NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of the state of Utah hereby calls upon the United States Congress to propose and send to the states for ratification an amendment to the United States Constitution that clarifies that the states may reasonably regulate and limit the spending of money in their jurisdictions to influence campaigns, elections, or ballot measures, and that, in doing so, the states may also distinguish between natural persons and artificial entities such as corporations, unions, and artificial intelligences.
Sen. Cullimore’s resolution isn’t about better campaign financing. It’s about removing federal limits and allowing states to control that funding. Utah currently has no contribution limit for state senate and representative seats. Utah would undoubtedly remove contribution limits for federal as well.
What’s interesting about the resolution is that he does specifically call out unions. If you aren’t aware, Cullimore is the Senate House Sponsor of HB267 Public Sector Labor Union Amendments that would dismantle workers rights to organize. Of particular interest in committee and floor discussion are queries on union dues that go to campaigns (there are none, and there are no reported violations). Cullimore is adding language here to specifically target unions.
At a state level, Sen. Cullimore has done nothing to control campaign financing and unlawful political activity.
Reform current state legislative disclosure processes to include audits and tracking of online payment processing apps like Venmo that operate like banks;
Reform current state legislative disclosure processes to penalize egregious reporting errors, like Sen. Stuart Adams’ campaign disclosures that used his credit card name for expenses rather than the actual recipient
Address crypto currency as a source of unregulated campaign funds that need controls for reporting and audits
Reinforce the separation of church and state, where the Republican super majority are also members of the predominant faith here in Utah
Prevent the church (i.e. an outside influence) from financing political activity here or elsewhere
At a federal level, if Senator Cullimore were serious about reforming campaign finance, he would have included
Support to turn over Citizens United
Make it illegal for Legislators to conduct Insider Trading
Prohibit foreign interference through blockchain, crypto currency and AI
Set Transparency and Reporting for crypto currency
I’m writing to you because you are an important member of the Republican Party in Utah House District 44. I know that you are a committed member of your party, but I’m asking you to consider voting for me – a Democrat – in this election. There is good reason.
For the past two elections, the incumbent Jordan Teuscher has represented South Jordan and West Jordan communities in House District 44, but he’s failing to serve constituents here. He doesn’t represent our values, he doesn’t serve our community, or the interests of Utah voters. I’m asking you to vote for what’s best for you, what’s best for our district, and what’s best for Utah by helping me unseat Jordan Teuscher this election. I’m reaching out because I want to drop the rhetoric and focus on what’s best for Utahns.
Teuscher leads, and actively works against Utah voters better interests, including yours:
Teuscher was the House floor sponsor of SJR401, which became Amendment D to strip Utah voters of legislative rights (This was blocked by Utah Courts on Sep 12, 2024 for deceptive language, and for not following due process) – he now says that he will run it again
Teuscher was also the House floor sponsor of SB4002 House Sponsor of Ballot Proposition Amendments to jam through Amendment D, and Amendment A in 2024, which are both voided on our ballots.
Teuscher voted for HJR14 to make it more difficult for Citizen Initiatives to pass (Failed/Not Passed)
Teuscher sponsored HB185 Primary Ballot Requirements to remove candidates who qualify through signature gathering process (Failed/Not Passed). This affects the Republican party, and as much as you may be vested in your closed primary, he’s attempting to change the rules to make it more difficult for Republican candidates to participate in Utah’s election process.
Teuscher is writing bills poorly that are caught up in expensive legal battles that Utah eventually loses:
Teuscher sponsored the Minor Protection in Social Media Act (Blocked by Utah Courts for violating 1st amendment rights) – this was a good idea but executed poorly because it ignored first amendment rights in the bill language.
Teuscher defends Amendment D (which I tear apart here) with misinformation and lies. The cost for taxpayers to write the bill, publish on ballots, defend lawsuits and ultimately lose BADLY is not just embarrassing, it’s expensive.
Teuscher also decries the Utah Supreme Court decisions to allow the Gerrymandering case to proceed in the lower court, as well as the injunction upheld by the Utah Supreme court on Utah’s trigger law. Checks and balances are expensive when Jordan is involved.
Teuscher actively works against the better interest of our public (state, county, municipal, school and first response) employees
Teuscher was the sponsor of HB285 Labor Union Amendments to weaken public employee rights (Failed/Not Passed).
He repeatedly submits bills that dismantle worker rights, and he consistently targets our public employees every time.
Teuscher doesn’t care about religious freedoms
Teuscher was the House floor sponsor for SB150 Exercise of Religion Amendments to protect discriminatory acts based on religious belief (Passed)
Teuscher voted for HB269 to add Ten Commandments to public school curricula (Passed, expect civil liberties groups to file suit)
With vouchers, the 5 elementary schools, 3 middle schools and 1 public charter in our district lose funding. Vouchers take our tax-payer dollars and move them outside of our district to private schools or home school programs that don’t have the same accreditation, accountability or performance that our public schools have.
If you made it this far, thank you. We need a better voice in the Utah legislature. I’m asking you to consider making a vote for me based on your conscience and for better engagement.
Be Well,
Greg Green Candidate, Utah House District 44 running against Jordan Teuscher
The best explanation is that Brad Wilson sponsored the bill before he left for his Senate race so that he could curry favor with rural Republicans, who embrace the idea of a Constitutional Sheriff. Of course, Brad lost any more opportunity when his campaign didn’t survive in the Republican Primary to John Curtis.
The bill originated as 2023 HRJ010, and was one of the last bills that Brad Wilson sponsored before he left office last year. In the October 4 podcast of City Cast Salt Lake, Robert Gehrke of the Salt Lake Tribune opines that it was downplayed.
Wilson says it doesn’t really change anything, but there is this undercurrent, this philosophy in conservative circles of a constitutional sheriff, which says that the sheriff is the supreme law of the county. This kind of plays into that. You can’t have a constitutional sheriff unless your sheriff is in the constitution. – Robert Gehrke (paraphrased)
The Constitutional Sheriff movement is about sheriffs having the power to interpret and enforce the constitution. Amendment C has nothing to do with sheriffs enforcing the constitution or giving sheriffs extra power. But it does embed the election of the Sheriff in Utah’s constitution, rather than simply have a law in Utah code. And Gehrke’s line of thought supports this idea of a Constitutional Sheriff in Utah.
Another suggested explanation for Amendment C was that Republicans were angry with Salt Lake County Sheriff Rivera, and threatened to change the law to make Sheriffs appointed instead of elected so they could remove her. However this doesn’t make much sense. The appointment would be by the local authority, and Salt Lake County is predominantly Democratic. By election law, impeachment is still possible. Republicans in the legislature know this, and with Brad Wilson and Stuart Adams as sponsors, there is zero chance that they were seeking to preserve Sheriff Rivera’s electability.
2023 was a tumultuous year for the Salt Lake County Sheriff and UPD. It’s worth noting that 2023 HB374, sponsored by Rep Jordan Teuscher, removed the Salt Lake County sheriff as CEO of the Unified Police Department and ultimately dissolves the agency in 2025, leaving Holladay, Midvale, Millcreek, Kearns, Copperton, White City and Magna to find new law enforcement services.
