either to change the Utah Code. What the Court has extra-constitutionally created is a middle tier of laws between the Utah Code and the Utah Constitution.

If that is how Utah wants it, put it in the constitution, and publish that tier separate from the rest of the code. But if the legislative power truly rests equally between the legislature and the people, there exists a recourse for the people when laws passed by initiative get changed by the legislature: vote them out.

As far as the core argument is concerned, redistricting is and has been since the beginning, a political process. One of what I think is part of the problem with politics in the country is that over time so many political processes are being changed to "merit based" or "non-partisan" and make things more fair. I submit that because of human nature, it is impossible to turn a political process into an apolitical process without inherent harm to the process.

Obviously, there should be rules to the processes, but that it the purpose of a constitution and why constitutional amendments are generally harder to pass than statutes.

I am also of the opinion that one who criticizes the current direction of government should also propose an alternate solution, otherwise that person is just a whiny bitch. My two biggest complaints right now in Utah are the court selection process and the independent redistricting commission.

For the Court: Pick a lane. If you want truly merit based (impossible), pick a single statewide selection committee of lawyers from every area of practice and every size of firm. They will review the applications and select ONE person and that will be the judge. No appointment by the Governor, no Senate confirmation and for damn sure, no retention elections (biggest waste of ballot ink in the history of ballots). Keep the mandatory retirement age and move right along. Otherwise return the judiciary to politics. Make them subject to straight up political appointment or my preference, run for election. The arguments about elected judges having their opinions influenced by the need to be re-elected doesn't hold water with me. I would rather have a judge with the knowledge that they could be voted out in the next election hanging over their head as the make decisions rather than one that knows they have the job as long as they want it. In my opinion, when there is no personal consequence to your actions, personal bias more easily has sway over your decisions than what is right for the community at large.

For redistricting: A Constitutional Amendment by which redistricting has the requirement of being presented and passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, but then before taking effect must be ratified by the people with a yes/no vote the November after the census. If those who want their own district carved out to provide them with their choice of representative cannot garner sufficient statewide support, the legislative boundaries should stand. After all, SCOTUS said in 1964, “The overriding objective [of drawing districts] must be substantial equality of population among the various districts, so that the vote of any citizen is approximately equal in weight to that of any other citizen in the State.” The only other consideration allowed is race based. Party based districts are not required, nor should they be.

TLDR: Quit trying to take politics out of political matters. Either get a better argument or go be with more likeminded people.

[chrisrenrut]

This is going to be fun to watch.

Utah passed a citizen initiative for independently drawn congressional districts. Utah legislature ignored. Now a court says you can't just ignore laws passed by initiative.

Embedded Tweet

Don’t expect the supermajority legislature to take the L and chill.

[beefytee]

I agree with most of this. The process is pretty bad. Citizen initiatives are not a good way to try to establish a process, particularly the voting process. It needs to go in the constitution if it is important enough, and I think this is.

The one challenge I would make to what you put in below relates to this:

But if the legislative power truly rests equally between the legislature and the people, there exists a recourse for the people when laws passed by initiative get changed by the legislature: vote them out.

It the legislative power has control over who can vote for whom, that reduces the power of the people and potentially silences what could even be a majority voice of the people.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I know this will be an unpopular opinion here, but the Utah Supreme Court's opinion on which the judge's opinion is based overstepped. On one hand they say that the legislative power rests equally in the legislature and the people. However, they go on to say that the people are more equal than the legislature. Logical, perhaps. Intended, possibly. But if the two are truly equal, then there should not have to be any additional requirements of either to change the Utah Code. What the Court has extra-constitutionally created is a middle tier of laws between the Utah Code and the Utah Constitution.

If that is how Utah wants it, put it in the constitution, and publish that tier separate from the rest of the code. But if the legislative power truly rests equally between the legislature and the people, there exists a recourse for the people when laws passed by initiative get changed by the legislature: vote them out.

As far as the core argument is concerned, redistricting is and has been since the beginning, a political process. One of what I think is part of the problem with politics in the country is that over time so many political processes are being changed to "merit based" or "non-partisan" and make things more fair. I submit that because of human nature, it is impossible to turn a political process into an apolitical process without inherent harm to the process.

Obviously, there should be rules to the processes, but that it the purpose of a constitution and why constitutional amendments are generally harder to pass than statutes.

I am also of the opinion that one who criticizes the current direction of government should also propose an alternate solution, otherwise that person is just a whiny bitch. My two biggest complaints right now in Utah are the court selection process and the independent redistricting commission.

For the Court: Pick a lane. If you want truly merit based (impossible), pick a single statewide selection committee of lawyers from every area of practice and every size of firm. They will review the applications and select ONE person and that will be the judge. No appointment by the Governor, no Senate confirmation and for damn sure, no retention elections (biggest waste of ballot ink in the history of ballots). Keep the mandatory retirement age and move right along. Otherwise return the judiciary to politics. Make them subject to straight up political appointment or my preference, run for election. The arguments about elected judges having their opinions influenced by the need to be re-elected doesn't hold water with me. I would rather have a judge with the knowledge that they could be voted out in the next election hanging over their head as the make decisions rather than one that knows they have the job as long as they want it. In my opinion, when there is no personal consequence to your actions, personal bias more easily has sway over your decisions than what is right for the community at large.

For redistricting: A Constitutional Amendment by which redistricting has the requirement of being presented and passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, but then before taking effect must be ratified by the people with a yes/no vote the November after the census. If those who want their own district carved out to provide them with their choice of representative cannot garner sufficient statewide support, the legislative boundaries should stand. After all, SCOTUS said in 1964, “The overriding objective [of drawing districts] must be substantial equality of population among the various districts, so that the vote of any citizen is approximately equal in weight to that of any other citizen in the State.” The only other consideration allowed is race based. Party based districts are not required, nor should they be.

TLDR: Quit trying to take politics out of political matters. Either get a better argument or go be with more likeminded people.

Wow, I disagree with almost all of this.

I lived in Texas for several years where they elect judges. It was a complete joke. Hell no.

If the legislature can just disregard any citizen's initiative they want, what is the point of a citizen's initiative?

[LVAllen]

Wow, I disagree with almost all of this.

I lived in Texas for several years where they elect judges. It was a complete joke. Hell no.

If the legislature can just disregard any citizen's initiative they want, what is the point of a citizen's initiative?

The question isn't whether the legislature can disregard something, but whether they can repeal statutes. If the citizen's initiative process creates a statute, and the legislative process can amend or repeal statutes in general, why shouldn't the legislature in connection with the executive be able to change that newly-created statute? Is it encased in stone, never to be touched. except by another initiative? The USC esentially said that the provision in the constitiution that says the prople have the right to amend their government overrides the people amending their government (via the elected legislature). It would be different if it was a constitutional amendment.

I hate what the Utah legislature did here, but I'm kind of in agreement with Cope. If a legislator's actions no longer reflect the will of the people, it's up to the people to remove them.