Thank You, Taxpayers

No budget is perfect. But this one is pretty forward looking and is getting some praise. All of the praise needs to go to the taxpayers of this state. Thanks for the hard work! We’ll use some of your hard-earned money to educate children, improve transportation, boost our economy, ease the tax burden on you, help our institutions of higher education, fund critical health and human services needs, and do much more. I truly hope that most of you like what we’re doing with your money. I just want you to know that I remember that it is your money we’re dealing with and that the things that money funds are the product of your hard work.

This Needs To Be Included, Unless, Of Course, You Try to Include It

Brad Last ran a bill solely to address arguments raised against the voucher bill.

The bill (1) requires that teachers at voucher-eligible schools have criminal background checks, (2) doubles the amount of money the State School Board gets to administer the program, and (3) deals with arguments that voucher schools might teach unlawful activities. Only 5 Democrats voted for the bill.

Why do you think that is? Is it just that the word "vouchers" was in the title?

I don't believe the vote means that Democrats are in favor of felonious teachers, that Democrats are against providing more administration money, or that Democrats favor Jihad schools. Nor do I believe their negative votes were bought by generous Union contributions. Nor do I believe that Rep. Becker twisted their arms to vote against the bill.

And, I surely don't believe the media will ever ask why today's votes are so seemingly at odds with earlier stated positions that such protections are needed in the law. But it would be very interesting to hear why people think those votes were cast against things many of the "no" voters said they wanted in the voucher program.

Trolley Square

Holly Mullen has written a beautiful piece about the Trolley Square tragedy. I’ve tried repeatedly to put down a few thoughts. But they make no sense. The event makes no sense.

Before I even entered the Capitol building on Tuesday, another legislator asked me, “You know what that shooting shows?” I didn’t. And neither did he. Neither did the other dozen people who shared various opinions on what the shooting shows.

We’re humans. We try to make sense of things and learn lessons from them. No doubt, we can and should learn lessons from this. But before we start appropriating this tragedy for our pet political concerns, let’s show that we respect the right of all victims of this tragedy to be left alone, so that they can grieve without too much interference. To the broader community, the tragedy is unreal. To the families, it is all too real.

Let the Sun Shine In!!

The Sunlight Foundation announced the public launch of The Open House Project. The Open House Project will publicly advise the U.S. House of Representatives on ways in which it can use the Internet to open government to the people. I've been part of the beta working group, and it's been killing me to not blog about this.

Speaker Pelosi needs to be commended for entertaining a dialogue on how the people can better participate in their government. This is a good development.

The quickened pace toward open government might herald a few changes:

1. Stakeholders will outwork and outperform puppets. The party that does a better job of bringing people into the political process will win -- for a while. (see point 4).

2. Transparency will remedy much of the disconnect between campaigning and governing. Because job performance will be more visible, an official's job performance will be a greater part of the campaign, as opposed to today's unrivaled currency of celebrity.

3. Related to point 2, with increased transparency, incumbency will have polar value. Anything a politician says or does can and will be used against (or for) him/her.

4. There will be less distinction between insiders and outsiders. As people become more involved in the political process, parties – the ultimate political intermediaries – will become less important. With greater participation, the process will not require a group of party insiders to filter potential candidates before outsiders have a chance to make the final selection.

5. If points 1 through 4 happen, the dialogue will move more toward the middle, where most Americans are (but their leaders currently are not).

Vouchers -- Democracy in Action

The Tribune ran my op ed on the passage of vouchers. I greatly appreciate the Trib's willingness to use its space to run a piece that criticizes the role of intermediaries (including the media) in filtering political information in order to achieve certain outcomes. What better acquittal could it give itself than to run the piece? Thanks, Trib, for pushing the dialogue along.

In the op ed, I opine that the voucher bill passed this year, when it had failed in previous years, because the Internet is allowing citizens to obtain more unfiltered information. Though the UEA never abandoned false arguments regarding the fiscal impact of vouchers, other more responsible intermediaries did -- but only after the arguments were broadly discussed on this site, Politicopia, and many other great sites that took up the issue.

UPDATE (2/12/07): Eugene Volokh and Pete Ashdown share their thoughts.

Proposed Amendment to Abortion Bill

Based on many conversations I've had, I am planning to run a substitute to Rep. Ray's abortion bill. The bill most likely will pass in some form, so the issue becomes the form in which it will pass.