Rivera opposed the Teuscher bill to separate UPD from the Sheriff’s office in 2023, then decided she was okay with it. I’m wondering if this is another case where the GOP did something and she was like, what the hell but okay.
For the record, the Salt Lake County Democratic Party does recommend a “For” vote. I requested more information, and this statement was provided:
“As the Salt Lake County Democratic Party, our primary role is to support Democratic candidates who serve our community, and we are proud to stand behind Sheriff Rosie Rivera. Voting “Yes” on Amendment C is crucial because it ensures that the position of sheriff remains an elected one—decided by the people, not appointed by officials. By doing so, we protect the democratic process and safeguard the accountability that comes from direct elections. This is not only important for Sheriff Rivera, but also opens the door for more diverse candidates, including women and people of color, to compete fairly for the role. A “Yes” vote on Amendment C would enshrine in the state constitution that every county will elect a sheriff to serve four-year terms. This maintains the voice of the community in choosing its leaders and supports a fairer, more inclusive system of representation.”
Both side provide similar arguments on how elections or appointments make the community better. Elections allow anyone who meets qualifications for the office to run and hold the position, and are considered “safe” from political disputes while in office. This also means that an elected sheriff can run off the rails (think Joe Arpaio in Arizona) and not suffer consequences. Appointments make a sheriff more accountable to leadership and the community but can become tangled in political controversy. Appointments are more likely to be a cis-gendered white male, so if diversity is your thing you may want to elect your sheriff.
We don’t have a clear picture of the “why” behind this amendment, but it’s safe to say that the need to transform how a sheriff takes their role in Utah counties isn’t at risk today, and has little chance of being altered as a law in the future. Changing Utah’s code so that the election of a Sheriff is written into the Utah Constitution seems to only serve the narrow purpose of making right-wing conservatives think they are one step closer to having their version of a Constitutional Sheriff within Utah’s borders.
There isn’t a clear picture on whether to vote “For” or Against” Amendment C, but I am voting against it without a compelling reason to change the existing law.
On Saturday, September 28, Sen Lincoln Fillmore, Rep Susan Pulsipher, and Rep Jordan Teuscher held a townhall at Bingham Creek Library in West Jordan. The recording we captured is below, and starts at question #3 because we arrived late. I start with my own comments before linking audio, and leading into a summary of the discussion.
MY TOP PRIORITIES My obvious first objective is to unseat Jordan Teuscher. Having said that, my top priorities for 2025 would be as follows, noting that in the past Utah’s General Session is 6 weeks of responding to bad ideas:
Support redress following a court decision on LWV Utah v. Utah State Legislature by re-implementing the Independent Redistricting Commission, then implementing maps based on their recommendations before 2026 elections begin
Address government overreach (citizen initiatives, defend constitutional checks and balances, private access to medical, first amendment)
Address Prioritization of bills
When infrastructure bills are seconded to who is allowed to use a bathroom, we have a problem. When books are banned in public schools, when phones are banned but guns aren’t, we have a problem
When “good enough to get by” isn’t, we have a problem
Support our public schools
Support their funding, support the teachers, support the librarians to do their jobs.
Improve cost and quality of living
cost of living (rent/affordable homes), clean air, public access, transit, services
On Amendment D, the Utah Supreme Court said: “The peoples’ right to alter or reform the government is constitutionally protected”
There are no “superlaws”. There have never been any foreign interests introducing legislation through Citizen Initiatives into Utah
The Utah Supreme Court noted that the Legislature cannot overturn or repeal an initiative without a compelling reason
Utah is 2nd to Wyoming in the nation for restrictions on passing a citizens initiative
In 2018 there were 3 ballot initiatives: Redistricting, Medicaid Expansion, Medical Marijuana. None of them were implemented as passed.
There is a national trend in Republican states to make it harder to pass initiatives.
LWVU v. LEGISLATURE “Therefore, we hold that when Utahns exercise their right to reform the government through a citizen initiative, their exercise of these rights is protected from government infringement. This means that government-reform initiatives are constitutionally protected from unfettered legislative amendment, repeal, or replacement. Although the Legislature has authority to amend or repeal statutes, it is well settled that legislative action cannot unduly infringe or restrain the exercise of constitutional rights. Consequently, when Utahns exercise their right to reform the government through an initiative, this limits the Legislature’s authority to amend or repeal the initiative. This does not mean that the Legislature cannot amend a government-reform initiative at all.Rather, legislative changes that facilitate or support the reform, or at least do not impair the reform enacted by the people, would not implicate the people’s rights under the Alter or Reform Clause. Legislative changes that do impair the reforms enacted by the people could also survive a constitutional challenge, if the Legislature shows that they were narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest.”
2024 BALLOT QUESTIONS
County Proposal 8 – FOR – reauthorization of the 0.1% ZAP tax
SLCO Bond $507M ($60/YR over 25 Years) – FOR
Amendment A – voided by the Utah Supreme Court on October 9, 2024
Amendment B – FOR – State School Fund from 4% to 5%
Amendment C – AGAINST – County Sheriff elections (currently elected in the state, not necessary to enshrine in Utah Constitution)
Amendment D – voided by the Utah Supreme Court on September 25, 2024
FEDERAL LANDS I think my time in office is going to be better spent on helping constituents in a more direct way like mental health services, education, housing etc.
Responding to comments from Sen Lincoln Fillmore about reclaiming the 70% of federal lands in Utah:
Does getting back the 70% mean they want to get rid of Utah tourism money to the National Parks? How do we pay for the management of the lands?
Does the 70% figure also include military bases like Hill and Dugway? Are we getting rid of those too?
How will we keep lands public and at the same time increase our tax base?
How will Federal jobs be affected? What is the plan to help all the people affected?
Where is the money to cover lost resources? Are we going to buy them or rent them back? Like the 31 engines and multiple firefighting helicopters from the BLM? https://www.blm.gov/programs/fire/regional-info/utah
TOWNHALL QUESTIONS (RECORDED)
Q3: On Citizen Initiatives
Pulsipher – Legislative Process doesn’t mention appropriations and rules
Audience comment: “open” is not truly open when a supermajority owns priority and calendar
Fillmore – we’ve spent time on this, lets move on
Teuscher – brings up Social Media bill, thinks its a high risk. Wasn’t there in 2018 for the passing of initiatives, but legislature “compromised” the bill after it was passed, same with medical marijuana
Q4: On Better Boundaries There is no parity for Utahns with redistricting where districts became “safe for Republicans”, that disenfranchised voters
Fillmore: who thinks that Prop4 Redistricting was going to be fair? Prop4 created the independent legislature, but no provision to adopt. Did the legislature following the intent of the voters? Fillmore scuttles the question
Fillmore: Medical Marijuana would have legalized recreational marijuana
Fillmore: REDIRECTS TOPIC – talks about Federal govt, Federal deficit, issue is 70% of land owned by Fed, no property tax, tries to tie this to education and property taxes. What about Amendment A? Audience comment: Federal Lands has nothing to do with Better Boundaries decision by Utah Supreme Court
Pulsipher: the legislature voted on it Audience comment: The *Supermajority
Fillmore: We answered the question
Pulsipher: something, something, “my reasons”
Teuscher: go to your legislator, worked on Salt Lake County, it’s a puzzle, didn’t like that his street could have been split but acknowledges others are impacted in exactly the same way.
Q5: Why is there such a disconnect between citizen initiatives and the legislature? Why would the Citizen’s Initiative pass, then have such little relation to what the legislature passes?
Pulsipher: In my years I have never had anyone approach to work with me beforehand (???) Why would she be approached if she won’t be friendly to the bill?
Fillmore: power allocation; “Voters elect, have initiative and referendum power” Doesn’t mention that the Utah Constitution says that legislative power is shared with the legislature AND the people. Doesn’t mention the Utah Courts disagree with Legislative overreach.
Fillmore: Federally, marijuana will likely reschedule in 2026 from schedule 1 to schedule 3 (note: marijuana has been available for several years as a prescription for epilepsy, it’s called Epidiolex)
Q6: Utah best qualities? Gov Cox says its the people of Utah
Fillmore: culture, families, volunteerism, charitable giving, good state policies. Likes to think it’s the church’s influence. Legislative staff is non-partisan, works for both houses.
Teuscher: Social capital. Good state processes, staff
Pulsipher: balanced budget is constitutional
Q7: On Amendment A Education account – wants it to be used for other purposes, why?
Fillmore: voted to place it on ballot. The “problem” is income tax is growing, faster than population. General fund doesn’t have enough. Cut Medicaid or building roads, or public funds? (this is a lie) Gas tax, sales tax is shrinking.
Pulsipher: 2008 downturn of economy, taxes down so education cut, income tax is volatile. If you lose your job you still have to buy food, pay property taxes, more stable. (another lie about instability driving the trust fund – the fund has grown from $18 million in 1983 to over $3.3 billion in 2024)
Speaker: you’re changing the constitution, trying to open money to other spending
Q8: Venezuelan gang related shootings, suppressed in news, 100 ESL students in Jordan District schools that required the hire of additional staff, Utah as a sanctuary state, what are we doing about immigration? Note: I’m sorry, but what?
Teuscher: Thinks it’s an issue. Emailing for details with Jordan School District but they are only providing aggregated data due to privacy concerns.
Audience comment: proud that we welcome immigrants who want to better their lives
Q9: Education: money going in vs audit of outcome?
Fillmore: Auditor monitors performance, this is measured
Audience comment: Graduation rate for Salt Lake County? (Jordan District was 88% – 2023) and more recent behavior problems in schools?
Note of interest: vouchers weren’t mentioned, but are not audited once funds are distributed.
Q10: On Traffic
Need infrastructure to accommodate growth, need East/West commute capacity
Fillmore: Bangerter to remove lights, MVC will take longer
Pulsipher: Bangerter is fast-tracked with extra money from COVID spending
Teuscher: looking for expansions on Redline Trax, bus services (improvements in public transit). There are 2 lines in South Jordan, but no bus service in Herriman or Bluffdale
2026 is going to be another politically charged election year, the foundation of which is being laid now. Amendment D was made void by the Utah Supreme Court yesterday, but expectations are that we’ll see it resurface in 2026. Another impactful decision made this week is for a district court hearing date of April 2026 to decide the suit on Utah’s abortion ban. This means that the injunction that allows abortion up to 18 weeks will remain in place through April 2026 when the case is heard. The other big issue that will carry over to the next election is the August decision by the Utah Supreme Court to allow a lower district court to rule on Redistricting, which is expected to pass.
Here’s What to Expect
Supermajority leadership is probably freaking out right now. You can expect four things to come from them in the next two years:
Amendment D is not going away. At the soonest opportunity, it will come back as a ballot initiative in 2026 if the current leaders can make it happen. Republican leadership wants to change the Utah constitution to limit the will of the people, and effectively neuter Citizen Initiatives by allowing the legislature to override successful ballot measures.
As a result of recent court decisions, the legislature will also look at ways it can reduce or limit judicial authority. They aren’t happy that their over-reach was checked. Their contempt is obvious in recent letters that unfairly admonish the courts, who reminded the legislature that they are accountable for government over-reach.
The 2025 general session is expected to be filled with bills that introduce additional bans on abortion. These bills will attempt to affect the injunction in some way
Once the redistricting suit is settled (expect that the lower courts will judge in favor of redistricting, and that will be appealed to the Utah Supreme Court), the legislature will do everything in its capacity to delay the redistricting process. A new independent redistricting commission will have to be set up and funded. New maps will be proposed, and the supermajority will drag its feet to make sure that the redistricting doesn’t happen before the 2026 election cycle. It’s very likely that we’ll have to submit another lawsuit against the Utah legislature to implement the court decision in time for new boundaries to be published for 2026 elections.
The supermajority in our Utah legislature believes that it isn’t beholden to anyone, and they have plans to keep scrapping with everyone, picking fights with the Feds, picking fights with Utah courts, and picking fights with Utah voters. Their goal is autocratic power for their vindictive, thin-skinned, power-hungry coalition of legislators. But we can stop them.
Vote Them Out
We are at the end of the 2024 election cycle, but the most important act you can do as a citizen is still pending – to vote up and down the ballot. Be informed, know the candidates, and vote for all of the races on your ballot, and be willing to vote out the bad actors who are actively working against the interests of We, the People.
Teuscher is an acolyte of the legislative supermajority, and needs to be voted out. He is a primary sponsor of copy/paste legislation that works against the freedoms of Utah voters, and he was the floor sponsor of the bill for Amendment D that would have stripped our voter rights. We need to unseat people like him and fill those seats with candidates who will defend our rights and keep us free of the kind of government interference that we are seeing from them.
Talk to your neighbors about important votes that will appear on the ballot, and make sure they know what’s at stake in this election. If you need talking points, you can refer to https://utah44.com/decision-time/
Get involved – to be a Democrat in Utah means that you have to be active, and you have to make your voice heard. We need individuals who are dedicated, who can engage the party, become delegates, train to become candidates, and are committed to running in future elections. This has to start NOW to be qualified and ready.
Engage with active bills – you can follow legislation at https://le.utah.gov/bills/bills_By_Session.jsp. Learn who your legislators are, how to engage them, and how to testify when bills are being debated on the floor.
None of this is easy, but it matters greatly to be involved and to be part of positive change. If we don’t fight to defend our rights, and if we don’t actively engage, then we give ground.
I started this article with a video of one of my favorite bands Sirsy playing “Revolution”. Make it take an army to back you down / ‘Cause life’s marching on it’s not waiting ‘round/ So get up, get off it, and break some ground / Make your own revolution
I’m not interested in this endorsement because the NRA does not represent responsible and accountable gun ownership. Their PAC actively works against the better interests of our citizenry.