Before I lock in language on my proposed substitute to Rep. Paul Ray’s abortion bill, I’d like to get public input. My proposed substitute can be found at Politicopia. It is proposed to insert a trigger, thus making the provisions effective when Roe v. Wade is overturned or the Constitution is changed.

In 1991, Utah footed the court bill to challenge Roe v. Wade. It is now another state's turn. Instead of spending the money on lawyers, my proposed substitution would spend the money on the Utah birth defects network and on early intevention.

Your thoughts?

Hillary Clinton and Politicopia

Politico, a collaborative on-line and off-line political journal, was launched a few weeks ago by big-time journalists and big-time thinkers. Today, Politico highlighted Politicopia as an illustration of what Hillary’s one-sided conversation with the people fails to attempt.

Politicopia also was mentioned by the National Council of State Legislatures:

Now, Representative Steve Urquhart of Utah—one of the most prolific state-legislator bloggers—has created Politicopia—a wiki designed to present and gather different views on issues under consideration in the legislature.

and by Ross Mayfield:

I personally haven't been a supporter of school vouchers, but have learned a lot from watching this debate. I also vote Democrat, but am a toolmaker that believes that even if Socialtext is used by the other side -- not only do both sides win, but the constituents they serve.

Citizens are finding more tools to shape their government. I have no doubt they’ll create something wonderful.

Abortion Law – Suggestions Wanted

A sizeable majority of Utahns favor very restrictive abortion laws. Of course, people are free to argue whether that is good or bad, but the sentiment is a strong reality.

Rep. Paul Ray originally purported to run legislation that would have restricted abortions to cases of rape, incest or very serious risk to the mother’s health; those provisions would have kicked in only in the event Roe v. Wade were to be overturned. However, Rep. Stephen Sandstrom substituted a bill that would enact those provisions right away – forcing Utah into a court battle, with the apparent intent of attempting to take the matter all the way to the Supreme Court in order to overturn Roe v. Wade.

As a point of information, Utah challenged Roe v. Wade in 1991, and lost.

The bill likely will be heard by the House on Friday, 2/9/07. I would like some input. Therefore, I have cross-posted this entry at Politicopia, which provides a much better format for discussion.

Though people should post what they want, I would appreciate some discussion on:

(1) whether Utah should change existing abortion law,
(2) if so, what those changes should be,
(3) if Utah enacts more restrictive provisions, should they nominally take effect right away and force the court battle,
(4) should more restrictive changes sit dormant, until Roe v. Wade is overturned, (letting other states foot the bill this time around) and/or
(5) should the money that would have been spent by the State to litigate this matter be spent on programs for children, like the birth defects network and early intervention?

Wall Street Journal Discusses Politicopia

Politicopia made it into the Wall Street Journal today. Not bad for its 15th day.

Thanks to everyone who has provided input on Politicopia. To those who haven't yet, jump on and share your 2 cents. Because every version is saved, you're not going to break anything.

Politicopia is proving to be a good tool for promoting political dialogue between citizens and their elected representatives.

Media Shield

I agree with this D-News editorial. Freedom of the press requires that a significantly heightened standard should apply to obtaining journalists' sources and notes by force of law. However, as the rule proposes, the protection should not be absolute. There are instances -- and courts should consider those instances to be extremely rare -- when the shield must be pierced to uncover illegal activity that threatens dire consequences (e.g., when a confidential source uses the media as a front to divulge highly confidential and sensitive intelligence information). The key, of course, is to determine when the illegal activity is bad enough and the information important enough to warrant the inquiry. Such balancing is best left to the courts.

I have to say, though, I'm not quite sure why the media continues to think it best to parade out Judith Miller to make the case on this issue. Scooter Libby had previously given a waiver for Miller to testify about their conversations (and, based on her subsequent testimony, if it is to be believed, Miller didn't even know who her source was). Based on the objective evidence, therefore, it looks like Miller served time in jail because she wanted 3 hots and a cot -- or maybe a little publicity.

Inside Utah

Citizens are participating in government in ways unimaginable just a few years ago. One of those participants is Jennifer Napier-Pearce. Though she has a job as a traditional journalist, Jennifer's labor of love on the side is Inside Utah, a (mostly) weekly podcast she does on things that interest and entertain her. Fortunately for Utahns, she is interested in state politics.

On her 70th podcast, Jennifer and I talked about Politicopia and vouchers. Without commercial interruptions, the podcast format allows discussions to go a bit more indepth than most mass media outlets can allow.

UPDATE (2/5/07): Holly Mullen has a nice blog entry on her interview with Jennifer.