The NRA sells fear.
What’s interesting is that their survey fails to address owner accountability. In Utah during the month of August-September 2024, 3 children were shot and 2 subsequently died as a result of finding unsecured, loaded firearms. Question #13 of the survey (owners of lost/stolen weapons to be held blameless) is the closest the NRA will get to negligent storage of a firearm.
For transparency, I completed answers (but did not submit) the National Rifle Association – Political Victory Fund 2024 NRA-PVF Utah Candidate Questionnaire so that my positions on these questions can be shared with constituents.
Message from NRA-PVF (ilastateaffairs@nrahq.org) Dear Utah Candidate,
The 2024 Utah Primary Election is right around the corner, and our members want to hear about you regarding your stance on the Second Amendment.
As America’s foremost defender of our Second Amendment rights, the NRA, since its inception, has been the premier firearms education organization in the world. Our continued leadership is due to the tireless service of our millions of members that have championed Second Amendment rights and NRA programs throughout the nation.
NRA members are deeply involved in the democratic process at all levels of government. It is important for them to learn about your commitment to preserving and protecting their Second Amendment rights. The 2024 Utah NRA-PVF Candidate Questionnaire can be found above by clicking on the Review & Sign button. Candidate questionnaires are not released to the public, but the information derived from them is used to determine candidate ratings, which are communicated to our members. Please take the time to fill out and return this survey as soon as possible, so we can let our members know your positions on these important issues.
If you choose not to return a questionnaire, you may be assigned a “?” rating, which can be interpreted by our members as indifference, if not outright hostility, toward Second Amendment-related issues.
Should you have questions concerning the questionnaire or the rating process, please contact me at (564) 236-9746 or KHopkins@nrahq.org.
Thank you for your prompt attention, and best of luck in the upcoming election! Sincerely,
Keely Hopkins Utah State Director
Please mark the best and most appropriate response that aligns with your views.
1. Do you agree that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for all law-abiding Americans? (Yes/No)
x No, it is not a guarantee. Like all rights, the 2nd amendment is not limitless. It says that “a well regulated militia” (i.e. a military force that is raised from the civil population) is necessary.
What about the “well regulated” part?
What “Arms” should be defined as belonging to the citizenry?
What fundamental right does this grant to an individual?
Does one person’s fundamental right to bear Arms supercede another person’s fundamental right to a safe community?
The “right of the people” does not presume individual ownership.
Thequestion states that the right should be for law-abiding citizens, but the 2a doesn’t say that, it says “the right of the people”. Do you disagree that the right of the people is all people who are US citizens?
I want responsible, accountable gun ownership with regulation, and a common acceptance that defense is for the mutual benefit of a free state, not gun hoarding, not fanaticism, not Battle Royale.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. – U.S. Constitution – Second Amendment
2. Firearm registration is a system in which a government agency maintains immediately accessible records of specific firearms owned by individual citizens. Current federal law prohibits the creation of a federal firearm registration system (other than the existing registration requirement for machineguns and short-barreled rifles and shotguns). Firearm registration has led to gun bans and confiscation in the United States (California and New York City) and abroad (Australia and Great Britain). Do you support requiring firearm owners to register their firearms with a government agency? (Yes/No)
x No. Utah does not require firearm owners to register their firearms.
3. Statewide preemption laws ensure that the state controls firearm regulations, and prevents counties, cities, and other municipalities from passing a “patchwork” of more restrictive and conflicting local laws throughout the state. Do you support Utah’s firearms preemption law? (Yes/No)
x No.
4. In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed a 10-year ban on the importation and manufacture for sale to private persons of nearly 200 models of semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds. This became known as the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Federal studies determined the ban had no measurable effect on crime, and it was allowed to expire in 2004. Do you support a similar ban on semi-automatic firearms in Utah? (Yes/No)
x It’s complicated. Certain firearms are not for hunting, sport, or personal defense. Those weapons should qualify for restrictions that are reasonable. Additional modifications, regardless of the actuating mechanism, that can turn a firearm into an automatic weapon also need to be restricted.
5. While there is no evidence that limiting the capacity of an ammunition magazine has any impact on reducing crime or increasing public safety, some states are introducing legislation to restrict the possession, ownership, purchase, sale, and/or transfer of ammunition magazines by limiting the number of rounds of ammunition a magazine can hold. Many of these magazines are sold standard with firearms and are commonly-owned. Do you support banning the possession, ownership, purchase, sale, and/or transfer of magazines based on their size? (Yes/No)
x No.
6. Efforts at the state level are increasingly targeting access to ammunition, with proposals to ban mail order sales, require background checks and point-of-sale record-keeping, eliminate traditional lead shot, ration purchases, and even restrict the amount of ammunition that may be possessed at one time. Most of these proposals at the state level aim to punish law-abiding people who practice, train, and participate in recreational shooting activities. Do you support new restrictions on the purchase and possession of ammunition beyond current law? (Yes/No, if Yes, list restrictions)
x Yes, however I disagree that these suggestions are punishment. Ideally we need to phase out lead ammunition used for hunting with a cost effective, more environmentally safe bullet that doesn’t poison scavenger species. This is something that should be introduced within the market and not legislated. Regarding sales tracking, how on earth are you planning to get around that? Internet history, cookies, site accounts, sales records, forums, etc already provide a wealth of information to anyone who wants to look for it.
7. Currently, it is legal for adults over the age of 18 to purchase and possess long guns. Some argue the age to buy rifles and shotguns should be increased to 21. This would effectively deny law-abiding adults, ages 18 to 20, their Second Amendment rights. Do you support raising the age for the purchase of rifles and shotguns to 21 years of age? (Yes/No)
x I support restrictions of firearm sales based on the type of weapon sold that would apply to all buyers.
8. A foundational principle of the American judicial system is the guarantee that an individual is entitled to due process – including notice of the relevant accusations, the opportunity to appear at a hearing before a neutral judge, the opportunity to present evidence in his or her favor, and access to legal representation before they can be stripped of a Constitutional right. Do you agree that an individual’s Second Amendment Right cannot be denied without stringent due process? (Yes/No)
x I support red-flag laws to identify patterns of physical violence and suicidal behavior, or for people who are mentally ill (psychotic, delusional, or otherwise incapable of making a rational decision). The challenge here is what balance there is on when and why to strip a right from a person, and also protect timely restoration of their rights. This is not a simple question to answer, but there are cases where an individual should not have access to a firearm.
9. Gun-free zones create arbitrary boundaries where law-abiding citizens arc disarmed, while zero measures are taken to prevent criminals from entering. Many argue that law-abiding gun owners should be allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense outside their home, especially on public property that is not considered a “secured” facility. Secured facilities are those where all points of ingress and egress are protected by metal detectors and armed security. Do you support state legislation reducing or eliminating gun-free zones that are not secured? (Yes/No)
x No. Churches, Schools, Counseling Centers, Restaurants, Malls, Fairgrounds, Arenas, and any other establishment public or private can have rules on whether firearms are permitted on a property.
10. The “instant” background check system only prohibits the purchase of firearms based on objective disqualifiers. Due process requires the government to substantiate firearm purchase denials with reliable documentation. A “safety valve” provision in current law enforces this requirement by allowing (not mandating) an FFL to proceed with a sale after 3 business days if the FBI still has not denied the sale (illegal possession, of course, remains actionable). Gun control advocates want to repeal this safety-valve and have proposed increasing the “acceptable” time period of delays to a week, ten days, or even indefinitely. Do you support current law allowing the purchase of a firearm to proceed after 3 business days if the FBI still has not denied the sale? (Yes/No)
x No. Point of correction, in Utah background checks are performed by the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI).
11. Efforts at the state level are increasingly targeting the expansion of Utah’s background check system. Currently, all sales in Utah, through a federally licensed dealer, have to go through the state’s Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI) for the criminal background check, which uses the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), along with other Utah databases. Note: Transfer includes loans, leases, and gifts. Do you support expanding the background check system in Utah to include private sales or transfers of firearms (so-called “universal” background checks)? (Yes/No)
x Yes. I 100% support this.
12. Several states and the District of Columbia require mandatory waiting periods before the purchaser of a firearm may take possession of the firearm. For example, California and the District of Columbia require a 10-day waiting period from the date of purchase to the date of delivery. Do you support mandating waiting periods between the purchase and delivery of firearms? (Yes/No, if Yes, number of days for waiting period)
x No. As long as the application and background checks have been completed successfully, there should be no waiting period for the purchase of a firearm.
13. Lawmakers at the state and local level have been introducing legislation to criminalize the failure to report the loss or theft of a firearm within a certain period of time from when the owner “knew or should have known” of the loss or theft. Proponents claim, although they have never demonstrated, that this will deter illegal firearms trafficking. While the NRA certainly does not oppose the reporting of lost and stolen firearms, it does oppose stigmatizing and punishing the victims of crime or those who suffer loss from events, such as natural catastrophes, that are not their fault. The message these laws send is that persons whose firearms are lost or stolen are somehow to blame or are complicit in the criminal acts of another person. Do you support making it a crime to fail to report the loss or theft of a firearm within a specified time period? (Yes/No)
x No. Comment: Crimes should be reported, and a loss of theft of a firearm should be recorded to protect the owner from possible legal repercussions if the firearm is later involved in a crime.
14. California recently enacted an excise tax of 11% on the sale of firearms and ammunition in addition to existing fees and taxes. The new tax was referred to by the Governor as a “sin tax”. Do you support imposing an additional tax specifically targeted at the retail sale of firearms or ammunition? Note: All firearm and ammunition sales are currently subject to an 11% federal excise tax known as the Pittman-Robertson Act and applicable state and local taxes. (Yes/No, if yes what additional tax)
x Everything is taxable. California bill AB28 “Gun Violence Prevention and School Safety Act” was passed on Sept. 26, 2023 and went into effect on July 1. For the California bill, money raised is earmarked to pay for things like violence intervention programs, firearm relinquishment, gun safety education and school-based mental health and behavioral services.
15. Increased development, due to a growing and shifting population, has put many established gun clubs and shooting ranges at risk of being squeezed out. This encroachment has led to lawsuits and local ordinances that aim to put established ranges out of business. To combat this, some states have enacted range protection laws or have strengthened existing range protection laws. Do you support Utah’s shooting range protection laws? (Yes/No)
x No. This isn’t a state legislative issue. Work with cities and counties for permits and zoning issues.
16. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) issues over 250,000 hunting licenses annually and the fees from these licenses pay for wildlife conservation across the state. If hunting is an essential tool for wildlife management and conservation, as well as an American tradition that teaches self-reliance, responsibility, and respect for nature. Further, hunting is already heavily regulated by DWR. Do you support further restrictions or bans on hunting? (Yes/No, if Yes, list restrictions)
x No. Comment: My point here is that the Division of Wildlife Resources can continue to be responsible for regulation. I’m not sure what further restrictions the NRA is suggesting, and their language is leading.
17. Traditional lead ammunition is the most common, cost-effective form of ammunition across the United States, but it has been under attack on both the federal and state levels recently by various anti-gun/anti- hunting groups. Non-traditional ammunition, such as ammunition containing tungsten or copper, is expensive and sometimes difficult to find, especially in rural areas. Consideration of any regulation or limitation on traditional ammunition should be based on sound science and population-level impacts. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies adopted a resolution in 2010 which stated that “state agencies should focus regulation efforts where population-level impacts to wildlife are substantiated.” Do you support banning or limiting traditional lead ammunition? (Yes/No, if Yes, explain)
x As stated previously, we need to phase out lead ammunition used for hunting with a cost effective, more environmentally safe bullet that doesn’t poison scavenger species.
18. Firearm registration facilitates firearm confiscation. Understanding that the federal government and most states are prohibited from or do not keep a registry of firearms or firearm owners, gun control activists have attempted to deputize banks and credit card payment processors to maintain private firearm transaction data that will be used to track the purchasing habits of law-abiding gun owners. These gun control activists have encouraged banks and payment processors to utilize a gun dealer specific Merchant Category Code to monitor lawful credit card purchases at firearm retailers. Do you support Utah’s recently enacted law that prohibits banks and payment processors from collecting private firearm owner data? (Yes/No)
x As stated previously, Utah does not require firearm owners to register their firearms. Regarding sales tracking, how on earth are you planning to get around that? Internet history, cookies, site accounts, sales records, forums, etc already provide a wealth of information to anyone who wants to look for it.
19. Are you a member of the National Rifle Association or any other firearm/shooting sports/sportsmen’s organization? (Yes, NRA {Membership Number}, Yes, Member of other Org {List}, No)
x No
20. Have you ever run for or held an elected office? (Yes {List Office}, No)
x No
Please feel free to use the space below to provide additional comments or policy positions you’d like to add, including your history and involvement with the NRA. If your campaign has released a position paper on firearm or Second Amendment related issues, please attach those as well.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Comments:
The NRA sells fear.
What’s interesting is that this survey fails to address owner accountability. In Utah during the month of August-September 2024, 3 children were shot and 2 subsequently died as a result of finding unsecured, loaded firearms. Question #13 of the survey (owners of lost/stolen weapons to be held blameless) is the closest the NRA will get to negligent storage of a firearm.
Sept 17 update: I’m pleased to announce that I was awarded the 2024 Moms Demand Action Gun Sense Candidate distinction for my advocacy of common-sense gun safety.
For transparency, I am providing my answers from my application to Moms Demand Action 2024 Moms Demand Action Gun Sense Candidate questionnaire so that my positions on these questions can be shared with constituents.
Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action are committed to creating a movement and culture that is diverse, inclusive, and equitable, and being intentional about the intersectional nature of our work. To that end, candidates who apply for the Gun Sense Candidate distinction should not only be ready to commit to governing with gun safety in mind, but must also commit to ensuring that their words and actions promote equity across all communities.
x I commit to governing with gun safety in mind and promoting equity across all communities.
Addressing Gun Violence in America
1. Every day, 120 people in the United States are killed with guns and more than 200 are shot and wounded. The gun homicide rate in the U.S. is 26 times higher than that of other high-income countries. Data and research shows that common-sense public safety measures can reduce gun violence and save lives.
Do you believe that state elected officials have a role to play in addressing gun violence in the United States? x Yes
Background Checks
2. Federal law requires that a person pass a background check before buying a gun from a licensed firearm dealer. Since 1994, more than 4 million illegal gun sales have been blocked, including to people convicted of a felony, domestic abusers, and people barred due to mental illness. But the federal law does not apply if a person buys a gun from an unlicensed seller. This means that criminals can easily buy guns from strangers they meet online or at gun shows, with no questions asked. States can close this loophole by passing a law extending background checks to unlicensed sellers.
Do you support expanding the background checks requirement, to prevent prohibited people from buying guns with no questions asked? x Yes
Extreme Risk Protection Order
3. When a person is in crisis, loved ones and law enforcement are often the first to see warning signs. Extreme Risk laws, often called Red Flag laws, allow them to ask a judge to temporarily remove guns when a person poses a danger to themselves or others. If a court finds that a person poses a significant threat, that person is temporarily barred from purchasing and possessing guns. Twenty-one states and DC have passed these laws, including sixteen since 2018.
Do you support Extreme Risk Protection Orders (a.ka. Red Flag laws), which can help prevent firearm suicide and mass shootings? x Yes
Secure Storage
4. Secure firearm storage can reduce the risks of suicide, unintentional shootings, and school shootings. An estimated 4.6 million American children live in households with at least one firearm that is loaded and unsecured. Three-quarters of school shooters got their firearm from the home of a parent or close relative. One study found that households that locked both firearms and ammunition were associated with a 78 percent lower risk of self-inflicted firearm injuries and an 85 percent lower risk of unintentional injuries among children and teens.
Do you support policies requiring gun owners to store their firearms securely — locked and inaccessible to unauthorized users, including children and prohibited people? x Yes
Suicide by Gun
5. Nearly six out of ten of all gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides. Gun suicides claim the lives of nearly 25,000 people in America every year–that’s an average of 68 deaths a day. But many of these deaths could be prevented if guns were taken out of the equation: access to a gun triples the risk of death by suicide. In addition to legislative solutions like the Extreme Risk Protection Order and secure firearm storage requirements, building public awareness about the suicide risks posed by firearm access is crucial to saving lives.
Do you support educating the public about the unique role firearms play in America’s suicide epidemic? x Yes
Ghost Guns
6. New products designed to evade gun laws–including widely available kits that convert unfinished parts into fully functional firearms and new capability in 3D printing technology–make it easy for prohibited people to make their own guns at home. These untraceable “ghost guns” can be assembled in less than an hour and let criminals skip the background check system. Ghost gun recoveries across the U.S. are on the rise, and have been connected with criminal enterprises, gun trafficking rings, and far-right extremists.
Do you support prohibitions on building “ghost guns” at home outside of the background check system? x. No (see comment below)
Protecting Victims of Domestic Abuse
7. Women in the U.S. are 28 times more likely to be killed by gun homicide than women in other high-income countries. And when a gun is present in a domestic violence situation, the woman is five times more likely to be killed. Federal law prohibits many domestic abusers from possessing firearms, but states play a primary role in enforcement — and can pass their own domestic violence laws. Evidence shows these state laws are especially effective at preventing gun violence if they require abusers to turn in their guns once they become prohibited.
Do you support state legislation that prohibits gun possession by abusers convicted of domestic violence or under final restraining orders, and ensures abusers turn in their guns promptly after becoming prohibited? x Yes
Funding Community Violence Intervention
8. Community-based violence intervention programs apply a localized approach to address gun violence in neighborhoods with particularly high rates of gun violence. Numerous studies demonstrate that evidence-based intervention and prevention — for example, through street- or hospital-based outreach — can reduce gunshot woundings and deaths in the communities most impacted by gun violence.
Do you support robust public funding in your state for localized violence intervention programs that support people at the highest risk of being shot and killed? x Yes
Public Carry of Firearms
9. Over the last several years, the gun lobby has gone from statehouse to statehouse seeking to enact “permitless carry,” which would pose a public safety risk by removing the requirement that a person get a permit before carrying a hidden, loaded handgun in public. These laws often remove important safety standards, such as denials for people who pose a danger and requirements for safety training and no recent violent acts. Strong permit laws are critically important after the Supreme Court decision in Bruen struck down gold-standard provisions in some states.
Do you support state permitting requirements, including firearm safety training, in order to carry concealed handguns in public? x Yes
10. Increasingly in recent years, political extremists have taken advantage of gaps in state law to carry guns openly in public as a means of intimidation. In 2020, anti-government extremists, including the ascendant boogaloo movement and white supremacists, used guns, in particular assault weapons, as tools of intimidation and violence in increasingly open ways. Taking advantage of weak state gun laws, they have brandished weapons at anti-government protests, intimidated peaceful protests for racial justice, and even killed people.
Do you support a law prohibiting the open carry of firearms in public? x. Yes
Police Use of Force and Accountability
11. Police violence is gun violence – 95 percent of civilian deaths caused by police are with a firearm, and Black people are victims at a disproportionate rate. Police shootings have a corrosive impact on our communities as they foster distrust which makes it harder for law enforcement to keep communities safe. Local leaders must commit to supporting targeted reforms that will help prevent shootings and build trust. These reforms should include: a strong legal standard barring the unnecessary use of force and a standard requiring officers to intervene to stop abuse, a commitment to de-escalation, deploying formal tools to identify misconduct, a thorough and independent review system for use of force incidents, and transparency about use of force and other policies and procedures.
Do you support police accountability measures that promote deescalation, promote transparency, and that aim to eliminate unnecessary use of force? x Yes
Shoot First Laws
12. Shoot First laws, called “Stand Your Ground” by the gun lobby, allow people when outside of their home to shoot and kill others even if they could safely and easily avoid using deadly force. These laws go well beyond traditional self-defense principles – emboldening vigilante violence and encouraging people to seek out confrontation. They are also associated with increases in firearm homicides.
Do you oppose Shoot First laws? x Yes (see comment below)
Guns in Schools and Colleges
13. The gun lobby has campaigned in statehouses to allow guns in K-12 schools, to arm teachers, and even to force colleges and universities to allow guns onto their campuses. There is no evidence that arming teachers can help stop school shootings—and on the contrary, armed civilians are more likely to cause confusion when law enforcement respond to a shooting, and guns in schools may be accessed by children when not under the teacher’s control. College life is also full of risk factors that make the presence of guns dangerous, with research showing that college students face significant mental health challenges. Arming teachers and forcing guns onto college campuses is broadly opposed by law enforcement, students, and educators.
Do you oppose allowing guns in K-12 schools and colleges, outside of law enforcement and security staff? x Yes
Preemption of Local Gun Safety Laws
14. After a decades-long effort by the gun lobby, most states now have some form of firearms preemption law, blocking towns and cities from adopting their own gun laws suited to local needs. These preemption laws often bar mayors and police chiefs from taking steps to address gun violence, and in some cases even have punitive provisions that leave taxpayers on the hook for court costs and fees.
Do you oppose broad firearms preemption laws, which block local officials from passing and enforcing laws that keep communities safe from gun violence? x Yes
Holding the Gun Industry Accountable
15. In 2005, at the strong urging of the gun lobby, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, one of the biggest giveaways to private industry in American history, giving the gun industry more protection from litigation than makers and sellers of cars or tobacco products. In recent years, several states have fought back against this unique type of immunity, passing laws that push back on industry by empowering gun violence survivors (and/or state authorities) to file suit against gunmakers and dealers whose bad conduct results in harm.
Do you support giving gun violence survivors access to justice by allowing them to take bad industry actors to court? x Yes
Assault Weapons
16. Assault weapons have been shown to increase the number of people killed and wounded in mass shootings—as they enable shooters to fire more quickly and with more destructive force. Researchers have found that the federal prohibition on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines was associated with a significant decrease in public mass shootings and related casualties.
Do you support an assault weapons ban that would bar new civilian purchases of these weapons of war? x Yes (see comment below)
ABOUT
Moms Demand Action Moms Demand Action is part of Everytown for Gun Safety, an organization with nearly ten million supporters. Moms Demand Action is the nation’s largest grassroots volunteer network working to end gun violence and campaigns for new and stronger solutions to lax gun laws and loopholes that jeopardize the safety of our families, educates policymakers and parents about the importance of secure firearm storage and works to create a culture of gun safety through partnerships with businesses, community organizations and influencers. There is a Moms Demand Action chapter in every state of the country and more than 700 local groups across the country.
Students Demand Action Students Demand Action is the largest grassroots, youth-led gun violence prevention group in the country with more than 550 groups and active volunteers in every state and the District of Columbia. The movement, created by and for teens and young adults, aims to channel the energy and passion of high school and college-aged students into the fight against gun violence. Students Demand Action volunteers organize within their schools and communities to educate their peers, register voters, and demand common-sense solutions to this national public health crisis at the local, state, and federal level. Students Demand Action is part of Everytown for Gun Safety, the largest gun violence prevention organization in the country with nearly ten million supporters and more than 700,000 donors. For more information or to get involved visit www.studentsdemandaction.org. Have you been an active participant with a Moms Demand Action Chapter, Students Demand Action Group, or the Everytown Survivor Network?
x No
Survivors of Gun Violence The Everytown Survivor Network is inclusive of anyone who has personally experienced gun violence—whether you have witnessed an act of gun violence, been threatened or wounded with a gun, or had someone you know wounded or killed with a gun. This includes but is not limited to gun suicides, domestic violence involving a gun, and unintentional shootings. Have you or a loved one experienced gun violence – such as homicide, suicide, wounding, witnessing gun violence?
x Yes
COMMENTS
Would you like to provide any background? I grew up in rural Alaska in a hunting and trapping family; lived in the East Bay, California for 10 years, and have spent the last 24 years here in Utah. I had a childhood friend killed by his brother because they were playing with unlocked guns in their house. At my first job I was one of two assault victims where a person used a gun. I have extended family who have been stalked, attacked and shot, or killed. In the East Bay I had co-workers who were killed, or seriously disabled in drive-by shootings. I had a much-revered teacher who committed suicide with a gun. Since living here in Utah I have had a co-worker who committed suicide with a gun, and there have been multiple child fatalities in my own neighborhood from access to unlocked guns. I haven’t even mentioned school shootings, mass shootings, road rage incidents, or brandishing.
Would you like to provide any additional background for any of your responses to this questionnaire?
Thank you for this questionnaire.
Beside working on common sense gun control measures, I want to start building a coalition of voices for 2a regulation that can advocate at the state level. I really would be interested in strategies for engagement, and making conversations that build trust and respect.
My commitment in the campaign (Utah House District 44) is that I will listen to constituents, and I will represent local issues for Utahns. Gun control here is hotly contested, even when most agree that sensible measures need to be put in place to improve safety and reduce harm. There is a lot of the mentality of “a good guy with a gun” that results in bills being passed for non-permitted concealed carry, to arm teachers, and to place lockboxes in classrooms for their guns. We were the first state to declare an official state firearm (the Browning 1911). Along with Browning there are a large number of gun and ammunition manufacturers in the state. Much of rural Utah sees the gun control issue as an urban problem that doesn’t understand or appreciate their lifestyle. There are additional issues for us with militias and white nationalist movements.
Re: Ghost Guns There is no system in place for comprehensive firearm registration, and there are no laws in place to track changes of ownership past the initial purchase. Private gun sales and the proliferation of gun shows in the Midwest are the likely sources of private sales of firearms. Cost and accessibility lean towards private sales. Ghost guns and kits are geared more towards firearm enthusiasts than criminals seeking to manufacture and distribute weapons. Weapons used in crimes are still traceable based on the ammunition type, bullets used, rifling of expended bullets, etc. If legislation were proposed for private gun manufacture, it would have to be comprehensive and/or pragmatic, i.e. focused on holding component manufacturers, distributors, assemblers accountable for firearms used in a crime, or in the case of organized crime, that the component manufacture was part of an organized crime operation. There are other issues apparent for this topic; I believe that our priorities lie elsewhere.
Re: Shoot First Laws I agree, but need to comment here. The best defenses in order of priority is de-escalation, running away, getting help, non-lethal defense, then lethal defense. Acts of provocation (following a person, confronting a person, brandishing) should exempt anyone from claiming self-defense. Bottom line here is that a gun owner MUST be responsible and held accountable for actions.
Re: Assault Weapons I agree, but we need to update definitions on what an assault weapon is. Example: Bump stocks turn a gun into a machine gun, but aren’t legally defined as such based on recent supreme court ruling (Garland v. Cargill). Regardless of the actuator, any firearm that produces a rate of fire above XX threshold should be defined as a machine gun, and parts used to convert a firearm into a weapon like this should also be illegal. I would like to see clear definitions of firearm types to distinguish differences between hunting, competition, self defense, security/police, and military grade weapons.
I appreciate these questions, and encourage that we continue conversation.
Update:If you are here because of recent social media posts about the passage of SJR401 on August 21, and would like to donate to Better Boundaries Utah for their “vote no” campaign, please use this link. If you would like to support my campaign running against Jordan Teuscher, please register with me at https://utah44.com/get-involved/.
In a specially called session this week, SJR401 was introduced specifically because the legislature is fearful that voters want to hold legislators accountable for actually doing their jobs. Let’s call out the coalition of Utah GOP legislators who are taking away Utahn’s rights to citizens initiatives: Sen Leader Stuart Adams, Rep Leader Mike Schultz, Sen Kirk Cullimore (chief sponsor) and Rep Jordan Teuscher (House sponsor).
Let’s start by describing what they want to take away from us. Citizen Initiatives are literally a tool for “We the People” to have a voice when our representatives don’t effectively represent its citizens. The resolution introduced this week is seeking to take away legislative power from Utah citizens, and give that authority to the Utah legislature. Keep in mind that if this passes, state legislators are TAKING AWAY POWER from Utah voters. Powers to introduce important legislation. Powers to approve constitutional amendments. Powers that belong to us unless we give them away.
There is a REASON that Citizens Initiatives exist. Our LAST AND SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT privilege is to raise a vote to the people when our representatives either lack political will or (in Utah) suffer under a super majority that obstructs the people’s will.
We are a representative democracy, and we have a state constitution with checks and balances. As citizens, we can vote for who represents us, we can create Citizen Initiatives, and we can sue or suffer under the legislation our representatives pass. I would mention impeachment but you have seen how our Utah legislator lacks the political will to deal with bad actors (like Natalie Cline) in their own party.
This year, a coalition of Utah GOP legislators were checked by the Utah Supreme Court for failing to represent Utah citizens, and now they are actively writing legislation to strip our rights away. They don’t like being checked by the courts, by the executive branch (although our current governor coddles to the legislature) or by us, the people. In their proclamation for the special session they warn about foreign interests. ONLY UTAH VOTERS can submit a Citizen Initiative. They are literally calling the interests of Utah voters “foreign interests”. Are you mad yet? You should be.
In their announcement leading up to this bill, they even admit their own impertinent behavior: “While past legislative overreach has understandably led to some distrust among the people…” but they have the gall to call a special legislative session specifically to write a bill that then STRIPS our voice as voters so they can continue the very same legislative overreach they are committing. We are even paying them to go into session so they can actively work against us. We are literally paying them right now to write laws to hurt us.
Here are 3 things all Utahns can do:
CALL your legislator and tell them you are a constituent, and you want them to vote NO on this.
If the bill passes, then YOU can vote NO on this initiative.
In November, vote like it matters. Be informed, vote on all the races, and vote for people who will represent and LISTEN to you.
Do you Vote In House District 44? There’s One More Thing
If you live in Utah House District 44 (South Jordan, West Jordan) please consider voting for me in November. I listen. I’m committed to local representation & true Utah values that embrace community and respect for ALL people. It’s time to push the Teusch out.
One of the biggest things to come out this week was the Utah Supreme Court decision that allows Better Boundaries to proceed in its case against the Utah Legislature for its issuance of gerrymandered lines before the 2020 election. It’s clear that the courts side with the people to say that we are not beholden to the special interests of legislators who seek to tie up districting in such a way that it favors their party, or their own election. Although the case has yet to have a final decision, it now has support to proceed with the validation of the Utah Supreme Court. In Utah, we have experienced a demonstration of the powers of balance between branches.
Responses from Republicans in the Utah Legislature fall flat. House Speaker Mike Schultz and Rep. Jordan Teuscher decry the Supreme Court’s decision, stating that it would be in our better interests to be served by the better judgements of elected officials, that the interests of the elected should trump the egalitarian principles our nation was founded on. Their response has been rightly criticized on social media as legally false, pretentious, and willfully ignorant.
At the same time this week, Governor Cox stated that “Disagree Better” is working at the National Governors Association.“We’ve gotten really, really good at tearing things down,” Cox told attendees gathered at The Grand America Hotel in Salt Lake City. “We need more builders. And that’s exactly what we’re trying to do.” (Deseret.com) If he’s serious, one of the most significant acts that a governor can do is to support fair districts to achieve more ideal representation of voter populations.
If we are to disagree better, we need a voice. If we are to disagree better, we need to be able to elect legislators who will represent the issues and address the causes that are important to us.
If you fly a US flag for the Fourth of July, think about what that means. You are celebrating the hard-fought freedoms of our country, and you are celebrating as a member citizen of the United States. Think about that for a moment, then read on. If a state chooses to ignore federal laws, or specifically to write law contrary to federal law, what precedent does that set?
The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law generally takes precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. With the recently passed Utah SB0057 “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act” our state plans to fight out in courts a concept of state’s rights that raises questions about the applicability of law and the right to govern citizens. A question that will certainly come up is the question of Sovereign Citizens, who will seek precedence that favors their stand as willfully excerpted from the laws of government. Their ideal is to enjoy the privileges of living in our democratic republic with its infrastructure and frameworks, but disregard their duties as citizens and abstain from legal recourse that are a consequence of their actions. If conservatives are truly a party of limited government, should their argument be that we are allowed to rule ourselves in true libertarian fashion? Or is their argument more simply “rules for thee and not for me”?
There are frequent tests of states rights. If we take the case of medical marijuana legislated at the state level for medicinal use, or for recreational use, this was favorably received by constituents as a move away from heavy-handed government overreach, specifically for the Controlled Substances Act, and DEA Drug Schedule that classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 substance.
There is substantial research which shows that marijuana is not addictive, and has beneficial properties.
Drug companies have exemptions to sell marijuana derivatives as anti-seizure medication (ex: Epidiolex by Jazz Pharmaceuticals), and as a pain-reliever and anti-nausea medication for cancer patients.
Allowing access to marijuana at the state level is pushing federal law to move in a just direction.
In the case of Title IX protections, conservative legislators are doing the opposite by attempting to take away citizen protections at the federal level. Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Utah wants to claim sovereignty for the purpose of discriminating against trans students, and they are not only willing to lose federal funding for schools, but additionally grant the State Attorney General to pursue “any appropriate legal action to challenge the federal directive on the basis of state sovereignty.” None of this benefits Utahns.
Students and their families will unjustly face discriminatory practices.
The state will suffer from the loss of funding for public education, federal grants and programs.
Utahns will take up the burden of cost to fund expensive legal battles in the federal courts on whether or not states are allowed to willfully discriminate against a class of citizens.
There are fights that are worthy, as in the first case. What Utah legislators are doing in the second case is a slap in the face of its people. They are claiming that federal civil rights protections can be ignored, and states can invoke discriminatory laws to burden its constituents. They are effectively making the same argument that a Sovereign Citizen would make, but at the state level. “Rules for thee and not for me”.
Can a state simply write a law to say that its relationship to the federal government only applies as convenient to its legislature, that its willful participation in federal governance can be excerpted on a whim? If this is allowed, then the question becomes whether a county, municipality, city, or citizen claim the same right of sovereignty? Where is the rule of law when sovereignty can be claimed without repercussion?
In principle, laws are designed to protect, not punish its citizens. Many of the laws we have are hard fought – the freedoms of all our people as citizens, the right to vote, the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of our age, ancestry, color, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity or expression, HIV/AIDS status, military status, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or veteran status.
Take time to celebrate on this day, but recognize that our federal laws, and our state’s membership in a union of states has a long history that we should be careful to defend.
